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.

It's a brilliant idea - and the current system is far from cost-free if you look into the issues of non-repayment etc.

I went to university regardless because I knew I would earn more money ... I got into the debt because I expected I'd get onto a well paid grad scheme (as I did) and pay it back

And that's absolutely fair enough, Lottery; clearly you'd got the aptitude needed to make a success of it, which is great to hear

But far too many students enter uni, or even go on to do Masters degrees, with absolutely no aims beyond spending a few years doing "something else" before getting a job. All too often they find the work too rigorous and change courses, take a year's leave or even drop out altogether, finding out too late that they'd have done better to take a different path in the first place

The current system isn't working any way. A combination of soaring fees, high interest rates from the moment you start and a lack of being able to pay it back simply isn't a good model.

I have a friend who is training to be a nurse who is frequently in tears about her financial situation. That's not right.

I'd be more than happy with the tuition fees being scrapped.

The question I have about this is: why are Labour promising to scrap tuition fees? I suppose it's possible they're doing it as a matter of principle but I think it's more likely that they've spotted that a lot of young people don't vote or aren't registered to vote, and this is a way of changing that - I bet lots of 18 year olds will have registered to vote now simply so they can vote for this policy.

If you look at the backlash the Lib Dems experienced after going back on their promise not to raise tuition fees, this is clearly an issue lots of people feel strongly about.

Who's assuming that all UK uni graduates would be employed in the UK economy? Daft idea. Oh, sorry, that's what rejecting the EU and the four freedoms means, doesn't it! That's a reason for not having free tertiary education? Christonabike, some people are living in the 1930s, most of them Tories. Absolutely the best thing we can do for this country is free uni education, participation in EU-wide science, engineering and medical research projects, the Erasmus programme... there's so much more, most of which we're going to be parted from in the next two years. It's already started, we have many science projects that have lost EU funding, valuable people looking to go abroad so they can keep their skills up to date and participate in ground-breaking projects.

These are all necessary to keep the UK's universities teaching stuff people want and need to learn, otherwise we're going to retreat to the 1950s at best, and our industrial base will suffer for it.

I'm retired, I have an Italian passport, if the UK rejoins the EEA I'm going to live in mainland Europe. I'll keep my DLA and SDP allowances and live in a more forward-thinking country that values its people, all its people, more than this one does.

To add, for well off parents who are used to paying independent school fees, the current fees mean that they just carry on paying for a few more years. To them it probably doesn't look too bad, just an extension of what they are already paying.

Most of us aren't in that situation though.

I agree with Shamoo - why not revert to the £3K? And then bring down the £21K to £15K for repaying, and end the cut-off period so no one is exempt after 30 years. And have manageable interest rates.

£12K for three years seems value for money (very good value for money), would not unduly put off swathes of poorer students and the ability to recoup would be better. With giant fees the incentive to default is too high, and the £21K means that people like Princess Beatrice never have to pay back their fees, as well as all the people who choose to be potters/SAHMs/can't find full-time employment/run away.

absolutely agree with you tabbymog.

hackmum, they'd best hurry up and register then, deadline is today.

I agree puzzled - my point is that fees don't necessarily put off people from not-wealthy backgrounds - if you're doing a degree that you suspect won't pay back, you should think again. I agree, underpinning this is far too many kids are drifting into university.

Just from my small family, I've got 2 family members who did degrees - one dropped out with debts after the first year and the other one is repeating her first year - she did an access course which didn't prepare her for the step up in rigour and is really struggling. I'm not sure either of them should've been encouraged to go.

I would like all FE and HE to be free.

People talking about apprenticeships being a good, alternative route into work... My DD is currently looking for one. Many demand experience, so are expecting applicants to already be skilled. Others are just an excuse for cheap labour. Why would a waiter need a one year apprenticeship? There are lots of very basic admin apprenticeships, too - the kind of entry-level roles that would have been called 'office junior' in the past. Many of these apprenticeships don't even offer a job at the end of the £3.40/hour so-called training period.

DD is still looking for one, but you have to look hard to find ones that are truly worthwhile and that lead to something better than a NMW job at the end.

I studied architecture and came from a working class family. It's five years study at university plus two placement years (one of which I worked for free and the other at minimum wage) during which you still pay the university as they carry out assessments, visits etc., before being able to take final qualification exams.

I started my degree when grants were phased out but there were no course fees. I had a student loan for living expenses (parents couldn't afford to help on this) and also had to take out additional professional studies bank loan of £10k to be able to finish my course. It is a very expensive course to be on regardless of fees.

5 years at the current 9K (and up to 20k in some of the better architecture schools here) and year out fees would have me owing over £50k + interest just in course fees. The additional course costs, accommodation and living expenses on top of that would be god knows how much. The average starting salary is about £26k and you will be at least 25 before you earn it.

There is no way I would have started this course if these figures were presented to me as an 18 year old without parental support. We are going back to the profession being a playground for the wealthy.

Scrap fees.

how much do architects earn 10 years out though? I know a few and they are pretty well off and could afford to repay sizeable fees.

YABU

On Scotland, one of the reasons I am in favour of Brexit is that about 1/3 of the free capped places are currently going to non UK EU students at top Unis. This is a significant dent in the Scottish education budget. The non-capped places then go to English and International students who can be offered places on more generous grade requirements. In 10 out of the 17 top ranked Scottish Unis, Scottish students are now a minority.

My understanding is that preventing a similar situation in England is the primary driver behind fees in England - Uni funding per head has not benefited from fees. The Guardian did an article a while back illustrating why raising fees to £9k while upping the repayment floor may actually cost money. For similar reasons scrapping maintenance loans did not raise more money.

