To believe £27k University debt will put children off?

[Mitmoo]

I am a graduate so value education but now we've seen that so many universities will be charging £9k a year that it will make todays pupils think that a degree just isn't worth the cost?

I know it doesn't have to be paid back until they are earning £21k or thereabouts but they are looking at 20 odd years of debt, more for some and no option to pay it off early if they get a windfall.

Add that to so many graduates not in graduate jobs and others out of work.

AIBU to think we are going to go back to the bad old days when university access won't be based on how smart you are but how much money your parents have?

OU are putting their fees up to £15k (for full degree) from 2012 btw. But that's still a lot less than a brick uni and you can live at home and have a job at the same time.

Perhaps although the OU mark their own papers so I just worry about the quality. Will my 1st actually be worth a 1st in a real university - I am not sure? I am not sure my degree with the OU is the same outcome as the same degree done at a good university tbh.

While it is certainly cheaper than the traditional route it is not cheap as chips either.

Thanks snorkie- I had forgotten the interest!

I think I have paid between £5-6K for my degree. I have one more year to go. That is a big leap to 15K. I would not pay 15K for an OU degree.

I think a first will be a real credit to you twinkly and while I agree it possibly isn't equivalent to a first from a high ranking university I'd agree it more than compensates in terms of showing perseverance and self-motivation.

Don't get me wrong I am proud of what I have achieved, I work very long hours in a demanding job and I manage to give a lot of time to my family and other commitments. But I do feel like I am getting a second class form of degree and certainly would not want this for my daughter.

Twinkly, have you done any OU L3 modules yet? I ask as someone told me once that that's where they get much harder - the L1 and 2 modules are to an extent catching up to the required level as OU entrants might have no previous qualifications whereas other universities start from A level knowledge.

Ds has toyed with the idea of OU for a degree (he has done a couple of modules for interest) but thinks a good brick university degree will be worth the £££ loan instead (he's a 2012 entrant, but as an existing OU student would qualify for the current OU fees until 2017). I also think that going away from home and experiencing student life is worth something beneficial too aside from the intellectual side of things.

Yes I am on my first L3 module this year. There is a leap that I have noticed. But I am still not expected to read any original texts at length.

Level 1 is about GCSE standard and Level 2 is A Level standard IMO so that would make sense.

I want to do an MA next, ( actually I would like to do another degree but I can't spend my life collecting degrees). I had always assumed I would do that with the OU but I am not sure. I would love to be able to stop work for a while in order to do it but that is cloud cuckoo land.

OU has always been brilliant for people who want to do more studying for interest or change career but who need to work at the same time. Sadly, I think their fee rise will prevent a lot of people from doing their courses from now on.

But going back to the topic in question, I do agree with you that for a career like teaching where the salary is big enough to have to pay a fair bit back, but not big enough to pay it off before 30 years then the loans are likely to discourage people. Teaching is something ds has considered and an OU degree in maths or physics would be perfectly adequate for teaching (especially given the shortages in those subjects), so if he was sure that's what he wanted to do rather than say become an actuary, then OU would be a much cheaper alternative and might lead to a better quality of life for the next 30 years. I suspect that some youngsters will be tempted by it.

Good luck with the L3 modules btw.

Thanks

3 of my dc's have graduated with varying levels of debt, each under slightly different systems, another one due to graduate next year, they are all horrified at the changes, I worry this is just the start. I'm not surprised, I thought that child fund thingy was a not so subtle way of encouraging us to save for dc's uni, what I am surprised at is what we, or rather our dc's are getting for all this money, one of my dd's in particular (at a russell group uni so a reputable institution) had about 7 hours contact time in a week, work was not marked on time and feedback meeting with tutor often didn't happen, is that really worth the £9k they will soon be charging? Interestingly dd said the foreign students, paying more than the uk students, were much more ready to complain about stuff not happening (and good for them, someone needs to). I'll just keep putting a little away each month for the younger ones, doubt it will make a dent in what they will be expected to pay, doubt they will qualify for "help". I asked our building society about student debt being taken into account with mortgage applications, and they said of course they would take it into account, I just feel so about the whole situation for our dc's.

