This discussion is closed.
LittleLaydee
Badges: 0
#21
Report 16 years ago
#21
(Original post by Hannah)
The new system (like the current one) is totally unfair. It discriminates against children whose parents are married for gods sake! The threshold of £15,000 includes the income of both parents ONLY if they are married. So if the mother of the student was remarried it is only her income that gets counted not the household income. the fathers income is not counted either.

Also with the new system the loan does not have to be payed back until you are earning more than 15,000. WHAT YOUR PARENTS EARN DOESNT MATTER AT A STAGE WHEN YOU ARE EARNING YOUR OWN MONEY, INTELLIGENCE AND HARD WORK WILL HAVE DECIDED YOUR INCOME. So why do people from low income get up to £300 pounds a year waived from their debt and middle,high-income families do not when the children will be equal when they go out into the world. Nothing is paid up front. There is no need for subsidies for students from low-income families. At the end of a degree course all students will have the same ability to go out and earn money money regardless of their background. It doesnt work, it isnt fair.

*rant over*















WELL WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH, ARE THE FEES NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH ALREADY?? URGHHH 'NEW LABOUR' AND INFACT EVERY POLITICAL PARTY GETS ON MY NERVES, HOW ARE PEOPLE FROM LOWER INCOME FAMILIES GOING TO AFFORD THIS???? THAT'S RIGHT, THE GOVERNMENT DO NOT CARE AND THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO HIDE THIS WITH PATHETIC LOANS. IT'S EASY IF YOU HAVE MONEY ISN'T IT, YOU CAN PAY YOUR FEES, OR AT LEAST A PROPORTION OF THEM AND YOU WILL NOT BE LEFT WITH A GINORMOUS DEBT ON YOUR SHOULDER AFTER UNI. TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT THE DEGREE IS BECOMING DEVALUED, DON'T BE SO SNOBBISH, THERE SHOULDN'T BE SEPERATE UNIS FOR THESE 'LESS ACADEMIC' DEGRESS, OR THE RIDICULOUS IDEA OF TOP UP FEES. WHAT IS OUR COUNTRY COMING TOO, SERIOUSLY?? ARE THE GOVERNMENT LITERALLY GOING TO PROVIDE BARRIERS FOR POORER STUDENTS, DON'T THEY SEE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE PUT OFF BY UNIVERSITY BECAUSE OF THESE FEES. I SUPPOSE THAT'S WHAT 'NEW LABOUR' WANT THOUGH, THERE ARE GRADUALLY BECOMING MORE AND MORE LIKE THE ANNOYING CONSERVATIVES. GRRRRRRR
0
tititata
Badges: 0
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
(Original post by Alaric)
international students are very much in demand!
My dad used to be admissions officer for kent and he'd be frequently travelling to UAE, america and europe (they sent a different guy to asia). Basically they could recoup the costs of a trip if he could persuade two or three to come to Kent, any more was a bonus.

Most universities seem to do this, hell his annual europe trip was with a load of other admission officers.

