Tuition Fees Under Review: PM proposes to cut tuition fee cost for some courses

Scroll to see replies

Not much love for the arts here! Sure I can obviously see why you'd discount key state workers like the NHS (and that's done differently anyway). That's not my argument. It's more those that go on to work in business for huge sums of money.

I guess its really difficult to know without hard figures and universities are notoriously opaque with this.

Suppose course A costs 6k to provide and the course B costs 12k. At the moment it seems like we just even out the two to 9k. But then the person taking course B goes on to earn substantially more. Have they not had an unfair advantage?

Secondly, I think you're both making huge assumptions about the 'value to society' is someone's value simply how much tax they pay in? That's a sorry state of affairs.

I guess I'm arguing that a course should cost the amount to provide and any discount is taken off separately. Not as it is at the moment where one student subsidizes another.

That is not exactly true, one student does not subsidise the other because both students are charged a tuition fee which is well below the cost of actually delivering the degree, so even if they were both able to miraculously repay their loan back they would have both have received large subsidies. The only difference is that the one doing the course with higher actual costs (e.g STEM or Clinical degrees) will have received a higher subsidy than the one doing a business or arts degree. The people doing the subsidising are the 51 or so percent of people who do not go to university but still contribute towards those degrees via general taxation, but then again the argument could be made that a lot of that 51% will not contribute much in the form of taxes anyway.

Briefly, the way government funds education is this. In addition to the money universities get from tuition fees, the government also avails billions more to universities so they can cover the shortfall through a number of funding schemes, the main ones being the HEFCE teaching grant (£1.32B p.a), HEFCE research grant (£1.6B p.a), other minor HEFCE grants (£0.6B p.a), Research Councils (circa £3B p.a), EU research funding (circa £1.3B p.a - this is just the main funding stream only) and the Health Education Grants (circa £4.5B). If you add this up and divide it by the number of full-time UK/EU students (~1.5 million) you will see that this additional grant funding equates to over £10,000 per UK/EU student. Bear in mind that the list of grants above is not even exhaustive. On top of this a big portion of the £9000 + (whatever the average maintenance loan and grant is) will never be recovered so the true cost to the government of putting a single student through school is easily well over £20,000 per annum. These grants are the reason why the government felt it made sense for fees to rise from £3000 to £9000 in the first place, it allowed them to save money by reducing the grant per FTE student.

Reply 101

Sceptical_John

Original post by History98

That is not exactly true, one student does not subsidise the other because both students are charged a tuition fee which is well below the cost of actually delivering the degree.

I want to believe you and you seem to know your stuff - and I wholeheartedly agree its the 51% who don't go who are subsidizing it hence my opposition to the abolition of fees.

That said I would love to see where my £9000 goes every year.

Reply 102

Ambitious1999

Original post by Sceptical_John

I think degrees like medicine and teaching should be free. For example £9 k per year it costs £45,000 to go to medical school. However there are some stupid degrees that should be charged extra to pay for this, like ‘Big Brother studies’ degree should be £90,000 a year to study, and anyone who does study rubbish like that should be deported to upon graduation.

We need doctors and teachers.

Reply 103

LostAccount

Original post by PQ

I’d suggest you look into italian and French art and fashion schools but it’s a waste of time. Anyone with any sense would have done that before making a post like this.

You mean the schools which are funded by the industry rather than the government?

Oh, thanks for confirming my point then.

Reply 104

LostAccount

Original post by Snufkin

Most countries? I'd like to see that data.

"here's me disproving your claim by showing you a list of countries of which have a lower population than London"

Reply 105

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by LostAccount

You mean the schools which are funded by the industry rather than the government?

Oh, thanks for confirming my point then.

They’re not funded by industry. And your point was that degrees aren’t necessary in creative industries which clearly isn’t the case. But keep twisting.

