Bare Knuckle Pickups Forum
At The Back => Time Out => Topic started by: HTH AMPS on January 04, 2012, 03:59:43 PM
-
ok, so I'm weighing up my options as we tend to do at the start of a new year and I've been going through the costs of returning to University for further study.
Newcastle Uni are wanting £9k per year to study there. I can't imagine how anyone can afford that, its totally unrealistic that I'd be able to repay that. When I got my degree back in 2000 I didn't have to pay any fees, but it was tough enough going. I really feel for new students, I can't imagine how they manage financially.
Its quite a sad state of affairs that higher education has once again become the domain of the wealthy...
... or am I missing something? (mostly likely) :(
-
I don't think you're missing anything - it is hard for students now. My sister is in her second year of uni at the moment and her fees are much lower than £9K, because she started a couple of years ago, but she still finds it difficult. Student loans will cover the fees, but you would face leaving uni with quite a debt. It doesn't get paid back until you are earning above a certain threshold, so it is manageable but I still don't think it's fair.
I still study (I'm in the middle of my third degree), but I chose to do this one through the Open University rather than a brick uni so that I can carry on working - it is cheaper, but much slower (and you have to be a lot more disciplined). Maybe it is another option to consider though...
-
I think it has to be the domain of the wealthy, if anybody can afford a degree, too many people will gain them and the wealthy will have less to distinguish themselves with. So those in power have ensured that they will again become out of reach for as many people as possible.
-
The IFS says that, assuming fees of £7,500, for about half of graduates, the plan is essentially a 9% graduate tax for 30 years, because they will not finish paying off the debt by the 30-year cut-off point.
It's a mixed bag. The starting point is £21,000, so if you have a non-vocational degree you may well never end up paying back anything, and a good number will never pay back anything like the full amount unless they fairly rapidly start earning £45K. So on one level it's more fair, but on another the daunting fact of £43,000 in debt massively discourages people from less well off backgrounds and indeed people from lower middle class backgrounds.
We also don't know what effect this is going to have in the wider scheme of things. 5 years ago there were an OBSCENE number of jobs paying £15-17K with degrees in the person spec. !!! :evil: :roll: :gib: :orcass:
That will clearly have to change if obtaining a degree is such a huge financial commitment. Therefore it's not inconceivable that the effect will be balanced out by a 10% increase in graduate pay.
-
NHS pays mine :D
On a more serious note studying a degree should be seen as an investment, sure you pay back a big debt when you earn over the threshold but so long the increase in earnings is more than the debt paid over the long term then it is a good investment.
Basically find a degree that interests you that has good future prospects; don't do media studies.
-
My sister in law is doing distance learning with a uni and she pays by the module. Seems quite a good way of doing things.
Both my folks (and a couple of mates) have done Open University, but I'm not sure how that works out nowadays.
-
It's a disgrace folks in England, Wales and N. reland have to pay for university now. I do too, but I'm on my second degree, paying for that should be the case, because I'm doing a second qualification at a level I've already achieved and I think that's fair enough.
It should simply be much harder to get into uni (but with only qualifications and personal statement considered - I don't think unis should be aware of what school the pupil is coming from) and everyone good enough should go for free. Like it used to be.
-
i agree wholeheartedly with you (HTH i mean)
when i went fees were at the first level they were set at (so ~£1000 a year). My parents paid mine (my parents are awesome) but there were plenty of people whose parents should have been paying it (according to the government policy, since it was based on parents' earnings) whose parents basically told them to $%&# off.
which was messed up.
I disagree with even £1000 because of teh slippery slope principle (which turned out in hindsight to be true)- it wasn't too long until they massively raised them.
I don't know how the hell you'd pay £9k a year (yes i realise you get to pay it back later). there are living expenses too (which normally aren't much less than 4-5k a year).
