Students

[hypochondriac]

Considering I was 11... no. Many people within the movement would also argue £3000 is acceptable.

 

What is your alternative to the proposed plan?

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

This isn't about tax, it's about university funding. If Charles goes to Durham university to read economics, works hard and gets a good job earning loads he should not be required to pay any more for the cost of his degree than Edward who went to Durham university to read economics, couldn't be arsed and got a ****e job earning poop whilst receiving exactly the same education..

 

But education is a public good so it is about taxation. Taxation pays for public goods. If Billy goes to uni and then gets a job that has a social as well as personal benefit but only pays a little more than the repayment threshold then why should he pay the same as Johnny who pursued a more lucrative career but one with less social benefit?

 

So, presumably you think the death-knell was sounded when Labour introduced fees into higher education. Didn't you lose the argument, in practical terms at least, then? What's the problem now?

 

To an extent, which is why I told some Blairite wannabees at University back in 1997 that this was the thin end of the wedge and why I didn't renew my only year of Labour party membership and partly why I've never voted Labour. I'm not sure about losing the argument. Labour were only able to bring it in after claiming they wouldn't. By the time of the following election it was pretty much a distant memory and rightly or wrongly not enough of an issue for most people. On the other hand the Lib Dems made this a big part of their pre-election campaign, they are going to get minced at the next election - it might be argued that they will lose the argument on tuition fees.

[Saintandy666]

What is your alternative to the proposed plan?

 

For the present climate, I would keep tuition fees at £3000(for now), and not cut the overall budget. We could easily fill the £2.9bn black hole that will appear because of the budget cuts in this area by cutting trident instead.

[SuperMikey]

You've blown your own argument out of the water with that statement. Driving lessons are a luxury item, which you should not be paying for if you are struggling to afford food. I don't want to sound all "woe is me" but when I was in sixth form I had to cycle 10km each way to get to school. There's me with my typical middle class, moddest upbring cycling through rain, snow and hail to get to lessons, whilst the poor, underpriviledged kids were overtaking me in a 1.1 Fiat Punto, paid for in part by the tax payer. And apparently education favours the wealthy.

 

I'm not sure driving lessons are a luxury, being able to drive is pretty much a necessity nowadays I would argue. It was a necessity for his job anyway.

[Saintandy666]

Here is a letter to my Local MP that I wrote detailing my opposition to the plan at a basic level.

 

'Dear Ms. Miller,

 

As I am sure you are aware from recent events, there is a lot of anger within the student body at plans to treble tuition fees. If these plans are to come into fruition, they will not affect me as I hope to go to university this year and not next so I write to you out of general concern for the future of our university system rather than any personal concern about how my finances could be affected.

 

I wish you to consider one example of how these plans could drastically and derogatorily affect the country, Medicine. Medicine is a 6 year course which at the end of you have little choice of where you choose to go and work, the NHS. Under the new plans, including living costs you can expect as a medicine graduate to incur total debts of £90,000+ by the time you leave. All of this will have to be instantly started to be paid off as a doctor starts on about £22,500. As a member of a party that preaches about the burdens of debt, how can you ever tell us that this is in any way acceptable? All these plans seem to do in this example is dissuade people from taking on this career. I am now going to reveal something. I want to do medicine next year, and if I was unlucky enough as it seems people who are born one year later than me are set to be, I would have seriously consider whether I can afford to go. This is a direct response to the dead weight of debt that your government plans to inflict upon students nationwide.

 

Who I worry most for in these plans are middle income families. The rich will always be able to pay and I understand that no plan can change that. The poor will get help in the form of generous bursaries but what help is there for middle income families? Not rich enough to absorb the debt, not poor enough to qualify for extra help... You are sentencing a large amount of people to a lifetime of substantial debt which they have no hope of ever paying off.

 

I understand the situation we are in. I know how large the deficit is and I am not naive enough to say 'no cuts'. However, I hope that even you can not deny that cutting is a matter of priorities and you have got these priorities totally wrong. There are so many areas we can cut rather than the future education of our people. How about an out of date cold war nuclear deterrent?

 

China has more gifted and talented students than we have students. We simply can not compete in the new world if we are putting bright young people off going through higher education. We as a country need as many people as possible with science degrees, computer degrees as well as other areas to equip us to compete in the 21st century. If we fail to do this we will slip further and further behind. You may say that this plan should not put people off university, but it is and I should know because many of them are my friends and we all share collective worry over this idea.

 

I know that this email will almost certainly not change your mind in how you will vote on this issue. I write it because I feel I have to for I see only the destruction of a university system accessible to all before me. The new system is not fairer and I beg you to consider the future of your constituents when you do finally have the choice of two lobbies before you. Please make the right choice.

