Tuition Fee Rises

[Saintandy666]

Seems like you don't know whether you're coming or going.

 

From initially opposing fees out of a misguided sense of idealism, you're now fervently championing them for widening access, even though short-run data can't possibly capture the more important long-term impacts of the policy which we won't really know until the current cohort moves through the system and pays off the debt (or doesnt) and the next generation of university applicants adjusts to that experience.

 

More confusingly, you're now completely in favour of uncapped fees, dubbing current policy irresponsible, even though allowing universities to charge what they like would almost certainly price out those from poorer backgrounds. All while speaking about access with a straight face

 

I was opposed to the fees rise 5 years ago, that's for sure. The evidence of this thread shows that! If fees rises were proposed today, I would still be against them. I don't particularly like fees as a system. I'd rather that we just had a full-on graduate tax. But trying to be pragmatic here, I acknowledge that the fees system has not led to the apocalyptic scenario some (including I expect myself at the time) bought into. In fact, it seems to have had no negative effects on access, and is correlated with a positive trend - though that doesn't necessarily mean it's causal because of access changes at the time of the fees rises.

 

I'm not in favour of uncapped fees - in my 'ideal' world, I'm in favour of no fees, but a graduate tax of which the specifics I suppose we can't get into on a thread on a football forum. So all I've said so far is mainly a reflection on the post-election hysteria, and then a more pragmatic assessment of the system which within itself is progressive and doesn't prevent attendance by anyone who wants to go. Its original problem was a PR one.

 

The long-term impacts of the policy in terms of university finance I admit no-one is quite sure of yet.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Seems like you don't know whether you're coming or going.

 

From initially opposing fees out of a misguided sense of idealism, you're now fervently championing them for widening access, even though short-run data can't possibly capture the more important long-term impacts of the policy which we won't really know until the current cohort moves through the system and pays off the debt (or doesnt) and the next generation of university applicants adjusts to that experience.

 

More confusingly, you're now completely in favour of uncapped fees, dubbing current policy irresponsible, even though allowing universities to charge what they like would almost certainly price out those from poorer backgrounds. All while speaking about access with a straight face

 

People can change their opinion based on experience though, surely?

 

I think it's going to be 15 years until we can judge the policy, at the least. However, it does at least seem to have not made a difference to applications.

[shurlock]

I was opposed to the fees rise 5 years ago, that's for sure. The evidence of this thread shows that! If fees rises were proposed today, I would still be against them. I don't particularly like fees as a system. I'd rather that we just had a full-on graduate tax. But trying to be pragmatic here, I acknowledge that the fees system has not led to the apocalyptic scenario some (including I expect myself at the time) bought into. In fact, it seems to have had no negative effects on access, and is correlated with a positive trend - though that doesn't necessarily mean it's causal because of access changes at the time of the fees rises.

 

I'm not in favour of uncapped fees - in my 'ideal' world, I'm in favour of no fees, but a graduate tax of which the specifics I suppose we can't get into on a thread on a football forum. So all I've said so far is mainly a reflection on the post-election hysteria, and then a more pragmatic assessment of the system which within itself is progressive and doesn't prevent attendance by anyone who wants to go. Its original problem was a PR one.

 

The long-term impacts of the policy in terms of university finance I admit no-one is quite sure of yet.

 

Uncapped fees is a simplification but you're in favour of giving universities more autonomy to set prices. Interested to know what that would like in your world: how much could a Russell Group university charge for a degree, leaving aside the risks and potentials liabilities borne by the taxpayer?

[shurlock]

People can change their opinion based on experience though, surely?

 

I think it's going to be 15 years until we can judge the policy, at the least. However, it does at least seem to have not made a difference to applications.

 

 

Absolutely. Still, whether you're intially pro or con something, it's always useful to admit the fallibility of your opinion by avoiding extreme positions, especially with a big, complicated beast like public policy

Edited 14 February, 2015 by shurlock

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Absolutely. Still, whether you're intially pro or con something, it's always useful to admit the fallibility of your opinion by avoiding extreme positions, especially with a big, complicated beast like public policy

 

True dat.

[CB Saint]

If there is an issue with fees, why not shorten the degree courses. Why do they all have to be three years? My mate daughter is doing less than ten hours a week and has over five months holiday a year. I'm pretty sure that her degree could be done in less than two years. That would cut her debt by £10-£15k at a stroke.

