Imperial College Raises Tuition Fees To £9000 Per Year

[ralphmalph]

Universities are going to charge as much as they possibly can for all their courses from 2012.

A situation where top universities charge 9k a year and less reputable universities charge less is probably not going to happen. Cost will be construed as a measure of quality of universites, so universities will endeavour to be able to charge the full 9k a year as soon as the leading universities finalise their plans to charge this amount.

For the same reason, with possibly a few exceptions, all courses within universities will likely cost the same. There won't be a istuation where a geography degree is cheaper than a history degree at the same university - that would upset too many academics.

I work in a new university and this seems tthe widely predominant view of staff I have discussed this with.

The top Uni's will get 9K. The ex polys will not. They will try to get 9K and when applications are zero they will have to adjust to the reality of the real world.

All part of the coalitions plans to destroy the left wing education establishment.

[scottbeard]

Jobs are gotten mostly via contacts and not merit.

I work in Financial Services. I was hired as a graduate on merit, and everyone i have hired (or not hired) in my career has been based on merit (or lack of it).

Why would i hire a "contact" over someone unknown but clearly better? Contacts only matter if it's a tie on merit, or if you are "creating your own position" which you don't do aged 21.

I just want the best person for the job. Why would any employer not?

Not saying it's necessarily worth 9k pa but certainly seeing a degree from Imperial on someone's CV makes you more likely to give them an interview, doesn't it?

[Giordano Bruno]

I went there. The teaching was poor. All you are paying for is the reputation. The standard is maintained by only allowing the cleverest in of course, it's not difficult.

Lots of foreign students pay large sums to attend, why would they want to fill the place up with UK students paying £3k.

I wouldn't pay £9k/year for my Engineering degree. Medicine maybe.

But ... but ... you might even be taught by Judith Wilson!!

http://www3.imperial.ac.uk/business-school/people/adjunctprofessors

[Unsafe As Houses]

The top Uni's will get 9K. The ex polys will not. They will try to get 9K and when applications are zero they will have to adjust to the reality of the real world.

All part of the coalitions plans to destroy the left wing education establishment.

I can't see ex-polys charging 9k and then backtracking when they get less applications than anticipated - they would look rather foolish; and I can't see them charging less than top universities for the reason I cited above.

The coalition won't want less people going to university because the unemployment rate for young people will become even worse. I personally believe less young people should go to university, but that's another issue....

The implications of widespread 9k a year tuition fees for house prices in the next 5 or so years are obvious...

[HPC001]

I work in Financial Services. I was hired as a graduate on merit, and everyone i have hired (or not hired) in my career has been based on merit (or lack of it).

Why would i hire a "contact" over someone unknown but clearly better? Contacts only matter if it's a tie on merit, or if you are "creating your own position" which you don't do aged 21.

Well that's nice that your company\yourself work that way, I did use "mostly" for a reason. I'm taking it that you have above the ~7 years experience I am commenting with? I haven't worked in management myself so I'd be interested to hear your take.

I just want the best person for the job. Why would any employer not?

Best seems to consist of who can bulls***t their way through selection interviews.

Not saying it's necessarily worth 9k pa but certainly seeing a degree from Imperial on someone's CV makes you more likely to give them an interview, doesn't it?

I chose my course largely based on the format, content, and tutors that I spoke to. Anyway, grades aren't everything. Exams are a long way from the actual work environment. Getting a 1st is useless if you can't apply the skills\knowledge in the real world.

Edited February 16, 2011 by HPC001

[Guest The Relaxation Suite]

Mostly Chinese and Indian I'll wager, they'll have all the top jobs and young English children will be serving them coffee in Starbucks. Neo-Liberal end-game.

