Morning Line: what's wrong with higher university fees?

Go study abroad where it's cheaper. Everything else in the UK is busted why not abandon the HE sector as well? Switch the lights off as you leave.

Be a good start if more unis gave better value for money.Some courses only give only 6 hours lectures a week!Others 12....I know students have to do a lot of work and research on their own ,but are they really getting value for money over their 3 and 4 year courses.

I am certainly no authority on higher education and would welcome others points of view.Perhaps I am totally wrong!

I believe a contribution towards fees from parents is only right however , what happens with broken families etc. who 'means tests' those? The fees deserve to be raised and education should be seen as a privalage not something to do because there aren't many jobs around anyway. Also becoming a drain on education are the amount of so called 'single parents' being funded for degree courses when they should be out working. I have an aquaintance who degree hops so she doesn't have to go to work and still gets her benefit. It angers me that whilst in my first job I paid for my MBA without any help, aside from a credit card (!), and I've actually put it to good use unlike people like her who just use it to get out of working. It seems the education system is out of control in more ways than one. As for A levels - anyone can pass them these days - give the Universities control over them then we'd sort the men from the boys!

Let's face it, unless you go to a "proper" University (ie none of the ex technical colleges and polytechnics) and do a real subject you are wasting your time and money. I went to a proper university and did Chemistry in the 70's and it was hard enough then for a graduate to get a job. Now the market is awash with so called graduates who have at least a 2:1 or a first (in my day it was unusual to get either - a 2:2 was very respectable).

I have just been served coffee by a young man with a degree in Electrical Engineering from Southampton (a proper University) and even he can't find a decent job. What chance will someone doing a mickey mouse subject at the likes of Bolton, Northumbria, Bournemouth, Thames Valley etc etc have?

I think it's pretty easy to say what's wrong with higher fees when your higher education would have been funded by a government grant...pretty cushtie if you ask me.

I saw that stat about uni graduates on average earning 100k more over their lifetimes...100k over a life time isn't really a great deal more...if it were 250k or 300k...then you could talk about raising the rates.

Oh and there are many courses that are four hours a week - history, English, history of art, ancient history (basically all the histories) are all part time.

I once met the Chairman of a small company who said that they only recruit from Oxford and Cambridge,he knows he will probably be missing some really good people from other Universities but he hasn't the time to look for them. Says a lot about branding eh? The lesson is don't go to a lower tier University, it's a waste of money.

We paid for private education for our children – taking away the financial burden from the state. We have also paid for our oldest daughter to attend university - sparing her the burden of student debt. We are doing the same for our youngest daughter. It hasn’t been, and still isn’t, an easy task. If university fees go up, people like us will just work that bit harder, that bit longer to see that our children get a good education. Value for money is important, as stated above. High 'drop out' rates cost money and waste valuable places. There is more to running a sucessful university than merely putting up the fees.

Yet again it's the middle income earners who get squeezed. Yes, if you can afford private school fees you can afford to pay for higher education and /or clear your children's loan afterwards. If you are on a low income you will probably get support but the children of us in the middle get saddled with substantial debt for years after they graduate and all for a degree that has been significantly devalued over the last few years.

Grumpy - my son went to Oxbridge and received less than 6hrs a week but goodness me did he have to work hard. It was the making on him because he had to work out things himself. The more you teach students the more they rely on you, yet employers are always asking for graduates that can 'think for themselves' and 'work independently'.

It still seems tolerably clear that acquiring a degree enhances your job prospects, so 18yr olds will continue to register for one. The question is how we finance this process. Privatizing universities would be a big mistake in my view - standards would move down to the lowest common denominator, the best private universities would charge top dollar and exclude people from poor backgrounds, and the overall social experience of going to Uni would be utterly destroyed.

Overall my feeling is that a slow increase in fees is the only solution - with the government not decreasing its financial commitment in line with any allowable increase in fees. Universities need money to stop the brain drain so increased fees must result in an increase in overall income (once government contributions have been taken into account).

I had to get a Career Development Loan from my bank for my MA course @ 9% interest. I get a few months from the completion date to get a job and start paying it back or pay it off in full. Personally I think that regardless of what the earnings of the graduate are, fees should be paid back at the same interest rate and over the same period of time. Why should one graduate pay more than another for the same course or fees? That is surely not right.

Next, higher earners will have to pay more at the supermarket checkout.

I agree that benefits should be scrapped for the wealthy, but not to tax them at EVERY opportunity. Income tax should be the same for all. Tuition fees interest rates should also be the same for all.

OK will somebody help me here.

If the government double fees where does that money come from?

Do the banks have enough money to lend twice as much with not a lot of hope of ever getting it paid back ? Does anyone have the figures for the % of graduates that will get a good job and earn more than £15000 - £25000 ? OK the studen has to start paying on every £1000 over £15000 but it will take a LONG LONG time to pay it back wouldn't it? So can the banks afford to lend twice as much or more?

