A friend wants to do a History degree, she already has a degree in Biomed. After a couple of years, she realised she wants nothing to do with Biomed. Is it true that applying/doing a completely new degree (i.e. not doing anything related to the degree she already holds), she will have to pay international student fees? Surely that's crap? Does anyone know the latest on the fees for this case? Ta.
2nd degree
- Thread starter mctracy
- Start date
think you pay domestic fees which are roughly £3500/year for most courses (i think medicine is more). HOWEVER I think the fees are due to rise soon which could mean paying 10k for a years tuition fees at uni which I agree is fucking shite.
Although the top tuition fees would probably be at oxbridge and russell universities or somewhere that is very good at what it does.
Although the top tuition fees would probably be at oxbridge and russell universities or somewhere that is very good at what it does.
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
You pay domestic fees for the years that aren't considered covered by the length of your original degree, if you change (or at least you did when I did it). If you were signed up to do a four year Honours and swap in your second year to another four year course, you'd have to pay for a year. The amount will depend on the course but it's not as much as international fees.
She graduated with Biomed degree, worked for 2 years. And now wants to do a different degree and in my opinion plans to be poor (how much do historians make?!), but ok that's not the point. So it'll be like starting from all over again, but Southwark LEA told her that she'll won't be elligible for the usual £3500/year, instead flaming £9000/year! Does this sound real?
FridgeMagnet
Administrator
Oh right, not changing then, didn't read that properly. I'm not sure in that case - but I'd tell her to ask the university itself what they'd charge and why, not Southwark, who likely would want to discourage her generally in order to save their budget.
FridgeMagnet rocks!
JHE
.
Unfortunately, it's not crap, though it is a little strangely expressed. The person doing a second degree of the same level (in this case, a bachelor's degree) or a lower level will not be counted as an overseas (ie, non-EU) student, but, like an overseas student, the person will have to pay full-cost fees. The government decided fairly recently (a year or two ago?) that the taxpayer should not subsidise people who decide to do another degree at the same or lower level. I think this current academic year may be the first year of this policy being implemented.
It is, of course, very easy to understand the government's motive, whether you agree with the policy or not. People lucky enough to go into higher education (appox 45% of young people now, I believe) get their big dollop of subsidy, which amounts to about two thirds of the full cost, I think, but having had it, they can't in general now come back for a second helping. The government wants the money spent on other people.
JHE
.
As far as I know, the change in policy did not require a change in legislation, so there would be no need to have a vote in Parliament. (I'm not sure though. If you are interested, try Google News. The decision was not taken ages ago. I would expect you to be able to find relevant reports quite easily. You could also try the TES or THES.)
I've no idea what the NUS makes a fuss about. I do remember, however, that some religious groups made a fuss. They objected and appealed to the government not to make all people doing a second 'first' degree pay full-cost fees. Apparently, many people who want to become priests, ministers and the like graduate first in some sensible subject, but then want to study theology at the taxpayers' expense, as part of their preparation to become prelates.
Puddy_Tat
🐈⬛
broadly speaking, as others have said, if you already have a B-something degree, and sign up for another course at same or lower level, you'll have to pay higher fees, not sure if it's the same level as international students, though - it's probably simpler to ask the university (or look at their web site)
a few thoughts...
could she get straight into something at postgrad level, with already having a degree? i know very little about postgrad, not having been there, but i'm aware that some subjects do have courses aimed specifically at graduates in other disciplines.
could she do part time? either via open university or otherwise? an increasing number of university level courses are available part time now. if she's within travel distance of central london, birkbeck college - www.bbk.ac.uk - specialises in part time courses (mainly evenings) up to and including postgrad.
many of the courses are modular - i.e. you can sign up to one module at a time, and can choose to put the credits to a degree if you want (with some limitations on what combination of modules), or you can just do occasional chunks for fun. i'm currently in the second year of doing 'london studies' at birkbeck (mainly history with a london tinge) and it's been pretty good so far.
each module is usually one evening a week for one term and generates 15 CATS points. some chunks last two terms (and get 30 points) some modules are a handful of Saturdays.
a few thoughts...
could she get straight into something at postgrad level, with already having a degree? i know very little about postgrad, not having been there, but i'm aware that some subjects do have courses aimed specifically at graduates in other disciplines.
could she do part time? either via open university or otherwise? an increasing number of university level courses are available part time now. if she's within travel distance of central london, birkbeck college - www.bbk.ac.uk - specialises in part time courses (mainly evenings) up to and including postgrad.
many of the courses are modular - i.e. you can sign up to one module at a time, and can choose to put the credits to a degree if you want (with some limitations on what combination of modules), or you can just do occasional chunks for fun. i'm currently in the second year of doing 'london studies' at birkbeck (mainly history with a london tinge) and it's been pretty good so far.
each module is usually one evening a week for one term and generates 15 CATS points. some chunks last two terms (and get 30 points) some modules are a handful of Saturdays.
