Am I missing something re tuition fees...

[Pheebe]

OK so tuition fees are not repayable until AFTER uni and AFTER you are earning over a certain amount

So why should your families pre-uni economic status be taken into account? Surely support for disadvantaged students should be focused on ensuring they have access and maintenance grants to support their daily living expenses while they are studying. Once they have their degree surely they on an equal footing to all other graduates?

Two students, both in a 40K job, one from a 'poor' background one from a 'professional' background. Who is more disadvantaged at that point by having to pay off 30K worth of debt?

What am I missing?

i did wonder about this as well.
wouldn't it be better to keep EMA so that poorer teens can stay in college.

You are assuming everyone slots in nicely into a 40K job on graduation.

You are missing the point that a 30K debt may seem insurmountable to someone who sees their family struggling to make ends meet from month to month.

Lots of other points but kids need me with their painting.

There will be non repayable grants for poor students/students with self employed parents who fiddle their books/students with divorced parents who only have their non-working mother's income taken into account to help with their living costs.

Fixed that a little

Surely it is obviously the one who had to borrow to pay the fees is more disadvantaged than someone who comees from a well to do family who actually paid the fees to start off with.

"but if you leave uni, are unemployed for 5 years and then slot into a £17k job for 25 years you will never have to pay off the loan. It will be written off and the debt will disappear."

Which begs the question, how is this saving the government money?

It is not 30k worth of debt, my sons degree is four years long when he has finished he will owe 22k.

If the fees were higher he would actually owe 24k more than that.

the debt increases by up to 6k a year, i.e the fees at present are 3325, they might be 9000k.

the difference is 6k a year for the term of the degree.

No graduate will be in a job earning 17k.

Graduates earn 50% more than normal people when they start out.

The government arent stupid.

Students from poor backgrounds will pay less in fees, first year free and then some or all of second years fees picked up by the uni. See link here

Seems to me it is totally right to target help on living costs for poorer students, but as many (or most) parents will not be able to help their DCs with 9k pa fees, how can it be fair for some students to leave Uni owing 1 years fees when many others will leave owing 3 years fees?

"No graduate will be in a job earning 17K"

What's that, your personal guarantee?

Statistically graduates earn in excess of 40% more than the average joe who has not been to university. I can't vouch for those who take stupid degrees. But if you take a Maths degree yep I could personally guarantee you wont be in a job paying less than 40k.

"Statistically graduates earn in excess of 40% more than the average joe who has not been to university."

Statistics also has something to say on cause versus correlation

When I graduated in 08 my job paid 10k a year. It would have improved over time, but still...

A lot of people get degrees to go into jobs that will help people but have shit pay. Because those jobs are hugely important.

The thing about all that debt is that a) LibDem voters were promised it would be scrapped. b) If you have been living hand to mouth 30k is not to be sniffed at and WILL put people off. Even if it doesn't put them off totally it will put them off some of the best uni's which have expensive housing costs, eg Ox, Camb, Warwick... c) Poorer students will take the most amount of time to pay their loans off which because of interest will mean they pay more overall (even after graduation poorer students don't have as good employment prospects, they can't afford to take unpaid work experience, get a job with a friend of their parents etc) especially since the parents of wealthy students often help their children our, so that they can borrow as little as possible.

Basically all but the children of the wealthy will leave university, already owing the equivalent of a deposit on a house. The children of the wealthier will leave with no debt and immediately start being able to invest/profit from their wages. They are off to a huge head start - no change there - but even more than they were before.

Many 18yo will not take the risk of getting into £30/40/50K worth of debt and not go to university. Many others will not do the course they want to do, but will do a course that they think gives them better chance of a lucrative career at the end. So bye bye research scientists, archeologists pretty much loads of important but not well paid things, hello a generation of people aiming for law, banking, accountancy. It's not balanced.

classydiva I did a physics degree and I earn less than £40K. I'm sure I'm not the only one.

How can anyone say "do a maths degree and you are guaranteed min £40K salary". It's rubbish. Getting into a lucrative career depends on so much more than just academic ability. It's this sort of nonsense that has led so many people (DHs generation) to go to university on wild promises of later earnings, only to find out later it was bollocks.

"No graduate will be in a job earning 17K" what a load of bollocks

My DP who has a well respected, practical in demand degree from a good University gets 23k.

Most graduates I know - and none of my friends have silly degrees - get low 20s and have been unable to get a grad job or working in shops/supermarkets for that time. The person I know who has the best pay got it because they had relatives already working there.

Classydiva - a Maths graduate goign into accountancy will be on a hell of a of less than £40k, I can guarantee that!

" you take a Maths degree yep I could personally guarantee you wont be in a job paying less than 40k"

can't you even see how ludicrous that statement is?

Additionally, people should not only go to university to get highly paid jobs. What about interest, love of a subject, a huge talent in a certain area?

What is wrong with someone doing a maths degree, being highly talented, and deciding to go into a not very highly paid role that they love?

I suppose it depends what you think universities are for. If you think that the only point of them is as a conveyor belt churning people into the city, because all that you think is important in life is cash, then that's pretty sad.

Excellent - my working as a waitress for two years maths graduate friend will be delighted to know she's guaranteed a 40k job!

This is my whole point, nobody has to borrow anything to pay the fees. If you don't earn as a graduate you don't repay the fees at all ever. The communication from the government has been appaling.

I have 4 degrees and it took me until I was 35 to earn (JUST) more than 40K; this is bullshit.

The problem is that people from lower socioeconomic backgrounds are debt averse, and simply won't want to take the risk of a degree not paying off. Which it may not, because plenty of studies have shown that the most lucrative careers, especially in London, depend on a) who you know and b) unpaid work experience often for long periods of time, which people from poor backgrounds (or even middle-class backgrounds whose parents don't live in London) simply can't do.

And the estimates for medicine are a 70K debt; how many poor kids are going to take that on.

Finally, the 40% more that graduates earn over non-graduates you talk about is also bullshit -- the estimate is now 100K over a lifetime. Take away 40K, plus 3 years of lost earnings, and that difference whittles away to almost nothing. Why would people go to university?