Tuition Fees

Political Discussion: You've been warned! Please remember we are all friends here. Insults will not be tolerated!
User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Tuition Fees

Post by starbug » Jan 22nd 2004, 6:13 am

Boy, I'm on a political roll this morning... well, the alternative is to do some actual work, so bear with me :D

Anyway, coupled with the Hutton Inquiry (see other thread), Blair also faces a Commons vote on tuition fees this week.

It has been one of the mainstays of our society so far that education (including university) is free. I paid no tuition fees at all for my education, and I am very grateful for that.

I realise that to the Americans on the forum this might sound quite odd, but it really is a major issue in Britain. There are so many arguments on both sides, but the fundamental is that education should be free, so that everyone can have access, and nobody should be refused on the grounds that they can't afford it. People should not be saddled with huge debts later, to pay for something they ought to have a right to.

A big issue is the variability of fees. The government are capping them (for now) but universities will have some flexibility on what they charge. They can charge between £0, and £3,000 per year.

I wondered what other people think about this... I come from the school that education should be free. It has always been paid for out of general taxation, but due to a rash of stupid decisions over the last 10-20 years, this is apparently no longer possible.

If I could, I would say 2 things to Blair:
- you were elected on a manifesto pledge not to bring in tuition fees. I don't buy this nonsense about that being 'not in this parliament' suddenly. I will not be voting for you again, partly because of this issue. You must think I was born yesterday if you think that you can pull the wool over my eyes like that.
- you somehow found the money to finance a big war in Iraq. The expenditure there still grows... yet you say you don't have enough out of the general taxation pot to give the universities some more money. This is clearly BS. You just don't want to because deep down you're far more right-wing than you lead people to believe.

This issue is close to my heart as I now work in a university, and I enjoyed the benefits of a free education. I want my children to get access to the best education their ability, not my purse, will warrant. I think I understand the issues pretty well, but I'd enjoy hearing a new perspective from others...

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

andrewgd
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 676
Joined: Sep 11th 2002, 9:49 pm
Location: Seattle
Contact:

Re: Tuition Fees

Post by andrewgd » Jan 22nd 2004, 6:46 am

The state of Georgia had something like this for a bit. It was the HOPE grant, and it covered all of the tuition for any Georgia student to go to any Georgia school.

I think its a wonderful idea. Of course, I also think universal health care is also a wonderful idea. (Come to think of it, I think I just realized my stance on government, big on social issues, but stay the hell away from my rights ;) )

I've never really heard about the paid schooling in the UK (guess I am an ignant 'merrican). It would be nice to be able to pay for college for everyone, but I doubt many people would like the rise in taxes. I guess people really don't do things for the greater good of society (better/smarter students = better/smarter society, but I guess people don't see that).

As I sit here, I have around 70k in student loans, and no good job prospects (freelancing covers bills, but...) So I'd be ALL FOR a system that pays for college ;)
"Your imagination, like a child, will explode with unrestrained possibilities for adventure."

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Re: Tuition Fees

Post by starbug » Jan 22nd 2004, 8:51 am

andrewgd wrote:I doubt many people would like the rise in taxes. I guess people really don't do things for the greater good of society (better/smarter students = better/smarter society, but I guess people don't see that).
This is one of the arguments being put forward. I personally wouldn't mind a tax hike if I could be sure it would go to pay for stuff like this (rather than wars and on hand-outs to the EU which are then embezzled away to nothing). I'd be quite prepared to fork out the cash to educate people. But I don't know if the majority of the country feels that way. I think it's pretty close.

The issue put forward by advocates of free education is that it does indeed benefit society in general. When the bin man falls over from a heart attack, he's going to be quite glad that there are ample heart specialists around to help him. When an innocent man gets accused of a crime, he's going to be quite glad there are lawyers who went to university, defending him. When we read the paper, we should thank god we have intelligent, questioning journalists, who went to university, pointing out the mistakes the government makes.

The response from the government is that there's a huge funding gap. That's true. Years of under-investment have meant our academics haven't received a real-terms pay increase in 14 years. I'm currently owed back-pay for the cost-of-living increase I should have got from August 03. I'm still waiting.