As always with the tories/government, only the rich will be able to afford higher education, and yes we have student loads etc... but who want to be with a minimum 27k debt when qualified.

How short peoples memories are. The tuition fees were introduced by Labour. In fact, it was one of the first things they did when they were elected in 1997. Labour then raised fees to £3200 a year and Labour were going to raise fees £9000. The Tories just finished what labour started.

I doubt it will put ambitious students off even if they are from lower income families. If you want to be a lawyer, doctor, engineer, accountant, teacher, etc etc etc to all the careers you cannot do without a degree and they have good a-level grades I doubt it will put them off.

It might shut down alot of these mickey mouse courses and tbh that is a good thing. I doubt may students would want to pay £27,000 for a degree in a useless subject that will not get them a job.

Some people mentioned they were worried about dc being put off becoming teachers and health professionals due to the uni fees hike I thought they got a substantial bursary from government to help them out specifically because they will be the future public sector workers and so in some ways will be better off than most graduates in less vocational subjects

I'm 25 and just graduated with a 2.1 from a respected London uni and £30,000 for student debt (maintenance and tuition fee loans). I don't drink and spent my loan on rent/food/travel. I want to work in publishing but am not from London so I will expect to get into even more debt, as if I am lucky enough to get an internship I will only expect to be paid around £20 per day. Even though I'm pretty stressed now I didn't really have another option as NW England is not exactly the land of opportunity and I really wanted to finish my education. I don't regret going to uni and count my blessings when I see how many hundreds of thousands miss out. Although the debt is stressful the fact that I'm now back with my parents, claiming £46.50 JSA per week, and struggling to find a job is much worse. My local job centre does not know what to do with an unemployed graduate and will stop paying me any JSA if I get an unpaid internship !!

Labour may have introduced the fees but weren't the conservatives going to anyway, so both parties clearly think it's the way to go. Didn't they want nearly 50% of young people to have a degree? Why? not everyone wants, or needs one. Seems to be propping up of an education industry. When I finished my A levels and went off to Uni, that was it, you were independant, you had your grant (showing my age), you got a job, now we as parents are assessed for contribution levels till our dc's finish their degree. Our dc's choose to go but we can be called on to pay, not that it's compulsory but if they assess you as having to I don't know anyone who hasn't coughed up (the amount and more). Don't know how it will work for people from next year, I've been form filling for the last 7 (I think) years Just feel we are educating our children to be in debt, and not allowing them the independence from us they should have as young adults.

Mumzy there were no bursaries in my day, however I think some PGCE students get a bursary for their PGCE alone if they are training in a shortage subject. No extra help for degree costs.

I love my job but am relieved that my dd does not want to teach.

The global economy is changing. The US has just lost its AAA rating, credit is now much more difficult to get, and our own Government and media is constantly going on about how the 'debt has to be paid back'. We are entering a world we are being culturally bombarded with messages that say debt is bad and we should all live within our means.

As a cultural backdrop, how do we think this is going to affect the next generation of would-be students?

What is considered acceptable levels of debt is hugely affected by socio-economic background. Bring in the current economic climate and we are going to have a new generation of young people from average/poorer backgrounds who are extremely debt adverse. This will have a significant affect on the numbers wanting to attend university and will do more to entrench the traditional, privileged demographic of doctors/lawyers etc than ever.

The average full-time salary in the UK is about £25,000. Less than 20% of people are higher rate tax payers and only 5% earn more than £100,000 per year. The amount of debt a typical student will accrue is simply a staggering amount to a student from an average family and to pretend otherwise and say it's accessible and they just need to see the bigger picture smacks of looking down on the masses from a very privileged position on a lofty perch in an ivory tower.

