Student Fees

[Speculator]

.

 

[B_crackoff]

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.

Yep, this is true - I've posted that it costs 4 times as much to teach a university student as an A level, per hour teaching time. Unfortunately, I don't know of a single successful campaign by anyone that actually reorganised operational costs.

Possibly you don't know that the all party policy is to raise school leaving age to 18 in 2013, & it is an express aim to further increase university attendance.

If you pay for a degree entirely, who cares about the institution's admissions requirements? If you pay, why should you be discriminated against on the basis of previous, worthless bits of paper.

The problem is that we've reached a critical point, where no employer will ever look at a candidate for a decent job, without a degree.

Therefore, this is no different to indenture. There will be no alternative route to getting a decent job, because all of us can't be entrepreneurs! Teachers, & nurses etc will always be required - but they & every other profession, will not be able to inflate their salary to offset the cost. Not in the domestic marketplace, & certainly not in a competetive global market.

My overwhelming concern is that this generation is still going to be saddled with paying off the interest, & the debt of previous ones.

If 50% of the population is paying an extra 9% annum of their income for 25 years - & be honest, the £21K threshold is 20% lower than the average salary - that means that in a few years tens of billions/annum will not be spent on goods & services in the UK, destroying domestic demand, & therefore the economy.

The older population got free education, Final Salary Pension schemes, lived without debt, & could retire earlier, whilst running up enormous state debt.

The next generation is basically their bitch, as they'll get none of that.

 

[freyasworld]

To me the whole higher education system needs a serious overhaul, there are non-degrees for non-jobs, football studies, media studies etc I can go and do a combined degree watch football on the tv!

Like the rest of society a legacy left over from the last government, there are millions of people doing non-jobs just to get them off the unemployment register. The same thing happens in higher education, these universities are empire building. To justify their high salaries and more and m ore tax payers money poured into them and what do they actually offer? Lots of stupid courses and qualifications that young people will never use or be able to find a job let alone a career.

The universities should offer core subjects, Math, English, and the sciences chemistry, physics, biology, engineering etc. That should be it. a 3 year degree course, if a student then wants to specialise in a chosen field do a 1 years masters and pay for it themselves.

To assist students, industry, health care providers, local government bodies should be able to sponsor students and assist with their fees. Companies should get tax relief for sponsoring students. The UK currently has between 30-40,000 foreign nurses, they are brought into the UK given housing and paid a salary to work in the NHS, why not force the NHS to fund students wishing to become nurses, tie them into a 5 year contract from the getgo!

The armed forces are short of bullet catchers, fund university places.

But in response to the kids problems, it is wrong for a government to place the burden of education onto their heads, they will leave after 3 years with £40-£50k debt, their parents have paid taxes, their grandparents paid taxes which was to be used for education. Does that mean we can claim our tax back now?

Now put it into perspective a young guy or girl 21 years of age with £40-50k worth of debt, job paying £21k a year. Tax, National insurance, rent, council tax, energy, a set of wheels, what is left after that....already there is a minus, without food! How on earth are they able to pay back this debt, how are they able then to save to buy their own home, god forbid if they marry a fellow student and breed, well it is clear, anybody that goes to uni will not be able to breed or own a home until well into their 40's. Everybody talks about these high flying graduates earning £100k plus a year, there are, but majority are starting on £18-£21k after 5 years £25-30k 10-15years £35k. But a degree gives them the potential to obtain promotion and get higher and higher salaries with experience and further training.

Why not say to the banks, fund university places, in economics and finance, accountancy etc. Perhaps if the people are educated properly then they would not have caused the financial crisis.

 

[eurotop40]

...
The older population got free education, Final Salary Pension schemes, lived without debt, & could retire earlier, whilst running up enormous state debt.
The next generation is basically their bitch, as they'll get none of that.

You are PERFECTLY right.

 

[freyasworld]

You are PERFECTLY right.

the younger generation can choose their care homes, paybacks a bitch!

 

[eurotop40]

London (CNN) -- Protesters enraged by a Parliament vote to triple university tuition rate caps, attacked a car carrying Prince Charles and Camilla, Duchess of Cornwall, Thursday night.
The demonstrators broke a window and tossed paint on the car, however neither royal family member was injured in the attack.
'We can confirm that their Royal Highnesses' car was attacked by protesters on the way to their engagement at the London Palladium this evening," a spokesman for the prince said. "Their Royal Highnesses are unharmed."
A wire photo of the royal couple, dressed in evening wear, shows startled expressions on their faces as they sit in their Rolls-Royce before exiting for a Royal Variety Performance.
:biggrin1:

 

[SpeedoMike]

We should have had complete financial collapse in October 2008.

We are going to have massive social unrest on a global scale soon- it's inevitable. I want to get used to the ignorant version of it first.

Sounds like California except we lost our financial way years ago.

college students are protesting rising tuition and fees. Handicapped are protesting loss of their helpers. MediCal (California's name for Medicaid) patients are protesting reduction of their free medical and dental benefits. Low incomer are protesting reduction or loss of welfare payments. Parents are upset at reduction or loss of free medical insurance for their children. Roads are protesting lack of maintenance by crumbling. School districts are protesting everything. Public transit riders are walking. :02:

...and the list goes on and on. whose ox do you gore? :swordfight:

 

[Drifterwood]

Maybe I haven't followed it closely enough, but there seems to be a big lie in all of this.

Not all courses cost the same.

I was an arts student and my course cost a fraction of engineering, sciences and medicine. It would still be less than £3k a year.

So are some students being forced to subsidise others? I suspect so. Why is noone getting pissed off aout that?

Colleges/Universities should publish the cost of their courses, then let people decide whether they want to pay for it. Let the government subsidise the cost of Doctors etc..

What does Med School cost in the States?

 

[TomCat84]

What does Med School cost in the States?

HA! Probably about the same as my law school. It varies. Greatly.

 

[Jason]

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.

I always feel vaguely concerned when I find myself agreeing with Drifter.

The criticism of grammar schools has indeed been around the resulting secondary modern which some saw as a second class school. However academic performance over the last three decades or so consistently shows secondary moderns out-performing comprehensives. Where there is selection not only does the grammar school kid do better, but so too does the secondary modern kid. When you further bear in mind that at age 11 the 1/3rd or so of kids perceived as brightest have been creamed off so that the secondary modern is teaching the (perceived) less bright 2/3rd it is amazing that these do better than the whole cohort in a comparable area who go to a comprehensive.

The old system broadly worked. Like Joll I went to a grammar. I'm not saying that it was all wonderful - for starters my school used corporal punishment, which I'm not defending. But it taught to a high standard. As a lecturer I know that the standards of 18 year-olds going to university in the UK falls year by year and every university is busy dumbing down its degrees to compensate. Yes students have more confidence, but the knowledge is lacking. Comprehensive schools have been a disaster for the UK.

 

[Jason]

Maybe I haven't followed it closely enough, but there seems to be a big lie in all of this.

Not all courses cost the same.

I was an arts student and my course cost a fraction of engineering, sciences and medicine. It would still be less than £3k a year.

So are some students being forced to subsidise others? I suspect so. Why is noone getting pissed off aout that?

Colleges/Universities should publish the cost of their courses, then let people decide whether they want to pay for it. Let the government subsidise the cost of Doctors etc..

What does Med School cost in the States?

Yes you are right, and there are flaws in the system being introduced. Arts/social sciences/business courses cost close to £6k pa (unis have previously had both a variable per-student payment and fixed overhead payments - the two have to be taken into account in working out the student cost). Some courses cost much more, certainly medicine. These will still receive a lot of govt funding.

What we are left with is some lab-based courses which are expensive and which may not get much central funding. Chemistry, mechanical engineering. As these are also not very popular they are likely to be squeezed.

We also have issues around research, which has a 40% cut in govt support from Sep 2011. It is very hard to see where this will be made up. Industry is already supporting development projects, but not pure research which may or may not have a marketable outcome (or indeed any outcome at all). You can get funding to develop existing tablet X so that it treats illness Y more effectively. You cannot get funding to see if tablet X treats illness Y. Additionally universities are burdered with an overly-bureaucratic and inefficient government system for deciding on the value of their research and future suport.

The new system is very rough and ready. Presumably what we've seen is just the first step and it will be modified subsequently.

 

[dandelion]

However academic performance over the last three decades or so consistently shows secondary moderns out-performing comprehensives.

I recall reading something which said that by the time grammar school were generally abolished, this issue about inferior secondary modern schools had been realised and efforts made to put it right, so that by the time the last of the grammars went, this was not nearly so much of an issue. Some of the secondary moderns had been truly awful.

I dont remember the chronology precisely now, but I recall we were in a chemistry lesson at the grammar when the election news came through from the prep room where someone was listening that shirley williams had lost her seat. (she having been responsible for the labour education policy to abolish grammars). So it fell to the new conservative government to abolish the grammar in question which had managed to survive labour. It was an amusing irony that it was burnt down twice by its new pupils therafter, (oh and the deputy head was convicted of child murder). I hate to think what our ex head thought of what they had done to his school. He was very proud of it.