With one side of his mouth Blair says that he can't fund the universities to the levels they need. With the other side, he says that the tuition fees being charged only cover 1/6 of the cost of putting someone in a university. This may be true. Why bother charging then? The difference to the tax coffers of funding the extra 1/6 must be negligible. The difference to the students (and their families) is huge.

The fact is that the government are using this as an excuse. They want the tuition fee thing to go through because then they will say 'well, you don't need any more cash, you've got tuition fees.' An excuse not to plug the remaining £11bn gap. The public don't understand, so won't notice, that it is all merely a diversionary tactic opening up an avenue of cutting even more funding to universities from other sources (eg Research Councils).
The other argument goes along the lines of 'the graduate will earn more than the non-graduate. they should have to pay for that advantage.' We all know that the first sentence isn't necessarily true. And even if it is, the more the graduate earns, the more they put back into the coffers by paying more income tax. Seems pretty fair to me.

There will be means testing. The very poorest students won't pay. The very rich students are perfectly able to pay. It's the middle classes (as with everything) who will get caught out by this.

It's so wrong. How can a 'labour' party possibly advocate this as a 'socialist' measure. It makes me sick. It's just another example of the destruction Margaret Thatcher wealded on this country when she undermined community feeling and promoted individualism.
andrewgd wrote:As I sit here, I have around 70k in student loans, and no good job prospects (freelancing covers bills, but...) So I'd be ALL FOR a system that pays for college ;)
I've got debts, but they're mostly from the one-year postgrad course I chose to take, which I always knew I'd pay for. My undergrad degree leaves me with living expense debts of around £6.5k. Once you combine this with my postgrad stuff I owed a total of £13k or so. I worked for a year before going to uni so I could have savings, which I'm also glad I did. I plan to have this all paid off in the next 3 years. I cannot imagine having the education expenses people cope with in the US. But it looks like that's the way this country is going.

I think I might move to Canada.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
Sammi
Substitute Teacher
Posts: 189
Joined: Sep 28th 2002, 8:57 pm
Location: Sometimes Texas, Sometimes Iowa

Post by Sammi » Jan 22nd 2004, 10:24 am

I wish the States would do the same thing as the UK with its upper education system. Education should be free. The only big change needed for this to happen is for there to be a testing system similar to the UK that shows which path/directions they are best suited for. Right now all we have is the SAT/ACT and I am a firm believer that those tests show nothing. Boy I really wish I lived in the UK right now because in a year and a half I'm looking at $90,000 in loans for the 4 years I spent in grad school. Luckily I owe nothing for my Undergrad because I went to a State school and my parents were able to afford that. As for charging a fee of $3,000 per year I think that is ridicously high if education is suppose to be free. $3000 is what I paid for 2 semesters of non-free tution in Texas.

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Jan 22nd 2004, 11:48 am

Maybe I should clarify... undergrad is free. Postgrad you do have to pay.

The figure being proposed is a cap of £3000, which is about $5,250 using the ludicrous dollar exchange rate at the moment... I think this is a lot of money too.

University admissions is another hugely controversial issue. One factor is exam results for tests taken at 16, and then 18. These (when I went) included a range subjects, with all core ones being studied. There were lots of essay type questions. I don't know too much about SATs but I for some reason have the idea they are multiple choice based. Is this true?
I just worked out something quite scary. Between the ages of 16 and 19 I sat a range of tests in 9 subjects, and then more advanced exams in 3 of those. I think I must have sat something in the region of 40 exams in a 2-year period. That's quite astounding when you think about it.

I then had a face to face interview with the university I eventually ended up studying at. But the stupid thing about the admissions procedure is that for most people, the admissions process takes place BEFORE you've sat the most advanced exams. The only thing that universities have to go on is your grades AS PREDICTED by your teachers - they can't interview everyone as there are just too many people. In my case, 3 out of 3 of the predictions were wrong. It only works out fairly if you happen to have a year out and THEN apply, as I did.

Anyway, back to the point (sorry, I'm ranting). The government's aim is to get 50% of students into higher education. This is all well and good but it's flawed because they have widened vocational training and are calling things like plumbing 'degrees'. It is now perfectly possible to get 'a degree' in a non-academic subject like basket-weaving. They've done this so they can say that more people are in 'higher education', stopped the financial support for vocational learning, and say that they are closer to their target.
This approach does nobody any favours. Plumbers, basket-weavers and interior designers are all valued members of society and they shouldn't need to tack the tag 'degree' to their skill in order to give their profession value. It should be considered no better or worse to have a degree or not. It's just a way of saying that someone is academically qualified. Degrees are something you get for english literature, history, law etc. Not basketweaving, decorating, hotel management or plumbing.

