“In 2012, universities will charge undergraduate students £9,000. For many students this extraordinary sum will deter them from attending university.”

We will see, but it should only deter those who should not be at a university anyway (those who are unable to benefit from a university education) or those who have been misled by the press as to what the fees mean.

I can see the point the article is making but this just seems a little far fetched for me. I got deeply in debt to goto university in 1998 – i’m still paying it off. Am I pleased about that, no but lets also be honest that I have earned substantially more than my peers who didn’t get degrees.

The cost of university like any other debt depends on how you spend the money. My current course to gain Chartered Accoutant status will cost me half of my university debt and double my income. That is money well spent. Given that I will personally profit from this and won’t necessarily contribute much socially from it other than tax I don’t think it unreasonable that I pay the cost of it.

Getting a masters WILL substantially improve your income even if you get it in a subject unrelated to your work. I did a Bsc politics degree at Uni but ended up working in retail after I left. Just having the degree sped up my career progression and improved my income.

An educated population is an important part of creating a healthy functioning society but i’ve never seen any explanation anywhere of how we could fund 50% of the youth entering university entirely out of the public expense. £5k-10k is not alot of money to borrow if you are going to see your income rise by 10k. (which is exactly what happened to my cousin and he is a teacher who took a masters in languages)

And, of course, those fees that are currently less than £9000 are likely to go up (can’t have a postgraduate qualification costing less than an undergraduate degree), exacerbating the problem further.

The issue here is not one of the charges levied. Clearly if I can double or substantially increase my earnings from one course for one year then it makes sense that I do it. But it is my ability to pay that causes the problem. The socially exclusive elite only arises because the perception exists that it will only be the rich who can get financing to take this education up.

Billy pilgrims got a point that the cost will probably rise to match other courses and that would make it more difficult for those from poorer backgrounds to take these courses. But that also creates an opportunity for banks or other insitutions to invent the means to lend people money specifically to educate themselves.

I don’t like the idea of a young person from a poorer background being unable to improve their lot becuase they can’t afford an education. But the reverse is also true, i’m definitely not keen on paying some rich toff 22k a year to study to become a banker. Not all social problems have to be solved by government and I don’t see any reason why RBS being incentivised to lend 10k for one year at a reasonable interest rate to individuals who can provide good academic credentials wouldn’t also work.

This article is grossly misinformed. The author’s “research” says there are no student loans for masters degrees. But this is palpably false, as anyone familiar with student finance or an actual masters student already knows: you can apply for a loan called the Professional Career Development Loan. Google it. The terms are less generous than those of the standard undergraduate loan, which is understandable as a masters is not essential, but it’s still a very good deal. Perhaps the site would like to amend the article in light of this information? I guess not.

‘Creating a socially exclusive elite’

For God’s sake… that’s the whole POINT of tuition fees.

If you are wealthy enough to not have to bother about the cost, creating a market in education and removing public subsidy both saves you tax (no longer having to subsidise the hoi polloi) AND reduces competition for places from lower income students – a win-win.

Of course, tuition fees are only part of the equation. With accommodation costs outpacing inflation (it’s difficult to get a room for less than £4.5k per year), and basic utilities, food, etc. also on the rise +increases in taxation (VAT) – the cost per year is rising to around £18k. Add in the fact that it’s getting harder to find part-time, even minimum wage, employment, and the hurdles facing students from mid-to-low income families is ratcheting up alarmingly.

Of course, many of these students are already at a disadvantage to those who’ve come through private education, and will be less confident of their ability to get the benefit of university education. If they fail to get at least a 2:2 (the benchmark set by Gove), or fall ill, the debt is still there to be repaid – accruing compound interest.

Of course, children of the wealthy have none of these concerns.

The whole point of state-funded education was to pool risk and give an equal opportunity to all, irrespective of income – with the result that the most able, rather than the best connected would succeed. Personally, I would want to be treated by a surgeon who graduated due to their ability rather than their parents’ bank balance.

But from the point of view of the wealthy elite in charge of public policy, it all makes perfect sense.

p.s. It’s worth noting that Adam Smith recommended the public subsidy of education on the grounds that it increased competition (albeit reluctantly as it reduced the earnings potential of ‘men of letters’), though he suggested that, if it became general policy it might dissuade the wealthy from paying for their children’s education, by reducing the advantage gained.

Add in the fact that it’s getting harder to find part-time, even minimum wage, employment, and the hurdles facing students from mid-to-low income families is ratcheting up alarmingly.”

No, if you can’t get employment, or can only get minimum wage employment, you have no obligation to repay the loan, so that makes no sense. The only thing tat is likely to put people from poor households off higher education, is this sort of nonsense misinformation about loans.

Dane, you seemed to be ‘grossly misinformed’. Career Development Loans aren’t student loans, they come with interest and are not as generous as students loans. What is more, banks are stopping their professional career loans. As an example, Natwest have stopped their’s http://l2b.thelawyer.com/students-outraged-as-natwest-cancels-vital-post-grad-loan/1006974.article . Google it.

Also to those naive enough to state that the money is ‘worth it’, it simply isn’t worth the risk. The graduate job market is in a terrible state and where as £6k invest for a masters would have been ‘worth it’ in the past, the same can’t be said today.

Good points, but the most important factor here is not fees, but maintenance for post-graduates. Whereas undergraduates get a large amount of money upfront, repayable under acceptable terms, to maintain their living costs for three years, post-graduates get nothing. For most Masters courses costing £3500, the fees are a negligible aspect of the total costs. More relevant are the simple costs of living for a year without any other income, which most universities estimate as around £10,000 +/-£2000.

For example, studying at my old university, Cambridge, for my MPhil would have cost about £17,000 in total. The suggestion that there are “only” 1-2 funded places per department is unduly optimistic. Plenty of departments won’t have any. Thus I was forced to do my MA at the University of Kent, so that I could live at home, thus saving virtually all of the costs of living away from home. My partner took the other option and did her MPhil at Cambridge, by taking out a Career Development Loan, which will see her paying back between £200-250 per month for the next 5 years, from the moment she graduates.

*Oh and just to add a further observation, having read Dane’s comments. The CDL she took out (the maximum amount) only covered about 58% of her costs for the year.

Points that seem to be getting missed

1. You can work whilst studying – which is what I do – i’m paying for the 12k cost of my education out of my earnings – its tough but not impossible
2. Who are the rich? Parents earning 50k a year are going to find it difficult to meet 18k per annum costs on their kids education
3. Doctors, teachers, scientists and engineers all have valuable social contributions to make from their education – i’ve got no problem paying taxes to support grants for them but i’ll be buggered if i’m going to do the same for lawyers, accountants (I am one) and fashion students.
4. A return to employers paying training fees – my company is supporting a young lad who was previously unemployed to get trained as a gas engineer. Employers constantly complain that the young in this country get a crap education – maybe they can follow my companies example and put their money where their mouth is to remedy that

Back in 2004 when I looked into doing a masters at the LSE the fees were about £12.5k I think. For that reason, I don’t think your example is a particularly useful or illustrative one.

Hasn’t anybody noticed we already have a socially exclusive elite, currently they are pretending to run the country.
Personally i wouldn’t have much confidence in any of them having the ability to navigate a busy road with a wheelbarrow.
Checkout the PhDs in Westminster, the intellect on display is truly awesome.

This isn’t fair, there should be a scheme in place whereby you pay the loan back in installments, preferably based on your income.

Creating a socially exclusive elite’

‘For God’s sake… that’s the whole POINT of tuition fees.

Actually, its the whole POINT of the education system.

Whether getting a degree is determined by the ability to pay or by ‘merit’ alone, the primary social function is to a social division of labour which rewards those who labour by pen or word over those who labour by hand.

No rational society would reward an accountant or advertising exec over those who keep the streets clean.

“No rational society would reward an accountant or advertising exec over those who keep the streets clean.”

Really? I suppose a quick comparison of societies will bear that out in a jiffy … er … wait a minute …

Speaking as someone who considers himself to be ‘working class’ and is currently completing a masters degree, I can safely say that masters level study is creating a social elite. A large majority of masters students in my year come from extremely affluent backgrounds, and a majority of them went to private school.

The problem is that scholarships/bursaries are very limited and extremely difficult to win. Which means that you have to essentially fund it yourself, probably with a career development loan – they are in no way comparable to a student loan. If you do a masters the year is probably going to cost you a minimum of 15k (5k MA, 5k accomodation, 5k living costs). The maximum you can borrow on a career development loan is 10k – which you have to start paying back as soon as you finish the MA over a maximum of 5 years at 10% apr, roughly £200 a month if you borrow 10k with a 60 month payback – this still leaves you 5k short. So basically you have to work after you graduate to save up.

Or, as happens in most cases, one’s parents subsidise one’s MA.

“Also to those naive enough to state that the money is ‘worth it’, it simply isn’t worth the risk. The graduate job market is in a terrible state and where as £6k invest for a masters would have been ‘worth it’ in the past, the same can’t be said today.”

So what?!

If it’s not worth it, people won’t do it, the price will come down. Very simple. Despite what other things (Billy Pilgrim), prices don’t always go up.

I don’t see why it’s worth such a panicky post like this.

Oh and Ian, you’re the one not reading what Dane said. He/she pointed out it’s not a student loan, and it’s not as generous as one. Does help to read things.

‘“No rational society would reward an accountant or advertising exec over those who keep the streets clean.”

Really? I suppose a quick comparison of societies will bear that out in a jiffy … er … wait a minute …’

See how long you’d last in a society with rats and excrement in the street as opposed to one in which there’s no one around to help big business fiddle their taxes.

There is a lot of rhetoric based around individual political views being poured out above, but I have no doubt the article is correct, because it’s precisely the situation I’ve faced, and I concluded that postgrad study is not for me given the current financial situation surrounding it and the situation in the employment market. Maybe it’s not proven in the general case, but in specific cases, I think it very much can be demonstrated. And if exclusionary pressure can be demonstrated in any case, then the current system is not fit for purpose.

I’m disabled and when I lost my job of 20 years a string of careers consultants told me: “forget the private sector, they’ll never employ you with your level of disability, and the public sector isn’t much better, the only people who might be flexible enough to employ you are Higher Education”. That of course presumed I was capable of getting a postgrad qualification, which luckily I am. But then the squeeze on HE started, and it became very apparent that even if I did get a postgrad qualification, then the prospects of employment were receding, and facing having no income whatsoever next year when time-limiting of ESA kicks in, no realistic prospect of being fit enough to find a job in the general market, and little chance of one in HE, I have had to conclude that my money is better saved for living on.

There are some wild figures about the value of a masters being thrown around, but at my former employer, a major multinational, an engineering or scientific masters would typically bring you £100 or 200 extra on your starting salary and nothing more.

As for Retorik80’s “You can work whilst studying” You might be able to, I and many disabled people can’t. We don’t have the physical resources to be able to do both the course and a job. Even if I was fit enough, I’m still facing that stark message from the careers consultants that no one wants to employ someone with a disability which means they can’t sit or stand.

The case for there being a general exclusionary pressure on people from non-elite backgrounds may still be up in the air for some of you, personally I think it’s long since proven, but the case for that pressure existing for disabled people is very clear. The level of discrimination in recruiting means that we cannot evaluate the value of a masters in terms of increased opportunity, but have to evaluate it as increased financial obligation versus the poor prospects we face in the jobs market. Which is going to capture a potential employer’s attention: ‘Msc Comp Sci’, or ‘needs to work lying down and take frequent breaks’?

“See how long you’d last in a society with rats and excrement in the street as opposed to one in which there’s no one around to help big business fiddle their taxes.”

As if we need to choose between such extremes. Why don’t you see how long you last in those societies that pay their street cleaners as much as their accountants such as (hard to think of many) Cuba or North Korea while you despair at the irrationality of Sweden in contrast.

It’s also worth looking at the post qualification route into a career. Not only will you be paying for the course (and living expenses whilst doing the course), but you will also have to then do internships and other voluntary work to get the experience and contacts to finally secure a paid position. You won’t even be entitled to benefits whilst doing this, the only loans will be on a commercial basis, and there is no guarantee of a job at the end of it. There are now vast swathes of professions where this is the only route in. Hell, in some parts of the country getting your first bar job requires a 6 week internship.

But apparently social class doesn’t exist anymore and top people get there on merit.

Nick Clegg’s proposal to give 75% of the governments shares in RBS and Lloyds to the 45 million Brits on the electoral roll is in theory a noble idea, but it poses several risks in practice. The share distribution scheme would offer each recipient 1,450 RBS and 440 Lloyds shares valued at the floor price (the price the government paid for the shares at bailout), required to be returned to the government at the point of sale, and any profit from a possible rise in share price to retain from the sale. To offer a reference number, should the shares rise 50%, each recipient could profit £500 in total. But this could take years and would not contribute much to raising the standard of living nor to future prospects for individual citizens long-term. Further, the possibility of beneficiaries selling their shares on the same day implies that the market price per share could plummet below the floor price and leave both the government and the people at a loss, as well as incur a fatal drop in share value for the banks.

Nevertheless, the idea now out in the public and expectations of the share scheme benefiting the people growing along these lines, I propose distributing the shares instead to all Brits not yet on the electoral roll, i.e. the 13 million children between the ages of 0-18 living in the UK and eligible for British education, in the form of a personal stipend. This would not only resolve the problem of creating market volatility as any given recipient would only be allowed to sell their shares first upon turning 18, the value of the shares per recipient could also amount to a significant contribution towards a higher education. Alternatively, the shares could be held in a national trust managed by the university system directly. Either scheme could hardly be scrutinized by citizens. As our government is simultaneously debating what to do with its bank shares and searching for a resolution to its challenged educational system, this scheme could kill two public debate birds with one stone and contribute to the growth and sustainability of our economy by in the long-term raising workforce competitiveness in the global arena. Perhaps a topic for discussion at the Liberal Democrats September Conference.

Worse, with the funding cuts the number of sponsored studentships is going to plummet, and along with it general research in Universities.

