• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

The Labour Party under Keir Starmer

Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,870
Location
Taunton or Kent

‘University tuition fees in England expected to rise for first time in eight years’

Maybe if universities went back to being centres of learning and not businesses that would be for the better.
Yes the entire University sector is oversized and needs scaling back, while apprenticeship/vocational-style education is lacking. If the only feasible Universities were the Russell Group ones (totalling 24 institutions), maybe fees for these could be lower and/or able to achieve better grants for less well-off, but academically gifted, students.

Whatever the case though, such a structural reform is a massive job and politically very difficult to achieve, so no surprise the short-term sticking plaster idea is just increase the fees.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,866
I would argue that the former Polytechnics be returned to their role of practical skills education - with the emphasis on sandwich degrees and HNDs leading to specific roles.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,981
Yes the entire University sector is oversized and needs scaling back, while apprenticeship/vocational-style education is lacking. If the only feasible Universities were the Russell Group ones (totalling 24 institutions), maybe fees for these could be lower and/or able to achieve better grants for less well-off, but academically gifted, students.

Whatever the case though, such a structural reform is a massive job and politically very difficult to achieve, so no surprise the short-term sticking plaster idea is just increase the fees.
Fairly sure this is a result if previous Labour government who had expectation that 50% of people would go to University?
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
25,964
Location
Nottingham
Fairly sure this is a result if previous Labour government who had expectation that 50% of people would go to University?
I tend to agree. It has simply uprated the entry level for many jobs that a non-graduate could do perfectly well, while imposing costs on the people seeking those jobs and on the wider economy.
 

JamesT

Established Member
Joined
25 Feb 2015
Messages
3,315
Fairly sure this is a result if previous Labour government who had expectation that 50% of people would go to University?
Yes, back when the percentage going to university was in single digits then central funding could pay for it all including grants for living costs. Spread over much larger numbers that isn't possible.

Inflation in the 8 years since the fees were frozen is about 33%. That's a lot of expense to absorb with part of their income frozen.
 

oldman

Member
Joined
26 Nov 2013
Messages
1,084
If the only feasible Universities were the Russell Group ones (totalling 24 institutions)
... there would be a lot fewer science and engineering graduates, and a lot less world-class research.
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
25,964
Location
Nottingham
... there would be a lot fewer science and engineering graduates, and a lot less world-class research.
One of the few things I agree with Rishi Sunak on, is that there should be incentivisation to study subjects that contribute more to national prosperity. But it's a very tricky area, with arts graduates making a big contribution to civilisation and other issues such as scientists and engineers taking advantage of the incentives then moving abroad.
 

zero

Member
Joined
3 Apr 2011
Messages
1,182
The former polytechnics returning to being called polytechnics isn't going to make them cheaper to run, and they are still going to need to be funded by the government, especially if they are then forced to charge lower fees than universities.

Not sure if the 50% to uni aim was achieved, but again, if polytechnics had not been renamed the goal would just have been 50% of people to uni or polytechnic.

If Labour wants to stop STEM graduates moving abroad it needs to use a carrot rather than stick approach to encourage staying in the UK.
 

jfollows

Established Member
Joined
26 Feb 2011
Messages
7,104
Location
Wilmslow
The 50% target was achieved in 2019, according to https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-49841620
The target of 50% going into higher education was set in September 1999 in a conference speech by Tony Blair, two years after coming into office.
"Today I set a target of 50% of young adults going into higher education in the next century," Mr Blair told Labour Party delegates.
The new figures show 50.2% - but there are significant gender differences. While 57% of women are going into higher education, the proportion is 44.1% for men.
It was under 15% when I went to university in 1980. So a big change, and the funding approach then - an encouragement to the middle classes through free tuition and a means-tested grant - couldn’t be sustained.
 

brad465

Established Member
Joined
11 Aug 2010
Messages
7,870
Location
Taunton or Kent
If Labour wants to stop STEM graduates moving abroad it needs to use a carrot rather than stick approach to encourage staying in the UK.
The best suggestion I've seen to combat this, is waiving debt repayment for graduates in critical sectors who stay in the UK for at least 10 years after graduating. They don't pay back anything while working in the UK, regardless of salary, and if after 10 years they've stayed in the UK throughout, their student debt is wiped completely. How much this would cost the Exchequer is debatable, but the assumption is at least some of the cost would be reimbursed by the graduates paying UK taxes and contributing to the wider economy.
 

cactustwirly

Established Member
Joined
10 Apr 2013
Messages
7,646
Location
UK
The best suggestion I've seen to combat this, is waiving debt repayment for graduates in critical sectors who stay in the UK for at least 10 years after graduating. They don't pay back anything while working in the UK, regardless of salary, and if after 10 years they've stayed in the UK throughout, their student debt is wiped completely. How much this would cost the Exchequer is debatable, but the assumption is at least some of the cost would be reimbursed by the graduates paying UK taxes and contributing to the wider economy.
The problem is most STEM jobs are poorly paid in the UK and they are difficult to get hold of
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
30,596
Location
Fenny Stratford
Yes the entire University sector is oversized and needs scaling back, while apprenticeship/vocational-style education is lacking. If the only feasible Universities were the Russell Group ones (totalling 24 institutions), maybe fees for these could be lower and/or able to achieve better grants for less well-off, but academically gifted, students.

