I think the ConDems may have just pushed (or threatened to push) me a bit too far. Okay, fine, they want to shit all over non-STEM subjects - I disagree, but I can take that. Okay, they want to start more private universities - I can take that. They want to move towards two-year degrees - again, I can take that.

But moving tuition fees to £10,000 - nope, not having it. Even £7,000 is too much. I may not be an undergrad or have to pay tuition fees, but this move could fundamentally alter the entire university set-up! I fundamentally doubt the ability of bursaries to increase access for the poorest students, but, even if they do work, what about the poor to middle students? My family ain't bad off, but I know that £21,000-£30,000 of tuition fee debt (not even thinking of living costs) would have put me off from Uni. All we'll end up with is more private school toffs dominating the elite universities.

I'm off to get my protest hat (last worn prior to the invasion of Iraq), anyone joining me?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/oct/02/universities-tuition-fees-students-browne

urgh, what a horrible proposal! Surely that's just going to end up with poorer people going to the worse unis??

And I bet the extra money wouldn't be put into teaching salaries or research grants, it would just go towards universities supporting businesses in whatever they wanted to develop/produce, all under the 'impact' banner.

Why do they always consider these things in such isolation? Can you imagine the housing market in 10 years if every person under 30 has a debt of £30-40k before even applying for a mortgage?

It's all a bit worrying I agree. I am in Scotland and our current education secretary is looking for a 'Scottish solution', whatever that may be. Read an article in the Herald the other day about allowing the students to be able to change uni a lot easier in order to ramp up competition. I honestly don't know which way to go, but I do agree that tuition fees are not the answer.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/education/university-transfer-plan-to-drive-funding-competition-1.1058805

I think one of the key issues is that if you're paying £10k each year (!?) for a course, then you are going to expect a good 'service' - so there will surely have to be some shake up of the current teaching system. I know they want all leacturers ideally to have the PGCHE thingy, but surely that will become a solid requirement. Maybe they'll have to operate a system where you have to spend 1 year researching, then 1 year teaching only or something, so you know your stuff, but can concentrate fully on providing £10k per year quality teaching.

======= Date Modified 03 Oct 2010 16:50:23 =======
It's going to be just like the US system at this rate, and a total nightmare imo. My fella and I fell either side of the introduction of HE fees. He was one of the only people at his uni protesting it in the late 90s (because he had the foresight to realise that it would only be a matter of time before costs escalated, whilst apparently none of his peers gave a shit as it wouldn't affect them directly). I paid £1k-ish a year for my undergrad, £3k for my MA. If I were stumping up for my PhD, that'd be 4k/yr.

The really depressing thing is that all the people in positions of power got their education for free. They got the benefits of fairer, post-WW2 reforms, climbed the ladder, and now they're pulling it up behind them (the ladder, that is). It makes me so angry :-s

I doubt they'll rise to 10k just yet though. It seems to be a ruse - make everyone expect the worst so we're grateful when it only goes to 7k. I wonder how long before everyone gets tired of this 'austerity' crap. So much for Vince Cable's pre-election talk of free university education for all. :-(

======= Date Modified 03 Oct 2010 16:53:06 =======
yeah, totally not with the whole 'austerity' thing. I have no idea how cutting public service jobs (i.e. people who used to pay tax and NI into the system, and will now claim job seekers) will cut ANY money. Especially when you think of the £millions that will have to be spent in a few years time when they realise they haven't got any 'talent' in public sector organisations, because they chucked everyone out, and they haven't recruited anyone! Anyway, that's an entirely different matter :p

Sadly though, I think £10k is likely. People still want to go to uni, so they'll stump up. Its like my train company. They put fairs up 8% most years - it is absolutely ridiculous, but until people stop actually getting on the train because of it, then they'll carry on. Its essentially holding us all to ransom (whether its train passengers or wannabe graduates).

ETA: Its not *my* train company - just the one I happen to use :p

Has anyone read the Browne report?
http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/report/
It recommends the withdrawal of public funding for the teaching of all subjects, instead targetting the money only towards the priority areas of healthcare, STEM, or 'strategically important language courses'.

In what way does it safeguard the public interest to no longer publicly fund the teaching of arts, humanities or social sciences in our universities?

Yeah, I read the Browne review. The focus on the 'priority' subjects doesn't seem fair really - it shows that the government don't think the two are linked. They are basically saying that the creativity, innovation and philosophy cultured from the arts and humanities is of smaller value to the country and the economy than STEM subjects, and that it is not relevant to the advancement of science and tech itself.

I read a comment on the THE website, which said that the cuts were actually fair as arts are cheaper to teach - even if they are, does the funding deserve to be cut disproportionately? Surely this will just lead to a massive bias in who studies for which courses and the quality of facilities offered for arts courses as well as the suffering of specific arts based institutions.

Also has anyone noticed that the Browne review only very briefly mentions postgraduates? I always feel that we are a bit pushed to the side in contrast to the undergrads - especially as this report says that most of the energy should be focussed on undergraduates and assumes that there will be a magic filter effect to postgraduates. I found this post on a blog though, which focuses on what the Browne review means for postgraduates
http://postgraduatetoolbox.net/posts/48





 

In reality it will be the middle classes (some of whom may have been educated at private schools but are by no means toffs) who will suffer. The very wealthy (and we need to be thinking of take home incomes in excess of £100k) and the very poor will be Ok becuase they cna afford it or will get bursaries but thsoe in the middle (the vast majority of us) will be unable to afford to send one let alone more than one child to university.