Some universities charging £9,000 may look rather silly, says minister

[coureur]

<br>

<blockquote>
<p>No real history of ‘saving for college fees mentality’ existed because the costs were low…<<</p>
</blockquote>

<br>

<p>Well, it looks like th British better get that mentality started, because the costs are no longer so low. And chances are they are going to continue to go higher.</p>

[ucsd_ucla_dad]

<p>

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.

I agree with this point - my kids fell into this category due largely to the locations. </p>

<p>I was just pointing out supply and demand at colleges other than HYPS… and that there’s adequate demand at a number of other colleges to charge the high fees they charge yet there’s no way some other colleges can charge the same fees and manage to fill their classes which I think is a point indicated in the quotes the OP posted about some colleges in the UK - i.e. that if the ‘less prestigious’ colleges try to charge the same as the ones with more demand they might find that they have difficulty attracting students.</p>

[noimagination]

<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.

1. There were plenty of technical degrees in the past. This doesn’t account for the accelerating tuition rate.</p>

<ol>
<li><p>Plenty of US schools with lower costs offer engineering degrees. Your conclusion is totally empirically denied. If you look at the schools with the highest tuition or highest per FTE costs - which ever you prefer - plenty are LACs that don’t even offer engineering.</p></li>
<li><p>Technical departments also probably bring in greater research/industry funding. This is just speculation, so you can contest it if you want.</p></li>
</ol>

[Ghostt]

<p>Has anyone bothered to mention that UK students can take out government loans to cover their tuition fees that they will not be expected to start repaying (at near-nonexistent interest rates) until they start earning enough money? Loans that will in fact be wiped out if they <em>fail</em> to become financially solvent within 15 (I think) years of graduating? And that if they come from poor families, they are guaranteed maintenance grants that cover their costs of living while at university?</p>

<p>I’m not saying raising the fees was a good idea, but the UK is still miles ahead of the US in terms of providing accessible higher education.</p>

[Dionysus58]

<p>Yes it is true that British students can take out government loans at a comparatively low interest rate (but not the nonexistent one you described) to cover their tuition cost - but debt is still debt. You start to pay back your loan once you earn more than £21,000 a year and will continue to do so until it’s repaid or 40 years (I think) have passed.</p>

<p>

And that if they come from poor families, they are guaranteed maintenance grants that cover their costs of living while at university?

</p>

<p>Poorer students only receive a small maintenance grant, the majority of your living costs are funded by student loans.</p>

[Mikalye]

<p>Absolutely, the issue here is that the size of the student debts can be very large. So a top student from a modest background can go to Oxbridge and graduate with £30K of student debt, or can go to Harvard or MIT and graduate with none. It’s not that difficult a decision.</p>

[Alexandre]

<p>The minister should visit some universities in the US. What looks “rather” silly (and pathetic) are the mickey mouse facilities at England’s top universities. I was given offers by LSE and UCL (two of England’s better universities), but after visiting their classrooms and facilities, I could not bring myself to attend. And that was 20 years ago. I have not visited British universities recently, but I know that most top US universities have spend hundreds of millions if not billions of dollars on upgrades in recent years…I doubt British universities have. </p>

<p>The French and Germans are even worse off! </p>

<p>Europe really needs to take a long hard look. They have vast resources and incredible wealth, but their universities are horribly neglected.</p>