Alaric.
oh! thanks for telling me that!
i used to apply for some posts such as international student liaison at some unis.. the job descriptions always talk things like extensive travelling involved...
0
Hannah
Badges: 0
#23
Report 16 years ago
#23
(Original post by LittleLaydee)
WELL WHAT A LOAD OF RUBBISH, ARE THE FEES NOT SUBSTANTIAL ENOUGH ALREADY?? URGHHH 'NEW LABOUR' AND INFACT EVERY POLITICAL PARTY GETS ON MY NERVES, HOW ARE PEOPLE FROM LOWER INCOME FAMILIES GOING TO AFFORD THIS???? THAT'S RIGHT, THE GOVERNMENT DO NOT CARE AND THEY'RE ATTEMPTING TO HIDE THIS WITH PATHETIC LOANS. IT'S EASY IF YOU HAVE MONEY ISN'T IT, YOU CAN PAY YOUR FEES, OR AT LEAST A PROPORTION OF THEM AND YOU WILL NOT BE LEFT WITH A GINORMOUS DEBT ON YOUR SHOULDER AFTER UNI. TO ALL THE PEOPLE WHO SAID THAT THE DEGREE IS BECOMING DEVALUED, DON'T BE SO SNOBBISH, THERE SHOULDN'T BE SEPERATE UNIS FOR THESE 'LESS ACADEMIC' DEGRESS, OR THE RIDICULOUS IDEA OF TOP UP FEES. WHAT IS OUR COUNTRY COMING TOO, SERIOUSLY?? ARE THE GOVERNMENT LITERALLY GOING TO PROVIDE BARRIERS FOR POORER STUDENTS, DON'T THEY SEE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE PUT OFF BY UNIVERSITY BECAUSE OF THESE FEES. I SUPPOSE THAT'S WHAT 'NEW LABOUR' WANT THOUGH, THERE ARE GRADUALLY BECOMING MORE AND MORE LIKE THE ANNOYING CONSERVATIVES. GRRRRRRR
Thats the point though poorer students dont have to pay the fees so the only cost involved is living which they can get bursaries for anyway. Under the old system that was fine. parents who could afford it paid the fees, those who couldnt had them paid by the taxpayer. but now when the fees are going to be paid by the student once they start working there is no need to differentiate between high income and low income families it makes no odds.
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#24
Report 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by LittleLaydee)
. IT'S EASY IF YOU HAVE MONEY ISN'T IT, YOU CAN PAY YOUR FEES, OR AT LEAST A PROPORTION OF THEM AND YOU WILL NOT BE LEFT WITH A GINORMOUS DEBT ON YOUR SHOULDER AFTER UNI.
Well I for one can't pay any of my fees off now and will probably have £11000 debts at the end of my course. The government seem to think this is ok because I can pay 9% of my income over a certain value for the next god knows how many years :rolleyes:

(Original post by LittleLaydee)
WHAT IS OUR COUNTRY COMING TOO, SERIOUSLY?? ARE THE GOVERNMENT LITERALLY GOING TO PROVIDE BARRIERS FOR POORER STUDENTS, DON'T THEY SEE THAT THEY ARE GOING TO BE PUT OFF BY UNIVERSITY BECAUSE OF THESE FEES. I SUPPOSE THAT'S WHAT 'NEW LABOUR' WANT THOUGH, THERE ARE GRADUALLY BECOMING MORE AND MORE LIKE THE ANNOYING CONSERVATIVES. GRRRRRRR
I concur entirely. Though it seems New Labour "doesn't have a reverse gear", so whatever the students think it's going through
*****. I'm not voting for those neo-tories at the next election. I'm going with the libdems, at least they seem to have a little common sense... perhaps if they over take the tories Labour might get worried...

...otherwise it'll just have to be the traditional way of pitchforks at the houses of parliament

Alaric.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
(Original post by MadNatSci)
For a laugh?! When it costs all that money to put someone through university??

Anyway, I can't see how these proposed top up fees are going to benefit the universities at all. If they're being paid afterwards what happens while the students are at uni?? And since it costs around £8000 to educate each student, I reckon the places are going to lose money. And students are going to be put off. Lose-lose.
True that £3000 don't cover the full cost but still every little helps.

An ideal situation is that the tax payer should fund most of a student's education, however the student should in some way contribute for their education. As you rightly point out, £3000 is only a small amount, which is fair enough IMO.

We should also stop calling it debt as if its like a mortgage or something. You only start paying when you earn enough, and after a number years it will be all cleared off anyway.

Plus there is no alternatives. If you want a party who will directly cut opportunities for students then vote Tory. If you want to vote for a party who can't add up then vote Lib Dem.

The Labour way is the best solution!

0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
(Original post by MadNatSci)
For a laugh?! When it costs all that money to put someone through university??

