University Tuition Fees - No Impact

[StevenH72]

I'm not sure I've seen this topic being discussed here.

I heard on the radio this morning that a record number of students will be attending university this year.

It doesn't look like the highly controversial tuition fee increase has deterred many school leavers away from university.

Are there any naysayers (regarding the fee increase) who are still against the fee increase?

I have always been in favor of the fee increase, for a number of reasons, and am personally glad to see that university hopefuls are not being unduly put off university education.

 

[pvr]

Yes, still against it as the fee increase was not based on the student position but on the parent's position. If the parents are divorced, you get a discount on the loan (why ??) and there are all sorts of discounts based on what the parent is doing.

In my case, the difference was that my daughter cost me £10k in fees, my son (one year later) will cost me £27k in fees.

If it was to be fair, than all students would have the same amount to borrow rather than differences based on the parents position.

 

[Taz]

when i was young it was free, why should kids pay now?

 

[StevenH72]

Yes, still against it as the fee increase was not based on the student position but on the parent's position. If the parents are divorced, you get a discount on the loan (why ??) and there are all sorts of discounts based on what the parent is doing.

In my case, the difference was that my daughter cost me £10k in fees, my son (one year later) will cost me £27k in fees.

If it was to be fair, than all students would have the same amount to borrow rather than differences based on the parents position.

To be fair I do agree with this. I understand giving higher loans / grants dependent upon means testing, but a discounted loan seems pointless (especially in the case or divorce).

when i was young it was free, why should kids pay now?

On the flipside, why should taxpayers subsidise the higher education of others?

I know education up to A-Levels is free, but you have to draw a line somewhere, if undergrad courses should be free, what about masters, PhDs? Subsidising unpaid internships? etc.

Some students aren't able to obtain grades high enough to achieve a university place, why should they subsidise university places when they start to work, whether it be an apprenticeship or standard job.

I went to uni to benefit myself, yes I enjoy learning and I hoped to improve my career potential. As such, I'm more than happy to pay for what I benefit from.

 

[CornishRob]

I'm not sure I've seen this topic being discussed here.

I heard on the radio this morning that a record number of students will be attending university this year.

It doesn't look like the highly controversial tuition fee increase has deterred many school leavers away from university.

Are there any naysayers (regarding the fee increase) who are still against the fee increase?

I have always been in favor of the fee increase, for a number of reasons, and am personally glad to see that university hopefuls are not being unduly put off university education.

Why are you in favour of the increase?

 

[stephendutton]

My thoughts for what it's worth are people who train as doctors, nurses ,teachers and the suchlike should, after a probation period of say five years should have any fees cancelled. They give back far more in many other ways. Whereas people who train for high flying careers in say finance, banking, law etc. ( and thats not knocking those professions ) I see more as an investment in themselves. I stand up now to be shot . Steve.

 

[Bing]

£30k debt, with no property and a grad salary - of what, £25k a year ? - is a shitload of debt to start your life with if you haven't got parents to pay it off for you.

Saying 'why should people who don't go to Uni subsidise those who do' is a completely ridiculous thing to say - in response I say, why should I spend 3yrs at university furthering my education, end up with more debt than my gross salary, and then pay taxes to fund the benefits of those who can't be arsed to be educated, or even stay in their own country ? Funding tuition fees is the country investing in itself - I'd rather my taxes paid for that than a house for some sponging layabout, or NHS treatment for benefit-motivated immigrants. I appreciate not everyone has the ability to go to Uni, so don't think I am saying everyone who doesn't is by default sponging or foreign...

I agree there should be a limit on funding - maybe for the first degree be it a bachelors or a masters. It was free in my day but I still had £5k of student loans to pay off when I was done, because tuition is only a part of the cost.

 

[StevenH72]

£30k debt, with no property and a grad salary - of what, £25k a year ? - is a shitload of debt to start your life with if you haven't got parents to pay it off for you.

Saying 'why should people who don't go to Uni subsidise those who do' is a completely ridiculous thing to say - in response I say, why should I spend 3yrs at university furthering my education, end up with more debt than my gross salary, and then pay taxes to fund the benefits of those who can't be arsed to be educated, or even stay in their own country ? Funding tuition fees is the country investing in itself - I'd rather my taxes paid for that than a house for some sponging layabout, or NHS treatment for benefit-motivated immigrants. I appreciate not everyone has the ability to go to Uni, so don't think I am saying everyone who doesn't is by default sponging or foreign...

