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.

They're all 9k a year now, so your comments about how easily you afforded them are pretty irrelevant.

YABVU. Its the reason I didnt take my place at Cambridge. My parents said an education was wasted on a girl, as I would just find a man to marry and he would support me.
They refused to sign the paperwork that would have let me get a loan, as it would have put in writing that they were unsupportive and refused to pay.

Who decides what is a pseudo degree that won't lead anywhere?

I think the universities should be forced to make that judgement, by introducing a rule that they have to refund the government the balance of any student loans the government eventuallywrites off., (I've read that the majority of student loans will not be repaid in full.)

They should be required to insure against those potential long-term refund costs now, so they can't bury their head in the sand with regard to the eventual cost of offering low-value degrees.

"awful idea - why should people without degrees pay for the middle classes to get degrees?"

Well, just to put the other side of it, you could argue two things:

1. Working-class people also go to universities to get degrees, and in fact removing tuition fees might encourage more of them to do so.

1. Society as a whole benefits from people doing degrees. So the reason for paying medical students' fees, for example, would be that everyone benefits from having trained doctors.

My own feeling is that tuition fees should be capped so that we don't put the poorest off applying, but that payment of tuition fees isn't in principle a bad thing. I do feel uneasy about the decision to remove bursaries for nurses and midwives, because about 50% of their degree involves working in a hospital, so they are actually doing a job, and they won't be able to fund themselves by doing part-time work.

Tbh, Labour's proposals are no less costed than the Tories.

YANBU. I think HE should be self funded through loans or through scholarships & similar.

Labours proposals have been costed, the Tories havent.

Presumably the cost to the university of insuring against student loan defaults would vary by course, so they could be forced to publish them, which would give students a better idea of which courses were a waste of time.

Cordial. I didn't say I 'easily' afforded it.

. I do feel uneasy about the decision to remove bursaries for nurses and midwives, because about 50% of their degree involves working in a hospital, so they are actually doing a job, and they won't be able to fund themselves by doing part-time work.

So much this. Also my own personal experice of training and being a nurse is it's very much a "working class done good" type of career. The vast majority of my fellow students and the nurses I now work with were very much from working class backgrounds and were often the first in their families to go to university. Obviously only anecdotal but I know applications for the uni I trained at are down with the removal of the bursary.

DJBaggySmalls - not only girls! Dh wasn't allowed to go to Oxford (headteacher even went round to pil's house) because "we never got the chance to go to university" (words of fil). The pil thought a job with a day release was good enough. Then dh pleaded to go to local university which pil allowed but wouldn't support him and with no student loans he left with mountains of bank debt.

Scotland is absolutely no role model here. Their education system is appalling.

Mycats - why should someone doing a teaching degree get free education but not someone doing engineering?
And if the person doing a teaching degree decides not to go into teaching but say applies for a job in accountancy, then should they have to pay back their fees?

"awful idea - why should people without degrees pay for the middle classes to get degrees?"

Well, just to put the other side of it, you could argue two things:

1. Working-class people also go to universities to get degrees, and in fact removing tuition fees might encourage more of them to do so.

--> there is no evidence that fee status widens attainment. In Scotland, the attainment gap is widening. Children from poorer income segments are being failed in primary and secondary school.

1. Society as a whole benefits from people doing degrees. So the reason for paying medical students' fees, for example, would be that everyone benefits from having trained doctors.

--> Highly trained doctors tend to be high earners, their earnings are a reward by itself. Medical degrees are still subsidized even with tuition fees as so expensive to provide.

I do feel uneasy about the decision to remove bursaries for nurses and midwives, because about 50% of their degree involves working in a hospital, so they are actually doing a job, and they won't be able to fund themselves by doing part-time work.

I agree with this.

We need smarter solutions than universal rights funded by all tax payers, which encourages over consumption - if you aren't going to ensure your degree leads to higher earnings, you should think twice about doing it.