Anyway, I can't see how these proposed top up fees are going to benefit the universities at all. If they're being paid afterwards what happens while the students are at uni?? And since it costs around £8000 to educate each student, I reckon the places are going to lose money. And students are going to be put off. Lose-lose.
At the moment universities receive £3000 for an classroom based student, £4000 for a part lab based student (languages and fine art usually), £6000 for science and engineering lab based students and a wopping £13,500 for a clinical medicine student (the last 3 yrs of a med degree).

The increase is going to be funded by the government with students repaying the government (not the uni's)...basically if you were studying a course which charged top up fees of £3k pa your university would recieve £3k pa + the difference to cover the total costs of the course.

The increase will in reality be added to the national pot which will allow the basic price for a student (the £3000 universities currently get which gets weighted upwards fro more expensive courses) to be increased...so all universities will have a real increase in funding depending on the number and types of students they have.

It will also free up money from the national pot to fund new student places on foundation degree courses (there will be no new student places on bachelors degrees, HNDs or HNCs and hasn't been for the last 2 years)...which will be the courses that will drive the increase to 50% participation. A large number of these courses are to be taught through FE colleges or through partnerships between established universities and FE colleges (although some will be taught through established universities).

It will also free up money to fund research (and this is where UK universities are in a lot of trouble) - and increase the average salary of academics to prevent the current brain drain of leading academics leaving the UK to research in the US and Australia...so the quality of our academics will increase and so the quality of our research which will enable more universities to earn more money through commercial research/spin offs and gain more independance from government funding (allowing government funding to be focused on universities which don't have the capacity to become self sufficient).
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
At the moment universities receive £3000 for an classroom based student, £4000 for a part lab based student (languages and fine art usually), £6000 for science and engineering lab based students and a wopping £13,500 for a clinical medicine student (the last 3 yrs of a med degree).

The increase is going to be funded by the government with students repaying the government (not the uni's)...basically if you were studying a course which charged top up fees of £3k pa your university would recieve £3k pa + the difference to cover the total costs of the course.

The increase will in reality be added to the national pot which will allow the basic price for a student (the £3000 universities currently get which gets weighted upwards fro more expensive courses) to be increased...so all universities will have a real increase in funding depending on the number and types of students they have.

It will also free up money from the national pot to fund new student places on foundation degree courses (there will be no new student places on bachelors degrees, HNDs or HNCs and hasn't been for the last 2 years)...which will be the courses that will drive the increase to 50% participation. A large number of these courses are to be taught through FE colleges or through partnerships between established universities and FE colleges (although some will be taught through established universities).

It will also free up money to fund research (and this is where UK universities are in a lot of trouble) - and increase the average salary of academics to prevent the current brain drain of leading academics leaving the UK to research in the US and Australia...so the quality of our academics will increase and so the quality of our research which will enable more universities to earn more money through commercial research/spin offs and gain more independance from government funding (allowing government funding to be focused on universities which don't have the capacity to become self sufficient).
Thanks for that there is some very useful information there. Its good that there will be no new places it will kind of stop the influx of graduates but at the same time increase the publics education by courses like HND's etc.

I am quite shocked at the fact universities get £13,500 a year though for each science student. I assume my school will get that much for each of us. That is fine as the facilities are very expensive however there are too many students on the course that have no intention of even trying to pass the degree, there are they becasue they don't have to get a job and keeps mummy of their backs. There are people on the books that hardly turn up for the lectures and as a result fail. The university has said it will be stricter this year and will chuck people of the course if they fail more than 10/12 units. However when the university is recieiving so much money for these students what interest is it to them to chuck them out?
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#28
Report 16 years ago
#28
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
At the moment universities receive £3000 for an classroom based student, £4000 for a part lab based student (languages and fine art usually), £6000 for science and engineering lab based students and a wopping £13,500 for a clinical medicine student (the last 3 yrs of a med degree).

The increase is going to be funded by the government with students repaying the government (not the uni's)...basically if you were studying a course which charged top up fees of £3k pa your university would recieve £3k pa + the difference to cover the total costs of the course.

