Tuition fees are set to be increased in Britain by 3000

[Jill]

The goverment is impossing a 3000 pounds per year increase in university tuition fees for the next fall. It is hard for many back benchers, students and families to accept such a huge rise in fees due to the lack of preparation time to save for such a venture. There is a student loan but this is not being increased to allow for the fee increases.

Do you think that some red brick university should be able to charge more to students just because of there name?

What stance do you have on tuition fees. Are they set too high for everyone?

Do tuition fees make education harder to attain for families on a lower income?

Is the goverment write to enforce such tuition fees without helping parents and students to prepare for such an increase?

Why do the taxes that we pay, no longer support higher education students?

I would just like to know what your thoughts are on tuition fees within different countries as well as in Britain. It would be interesting to know how thoses fees where introduced to the educational system within different countries as the goverment in Bratain seem to have forgotten that people need to save over several years for such a high increase.

[Schlubalybub]

o bloody hell, Im skint as it is, im meant to be going to university next year, i have some interviews etc in the near future, but i wont be going more than likely cos i cant afford it :(

[Jill]

I think I should make just one more point to anyone who can not afford the increase in tuition fees. Scotish universities have no fees still and they are managing with this, so why can't the rest of Britain do the same thing?

[PhoenixUK]

To be quite honest, as someone who will probably have to pay these, I don't have a problem with them. Not all universities are going to charge £3000, only popular oversubscribed ones such as Oxford and Cambridge. For less popular universities, top up fees won't be charged, so if you can't afford it, you can go to one of these. You can still get the results if you work hard.

As for me, I want to go to Wolverhampton, which won't charge top up fees anyway. But, this money isn't being burnt, it's being invested into your education. You pay for what you get.

[Jill]

Well it is going to be the red brick universities that will have the 3000 top up fee and the other universities can charge more than the current fee based upon there rating.

For example Manchester University has a 5* rating and this means that it could top up fees to 3000 and there are over 45,000 students present at this university.

Other universities with a 4 rating for example can also top up fees but it would be less that 3000, say 2000 instead, on top of the 1150 fees already in place.

The top up fee system will be scaled upon the university ranking in terms of the quality of facilities and teaching that takes place at these universities. This is why 130 backbenchers disagree with the ruling. They believe it is too harsh on those who can not afford it. However the goverment is ignoring the backbenches, so I guess it will be student union protests again from around the country, including students from universities that will not be affected as harshly by this ruling.

[Constant Vigilance]

Well it is going to be the red brick universities that will have the 3000 top up fee and the other universities can charge more than the current fee based upon there rating.

For example Manchester University has a 5* rating and this means that it could top up fees to 3000 and there are over 45,000 students present at this university.

Other universities with a 4 rating for example can also top up fees but it would be less that 3000, say 2000 instead, on top of the 1150 fees already in place.

The top up fee system will be scaled upon the university ranking in terms of the quality of facilities and teaching that takes place at these universities.

So the better the university, the higher the cost? That seems to ensure that lower income people will get a worse education. From what I have read of UK university history, traditional places like Oxford where higly expensive and gave little social help to poor students (you would not belive the horror story that Tolkien had to endure in Oxford, they sucked him dry and now he's their publicity!)

But I see the need to charge for education. In Chile whe have a gobernment credit sistem, you pay a fraction of yourc tuition and upon graduation you pay back the gobernment's credit according to your income, if you barely make a living, the credit's condoned. Sounds great yes? Problem is nobody charges the credit's past due accounts, so lots of people just don't pay at all. The result is universities almost broke and education quality is falling.

[Jill]

Yes I agree with the fees but I believe that time more time should have been given for the students who will be going to university next year. Students have less than a year to save for those fees and that is harsh. We pay really high taxes and students who took out loans, repay them and that money goes as extra towards the universities and the new students comming up. The quality of universities at the moment is not that bad. Manchester and UMIST, two big universities are about the merge and become the biggest university in Europe. The thing is that this university will be able to charge 3000 top up per year from approximately 65,000 students.

The thing is, that the red brick universities get better and bigger, while the rest suffer due to there success and become poorer and offer a worse education.

