Tuition Fee Rises

[View From The Top]

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

 

The north.

 

And it's not £40k of debt, it's much more than that. Do some research.

[View From The Top]

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

 

I agree, I thought it a great idea.

[Lighthouse]

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

 

I took this from a BBC article I found on Google in 10 seconds...

 

"The government will lend students the money for fees, which will be paid back when they graduate and begin working. The fees will not have to be paid up-front.

 

The threshold at which graduates have to start paying their loans back will rise from £15,000 to £21,000. This will rise annually with inflation.

 

Each month graduates will pay back 9% of their income above that threshold."

 

How can you honestly tell me that will put people off university. You need year 7 maths skills combined with primary school reading ability to understand that. If anyone 'perceives' otherwise it's their own fault, being working class doesn't come close to an excuse. It's a very simple system which requires no money up front.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

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.

 

I apologise, you look as if you'd have got a grant when you went to uni.

 

Either way, it's an 18 year old who SHOULD know better. I assume they teach these things at schools?

 

Frankly, if people don't understand the way it works they are too stupid to go to university, and thats that in my opinion. There is so much literature about it on the Internet that the applicants can work it out for themselves, rather than listening to their parents.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

The north.

 

And it's not £40k of debt, it's much more than that. Do some research.

 

How much is it then, for a 3 year course at university, paying 3 years tuition and housing, and working part time to pay for your day to day expenses.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

I took this from a BBC article I found on Google in 10 seconds...

 

"The government will lend students the money for fees, which will be paid back when they graduate and begin working. The fees will not have to be paid up-front.

 

The threshold at which graduates have to start paying their loans back will rise from £15,000 to £21,000. This will rise annually with inflation.

 

Each month graduates will pay back 9% of their income above that threshold."

 

How can you honestly tell me that will put people off university. You need year 7 maths skills combined with primary school reading ability to understand that. If anyone 'perceives' otherwise it's their own fault, being working class doesn't come close to an excuse. It's a very simple system which requires no money up front.

 

I can't believe he's arguing this, and he's a ****ing teacher.

 

Jesus H Christ.

[trousers]

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.

 

Sounds like you might be "better placed than most" to highlight their misconceptions too?

 

[buctootim]

VFTT is right, you don't have any idea. Coming from a background where parents own £400,000+ houses and buy £30,000 cars gives you a totally different mindset.

 

For a working class kid from a background where a £1,000 payday loan is a lot of money, £50,000 debt is scary. A lot of them will have parents who think the sensible choice is to take a paying job now instead of gambling on a luxury of a degree. I didn't go to university till I was 24 for similar reasons, and that was when there were no fees and grants (and you still ended up in debt, albeit less)

[View From The Top]

I can't believe he's arguing this, and he's a ****ing teacher.

 

Jesus H Christ.

 

As I said, you clearly have plenty of experience of explaining it to parents to see it as massive debt.

 

As for the kids not listening to their parents, utter w**k, of course they do. We all do as we grow up.

 

My kids, young as they are, are already under no illusions of the debt they will incur and that it's "normal" but my wife and I are graduates so see the benefit. Working class parents earning well below the national average, simply put, do not.

[View From The Top]

Sounds like you might be "better placed than most" to highlight their misconceptions too?

 

 

One does ones best, but changing ingrained mindsets isn't easy. We understand the benefits but many, very many, don't.

 

I have a very, very capable student, whose parents are utterly insistent that their boy should be getting an apprenticeship and earning and not going to uni. They don't see the point. I spent 30mins explaining why he should. It's a typical mindset for many and those who want their kids to go, the 1st thing they mention, is the debt.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

VFTT is right, you don't have any idea. Coming from a background where parents own £400,000+ houses and buy £30,000 cars gives you a totally different mindset.

 

For a working class kid from a background where a £1,000 payday loan is a lot of money, £50,000 debt is scary. A lot of them will have parents who think the sensible choice is to take a paying job now instead of gambling on a luxury of a degree. I didn't go to university till I was 24 for similar reasons, and that was when there were no fees and grants (and you still ended up in debt, albeit less)

 

Sorry, who's from that background?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

As I said, you clearly have plenty of experience of explaining it to parents to see it as massive debt.