I studied and then worked at various British universities for many years, and yes, after about 2000 the foreign students gradually became Chinese students. From my experience marking papers, students from places like Germany and Scandinavia are the best educated, and British privately-educated students. British comp-borstal students were not very good at all, as one would expect. Japanese students were better educated and more polite than the Chinese, who were often rude and arrogant and not very well educated. I didn't teach many Chinese because they're not interested in Humanities or Social Sciences and stick to science and maths mainly. Their arrogance came as no surprise to me, because I am following the rise of Chinese nationalism.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Tecumseh

[zebbedee]

Who of you that went to uni use your uni education to its full extent at your place of work.

Come on hands up!

So few people use their uni education later on in life that it is clear it is unless for most people.

Uni is for academics who want to learn to a very high level for r&d and just because it is human (to some)

Every job can be learnt in the job even medicine & dentistry & teaching itself.

So uni should be for only the very few. Perhaps as few as 5%

However mire should be done to improve secondary and college education

O' the humanity

[Tiger Woods?]

Jobs are gotten mostly via contacts and not merit. Admittedly I don't know enough about ICL to say whether it's worth the £9k. However, from the point of view of a middle class kid with parental backing it may well be, given the potential for networking.

Let's get this correct. It is £27,000 for a 3 year degree. £36,000 for 4.

[ralphmalph]

I can't see ex-polys charging 9k and then backtracking when they get less applications than anticipated - they would look rather foolish; and I can't see them charging less than top universities for the reason I cited above.

The coalition won't want less people going to university because the unemployment rate for young people will become even worse. I personally believe less young people should go to university, but that's another issue....

The implications of widespread 9k a year tuition fees for house prices in the next 5 or so years are obvious...

The coalition want an elitetist uni sector and the rest to do apprenticeships. If the ex polys get no applications they go bust because there is no central funding any more. Hence cull of left wing educational establishments. The top unis become mega capitalists charging what they can.

[theonlywayisdown]

I work in Financial Services. I was hired as a graduate on merit, and everyone i have hired (or not hired) in my career has been based on merit (or lack of it).

Why would i hire a "contact" over someone unknown but clearly better? Contacts only matter if it's a tie on merit, or if you are "creating your own position" which you don't do aged 21.

I just want the best person for the job. Why would any employer not?

Not saying it's necessarily worth 9k pa but certainly seeing a degree from Imperial on someone's CV makes you more likely to give them an interview, doesn't it?

because....brown nosing with the right people can get you further than being a know it all nobody. it costs alot of time and money to find the right person suitable for a job. perhaps you're not that high up in the chain to see what the politics or so and so would be a good fit for this role, lets consider him/her first cause its a mate. You know its I'll rub your back if you rub mine, bum chums and all that right?

[RentingForever]

Let's get this correct. It is £27,000 for a 3 year degree. £36,000 for 4.

And that's just the tuition fees. You can add in another £20-30k for living costs during that period.

[Unsafe As Houses]

The coalition want an elitetist uni sector and the rest to do apprenticeships. If the ex polys get no applications they go bust because there is no central funding any more. Hence cull of left wing educational establishments. The top unis become mega capitalists charging what they can.

We already have an elitist uni sector - the wealthy can provide their children with a better education which helps them get places in the leading unis. One of the many long-term problems with this country is that many of the most gifted young people are not getting the best education we as a country can offer.

I don't believe that ex-polys will get greatly reduced applications from 2012. Most 18-year-olds will judge that they are better off staying in education than seeking employment and many will enrol at a university.

Edited February 16, 2011 by Unsafe As Houses

[HPC001]

Let's get this correct. It is £27,000 for a 3 year degree. £36,000 for 4.

I was quoting the annual fee figure, stop being such a grammar nazi

Also, according to Lord Browne's proposal, the government will take some of the increased fees from the universities for any amount over £6,000 per year.

[(Blizzard)]

I work in Financial Services. I was hired as a graduate on merit, and everyone i have hired (or not hired) in my career has been based on merit (or lack of it).

I am laughing so hard at this that tears are streaming down my face, and onto the floor. Oh to be young again.

[Tiger Woods?]

Who of you that went to uni use your uni education to its full extent at your place of work.

Come on hands up!

So few people use their uni education later on in life that it is clear it is unless for most people.

Uni is for academics who want to learn to a very high level for r&d and just because it is human (to some)

Every job can be learnt in the job even medicine & dentistry & teaching itself.

So uni should be for only the very few. Perhaps as few as 5%

However mire should be done to improve secondary and college education

Mostly agree with this. Primary and secondary education needs to be fixed. Opportunities for life-long learning should be increased and employers encouraged to support it. We do not need 50% of the population wasting their time and our resources at university.

[theonlywayisdown]

I am laughing so hard at this that tears are streaming down my face, and onto the floor. Oh to be young again.

my sentiments exactly! I shouldve just said, don't be so naive!

[MongerOfDoom]

methinks some of these idiots, describing £9000 (its per year) as a 'bargain', have never even earned over £9000 per year in their short lives!

It might well be a bargain. If a 40k-ish degree lets you into a genuine graduate job, it's definitely well worth the cost. Just why do you think the foreigners turn up in force to pay substantially more for the same education? At that price, degrees from the Russel group are worth buying even with your own money. On the other hand, a 10k-ish degree from somewhere like Thames Valley will probably be largely useless both to the recipient and the society. No prizes for guessing which will cost the taxpayer more.

[theonlywayisdown]

It might well be a bargain. If a 40k-ish degree lets you into a genuine graduate job, it's definitely well worth the cost. Just why do you think the foreigners turn up in force to pay substantially more for the same education? At that price, degrees from the Russel group are worth buying even with your own money. On the other hand, a 10k-ish degree from somewhere like Thames Valley will probably be largely useless both to the recipient and the society. No prizes for guessing which will cost the taxpayer more.

don't you see the irony of all this? for the majority of graduate jobs, you don't need the knowledge of a degree of chemistry/maths/physics/engineering. Alot of the graduate jobs today are basically what you couldve done at the age of 18 going back 30 or more years ago, e.g IT grad jobs, big4 accountancy firms, retail management graduate schemes, or any big plc company.

Its just another barrier to entry. At what point will people start to say, it simply isnt worth pursuing a certain qualification because of the startup cost and the deminising returns? imo, we're reaching that point soon.

as an example, it was not too long ago in the news that one of the big4 accountancy firms (cant remember which) said they would go back to hiring people before they consider going to uni. I mean, whats the point in going to uni to study e.g. chemistry, and waste 3-4 years if you're gonna end up on a graduate scheme for tax auditing, which only really needs maybe A-level maths at the very most.

Edited February 17, 2011 by theonlywayisdown

[cells]

Average icl graduate from a sample of 3 i know the wages of

45k average. skewed by one wage.

Median 30k

Compare that to now

9k x 4 years = £36k

45 weeks x 4 years x £130pw = £23.4k in rent.

That is £60k debt before you even consider reasonable extras like food books general living expenses.

So realistically it would take the median icl grad 6 years saving a large part of their income to get back to a financial stage when they first seeped foot into south ken.

[rxe]

Well, as an ex IC grad (1992) , I would say that £36K for a 4 year course would be an absolute bargain in terms of the earning power it delivered. Literally a rounding error. If my children got into Imperial, I would view the fees as a perfectly rational investment.

Edited February 17, 2011 by rxe

[cells]

O' the humanity

Pitfalls of typing on a 2 inch keyboard with predictive text.

[cells]

Best bit is the irony of if all

High University attendance is supposedly going to beak down class and job barriers and allow everyone to become professionals.

However in reality today all it has done is pull the drawbridge up further so now you need a frekin degree to work in retail.

I know one store that sells jewellery and all 6 staff are degree holders from various unis and subjects.

F. Retarded.

It will sadly take a generation for people to wake up

[bpw]

Are u seriously telling me there is a degree for humanities and social sciences? What a waste of taxpayers money. They should raise the fees on soft courses to 18k p.a. to prevent waste. I am curious what a degree in that subject qualifies you for .... Starbucks perhaps.

;-)

I studied and then worked at various British universities for many years, and yes, after about 2000 the foreign students gradually became Chinese students. From my experience marking papers, students from places like Germany and Scandinavia are the best educated, and British privately-educated students. British comp-borstal students were not very good at all, as one would expect. Japanese students were better educated and more polite than the Chinese, who were often rude and arrogant and not very well educated. I didn't teach many Chinese because they're not interested in Humanities or Social Sciences and stick to science and maths mainly. Their arrogance came as no surprise to me, because I am following the rise of Chinese nationalism.

[MongerOfDoom]

don't you see the irony of all this? for the majority of graduate jobs, you don't need the knowledge of a degree of chemistry/maths/physics/engineering. Alot of the graduate jobs today are basically what you couldve done at the age of 18 going back 30 or more years ago, e.g IT grad jobs, big4 accountancy firms, retail management graduate schemes, or any big plc company.

I did say genuine graduate job, that is one that requires either the particular degree or at the very least the ability to think and work sufficiently hard to obtain said degree. If you for some reason want to do a graduate job that does not actually require a degree in any way, you can get a cheap one (10k-ish) or even go mail-order :-)

Its just another barrier to entry. At what point will people start to say, it simply isnt worth pursuing a certain qualification because of the startup cost and the deminising returns? imo, we're reaching that point soon.

Complete nonsense, we are not approaching anything. At 9k pa the cost of your own time and effort easily dominates all other costs. Obviously, we are talking about IC who generally take mostly competent people (though some 20 years ago my conditional offer was BCC, so I hope they have not dumbed down even further since then).

as an example, it was not too long ago in the news that one of the big4 accountancy firms (cant remember which) said they would go back to hiring people before they consider going to uni. I mean, whats the point in going to uni to study e.g. chemistry, and waste 3-4 years if you're gonna end up on a graduate scheme for tax auditing, which only really needs maybe A-level maths at the very most.

If you have a degree then you can presumably do some sort of a job that requires it, and that is valuable if only because it puts a floor below what someone else can pay you. I will leave it to someone who read History or Sociology to explain how it's also valuable that students tend to "mature" and learn to spell correctly during their course :-)

The way it seems to work is that some industries are - for whatever reason - substantially more profitable than others. That translates directly to how much they pay their employees. You would have thought they would pay just the bare minimum, but that is simply not what happens in practice. You can get very similar jobs paying very different amounts (see e.g. Freakonomics for details). The employers paying more then get to choose the best people of those who apply, and having a decent degree is a good way of demonstrating you are not a lazy retard. They could choose applicants some other way, but the current setup seems to work fine. You sink some resources into an education instead of doing cheaper on-the-job training, and they let you work in a job that pays more than other jobs requiring similar skills (or lack thereof). The way I see it, the only thing you could do is improve competition so that all industries are about equally profitable. Then they would not want to turn away applicants who can do the job, and the applicants would not bother competing for the "best" jobs since they would all be similarly awful. Whether that is possible even in theory, the system has worked the current way for a long time, and it is worth getting a decent degree for that reason alone if not for any others.

[aa3]

I think in time this might re-orient university to what it was meant for. Kids in the top 15% of IQ, who also need a degree to practice in the field hey have chosen. So we are talking substantially under 10% of the population. Compare that to now where over 50% of young people go to university.

There is no doubt whatsoever if you are well above average, say at minimum 115+ IQ, do your homework, good health, etc.. if you go and get your pharmacist, medical doctor, specialist, accountant, professional engineer, lawyer, veternarian and any I missed in a similiar vein.. And you graduate with say £150k in student loans..it still will pay off big time.

Waht this does is cut out that middle IQ person, your average person with 90-110 IQ. Who goes and gets some fluff degree. It also cuts out the low end of the professional class. Basically universities will go from an institution where 50% of the population goes, to more like 5 or 10%.