Proposals for extra university places, that you buy

[ajthefox]

Teenagers from the wealthiest families would be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities under government proposals that could allow institutions to charge some British students the same high fees as overseas undergraduates.

Candidates who take up the extra places would not be eligible for publicly funded loans to pay tuition fees or living costs, limiting this option to all but the most privileged households who could pay fees up front.

Under the plans, the extra students may be charged as much as international undergraduates. At the most competitive universities, these students face fees ranging from £12,000 a year for arts subjects to £18,000 for sciences and more than £28,000 for medicine. Applicants would be required to meet the course entry requirements

So, on the back of cutting 10,000 publicly funded spaces AND an increase of 2.1 percent in applicants for this year (now 633,000 another record high (see article)) the government now want to let the rich buy their places.

ridiculous.

[Finnegan]

But it's not all about making education elitist, guys. It's about making it more accessible.

[FoxyPV]

Teenagers from the wealthiest families would be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities under government proposals that could allow institutions to charge some British students the same high fees as overseas undergraduates.

Candidates who take up the extra places would not be eligible for publicly funded loans to pay tuition fees or living costs, limiting this option to all but the most privileged households who could pay fees up front.

Under the plans, the extra students may be charged as much as international undergraduates. At the most competitive universities, these students face fees ranging from £12,000 a year for arts subjects to £18,000 for sciences and more than £28,000 for medicine. Applicants would be required to meet the course entry requirements.

The changes would give more students the chance to attend their first choice of university. At present, the government sets a quota of undergraduate places that English universities are allowed to offer each year.

Employers and charities will also be encouraged to sponsor "off-quota" places under the plans to be outlined in a higher education white paper in the summer.

Ministers argue that the creation of extra places will boost social mobility by freeing up more publicly subsidised places for undergraduates from poorer homes.

But the proposals are likely to be criticised as a means for the wealthiest to "buy places" at a time when the government is to cut 10,000 publicly funded places.

The universities minister, David Willetts, told the Guardian: "There are various important issues that need to be addressed around off-quota places, but I start from the view that an increase in the total number of higher education places could aid social mobility.

"There would need to be arrangements to make sure any such system was fair and worked in the interests of students as well as institutions. But it is not clear what the benefit is of the current rules, which, for example, limit the ability of charities or social enterprises to sponsor students.

"We are inviting ideas on the whole concept and we will listen very carefully to all the responses we receive."

The proposal is most likely to be taken up by highly selective institutions, which turn away thousands of qualified candidates a year. Oxford accepted slightly more than 3,000 British and EU undergraduates out of about 17,000 who applied for the current academic year.

That demand is due to intensify as the latest application figures show the number of candidates for this autumn has risen by 2.1% to about 633,000 – another record high.

The places may not be covered by access agreements, under which universities are required to outline how they will improve their proportion of students from state schools and deprived backgrounds.

Under one version of the scheme, universities might operate a "needs-blind" admissions process, which assesses all candidates regardless of their ability to pay, but then offers places off-quota to candidates from the most privileged homes.

The expansion of places will put greater pressure on less popular universities. Ministers have warned that undersubscribed institutions could have government-funded places withdrawn.

In a speech last month, the business secretary, Vince Cable, said: "Institutions could very well find themselves in trouble if students can't see value. In circumstances where places are unfilled, we might withdraw those places, and institutions should not assume they will easily get them back."

This is more likely to happen if more sought-after universities are free to expand in response to student demand.

The government is also keen to encourage more corporate sponsorship of university places. The accountancy firm KPMG has unveiled a plan to pay fees for students at universities including Durham, in a training programme leading to an honours degree in accounting.

These students also fall outside government restrictions on numbers, chiefly because they are on bespoke courses reserved for one firm's employees. They do not need financial support as KPMG covers their fees and pays them a salary.

The current version of the scheme is, in effect, an outsourcing of corporate training, but the range of education on offer could become more diverse in future.

Asked if KPMG planned to extend the scheme to other degree subjects, Simon Haydn-Jones, an associate partner at the firm, said: "Yes we do, in due course – most likely by enabling students to take a range of subsidiary subjects such as geography in combination with an accountancy-related degree.

"It is early days for our scheme, though, and we need to get it up and running first before we take any specific decisions on this."

The KPMG scheme begins at Durham and Exeter this autumn, and will be extended to Birmingham University next year. The firm ultimately expects to offer more than 400 places.

A third option for expanding university places without cost to the public purse is by encouraging charities to sponsor students. At present, if a charity wished to fund a group of students from poor backgrounds, those places would have to come out of a university's existing quota because of the risk that the students involved might need public support in future.

The forthcoming white paper is expected to encourage charity sponsorship, possibly by enabling students to renounce entitlement to public support.

Courtesy of the LIB DEM supporting Guardian

[FoxyPV]

But it's not all about making education elitist, guys. It's about making it more accessible.

Money can't buy you love though.

[Fosse Boy]

Wrong. So wrong.

[Steven]

When I went to University it was academically based to do an academic course. I am pleased I went when I did.

[Finnegan]

Mr. TheHat is quiet today.

[Houdini Logic]

Too right! If we give poor people an education they may rise up against us!

[Webbo]

You can only buy a place at the university, you can't buy the degree. This already happens with foreign students, what's the problem?

[Houdini Logic]

You can only buy a place at the university, you can't buy the degree. This already happens with foreign students, what's the problem?

Because the places should be used for people with the most potential, not the biggest wallet?

Foreign students pay more only because the universities are allowed to charge them more - they still have to prove their worth to get into the course.

[l444ry]

Did narcotics get legalised when I wasn’t looking?

