Universities want to put fees up
- Thread starter sim667
- Start date
Threshers_Flail
Well-Known Member
I'm at Manchester uni, first year. Six contact hours a week, a piss poor library, (supposedly one of the largest in the country), over subscribed courses..... I think were paying too much money as it stands, any other rises would be terrible.
baldrick
hmmmmm
self-directed learning though isn't it? or it should be.
i certainly didn't complain about having only 12 contact hours a week after i changed to a non-lab based course. you're expected to read stuff, not sit in a classroom.
by piss-poor library i assume you mean most of what's on the reading list has already been taken out - libraries are not going to buy 80 copies of every book that appears on reading lists. if the book you want isn't available then find something else.
zenie
>^^<
scifisam
deleted
Do they currently exist then?!
A few do. Not many. It would make sense to introduce more alongside introducing top-up fees. I mean, the US has huge fees for college, but it also has lots of ways to get scholarships.
This.
It never ceases to amaze me how much some people whine about not everything at university being 100% to their satisfaction - or, perhaps more accurately, that they're expected to go and find things out for themselves as opposed to being spoon-fed everything.
I think the introduction of tuition fees has had a real impact in that respect as well. There's much more of a sense of 'I'm paying for this so I demand a service' among students than there used to be. Certainly, some older lecturers I've spoken about it to think that the relationship between lecturers and students has shifted subtley away from teacher-pupil and towards client-provider, and everything I've seen suggests that they're right. It's corrosive IMHO.
And then at the end of it, you find that half the ones who are moaning because they didn't get the best out of their seminars etc were in the bar until closing time the night before and had such a hangover they couldn't see straight!
zenie
>^^<
scifisam
deleted
12 hours is twice as much as 6 hours!
The first year of a university course shouldn't be very self-directed. You need more seminars wth group work and the like.
My last university library was crap because they didn't actually have any of the books that were on our reading list. Not a single one. I'd expected them to keep at least one or two as reference only, so that people could make notes from them if they couldn't afford to buy them, but no - there was nothing.
If the library's crap and you get hardly any tutor time, you are just paying for the piece of paper you get at the end, which is a bit sad really.
scifisam
deleted
got a link? I'd never heard of them!
No link, sorry, because there are dozens of different organisations that do them, based on subject, area you live in, random things like having a particular surname, etc. Universities usually have their own scholarships too.
_angel_
.
We got plenty more tuition time than some similar courses do now, and we were still expected to do plenty of our own reading.
I think people don't realise how little tuition time has fallen to on some degrees, which it didn't used to be. Is that really a good thing?
There aren't excuses for badly stocked libraries either (my old college was particularly bad) If they're increasing numbers of students on courses, then resources need to increase also.
zenie
>^^<
Oh right I thought you meant like a government scheme, scholarship sounds like loads more money than a bursary from the Uni or charity.
I work for a university
Fees has made students feel like customers which causes some to behave likle they have bought a degree. But there are very good students and useless ones who are there to bring in cash and make up the numbers. However the shortage of cash is quite apparent.
There are a lot of degrees out there which don't actually leave you with any employable skills , but they keep the youth unemployment rate down. I don't buy the learning for leanrning sake, if I want to learn pottery or drama skills then I will have to pay for it. Money shouldn't be an issue when people decde to go on to higher education, but I don't believe all courses offer value for money on any level. However on the news the other week there was a girl who was convinced that her degree from Luton was just as good as a degree from Cambridge, I thought she was shockingly naiive and suspect a lot of 18 year olds are
Fees has made students feel like customers which causes some to behave likle they have bought a degree. But there are very good students and useless ones who are there to bring in cash and make up the numbers. However the shortage of cash is quite apparent.
There are a lot of degrees out there which don't actually leave you with any employable skills , but they keep the youth unemployment rate down. I don't buy the learning for leanrning sake, if I want to learn pottery or drama skills then I will have to pay for it. Money shouldn't be an issue when people decde to go on to higher education, but I don't believe all courses offer value for money on any level. However on the news the other week there was a girl who was convinced that her degree from Luton was just as good as a degree from Cambridge, I thought she was shockingly naiive and suspect a lot of 18 year olds are
fractionMan
Custom Title
bhamgeezer
Dogs bark
Current university model is a complete farse, everyone is paying the same whilst a few select departments eat up all the money. I don't see why anyone should pay for the priviledge to teach themselves a subject. Seminars and lectures are generally not helpful for a number of subjects. All the lectures and seminars could be held online without the need for expensive lecture theatres and massive debts. Most of what you get for your money is buying into an overfunded middle class playground for three years.