I can't fix a car. And a mechanic can't (usually) explain the legal system. That doesn't make either of us any worse off than the other one. I just wish the government would acknowledge that vocational training is what it is and degrees are what they are.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
grim4746
Krakow
Posts: 391
Joined: Aug 8th 1999, 2:14 am
Location: Canada

Re: Tuition Fees

Post by grim4746 » Jan 22nd 2004, 10:15 pm

starbug wrote: I've got debts, but they're mostly from the one-year postgrad course I chose to take, which I always knew I'd pay for. My undergrad degree leaves me with living expense debts of around £6.5k. Once you combine this with my postgrad stuff I owed a total of £13k or so. I worked for a year before going to uni so I could have savings, which I'm also glad I did. I plan to have this all paid off in the next 3 years. I cannot imagine having the education expenses people cope with in the US. But it looks like that's the way this country is going.

I think I might move to Canada.
While I'm sure Canada would be lucky to have you, things aren't really any better here as far as tuition goes. An undergrad program costs $4000-6000 a year and most universities then have compulsary ancillary fees of $500-1000 on top of tuition. There's a lot of boasting about Canada being a great country to live in (and it certainly is) but a lot of it isn't quite true. During the 90s governments cut out education grant programs and replaced them almost exclusively with loans and took the caps off of tuition (and then put them back on and took them off again...). I believe Native Peoples have access to free University. If I ever fulfill my law school plans it'll cost me about $70 000. On a side note our 'free' health care isn't all it's cracked up to be either. You can get diagnosed for free (eventually) but many of the treatments are not fully covered. But health care and education costs differ between provinces. I see the tuition fee issue as another sign of the homogenization of the world into the American way of things.

User avatar
Sammi
Substitute Teacher
Posts: 189
Joined: Sep 28th 2002, 8:57 pm
Location: Sometimes Texas, Sometimes Iowa

Post by Sammi » Jan 22nd 2004, 11:27 pm

The SAT's or ACT's are tests that are one of the highest determinents of where you get into to school. They cover math, english, and reading comprehension, but the test in way is odd and I truely think that it doesn't show how you will do in college. I for one did mediocre on the test, but have made the dean's list 7 semesters, and the presidents list once and I graduated cum laude with a B.S. in Biology. I think that all my score reflected would that I would be a B-C student that wouldn't excell in college. In the United States all too often the SAT's are given too high of precidence and getting into a University a lot of the time involves a lot of who do you know.

I just wish that we would have several tests that test our aptitude in several areas, including math, chemistry, biology, history, english and art so that the Universities can truely see where students fit.

I would also like to mention that tution fees in Texas up until last year were some of the cheapest because of oil money and a cap on tution. Last year our worst Govenor ever allowed the cap to be discontinued and now tution will surely sky rocket. People our wishing Bush would come back and be our Govenor again.

Going to school in the United States is often becoming a decision of will I be able to have a career in which I will be able to pay off my loans or not. I luckily will, but if I wasn't going to I probably couldn't justify my $90,000 in loans I will be facing when I graduate (which will be approximately 1 and 1/2 years of my salary), and probably take me several years to pay off unless I move back in with my parents.

User avatar
starbug
Lifehead
Posts: 1082
Joined: Jun 25th 2002, 4:51 am
Location: UK

Post by starbug » Jan 28th 2004, 10:50 am

Well, the government pushed its Bill through, so there will be tuition fees. They only won by 5 votes though and given their massive majority this is quite a disasterous result on such a key issue.

I'm just sad because I view it as further evidence that socialism is dead in my country.

---------------------------------------------
http://www.urban-hills.blogspot.com
---------------------------------------------

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

Post by lance » Jan 30th 2004, 8:59 pm

starbug wrote:Well, the government pushed its Bill through, so there will be tuition fees. They only won by 5 votes though and given their massive majority this is quite a disasterous result on such a key issue.

