The UK Wants to Raise Tuition Fees

[ennui]

There's a lot of talk on the news about tuition fees in Britain. The majority of university Vice-Chancellors want to raise the cap on fees to nearly double the current amount, while some want the fees to be limitless.

 

How do you think this will impact the science sector in the UK? From my own perspective, I probably wouldn't have entered science if my total debt from university would be in the region of £60k. With some universities pushing for up to £20k a year, will this be reasonable for students from low-income backgrounds?

 

I can't imagine that a prospective student from a low-income background would want to apply for a science degree if this happens. Imagine facing the reality of £60k for 3 years' worth of tuition, and then living expenses (£10-15k) on top of that. If you start off in a science company like GSK or Pfizer, you're looking at £22k a year when you start. Is this meagre salary worth so much debt? The salary will increase, sure, but to have £70k ($130-150k) of debt looming over your head in your 20s must be terrifying.

 

What does everyone think about this? I'd be interested to hear some American perspectives, as I know that education is generally more privatised and expensive over there. How does a science degree 'pay-off'? Or do you see financial debt as more of a sacrifice for doing something you love?

 

Personally I'm worried for the "next generation" of scientists. It would be tragic if aspiring medical researchers, engineers and ecologists were put-off by the spiralling costs of university tuition.

[Phi for All]

What worries me most about this type of approach is one of the logical responses, that businesses subsidize tuition for certain candidates in return for internships and employment contracts. They sound like a good deal to an eager student who can't afford college but amount to nothing more than buying and selling lives.

[Mokele]

What's the motive behind the move? I assume it's not just blatant greed. In the US, we constantly have tuition increases, every year. My last school was considered especially affordable in part because they had some sort of contractual obligation to limit tuition increases to a mere 9% per year.

 

Do any of the schools have athletic programs they can axe? I realize you probably don't have the same foolish obsession as consumes the US, but still...

[the tree]

All of the sports at my university is run and funded by the union, I think the sports facilities themselves are owned by the university, but they definitely make a profit on them (it's cheaper than a regular commercial gym, but not by loads). I think it's similar across the board.

[Kaeroll]

I'm a student in the UK who actually supported the introduction of tuition fees (a rare breed indeed). The grants and bursaries associated with the introduction of the fees allowed me to go to university in the first place - I'm from a "low-income", single parent, council house background. The cost of living would've rendered my education unaffordable without the new (as in post-2006) financial system.

 

To raise the fees higher than they already are is just... shocking, especially when figures like £20,000 are bandied about. It makes me wonder if the Vice-Chancellors suggesting these numbers have ever stepped into the real world long enough to know just how much that actually is. To put it into context: it's more than my single parent makes in a year, and is enough to rent a house (with all associated bills, taxes, etc), run a car, and clothe and feed three children. I honestly don't think the people suggesting a hike to £20,000 actually know the value of a pound.

 

It also begs the question - do these guys realise there's a recession on? I'm no economist but I'm led to believe that the current financial crisis is, at least in part, due to excessive lending. And they're suggesting increasing the amount of lending per student by almost sevenfold?!