Tuition Fee Rises

[Special K]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11408555/Raising-tuition-fees-is-paying-off-for-everyone-except-Nick-Clegg.html

 

This article is a load of old crap.

 

Using an increase in the numbers of applicants as an argument for the apparent success of the raising of tuition fees completely misses the point. There are precious few options open to school leavers as it is and these are just applicant figures - any sensible school leaver is going to explore all options open to them.

 

I don't mind a political slant on issues, but this is plain bollix.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

This article is a load of old crap.

 

Using an increase in the numbers of applicants as an argument for the apparent success of the raising of tuition fees completely misses the point. There are precious few options open to school leavers as it is and these are just applicant figures - any sensible school leaver is going to explore all options open to them.

 

I don't mind a political slant on issues, but this is plain bollix.

 

I think it does indicate that the poor aren't being priced out of University which was certainly one of the initial issues.

[shurlock]

From last April ;

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/10747315/Six-in-10-students-will-have-their-debts-written-off.html

 

"David Willetts, the Universities Minister, tells Labour's Liam Byrne that the government expects 60 per cent of students' loans will never be fully repaid, costing taxpayers billions of pounds"

 

Agree - the proof of the pudding will be how many repay their loans. It's quite possible that this initiative just turns into a massive subsidy from the taxpayer to the university sector, providing uncertain benefits to students. The market in university education -which is sadly what it has become and becoming- doesn't work well enough for many students to realise that they've been sold a crock of cr@p.

Edited 13 February, 2015 by shurlock

[pap]

It's a counter-productive aspiration tax targeted at the poor. The clever poor kid may still go to University, but that's because he or she is clever and will probably realise that even though they're getting shafted financially, it'll probably be worth it in the end.

 

It's madness from a national interest perspective.

 

What sort of football club would Southampton FC be if it erected these sorts of barriers to entry for talent? The club has a history over bending over backwards to nurture talent when it finds it, even takes risks when it is unsure. That's because the club realises that it is a decent investment, and they don't want to miss any talent for unimportant reasons, such as the kid's family finances or wish not to end up in a f**king boatload of debt.

 

The country should operate on the same principles.

[KelvinsRightGlove]

But it's not like a real debt. I left Uni with £16k worth of debt, and finished paying it off last year. Took 7 and a half years. But as I never had the money, I never missed it. But last year when I started getting £340 odd quid back into my wage packet it was worth a lot.

 

We've had it good here for longer than a lot of other countries, and it wasn't really sustainable.

 

Either way, I think it's silly to think of it as a debt that can be foreclosed on - you only pay it when you can afford to.

 

That's all well and good, but with tuition fees at what, around £9k a year, and maintenance loans increasing yearly due to rising costs and rent (hey student landlords can charge what the hell they like for squalid housing, because why not? No one checks on them, and the govt just keeps upping what they give students to pay it) it's not going to be long before students are racking up £16k pa debt. They probably aren't a million miles off that now for students in London.

 

That would mean a student doctor would rack up £80k Debt (£16k pa x 5 years of study + the interest which accrues from the time of the v first payment.

 

For a student from a poor background (well, any background really) that is a staggering amount of debt to take on, regardless of what you will go on to earn in your career. Plus, doctors are quite important really.

[aintforever]

But it's not like a real debt. I left Uni with £16k worth of debt, and finished paying it off last year. Took 7 and a half years. But as I never had the money, I never missed it. But last year when I started getting £340 odd quid back into my wage packet it was worth a lot.

 

We've had it good here for longer than a lot of other countries, and it wasn't really sustainable.

 

Either way, I think it's silly to think of it as a debt that can be foreclosed on - you only pay it when you can afford to.

 

Student loans have never been like "real debt" but when I was 18 I was sh!t scared of any sort of debt. I worked hard between studying and left Uni debt free (apart from an almighty overdraft).

 

I just think that sort of debt is more off-putting to people from families with naff all than rich kids. I know for a fact that I wouldn't have done my degree and would probably ended up in some soul-less career as a salesman or something (probably earning more) and some snotty rich twit would be doing my current job half as well.

[shurlock]

It's a counter-productive aspiration tax targeted at the poor. The clever poor kid may still go to University, but that's because he or she is clever and will probably realise that even though they're getting shafted financially, it'll probably be worth it in the end.

 

It's madness from a national interest perspective.

 

What sort of football club would Southampton FC be if it erected these sorts of barriers to entry for talent? The club has a history over bending over backwards to nurture talent when it finds it, even takes risks when it is unsure. That's because the club realises that it is a decent investment, and they don't want to miss any talent for unimportant reasons, such as the kid's family finances or wish not to end up in a f**king boatload of debt.

 

The country should operate on the same principles.

 

The football analogy doesn't quite work. First, football clubs, just like many apprentice schemes in other industries, pay below-market rates to youngsters to cover or subsidise the costs of training. And perhaps importantly, football clubs are effectively taking equity stakes in kids when/if they sell them for large transfer fees, allowing them to take the risks you're clamouring for. The logical extension is a form of human capital contract (HCC) which is the ultimate libertarian fantasy and not something, I'm sure, you have in mind.

[pap]

The football analogy doesn't quite work. First, football clubs, just like many apprentice schemes in other industries, pay below-market rates to youngsters to cover or subsidise the costs of training. And perhaps importantly, football clubs are effectively taking equity stakes in kids when/if they sell them for large transfer fees, allowing them to take the risks you're clamouring for. The logical extension is a form of human capital contract (HCC) which is the ultimate libertarian fantasy and not something, I'm sure, you have in mind.

 

It doesn't quite work. The Soviets used to pluck their gifted kids out and take them as far as they could. That wouldn't quite work either. They were in a stronger position than football clubs in terms of getting something back from their investment. No transfer fees to speak of, but not much chance of brain drain either.

 

I'm not on-board with human capital contracts, but a scheme where the cost of fees is covered by the government when someone has paid a sufficient amount into the UK tax system, would be my preference. It'd go a long way to preventing or postponing the brain drain, it allows the country to make good on its investments and is a fairer deal for everyone, not just the less well off.

 

"Go to Uni, get a job and make this country some money, and we'll cover the cost of your education" seems a far better proposition than the punitive system we have now.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

That's all well and good, but with tuition fees at what, around £9k a year, and maintenance loans increasing yearly due to rising costs and rent (hey student landlords can charge what the hell they like for squalid housing, because why not? No one checks on them, and the govt just keeps upping what they give students to pay it) it's not going to be long before students are racking up £16k pa debt. They probably aren't a million miles off that now for students in London.

 

That would mean a student doctor would rack up £80k Debt (£16k pa x 5 years of study + the interest which accrues from the time of the v first payment.

 

For a student from a poor background (well, any background really) that is a staggering amount of debt to take on, regardless of what you will go on to earn in your career. Plus, doctors are quite important really.

 

As I say, it shouldn't be seen as a proper debt, it's something you pay back as a small proportion of their salary when they earn enough.

 

If people have read up on exactly what the debt is and how the payments are structured, and are then still worried about the debt, then frankly, I don't believe they are of the calibre to go to university. Sorry.

 

As a doctor, with 80k of debt, let's say you start on 23k coming out of uni, and then get a 10K pay increase every year up to year 8, they will be paid off by the age of 40, and they'll have a very good wage to live off at the same time.

 

What it will stop is people doing subjects like ****ing "surf science". Yes, they have a right to go to Uni and study what they like, but not at the taxpayers expense.

Edited 13 February, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Lighthouse]

That's all well and good, but with tuition fees at what, around £9k a year, and maintenance loans increasing yearly due to rising costs and rent (hey student landlords can charge what the hell they like for squalid housing, because why not? No one checks on them, and the govt just keeps upping what they give students to pay it) it's not going to be long before students are racking up £16k pa debt. They probably aren't a million miles off that now for students in London.

 

That would mean a student doctor would rack up £80k Debt (£16k pa x 5 years of study + the interest which accrues from the time of the v first payment.

 

For a student from a poor background (well, any background really) that is a staggering amount of debt to take on, regardless of what you will go on to earn in your career. Plus, doctors are quite important really.

 

Summer breaks at uni are about 3 months, no? So you're saying people are paying up to £7000 in living expenses in 9 months. That works out a shade under £800 a month.

 

I'm in full time employment and rent my own apartment for less than that. When I was studying there were 4 of us renting a house together and it cost us £300 a month each, including bills. That is nearer £60k, which is a lot but still possible if you're a doctor.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Summer breaks at uni are about 3 months, no? So you're saying people are paying up to £7000 in living expenses in 9 months. That works out a shade under £800 a month.

 

I'm in full time employment and rent my own apartment for less than that. When I was studying there were 4 of us renting a house together and it cost us £300 a month each, including bills. That is nearer £60k, which is a lot but still possible if you're a doctor.

 

They also have the choice of supplementing any loan with part time employment...

[Wurzel]

This article is a load of old crap.

 

Using an increase in the numbers of applicants as an argument for the apparent success of the raising of tuition fees completely misses the point. There are precious few options open to school leavers as it is and these are just applicant figures - any sensible school leaver is going to explore all options open to them.

 

I don't mind a political slant on issues, but this is plain bollix.

 

So have sensible school leavers not explored all options in other years then? Of course they have. So it's comparing like with like (it's not comparing this years applicants with previous years enrolled) and finding that despite the increased "fees" - which aren't fees at all in reality - the numbers are up. How that can equate to bollix in your mind I've no idea.

[shurlock]

It doesn't quite work. The Soviets used to pluck their gifted kids out and take them as far as they could. That wouldn't quite work either. They were in a stronger position than football clubs in terms of getting something back from their investment. No transfer fees to speak of, but not much chance of brain drain either.

 

I'm not on-board with human capital contracts, but a scheme where the cost of fees is covered by the government when someone has paid a sufficient amount into the UK tax system, would be my preference. It'd go a long way to preventing or postponing the brain drain, it allows the country to make good on its investments and is a fairer deal for everyone, not just the less well off.

 

"Go to Uni, get a job and make this country some money, and we'll cover the cost of your education" seems a far better proposition than the punitive system we have now.

 

Fully sympathise with the aspiration. From a distributive angle, my concern has always been that free university education is a subsidy to middle classes who largely internalise the benefits in terms of higher wages (give or take a bit of loose change in tax) while imposing costs on working class taxpayers.

 

Where the pie is fixed and shrinking, such a subsidy takes away from other choices - a properly functioning training system and adult education. These have been the Cinderellas at the policy ball but have historically favoured the less well-off as well as delivered wider societal benefits -benefits that 'rational' individuals will overlook when making investment decisions and the natural province of government. Can't recall the precise ratios; but the imbalance in priorities, aided and abetted by various governments, is stark. Which is to say that I'm all for widening access, though that should take the form of beefed up maintenance grants, not a blanket approach implied by free education.

 

At the moment, we have the worst of all worlds: a debt burden that will see nearly 75% of graduates not repay their debt in full, a prospect not being felt in falling applications as the distant future is invariably discounted and deemed someone else's business -all while roughly half of graduates are found in nongraduate jobs thanks to technological change, the inherent biases of the UK economy and university courses that are struggling to stay fit-for-purpose in a very volatile world.

[buctootim]

my concern has always been that free university education is a subsidy to middle classes who largely internalise the benefits in terms of higher wages (give or take a bit of loose change in tax) while imposing costs on working class taxpayers

 

That's the nub of it imo. That said (as a working class kid who benefitted from no fees and a grant) I would have been deterred from going to university if it had involved incurring large debts. Debts of £50,000 are incredibly scary for people living in social housing and where the main breadwinner might be earning £15,000pa. I know its a largely a presentational issue, but doing away with the debt and imposing a simple graduate tax payable only on earnings over a given amount would encourage a wider cross section into higher education.

[CB Saint]

I would be all for free university education, but only if the places were limited and targeted to skill sets that are important to our economy.

 

You could set up all sort of schemes - free dentistry training provided that the first ten years is nhs only.

 

If you want to do a PPE degree, the fees are doubled to subside the engineers

[CB Saint]

Interestingly I read somewhere that the only real beneficiaries of the fees system was the construction industry as most unis have built shiny new buildings with the money

[Lighthouse]

Interestingly I read somewhere that the only real beneficiaries of the fees system was the construction industry as most unis have built shiny new buildings with the money

 

I disagree that they are the ONLY beneficiaries but even so I'd say this was a good thing. Aside from the large number of jobs it creates, many cities have seen large urban redevelopment projects which were kick started largely by student demands.

 

In several cities I've lived in some of the crappiest, cheap, post war buildings from the 50s and 60s have been demolished to make way for university projects and student accommodation. Isn't that what's going on next to East Park, opposite Solent uni at the moment?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I disagree that they are the ONLY beneficiaries but even so I'd say this was a good thing. Aside from the large number of jobs it creates, many cities have seen large urban redevelopment projects which were kick started largely by student demands.

 

In several cities I've lived in some of the crappiest, cheap, post war buildings from the 50s and 60s have been demolished to make way for university projects and student accommodation. Isn't that what's going on next to East Park, opposite Solent uni at the moment?

 

Plymouth is a stark example of a town regenerated by the size of its university, (although a lot of the lower half of town has now fallen into disrepair now everything is based around the University).

[aintforever]

If people have read up on exactly what the debt is and how the payments are structured, and are then still worried about the debt, then frankly, I don't believe they are of the calibre to go to university. Sorry.

 

I'm sorry but that is ******. Of course if you are a straight A student serious on being a doctor or something of course the debt thing is a no brainer. But most people are not and even without fees deciding to go to Uni it can be a hard choice between being skint studying something worthwhile or getting a job. IMO we should be encouraging people to get educated and pursue worthwhile careers.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I'm sorry but that is ******. Of course if you are a straight A student serious on being a doctor or something of course the debt thing is a no brainer. But most people are not and even without fees deciding to go to Uni it can be a hard choice between being skint studying something worthwhile or getting a job. IMO we should be encouraging people to get educated and pursue worthwhile careers.

 

I think you're missing the point though. People haven't been put off by the debt (although I would attribute it more to a tax) as the numbers attest to. The debt is a no brainer because it's such a low proportion of your income. It's no different to how it was before, except the tax will be for longer.

 

Let's put it another way, using very basic figures. If you were told that you could go to university and earn 20% more throughout your life than if you didn't, but it was going to cost you 9% out of every pay packet, would you do it?

[hutch]

I would be all for free university education, but only if the places were limited and targeted to skill sets that are important to our economy.

 

You could set up all sort of schemes - free dentistry training provided that the first ten years is nhs only.

 

If you want to do a PPE degree, the fees are doubled to subside the engineers

Have you seen the number of no-win no-fee advertisements on daytime TV by the ambulance chasers, desperately trying to create work for the thousands upon thousands of law graduates we churn out every year that we don't need.

 

Just one example.

[Sergei Gotsmanov]

It is quite fair that if you go to University aspiring to a higher wage when you leave that you pay back when you are earning a certain salary.

 

On the plus side it will mean that University's will have to raise their game because if people are paying for their education, expectations will rise. The courses that have 5-10 lectures a week should become a thing of the past.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Have you seen the number of no-win no-fee advertisements on daytime TV by the ambulance chasers, desperately trying to create work for the thousands upon thousands of law graduates we churn out every year that we don't need.

