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.

Should 17YOS have to pay to take A levels because they benefit individually?

The creative industries make a huge contribution to the economy. Even when a student doesn't go on to make direct use of their degree they may well use skills gained. Eg researching, interpreting and presenting information. I went to a student presentation where the student had composed, performed and recorded her work and collaborated with other students to present it alongside visual materials. Many many hours of work went in to it for only a tiny percentage of the final mark. And it was very successful. That student was very skilled and employable IMO. She could work in marketing, advertising, education; probably lots of other fields too.

The current system discriminates against even middle-income households even when the most talented students get scholarships. My DC's scholarship doesn't cover his living costs. He is considered to be exceptionally able in his performing arts field. He's unlikely to earn much - literally the gig economy. More than 30% of the students at the conservatoire he goes to have come from private schools. I am worried about how he/we will manage to fund him. Turns out you have to be exceptionally able and come from a well-off family to even consider a career in the performing arts. How unfair. There is a dearth of working class students at conservatoires. What a loss of talent and potential. Why should degrees in the arts be available only to exceptionally able and well-off students?

I got a full grant as a student - I didn't have the option of living at home. My arts degree gave me skills and useful insights into the ways of the world. I wouldn't have done it under the current system.

but again rogue is the answer free tuition for all, or a better selection of bursaries that include living costs for the truly able?

I'd rather reduce the taxpayers' burden by charging for alcohol-induced costs such as ambulance/police/A+E treatment, recouping the taxes lost by big business. tax evasion, stopping faceless private contractors charging a fortune for low quality services provided to the public.

Leave students alone - it'll be long enough before they can claim a state pension if they still exist by the time current students are 68+

Both nolotterywin

The costs associated with pre-conservatoire training for performing arts are prohibitive to many very able young children.

I'm the same as hackmum. If my degree hadn't been paid for I'd never have become a teacher because my family wouldn't have been able to afford it. I am very grateful for all the opportunities it gave me, including being able to afford to send my daughter to uni If she chooses. What about those who don't have the choice?

We need cleverer policies, I agree, not blanket policies. One size doesn't fit all here.

100% agree.

I think I could actually get on board with the 'pay tax on the basis of how hard you had to work to get there' concept.

Black women would be paying half the tax of white men. RESULT!

Great idea. My kids might actually have a shot at university education.

He also mentioned free education for adults who want to retrain. I would love this.

btw, the point at which we start viewing education as an investment in our financial futures is the point at which said education is utterly valueless.

I teach in HE and I can guarantee that those people on my courses who are viewing their degree as a financial investment are getting nothing out of it in comparison to those who are here because they want to learn.

Also the next student who tells me they deserve a 2:1 because of all the debt they've gotten into in order to do the degree....is going to get a commiseratory hug - because it isn't their fault the government has replaced all their valuable internal motivation with shitty external financial ones. It's really VERY VERY sad.

if you give students £30k in free uni tuition, and you don't give that money to non-graduates, you think that's fair and a level playing field for earnings?

As a non-graduate, I had to pay for my own training materials and college/uni courses, I used my annual holiday allowance for study leave and took unpaid time off to attend college/uni on day release. My employer paid diddly squat and I was paid a pittance of a wage as a trainee throughout those 5 years it took me to qualify as an accountant.

How is it fair that I'd pay more tax over my lifetime compared with graduates who benefitted from expensive state funded uni education not having to pay their student loans back???

There is no single answer to satisfy all scenarios.

the fact is though, there's been no £11bn investment in non-university routes into jobs, has there?

yes, tax-rates according to your privilege level :)

the sad fact is though that there IS a price tag on university education, it needs to be properly paid for to be world class, and so many more students doing degrees because of lack of other routes into jobs options has exacerbated the 'what do I get out' approach to it.

He also mentioned free education for adults who want to retrain.

Only if it's properly controlled and not just a "free for all". My OH and myself would have benefitted massively from this as we both had to self-fund our further education as we didn't do it straight off from leaving school. However, we used to have highly subsidised adult education in local colleges and they usually did all manner of "hobby" courses rather than career courses, together with basic core skills courses for those with poor literacy or numeracy skills. Nothing available for those actually wanting to take job-related training to higher levels.

Apparently, England has seen more poorer students enrol than Scotland has in recent years, despite the tuition rise. That is, the gap between the number of poor and wealthier students has narrowed in England not Scotland. The reason is that with higher fees have come expanded student numbers, and that's where universities are seeing the poorer coming in.

It's a brilliant idea. Somehow Scotland manage as do the rest of the EU where university education is free or almost free. How do Scandinavian countries manage to have great social care, fantastic free education and healthcare?

How on earth you'd be fuming about something that's going to benefit literally all young people who want it is beyond me. What also makes you cross, OP? All the free air just being wasted on the poor when someone could be raking it in?

Scottish universities have capped places for Scottish fee payers, the cap hasn't increased with student numbers. Scottish universities survive due to attracting foreign (non-EU) and RUK students and make most of their money from them.

Is that what we want? Pushing our universities to rely on even more non-UK students?

I really enjoyed my degree. I don't see ANYONE round here enjoying their degrees any more.

Even people who start off interested in the subject get worn down by the necessity of making it worth the money (which inevitably means getting a 2:1).

We are left in a situation where the money needs to be paid back even if the student gets a third, while getting a third makes you all but unemployable. The pressure on universities to inflate grades and devalue the degrees is intense, and in fact we have caved to it utterly.

In the last 50 years the number of people getting a 1st has gone from being 1-2% of the class to 50%. It makes A-level grade inflation look insignificant in comparison. Now some of that happened before tuition fees came in, but it has spiralled totally out of control since then. We are no distance at all from a situation where coughing up the ash is the ONLY requirement to getting a 2:1 degree. How much value are people getting in that situation I wonder?

Absolutely agree to scrap for NHS workers and teachers. We have a critical nursing shortage in the NHS and need to train more nurses to meet the demand. Expecting them to pay for their tuition is ridiculous and will not attract the people we need, including mature students.

YANBU

And this post of yours articulates exactly my reasons for thinking it's a stupid idea to scrap them:

We'll get loads of people going to university 'just because'. It devalues tertiary education. He's just trying to win the young people vote.

Added to that, the loads that will go 'just because' are far more likely to be middle class and upward.
Fees are fairer.

Also, will the government properly fund the universities who are already saying they will struggle with funding especially once out of the EU, or will it be like early years provision where many childminders or closing in setember as they cannot afford to take in the 30free hours as the government is only paying £3something per hour per child. If they don't contribute a decent amount for universities, the universities will ultimately suffer which will have a trickle effect and certainly won't be benefitting anyone.

Badbadbunny I am also an accountant. My firm had / has a non-graduate entry route. It takes 5 years as you suggest. However for the final 2 years the non-graduates were paid exactly the same as their graduate counterparts and completed exactly the same course under the same conditions. They were then all treated as equals on qualification. The difference is that the graduates had 3 years of degree debt and knowledge and the non-graduates had 3 years more work experience and had earned a salary, even if small.

Otoh my non-professional non-graduate DBro has earned more than me for the vast majority of our working lives.

if you are struggling that much to get a 2:1, isn't that a sign that you shouldn't have gone down the degree route and that is the source of the problem - too many people doing degrees in the first place as they've been over-emphasized as the route to a good job?

'Benefit' young people who want to go to university (for whatever reason) at what cost to everyone else though? As I and many others on this thread have pointed out, this is another situation where the money could be better spent elsewhere - e.g. A reduction in fees/bursaries for certain studies/scholarships/more funding for secondary schools etc. It very much looks like Labour trying to 'buy' the younger vote.

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.

These are much better proposals than simply scrapping fees altogether.