Education is pointless if it is not tailored to the abilities of the pupil. So id say inevitably a class with well matched ability and a teacher pitching to that level will get better results than a mixed class. Selection means better matched classes. Recent experience makes it clear to me that comprehensive schools are all judged by national attainment targets. These are based on average attainment, obviously. Any modern university graduate will naturally understand that if everyone aims for the average result - instead of for the best - then no one will ever achieve the best. As you point out, we still do run a grammmar school system here and there, so logically those school must be running to different attainment targets. Presumably the grammars will be looking to the private sector for competitive performance? But assuming the secondary moderns, which received the lower 2/3 or so of the attainment spread, are even just following the same target as the comprehensives, they will have to work harder with the kids they have to achieve it. So maybe some of this overall failure is to do with setting pathetic achievement targets?

the secondary modern is teaching the (perceived) less bright 2/3rd it is amazing that these do better than the whole cohort in a comparable area who go to a comprehensive.

Amazing? horrifying.

Comprehensive schools have been a disaster for the UK.

Now Im inclined to agree, but I have heard education experts relatively recently arguing the opposite. In the usual way of this, I never got to hear why they believed this to be the case, but it was the result of some study they had been doing. The person being interviewed was making a joke about whenever she spoke to a government minister she had to address the argument that he had been to a grammar and it worked well for him. So she then had to explain why this was not true. But I didnt get to hear the explanation. Any thoughts?

 

[Drifterwood]

Arts/social sciences/business courses cost close to £6k pa (unis have previously had both a variable per-student payment and fixed overhead payments - the two have to be taken into account in working out the student cost). Some courses cost much more, certainly medicine. These will still receive a lot of govt funding.

Who says it costs £6K a year? Prorata (inflation) my course cost £2700 a year. Why has it doubled in twenty years?

 

[Jason]

Who says it costs £6K a year? Prorata (inflation) my course cost £2700 a year. Why has it doubled in twenty years?

In very rounded figures a student taking an arts course generates about £3,000 of income for the university, a combination of the student's fee contribution and the dollop at present paid by the government. However universities have additional government funding which is not on a per-capita basis. How you should distribute these central funds is not clear - and of course universities to date haven't had any real reason to do this. But £3,000 per student is pretty much a minimum. The present income generated by an arts student at a university is around £6,000.

20 years ago universities had all sorts of hidden subsidies - for example with the exception of Oxbridge the campus was generally provided either by central government (the unis) or local councils (the polys). Quite a few salaries were covered in one way or another by organisations separate from the universities.

It is informative to compare university tuition costs with public (ie private) schools. There is of course plenty of variation but £10,000-£15,000pa (non-boarding) is pretty standard (for secondary level). These are fees set in a competitive maket. That we can manage degree level provision for £6,000pa is surprising - and goes a long way to explain inadequate contact hours, overcrowded classes and tatty classrooms.

 

[798686]

However academic performance over the last three decades or so consistently shows secondary moderns out-performing comprehensives. Where there is selection not only does the grammar school kid do better, but so too does the secondary modern kid. When you further bear in mind that at age 11 the 1/3rd or so of kids perceived as brightest have been creamed off so that the secondary modern is teaching the (perceived) less bright 2/3rd it is amazing that these do better than the whole cohort in a comparable area who go to a comprehensive.

Yeh - thinking about it, I'd agree with that. Especially if the secondary moderns are more practical or vocational in their teaching.

Oddly, a fair number of the 2ndary modern kinds have actually done better than the grammar school ones, lol. I think the practicality and life skills it (sometimes) imbues you with - and a willingness to get on with it, sometimes works better in real life than the often unrealistic expectations placed on the highest achievers at grammar schools.

In defense of comps tho, my sisters went to a pretty good one (we'd moved area by the time they were high school age), and altho the academic standards weren't as high as the grammar, it actually seemed a lot more of a balanced and enjoyable environment - and they've done pretty well out of it (so far).

 

[Drifterwood]

The present income generated by an arts student at a university is around £6,000.


It is informative to compare university tuition costs with public (ie private) schools.

It isn't any more informative than comparing a BMW X5 with a Ford Fiesta. Nearly 90% of schooling costs are salaries and given that private schools have a teacher student ratio double that of the State sector, then it is better value for money. Throw in better facilities etc etc, then it starts to look like a very good deal, especially when you consider the tax taken to pay the fees at least pays for another kid to be educated by the State.

Now to the mother of all ironies.

People getting into debt for a State provided benefit. Surely someone else should get into and pay for the debts generated by my benefits? Debts for costs that are out of my control and managed by the State. Am I getting value for money for my service/benefit? Am I allowed to even ask? Given that I am now paying or rather facing a life of debt.

 

[Speculator]

Education is pointless if it is not tailored to the abilities of the pupil. So id say inevitably a class with well matched ability and a teacher pitching to that level will get better results than a mixed class. Selection means better matched classes.

