to want to teach the MNetters some basic economics about higher education funding

[witchwithallthetrimmings]

but don't know where to start. there is so much wrong thinking here not only about the economics (the costs and benefits and how they are shared) but also about the facts.

Normally when I see someone post something a little silly and then get flamed, I feel bad for them but OP you really asked for this one. I think we can all see what you're trying to do, but by God there were better ways of doing it!

Watching with interest...

pumpkin, my student loan is gaining interest; I'm not earning enough to pay it off yet.

ornamentalcabbage: but debt is very scary to those of us who come from backgrounds where money is very tight and the future is insecure. There's no guarantee that going to university will translate into high earnings, but you'd still have a big pile of debt (which does accrue interest at the level of inflation).

PumpkinBrain:

What people will try to tell you is "There's no 'real' interest cost because the most you'll pay is the rate of inflation - the rate which prices are rising."

It conveniently forgets the fact that a large proportion of the population get no pay rises or below inflation pay rises.

or the different between tuition fees and tuition fee loans perhaps Abs

She said tuition fees. (I'm assuming it's a she). I will be pedantic and a stickler on this one no change there

Well until the Browne report into higher education funding is published tomorrow, everything is speculation.

Rather crap that whatever happens, it comes into effect for the 2012 entry when ds1 is due to go.

I came from a poor household, single parent council flat, type background, and of course the student loan debt was scary. Looking back I'd say it was excellent value, and I would do a similar course again even now tuition fees are in place. I think the problem that it is hard to understand let alone quantify the non financial benefits of a degree, especially if you are the first of your family to study for one.

Another thing to remember is that when a lot of people are contemplating going to university, they're 16 or 17 years old.

Yes, I feel strongly that youngsters should have access to good advice when they are deciding what path to take.

Sagger.. Yes, interest on tuition fee loan payment,and maintenance loan payments' do start the day uni does.. My DS1's interest for these loans started at £2.50 a month in Sept '08, they had increased to £8.52 a month by August '09, Awaiting statement from Student Loan Company to see what they are now! GULP!

Interestingly,when he started his Foundation Degree the Tuition fees for those 2 years were the bog standard £3250 per year(covered by loan), he also received a £1250 bursary from the uni.per year. This year however, his final BA 'top up' year,There is no bursary (My household income has not changed) AND his Tuition fees have gone up by £1250, ABOVE the maximum amount given in a Tuition fee loan(to £4500),and required before the academic year started, in advance..Colleges, and universities can actually already charge what they want,in Tuition fees', it's just the vast majority tend to stick to the average amount,Which coincides with the Max. Loan available.

Changes have already started to creep in!..
God only knows how I'll pull it off by the time DS2 reaches school leaving age!!...

Read something the other day about University eductaion in past times. In I tink 1919 teh cost of going to Oxford and Cambridge was £12K per annum for fees. Provinical universities were cheaper.

I have read Lord Browne will propose a rise in fees to something like that old level.

There scholasrsips in the past which were intensely competitive to get though so poor children could still go to university. Children of rich people could always pay of course and we will never stop that. It the kids from poor backgrounds that bother me not the rich. We need to reward talent and we need to ensure social mobility.

I would like some sort of scholarship system so that price is not a barrier to entry but only for the top 25% of students as assessed by a rigorous standardised national exam.

That cost of £12k for annual fees in 1919 is expressed in todays money of course adjusting for inflation.

Yep i agree BeenBeta!

I do wonder how they will justify a huge hike in fees for an average of 15 hours contact time. Today's students are paying in spades for past underinvestment.

My careers advice was "just do something you enjoy"

Pretty useless, but then it was given at a time when tuition fees had yet to be introduced. Pity they were already in place by the time I got to university just over a year later. But I actually think it's very hard to give good advice when the goalposts keep moving.

I was choosing university courses in 1997, which in turn were based on A-level choices I'd made the previous year. The act introducing tuition fees wasn't enacted into parliament until 1998. I don't think at that time there was all the information available to make an informed decision. Pre-1998 and Post-1998 loans work in quite different ways, I don't remember this being made clear as a 17 year old.

At least current student loans get wiped out after 25 years. I suspect there's a fair few people who went to uni from 1998 - 2005 who'll be paying them off until they're 65.

They will not need to justify it. The universities will increase fees in order to stand still. HEFCE is going to cut their funding to universities, the universities will still need to teach etc, therefore they will need the funding, the only other place to get it is from the students. The students will pay the money that used to come from government. Universities therefore become in effect tax collectors from the students. Simple. But very very wrong.

I should also say that there needs to be much more rigorous assessment of university teaching quality and University lecturers paid a proper wage to teach in sensibly sized classes.

The current rising issue is that students are increasngly taught by PhD students and the Professors go off and and do consultancy work, write books etc to earn a decent living. The class sizes have increased drmatically every year as well in our local university.

I recenlty volunteered to teach in a local university as a part timer and I will get paid £35 an hour to teach up to 100 students. I am only doing it for a bit of a change as I have done it before but even so, neither the students or lecturers are participating in a quality learning experience with that many students in a class.

I just read this comment in a bbc article on the subject

"I suggest that those who are voting for this [higher tuition fees] should be asked to retrospectively pay for their university degrees before they're allowed to vote in favour"

tyler80 - i worked out that if i earnt the minimum amount of which the loan was due to be paid back and paid back the £100/month that they would then claim, that i would never actaully finish paying off the loan. £600/year off the debt, £600 for the intereset. Its a nightmare really.

I for one will be encouraging dc to only go to university if it is essential to dc's career choice and will be seriously encouraging dc to investigate all other options (including OU).

tyler80 - exactly. There is a lot of that going on at the moment.

The baby boomer generation forget how generous student grants were in the 1960s. They also forget how they got child benefit and university fees paid for their own children. They also got mortgage interest tax relief, and generous fully funded civil service and company pensions (with a few exceptions where schemes went but) but they all gleefully agree on cuts that hit the generations below them now.

quite, tyler. Hypocrites, the lot of them.

And good points from posters about what students are paying for - universities have become businesses but I don't get the impression they treat students as customers. Not in the Waitrose sense, anyway, possibly in the rip-off utility company sense. A few hours a week contact time x term times does not = £3k let alone more.

i think that hours is dependant on the degree. I remember the arts vs science split at uni and i remember cutting one particularly arsey arts student to size when she complained about her reading list was so much bigger then ours. Ha bloody ha. 20hrs/wk contact and a reading list that was longer then hers.

No Matter what the subject area though class sizzes are too big.

a) that student debt is bad
Student debt is bad. In the sense that any debt is bad. To test whether something is "bad", ask yourself if the opposite is "good". People not having debts is good. Obviously, student debt, in an ideal world, can be cleared in a few years by having a well-paid job. Not all jobs, even graduate ones, are well-paid. And even in this day and age, many students are not primarily driven by the idea of making money.

b) that most people are worse off than they would be had they not gone to uni
Some may be, some many not. It depends what you mean by "worse off", and whether, again, someone's aim was to get quickly into a job where they could earn a lot of money.

c) that tuition fees have to be paid before graduation
Please clarify who you have heard saying this and why you agree or disagree.