<p>barium–that’s true, but Stafford loans don’t cover anywhere near the tuition cost of a four-year college (unless there’s merit aid or the like). The Stafford loan repayment is in addition to family contribution, work-study, other loans, etc., while the British system covers the entire tuition cost on this basis.</p>
<p>etselec, Stafford loans pay for 3 out of 4 years of in-state tuition. They completely cover two years of community college and more than 50% of yearly in-state tuition for public 4-year universities in most states. If you demonstrate financial need, you can get Pell grants and Perkins loans to cover the rest. Your state might have additional grant programs.</p>
<p>Unlike the British, your financial aid is not restricted to the public in-state system though. The British don’t have the luxury to attend a private university in France and ask the government to pick up part of the tab.</p>
<p>
I can’t speak to the other UC’s, but according to my kid, the protesters at her UC were maybe 1% of the school population, if that, and many of those weren’t even students. They were the usual band of idiots who show up to protest whatever the flavor of the day is. The rest of the students consider the protesters nothing more than an annoyance. </p>
<p>
I don’t see many Californians screaming about the cost of UC Berkeley. I see some students who feel that someone else should pay their way screaming, but that’s about it.</p>
<p>I just want to say it publicly: I love b@r!um</p>
<p>but the universities in the uk aren’t business - their publicly owned. This is just going to force the best institutions to go private and people that can’t afford the fees settling for a substandard education.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Neither do the Americans. Stafford loans and other federal aid can be used only at US colleges and universities</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This raises an interesting point, though. I’m quite certain at Oxford and Cambridge, and probably at other UK universities, citizens of any EU member state can attend for the same tuition as British students pay. And if I’m not mistaken, this is now an EU-wide policy. So while a British student can’t ask her own government to pick up the tab for her to study in France, she can in effect ask the French government to pick up at least part of the tab in the form of low-cost tuition. And France goes along because there’s reciprocity. </p>
<p>By jacking up tuition rates, the UK threatens to unravel this deal. Also, to some extent it threatens to erode the competitive position of its top universities. Oxford and Cambridge are widely regarded as the best universities in Europe, and they’ll always attract some students from the continent. But it will be come a much more difficult choice for some students if they’re now forced to choose between a tuition-free (or close to it) university in their home country or elsewhere on the continent, and a hefty (by EU standards) tuition in the UK. And even for UK students, studying in Ireland, France, Germany, the Netherlands, or Scandinavia may begin to look financially appealing. Of course, it’s a big world out there, and the prestige of Oxbridge will continue to draw students from Asia, Africa, Latin America, the British Commonwealth, and elsewhere, as well as from the UK itself. But a notch or two below that level, the cost differential might have a bigger effect.</p>
<p>[Carnegie</a> Mellon raises tuition](<a href=“http://www.postgazette.com/pg/11056/1127943-100.stm]Carnegie”>http://www.postgazette.com/pg/11056/1127943-100.stm)</p>
<p>"Carnegie Mellon raises tuition
Friday, February 25, 2011</p>
<p>Carnegie Mellon University is raising tuition by 4 percent for incoming students this fall and by 3 percent for returning students, school officials announced today.</p>
<p>The changes approved by school trustees this morning mean that a year’s tuition for incoming undergraduates will be $43,160. Yearly tuition for students who entered in fall of 2008, 2009 and 2010 will be $42,744, and for students who arrived on campus in 2007 the total is $41,962.</p>
<p>Total room and board on the Pittsburgh campus will increase by 3.97 percent to $11,110, a sum that includes a $250 housing increase and a $110 board increase."</p>
<p>This was released today - about $55K next year…</p>
<p>I think the difference is CMU makes no bones about it being a very expensive place to attend school.</p>
<p>
Yet the inflation rate over the last year is well under 2%.</p>
<p>So they are still increasing at more than twice the rate of inflation.</p>
<p>
Forgetting about the costs and relative merits of Oxbridge vs HYPS for a moment, isn’t one of the points in the OP’s quoted items that many of the ‘less prestigious’ colleges may start charging a lot more and that students may find that they don’t warrant the cost? Not all colleges in the USA cost $50K/yr or even $10K/yr. There are huge numbers of students attending perfectly fine colleges for relatively lows costs. They can usually decrease costs even further if desired or necessary by doing a 2 yr CC and transfer. </p>
<p>Now, if suddenly these ‘less prestigious’ colleges decided they should start charging the same as HYPS or the same as the other more selective colleges, wouldn’t they end up facing the same issue? Assuming one was accepted to multiple locations wouldn’t they balk at spending the same at SDSU for example, as they’d pay at UCLA or CMU?</p>
<p>Billclintonk raises an interesting point re discrepancies in the uni funding situation for UK versus EU students. It can get truly bizarre: EU students enjoy free tuition at universities in Scotland (same as Scottish students) compared to English students at uni there who currently pay annual fees of £1,820 - which may rise to £6,500 ([English</a> students face £6,500 tuition fees at Scottish universities | Education | The Guardian](<a href=“http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/16/english-students-tuition-fees-scottish-universities]English”>English students face £6,500 tuition fees at Scottish universities | Tuition fees | The Guardian)).</p>
<p>Thats the headline from another aticle in todays Times (UK). Note, I’d very much like to see some data on the percentage of ‘home’ students who currently pay their fees ‘upfront’ -. sorry to quote at length but article is behind paywall. </p>
<p>Extra university places would be made available for students who pay their fees upfront and dont require help with living costs, under government plans.
