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.

The thought of one of my boys leaving university with a debt of over 40k is terrifying.

Our income is about 15k. I suppose if your family income is in the 100ks a mere 40k doesnt seem that bad

My boy wants to go to university, we want him to go. We cannot afford to sub him for rent and books and food. The grant doesnt cover everything does it? I dont have a huge experience but the kids I know that go are heavily subsidised by their parents.

Of course students can work but they have to able to get a job. Round here all the traditional student jobs are now being taken by adults who cant get anything else.

People who believe that poor people are not affected by these things (or are even better off) are nuts.

We will do everything we can to get him there but we can only do so much.

But at least it keeps the chav scum out of our universties hey? Leaves more places for the deserving kids of nice families. It was all a bit of a social experiment allowing them to go in the first place. Who wants a working class doctor, lawyer or social worker anyway?

Where to start?

First of all - tuition fees have nothing to do with the deficit. In the short to medium term they will increase our level of debt. In the long term it is unclear whether repayments will ever be sufficient at the £9k level which is a significant increase over the £4-5k which is currently allocated for each student. The influential HEPI report concluded that "In cash terms the proposals will increase public expenditure through this parliament and into the next". They labelled the assumptions made by both Browne and the Govt as "hugely optimistic" on future earnings predictions (stick your finger in the air and whistle or as the govt. say £100k average), reclaiming unclaimed fees from EU students and dubious assumptions about equal numbers of men and women attending Uni (more women go than men).

The Govt are effectively doubling the rate of debt from about £37k at the moment to probably around £80k. If that is not a huge disincentive then I do not know what is. It will particularly affect those from poorer communities who may study locally at a less highly rated university and get a job that is not worth all that much more than a job that does not need a degree (if they can even get a 'degree' type job).

Plus, the 21K limit is not fixed bc BIS are still trying to 'clarify' whether it's in 2012 or 2016 prices, it could be as low as about £16.5k in today's money.

The Government are removing the teaching grant for all non STEM (science, technology, engineering and management) teaching. Even Lord Browne has come out and said this is absolutely not what his committee intended. The government are treating education as nothing other than a step up to get a better job. The average graduate is said to earn £100k more (but on very old data from when a far smaller percentage of people (around 5%) went to Uni in the first place). Male arts graduates already earn less than they would have done without the degree and clearly doctors, lawyers, management consultants etc. earn far more so averages here are deceptive.

Presumably someone who has A'levels earns more than someone who does not so presumably we should pay for those as well?

Education is a public good. I believe it should be free if you meet the requisite criteria (and those I would be willing to argue about - but it's a much more subtle argument than just saying the 'top' X%).

I'll stop now. Gee, I'm cross.

thefirstMrsDeVere where abouts is your son looking to go to university? I went to Nottingham. It has been pointed out to me that this may not be the case everywhere in the country but I want to reassure you and your son that I did not have any parental help at university and personally was comfortable financially with my loans/grants etc.

Please don't let the thought of the debt put you or your son off. My current 'high debt' really has no effect on my life now/

LRD DH's uni screens students who plan to work at interview and reserves the right to remove any student on that course who works as they feel it is incompatible with the schedules (which sometimes go from 9am until 9pm- writing off anyone needing childcare as well).

I cannot see how that would be compatitble with anyone from a poorer background wanting to study? Esp. given guarantors etc- I know the tories wish to work towards people studying nearer home but that's fine if there is a uni close by: we originally come from Somerset and there simply was not one (there's bath but that's technically BANES not Somerset).

cory your university is obviously better than mine - but its still called a univerity and I still have a bachelors but my "contact time" in the final year was two three hour lectures on a Friday

'Presumably someone who has A'levels earns more than someone who does not so presumably we should pay for those as well?'

CB and TCs are payable to the parent until 19 for students in FE.

Time, what's wrong with that?

I have a BA and my mandatory contact time never exceeded two hours a week throughout my degree. I still learned quite a lot.

We live in London. He is doing at college at the moment so hasnt really researched universities.

If he stays in London he can live at home which will cut down on his expenses but he will miss out on one of the main points of going to university. It will also mean he is affectively living off us unless he can find a job. He has been looking for months and nothing yet.