I dunno what the end result is gonna be. I guess we can only hope they go way too far and then there's a massive backlash and they get made free again. But that'll completely unfairly screw over a whole generation of people in the meantime. :(
^ +1
like in ireland. completely anonymous. i realise that the argument against that is that private school pupils tend to do better, but the alternative is even worse, if you ask me (where a lot of the time they let people in *because* they've been to private schools or because they know them).
except no personal statement. apart from anything (i.e. aside from it being a pain in teh ass to do and being no use) it could affect the anonymity of it. if someone says they play polo there's a fair chance they go to a private school, etc.
and no interviews either (again, anonymity).
EDIT: also :good: for mentioning NI as well in there. the shiteeety BBC news frequently says only english (and sometimes they mention the welsh too when they feel like it) don't have to pay fees in scotland as if teh english are hard done by. We damn well have to pay them if we go to uni in scotland too.
Actually funnily enough we get it free (or as free as it is... there are some (much lower than english) fees, just they're called something else :lol: ) if we go down south to uni.
On a more serious note studying a degree should be seen as an investment, sure you pay back a big debt when you earn over the threshold but so long the increase in earnings is more than the debt paid over the long term then it is a good investment.
how is it a good investment if it used to be (and should be) free?
-
On a more serious note studying a degree should be seen as an investment, sure you pay back a big debt when you earn over the threshold but so long the increase in earnings is more than the debt paid over the long term then it is a good investment.
how is it a good investment if it used to be (and should be) free?
If I earn an extra £100,000 more over my life time and the debt paid back was £50,000, I've made a profit.
If I earn an extra £100,000 more over my life time and paid nothing back, I've made a profit.
Granted paying nothing back is the better deal but both still return a profit. There is an emotional response to the "loss" paying the debt back even though there is no loss, just less is gained.
-
FWIW I have helped out in the admissions process in Oxford a bit (only a little, mind): in my experience, there was no discernible bias towards private/public school applicants. If anything, in fact, those applicants with top grades from comprehensives/state schools tended to be favoured. Only in my limited experience, mind - I can't comment on the wider picture outside of what I saw.
What is it you're thinking of studying, HTH? Is it a course that you could do part-time? My Mrs didn't go to Uni - after college she got a job then did an HNC and then MSc completely in her spare time. As I went to a private-school/Oxford Undergrad/DPhil, I have to say that the way she did it puts me to shame.
I was very lucky to have received the education I did (I think my parents felt guilty about being away all the time, my brothers and sisters all had state education (and all did very well from it)). At that age, I certainly wouldn't have had the application to work and study in my spare time, and I'm all the more biased for that, now. During various recruitment rounds that I've been involved with, I tend to favour those candidates who've worked and studied, rather than had it all handed to them on a silver platter (as arguably I did).
Which, aside from hereditary credentials, is probably why I'll never be one of the 'elite' and rich!
Roo
-
FWIW I have helped out in the admissions process in Oxford a bit (only a little, mind): in my experience, there was no discernible bias towards private/public school applicants. If anything, in fact, those applicants with top grades from comprehensives/state schools tended to be favoured. Only in my limited experience, mind - I can't comment on the wider picture outside of what I saw.
I've no idea how the internal admissions work, but this year saw (much shouted about) record highs of offers to state-school kids. Leaving "only" 41% of Oxford offers going to independent school kids. But only 7% of British kids are at independents so they're obviously massively over-represented.
-
They're only over represented if the results at all schools are similar. I would hazard a guess that private school exam results are a little higher than the average inner city state school...
-
Quite obviously. But I challenge anyone to find stats that suggest the difference is of remotely that degree. And of course, it isn't:
Sutton Trust report on A-level results comparison.
45% of the independent school pupils from schools achieving average 801-850 A-level points each went on to the selective universities, compared with 26% of the comprehensive school pupils .
50% of independent school pupils from schools achieving average 851-900 A-level points per student got places at the selective universities, while only 32% of comprehensive pupils did.[/quote]
Sorry, but anyone who wants to have a bash at arguing that the selective unis, Oxbridge especially, do not take a significantly higher proportion of independent-school pupils than results would justify might as well cover their ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la all day.
-
Back on topic...