The increase will in reality be added to the national pot which will allow the basic price for a student (the £3000 universities currently get which gets weighted upwards fro more expensive courses) to be increased...so all universities will have a real increase in funding depending on the number and types of students they have.

It will also free up money from the national pot to fund new student places on foundation degree courses (there will be no new student places on bachelors degrees, HNDs or HNCs and hasn't been for the last 2 years)...which will be the courses that will drive the increase to 50% participation. A large number of these courses are to be taught through FE colleges or through partnerships between established universities and FE colleges (although some will be taught through established universities).

It will also free up money to fund research (and this is where UK universities are in a lot of trouble) - and increase the average salary of academics to prevent the current brain drain of leading academics leaving the UK to research in the US and Australia...so the quality of our academics will increase and so the quality of our research which will enable more universities to earn more money through commercial research/spin offs and gain more independance from government funding (allowing government funding to be focused on universities which don't have the capacity to become self sufficient).

Thanks Pencil Queen, I didn't know that. I'm still not entirely sure if it's altogether worth all the hassle for £3000 but at least I know they will gain - thanks.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#29
Report 16 years ago
#29
(Original post by amazingtrade)
Thanks for that there is some very useful information there. Its good that there will be no new places it will kind of stop the influx of graduates but at the same time increase the publics education by courses like HND's etc.

I am quite shocked at the fact universities get £13,500 a year though for each science student. I assume my school will get that much for each of us. That is fine as the facilities are very expensive however there are too many students on the course that have no intention of even trying to pass the degree, there are they becasue they don't have to get a job and keeps mummy of their backs. There are people on the books that hardly turn up for the lectures and as a result fail. The university has said it will be stricter this year and will chuck people of the course if they fail more than 10/12 units. However when the university is recieiving so much money for these students what interest is it to them to chuck them out?
£6000 for a science student, £13,500 is for clinical medicine students who are dealing with pateints and so cost a lot to supervise with trained doctors.

And the main motivation for not chucking students out for failing is to look good in the performance indicators http://www.hefce.ac.uk/learning/perf...ault.asp?tab=3 (although these only apply to people dropping out after 1 year)...these figures are also used by the league tables (a high drop out rate will drag a uni down) - however league tables also look at the %age of good passes so allowing students to continue when they're going to fail in the end is really not worth it - they drag their fellow students down and they drag the uni down.

But then there are always slackers capable of manipulating their tutors and getting let off time after time...they usually end up with a terrible grade and are unemployable (because if a person can't motivate themselves to do their coursework how on earth will they motivate themselves to look for a job).
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
It will also free up money to fund research (and this is where UK universities are in a lot of trouble) - and increase the average salary of academics to prevent the current brain drain of leading academics leaving the UK to research in the US and Australia...so the quality of our academics will increase and so the quality of our research which will enable more universities to earn more money through commercial research/spin offs and gain more independance from government funding (allowing government funding to be focused on universities which don't have the capacity to become self sufficient).
Whilst I agree that there is going to be more money, and I'm rather under the impression that the majority of it will go to fund research/salaries I don't think that the sums of money we're talking about are going to give enough of a pay rise to allow the salaries to compete well with industry. Indeed also any increases in fees are supposed to be either inflationary or interest rate (I forget which) which won't allow academia to continue giving salary raises that are comparable to industry or indeed the rises in the cost of living such as in areas like housing. Add to the fact that new academics are going to have these debts as well and I still think there is a large disincentive there.
I agree that there may be a strengthening of academia in the short term, 5-10 years. However, beyond that I think you'll have an significant decrease in the quality or numbers (or indeed both) of academics.

Despite my reservations about the disagreement between this and old labour principles I also think they needed to evaluate something that's going to be more of a long term solution than a quick fix. We all know how poor the government is at quick fixes, curriculum 2000 can show us that.

