Oxford maximum university fee ... £9k
Discussion
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-12381656
Interesting that the university are now setting their maximum fees for 2012. £27k to complete a 3 year boggo course..
I am beginning to wonder what the tipping point is for universities. What are the student numbers going to be like when it goes up to 10, then 12 and then 15k per year. When I talk to my friends in academia they describe the headline stories about middle england 'suffering' being only a smaller part of a far bigger picture. The squeeze on those in academic research - the critical part of so many universities, is immense. It is not just being eroded away, rather great lumps are being bitten out of it on a seemingly day by day basis. Of course, there is the very attractive revenue stream of foreign student, but that would also it seem appear to be a contentious subject, both within the nation and within politics. I think our universities are heading into (if they are not already there) potentially the biggest crisis they have ever seen.
I wonder, have we taken university education granted for too long? For a few years it was seen as the obvious thing to do for bright kids wanting a better future. But is it the case, that sooner rather than later, univerity will become the 'luxury' only those with substantial financial means to hand can afford, or those who plan very early in their children's lives.... leaving those of the next few years in a state of wanting to go, but never having the funds to go. It will only take a few students who cannot pay their loan fees to make the whole scheme untennable. What then?
As a society, what value do we put on education? Yes, I fully accept that every university has to at the very least break even, but doesn't the continual bean counter approach erode the unwritten code of universities; as places of excellence, of creativity and expression, imagination and inventiveness. Or is it what we have assigned universities the task of producing the next generation of clever workers and left the rest to 'market forces'. I wonder, are we actually entering the last few years of university education as we know it?
Interesting that the university are now setting their maximum fees for 2012. £27k to complete a 3 year boggo course..
I am beginning to wonder what the tipping point is for universities. What are the student numbers going to be like when it goes up to 10, then 12 and then 15k per year. When I talk to my friends in academia they describe the headline stories about middle england 'suffering' being only a smaller part of a far bigger picture. The squeeze on those in academic research - the critical part of so many universities, is immense. It is not just being eroded away, rather great lumps are being bitten out of it on a seemingly day by day basis. Of course, there is the very attractive revenue stream of foreign student, but that would also it seem appear to be a contentious subject, both within the nation and within politics. I think our universities are heading into (if they are not already there) potentially the biggest crisis they have ever seen.
I wonder, have we taken university education granted for too long? For a few years it was seen as the obvious thing to do for bright kids wanting a better future. But is it the case, that sooner rather than later, univerity will become the 'luxury' only those with substantial financial means to hand can afford, or those who plan very early in their children's lives.... leaving those of the next few years in a state of wanting to go, but never having the funds to go. It will only take a few students who cannot pay their loan fees to make the whole scheme untennable. What then?
As a society, what value do we put on education? Yes, I fully accept that every university has to at the very least break even, but doesn't the continual bean counter approach erode the unwritten code of universities; as places of excellence, of creativity and expression, imagination and inventiveness. Or is it what we have assigned universities the task of producing the next generation of clever workers and left the rest to 'market forces'. I wonder, are we actually entering the last few years of university education as we know it?
As I sit here at 3:15am with about 75 scripts still to mark before tomorrow. I wonder what the 50% participation rate brought the HE sector and yearn for the days of fewer students and a return to high quality educating, rather than the degree factories Universities have become. I think the fees, through market function, will bring us that. After all, what are the current lowest-common denominator degrees really doing for graduates? When everyone has one, they have no value at all.
It will be a painful time for the likes of me over the next ten years. I see the sector retracting and quality rising. Both of these are good things. Expect the media and the unions to focus on the former only.
It will be a painful time for the likes of me over the next ten years. I see the sector retracting and quality rising. Both of these are good things. Expect the media and the unions to focus on the former only.
How will the quality rise if post academic funding is cut? And how will we compete on the world stage with students and universities in some of the BRICS who are pumping huge amounts of money into education?
If Britain wants to keep it's niche in high quality manufacturing, engineering, science and finance, then it has to keep investing in the best students.
If Britain wants to keep it's niche in high quality manufacturing, engineering, science and finance, then it has to keep investing in the best students.
The BBC's line on this story today is totally predictable. How will students form poor backgrounds be able to go there? The implication is clear but the answer is the same as it was before: apply, get an offer, accept it, meet the requirements, go. There's nothing for students or parents to pay before going or while they're studying. The only time payment arises is after graduation when income reaches the trigger level.
What will put some students off applying to some universities, though hopefully not Cambridge or Oxford since intellectual horsepower is needed to be in with a realistic chance, is swallowing the implication from the way the BBC and other sources with a left-wing bias put a spin on this that students have to pay the fees each year while studying so they or their families have to be able to 'afford the fees' which is rubbish. As mentioned already,the impact on less marketable universities is that less marketable students may be put off by the BBC which is arguably a good thing since it reflects the weaker employment and earnings potential from noddy degrees at pretend universities, and it's via employment prospects and earnings potential that the loans are eventually paid back.
What will put some students off applying to some universities, though hopefully not Cambridge or Oxford since intellectual horsepower is needed to be in with a realistic chance, is swallowing the implication from the way the BBC and other sources with a left-wing bias put a spin on this that students have to pay the fees each year while studying so they or their families have to be able to 'afford the fees' which is rubbish. As mentioned already,the impact on less marketable universities is that less marketable students may be put off by the BBC which is arguably a good thing since it reflects the weaker employment and earnings potential from noddy degrees at pretend universities, and it's via employment prospects and earnings potential that the loans are eventually paid back.
