Student Fees

[dandelion]

Im afraid i agree. (with speculator, crackoff just got in there between)

Im also not convinced that university staff get paid much more than school teachers, or if that is really significant. I had lectures at a good university in classes of 200. Not a problem. Then, I more recently did a course at a FE college (probably now a university). Class of about 15 maybe with one guy in charge mostly wandering about doing nothing while we got on with it with a computer. I shant go into the question of whether if you wanted a spliff you could rake up enough from the floor in the toilets where people just spilled it (oops, just did). It did what I wanted, I ended up with the piece of paper, but call it teaching? The principle was learn by finding out for yourself.

And for the sake of balance lets have a go at secondary education. Time was Id do some work and then the teacher would say what i did wrong. Now talking to my niece i find that continuous assessment means the staff and pupils engage in a guessing game where they cannot tell you what you did wrong, because then you would put it right and your examination mark would be unfairly high, because it all counts towards your final grade. So who can tell you what you are doing wrong if the teachers arent allowed to?

Though a couple of things. University staff traditionally research things, so are only part time teachers. Whether this is true now i dont know. Many universities probably do little or no research, but it is what keeps the clever people interested in working there.

The simple act of penning people up for an hour does mean they work more for lack of anything else to do, But doesnt need a professor to do that. No one would have known if I was at lectures or not at the rather good university. (last thing friday was rather quiet)

 

[B_crackoff]

They gave a shit when I was there. They threatened to throw me out & inform my educational authority because I was missing all the lectures & only going to 2 seminars a week, because I was simultaneously working full time!

I informed them, that as I paid my own tuition fees (another admin cock up I couldn't afford to go to the High Court over -£10K!), they could send me a nice letter - all my grades were 1sts or 2.1s - ridiculous.

I've seen bite size revision on the BBC. It's piss simple now - you just have to submit the work. If it's a test, you can resit them, so you should remember the question, how you answered it, look at the actual answers - & do it again.

Failing that - ask a pal. I only had lecture notes at Uni because of decent friends with decent notes, & a discount at the photocopy shop!

One big worry about fees is for the poor bastards who do do something worthwhile, e.g those in research - they get paid a pittance for a long time, & they're just the people we need. It's hardly conducive to UK scientific, & technological breakthroughs now is it?

 

[Speculator]

I'm coming around to the idea that Secondary education, well at least 14 plus, should be privatised in some way, if there are enthusiastic expert educational providers available; we could have schools, not only giving a generalised education, but knocking out electricians, plumbers, as well as scientists - not just admin fodder.

Teach physics & chemistry in a more practical way. People should have a general education, but at the moment, their aptitudes aren't tested, or recognised, & there's no mechanism to steer them towards specialisms that might enthuse them.

Funnily enough I've been thinking along the same lines for a while now. By 14 it's obvious who's going to excel in an academic environment and who's more suited to a to a practical/manual one. There was one guy in my year who gave the teachers hell, he couldn't stand school would disrupt every lesson and generally make a nuisance of himself. He did happen to be pretty good on the football pitch though, and ended up turning pro.

Where's the point in keeping kids like that in secondary school when it's obvious to anyone with a braincell their talents lay somewhere else? Football is a major industry in this country and a very respectable profession, why not have football academies that still partake in the core academic stuff like english, maths and science but lend themselves to the child's abilities?

But as you say it would require the end of government monopolisation to bring about this sort of change, I don't see that happening, not even under Gove.

 

[Guardian100]

It's so unfair, is it only the English students that get this rise, or do the Scots have to start paying now as well? Last time I checked the scots didn't have to pay anything at all! I was at uni when the fees were only 1k and even I thought that was too much, some of my housemates didn't have to pay anything since it was means tested, is it still like this?

What annoys me is that Nick Clegg lied, the Libdems made a huge point about scrapping tuition and now this. I think the man has no backbone and is just a doormat in that coalition.

 

[Nrets]

Student fees? No big deal. Education, healthcare AND a strong defense. We can afford it all. The coming coalition between liberal and conservative factions will be a necessary development as old powers and upcoming (China, perhaps India) superpowers fight to divide up the remaining third world labor and natural resources.
My father paid no student fees through graduate school in the 40's in the heartland. Illinois.
Paid for by WWII and the cold war.
WWIII will pay the debts Western society has racked up.
In all seriousness though, I hope the war comes.
To put all these racist classcist SOBS in their place. The people who are making it so that only the richest 5% can afford education so they can do something more cerebral than digging a goddamned ditch. The 5% who happen to be 90% white and an equal representation of a multitude of other ethnicities who were able to amply jump through all the hoops of this dog show known as capitalism.

 

[B_crackoff]

The vote's going on now!

Here's a new & unique way of addressing the university funding problem! Grab back the fees as structured prevote now via a direct fee taxation, incorporating interest unpaid on all prior beneficiaries.

Fees were introduced in 1998. Current fees for a 3 year course are £9,800.

I make an historical assumption of a flat 100,000 students per year 1948-98 starting their courses. The best market rate of an unsecured loan is 7.5% over BofE base rate, & about 5% over the preferred inflation rate of 3%. For ease, we assume the real term interest rate to be 5%.

So to take the free benefit enjoyed by previous generations back via an immediate tax demand would collect:

9800(fees) * 1.05(real rate) to the power of 35 ( (50yrs/2(average) + 10 years since).

Equals £54,000. Average personal tax demand.

Multiplied by 100,000 students, multiplied by 50 years

Equals £270 Billion.


That should buy some time - & it's equitabe. The young should not pay for the benefit reaped freely by an older generation they're meant to fiscally support.


Cost per year of Tuition fee cut = £5,700 * 1 million students = £5.78 Billion

At best, if completely collected, it could keep the status quo for 50 years, at worst, even 20% collected would keep it for 10, & solutions studied properly, with no knee jerk policies!

 

[dandelion]

ah, but you forget: those earlier students were given free education plus a living wage to encourage them to go to university, because the country needed them to be educated.They were doing the government a favour by spending three years in university.

Now people only go to university so that they will earn lots and lots of extra money afterwards, so they should jolly well pay for the benefit they are getting personally, but which makes no difference to the country as a whole.

Funnily enough, this is even true.

 

[eurotop40]

I am just thinking that this is at least partially the result of the change from Lab to Con, what the people apparently wanted and what you are told is the best for the country.
As we say in an old italian proverb: "You wanted a bike, now ride!"

 

[dandelion]

milliband made a comment about the unwiseness of making too many political promises, and while deploring the changes declined to make any promises to change them again were he to get the chance. The logic of the situation is inescapable. education up to 16 is deemed essential and is compulsory. Up to 18 is voluntary and in local schools. Over 18 is not deemed essential, so you are expected to pay for it. There is no longer a national need to educate all these people at that level, and no government is going to pay for it when people will do it voluntarily.

 

[798686]

Lets see: Margaret Thatcher (might have been major?) introduced laws against protestors. Then two things happened which caused them to be rolled back. They found that arresting leaders of protests simply made them worse, because then everyone did what they liked. They found that when matters got to the point of blue rinse grannies joing the protests, they again didnt dare arrest them, never mind mistreat them. The danger here for the government is probably when an increasing number of middle class teenagers start joining the protests, and they start arresting schoolkids. Id imagine there are now quite a few who think joing a protest is an excellent idea. Anything like this happening will make matters increasingly difficult for the libs, who are going to reach the point they cannot support the legislation. Cameron could lose his government over this if it goes badly.

As to what the protest is about, well, if we intend to send 50% of the population to university under the current system, there will have to be fees. It is a huge con trick, but people are now emeshed in it. A degree probably will not help you later as regards what you learn, but if you are expected to have that piece of paper then you have to get it. The more people get one, the more you need it, even though its three years and 50K wasted. The conservative government fostered this con trick, I would say originally as a make work scheme to keep down youth unemployment. So now half the population wastes 3 years doing nothing useful, while we put up retriement age 3 years to compensate.

I agree - not sure it's in anyone's interest for such a huge number to go to uni. I recall tho, that it was Tony Blair/newLabour that wanted to encourage such a huge amount to go (or...maybe me memory's playin up? they did introduce tuition fees too, originally didnt they?).

How much would reducing the number save? I think less, better-quality courses would be money better spent - plus proper help for promising students from poorer backgrounds.

Not sure if there's any option but raise fees in the current economic climate? Altho debts of 40-50k do sound enormous. The rate at which they have to be paid back is slower than before tho (starts at 21k rather than 15k - plus the rate of payback is still slower than now, even when the individual is earning £50k or thereabouts). I do worry about a change in future - on interest rates plus rate of payback, which would leave ppl a bit screwed. Or...is there a check in place to make sure that the terms at which the loan was taken out stay intact?

I am just thinking that this is at least partially the result of the change from Lab to Con, what the people apparently wanted and what you are told is the best for the country.
As we say in an old italian proverb: "You wanted a bike, now ride!"

Hmm sort of - altho Labour introduced tuition fees originally (I think?!), and the Libs in the current gov opposed rises during the election, so ppl who voted for them feel betrayed.

 

[dandelion]

ive argued it before, the trend in cutting the subsidy on university education began in the 70s at least. It started by cutting the amount of grant you were given, which started as the equivalent of an adult working wage, then introducing loans, then introducing fees and bigger loans to pay them. It is a cross party issue to switch from free university education to user pays.

I am certain that in the time of the Thatcher government there was a strong drive to soak up unemployment any way they could, which included sending as many as possible to university for three years. Despite this griping about future labour shortages so we have to raise retirement age, we still seem to be trying to soak up as much labour out of the system as we can, especially at the bottom end,

 

[Jason]

The big increase in university participation rates came out of 1960s legislation but really registered in the early 1970s with 17% of 18 year-olds going to university (or polytechnic, FEC or similar). Expansion in the late 1970s and early 1980s really reflected increases in the population, not the percentage.

For the last 20 years or so we have seen a very large increase - now to well over 40% and with a target of 50%. However there has been a tiny increase in the government funding going into universities. For UK universities the solution has been overseas students who pay fees. This had led to the scenario of universities admitting any overseas student who has a pulse and putting considrable energy into devising courses these students can pass. There's realisation of increasingly common student visa scams. Throughout universities contact hours have fallen substantially, research is increasingly taking place outside of universities, lecturers salaries have fallen in real terms - and there's been a push to more teaching. The strains in the system are enormous, and something has to be done.

Personally I would recommend reducing the size of the cohort and funding properly. Maybe 25% should be the target cohort of 18 year olds, plus more flexibility for mature students, perhaps overall around a third of the population getting the university experience. But I know it isn't going to happen. It would involve selecting on ability, be considered a brake on social mobility, and anyway many believe they are entitled to a university place.

What we've seen today is a major move to switch costs to students. It is going to cause all sorts of problems as it beds down. For starters universities just don't know what to charge for a course in order to recruit students. And students (and their parents) will have to get used to it. But at least it has potential to work. At least universities will get the funding they need from somewhere.

We are going to see more demanding students - and maybe this is no bad thing. UK Universities are public sector organisations and the customer is the latest government initiative, or at least has been. The new system will make the student the customer. Most degrees are now modularised (students put together so many courses to total 360 points and get their BA/BSc). Students will increasingly select their courses, and they will know what they want. In the USA courses are frequently linked to a "prof", and sites like "Rate Your Prof" mean students can find out about lecturer as well as the course spec and statistics on pass/falil rate, maybe take it for a week or so before signing up - the students are in charge. And it is also great for the lecturers. Right now getting a new course established at a university is a monumental feat of paperwork and the courses are attached to departments - most lecturers end up teaching anything except the subjects they know about. The new system will make it much easier for X to offer course Y and if enough students opt for it then it will run. Lecturers are professionals with a portfolio (like lawyers). If they don't get the students/clients they don't get the work and pay - conversely if the students flock and they fill a big lecture theatre they get lots of pay.

Once we get into the new system it has the potential to be excellent. Grants and scholarships will come along. Unfortunately it is going to take a few years to get there.

 

[Jason]

... we still seem to be trying to soak up as much labour out of the system as we can, especially at the bottom end,

Well it's better than conscription!

 

[dandelion]

the man just said 88% of oxbridge students have upper middle class backgrounds.

The only way to interpret that is the system fails dismally to get the brightest students to the best universities.

portillo, andrew neil and in her absence, dianna abbot all went to university after grammar school. Grammar schools were a mechanism to get lower class people into universities. The socialist parties abolished them on the gorunds they were elitist. Damn right, they fed lower class people into the ruling elite.

Well it's better than conscription!

for the army, certainly.

 

[798686]

I guess it was affordable in the 50s/60s as not only were the numbers going to uni lower, but since there was almost full employment - more revenue to pay for it? Not so now, so I guess money has to come from somewhere, or cut the places...

Grammar schools are good imo - still some dotted about (went to one myself). They can be a bit pushy, and put results ahead of student welfare, but maybe public schools do, too? Plus gives people from all backgrounds an opportunity to compete on a (slightly) more equal footing. Not sure how good it is for the 2/3 who don't get to the grammar tho, unless the 2ndary is particularly good.

 

[dandelion]

well that was precisely the objection, that the leftover kids ended up in second class schools. Seems to me the experience though has been that we still have second class schools. If you attack an elitist system by destroying the part of the system which is achieving, you shouldnt be surprised that no one achieves. The solution was wrongheaded.

 

[Jason]

The only way to interpret that is the system fails dismally to get the brightest students to the best universities.

This is an area where politicians fear to tread.

The alternative explanation is that more of our bright kids are from upper middle backgrounds. Certainly upper mid backgrounds do way better at A-level. Are universities to develop excellence? Or for social engineering? And do you want the doctor who operates on you to be the best, or to have been given a chance as an experiment in social engineering?

 

[dandelion]

Fear to tread? You mean their old headmaster would ring them up and tell them to stop being naughty boys if they suggested the whole government ought not to have been educated at that same school?

I think ability is developed but intelligence is innate. There is no difference in the raw material entering a useless comp or the best public school. If you can identify the best of these people and direct them through a halfway decent system they will excel at the end. It is a fact that if you put the same person through a bad school they will do worse than if they go through a good school. Almost certainly will not affect their ability to do a job at the end of it, because on the job they will learn what they need to know. But the competition point for oxbridge places is when they have just gone through the lousy school system and so on paper appear less able than those who have been intensively taught privately. Everyone accepts this, even the universities. But as you say, it isnt their job to run catch up courses to compensate for bad secondary schooling.

The protillo crowd and the current government appologists were arguing that the important time is the first few years of schooling, that more resources at that point will materially affect final outcomes. I'm not entirely convinced. The current system is simply rigged against lower class children who go to state schools. There are some systems to catch disadvantaged children and give them extra coaching, but hardly any for bright children. The system is designed to teach average children and obtain average results. It sets out to fail compared to private schools.

 

[B_crackoff]

Bright lower class kids were always separated out from their contemporary bullies, & allowed to excel at grammar school.

This is the first generation in yonks that will be worse off by the previous, whilst also paying for the pensions of those who voted these shits in.

Stop government foreign aid, encourage private donations from those who care, & that's £7-10 Billion in the kitty. An extra 9% tax on graduates, as it will be, ain't gonna revive the economy is it?

I just saw some limp wristed liberal bemoaning those poor (but still crooked) gimps, who illegally enter Europe, yet have to pay extortionate fees, to those who controlled their access to the workplace.

Sounds like the Coalition Government's expanded its remit then!!!!!

It's no f*cking different to the student situation.

 

[Speculator]

I recently uploaded Itunes and a few podcasts (yes I'm a bit behind the times), on the Lew Rockwell show Peter Schiff gave his verdict on the matter and it made total sense to me. The universities have been able to inflate their charges because they're not being disciplined by the free market, if student loans were removed uni's would have no choice but to reprice their services and pitch them at a more affordable level. The aim of getting 50% of 18 year olds into higher education has been little more than a huge subsidy scheme for boomer landlords and boomer "professors" at 2nd rate institutes, the students have simply facilitated this mass wealth transfer (as if the boomers didn't have enough of the pie anyway)

The student movement needs to sit down and have a rethink about this, their argument is crocked.