3 ms·

If you look at the UK, which has in recent years gone from free to firstly low tuition fees and more recently exorbitant tuition fees, the reverse seems to be t

If you look at the UK, which has in recent years gone from free to firstly low tuition fees and more recently exorbitant tuition fees, the reverse seems to be true. In making university a £9k a year proposition universities seem to have significantly increased student expectations along the lines of "I paid for this, I expect top marks", along with vast increases in appeals etc. It does not seem to have increased educational expectations - just transactional. This seems to be particularly prevalent with overseas students who pay even higher fees. Universities have, in the main, happily adopted the profit mentality by providing and offering less and increasing class sizes. My conclusion is by adopting a high fee model we have significantly weakened further education in the UK.

mbrumlow 8y ago
Yeah, I don't think high fees are the answer either. Costly and free are both extreme and probably won't do what we want them to do. We need something just right, something that both the schools, and students still have some skin in the game so they are obligated / motivated to perform their best. I think a free market mostly can cover do this, and it seemed to work out fine for many many years in the US until we started giving crazy loans out to everybody. And don't get me started, on the bs that we need free school because low income kids won't be able to go. Harvard has a fund for low income students that goes untapped every year, they even make a effort to get low income kids (from my understanding mostly underprivileged minorities) to take advantage of the funding available, but yet, hardly anybody does.
- NeedMoreTea 8y ago
  I think you're right. In the UK context, the first incarnation of fees appeared to work OK and not bring the negatives that are becoming clear after the introduction of high fees. Even the overseas students paying higher fees seemed to bring less expectation and entitlement to a first whilst standard fees were only £3k, which I can't explain. Of course the other aspect when fees were first introduced was the policy to significantly increase numbers attending university. This brought its own set of problems including harming standards (unavoidable of course) and vocational institutions, and no end of colleges remaking themselves as universities.

mbrumlow 8y ago

Yeah, I don't think high fees are the answer either. Costly and free are both extreme and probably won't do what we want them to do. We need something just right, something that both the schools, and students still have some skin in the game so they are obligated / motivated to perform their best. I think a free market mostly can cover do this, and it seemed to work out fine for many many years in the US until we started giving crazy loans out to everybody. And don't get me started, on the bs that we need free school because low income kids won't be able to go. Harvard has a fund for low income students that goes untapped every year, they even make a effort to get low income kids (from my understanding mostly underprivileged minorities) to take advantage of the funding available, but yet, hardly anybody does.

NeedMoreTea 8y ago
I think you're right. In the UK context, the first incarnation of fees appeared to work OK and not bring the negatives that are becoming clear after the introduction of high fees. Even the overseas students paying higher fees seemed to bring less expectation and entitlement to a first whilst standard fees were only £3k, which I can't explain. Of course the other aspect when fees were first introduced was the policy to significantly increase numbers attending university. This brought its own set of problems including harming standards (unavoidable of course) and vocational institutions, and no end of colleges remaking themselves as universities.