University fees..

I'm old enough that when I went to Uni the first time I got a government grant and didn't have to pay anything...  how things have changed...

I was chatting with a friend yesterday about the fees that students have to pay now for their degrees...     however, this is still MUCH cheaper than those of us with children in private education already pay and have been paying for years... so..  when our kids get to Uni, we'll actually be saving a fortune...!

Just another way of looking at it...

 

«13

Comments

  • Dark Vader wrote (see)

    I'm old enough that when I went to Uni the first time I got a government grant and didn't have to pay anything...  how things have changed...

    I was chatting with a friend yesterday about the fees that students have to pay now for their degrees...     however, this is still MUCH cheaper than those of us with children in private education already pay and have been paying for years... so..  when our kids get to Uni, we'll actually be saving a fortune...!

    Just another way of looking at it...

     


    *bites tongue so hard it bleeds* 

  • I knew someone would say that...!

    I'm just saying that some of us pay a lot more than that for school education already, and that thus paying up to £9k for Uni will actually be a saving....    the media seems to ignore this...    approximately 20% of all school children are in private education...  that's a lot of children and I would guess that almost all of those will go to Uni..   of the 80% of state school children I don't know what % go to Uni but I doubt it's anywhere near 100%.

     

     

     

  • Which is the whole reason that the tories introduced these crippling fees - their cronies (I don't know you, DV, so you have the benefit of the doubt) are not affected. In fact, if they can afford to pay up front, their privileged kids will not even have the graduate tax hanging over them, throughout their life.

    We are heading back towards the "golden years" so beloved by slime balls like Cameron. In the 1950s, my uncle went to university. My father (the younger brother) was not allowed to go into the sixth form as my Grandfather insisted that he left and started working to pay for my uncle's education.

    The new regime is punitive for students and families. As it is costing the government much more than they had predicted (surprise!), the maintenance loan that students can take out has shrunk slightly. In most universities, it is not even enough to cover rent. Families have to support them, which is more costly than if they are at home.

  • MuttleyMuttley ✭✭✭

    Erm, I thought it was Labour who introduced tuition fees?

    (Not that I'm defending them, I'm certainly not, but still ...)

  • It was indeed Mr Blair who brought in Tuition fees ... though not sure if you would really call him Labour?
  • Ask Barlos to pay, then you'll save even more!
  • I'd call Blair a few more choice words than that.

     

    But I suppose when University was "free" it was a big subsidy for the middle classes. now everyone has to pay through the nose. Although if you're minted then 6 grand a year for 3 years isn't that big of a deal anyway.

  • Dark Vader- I think you are missing the point as to why people are so angry at £9000 fees... indeed people like you paying private fees will not be affected, but the state school families are being priced out of university and thus effectively stopping their opportunities for social mobility.

    I work in the state school sector and have already seen the impacts of the removal of EMA and the introduction of uni fees on children from poor backgrounds.  I find it sad to see so much wasted potential, and the reinforcement of principles that favour the rich exclusively.

  • Dark Vader, I think you should consider yourself very lucky to be in the privileged minority.  It is wonderful that your children will not leave university with a minimum £27,000 debt.   The majority of potential graduates will be wondering how long it will take for them to pay that off over the course of their working life as they do not have parents sufficiently well off to pay their tuition fees or living costs while away at university. 

  • 20 % of children in private education.............that figure can't be right surely..........in my county we have 16 comps and not a single private school...........there are a few in cardiff but not many.......i would say from this area less tahn a couple hundred at most from over 15000 

     

  • It's a question of choice I think, or rather, lack of choice: You, Dark Vader, are in a position to choose to pay for your kids to go to school, still, if you choose not to pay your children would still go to school. I'm fine with this, this seems fair to me.

    This choice now does not exist in higher education: it's either pay or don't go. Obviously, this gives an enormous<span> advantage to people with wealthy parents. I accept that the country cannot fund everyone who want's to go to university but I believe that university places should go to those who are most academically able, not most financially able.

