New two-year degrees - will students actually save money? Watch

username4344212
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
The Government has set out plans for accelerated two-year degrees which it claims will save students at least £5,500 in tuition fees compared to a three-year course. But Martin Lewis has warned that while it means lower living costs at uni, many students won't pay any less for their studies.

The new accelerated courses would condense the same amount of teaching as a three-year degree into two years, by giving students longer hours and shorter holidays. The maximum annual fees would also be lifted by 20% to £11,000 per year – from the current maximum of £9,250 per year for three-year courses – but the Department for Education claims that students would save 20% overall by paying for only two years of tuition.

Under the current system, however, students only repay 9% of their earnings over £25,000 (£25,725 from April 2019) until the debt is wiped after 30 years. As most low and middle earners will never repay their student loans at this rate, only the highest earners would save any money by taking a 'cheaper' course.

Martin: 'The idea that you'll save money is false for lower and middle earners' MoneySavingExpert.com founder and chairman Martin Lewis said: "This isn't a problem with people doing two-year degrees rather than three-year degrees. It's with the classic oversimplification that you'll pay less for a lower-cost degree. "Under the current system, the cost of a degree isn't about what you borrow, it's about what you earn afterwards. "For many, you’ll still pay the same back for tuition, so the real saving is on living costs, as you'll only need cash to live on for two years rather than three.

The Government doesn’t give most under-25s the full loan, and to make up that gap it expects what is in practice a parental contribution. "While shortening degrees will lower the total amount parents need to give, some of that is countered because students will be studying for longer hours so will not be able to do as much paid work during their course."

What do you think?
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
(Original post by just_fake_news)
The Government has set out plans for accelerated two-year degrees which it claims will save students at least £5,500 in tuition fees compared to a three-year course. But Martin Lewis has warned that while it means lower living costs at uni, many students won't pay any less for their studies.

The new accelerated courses would condense the same amount of teaching as a three-year degree into two years, by giving students longer hours and shorter holidays. The maximum annual fees would also be lifted by 20% to £11,000 per year – from the current maximum of £9,250 per year for three-year courses – but the Department for Education claims that students would save 20% overall by paying for only two years of tuition.

Under the current system, however, students only repay 9% of their earnings over £25,000 (£25,725 from April 2019) until the debt is wiped after 30 years. As most low and middle earners will never repay their student loans at this rate, only the highest earners would save any money by taking a 'cheaper' course.

Martin: 'The idea that you'll save money is false for lower and middle earners' MoneySavingExpert.com founder and chairman Martin Lewis said: "This isn't a problem with people doing two-year degrees rather than three-year degrees. It's with the classic oversimplification that you'll pay less for a lower-cost degree. "Under the current system, the cost of a degree isn't about what you borrow, it's about what you earn afterwards. "For many, you’ll still pay the same back for tuition, so the real saving is on living costs, as you'll only need cash to live on for two years rather than three.

The Government doesn’t give most under-25s the full loan, and to make up that gap it expects what is in practice a parental contribution. "While shortening degrees will lower the total amount parents need to give, some of that is countered because students will be studying for longer hours so will not be able to do as much paid work during their course."

What do you think?
This is really a bid to reverse the collapse in the number of "real" mature students. These are people used to working in a full-time job who want to be out of the labour market for as short a time as possible.

The problem is that £22K is still too expensive as in many cases these will be self-funded courses either because the student has previously had student finance or because the student is unwilling to become locked into the loan repayment system.

In reality, true mature students make little call on the shiny and expensive non-academic facilities and services provided by a university and universties could well offer "second class" membership at a reduced price without the use of leisure and social facilities geared towards teens and early 20s.
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
2 year degrees have been getting trialled for some time e.g.


https://www.independent.co.uk/studen...re-796034.html

as one pleased student notes
I’ll also save money, as a two-year degree costs me £6,000 as opposed to £9,000.
- she's talking about the ticket price for the whole degree, not per year

and you could apply for one now if you wanted https://www.staffs.ac.uk/accelerated-degrees/courses/

Should be some information by now about how effective they are
0
reply
Joinedup
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by nulli tertius)
This is really a bid to reverse the collapse in the number of "real" mature students. These are people used to working in a full-time job who want to be out of the labour market for as short a time as possible.