I'm just sad because I view it as further evidence that socialism is dead in my country.
Starbug,

I am so sorry to hear that it passed. Europe and the UK provided a clear alternative to funding university training. It is sad day when Britons will have to pay for their education. Blair wants the UK to be more like the US in this regard. From someone still paying off his undergrad loans, I hope that Blair's vision does not come to full fruition.

-LanceMan

User avatar
emmie
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 606
Joined: May 27th 1999, 10:34 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Post by emmie » Aug 29th 2004, 8:11 pm

yes, I too am an ignorant American. I didn't know about the free tuition in the UK. and I agree 100% with starbug that everyone should have a chance at any school they can get in to. I went to state university for my undergrad and was able to pay for it at the time. but now that I am at a very expensive art school, I will have a 90k debt when I get my master of fine arts. and even though I am using loans to pay for my education, I am so grateful because I know that not everyone is able to do this. I am especially grateful because I now know the difference in a state school and a private school. it really makes me sad because this is an excellent school and I had many talented friends in high school that were accepted here, but simply could not afford it.

User avatar
Natasha (candygirl)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 5374
Joined: Dec 7th 2001, 3:05 am
Location: California

Post by Natasha (candygirl) » Sep 21st 2004, 3:59 am

When I was 16 years old and applying to colleges, I had no idea about the difference in cost for a private school versus a public school. My parents never told me that I couldn't apply to a private school - not because we had money coming out of our ears, but because they wanted me to find a place where I would be happy. I ended up going to a private school and signing my life away during the orientation session that involved financial aid paperwork. I'm still paying those loans off today! For all my parents' good intentions, I ended up not being happy there so I transferred to a public school. It now seems amazing to me that the amount of loans I had in three years of public school amounted to less than one year of loans at a private school.

California is lucky to have two public school systems for college - the CSU system and the UC system. What makes me sad is when I see families who share my previous ignorance of tuition costs. I have heard people say, "I'm going to State because I can't afford a UC." That statement, especially in previous years, is a bunch of crap. Depending on which campuses were being compared, the difference was at most under $2000. I know that's nothing to sneeze at, but it's called financial aid and a lot of people don't factor that into their decisions - they don't even apply to UC campuses because the perception is that they are more expensive when in fact they are about the same as CSU. The fees for one semester at UC Berkeley are $3,365 while the fees for a semester at San Francisco State are $1,440. Keep in mind that both systems just raised all of their fees significantly - just a few years ago, some of the campus comparisons of fees had less than $1,000 difference.

My parents are not rich by any means. When I went to private school, there were students whose parents paid their tuition in full, meaning they had so much money they didn't qualify for financial aid and their parents could afford to write a check for $10,000+ each semester. We weren't destitute either though, so I certainly didn't qualify for a ton of grants. I ended up with student loans, which I view as an investment in myself. I wish I could tell so many of those high school kids that even though college seems expensive, it doesn't mean that they have to actually fork over their tuition in cash - there are grants, scholarships, loans, work study, all kinds of ways to pay for school.
The SAT's or ACT's are tests that are one of the highest determinents of where you get into to school. They cover math, english, and reading comprehension, but the test in way is odd and I truely think that it doesn't show how you will do in college. I for one did mediocre on the test, but have made the dean's list 7 semesters, and the presidents list once and I graduated cum laude with a B.S. in Biology. I think that all my score reflected would that I would be a B-C student that wouldn't excell in college. In the United States all too often the SAT's are given too high of precidence and getting into a University a lot of the time involves a lot of who do you know.

I just wish that we would have several tests that test our aptitude in several areas, including math, chemistry, biology, history, english and art so that the Universities can truely see where students fit.
I agree that a lot of undue emphasis and pressure are placed on students' SAT and ACT scores, but as someone who looked through undergraduate applications, the truth is that there are more applicants than there are available spaces and the schools are trying to use any type of criteria they can to differentiate between students. After just a few hours of looking through applications, everyone started to look the same - even the essays were the same. Everyone wrote about (1) someone important who got sick or died or both (2) the extracurricular activity that taught them all about teamwork/leadership (3) how they want to save the world but first they have to go to college (4) they were kidnapped at birth, sold into slavery, forced to make shirts for the Gap in a third world country, and never learned to read. I'm not saying that SAT and ACT scores are the answer, just trying to show another reason why schools use them. They definitely do not predict how well you will do in college though.