    I think it started to go wrong when the government decided a high percentage of school leavers should go on to university; this was never sustainable.

    <span>Dark Vader, you say you went to University when it was all still free, I did too, as did my husband. We, like you, are now in a position to send our children to fee paying school (although we choose not to) and we will be able to fund their university education should they go down this route. We would not be in this financial position if we did not go to university and neither of us would have gone under the new fee arrangements. I'm sure there are many people, who think that the fees are not really an issue as they can afford to pay them, who would not be in that fortunate position had they not benefited from free higher education themselves. 

  • It's around 7% Seren. Obviously it varies by area. I hope for their sake that Darth Vader's kids board..!
  • I think was Labour who introduced the fees..  not the Tories...  although of course the Tories didn't take them away...!

    Seren, that stat is national..  there are some posh bits of Surrey where there are no state schools and all are private..   it all balances out..

     

     

  • It might make people think more about what to study in future....

    I was chatting with someone the other day who has just completed a Master in Anglo Saxon, and for some strange reason can't find a job !!!

    Yep Thought it was wonderful when the kids left school... Suddenly had money

  • 7% makes more sense...........

    Dave..I have told my youngest 2 sons that if they want to go to university it should be to do a course that you have to go to unioversity to do........eg teaching or medicine etc......

    Its just not worth the gamble of getting £50,000 in debt unless you have to to do the job that you really want to do.....

    so if you want to be an accountant etc then get a job and then study whilst working....

    bit of luck they will get rid of all the arty farty degrees..........but i imagine they will still exist so that the thicko rich kids can still have 3/4 years at uni and come out with some mickey mouse degree......

     

    and I agree with CB69....when they started trying to get everyone in uni it wqas a real mistake........keep the vocational courses in colleges .....plumber etc are just as important in life but stupid to try an dget every course a degree course

  • I think there is too much emphasis on going to Uni..   in my work, there is a massive shortage of skilled people in building conservation expertise..  people who are good with their hands and have a talent...  you don't need to wear a suit and drive a BMW to have a six figure salary...  I know plenty of lovely people who are scruffy, unshaven, drive a pick up and yet earn a ridiculous amount...   these people have learned a trade and are good at it...   there are just not enough skilled trades people...  if my son doesn't want to go to Uni but wants to do a trade I'll be backing him 100%..

     

  • Here's another way of looking at it:

    I work for a university, working with the students who have disabilities.  I work a given number of hours a week which, coincidentally, is the same number of hours listed as "contact" hours that my son would have on the courses that interest him.  Effectively, therefore, we could both be in university for the same number of hours a week, one of us being taught, the other teaching. 

    It would take me three years to earn enough to pay for one year of tuition fees. 

  • thats ridicolous jeepers.......

    My eldest will carry on in college and will not go to uni.........but the others probably would...i'm just hoping that they get enough grant and fee reduction so that they can get a chance to go..........

     

  • RedjeepRedjeep ✭✭✭

    The problem is that the Uni's have become big business and have focussed purely on expanding the courses that they do to maximise their revenue. There's no consideration given for what type and how many graduates the country actually needs. A good example is that over here in Ireland, the big software houses (including Google and "cloud" computing companies) cannot find the people they want and are importing 1,000 new graduates to fill vacancies.

    As a result, the country can't afford to pay for everybody to go to Uni to study to do crappy courses that there's no need for. Instead of bringing in charges across the board, the variety and intake size of courses should be auditted and culled so it matches the country's needs.

    Students on the courses that the country needs should be subsidised and everybody else should pay for themselves.

  • CB69 wrote (see)

    I accept that the country cannot fund everyone who want's to go to university but I believe that university places should go to those who are mostacademically able, not most financially able.

    I think it started to go wrong when the government decided a high percentage of school leavers should go on to university; this was never sustainable.