 

Yours Sincerely,

 

'

 

Also, I don't like the idea of universities charging different amounts creating a 'market'. People will just go to the cheaper courses over the quality courses.

Edited 7 February, 2012 by Saintandy666

[Lighthouse]

For the present climate, I would keep tuition fees at £3000(for now), and not cut the overall budget. We could easily fill the £2.9bn black hole that will appear because of the budget cuts in this area by cutting trident instead.

 

This was done to death on a thread a couple of months ago, people will always disagree on this issue. Many people, myself included believe a nuclear deterant to be critical to the long term security of Great Britain. Many others don't believe a deterant is important and therefore think it should be scrapped.

 

There's no point arguing because it's just not going to happen. You might as well say I'm healthy and never use a hospital, let's cut healthcare from the budget. Costs need to be cut accross the board. This includes students.

[SuperMikey]

This was done to death on a thread a couple of months ago, people will always disagree on this issue. Many people, myself included believe a nuclear deterant to be critical to the long term security of Great Britain. Many others don't believe a deterant is important and therefore think it should be scrapped.

 

There's no point arguing because it's just not going to happen. You might as well say I'm healthy and never use a hospital, let's cut healthcare from the budget. Costs need to be cut accross the board. This includes students.

 

What about our deployment in Afghanistan? Our soldiers aren't up to the job apparently, so we won't bother. Would go a long way to helping cut the budget defecit.

[hypochondriac]

End of the day you could debate it all you like but getting rid of Trident is not going to happen. This is the best and most realistic way to address the deficit.

[Saintandy666]

This was done to death on a thread a couple of months ago, people will always disagree on this issue. Many people, myself included believe a nuclear deterant to be critical to the long term security of Great Britain. Many others don't believe a deterant is important and therefore think it should be scrapped.

 

There's no point arguing because it's just not going to happen. You might as well say I'm healthy and never use a hospital, let's cut healthcare from the budget. Costs need to be cut accross the board. This includes students.

 

No, I can argue it because it is a viable option. Cut wastage, trident is waste. How about some tax rises... tax avoidance... in an economy as large as ours on an issue as integral to the future of our entire society we SHOULD be able to find that £2.9bn.

[hypochondriac]

No, I can argue it because it is a viable option. Cut wastage, trident is waste. How about some tax rises... tax avoidance... in an economy as large as ours on an issue as integral to the future of our entire society we SHOULD be able to find that £2.9bn.

 

Extremely controversial statement to make.

[Lighthouse]

Here is a letter to my Local MP that I wrote detailing my opposition to the plan at a basic level.

 

'Dear Ms. Miller,

 

...

 

I wish you to consider one example of how these plans could drastically and derogatorily affect the country, Medicine. Medicine is a 6 year course which at the end of you have little choice of where you choose to go and work, the NHS. Under the new plans, including living costs you can expect as a medicine graduate to incur total debts of £90,000+ by the time you leave. All of this will have to be instantly started to be paid off as a doctor starts on about £22,500. As a member of a party that preaches about the burdens of debt, how can you ever tell us that this is in any way acceptable? All these plans seem to do in this example is dissuade people from taking on this career. I am now going to reveal something. I want to do medicine next year, and if I was unlucky enough as it seems people who are born one year later than me are set to be, I would have seriously consider whether I can afford to go. This is a direct response to the dead weight of debt that your government plans to inflict upon students nationwide.

...

 

 

If I might propose another spin on that story...

 

Here is a letter to my Local MP that I wrote detailing my opposition to the plan at a basic level.

 

'Dear Ms. Miller,

 

...

 

I wish you to consider one example of how these plans could drastically and derogatorily affect the country, Medicine. Medicine is a very costly and lengthy course to study. It required training from highly trained and much sought after, skilled medical proffesionals. Owing to the intelligence of these individuals, they are understandably entitled to high salaries, as they are very much in demand. The training will also require a lot of state of the art equipment, which is also aquired at great cost. Added to that the responsibilites that lie with medical proffesionals when it comes to treating patients and you will understand that training is both very challenging and time consuming.

 

All in all, training to become a medical proffesional is a very expensive process. Unfortunately I don't have any money to pay for this, but I still want to become a doctor. I have been told I can still become a doctor under the reformed tuition fees proposal, however this will require me to pay back the cost of my training at a later date when I am earning a decent salary. I don't think this is fair. Just because I want to undertake a very costly training course which I can't afford, why should I have to pay it back when I can afford it in the future? Please can you arrange it so the tax payer absorbs most of the costs.

...

 

[Lighthouse]

What about our deployment in Afghanistan? Our soldiers aren't up to the job apparently, so we won't bother. Would go a long way to helping cut the budget defecit.

 

I vaguely remember hearing on the news yesterday that we were hopefully of pulling troops out of Afghanistan over the next couple of years. I'm sure the whole country is behind that, myself included. Nobody wants our boys over there getting killed. The simple fact is that irrespecitive of the political reasons for going in/pulling out, we can't just up sticks and leave. It would create a similar country to the one the Soviets left behind when they pulled out. Tribal rule, tyranny, persecution, discrimination, fundamentalist Islam... basically a whole lot of messed up people with sick ideas on world affairs and a chip on their shoulder.

 

It's nothing to do with trident.

 

Bed time.

[Saintandy666]

If I might propose another spin on that story...

 

The tax payer will be the first to moan when they have a heart attack and there aren't enough trained professionals to help them.

 

If we wish to compete with the likes of China and India in the future we need to encourage as many people as possible to go to university and take degrees in areas such as science and computing. If we fail to do this, we will fall behind in the modern world. An educated public will benefit everyone and investment will be returned in the form of a highly skilled work force. The £9,000 a year price tag will put many off, not just from poorer families, but also from middle income families who cannot qualify for extra help and cannot afford to not worry about fees at all. Students will be coming out of university, with as pre-election Nick Clegg stated a 'dead weight' of debt which many will have little prospect of ever paying off. This isn't a fairer system.

Edited 9 December, 2010 by Saintandy666

[SuperMikey]

I vaguely remember hearing on the news yesterday that we were hopefully of pulling troops out of Afghanistan over the next couple of years. I'm sure the whole country is behind that, myself included. Nobody wants our boys over there getting killed. The simple fact is that irrespecitive of the political reasons for going in/pulling out, we can't just up sticks and leave. It would create a similar country to the one the Soviets left behind when they pulled out. Tribal rule, tyranny, persecution, discrimination, fundamentalist Islam... basically a whole lot of messed up people with sick ideas on world affairs and a chip on their shoulder.

 

It's nothing to do with trident.

 

Bed time.

 

We're not exactly the only military force deployed over there, the Americans still have Uber Marines who could be deployed to fill the gap left by UK soldiers. Just got to concentrate on training the Afghan forces to deal with the problem.

[hypochondriac]

I vaguely remember hearing on the news yesterday that we were hopefully of pulling troops out of Afghanistan over the next couple of years. I'm sure the whole country is behind that, myself included. Nobody wants our boys over there getting killed. The simple fact is that irrespecitive of the political reasons for going in/pulling out, we can't just up sticks and leave. It would create a similar country to the one the Soviets left behind when they pulled out. Tribal rule, tyranny, persecution, discrimination, fundamentalist Islam... basically a whole lot of messed up people with sick ideas on world affairs and a chip on their shoulder.

 

It's nothing to do with trident.

 

Bed time.

 

The reason for the whole iraq situation is that after desert storm they pulled out too early.

[Shandy_Top_89]

My attempt at a pretty generic statement about the whole issue about why this is hurting the Lib Dems so much (aside from the pledge).

 

It makes more sense if you watch this, as this is what the comment is in response to (I posted this in another debate elsewhere) - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11947701

 

 

I can see this from both sides, and both have their faults.

 

On the governments side (especially the Lib Dems), Clegg has failed to clarify the situation in a way that will get the attention of students repeatedly citing the deficit. When if... he took a line like the one taken by Ashdown, who slows down the argument and clearly explains the individual positives of the fees reform i dont believe he would have anywhere near this trouble.

 

On the students side I find it frustrating that those getting the most attention, are the people that have clearly not researched this reform properly. But those that believe it will price people out of University, which is an incredibly flawed argument as there are no up front fees. Also the monetary benefits of a University education are seen to make this irrelivant, as everyone pays the same (course dependant) in the end based on their future earnings rather than present.

 

Now even the motion at the moment does have issues and if im correct the rise in tuition fees is supposed to replace the government funding for Universities that has been cut. I think the real issue is if it was sensible to cut that subsidy as sharply as it has been (ive been hearing 80%). I dont know if im right here, these are just things ive heard as ive gone along so i wont press with it too much lol. I do think some will be put off by the prospect of £30,000 debts even with low interest though.

 

Clegg is failing here because he is talking to students as if talking to uneducated children, simplifying this by pointing at Labours deficit. But he doesnt realise most students arent interested in that fact, and it greatly reduces the quality of debate over the issue. Ashdown does a brilliant job of breaking down the main points of the reform there, and opens the oppertuntity for a proper debate over the issue to take place.

 

Hmmmm that turned into a bit of an essay, sorry if its a bit weak I havent really followed this that well lol. Just happy I got out of Uni before this all kicked off.