If he goes away he will have to pay rent and all his own food etc. How will he do that? The grants are not that much are they? I do realise I am fairly ignorant about this stuff but the amounts look fairly small to me.

For poorer families who DONT live in London or other expensive cities, wont it mean that their choices are further limited? The rents in London are sky high and a lot of other things are more expensive too. There will be children that will not apply to the right university for them because the living costs will be too high.

Education is not a luxury but I dont think that my son has a right to go to university but I DO think should have the same right as everyone else i.e. based on merit and not the size of his parents income.

Because please lets not forget, even people on low incomes like me, have been subsidising the education of well of people for years. I didnt go to university. I was at work from 16. So my taxes were paying for others to go. How come people get all shirty when I think my kids should get a go?

North of London is generally okay pricewise apart from certain cities like Edinburgh or Bristol.

Please don't let the money put him off! (sounds like you are really keen for him to go and won't let that happen anyway) but if you keep an eye on average rents in the area and do a budget before hand that will give you a good idea if you want to safeguard against him needing a job.

Along with Chocolocolate, I also had no parental help to get me through university and refused to let the thought of debts deter me. In fact, coming from a poor background meant that I was better able to budget and be thrifty (I was often shocked at how wasteful my fellow middle-class students were).

I was even quite savvy with my student loans and managed to squirrel them away so I had a bit of a cushion when I graduated (this was possible because the effective interest rate was zero; I think that students will be charged a real rate of interest in future).

I really valued my education, not from a financial point of view (it hasn't actually increased my earning power due to taking time out to raise my family) but being able to meet a broad range of people and being able to study a subject I love. It's for that reason that I'd never discourage DS or DD from going to university if it's what they wanted. I feel very sad for people who will have to miss out on the experience of university when the fact is they don't have to pay anything upfront.

He would best off out of London IMO - places like Liverpool, Loughborough are totally fine budget wise.

Obviously the less swanky room he gets the less he'll pay too.

'There will be children that will not apply to the right university for them because the living costs will be too high.
'
Already happens; I refused Bristol for a far lesser university based on living costs alone (as a mature student with children and an earning DH).

Thing is, I am but one person and had things not gone unpredictably awry the degree would have been fine for intentional purposes (teacher training) and with an MA should still suit my needs; shame if more people are forced into that choice though. The more costlya reas will rapidly become the choice fo the affluent, whereas the cheapest universities atm to live at (with some exceptions) are either in Wales (charging more soon to the English- to which I am opposed) or burdened with a bad rep.

Choclocolate IT DOES CATCH UP WITH YOU myself and DP have student loans - self supported so around £18,00 each with hardship loans.

my wage all bar £400 goes on nursery fees for DC so I don't pay tax let alone student fees which are now £24,000

DH pays student loans off at £140 per month, so since DD2 we stopped paying into a pension

Now i'm expected to sit back and allow my children to take on DOUBLE THAT DEBT how is that progress

Luckily he doesnt need swanky. He is a grubby bugger. The skankier the better I think , going by the state of his bedroom

"Time, what's wrong with that?

I have a BA and my mandatory contact time never exceeded two hours a week throughout my degree. I still learned quite a lot"

There's nothing wrong with it per se but there's no doubt that students paying 9K a year will want value for money and those getting a very small amount of contact time will ask themselves if they are getting that.

I'm not sure, as I lived away from home, but I think that students get less grants/loans if they live with their parents so that may not be the best option.

In Nottingham, my rent was £60 per week - I lived with 4 other students. We paid half rent in August.

I assure you that my grants and loans covered my books/travel/rent/food etc. with enough for the odd night out. I budgeted very well but it was plenty and I had more disposable income than my parents -all on student loans/grants.

I even managed to buy a laptop for £450 with my loans/grants/bursary etc.

I did an intensive course so could not have a part time job.

Although it's obviously easier if your parents give you extra money it is definitely do-able if they can't.

I can second plushfootstool 's point that coming from a background where I had been taught how to budget, I thought that the money that I was given was a lot more than other students thought that it was. Lots of people went on loads of nights out and used their money up early and then ran out.

It is value for money though saggar.