And in any case isn't a lot of the money the banks have the governments money in any case? And wasn't there talk last week that the government were going to have give banks more money because they were in trouble?

So is this such a great idea to get banks lending twice as much as they have been to students?

So what happened in the good old days when kids went to University AND got grants? Back in the days when people worked until they were about 55 and had a good retirement. Can anyone explain how what we have now is progress?

I work with more than a dozen Universities and have 2 children currently studying at 2 of the more established Universities.

In my opinion higher fees are not required - just more work from everyoe that works in these institutions. They are awash with people at every level of support and whilst i fully appreciate the need for the key points fo contact - the lecturers and professors - to be reseraching and updating their knowldge bank, unfortunatley the students (certainly not customers) do not receive good value.

More needs to be investigated in terms or returns to UK and world advancement; the value to both the customers and consumers; and measures of productivity achieved.

Privatising the majority of the Universities would not work as they would not be able to cope in the proivate sector - by some real measure.

My view - stick with the fee levels as they are (we have had to get used to them) and begin some real assessment of cost to value for all the stakeholders.

And Lorna don't continue to write about areas where your knowledge shortfall is far too evident - stick to what you know...

It is questionable if UK university education is top class across the board. Also many subjects do not require and can not justify the costs of a medicine or state of the art engineering degree.

Universities are full of top level Profs who neither contribute to research nor do they lecture as often as they should. Lower grade lecturers who do most of the work are paid pitifully poor salaries.

Before increasing the fees audits should take place to determine how efficiently these institutions are run.

There are plenty of drunk students at the weekend. That activity is not cheap, especially when going to a club. Maybe if less was spent on booze, they wouldn't have so much of a headache paying off their debts. If they spent £20 each week on boozing, that'd be a spend of £1040 a year, so in the course of a BA over £3000 can be shaved off the fees. Not bad for someone that has no money. This is based on not going home for the summer break.

Of course, no one can say, don't enjoy yourself, and it'd be wrong to do so, but a closer look at where money is being wasted could make those fees a little easier to stomach.

In light of recent exchanges on property prices and the anger expressed by some younger folk that the property-owning older generation have an ‘I’m all right Jack’ attitude to their current plight, I suggest consideration SHOULD be given to a graduate tax.

This should not be just for those going college at the moment/soon though. Rather, those like myself & Anonymous 1 (plus much of the Blairite Labour leadership!) who enjoyed free university education at a proper university, and a grant to pay for living expenses, should be targeted for recovery of the costs too.

Sorry I have just had another thought and would welcome people's comments.

If degree level education is SO EXPENSIVE, then can someone tell me why everyone wants degrees now for employment that previously never needed a degree? Take counselling for instance. Counsellors for years and years have been educated to Diploma level in Higher Education. Now the government are attempting to regulate the profession and insisting on Degree level education. The BIG joke is that the very government that soon will insist on degree level education in order to PROTECT clients through regulating the profession are funding a £175 million a year Improving Access to Psychological Therapies initiative in which they have trained 3500 therapists to deliver counselling but have had to name them Wellbeing Practitioners because they know they will not be qualified to be called counsellors under the new regulation! The problem with regulation is that a Degree will attract more in the way of a salary and the government cannot afford to emply Degree level counsellors! MADNESS

So surely rather than putting up fees what we need our educated government to consider is what is wrong with Diplomas that people can get without having to go to University ? Would that really be such a stupid idea? We seem to have got caught up in a kind of Catch 22 where we believe that only a Degree will do, without thinking, we have managed previously without them and were things so bad? I remember when my children were at school, anything other than going to University and getting a degree was frowned on. I remember sitting in an assembly once when the kids were told to look to their right and then to their left and that only 1 in 3 would get to Uni. How much better might the world be that we are living in if we started to think what else is there is not University, rather than continuing to try to fund something that will always remain out of the reach of so many?

Teachers use to work with Diplomas, counsellors still are working with Diplomas. The problem is we have educated people making policy and they have never stopped to think WHAT ELSE?

In my experience I can't tell the difference between a graduate and a school leaver based on the quality of the job they do.

It seems that a degree is desirable now for a wider range of jobs. That's not because employers necessarily value the additional skills that a degree brings. But because so many people have lots of GCSEs and lots of A Levels so they are looking for another 'distinguishing feature'. So more people want degrees because they don't want to get left behind in terms of access to the workplace.

For that reason demand for uni places will remain high, and we'll all have to fork out for the fees whether it's through our taxes or directly supporting our children or if students getting into debt. Problem is there's just not enough money around at the moment so something has to give.