HTH - Newcastle want to be seen as one of the top end Unis, hence the high fees. Can you do the course you want somewhere else cheaper?
-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/table/2011/may/17/university-league-table-2012
Always handy for weighing up the university compared to the fees by subject. The maximum tuition fees being in place at Newcastle seems unreasonable given their rankings.
(Just discovered with that that Glasgow is 4th, 5th and 6th in the country for the three subjects I study. Wasn't aware.)
-
i spoke to a young lady from N.Y. recently who had just completed law school and was about to start work, citing the need to start chipping away at her huge debt. knowing america i knew it would be huge and was thinking 100k$ or
something.i asked her outright and when she said 270k$ i nearly !!!! myself.
i'd be thinking O.U. if i where you HTH. good luck.
-
I spent ages looking at league tables trying to pick my choices, how good a university is seems to roughly correspond with the age of the university
-
What are these degrees of which you speak...?
:o
-
Quite obviously. But I challenge anyone to find stats that suggest the difference is of remotely that degree. And of course, it isn't:
Sutton Trust report on A-level results comparison.
45% of the independent school pupils from schools achieving average 801-850 A-level points each went on to the selective universities, compared with 26% of the comprehensive school pupils .
50% of independent school pupils from schools achieving average 851-900 A-level points per student got places at the selective universities, while only 32% of comprehensive pupils did.
Sorry, but anyone who wants to have a bash at arguing that the selective unis, Oxbridge especially, do not take a significantly higher proportion of independent-school pupils than results would justify might as well cover their ears and shout la-la-la-la-la-la all day.
Obviously I put the riders in that that was only my experience. However, you can't hide from the fact that the rate of applications to the 'top end' universities from private/public schools is far, far higher than the rate of application from state schools.
Those stats you present, are they where the students have applied to the same universities? Do they take into account where students themselves have opted to go for a place in a different (non-top-tier) university on the basis of visits/friends/family (it happens)? I'm not saying there isn't a problem, but I'm saying it's not reasonable to point a finger at any one party without all the facts!
Having said that, I'm quite happy to point my finger at the Labour government and say they should never have had the goal that everyone should go to university. Utterly ridiculous. There are so many jobs where you don't need a university education, and to try to instil the idea that university is what you do after school is, in my opinion, one of the main factors that exacerbated this problem. Couple that with the coalition government (here's looking at you, Cleggy boy, you let us down on that one big time) who've now made it financially even worse for students, and you end up in the mess in which we find ourselves.
Private education establishments are better geared towards applications to prestigious universities, and like it or not, you can't blame them for that - they have fee-paying customers who want the best for their children, as all fit parents do, and a standard measure of success for schools is A/A* grades and applications to top end universities. I don't know how you go about encouraging state schools to do better by their bright students, but I'm all for 'somehow' abolishing the ingrained idea that it's more difficult to get into top universities if you've been to a state school.
If private schools produce more A/A* grades (which they tend to), it's only natural that the top universities will have a higher percentage of these students, because they filter based on grades. The only statistic I could envisage that would show unfair bias towards private school applicants would be the proportion of top-grade, private school students whose applications are successful versus the proportion of top-grade, state school students whose applications are successful. The applications is the most important point there: those students who are gunning for Oxbridge (and similar) and who play the game the same way the private schools do. I don't know what that statistic is, so I cannot say whether there is genuine bias on the part of universities, hence I only commented on my personal experience, which is that there was no bias towards private school applicants.
There were a LOT of private school applicants compared with state school applicants, though - and that can hardly be the fault of the university! In interviews, the majority of the candidates from private schools tend to do well because they have been trained/mentored/prepared for that. Many admissions staff can see through this, and drill down to the important points, as with any good interviewer, to work out what they think of the person sat before them, and how they'll do. Certainly from my perspective, I would look very unfavourably on a candidate sitting there with the attitude that: a) they've been to state school and have a chip on their shoulder about the (unfortunate) fact that more private school students get in or b) they've been to private school and assume that they have some right to preferential treatment.
