Why did they increase fees to £9000?

Employment rated after 6 months may be high but that doesn't mean they are in graduate jobs.

A little bit if exaggeration there, if you got 4A* then you are bound to get into a top university, and unless you are doing a ridiculous subject like classics etc. With unbelievably low job prospects, I'm pretty sure you could find a graduate level job with a first. After all Oxbridge, Imperial, LSE, UCL etc. All have employment rated of 70%+ after 6months in a graduate level job. This unemployment crisiz is greatly exaggerated.

Posted from TSR Mobile

If you think that a classics degree from Oxford is a ridiculous thing I can only say that you are as ignorant as a child for you have no idea how valuable it can be.

The statistics are specifically "graduate", or sometimes "professional", jobs.

From what I remember, when filling in the survey you are specifically asked if a degree is required to get the job (and perhaps if the degree was partly responsible for getting the job...or something along those lines).

There is a saturation of humanities graduates, in my opinion, but I still don't think it's tremendously difficult to get at least some graduate level job in many cases, providing you have sufficient motivation and direction -even if it does mean spending some time volunteering and/or interning.

I'm a graduate and still haven't found a graduate job after 9 months of searching. I could have left school at 16 with a few GCSEs, got an admin apprentice and have 5 years worth of admin experience more than I have now. I've applied for many admin jobs (in order to get experience to get into HR) but it's the lack of 'specific office experience' that lets me down. I can't get an apprenticeship because I'm now overqualified and because I can't afford to live on £2.65ph.

Employment rated after 6 months may be high but that doesn't mean they are in graduate jobs. A lot of my graduate friends are doing low skilled jobs, including myself being a waitress. I was talking to someone on TSR last week and he was the example I gave, but he still doesn't have a graduate job.

Classics as a subject is not ridiculous but job prospects after the degree are ridiculously low compared to other subjects. I think you missed the context in which I was referring to it as ridiculous. Sorry to have offended you.

I think what that person was trying to get at was that (pretty much) any degree from Oxbridge will get you a high-paying grad job, be it directly relevant to the degree or not. For example, many Oxbridge grads who study History and Classics and other degrees join banks, or become solicitors, etc.

Classics as a subject is not ridiculous but job prospects after the degree are ridiculously low compared to other subjects. I think you missed the context in which I was referring to it as ridiculous. Sorry to have offended you.

I never said that they do not, but statistically they are now likely to be unemployed than pretty much any other Oxbridge graduate.

The universities get the same amount I think, but the money comes from the student now rather than when it was subsidised by the Government. I'm not sure the Government is gonna be any better off though, because they still have to loan out a lot of money and lot of that will be written off when graduates don't earn enough.

I think as well, a degree isn't as valuable as it used to because too many people have one. In the 70s if you had a degree, you would have had FAR better job prospects, possibly just hired because you had a degree alone. Nowadays, you could have a 1st degree, 4A* A-levels, 2 years industry experience, been club president at uni, and still not get a job or even an interview. The only way to reduce the number of people getting a degree is unfortunately increasing the fees, and putting people off.

If you don't understand that in most cases you will be better off as a result of the recent changes to Student Finance, you shouldn't be going to university.

If you are aggrieved about tuition fees changing from the last set of arrangements, you know little about it, and are lapping up the alarmist claims of 'triple the cost' with absolutely no understanding of what it actually means.

Most students will actually end up better off, repaying 9% of whatever you earn over £21,000 rather than the rest repaying at 9% of anything over (approx) £15,000.

Those who end up paying more than they would under the past scheme will be relatively high earners effectively subject to a graduate tax, which loads of students were screaming for in the first place when the question of how to pay for higher education funding arose.

Those who achieve little from their education bar an average salary will end up paying less. Those who are more successful on (very much) above average salaries will pay more.

Indeed, aren't those screaming the loudest the left wingers amongst you saying that the rich should pay for your education? Well, those paying more than they would have under the old arrangements will be the 'rich'.

Although in line with most left wing arguments, the taxes that are always the most popular are those that other people (the rich) have to pay, so on the whole it's unsurprising to find that they aren't in so much favour when it turns out that they have to pay it themselves, because comparatively speaking, they will be 'the rich'.

Do the maths. Work out how much more/less you will be paying on a given salary using the figures given for the old repayments compared to those for the old repayments.

On £30,000, which is a very much above average salary, you can expect to repay £800 annually now compared with £1,283

I've seen internal NUS research, but don't think they've published it, which looks at cost-benefits to the individual of various levels of study and subjects/disciplines.

With the exception of males studying creative arts, graduates of any subject financially-benefit from their degree programme, including taking average tuition and maintenance loans/living costs off.

Classics is no exception.

Naturally, scientists and engineers benefit most as individuals, as well as anything professionally-accredited by a PSRB e.g. medicine, law, vet, etc.

They raised fees to replace government funding. On the face of it, you'd think this would help the deficit, but the cost of lending fees and maintenance, combined with the National Scholarship Programme (NSP) outweighs this, and the deficit increases by billions. This is exasperated by the coalition underestimating the mean tuition fee level universities would set - they estimated it would be £7,500; it's closer to £8,500 currently and is steadily increasing.

If you don't understand that in most cases you will be better off as a result of the recent changes to Student Finance, you shouldn't be going to university.

If you are aggrieved about tuition fees changing from the last set of arrangements, you know little about it, and are lapping up the alarmist claims of 'triple the cost' with absolutely no understanding of what it actually means.

Most students will actually end up better off, repaying 9% of whatever you earn over £21,000 rather than the rest repaying at 9% of anything over (approx) £15,000.

Those who end up paying more than they would under the past scheme will be relatively high earners effectively subject to a graduate tax, which loads of students were screaming for in the first place when the question of how to pay for higher education funding arose.

Those who achieve little from their education bar an average salary will end up paying less. Those who are more successful on (very much) above average salaries will pay more.

Indeed, aren't those screaming the loudest the left wingers amongst you saying that the rich should pay for your education? Well, those paying more than they would have under the old arrangements will be the 'rich'.

Although in line with most left wing arguments, the taxes that are always the most popular are those that other people (the rich) have to pay, so on the whole it's unsurprising to find that they aren't in so much favour when it turns out that they have to pay it themselves, because comparatively speaking, they will be 'the rich'.

Do the maths. Work out how much more/less you will be paying on a given salary using the figures given for the old repayments compared to those for the old repayments.

On £30,000, which is a very much above average salary, you can expect to repay £800 annually now compared with £1,283

Come on man..

It was a pledge made with the best of intentions..
The best of intentions..