Alaric.
0
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by Alaric)
Whilst I agree that there is going to be more money, and I'm rather under the impression that the majority of it will go to fund research/salaries I don't think that the sums of money we're talking about are going to give enough of a pay rise to allow the salaries to compete well with industry. Indeed also any increases in fees are supposed to be either inflationary or interest rate (I forget which) which won't allow academia to continue giving salary raises that are comparable to industry or indeed the rises in the cost of living such as in areas like housing. Add to the fact that new academics are going to have these debts as well and I still think there is a large disincentive there.
I agree that there may be a strengthening of academia in the short term, 5-10 years. However, beyond that I think you'll have an significant decrease in the quality or numbers (or indeed both) of academics.

Despite my reservations about the disagreement between this and old labour principles I also think they needed to evaluate something that's going to be more of a long term solution than a quick fix. We all know how poor the government is at quick fixes, curriculum 2000 can show us that.

Alaric.
You're right of course - the increase in funding is only a short term solution...however there is quite a bit in the bill about encouraging uni's to set up their own endowment funds to allow them independance from government funding (and to set salaries etc at more competetive rates). So in theory a cash boost to tide us over for 5-10 yrs while the uni's get their endowments set up to continue with the growth in funding after this period should set us back in the market where we should be.

Only time will tell though - the research side of things is going to change drastically over the next few yrs (basically the government are more or less stopping funding of the worse quality departments and boosting the funding of the better quality ones so we'll end up with less centres of research but bigger ones which are better funded).
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report 16 years ago
#32
(Original post by Pencil Queen)
You're right of course - the increase in funding is only a short term solution...however there is quite a bit in the bill about encouraging uni's to set up their own endowment funds to allow them independance from government funding (and to set salaries etc at more competetive rates). So in theory a cash boost to tide us over for 5-10 yrs while the uni's get their endowments set up to continue with the growth in funding after this period should set us back in the market where we should be.
Is independence a good thing for access? Or could it be seen as the first step towards a more americanised system?
I'm sure universities are quite prepared to support schemes which allow independence because of an amount of distrust that the current situation of under-funding could occur again, but I think it's a slippery slope.
Such funds are also usually very dependent on the economy and I have very little trust that the state the economy will be in then is predictable now. We've certainly seen that despite the supposed richness of cambridge and the colleges (with distinguished alumni, donations, funds, land etc) that they can still run at deficits. It still annoys me that the bursary scheme proposed by cambridge to help their access in light of top-up fees is seen as a good way of increasing access when what they should have been doing is not supporting top-up fees. I guess this is probably somewhat due to the outlook of our new vice chancellor, who is very familiar with the american system. Of course there is nothing wrong in principle with a scheme where the richer donate to the poorer, however, if the economic climate worsens then the donations may decrease and indeed they are optional. Government funding everything possibly through an increase of income tax on the highest earners is likely to be equivalent, except non-optional.

(Original post by Pencil Queen)
Only time will tell though - the research side of things is going to change drastically over the next few yrs (basically the government are more or less stopping funding of the worse quality departments and boosting the funding of the better quality ones so we'll end up with less centres of research but bigger ones which are better funded).
Which is likely to send us back towards a system of weak provincial universities and a few elite by having the top academics attend the few that have money for research. I'm sure this proposal is welcomed at oxbridge and even more so at imperial though.
I don't know, maybe the government think they can maintain teaching standards and the quality of academics at the universities without research departments through people choosing where they want to live over their career, or something. It also could have a profound effect on the way academics are paid, considering they won't be researching in the 'lesser' universities but want to continue teaching that subject surely those that lecture in it will spend a large proportion of their time doing not very much at all?

I can see universities urgently need more money, I just don't think that this is the best way!

Alaric.
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 16 years ago
#33
Maximum charge of £3,000 'will be set by all universities'
http://education.independent.co.uk/n...p?story=479406

Now they tell the media :rolleyes:, this has been conspicously absent since the green paper, despite the fact that most universities have had this plan since then!

Alaric.

edit: pressed the wrong button - doh
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (147)
60.49%
Yes- I don't like it (11)
4.53%
No- I want it (68)
27.98%
No- I don't want it (17)
7%

Watched Threads

View All