Either Willetts’ “two brains” refers to two short planks, or he’s absolutely smacked off his tits to be touting this line!

**** it, why not just sell them the degree there and then, since ability to pay is going to trump ability from now on.

[Webbo]

Because the places should be used for people with the most potential, not the biggest wallet?

Foreign students pay more only because the universities are allowed to charge them more - they still have to prove their worth to get into the course.

And if the extra money that the uni earns pays for more bursaries or better facilities for the more able less well off students then that's a good thing surely?

Lot of fuss about nothing really.

[Houdini Logic]

And if the extra money that the uni earns pays for more bursaries or better facilities for the more able less well off students then that's a good thing surely?

Lot of fuss about nothing really.

Isn't that what they said about grants?

And fees?

And top up fees?

And top up top up fees?

And now selling places?

This isn't a business venture gone wrong - these are establishments that have been schooling for many hundreds of years and to keep using the same argument of needing more money was at first annoying and is now simply a farce.

[Webbo]

If you read Foxy's quote it explains it. There's nothing sinister about it. Especially this bit;

Under the plans, the extra students may be charged as much as international undergraduates. At the most competitive universities, these students face fees ranging from £12,000 a year for arts subjects to £18,000 for sciences and more than £28,000 for medicine. Applicants would be required to meet the course entry requirements.

[breadandcheese]

I think with a proposal like this, we've (and especially the media) got to be careful not to shoot the politician down (in this case Willetts). Willetts has quite clearly said he's raising the idea, it's not policy. I'd much rather politicians raised ideas for us to shoot down, rather than implement them without proper consultation from us the public. I've always taken the view that ideas are there for us to shoot down and if they stand up to scrutiny, they're a good idea.

So with that, it shouldn't be seen as a gaffe for this idea to be raised but should be commended that he's thinking outside the box and putting ideas up for them to be attacked.

On the issue of the idea, it does sit uncomfortably with me, however, is it now a necessary evil? If universities can charge more to dumb students from wealthy backgrounds, then it can benefit the university, benefit the taxpayer who does not have to subsidise the wealthy student and potentially benefit those from poorer backgrounds who can then reap the benefit of the extra money floating around. This is what happens already with foreign students, who subsidise our universities for British students. Of course, the question is whether the money from the increased fees would go to the right areas or be squandered elsewhere? That for me is the driver of whether I'd support an idea like this.

[ousefox]

Ridiculous idea. Doesn't suprise me at all though.

[Jon the Hat]

Mr. TheHat is quiet today.

Damn work.

What a load of crap this is. The government part funds a set number of places on Uni courses. If anyone is stupid enough to pay the entire costs of their place for access to a specific course or institution good luck to them. It is after all their money. This is not taking away places or funds from anyone else. Guess what? Rich people can pay for stuff. they don't have to take the bus, use the NHS, or send their kids to state schools. Is this news? No this is not news. Is it fair? It is as fair as anything else in a capitalist society, and that is a matter of personal opinion.

[FoxyPV]

I think with a proposal like this, we've (and especially the media) got to be careful not to shoot the politician down (in this case Willetts). Willetts has quite clearly said he's raising the idea, it's not policy. I'd much rather politicians raised ideas for us to shoot down, rather than implement them without proper consultation from us the public. I've always taken the view that ideas are there for us to shoot down and if they stand up to scrutiny, they're a good idea.

So with that, it shouldn't be seen as a gaffe for this idea to be raised but should be commended that he's thinking outside the box and putting ideas up for them to be attacked.

On the issue of the idea, it does sit uncomfortably with me, however, is it now a necessary evil? If universities can charge more to dumb students from wealthy backgrounds, then it can benefit the university, benefit the taxpayer who does not have to subsidise the wealthy student and potentially benefit those from poorer backgrounds who can then reap the benefit of the extra money floating around. This is what happens already with foreign students, who subsidise our universities for British students. Of course, the question is whether the money from the increased fees would go to the right areas or be squandered elsewhere? That for me is the driver of whether I'd support an idea like this.

I never thought I'd agree with you but . My main concern about this is universities tacitly blocking places off for privately funded students at the expense of those publicly funded students.

[Jon the Hat]

I never thought I'd agree with you but . My main concern about this is universities tacitly blocking places off for privately funded students at the expense of those publicly funded students.

That is a fair point. I guess they could already be doing it, but in reality they will fill every place the Government would fund, and that they could fill, plus as many on top as they can fit in.

[breadandcheese]

I never thought I'd agree with you but .

Are you feeling as uncomfortable as me?

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

I don't understand the problem here either.

As Jon the Hat says, "You cannot buy the degree", so if a tiny percentage of the rich wish to do buy a place, let them! They will have to have the ability, and work hard like the rest, in order to achieve.

[ousefox]

I don't understand the problem here either.

As Jon the Hat says, "You cannot buy the degree", so if a tiny percentage of the rich wish to do buy a place, let them! They will have to have the ability, and work hard like the rest, in order to achieve.

The problem is that it's not fair. It means that there is not equal access for everybody to the best universities in the country. Why should somebody from a richer background get the chance to go to a top university over someone who is not so well off, just because they have rich parents?

[Matt]

Listen, if people wanna waste money buying their place them so be it. It's those people who go to uni just to toss a few year offs because they don't know what to do and don't want to work that have ruined it for the people that earn and are worth their place at uni.

[Christoph]

I'm not really sure what people expected with the conservatives

[ousefox]

Listen, if people wanna waste money buying their place them so be it. It's those people who go to uni just to toss a few year offs because they don't know what to do and don't want to work that have ruined it for the people that earn and are worth their place at uni.

It's not a waste of money though is it? It's a brilliant investment that only the rich can take advantage of.