Reply 106

Sceptical_John

Original post by Ambitious1999

I don't think they should make them free for the course itself but it should be the case that if you spend 5-10 or so years teaching/medical for public sector it should be wiped off. That to me would be the best of both worlds.

Reply 107

LostAccount

Original post by PQ

They’re not funded by industry.

Yes they are.

IFA Paris is the most well-known fashion school. They charge 8400 euros per year in tuition https://www.ifaparis.com/courses/undergraduate/bachelor-fashion-design-technology

It is funded by industry partners.
https://www.ifaparis.com/admissions/faq

ESMOD in Paris is a school at 11 000 euros a year and other costs are funded by LVMH
http://www.esmod.com/en/faq

Istituto Marangoni is a private university charging 20 000 euros a year, but most students get a bursary funded by industry partners
http://www.istitutomarangoni.com/en/fashion-courses/undergraduate-programmes/three-year/fashion-design/#milano

I can't be bothered to look at other cases.

You're full of ****.

Original post by PQ

And your point was that degrees aren’t necessary in creative industries which clearly isn’t the case. But keep twisting.

It >>>CLEARLY<<< isn't the case because [insert random babbling here about how courses actually exist and that alone proves it CLEARLY is necessary]

Reply 108

Clearing and Applications Advisor

Original post by LostAccount

Industry partners does not mean industry FUNDED - it means those are the brands they have placements/staff/cooperation with :rolleyes:

the same goes for providing a few scholarships/bursaries (noone would describe warwick business school as industry funded but they have a lot of collaboration http://www.wbs.ac.uk/about/difference/uk-partners/) - that's not an industry funded school (and for what it's worth IFM only started offering undergrad degrees in 2016 when they partnered with a public university :smile:

). Until then they were completely focused on postgrad education.....but of course degrees aren't needed in fashion especially not masters degrees :rolleyes:

Original post by LostAccount

Are you implying people cannot go into fashion, media or art in France or Germany if they haven't gone to university?

Find me a thriving fashion house or brand that is staffed by a majority of people without degrees?

You're also ignoring the 50 publicly funded art schools in france? And the huge numbers of fashion grads who study in Belgium and London that are injecting life back into the fashion industry in france and italy (both smaller and slower growing than the UK)

Picking out a couple of private schools (that are mainly filled with international students) with industry links isn't the same as showing that those schools are a) industry funded or b) that the degrees they provide aren't necessary.

Original post by LostAccount

I mean take France or Italy, they have burgeoning fashion industries.

"burgeoning" - got any evidence that they're doing well and that that is based on their lack of fashion graduates?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 109

Menrva

I'm completely against the idea of subjects charging different amounts. It fact it is completely counter-productive as it may well encourage people (particularly from poorer backgrounds) to not take the scientific subjects if they are more expensive. This would be so harmful to social mobility and to our society, particularly if we want young people to take the high skill, high paid jobs of tomorrow. It's a complete disaster of a policy (and I voted conservative BTW) and I hope the review highlights just how ridiculous it is.

I would take it a whole step further - we need a big reset button. I think many courses should not be funded at all. I'd say a majority of UK courses should be scrapped as they do not increase the country's productivity neither do they help the job prospects of those who take these courses. Get rid of this over-bloated money-spinning system, and then maybe we will have enough money to fund our universities properly. In fact we need MORE direct investment in science, technology, engineering, business and medicine to name a few. If any courses should be subsidised it should be these subjects.

We seem to have developed this mentality as a country that university is the only route to success, and to be honest it's a complete and utter lie. You may not agree with me, but university should be for the academic. Provided a person has the talent, they should be given the opportunity regardless of their background or wealth. Instead we have a system where just about everyone thinks they are entitled to university, even if they don't have the qualifications or don't mind getting in vast amounts of debt whilst wasting taxpayers money on a micky-mouse degree. I've been saying this for a long time, but the taxpayer should not be paying for everyone to go to university, and the government could do a lot more to help those who don't go to university to develop other qualifications and skills that they need in alternative ways.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 110

LostAccount

Original post by Menrva

Pretty sure the suggestion is to make non-STEM more expensive, not the other way round....