My sister went to Oxford, got a reasonable degree I guess.
But she certainly is not making use of it, she now works as a freelance graphic designer!
So judging by what she wants to do moving forward, it was a waste of time and money, she could have studied the same degree anywhere and the net result would have been the same.
But she certainly is not making use of it, she now works as a freelance graphic designer!
So judging by what she wants to do moving forward, it was a waste of time and money, she could have studied the same degree anywhere and the net result would have been the same.
turbobloke said:
The BBC's line on this story today is totally predictable. How will students form poor backgrounds be able to go there? The implication is clear but the answer is the same as it was before: apply, get an offer, accept it, meet the requirements, go. There's nothing for students or parents to pay before going or while they're studying. The only time payment arises is after graduation when income reaches the trigger level.
Furthermore, universities could only charge more than £6,000 per year if they used some of the additional funding to create bursaries to students from poor backgrounds.Therefore, students from more affluent backgrounds will now have to pay more for an Oxford degree. Students from less affluent backgrounds will now have to pay less.
Jasandjules said:
A shame isn't it.
Thick rich kids will be able to get in whilst bright students from poor backgrounds will be precluded.
Why? The tuition fees are available to everyone as student loans and not repaid at all until earning above a threshold. It might make people think more carefully about doing worthwhile courses though.Thick rich kids will be able to get in whilst bright students from poor backgrounds will be precluded.
hyperblue said:
ralphrj said:
Therefore, students from more affluent backgrounds will now have to pay more for an Oxford degree. Students from less affluent backgrounds will now have to pay less.
In that case, the BBC really are doing the poor a disservice by running scare stories like this one.
lefties manage so well, doing the poor a disservice.Jackleman said:
My sister went to Oxford, got a reasonable degree I guess.
But she certainly is not making use of it, she now works as a freelance graphic designer!
So judging by what she wants to do moving forward, it was a waste of time and money, she could have studied the same degree anywhere and the net result would have been the same.
Back in the day a classic degree from a good university showed a considerable ability to work, study, apply intelligence, reasoning and present arguments etc...But she certainly is not making use of it, she now works as a freelance graphic designer!
So judging by what she wants to do moving forward, it was a waste of time and money, she could have studied the same degree anywhere and the net result would have been the same.
It was hard work and it showed employers your mind set and abilities whether it was Classical Greek or Advanced Mathematics.
There was a reason why it was difficult to get to university and a privilege to get to Oxford or Cambridge. It meant something.
That has completely disappeared now.
It should never have become a right to go to university, as it should never be a right to be awarded benefits etc... This is the most dangerous thing the last government have done - we're not equal, never have been and never will be.
I flunked out of school at 16 - I consider my 'university' to have been 6 years in the Army.
I think in future the idea of of paying for the services we receive, direct from recipient to provider, will become accepted and unremarkable. Years ago the country could afford to pay for the university education of all, now it can't. Pretty simple really, don't know what the fuss is all about.
anonymous said:
[redacted]
I doubt strongly they will wither and die, they may either head into a degree "supermarket" sitiuation low fees and as many students as they can physically fit in the uni, or specialise. I can see former Polytechnics becoming Technical universities specialising in Computing, Engineering, Practical Sciences. The issue about student debt will be come irrelevant if all graduates are carrying £20k-£40K debt on graduation then lenders will have to start ignoring this debt as will most other people, it is effectively repaid as a tax anyway.
singlecoil said:
I think in future the idea of of paying for the services we receive, direct from recipient to provider, will become accepted and unremarkable. Years ago the country could afford to pay for the university education of all, now it can't. Pretty simple really, don't know what the fuss is all about.
Years ago the country could afford to pay for the university education of a few, now it can't because of a ridiculous "50% going to Uni" target.ewenm said:
Why? The tuition fees are available to everyone as student loans and not repaid at all until earning above a threshold. It might make people think more carefully about doing worthwhile courses though.
Because rich kids can still afford to pay it back, poor kids from poor backgrounds will struggle a lot more to do so and therefore will be precluded from attending. The threshold for repayment is not exactly high enough.Jasandjules said:
ewenm said:
Why? The tuition fees are available to everyone as student loans and not repaid at all until earning above a threshold. It might make people think more carefully about doing worthwhile courses though.
Because rich kids can still afford to pay it back, poor kids from poor backgrounds will struggle a lot more to do so and therefore will be precluded from attending. The threshold for repayment is not exactly high enough.Look at two different kids, kid A and kid B. A is from a wealthy background. B is from what would be termed a poor background.
Both go to university on the back of decent grades.
Both do the same course.
Both get the same result.
Both end up at the same role in the same company in the City earning the same amount.
Both repay the same amount every month for their loan.
Where is the discrimination against the poor kid?
I think this is a situation where your brain tells you that there must be discrimination going on because normally yes, higher price = less affordability for the poor, but it's not the same here because the cost is a) deferred and b) means-tested.
Edited by TankRizzo on Wednesday 9th February 09:50
ewenm said:
singlecoil said:
I think in future the idea of of paying for the services we receive, direct from recipient to provider, will become accepted and unremarkable. Years ago the country could afford to pay for the university education of all, now it can't. Pretty simple really, don't know what the fuss is all about.
Years ago the country could afford to pay for the university education of a few, now it can't because of a ridiculous "50% going to Uni" target.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff