to set the record straight on tuition fees

[happiestblonde]

Okay, following another week of violent protests by students who probably haven't actually read the coalition's plans for tuition fees I think someone needs to put facts out there.

1. NO ONE PAYS UP FRONT. Not students, not parents, regardless of family wealth. So no students ever pay, only graduates on decent incomes.
2. With the current system graduates start repaying tuition fees once they earn £15k. This is not much money.
3. The coalitions proposals mean graduates (not students, not their families - so being from a 'poor' background shouldn't matter) once they earn over £21k. Even then they only pay back 9% of income OVER 21k.
4. With the new system all students actually pay £45 less per month because of the rise from 15k to 21k.
5. Most students now take out loans for tuition fees. Their parents do not pay. My father didn't pay for mine despite being able to quite easily because it is my own debt. Therefore the argument that it harms poorer students does not stand - the new proposals entirely remove the burden for payment to GRADUATES earning over £21k per year (and even then they will pay very little per month).
6. If you lose your job or quit work you stop paying.
7. There will be a lot more money put in for poorer students and a rise in maintenance grants, just in case poor students are disincentivised because they don't understand the proposals
8. If students don't pay, who should? Is it not 'fair' that those who are earning more as a result of their degree should pay back the cost of it? Why should a single mother, pensioner, or another young person who hasn't had the chance to go to university foot the bill?

Sorry if patronising, I presume most mners know this but trots like Aaron Porter seem to be taking over the dialogue and I find it wildly irritating. The coalition proposals are more 'progressive' than the current system.

Oh and Labour brought in top up fees.

Growl.

Not to mention Modern Languages: there have been big losses there recently.

Happiestblonde - sensibly!!

Stop offering an unaffordable three year degree where you end up sitting around for half because the lecturers have sent you off to "self study"

Incentivise private industry to fund university - higher tax breaks, kudos, first dip at milk round

Open up access for evening classes, master classes and make the learning matter more than the paper at the end.

Since industry benefits from hiring a graduate - perhaps they should pay a toll as soon as they recruit one.

Research in universities is currently paid for via central government (at a chicken feed rate), remove this and charge the actual amount it costs to companies like Procter & Gamble.

Students should contribute but not be crippled - buy now pay later schemes ALWAYS cost you more

The first departments to go have been sciences etc, though they are some of the most important for future development and money making as a country.

The odd degree thing is a big red herring - usually the very very few students that do them do so via sponsorship from a company they work for. A hotel chain might sponsor (ie PAY all fees etc) it's promising staff to study hotel management so they can promote within the company as much as possible. Something which, incidentlt is a fantastic opportunity for the people that are offered it.

And YY to so many posts here, esp. Cory.

I got to study as an adult; an amazing chance. DH has now availed himself of the same option. In a degree area that people feel and are happy to state on here is laughable but is so well regarded that the uni has a massive influx of recruiters and sends people straight into jobs that others without a degree regard as the pinnacle of their career after 30 years. Many also go into the design (electronics related) and management field. Yes there are a couple of opportunities for people with an apprenticeshp but there are no apprenticeships for mature people generally, and there is always a need for the manager / designer at a higher level: DH's course as the only one of it's type covers these people.

We're in a world where industries are collapsing and people need to be able to retrain compeltely often later in life (DH's industry now no longer exists in our part of the country). Until there are apprenticeships and other schemes taking on adults then universities serve a very important role in keeping people paying their taxes.

LaWeasel yes,, that is also happening on my ASD Masters too, almost all people (ie all barring the two parents of ASD children) funded by their employers.

happiestblonde - yes I agree. It is getting a bit tiresome the misinformation on this.

On top of what you said, it is now proposed that 18,000 students from poor backgrounds will get scholarships worth up to 2 years free. In total it seems that the new system will be fairer than the old one.

Frankly though I think the Coalition have been too timid. I do wish they had slashed university palces so only the top 25% of students get to go to University and had used the money saved to fund a much better scholarship scheme aimed at degree subjects that he UK really needs skills in.

University needs to be elitist.

"Stop offering an unaffordable three year degree where you end up sitting around for half because the lecturers have sent you off to "self study""

So how on earth are our students supposed to learn how to do their own research and writing if there is no time for them to try it and then get feedback? Are we to drip-feed it all? Are employers going to want staff who can't work independently. The reasons employers actually like graduates in English and History (we have very high rates of post-university employment) is not because they know facts about Jane Austen and the Spanish Armada: it is because they have been given time to develop transferable self-study skills. I can assure you that students who "sit around" during my courses rather than working hard fail their degrees- and rightly so.

"Open up access for evening classes, master classes and make the learning matter more than the paper at the end."

We already do this.

"Research in universities is currently paid for via central government (at a chicken feed rate), remove this and charge the actual amount it costs to companies like Procter & Gamble."

Aha, and who pays for the fundamental research that opens up the way to applied (=money-making) research? Or do you think all basic research that humanity is ever going to need has already been done? There were several Nobel Prize winners who spoke about this during the recent research funding debate. One of them pointed out that at the time he presented his results (on laser radiation), he had no idea how they could be applied to practical use; 20 years later they formed the basis of applied research and industry, bringing in billions of pounds. He stressed that he would never have been able to make this research in a strictly result-driven climate.

"3) The coalitions proposals mean graduates (not students, not their families - so being from a 'poor' background shouldn't matter) once they earn over £21k. Even then they only pay back 9% of income OVER 21k."

So why offer fee scholarships then?

Just want to add my piece - as someone who's just completed four years (in an intensive course) at university and comes from a low income family.

The grants and loans that students from low income families get now (speaking as someone who has had to live off them an no parental help for the past four years) are plenty. I often found that I was better off than my friends from higher income families.

My rent was high but so long as you know how to budget (which I did find that many students did not know how to do) you are fine.

I now have LOADS of 'debt', although not as much as those who will be affected by these changes will have.

However, you really need to think of it in a different way. Like tax, it comes out of my income before I get it so the way to think about is that yes, maybe your salary is £30,000 and you're only getting £25,000 to take home, but that's a lot more than my parents take home and more than I would have been earning without my degree.

It doesn't affect your ability to get mortgages/loans etc. So I think of it as a non-debt. Then I just think of my income as less than what it is (although still good).

I think this sort of thing should be explained to all students who may go to uni so that this 'non-debt' does not put them off.

BeenBeeta, in a sense of course I wish universities could be elitist. There are two problems with this:

slashing money is not actually going to provide me with an intellectual elite to teach; it will simply ensure that the children of better off families flock to universities and others do not

there are not enough jobs for young people with no further education- yes, it would be lovely if the place was swarming with employers offering apprenticeships, happy to offer them to young people with no further skills- but it's not going to happen. Time was when there were plenty of jobs for not very educated people with no very strongly defined practical skills. That time is gone. All that will happen is that those with no obvious practical skills end up with no jobs at all- are we happy to pay for them?

OP - we have been involved in the (entirely peaceful and non violent) protests in my city. My son wants to teach, this means a four year degree. He will potentially leave university at the age of 22 with £36000 worth of debt - that's before we even start to think about living costs. That is a terrifying prospect. OK he doesn't have to start paying it back until he's working but it's really no way to start your adult life. On a teacher's salary it's going to take him many years to repay his student debt and don't forget that the longer it takes to repay, the more you end up paying.
We understand the proposals perfectly well thanks and we also understood nick clegg when he promised to vote against any increase to student fees.

My DH has a first class BA in French. He works as a furnace operator, after trying for 5 years to get a relevant job.

I also worked with a woman who was French and did a French A level as she was living in England. Which she obviously got an A in.

I dont see why you need a degree to prove you can speak a language. My DH has a load of student debt that he wouldnt have if he had simply moved to France for a few years, and he could easily be in exactly the same position he is now, just without the debt. His degree proves he is bilingual, but it is of no value to him.

IMO languages and MOST other humanity subjects simply do not need to be taught at degree level to the extent that they are.

I dont know the exact figure, but I remember reading that a large percentage of graduates never use their degrees...

Another example, my sisters "graduate" job for her accounting degree is working behind the counter for a bank.

'Stop offering an unaffordable three year degree where you end up sitting around for half because the lecturers have sent you off to "self study"'

I think this attitude is more and more common in undergraduates who feel they're paying a lot, and therefore want lots of contact time. Of course, learning to study independently is the point of a degree!