If you have to pay it should be taught to you through many useful seminars and lectures on an intensive schedule, otherwise they should scrap the fee and allow people to teach themselves.
If you have to pay it should be taught to you through many useful seminars and lectures on an intensive schedule, otherwise they should scrap the fee and allow people to teach themselves.
Agent Sparrow
AGENT TRAITOR; fools 8 year olds
Tbf I got "bollocksed" for two years and then got a first. I don't really think it's a case that the two positions are exclusive, with at least some balance and moderation.
Though tbf, I would prefer there to be fewer courses of a higher standard with no/less expensive fees, as long as there were safeguards to make sure kids from poorer schools didn't lose out from the selection being purely about grades. Not sure if that would be possible though.
There certainly should be.
Tbf, my uni constantly annoys me with what I regularly see as its piss poor online journal access.
I think moaning about the library is part of being a student. I kind of get this impression from observing the undergrads at my uni now, compared to when I was an undergrad.
Tbh, I think putting fees up higher is putting them out of the reach (perceived or practically) of many people with high natural ability. Well, more so than previously.
I agree. And herein lies part of the problem in the short term raising fees might help the universities out however in the long term this would be disasterous for the economy and society, for a number or interconnected reasons which i cannot go into without taking the thread off topic
Then theres the question of how many of these univerisites have made bad investment choices and how much of this rush to raise fees is due to wider economic downturn or inept management. Still that would require investigative journalism so no chance of that then
Wolveryeti
Detty Pig
What intrigues me is why they're running out of money... - is it that their investments have lost so much value in the financial crisis, or is it wage inflation amongst lecturers/tutors... or something else perhaps?
I have been hearing for a while this argument that fees need to rise so universities can keep their best staff and 'compete'. I don't buy it because academics do not go into the business to become filthy rich. Uprooting to another country just for a few extra grand seems far fetched. I will also add that some of my worst tutors were 'big names' and some of the best were PHD students. Moreover, facetime with tutors is gradually falling. How is it fair to expect students to pay more for a service that is gradually becoming more and more devalued?
Quite frankly I despair of the current situation. I was borderline able to finance my own way through uni in 2002 through loans, working in the holidays, and the odd parental handout. Looking at how much rents/tuition fees/costs have risen since, I think this is effectively impossible, unless you do some kind of massively degrading investment banking internship where they treat you like shit.
My feeling is that academia is being taken over by financiers who are seeking to buff up their CV by milking every source of funds as hard as possible, missing the point of universities altogether. They are also killing the goose that laid the golden egg, because at some point all the foreign students who are making up such a large proportion of uni budgets are going to realise how much they are being shafted, and leave in droves.
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
I had about six contact hours in my third year...... not cause thats what the course was, or cus i didnt turn up..... I'd book a time to talk to the tutor and they wouldnt show up, they'd then tell me they were too busy and to go back in a couple of hours, then when i went back id be told they'd gone home or were 'offsite'....
and this is the story at many university's (especially creative ones)....
If fees go up then students should expect more from their tutors and facilities. If a uni is to turn around an claim the course is 'self directed study' then there is no justification in putting course fees up..... end of.....
In my experience self directed study only really applies to OU's, 3rd years and postgrads. And OU courses are expensive as they generally have a much better standard of learning resources, and postgrads are pricey as they need well qualified people to teach them.....
Seems to be very mixed opinions on this topic, as usual you've got studenty types saying one thing and university haters saying its all a waste of time and money anyway lol......
Academic pay has risen quite a bit in the last few years - and quite right too, given how far lecturing had fallen behind comparable occupations. So yes, staffing costs are an issue for universities.
Academics don't go into it to get rich. There are much easier ways to do that. Lecturing isn't an easy job - it's hard work, long hours and increasingly pressured - and the profession in this country was starting to lose people both to universities in countries which pay better and to other professions. Pay had to go up.
No-one's arguing that all unievrsities are perfect. Universities and courses (and staff!) vary in terms of quality and organisation, and there certainly are courses and institutions out there that aren't up to scratch. It's also difficult to deny that courses and staff time are being spread more thinly as student numbers rise - but blame the government for that, since it's them trying to force more and more students into a university system that isn't sufficiently resourced.
On the other hand, I don't think that saying 'I'm paying this much so I demand X, Y and Z for my money' is a constructive attitude in any way, shape or form. The system doesn't doesn't work like that. There's no neat correlation between how much your course fees are and how many staff universities cna deploy - let alone how how many teaching rooms are available. Fees are only a part of universities' income.
