University Tuition Fees - No Impact

[pvr]

But the issue (to me at least) is the unfairness of the fee.

It is a student loan, so why do you get a grant if your parents earn less. Two identical students who live away from home and are self sufficient have different debt levels because one of them have parents that earn a different amount. Don't call it a student loan then if it depends on the parent's income.

It is strange to me that the fees are 10 fold that of other European countries (and three times that of Scotland).

 

[original guvnor]

The fees here are higher because the government won't subsidise them as heavily pvr.

I sort of agree with you on the unfairness point above but I think they are trying to ensure people from poorer backgrounds have the same opportunity. Which as a principle sounds right but perhaps it isn't executed as well as it might be by the sounds of it.

 

[buzyg]

I had no idea it was so much now. We choose to give our son and daughter the money we had put aside for their education, to use at their own discretion, when they were 18.

My daughter, after discussing it, took on student loans of around 14k to get through uni and used the money, from us, as a deposit for her first home.

Our son has chosen to study from home, whilst working and now has a substantial amount saved and the prospects of a very decent career ahead of him.

Our son’s partner and her brother, on the other hand, have both just received confirmations of their University places today. I feel for their farther, the main wage earner, who now has the prospect of 25k+ a year to find or pass to them, for their combined fees and board.

 

[Geezah]

I'm glad that that its free here in Scotland! My daughter did 5 years studying dentistry but that's not to say it didn't cost me anything, £60,000 plus. Basically £1,000 of taxed money a month, living expenses, worth every penny but as I understand it in England you don't actually pay anything until you start bringing in the big bucks?

 

[pvr]

Geezah, won't be free if you vote independence :fuelfire:

 

[CornishRob]

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.

Not all degrees will result in a high salary, think healthcare.

Not everyone is motivated by money. Some people just want to help other people and need a degree/Masters to do it.

As highlighted before, if people earn more money, they pay more tax, which goes into the social pot. If by your point graduates earn more money on average, which I'm sure they do, they will contribute more to society than someone who hasn't been to university (on average)

Society will be getting a lot more out of graduates than it seems, and helping them financially at the start seems sensible to me. (I'm not saying free, but the current amount is too much - I think what I paid was fair)

 

[original guvnor]

Healthcare - what like GP's, consultants etc? Nursing never used to be a degree course (or at least it wasn't when my sister-in-law qualified 20 years ago.

I just disagree completely that the state should fund your further education. You should want to invest in your own future not expect the state to hand it you on a plate. But as I said above I believe in a small state, low-tax philosophy.

 

[JaEdBa]

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.

Not all degrees will result in a high salary, think healthcare.

Not everyone is motivated by money. Some people just want to help other people and need a degree/Masters to do it.

As highlighted before, if people earn more money, they pay more tax, which goes into the social pot. If by your point graduates earn more money on average, which I'm sure they do, they will contribute more to society than someone who hasn't been to university (on average)

Society will be getting a lot more out of graduates than it seems, and helping them financially at the start seems sensible to me. (I'm not saying free, but the current amount is too much - I think what I paid was fair)

OG makes a lot of sense - a policy has to consider the majority, and the point made about helping other people is a little moot, if someone was that altruistic they can help in many ways.

the trouble is, a degree develops not much more than a sense of entitlement in the types who should never have gone to university in the first place. I was one of the last who went when it was free, and by then every dog and his dick was going and a lot of polytechnics had rebranded as universities to jump on the bandwagon. it was the start of the 'media studies' era....

i'll be contentious and say that GCSEs should be considered when evaluating an individual, they are an absolute breeze and at the risk of upsetting someone, if an undergraduate didn't sail through their GCSEs with a virtually unblemished record they should probably leave education unless they had good reason for not doing so.

still firmly believe that, irrespective of an individual's academic background, if they are responsible, hardworking, considerate and not completely stupid, they will go on to do well in life. I come across so many who feel they are owed a leg up, and are unprepared to show they can do what they should currently be doing, as they are so sure they are destined for greatness.

 

[Geezah]

Geezah, won't be free if you vote independence :fuelfire:

It's taken the likes of Ireland and India, 80 years, arguably, to get sorted after independence, I haven't go that long as that so I won't be voting for independence!

 

[StevenH72]

But the issue (to me at least) is the unfairness of the fee.

It is a student loan, so why do you get a grant if your parents earn less. Two identical students who live away from home and are self sufficient have different debt levels because one of them have parents that earn a different amount. Don't call it a student loan then if it depends on the parent's income.

It is strange to me that the fees are 10 fold that of other European countries (and three times that of Scotland).

I agree with the student loan point, but that's a constant, I don't believe the tuition fee increase has changed that. This situation was the same whilst I was at uni from 2005-2008.

 

[pvr]

You can't have it both ways. You either introduce a student based loan which is purely student based and all students are treated as equal no matter what the background is OR you have to admit that just hiked the fee by 300% .

If it had been done fairly, i.e. option 1 to be student based, then I would have no issue as everyone is treated the same. If however your great uncle is the duke of Wellington, you as an individual student suddenly have to pay triple the amount for no reason especially as that relation is not actually contributing to your education financially.

Most students I know from my children's age group have the loan and do not receive any contributions from family, but then you have the exceptions that get massive grants because their great uncle is sleeping under a bridge somewhere.

Then add to the unfair mix that my nieces / nephews who live in NL can study here for £1k a year whilst me as a UK tax payer has to pay the full whack. Nor is it fair that Scottish student get it for next to nothing in Scotland but English students have to pay full fees there. Too many holes in the system to be classed as fair.

 

[z4pilot]

I was fortunate enough to go to university in the '80's when it was 'free' - my local authority picked up the tuition fees and I received a small means tested grant, with my parents topping up my living expenses. My daughter on the other hand is currently wracking up debt at the £9k per year rate, receives no student grant and her mother and I contribute all of her living expenses. I'm with PVR on this - surely all students should be treated the same? Plenty of my daughters peers are receiving grants/support of varying levels and will walk out of university with the same degrees, same earning potential, but vastly less debt.

I struggle to get my head around why any 18 year old is means tested against their parents income. They are legally adults and in any other walk of life, I wouldn't be expected to subsidise their income just because I earn above a given threshold.

However, we are where we are and education has always been (in my lifetime at least) about social engineering and todays students may look back and think they had it easy.... but in my view, one of the indicators of a mature, forward thinking society would include free education - surely highly educated people benefit us all, it's not just about their individual earning potential, it's about raising the bar for society in general and standards for all.

One last thought - if we have to have the current system, I would tailor it so that desirable qualifications, sciences, maths, engineering, technology, medicine etc, attract less fees (or no fees at all) than degrees that seem to exist just so people can fill quotas and allow the Government to claim that the majority of young people are going onto further education - what we don't need are more people with degrees in media studies, however enjoyable it may be to study...

 

[original guvnor]

I don't buy the 'higher education should be free because it's in the interests of society' argument. What's wrong with showing some ambition and investing in your own future and not expecting the state to do it for you? It's totally the wrong attitude to take. Ask not of what your country can do for you and all that.......

My MBA cost about £20k and that was 9-10 years ago. It would be well over £30k now and it was a cheap one compared to Warwick/UCL/LBS. But I did it because I wanted to broaden my horizons and get on in my career. Both of which it has helped me to do. It didn't occur to me ever to think "oh the government won't pay for it so I'm not doing it". Thankfully the apparent record numbers of students this year appear to have the same attitude.

 

[PerryGunn]

I don't buy the 'higher education should be free because it's in the interests of society' argument. What's wrong with showing some ambition and investing in your own future and not expecting the state to do it for you? It's totally the wrong attitude to take. Ask not of what your country can do for you and all that.......

I understand your argument but, if there's a shortage in certain fields, what's wrong with the government offering incentives to get people to study in those areas. Any incentives could be results-based so that discounts on fees could be applied retrospectively by a %age reduction in the student loan - the actual %age reduction depending on the tier of the university and the class of degree obtained?

 

[californiagirl]

Not just 18 year olds, my 23 year old is going back to uni as she found it impossible to get any on the job qualifications as she had been told she could. Anyway because she has never lived away from home it is all based on our income Luckily it is an NHS funded course for the fees but we will have to fund everything else. She will look for some zero hours contract work but it will be difficult as she is expected to do shifts and work away when on placement which is almost 1/2 the course. The bit that gets me is she was told at 6th form that she should do an academic degree and then do an on the job course so she also has over £20k of debt and in 3 years time will be lucky to get a starting salary of £20k. One of the troubles of working for the NHS is that salaries are the same wherever in the country they are, so down here on the south coast on that money she will never be able to buy a house!

BTW teaching doesn't get any subsidised funding, if my son gets his act together and goes in 2 years he will come out with £30k plus of debt again on a £20-22k salary!

I suspect they will be poisoning our food to get rid of us and sell the house

 

[pvr]

I know it will be said that if you don't earn enough, you don't have to pay it back.

However, whoever says that must realise that you can not get a mortgage either as the debt is taken into account.

 

[StevenH72]

I know it will be said that if you don't earn enough, you don't have to pay it back.

However, whoever says that must realise that you can not get a mortgage either as the debt is taken into account.

The debt is taken into account of an affordability basis, on 22k, you'll pay back £7.50 a month....not sure it would hit your borrowing potential by a huge amount.

 

[pvr]

Not when self employed, the total debt amount is deducted from the total amount you can borrow.

 

[boristhebold]

Student ,own debt is not taken into account with a mortgage. It is viewed as good debt and as above, paying £80-£90 a month on a £30k salary isn't a huge amount

 

[pvr]

Student ,own debt is not taken into account with a mortgage. It is viewed as good debt and as above, paying £80-£90 a month on a £30k salary isn't a huge amount

You sure?

http://www.choose.net/money/guide/news/student-loans-mortgage-application-impact.html