It's all a product of the option for private education in this country, ultimately. It would be hypocritical of me to criticise this, given my background, but I certainly don't like even the possibility that bright state school students are less likely to get to a given university than equivalently bright private school students.
FWIW my wife earns more than me, despite my private/Oxford/DPhil background.
Not so clever now, am I?
Roo
-
If I earn an extra £100,000 more over my life time and the debt paid back was £50,000, I've made a profit.
If I earn an extra £100,000 more over my life time and paid nothing back, I've made a profit.
Granted paying nothing back is the better deal but both still return a profit. There is an emotional response to the "loss" paying the debt back even though there is no loss, just less is gained.
thanks, i'm familiar with the concept of numbers
it's still a bad deal when it used to be free.
also it's a pretty big assumption that you will earn enough to make it worth your while- the government (because it suits it) takes an average over all degrees, which is ridiculous. some degrees will have much more payback than others.
granted if you don't earn enough you might not have to pay it back. but an awful lot of people, if they think it won't be worth their while, just might decide not to go.
which is ridiculously unfair, if they're good enough to go and it's a good degree with a good job at teh end of it.
EDIT: i'd also say that considering how much the coalition bangs on about debt being the cause of the financial crisis, acting like people are silly if they don't want to saddle themselves with massive debts before actually earning anything seems like sending a bit of a mixed message...
-
I'm first and foremost considering Newcastle Uni as I still believe there are certain Universities who's names carry weight on your CV. Plus, I've been to Sunderland Uni and studied there, it was utter shitee - the facilities, the lecturers - waste of time; learnt very little I didn't already know.
I'm weighing up what REALLY interests me AND what I can study where I'll end up with a solid profession with good rates of pay. My previous degree (while being a BSc) was still pretty arty and based around sound engineering, multimedia and video editing. The only part which really did it for me was the Sound Engineering, but its tough to make it pay, I tried for two full years. I got a loan, bought a load of gear and had my own business recording bands and doing live sound. Was good fun, but the pay was cr@p and the hours long - wake up around lunch time and work till 2/3am kinda long.
My background is in I.T/Multimedia mostly, but I found it tiresome after a while working in advertising agencies doing layouts - my skills in those areas are rusty now anyway, so I'd likely be considered 'beginner' standard now. I also studied up to HND level in I.T. and got halfway through a CISCO CCNA - the stuff just bores the tits off me, literally couldn't find the energy to trawl through the stuff any longer.
I have a decent enough grounding in both Electrical and Mechanical Engineering and actually favoured the Mechanical Engineering side if I'm honest. Just bearing in mind I'm 37 in May and whether a career change is practical from an employment point of view.
The idea which is making the most sense is lecturing in music. There are plenty of courses out there on basic Sound Engineering, recording and such. This is something I'm looking into and am gonna speak with the local Unis to discuss this idea, maybe do an amp building night class or something - just kicking ideas round at the minute till I really find something that bites me on the arse and I have a eureka moment.
-
However, you can't hide from the fact that the rate of applications to the 'top end' universities from private/public schools is far, far higher than the rate of application from state schools.
+1
its all right moaning about the selectivity of oxbridge. But it does ignore other social factors which influence the university choices of the students who want to go there.
I have known quite a few top ranking students who never considered oxford or cambridge, th3y would say things like:
* Its going to be more expensive than a 'normal' uni
* The people are all stuck up, not real like me
* I want to do a course that gets me a job.
i dont actually think they are all valid reasons - but they do highlight the different opinions of state school kids that may affect the application stats. Most of the kids i know (from 'outstanding' state schools that i would best describe as middle class(if you want to believe such a thing exists)) are actually quite pragmatic in their choice of Uni. Its not just about going for a laugh (like i did). they really do consider what they are going to get out of it at the end and for a lot of them that means more consideration for vocational courses, i guess this is a positive side effect of it costing so much (which i do not agree with)
anyway, it would be interesting to see how the application stats of state/public schools, so we can compare them with the actual results and acceptance stats
-
This is something I'm looking into and am gonna speak with the local Unis to discuss this idea, maybe do an amp building night class or something - just kicking ideas round at the minute till I really find something that bites me on the arse and I have a eureka moment.
