How did university work pre-UCAS and pre-tuition fees?

Zephyz

Zephyz

Zephyz

Associate
Joined
24 Dec 2011
Posts
125
I wanted to know how did applying for and attending university work before UCAS and tuition fees?

Did lots of people attend university back then?
 
Before UCAS you had UCCA (uni's) and PCAS (polytechnics - now lower tier uni's) Both worked very similar. If I recall I chose 5 potential institutions (each) and then got provisional offers. Went to visit a few. Get the grades and confirm your preference. This was 91
 
Fewer people went, degrees meant more, and grants were paid.

Just another thing our ageing voting block has taken away from the next generation.

Edit: Heck they took it away from my generation but at least my fees were not back breaking.
 
Last edited:
You used to be able to claim housing benefit as well to cover the cost of your student accommodation, on top of your grant!

Ahh, those were the good old days ;)
 
trentlad said:
You'd also receive a grant for around 3K a year which you could stretch to pay for everything and come out of university debt free. They stopped it after 1998 thanks to Tony Blair.

Guess who failed their A-Levels in 1998 :mad:

Telegraph - history of grants, loans and tuition fees
Click to expand...

Did everyone get the grant or was it means tested so that only people from lower-income background got the grant?
 
Everyone.

You have to remember it was a great deal harder to get a place at either Uni or Polytechnic. Only the very brightest (or most talented in the Arts) generally stood a chance of a place. Basically the equivalent today is that you would have to get a minimum of 3 Bs or better at A Level to stand a chance of a place. There were almost no "soft" courses that would accept you if you failed - you'd have to re-sit your A levels.
 
Last edited:
Zephyz said:
Did everyone get the grant or was it means tested so that only people from lower-income background got the grant?
Click to expand...

Grants were means tested from the late 80s. Very few people went to university compared to today so the affordability was totally different. It isn't objective to compare the system then to the system today simply due to the numbers of people attending university.

Essentially you have a choice, either a fully state funded, place limited higher education system or a partially state funded, full access higher education system.

Personally I would choose the latter as that give better overall access to people, particularly those from disadvantaged and poorer backgrounds.
 
Castiel said:
Personally I would choose the latter as that give better overall access to people, particularly those from disadvantaged and poorer backgrounds.
Click to expand...

Indeed. The fact is, going forward we will need more people gaining degree-level education in order to compete in the world economy - there just aren't going to be the traditional manufacturing jobs any more. This is the part that Labour/Blair did get right.

That says nothing for the quality of the degrees on offer - or the quality of the graduates for that matter.
 
wow, that is some depressing reading, oh well its the world we currently live in, and i'm glad at least there's plenty of people getting at least some kind of higher education [i'm including tech in this too obv].

its a good thing, education is great for both individuals and society, the more of it the better
 
The difference a few years makes, I was in Uni early 2000's :(

Older Sister went through Uni/Masters all off the back of grants.

Il be paying off my student loans till im in my 40's :mad:
 
Entry for education should be based solely on ability and nothing else.

We are paying through the roof for better educated people to do jobs that in the past didn't require such a level of education.
 
Labour wrecked the university system here with the introduction of fees and encouraging everyone to go. Degrees at most unis have been devalued as a result. They mean little now unless you go to a top institution and students end up paying for that 'privilege' for a lot of their life.
 
Flying_Hellfish said:
Indeed. The fact is, going forward we will need more people gaining degree-level education in order to compete in the world economy - there just aren't going to be the traditional manufacturing jobs any more. This is the part that Labour/Blair did get right.
Click to expand...

We need a spread and the target has been set too high, with standards too low. More degrees does not equal a more highly skilled workforce.

The country still needs lots of non-degree jobs, we shouldn't have to import brickies for £1k a week! Not to mention all the jobs that now ask for a degree when it isn't really necessary and never used to be a requirement.
 
ArchAnGeL said:
That link is truly depressing reading
Click to expand...

You're right, I felt abandoned and tricked after reading it.

Just to think there's around 450,000 students entering university each year and given most degrees last three years, if they still paid out grants to all students they would only loose 4 - 6 Million a year funding students.

That's nothing in the grand scheme of things. Now universities are suddenly allowed to charge 3K and students all leave with at least 20K in debt. I guess no one complains about students sponging up tax payers money anymore... happy now?
 
Last edited:
trentlad said:
Just to think there's around 450,000 students entering university each year and given most degrees last three years, if they still paid out grants to all students they would only loose 4-6 million a year funding students.
Click to expand...
How do you work that out?

Now universities are suddenly allowed to charge 3K and students all leave with at least 20K in debt. I guess no one complains about students sponging up tax payers money anymore... happy now?
Click to expand...

Up to 9k now, and some students are leaving with much more than 20k.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom