I fully agree with George Watson's comments above. Whilst as a tax payer for the last 30 years but who received a sub-standard comprehensive education that meant I was never going to be prepared for three years at University at 18, I fully agree that I should not be continuing to fund 35-50% of young people to undertake degree courses; there had to be another way to do this. However, the new OU fee regime is a great disappointment. For me it means once I have completed my Open degree next year (which include 240 point credit transfer) I will be unable to take any further degree level courses as the cost will be just too much at £2.5k per 60 point module. I feel that the OU has sold out on the ELQ issue i.e. it has conceeded too much to the government and abandoned those of us in the workforce (as well as George and his desire to remain intellectually active) who need to keep improving their skill set to remain employable. The VC should resign over this dismal failure to get across this issues for people who need to continually upskill in the workplace, as well as non-vocational students like George. I still have hope though, as the University of London International Programme team tell me that its fees will not be increasing as per the OU. I will have no hesitation in taking a second degree in say Economics and Finance there at a much lower cost. Sorry OU but bye bye and thanks for the memories... David
Nik Allen - Wed, 03/08/2011 - 10:26
I guess I have to say I'm disappointed too. Yes, I understand that the Uni funding has been cut by the government etc, but there is, to be honest, no way in hell that a course that last year cost £750 is suddenly worth £2500.
I have a BSc and am working for an MSc with the OU and I have to say that I had been planning to stay with the Uni to do another undergrad to suppliment my knowledge. Not now. I'm sorry, but I looked online for similar courses at other universities, done part time, distance learning and found them cheaper.
I'm a psychology grad and I can say that we hardly had any tutorials so it can't be that. One a month at best, usually less. Certainly for some of the courses we had far less than that. We got a few textbooks, some CDs, the occasional computer program. I didn't complain for £750, I sure as hell would for £2500. A lot of local colleges and universities are capitalising on this and offering evening and part time degrees that are similar in price or cheaper. Why would I pay out for the OU where I get to see my tutor rarely and have to rely on them finding time away from their day jobs to see me, when I could go to my local uni and do the same courses for about the same price and have access to tutors, lectures etc?
I feel it is a crying shame. The OU are a fantastic organisation and I know it was an option for people on lower incomes. However, now it would appear that we have no more choice in the matter and so something is going to have to pay. Us. That or you have the other problem I'm facing - no funding means no courses. I would have liked to have had the chance to do more MSc work in psychology but I can't as all the courses are being stopped. Great. Is this how you get round the fact that you cannot put their fees up too? If you can't multiply the fees by a ridiculous amount, you won't run them?
So, after 10 years, I'll be waving goodbye and I will miss it. However, I also will find it hard to recommend to people as it's no longer the option it was back when I started. Still, c'est la guerre...
Helen Caffeine ... - Wed, 03/08/2011 - 13:04
I am also disappointed with the huge rise in fees. Of course they are expected to go up but by this much? I am just starting on my learning journey with the O.U. (foundation degree in supporting teaching and learning) and am only just able to afford the fees at the moment - I get no aid as my husband's wage takes us over the limit- however my own wage is a pittance and I know many t.a.'s who were not ready to start their own O.U. learning journey this year and now feel that they will certainly not be able to afford it next or indeed in any year. I was hoping to continue to a full degree, this will now not be possible. As a mature student wishing to continue my professional development I feel these price rises are a major stumbling block to this and almost wish I hadn't started on this journey
Joanne Hancox - Wed, 03/08/2011 - 14:23
What a downer to learn this on the day I graduate. This was a huge opportunity for me to achieve something later in life that I would never have been able to afford under the new arrangements. I'm so sorry for everyone studying now.
Cameron has achieved what Thatcher baulked at. And I don't agree that backing off from plans to scrap it constituted her "saving" it.
Rachel Hallett - Wed, 03/08/2011 - 17:28
This is such sad news. I originally studied Psychology with the OU for my own interest, and the fees were towards the top of what I was able to afford at the time (I was on the minimum wage but my husband's earnings put us over any threshold for financial help and I'm also hit by ELQ stipulations). I got hooked, graduated with a First, am just finishing an MSc and was extremely lucky to land a fully-funded PhD place starting next month. My OU degree really has changed my life and given me a fantastic new career; however, if I'd seen a £2500-per-module price tag, it would have been difficult for me to go ahead with it. I still plan to study a couple more modules, as they complement the PhD and fortunately run before the changes come into effect. I won't have the means to continue beyond that with the OU, despite there being other modules (Creative Writing in particular) I was hoping to study for my own enjoyment rather than to boost my career. I realise the government has limited cash, but surely education, which subsequently produces higher earners who pay more tax (among other positive economic benefits), is worth funding.
Lesley Grainge - Thu, 04/08/2011 - 08:23
Some really interesting and valid comments in all of the above posts. As far as I see it there are two arguments that sometimes get a bit tangled up. One is the cost and the other is about the target market.
I think we must get these two things into perspective. As far as my understanding goes £700/£800 for a 60 point course was never the full price.. It was government 'funded'. the course in actual fact always did cost more than that. Every single person who took the course was therefore accessing government funding.This was regardless of how many degrees they already had, what income bracket they fell in, and whether the motivation was vocational or intelluctual stimulation. And for those on lower income under a certain threshold further funding was accessible, and many people that I know, especially those studying a first degree, in fact paid nothing at all. So the first thing we have to remember is that the course hasn't necessarily risen in price from £800 to £2,500 , its much more about who is going to pay for it. That is what has changed. One of the dangers here is that comments such as "sit at home with a few books" suggests that the OU was always cheaper because it isn't as good. If we think rationally about the academics who contribute to our materials, (and what they deserve to be paid) the standard of those materials, the support we are offered on line and the accessibility to further materials through the libraries,with all the maintenenace involved to keep that totally up to date in our fast moving world, and our tutorials (and in my experience these have been first class - my tutors have been amazing in their accessibility, their feedback and support), the examination and moderation excellence (which ensures that the degree is valued as academic achievement globally) with all the necessary administration that goes with that, then we can start to see that £700 was an absolute bargain and in no way met the cost. So if the government funding that subsidised it in the first place has changed and lowered, the OU have no choice but to get the money from somewhere else. Raising the fees to bring them in line with the actual cost of the course is the decision that has been made. It is nothing more than a calculation.
The real argument, reflected in so many of the comments above, is how it is going to work in practice. We will obviously have to wait and see. It is the previous target market that may change and in that many people may lose out. I feel that the important thing is to ensure that we don't base our reactions on an invalid base, that £2,500 is not value for money, because that demeans the academic excellence the OU has offered and that won't help the OU to resolve the valid concerns that they must obviously feel as they have been forced to make what is nothing more than a business decision. Finding ways to help students on low incomes will, I am sure, be one of their main agendas as it has always been.
George Watson - Thu, 04/08/2011 - 15:19
Lesley immediately identifies the fundamental problem that has beset education probably since 1979 when the whole accounting/managerialist approach to education became the dominant discourse for successive governments and education leaders in the running and measuring of the education system (not just HE.)
We are still a rich country - though often this wealth is drained away through a multitude of grey 'scams' and political/business inefficiences often of the government's making (but I won't develop that point here as it moves away from the current discussion). Fundamentally education is more than a 'business decision' - that is terminology which we have come to expect and even accept. Everywhere business is now the dominant model. We have become trapped inside the business thinking box and this creates a mind-set that undermines the idea of the fundamental importance education for life, society and its better development. This includes education for life-enrichment and not just for jobs. The fact that one can say that it is 'nothing more than a calculation' is revelatory of the mono perspective which is prevalent today and into which the OU seems to have fallen (though not without a fight in certain quarters.)
Education is so much more than this - it is a corner-stone of Beveridge's thinking which combined idealism with a pragmatic delivery that benefitted the whole of society at all levels, incomes and ages.
George
Lesley Grainge - Thu, 04/08/2011 - 18:28
George, I totally agree that the 'business model' for running education has given rise to this problem. I also agree that we are a rich country whose resources and wealth are drained away through inefficiencies and that education is just one of many victims.(I once worked in the Civil Service- so best I don't get on my soap box on that case!) The right to education belongs to everyone for far more reasons than just to get a higher paid or even any job. Which is why I also feel strongly that to argue the current case on whether or not £2,500 is overpricing the course is not a valid stand precisely because it remains inside the business model perspective and lends weight to the case for raising the fees. Formal education is expensive so the business model will always try to balance the books. Once we accept that we have a responsibility to ensure that education (and in this case) higher education is accessible to all for the "better development" of society and make the accessibility the priority focus the creative energy needed to ensure that the necessary wealth is in place is more likely to be released. I am convinced that whilst the OU has been forced into this decision to make a business 'calculation' there is still committment to its aim to be "Open" and accessible to all and ways will be found to meet that aim.
Ray Brown - Fri, 05/08/2011 - 15:06
Well one thing's for sure, doing a degree for fun at a leisurely pace appears to be over for everyone except the wealthy. I suppose any penny pinching government would question why it should have to subsidise students who are studying purely for personal advancement rather than career advancement. But I thought that studying for personal advancement was one of the cornerstones of the OU. Look at the publicity that celebs who've done OU degrees for personal advancement, such as Lenny Henry and Mylene Klass, have gotten. Look at the publicity some of those OU students in their 70s & 80s have gotten. Oh well!
Stephen Jarvis - Sat, 06/08/2011 - 22:45
Hi, The fee rise is appalling. I do have an OU degree from many years ago but there is no way that I would have started the OU route to a degree at that price. Certainly if I was thinking of starting now it would just be a none starter.
Taking a degree level course on a part time basis while working is a big commitment and riven with the pitfalls of daily life that make completion more demanding than for a full time student. The balance of factors in favour or against starting are such that the added prospect of taking out thousands of pounds worth of loans will put many people off. Certainly people with lower incomes will be put off.
I don't think the Open University is going to be very open from now onwards.
Regards Steve Jarvis
Johnny Finnis - Sun, 07/08/2011 - 23:55
I never fitted the conventional educational mould, so for me the OU was a Godsend. Graduating in 1995 my studies not only expanded my mind hugely, but also gave me the priceless opportunity to live and work on 3 different continents, something I could never have experienced without the OU. I was contemplating signing-up for a single course to update my skills just as this massive fee raise was announced. Luckily it's been confirmed that I will be able to study next year at advertised prices but I'm afraid beyond that the costs will be prohibitive, so I will have to choose very wisely. It saddens me that many future school-system drop-outs like me will no longer be able to take advantage of the OU and I suspect Mr Wilson will be horrified that his "open" university will only be so for those with very deep pockets.
Nick Dibben - Mon, 08/08/2011 - 11:18
I'm a 'hobby learner' - terrible term, not mine, but, I am assuming the OU have decided to do without us as the new fees mean many with a degree already, or on a pension, will not now be able to use the OU.
Have the OU published any rationale to the new fees? Given the Government is still subsidising 'STEM' subjects, OU has taken a decision to charge the same across all subjects, so the fees are slightly lower for all, but the Government wish to increase take up of STEM subjects is thwarted?
I am enjoying my OU time, sorry once I have my BSc, or after 2017, I'll have to say goodbye, and, at present, don't see anyhting from the OU to explain why - I'd be very grateful if someone can point me to the explanation.
Jill Searle - Mon, 08/08/2011 - 22:16
I don't have anything new to say that others haven't said above, except that I don't see anyone thinking it might be possible to fight this - not with the OU, but with the government. There is a Facebook group of OU students, staff and alumni set up for this purpose and some of us are lobbying the government and opposition. I think we should do whatever we can to prevent the death of the OU as we have known it. It's changed my life and that of millions of others and it's far more than 'just another university'.
Keith Dodds - Fri, 19/08/2011 - 17:32
Luckily I have already earned my BSc(Hons) Degree and was thinking of going for my masters. Not any more, at least not with the OU. I can understand the need for increases, in fact there have been increases almost every year well above inflation since I started with the OU, but the jump from £750 to £2500 a year is far too much for me. Even while I am in full time employment is that sort of increase is beyond me.
But the main reason that I feel I cannot accept that level of increase is that I am living in Germany with the British Forces. Being English I would have to pay the new increased fees, but somebody doing the same course, living in the same town, earning the same money, but could claim to have come from Scotland at some point, would not have to pay the increased fees. Strange that there would be harsh words if there was discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, disability or nationality, but it's fine if it is a case of 'what country you decide you are from'. Everyone in the Armed Forces are serving the same crown by the way.
I am sure that there are plenty of young students will choose the option of being able to work while studying at the 'cheap' Open University, so its future is secure. It’s just a pity that the people that the Open University was started for can no longer afford their only real option of advancement.
Sad indeed.
Stephen Young - Sun, 21/08/2011 - 15:49
I (luckily) have already completed my education up to master’s degree level at various Universities (Lancaster/ Hull) and have been very lucky to have also done very well in my career. However I thought after a ten year gap I would come back to do something that did not revolve around work “thinking” and more focused on “educational” thinking.
Again due to fact of my previous studies I luckily received a massive amount of credit transfer which means I only need two 60 credit modules to finish the degree hence I just nip in under the wire in terms of the cost increases. However it angers me that the government has done what it has done to the entire educational / public sector.
True I will accept some argument that elements of the public sector had become large and needed pulling back. However the speed at which this government has cut (without the promised growth in private sector jobs or indeed any jobs) is beyond comprehension.
Whilst I could write a short essay on the public sector cuts more generally to have done what they have done to University Education will impact on an entire generation (young and old) who now face a more difficult/ less fulfilling life.
Notwithstanding the impact on UK PLC in the future.
Shame on this government shame !!
Holly Gould - Mon, 05/09/2011 - 23:23
I might sound a litle silly here but I am studying at OU for first time in oct 11 on B18 Health and social care, module k217 and have had ful financial support, will these fee increases mean I wont be able to get this anymore???
Scott Russon - Tue, 06/09/2011 - 19:58
Hi Holly,
Have a look here, this should answer your question.
I wanted to do 4 modules in 9 months, I've done 4 over the last 9 months. How am I supposed to do that?????
Garry Passarella - Tue, 31/01/2012 - 18:34
Whoever made this decision at the OU is an absolute disgrace. SHAME ON YOU.
Lewanna Martin - Sun, 13/05/2012 - 12:56
started my law degree and i did qualify for transitional arragngements i thougt they where ment to be in keeping with the current price structure but insted it not much differant from the new price i even though there was a mistake so i emailed and the comfirmed this was the transitional price (over 2000)
i don't quaify for any sort of funding and they sugested paying monthly with the ousba which is a large amount for me, i could pay for that provideing my kids and i don't need to eat for the next 4 years it would be fine
this was the comment i got back
If you have determined for certain that you are not entitled to any help with the cost of tuition then it would seem that your only option is to study one module at a time and use OUSBA to fund it.
arhhhhhhh!!!
i am so fuming i just give up i won't be study with the ou so disapointing not through the want of trying!!!!
I fully agree with George Watson's comments above. Whilst as a tax payer for the last 30 years but who received a sub-standard comprehensive education that meant I was never going to be prepared for three years at University at 18, I fully agree that I should not be continuing to fund 35-50% of young people to undertake degree courses; there had to be another way to do this. However, the new OU fee regime is a great disappointment. For me it means once I have completed my Open degree next year (which include 240 point credit transfer) I will be unable to take any further degree level courses as the cost will be just too much at £2.5k per 60 point module. I feel that the OU has sold out on the ELQ issue i.e. it has conceeded too much to the government and abandoned those of us in the workforce (as well as George and his desire to remain intellectually active) who need to keep improving their skill set to remain employable. The VC should resign over this dismal failure to get across this issues for people who need to continually upskill in the workplace, as well as non-vocational students like George. I still have hope though, as the University of London International Programme team tell me that its fees will not be increasing as per the OU. I will have no hesitation in taking a second degree in say Economics and Finance there at a much lower cost. Sorry OU but bye bye and thanks for the memories... David
I guess I have to say I'm disappointed too. Yes, I understand that the Uni funding has been cut by the government etc, but there is, to be honest, no way in hell that a course that last year cost £750 is suddenly worth £2500.
I have a BSc and am working for an MSc with the OU and I have to say that I had been planning to stay with the Uni to do another undergrad to suppliment my knowledge. Not now. I'm sorry, but I looked online for similar courses at other universities, done part time, distance learning and found them cheaper.
I'm a psychology grad and I can say that we hardly had any tutorials so it can't be that. One a month at best, usually less. Certainly for some of the courses we had far less than that. We got a few textbooks, some CDs, the occasional computer program. I didn't complain for £750, I sure as hell would for £2500. A lot of local colleges and universities are capitalising on this and offering evening and part time degrees that are similar in price or cheaper. Why would I pay out for the OU where I get to see my tutor rarely and have to rely on them finding time away from their day jobs to see me, when I could go to my local uni and do the same courses for about the same price and have access to tutors, lectures etc?
I feel it is a crying shame. The OU are a fantastic organisation and I know it was an option for people on lower incomes. However, now it would appear that we have no more choice in the matter and so something is going to have to pay. Us. That or you have the other problem I'm facing - no funding means no courses. I would have liked to have had the chance to do more MSc work in psychology but I can't as all the courses are being stopped. Great. Is this how you get round the fact that you cannot put their fees up too? If you can't multiply the fees by a ridiculous amount, you won't run them?
So, after 10 years, I'll be waving goodbye and I will miss it. However, I also will find it hard to recommend to people as it's no longer the option it was back when I started. Still, c'est la guerre...
I am also disappointed with the huge rise in fees. Of course they are expected to go up but by this much? I am just starting on my learning journey with the O.U. (foundation degree in supporting teaching and learning) and am only just able to afford the fees at the moment - I get no aid as my husband's wage takes us over the limit- however my own wage is a pittance and I know many t.a.'s who were not ready to start their own O.U. learning journey this year and now feel that they will certainly not be able to afford it next or indeed in any year. I was hoping to continue to a full degree, this will now not be possible. As a mature student wishing to continue my professional development I feel these price rises are a major stumbling block to this and almost wish I hadn't started on this journey
What a downer to learn this on the day I graduate. This was a huge opportunity for me to achieve something later in life that I would never have been able to afford under the new arrangements. I'm so sorry for everyone studying now.
Cameron has achieved what Thatcher baulked at. And I don't agree that backing off from plans to scrap it constituted her "saving" it.
This is such sad news. I originally studied Psychology with the OU for my own interest, and the fees were towards the top of what I was able to afford at the time (I was on the minimum wage but my husband's earnings put us over any threshold for financial help and I'm also hit by ELQ stipulations). I got hooked, graduated with a First, am just finishing an MSc and was extremely lucky to land a fully-funded PhD place starting next month. My OU degree really has changed my life and given me a fantastic new career; however, if I'd seen a £2500-per-module price tag, it would have been difficult for me to go ahead with it. I still plan to study a couple more modules, as they complement the PhD and fortunately run before the changes come into effect. I won't have the means to continue beyond that with the OU, despite there being other modules (Creative Writing in particular) I was hoping to study for my own enjoyment rather than to boost my career. I realise the government has limited cash, but surely education, which subsequently produces higher earners who pay more tax (among other positive economic benefits), is worth funding.
Some really interesting and valid comments in all of the above posts. As far as I see it there are two arguments that sometimes get a bit tangled up. One is the cost and the other is about the target market.
I think we must get these two things into perspective. As far as my understanding goes £700/£800 for a 60 point course was never the full price.. It was government 'funded'. the course in actual fact always did cost more than that. Every single person who took the course was therefore accessing government funding.This was regardless of how many degrees they already had, what income bracket they fell in, and whether the motivation was vocational or intelluctual stimulation. And for those on lower income under a certain threshold further funding was accessible, and many people that I know, especially those studying a first degree, in fact paid nothing at all. So the first thing we have to remember is that the course hasn't necessarily risen in price from £800 to £2,500 , its much more about who is going to pay for it. That is what has changed. One of the dangers here is that comments such as "sit at home with a few books" suggests that the OU was always cheaper because it isn't as good. If we think rationally about the academics who contribute to our materials, (and what they deserve to be paid) the standard of those materials, the support we are offered on line and the accessibility to further materials through the libraries,with all the maintenenace involved to keep that totally up to date in our fast moving world, and our tutorials (and in my experience these have been first class - my tutors have been amazing in their accessibility, their feedback and support), the examination and moderation excellence (which ensures that the degree is valued as academic achievement globally) with all the necessary administration that goes with that, then we can start to see that £700 was an absolute bargain and in no way met the cost. So if the government funding that subsidised it in the first place has changed and lowered, the OU have no choice but to get the money from somewhere else. Raising the fees to bring them in line with the actual cost of the course is the decision that has been made. It is nothing more than a calculation.
The real argument, reflected in so many of the comments above, is how it is going to work in practice. We will obviously have to wait and see. It is the previous target market that may change and in that many people may lose out. I feel that the important thing is to ensure that we don't base our reactions on an invalid base, that £2,500 is not value for money, because that demeans the academic excellence the OU has offered and that won't help the OU to resolve the valid concerns that they must obviously feel as they have been forced to make what is nothing more than a business decision. Finding ways to help students on low incomes will, I am sure, be one of their main agendas as it has always been.
Lesley immediately identifies the fundamental problem that has beset education probably since 1979 when the whole accounting/managerialist approach to education became the dominant discourse for successive governments and education leaders in the running and measuring of the education system (not just HE.)
We are still a rich country - though often this wealth is drained away through a multitude of grey 'scams' and political/business inefficiences often of the government's making (but I won't develop that point here as it moves away from the current discussion). Fundamentally education is more than a 'business decision' - that is terminology which we have come to expect and even accept. Everywhere business is now the dominant model. We have become trapped inside the business thinking box and this creates a mind-set that undermines the idea of the fundamental importance education for life, society and its better development. This includes education for life-enrichment and not just for jobs. The fact that one can say that it is 'nothing more than a calculation' is revelatory of the mono perspective which is prevalent today and into which the OU seems to have fallen (though not without a fight in certain quarters.)
Education is so much more than this - it is a corner-stone of Beveridge's thinking which combined idealism with a pragmatic delivery that benefitted the whole of society at all levels, incomes and ages.
George
George, I totally agree that the 'business model' for running education has given rise to this problem. I also agree that we are a rich country whose resources and wealth are drained away through inefficiencies and that education is just one of many victims.(I once worked in the Civil Service- so best I don't get on my soap box on that case!) The right to education belongs to everyone for far more reasons than just to get a higher paid or even any job. Which is why I also feel strongly that to argue the current case on whether or not £2,500 is overpricing the course is not a valid stand precisely because it remains inside the business model perspective and lends weight to the case for raising the fees. Formal education is expensive so the business model will always try to balance the books. Once we accept that we have a responsibility to ensure that education (and in this case) higher education is accessible to all for the "better development" of society and make the accessibility the priority focus the creative energy needed to ensure that the necessary wealth is in place is more likely to be released. I am convinced that whilst the OU has been forced into this decision to make a business 'calculation' there is still committment to its aim to be "Open" and accessible to all and ways will be found to meet that aim.
Well one thing's for sure, doing a degree for fun at a leisurely pace appears to be over for everyone except the wealthy. I suppose any penny pinching government would question why it should have to subsidise students who are studying purely for personal advancement rather than career advancement. But I thought that studying for personal advancement was one of the cornerstones of the OU. Look at the publicity that celebs who've done OU degrees for personal advancement, such as Lenny Henry and Mylene Klass, have gotten. Look at the publicity some of those OU students in their 70s & 80s have gotten. Oh well!
Hi, The fee rise is appalling. I do have an OU degree from many years ago but there is no way that I would have started the OU route to a degree at that price. Certainly if I was thinking of starting now it would just be a none starter.
Taking a degree level course on a part time basis while working is a big commitment and riven with the pitfalls of daily life that make completion more demanding than for a full time student. The balance of factors in favour or against starting are such that the added prospect of taking out thousands of pounds worth of loans will put many people off. Certainly people with lower incomes will be put off.
I don't think the Open University is going to be very open from now onwards.
Regards Steve Jarvis
I never fitted the conventional educational mould, so for me the OU was a Godsend. Graduating in 1995 my studies not only expanded my mind hugely, but also gave me the priceless opportunity to live and work on 3 different continents, something I could never have experienced without the OU. I was contemplating signing-up for a single course to update my skills just as this massive fee raise was announced. Luckily it's been confirmed that I will be able to study next year at advertised prices but I'm afraid beyond that the costs will be prohibitive, so I will have to choose very wisely. It saddens me that many future school-system drop-outs like me will no longer be able to take advantage of the OU and I suspect Mr Wilson will be horrified that his "open" university will only be so for those with very deep pockets.