 

Just one example.

 

That is utter rubbish that they have come out of a plethora of law grads. They've come about due to people trying to Americanise the theory of blame and negligence in this country. If the work wasn't there the companies wouldn't exist.

 

To suggest those companies exist due to an over-abundance of law grads is utter bunkum.

[Special K]

So have sensible school leavers not explored all options in other years then? Of course they have. So it's comparing like with like (it's not comparing this years applicants with previous years enrolled) and finding that despite the increased "fees" - which aren't fees at all in reality - the numbers are up. How that can equate to bollix in your mind I've no idea.

 

The numbers of applicants may be up, but this doesn't necessarily relate to the numbers of those enrolled on courses. But even if there is little difference, this has nothing to do with justifying the increase in costs that students are burdened with as a result of pursuing their educational development. How increasing the financial burden of educating yourself can be portrayed as a good thing is beyond me and calling it a Fee or whatever term you use, is just semantics. The end game is that there is still a debt that has to be paid by somebody, either the graduate or the taxpayer. But the individual financial pressure that gives to the liable student is good for neither their short term or long term financial position.

 

IMHO using applicant figures to justify this policy is wrong as there have been precious few alternatives for school leavers to consider over the last few years. Look at the wider economy - as a result of the worst recession for 80 years there are far fewer opportunities in the workplace for non graduates than in times of prosperity especially those offering a career path, apprenticeships are down, wages are poor for non graduates, the list goes on, meaning the school leaver has no option but to apply for an FE place.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The numbers of applicants may be up, but this doesn't necessarily relate to the numbers of those enrolled on courses. But even if there is little difference, this has nothing to do with justifying the increase in costs that students are burdened with as a result of pursuing their educational development. How increasing the financial burden of educating yourself can be portrayed as a good thing is beyond me and calling it a Fee or whatever term you use, is just semantics. The end game is that there is still a debt that has to be paid by somebody, either the graduate or the taxpayer. But the individual financial pressure that gives to the liable student is good for neither their short term or long term financial position.

 

IMHO using applicant figures to justify this policy is wrong as there have been precious few alternatives for school leavers to consider over the last few years. Look at the wider economy - as a result of the worst recession for 80 years there are far fewer opportunities in the workplace for non graduates than in times of prosperity especially those offering a career path, apprenticeships are down, wages are poor for non graduates, the list goes on, meaning the school leaver has no option but to apply for an FE place.

 

So what you're saying is that because the wages are poorer for non grads we should make sure everyone can go to uni? But that just dilutes the graduate pool and pushes down wages, surely? At least this way it's not always at the taxpayers expense, like it has been for years before.

 

I'm not sure what pressure this puts on the applicant though, they have the debt for longer but as said earlier, it's at such a low rate it's not really noticed, and if had longer than 30 years it's written off...

Edited 13 February, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[shurlock]

That is utter rubbish that they have come out of a plethora of law grads. They've come about due to people trying to Americanise the theory of blame and negligence in this country. If the work wasn't there the companies wouldn't exist.

 

To suggest those companies exist due to an over-abundance of law grads is utter bunkum.

 

You obviously haven't seen or read Murphy, Shleifer and Vishny's famous academic paper on the number of law graduates being bad for growth (though I take it very much as being tongue in cheek).

[Lighthouse]

I'm sorry but that is ******. Of course if you are a straight A student serious on being a doctor or something of course the debt thing is a no brainer. But most people are not and even without fees deciding to go to Uni it can be a hard choice between being skint studying something worthwhile or getting a job. IMO we should be encouraging people to get educated and pursue worthwhile careers.

