£7000 a year

That's not the case at all. If you don't get funding for your Masters and/or your parents can't afford to pay it, then they don't slam the door on you; you either take a year out to save some money or you do the course part-time; most people have to do one, if not both, of these things.

Personally, it doesn't bother me that much; a year's break from being a student might be quite refreshing (particularly if I end up working in academia!) Besides, PhD funding is then much easier to get.

I agree that it's a lot of money, but I think 2/3 of the Vice-Chancellors are right to say that high fees don't put off poorer students; if you're that poor, you get it all paid for you, and tuition fee loans are available to most people, if not everyone. Okay, you'll end up with a bit of debt, but if you're that worried about that then that suggests you don't have much faith in your future earning potential; from what I can gather, student debt takes 10 years maximum, in small installments, to pay off.

Moreover, what annoys me about the whole student fee/debt debate is that the only students who complain are middle/upper class people who can afford to pay it all anyway. They're the only ones who think that fees put off poorer students, even though I doubt any of them have ever tried talking to any of us about it. It's like communism/socialism all over again; the bourgeoisie is telling the working class what they should believe without running it by them first. I don't fucking care how much university costs; the fiscal costs of coming here are far outweighed by the academic, social and emotional benefits I have gained whilst being here and if other people are too fucking stupid and arrogant to appreciate that, then I just feel sorry for them.

Okay, rant over

If it goes up to 7k a year ( i know the fees could be different) pt would be half of that, so you'd still have to pay 3.5k for one year.

I know people who do post grad part time at the moment, work 25 hours a week to afford the £600 installments 3 times a year. However, if this went up to over a grand per installment, many people would not be able to afford this.

saving up for 7k is far more difficult than saving up for 3k and will take more time, consequently you'll have to take more time out to fund the post grad, making it take longer and less likely that you'll actually go back to university; if you have been earning full time wage for a while, it makes it very difficult to live on student money.

its just making it more harder for people to afford doing postgraduate education.

On top of what Beckie said there is the consideration that an undergraduate degree does not have the same value now as it used to, because more and more people are being encouraged to get them, so the benefits are less, yet we are paying more for them.

Personally, it bothers me because I'm paying the same amount as anyone else for my degree and right now it doesn't look like that debt is going to get me very far. Art is generally looked down upon as a degree by a lot of employers, including ones that take degrees from all kinds of seemingly unrelated courses. To get a 2:2 in art puts a hell of a lot of employers off, because the jobs I'd have got before coming to university go to school-leavers with more experience and graduate jobs generally see you as being a slacker because you didn't get a high grade in what is looked as a cake-course. If they're going to raise fees they aught to have a guarantee that you will get a damned good job and quality of life afterwards.

Moreover, if you're taking time out to earn money between degrees think how long it could take you to get to the career you want. You'd be, what, 24 at the moment if you did an undergrad and a PhD coming straight from school and doing them consecutively? Thats 8 years you could have been working already instead of mounting up debt, not to mention how long it would take you to earn the money you'd need. 7 grand a year is a lot, it means that you'd have to earn 21 thousand pounds, just to pay off your fees, without even thinking about the cost of living. you could probably buy a house with that much. I know a raise in fees like that would have put me off.

my rant, is now over also

The Media are winning.

As they did with the Credit Crunch/Recession.

I have an idea, but I want to formulate it better before letting anything slip out unadvertedly. Which could be harmful.

The whole idea of sending 50% of young people to university is one of the biggest bull-crap political policies EVER. We all know shitloads of people who aren't cut out for university education, who struggle to pass, who drop out with lots of debt and no degree to show for it. Hell, it goes back further than that; I remember a lot of people at my school staying on for 6th form when they were just not up to the task, either due to a lack of discipline, or just not being smart enough; personally, I think it should be 5 Bs rather than 5 Cs to progress to 6th form.

