The Student Room Group

Tuition fees are a joke.

I think they need overhauling massively.
I am actually in favour of tution fees but the way they work out costing is baffling to me.

For example although the fees are supposed to vary depending on cost most universities charge the maxium amount which is £9,250 a year.
Doesn't matter if the university is good or average that is basically what you are going to pay.


But what gets me is if I do say a language degree I am paying £9,250 a year.
Yet if someone does an engineering degree they pay £9,250 a year.
Now, for a language degree there is very little in the way of required equipment or material all the learning is done through seminars and lectures.
Yet with an engineering degree these people often have access to state of the art tech like CAD machines, 3D printing machines and just faciliaties that cost an absolute ton. I think at my university they have a formula one racing car stripped down.

Now, I cant help but think that £9,250 does not cover the cost of an engineering degree. It's students doing other courses that help cover the costs.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong?
(edited 3 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

It's government subsidies that cover the costs. I don't think any degree can actually be run for £9250.
Reply 2
I think tution fees should better represent the true cost of the course and take into other factors.
I think if you become a doctor you should pay more per year back in tution fees. I know there courses are longer but there £9,250 is a joke.


Lets say you do a language degree at the university of east london. Its not right you pay £9,250 a year. That is obvious.
Whereas medicine students are getting a great deal.
I would actually say Oxford is probably overcharging some as well.

I do not know the answer though. If we introduce a variable tution fee system say from £3,000 to £20,000 a year. We know most universities will just go straight to the max.
Original post by adam271
I think if you become a doctor you should pay more per year back in tution fees. I know there courses are longer but there £9,250 is a joke.

Indirectly they do.

If you end up becoming a doctor, odds are you get paid more. This in turn means a much greater likelihood of the full loan being repaid, vs it being wiped after 30 years. It also translates into higher tax costs, which end up paying for the next generation of language students who need their loans written off.

I'm not saying I entirely support all courses costing the same. But over the course of their professional lives, some students will repay a much larger sum than others. They will also contribute far more in tax. If there's a problem here, I think it's actually with the students who don't end up repaying rather than the initial upfront costs. Rather than suggesting some students pay far more, I'd rather see certain courses cost less to reflect what their earnings may actually be. Then repayment thresholds be adjusted to account for that, in order to prevent free passes.
Arts and humanities do subsidise more technical courses, which is why STEM snobbery is laughable. We can scrap all these 'soft' degrees like threads on tsr advocate but then all stem STEM people will be landed with massive fees. Cutting off their noses to spite their faces :smile:
Reply 5
Original post by AcseI
Indirectly they do.

If you end up becoming a doctor, odds are you get paid more. This in turn means a much greater likelihood of the full loan being repaid, vs it being wiped after 30 years. It also translates into higher tax costs, which end up paying for the next generation of language students who need their loans written off.

I'm not saying I entirely support all courses costing the same. But over the course of their professional lives, some students will repay a much larger sum than others. They will also contribute far more in tax. If there's a problem here, I think it's actually with the students who don't end up repaying rather than the initial upfront costs. Rather than suggesting some students pay far more, I'd rather see certain courses cost less to reflect what their earnings may actually be. Then repayment thresholds be adjusted to account for that, in order to prevent free passes.

I agree with that.
The £25000 threshhold is too high for some professions. That being said if the threshold is reduced for some students the total cost needs to be reduced as well.
For example reduce it to £20000 for say social workers. But the total cost for degree also being significantly reduced.
Because if you become a senior social worker and earn £30k a year its not right your tution fee loan is the same as a doctor who can earn over £100k a year. Even if the doctor does pay it back faster and contributes more in tax.

It's all complicated though.
Maybe a graduate tax would be better and scrap fees.. You pay constantly based on how much you earn. With obvious safe guards in place.
Out of interest what were the fees when you went to uni though?
Im not doubting you just that its not as simple as lots of STEM people paying it off and humanities people not paying it off.
Hardly anyone even if they are a doctor will pay it back in this day and age. The loans are too large with a ridiculous amount of interest constantly adding.
Original post by adam271
I think they need overhauling massively.
I am actually in favour of tution fees but the way they work out costing is baffling to me.

For example although the fees are supposed to vary depending on cost most universities charge the maxium amount which is £9,250 a year.
Doesn't matter if the university is good or average that is basically what you are going to pay.


But what gets me is if I do say a language degree I am paying £9,250 a year.
Yet if someone does an engineering degree they pay £9,250 a year.
Now, for a language degree there is very little in the way of required equipment or material all the learning is done through seminars and lectures.
Yet with an engineering degree these people often have access to state of the art tech like CAD machines, 3D printing machines and just faciliaties that cost an absolute ton. I think at my university they have a formula one racing car stripped down.

Now, I cant help but think that £9,250 does not cover the cost of an engineering degree. It's students doing other courses that help cover the costs.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong?

You have a good point IMO

The issue is, this will never happen, at least not under a Conservative government. There is no way they'll try and make STEM "feel less attractive" by upping the fees or by lowering arts/hums fees.

Not that they like STEM, but because they dislike the arts/humanities despite a good number of MPs having those degrees.


Spoiler


I also think that the *real* pressing issue is maintenance loans. The system is fundamentally broken and there isn't enough education for parents to realise that they really should be saving/planning to top-up their children's loans to at the very most, what the maximum loan currently is.
(edited 3 years ago)
Well that's my point, the loans are huge now. It is unlikely if you graduated today that you would have paid it off in the same period.
In the past Acsels point was more relevant but now that everyone's loans are so huge with constant interest its not a surprise hardly anyone pays it back. There comes a point where the loan + interest is so huge that the pay back monthly installments cant physically cover it in 30 years STEM or no stem job.
Therefore the comparison of humanities subsidising STEM during uni and STEM subsidising humanties after graduation doesnt really hold up when generally the only way you are going to pay it back is if you came into possesion of a huge lump sum of money out of luck.
Even then why would you bother to use it for that when it gets written off after 30 years. Just throwing money at a black hole.
Reply 9
I really think a graduate tax would not only be fairer. But generate more money and work out better for all.
But a few safeguards need to be put in place for top earners and low earners.
e.g. if you graduate and you are stuck in a minium wage job you probably should not pay a graduate tax.
Equally if you become a top doctor earning over £150,000 a year it is probably not right you pay back say 9% of your salary til the day you retire.

I think what it could possibly be is a flat tax of say 9% over 20,000 a year
but as your salary increase the % drops say 6% at over 40,00 a year, 3% at 80,000 a year. etc
These are just made up numbers btw so dont get mad but just a idea :biggrin:
(edited 3 years ago)
There should a blanket approach regardless of the fees, at a time when we are trying to attract people from all backgrounds to STEM, Medicine, etc... not the right approach,

i would say degrees and education should be free for all (undergrad)
Thanks for putting me through uni ecolier!!

There's a 50:50 chance on me repaying the 55K I borrowed (currently 65K). With fairly decent pay rises I could end up repaying 100K overall, but that may be a stretch.
Theres no money to make all degrees free.
As it stands the tuition fee system is alright from a student perspective. Its basically a tax already.
Personally i would never have created the stupid policy that blaire did that apsired to have 50% of people going to uni.
Plenty of technical courses (yes even STEM ones) can be taught outside university. Construction and paramedic science dont need to be degrees since they are so practical based.
People often talk about scrapping 'soft' subjects like history but there are just as many STEM courses that could use the same logic and become proper standardised accredited apprenticeships or technical qualifications.
If the amount of courses were reduced then tutition fees could be lower.
To be honest my main gripe of the system isnt the tuition fee, if you think of it like a tax it isnt that bothersome. My main issue is the ridiculous maintenance loan system that assumes you as an adult are somehow tied and supported financially by your household - but that is a different topic
Original post by adam271
I agree with that.
The £25000 threshhold is too high for some professions. That being said if the threshold is reduced for some students the total cost needs to be reduced as well.
For example reduce it to £20000 for say social workers. But the total cost for degree also being significantly reduced.
Because if you become a senior social worker and earn £30k a year its not right your tution fee loan is the same as a doctor who can earn over £100k a year. Even if the doctor does pay it back faster and contributes more in tax.

It's all complicated though.
Maybe a graduate tax would be better and scrap fees.. You pay constantly based on how much you earn. With obvious safe guards in place.


It's not even £25K now, I got my repayment info through as I'll start repaying in April and the threshold for me is just over £27K.

With regards to it being a graduate tax and scrapping fees, that is basically how it works now. You do pay constantly only based on what you earn. It's basically universal advice to treat loans as a tax.
Reply 14
Original post by CoolCavy
Theres no money to make all degrees free.
As it stands the tuition fee system is alright from a student perspective. Its basically a tax already.
Personally i would never have created the stupid policy that blaire did that apsired to have 50% of people going to uni.
Plenty of technical courses (yes even STEM ones) can be taught outside university. Construction and paramedic science dont need to be degrees since they are so practical based.
People often talk about scrapping 'soft' subjects like history but there are just as many STEM courses that could use the same logic and become proper standardised accredited apprenticeships or technical qualifications.
If the amount of courses were reduced then tutition fees could be lower.
To be honest my main gripe of the system isnt the tuition fee, if you think of it like a tax it isnt that bothersome. My main issue is the ridiculous maintenance loan system that assumes you as an adult are somehow tied and supported financially by your household - but that is a different topic


I totally agree with you on the stupidity of Blair.
What he basically did was devalue vocational courses which were pretty good.
For example we now have people at my university paying £9,250 to do a Firefighting Degree. (I kid you not)
Firefighting, should be a vocational training. Along with being a paramedic or so many other practical degrees.