 

What you've highlighted there seems to be a large part of the problem IMO. If the majority of people going to uni aren't serious then they shouldn't be going to uni at all. Uni should be all about "I want to be a doctor" - Medicine degree. "I want to be a lawyer" - Law degree. "I want to be an programmer" - I.T. based degree.

 

The tax payer shouldn't be funding university courses for people people, "I don't know, I'm kind of good at geography or something." If you're not going to uni focussed on a certain career path as a graduate, you shouldn't be going, regardless of income.

 

Also, you aren't paying the fees whilst you are studying, that's the whole point.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You obviously haven't seen or read Murphy, Shleifer and Vishny's famous academic paper on the number of law graduates being bad for growth (though I take it very much as being tongue in cheek).

 

I haven't, and it probably isn't. Any profession that in the main looks to extract money that isn't in the economy isn't a good thing.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What you've highlighted there seems to be a large part of the problem IMO. If the majority of people going to uni aren't serious then they shouldn't be going to uni at all. Uni should be all about "I want to be a doctor" - Medicine degree. "I want to be a lawyer" - Law degree. "I want to be an programmer" - I.T. based degree.

 

The tax payer shouldn't be funding university courses for people people, "I don't know, I'm kind of good at geography or something." If you're not going to uni focussed on a certain career path as a graduate, you shouldn't be going, regardless of income.

 

Also, you aren't paying the fees whilst you are studying, that's the whole point.

 

I agree with this, but as someone who got into a different industry to what I studied.

[Batman]

That's all well and good, but with tuition fees at what, around £9k a year, and maintenance loans increasing yearly due to rising costs and rent (hey student landlords can charge what the hell they like for squalid housing, because why not? No one checks on them, and the govt just keeps upping what they give students to pay it) it's not going to be long before students are racking up £16k pa debt. They probably aren't a million miles off that now for students in London.

 

That would mean a student doctor would rack up £80k Debt (£16k pa x 5 years of study + the interest which accrues from the time of the v first payment.

 

For a student from a poor background (well, any background really) that is a staggering amount of debt to take on, regardless of what you will go on to earn in your career. Plus, doctors are quite important really.

 

Squalid accommodation.

I used to work for one of the biggest rental agencies to students in southampton. Most of those houses were redecorated, new furniture every summer and were of a high standard. Landlords would have to meet a standard to rent via angencies on london road. What you suggest is such a generalisation, it is laughable

 

Many of the houses were in a disgusting state when the students left. (Even if they bothered paying their last months rent at all)

[shurlock]

I agree with this, but as someone who got into a different industry to what I studied.

 

What kind of degree do you need to be a mystery shopper at Next or Top Man?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

What kind of degree do you need to be a mystery shopper at Next or Top Man?

 

Business Economics and Law, apparently. Considering it's just giving out plastic discs with numbers on and counting the number of articles on the way back out of the changing rooms I'm surprised at how much they wanted...

[buctootim]

 

Let's put it another way, using very basic figures. If you were told that you could go to university and earn 20% more throughout your life than if you didn't, but it was going to cost you 9% out of every pay packet, would you do it?

 

But you're not told that. You're told that on average, in a cohort of x hundred thousand in a good economy x% of graduates will earn x% more than non graduates. If you come from a middle class above average income family your expectations are "that higher group is me, and even if I eff up dad will bail me out". If you come from a lower wage family where no one has been to university and your friends are mostly manual workers, you'll think "**** there is no way Im gambling my future like that".

[pap]

I would be all for free university education, but only if the places were limited and targeted to skill sets that are important to our economy.

 

You could set up all sort of schemes - free dentistry training provided that the first ten years is nhs only.

 

If you want to do a PPE degree, the fees are doubled to subside the engineers

 

Nice idea in theory, subjective mess in practice. Who would determine which jobs were most needed? If it is employers and business people, then why aren't they spending the money on training and investment? Why should the taxpayer subsidise what are arguably internal staff development costs for corporate interests? If it is the government, then we're talking potential changes of direction every five years - plus many of their requirements are going to be the direct result of their f**k-ups.