Self-directed study applies to a great many courses. Again, no-one's saying you should just be told to get on with your work without support, but equally, if you've not the nous to go finding out information for yourself, access online resources, buy the odd textbook and so on, one has to question whether you're capable of doing a degree in the first place. <e2a> You also claim that your experience of unreliable tutors - which I agree is not acceptable - is 'the story at many universities.' I'd like to see some evidence to back that assertion up before I accept it, as well as an explanation of what you mean by a 'creative' university.
Pardon my taking a slightly uncompromising attitude here, like, but I've seen the university system from both sides of the fence, and whilst I acknowledge that the situation isn't ideal for many, I do also think that a lot of students are very willing to criticise their institutions and tutors on frankly spurious grounds. And don't even get me started on the hideous, spoilt-brat, selfish, Thatcherite twaddle I heard from a lot of undergrads during the lecturers' 'action short of a strike' a few years ago...
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
By creative uni's i mean art colleges (my main experience)
Of course no one can claim that there is a perfect uni, especially when certain depts within a uni may have weaknesses and strengths, but i certainly think that to some level students should have more input into the way in which the uni is run etc. Maybe a good solution would be to cap individual uni's on the costs they can charge according to a review of learning and facilities, whilst you could argue that this may stop uni's progressing with the development of their faculties, on the same basis you could argue that it stops uni's overcharging on the basis that they have a good (but maybe outlived reputation)..... This was certainly the case on the BTEC media foundation at the london college of communication, I could see no evidence that our course fees were being used to fund the btec, and instead seemed to be directed toward funding the degree..... Something that i'd imagine was particularly frustrating for foreign students who pay treble anyway.
Of course self directed study applies to a number of courses but a number universties are not visibly investing in the infrastucture to provide the necessary resources for this type of study. For example, a vast majority of my tutors at the 3 uni's i went to in total were completely computer literate, and often it fell to me to show other students how photoshop worked, or how a print process worked, out of the 3 colleges only one was prepared to recognise the fact that i was doing this and ended up giving a 24hr a week job on a technician salary which easily covered my course fees. Now encouraging tutors to become computer literate is a necessity, as courses will begin to rely more and more on VLE's and the like to promote the idea of self directed study. If at the basic level teaching staff are undertrained in using certain technologies in order to deliver the small amount of information they need to then it renders the whole point of self directed study null and void.
For the record i too have seen the HE system from the both sides of the fence, and from my experience as a student felt fairly let down by 2 of he colleges i attended. Ironically the place i felt i learnt the most was a small local place with keen eager staff, the other 2 i went to provided us with dinterested staff, which makes for a rubbish course.
From the point of view of working in a HE institute i do feel sorry for the teaching staff as they seem to consistently have more and more paperwork and stress piled on them, which makes them disinterested. The only way to create a better standard of HE is to simplify the systems and roles that the teaching staff have to deal with, and not by raising fee's and making the education system available only to the middle and upper class creating HE elitism which then filters into the job market.
Not having worked in them, I can't comment on art colleges, and I have to say I question the extent to which your opinions formed with reference to them are applicable to most universities. But setting that aside for now...
But capping charges would just make the gap between student numbers and provision for them worse, wouldn't it? A far better solution would be to stop relentlessly driving up student numbers in institutions that don't have the resources to deal with them - and to spend public money on more staff (both administrative and academic) and better facilities.
Simplifying administration for academic staff is also a good idea, but equally, much of the complication arises from the endless pressure to measure results and assess student satisfaction so that 'value for money' can be assessed. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but it does create a lot of paperwork and uses up a lot of staff time that could be better deployed elsewhere. Universities have recently been through the RAE, for example, and the sheer bureaucracy and time expended on that are staggering. I'm not suggesting that there should be no attempt to measure what universities are achieving, but I don't for one minute believe that it need be nearly as complex and time-consuming as it currently is.
Re. 'self-directed study,' you have a point about inadequate computer provision and lack of IT staff at some institutions. Again, much of this comes down to money. Computer equipment dates quickly and costs a fair bit to replace, and staff aren't cheap to employ. There's certainly a problem there. Much the same goes for library provision, although perhaps less so.
In the end, we seem to be arguing from positions that aren't far apart: the problem is lack of resources. I don't think that screwing more money out of students in tuition fees is the answer though.
But capping charges would just make the gap between student numbers and provision for them worse, wouldn't it? A far better solution would be to stop relentlessly driving up student numbers in institutions that don't have the resources to deal with them - and to spend public money on more staff (both administrative and academic) and better facilities.