The problem is that £22K is still too expensive as in many cases these will be self-funded courses either because the student has previously had student finance or because the student is unwilling to become locked into the loan repayment system.

In reality, true mature students make little call on the shiny and expensive non-academic facilities and services provided by a university and universties could well offer "second class" membership at a reduced price without the use of leisure and social facilities geared towards teens and early 20s.
I think due to wonky HE economics the no-frills price would still come out looking crazy to someone paying cash up front - you don't get many extras from the OU and that still comes out about 2/3rds the tuition cost of a brick uni with it's lecture halls and glistening subsidised sports facilities.
0
reply
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
"new" - not new
They're just upping the fee cap for these courses to try to incentivise universities to run them (not realising that the biggest barriers aren't financial but the fact that staff don't want to be teaching over the summer break - that's when they do their research, conferences, take their annual leave, manage admissions, plan for the year ahead etc etc)
1
reply
Muttley79
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by just_fake_news)
The Government has set out plans for accelerated two-year degrees which it claims will save students at least £5,500 in tuition fees compared to a three-year course. But Martin Lewis has warned that while it means lower living costs at uni, many students won't pay any less for their studies

What do you think?
Buckingham University already offer this ....

There's no guarantee that the 'pay back' terms won't change so I think minimising debt is sensible.
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Muttley79)
Buckingham University already offer this ....

There's no guarantee that the 'pay back' terms won't change so I think minimising debt is sensible.
Buckingham has essentially done this since it was founded. It was their USP. Buckingham however has been a failure. A university with enormously influential political support on the right up to 1990, it has spent the last 28 years going nowhere.
1
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
No, you save less in many respects, unless you are rich. SFE only pay 6,245 or whatever towards tuition fees, you have to find the rest, so in that respect it is far more expensive.
0
reply
LostAccount
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by random_matt)
No, you save less in many respects, unless you are rich. SFE only pay 6,245 or whatever towards tuition fees, you have to find the rest, so in that respect it is far more expensive.
SFE pays the full amount if you apply for the full loan that's how it works.
0
reply
random_matt
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by LostAccount)
SFE pays the full amount if you apply for the full loan that's how it works.
No they do not, been through this with Buckingham and SFE. One year at Buckingham is 11 grand something, SFE only contribute 6 grand something, you have to find the rest. These fast tracked degrees are more expensive.
Last edited by random_matt; 1 year ago
0
reply
Muttley79
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by nulli tertius)
Buckingham has essentially done this since it was founded. It was their USP. Buckingham however has been a failure. A university with enormously influential political support on the right up to 1990, it has spent the last 28 years going nowhere.
Sorry - it is very successful and continuing to expand. I have family who live there and the university are building more accommodation. They now offer a wider variety of degrees including medicine,
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 year ago
#12
(Original post by Muttley79)
Sorry - it is very successful and continuing to expand. I have family who live there and the university are building more accommodation. They now offer a wider variety of degrees including medicine,
It has around 2,700 students. Buckinghamshire New has nearly 8000. Lincoln, for practical purposes a new foundation in 1995, has buit up 14,000. Suffolk was a clean start in 2007 and now has 5,000 students. The independents, BPP University has 16,000, Regents University has 3,500 both founded long after Buckingham. One can see it is going nowhere with its Chancellors. After Lord Hailsham and Margaret Thatcher, they have only been able to attract nonentities, Sir Martin Jacomb, Lord Tanlow and Lady Keswick.
0
reply
Ambitious1999
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 year ago
#13
Its a good idea, in fact if a student is hard working and quick there should be no r again why a degree can be completed in as little as 18 months or half the time of a standard 3 year degree.
0
reply
CASIOfx-85GT
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#14
Report 1 year ago
#14
a-levels part 2?
0
reply
Muttley79
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 year ago
#15
(Original post by nulli tertius)
It has around 2,700 students. Buckinghamshire New has nearly 8000. Lincoln, for practical purposes a new foundation in 1995, has buit up 14,000. Suffolk was a clean start in 2007 and now has 5,000 students. The independents, BPP University has 16,000, Regents University has 3,500 both founded long after Buckingham. One can see it is going nowhere with its Chancellors. After Lord Hailsham and Margaret Thatcher, they have only been able to attract nonentities, Sir Martin Jacomb, Lord Tanlow and Lady Keswick.
There's no room for it to get much bigger - Buckingham is not a very large town, Who looks at the person who is the Chancellor? Not one student I know ...
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 year ago
#16
(Original post by Muttley79)
There's no room for it to get much bigger - Buckingham is not a very large town, Who looks at the person who is the Chancellor? Not one student I know ...
The student population of Buckingham is less than a quarter of the total. The student population of Bangor is well over half. There are other universities with a much greater student population proportion than Buckingham.

