It's a serious problem. Overseas students bring a lot of money into the country and the friendships they make here help build international business, cultural and political relationships for decades to come.

The UK was especially popular for EU students due to the cap on fees and the strong job market upon graduation. They are less likely to want to come here if it is going to cost them more, it's going to be harder for them to work and the UK is seen as a less welcoming place.

I agree about not relying on the Russell Group reputation, especially if you are interested in a specific field. I was offered places at several, but ended up accepting a place a a non-Russell Group uni, because the actual course had a much better reputation than any of the others in Scotland, and I had already decided I wanted to do a four year, Scottish degree. Sadly, I think some rely on their historical reputation attracting a lot of students, rather than the quality of their teaching or research.

Sadly, if you do a more generic degree, then there will be some employers who overlook anyone not from Oxbridge or the Russell Group, because they have no interest in researching the best degrees, or (if we are honest) some employers are simply a bit snobbish and they are more 'establishment'.

I do have to disagree about the term "uni". The only people I have come across who don't use it are the ones who call it 'varsity, who are a tiny minority and almost exclusively from the poshest boarding schools. It may be a regional, or even an age thing, but definitely doesn't have anything to do with the quality of the establishment round here.

Employers who work in those specialist areas will know where the good degrees are but you are right, if it's a general graduate job then most top employers won't look beyond the Russell Group and a few other Universities which aren't in the RG but are regularly near the top of the league tables (e.g. St Andrews, Bath, Surrey). This is simply because the people doing the hiring and interviewing went to these Universities so it's a self-perpetuating cycle.


It's just a pet peeve of mine. Maybe I'm showing my age but it was always "University" when I went.

Barely do anything is perhaps a slight exeaggeration but having worked at a university I can assure you that no V-C is worth £600k plus benefits. I confess to being overpaid for what I did but it's public sector money that gets showered around like confetti.

It would appear that the salary quoted at 600K plus, is actually incorrect. If something sounds ridiculous, in most cases it is not the truth. Though it is a substantial amount, more than 300K. I do agree that public sector money is sometimes not used wisely, and if it had to be earned in the first place they would probably be more careful.

Tuition Fees To Rise?

More proof that the Tories will get away with anything because the opposition is split badly.

Unfortunately they're not to blame, uni education is now a business and if costs go up fees have to as well.

Not sure if the students attending the lesser known uni's doing so so courses will get value for money, from the fee raise.

Vice Chancellors are now effectively CEOs of businesses with a turnover of hundreds of millions per year, huge property portfolios, commercial partnerships and tens of thousands of staff and customers (or "students" as they used to be known)

It was taken from a guardian article, and the figure could have been a payment some years ago, when they were paid that much. In any case the 300k mark is only the "average", not what the highest is. Plus, we are only talking about the vice chancellors, what about the actual chancellor's salary? It must be way higher than someone below them.

The position of Chancellor is typically an honoury position with no power or salary. The VC is the boss.

Tuition fees should be free or at the very least heavily subsidised.

Al intelligent population can only be a good thing.

What newspapers often do if they want to exaggerate salaries is to add on the individuals life pension entitlement. If you google those VC's names their salary is there. A VC is a similar position to a Chief Executive in the private industry. A chancellors position is generally a honorary position. I do think that over 300K is still a lot of Wonga.

I don't understand the point of raising it any further though.

Look, the fee increases are not going to discourage people from going to university. We know that from all the stats even after the last rise. The genie is out of the bottle and those in society who want the numbers going to university to go back to a sort of 30 years ago level, are going to be wasting a lot of time wishing.

So all the same kids are going to flock to university and do any degree they wish. Only problem is that the debt accrued will never be paid back anyway. So the tax payer is still paying for the degree like they used to in the times of "free", and on top of that the student has the debt cloud hanging over them like a bad smell for 30 years until it is written off.

Tell me who any of that scenario is serving? Well, we know who it is serving.

University should be for the top 15% not 50%

Why 15% in particular? I think a university education should be available to anyone who wants one and has the ability.

You are aware that there are different degrees levels, aren't you?

The thing is, the level of ability you needed to get a university education 30 years ago was a lot more than you need nowadays.

This, 100x this- Ability often goes hand in hand with privilege, you have areas, groups of people who have the ability to go to University but may not meet the required academic standard of old due to poorer teaching/coaching to just.l through the hoops- What the increase in University courses allowed was anybody could have the opportunity to persue a degree in their interest rather than. University being ruled out at a young age like in the 60s/70s- I think it's good to raise our young people's aspirations and have a generally better educated society.

I do think we need vocational skills training to be brought up to the same level as well but I'd never deny anybody the opportunity if they believe they want to do it

Difficult to afford. There are other priorities for the public purse.

Study will not make you more intelligent.


OK 10% then. If we went back to the system we had 30 years ago, we would not need tuition fees.


Agreed.

But it will make you more employable and knowledgeable.

A 3rd class degree in media studies from the University of Bedfordshire really doesn't make you more employable and it's questionable how much more knowledgeable you would be.

There are some right Mickey Mouse degrees around these days. A recent contestant on Pointless was doing "drama and event management". Mr Lakie harrumphed and said this was "showing off and throwing parties", and I think he has a point.

Literally a Pointless Degree.

Event Management - conferences, trade shows, festivals, exhibitions, sporting/music events etc - is a huge business but I really don't see why you would need a degree in it to get a job in the industry and be successful. It seems to me to be a career where hands-on experience and personal contacts are far more important than a degree certificate. You'd be better off doing a proper degree and getting the events experience from running one of the student union societies.

As I see it, we have too many people graduating in subjects that are little or no use to industry and UK plc, or are not really degree standard and could be taught using a different model (vocational, apprentice schemes etc).

However the subjects we really do need - the STEM ones especially - are expensive to teach - especially if expensive lab equipment and other facilities are required - and therefore often need to be subsidised by cheaper humanities type degrees.

Obviously the Government does not have endless funds, and what it does have should be targeted towards what the UK actually needs. Vital STEM subjects should be subsidised, and lower caps applied for the cheaper degrees.

As someone who works with a lot of STEM graduates, I see little wrong with the former polytechnics for these subjects - indeed those who have graduated from these tend to be more practical and consequently very employable.

That is a very simplistic view of the system to be honest.

The RG is a self-selecting group of establishments, and until relatively recently some of the finest Universities in the world, never mind the UK (Durham, Exeter, Queen's in Belfast) were not members -- not because they weren't good enough, but because they were smaller than the main Russell Group.

Additionally many other Universities not in the RG, including some former Polytechnics, have excellent reputations (sometimes bettering even Oxbridge) in certain niche areas. While it's probably fair to say there are some establishments which are failing, let's not tar them all with the same brush.

Well to some snobs it might be worth sweet FA, but to others it is, otherwise why do the course? why put yourself into a mountain of debt?