Let's have a more imaginative approach to how people are prepared for work and how we develop people to give them the skills we require as a country. Free Uni education, whilst nice, can't be the only answer?

what nobody ever mentions in this discussion is that if you move abroad you get your student loan cancelled anyway, so the brain drain argument applies to either system. higher tuition fees are literally identical to a graduate tax except that it's a flat tax rather than one based on your ability to pay. no wonder lorna "pay the deficit by taxing window cleaners" bourke loves it.

what this will represent is an end to university as a place of education - instead it will be extended job training. you would have to be mental to pay 10k a year to do history or english or pure maths (like i did) beacause you may never be able to pay it back. roll on everyone doing accountancy degrees instead (the worst bit is i'm sure the philistines on citywire comments probably think this is a good thing)

also everyone hating on joke degree courses should be against higher tuition fees. paying 10k a year to do "hospitality management" makes sense because actually almost everyone who finishes the course can get a decent job in hotel management so you get a decent return on investment. paying 10k a year to study medieval literature doesn't make sense because you can get a first and still make no money.

Strange but I have not seen any suggestion that University fees should be assessed in relation to the demand for the end product. For example if we predict being short of doctors then charge a lower scale of fees but ensure that the applicant is both suitable and very likely to complete the course. On the other hand charge at full cost for such almost useless courses as 'Media Studies' and 'Business Studies'. Food for thought

There are over 27 mn private cars in this country. there are 24 mn households. Apart from many pensioners, despite their reliance on the car for mobility, on average virtually every household in the country has a car. Look round the streets of London, not only at the passing traffic but also at the parked cars. Look at housing estates, where it's hard for residents to find a parking space. Look at the cars - they are not mini cars. Most are priced above £11000 new. remember Mondeo Man? How many boast of cnanging their car every two years?

Now tell me whether these households could afford to pay their children's university fees? In the past and even today, the much-despised middle class families often denied themselves these extra luxuries to pay school and university fees.

Mr Cable should take a closer look at household budgets. Of course there are

many thousands of households depending on benefits - but also some, I don't know how many, run cars - they must, to produce that global figure. We know that one dangerous cleric, now imprisoned, was provided with a car to help cope with his large family. How many others are in this happy position?.

There are millions who need help but get it in perspective. The high cost of a plumber's services are a measure of a shortage. It was a fact that courses in plumbing were being taken by former City workers, who reckoned that they could make the same money as a self-employed plumber, when they could enjoy civilised hours and get a car as tax deductible.

Lat week a personable well-spoken young man knocked at the door and asked if we needed our windows cleaned. He left a card - he had formed a limited company.

The trick of turning training colleges into universities may have looked good in international league tables, but left the country starved of highly skilled middle ranking tradesmen as we call them. A manager of a large local plumbing company described how impressed he was by the finish of domestic and public buildings in France. Consider French roads and compare our pitted cart tracks. The same impression hit me in Melbourne, where my son and his family now live. Go to Germany and at once the general high standard of every day life is quite striking. They have, in the best broader sense, a higher standard ol living. And they don't have pushover degrees from cardboard universities.

Loans to cover realistic university fees will crucify the housing market and make house prices much more sensitive to interest rates than they are already. Are you willing to have house prices collapse and stay collapsed. Are you willing to spend the next decade propping up mortgage security dependent banks. To see discretionary spending collapse for this decade as existing mortgagors prioritise paying off capital.

In any event it's a nonsense policy. UK plc doesn't earn enough relative to our north european neighbours. If we don't address the legislative costs and barriers that make our competitor economies a more profitable site than the UK for manufacturing and business, we are blowing in the wind.

Just another mess Brown and Blair got us into. Labour screwed up the education system with the introduction of comprehesive schools and now they have wrecked the university system by trying to pretend that everyone must have a degree. We have too many lousy 'universities' awarding lousy 'degrees' and thousands in debt without any real opportunity of paying it back from a salary that is basic minimum wage. Someone, somewhere has to actually do some manual work and a trainspotting degree from Railway Sidings University (Fees circa £10000 pa, LIving Costs thanks to the rachmanesque student accommodation system £8000 pa just enough to soak up your loan) will only get you that manual job. Spend 5% of the money on a good vocational course and get a skilled job and you will make fortune.

Small tip: If you want to help the kids and it looks as if the money will not be producing the job prospects. Don't pay the loan off, put it in a pension fund for them and when the job doesn't pay any loan money back then the loan will be written off and the Government can pay for the mess they tried to put your kid in! If the job does pay off at least the degree may have been worth it and the kid has a pension fund started. (Something else which Blair and Brown screwed up but that is another story!)

It all comes down to government choice;

Instead of funding Universities New Labour chose to fund an extra 2 million non-jobs such as race, equality, diversity and sexual orientation advisers. Bin inspectors, health and safety inspectors, 5 a day consultants etc etc all on at least £30,000 a year and index linked gold plated pensions.

Instead of funding Universities New Labour chose to spend upwards of £100 BILLION a year on unelected useless quangoes.

Instead of funding Universities New Labour chose to shower perfectly healthy people with BILLIONS of benefits.

BILLIONS was spent by New Labour funding Tony Blair's wars rather than fund our kids in University

As a country we could easily fund all our kids University education without resorting to saddling them with huge loans Its just that our Government choses not to.

I voted Conservative because I thought they would get this country's priorities right but it seems I'm just getting more New Labour.

Although not education orientated a good example of wrong priorities still happening is that this Government would rather spend £100 million on a useless referendum on an Alternative Voting system rather than lend £50 million to Forgemasters a world class British Company that could provide vitally needed jobs.

Everyone ( especially politicians ) seems to have forgotten the original purpose of National Insurance . We as a people took out out a contract with the government. We would agree to may more tax - and in return they gave us free education / health care and a decent state pension . So where are they ? and what have the politicans done with the money ?

These are the questions that should be asked and you dont need to be too smart to see why politicians are doing there damnest to bury this subject.

I count myself as being incredibly lucky, I was one of the last years that received a full grant for tuition along with a maintenance grant. However, I'd worked hard for this already, I'd qualified as veterinary nurse and had moved out of home 5 years before that. As such, I avoided my parents being means tested and received the full grant.

I cannot see why the means testing of potential students & their parents could not continue. Education should be free ( or as close as ) to those who can make the grade. Idealistic, I know, but why not? Apart from the fact that the UK has no money, i know, I know.

The biggest issue seems to be the huge numbers of people who seem to be able to "make the grade" now. Have A-levels got that much easier? Kids are not getting cleverer year on year, so something is happening to the exams themselves. Has it just become the norm that you WILL get into University?? You only have to look at the numbers of kids this year to had to fight hand over fist for even a place through clearing. Has Labour's aim of getting 50% of school leavers into Uni so badly misfired that it has utterly devalued & destroyed the entire higher education system?

Something has shifted and I don't know enough to be able to pinpoint what that is. However, surely the answer is to reduce the numbers of applicants, not by increasing fees & potential levels of debt, but by making it harder to get to Uni.

Reduce the number of places, reduce the number of courses & ultimately make the exams harder to reduce the number of potential applicants. Bring back the polytechnics & colleges to offer higher ed to those who cannot get to Uni on their lower grades. Abandon the idea that all should be able to get to Uni, that's what got us into this mess in the first place. Is is NOT a right, it's a priviledge, but entrance should be based on intellect and not wealth

Anonymous 4 is right; if so much money hadn't been wasted we could afford university education without saddling graduates with extra cost. However, the money is wasted - gone for ever and a new approach is needed.

Instead of charging graduates, how about saving money by cutting out all joke degrees and closing universities that don't offer proper degrees to a high standard. By proper degrees I mean those for important subjects such as Medical, Scientific and Engineering subjects to a standard that makes degree qualification attractive to employers, thereby aiding real wealth creation in order to re-elevate the UK into a respected world power.

The coalition must stop all the experiments into social engineering and start using common sense, but how does one make them take notice?.

How about a graduate tax for all those that went to university before tuition fees were introduced.

Sorry, guys, if you're going to qualify as a pensions solicitor (and you'll still need those for the next 50 years) it's a fat lot of good getting a degree in Chemical Engineering.

If I spend most of my days writing clear and logical legal advice, what I need is a degree in English, preferably with Classics on the side, for the logic.

Less about "joke" degrees, please!

In previous governments desire to get more "ordinary working class" folks into university,(not a bad thing in itself) so as to build their cudos' with the voters we have a range of degree and other university courses that are neither needed or wanted by employers for the most part.

As a consequence cash is/has been spent on further education courses that are mostly useless and oversubscribed because of their ease at the expense of serious degree courses say science, medicine, engineering etc

Time to remove university status from colleges etc and insist our more serious institutions cut out the frivolous courses.

Lets at a time of cutbacks concentrate the spending of limited funds where they can be most profitably put to use. Ergo free courses for science, medicine and engineering

I do not think anyone would consider English or another language study to be a "joke" degree. However courses such as the BA hons offered by Middx Uni in "Canine Behaviour & Training" do somewhat set themselves & their institutions up for ridicule. Heaven forbid I've offended all the dog professionals out there who would willingly put themselves in thousands of pounds worth of debt for this accreditation !

£7 billion in overseas aid and £6.5 billion to the EU every year - need I say more and here we are close to bankruptcy. We will be the ones needing overseas aid shortly. Seems we have no money for anything theses days and we put the needs of those in outher countries before ourselves.

It is in our country's interest to have the best qualified students and best funded Universities, that contribute to economy. Unfortunately this is not now not the case.

Too many irrelevant degrees and students - A level standards devalued by last government and method of exams discourage initiative. Bring back proper exams which have respect!

More industry collaboration and sandwich courses needed, this would partly address funding and standards problem, at least for important areas.

Government must continue to fund training in vital areas where scientific research needed for good of economy.

Tuition fees must be reallistic, but I think government should make parents-earnings-related grants available for students towards costs for proper courses to minimise debts.

Students should be encouraged to do part-time work towards cost if they want to pay off loan

To a number of correspondents here who (rightly) call for making University entrance more difficult and "exclusive". Wholly agreed! One caveat, however! Private tuition pupils attempting to be accepted in higher education hold the great advantage of having been "schooled" in gaining acceptance to those dreaming spires.

Typical tutorial courses usually comprise, practice interviews, "mock" written tests with expert tutors, advice on studying at the best Universities.

Not too much of a chance at getting THIS gold-plated advice in a State school and certainly a recipe for more social division and subsequent loss of talented "working class" applicants. Whatever "working class" is being called these days! Let's return to the bright young things -v- lower orders once more. After all, didn't we rule the world back in those heady days?

Could I just remind people that in most parts of Western Europe there is a far higher % of 18yr olds going to University. However, in these countires failure in the first year is not a stigma - so a far higher % fail than in the UK where high failure rates are synonymous with poor teaching (I feel that the opposite is true). I should add that degrees are also much longer in most of Europe, involve far fewer small group sessions, and require greater financial commitment from the student (i.e. his/her parents).

George Hill;

Excellent post.

However someone has to come up with a foolproof system whereby students from private and comprehensive schools whom get similar A level results both get an equal shot at university places.

Just now both student types can be discriminated against under the current system, with universities having to meet targets from comprehensive schools there is plenty of evidence where the privately educated student has been rejected in favour of his opposite number.

Maybe the solution is for uni's to cut the less academic courses moving them to colleges, and freeing up space and resources for the more academic degree courses

Dear George, surely it matters not how much "special extra tuition" & interview advice that Captain Thicky gets if he only gets 3 D's, he wouldn't even get to interview, let alone be offered a place. Then the bright young things of the state schools who work very hard for their 3 A's have no problem.

Discriminating against so called privileged people is one thing but when you go for a job interview in the real world the only thing that matters is the finished product and private schools do deliver an advantage in all sorts of ways beyond pure academic results. eg social skills, contacts, general air of confidence etc.

Prospective employers don't care about private schools, broken homes, child poverty etc. They just want someone who can do the job so if I can give my kids a head start and get them into the best Universities I will do so. It's called natural selection.

Sorry, Anonymous 1 - Being specially groomed for it is VERY MUCH unnatural selection.

great plan anonymous 1 - except once the crutch of private education is removed, state pupils do a lot better than their privately educated counterparts once they get to university. turns out intelligence is ultimately more important than being a bloody good laugh and having an encyclopedic knowledge of drum n bass. now that's real survival of the fittest.

by the way, how much of the university funding shortfall could be met by getting rid of tax breaks for private schools? someone should look into that.

Chippy Harry, and may I say not entirely accurate.

chippy as in "chip on shoulder"? guess again old man, i went to a far more expensive school than you, but when i got to university the difference between the comprehensive kids and the alumni of our less prestigious private schools became very obvious. unless it's an absolutely top tier private school you should save your money - and so should the government, by ceasing to subsidise these cultivators of lacklustre intellect.

There will always be parents who are better off and can afford tutors for the children so why waste time trying to iron out that inequality, just use energy to make sure that degrees are a high level qualification and mean something to employers.

My solution is to review all degree courses and cut out all those joke ones that have been contrived to justify the creation of or continued existence of any university, then close any universities that rely on those contrived degrees.

As for degrees for lawyers as mentioned by Roger May, don't worry; most MPs are lawyers and they won't let you down.

Harry,I have no idea what school you attended and therefore no idea of how much your parents paid for your education.

I was lucky enough to attend a very good public school as a boarder and believe me,even in the 1960's this cost my parents a few bob!Those lucky enough to attend this establishment today gain a very good education and also have the benefit of being able to indulge in a plethora of extra curricular activities that are not readily available to those in the state system.In an ideal world,all schools would be like this!

Perhaps we should agree to disagree about the generalisation in your first post.I do, however, appreciate that there are good and bad private schools,just as there are good and bad state schools.

P.S.We are a bit off topic aren't we?

yes OK i'm sure if the two options were private school or the workhouse (as i imagine was the case in the 1960s) then i'd take the private school, but fortunately the world has moved on. but back on-topic: how on earth does lorna bourke still have a job

Harry,oh I don't think she is that bad....I reckon the editor probably says 'oi you,400 words on such and such ...now'.Sometimes it works sometimes it doesn't.

Glad Tony Bonsignore left tho';couldn't get on with him at all!