What students look at is not the same as whether an institution is moving forward or stagnating. Buckingham has been unable to attract a significant figurehead and its vice-chancellor is an ex-headmaster, not an academic.

Buckingham spent the 1970s complaining of political persecution and garnered considerable support on the political right. In the 1980s it theroretically basked in the admiration of the government but was unable to cement a position in the UK educational landscape and when various new universities cut an entrepreneurial furrow from 1992, it no longer had any viable role.
1
reply
Muttley79
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 year ago
#17
(Original post by nulli tertius)
The student population of Buckingham is less than a quarter of the total. The student population of Bangor is well over half. There are other universities with a much greater student population proportion than Buckingham.

What students look at is not the same as whether an institution is moving forward or stagnating. Buckingham has been unable to attract a significant figurehead and its vice-chancellor is an ex-headmaster, not an academic.

Buckingham spent the 1970s complaining of political persecution and garnered considerable support on the political right. In the 1980s it theroretically basked in the admiration of the government but was unable to cement a position in the UK educational landscape and when various new universities cut an entrepreneurial furrow from 1992, it no longer had any viable role.
I'm not just talking about population - Buckingham is small - it has 4 Primary schools and two Secondary schools which serve a large rural area. You clearly have never been there ....
0
reply
nulli tertius
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 year ago
#18
(Original post by Muttley79)
I'm not just talking about population - Buckingham is small - it has 4 Primary schools and two Secondary schools which serve a large rural area. You clearly have never been there ....
I have been there. It is much bigger than Holbeach and Lampeter and Wheatley and most of the locations of UHI.
0
reply
FailedMyMocks
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 year ago
#19
I'm for it personally..
0
reply
jackcade
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#20
Report 1 year ago
#20
(Original post by just_fake_news)
The Government doesn’t give most under-25s the full loan, and to make up that gap it expects what is in practice a parental contribution. "While shortening degrees will lower the total amount parents need to give, some of that is countered because students will be studying for longer hours so will not be able to do as much paid work during their course."
It seems unfair to the proposal to count reduced wages from part time work, but not count an extra year of full time employment from age 20 to 21 for most, which for many will be in a professional job.
1
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Which party will you be voting for in the General Election?

Conservatives (88)
18.84%
Labour (231)
49.46%
Liberal Democrats (61)
13.06%
Green Party (28)
6%
Brexit Party (6)
1.28%
Independent Group for Change (Change UK) (3)
0.64%
SNP (10)
2.14%
Plaid Cymru (3)
0.64%
Democratic Unionist Party (DUP) (0)
0%
Sinn Fein (6)
1.28%
SDLP (0)
0%
Ulster Unionist (2)
0.43%
UKIP (6)
1.28%
Other (4)
0.86%
None (19)
4.07%

Watched Threads

View All