Simplifying administration for academic staff is also a good idea, but equally, much of the complication arises from the endless pressure to measure results and assess student satisfaction so that 'value for money' can be assessed. There's nothing wrong with that in itself, but it does create a lot of paperwork and uses up a lot of staff time that could be better deployed elsewhere. Universities have recently been through the RAE, for example, and the sheer bureaucracy and time expended on that are staggering. I'm not suggesting that there should be no attempt to measure what universities are achieving, but I don't for one minute believe that it need be nearly as complex and time-consuming as it currently is.
Re. 'self-directed study,' you have a point about inadequate computer provision and lack of IT staff at some institutions. Again, much of this comes down to money. Computer equipment dates quickly and costs a fair bit to replace, and staff aren't cheap to employ. There's certainly a problem there. Much the same goes for library provision, although perhaps less so.
In the end, we seem to be arguing from positions that aren't far apart: the problem is lack of resources. I don't think that screwing more money out of students in tuition fees is the answer though.
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
I think to a point that your right my views maybe based on my own experience as art is something that has very suddenly started to rely on computers and maybe the educators in this field arent able to keep up with the technological changes (and to some point the culture changes within the art area). Some things do certainly apply to a broader field than just art, my dad is a university lecturer in construction management, but still struggles with using technology in his lectures, but he is very good at trying out new technologies and was one of the first people in his university to find out how to embed movies in powerpoint presentations etc, but i think he is an exception, and i do really believe that a lot of university lecturers do coast along in their jobs, without willingness to make the effort to make their delivery better, which in some respects is probably related to paperwork also.
I do definately agree with you that the governemnt should stop trying to force more and more people into HE, or if they do want to carry on doing so there needs to be investment in a. providing better facilites, b. providing support for those from lower wage backgrounds and providing them with the means to attend an HE institute. I dont think its right to allow universities to charge a mass of students more, to provide better facilites, and then a few years down the line have excellent facilities but very few students as poorer applicants become unable to afford course fees.
For the last few years it seems that the government has been pushing adult education in order to re-educate people in their 40's and 50's which was the right thing to do after many of these people were quite let down at school, but for that then meaning that universities have to charge more money to their students in order to provide a level of education that is expected of them by the government, it works as a double edged sword. Hopefully with the major changes that are going on in FE and adult education funding, with the disbandment of the LSC we may see some extra freed up cash filter its way into the HE funding system to provide funding to either reduce student fees or provide people who cant afford to go to uni with and option of attending.
As far as what's been said about self directed study and resources i agree with you completely pretty much, and i do think we both have positions that arent far apart at all. But what i would say is to ask whether its morally correct to deny someone an education based on there financial status, and to consider whether its better to put out graduates who may have come from a well off family, but couldnt really give a stuff about their education, and just want to put off starting a career, or to put out a graduate who has just been able to afford to put themselves through uni in the hopes of a better career afterward. (Im not saying that all people are like that, but merely using 2 extreme stereotypes to make a point).
I do definately agree with you that the governemnt should stop trying to force more and more people into HE, or if they do want to carry on doing so there needs to be investment in a. providing better facilites, b. providing support for those from lower wage backgrounds and providing them with the means to attend an HE institute. I dont think its right to allow universities to charge a mass of students more, to provide better facilites, and then a few years down the line have excellent facilities but very few students as poorer applicants become unable to afford course fees.
For the last few years it seems that the government has been pushing adult education in order to re-educate people in their 40's and 50's which was the right thing to do after many of these people were quite let down at school, but for that then meaning that universities have to charge more money to their students in order to provide a level of education that is expected of them by the government, it works as a double edged sword. Hopefully with the major changes that are going on in FE and adult education funding, with the disbandment of the LSC we may see some extra freed up cash filter its way into the HE funding system to provide funding to either reduce student fees or provide people who cant afford to go to uni with and option of attending.
As far as what's been said about self directed study and resources i agree with you completely pretty much, and i do think we both have positions that arent far apart at all. But what i would say is to ask whether its morally correct to deny someone an education based on there financial status, and to consider whether its better to put out graduates who may have come from a well off family, but couldnt really give a stuff about their education, and just want to put off starting a career, or to put out a graduate who has just been able to afford to put themselves through uni in the hopes of a better career afterward. (Im not saying that all people are like that, but merely using 2 extreme stereotypes to make a point).
Just to pick up on a couple of points...