As far as testing other areas of aptitude, students do have the option of taking the SAT II exams (which used to be known as Subject Exams) or the AP tests, but that's about it.

Other countries use tests for college admissions - one girl I know from Italy just spent all summer studying for an exam which would determine if she could take the university course for studying medicine. She was very stressed out because she knew that this test would determine the rest of her academic career - no pressure!
Natasha aka candygirl :: MSCL.com

Look, if this is weird for you, being tutored? I don't mind helping you a little longer.
You could have sex with me if you really want to help...I guess that's a "no"?

User avatar
Nostradamus
Marshall Wannabe
Posts: 1213
Joined: Jun 29th 2002, 6:42 am
Location: No matter where you go, There you are.

Post by Nostradamus » Sep 21st 2004, 11:13 pm

candygirl wrote:Everyone wrote about (1) someone important who got sick or died or both (2) the extracurricular activity that taught them all about teamwork/leadership (3) how they want to save the world but first they have to go to college (4) they were kidnapped at birth, sold into slavery, forced to make shirts for the Gap in a third world country, and never learned to read. I'm not saying that SAT and ACT scores are the answer, just trying to show another reason why schools use them.
I never understood the big college hard-on for "leadership". I can see it in military officer schools or MBA programs, but your average liberal arts college? Who's going to follow all those leaders? As my old 5th grade teacher used to say during our frequent playground power struggles, "Too many chiefs and not enough indians."

:roll:
As far as testing other areas of aptitude, students do have the option of taking the SAT II exams (which used to be known as Subject Exams) or the AP tests, but that's about it.
Don't forget CLEP and GRE. Some schools also have their own subject tests, though those tend to be less transferable.
I have never killed a man, but I have read many obituaries with great pleasure.
-- Clarence Darrow

I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it.
-- Mark Twain

User avatar
Nothingman
Liberty High Graduate
Posts: 704
Joined: Feb 26th 2003, 3:39 pm
Location: Hockey Falls, USA
Contact:

Post by Nothingman » Sep 21st 2004, 11:31 pm

Nostradamus wrote: I never understood the big college hard-on for "leadership". I can see it in military officer schools or MBA programs, but your average liberal arts college? Who's going to follow all those leaders? As my old 5th grade teacher used to say during our frequent playground power struggles, "Too many chiefs and not enough indians."
I agree, I never once thought that I was living with a bunch of future leaders when I lived in the dorms. I want to see an essay, that says I want to make a lot of money so I date hott women, and I'm willing to work my ass off to do it. Now there is a kid with motivation, I would accept him into school in a heartbeat. Instead, we get the kid who never pushed his boundaries in high school was a member of every club he could find, signes up for general studies and then flunks out the first year when he goes nuts because he has no idea how to regulate himself. Of course guy number (2) takes 6 years to gradutate so from a financial standpoint, maybe it is a good policy.
"To come to your senses, you must first go out of your mind." - Alan Watts

User avatar
Natasha (candygirl)
MSCL.com Team
MSCL.com Team
Posts: 5374
Joined: Dec 7th 2001, 3:05 am
Location: California

Post by Natasha (candygirl) » Sep 22nd 2004, 1:12 am

Hee, reminds me of that Seinfeld episode where George had to choose a scholarship recipient for Susan's foundation and he found a kid with a "good, solid C average."

:lol:
Natasha aka candygirl :: MSCL.com

Look, if this is weird for you, being tutored? I don't mind helping you a little longer.
You could have sex with me if you really want to help...I guess that's a "no"?

User avatar
lance
Ed Zwick Wannabe
Posts: 1983
Joined: Jul 6th 2002, 4:47 pm
Location: Santa Cruz, CA
Contact:

tuition

Post by lance » Sep 22nd 2004, 10:18 pm

Interesting thread.

In Ohio for years their has been a cap on college tuition increases by law to 6%. Colleges routinely defy this and have raised rates on average by 10% each year. Ohio being dominated by one party for the past decade shows no sign of reigning in costs. Funny thing, I don't know about you but my income certainly doesn't go up 10% per year. Last job I had we felt extremely fortunate to receive a 2% cost of living increase while many other Ohioans lost their job or received no cost of living increase.

I haven't heard either candidates discuss this problem. Bush suggests community colleges as the answer but I haven't heard him say how Americans are going to afford to go there.

-LanceMan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests