adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#1
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?
Last edited by adam271; 1 month ago
4
reply
Theloniouss
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 month ago
#2
It's government subsidies that cover the costs. I don't think any degree can actually be run for £9250.
0
reply
ecolier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 month ago
#3
(Original post by adam271)
...What do you guys think? Am I wrong?
You're not wrong at all.

For medicine, £9,250 per year barely scratches the surface.

The government has to subsidise each medical student £163,000 so that they can make it as an FY1 doctor.

But that's the system, so what do you propose?

A language degree at Oxbridge is probably worth more than one from London Met - should we start doing subject / university fee dividers and charge according to these?

It's what international students have done. Should we do that?
Last edited by ecolier; 1 month ago
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#4
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#4
(Original post by ecolier)
You're not wrong at all.

For medicine, £9,250 per year barely scratches the surface.

The government has to subsidise each medical student £163,000 so that they can make it as an FY1 doctor.

But that's the system, so what do you propose?

A language degree at Oxbridge is probably worth more than one from London Met - should we start doing subject / university fee dividers and charge according to these?

It's what international students have done. Should we do that?
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.
2
reply
ecolier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 month ago
#5
(Original post by adam271)
...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.
Exactly. There is no good way of solving the problem.

We could either leave it at what happens now, or make it free for everyone i.e. pre-1998.

But making it free for everyone is the same = massively unfair to people doing a language at London Met and incredibly generous to people doing Medicine at Cambridge (most expensive international tuition fees + college fees, exceeding £60,000 per year currently).
Last edited by ecolier; 1 month ago
0
reply
username5383500
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 month ago
#6
(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.
3
reply
ecolier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 month ago
#7
(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.
Well said.

I have repaid my student loans in full already... I hope that's my "redemption" :lol:
0
reply
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 month ago
#8
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
2
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#9
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#9
(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.
0
reply
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 month ago
#10
(Original post by ecolier)
Well said.

I have repaid my student loans in full already... I hope that's my "redemption" :lol:
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.
0
reply
ecolier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 month ago
#11
(Original post by CoolCavy)
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.
A lot cheaper :laugh:

But as far as I know doctors start paying back from FY1 onwards. I don't know how many years it'll take them to clear it though.
0
reply
Blue_Cow
Badges: 22
Rep:
?
#12
Report 1 month ago
#12
(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:
Show
Before anyone accuses me of being some raging lefty-liberal History of Art undergrad, I'm not :lol:

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.
Last edited by Blue_Cow; 1 month ago
0
reply
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#13
Report 1 month ago
#13
(Original post by ecolier)
A lot cheaper :laugh:

But as far as I know doctors start paying back from FY1 onwards. I don't know how many years it'll take them to clear it though.
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.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#14
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#14
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
Last edited by adam271; 1 month ago
0
reply
ecolier
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#15
Report 1 month ago
#15
(Original post by CoolCavy)
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.
I think the doctors will pay it back after 30 years though. Many doctors will be consultant / GP grades by the time they are 20-years post grad.

In any case do you have any suggestions how to address OP's concerns? I have suggested making all degrees free or going to an "international style" where unis charge different fees based on costs.
Last edited by ecolier; 1 month ago
0
reply
BlueIndigoViolet
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#16
Report 1 month ago
#16
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)
3
reply
username5383500
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#17
Report 1 month ago
#17
(Original post by ecolier)
Well said.

I have repaid my student loans in full already... I hope that's my "redemption" :lol:
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.
1
reply
CoolCavy
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#18
Report 1 month ago
#18
(Original post by ecolier)
I think the doctors will pay it back after 30 years though. Many doctors will be consultant / GP grades by the time they are 20-years post grad.

In any case do you have any suggestions how to address OP's concerns? I have suggested making all degrees free.
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
4
reply
username5383500
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#19
Report 1 month ago
#19
(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.
0
reply
adam271
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#20
Report Thread starter 1 month ago
#20
(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.
Last edited by adam271; 1 month ago
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

Are you travelling in the Uni student travel window (3-9 Dec) to go home for Christmas?

Yes (129)
28.41%
No - I have already returned home (62)
13.66%
No - I plan on travelling outside these dates (88)
19.38%
No - I'm staying at my term time address over Christmas (42)
9.25%
No - I live at home during term anyway (133)
29.3%

Watched Threads

View All