I'm a 'hobby learner' - terrible term, not mine, but, I am assuming the OU have decided to do without us as the new fees mean many with a degree already, or on a pension, will not now be able to use the OU.
Have the OU published any rationale to the new fees? Given the Government is still subsidising 'STEM' subjects, OU has taken a decision to charge the same across all subjects, so the fees are slightly lower for all, but the Government wish to increase take up of STEM subjects is thwarted?
I am enjoying my OU time, sorry once I have my BSc, or after 2017, I'll have to say goodbye, and, at present, don't see anyhting from the OU to explain why - I'd be very grateful if someone can point me to the explanation.
I don't have anything new to say that others haven't said above, except that I don't see anyone thinking it might be possible to fight this - not with the OU, but with the government. There is a Facebook group of OU students, staff and alumni set up for this purpose and some of us are lobbying the government and opposition. I think we should do whatever we can to prevent the death of the OU as we have known it. It's changed my life and that of millions of others and it's far more than 'just another university'.
Luckily I have already earned my BSc(Hons) Degree and was thinking of going for my masters. Not any more, at least not with the OU. I can understand the need for increases, in fact there have been increases almost every year well above inflation since I started with the OU, but the jump from £750 to £2500 a year is far too much for me. Even while I am in full time employment is that sort of increase is beyond me.
But the main reason that I feel I cannot accept that level of increase is that I am living in Germany with the British Forces. Being English I would have to pay the new increased fees, but somebody doing the same course, living in the same town, earning the same money, but could claim to have come from Scotland at some point, would not have to pay the increased fees. Strange that there would be harsh words if there was discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, disability or nationality, but it's fine if it is a case of 'what country you decide you are from'. Everyone in the Armed Forces are serving the same crown by the way.
I am sure that there are plenty of young students will choose the option of being able to work while studying at the 'cheap' Open University, so its future is secure. It’s just a pity that the people that the Open University was started for can no longer afford their only real option of advancement.
Sad indeed.
I (luckily) have already completed my education up to master’s degree level at various Universities (Lancaster/ Hull) and have been very lucky to have also done very well in my career. However I thought after a ten year gap I would come back to do something that did not revolve around work “thinking” and more focused on “educational” thinking.
Again due to fact of my previous studies I luckily received a massive amount of credit transfer which means I only need two 60 credit modules to finish the degree hence I just nip in under the wire in terms of the cost increases. However it angers me that the government has done what it has done to the entire educational / public sector.
True I will accept some argument that elements of the public sector had become large and needed pulling back. However the speed at which this government has cut (without the promised growth in private sector jobs or indeed any jobs) is beyond comprehension.
Whilst I could write a short essay on the public sector cuts more generally to have done what they have done to University Education will impact on an entire generation (young and old) who now face a more difficult/ less fulfilling life.
Notwithstanding the impact on UK PLC in the future.
Shame on this government shame !!
I might sound a litle silly here but I am studying at OU for first time in oct 11 on B18 Health and social care, module k217 and have had ful financial support, will these fee increases mean I wont be able to get this anymore???
Hi Holly,
Have a look here, this should answer your question.
http://www8.open.ac.uk/study/explained/fees-2012
Scott
_______________________
Member of the Platform team
(@InScottLand)
I wanted to do 4 modules in 9 months, I've done 4 over the last 9 months. How am I supposed to do that?????
Whoever made this decision at the OU is an absolute disgrace. SHAME ON YOU.
started my law degree and i did qualify for transitional arragngements i thougt they where ment to be in keeping with the current price structure but insted it not much differant from the new price i even though there was a mistake so i emailed and the comfirmed this was the transitional price (over 2000)
i don't quaify for any sort of funding and they sugested paying monthly with the ousba which is a large amount for me, i could pay for that provideing my kids and i don't need to eat for the next 4 years it would be fine
this was the comment i got back
If you have determined for certain that you are not entitled to any help with the cost of tuition then it would seem that your only option is to study one module at a time and use OUSBA to fund it.
arhhhhhhh!!!
i am so fuming i just give up i won't be study with the ou so disapointing not through the want of trying!!!!
Page 2 of 2