 

 

Yeah that was my attempt to give my understanding of this lol. I finished Uni in May and have yet to find a full time job (still working the part time job I was in during Uni). But I dont really have a side in this argument. For me the thought of someone having triple the debts I have now is quite difficult to get my head around, and would certainly have made me think twice about going to Uni. But I can see what part of the jigsaw this reform is suppose to be fitting into. So overall its a difficult decision for the Government/Commons to make. I would never think of pulling out of Afganistan never ever ever! Also unless we could find a decent cheaper alternative to Trident I wouldnt consider scrapping it as a nuclear deterrent is pretty much one of the corner stones of national defences (history has proven this the only reason the Cold War stayed cold was due to the presence of said deterrent in the USA, USSR and accross Europe.). But I can fully understand the frustration of students everywhere, and can fully understand why they are protesting.

[Hatch]

according to a truely repulsive woman on GMTV, todays protests in London are going to be peaceful and any violence and disorder will be the fault of the police.

So when you see Londons monuments covered in graffiti and buildings on fire with windows smashed, remember it was the Police that did it.

[Thedelldays]

according to a truely repulsive woman on GMTV, todays protests in London are going to be peaceful and any violence and disorder will be the fault of the police.

So when you see Londons monuments covered in graffiti and buildings on fire with windows smashed, remember it was the Police that did it.

 

There we have it.. As predicted in an earlier post of mine

[Thedelldays]

Was listening to the radio last night and the Ian Collins show were debating this issue...

 

The supporters of the protests kept going on how the country is behind them and how clegg has let everyone down..

 

Sorry, but what planet are these people on???

 

What they are protesting for is very much against the elected mandate.. In that the labour party would have done the same.. The lindens have to concede on this seeing as their views in tuition fees are very much in the minority...

 

Personally I feel sorry or the wannabe nurses, doctors, scientists, engineers etc..

But what I detest, is the thought of funding someone doing the likes of media studies or those who want to go to uni for lifestyle reasons...

 

Why is it society seems to be judged on hoe many people go to uni??

[trousers]

For me there are 2 separate issues.

 

1) How much is it fair for somebody to pay?

2) What is the fairest mechanism for them to do so?

 

1) £9k does seem very high to me (speaking as somebody who didn't pay anything), however its important to be aware that although this is the headline figure which everybody has assumed will be paid by all it is actually a cap. I would say it should be lower.

 

2) The proposed system seems by FAR the fairest way to pay whatever amount you come out with in question 1.

Pay nothing up front, fair enough.

Only start paying even a small amount if you are earning over 21k, fair enough.

If you haven't repaid the full amount after 30 years (as I suspect that many nurses etc won't have done), write off the balance, fair enough.

Many people, even if the nominal fees they have to pay are £9k a year will actually end up paying nowhere near this amount.

 

 

In an ideal world uni would be free.

Unfortunately it isn't and currently fees are required.

The mechanism for paying is progressive and IS fair and is far better than the current mechanism.

The nominal maximum fees are higher than I would want to go, however many will not pay the nominal amount.

 

 

Tony's plan to get 50% of people to go to uni was always stupid.

 

I'm not sure the Saintsweb forum is the best place for so much common sense in one post to be honest

[trousers]

FWIW I think that students studying on 'essential to the country' courses (e.g. Medicine) should qualify for a partial exemption.

 

I'm broadly in favour of the scheme the coalition is proposing (and praise Clegg and Co for making their decisions based on 'being in government' rather than taking the much easier path of standing by 'promises' that they could only be expected to keep if they were still a small opposition party spouting what they liked from the sidelines) but feel it could be refined in some aspects.

[Puddings and Monkeys]

The tax payer will be the first to moan when they have a heart attack and there aren't enough trained professionals to help them.

 

If we wish to compete with the likes of China and India in the future we need to encourage as many people as possible to go to university and take degrees in areas such as science and computing. If we fail to do this, we will fall behind in the modern world. An educated public will benefit everyone and investment will be returned in the form of a highly skilled work force. The £9,000 a year price tag will put many off, not just from poorer families, but also from middle income families who cannot qualify for extra help and cannot afford to not worry about fees at all. Students will be coming out of university, with as pre-election Nick Clegg stated a 'dead weight' of debt which many will have little prospect of ever paying off. This isn't a fairer system.

 

If we are to compete with these countries then only the brightest and best should go to University and it should be heavily state funded. This all went tts up when the crazy Labour coots decided everyone should have "the right" to go to Uni and set a target of 50%. When I recruit people I shuuder at some of the candidates who have been to Uni, most with degrees irrelevant to the work place. If that's "our best" we're stuffed aleady.

[CB Saint]

Presumably you will happily volunteer to pay back for the full cost of the univeristy education that you received - after all why should we pay for you to advance yourself?