 

Just think that outside of a planned economy (which consumerist capitalist certainly isn't), would be very difficult to implement.

[pap]

Let's put it another way, using very basic figures. If you were told that you could go to university and earn 20% more throughout your life than if you didn't, but it was going to cost you 9% out of every pay packet, would you do it?

 

Let's put it another way. If you were a government and were told that by paying just shy of 100K, you could provide a complete framework for educating someone, after which they are far more likely to:-

 

1) get a job

2) earn more money in that job

3) earn more money for the country

4) take less from the state

5) spawn offspring of a similar mindset

 

For likely the next forty years of his or her life.....

 

Would you do it?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

But you're not told that. You're told that on average, in a cohort of x hundred thousand in a good economy x% of graduates will earn x% more than non graduates. If you come from a middle class above average income family your expectations are "that higher group is me, and even if I eff up dad will bail me out". If you come from a lower wage family where no one has been to university and your friends are mostly manual workers, you'll think "**** there is no way Im gambling my future like that".

 

But why is it gambling your future? This is what I don't get. You're not putting £45k on the lottery. You're investing in yourself, and your ability to learn.

 

If they come out with a degree, in general you will earn more than if you don't, and it will be more than the 9% you pay afterwards.

 

I just don't understand these arguments unfortunately as it's all hypothetical.

 

Just out of interest, how many of you that are arguing against tuition fees have actually paid them, for yourself and not for your kids?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Let's put it another way. If you were a government and were told that by paying just shy of 100K, you could provide a complete framework for educating someone, after which they are far more likely to:-

 

1) get a job

2) earn more money in that job

3) earn more money for the country

4) take less from the state

5) spawn offspring of a similar mindset

 

For likely the next forty years of his or her life.....

 

Would you do it?

 

Yep, 100%.

[View From The Top]

But why is it gambling your future? This is what I don't get. You're not putting £45k on the lottery. You're investing in yourself, and your ability to learn.

 

If they come out with a degree, in general you will earn more than if you don't, and it will be more than the 9% you pay afterwards.

 

I just don't understand these arguments unfortunately as it's all hypothetical.

 

Just out of interest, how many of you that are arguing against tuition fees have actually paid them, for yourself and not for your kids?

 

How many working class 16-19yo kids do you know who are being asked to go into what they perceive as a massive debt? Often these kids would be the first from their families to go to uni, so this sort if debt isn't seen as "normal".

[Lighthouse]

Let's put it another way. If you were a government and were told that by paying just shy of 100K, you could provide a complete framework for educating someone, after which they are far more likely to:-

 

1) get a job

2) earn more money in that job

3) earn more money for the country

4) take less from the state

5) spawn offspring of a similar mindset

 

For likely the next forty years of his or her life.....

 

Would you do it?

 

If you're talking about a system whereby all accommodation is provided and there are absolutely fees to pay back once employed, then no. That would be a disaster and a monumental waste of public money.

 

Every lazy A-level student with no career aspirations would be saying, "hey I get my life paid for for the next 3 years. I don't have to study, pay attention in lectures or get a job at the end of it. I'll just take it easy and go out on the p*ss every night and avoid real life for another 3 years."

 

That isn't aimed at every student but there are plenty of them out there who would much rather take it easy at the tax payers expense rather than go and get a real job.

[shurlock]

Nice idea in theory, subjective mess in practice. Who would determine which jobs were most needed? If it is employers and business people, then why aren't they spending the money on training and investment? Why should the taxpayer subsidise what are arguably internal staff development costs for corporate interests? If it is the government, then we're talking potential changes of direction every five years - plus many of their requirements are going to be the direct result of their f**k-ups.

 

Just think that outside of a planned economy (which consumerist capitalist certainly isn't), would be very difficult to implement.

