<p>I say good for those who fought back. I can’t believe the current college costs are acceptable to a lot of people. There’s no justification in asking college students to pay 25, 50, 80K for school. And some of this is per year. Of course students have the choice of going to a cheaper school, but just the fact that it’s okay for many schools to charge that much is sickening. They may complain about so many Americans being in debt, but that’s only because it’s so easy- and accepted- to get that way. </p>
<p>Overcharged education and the low quality of education just makes me look at other things we waste money on. It would be so easy to improve education and reduce the cost, but for some reason it’s okay to just ignore those problems. It’s time we take a look at everything we’re blowing money on and ask if it’s really worth it.</p>
<p>So good for the students who don’t let the issue go out of control before they fight back. It’s sad that American students would look at this and go “14K? That’s nothing!”. Just goes to show that students don’t take money and debt seriously.</p>
<p>Market forces set market prices. Schools that place poorly, have bad reputations or are not that good cannot charge high prices for tuition. Schools that have great reputations can charge a lot of money. Those higher tuition prices go to get the best professors, the best facilities and the best programs. </p>
<p>Many Americans take out loans, but a lot of them work part time, get scholarships, get grants, or have family savings. Very few pay full sticker price. </p>
<p>Also, tuition at UK schools is not 4K or 14K. It is much more. The difference is that you never see it because it is heavily subsidized by higher taxes. The cost of attending school in the UK is spread out over everyone. In the USA the cost is pass on to the person receiving the benefit. </p>
<p>Paying for what you use sounds fair to me. Making me pay for your degree might make you smile, but it is completely unfair.</p>
<p>We’re really digging ourselves into a whole with the way our education system is working. More and more students are dropping out of college because of financial reasons and nearly everyone else is in debt up to their neck before they even have that first job interview. I don’t care what you say, it completely blows my mind that it’s okay to ask an 18 year old to start paying 25K right out of college. It may not feel like a burden now, but just wait until after graduation and you start seeing interest and actually have to start paying these fees off. </p>
<p>I can’t imagine the pressure parents must be having now, thinking they have to save that much money for their child’s college tuition. My parents saved up a decent amount, but I bet they never thought that 10K wouldn’t even get me through one year of school. </p>
<p>We have to start looking toward the future and start considering how all of this will effect us. Might it be worth the sacrifice? I predict a very, very bleak future for us. It’s 2010 and we can have phones that let you get on the internet, web cams that let you chat with people thousands of miles away with hardly any delay, actors being paid millions of dollars to shoot single TV episodes, new models of cars being introduced every month, and just all these advances that would have been unimaginable just ten, twenty years ago!</p>
<p>UK students don’t actually have to pay anything while in university. Their tuition fees are fully paid by government loans, which they only have to start repaying after they graduate and when their annual income exceeds 21,000 pounds. The interest rate due on student loans is also much lower than normal market rates.</p>
<p>A new interesting topic, guided with pragmatism and practicality ruling it, hypothetically, if US wanted to charge lower for colleges, say an ‘exhorbatant’ (spel?) of $15k per year for college, and charge students AFTER they leave. HOW would US government do this? What would happen to remaining private colleges? Would top schools like MIT, Harvard, Yale, Princeton…etc… be forced to close down? Or become federally mandated?</p>
<p>Unlike in Germany or France, UK universities’ assets are not owned by the British State, nor are their employees career civil servants. Teaching and research at UK universities are however funded mostly by government money, which makes them “de facto” public schools. The current coalition government is basically proposing to cut the annual teaching grant it gives to the universities by 40 % and, simultaneously, raise the domestic tuition fee cap from the current 3,000-pound level to 9,000. By doing so, the government is basically shifting part of the burden to fund undergraduate teaching from the general taxpayer to domestic students and/or their families. Note that there is no tuition cap for international students who, as of today, already pay much higher fees. Note also that the research grant, which is more closely associated with graduate education (mostly PhD training), will be left untouched and will continue to be funded out of general taxation.</p>
<p>The government claims that, if it dropped plans to raise tuition fees, top universities like Oxford/Cambridge, LSE or Imperial College would be tempted to give up the public teaching grant entirely and go 100 % private, which they would be probably able to do. The less prestigious universities don’t have that option though and will most likely continue to rely on government money in the foreseeable future.</p>