 

The solution is simple. Increase top rate taxation by a couple of percentage points so that anyone who does benefit financially from unversity does pay extra. At the same time reduce the numbers of unversity places for Arts degrees, give financial incentives to universities to enrol disadvantaged youngsters and make vocational training more attractive,

 

This seems to be the answer to every propsed cut. Health care, police, uni fees - a couple points here and there and we will be paying 80% tax again. Don't forget that in april NI is going up. How many more income tax hikes can the country stand before it starts to become counterproductive.

 

Whilst the fees seems high, I would be infavour of central subsidies for certain courses such as engineering to encourage more students into those areas. This can then be flexed annually to meet demand in certain sectors - need more doctors, then the fees are halved, when enough doctors are in the system, take away the subsidy.

[angelman]

I doubt many students actually know what the proposals are. To me they seem entirely just, but in it's typical manner, the Tories are introducing it in a dreadful manner.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11483638 gives some info about it.

 

Why should I, as a tax payer, pay for someone to undertake a course at a "university" such as David Beckham studies as offered by Staffordshire Uni? Maybe the raising of tuition fees will get rid of these ridiculous mickey mouse vocational degrees. People would be far better off getting a job/apprenticeships than having a 3 year p**s up.

[angelman]

And why do we all have to have degrees? This was written on a BBC website 10 years ago in response to Chris Woodhead saying that some unis were offering "quasi-academic degrees"

 

The abolition of the 11+, changing from O-Levels to GCSE's, labelling Polytechnics as Universities, reduction of standards in A-levels, and now the joke degree courses. "Everyone must win and all shall have prizes." In our Alice in Wonderland world everyone is equal and all shall have degrees.

Steve Dooley, England

[badgerx16]

Well, at least they are all learning one important lesson regardless of their degree course : A Politician's promise is worthless.

Edited 9 December, 2010 by badgerx16

[Special K]

If we are to compete with these countries then only the brightest and best should go to University and it should be heavily state funded. This all went tts up when the crazy Labour coots decided everyone should have "the right" to go to Uni and set a target of 50%. When I recruit people I shuuder at some of the candidates who have been to Uni, most with degrees irrelevant to the work place. If that's "our best" we're stuffed aleady.

 

This. The dilution of the HE system in this country is one of the most shocking examples of modern political interference, ineptitude and egomania. All this by a generation who had their education free and have decided to **** it all up for future generations. What is being proposed now is the best of a bad set of solutions. I can understand the ire of students, however the real villians of the piece are not Clegg and Cameron, but the previous Labour administration.

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I doubt many students actually know what the proposals are. To me they seem entirely just, but in it's typical manner, the Tories are introducing it in a dreadful manner.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11483638 gives some info about it.

 

Why should I, as a tax payer, pay for someone to undertake a course at a "university" such as David Beckham studies as offered by Staffordshire Uni? Maybe the raising of tuition fees will get rid of these ridiculous mickey mouse vocational degrees. People would be far better off getting a job/apprenticeships than having a 3 year p**s up.

 

I reckon this will be the end of universities such as Solent, Bedfordshire, De Montfort etc. Unless they offer 'cut price' degrees, people will opt for those universities who have better standings within academia or simply not bother because I can't see people willing to fork out thousands and thousands of pounds to study some mickey mouse degree at a mickey mouse uni.

Edited 9 December, 2010 by Thorpe-le-Saint

[Verbal]

This year is going to be particularly distressing. It's the last year it'll be possible to enter university under the old fees regime. Over 170,000 students failed to find a university place last year. Applications this year are WAY up. But a numbers cap is still firmly in place. So the number of students unable to find a place will inevitably soar. The difference this time is that reapplying next year will suddenly be financially ruinous.

[angelman]

I actually think that those who promote a University education, knowing full well that there will be far too many Mickey Mouse courses, are doing those students who take those courses a HUGE disservice. As an employer, I would rather give a job to someone who has worked from 18-21 (whatever the job) than to someone who has been at Uni and got a degree in Media Studies. I think that there are many employers who think the same as me (any on here who would disagree?). So these young kids have trotted off for 3 years, run up lots of debt while having a jolly for 3 years, and come out the other end with a piece of paper that is useless. How on earth has that benefited anyone?

[Verbal]

This. The dilution of the HE system in this country is one of the most shocking examples of modern political interference, ineptitude and egomania. All this by a generation who had their education free and have decided to **** it all up for future generations. What is being proposed now is the best of a bad set of solutions. I can understand the ire of students, however the real villians of the piece are not Clegg and Cameron, but the previous Labour administration.

 

?? The 'dilution' of the HE system - converting the old polytechnics into universities - was carried out almost entirely by the Tories under John Major. And blaming an older generation is a tired, tiresome and false cliche. Study British social history of the late 60s and 70s and you'll see why.