 

As for the kids not listening to their parents, utter w**k, of course they do. We all do as we grow up.

 

My kids, young as they are, are already under no illusions of the debt they will incur and that it's "normal" but my wife and I are graduates so see the benefit. Working class parents earning well below the national average, simply put, do not.

 

So is it just a case of the government giving out pamphlets in schools explaining it?

 

I think I can comment on this. My parents are both very working class, but always said I should go to University. Same funnily enough, as my other half. With the internet as it is, surely these kids can find out for themselves, otherwise I'm frankly amazed that they can get into university.

[pap]

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?

 

If they come out with a degree, they should earn more for the government; at least, that was always the old justification for bunging grants out to our young people, a valid one too. shurlock makes a valid point about the number of graduates in non-graduate jobs. I can think of three mates immediately. My bro-in-law is a trained teacher and can't get anything remotely local, two of my mates went to Uni together, did media studies, and were earning 11K a year working for a call centre. Fortunately, both of those have moved onto much better things since.

 

A lot of people remark that too many people go to University. I have some sympathy with that view. A good 10% of my year in the Scouser Mickey Mouser Uni (LJMU) did not give a clean fúck; passing time. One bloke used to put his feet on the desk and read a newspaper in seminars, while a bunch of annoying scouse uber-geeks would invade the UNIX lab, play text-based adventure games and say hal-baaaaaaeeerd (halberd) loudly and a lot while I was trying to code C. We considered booting someone off a group project because he'd done the sweet sum of fúck all throughout. That said, my darling London-based money sink reports that at her place, people are intelligent, committed and friendly, with the exception of the Oxbridge reject crowd, who apparently believe that their failed applications to Britain's top institutions are in fact, tickets to Lord it over everyone Central

 

Despite its shortcomings, I loved my time at Uni. Thrust into a new city with new people, it helped hone my initiative and self-drive (a must with a few of our lecturers, who were either barely intelligible or less clued up than the students). It gave me a piece of paper which translates into Samuel L as "TAKE ME SERIOUSLY, MUTHAFÚCKAS!! (Woah! Woah! Within reason, muthafúcka. It's only LJMU)". It was definitely worth the 9K in student loans, four years of relative poverty and sixteen hours a week of part-time work.

 

My daughter won't pay off her much larger student costs within four years of graduation unless she gets a top job or bit of help. Not fair on the youth of today, and now that the direction of travel has been established, it'll be even less fair on the youth of tomorrow. A few wailing articles from cash-strapped vice chancellors in the broadsheets will lead to a series of little increases. Who knows, in time we could leapfrog our American cousins to "Most Expensive Education In The World".

 

Dream big.

[trousers]

One does ones best, but changing ingrained mindsets isn't easy. We understand the benefits but many, very many, don't.

 

I have a very, very capable student, whose parents are utterly insistent that their boy should be getting an apprenticeship and earning and not going to uni. They don't see the point. I spent 30mins explaining why he should. It's a typical mindset for many and those who want their kids to go, the 1st thing they mention, is the debt.

My daughter is in her last year at 6th form and I'm placing equal emphasis on university and apprenticeships. I never went to university and it never did me any harm....

[Latheal]

I work closely with around 20 Universities and the first year this happend the (£9k fees) every single one of them was down on attendants leading to massive shortfalls in budgets across the board, causing redundancies, the stopping of certain courses and options and general nightmares all round for all of them. At the same time, one of the massive changes not reported on was how Universities got paid. Before they got the money upfront, and kept it whether or not the student stayed or dropped out. Now they get it paid three times a year. If a student drops out, they don't get the payment anymore.

 

However, this is only for UK students. I believe they still get paid upfront for overseas students, hence the massive drive for more international students. It's a cash flow issue.

 

In the years since, the Universities I've worked with have seen those numbers gradually increase. Partly, this is due to them adopting new schemes to attract new students, a massive influx in international students (including overseas campuses), improving teaching and student conditions and focusing on Research more and more. They've basically looked at new ways to entice students (no bad thing) and realised there is a massive amount of money to be made in Research, which can offset other costs, and equally attract more students. The numbers are still not what they used to be and applicants is one thing as somebody else mentioned, actual enrolments are what counts. It's not always £9k a year either. I know a few who offer courses a lot less than that (again, it's increased competition), but obviously they aren't the top Universities.