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
If she wants a career as a historian she'd be best off getting a job as a lackey in a history department and getting them to allow her to study part-time. Staff fees are usually at least 50% cheaper and can be more or less nominal. If she works for them for a couple of years and then broaches it with management, they might even pay her fees.
This is more or less what I did to break into science without a first degree in science.
She might well be able to do a taught masters instead of a bachelors. Some masters are more complex than undergraduate degrees (think A levels as opposed to GCSEs) and really need a relevant first degree to be possible, but many are just undergraduate degrees done in one year instead of three.
This is more or less what I did to break into science without a first degree in science.
She might well be able to do a taught masters instead of a bachelors. Some masters are more complex than undergraduate degrees (think A levels as opposed to GCSEs) and really need a relevant first degree to be possible, but many are just undergraduate degrees done in one year instead of three.
BlueSquareThing
With chips
Trying an OU course to see if that works for her wouldn't be a bad idea. At least she can spread the cost that way - and work whilst she does it.
^^^
The lines I would definitely be following.
Doing a second undergrad degree... might feel more than a little bit basic. And it's three years. Three years! Of revisiting all that really really basic stuff. Surrounded by 18 year olds. Who have the academic skills of 18 year olds fresh into higher education, and who're being assessed as such. And who have all the processes of learning to learn and learning to research to go through...
Whereas a Masters is likely to be 1-2 years (and therefore 1/3 -> 2/3 cheaper), surrounded by people more her own age. From a more eclectic range of ages and backgrounds. And she'd be using the skills she's already gained in her biomed degree. If it's a Masters that e.g. consists of a taught and research component, she'd have a damned good chance to get her hands dirty first and THEN launch into her own research.
And - obv - a Masters is ranked higher. A better chance of applying for a PhD sooner rather than later (if that's what she wants). Or a relevant job.
temper_tantrum
The beauty of the ride
I wonder about that. For a BSc, for example, I wouldn't expect someone with a BA to be able to cover three years of BSc material by doing an MSc. So why should it be that way for a history MA, if the person doesn't have BA-level arts-subject experience?
I mean, I can see that it makes sense to go straight for a masters-level course if the person has some relevant experience which means they'll pick up the skills and knowledge fairly quickly, but why would someone with experience of BSc-level study be able to start studying history at MA level and do well?
Not saying it's not possible, just interested in the views of those with an academic background as to the advisibility.
I mean, I can see that it makes sense to go straight for a masters-level course if the person has some relevant experience which means they'll pick up the skills and knowledge fairly quickly, but why would someone with experience of BSc-level study be able to start studying history at MA level and do well?
Not saying it's not possible, just interested in the views of those with an academic background as to the advisibility.
Puddy_Tat
🐈⬛
I knew there was a better answer than I posted yesterday...
Birkbeck's "History (Graduate Certificate)"
copypasta of highlights -
Does this sound like the kind of thing?
And the prices for the modules (for 2009/10) are £ 350 if you don't already have a degree or equivalent (umm at entry requirements) and £ 400 if you do, so not hugely more expensive as initially feared...
Birkbeck's "History (Graduate Certificate)"
copypasta of highlights -
Does this sound like the kind of thing?
And the prices for the modules (for 2009/10) are £ 350 if you don't already have a degree or equivalent (umm at entry requirements) and £ 400 if you do, so not hugely more expensive as initially feared...
ymu
Niall Ferguson's deep-cover sock-puppet
It's not as much of an issue as you'd think. My first degree was philosophy and politics, my masters was in statistics. There's a lot less difference in the skills needed to study the arts and the sciences than people assume. I'd expect a history department to welcome someone with a scientific background - shed-loads of historical research involves interpreting scientific evidence.
Maturity, knowing how to study, and actually wanting to study (instead of treating it like an extension of school) are what matters. The first year of an undergraduate course is spent getting everyone up to speed anyway.
A taught masters is more or less a fast-track bachelors; a masters by research is usually a way into a PhD.
Similar threads