Re. technology I think you're right that it's something that applies more in some fields than others, but it's an issue across the board. I'm a historian, and the role of computers in what we do has increased enormously over the last couple of decades - and that's opened up a whole load of possibilities in research and to a lesser extent teaching. It has left some of the older staff behind a bit, but I can't see how you can get around that except by providing much better access to on-the-job training, which many universities do. Even then, some people are more adept with technology than others and some will always be a bit left behind. That's the case in virtually all walks of life.
I resent the suggestion that 'a lot of university lecturer just coast along.' Some do, but you'll find time-servers in every profession in the world, and lecturing isn't a choice for those who want an easy life. I know of no academic who works their contracted hours: most are doing well over 50 hours per week on a regular basis. Frankly, I think a lot of students (and others) who see fit to criticise the profession don't really understand what it involves.
Finally, regarding the resourcing question, you said:
I think you missed the bit where I said I don't agree wtih tuition fees! One of my main reasons for that is that it automatically disadvantages those from poorer backgrounds. There weren't built-in disadvantages enough: there are plenty of thick rich kids at good universities whose parents can afford education enough for them to scrape through the A-levels, and plenty of bright poorer kids who don't get those opportunities. Imposing tuition fees just makes the situation worse. That's why I think HE should be funded as far as possible out of general taxation. I also think there's a lot that could be done to the school system and FE sector that could address the inherent inequalities in education, but that's perhaps one for another debate!
Re. technology I think you're right that it's something that applies more in some fields than others, but it's an issue across the board. I'm a historian, and the role of computers in what we do has increased enormously over the last couple of decades - and that's opened up a whole load of possibilities in research and to a lesser extent teaching. It has left some of the older staff behind a bit, but I can't see how you can get around that except by providing much better access to on-the-job training, which many universities do. Even then, some people are more adept with technology than others and some will always be a bit left behind. That's the case in virtually all walks of life.
I resent the suggestion that 'a lot of university lecturer just coast along.' Some do, but you'll find time-servers in every profession in the world, and lecturing isn't a choice for those who want an easy life. I know of no academic who works their contracted hours: most are doing well over 50 hours per week on a regular basis. Frankly, I think a lot of students (and others) who see fit to criticise the profession don't really understand what it involves.
Finally, regarding the resourcing question, you said:
I think you missed the bit where I said I don't agree wtih tuition fees! One of my main reasons for that is that it automatically disadvantages those from poorer backgrounds. There weren't built-in disadvantages enough: there are plenty of thick rich kids at good universities whose parents can afford education enough for them to scrape through the A-levels, and plenty of bright poorer kids who don't get those opportunities. Imposing tuition fees just makes the situation worse. That's why I think HE should be funded as far as possible out of general taxation. I also think there's a lot that could be done to the school system and FE sector that could address the inherent inequalities in education, but that's perhaps one for another debate!
sim667
All aboard the 303 bus.
I think i probably phrased this wrong, some lecturers do coast along and this is certainly a problem with art subjects aswell as some smaller uni's. I think that maybe this isnt the case at better reknowned uni's as they have reputation to maintain. I know certainly in the FE institute i work t nearly every single member of staff is over time, and HR have said to us that there will be no action taken on overtime until we reach at least 100 hours over..... unsurprisingly the unions are getting involved. On the flip side i listen to my dad complain every week that many of his colleagues are only turning up for work 2 days a week, and this seemed to be an issue with some other HE institutes ive worked at.......
Really sorry, uni may have taught me to be arty and how to teach well, but it certainly didnt make me slow down my reading lol....... Roadkill, on this point we are unified
Laney
Got Faith?
And what about the people who want to go out of love for their subject?
Or do we not need artists and intellectuals?
not at preston uni! look at teh lecture one of our eminent astophysics lecturers is doing...
Attachments
The university I currently work for isn't exactly one of the 'better renowned' ones, but everyone I work with really does put the hours in. They have to. It's not a matter of reputation; just of keeping up with the pressure of work.
I think the 'lazy academics' thing is a cliché that was never very true, and has become steadily less so in recent years. HE has changed a lot, and there's far more pressure on staff not only to produce more and more sophisticated course materials for students, to keep up with an ever-increasing volume of paperwork and also to research and publish enough to keep themselves classed as 'research active,' because someone not so classed is at a major disadvantage.
I find it rather frustrating - and I'm not having a go at you here: this is a general point - that the same tired old cliché keeps being trotted out, often by people with no experience and very little knowledge of what the job entails.
Aside from that, I think we're pretty much in agreement now.