It should be the other way around really, Manchester University is not failing, its very rich in fact when here what the Professor chat about, you would know what I mean. The non-red brick universities should be gaining the extra income to help them improve on the number of placing as the goverment wants more students to go to university.

You are write, higher education should be paid for but at the same time, the undergraduate should be given more than 10 months to save up for these extra top up fees.

I don't see why people should be pushed out of the university of choose just because they can not afford the top up fees. The red bricks will become universities for those only wealthy enough to go there and not for those who's grades are good enough to be consider to go to Oxford or Cambridge.

Your right Tolkien as well, he had a horrible time and The Lord of the Rings trilogy highlights what happened during that industrial revolution. I am sure it also represented something of the struggle he had at Oxford as well.

[PhoenixUK]

From what I have read of UK university history, traditional places like Oxford where higly expensive and gave little social help to poor students
Unfortunately this is true. The problem is that they are so over subscribed they don't need to dish out grants to help students. As usual, the rich get the cream. But that happens anyway. A lot of kids at my school have private tutors, and this is at a state school. A lot more people go to private school, where education is invariably better.

However, sometimes coming from the bottom of the pile makes you strive harder to be at the top. And sometimes you take a more philosophical view on life. After all, money is only temporary.

Yes I agree with the fees but I believe that time more time should have been given for the students who will be going to university next year. Students have less than a year to save for those fees and that is harsh. We pay really high taxes and students who took out loans, repay them and that money goes as extra towards the universities and the new students comming up.
Remember though that top up fees don't have to be paid when you're a student, but only when you start earning more than the average UK wage (£20,500-ish), and even then it's only around £39 a week, which is hardly going to break the bank. So you have plenty of time to save and plan, and don't need to worry about no increase in studen loans.

[Jill]

Its actually 10,000 before you have to pay your tuition fees back not 20,500, I am sorry but that is just not true. Some Postgraduate on 10,000 have found themself studying and still having to pay back there fees.

Where did you get the average wage figure from. Most science students graduate with around 18,000 a year and teachers less.

The fact is that I know how the loan system works and it will not cover your fees and your living espences. Yes the student loans company supply the loans to pay your fees through the local education authority and its is they who decide upon whether you get the loan to cover your fees or if you don't because you don't fit the criteria set up. If you don't you have to pay those fees stright away and trust me, it effects more people than you think. The student union at Manchester a red brick have alread got the banners up in protest and the coaches are being hired to go down to london and make a huge protest because of the number of people it effects.

Not all graduate get the great job that your highlighting. If you don't get at least a 2:1 or a 1st then forget the 20,000 job. I have know people to end up with an income of around 12,000.

It all depends upon your situation as to whether you can get a loan to pay the fees or whether you don't. I know people who have to pay there fees during registration.

Mature students for a start can fall into problems with this.

39 pounds a week is around 166 pounds a month, which is around 1992 pounds a year and thats without the interest added on top. Thats your bill payments and when you consider that you have to pay it back on a wage of around 10,000 because you are not tied to get a 20,000 job, thats why the goverment set it at 10,000 a year. What does that leave someone with, 8008 pounds a year to live off.

Its not that simple, its sound ok when your not there but I know people who are and some have already had to pull out of university because of the money situation. I know someone who was doing 90 hours between working and university because they could not afford the living expenses and there fees where not paid for.

[PhoenixUK]

Here's an article from BBC News which provides a lot of good facts:

Q&A: Student fees

The government plans big changes from 2004

There are signs the government is postponing the legislation to introduce variable tuition fees in higher education, in the face of a mass revolt by its own MPs.

As part of the government's plans for the future of higher education in England, announced in January 2003, ministers proposed: -


Annual tuition fees - currently a flat rate of £1,125 (£1,150 for 2004/05) - could be varied, from nothing up to a maximum of £3,000 from 2006.
Families earning less than £30,000 would still get help - on a sliding scale - with up to the first £1,125 of fees (rising with time).
Unlike now nothing would be paid "up front" - so students (or their parents) would no longer have to pay while they were at university.
Instead fees would be recovered from graduates, starting once their annual income passed £15,000.
Repayments would then be a minimum of 9% of earnings per year.

Why do some people call them 'top-up' fees?