 

The independent UK Commission for Employment and Skills routinely carries out employer needs surveys and has done plenty of work on jobs for the future. At a grass roots level, its not uncommon for universities to provide financial incentives for students to pursue STEM subject (Queen Mary and Sheffield do). John Naughton of the OU has gone even further and argued that tuition fees for anyone studying STEM should be halved.

[Lighthouse]

How many working class 16-19yo kids do you know who are being asked to go into what they perceive as a massive debt? Often these kids would be the first from their families to go to uni, so this sort if debt isn't seen as "normal".

 

If they're too thick to realise they don't have to pay back a penny until they've got a well paid job than that's their fault. If the repayment structure is fully explained at school, there is no reason at all it should put people off.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

How many working class 16-19yo kids do you know who are being asked to go into what they perceive as a massive debt? Often these kids would be the first from their families to go to uni, so this sort if debt isn't seen as "normal".

 

They should be intelligent enough to not perceive it as massive debt, that's the point.

[View From The Top]

The independent UK Commission for Employment and Skills routinely carries out employer needs surveys and has done plenty of work on jobs for the future. At a grass roots level, its not uncommon for universities to provide financial incentives for students to pursue STEM subject (Queen Mary and Sheffield do). John Naughton of the OU has gone even further and argued that tuition fees for anyone studying STEM should be halved.

 

I was at an FE/HE thinktank thingy in December where the is was suggested that the S & M elements should be free for those achieving a 2:1 or higher who were prepared to commit to a minimum for 3 years teaching in the state sector. ITT would also be covered.

 

Radical but would solve some serious issues that schools and colleges are facing.

[View From The Top]

They should be intelligent enough to not perceive it as massive debt, that's the point.

 

You really do have no idea.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

If you're talking about a system whereby all accommodation is provided and there are absolutely fees to pay back once employed, then no. That would be a disaster and a monumental waste of public money.

 

Every lazy A-level student with no career aspirations would be saying, "hey I get my life paid for for the next 3 years. I don't have to study, pay attention in lectures or get a job at the end of it. I'll just take it easy and go out on the p*ss every night and avoid real life for another 3 years."

 

That isn't aimed at every student but there are plenty of them out there who would much rather take it easy at the tax payers expense rather than go and get a real job.

 

They'd have to have exams to make sure they're good enough. Say everyone who gets 3 x B's at A level can apply.

[View From The Top]

If they're too thick to realise they don't have to pay back a penny until they've got a well paid job than that's their fault. If the repayment structure is fully explained at school, there is no reason at all it should put people off.

 

& you clearly have plenty of experience explaining it to working class parents who see their kids getting debts bigger than mortgages.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You really do have no idea.

 

Why not? When I went to Uni my parents explained that they weren't going to pay for anything at university, and that I would have to work through it. They also explained the theory of the student loan. I assume you never paid a student loan, so i would say it's more likely that I have an idea than you do.

Edited 13 February, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[Unbelievable Jeff]

& you clearly have plenty of experience explaining it to working class parents who see their kids getting debts bigger than mortgages.

 

**** me, I'd like a £40k mortgage. Where do we get these from?

[shurlock]

I was at an FE/HE thinktank thingy in December where the is was suggested that the S & M elements should be free for those achieving a 2:1 or higher who were prepared to commit to a minimum for 3 years teaching in the state sector. ITT would also be covered.

 

Radical but would solve some serious issues that schools and colleges are facing.

 

Details aside, no reason, in principle, why that couldn't be made workable.

[View From The Top]

Why no? When I went to Uni my parents explained that they weren't going to pay for anything at university, and that I would have to work through it. They also explained the theory of the student loan. I assume you never paid a student loan, so i would say it's more likely that I have an idea than you do.

 

Yes I paid one & as I teach in FE in a very working class city and spent 3hrs at parents evening on Wednesday attempting to convince parents that their son/daughter should be looking at going to uni I reckon I'm better placed than most to know exactly how it's perceived.