[Verbal]

I actually think that those who promote a University education, knowing full well that there will be far too many Mickey Mouse courses, are doing those students who take those courses a HUGE disservice. As an employer, I would rather give a job to someone who has worked from 18-21 (whatever the job) than to someone who has been at Uni and got a degree in Media Studies. I think that there are many employers who think the same as me (any on here who would disagree?). So these young kids have trotted off for 3 years, run up lots of debt while having a jolly for 3 years, and come out the other end with a piece of paper that is useless. How on earth has that benefited anyone?

 

I disagree. Actually I think almost everything you say is demonstrably wrong - not least because you want, implicitly to turn back the clock to the 1950s when Britain had a large working class, denied access to further and higher education, and a relatively tiny, rigidified middle class. Britain - and the industrialised west - is very different today. White-collar jobs predominate - and, led by trends set in the sixties in the US, these require the kinds of skills that good university graduates have. These skills are not by any means limited to the sciences and engineering - the highest earners, by degree type, are ex-arts and humanities students, not least because working as an ad copywriter, say, does not require a degree in physics.

[Special K]

?? The 'dilution' of the HE system - converting the old polytechnics into universities - was carried out almost entirely by the Tories under John Major. And blaming an older generation is a tired, tiresome and false cliche. Study British social history of the late 60s and 70s and you'll see why.

 

So you assume that turning Polytechnics into universities was the only dilution of the HE system, but you are wrong. The real dilution occurred with the target setting of numbers of graduates that academic institutions responded the quickest way they could; by offering more and more courses of the lowest denomination. Maybe you need to brush up on a bit of modern political history.

 

And if it's not the fault of those baby boomers in government, unable to provide a cohesive education strategy for the next 50 years, who's fault is it? You may think it's a cliche, but you offer nothing to back up this tired and tiresome response.

[Lighthouse]

The tax payer will be the first to moan when they have a heart attack and there aren't enough trained professionals to help them.

 

If we wish to compete with the likes of China and India in the future we need to encourage as many people as possible to go to university and take degrees in areas such as science and computing. If we fail to do this, we will fall behind in the modern world. An educated public will benefit everyone and investment will be returned in the form of a highly skilled work force. The £9,000 a year price tag will put many off, not just from poorer families, but also from middle income families who cannot qualify for extra help and cannot afford to not worry about fees at all. Students will be coming out of university, with as pre-election Nick Clegg stated a 'dead weight' of debt which many will have little prospect of ever paying off. This isn't a fairer system.

 

What has class got to do with this? You pay the fees back when you are employed and earning over £21k. Then you pay an affordable percentage of your wage each year, regardless of whether you are the 4th Earl of Derbyshire or Wayne the Hairy from Paulsgrove. If you're a surgeon earning £60k a year, you can't really use the argument that you're from a poor upbringing.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I hope all of you in favour of the changes realise that it will have an absolutely neglible impact on the deficit in the short to medium term. It's been quoted several times that it will take the average student around 20 years to repay their loans. Meanwhile it won't come in until next year. This together with the fact that they won't start repaying until after their course has ended (say 3 years) means that the Government won't be breaking even for another 24 years! Furthermore the upfront £3k that is currently received will now be deferred into the loan. Not great from a cash flow perspective.

 

If you're in favour, fine. But don't justify it on the basis that it will do anything to address our immediate public finance problems.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

What has class got to do with this? You pay the fees back when you are employed and earning over £21k. Then you pay an affordable percentage of your wage each year, regardless of whether you are the 4th Earl of Derbyshire or Wayne the Hairy from Paulsgrove. If you're a surgeon earning £60k a year, you can't really use the argument that you're from a poor upbringing.

 

It's quite simple, people will be put off by the thought of a huge debt hanging over them. If you are from a family background of not having much money then it will be offputting to take on a huge debt when you're earnings post degree are uncertain. I don't consider a £21k salary to be a lot of money when you're having to repay a £30-40k debt on top of rent, council tax, travel costs etc. People from more wealthy background will have a much greater confidence of getting a very well paid job because they've seen their parents do it, and the grandparents do it etc. Plus many of them will be backed up by the bank of mum and dad to either wipe out the student debt or help them with a mortgage. If your parents have struggled on low wages for years it is a bit of a punt to expect that you'll become a high earning lawyer after univeristy.

[Lighthouse]

It's quite simple, people will be put off by the thought of a huge debt hanging over them. If you are from a family background of not having much money then it will be offputting to take on a huge debt when you're earnings post degree are uncertain. I don't consider a £21k salary to be a lot of money when you're having to repay a £30-40k debt on top of rent, council tax, travel costs etc. People from more wealthy background will have a much greater confidence of getting a very well paid job because they've seen their parents do it, and the grandparents do it etc. Plus many of them will be backed up by the bank of mum and dad to either wipe out the student debt or help them with a mortgage. If your parents have struggled on low wages for years it is a bit of a punt to expect that you'll become a high earning lawyer after univeristy.