<p>In the UK, the new government that took office in May announced a credible plan to cut the budget deficit from 11 % of GDP to near zero in four or five years. Some people, including a few prominent economists like Paul Krugman, might argue that the British government is overreacting and should not cut the deficit so fast, but there seems to be no doubt that the deficit will indeed come down irrespective of the associated social or economic consequences. </p>
<p>In the US on the other hand, neither President Obama, nor the Republicans who recently took over the House of Representatives have so far presented any concrete plan to cut the federal deficit by a substantial amount within a pre-defined time period. It appears that, by having the luxury of being able to print the world’s reserve currency, the US believes it can live with high deficits and high public debt much longer than other countries. As long as the rest of the world agrees and continues to buy American debt at low interest rates, that assumption will hold. Chinese rating agencies are already downgrading US debt though, so the US better watch out and put its house in order before it becomes too late !</p>
<p>I’d hardly call it unfair. A recent study here in Britain found that graduates earn around £100k more than non-graduates do over their working lives. Society reaps its reward through the higher amount of tax these higher earners pay. This, when counted with the student loans which are paid back, a good case could be made that British students make a larger contribution towards the cost of their education over the course of their lives than many Americans (who may rely on scholarships or their parents to pay) do.</p>
<p>1) You present to me a wonderful stat that you and everyone else in the UK knows. If you go to school you will make 100K pounds more than non college students. The should be incentive enough for you to pay to go to school. </p>
<p>2) That number is skewed by the fact that the is most likely an average of lower paying liberal arts degrees and higher paying business/engineering degrees. </p>
<p>3) I have no doubt that a college education adds more to the economy and therefore college education undoubtedly benefits us all. It also 100% benefits you much more than it benefits someone who is working and most likely will not live long enough to see the full benefit of your contribution. Anyway you slice it you are absolutely getting a benefit and making someone else help you who maybe will see a benefit. </p>
<p>4) You know that you will make 100K pounds more over your life. Now that tuition has been raised your ROI is surely going to decrease. Considering that it is still a positive NPV venture you would be a fool to not go to school. Sometimes things happen and they kill your margins. Gotta roll with the punches. </p>
<p>5) 100K pounds at the current exchange rate is about 160K USD. That number is pretty low. I think that the value of a degree in the UK is being underestimated. Good schools in the USA have increased lifetime earnings of 500K or more. If 100K pounds is truly the case than you might have a point. When you PV that figure you could possibly be losing money by going to school. Although there are other factors to consider. </p>
<p>6) My argument for the US college system and against the UK system is a little unfair because most US schools have large endowments which are used to provide scholarships and grants. Very few people actually pay full sticker price for things.</p>
<p>MSFHQsite: “Very few people actually pay full sticker price for things”
Either you are not in college or no children in college. We pay full price for UCLA. Our neighbor which have 2 children now in UCLA also pay full price. Very few UC’s student received scholarships and the very poor receive grant and low interest loan. Majority of the middle class pay full price no matter where you attend in US, unless you are the minority that have excellent academic standing, or the poor. The EFC calculated on the FAFSA are extremely low.</p>
<p>I think protesting is necessary here.It isn’t like the british economy is crippled or something.Matter of fact,I may just be one of the protesters.</p>
<p>Considering I am finishing my 2nd masters degree I would absolutely categorize myself as someone with some first hand college experience.</p>
<p>You are talking about state schools. If you are a California resident you pay 11K a year. Hardly something to complain about. My 1st masters was 30K a year (which I had to pay in full). My 2nd masters is have a fellowship for. My UG gave me grants, scholarships and the rest I paid for. </p>
<p>Your post is contradictory. </p>
<p>1) You go to a state school which is at reduced cost. 11K for UCLA is a bargain for that caliber school. </p>
<p>2) You admit that poor or those who are financially struggling receive aid. This is exactly how it should be. Those who can afford it or who should have put money away need to pay for tuition.</p>
<p>3) Schools have need based and merit based scholarships. If you are not poor or needy you should strive to do the best that you can. I received much more merit scholarship money than I received need based. </p>