     

    Yes, I agree with this entirely... admission to university should be based on academic ability and not on the ability to pay.

    Ans bring back polytechnics and apprenticeships.



  • Juliefrazz wrote (see)
    CB69 wrote (see)

    I accept that the country cannot fund everyone who want's to go to university but I believe that university places should go to those who are mostacademically able, not most financially able.

    I think it started to go wrong when the government decided a high percentage of school leavers should go on to university; this was never sustainable.

     

    Yes, I agree with this entirely... admission to university should be based on academic ability and not on the ability to pay.

    Ans bring back polytechnics and apprenticeships.



    Almost Julie.....

    The girl I was chatting with last week had 6 A's at A level and 13 GCSE's, So she is brilliant,  But why should I pay for her to stusy Anglo Saxon literature ?????

  • but in the past grants were just for those on low income...........not many people from those background did the waste of space degrees.............it was mainly those with money........

     

    but i agree those kind of grades seems a waste to do that

  • There is a place for the brilliant mind expanding knowledge and understanding in an esoteric field. A society that will not permit the study of knowledge for its own sake is an intellectually poor one.

    I also agree that there has been a significant over expansion of some areas. The idea that the nation should only fund or permit courses where there are jobs is short sighted as we cannot really predict the sorts of skills that will be most in demand in twenty years.

    Picking up earlier points. I had a full grant. That and my grammar school were the only reasons that I was able to go to university. Four of my siblings also went to uni. Unfortunately, three of us became teachers, a profession so undervalued that we would not have a hope of sending kids to private school and are struggling to support them at uni.

    Oh yes, Tony Blair is a tory, so is Nick Clegg (should that be t**y). As for Cameron, Osbourne and Gove, I don't want to be banned, you'll just have to read my mind.

  • Not saying it shouldn't be permitted Just that I shouldn't have to fund it
  • RedjeepRedjeep ✭✭✭
    Johnny again wrote (see)

    There is a place for the brilliant mind expanding knowledge and understanding in an esoteric field. A society that will not permit the study of knowledge for its own sake is an intellectually poor one.

     

    I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I'm talking about Uni's churning out dozens of graduates in cookie cutter type degrees that nobody wants, not a scene from 'A Brilliant Mind'.

    Also the study of knowledge for it's own sake is a very noble pursuit, but should the country be expected to pay for it ?

    Johnny again wrote (see)

    I also agree that there has been a significant over expansion of some areas. The idea that the nation should only fund or permit courses where there are jobs is short sighted as we cannot really predict the sorts of skills that will be most in demand in twenty years.

     

     

    The point is that we don't seem capable of predicting what we need today, never mind in 20 years. Uni's should be faster to respond than they are.

     


     

  • Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)
    Juliefrazz wrote (see)
    CB69 wrote (see)

    I accept that the country cannot fund everyone who want's to go to university but I believe that university places should go to those who are mostacademically able, not most financially able.

    I think it started to go wrong when the government decided a high percentage of school leavers should go on to university; this was never sustainable.

     

    Yes, I agree with this entirely... admission to university should be based on academic ability and not on the ability to pay.

    Ans bring back polytechnics and apprenticeships.



    Almost Julie.....

    The girl I was chatting with last week had 6 A's at A level and 13 GCSE's, So she is brilliant,  But why should I pay for her to stusy Anglo Saxon literature ?????

    In my view, if she's accademically brilliant (and if the course demands that, which I suspect the study of Anglo Saxon possibly does), then she deserves the place at university.

    I don't have a problem with an 'academic elite'; university courses don't need to be directly related to a job outcome, in my view, and learning and enrichment for its own sake is good, for the country as well as the individuals.

    In terms of who pays for that... it should be based on income, so subsidise those on low income, and others with higher income backgrounds have to pay.... that's how it used to work wasn't it? And surely that was the fairest way to ensure that all those with academic ability could get to university, whatever their background, and without the taxpayer funding those who could actually afford to pay themselves.