 

Not saying it's good or bad. Overall, I've watched Unis innovate and conditions improve. On the other side, I've seen students turn from, well students, to customers. That's how they are treated now, and still not 100% sure it's the right thing.

[Lighthouse]

VFTT is right, you don't have any idea. Coming from a background where parents own £400,000+ houses and buy £30,000 cars gives you a totally different mindset.

 

For a working class kid from a background where a £1,000 payday loan is a lot of money, £50,000 debt is scary. A lot of them will have parents who think the sensible choice is to take a paying job now instead of gambling on a luxury of a degree. I didn't go to university till I was 24 for similar reasons, and that was when there were no fees and grants (and you still ended up in debt, albeit less)

 

It's not debt in the sense that somebody will come and repossess your house if you go 3 months without payment. There is no time limit and the repayments are based 100% on your ability to pay it. Even after the repayments you will never earn less than £20k a year.

 

Not understanding just isn't an excuse. If people have the wrong perceptions it's not because they are working class it's because they are ignorant. It's like saying, "I don't understand how mortgage's work so the government should buy me a house."

 

If people are too lazy to do 10 minutes of research on Google for the sake of their future, that's their fault. Regardless of whether they were born in a septic tank on a council estate or they're the Earl of Winchester.

[buctootim]

My daughter is in her last year at 6th form and I'm placing equal emphasis on university and apprenticeships. I never went to university and it never did me any harm....

 

Good to hear how open minded you are, able to see all sides of an argument....

[Unbelievable Jeff]

It's not debt in the sense that somebody will come and repossess your house if you go 3 months without payment. There is no time limit and the repayments are based 100% on your ability to pay it. Even after the repayments you will never earn less than £20k a year.

 

Not understanding just isn't an excuse. If people have the wrong perceptions it's not because they are working class it's because they are ignorant. It's like saying, "I don't understand how mortgage's work so the government should buy me a house."

 

If people are too lazy to do 10 minutes of research on Google for the sake of their future, that's their fault. Regardless of whether they were born in a septic tank on a council estate or they're the Earl of Winchester.

 

This, and frankly I don't want these people teaching my children, diagnosing my cancer or designing my bridges if they can't understand simple things like this...

[trousers]

Good to hear how open minded you are, able to see all sides of an argument....

The 'real' me isn't as politically dogmatic as the online me.... Believe it or not

[shurlock]

It's not debt in the sense that somebody will come and repossess your house if you go 3 months without payment. There is no time limit and the repayments are based 100% on your ability to pay it. Even after the repayments you will never earn less than £20k a year.

 

Not understanding just isn't an excuse. If people have the wrong perceptions it's not because they are working class it's because they are ignorant. It's like saying, "I don't understand how mortgage's work so the government should buy me a house."

 

If people are too lazy to do 10 minutes of research on Google for the sake of their future, that's their fault. Regardless of whether they were born in a septic tank on a council estate or they're the Earl of Winchester.

 

Nothing to do with ignorance or laziness. There's substantial evidence that people from lower income backgrounds weigh costs and benefits differently, discount the future more aggressively, place a greater emphasis on losses than gains etc (though we all do to an extent). All of which can result in more cautious and conservative decision-making.

[View From The Top]

It's not debt in the sense that somebody will come and repossess your house if you go 3 months without payment. There is no time limit and the repayments are based 100% on your ability to pay it. Even after the repayments you will never earn less than £20k a year.

 

Not understanding just isn't an excuse. If people have the wrong perceptions it's not because they are working class it's because they are ignorant. It's like saying, "I don't understand how mortgage's work so the government should buy me a house."

 

If people are too lazy to do 10 minutes of research on Google for the sake of their future, that's their fault. Regardless of whether they were born in a septic tank on a council estate or they're the Earl of Winchester.

 

Next parents evening, in a couple of weeks, when Mr & Mrs Smith say to me, in all sincerity and with the kid at the centre of their thoughts, that they don't want their child starting off in life owing £50,000 I just tell them that they are just ignorant f**kwits who have no idea and are really trying to ruin their kids life chances.

