<p>You are all forgetting key differences in the social layout between America and England. The English pay exorbitant taxes, in higher cost of living environments, with the most valued currency in the world. English citizens pay substantially more in taxes to the government and expect for social programs to be either free or at a very low cost. The entire EU works this way–pay very high taxes and expect the government to cover almost all social costs. Americans may argue about tax rates from time to time but they’re apples and oranges compared to English effective rates. </p>
<p>Therefore, a 6000 pound increase in tuition in England is effectively a higher percentage of the citizen’s disposable income. Once again, you cannot compare the disposable income of Americans to that of Brits and have a legitimate financial understanding of the situation. </p>
<p>In a similar way, charitable contributions are very popular in the US. We receive tax deductions as well as it is viewed to have an altruistic purpose. In the EU, charitable contributions are severely less than the US because the government is looked upon to finance altruistic programs. The disposable income in not available in the EU to fund those programs; taxes allow/require the government to do so.</p>
<p>Until you recognize these fundamental differences in our societies, you will not fully grasp why the UK is so upset about these increases.</p>
Thirty years ago, when I went to college, it was possible for students to mostly put themselves through school if necessary - I paid for probably 75% of my (private university) education, from summer jobs and a small amount of loans (the total was less than 20% of my first year’s salary). And this was true of many if not most of my friends. At that time, the price of public schools was often in the hundreds per year.</p>
<p>Fast forward to now, and it has evolved that the <em>parents</em> are primarily responsible for paying for their adult children, that we should be saving for our kids’ entire lives, and should be willing to borrow from our future earnings as well as pony up huge chunks of our current income, and an entire industry has sprung up around financial aid and student loans. Why? Because it is no longer possible to work your way through most colleges, and it is not possible for kids on their own to borrow the quantity of money necessary - even at the publics.</p>
<p>And this all stems from college costs going up at triple the rate of inflation for the last thirty years, which in (large) part has been driven by the very government policies that are supposed to make school affordable!</p>
<p>I don’t understand why anyone would think it is no big deal to see Britain starting down this same path, even if today their top schools are a relative bargain compared to ours. Give it 10 or 20 years, they will be in the same boat as us. It’s not a happy place to be.</p>
<p>Well, no. According to Harvard, 60% of its undergrads receive need-based financial aid. And for the freshmen who entered in 2009, 65% received need-based FA. That’s still a lot of full-pays, but MOST undergrads at Harvard are on FA.</p>
<p>I have some sympathy for the British students and their families. Here it’s drummed into you from before the time you have kids that you need to save for your children’s education. So we faithfully squirrel away some money every month into our tax-advantaged 529s and build up a nice little nest egg, and we otherwise arrange our finances to ensure that we’ll have maximum liquidity when the kids are in college. Many of us come up short, but we know that, beyond a modest level of government financial aid for those with the greatest need, we can count on the wealthiest colleges and universities to provide generous need-based financial aid, and/or generous merit aid at some schools.</p>
<p>The Brits don’t have any of that: no 529s, no expectation of needing to save for university because the universities were historically free, or close to it, a public service provided out of tax dollars. Nor do the universities themselves have large endowments or other sources of revenue they can tap to provide need-based or merit aid, something they never needed in the past. Besides, the typical British worker’s take-home pay is considerably smaller, both because the overall standard of living is a bit lower and because taxes take a bigger bite over there—taxes that people were accustomed to getting back in the form of services like the National Health Service and universities that were free, or nearly so. For people in the highest income brackets the fees British universities will now be charging may still be a bargain, especially in comparison to what full-pays at US colleges and universities pay. But for the British middle class this is a real kick in the chops, because they have no college savings, they can’t count on institutional need-based or merit aid, there’s little or no government-sponsored financial aid—and they’re STILL paying higher taxes.</p>
<p>Imagine you’ve been sending your kids to a (free) K-12 public school in the U.S., and suddenly the government announced, “Sorry, no more money; next year you’ll have to pay $15,600 a year per child in tuition.” People sending their kids to high-tuition private schools might think you’re still getting a bargain. Some higher-income public school parents could afford it. But most middle-class parents would feel pretty betrayed, and pretty outraged.</p>
<p>I think you have to pick your audience carefully. The fact is that most Americans are not going to feel sorry for the British on this account as even with this tripling of fees, the very top notch universities still come in at 20K less a year.</p>