4 term years and 2 year degree courses would offer the students, if not the universities, a great saving on tuition fees. I've never been quite sure who benefits from the long summer break - probably the tutors!

There are Universities, Polytechnics & Technical colleges, which are all now called Universities, which they are not. As with the review of Government spending, being conducted by Phillip Green, I am sure that the same is true of spending versus HE value. Like all things there is huge room for incresed efficiency and value for £'s spent. Why does the Government not seek a review in this direction, also?

Let's introduce challenge inot the equasion, not just how do we pay more for the same, or less.

Many comments here seem to equate university education with vocational training. This is not the purpose of a university. The recently retired controller of BBC Radio 4 is Mark Damazer, who moulded the finest speech radio that you could find in the English-speaking world. Did he get a degree in broadcasting? No - he got a double first in history at Oxford.

If I had the time or space I could prepare a list of high achievers in many professions or walks of life which were not directly related to the subjects of their degrees. Some of the finest administrators in the civil and diplomatic service, men and women, were accepted initially on the result of a highly demanding competitive examination. In recent years many high flyers were not from private schools, but had been rigorously trained in logic, analysis

and clear thinking in a variety of subjects. The requirement is high intelligence,

the ability to analyse and master a complex situation, to find solutions to problems that in essence are often the same, whatever the field.

The traditional entry to the two ancient universities was by scholarship or as it was sometimes called, exhibition, that is, a demonstration of intellectual ability. Regardless of the specific subject, the most influential part of the examination was the essay, often on what might appear to be a simple subject, perhaps a single word, such as 'Expediency.' or ' Decision' or 'Belief' or 'Truth' or ' What is the past?' or 'Inevitability.' These required original thinking, not the repetition of pages from Google

A university is a microcosm - life in miniature. Young people by meeting others discover themselves and their true interests - often unrelated to geography or history or mathematics, the subjects that opened the door. They may find after one year that the theatre, not history, was their field; or it might be politics, even religion, international welfare working for a UN agency, broadcasting, advertising, film direction, stage design, comedy - remember Footlights, the Cambridge drama group. One of its stars was Jonathan Miller, who qualified as a doctor and is now an internationally acclaimed opera producer. Others of my generation were Peter Hall - Dudley Moore - neither was the product of a private school or the middle class.

Try making a list of those who swapped the stethoscope for the pen or the hustings.

Well said Anonymous 6 Universites are not about vocational training. I always remember the quote "Education is what remains after what has been taught has been forgotten".

We can all recognise an educated person.

Anon6, fine words and I agree with much of what you say,but that does not mean there is no room for improvement or efficiencies in the uni system.

I still ask myself why the previous Government wanted 50% of school leavers to attend university and why so many 'skills and qualifications' require a university degree.

Regrettably,the holding of a degree has been somewhat devalued and many of those attending university, and now saddled with debt, would have been better served under the 'old system' before every Tom Dick and Harry college or poly was elevated to university status.

Quality not quantity for me and let us not fool many young people that university is the be all and end all.

Few people will disagree with Anonymous 6. His argument is superby put and is, no doubt, a product of a first class education. It would be wonderful if everyone with the capability was given the chance to benefit in this way. Call it a level playing field. Students from all levels must be given equal opportunities (including the coaching to get them past the inteview) to enter this level. The country needs to make the most of our best minds and not perpetuate the present system where certain professions are availeble only (almost) to the privileged...

" UK plc doesn't earn enough relative to our north european neighbours. If we don't address the legislative costs and barriers that make our competitor economies a more profitable site than the UK for manufacturing and business, we are blowing in the wind."

It's not that we don't earn enough - it's how we spend it. Germany, Holland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Spain, Italy - do not have Trident, nor do they build enormous aircraft carriers. I read several of their newspapers in English versions on the web. I have yet to see any suggestion in any of them that they see the need for a nuclear deterrent - the subject just doesn't concern them.

If they are hiding under the umbrellas provided by France and the UK, isn't it reasonable that they should contribute to the cost?

'A university is a microcosm - life in miniature. Young people by meeting others discover themselves and their true interests - often unrelated to geography or history or mathematics, the subjects that opened the door. They may find after one year that the theatre, not history, was their field; or it might be politics, even religion, international welfare working for a UN agency, broadcasting, advertising, film direction, stage'.

I would agree with much of what has been said BUT the statement is also, sadly, true for it is at the Oxbridge Universities that the Old School Tie then really starts to come into play, it is not at public school as most people perceive unless it happens to be Eaton. The existence of this nepotistic system feeds into the politics of envy and the likes of Brown think that they can break it down when in fact it is through this system that the self indulgent rich socialists particularly get their contacts and kid themselves that they are doing the poor a lot of good when all they are actually doing is to feed and satisfy their lust for power. Jack Straw a classic example of a man who has achieved nothing except for himself out of the old school tie system but would he admit it? Some chance!