 

So what you are basically saying is people from lower income families can't understand the concept of a decent salary and paying back the loan when they can afford it? Nonesense IMO. You're right £21k isn't that big a salary, but you're not paying back £30k a year from that. You're paying back a certain proportion relative to your earnings.

 

Let me put it this way. If I had just left college and got a place in medschool, and my parents didn't have a bean between the pair of them, I'd still go for it under the proposed scheme.

[badgerx16]

If your parents have struggled on low wages for years it is a bit of a punt to expect that you'll become a high earning lawyer after univeristy.

This is probably the biggest load of b0ll0x ever posted on this forum, and that's taking Dune & St George into account.

[holepuncture]

It's quite simple, people will be put off by the thought of a huge debt hanging over them. If you are from a family background of not having much money then it will be offputting to take on a huge debt when you're earnings post degree are uncertain. I don't consider a £21k salary to be a lot of money when you're having to repay a £30-40k debt on top of rent, council tax, travel costs etc. People from more wealthy background will have a much greater confidence of getting a very well paid job because they've seen their parents do it, and the grandparents do it etc. Plus many of them will be backed up by the bank of mum and dad to either wipe out the student debt or help them with a mortgage. If your parents have struggled on low wages for years it is a bit of a punt to expect that you'll become a high earning lawyer after univeristy.

 

Absolutely. One thing I havent found out is if this £21k salary will rise with inflation? For example, £21k in 2022 could well be the equivalent of todays £15k. This would mean graduates are paying back loans whilst not earning a great amount at all.

 

A £21k salary in todays money, at least in the south east, will get chewed up by all the overheads such as rent and council tax as you have mentioned, a 30-40k debt on top of that would be seriously depressing... a mortgage... forget it! If you have that kind of debt on your shoulders, you aint got no chance! A few of my friends are experiencing this with 15-20k debts round there necks, from debt accrued before the tuition fees came in! a mate who works in a building society reckons you need a £40k deposit if you want to buy a house for £150-200k.

 

its not painting a bright picture. I was a year before the hike to £3k a year tuition, so lucky!

 

I think the only way forward for young aspiring people are to go through commercial degrees, a BA in Tesco retail management, Bsc in Llyods Fincance etc... a commercial appentice as such, where you earn less, to contribute towards your education and training, but you dont finish with a lifetime of debt!

 

we currently pump out 0.5m graduates a year (in whatever discipline), Chinas pumping out 32m (60x us)...

[angelman]

I disagree. Actually I think almost everything you say is demonstrably wrong - not least because you want, implicitly to turn back the clock to the 1950s when Britain had a large working class, denied access to further and higher education, and a relatively tiny, rigidified middle class. Britain - and the industrialised west - is very different today. White-collar jobs predominate - and, led by trends set in the sixties in the US, these require the kinds of skills that good university graduates have. These skills are not by any means limited to the sciences and engineering - the highest earners, by degree type, are ex-arts and humanities students, not least because working as an ad copywriter, say, does not require a degree in physics.

 

You seem to have gone off on one. Maybe you can point out where I said I wanted to turn back the clock?

 

Nowhere did I intimate denying access to a further education. What I said was that there was absolutely no point what so ever getting some useless degree in some useless "subject" just for the sake of having a degree (and a large student loan to pay off). For what it's worth, I don't have a university degree. Of my friends, the one who earns by far and away the most, didn't have any higher education.

[Verbal]

So you assume that turning Polytechnics into universities was the only dilution of the HE system, but you are wrong. The real dilution occurred with the target setting of numbers of graduates that academic institutions responded the quickest way they could; by offering more and more courses of the lowest denomination. Maybe you need to brush up on a bit of modern political history.

 

And if it's not the fault of those baby boomers in government, unable to provide a cohesive education strategy for the next 50 years, who's fault is it? You may think it's a cliche, but you offer nothing to back up this tired and tiresome response.

 

Parading your prejudices as facts doesn't make them any more true. What evidence do you have that 'academic institutions' offered courses of the lowest denomination?

 

And it's not baby boomers who are making government policy - Clegg, Cameron et al are MUCH younger than that.

[badgerx16]

Absolutely. One thing I havent found out is if this £21k salary will rise with inflation? For example, £21k in 2022 could well be the equivalent of todays £15k. This would mean graduates are paying back loans whilst not earning a great amount at all.

 

.

Isn't that one of the 'concessions' the LibDems say they have 'won' - the original proposal would have uprated the threshold every 5 years, but now it is every year.