Ministers are desperate to find a way of expanding student numbers, which are currently capped, without increasing the cost to the taxpayer.
The off-quota places would be handed out by universities to students who can afford to cover fees of up to £9,000 a year without taking out a loan from the Government. Those who can gain credit from another provider would also be eligible. At present only foreign students are able to access additional places at university in this way.
The idea is being considered by ministers, who say that universities are keen to take on additional numbers but are blocked from doing so by stringent quotas. Last year almost 80,000 well-qualified candidates missed out on university places because of a cap on numbers and a 12 per cent increase in demand.
David Willetts, the Universities Minister, told a conference of vice-chancellors yesterday that the extra places would have to be allocated on a needs-blind, socially progressive basis…The new places would be available only to those who meet the standard entry requirements for the university, the minister insisted. But critics said it would privilege those who are most socially advantaged.
Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, said it risked giving an advantage to those who could flash their wallets and buy their way into university. Vice-chancellors welcomed the proposal but said it would have to ensure that it did not damage social mobility.
…
Mr Willetts pleaded with vice-chancellors at the Universities UK spring conference in London not to charge treble the current tuition fee from 2012. Unless universities can prove that there will be a commensurate and very significant improvement in the education on offer, it is difficult to see how such an increase could ever be justified, let alone at a time of fiscal restraint, he said. Institutions can clearly offer higher education at a price much less than £9,000.
He warned that the new private providers of degrees would be allowed access to public funds to keep their fees down, creating greater competition for public institutions. We will also allow alternative providers to access the generous system of student loans and grants, he said.
Unions and student leaders reacted angrily to the plans for private sector providers to receive taxpayer funding. Sally Hunt, general secretary of the University and College Union, said: Our Government is making public money available to the privateers to subsidise shareholders profit and encouraging their growth. David Willetts has spoken passionately about the need to safeguard the UK higher education system; however, his actions make a mockery of those previous promises.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Not necessarily. Whenever you see those annual lists of the ten most expensive colleges in the US, HYPSM are not on the list. Example:[News</a> Headlines](<a href=“http://www.cnbc.com/id/39757067/Most_Expensive_Colleges_2010_2011?slide=11]News”>http://www.cnbc.com/id/39757067/Most_Expensive_Colleges_2010_2011?slide=11)</p>
<p>HYPSM are certainly in the big leagues when it comes to being expensive, but they are not at the very top. Apparently there are people willing to even more than it costs to go to Harvard to attend schools that are signficantly less prestigeous.</p>
<p>^^ But I assume that for most attending the non-HYPS (most - not all) it’s because HYPS aren’t really an option - i.e. they weren’t accepted to HYPS which places those other colleges at the top of their options and apparently these colleges can charge more because they have an adequate demand. I read the excerpts to say that much less prestigious colleges in the UK are considering charging the same as the more prestigious and as a result some may think it’ll affect the supply/demand equation which makes sense.</p>
<p>I also wanted to state that there are plenty of options in the USA for one to attend a decent college for substantially less than some of the numbers typically tossed around on CC.</p>
<p>While it is true that there are plenty of options for one to attend a decent college for substantially less than some of the numbers tossed around on CC, there are still 6 American schools that guarantee need-blind admissions AND guarantee to meet full financial need for all (including international) applicants. Harvard, Yale, MIT, Dartmouth, Princeton, and Amherst (but NOT Stamford, Chicago, Columbia, etc.) make it possible for all their applicants to attend. I know of one student from an impoverished family who started at one of those schools last September despite a total family income for calendar year 2009 of USD$5. That is possible in the US, and simply not possible in the UK. Even if you get tuition fees waived, which is really hard to do, they simply cannot fund room/board/books/supplies/stationery/etc. in the way that the large US institutions can and do. </p>