[View From The Top]

Nothing to do with ignorance or laziness. There's substantial evidence that people from lower income backgrounds weigh costs and benefits differently, discount the future more aggressively, place a greater emphasis on losses than gains etc (though we all do to an extent). All of which can result in more cautious and conservative decision-making.

 

Better explained that I could do.

[buctootim]

It's not debt in the sense that somebody will come and repossess your house if you go 3 months without payment. There is no time limit and the repayments are based 100% on your ability to pay it. Even after the repayments you will never earn less than £20k a year.

 

Not understanding just isn't an excuse. If people have the wrong perceptions it's not because they are working class it's because they are ignorant. It's like saying, "I don't understand how mortgage's work so the government should buy me a house."

 

If people are too lazy to do 10 minutes of research on Google for the sake of their future, that's their fault. Regardless of whether they were born in a septic tank on a council estate or they're the Earl of Winchester.

 

I see you're still not getting it. It seems to me you're the one not able to grasp a relatively simple concept, not them. Im not sure what you are arguing against - its widely accepted reality. Fewer bright children from working class backgrounds go to university than middle class ones. Its not by chance or poverty of ambition, its poverty of expectation.

 

If all your life experience is of peers and family leaving education at 16 or 18 and struggling to pay the bills each month, not taking a wage now and borrowing £50,000 seems an irresponsible, selfish or at least highly speculative thing to do. If your life experience is of your family and peers going to university and having well paid careers, not going to university seems like an irresponsible thing to do.

Edited 13 February, 2015 by buctootim

[View From The Top]

This, and frankly I don't want these people teaching my children, diagnosing my cancer or designing my bridges if they can't understand simple things like this...

 

Not very many of those professions come from the working classes.

 

Whilst I'm over simplifying, which seems appropriate, doctors are either Asian or from middle class households. Teachers tens to be from middle class backgrounds, especially at primary and bridge designers, not a clue, although I do know one from Burnley and he's the only person I've met with 2 PhDs!

 

Still, you and Lighthouse clearly have a keener understanding of the issues and fears facing young working class people and parents than I.

[buctootim]

This, and frankly I don't want these people teaching my children, diagnosing my cancer or designing my bridges if they can't understand simple things like this...

 

you really are a fu ckwit.

[Lighthouse]

Next parents evening, in a couple of weeks, when Mr & Mrs Smith say to me, in all sincerity and with the kid at the centre of their thoughts, that they don't want their child starting off in life owing £50,000 I just tell them that they are just ignorant f**kwits who have no idea and are really trying to ruin their kids life chances.

 

Or you can tell them they will never earn less than £20,000 a year after they've paid their loan off. Go through the maths with them, explain it and give examples. For example £30k a year is £9k above the threshold. 9% of £9k is £810, so they would still be earning over £29k. It is never beyond the realms of affordability, regardless of your social background.

 

£50k of debt would only come about from a substantial 5 year degree in something like law or medicine. If a person is incapable of figuring out how this pretty basic loan system works, there is no way on Earth they have the aptitude to be a lawyer or a doctor.

 

If they think they can earn a better wage from other employment without a degree, tell them university isn't for them.

[trousers]

All "student fees" do is put graduates on a different tax band to non -graduates when they start earning a decent wage. When one starts a job with a decent income one doesn't 'worry' about how one is going to pay this months PAYE 'debt, it comes out at source and you budget what to do with the rest of your income accordingly. I just don't see it as a debt, its note of an investment if anything....

[buctootim]

All "student fees" do is put graduates on a different tax band to non -graduates when they start earning a decent wage. When one starts a job with a decent income one doesn't 'worry' about how one is going to pay this months PAYE 'debt, it comes out at source and you budget what to do with the rest of your income accordingly. I just don't see it as a debt, its note of an investment if anything....

 

I agree, the issue isn't so much reality as perception. Fewer people would be put off if there were 'grants' available and graduates simply had a different (higher) tax code instead of the whole loans and repayment presentation.

 

The other issue is needing to do more to make vocational courses and skilled jobs more valued.

