In article <[email protected]
>, Becca Taylor
[q1]> [...]. The idea which the Russell group were throwing around about charging students in certain[/q1]
[q1]> subjects up to ^#10,000 a year in top up fees is absolutely proposterous (sp?).[/q1]
That is the American model rather than anything that is likely to happen here.
You need to look at the entire package rather than the headline. No academic is in the least
bit interested in teaching rich stupid people in preference to poor clever ones, so top-up
fees will not be set at levels that, of themselves, deter people from applying to the best
courses. [There may, of course, be univs that specialise in teaching rich people, like
"crammer" schools for rich-but-stupid A-level students, but decent univs will not be like
that.] Alongside extra fees for the best courses go, and *must* go, scholarships and
sponsorships for the best students and endowments to finance the best univs.
HE is being run very much on the cheap in the UK, and the effects are showing. Nothing
that Gordon and Tone do with central funds is likely to change that. We desperately need
to get more money into HE. It happens in research, where the companies that want research
doing pay for it. It is not yet happening in teaching, where the students who benefit pay
only a nominal* fee, and the employers who benefit pay nothing, bar their general
taxation. We can't expect students or taxpayers to pay more, so the obvious sources are
companies and alumni.
Aside: at the moment, many less-favoured courses are offering golden handshakes. If you
object to top-up fees, should you not equally object to bottom-down bribes? What is the
logical difference between some univs saying that standard fees are too high and offering
bribes, and some saying that they are too low and charging extra?
* Compare current tuition fees with (a) the fees at private schools, and (b) the fees routinely paid
by companies to put staff through short training courses.
Andy Walker, School of MathSci., Univ. of Nott'm, UK. [email protected]