@25. Leon Wolfson: “Worse, with the funding cuts the number of sponsored studentships is going to plummet, and along with it general research in Universities.”

Leon catches a point here about funding for research PhDs; there is less funding, full stop. Smart graduates used to go from UG lectures to a lab/library, because universities used to take risks. Take a risk on the smart graduate.

But universities can’t do that if the base qualification for PhD study is an Msomething. From the student perspective, progress is only provided by stumping up for the Msomething. Msomething at thousands of pounds?

Another point to consider is that at a time when the likes of Thomas Friedman blithely insist we live in a flexible, high-risk market where individuals must permanently re-skill themselves (see link below), PG courses are the most likely places to do this.I note that some of the degrees mentioned in the OP are specific, professional qualifications ti enter industry. Supporters of this new hyper-capitalism should be asked to explain how individuals are supposed to afford this type of re-training when, as noted above, the banks are reluctant to give out personal loans.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/13/opinion/13friedman.html?_r=1

It may be worth pointing out that what funding there is, is pretty generous. I’m doing a PhD and get all my tuition fees paid plus living costs of £13,300ish a year. (But studentships are thin on the ground, so I can certainly see a case for extending the student loans system to help wannabe postgrads who miss out. And it’s only because I was able to fund my own MA that I was even able to apply for a PhD.)

“Nonetheless, even universities further down the league tables charge postgraduates disturbing fees. For example, Middlesex University, ranked 75th, charge postgraduates £5,370 on their fashion masters. Roehampton University, ranked 97th in the Guardian’s University league table, charge postgraduates £7,300 for their masters in play therapy.

The problem is that the enormous postgraduate fees are creating a socially exclusive intellectual elite.”

Graduate students at Middlesex and Roehampton are not part of an exclusive intellectual elite in any sense. These are vocational courses, as the accounting and finance are.

The article is a bit disingenuous.

For sciences there is more funding available, particularly as many go straight from an undergraduate (4 year) masters onto funded PhD programmes.

For Social Sciences and Arts there is less funding, however, referencing LSE is disingenuous.
LSE is massively overpriced and treats its Masters students as a cash cow. It attracts vast numbers of overseas students who want the three letters LSE on their CV.

If, for example you wanted to go somewhere with a good research reputation (better than LSE) for a taught masters in Politics:

The top three departments in the 2008 RAE were Essex (£6,450), Sheffield (£4,600) and Aberystwyth (£3,870)

Research degree fees are set nationally at £3,750

By far the biggest cost of studying is the cost of living for a year. However, it is not essential that you go straight from undergrad to do a masters, I know plenty of people who have done theirs in their late 20s or 30s. Indeed it could be argued that you’d do a better job with more experience under your belt.

OK. So what would Ian like universities to do – provide the master’s degrees for free? He seems to have a hazy grip on higher education, since he seems to think that the fees charged are new or remarkable (and indeed, if he thinks they only cater to a ‘social elite’ – unless you are defining the elite as those educated to masters level, this could be difficult to justify).

For fairly obvious reasons, government does not fund and has never wanted to fund everyone to do a masters – it has provided funding through research councils to ensure a supply of students for research, and universities also provide scholarships for students (and bursaries for those who can’t afford fees in some cases – me for one). But Ian seems to think that universities should be obliged to provide masters education for everyone (without justifying why) – or has missed the key fact that there are scholarships, loans etc available for those who have the ability.

Above all though, it is amusing seeing an article about university fees which fails to mention the fact that UK fees at masters level are below the market-level international fees, and which does not even mention the importance of the international market. It seems to indicate a certain lack of knowledge of the subject (or possibly an overly polemic focus on one issue).

“OK. So what would Ian like universities to do – provide the master’s degrees for free? ”

He didn’t write that.The obvious solution is provide finance for people on the same terms as student loans (lending now, paid back out of earnings above a threshold – to make the numbers work I’d increase the re-payments made from 9%).

I think Other Ed’s right. A part-time MPhil/MRes is £1,866 a year part-time for two years, that’s almost outrageously cheap. I’d also add that it’s not very difficult to get an offer of a place, even at the very best universities they’re just looking for a good reference and a 2.1. What’s difficult is winning funding. It’s true people with Masters do have the advantage in getting these places, but there are very few obstacles to doing it yourself. Most universities are very keen to attract research students.

If anything the real scandal is most of these £20k Masters are aren’t really worth the money.

I’m hoping to do a Masters in Public Health at some point in the near future. This is a qualification which will not increase my income (I am a scientific researcher). The course, full-time at the London School of Tropical Medicine is £5,300. However, I cannot afford to take a year off work to do it, so I will probably use the distance-learning option. However, this then more than doubles the price to £10,845. This basically means that those who can afford not to work pay less.