Because they would "top up" what universities receive from the capped fee (£1,125 this year) to more like the actual cost of providing the course - which the government says is about four times that on average.

The actual cost varies from course to course and institution to institution. In broad terms, courses in science and engineering are more expensive to run than, say, English or psychology, because of equipment costs.

Why does the government want to charge more?

The government says graduates benefit from having gained a degree - through wider career opportunities and earnings - so ought to contribute something.

A counter-argument is that the biggest beneficiary from having a more highly educated workforce is the national economy as a whole, so the nation ought to be prepared to invest in it.

Would the higher fees apply to all universities?

Not necessarily. In fact the government doesn't use the term "top-up" fees because they are properly "differential fees".

Its white paper said: "We will give universities the freedom to set their own tuition fee, between £0 and £3,000."

So in theory you might pay nothing - though nobody has rushed to advertise such a course.

The bigger dilemma for university vice-chancellors is what level of fee to charge for different courses - or whether to charge the same for all.

Part of the reason is that applications have been declining for many of the science and engineering courses that are the most expensive for them to offer.

So they might decide to relate fees more to a course's popularity than to the cost of providing it.

But there is another factor: as a vice-chancellor, do you really want to have a reputation as a university that offers "cheap" courses? This argues towards charging £3,000 for everything.

Also, to be allowed to charge higher fees a university will have to satisfy the new "access regulator" that it has policies to increase the take up of university places by people from the most disadvantaged groups in society, which is what is meant by "widening access". In practice this is unlikely to be a significant hurdle.

Won't poorer students be put off by the cost?

Research evidence suggests that is indeed the case. The people most likely to be deterred by the prospect of graduating with substantial debts - and not having full-time earnings while they are at university - are those the government most wants to attract into higher education.

So not only is it abolishing up-front fees but limited maintenance grants will be restored from 2004.

Students with family incomes of less than £21,185 will get an amount calculated on a sliding scale.

The original plan was that those whose families earned less than £10,000 would receive the full £1,000 a year.

The government said it believed 30% of students would be eligible but within weeks of publishing the policy, the Education Secretary, Charles Clarke, admitted the threshold was too low.

He has since raised it to £15,200.

In addition, official student loans will continue. Everyone qualifies for 75% of the maximum, regardless of income, and the rest is means-tested.

The maximum amounts for 2003/04 are £4,000 for students living away from home (£4,930 in London) and £3,165 for those living at home.

From 2005 you will start repaying once your graduate income passes £15,000. Someone earning £20,000 a year, for example, would repay £8.65 a week.

I heard lots of people don't pay fees anyway

The latest official statistics, which are for the 2001/02 academic year, show that 43% of students were assessed to make no contribution at all towards their fees. Of the remainder, 16% made a partial contribution and 41% paid the lot.

There is a marked difference between "dependent" students - those whose families are liable - and "independent", that is, aged over 25 or married for two years or supporting themselves for three years before their courses began.

Dependents
240,000 (36%) paid nil
123,000 (18%) paid some
312,000 (46%) paid all

Independents
94,000 (88%) paid nil
4,000 (4%) paid some
9,000 (8%) paid all

What about the rest of the UK?

Well in fact the issue is already different in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland and the government's plans complicate it further.

In Wales, the Assembly is to be given devolved power over student finance as part of the government's new legislation.

But it has already brought back a limited "learning grant", from the 2002-03 academic year.

This has meant grants of about £750 for poorer students from Wales - those whose "residual income" was less than £15,000 - wherever in the UK they studied.

The Northern Ireland Assembly - before it was suspended - also approved scrapping up-front fees, but said this would be too expensive and would contravene equality measures because offering free tuition to all would benefit the wealthy more than the disadvantaged.

For now, 14,000 students from low-income families in Northern Ireland are eligible for bursaries of up to £1,500.

The Scottish Parliament does have devolved power over student finance and decided to scrap up-front tuition fees for Scottish students at Scottish universities in 2000-01.

In fact, students throughout the UK are liable for the fees - the way Scotland gets around this is to pay them for students and reclaim the money later.

So graduates contribute £2,000 to a fund for hardship grants for poorer undergrads, starting to pay this when their earnings are at least £10,000.