I agree there should be a limit on funding - maybe for the first degree be it a bachelors or a masters. It was free in my day but I still had £5k of student loans to pay off when I was done, because tuition is only a part of the cost.

£30k is a lot of debt, but at £25k salary they're paying back £360 a year (£30PCM), the old system would have seen them paying £900 a year (£75 PCM). Whether the debt is £30-50k or £20k (which mine was when I left in 2008), doesn't make a huge deal of difference as it will be 'wiped' before you pay it off (the 25 year rule) if you continue to earn just £25k.

When I left uni I started on £18k (less than my debt), but earn a lot more now and will have paid mine off in a years' time. If I had to pay for another 5-7 years (say a £50k debt), would it put me off uni, no, the first 5 years after leaving uni are the toughest financially (poor pay, saving for house, paying real bills for the first time etc.), by the time you're 30 most will be more financially secure, so paying the student loan for a few more years isn't a big deal.

What I'm saying is that I think as student's will benefit from a uni education they should pay for their own benefits. Yes Doctors, nurses, teachers etc, should get some benefit (although I believe that some teachers do get debts cleaned and doctors earn pretty well anyway), but I disagree with the taxpayer (some of which didn't have the chance to attend uni) paying the bill.

The uni vs benefits scroungers argument is ridiculous imo. My mum always taught me that "two wrongs don't make a right", I'd rather not pay tuition fees or benefits fraud...but that is slowly being worked out (albeit slightly controversially in itself).

In reality, those that don't necesarily benefit from their degree will never pay back the debt and it will be wiped in 25 years' time (same as before), whereas those who financially benefit from their degree pay back a greater proportion of it. I think it's a far fairer system than before.

 

[Taz]

if you go to uni and do well and then get a good job you will pay more tax and put back, that should cover the uni fees over your life span

 

[StevenH72]

if you go to uni and do well and then get a good job you will pay more tax and put back, that should cover the uni fees over your life span

So should non-uni goers who "do well" not have such high tax thresholds.....say 44% vs 45%?

Pay for the service you receive. It's simple.

The new system allows those that don't benefit as greatly to pay less, whilst those who benefit to a higher extent pay back more.

It doesn't discriminate against those who come from less fortunate backgrounds.

that's how I look at it and I don't have a problem.

 

[boristhebold]

Some interesting points raised. My nieces started uni in 2011 and paid £3k a year tuition. My daughter started in 2012 and pays £9k. That isn't right. Surely they could have increased the fees gradually instead of ramping it up by 300% overnight?
I agree that graduates should pay for their tuition as the facts speak for themselves, on the whole a graduate will earn far more than a non graduate(yeah,yeah, there are exceptions) and thankfully we chatted to a few lecturers on our rounds of Uni viewing. Having wanted to pay off her debt after she graduated, I have now gone 180 and won't pay a penny off. The money we would have given to pay it off can be used for a house deposit in due course and as alluded to above, she can pay her 9% of anything about £21k until she's 50 ish and have done with it. If she earns big money, she'll pay the lot off, if she doesn't she may not pay the whole lot off but will have paid some/most.
Her best mate is a nursing graduate. No fees. She just has to work for I think 3 yrs for the NHS after graduation. That makes sense and is akin to Army Officer recruits and uni fees etc.
The point about high earners paying more tax doesn't make sense to me, as above, how about a reduction for those that didn't go to uni? Nah, it's easier to just deal with the kids who go to uni and have them pay some or all the fees back.
And I wish she only had a £30k debt incoming. It will be more like £45k by the time you add the student loan on...and that is with us paying several hundred every month just so she can live...no real luxuries, no getting hammered every night in the student bar!

 

[NeilP]

Personally (having just graduated) feel that an increase in fees is unfair.

There's certainly no argument that on the whole, the value of a degree has diminished leading many to opt for post grad courses be it professional qualifications or such and those alone aren't cheap either.

So you're basically advocating that for someone to truly be a strong candidate for a job, somewhere in the region of £60k of debt is acceptable?

I guess the upside to this is that some higher education providers have seen a gap in the market and offer discounts for students who stay on for postgraduate study.

The bit that really had me scratching my head was those who opt for accelerated courses (3 year courses in 2) pay less for the same tuition. Where is the logic in that?