<p>Of course the tricky part is getting into these schools. I know that UK interviews to MIT surged 50% this year over last. The rise in UK tuition fees will mean more UK applicants to US schools, and make it even harder to get in.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, it depends what you mean by that. Certainly a majority of college students in the U.S. wouldn’t qualify for HYPS. But I’ve always believes there are far more students with HYPS-level stats at other schools than at HYPS. UC-Berkeley alone, for example, has more freshmen with SAT CR+M above 1470 than Stanford, because the top 25% of Cal’s entering class is at that level—roughly 1,100 students. At Stanford, something just under half the entering class—or about 850 freshmen tops—are at that level.</p>
<p>I know it’s common thinking on CC that the universe of college applicants consists of three groups: those accepted at HYPSM, those rejected from HYPSM, and those who don’t bother to apply to HYPSM because they don’t think they have a chance. But I think that’s just dead wrong. There are actually very large numbers of extremely well qualified applicants who never apply to HYPSM because they prefer their state flagship, or an LAC, or some other school closer to home, or some other school where they’re a legacy, or whatever.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>^^^ For sure.</p>
<p>My son has stats that would fit at those places, but HYP wouldn’t even make it onto a preliminary list - they would be rather odd choices for his interest (CS/Math). Stanford is too far away, and he probably will apply to MIT. But there’s certainly no interest here in chasing the high-prestige schools - unless he were to somehow acquire that bug elsewhere. :)</p>
<p>But look at all the universities that charge more than these wonderful, top-of-the-line schools! Take CMU, for example; it has a stronger CS program that HYP - great. But why should it be priced *above *all of these schools, each of which delivers a complete excellent package? Those are towering institutions. Shouldn’t paying top dollar be reserved for the very top universities?</p>
<p>So it’s really hard to reconcile that discrepancy - and even harder for the various higher-priced privates that don’t stand up against these schools in any discipline.</p>
<p>Like most things, it’s money. A technical/engineering education costs vastly more to provide than a humanities education. Hard sciences require expensive and costly to provision laboratory space, and it is difficult to teach, say Nuclear Engineering, without providing a reactor on campus. Faculty are also not immune to the laws of supply and demand. There are not many other high-paying options for a professor of French Literature (say), whereas for a professor of algorithmic models, while academe can never attempt to outpay Wall Street, they need to provide a “good living”. I recall talking to a full professor of literature at MIT who noted that one of his students had just beeen hired as at 25 as a junior professor of chemical engineering and was being paid significantly more than he was.</p>
<p>MIT calculates that its tuition represents less than half of the cost of providing an undergraduate education. So what is a school to do? </p>
<p>At many public institutions, degrees in the Sciences or Technology cost much more than degrees in other subjects. At a relatively wealthy school like MIT, they can afford to set tuition much lower than the cost of education, because they can make that shortfall up elsewhere. At other schools, that option may not be as easily available, and tuition soars. </p>
<p>The “why?” is relatively easy to understand. A much harder question is what to do about it.</p>
<p>The tripling of the fees is incredibly worrying for many UK families for the reasons already mentioned above.
No real history of ‘saving for college fees mentality’ existed because the costs were low and in my student days non repayable grants were available for all costs, now loans that cover both tuition fees and living expenses are accessible to most families. If parental income was too high, the costs were still ‘doable’ by middle class standards. But remember tuition was free so it was just living expenses needed.</p>
<p>If the non elite universities try to charge the full tuition fees of £9000 then students and their parents will really start to question the value of a less than stellar degree from a mid/low ranking university. </p>
<p>However Oxford , where my S is studying and probably also Cambridge offer bursaries (FA) to poorer students and some can for those on very low income cover all living expenses. I’m very much middle income but even on that he qualified for a little extra that will in fact pay for his books and food (but not his battels bill - for his room.) -The student loan will pay for that. </p>
<p>Perhaps some of the other colleges will start awarding FA but without the legacy income of alumni which is so well established in the States, they will find it tough.</p>