A lot of these people would be better off learning a trade, getting an apprenticeship, doing some other kind of further education or just getting a standard post-GCSE job. If we can make sure all the people who'd be better off employing their abilities elsewhere are aware of this fact, then we wouldn't need all these really crappy "universities" that just offer degrees in media studies and golfcourse management to accommodate for them. That way, we can get back to how higher education was in the 70s; only those good enough went to university (well, maybe there have always been exceptions) meaning it was easier for the government to afford and thus they could all just got grants and were debt-free.

Amy's right to point out that the current system ends up neglecting those who actually deserve to be at university. I am someone who has benefitted from doing a degree, and university life in general, far more than I would if I'd followed any other kind of post-GCSE path. The fact that I keep seeing people who clearly aren't aware of what's best for them annoys me greatly.

Actually, I would have said that was Beckie's point, not mine. Admittedly though I agree with you, Tom, in that I think a lot of schools do not give adequate consideration to preparing individuals as to what the best options are for them in terms of Further/Higher Education and employment.

I know at my school it seemed like the only kids they cared about were the Oxbridge candidates that got all kinds of talking and tutoring through the processes. I think more one-to-one advice and tutoring on what future options could be available, at an earlier stage, say around the age of 14 or 15, would mean more educated choices about options and degree. I know it would certainly have helped me. Instead they leave it to kids to go and find out these things of their own volition, and lets face it, how many kids are really thinking that far ahead at 14?

I agree that more advice should be given to high school students. My school has become increasingly obsessed with league tables, meaning that they will make a student drop a subject if it looks like they will not attain their predicted grades. I certainly remember seeing a lot of people in my 6th Form who just shouldn't have been there, as they were wasting everyone's time, not least their own.

At every level; SATs, GCSEs, even A-Level, they kept on telling us the same thing; "You've been used to your teachers spoon-feeding you facts, BUT NOT ANYMORE!!" By the time we were in the 6th Form, this speech had lost its edge. Because the truth is that most high schools "spoon-feed" their students right up until they leave, which would explain the drop-out rate in universities; there's nobody to hold their hand anymore, making it more apparent who is up to the task and who isn't.

All in all, it's a very depressing state of affairs when we are told that our undergraduate degrees won't necessarily count for anything and that we would have been better off leaving school at 16. The moment this situation extends to post-graduate study is a moment when there are some serious questions we need to start asking ourselves.

Tell me about it. I've stayed in education for an extra 7 years after GCSE, having to borrow £25000 to do so, and who knows what the final bill was in total after working and my parents chipping in (I estimate £53000). I now have an undergrad and a post-grad masters, and the result? I am completely unemployable due to the combination of being under experienced and over qualified.

Yet I look at those who left at 16, got a job and worked up the career ladder. Some of those people are in management positions, and some even own their company. It makes me sick that while I did what I was told was "the right thing" I've actually been screwed over and have wasted my time. I often think my choice of degree may be to blame, nobody seems to want people doing the traditionally academic degrees anymore because "they have no vocational application". For this reason I've been rejected from jobs involving computing, data entry and analysis despite the fact that you would think physics would suggest I can do all of those things easily!

This government has completely ruined the further education system in this country by forcing people who shouldn't to go to university (mostly by making them feel like a failure if they don't, or was that just my school?), making degrees worthless, and the extra cost of these people has simply been passed to the student. If tuition fees increase then many will not be able to come, and sadly it will be the hard working that get left behind, not the rich daddy's girls who come for a three year party (you know the type I mean). It's just not fair.

Being the daughter of two teachers I've seen how much the education system has changed in the last 15 or so years, and it certainly isn't for the good. It's just one of the many reasons that I will probably live elsewhere as soon as I can.

To the extent that there isn't a spare bit of wall not covered in newspaper cuttings ("Look how great we are, look I say, LOOK DAMN YOU!!!")