<p>4) California is an entirely separate part of the USA. I prefer to call it the socialist state of California to clearly identify that it really shouldn’t be part of the rest of the 49 states. </p>
<p>Because Cali is so broke I would imagine state schools would not be giving out too many need based awards. This does not mean private schools would not be more rewarding. </p>
<p>Here are some articles supporting my statement</p>
<p>Master Piece – The UK economy is pretty close to being in trouble. They just slashed Defense expenditures and are cutting welfare programs.Times are tough and letting tuition increase is the smart thing to do. As mentioned before you obviously will gain from being more educated. The only thing that has changed now is you have to pay a little more upfront. </p>
<p>I personally could care less what the UK and Europe do. I think the protesting and riots in France are silly. Protesting the governments plan to implement austerity is self defeating. Your government is trying to prevent a crisis. </p>
<p>America is focused on how we will compete with China and India in the new economy. Europe is wondering how they can still retire at 60 or how horrible it is to pay a little more for a well known, great investment. We will have our own day of reckoning across the pond where we will have to cut our overly generous entitlement programs. I look forward to that day.</p>
<p>I don’t see why people think education should be free or heavily subsidized. Honestly, the returns to society for a Classics BA from Harvard is a lot of less than $200,000. Therefore, we should do not expect the society to subsidize that kind of education.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s hardly scientific evidence. We have no idea how much of that extra earnings is due to education or simply self-selection. If the smartest people go to Oxford, then obviously Oxford graduates will have higher salaries. But, how do we know that the higher salaries are due to Oxford’s education or the innate superiority of its students?</p>
<p>Furthermore, I recall that British schools charge much more for international students. The obvious solution would be to get more international students and let them instead of the the taxpayer to subsidize education for domestic students.</p>
<p>This thread isn’t about whether the UK is Socialist. It’s not about Healthcare. It’s about the reaction to rising costs.</p>
<p>I think it’s ridiculous to destroy property because you don’t like the rising costs. You don’t like increases in taxes either. But where do you think the money comes from? Stop your entitled behavior! California is also on the perpetual brink of bankruptcy. They need to increase tuition too. And those residents strike too. (Okay, don’t go to college there and see if I care. I sure don’t feel the need to pay more taxes so you can get a nearly free education. No where in our Constitution is there a guarantee for a free education after age 18, unless you have special needs and then it stops at age 21.) </p>
<p>The possibility that tuition might rise isn’t completely new news either, no matter what politician said to get elected. From the NYTimes Oct 18:
</a></p>
<p>Fact is this: if you accept services, someone has to pay. Why not the recipient? If you think it should be “free”, grow up. Nothing in life is free.</p>
<p>There are benefits to getting an education. Think of that instead of what the government owes you. Maybe someday, after you get your education and you’ve been working awhile, you look back at this behavior of kicking huge windows to protest increased fees and realize that those tuition fees were not sustainable.</p>
<p>I’m not British, but I am Australian, and the education systems are rather similar.</p>
<p>One of the main problems is that there’s not a culture of having to pay large fees. Many students finance their education themselves with limited assistance from their parents. I know that’s the case here, and if I stay in Australia, I’ll be paying for my university tuition and accommodation mostly with my own money. I wouldn’t be able to afford paying $14,000 instead of $4,000 out of my own pocket for tuition (let alone accommodation, food, books…), and I’m sure that many students - even from middle class families - wouldn’t be able to cop the cost. $14,000 is a lot of money for parents who have never considered funding university fees for their children.</p>
<p>My parents went to University in central Europe and their costs were negligible. In the USA, I had to be in the top .5% of students to get a free college education! (at a public college, not fancy private school). Definitely, anyone who goes between the Europe and USA is going to get system shock.</p>
<p>Each system has its pros and cons. In the USA, you pay but you get a huge amount of choice in your education. In Europe, my parents complained of centralized, one-size fits all education and high-stakes testing.</p>
<p>That being said, the internationally high cost of college in the USA causes real dysfunction. College costs are rising out of proportion with inflation, and the much touted “return on investment” is shaky. It is a valid point of view to argue that paying $50k a year is buying a designer label on your diploma, much like Lacoste turns a bland blue polo made in southeast Asia into a $75 dollar item. In particular, I am afraid my generation of current college students is wearing a debt time bomb that will only go off when it’s too late.</p>