 

[mr wilks]

Education should be free for all . It was free free the wasteful spongers currently in parliament when they went

 

[Bing]

The uni vs benefits scroungers argument is ridiculous imo. My mum always taught me that "two wrongs don't make a right", I'd rather not pay tuition fees or benefits fraud...but that is slowly being worked out (albeit slightly controversially in itself).

Well, we'll have to agree that we both believe each other's arguments are ridiculous. Your mum is quite right, however that is not relevant to the the context of what we are discussing. Our taxes pay for a lot of things, and I would rather that they went towards investing in the country's future - perhaps means testing and funding less fortunate individuals more than others, on a scale - than paying benefits to people who don't deserve them and are contributing nothing to the future. Call me cynical, but it's easier to charge (more) for things than make savings against existing spend - and the changes to the benefit system and immigration laws are not being sorted out fast enough, or even at all, because it's way too hard and requires a Thatcher-esque approach that nobody in government now has the balls to do. Just IMO.

Sorry, I know this is not a thread about immigration or benefits, but I think in the context of worth of contribution to the country the reference is relevant.

With regard to just paying it off until you're 50 and it's written off... That just leaves a potentially massive unmitigated deficit for the country in 25 years time and for every year afterwards - something the government now doesn't have to care about necessarily. Paying it now gets rid of the debt now, for everyone. I don't know the ins and outs of the financial implications, but does having £30-50k of debt over the term of a typical mortgage do anything to screw your credit rating or ability to access further sources of credit, like a mortgage ? Every penny of debt I have - fortunately way less now than in the past - is counted somewhere by someone every time I want credit or funds over an above what I earn. Not sure if these debts will cost grads more than the monetary value in the future or not....

 

[nightyard]

Very unfair how the increase was implemented.
I luckily paid 3k a year and started just before the fee increase.

 

[CornishRob]

Yep it's unfair now for everyone and I would like to see it cheaper (not necessarily free).

I think what I paid was fair. I came out with about 14k loan in 2007. I didn't pay anything for three years as I did ski seasons, but should have it paid of within the next year or so.

My sister is training as a doctor (F2) now and will end up with about 45k loan plus extra loans from me. She went 3/4 years after me, and although her course is 5 years vs my 3, the difference is ridiculous.

 

[jaRED]

My view is that anyone who pays fees for university should have them recovered from the difference between basic and higher rate tax, and shouldn't pay higher rate tax until the debt is cleared.

Alternatively maybe we parents should get a rebate from the tax and NI we pay to help us fund our offspring. We pay far more than we take out and when we use what are supposed to be NHS resources eg Dental care we get charged again

 

[pvr]

The concept of the hike was so odd, why should I paid 3 times the amount for my son as for my daughter when they were at Uni at the same time, just that my daughter started one year earlier?

Then there is the issue that under EU law, I could have "registered" them in NL and got them to study in the UK at NL rates of about £1000 a year. The same with the Scottish I think if I am not mistaken, they can study under EU law in Wales / NI or England at Scottish rates of Uni.

 

[PerryGunn]

The concept of the hike was so odd, why should I paid 3 times the amount for my son as for my daughter when they were at Uni at the same time, just that my daughter started one year earlier?

+1 it should have been phased in over a number of years to allow parents to do some financial planning that may have avoided their kids coming out of uni with so much debt.

 

[original guvnor]

I agree with Steven. Here are some of the reasons why:-

1) Graduates go on to earn (on average) much higher salaries than non-graduates. You miss the point if you consider it a debt. It's an investment in your future for future cash flows way in excess of what you might have received if you hadn't gone. If you said to me give me £30k now for the right to have a top education and the benefit of that for years to come in enhanced salary and career prospects I would consider it a good deal and I dare say most of you would too.
2) I believe in as small a public sector as possible because government is bad, wasteful and inefficient and so as much as possible that can be practically transferred out of public into private the better. I've done two degrees now neither of which were funded by the state. I worked a 4-day week and took a low salary for the first one and my MBA was 50:50 funded by me and my employer because I really wanted to do it to benefit my career. If I can do that why can't everyone else?!!
3) There is too much emphasis and worth in this country placed on a degree and nowhere near enough on a vocation. I see a lot of graduates who have come through these expensive educations that can't spell or construct a sentence properly. Plus there are too many "Mickey Mouse" degrees from crap universities too. Maybe there should be a grading system for university degrees - the 5 star ones get to charge £9k and the 1 star ones get to charge £1k. That way bad degrees and universities would disappear, driving up standards for everyone's benefit.