    The current situation, though, appears to be a dumming down of courses, to accomodate the higher numbers of less accademically brilliant students who have been told, or given the impression, that it's a 'must' to go to university and that a less academic route is somehow inferior.

    So now we're in the position we're in today, as someone else mentioned, with too many university places (which isn't fincncially sustainable), and too many people opting for university courses which don't require the academic ability (resulting in a shortage of IT professionals, doctors and so on), and not enough people going down the route which might be more suitable (both to them as individuals, and the needs of the country) in terms of apprenticeships or more vocational courses.

  • RedjeepRedjeep ✭✭✭
    Juliefrazz wrote (see)
    Dave The Ex- Spartan wrote (see)
    Juliefrazz wrote (see)
    CB69 wrote (see)

    I accept that the country cannot fund everyone who want's to go to university but I believe that university places should go to those who are mostacademically able, not most financially able.

    I think it started to go wrong when the government decided a high percentage of school leavers should go on to university; this was never sustainable.

     

    Yes, I agree with this entirely... admission to university should be based on academic ability and not on the ability to pay.

    Ans bring back polytechnics and apprenticeships.



    Almost Julie.....

    The girl I was chatting with last week had 6 A's at A level and 13 GCSE's, So she is brilliant,  But why should I pay for her to stusy Anglo Saxon literature ?????

    In my view, if she's accademically brilliant (and if the course demands that, which I suspect the study of Anglo Saxon possibly does), then she deserves the place at university.

    I don't have a problem with an 'academic elite'; university courses don't need to be directly related to a job outcome, in my view, and learning and enrichment for its own sake is good, for the country as well as the individuals.

    In terms of who pays for that... it should be based on income, so subsidise those on low income, and others with higher income backgrounds have to pay.... that's how it used to work wasn't it? And surely that was the fairest way to ensure that all those with academic ability could get to university, whatever their background, and without the taxpayer funding those who could actually afford to pay themselves.

    The current situation, though, appears to be a dumming down of courses, to accomodate the higher numbers of less accademically brilliant students who have been told, or given the impression, that it's a 'must' to go to university and that a less academic route is somehow inferior.

    So now we're in the position we're in today, as someone else mentioned, with too many university places (which isn't fincncially sustainable), and too many people opting for university courses which don't require the academic ability (resulting in a shortage of IT professionals, doctors and so on), and not enough people going down the route which might be more suitable (both to them as individuals, and the needs of the country) in terms of apprenticeships or more vocational courses.

    I agree with most of this, but I'm not sure that she deserves a subsidised place at University studying Anglo Saxon (or indeed any course) if there's no demand for graduates in Anglo Saxon, irrespective of her background.

     

  • +1 for that.

    GCSEs, A levels and even, I hate to say it, a lot of degree courses have been dumbed down.  My niece is finishing this year - doing Sports Motivational Sciences (whatever  that is) and is apparently due to get a first, yet, having seen some of her work, it would only have been good enough for a 2:2 in my day.

    Universities are now more of a business than an academic institution and while I appreciate that demands change with progress, I think that there are far too many courses available (even allowing for the Mickey Mouse subjects).

    No doubt I'll be accused by some of being elitist, but in my day, (1970s), going to university was not an automatic right; if you did get in, then the implication was that you had more than a modicum of intelligence.  We didn't have numerous attempts at passing exams in order to get the grades either!

    Grants were funded by government and means-tested, so it was (reasonably) fair.

    Although polys have been turned into "new" universities, they still provide, in many cases, more vocational degrees, so the balance is similar - it's just this proliferation of silly courses.  I'd like to see the re-introduction of technical colleges at VIth form level where those not interested in or suited to academic subjects can study / train and get qualfications that carry the same level of authority as A levels, but in more practical fields.

     

«13
Sign In or Register to comment.