The thing is, students come up from school thinking that learning must happen in lessons - which obviously, is an attitude that needs to change. They need to stop expecting people will structure their learning for them, and find out how to do it themselves - otherwise, they'd be unemployable. That's one thing.

When I did some training to teach, we had to rank different teaching methods in terms of how efficient they were for student learning, and then, how efficient they were for the university to run. So, for example, a lecture given to 100 people is quite efficient for the university, but not so very good for the student. A class of ten is less efficient for the university, but better for the students. At the far extreme, my PhD contact time occurs about once every two-three months and involves me and two/three academics. It is hugely expensive for the university per session, but highly efficient for the student per session.

Students need to realize that their teaching at university is (unless something is very wrong), much more concentrated than it was at school.

The way I see it, there are three challenges involved with contact time:

the first is to ensure that the contact time on offer does actually represent value for money, that is that our lectures are good, stimulating lectures designed to trigger thought in the brains of students, that tutorials are well planned and constructive, that seminars flow

the second is to find the right balance between contact time and non-contact time: to understand that 100% contact does not represent value for money any more than 100% non-contact time does. At our university (RG), the normal amount of teaching time is 2 hours/week per module (3 for modern languages)= 8 hrs (or 12) hrs per week; this seems reasonable to me, especially if coupled with a generous attitude towards out-of-class support: we are encouraged to answer student emails asap and required to have a weekly office hour.

the third is to explain to students what a normal working week looks like, to make them understand how much time they should be spending on studying outside of class- I now spell this out at the start of every term

I am finding that I have to spend more and more time on teaching study skills these days; but I am happy to do so; it is my little contribution to support the employers who will eventually, hopefully, be taking my students on.

I actually agree that it's a fairer system than the one where fees had to be paid upfront. My parents paid my fees, as most did, because how many 18 year olds have thousands of pounds of savings? And I'm very grateful to them for doing so, but it was a bit ridiculous that they were expected to (it was actually called the 'parental contribution' in official documents)as I was an adult at the time, so it should have been none of their business or responsibility.

Now no one pays anything upfront, if you don't get a job or don't earn much after graduation you don't have to pay a penny, and if you do get a decent job, it's only a small amount per month. I don't see why it should deter students from poor backgrounds disproportionately, if you're still poor after graduation you don't have to pay anything back! If you're no longer poor due to your fantastic new graduate job, it should be no great hardship to pay 9% of earnings over 21k, that's pennies compared to the income tax you'll be paying!

As for the people 'horrified' by their 'children' taking on such a debt, will you be horrified by them getting a mortgage (typically a much larger amount)? That's a much bigger risk, as the bank won't let you off mortgage payments if your income drops!

The loan is the least of the problem imo because it is linked to the graduate's eventual salary and so is affordable. I don't really agree that students from poor families shoud be given any extra help on the fees as their ptoential earnings are likely to match or exceed those of graduates from middle classes. What is of greater concern is the living costs. At present all students can borrow about £4500 a year (NOT INCLUDING FEES) which is meant to pay for accomodation, books, food etc but in my experience, this barely covers the rent. We were able to help out our dd to some extent but she still had to take on a parttime job to make ends meet. We are supposedly middle class with a better than average income at present but as older parents we are shortly to retire and there is no way we can afford to pay off our dd's loan. If there is to be any demonsration it should focus on student living costs ather than fees.

The problem is that the porspect of having so much debt will put young people off going. I know I would have had a real dilemma if I had been in the position that a lot of 16-18 year olds will find themselves in.

But they will owe more bringing tuition fees up from 3k to what they propose is 9k.

So rather than owe 20k they will owe 32k

I think it's crazy. As someone who has always been 100% passionate about my kids getting a uni education, I am asking myself if it's worth it. £40k of debts upon graduation, add on top of that 3 yrs lost income (if they worked that is) and you have to wonder if a degree is worth the £60-70k it's going to cost.

Graduate jobs are no longer freely available and with interest, my kids will spend most of their lives paying the loans back.

Rowdy I don't know whether it is or it isn't value for money TBH; I'm sure that some universities do a better job of it than others. I just know that the question will be asked and that both students and parents will need convincing.