<p>I mean, really, what are we supposed to say? “I’m terribly sorry you can receive a world class education for substantially less than we must pay here for considerably a less impressive education.” </p>
<p>I understand the lack of lead time for savings but the fact remains that most Americans do not make enough to have substantial savings, or any savings, for college. We have people in this board who are in the top 10% income bracket in the US who insist they are middle-class. In other words, this board is a very skewed view of the US. </p>
<p>Our system of low cost higher education was untenable, now yours is. We make it work, you’ll make it work. I wish you the best of luck.</p>
<p>I wouldn’t underestimate how hard this is given the abruptness of the transition. The University of California system was once free, or virtually so, too. At UC Berkeley in-state “fees” (legally they still can’t charge in-state “tuition”; I think it’s in the state constitution) are now up to about $12,500 per year. But that figure has crept up gradually, in increments, giving people time to adjust; and still many Californians scream about it. In the UK they’re going from almost-free to 25% higher than Berkeley almost overnight.</p>
<p>I would be jumping for joy if my kid paid for themselves. The thing with the US system is that the student is a “child” in the eyes of FA until 25. If the parents do not pay or complete the FA forms, the kid simply cannot go to 4yr college in the vast majority of situations.</p>
<p>And I DO sympathize with the UK families. Tripling any fee so suddenly would paralyze our tight family budget.</p>
<p>The problem I have with the free market model of higher education is that it unnecessarily inflates prices. A university education in Europe is still very much about the education. Competitive pricing would encourage colleges to invest into “extras” that are irrelevant to education but might make a good impression on college shoppers. All of the sudden landscaping and school spirit become more important than the quality of instruction. American students get less education for a higher price.</p>
<p>less education, barum? I don’t know about that. I’ve met many european graduate students, here to do their doctorates, who are astonished at the amount of work required of them, at the proximity and support of the faculty and at the fairly extraordinary resources (labs, computers) available even in mid-tier state universities. All that equates to them as a fairly extensive and enriching education. </p>
<p>I do agree with you that what drives the price of many colleges and universities are the costly “perks” - such as state-of-the-art facilities, for example. Having studied in Paris, I can tell you even the most prestigious schools (ENS, SciencePo) have modest campuses and facilities. Universite de Paris – all of its campuses – is falling apart at the seams, classrooms have cracked walls insufficient heat/air conditioning. Americans would say, you get what you pay for. Of course, they’re starting not to be able to pay for it. It’s getting tougher for Europeans, too.</p>
<p>Thanks, all, for trying to explain the differences between the US and English mindsets underlying the respective society’s approach to higher education. The British way is a completely different way of thinking of things as compared to the US way.</p>
<p>katliamom, you are right and I apologize for my poor choice of words. I completely agree with you that American universities provide students with more resources and more opportunities (academic and otherwise) than their European counterparts, if students want to utilize them. I do very much appreciate this aspect of the American college system.</p>
<p>I was thinking of the following when I said “pay more for less education”: Academics don’t seem to be the main priority of many college students and most colleges are happy to facilitate that. College at the upper end of the price spectrum is about the “whole experience” - playing a sport, running a club, working a minimum-wage part-time job, living with a roommate, joining a fraternity, and maybe 20 hours of actual school work a week. At the lower end of the price spectrum college is often about getting that piece of paper called a degree, regardless of how much you learn in the process.</p>
<p>College in Europe is still primarily about academics, but open competition might push it more in the US direction. The “college experience” is personally enriching for sure, but $50,000/year is a rather steep price to pay for something I could get much cheaper at a local fitness club and as a volunteer in a community organization while rooming with friends my age. Middle class families are willing to pay for it anyway because a college degree has become an expensive necessity - you don’t get anywhere without it (but it won’t get you very far either).</p>
<p>Just posting to correct another misconception that happens to bother me: our top universities don’t give merit aid. A kid that gets into Oxford receives nothing from Harvard based on his ability. There are many people here who pay every penny, and hit the $250k ballpark for top privates. As to barium - if only you were correct with your numbers, I’d be a much happier man today. LOL at those who think the US is a tax haven.</p>
<p>The Ivies don’t give merit aid - but many, many other top schools do. Even the poor cash-strapped UCs have scholarships for high achieving students.</p>
<p>Its SO MUCH EASIER getting into Oxbridge than into any of the Ivy’s - and this is coming from someone who has applied to both (Oxford in the case of the UK for which I also have an offer from, and HYP in the case of the US who I am still to hear from).</p>
