Really shocked at myself for thinking this (tuition fees)

huddspur - why not? You can't demand that everyone stays in the same job their whole lives. It is good for society if we have mature entrants to degree-only professions, who bring wider life experience.

Society and the economy needs a well-educated workforce. This policy is really about cutting state funding for university tuition by 80 per cent. That's not sharing the costs fairly between the graduate and the state.

Riven- To be fair I don't think you can expect to have 2 degrees subsidised by the Government

Funny enough I knew someone (on a Master's course) in the mid 1990s who was suing his Uni for bad teaching and refund of his fees, I wonder how that turned out.

In plans just passed by Parliament, I was under the impression that the debt can't be paid off that quickly -- it can be paid off quicker if you earn a lot, but in that case you also have to pay off a larger amount.

Whereas someone earning much less will clear the loan more slowly, but in the end they'll pay a lot less back.

So saying it's unfair that a banker can pay it back quicker is a bit incomplete, because the banker has to pay more back anyway (than the "poor" teacher).

Do I need to be corrected on that?

Also, unlike the old loan system, this accrues interest at commercial rates. So there's no advantage to getting a loan and sticking it in a higher interest bearing account until it comes due (DH did this, I know loads of students who did, always seemed a bit unfair to let students use tax paper money like that).

Seems to me like there are several very sensible aspects to the new system.

I agree with you the benefits of going to university are obvious and going to university has transformed my life for the better but if I think back 6 years the propspect of such debt would have troubled me, although I would still probably have gone.

As someone from a poor background I find it quite patronising to be told that I could not have worked out for myself that going to university would substantially increase my earning power and transform my life - and therefore it was an experience worth going into debt for.

I'm only 24 and so did take a loan and came out of university with a debt of around 20k which I'm paying off. If it had been higher I may have been deterred though

I come from a low income family and as a teacher started out on under £20K. The debt would not have put me off and I would happily have signed up for it.

I think the threat of debt is much greater when you are on a lower income. Figures such as 40-50k seem astronomical, if I'd had to make the choice whether to go to university and take on that debt.

Edam - of course you have to be careful with averages. Going on the article I posted - An Oxbridge Economics grad has enormous earning potential - whilst, say a History of Art grad from a bottom rung university, has little.

But - this is an argument for variable fees - no? It's certainly an argument for improved careers guidance.

I am a teacher, admittedly a senior one and don't think a 40K debt over my working life is offputting. I would have felt the same as a standard classroom teacher as well.

(any other NOT so well paid job, I mean.)

Yes but averages are misleading. You have to pay back student loans whether you end up working for a magic circle firm in the City or as a nurse or a social worker or secretary or in any other well paid job. What matters to the individual isn't the mean, median or mode but the impact on that person. £40k debt (taking into account living expenses) is a mere bagatelle to a corporate lawyer, it's seriously worrying for a nurse.

The second article is 2009 - so right in the middle of recession.

The first article is interesting because it shows how students reacted to the last big shake up in HE.

And this quote is still relevant:

"All the predictions about future labour market demands indicate that while the number of unskilled jobs will shrink in future, the number of graduate-level jobs will grow.......Future graduates may face a less rosy future than those who left university 20 or 30 years ago, but they still have better prospects than their peers who go straight into work from school."

remium = premium

All your articles are out of date, jackstar - as I said, I would expect the rise in unemployed graduates due to recession, fall in graduate pay levels and in particular factoring the cost of the fees themselves once introduced should ensure the remium is zero.

Which is sad, as I think there should be financial incentives so that we have abetter educated country - better for all of us.

We seem to be heading back to the 19th C fast.

Another interesting article on the value of a degree

I think the 'premium' depends on many things.

If you compare someone who could have gone to university (but didn't) with a graduate you get the lower average quoted £100kish (depending on the degree and where the graduate studied).

The £400k figure was comparing average grads with an average for all non grads. For my point about housing costs - I think this was a valid number.

This 2007 BBC article is interesting reading. It contains the source of the £400k premium figure (the last government) and the impact on various courses of the intro of top up fees.

Matsikula, thanks for replying. I think that logically that is what we (the ones who had the full expensive university experience), should be the ones putting our hands in our pockets. Not to stop tuition fees being charged, because nothing will sto that, but to prop up the infrastructure.

Expat otherwise puts it well. The boat has sailed. We are going to work til we drop and pay for a lot more stuff in order that those that really can't pay don't miss out. This is the year when the biggest cohort of post war baby boomers draw their pensions. That is, and will continue to be the biggest cost.

Btw, the quote about earning "x00k over a lifetime more than" has not actually been proven - it was just plucked out of someone's arse but it's a fantastic "soundbyte" so people have run with it for over a decade without actually doing the sums.

With the current status quo people are generally not earning x00k a lifetime more than their non-university educated peers. Not unless call centres/barristas run a two-tier payment system - minimum wage for non-grads, minimum wage + 10p for grads.

As for the person why said "why don't all the grads give their old universities some money back for the new students" - well, do the words ponzi pyramid scheme mean anything to you? :( As so many others have said, it was a very different kettle of fish when only the very brightest/most academic went - now 9/10 cats apply.

As someone who is now rapidly approaching middle-age (if not there already!) - I would happily pay these fees as a returning student because I now understand the value of education.

I fear for our youth though because we've sold them short on almost every level and I pray my son wants to fit double-glazing or be a hairdresser!

Fortheverylast time. I can't promise to pay back the full cost of my university education (it was very expensive) but I am definitely going to start making regular donations to the university as a response to the funding changes.

I think the one of the problems with the reforms is that they are happening too fast. We are moving to a US-style model, without the cushion of hefty alumni donations that enable universities to offer plenty of scholarships.

Perhaps Mssrs Cameron and Clegg should lead by example on this. They can certainly afford to.

jackstarlightstarbright - "the 65% of school leavers who don't get to be university graduates. .... will, on average, be earning £300k less than a graduate over their working lives."

Do you have a source for this?

I'm pretty sure that the most recent statistics I saw (about a year ago) said 100K not 300K - and given the levels of graduate unemployment over the last year, I'd be surprised if even that applied.

Plus you're talking averages - even if the average gain is 100K over a working lifetime, by definition there will be those under the average.

Many graduates go into low-earning but graduate-only professions, which are very socially useful - do we really wish to put people off becoming teachers, social workers, or return to a situation where the only people who'll work with young children are unqualified 16 year-olds? - because we fundamentally devalue all traditionally female, caring roles?

The reality is not all graduates are guaranteed to earn a lot - and to many graduates, having a 'good' job means having a job where you do good for society, not one whre you earn lots of dosh.

I don't have a problem with fees persay but these need to be realistic and linked to earnings as %, a nurse used to train on the ward attending day release and was paid, be it a fairly low wage, from the beginning. she/he then increased salary with exoerience/service. Now a nurse will be expected to have a massive debt and put up with crap pay and conditions to boot! This will deter young people from entering professions such as teaching, nursing, social work etc. Who will do these jobs!? A massive mistake is about to be made and I for one will not be voting Tory or lib dem ever again
My children r currently 3-5 so what will fees be by the time they go 15k a yr! Outragous!