If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
£3,000 Uni Fee's
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Are uni fee's too low?
Some are calling for the £3,000 cap to be increased.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/3158101/British-universities-slump-in-global-league-table.html
If you divide £3,000 into 6 months a year at Uni it's only about £16 a day.
It's certainly not enough to compete with the likes of Havard
I think in this day and age £5,000 a year would be more like it - BUT at the same time I think the first year at most Uni's are a waste of time and just a way of weeding out those that aren't serious about doing a degree.
I'd much rather see an intense, high quality 2 year degree at £5,000 a year then a mediocre 3 year course at £3,000 a year.
Some are calling for the £3,000 cap to be increased.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/education/3158101/British-universities-slump-in-global-league-table.html
If you divide £3,000 into 6 months a year at Uni it's only about £16 a day.
It's certainly not enough to compete with the likes of Havard
I think in this day and age £5,000 a year would be more like it - BUT at the same time I think the first year at most Uni's are a waste of time and just a way of weeding out those that aren't serious about doing a degree.
I'd much rather see an intense, high quality 2 year degree at £5,000 a year then a mediocre 3 year course at £3,000 a year.
0
Comments
I was looking at doing a particular 1 year Master's Course for £3,000 but when I found out it was 9am to 5pm Monday to Friday for 1 week Solid and then 3 weeks of no lessons at all and then the same thing again next month I thought it seemed pointless to be do a Full Time Degree Course but be treated as if you were a part timer student.
What was more the person running the course had left and his replacement had one answer to almost every question I asked ..".. I don't know" - I didn't need to part with £3,000 to get 6 weeks of training over the course of a year from a person that didn't know the answers to the most basic questions.
I know several people that have gone to Uni at Harvard and when they graduate employers from all over the world are falling over themselves to employ them. But it costs about £25,000 a year to be taught there.
http://www.fao.fas.harvard.edu/cost.htm
Granted I can't say one way or the other the way of education at harvard, but high tuition costs doesn't necessairly mean its the only option to a good and personalized education. I pay nothing close to that yet I've never had a class with more than a dozen people in it, very knowledgable professors and most importantly to me, every single one of them is more than willing to help you in any way necessary no matter what the subject of your question. They know your name and your academic career, take your calls, emails, visits, questions, stay after and help, come in before.
Now if only I could say the same about the ridiceleous red tape infested beaurocratic sludgehole it is to get anything administrative done. I wonder how that works at the oh so fancy Ivy Leagers
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3013272.stm
I regularly visit two UK uni's each month and it's pretty appalling how badly treated students are with poor quality facilities, such as poor housing, classrooms, etc.
One possible answer to that is to make it possible to be able to pay more for a higher quality service.
One way to massively increase the income would be to charge all (home/EU) students the same fees.
You don't pay fees up front, so why are they means tested? In 10 years time I could very easily be sitting next to another process engineer, doing the same job, having done the same course, at the same uni, at the same time, and my take home pay will be lower than his, because his student loan is less, because his parents had a lower income than mine when we started uni....
:yes: Exactly. Increasing fees threefold from what they were previously doesn't seem to have made any difference at all; there are exactly the same amount of people crammed in lectures as there ever were, and the quality of education remains the same.
Furthermore, while the amount of contact time you have and your relationship with your tutors can make the course more stimulating or make you feel more part of the uni environment, it doesn't necessarily relate to how well you personally learn, or the result that you come out with. To take private schools for example, parents pay high fees there and there are much smaller classes, but it doesn't necessarily mean students are going to leave with all As at A level - I know several who believe their parents spent around £80,000 on their education, and they only left private school with three Cs, whereas many people leave comprehensives with higher grades than this. Of course there may be other benefits associated with private schools, such as reputation or extra-curricular activities, but these can also be associated with different universities with no real relation to the fees they are charging.
I guess it depends on what you believe about university, but I think it is something that should be accessible to everyone, not just the rich elite, and I don't think it is reasonable to expect students to take out up to £75,000 worth of loans just to pay for three years university education, especially when you can pay considerably less than this and still come out with a good 2:1 or a first if you put the work in.
To put things into some personal perspective I've just finished an MA, £4000 fees for the year (not including books, living or travel costs), I got 5 hours contact time a week for 20 weeks - works out as £4000 for two and a half working week's worth of education. Any result I get will be due to my own personal effort, reading and hours spent working. It was nice to have a small lecture group and we did have good relationships with our tutors, however I can't say I feel this really made any contribution to the graded work I was producing at the end of the day, since the topics we covered in lectures weren't even ones I wrote my assessed essays on.
Six hours :thumb:.
I'm basically paying for 3 days when I don't have any classes or lectures.
Yay :yeees:
But anyway, I thought this was the whole idea behind top-up fees?
Because what I have in mind isn't just a straight forward price increase ...
I think there should be special 2 year degree courses on offer as an alternative to the usual 3 year degree that can be charged at a higher rate per year but with conditions of minimum performance attached .. such as maximum class sizes, minimum levels of teacher quality, etc.
When I was in college and Uni students came to give us a talk on their experience at Uni - one of them said you'd be lucky if you ever use 5% of what you're taught at Uni in your future career or in life in general - so far I've found that to be true.
I did a Business Degree and at the end of 4 years (including a year's placement) I was certain I learnt more about business during 1 year of doing the Young Enterprise scheme age 15 at High School where you form a real Business & run it - advised by people working in industry then I did from 4 years at Uni - most of it in a classroom taught by people that had spent most of their entire lives in academia.
I remember in our Uni there was a huge sign saying no food or drink in the computer labs - but they'd run computer workshops for local business people charging them a high fee for a one day course and suddenly wheel in a trolley with tea coffee, biscuits, etc for them in the same labs.
The double standard was really apparent.
£3,000 a year isn't that much - it's pretty cheap when you break it down on a daily basis - universities know it's pretty cheap and often treat their students cheaply.
Having a degree is something our parents or grandparents may only have dreamt of - these days it's no big deal to have a uni degree.
Having been to uni myself and continued working with two London Uni's I'm shocked at how lowly valued students are to some uni's. There seems to be a real lack of innovative teaching at Uni level in the UK.
It would be cheap if it was 9-5 but for a lot of people they'll only have one or two hours a day. The rest of the time the academics are doing research which is bringing money into the university anyway. What's worse is that universities aren't really accountable at all, there is no ofsted for universities.
Obviously I'm oversimplifying matters but in real terms of quality of education you said yourself you felt you learnt more in young enterprise, I don't think students get value for money or anywhere near it. University is going to leave me with £24k of debt to pay back at least if I don't end up taking out more loans like overdrafts and credit cards. I'm doing it because it's character building, fun and because I get that slip of paper at the end saying BSc which will let me get a job.
edit: agree with yerascrote
You hope.
It's because the benefits of higher education are mostly private while school education has both social and private benefits.
Lol I know it won't entitle me to a job but a lot of careers now have that 'you must have a 2.1 or higher' just to get the interview. If I don't get it now 10 years down the line when I want to change career path I won't be able to because I never got the damned degree.
If universities want to hike up the fees that their students have to pay, (and thus hike up the level of debt that they're going to end up in) they would do well to actually educate them. British university students spend less time on their courses than most others in the world, it seems. I've heard claims that some students get as little as 8 hours tuition a week. If I was paying £3k a year for that, I'd be demanding my money back! Wanna increase your prices? Improve your services first!
i will be in over £36,000 debt when i finish my undergrad, i that will be nearer, £60,000 once i've finished my Phd...
considering the quality of the teaching in some areas, no...definatly not
the govement needs to put more tax payers money into universitys.
and because it needs a huge payment injection, because otherwise people education will/do/have suffered
Simply not true. Harvard is top and has been for some time. No British uni has been 'as good' as Harvard for a long time.
Oxbridge, LSE and Imperial are always up there - and I think in previous years Oxbridge has been joint 2nd with Yale. (Not so sure about Kings, it's not even top 10 UK - it's somewhere in the top 20).
Nothing wrong in striving to be up there with the best.
Yes. So do Scottish unis generally.
Disputable I think.
Put it this way - I'll openly admit to being a pretty lazy student academically. I have to balance my degree with a part time job, an evening language class which isn't part of my course, a few societies I'm involved in... and I also like to go out a lot. And I get 2:1s overall so I guess I'm doing okay. I've got friends at uni in America - and I know that there's no way I'd last there unless I put a LOT more hours in...
It's a tough debate really - but the status quo doesn't seem fair. Most Arts students are paying £3k/year for a handful of lectures and use of a library. Asking Arts students to pay more might be acceptable if it meant better quality - i.e. more small group seminar/tutorial style teaching and better library facilities.. As for Science students, in spite of them costing universities a lot more than Arts students, the govt needs more people with their skills... so I can't see the govt letting people be scared off science by upping the price.
The govt has to be careful though. Whilst our top unis are far ahead of most others in Europe - we are falling behind the US. (But considering how much richer the good US unis are we're doing very well). And since universities are independent institutions - if the govt neglects them, the good ones will go private.
I agree, but wouldn't that mean people going there who don't want to get a job, and just want to mess about?
Does anyone know whyy people doing NHS courses don't pay fees? Even though their course lasts longer than most. (around 45 weeks)
Of the top ten universities in the world in the most recent QS rankings, four are British and six are American. That doesn't sound like an education system that is at a significant disadvantage, at least at the top end of education. But certain British universities can constantly make appearances at the top end of such studies following the same funding rules as every other university. I find such studies highly dubious anyway, but if that's how you want to measure an education system, they Britain does quite well.
There are so many factors involved in being the best university that I think it's safe to say that if you go to any of the top universities in the world, you will be getting the best education in the world. Harvard may be the best overall university, but you wouldn't pick it over Berkeley for natural sciences, MIT for linguistics, Imperial College for medicine, for example (don't quote me on these precise subjects, I'm just making the point that all of the top universities will have areas of expertise where they will undoubtably offer a better education than Harvard, and vice versa).
Oh, I meant Imperial, not Kings btw.
But in the top 100 universities in the world according to the QS study, this is how many come from each country:
USA - 37
UK - 17
Australia - 7
Canada - 5
China & Hong Kong - 5
Japan - 4
The Netherlands - 4
Germany - 3
Switzerland - 3
Denmark - 2
France - 2
Singapore - 2
South Korea - 2
Sweden - 2
Belgium - 1
Finland - 1
Ireland - 1
Israel - 1
New Zealand - 1
So it looks like our universities are pretty competitive to me. Although looking at these standings, and considering the amount of emphasis place on peer review and research in these types of studies, I can't help but think that there might be a heavy bias towards the English language in such studies, which naturally puts the English-speaking universities towards the top of the list. Maybe this is accurate, since so much research is international now, and takes place in English. But does it necessarily reflect the quality of teaching? I guess it depends on why you want to give universities more funding. Because in terms of ranking like this, it would be far more effectively spent on research, rather than teaching. And of course such reputations are important in bringing in international students and raising revenue. Whether or not it results in a better education and opportunities for the people of Britain is another matter, which is the original point of the suggestion.
It's surprising there's no India in that list considering India has the most English speaking graduates in the world...