[shurlock]

If there is an issue with fees, why not shorten the degree courses. Why do they all have to be three years? My mate daughter is doing less than ten hours a week and has over five months holiday a year. I'm pretty sure that her degree could be done in less than two years. That would cut her debt by £10-£15k at a stroke.

 

Agree - many courses could be shortened or, at least, work placements could account for a larger share of time spent on them.

[Saintandy666]

Uncapped fees is a simplification but you're in favour of giving universities more autonomy to set prices. Interested to know what that would like in your world: how much could a Russell Group university charge for a degree, leaving aside the risks and potentials liabilities borne by the taxpayer?

 

In what sense have I spoken about uncapped fees? I categorically stated I would not want that. All I have said is the that current system has not caused the applications shift that was worried about 4-5 years ago. Then I said that it's a progressive and fair system within itself, both for the individual payer and for a society where so many (rightly) go to university - and so some sort of individual top-up contribution is necessary (as it will be either that or via general taxation).

 

So I think I'm talking in a very present sense and making points that are reasonably fair about the system in a present sense? I admitted that there is uncertainty - as with all policy - going forward in the long term and apart from that my only assertive statement on the future is that I personally prefer a full-on graduate tax as an alternative.

 

I know public policy is endlessly complex, and just as you think you have one aspect down, another factor rears its head. I'm just slightly confused at your replies though, as I can't see how they align with my comments!

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Agree - many courses could be shortened or, at least, work placements could account for a larger share of time spent on them.

 

However, many courses are actually too short. I had 12 hours a week and at one point was doing Advanced Microeconomics, Advanced Macroeconomics and Criminal Law in just 6 of those hours. It just wasn't enough.

[shurlock]

However, many courses are actually too short. I had 12 hours a week and at one point was doing Advanced Microeconomics, Advanced Macroeconomics and Criminal Law in just 6 of those hours. It just wasn't enough.

 

Then again, wouldn't recommend anyone to do business, economics and law in three years, let alone two years

 

Proposals, I heard, want 30% of degree courses to be shorter or more intensive. Goes without saying that they are geared more to newer subjects.

[Smirking_Saint]

Ask yourself why governments are businesses are both pushing for more to go to uni and you'll find the answer to your question.

 

Yes and I have no problem for that, degrees in relevant studies are fine but I have to say I would say the majority of students are just looking for a continuation of the college life and dont really know what they are doing in the future.

 

You need to make a commitment on your future, and realise if there is no real future gain for your degree and so debt, than you should be looking at other avenues for a career.

 

If anything I think the answer is for employers to take up the mantel. If they want a certain employee then they should offer more positions which include a degree as part of the training, and that is were the government tuition subsidy should go to. Not topping up some 18 yr olds **** up fund

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Then again, wouldn't recommend anyone to do business, economics and law in three years, let alone two years

 

Proposals, I heard, want 30% of degree courses to be shorter or more intensive. Goes without saying that they are geared more to newer subjects.

 

Trust me when I say I wouldn't recommend it to anyone either. Seriously. ****ing hard work, and two very different ways of learning and presenting information.

[Saintandy666]

I mean I think we can characterise students as lazy but friends I know keep up a part time job with a decent amount of work which equals effectively a full time job in hours. At Oxford (where we aren't allowed jobs), the average weekly work time is equal to or more than the average job time. I certainly work more now than I did on my year off when I worked at a shop full time.

Edited 15 February, 2015 by Saintandy666

[mcjwills]

If there is an issue with fees, why not shorten the degree courses. Why do they all have to be three years? My mate daughter is doing less than ten hours a week and has over five months holiday a year. I'm pretty sure that her degree could be done in less than two years. That would cut her debt by £10-£15k at a stroke.

I did an accelerated and intensive degree in 1993 to 1995, it can be done but it was sure hard work at the time. We basically had 2 weeks off at summer and xmas.

I was working just on uni work an average 60 to 70 hours per week. It is possible but you have to have a good work ethic.

Edited 15 February, 2015 by mcjwills

[pap]

I did an accelerated and intensive degree in 1993 to 1995, it can be done but it was sure hard work at the time. We basically had 2 weeks off at summer and xmas.

I was working just on uni work an average 60 to 70 hours per week. It is possible but you have to have a good work ethic.

The first year of my computing course was mostly getting people up to speed to tackle the second year. If you knew anything about computing, all but the maths was a waste of time. Learned more on my National Diploma.

 

It would have been my preference to have done a hard course for three years, but they could easily have made that a 2 year course for people with the right background.

[scotty]

If there is an issue with fees, why not shorten the degree courses. Why do they all have to be three years? My mate daughter is doing less than ten hours a week and has over five months holiday a year. I'm pretty sure that her degree could be done in less than two years. That would cut her debt by £10-£15k at a stroke.

 

It isn't debt.

 

This is what annoys me more than anything about the degree funding debate; it should not be referred to as "debt". It is a retrospective tax, only applicable when the graduate has achieved a certain level of income which they would reasonably expect to have gained only because of the additional education they chose to pursue, and if they don't achieve that income level the taxation is not imposed. Even if they do, the level of additional taxation is negligible when compared to the income.

[aintforever]

Ionly applicable when the graduate has achieved a certain level of income which they would reasonably expect to have gained only because of the additional education they chose to pursue

 

I don't agree with that. None of the highest earning people I know have a degree, all salesmen and business owners.

[CB Saint]

It isn't debt.

 

This is what annoys me more than anything about the degree funding debate; it should not be referred to as "debt". It is a retrospective tax, only applicable when the graduate has achieved a certain level of income which they would reasonably expect to have gained only because of the additional education they chose to pursue, and if they don't achieve that income level the taxation is not imposed. Even if they do, the level of additional taxation is negligible when compared to the income.

 

Debt, tax call it what you will. In the mind of most people it is a sum that needs repaying (albeit once you earn enough) and that usually = debt.

[Verbal]

It isn't debt.

 

This is what annoys me more than anything about the degree funding debate; it should not be referred to as "debt". It is a retrospective tax, only applicable when the graduate has achieved a certain level of income which they would reasonably expect to have gained only because of the additional education they chose to pursue, and if they don't achieve that income level the taxation is not imposed. Even if they do, the level of additional taxation is negligible when compared to the income.

 

Students are given loans - that's what they're called and that's what they are. Therefore they incur a debt until the loan is paid off. The fact that they may not hit the income threshold for repayment at all points during their subsequent careers doesn't alter the fact that the debt remains. Trying to call debt something else doesn't alter the fact that it's a debt. And it is certainly not a 'retrospective tax'; there's nothing 'retrospective' about it.

 

Students themselves are well aware that what they're incurring is debt - hence the greater emphasis on 'student satisfaction' since higher fees were imposed. Controversies about contact hours in some subjects also stem directly from anxieties about the cost of their education, which they know they now pay for.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

Students are given loans - that's what they're called and that's what they are. Therefore they incur a debt until the loan is paid off. The fact that they may not hit the income threshold for repayment at all points during their subsequent careers doesn't alter the fact that the debt remains. Trying to call debt something else doesn't alter the fact that it's a debt. And it is certainly not a 'retrospective tax'; there's nothing 'retrospective' about it.

 

Students themselves are well aware that what they're incurring is debt - hence the greater emphasis on 'student satisfaction' since higher fees were imposed. Controversies about contact hours in some subjects also stem directly from anxieties about the cost of their education, which they know they now pay for.

 

Even though it is a loan, I would like to know if therebis another type of loan that takes this repayment schedule? To me because of the repayment schedule and the fact that there is no obligation to pay it back (as long as you don't earn more than £21k PAYE) it is surely more comparable to a tax.

 

The best thing about it in my opinion is it sorts the wheat from the chaff, and will hopefully rid the country of D students taking Surf Studies at the taxpayers expense.

[Whitey Grandad]

Debt, tax call it what you will. In the mind of most people it is a sum that needs repaying (albeit once you earn enough) and that usually = debt.

 

Yes, it's a debt with peculiar repayment terms.

[Verbal]

Even though it is a loan, I would like to know if therebis another type of loan that takes this repayment schedule? To me because of the repayment schedule and the fact that there is no obligation to pay it back (as long as you don't earn more than £21k PAYE) it is surely more comparable to a tax.

 

The best thing about it in my opinion is it sorts the wheat from the chaff, and will hopefully rid the country of D students taking Surf Studies at the taxpayers expense.