Equal opportunities must be given to all but not everyone can make it and selection must be made at some point. Like it or not the 11 plus WAS a huge opportunity for working class children [I was one] to go onto Grammar or Technical schools and this has been demonstrated by some of the more enlghtened politicans over the last forty years.

Horses for courses must apply and the best candidates can only be found by a selection process and the essay is probably one of the best examples. The answer, I believe, to have say a dozen well invested and quality universities to try and break the stifling stranglelhold of the Oxbridge mafia and gravy train.

Sorry about the typos earlier (not spelling errors, I hasten to add) Couldn't find my NHS specs.

No degree (at least a proper one - I, too, can be a snob!) is useless. However, the ability to tell jokes in ancient Greek, doesn't seem particularly aposite in today's world. But isn't it amazing how many people in top jobs can do just that?

By giving the example of the two ancient universities, I was not citing them as ideal, but describing their former methods to find students suited to the high intellectual demands of university life.

There are few jokes in Greek at the Cavendish in Cambridge, but a knowledge of Latin and Greek is useful in decoding the names given to bacteria and plants, a practice that serves universal understanding.

For the record, I owe most, after my parents, to a primary school in a working class suburb of London that I left in 1936.

i have tought for a long time that we need to have a small group of properly funded elite universities for the most able students who are expected to make thier careers in the subjects that they study. working calss students should be funded from scholarships and bursaries. Everyone else needs a good school education and vocational or technical apprenticeships or other forms of employer funded on the job training. Too many students with good degrees in science based subjects end up doing jobs like retail management.

Westminster SCUM shafting decent people once again.

We cant all be a non tax paying single parent black lesbian muslims.

Anonymous 6 - I agree Anon! I started in a miners' village school, gong on to be degree-educated, professionally qualified, MD, comfortably retired. Latin certainly HAS been useful in many ways and should be featured more prominently in any so-called National Curriculum. Not holding my breath on that though It shouldn't, however, be a passport to top jobs and it's easy to name plenty of those place holders who wouldn't be there without the "connections".

there is a lot in what anonymous 3 says. I also work with quite a few universities (having left the one I used to work for about 10 years ago). In the last 10 years University salaries have increased well ahead of inflation. In addition, I have to agree with what anonymous 3 says in that it is common for far more support staff to be employed than are actually needed: I have seen a support department grow from 100 to over 200 staff in the last 10 years. If you compare this with further education they really know how to do things on a shoestring and they deliver pretty comparable support and infrastructure arrangements to their students. Basically most modern universities, like the NHS, just don't have management with the guts to run a lean operation. This is a cultural thing and it is not easy to change. I could go on a lot about this because I do know a lot about the subject, but I'm not going to hear. My summary feeling is that establishing a straightforward and open market for university places is a sensible thing to do. By this I mean that a course should cost a certain amount of money and that's it. The large disparity in the fees charged for indigenous students and for foreign students is a timebomb waiting to universities. Many foreign countries are establishing perfectly competent universities right now and once these have become establishedin a small number of years there will be considerably less incentive for foreign students to come to the UK for higher education. Right now many universities in the UK have an unhealthy dependency on the income derived from foreign students and I think there is a strong case for universities making a planned move to lessen or remove the disparity between fees charged for foreign and local students. These two steps will improve the robustness of our higher education sector. I expect that some institutions will become inviable in such a process but I believe those in the HE sector could already name those places. Another thing that I would expect to see happen, and which should be encouraged by government pressure, is that employers (or their proxies) should offer funding to those students who commit to particular of employment for a period after they graduate. Here I would include the teaching profession (which used this approach before the last war) and the medical and dental professions.

How about our MPs needing degrees in law and business studies and economics and people management before they are allowed to get into the area of making laws? If they had that, maybe they might just begin to understand what they are doing and the obligation that they have to ALL of the people of this land.

They make too many laws. Even trying to live a blameless life it's hard not to break a law by accident. Ideally new laws should only become statute when another law is repealed. I don't see it happenning though, it's in the interests of politicians, most of whom are lawyers, to generate work for their mates.

Insist on a Law Degree Snoekie? MOST of those crooks ARE lawyers as John H points out! It's lawyers' purpose in life to make sure there are laws... but badly drafted so THEY can profit from interpreting them! Sorry to appear such a cynic but I'm a well-founded, time-served cynic. Someone once said a cynic was just a disillusioned idealist. OK, I admit it.

Knowing well politicians and peers in both houses and and both sides, I'm ashamed to admit they ARE pretty well all the same nowadays... too many "professional" politicians. Politicians DON'T need degrees in PPE sort of disciplines - just an honest conviction and a wish to serve... sounds naive these days doesn't it?

