I remember in the 90s the old student grant where you got GIVEN something like £4k which you didn't have to give back. As soon as Labour came in they removed the grant and doubled the loan so everyone could go to uni but come out massively in debt. Thanks, Tony.
Tuition fees going up to £9000 a year
- Thread starter scorza
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 Nov 2008
- Posts
- 8,725
- Location
- UK
Plenty. I guess it depends on the calibre of University you go to (and its course). For example, I went to Bristol and £25k was pretty much the lowest starting point for jobs from us leaving the Engineering faculty.
Indeed, if there were some kind of merit assessment to assist people who genuinely showed intellectual calibre but couldn't afford it that would work too. Absolutely.
No, University should be for those that deserve it academically
I was certain the average was around £18,000. £25,000 seems very high.
Maybe if you'd have worked harder you could have got into a decent university, like Oxford or Cambridge.
On the flip side, my degree helped me further my career and I had both a great educational and social experience from it. I wouldn't want to deny anybody of that age to have a similar experience.
Bristol is a pretty good university
And why would I want to go to either of those boring cities anyway?
The problem is that this hardly means anything anymore.
********. University should be for the most intelligent, not the richest.
Associate
- Joined
- 6 Dec 2007
- Posts
- 2,103
I'll say it again: How can University be too expensive when you don't need to pay anything to attend, paying only afterwards and only then if you earn enough?
Sorry for ninja
I can see where you're coming from, but under these plans it will now be almost three times as expensive as it was!
9x for those starting only 5 years ago.
The cost is what the cost is. The debate is about whether it should be paid for by everyone (taxation) or those who directly benefit (fees/loan).
I think it's hard to justify using the tax from a single working mother to pay for someone to do some obscure subject at a third rate university.
On the other hand, the *primary* purpose of university should be research, not getting people jobs in investment banks. And I do think that academic research should be funded out of general taxation, because it's beneficial to society as a whole.
So, either acknowledge that university is a necessity that people need to go through to get reasonable jobs, in which case charge fees, or recognise it as a place for pure academic study and research, and only fund those who are going to be academics (absolute best and brightest) to go there. Simples.
While I cautiously agree that generally richer people are more intelligent I still think it should be about ability not money.
Generally more intelligent people will get better jobs, thus make more money (work up from the bottom for example even if they were poor to begin with), that doesn't mean all poor people are stupid or that rich people are smart.
Reduce the uni intake to say 20% and reduce/remove fees, funding the difference with the subsidies that would have been given to the places that aren't available any more.
More appreticeships and shift the training time and costs to business instead (tbh most generic graduates don't use much of their subject in their job anyway and companies already train new grads). Why should assistant managers at Toys R Us (for example) need a degree to get the job?....
this would have massive effects on certain universities however, with some probably shutting down or disappearing, but like any other sector this is what competition is all about. They can always offer unsubsidised places anyway so those that can afford £10k fees (not student loaned) a year can go to uni if they aren't intelligent enough to get onto one of the subsidised places.
Jeez, that's a huge amount. I graduated in 2008 and I paid £1000 a year.
Quiet, Scotland
Similar here, but £1200. £3k a year is quite depressing, now up to £9k...
Which is why I said there should be less people going to uni.
And no it does not need to be just for academics either. Anyone who goes to a top uni and gets a decent job, should get it for free.
The country needs decent graduates, it's good for the economy and it should be free to anyone capable.
But at the same time we do not need normal 3rd rate graduates, apprenticeships should be pushed harder and even before that there should be a move away from academic subjects much earlier if pupils do not want to study them.
The entire system needs a shake up.
Tax also goes into one giant pot and it is stupid to try and use emotional blackmail to further a point.
What does the calibre of university have to do with job adverts?
Unfortunately I have no real ability to tell you my or friends salaries as they all went into teaching or headed off to do post grad stuff (inc me). Or they headed to Oz to get mining jobs.
I didn't think Oxford or Cambridge had a great rep for engineering fields more law/languages?
I think it's fair to say that either of those on a CV is going to make it shine.
But that doesn't stop the fact that Oxford as a city is duller than a big grey dull thing that asks 'would you like to hear an interesting story about a bridge?'
I think it's fair to say that either of those on a CV is going to make it shine.
But that doesn't stop the fact that Oxford as a city is duller than a big grey dull thing that asks 'would you like to hear an interesting story about a bridge?'
But to an engineer that question would be interesting