If that happens I'll enrol on that amp building course! :)
I agree with what you said about Sunderland Uni too - my first degree was there and I don't think it has improved.
-
anyway, it would be interesting to see how the application stats of state/public schools, so we can compare them with the actual results and acceptance stats
As of 2010, 61% of applications to Oxford were from state schools.
Incidentally, the Oxford website claims that "particular focus is given to seeking out more applications from highly able students from groups who do not typically apply to Oxford. New data is enabling us to refocus our widening access programmes for students from state schools and colleges with low rates of applications to the university" but there outreach programmes are focussed on schools with average annual fees of £20,897 (based on the ten most often visited schools at which they hold events).
I'm quite aware that there is a gap between the rates of application from private and state schools to the Oxbridge unis and that there are kids who get Oxbridge offers and don't take them (because I was one of them) but the disparity is real.
-
I know a fair few collaborators at Newcastle Uni. I rate it very higly indeed! Good luck finding what it is that makes you tick, HTH!
-
Its not just about going for a laugh (like i did). they really do consider what they are going to get out of it at the end and for a lot of them that means more consideration for vocational courses, i guess this is a positive side effect of it costing so much (which i do not agree with)
i'm not really sure that is a positive side effect. I was there when there were fees, but they were much lower than they are now, and even then, an awful lot of people were there for what they could get out of it rather than actual love of knowledge or learning.
Don't get me wrong, i'm a lazy git, but in principle i was actually interested in learning. still am. just because you pester the lecturer doesn't necessarily mean you are, you might just be more interested in getting good marks because you'll get a better job later.
that's sorta what happens when you commercialise everything... it all ends up being about money.
don't misunderstand me- i'm not one of those "live in a tent get back to nature" eejits who don't want to have any consumer goods, i like having nice guitar gear etc. as much as anyone else. Just money's not the only thing that's important, either, is what i'm trying to say. And making money such a factor in regards to going to university (even aside from the unfairness of teh whole thing) can have the unintended (or intended, depending on how cynical you are) consequence of making life even more about money than it already is.
:)
-
I'm quite aware that there is a gap between the rates of application from private and state schools to the Oxbridge unis and that there are kids who get Oxbridge offers and don't take them (because I was one of them) but the disparity is real.
What were you looking at studying at Oxbridge? And why didn't you go?
-
I'm quite aware that there is a gap between the rates of application from private and state schools to the Oxbridge unis and that there are kids who get Oxbridge offers and don't take them (because I was one of them) but the disparity is real.
What were you looking at studying at Oxbridge? And why didn't you go?
Classics (which I'm now doing up here alongside archaeology and religious studies). Basically I was aware at 17 that I wasn't going to put the effort in to justify all the upheaval and cost and didn't really want to move so far away from family and friends at that point. So I stayed in Scotland and did a music degree instead so I could arse about :lol:
-
Fair enough! I think it adds to Roos thoughts on the Oxbridge situation too. I never even considered applying to Oxbridge for similar reasons.
So what job will a guy with your qualifications be doing eventually? What are you aiming for?
-
The only reason I didn't go to Oxbridge is because they wouldn't have me :lol:
-
Fair enough! I think it adds to Roos thoughts on the Oxbridge situation too. I never even considered applying to Oxbridge for similar reasons.
So what job will a guy with your qualifications be doing eventually? What are you aiming for?
Part of applying was definitely an ego thing. I think I just wanted to say I had offers from the top unis :lol:
Archaeology of the Holy Land and its relationship with the ancient eastern med is my interest, really. I want to work on digs in Jerusalem, primarily.
-
Best of luck with that, it's certainly not your average career!
-
Best of luck with that, it's certainly not your average career!
Cheers! And indeed not. First days in uni were a laugh. "I want to teach RE", "Cool, I want to dig up Canaanite relics from 600BC...".