Even if fees in England are scrapped poor English students will still accumulate maint loans of £24k.

I am in favour of scrapping tuition fees, restricting courses somewhere between current and 1997 levels and reinstating grants for the poorest families.

my point is that fees don't necessarily put off people from not-wealthy backgrounds - if you're doing a degree that you suspect won't pay back, you should think again

I couldn't agree more - and your own examples are exactly the sort of thing I meant

I can imagine a situation developing one day where certain degrees considered to be of obvious value to society, or clearly of value in the workplace, will be publicly funded, with the rest left to take out loans if they really want to spend 3 years doing not much at all

I'm certainly not saying that this would necessarily be a good idea - only that some alternative to the current situation surely has to be found

Ds1 wants to be a vet, that means 5/6 years depending on university and course.
£10500 a year tuition fees is £52500-£63000.
Living costs loan (he will qualify for full loan as dh and I earn just above minimum wage- £8500 a year.
£42500-£51000.
He will leave owing £93000-£114000.
If the tuition is free it means he will only owe at most £51000.
That's a massive amount he won't have to pay if Labour get in and keep to the promise.

I think tuition should be free.

I am in favour of scrapping tuition fees, restricting courses somewhere between current and 1997 levels and reinstating grants for the poorest families.

Restricting the number of graduates though - that's not a policy on the table is it? That would make a properly funded university system more affordable but it's not on the table, and would be hugely unpopular with parents who already feel it is too hard for their kids to get a university place.

So really, we'd have to spend money instead on making non-university routes to jobs more attractive.

They don't go because their earlier education has left them in a position where they can't get the grades.

My point exactly. It's all well and good arguing about those who get a good clutch of GCSEs and then a few decent A levels. What about all those who don't and so don't have the chance of university in the first place. How many kids have been let down by the primary/secondary education system? That's where the priority should be - sorting out schools so that most people will have the basic qualifications for working/uni. That's a much fairer way of spending money than on the minority who did well enough to meet the Uni's entry requirements.

Just seen later comments. I may be perverse, but if I knew I were entering a career where I was unlikely to earn enough above £21k to make a dent in my loans I would have absolutely no issue with accumulating the maximum amount of debt.

We have already established that the rich are advantaged by paying upfront rather than in higher taxes. The poor are demonised as usual and end up with the shackles of debt and all sorts of perverse incentives and State meddling. The squeezed middle end up being the ones paying for the divisive policy which is student fees. I have never understood support for it.

Nolotterywinyet, from the RIBA the average is £32,500. I also know lots of architects and they aren't well off (although huge assumptions are made by others about what they think they are earning).

yes that's why I'm so angry about bunging all this money on free tuition - my niece was let onto an expensive uni course having dropped out of A levels (repeated a year, still couldn't do it), got onto an access course, helped onto a degree as she meets a lot of disadvantage criteria and is now racking up debts repeating her first year - I hope I'm wrong but I expect she'll end up dropping out having accrued 2 years of debts.

She was failed at the point that she couldn't get the support to complete the A levels properly.

Well, I'm another generation, but my brother and sister got to go to university and even have a maintenance grant back in the day. We were the children of a lone parent so it would have been impossible otherwise.

And surely a decent tax system that charges high earners more is as good a way of getting the money back from the graduates.

I don't thing money is a way of differentiating those with a vocation from those who don't, frankly.

I don't agree with scrapping, there should be subsidies and retainers for those that go into teaching (in state schools) or work in the NHS. I know many many doctors who graduated from UK medical schools and have chosen to work abroad (mainly Australia) so scrapping tuition fees won't encourage doctors and nurses to stay in the NHS. Similarly, I know many trained teachers moving into private schools.

Currently, yes the tuition is higher than it was however luckily in this country the 'debt' is paid back like a graduate tax with only better earners paying back and in fact, many people won't ever pay back the full amount of student loan before the debt is completely wiped. Better than the American system where fees for top schools like Harvard are colossal and many students there take bank loans and aren't able to get mortgages til their student loan is paid back.

In today's climate, the money would be better invested in primary and secondary education where the sector is struggling. They say they've costed up however I don't believe the 5% tax increase will bring in the expected amount, it assumes people won't change their working behaviour however as seen with the increased tax in the £100-£121k bracket, it didn't bring as much money in as expected as those working within the bracket such as lawyers/doctors can choose to reduce hours if they feel their net gain is not worth in extra weekend work or whatever. This will happen with the increased 5%, especially over £100k when those earners now will have to further decide if working that extra weekend is worth the 30% take home (after tax/national insurance where there's the extra 5% and reduction or tax allowance) as oppose to spending time with family or free time.

also, they may have 'costed' this policy but that's not considering the opportunity cost about the better benefit the money could bring if it was used elsewhere.

The question I have about this is: why are Labour promising to scrap tuition fees? I suppose it's possible they're doing it as a matter of principle but I think it's more likely that they've spotted that a lot of young people don't vote or aren't registered to vote, and this is a way of changing that - I bet lots of 18 year olds will have registered to vote now simply so they can vote for this policy.

I'm inclined to think this too

Littledrum Why wouldn't a Vet be able to pay off this costs spread out over several years?

Apparently we are already at "full" employment. As pp suggest if there were fewer graduates there would be fewer demands for graduates in many jobs. When I went to Uni, even in Thatcher's job depressed 80s, the opportunity cost of the years of wages lost to study were enough to put a lot of my friends off going to Uni.

Fees and generous loans you never repay incentivise study if the alternative is low paid insecure work but it is doubtful if anyone benefits and it certainly does not look "affordable".