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.

If you borrow money from someone and they want you to pay it back then it's a debt. Full stop.

To say it's not is merely fooling yourself. Yes the terms are more generous than a commercial loan but it's still a debt my child (or I) will have to pay off one way or another.

OP, I was going to say that yabu and patronising, and that of course people understand the proposals - that's why they are protesting. And protesting against other proposals, such as slashing teaching grants, and the incredibly regressive scrapping of EMA (which I haven't seen anyone defending, even on here. Anyone care to try?)

But (almost) everyone else got there first.

So what they said.

1. NO ONE PAYS UP FRONT. Not students, not parents, regardless of family wealth. So no students ever pay, only graduates on decent incomes.

The fact is they DO pay, and pay for the next 30yrs of their lives.

If they want to pay off the loan earlier they have to pay a financial penalty.

So the government also want to ensure the Graduates stay in long term debt or pay for the privilege to escape it.
Don't forget the Interest they also have to pay back on the original £27,000 (dependant on course. e.g history or Medicine) and the living expenses. £45,000 min.

As a mother of three children, who has always deeply cared about their education, I CANNOT now, in all good conscience advise them to saddle themselves with such horrendous debt for 30yrs of their life.

What sort of life will they have? When will they be able to afford their own house, car etc? What if their partner also has the same debt? Twice the strain, the weight of such.

To say I'm furious with this government has done, its shortsightedness. Shattered all our hopes for a better future for our children, would be an understatement.
The LD's for promising no fee increase, then going back on their promise, because it's more important that they keep thier seat at the top table!

A University Education has well and truly become the preserve of the rich.

I applaude the students marching and making themselves heard about the travisty of such a badly planned policy, the massive cuts to Uni's and the EMA's. I truly wish I was there; peacefully marching besides them!

So university funding will almost entirely depending on loans that may or may not be paid back.

Is it just me, or aside from the the unfairness factor, doesn't this sound like a rather precarious method of funding?

Wasn't it dishing out lots of debt to people who might not/ couldn't pay it back that got us into this current mess?

Folks in the US (where the rate of tuition fees is completely out of control) are already calling their student loan debt the second bubble.

Absolutely agree with Arissa.

well said arissa.

another cost is the fact that a student hasn't been earning for 3 years. if you take this into account a degree will cost around 100k

i question if its worth it

GAG, presumably the lending they set up will factor in those risks.

I haven't looked at how it works but (a) Government withdraws £9k a year funding from Government to university per student (b) a bank or other body makes that sum available to the university now (c) the bank is rewarded because it will have such a large bulk of a new loan book and enough will be paying back plus the interest to make it worth the up front investment. Is that how it's being done?

Patronising OP. I knew all the points outlined and disagreed, still do. YABU.

Rather patronising!

you are not the only one who understands the changes!

I am a student currently and am against these changes. It will mean crippling debts, which as others have pointed out, will disproportionally affect middle income families.

I despair for my dd, who is only 2 months old. I am going to start saving now to pay for her higher education.

Do you not have children?

Xenia - I wouldn't count on it, especially if the fees continue to rise.

The whole sub prime crisis proves that it's not wise to presume that lenders think very much about risk.

I just wondered how the funding of it would work. The money presumably has to come now from banks, not from the state so they need to get the funding now for the first students but not get anything back on it until those students are earning over £15k a year or whatever the limit is.

Given that EMA is a relatively new thing; is being abused left, right and Chelsea; creates divisions amongst the students, and is a bribe to encourage people to stay on at 6th form, I don't see why getting rid of it is regressive.

I don't like the fact that uni fees are increasing, but it was always a case of when and by how much once the general principle of fees was established. Ds goes in 2014, so we're looking at the Netherlands for a humanities degree, or elsewhere if he decides he can live without reading history. A little more notice to save up, and rearrange the finances (bang goes the retirement fund) would have been nice.

www.factsonfees.com

www.factsonfees.com

Is that the best you can do happiest?

There are TOO MANY STUDENTS as it is! There will be no value to a degree when EVERYONE has one. It is directly as a result of the labour governments financial f**k ups that we are in the situation we are! (and that is coming froma former labour supporter). I had to pay for my degree and I coped.