Interesting exercise for those of us who have a degree and/or whose partners have a degree and who did their degrees less than 30 years ago...

Take your annual salary, subtract £21k, multiply by 0.075. Now repeat for your partners salary, discard any negative results and add the two figures together. This is what your student loan would be costing you now each month if you had had a 2012 style loan back in the day (assuming you don't earn mega ££ and might have paid it off).

It's enough in my case that I'd need to make a fair few cutbacks in lifestyle and definitely makes me think people who say it's nothing to worry about either earn very little or haven't thought it through very well.

that should be multiply by 0.0075 (which is 0.09/12) not 0.075. I did the figures right myself even if I didn't type them correctly & was still a little agast at what loans would cost us.

A1980 it's true that Labour introduced tuition fees but it's wrong to say that they also planned to raise fees to £9k. In fact that figure came about after the Browne report (commissioned by labour, recommended no caps on fees). But the main driver was the 80% cut in teaching grant which the coalition announced in last autumn's CSR. That was never labour policy and the increase to £9k was fiercely opposed by labour.

I agree that young people being debt averse is the real problem here. In fact many of them will never pay off the debt so it's much better to view if as a graduate tax.

Thank you sunshine! It makes me really quite cross that those people who tell me that I should expect to be in debt are more often than not in a comfortable financial situation themselves and did not pay for their degree. In my home town a degree is seen as for the middle class and wealthy, especially because of student debt. I'm not sure I'll ever own my own home now but to me education was more im.portant

I know this isnt relevant for those who's issue is affording and , therefore, even pursuing higher education but one aspect some may not have considered is the change in the environment in HE which comes with the raised fees.

As a lecturer, my view is that the learning environment is entirely different to how it "was" and is now centred around "how much I paid for my course". We spend less time doing quality teaching and research and more time marketing, spoon feeding and in pastoral care.

When I went to University, the lectures were "events" to go and watch and the onus was on the student, as an adult learner in higher ed, to take responsibility for their learning. Lecturers were never contacted. Now we spoon feed, lecturers are to be contacted constantly (even on weekends as we have to give a 24 hr contact). I understand in any market, you need to supply a certain service for fees paid. I do think, however, that higher learning should have and historically has had a certain atmosphere, environment and dare I say code. This is fading. Higher education is being watered down by higher fees , not enhanced.

That beind said, I have no issue with students contacting me for tutorials. I have an open door policy. I do, however, worry about the quality of the degrees and teaching, given our new focus on student satisfaction surveys and the pressure to avoid complaints and failure. Back when I went, if you failed it was your fault and "tough tittie". Now there is a huge backlash due to fear of being sued.(even if someone "expects" a first as they "paid so much" )

Could I just make a point about people saying the new fees affect the poor and not the rich?

I am pg with my first, so I appreciate these issues are not something I have to worry about for a while and the situation may have changed when I do.

However, when my DS is born I will be paying for nursery, then private school at a cost of god only knows what. I have an income that some people would say makes me in the "rich" category.

When my DS goes to University (presuming the situaiton is the same) I will not be paying his fees or accomodation and I will expect himto take out the loans same as everyone else, take the £50k debt and pay it off if and when he earns appropriately. Everyone I know who is in, or will be in, the same situaiton is doing the same. I don't know anyone "rich" who would contemplate paying up front or their childs fees. It is for the "child" (who is an adult at this point) to take on the responsiblity and repay.

In this way, I actually think the playing field is MORE level than is was 15 years ago. I might be considered in the "rich" camp by some, but my DCs will be in exactly the same situaiton of someone rom a "Poor" background (although they will not qualiy for any bursaries).

I am still not saying this is a perfect system by any means and yes, ideally education should be free but that is not going to happen in the forseeable future. I am saying I think it is more of a level playing field and more accesible than it was when middle earning families were expected to contribute whether they could or could not and when fees HAD to be paid upfront.