Just received email saying tuition fees to be increased to 9K from next year. aibu to want to weep?

[ladysybil]

It wont affect the amount i pay, as i am already a student. grandfather law applies. I knew this was coming. but am still unreasonably upset at this.

To me the money is fake as not many will pay much back and certainly not the whole amount anyway. It's basically a way of taxing the wealthy but in a sly way.

Exeter uni is going to be £9,000 but when they have 4 students applying for each place, why shouldn't they charge the highest amount. (their argument)

That's very odd LeQueen: Berkeley have just increased their fees by a substantial percentage, but at $17k per year if you're from another state and less than $7k per year if you're from California, you would have to take a very long time indeed about getting your degree to end up paying $75k for it! Why did she pay so much more than the going rate?

I graduated with stupid amounts of debt, actually yes - enough for a deposit on a London flat.

It sucked/sucks. DP's managed to spend his whole working life saving whereas I have not - I've been clearing debt. Buuuuuuuuut - I would rather have the debt than not have an education and training that can get me a good job and, just have an education. Going to university was the best thing I ever did.

I also worked throughout - there were times it was really, really tough (like the 4 months in a row when I didn't have a day off from either studying or working, or the summer I had three jobs), but I'm glad I did it.

grendel'smum: I didn't mean a graduate tax.

What I was wondering was where will the money to be advanced actually come from? The banks (student loan company? Other successor body?) might advance loans to the student (against later fee repayment) but where will this money come from in the first place?

Vince Cable was talking about this at lunchtime: there's government (ie taxpayer) funding in there somewhere - he was talking about checks and balances in the system to ensure the earmarked "pot" would stretch far enough, but he didn't sound at his most convincing.

I think it's moved off "valance sheet" but presumably that means tax payers continue to pay it but in accounting terms because there will be banks involved it doesn't count in the same way so we're not paying for it long term. A kind of cooking of books accountancy thing.

From what I've read, I think someone somewhere has got their sums wrong. Figures were calculated using average male lifetime earnings. Female lifetime earnings are lower for various reasons. I think a huge number will never pay back what they owe but this is a nice little accounting fiddle to make the books look good

On the other hand, I'm hoping they put the earnings threshold up to 21k for everyone as it'll be the only way I'm going to take home more money for the next couple of years - no chance of a payrise.

Meditrina - No, that's what I was trying to explain (rather badly, obviously).

The point of having 'fees' rather than a 'tax' is that the money is advanced upfront by the banks, and then repaid by the student. The government is (IIRC) guaranteeing repayments to the banks, and covering the shortfall in repayments by people who don't earn enough to pay it back during their working lives.

ah, I see that Xenia's replied too. Certainly what I've been told is that the tay payers are guaranteeing repayments longer term, not paying upfront.

For a young couple starting out together with a debt of 80k between them will seem quite onerous I would think. Any couple graduating this year that debt is 'only' c.42k. It worries me that decades into the future the government could 'call in' the debt in any way they choose.

vj22 - i hope you remember this comment when you cannot find any english people to teach your children, or look after you in hospital because they've decided to take other jobs that don't need degrees or only work PT because they don't want to pay fees back

Oxford told us not to get a job - the terms are very short and very intense. However they do subsidise you massively eg, three years in halls, subsidised food, lots of grants/hardship funds etc. And very long holidays in which to find a job. Students did work in college bar/libraries but it was hardly what you'd call work.

I agree, I find the concept of £9k 8tuiton fees very depressing and not just because I have three children.

Also - what's wrong with Exeter? Dd1 is there and I thought it had a good rep. Or are you just a RG snob?

Exeter is an excellent university - in the top five I think. It would have no trouble attracting students, fees or no fees.

Staranise "Students did work in college bar/libraries but it was hardly what you'd call work."

Why is working in a library not "work"? I work in one and I assure you that I do!

I find it loathsome that an Eng Lit degree will be charged the same as a Science degree.

The former is the odd bit of face time in a room with a minimum wage lecturer. The latter is regular lab time with expensive kit & consumables. No justification for the same fee, the actual expenses incurred are entirely different.

Not making any value judgement at all about the subject (might just as well have said French vs Medicine) - just commenting on the fact that some students are going to see considerably less value for their money than others

Grendelsmum: thanks! Which banks are participating in the scheme? and how on earth did anyone persuade them to take on such long term and uncertain debt?

if banks are now doing this directly, does this mean the Student Loans Company is to close? Because their website suggests they are still going.

Oh, I'm not dissing librarians at all, I just mean that in my college working in the library meant sitting on the front desk for two-three hours at a time in the evening after the (paid) librarians went home. It was by no means equivalent to what a librarian does. I'm not even sure it was paid - or it was paid by credits for battels etc.

DS1 and DD both chose Exeter as their reserve choice. If they are charging the full £9000 most of the others will too. DS1 was lucky. He was one of the last to get a small grant for his first year and in his last year his future employer sponsored him. He still had a loan but paid it off before he turned 30. DD is still paying her loan off. I have a 17, 15 & 14 yearold still at school. If they choose to do a degree they may have to live at home after the first year. I do think the first year in halls is important. It will limit their choice of university.

Yes, I see your point cat. I did Eng Lit and had maximum two hours a week contact time with a tutor (albeit it was usually one-to-one). Lectures were optional and not usually relevant to the courses.

DH did chemistry at the same university adn was required to do a strict schedule of lab time and lectures/seminars involving very complex & sophisticated equipment.

I did however have access to excellent libraries for the hours and hours of required reading whereas DH didn't need that at all but I'm not sure that even academic libraries will need to exist in the same way given how journals use the Internet nowadays.

Staranise - ;)