When I was at university we were penalized (financially and/or academically) for not turning up at classes without warning, so we understood that contact time is important. But we weren't paying huge fees and didn't think that we should be able to buy spoonfeeding/teaching time. Contrast that with lots of undergraduates now: they're anxious about the amount of money they're paying, they're anxious about getting a job afterwards, and the government is giving them the message that they are buying, rather than earning, their degrees.

It is very unfair on the students, and I can understand why they feel (wrongly) that 'self study' is a risk or a waste of time.

chocolate dp and ihave just done the same.

The major factor in whether the loans are enough is where you are in the country, dp was fine, I couldn't afford to live in Kent without a job as well as loans.

A lot of the universities that offer vetinary, for example are in the south-east 7 years without any help? Very very difficult to manage.

The higher student loan debt gets it's not going to be ignored by banks looking at mortgages, taking 9% out of your disposable income limits how much extra you can borrow for a very long time while you're paying your loan off.

cory - the hope I would have is that what I proposed is a return to the system of 30 years ago with 25% going to university on what in effect would be means tested grant funded places for high value courses. I hope that not just the rich would go to university.

Labour dumbed down university so much with it massive expansion of the number of places. More people went to univeristy for sure but at serious damage to quality. Worse still, society became more divided with less social mobility.

My DW, product of a 2-up-2-down on a fairly rough estate in Newcastle, came out of a girls grammar in Newcastle on a full grant to Oxford. Neither parent went to university. That is the kind of opportunity we need to get back to.

Btw, this is a lone point rather than an argument, but most universities require undergraduates to live in privately rented places for at least some of their time studying. I'm sure it's not true everywhere, but my brother in Leeds found it very hard to find a letting agent who would not have required a guarantor's signature - ie., the signature of someone earning x times the rent. I can think of 5-6 other university cites where friends have had similar experiences. It's just one of the ways in which students from poorer backgrounds are given the message that they're going to have to work harder to stay at university, which I think is a common message and really sly and unpleasant.

AFAIK degrees aren;t sittinga round half the time but amde up of co0ntact and non contact hours; DH ahs seven assignments on the go ATM, and is working flat out to complete them. He is learning more from them than the classes in fact, as he's already experienced at that level (but doesn;t holf the required licences to work in the field) abnd gets far more out of the assignments than the lextures themselves.

Which is how it should be as well: DH hs made 100% in some assessments, others have abrely passed or been thrtown out. The non contact time is where the coasters and those who are not up to academic scratch are separated from those who have a real ability and teh drive to succeed.

YABU

The demos (which aren't violent btw) are about tuition fees increasing by a massive amount. They are also about massive cuts to education, and the end of EMA's.

You don't know what you are talking about.

BeenBeat lucky your DW: my dad was refused permission to take up his grammar palce by his mother as she felt as the only one of 16 siblings with a palce that he should not be afforded the uniform etc.

He is not responsible for having a ridiculously oversized number of siblings.

That's the situation I hope like anything to avoid. The routes that used to be available weren;t available to all people; indeed, late developers (I was one) and those from the more difficult families tend to shine as adults if they shine at all, and it is my experience that they then tend to shine at university.

In fact we don;t even have Grammars here and some of the chidlren at the ASD unit we hope ds1 to get a palce at are the brightest around but would miss out on any of the old fashioned routes into university.

And yes about the EMA's: there was a Mum on here the other day worried as her son's EMA would be held up or stopped because of snow days and she couldn't find his bus fass (I have no idea of her personal circs and they are not the responsibility of the child).

A few years down the line and I guess that's one child not in FE . Just because his home was too far from college to walk.

LoudRowdyDuck DD1 needed a guarantor's signature and the rental period for the house she is in started on the 1st of August even though her term (and maintenance loan) started on September 27th. A combination of holiday work and the bank of mum and dad helped with that one not sure what she would have done if we were on a low income and couldn't help - invented more work for her in a recession?

I think that the the tuition fee proposals are pretty good to be honest. Although fees are likely to go up there is still a cap of £9000 and you don't have to start paying them off until you are earning £21,000. You don't have to pay any money up front either as you can take the loan out to cover the fees so I don't see how they deter people from applying.

YABU

Exactly web. The problem is that even though loans mean that poorer students can be theoretically placed on equal footing with their better-off peers, in actual fact it's not the case. Same with holiday/term-time jobs: poorer students often end up having to work, so have less time to study, so end up disadvantaged in comparison with peers who don't have to work.