<p>For Oxbridge, one needs AAA+ (in their A-levels or international equivalents) and that’s it - passing the interview is really easy as couching is available; this whole “professors shall pick only those who are passionate about their subject” is nonsense. I have no passion to study economics at Oxford (rather E&M), as I just want to use it to get a job in finance and with a little bit of interview couching (i.e. the same questions are asked every year, regarding topics etc), one can easily pass this.</p>
<p>With the Ivy’s, top grades are not enough - everyone applying has them. With Oxbridge, EC’s etc don’t matter at all. Its your grades and that’s it. With the US, you have EC’s, SAT’s and a more holistic process in general.</p>
<p>Not to mention that Oxbridge is almost a poor house in terms of its resources when compared to what is available for students attending the Ivy’s - and the really sad thing being, despite Oxbridge’s money woes, they’re still the richest universities in the UK (though they are penniless when compared to even non top 10 universities in the US frankly) . </p>
<p>A really sorry state of affairs frankly, but you get what you pay for I guess :(</p>
<p>And many, many top US schools do not give merit aid. Typically one must trade down to lower levels for merit aid that makes any kind of difference. I learned that on some college website.</p>
<p>On the other hand, Oxford is CHEAP FOR EVERYONE! It would be fun to live in the UK and complain about EXPENSIVE GAS (an extra $1k/year) while receiving CHEAP COLLEGE (an extra $30k/year); damn, I’d even toast the frigging QUEEN (Queen Mary, am I right?).</p>
<p>Bad news, my son doesn’t seem interested in leaving the states. I may pack him up in a carton and ship, DO NOT RETURN UNTIL KNIGHTED.</p>
<p>UK schools used or still charge around £3000 ($5000) and the increase in price was introduced this past year or this upcoming year.</p>
<p>Keep in mind the £9000 ($15,000) is for UK (maybe EU as well) students ONLY. International students pay somewhere around $30,000 - $35,000 (this includes tuition, food, board, travel costs) depending on the university. Also keep in mind a lot of the programs are only 3 years as opposed to the 4 years at US schools.</p>
<p>Say you were to get into Yale University and Oxford University.
Yale ~ $50,000/year x 4 = $200,000
Oxford ~ $30,000/year x 3 = $90,000</p>
<p>You would save $110,000, but wait you’ll graduate a year early so tack on your first early salary.</p>
<p>AvidStudent, Oxford for oversea students runs closer to $40,000 just for tuition, college fees, room and board. That does not yet include travel or personal expenses. Still cheaper than Yale, but not by quite as much.</p>
<p>Let’s build towards making US universities more similar to UK universities with the goal to match UK tuition fees. The admissions process seems like a good place to start.</p>
<p>I propose that US universities adopt a UCAS-style admissions system. Limit students to a total of five college applications, with at most one Ivy-League application. Also make the single Ivy application due three months ahead of all other applications, so that only students who are on top of their work may apply. That should cut down on the admissions craziness. </p>
<p>Furthermore, require that students decide on their college major during the application process and hold them to that decision. No changing majors silliness. </p>
<p>In fact, US students with UK-style qualifications can graduate in three years in the US as well. They will get one year’s worth of college credit for their high school work (e.g. a set of A-levels, an IB diploma or multiple AP exams) that will either put them ahead in their major or take care of a good portion of gen ed requirements.</p>
<p>But let’s go one step further and require AP exams or similar qualifications for admission, the way that it’s done in Europe. No more remedial college classes. If you can’t manage to take AP Calc in high school, you aren’t cut out to go to college at all. </p>
<p>That should cut down on the number of college-bound seniors quite a bit. Having only the top 20% of each generation go to college, and letting them finish in three years, might reduce the total college enrollment to one fifth of the current figure. If we channel all of the current public funding for higher education to that fifth, they could be going to college for free!!!</p>
<p>No kidding on that last point. According to an OECD report, the US public supports the average full-time student with $10,000/year. Reducing college enrollment to one fifth would allow us to spend $50,000 per student at no cost to the student. (Oxbridge spends half that!!!) </p>
<p>UK tuition fees are not out of reach of US universities. Parents just need to accept that most of their kids won’t go to college while having their tax dollars used to pay the tuition of others’.</p>
<p>That’s not substantially different from income-based repayment plans for Stafford loans. Repayment obligations are capped at 15% of the discretionary income, defined as the AGI minus 150% of the poverty level for your state and family size. Granted, 15% is more than 9% but it’s the same principle.</p>
<ol>
<li><p>I’m truly sorry this is happening to UK students. It’s hard to have the rug pulled out from under you like that, especially at such a young age. </p></li>
<li><p>I’m even sorrier that several American posters on this thread have so little capacity for compassion. I winced at several posts.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>It’s always bothered me that the in-state tuition at my state’s public flagship university is 2-3 times more expensive than flagships in some other states. Would I be happy if other states’ tuition was increased? Goodness, I hope not. </p>
<p>So…no jumping for joy here at this distressing news for UK students.</p>