Whatever the case though, such a structural reform is a massive job and politically very difficult to achieve, so no surprise the short-term sticking plaster idea is just increase the fees.

I would argue that the former Polytechnics be returned to their role of practical skills education - with the emphasis on sandwich degrees and HNDs leading to specific roles.
If that was the case I would not have gone to university, got a degree or the first career I had. This sounds like what it always is: University for the toffs, trades for the scum. Way to limit advancement or aspiration? This kind of thing really boils my urine. In 2024 (and not 1924) we should be demanding better prospects for all rather than trying to limit them and determine peoples future worth by dint of thier parental wealth or class.
 

kristiang85

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2018
Messages
2,689
I tend to agree. It has simply uprated the entry level for many jobs that a non-graduate could do perfectly well, while imposing costs on the people seeking those jobs and on the wider economy.

Undergraduate degrees are pretty much worthless now in many sectors due to the oversaturation. So many mid-level jobs and above seem to require masters now as well.
 

pitdiver

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2012
Messages
1,111
Location
Nottinghamshire
My son went to a "University" that was a former Polytechnic and earned a First. However he had already gained an HND. I advised him to tell prospective employers of his HND not his degree. I considered his HND more useful than a degree from, shall we say a second rate University
 

edwin_m

Veteran Member
Joined
21 Apr 2013
Messages
25,964
Location
Nottingham
If that was the case I would not have gone to university, got a degree or the first career I had. This sounds like what it always is: University for the toffs, trades for the scum. Way to limit advancement or aspiration? This kind of thing really boils my urine. In 2024 (and not 1924) we should be demanding better prospects for all rather than trying to limit them and determine peoples future worth by dint of thier parental wealth or class.
I don't think it has to be that way. Our current system imposes extra costs to enter many professions, because of the expectation of having certain qualifications that incur fees and take them out (or largely out) of the paid jobs market for several years. Those from poorer backgrounds are less able to bear those costs.

I would have thought we could come up with a system that identified those willing and able to study to gain a qualification that would be beneficial to themselves and to the country, and focus funding on those people particularly where they don't have the resources to fund themselves.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,866
If that was the case I would not have gone to university, got a degree or the first career I had. This sounds like what it always is: University for the toffs, trades for the scum. Way to limit advancement or aspiration? This kind of thing really boils my urine. In 2024 (and not 1924) we should be demanding better prospects for all rather than trying to limit them and determine peoples future worth by dint of thier parental wealth or class.

Not at all—re-align the provision with the market's need. This is why degree apprenticeships are doing well—they combine paid study, work experience, and a degree. Those with an apprenticeship are advancing more quickly than those without.

I'm not suggesting that we stop anyone studying PPE at Oxbridge. Instead, more places should be opened on vocational degrees in institutions properly equipped to support them. Take a look at the Graduate Prospects for an American Studies Graduate vs a Chemical Engineer or Computer Scientist.

We're asking our children to invest in their education (plus 3.1%)—surely we should guide them to the best returns?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
30,596
Location
Fenny Stratford
Not at all—re-align the provision with the market's need.
no - you are saying people like me shouldn't study a degree to allow entrance to one of the "professions". I wouldn't have got into a "good" university so I wouldn't have had my first career, which I was more than decent at.

IMO limiting access to university is a way to make sure people know thier place and don't seek to improve or better themselves unless it is along a route those at the top decide upon.

University should be open to all who want to go not just those at the top of society or those who have money/position or those who study "approved" degrees - if someone wants to go to uni to study "American Studies" and are willing to bear the cost then good luck to them.

Our current system imposes extra costs to enter many professions, because of the expectation of having certain qualifications that incur fees and take them out (or largely out) of the paid jobs market for several years. Those from poorer backgrounds are less able to bear those costs.
my degree and qualifications didn't cost me anymore than anyone else & my employer ( like everyone else I know in similar positions) paid my subscriptions and certification fees.
 
Last edited:

Senex

Established Member
Joined
1 Apr 2014
Messages
2,838
Location
York
Why did we never manage to create the equivalent of the German Technische Hochschulen — institutions focused on the applied sciences which rapidly became every bit as prestigious as most of the older traditional universities whilst remained committed to that focus ?
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,866
no - you are saying people like me shouldn't study a degree to allow entrance to one of the "professions". I wouldn't have got into a "good" university so I wouldn't have had my first career, which I was more than decent at.

IMO limiting access to university is a way to make sure people know thier place and don't seek to improve or better themselves unless it is along a route those at the top decide upon.

Where have I said anyone shouldn't be able to study a degree? There should be no limit to entry, I'm saying that we should be looking to have degrees better aligned to employment.

For your personal circumstances, you seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder which you're projecting onto my replies. Did you get into a "good" Uni? Who are "people like you"? What's your beef?

University should be open to all who want to go not just those at the top of society or those who have money/position or those who study "approved" degrees - if someone wants to go to uni to study "American Studies" and are willing to bear the cost then good luck to them.

There's a huge contradiction in this point. You open with making university open to everyone, but then you say you have to be able to pay for it. But that's not really open to everyone, is it? It's like saying anyone can come to my party, but then saying you must bring your own cake and drinks and pay to get in. It just doesn't make sense. You can't say it's for everyone and then say only people with money can come. What's it to be?
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
30,596
Location
Fenny Stratford
There's a huge contradiction in this point. You open with making university open to everyone, but then you say you have to be able to pay for it. But that's not really open to everyone, is it?
I would love it to be free of charge to all but that doesn't look practical in the real world. It absolutely is open to everyone as long as you are prepared to take the loans to cover it. You don't have to have the funds upfront ( or more accurately parental funds) to do that. The pay off for taking that loan is to get a better paying career and the prospect of better long term wealth and security.

For your personal circumstances, you seem to have a massive chip on your shoulder which you're projecting onto my replies. Did you get into a "good" Uni? Who are "people like you"? What's your beef?
my "beef" is that people from my social stratus and wealth are the ones those higher up the scale would like to stop going to university and bettering themselves.

I don't want people to know thier place like they did in the olden days. I want all people to have the same opportunity to improve themselves.

I'm saying that we should be looking to have degrees better aligned to employment.
that seems sensible as long as it isn't watering down opportunity and preventing people from wanting to go to university to study and improve themselves.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,830
Why did we never manage to create the equivalent of the German Technische Hochschulen — institutions focused on the applied sciences which rapidly became every bit as prestigious as most of the older traditional universities whilst remained committed to that focus ?
Partly because it costs half as much to provide a degree to an arts student and the fees are the same, so there is very little benefit in a market-led system to teaching lots of science. Partly also because we devalued the word university by applying it to dozens of second-tier institutions, making name recognition harder for the science-oriented universities we did create.

Places like Herriott Watt and Bradford are good science-oriented universities, but name-recognition-wise they don't stick out any more than Napier or even Worcester. When there are already dozens of well-established high-quality traditional universities often with hundreds of years of name recognition behind them it's difficult to stand out from the crowd.

I think the basic problem we have though is that we're actually training too many people in STEM degrees, probably in the same proportion as we are putting too many people through arts degrees.

We just can't get more than 25% of the population up to an education level in STEM where they were all doing valuable degree-level work that's competitive on the world stage, even if we had everything else in place to actually make those jobs happen. If they aren't going to do that then we're spending a wild amount of (their) money on being wrongly prepared them for less prestigious worse paid jobs.

If we're forcing students to waste their money on pointless degrees, then it seems unfair to force them to do a science course they may be bad at and hate rather than studying what they want.

I'd also add that we are competitive on the world stage and make a lot of money from arts-oriented specialisms, so in practice forcing people into STEM is quite likely counter-productive to the economy.
 

Ediswan

Established Member
Joined
15 Nov 2012
Messages
3,140
Location
Stevenage
Not at all—re-align the provision with the market's need. This is why degree apprenticeships are doing well—they combine paid study, work experience, and a degree. Those with an apprenticeship are advancing more quickly than those without.
The concept is not new. In the early 1980s, I did a four year 'thin sandwich' degree course, with company sponsorship. I, and may of my peers, went straight into degree-relevant well paid jobs with their sponsor company.
 

DarloRich

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Oct 2010
Messages
30,596
Location
Fenny Stratford
The concept is not new. In the early 1980s, I did a four year 'thin sandwich' degree course, with company sponsorship. I, and may of my peers, went straight into degree-relevant well paid jobs with their sponsor company.
i found when doing my university research ( admittedly some time ago now!) there were good sandwich courses for engineering type careers but not much in the "professional" world. That may have changed

Several schoolfriends of mine did such courses and are fairly senior engineer types now. Sadly for me anything involving maths was a no go due my dyslexia.
 