Whats even more frustrating is many vocational courses have been basically been replaced by BTECs. Now, what is a BTEC? Basically it is a practical A-level that has almost zero value on its own and is just used as a progression pathway onto University.
The system is completely fudged.
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by adam271
I think they need overhauling massively.
I am actually in favour of tution fees but the way they work out costing is baffling to me.

For example although the fees are supposed to vary depending on cost most universities charge the maxium amount which is £9,250 a year.
Doesn't matter if the university is good or average that is basically what you are going to pay.


But what gets me is if I do say a language degree I am paying £9,250 a year.
Yet if someone does an engineering degree they pay £9,250 a year.
Now, for a language degree there is very little in the way of required equipment or material all the learning is done through seminars and lectures.
Yet with an engineering degree these people often have access to state of the art tech like CAD machines, 3D printing machines and just faciliaties that cost an absolute ton. I think at my university they have a formula one racing car stripped down.

Now, I cant help but think that £9,250 does not cover the cost of an engineering degree. It's students doing other courses that help cover the costs.

What do you guys think? Am I wrong?


The thing with fees is they arent like a normal fee, its more an administrative fee you owe the government rather then for tuition.

The reality is STEM grads also have to put up with the much higher interest rates despite their significant benefit in earning potential, & STEM degrees also generate much more revenue for universities via working with industry, UKRI etc. and often have larger cohorts so effectively pay in more the operating costs of a university. So the coin has 2 sides...

Im all for a review of the current system but the STEM V Arts fees needs a more nuanced debate.
I agree that the repayment system is rubbish and they never seem to have settled on a system that would see the majority of loans repaid rather than written off, but at the same time wouldn't cripple people for most of their working life.

I started uni in 1999, (yes, yes I'm old), so was in the transitional period where fees were being bumped up and I think I ended up with a bit of grant and some loan? (Memory very hazy, I know there were two elements to it. Maybe it was all loan but partially means tested.)

The upshot is that I now pay 9% of what I earn over £19k. I could never work out for years why I was paying back so little, it turned they had been incrementally increasing the repayment threshold, it was £15k when I graduated. Anyway, the result of this is that I'll never make a dent in my loan, (only circa £14k, but still), beyond the interest repayments.
Original post by CoolCavy
Therefore the comparison of humanities subsidising STEM during uni and STEM subsidising humanties after graduation doesnt really hold up when generally the only way you are going to pay it back is if you came into possesion of a huge lump sum of money out of luck.

Just to throw some numbers in here:

If we assume a single non-STEM student only needs half their tuition fee to cover their course costs, that'd theoretically leave around £14K to put towards a STEM course (not that I have any proof to support it working that way).

I personally borrowed ~55K, and currently owe ~65K. I'm on a starting salary of £30K, with reasonably good prospects of salary increases. If I see a 5% salary increase each year, I would still not pay off my loan and it'd be wiped in 30 years. But my total repayments would be £107K. Take off the 55K I borrowed, that leaves £52K to put towards some other students loans. In fact I can pay for 6 full years worth of fees.

Now obviously these numbers are all plucked out of thin air (with exception to my loan and salary figures) but there's nothing hugely unrealistic here. Not to mention the only reason my borrowed figure is this high is as a result of me borrowing the full amount of maintenance loan.

I think it's also important to point out the difference between subsidising via tutition fees and subsidising via repayments. If half of non-STEM students loan goes on subsidising STEM, but non-STEM was never going to come close to paying it off in the first place, then they haven't lost anything. The only scenarios where non-STEM actually loses out is if they're earning just enough for the difference in subsidised amount to affect whether they repay the full amount or not. Otherwise it gets wiped and never comes out of their pocket. By comparison, a STEM student who repays more of their loan has first and foremost actually paid off their loan. Maybe they don't go on to put much extra in, repaying £50K into the system is more valuable than repaying £30K into the system and subsidising £14K of a STEM degree.

On the whole, what this actually comes down to is how much ends up getting repaid. Because someone could take a course that costs £1, send the other £9249 over to subsidise a STEM course and then repay absolutely nothing. That's the full £9250 lost.