I think tuition fees in general are putting less advantaged students off some courses, medicine in particular, as this is the one I know most about. There's a lot of effort being made at the moment to get students from 'non-traditional' i.e. non-professional parent backgrounds into medicine, which is a 5-year course minimum. It's uphill work to get poorer students to apply because the financial commitment is huge and the loans you get just don't cover living expenses, particularly in the later years of the course. Our fourth year of study starts in August and runs to the end of the following July with a total of 4 weeks holiday and we get the exact same loan as everyone else, though we're expected to travel all over the county for placements which don't always have travel expenses paid for. 5th year is even worse, as the loan is cut by about a third and the year is the same length. We have no time to work during term-time at all and from the second year onwards our terms are longer than standard uni terms, so when we do get off uni it's hard to find work as the jobs are often taken. As it currently stands, it's impossible to do a medical degree without parental support. I don't know anyone who's managed it except for some mature students whose partners are supporting them, which is more or less the same. These increased tuition fees are just going to make it worse for poorer students wanting to do these courses because these are the types of degrees that are likely to charge up to £20K per year, and who in their right mind wants to get into £120K debt before living expenses are taken into account? I don't think this is going to help diversity on several courses, and those professions will suffer as a result.

Can you not get help and funding etc. from the NHS if you study medicine?

There were loads of girls at Clarence Dock doing nursing who used to fuck about all the time because they got certain benefits from the NHS, one of which was free Resits for any papers they fucked up.

I'm sorry, but I simply would not have been able to afford to go to university for £7000 a year. I would have ended up going straight into work.

Remind me why our government calls themselves Labour again?

Joelxxx

Not only are they putting off the poorer students, who's parents can't afford to help them, they're also putting many middle-class types off, as they end up falling just shy of getting bursaries and higher loans because of parent's earnings. As parents are often having to help out with living costs as well, this makes it just as hard for them. As such, instead of making it easier for students from poorer backgrounds to make it to uni, they've just made it harder for everyone but the rich.

This is why I didn't get a grant. My mom moved in with her boyfriend a couple of months before I applied for uni. Based on her earnings I'm entitled to full grants, bursaries, whatever (I was also entitled to a full scholarship based on my grades which I couldn't apply for, for several more complicated reasons, but anyway). Because of that though the household's combined earnings got pushed up to just too much, and I just get the loans, with no money from home unless it's a total emergency, to be paid back asap.
If fees had been £7000 a year, I wouldn't have been able to come. As it is I'm getting by, and I know the fee loan doesn't 'affect' us until we graduate, but the average graduate in my situation would be thoroughly up a metaphorical creek without a figurative paddle if they had to pay back £30,000+ after graduating. ESPECIALLY arts students.

Seconded.

I hear that. I've just had to spend about £600 on my end of term project. And that was taking the 'cheap' option. Bearing in mind it's not the most expensive project I've done this year, that I've not been able to work because of this stupid hand and I'm way to old to be getting parental support, is there any wonder I've not been out and about much this year? I've survived by selling off all those things I spent years working for. . .heart breaking.

WHy do Art students not get any support? The £3K+ we pay each year appears to go on studio rental and nothing else . . .

Here, here. It's just not taken into account the amount of loan people are given in relation to their course. If you work in sculpture in our studio they'll get you in materials within reason. Sadly working in paint and photography I don't get much help with materials, which adds up quickly when you're paying for both sketch-book print outs and large professional prints for shows. Yet course-materials are paid for within science courses, to the best of my knowledge?

The only things I had to pay for in physics was text books, lab books, the odd piece of software and general stationary (paper, printing, pens, that sort of thing). However, there was a lot of equipment that we used in the lab that was hopelessly out of date, such as digital cameras that looked like they were the very first ones made so the quality was crap, and radioactive sources that according to our experiment simply weren't radioactive anymore!

Having done theoretical projects for both my degrees all I needed was a computer which was easily available and had everything we needed on it, so the cost to me was nothing. But I still think that science departments desperately need some money to update themselves.