[Sour Mash]

I see you're still not getting it. It seems to me you're the one not able to grasp a relatively simple concept, not them. Im not sure what you are arguing against - its widely accepted reality. Fewer bright children from working class backgrounds go to university than middle class ones. Its not by chance or poverty of ambition, its poverty of expectation.

 

If all your life experience is of peers and family leaving education at 16 or 18 and struggling to pay the bills each month, not taking a wage now and borrowing £50,000 seems an irresponsible, selfish or at least highly speculative thing to do. If your life experience is of your family and peers going to university and having well paid careers, not going to university seems like an irresponsible thing to do.

Are there any stats or figures to support any of that?

[buctootim]

Are there any stats or figures to support any of that?

 

Of course. There are whole library departments devoted to it. Am I going to provide a reading list? no. The Sutton Trust and The Joseph Rowntree Trust are good starting points. This paper from the Parliamentary Education committee summarises some of the points.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeduc/142/14206.htm

[View From The Top]

Are there any stats or figures to support any of that?

 

Plenty. Hence the government drive, which is great regardless of who is in power, to get more working class kids to at least apply.

[Lighthouse]

Not very many of those professions come from the working classes.

 

Whilst I'm over simplifying, which seems appropriate, doctors are either Asian or from middle class households. Teachers tens to be from middle class backgrounds, especially at primary and bridge designers, not a clue, although I do know one from Burnley and he's the only person I've met with 2 PhDs!

 

Still, you and Lighthouse clearly have a keener understanding of the issues and fears facing young working class people and parents than I.

 

What makes working class Asians different from working class white people. The stereotypical Asian immigrant takes a low paid job as a cleaner or in a shop or a petrol garage. So why are their children encouraged to be doctors?

 

I understand the fears working class people have with debt but they need to understand this system is different. It's not hard to understand, people just have to overcome their perceptions.

 

Let's flip it over. If an upper class toff turned up to parents evening and said, "I want my little darling going to a posh university, he should have servants to clean his room and do his cooking. I don't him mixing in with any foreigners or those disgusting poor people from a council estate." How would you react to that? Should he pull his head out of his arse or is it not his fault he's a bigot, he's just upper classes and those are his perceptions?

[Unbelievable Jeff]

you really are a fu ckwit.

 

Says the guy who'd manage to buy a two year old car without a warranty.

 

Why are you responding like that, just because you disagree?

 

I know, why don't you propose to take me to meet a billionaire, and then pull out and say I can't when I call your bluff.

Edited 13 February, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[aintforever]

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.

 

Firstly, I didn't mean we should be funding people who are not serious about a career just that if they are nailed on to get a job as a doctor or lawyer, taking on the debt is a no brainer. Most people are not straight A students so taking on the debt for their chosen career is a risk they have to think about. Someone who could be a great scientist or engineer might be put off and end up doing something less worthwhile.

 

Secondly, universities are not just there to prepare people for jobs, they are for furthering knowledge. I think in today's world where people seem obsessed by grabbing as much money as they can we should encourage education even if their degree doesn't lead directly to a job.

[View From The Top]

What makes working class Asians different from working class white people. The stereotypical Asian immigrant takes a low paid job as a cleaner or in a shop or a petrol garage. So why are their children encouraged to be doctors?

 

I understand the fears working class people have with debt but they need to understand this system is different. It's not hard to understand, people just have to overcome their perceptions.

 

Let's flip it over. If an upper class toff turned up to parents evening and said, "I want my little darling going to a posh university, he should have servants to clean his room and do his cooking. I don't him mixing in with any foreigners or those disgusting poor people from a council estate." How would you react to that? Should he pull his head out of his arse or is it not his fault he's a bigot, he's just upper classes and those are his perceptions?

 

Asians have a massively different mindset. Teaching for 6 years in the Black Country illustrated that. I knew kids in Y1 who were having extra maths and science lessons ahead of grammar school exams in Y6 + grammar school entrance lessons on a Saturday. Parents were "investing" in their old age as well as their kids.

 

As for the toff, I'd explain, in the same way I would to any parent, the benefits of a university education and the alternatives available.

[buctootim]

Says the guy who'd manage to buy a two year old car without a warranty.

 

Lets be clear - your rapier like piece of insight was that a two year old car was cheaper than a new one. No shi t. When I gently pointed out you weren't comparing like for like with the absence of a full warranty being one aspect - you stropped off.

Edited 13 February, 2015 by buctootim

[pap]

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.

 

If your second sentence is justification for your first, then I can't agree. Easy to form that impression from seeing smashed students staggering about on a Saturday night, with their big words, bright futures and their undropped T's.

 

"Those drunken student bastards! This all they do! Every day! Every f**king day! Well this, and Countdown, but still".

 

The likely reality is that most of those people have probably just finished studying their figurative genitals off, and are out partying to celebrate. We all do it, except most of us aren't 20 years old and have learned to hold our ale a little better.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Lets be clear - your rapier like piece of insight was that a two year old car was cheaper than a new one. No shi t. When I gently pointed out you weren't comparing like for like with the absence of a full warranty being one aspect - you stropped off.

 

You haven't even responded?! You can read the thread if you like, fückwit.

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?53432-I-Need-A-New-Car#.VN5UXiMeLqA

 

My point was that it was much cheaper to buy and run a two year old car than it was to lease a brand new one, m'kay.

 

Goodnight!

Edited 13 February, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[aintforever]

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.

 

Firstly, I didn't mean we should be funding people who are not serious about a career just that if they are nailed on to get a job as a doctor or lawyer, taking on the debt is a no brainer. Most people are not straight A students so taking on the debt for their chosen career is a risk they have to think about. Someone who could be a great scientist or engineer might be put off and end up doing something less worthwhile.

 

Secondly, universities are not just there to prepare people for jobs, they are for furthering knowledge. I think in tody's world where people seem obsessed by grabbing as much money as they can we should encourage education even if their degree doesn't lead directly to a job.

[buctootim]

You haven't even responded?! You can read the thread if you like, fückwit.

 

http://www.saintsweb.co.uk/showthread.php?53432-I-Need-A-New-Car#.VN5UXiMeLqA

 

My point was that it was much cheaper to buy and run a two year old car than it was to lease a brand new one, m'kay.

 

Goodnight!

 

Did you prefer the used 118 because it was easier to park and you didn't want to scrape a new car?

[Lighthouse]

Firstly, I didn't mean we should be funding people who are not serious about a career just that if they are nailed on to get a job as a doctor or lawyer, taking on the debt is a no brainer. Most people are not straight A students so taking on the debt for their chosen career is a risk they have to think about. Someone who could be a great scientist or engineer might be put off and end up doing something less worthwhile.

 

Secondly, universities are not just there to prepare people for jobs, they are for furthering knowledge. I think in today's world where people seem obsessed by grabbing as much money as they can we should encourage education even if their degree doesn't lead directly to a job.

 

I largely agree with the second paragraph and I'd be all for concessions on courses which involved important research in fields like medicine or science.

 

I think the debt is something everyone should have to think about. Afterall, what you are basically doing is asking the tax payer to fund your education.

 

Perhaps if people had to ask for the money face to face, perceptions would change. If you made a prospective university student stand in front of a mixed audience from all aspects of society and say, "I want you to lend me money because..." it might put into perspective what they are asking. I'm not suggesting this as a practical solution but it's something everyone should consider.

[Sour Mash]

Of course. There are whole library departments devoted to it. Am I going to provide a reading list? no. The Sutton Trust and The Joseph Rowntree Trust are good starting points. This paper from the Parliamentary Education committee summarises some of the points.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmselect/cmeduc/142/14206.htm

Maybe I've missed it, but I can't see the figure for working class kids that have qualified for Uni turning it down due to any particular reason.

[Saintandy666]

In quite the u-turn from my comments 5 years ago (how the time passes) - I think a few things need to be put straight about the fees rise, and the hysteria about what they were or rather what we thought they were. The system that we ended up with is just a progressive graduate tax (9% over 21k for up to 30 years) - and I know the government wishes it had just called it that now. There's nothing paid up front, and nothing demanded that I won't be able to afford once I graduate and enter employment this year. Whether the system is more costly than the older, or about the same or cheaper - we shall see. I've seen different estimates over the past few years and they seem to differ wildly based on the current state of the economy.

 

What I do think is important is that people understand how irresponsible the Labour policy is of capping the fees at £6000. All this does is create a hole in the budget of universities that the government will have to fill going forward. And this is billions upon billions of pounds. And the beneficiaries of it all? Those who are already wealthy and can pay up front, and those who go on from universities to earn top wages and so can easily afford more. It's an incredibly lazy policy that will do great harm in terms of the massive black hole it leaves in higher education finances.

 

As for the outcome of the whole system, I think it's broadly been positive. Certainly, students seem to value their education more and some of the courses which offered less value for money have been weeded out. But more importantly, there are more applications for those of a lower socioeconomic background than ever before and I think that can be linked to the rules on access that universities have to abide by to charge the £9k fees and also the mindset 9k brings about.

 

Going forward, I don't think it's possible to return to the fully state funded situation we had in the past. There's simply too many people going to university for that to be the case, and given that some student contribution; whether it be like the fees system at the moment (all but a graduate tax) or a graduate tax real, it doesn't matter. I don't think we should be concerned about more going to higher education - broadly speaking, we're living and working longer and have a different economy that will need higher levels of skills. But what I really don't like is the idealisation of the academic route, and so we need proper revaluation and promotion of other routes (for example apprenticeships) as just as important and valued.

 

So yes. Summary as such is that the fees system is actually not that bad and Clegg got a pretty good deal for students. The outcome of the system has been broadly positive too, but more needs to be done to rebalance the relative valuation society places on academic and vocational routes.

 

NB: Not completely relevant to this discussion, but the real problem of higher education is not fees, but maintenance which remains inadequate and is in my opinion the largest practical block for opportunity for all with higher education.

[bridge too far]

This puts an interesting 'gloss' on the whole subject. Looks like we're all paying for these student debts anyway

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/tuition-fees-three-quarters-of-students-wont-be-able-to-pay-off-their-debt-9866446.html

[Saintandy666]

This puts an interesting 'gloss' on the whole subject. Looks like we're all paying for these student debts anyway

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/higher/tuition-fees-three-quarters-of-students-wont-be-able-to-pay-off-their-debt-9866446.html

 

A year before that it was c. 40%, so take these longer term projections with a pinch of salt I reckon! Also, not sure what 'whole means' - there is a whole lot of interest on the loans (RPI + 3% whilst at uni and whilst in employment and paying back. If in employment and not paying back so earning under 21k it's just RPI). So someone could pay back their bit as such, but not pay off the whole thing.

[mcjwills]

if the payback is 9% and on an average earning of £35K at £14K over the threshold, you would payback £1260 per year, or £105 per month. It will take you without interest 39 years to pay it back, so depending what age you retire at the chances are you will never pay the debt back, so the logical choice is to take as much money as possible, especially if you are female and intend to raise a family and give up work or work part time.

[bridge too far]

if the payback is 9% and on an average earning of £35K at £14K over the threshold, you would payback £1260 per year, or £105 per month. It will take you without interest 39 years to pay it back, so depending what age you retire at the chances are you will never pay the debt back, so the logical choice is to take as much money as possible, especially if you are female and intend to raise a family and give up work or work part time.

 

[Batman]

the way I see it, Students are getting their university degree costs guaranteed by the general public.

They start to pay that back in small amounts as they earn decent wages (more so than many of those who are 'guarantor' for the degree in the 1st place)

some/many, may never pay it back in full....

 

 

the no up front charge surely allows more people to get higher education????

it is not perfect...nothing is......but fairly fair, right???

[Coxford_lou]

 

[Lighthouse]

if the payback is 9% and on an average earning of £35K at £14K over the threshold, you would payback £1260 per year, or £105 per month. It will take you without interest 39 years to pay it back, so depending what age you retire at the chances are you will never pay the debt back, so the logical choice is to take as much money as possible, especially if you are female and intend to raise a family and give up work or work part time.

 

If you are taking a uni course which costs £50k and getting a career average of £35k a year, you are doing something badly wrong. A half decent doctor, lawyer, accountant etc. should be earning double that by the time they are 40.