 

On the contrary: it rewards D students in Surf Studies, assuming they don't get a job that pays more than the threshold - it's basically free money. And it rewards a large number of EU students who also qualify for the loans but do not repay them. The people who are disadvantaged are those who study for demanding subjects like medicine, whose debts will be astronomical because their courses run for much longer.

 

As for the loan, it is certainly not a tax. A loan is a loan and a debt is a debt, and adding a couple of conditions to it doesn't alter that. Although we were told this wouldn't happen, some of the new 'stress-tested' mortgage applicants are being asked about their student debts in calculations about affordability. So in that sense too it counts straightforwardly as a debt - and one that will disadvantage many as this all starts to unfold (remember: the first cohort paying £9,000 pa for fees alone have yet to graduate).

[shurlock]

On the contrary: it rewards D students in Surf Studies, assuming they don't get a job that pays more than the threshold - it's basically free money. And it rewards a large number of EU students who also qualify for the loans but do not repay them. The people who are disadvantaged are those who study for demanding subjects like medicine, whose debts will be astronomical because their courses run for much longer.

 

Not really. Medicine is the only real example -and perhaps to a lesser extent, modern languages. More importantly, fees for demanding subjects from good universities are capped far, far below what they would be if universities were free to charge what they wanted or, in some cases, needed. That is, they are the most aggressively subsidised degrees while remaining the monopoly of the richest, most able-to-pay students and families.

Edited 16 February, 2015 by shurlock

[Unbelievable Jeff]

On the contrary: it rewards D students in Surf Studies, assuming they don't get a job that pays more than the threshold - it's basically free money. And it rewards a large number of EU students who also qualify for the loans but do not repay them. The people who are disadvantaged are those who study for demanding subjects like medicine, whose debts will be astronomical because their courses run for much longer.

 

As for the loan, it is certainly not a tax. A loan is a loan and a debt is a debt, and adding a couple of conditions to it doesn't alter that. Although we were told this wouldn't happen, some of the new 'stress-tested' mortgage applicants are being asked about their student debts in calculations about affordability. So in that sense too it counts straightforwardly as a debt - and one that will disadvantage many as this all starts to unfold (remember: the first cohort paying £9,000 pa for fees alone have yet to graduate).

 

I'm not sure I agree. If someone is faced with £40k of debt to do a degree like surf studies I believe it will make them more likely to think more practically about the subject they're doing as they know they will have more to pay off, and frankly I think most people going to university will expect to earn £21k or more at points in their life (although possibly not all).

[LGTL]

All I know is that I had absolutely no idea at 17/18 what on earth I wanted to do for the rest of my life. I just sort of fell into my career in the end, albeit a decent one. I think it's ridiculous that we are asking kids that age to make such important life decisions that will cost them thousands, if I were to do it again I'd probably do a totally different course but then I have the experience now that I didn't 10 years ago. Not sure if there's a solution to it though.

[Verbal]

I'm not sure I agree. If someone is faced with £40k of debt to do a degree like surf studies I believe it will make them more likely to think more practically about the subject they're doing as they know they will have more to pay off, and frankly I think most people going to university will expect to earn £21k or more at points in their life (although possibly not all).

 

You're confusing your theory with reality though. The fact is that all university admissions are up, across the board - as trousers has helpfully pointed out. That includes degrees such as event management, fashion management and some of the older favourites for 'mickey mouse' status, like media studies and sociology. Students I encounter are not, for the most part, making the sorts of calculation you suggest.

 

Surf studies at Plymouth University, by the way, is apparently particularly popular.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

You're confusing your theory with reality though. The fact is that all university admissions are up, across the board - as trousers has helpfully pointed out. That includes degrees such as event management, fashion management and some of the older favourites for 'mickey mouse' status, like media studies and sociology. Students I encounter are not, for the most part, making the sorts of calculation you suggest.

 

Surf studies at Plymouth University, by the way, is apparently particularly popular.

 

It was very popular when I went there, although that was 2002. Just tons of time spent down at Fistral in Cornwall.

Edited 16 February, 2015 by Unbelievable Jeff

[benjii]

On the plus side, I realised today that I have just repaid my student loan.

[Unbelievable Jeff]

On the plus side, I realised today that I have just repaid my student loan.

 

Phone up and tell your HR and them or they will continue to take money...