To think scrapping tuition fees is a terrible idea

[bumbleymummy]

Just that really. Corbin saying he's going to scrap fees from September. Bloody stupid idea and something else that we can't afford to pay for.

last point: my folks didn't go to uni. they couldn't afford to send my brother - he had a grant. fab.
I went after loans were introduced.

we both have university educations. If we earn more than the threshold - chances are we would - we'd pay for our kids to go you see how it works?
With a loans ... we wouldn't want our kids to have so much debt....it's a pain in the button.

university tuition fees should stay and be extended to all schools too. why should my taxes be spent on educating someone elses kids?if you want your kids to go to school then you should pay directly for it

Oh good lord!!

NancyWake
£17k per year doesn't automatically mean you are 'rich'

I think it's a lot of money. Those who are struggling to pay school fees have a choice, there is a free alternative and private schools are not necessary to get a good education. That is my point. Sending your kids to private school regardless of how much money you have is a choice. If you want to go to university then you have to pay the 9k fees plus living costs, giving about 15k per year of debt.

You claimed that 9k fees put pressure on academics and I pointed out that as some private schools charge much more, that particular argument is not a strong one.

Teachers who go into private education know exactly what they are letting themselves in for. They get well paid, long holidays, and sometimes free or cheap housing. All the academics I know went into HE to pursue research and to train the next generation, not answer to teenagers whinging about exam results. If you knew lots of academics you would know that stressed out, understaffed, and overworked departments do not give the students the best education possible. The ridiculously high tuition fees only add to this pressure and the people who lose out are the students.

I don't understand why you think private schools and universities are comparable in any way whatsoever and you seem to have a chip on your shoulder about how "reasonably priced" private schools are.

Admit to not having read the full thread so it may have moved on.

It's a real vote grabber and I can see why it would appeal. The same policy is much publicised in Scotland but it has had very bad effects on the amount of 'free' places available as the Universities have to raise money somewhere so overseas (non EU) students are prioritised after the very minimum amount of EU free are allocated. Also funding to FE colleges has been massively cut therefore part time and evening course places have mostly disappeared.

It's an idea. But what about those already in the system? My youngest doing a long course, four years, is going to come out with £50k of debt. He's a Corbyn supporter btw.

Liitlemummy

That is obviously bollocks - the safest labour seat is Liverpool Walton, which is also the 6th highest constituency with no qualifications here
The safest Conservative seat is Buckingham, with the 6th lowest constituency with no qualifications.
The Yougov survey result here is obviously bollocks.
36% degree holder vote conservative, but 60% earning over 70k vote conservative. If this is true, about half earning over 70k do not have a degree, so there i no 'degree' premium.

Scrapping tuition fees is a brilliant idea; visionary, highly popular and makes economic sense. If you were one of the first cohort to pay student loans (as I was), then you had a 0% loan on a comparatively small sum compared to current students who incur debts of around £50K. But they now pay COMPOUND interest on the loans. I think it is criminal to saddle our young people with such massive debt at the beginning of their lives. Unlike OP, many of them DON'T qualify for mortgages, and many of them will take some years before crossing the salary threshold to start paying it off. Meanwhile, that compound interest is mounting up.

Last year, I read about a female engineering student who had £48K of student loan debt. She took out her student loans aged 18yrs having never previously had a bank account or having had to manage finances. The bank and University advisers all told her that a student loan was the most cost-effective way of paying for her education, so she signed up. Once she graduated she got her first student loan statement and discovered that she was accruing £102 a month in compound interest adding to the principal of the loan. It is absolute usury, because of course the government sold off the original Student Loan Co to the private sector...who just want to make big bucks.

As a society, we should be encouraging our young people to educate themselves because when they do, it adds value to society as a whole. We need to stimulate business, entrepreneurship, invention, science research because these are the ways that we make money that feeds back into society and improves the quality of life for all.

I pay interest on my loan. For a few years, all I was pretty much doing was paying off the interest.

It's a brilliant idea. I had the benefit of a 'free' education and thanks to it I can do a job where I have to pay a fair whack of tax. Why wouldn't you want to encourage young people into higher education?

a 0% loan is very different to the compound 6% interest racket going on today. private finance companies making a killing. That's what we should all be outraged about.

Maybe a few important degrees could have their loans repaid in exchange for how ever many years in their job. But NO to free degrees for all, it devalues university.

Suzie I am an academic. Unis are full of teenagers and young adults worrying about exam results.

Didn't say 17k wasn't a lot of money, simply that paying school fees doesn't necessarily mean people are rich, for the reasons given. Nor have I said it wasn't a choice. Or indeed that unis and private schools were generally comparable.

I simply said that the argument that 9k fees puts pressure on academics is not a strong one, given how much higher the fees are for private sector schooling. There are many pressures in the academic world, but I don't think that's particularly an issue. I'm opposed to fees, but not for that reason.

NancyWake

Ok well maybe the fees are not much of an issue for you and your colleagues but for some of the academics I know it was a big issue and they were worried about the attitudes of the students having to pay the new fees. They said they felt they must be more "available" than they could really afford to be. I've seen students collaring the head of learning and teaching at one uni about exam and coursework results when he's been having his lunch as they feel they are entitled to do so.

The other problem with the rise in fees is this ridiculous arms race universities have engaged themselves in. The three I have had the most contact with they are constantly building. Where I used to work they are spending tens (maybe hundreds) of millions on building but had a recruitment freeze for several months last year and introduced voluntary redundancies, not that they were the first to do that. I'm fairly certain part of the reason for this kind of decision making is to make sure students are attracted by the new facilities, whether they are suitable or good value for money or not, and so will bring in the money, plus students paying so much money seem to expect world class facilities.

Maid free university tuition for all a la Corbyn is unfair precisely because there is no matched investment in non-graduates.

Whether or not you can make your degree benefit you personally and whatever we think about that, there simply isn't any matched investment in the other 50%.

This policy invests in a more privileged group over investment in a less privileged group. The fact that you know a few high earning non-grads is besides the point, the point is that if we give free tuition, those people are getting a massive investment the other group does not get.

ultimately, on the point of societal benefit for tax money spent, I'll be honest I'd like it spent where there is the biggest return, that could include some free tuition, living costs bursaries for some degrees, but it should also include matched amounts for other socially useful non-graduate jobs.

RaqsMax Completely agree.

Carol D - you maybe right...but the BBC seemed to have done their homework - perhaps you should ask radio 4 's more or less to clarify the figures.

My personal experience of graduates. ....from all over the world is they have a more liberal worldly view ... (I lived and worked abroad with graduates for a few years) - it's not an absolute but I'd say a majority.

I paid for my degree and my BTec before that. I still think the younger generation need to have an aim and a non restricted opportunity. At college I met many talented capable students not wishing to continue to uni because of the debt. They wont be reaching their potentials because of money fear -
from them and their folks. (especially potentially first generation degree students or low income families - in the old system they could have used education as a means of bettering themselves by training to be what they wanted to be) .

Below them are young adults who can't see the point of studying as they can't afford uni. "Well if its gone from £3000 to 9000 a year what will it be by the time i finish retaking my GCSEs and doing a BTEC?" I was asked once. So sad.

Education for the wealthy only what a good idea....let's keep the poor poorer with debt and only the wealthy can be educated and get the best jobs.

I don't simply mean academia for it's own sake... which subjects are important is up for debate...should we pay for every degree or equivalent course ? maybe not....but most core important subjects should be free.