Reply 111

OldishStudent

Original post by Sceptical_John

The government is announcing a fee overhaul on Monday.

It looks like they considering cutting fees to 6k and to pay for this they are going to cut bursaries that widen uni participation.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-43106736
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/18/cutting-tuition-fees-would-backfire-justine-greening-warns-theresa-may
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2018/feb/16/theresa-may-details-tuition-fee-overhaul?CMP=share_btn_tw

This essentially hands a big wad of cash to the already wealthy.

What exactly is wrong with the concept of properly Taxing their wealth [in all its forms, including Land, Assets, corporation, size tax on banks, so monetary reform, which wont happen without the global approval of every nation, etc, etc] instead of taxing our income?

Tax wealth instead of income. [6 people now own, or control as much wealth as 3.5 billion people. Source: Oxfam.]

The answer is, all the parties already know what all the answers are, but cannot, will not, introduce the kind of real radical reform which is genuinely needed. Ever. The incumbent gov of the day, prefer to divide and conquer us, by keeping the conversation going, always in the wrong direction, and never providing real solutions.

Ta Da! Did I win anything?

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 112

Artcaroline

What about post grad diplomas these are 9k and RCA does one for 18k there are no grants for loans for these but sometimes students only way to get up to scratch to do an MA . But there’s no social mobility if you haven’t got rich parents or partner if you are older .

Reply 113

liam.dorcey1

I am a 62-year-old disabled mature student. I will never be in a position to pay back the loan unless a miracle occurs. I do however have all the anxiety that carrying the massive debt has, especially as the government seem inclined to 'sell off' the debt to private companies who may chase me for payback even though I do not work, or charge against my estate when I pass.
That we in this country no longer have free tuition is a terrible shame, the system now is weighted towards the better off and money is not a replacement for intelligence.

Reply 114

Sceptical_John

Original post by liam.dorcey1

In a way, the sheer success of the tuition fees system ensures the nightmare scenario you envision is highly unlikely. With 50% going to university and more importantly to politicians it's the 50% more likely to vote and be politically involved, there is no way government will be able to anger that amount of people. Sure they will sell debt books to private companies but that in no way changes the terms of the contract.

Reply 115

OldishStudent

Original post by liam.dorcey1

Liam, thats innacurate. In the USA the government can sell your student debt to a debt collector. In the UK they cannot. And if you are disabled and cannot work, and get a letter from your GP saying so, your debt will be completely wiped.

Reply 116

Artcaroline

Yes it’s so unfair especially as unis can get double the money for international students so the talented students come 2nd .
I’m sure I have a student loan in the 90s that was going to get paid off when I was 50 but they sold the loan company and they changed the rules to 60+ and charged more interest . I’m just annoyed with the whole fees not only do you have to pay fees but on an MA most of it is self directed It’s not value for money

Reply 117

Cbowen25

Will the poor NHS wages that atenplanned when I quailify I simply can not afford £60k of debt. You can not have Mir big ways and therefore I have no choice but to avoid working for the nhs. I can’t see I what planet it was seen as good long term foresight to remove funding for nhs healthcare professionals removing all support and incentive to work for the nhs. No pension No training High debt Poor wages Sorry but poor idea

Reply 118

Cbowen25

Sorry but I will not be working for the nhs for 5-10 yrs on poor wages which do not compare to the 60k of debt which I have due to studying an NHS degree.
Such a shame that Nhs health care professionals are no longer wanted and will seek work elsewhere.
Like any other young person I have to also save for deposit on a house and afford a mortgage this is no longer possible with the NHS.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 119

hannah00

tuition fees should not cost more than money you can save from a 3 month summer job.

The tories seem to think market forces will solve improve access and quality of education. What they dont understand is in certain sectors like healthcare and rail ways, you can use market forces because of the high barriers to entry.