Puffing Devil

Established Member
Joined
11 Apr 2013
Messages
2,866
The concept is not new. In the early 1980s, I did a four year 'thin sandwich' degree course, with company sponsorship. I, and may of my peers, went straight into degree-relevant well paid jobs with their sponsor company.

So did - just down the road from Darlo Rich, at a Poly. I actually started on an HND, transferred to a degree and left with a 1st class degree and a job with one of the "Big 6" Consultancies. I did OK for a working-class boy from a deprived port town with one A Level.....

i found when doing my university research ( admittedly some time ago now!) there were good sandwich courses for engineering type careers but not much in the "professional" world. That may have changed

Several schoolfriends of mine did such courses and are fairly senior engineer types now. Sadly for me anything involving maths was a no go due my dyslexia.

JP Morgan, PWC and many others now offer apprenticeships, hoovering up good talent before Uni. It's a little like a very early milk round or a Premier League Academy.
 

Richard Scott

Established Member
Associate Staff
International Transport
Railtours & Preservation
Joined
13 Dec 2018
Messages
3,981
If that was the case I would not have gone to university, got a degree or the first career I had. This sounds like what it always is: University for the toffs, trades for the scum. Way to limit advancement or aspiration? This kind of thing really boils my urine. In 2024 (and not 1924) we should be demanding better prospects for all rather than trying to limit them and determine peoples future worth by dint of thier parental wealth or class.
What a load of nonsense, I went to university years ago to do engineering and there were no toffs there but a wide variety of people from all sorts of backgrounds. University isn't the way to advance everyone's career, some jobs are better just getting on and doing it. I used to know a BBC cameraman and he was on about graduates coming to do the job and his question was why had they gone to university when they'd have been better off just getting on with the job and learning on the job.
No one is limiting people's aspirations, it's just that university isn't the be all and end all. My cousin went to university, never used his degree, it wasn't needed to get his job and he earns twice what I do.
In fact more youngsters try and do other things as they don't want to get saddled with debt so instead of becoming more accessible the actions of the previous Labour government have made it less so to many.
How do I know, I work in education and my sister works in a University so get information first hand.
 

WelshBluebird

Established Member
Joined
14 Jan 2010
Messages
5,146
One thing to call out, based on my own experience, is what going away to university gives you outside of education. Certainly for me, growing up in a small village in Wales, moving away to uni introduced me to a whole load of different people, experiences and cultures I wouldn't have experienced otherwise. I don't think that is worth 10k a year but also isn't worth nothing.
 

takno

Established Member
Joined
9 Jul 2016
Messages
5,830
One thing to call out, based on my own experience, is what going away to university gives you outside of education. Certainly for me, growing up in a small village in Wales, moving away to uni introduced me to a whole load of different people, experiences and cultures I wouldn't have experienced otherwise. I don't think that is worth 10k a year but also isn't worth nothing.
I completely agree that this is a valuable experience. It's just that you really don't need the expensive uni course to achieve it.

Some form of entirely voluntary paid national service would be more useful for many people in this position - allowing them to get away from home and meet new people while interning in military, civil protection or caring roles. Same social benefits, potentially more valuable education for many, much more useful to society, and the people involved would be able to build up zero debt.
 

pitdiver

Member
Joined
22 Jan 2012
Messages
1,111
Location
Nottinghamshire
It's sounding a bit tired now. I'm sick of hearing about the money spent on trains when we weren't allowed to travel.

The passengers are back - people need to travel for all sorts of reasons and Government should be facilitating that.

If the treasury hasn't got anything new to say four years after the pandemic, perhaps its due a clearout.



Unfortunately there is a loss of opportunity to raise revenue - which has to be raised elsewhere (potentially puting up inflation elsewhere). That's bad news for those of us relying on the services where the price has to be inflated to cover it (such as rail passengers).

I would argue that the former Polytechnics be returned to their role of practical skills education - with the emphasis on sandwich degrees and HNDs leading to specific roles.

So did - just down the road from Darlo Rich, at a Poly. I actually started on an HND, transferred to a degree and left with a 1st class degree and a job with one of the "Big 6" Consultancies. I did OK for a working-class boy from a deprived port town with one A Level.....



JP Morgan, PWC and many others now offer apprenticeships, hoovering up good talent before Uni. It's a little like a very early milk round or a Premier League Academy.
As I mentioned up thread this is what my son did started with an HND. However he did a bit better regarding A levels. He completed a BTEC Advanvced National Diploma which in his time was equivalent to three A levels
He didn't come from a deprived port town but Milton Keynes.
 

Top