All parties are against charging top-up fees. But MSPs are investigating whether extra income from higher fees for universities in England could disadvantage Scottish universities - and if so, what they should do about it.

Can't you make yourself bankrupt and avoid paying anything?

The government said it would change the law to close a loophole that would have allowed graduates to escape paying much of their student debt by becoming bankrupt.

Guidelines from the government's Insolvency Service said student loans were on the list of debts that could be cancelled out by bankruptcy.

It is not clear, by the way, how tuition fees will be recovered from students from other European Union countries who come to study in England.

My friend at university got loads of money from her dad but because her parents were divorced and she was assessed on her mum's income - which was almost nothing - and didn't have to pay fees

We've heard that one too. The government is changing the regulations from 2004, to an extent, in that if a student lives with one of their parents, any step-parent's (or partner's) income will be included in the assessment.

[Jill]

Thats great on paper but real life is a lot different. I know from personal experience that not everyone is the same.

I don't believe in the exclusion of those who have to pay before they graduate. Everyone deserves the best education that they need and the goverment could have waited.

Even Gordon Brown disagrees with the Prime Minister and Gordon Brown is the Prime Ministers right hand man. If student think the tuition fees and finacial situation is alright, then why do so many from all over the country picket outside downing street. Some of those are the ones that are struggling to live on what they have.

Hall fees in Manchester cost on average 2900 pounds. You get around 4500 last time I heard. That leaves you with less than 1600 pounds to live off over the year. So many students suffer. Those that have to pay the top up fees will need time to save and well that is not going to happen.

I say again, universities who will gain this top up are also saying that while the fee is good for them it might also damage there status. It might stop or make people from poorer families from applying because even though the loan sounds appealing to some, most poor people are put off with oweing debt as they owe so much alread. That is from the dean of Manchester University, a university who would get the top fee introduced.

Those figures are going to change and so are all the statements when the new rules come in after the top up has occured.

The backbenchers know what is comming that is why they oppose there own prime minister.

The guidelines change every year so what has been said here may not true for people in September.

[leenielou]

As someone going to university next year, and knowing many people who have already been to and/or are at university, I'm going to state my opinons on this.

The university system is in huge disarray. Funding, payments, loans, dearly departed grants, top up fees, bursaries, thresholds for loan repayments.....It's all one big mess that has to be picked through and analysed in order to make any sense of it at all. Most people leave at least £21,000 in debt.

Education at the moment, especially in universities, is a merit good. This means that its benefits to society outweigh its benefits to the individual. Think about it. If someone trains as a teacher, and becomes a teacher, it doesn't matter how much this is a benefit to them; they are teaching a new generation who will use the skills this person has taught them to gain qualifications and jobs themselves. Therefore, more people benefit from me being able to write this than I do. [/sarcasm] And if it is taken as read that education is more benefitting to an entire society, then surely society itself should pay for it rather than the individual?

Society paying for higher education means society paying more taxes. And no matter how hard you can campaign for a fairer system of payment towards the university system, you can bet that ten people to that one person will be complaining even harder about the huge increase in taxation. No one wants to pay colossal taxes. And how else do you raise the money necessary to keep higher education afloat without taking from the individual?

As much as I understand that colossal debts, money troubles and worries weigh students and graduates down, sometimes we have to face facts that to get a good education you have to pay. Whatever your course is, the government is currently paying the majority towards funding your teacher/professor pay, hiring/upkeep/buying of new equipment, trips and tours, books, building costs, building upkeep, any necessary extensions to buildings, student facilities, admissions procedures etc etc etc

It's a huge amount, and there are huge numbers of people who pass through universities every year. The country simply does not have enough money to fund for every single person. There comes a point where we have to pay. And as inflation occurs, technology develops and things become generally more expensive, the prices that we have to pay are inevitably going to increase.

It's unfair, yes. It's horribly unfair to those who do not have the finanical ability to afford this wonderful opportunity. But if they are really committed to it, and are aiming to come out with a good job at the end, they can possibly keep their debt levels relatively low and pay them off relatively fast.