-
How old are you now nfe?
Have you managed to get any experience in the field you want to go into?
-
He's aiming to be out standing in his field! :)
-
I'm 28. I've worked on digs in the UK as a volunteer. Hoping to be in Jerusalem on one in the summer finances-permitting.
-
I thought you were older than me, I think my applying to king's is also an ego thing as where I study does not matter for the occupation it leads to but I would still rather go king's and get the extra debt. Qualifying from there might be good if I do some self employed work on the side which is debatable.
-
I currently teach at one of the universities that will charge 9000£ from next year on. The whole financial matter and the potential knock-on effects this governmental decision has had is unfortunately highly complex; I could elaborate, but it would take me an hour and then there would still be gaps. Academics have voiced concern and discontent at the fee rise - mind however that most vice-chancellors have been remarkably silent in criticism, sadly - and the government has just about ignored any suggestions.
The new fee regime is ideological; the conservative government wants to move towards a predominantly private higher education sector similar to the US. There will be more mergers and even closures of universities/departments in the UK in this process and a lot of people will be hurt in the sector. Being not British, I view it a bit as an outsider and have to say it is very sad.
As a UK citizen I would be extremely "pissed off" at this government decision. Basically the government has shifted the biggest share of the education price to the citizens, despite them paying taxes with which the system has been built up.
-
^ that's the big problem i have. "oh you'll earn more money so you should pay for it"
er, if i do earn more money as a result of going won't that mean i pay more income tax?
you could argue that the government/treasury should view it as an investment. and if it's not then that might be proof that too many are going (i.e. if you don't stand to make any more from going, there's been degree dilution, and it's unfair to ask people to pay more fees because they actually *don't* stand to gain that much).
as it is it looks like the government would rather you make money from not going to university than make it because you went. if you ask me (the whole, "too many people going" thing notwithstanding) you should be encouraging the populace to get educated, not the opposite.
-
Oh, they still want everybody to get degrees, just they want a more hierarchical model, with a few very expensive and very prestigious degrees and a lot more "affordable" mass degrees for the general population. The cost of their however is to be shifted to the population in either case.
But seriously, what else would you expect from such a prime minister???
-
^ that's the big problem i have. "oh you'll earn more money so you should pay for it"
er, if i do earn more money as a result of going won't that mean i pay more income tax?
Completely, completely agree. This whole "you go to uni, you earn more" argument is an awful argument on lots of levels, the main one being that if you earn more, you already contribute more in the way of taxes. You're paying twice. The other reason it's bad is because the figures are based on graduates leaving uni some time ago, when only about 10% of the population went to uni. The lifetime extra earnings quoted in the press are a huge overestimate and quite simply are very unlikely to be seen by the majority of today's undergraduates.
-
I could certainly do without Student Loans taking over £200 off me a month. But on the bright side, I've only got another six years or so of payments :?
-
Oh, they still want everybody to get degrees, just they want a more hierarchical model, with a few very expensive and very prestigious degrees and a lot more "affordable" mass degrees for the general population. The cost of their however is to be shifted to the population in either case.
But seriously, what else would you expect from such a prime minister???
i loathe the tories, but to be fair, labour was the government which brought in fees in the first place (i've heard some things (this was before my time) about the tories laying the groundwork for charging in the 80s and 90s,, but labour certainly didn't stop it, either).
Completely, completely agree. This whole "you go to uni, you earn more" argument is an awful argument on lots of levels, the main one being that if you earn more, you already contribute more in the way of taxes. You're paying twice. The other reason it's bad is because the figures are based on graduates leaving uni some time ago, when only about 10% of the population went to uni. The lifetime extra earnings quoted in the press are a huge overestimate and quite simply are very unlikely to be seen by the majority of today's undergraduates.
yep, exactly- it's based on figures from before the recession, and it's based on figures from when there actually was a reasonable graduate premium. Also, the fact that they take an average over all degrees is also ridiculous- average is a pretty blunt instrument at the best of times, let alone when you're using it across vastly dissimilar figures.