Before someone mentions it, I've only used STEM and non-STEM here as placeholders for the groups. Obviously we can have high non-STEM earners (e.g. lawyers), this was more out of convenience for not just saying humanities.
Original post by AcseI
Just to throw some numbers in here:

If we assume a single non-STEM student only needs half their tuition fee to cover their course costs, that'd theoretically leave around £14K to put towards a STEM course (not that I have any proof to support it working that way).

I personally borrowed ~55K, and currently owe ~65K. I'm on a starting salary of £30K, with reasonably good prospects of salary increases. If I see a 5% salary increase each year, I would still not pay off my loan and it'd be wiped in 30 years. But my total repayments would be £107K. Take off the 55K I borrowed, that leaves £52K to put towards some other students loans. In fact I can pay for 6 full years worth of fees.

Now obviously these numbers are all plucked out of thin air (with exception to my loan and salary figures) but there's nothing hugely unrealistic here. Not to mention the only reason my borrowed figure is this high is as a result of me borrowing the full amount of maintenance loan.

I think it's also important to point out the difference between subsidising via tutition fees and subsidising via repayments. If half of non-STEM students loan goes on subsidising STEM, but non-STEM was never going to come close to paying it off in the first place, then they haven't lost anything. The only scenarios where non-STEM actually loses out is if they're earning just enough for the difference in subsidised amount to affect whether they repay the full amount or not. Otherwise it gets wiped and never comes out of their pocket. By comparison, a STEM student who repays more of their loan has first and foremost actually paid off their loan. Maybe they don't go on to put much extra in, repaying £50K into the system is more valuable than repaying £30K into the system and subsidising £14K of a STEM degree.

On the whole, what this actually comes down to is how much ends up getting repaid. Because someone could take a course that costs £1, send the other £9249 over to subsidise a STEM course and then repay absolutely nothing. That's the full £9250 lost.

Before someone mentions it, I've only used STEM and non-STEM here as placeholders for the groups. Obviously we can have high non-STEM earners (e.g. lawyers), this was more out of convenience for not just saying humanities.

You're estimates are out by quite a bit https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909349/Understanding_costs_of_undergraduate_provision_in_higher_education.pdf page 18
Average unit cost for the cheapest classroom based courses are £8,801, Engineering average unit costs are £11,394.
Subsidies for high cost STEM (ie everything but maths) courses is an extra £1.5k on top of the tuition fee (https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/784a1671-6e18-45e5-8fa8-8a676f2c9530/ofs2019_18.pdf page 21)
Universities with an Access and Participation Plan agreed have to spend a minimum of 1/3 of the "additional" fee income (basically £1k out of the £9k fees) towards improving participation, continuation and outcomes of underrepresented groups.

The cross subject subsidy is actually more focused towards subsidising STEM research rather than across teaching areas. Full Economic Cost principles from the Research Councils means that universities have to find the money for 20% of research costs from other sources (essentially from tuition fees) https://epsrc.ukri.org/funding/applicationprocess/fundingguide/resources/
(edited 3 years ago)
Original post by PQ
You're estimates are out by quite a bit https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/909349/Understanding_costs_of_undergraduate_provision_in_higher_education.pdf page 18
Average unit cost for the cheapest classroom based courses are £8,801, Engineering average unit costs are £11,394.
Subsidies for high cost STEM (ie everything but maths) courses is an extra £1.5k on top of the tuition fee (https://www.officeforstudents.org.uk/media/784a1671-6e18-45e5-8fa8-8a676f2c9530/ofs2019_18.pdf page 21)
Universities with an Access and Participation Plan agreed have to spend a minimum of 1/3 of the "additional" fee income (basically £1k out of the £9k fees) towards improving participation, continuation and outcomes of underrepresented groups.

The cross subject subsidy is actually more focused towards subsidising STEM research rather than across teaching areas. Full Economic Cost principles from the Research Councils means that universities have to find the money for 20% of research costs from other sources (essentially from tuition fees) https://epsrc.ukri.org/funding/applicationprocess/fundingguide/resources/

Like I said, I pulled numbers out of thin air. I didn't even remotely expect that a non-STEM student would just be throwing half their money at a STEM course. £8800 out of £9250 basically leaves nothing with which to subsidise any other courses. When I said the numbers were realistic, I was referring more to the sort of earnings I can expect and therefore how much of my money will go beyond repaying my own loan.

I worded it poorly and was going to throw an edit in. But more generally the point I was making is that repayments out of my own pocket are more valuable than shifting money around that's been handed out by loans. £9250 is £9250 regardless of how it's allocated and if it all gets written off then it's fundamentally gone. But anyone that ends up being a higher earner and repaying significant portions of their loan is actually having an impact.

Quick Reply