Now, moving onto the red brick universities. Charging upon rating is once again, unfair. But life is unfair, boo hoo etc. I am not rich. My parents are not rich at all. We have debts totalling A LOT on a house deal that fell through, cars and credit cards. And yet I have applied for Oxford, Durham, Manchester, UCL, LSE and Kent universities. I know that these will be expensive. I know that living costs may exceed actual university costs in some of them. I also know that doing a Law degree and wanting to become a fully qualified barrister runs into around £60,000 without debts added on top. However, I am willing to pay for the best education, precisely because in order to become a qualified barrister, you need a degree from the 'right' university. You need a high degree, which a high rated university can help you to achieve. If I wanted a cheap and easy course, I woud go to Derby University, possibly gain a worse degree than I could at a higher rated university, and possibly fail to get into Bar School.

Universities are better for a reason. There is more money spent upon them. So let's say that we give all of the top-up fees to the worse-off universities in order to develop them more. Stating a brutal and harsh fact of life here; those poorer tend to be less intelligent. It is nothing to do with their brains, but everything to do with the society that they live in. Therefore most poorer people will tend to inhabit these less well develops universities with lower admission grades.

So let's add top-up fees to that formula. Suddenly these poorer students cannot afford these 'poorer' universities. They can't afford the others either, and they most certainly normally don't have the grades to get into the others. And many people are even more disgruntled and annoyed.

Even Gordon Brown disagrees with the Prime Minister and Gordon Brown is the Prime Ministers right hand man.

Gordon Brown hasn't ever really agreed with Tony Blair. Many feel that Brown is more socialist than Blair. He would certainly prevent top-up fees, were he PM. But how would universities be paid for then?

Anyway, to get back on track, yes, top-up fees may put poorer students off. But if they were so determined and intelligent in the first place, perhaps they wouldn't be.

I come across as a greedy capitalist, I know this. But with the country run how it is, I simply cannot see another feasible method of paying for higher education than individual payment and loans. The country is capitalist. It isn't designed for anything else.

[Jill]

The student union wanted the graduate tax. A tax which would be applied to anyone who graduated, including those PM's who got there higher education free:)

[Schlubalybub]

it has been my ambition to go to Bangor Uni since i was about 11. I know that sounds like the opening of a personal statement!

I got an interview appointment through the post today for there for January. I need to raise the money. I work, so after christmas I am restricting myself to £15 a week (is £20 at the moment and the rest for christmas presents) and the rest to be saved for uni. I am staying at home cos the uni is only about a hour away, so i dont have to worry about costs for lodgings, but its still 1150 to save. i wish i still lived in scotland. i could go to uni in edinburgh, stay with my auntie and go to uni for free as a scottish resident. I lived there till i was 8. So i am gutted that i dont live there anymore. oh we , c'est la vie!

[Jill]

The only way my older sister could afford to do her undergraduate course was by taking out the student loan and work outside her course, sometimes exceeding the 18 hours that the university believes is ok for students. Yes there is a recommended limit at which the university sets students for working and earning extra money, any more than this and it is deamed as affecting your grade and study. This is why the universities are apparently also worried as more students are having to find work to support themselfs through there studies and there findings currently show that such students obtain lower grades. Lower grades, therefore lower university grading and hence less money from the goverment.

This is why 23 constituaries have spoken against there own party leader, Tony Blair and it just happens that the really big powerful universities are within theses areas and who would benifit with the increase in fees. In Manchester, most of the cities inferstructure is based around the students as there are over 100,000 students present between at the moment 4 universities. Therefore if the students and universities are unhappy about something, the constituency listens very carefully.

My sister is now doing a PhD and well has just had to turn down an industrial placement because the extra 2000 pounds would take her over he 10000 pounds student loan request for repayment. Why, not take it and pay the re-payment, well because the money was meant to support the couple of months housing fees as she would be working away from Manchester. Then student loan re-payment was higher for her as she did a 5 year degree and well it comes to around 3000 pounds repayment in 1 year. So the 2000 pound insentive would actually reduce the original amount of money obtained from doing the degree by about 1000 pounds. You get more money on a PhD but then my sister has to pay out more for accommondation, more on equipment and specialised stuff, so at the end of the day she is no better off than an undergraduate.

5 year degree would cost 20000 pounds in tuition fees, plus living expensives of around 20000 based on 4000 pounds per year. Thats a total of 40000 pounds payback, which is a lot more than 39 pounds a week.

So, our health system is struggling as it is and it now looks like where going to have fewer doctors too.

The number of back benchers who do not support there own leader of there party Tony Blair has risen to 160 and things are not looking good for him.

[Cheeseheads]

AH man this is terrible. We have awesome universities in Quebec, like MCgill for instance (tuition is about 1000 pounds), but I wanted to come study IN Great Britain. geez this changes things. Does any1 know how much it is for students coming from outside the country.

[Jill]

AH man this is terrible. We have awesome universities in Quebec, like MCgill for instance (tuition is about 1000 pounds), but I wanted to come study IN Great Britain. geez this changes things. Does any1 know how much it is for students coming from outside the country.

Bad news its about 7000 pounds a year, I am affraid and I do not know why it costs more to for students outside Britain.

[Peljam]

Bad news its about 7000 pounds a year, I am affraid and I do not know why it costs more to for students outside Britain.
--------

As far as I know the only reasons they charge so much for over sea's students is because of the supposed extra effort the Uni has to put in when it comes to language, helping the the student get a visa, settled in and so on.
The amount of extra effort put in my the Uni depends on the person but I don't think they should get to charge 7000 just over that. I guess it may also be to make sure that the first choices in the course go to UK students. Despite the problems with the UK university system it is still one of the best so high cost for those over sea's may be an attempt to keep competition for places down. Unfair.

Hmm top up fee's. I'm off to uni this year, so long as I get the grades, so its not going to affect my first 3 years. But I'm planning to do a masters and then a phd at the same uni as part of a Clinical Psychology course. Now when I star my masters I get paid by the NHS, and thats 15,000-16,000. So what would that mean? That I have to pay my top up fee's straight away?

I think top up fee's are wrong. The government claims that it'll allow more people to enter University because the costs will be at the end....how wrong they are.
Almost trebling the cost isn't that appealing, no matter when you have to pay. In fact I would have thought a bigger price tag would put people off.

Somebody made the point that if we're being brutal that those from a poorer economic background are usually lower in intelligence, or words to that effect.
And yes socially that may be true, but that doesn't mean it should stay that way. Universities, although already very costly are taking in more and more students from what is considers a 'non-traditional background.' in fact many Uni's pride themselves on doing so.
Having Univesity availible for everyone means we all have a chance to better ourselves and society.

What the government is doing isn't making further education more accessable for people. Yes you may not have to pay the course fee's straight away but you're left with a bigger one at the end. And, you still have to pay accomadation and living costs as you go. As it is student loans don't even cover those.

Bah, sorry. My arguments all over the place, I'm illish today.

But anyway, this is a basic example of how much its going to cost me now as the current uni system is going to cost. Please bear in mind the Uni I'm planning on going to, and my back up choice, are located in an area with a very low cost of living. The prices are approximate too.

3 years worth of course fee = £3,375
3 years worth of accomodation (non catered) = £ 7000
Living costs (food, heating, electricity, books, transport, etc) = £3,000

so thats £13,375 of debt. And thats being kind. I've not added things like insurance, licences, medical costs.
The current student loan is just over £1000. And you only get all that if you're within a certain bracket, i.e if you're parents earn less than a certain total combined. I think its something like £20,000, maybe 25.

So if we're lucky we get £3-4,000 from the government to go towards that big debt.
At the moment you don't have to start paying off student loans and what not till you earn a certain amount but once you do interest gets added.
My mum's friend, a fairly well paid teacher who is in her 30's, is still paying off her student debts.

basically the point I'm trying to make is that its bad enough as it is. And a labour government, supposedly for the working class, shouldn't be trying to make education more costly.

Where should the government get money to help Uni's....well a graduate tax would be fair, and maybe spending less on things like war would help the budget problems....

[Schlubalybub]

I dont understand it. the government want more people to go to uni and then they raise the price of going to uni, its ridiculous. surely if more people are going then they will be getting more money anyway? At least thats what i thought :( grrrrrrrrrrrr