to think that it's a really bad thing in the long term if so many young people become inured to debt?

[onimolap]

With the highest proportion ever of young people going to university, and today's announcement on higher tuition fees and higher loan interest repayments for all but the very poorest graduate; what is this situation doing to society's current and likely future attitude to debt?

Is the aim to produce a debt-ridden generation? Or to reduce the numbers going to university?

At what point does the "coping class" run out of ability to cope?

I think the unspoken assumption is that not everyone should/can go to Uni, especially when getting a degree by no means guarantees getting a job these days.

We're ringfencing enough to pay all of DS's fees (he's planning on medicine, so not cheap!) so that he doesn't start off with massive debt.

If we weren't reasonably comfortable then we'd have to think seriously about whether to encourage him to go to University or to find a job after A levels and work his way up (as I did).

It's a tough one, I think. On the one hand everyone should at least have the opportunity to go to University based on intelligence not finances. On the other hand, though, why should only some young people get the benefit of funding which will hopefully let them gain a useful qualification leading to (in better times) more highly paid employment? Why shouldn't all young people get the same amount of support/money from the state? The reality, also, I suspect is that the majority of students still come from reasonably middle class backgrounds and above so, again, one could argue that those who really need the financial support aren't actually getting it (I have no evidence of this, btw, so please correct me if I am wrong).

To be blunt, I had no chance of going to University as when I was young (way back in the dark ages) we still had the grant system and my parents weren't willing to contribute anything and I wouldn't have been eligible for a full grant (no-one in my family had been to University then and I didn't know you could say your parents had kicked you out and get full grant, etc). If student loans had been available I'd have grabbed it with both hands and been off like a shot.

I suppose it's harsh economic reality now - either your parents pay or you do. It's not "fair" but, again, this comes back to the state of the country's finances and I'm sorry but this is not an area with which I have much sympathy. I'd rather they invested the money in local schools to be honest but we all know that won't ever happen.

Everyone wishing to study for a degree should get the same level of finacial support from the state IMO. My parents are "middle-class" professionals so I didn't qualify for any kind of help, but they didn't give me any financial support during my 4 year stint at uni. Consequently I ended up with a huge amount of debt and am still financially unstable 8 years after graduating because of it.

If tuition fees carry on rising at the rate they currently are, then I worry that we won't be able to afford for my DDs to go. Even though they are only 2.7 and 8 months I worry that we should have already started saving for their education........which we absolutely cannot afford to do until I cease being a sahm and start contributing to the family finances again.

It seems a university education is once again going to become a privilege for the rich rather than a right for those who have earned it through academic achievement.

Without bringing class in to it - there are, and always have been bursaries and grants available to genuinely talented students. I imagine there will be an increase in these along the lines of the way the US system operates.

We could always stop pretending that a degree in beauty therapy and dramatic expression from bumfuck poly carries the same gravitas as Maths from Oxbridge.

As for long-term debt, it's frightening. No mortgage, no family... just the millstone of debt. :(

Well, they've just been top university, to presumably they're not stupid young people, and can tell the difference between a student loan and the kind of loan where baliffs come knocking.

YANBU. I think the idea of everyone going to uni is silly and harmful.

But IMHO it's not just the uni debt that's the problem, it's the fact that debt has no stigma anymore - people see it as normal to buy stuff on tick etc. The whole materialist, I want it NOW culture.

I'll stop now before I really start ranting

I am impressed by Alvin Hall's take on this, which is that people should pay for their own university education as an investment in themselves, and parents should not impoverish themselves in their old age to pay for them. He of course comes from the US so finds the idea of the state paying completely baffling. I'm of an age to remember grants, so am still struggling with this idea emotionally, but can see it from the other side as well, especially with the deficit being what it is.

I'm inclined to agree with Alvin in that case. It's true that it's an investment in your future, and that therefore by doing a degree in beauty from bumfuckery poly (love that,btw Alpine Pony), you have to be prepared to fund it yourself. If you really think that it's going to increase your chances of earning a good salary, then go for it. If not, don't.

I think that a lot of degrees are not worth the paper they are written on.

What is the point in 100,000 brits being able to speak French, Italian and Spanish if they aren't planning on doing any job related to this?
The amount of graduates far exceeds the jobs in existence.

As a result, you can now graduate for university and go work in a callcentre! Lucky you!

Whereas if you work your way up from leaving school you are at least management by this point.

Obviously some degrees are needed and should be funded- we are desperately in need of more nurses! Can we not fund medical courses and turn our backs on the frivolous ones like 'Photography'?

Nonsense.

mumblechum - sadly there are degree courses in what I mentioned - although I did not give the name of the awarding college. :( It's a crying shame that the girls (I assume) taking these courses really believe that 3 year's worth of debt is needed to become a good beauty therapist. And it's a bloody enormous great con that they're told they are and that there are even degree courses which cater for this! The 20k plus worth of student debt would I'm sure go an awfully long way to setting up their own beauty salon.

bethjeff - I've run across plenty of university educated linguists who won't leave their home town but wish to apply their languages. :( I've lived in mainland EU for over 10 years and there are plenty of jobs here for tringual people!

I think there is some real upside down thinking here.

on the radio today they said that they might raise the income level at which graduate have to pay back loans.

