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?

There is something very unpleasant about slating people for being poor and uninformed, don't you think?

They are 17. And quite often surrounded by adults who tell them it's not for them.

I'm a lecturer. It should be obvious from my posts that I (and FWIW most of my colleagues) am against the fee rise. In fact, given your bizarre comments christmaseve, I get the feeling that you have not read the thread carefully enough. But:

"The alternative might have been that a lot would be for the chop and that would threaten jobs"

With the govt promising 100% cuts in funding to all non-STEM subjects -- gee, you think?

Mrstittlemouse I think I love you. Thank you for being so inherently sensible, supportive and eloquent.

When do the 2011 applications have to be in is it end January? It will be a shame if all the courses are oversubscribed and some have to defer for a year, will they still be under the old rules, if a place is deferred, or the new rule?.

Xenia is correct it shouldn't stop poorer students because if they don't earn they won't have to repay but I think it still will. A few of DD's friends are saying they aren't bothered about going to Uni, some of the are very bright so I hope they change their minds.

It's January 15th I think, except for Oxbridge and medicine (and dentistry?) which was October 15th 2010.

I don't see why courses wouldn't be oversubscribed; many were hugely oversubscribed last year.

I feel for your DD's bright friends, christmas - my very lovely, bright friend who didn't go to university is regretting it now - she thought she'd make some money and then go!

But should we be protectionist of the stupid whether they are poor or otherwise? If I at 14 could get a book from the library "What people earn" surely in today's world of the internet any bright student (and we only want the brights ones university anyway) can learn what people earn in particular jobs or can see well I want to be an artist and am limely to earn £13k a year so will never have to repay the loan. Why should we assume the poor ares stupid and can't work things out whereas the rich aren't? Why should we give them extra help when the middle classes parents often pay nothing o their children and thus the children are treated unfairly compared to the children of the poor?

You shouldn't assume this is about stupidity, I think. Ignorance and stupidity are quite different.

If there were lots of brilliant, accurate information about what it's like to be at university, and if it weren't contradicted by ill-informed opinions from parents, teachers and the press, then perhaps you could expect anyone bright enough to go to university, to know how to work out that it's financially viable. But that's not the case.

Depends who you mean about the middle classes. The maintenance grant will be available on a sliding scale up to 60K income. The free tuition is only there for families on Job Seekers Allowance or Income Support. So no extra help for families with an income of 16K if they are working.

I do think there should be this extra help, I don't begrudge it at all. I am upset that when tuition fees were introduced, they placed an obligation of Uni's to offer means tested bursaries which was more inclusive than the new tuiton fee help. They have dropped that obligation so we have no idea if any help will be available for families like mine.

Also the national scholorship isn't providing money in hand to help with living costs.

'scholarship'

I still think it's inherently unfair that Johnny whose father is on bhenefits and makdes huge sums on the side which are never declared or Jane whose mother is very clever and could get a job but prefers life od idleness on benefits but perhaps has an ex husband who helps Jane out, don't pay fees whereas Jim does even though his parents' view (and his parents are rich) is you leave home at 18 and get not one penny from us and may not live at home in university holidays.

I think assuming the poor need this kind of protection is demeaning to them and suggests they are of little brain or easily influenced or cannot get out their calculators and work out repayments and the like.

Hmm. I don't see the point of focusing the tiny number of people who're taking advantage, though? If you looked at the other end of the scale, you'd surely also find plenty of very well-off people who've made their money dishonestly, or who don't pay all their taxes - dishonest people occur in all walks of life.

I think you are being a bit unfair, too. It's you who suggested that it was simply a matter of getting out calculators! I think there are far more complex and deep-rooted reasons why poorer people are put off going to university, which is why I don't think it is a question of stupidity. If it were as simple as you say, yes, it would be patronizing to suggest poor people were any less capable than rich people of working out how to balance the benefits. But it is not that simple.

Does anyone who works in the unis (you might not want to talk to me) know how long it will take to put in an accurate fee costs in their prospectus and also if there is talk of still offering bursaries? We will be going to open days in the spring, I expect they will have to have it all in place by then.

This debate connects directly in to that IABU regular 'how dare people on 40k complain about making ends meet/losing child benefit'. This debt will be another squeeze on budgets.

I think there are a few myths being peddled here..... can I at least put the 'Oxbridge grad's can walk in to a job/name their price' one to bed? I graduated from Cambridge in 1993, went on to do a Ph.d, worked at a Russell group Uni for 4 years as a researcher and have worked for a large multi national in R&D for 10 years. I'm almost tempted to leave this open as a 'can you guess what I earn?' but I'll tell you... I can make just over 40k in a year where my variable pay pays out - if it doesn't then it's mid-30's. And you know what? Most of my colleagues have similar qualifications and experience and we all earn the same. A minority in the business earn 60k plus, say 5% on the site where I work. Yes there will be some graduates earning big money but they are like the X-factor winners - ie someone will be a winner but it can't be everyone!

BTW pls don't think I'm ungrateful for either my education or my salary, I just wanted to inject a bit of reality in to the discussion, plus I was concerned that some 17/18 year old might read this and think that getting in to a top Uni is a licence to print money and hence take on huge loans on the strength of this!

Xenia - totally agree with your post too.

Wel lif they cannot do the calculator thing then may be they rae best off not going. If we can get back to the 15% we need going people would be better off and not conned into doing useless degrees.

As to information from the universities - as the legislation just got agreed presumably the detail might not yet be agreed in detail so perhaps they won't quite know yet. Lots of details are not yet available.

But university is not just about getting a paper of paper confirming that you are qualified, Xenia.

christmas - try the Further Education topic? I'm pretty sure there are still bursaries at Oxbridge going. Good luck.

Xenia, I don't think I'm explaining very well, but it is not a question of calculators.

We want the people at university to be bright and academic, right? We want the people who're most able to benefit, who'll then go on to do good things with their degrees.

However, if a 17-year-old is applying, he or she is still very much dependent on the tools provided by schooling and family, for information. Myths are often passed on as if they were fact. It is only relatively lucky or informed children (perhaps like you?) who get as far as sitting down with a calculator and working out the financial benefits.

We don't need to worry about them: we need to worry about the people who've never even begun to think about university being an option, but who may well be brighter than the lad whose parents hot-housed him through school and tutored him university, only so that he could get a third.

On the fees in prospectus thing: our prospectus for next year's applicants - ie those applying to start in 2012-13 in only just going to press. There will be some fudge statement in there about fees - HEFCE has only just got on top of its own response to the Browne review and the fees legislation is only just passed, and not through the house yet. Universities will not have any notion of the impact upon them until AT LEAST the spring 2011. Individual university decisions about fee levels will not be clear until after this...

...However, it is EXTREMELY unlikely universities will charge differential fees IMHO. I think all will charge the full 9k as this is the only way they will see any real marginal increase in overall funding. Some of those more vulnerable universities may well charge less, but I think they will quickly go to the wall.

The VCs are privately agreeing: no institution will want to advertise that it offers a 'low budget' option. Later on, however, as 'customer service' becomes more of an issue, I think changes to the fee levels may occur but it is difficult to see how. In one sense it will be like the national student survey: VCs stop short of saying this (although some universities have been penalised for doing so) 'do you really want to graduate from an institution which is badly rated by YOUR scores?'. The fees will be the same: students will not want to graduate with a lower-cost degree. It is the reification of a status system that is already in place, where the intrinsic value and content of the education is less important than the external measure of its worth.

For those of you who think that lecturers are sitting around glorying in this or feeling smug and comfortable about all this, you are utterly deluded. I cannot think of a single colleague I know who supports it. The only rare exception is the odd person who reluctantly thinks this is the best worst option. And most are well aware of the impact this will have on their jobs, but you know what, they care - on the whole - much LESS about this than the impact on their students and on those they would like to teach but who will feel they cannot come.

I have to admit to a vested interest: there is no way I would have been able to work out whether or not I'd be financially ok to go to university, at age 17. I think it's glib to suggest that this is a good test of suitability.

Then we#re saying the teachers in state schools are idiots and put off children , presumably because the schools are full of left wingers. So the solution is weed out the left wing teachers and ensure teachers about to explain facts are there to tell the poor that 1 - 1 + 2 rather than suggesting that somehow parents pay (which they don't) or that they ahve to repay the loans if they don't get a job etc etc. I don't really think any poor person is conned or mislead.

Anyway the funding for the poor is a side issue. I am more bothered about the unfairness that because I am English I pay but if I were Scottish or Welsh I would not and taht the Eu think that is absolutely fine and solely a matter of UK policy, whereas if we discriminated against the say the French they would intervene.

Well, you've got to remember that, frustrating as it is, it's not a teacher's main job to be knowledgeable about university. And the situation changes so rapidly, it must be very hard. But yes, I do think there should be much better communication from teachers.

I'm sorry to all the teachers who do a great job - I'm sure there are lots of them - but, I think too many teachers give the wrong impression. That's certainly the experience I had, and the feedback I've been given by others for the last 8 years.

That aside, Xenia, why do you think it is as simple as 1+1=2? I wonder if perhaps you went to university when there were grants for all - which really were simple - and you're confusing these with the current situation?

I have a lot of sympathy for teenagers who can't understand what's going on. I suppose I'm also worried by the idea that there should be a concealed test for potential students. What you describe would discriminate against students who might otherwise be very bright, but who perhaps couldn't cope with calculating potential future earnings, maybe because they're not very aware of how finances work for adults. I'd be worried about that.

Not everybody who is clever enough to go to university is particularly clever at maths, sheesh. A friend's DC who romped into Oxbridge and won all the prizes for the whole time he was there had pictures of weird formulae all over his ceiling so he could study them in bed: but he could barely tie his own shoelaces and could burn water.

at melezka.

That is what I was trying to say but was too useless!

I think a real problem for many young people is simply that at age 17 you have no feel for money. That's not belittling young people simply a reflection of most 17 year olds lack of experience of having to pay bills, tax, ni etc. For people who come from humble backgrounds such as my own I think there is also a real lack of knowledge - I had no clue what different jobs paid such as accountants, lawyers, medics, dentists, pharmacists, because people in such roles were not part of my life in any capacity other than their professional ones or my parents circle. I did not have the knowledge to make realistic choices of degree based on earning potential. Even if someone had presented me with the facts, I would have had found them very difficult to contextualise based on my experience to that point. I based my decisions on aiming as high as I could, working as hard as I could and thinking that you need to enjoy something in order to study it. This would be very naive thinking in the current climate of funding.