[JackanorySFC]

Absolutely. One thing I havent found out is if this £21k salary will rise with inflation? For example, £21k in 2022 could well be the equivalent of todays £15k. This would mean graduates are paying back loans whilst not earning a great amount at all.

 

A £21k salary in todays money, at least in the south east, will get chewed up by all the overheads such as rent and council tax as you have mentioned, a 30-40k debt on top of that would be seriously depressing... a mortgage... forget it! If you have that kind of debt on your shoulders, you aint got no chance! A few of my friends are experiencing this with 15-20k debts round there necks, from debt accrued before the tuition fees came in! a mate who works in a building society reckons you need a £40k deposit if you want to buy a house for £150-200k.

 

its not painting a bright picture. I was a year before the hike to £3k a year tuition, so lucky!

 

I think the only way forward for young aspiring people are to go through commercial degrees, a BA in Tesco retail management, Bsc in Llyods Fincance etc... a commercial appentice as such, where you earn less, to contribute towards your education and training, but you dont finish with a lifetime of debt!

 

we currently pump out 0.5m graduates a year (in whatever discipline), Chinas pumping out 32m (60x us)...[/QUOTE]

 

I really don't get your point? China's population is circa 200x ours (1.34b vs 68m). Do you think we can compete with them on numbers? If you do and are University educated them I think you've put this arguement to bed.

 

Also, mortgages do not take Student debt into consideration at all, so completely forget that part of your arguement as well.

 

And yes, the point at which you pay this back does go up with inflation.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

This is probably the biggest load of b0ll0x ever posted on this forum, and that's taking Dune & St George into account.

 

I hope you're only saying that because I've not been clear. I don't mean that people from poor background are unlikely to be able to become successful. What I mean is that young people from poor backgrounds might have less confidence that they will become wealthy post-university than someone who comes from a background of high earning family.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

So what you are basically saying is people from lower income families can't understand the concept of a decent salary and paying back the loan when they can afford it? Nonesense IMO. You're right £21k isn't that big a salary, but you're not paying back £30k a year from that. You're paying back a certain proportion relative to your earnings.

 

Let me put it this way. If I had just left college and got a place in medschool, and my parents didn't have a bean between the pair of them, I'd still go for it under the proposed scheme.

 

Many of the media reports which have spoken to school age kids in "disadvantaged" areas have confimed that many are put off going to university by the talk of tuition fees and post-uni loans. I make no comment as to whether they are right or not to think that or not, regardless it is an unfortunate and damaging perception.

[angelman]

I really don't get your point? China's population is circa 200x ours (1.34b vs 68m). Do you think we can compete with them on numbers? If you do and are University educated them I think you've put this arguement to bed.

 

TIme for you to go back to school sir. Try 20x not 200x

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

Also, mortgages do not take Student debt into consideration at all, so completely forget that part of your arguement as well.

 

Lenders want to know your salary and also all of your outgoings for which you are committed e.g. credit card/personal financing. Someone on £25k with no student loans to repay is a more attractive customer than someone on £25k with student loans being deducted from their pay packet, no?

[JackFrost]

Personally I'm for it as hopefully it'll discourage the culture of the students going to uni to get boozed up and study "golf course design" or "surfing studies".

 

The cost is high yes, but hopefully it'll only encourage the students who are serious about studying hard to go. From what I've read it will have little or no impact on students from a poorer background

[JackanorySFC]

TIme for you to go back to school sir. Try 20x not 200x

 

Touche....

[CB Saint]

[quote=holepuncture;909219A £21k salary in todays money, at least in the south east, will get chewed up by all the overheads such as rent and council tax as you have mentioned, a 30-40k debt on top of that would be seriously depressing... a mortgage... forget it! If you have that kind of debt on your shoulders, you aint got no chance! A few of my friends are experiencing this with 15-20k debts round there necks, from debt accrued before the tuition fees came in! a mate who works in a building society reckons you need a £40k deposit if you want to buy a house for £150-200k.

 

its not painting a bright picture. I was a year before the hike to £3k a year tuition, so lucky!

 

I think the only way forward for young aspiring people are to go through commercial degrees, a BA in Tesco retail management, Bsc in Llyods Fincance etc... a commercial appentice as such, where you earn less, to contribute towards your education and training, but you dont finish with a lifetime of debt!(60x us)...

 

At £21k pa a gradutate will pay nothing.

At £22k pa a grad will repay £90pa

At £30k pa a grad will repay £810pa

At £50k pa a grad will repay £2610 pa

At £150k pa a grad will repay £11,610 pa

 

And if you haven't managed to repay it in 30 years its written off

 

On the face of it, it doesn't sound too bad. You won't repay a huge sum until you reach a decent salary. BTW I believe that under the new proposals, the monthly repayments actually fall for low earning grads. The current salary threshhold is £15k pa.