They do this to a certain degree, when I was in school they seperated us according to ability once we reached about 13-14, so the smarter kids were placed in set 1 and the hooligans in groups 3 or 4. But as you say they could certainly take this further, it just makes sense when educating to ensure pupils are at roughly the same level. Otherwise it's like running 2 or 3 different classes at the same time, and everyone loses out as the teacher is overstretched.

I put the failure of the schooling system down to two things:

1) Government monopoly; it keeps out competition, limits choice and protects mediocre/poor schools when in a free market they'd fail.

2) Politicisation. This doesn't only occur in gov't led enterprises of course but these environments seem to magnify it. There's more emphasis placed on inclusion, making sure everyone passes, not hurting anyone's feelings, anti-bullying, health and safety etc etc then there is providing a solid education. We're taught what to think, rather than how to think, and the result is the mass production of clones only fit for admin work.

The entire thing needs an overhaul.

 

[Jason]

Debts for costs that are out of my control and managed by the State. Am I getting value for money for my service/benefit? Am I allowed to even ask? Given that I am now paying or rather facing a life of debt.

UK university provision is close to a state monopoly - but this has to change.

The only UK-registered non-state university is the Univeristy of Buckingham (Chancellor Margaret Thatcher) which was in effect a Conservative experiment which wasn't developed. Curiously it has been top of the league tables for student satisfaction for (I think) five years. It seems that the customer-oriented status of a private organisation works.

There are foreign universities which have a campus in the UK, but the qualifications they award are in their national systems. In the UK the right to give a university qualification is restricted, basically to the state universities. We are beginning to see new organisations develop which are franchised to award degrees (eg Suffolk awards Essex and East Anglia degrees; Hastings awards Brighton degrees) and this is perceived as a way around the restriction.

What we need is:
* legislation which permits new (private) universities to start (with appropriate quality control.
* legislation which permits established universities to move out of the state sector. For those specialising in the Arts this would be an obvious way forward.

 

[Jason]

They do this to a certain degree, when I was in school they seperated us according to ability once we reached about 13-14, so the smarter kids were placed in set 1 and the hooligans in groups 3 or 4. But as you say they could certainly take this further, it just makes sense when educating to ensure pupils are at roughly the same level. Otherwise it's like running 2 or 3 different classes at the same time, and everyone loses out as the teacher is overstretched.

I put the failure of the schooling system down to two things:

1) Government monopoly; it keeps out competition, limits choice and protects mediocre/poor schools when in a free market they'd fail.

2) Politicisation. This doesn't only occur in gov't led enterprises of course but these environments seem to magnify it. There's more emphasis placed on inclusion, making sure everyone passes, not hurting anyone's feelings, anti-bullying, health and safety etc etc then there is providing a solid education. We're taught what to think, rather than how to think, and the result is the mass production of clones only fit for admin work.

The entire thing needs an overhaul.

Yes.

92% of UK kids go to Comprehensives. There are some good ones. However the average standard of UK school leavers is below countries with which the UK could reasonably compare itself, and is falling fast. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that taken in the round Comprehensives have failed.

Of the 8% most are in public (ie private) schools - selective systems are now less than 1%. Academic achievement of these schools (and achievement in any area you may wish to measure) are head and shoulders above the comprehensives. Eton has now produced 19 UK prime ministers (including Cameron) and the present Mayor of London.

While schools like Eton do charge fees well in excess of the cost to the state of a place in a state school, many public schools are not wildly different in their costs. The link between cost of education and quality is not as close as might be imagined.

 

[dandelion]

The eton website says their basic fee is £10,000 per term: then there are significant 'extras'. I dont know precisely where to find tabulated financial information on schools. Some OFSTED reports seems to have this and some dont. The 2001 report for my old school says expenditure per pupil for a year was £2,632. Obviously there are big issues comparing current fees at a boarding school with ten year old figures for a day school, but its still quite a difference! 10x greater expenditure at a private school???

However, I dont see that whatever the costs are of a state school, they would have been much different when it was a grammar getting good results. Having more money per pupil obviously makes a significant difference, but it is not the end of the matter. I would judge that some teachers at a grammar, with generally intelligent pupils motivated to learn, would be unsuitable for a school where people only attended under duress and were not interested in the lessons. A friend of mine worked in both a private school and a state one, and preferred the state school because it felt more rewarding to achieve something with that group.

I think there is also evidence about getting a good headmaster can be critically important to how a school performs. The approach and ethos of the school matters. I would guess that whatever you think about corporal punishment, withdrawing it has been part of a general lowering of standards of discipline. Everyone must have had experience at school of good teachers who could easily maintain control of a class and others who were hopeless.