All students whether from rich or poor families would pay their student loans after they graduate and start earning more than £15000 (to be raised to £ 21000). Therefore different fees for rich or poor should not be the issue. Everyone should be charged the same rate and expected to pay. This would cut off a lot of students pursiung useless degrees merely to pass time. Whenever something is given free someone else has to pay for it. The taxation system currently takes too much out of people who have made an effort to earn a bit more.

perhaps one should rethink the investment that is made in training - all training -

if granted it is in the country's interest to have people who speak foreign languages, to have builders who are literate and may want to upgrade their skills, to have those who are in the manual trades want to be retrained to be vocational ed teacher - and if the government cant afford to pay them for it - then say

invest in yourselves and we will give you the same tax advantages as someone in a small business - 50% from your taxes -

it is discrimination to deny people in the manual trade the chance to upgrade their skills, to deny men and women who now attend the elderly at very low wages, the change to become nurses or ambulance nurses. If they borrowed at the rate of 2% over the rate of the bank of England, could train themselves up -

they would feel they were not being denied the skills the upper middle class take as given -

I would propose that both university degree courses and professional courses be open for Government loans - and that the students older or younger get the same help in their repayment as small business

time to be fair to those who want to invest in themselves

double doubt

The problem in charging everyone the same is that bright but poor students may decide not to embark on a degree course. The UK needs as many highly educated people as possible and to lose some potential leaders or captains of industry is not in its interests. Before anyone bleats about elitism; don't forget that if clever people can make the counry becomes prosperous again, everyone gains.

The solution is to close universities and courses that don't teach medical, scientific or wealth creating subjects and save money that way instead of discouraging bright students by inflicting a financial burden. University education should be free to all, but with very high entry requirements and in depth interviewing.

If graduates earn £5000 more they pay more income tax, a quick calculation shows that tuition fees of say £20000 are repaid in only a few years anyway.

I was lucky enough to benefit from free higher level education. But even back then (1950s) there were families that couldn't let their (especially eldest) GO to University because their financial input, modest as it usually was, was essential to the family finances. They HAD to take a job. In some cases, mining!

What a waste to the general good of the country. Please God, THAT situation never arises again...

John H is under the misapprehension that only science subjects are necessary -

Industry says more people in the UK need languages - who is to teach them

business need leaders for international business - how are they to know anything about another country if they do not know the language - indeed do not know where it is

in making basic plans about a society judgement and ability to judge information is essential

It may be of interest for readers to note that China - that adopted such a brutal brand of Marxism was directed by Mathematicians - that is to say engineers and Mathematicians were the first marxists

Chinese culture has still not completely recovered - reading something beside mathematical formulas is not like wall paper - optional -

London is am amazing place right now - culturally - the best place in Europe indeed the world to be - - do not think for a moment that the city would be itself if there was not such a flourishing of culture here.

Singapore - the last time I was there there was a massive debate over why there were no poets in Singapore - that it essentially had not real culture -

What should be opened up to all is a further education opertunity in either usual university studies or what are now called vocational studies - a carpenter who wants to become an architect ought to be able to do so and be able to borrow the cost of his or her education - at a low interest from the government - paying it back as a small business does their own expenses by deducting the cost of the courses from their taxes.

Right now students and adult learners are unfair discriminated against while small businesses have important tax benefits -

OK Constance, languages are important but a degree is not necessary to teach, speak, write and understand other languages well enough to conduct business or for diplomatic purposes.

It may be that early marxists were engineers and mathematicians but it's unlikely that engineering or mathematics led to marxism, there's no connection.

It may well be possible for a student to form a company and to have his/her loan paid into it, then claim tax allowances. Can the accountants out there confirm or otherwise?

A degree should be the summit of higher education, the problem is that many good sized towns have a technical college renamed as a university and lots of those universities have concocted courses leading to joke degrees to justify their existence, with the result that degrees generally have been seriously devalued. Closing those courses would help to re-establish degrees' standing with employers and save lots of money to help subsidise useful courses.

I don't think students are discriminated against that would be self defeating, the danger is that the brighter students will run the financial numbers to decide whether any extra net salary as a graduate justifies the debt repayment, plus loss of earnings for 3 years or so.

I did not say that mathematics let to marxism as I am certain you read - that I wrote - but that thinking involves concepts and thinking that only involves numbers is not reflexive thinking - conceptual thinking that involves assessing different kinds of material and drawing a conclusion -

As a former professor at City University in New York - who did spend time educating those who had been so terribly educated by an American system that had divided those who were university bound from those who where not

(it was shocking )- I maintain that university education should not be only for the top 3 percent -

I have seen students transformed by learning to think - logically - by learning how to develop a clear thought - and seen them transform their ambitions for themselves and their families.

the point of my suggestion is that student debt should be treated in the same

was as small business debt - that at least have of the money that is paid back should be deducted from their tax.