We managed it before, but I do think that many degrees prove to be pretty pointless these days, in effect many "make it" to university (therefore aiding unemployment figures to be massaged) and in some cases the subject of their study is so obscure or irrelevant to the workplace these poor kids end up saddled with monster debt and no ability to repay it. We simply have too many entering the sphere of higher education, it is therefore an exceptionally difficult cost to justify and sustain year on year for any government.

So what could or should be done?

I think some sort of means testing alongside a sensible refined assessment of what should be valid and valuable subjects for a fully-funded degree would be the best option. Those from lower income families or those "JAM" families should of course receive help, it is a crippling amount of money to owe in your early twenties, specifically when you consider the living costs versus likely salaries at entry-level.

I would also predict that those serious about their subject will be forced into remaining at home and making their university choices on locality to their family home if possible just to keep living costs down.

We are a country who used to be famed for their quality and approach to education, this seems sadly lost in the last few years.

In principle i'm in favour of tuition fees.
however, the current loan scheme is outrageous with interest rates at 6.1%. Bloody hell!!

As years go on i predict (and hope)

1. many graduate employers will offer lump sums on joining to effectively pay off the loan
2. Doctors, teachers, midwifes etc will have their loan written off to encourage people to enter the profession with a minimum commitment of say 5 years.

It was the case for a very long time that degree level education was subsidised, so it's hardly outlandish or impossible.

The idea is that higher education benefits us all as a society, not just those who do the work and graduate. For example, to train doctors, nurses, midwives, teachers. There are even benefits for children of better educated mothers.

Higher education is certainly not only for the 'middle classes', and lots of evidence shows that the prospect of huge loans put off working class students as it is seen as too risky. I welcome a return to free university tuition.

Think of it this way -- couldn't you apply all the same arguments to state primary and secondary education? That it's just for the benefit of the individual child? And that they should pay for it themselves.... no????? :-) Of course we all benefit from a society where more of us have opportunities to access education!

we really need to separate out the 'should there be subsidies for some types of socially useful degrees that don't result in high incomes' question from the option on the table of 'free' for alls.

If we have shortages or evidence that some degree choices result in poor wages/poverty, I would personally prefer to see targeted policies for that group.

They aren't really loans though, it's a tax.
No political party would get away with suggesting a 9% tax rise on the middle classes so attaching it to higher education hits the people most likely to be earning that salary.
What is wrong is that they have sold off the loan books so the people making profit are the finance companies instead of the money being collected as tax. The interest levels are huge before they've even graduated, most people will never pay it all off.

I'm a lecturer and agree that fees have changed the relationship we have with our students. Some examples:
-not turning up to class and expecting their tutor to spend extra time catching them up (strangely, as fees have gone up, attendance has gone down)
-students bullying staff to increase grades, especially round the 2:1/2:2 boundary
-expecting staff to respond instantly in the evenings and at weekends
-dumbing down of grading (the formula used to calculate grade bandings is much more generous than it use to be)

I'm not against people contributing to the cost of their education but tuition fees have not improved higher education.

The odd thing about the current set up of only paying when you get a good salary, is that the more useful the degree in the job market the more likely you are to pay for it. It is kind of a tax on useful degrees.
I can't think of an alternative system though.

Isn't this about our ability to compete on the global stage though? We need a highly educated work force or we risk being overtaken by countries who chose to invest in education. In the last century, the gov took the decision to pay for school until the end of secondary because that was what was needed for us to have a competitive workforce. But the goal posts have now shifted and the world is more complex. To be truly competitive our workforce needs more education these days. I'd say we should be finding ways to incentivise that not to make it harder.

there are two main reasons free tuition is no longer affordable:
-ageing population leading to higher health and pension spending
-huge increases in numbers going to university.

Let's be clear - labour could've spent that money on primary and secondary education.

'Why should people without degrees pay for the middle classes to get degrees'

Because it's an investment into the country, we need our skilled workforce to come from somewhere, Either we bring them in from overseas or we create our own.
Having an educated populace doesn't just benefit the person doing the degree.

I would like to see more things like scholarships and the return of bursaries than the complete scrapping of fees.

So you think only children born with a
diamond spoon in their mouth deserve a future.