So Low-paid graduates get their degree for free, high paid graduates repay fees and interest.

So the taxpayer is subsidising useless degrees, but not useful ones?

The expansion of higher education has made fees inevitable. More people go to Uni than need to and the state cant pay for them all.

Maybe certain degrees should be free- teaching, nursing, medicine for example, providing you take up a job in the state sector for a minimum period after graduating, but I dont see any need to pay tax for someone to study some "studies" course with an entry requirement of 2 D's at A-level so that they can work on the bins thereafter.

Fees may at least focus the mind on whether a degree is worth doing.

Stubborn hubby- agree wholeheartedly, subject to some "socially useful" degrees which may not lead to lucrative careers, as per my post.

I graduated with a lot of debt (for various reasons) which I am paying off, only I took the view that my education was an investment, so totally worth it.

I think that the government should get over this idea that everyone should have a degree. It's bollocks - it devalues degrees themselves, and to be honest, not everyone is academic. Instead, they should encourage the growth of traineeships and apprenticeships as viable alternatives. For e.g., instead of the degree in beauty from bumfuckery poly, a much better way to learn (and be able to earn at the same time) is through traineeships. Why aren't there more of these?

My DB (despite being related to uber geeky me) is not academic at all. Stick him in a room full of books and he'll die of boredom. But, in the country we grew up in they had "technical" high schools, so he studied to be an electrician and finished high school at 18 with a recognised qualification. A friend of his who did the same course (and who is dyslexic), then went on to do an electrical engineerign degree. But there's not much of this sort of thing available in the UK. And there's also the whole social stigma attached to it

I'm interested to see what the Lib dems do. After all, they promised to vote against tuition fee raises, not to abstain from the vote. It will be interesting to see how many of them are liars.

I'm currently in university (a "useful" degree which had AAA entry when I got in) and quite frankly I will be at least 20 grand in debt by the time I leave. Its terrifying. The degree I'm on (being careful not to out myself here!) will help with future earnings, but I can honestly say that I would not have gone if the fees had been any higher, despite university being a dream for me since primary school.

If they raise the fees more you are going to lose out on a hell of a lot of talented people. It is quite possible that your own kids could be in university (or working) before you had finished paying off your own debt! The grants available currently for people in general wouldn't even cover accommodation costs for the year let alone food and books.
Working your way up is all well and good, but the simple fact is that some jobs (for good reason) are graduate entry only and if these are the ones you are aiming for you are screwed basically. Either give up on what you want to do or spend a large percentage of your life in debt. Not a great choice.

It's not really a matter of saying only people of x IQ can go, but that only degrees which are going to lead to jobs will be subsidised by the state.

Why should my hard earned taxes subsidise courses like Anglo Saxon ceramics? I have no problem subsidising nursing/teaching/other useful courses.

I think it's stupid and cruel to try and reduce numbers of people going to university by making it expensive. The people who should go are the people who'll get the most out of it, not the ones who go and mark time for three years. So many degree courses out there are worthless, and some students don't even realize this, while they're building up big debts.

Btw, Trillian, I don't know that being academically bright means being savvy enough to know the difference between a student loan and other kind of debt. I've certainly met loads of students who just get a shiny new credit card and go mad - they certainly don't understand (or think about?) the difference. Children should be taught about finance at school, in detail, so they can understand what they're going into.

As an Aussie I find it hard to imagine "free" university education. It's just standard in Australia to pay fees and work while at university.

I think the positive of having to pay fees is that it will stop so many people going to a poor uni to do a weak course, then finding they don't have a chance of getting them a decent job but have £30k+ of debt. The UK doesn't need 50% of people going to uni.

Another positive is that it will make UK students look a foreign unis. Why not MIT, Harvard, Stanford, Princeton etc in the US?

I would much prefer higher fees than a graduate tax which is just a form of double taxation.

Riven, 50% of people do not have above average intelligence! Think about it!

mumble, who do you think works in museums and on archaeological sites? The same places that bring in tourists and support jobs (a museum will have a cafe with workers there, cleaners, people on the door, etc.).

Bit short-sighted, maybe?

(Crikey I'm chippy this morning. )

fair point, but I know several unemployed archaology graduates and no unemployed nurses.

I think they need to be very careful about what they are doing to the finances of future generations.

Yes people need to pay their way through University but if only the poorest get help, and the rest have to pay it back at market rates, what incentive is there to become a teacher, social worker, nurse (who all need degrees these days) when the pay is never going to be big enough to justify the investment. Everyone will want to flock to banking, management consultancy etc.

Also, how is anybody ever going to be able to buy a house, which is already 5 times their earnings, let alone start a family, care for their elderly parents, save for a pension, save for their children's education.

The Government can't (but they will) keep forcing the moderately well off to take hits in every direction. They might (just) protect the poorest and the richest won't care but the fuckers in the middle are screwed.

There's a website called 'notgoingtouni', which gives information about what apprenticeship, etc there are.

I would be interested to hear what anyone thinks about it.

True, mumble. Mind you, some people started courses when the economy was better and won't have expected that vaguely 'cultural' areas of work would get cut. But I take your point: we only need a few people working in some areas, yet there are masses of courses offering the same thing! That doesn't seem fair on the students, to be honest.