University Tuition Fees

[dorotheehw]

How can mums support the student protest against the rise in tuition fees for higher education. I went to uni one day a week when my children were 8 and 12. I could not have afforded it under proposed fees nor would I have wanted a debt of £30.000

tbh, I don't think it should be thought of as a debt at all. It's not remotely like a personal loan, for instance. It's more like an extra tax liability (a means-tested graduate tax in effect). So it doesn't worry me in the slightest in the current form.

Just had to say that once, somewhere. I'm sure the thread will revert to the usually scheduled format of Protest in a moment (!)

Yey! Just think of it as doing 1-2 years' work for free!

I'm not sure why such a large proportion of the population thinks that they deserve higher education as a right for free. Because it was before?Why are you all so thick that you actually fail to understand the new system!!!
I'm from America where we actually pay a lot for uni. Admissions are mostly needs blind (i.e. they accept you and work out how much you can afford to pay and then put together a package of loans and on-campus work to pay for it. for very able students under a certain income level a full scholarship is usually awarded). As a result, a university education is valued. Students work part time jobs and during the summer. It is not the beer and skittles life that students have here. University is a privilege. I hope this country begins to treat it as such.

Well with that logic why are we all so thick we also think we deserve free healthcare. Why should we all pay for renal units or MS care when the likelihood is that most of us will never use it?

Ridiculous argument.

As a society we pick and choose what taxes should and should not pay for. So why should we pay for the health care for smokers for example but not to train the doctors who will care for them?

I think that basic education to 18 and healthcare cover basic needs that everyone has. University is not for everyone and we shouldn't pretend that everyone wants it or, more important, can derive benefit. A mediocre student who can only get on a mediocre course at a mediocre university and applies because it is free and what their peers are doing may think twice. Entering the workforce might force that type of person to focus or they might just be better off in a job that doesn't demand much. Then again, that is exactly the type of person who won't earn above the income threshold for repayment anyway.

Well whenever someone comes out with that sort of argument horsemadmom it's always someone else who isn't suitable for university never you or your children.

Anyway, that's irrelevant because under this system EVERYBODY but the very poorest will have to pay a fortune regardless of whether they are considered to have benefited or benefit others from the experience.

And whatever is one person's 'basic needs' is another person's 'privilege'.

I repeat why is it ok to use tax payers money to train police or pay for the healthcare of smokers or even the war in Iraq? Is this about 'basic needs'?

Why is it ok to use taxpayers' money to fund libraries or the arts or the territorial army but not to fund the education of future doctors or teachers?

And not everybody has the same healthcare needs do they? Why should tax payers pay for the healthcare of the obese or even people who are deaf if they are unlikely to benefit from those services?

Sound terrible doesn't it? But how is that argument any different from saying that students should make a contribution over and above their usual taxes because not everybody benefits from going to university?

Totally agree with fivecandles.

What really gets to me is that there is so little said about the fact that the reason the tution fees are going up is because the funding to universities is being slashed by 80% ,even more for Arts courses .

"Well whenever someone comes out with that sort of argument horsemadmom it's always someone else who isn't suitable for university never you or your children."

I agree with horsemadmom and my DCs are academic. We got told DS was oxbridge material when he was in year 9 so the type that will be worse hit. We can't afford it and they will have to pay their own way.
If less people have degrees then there will be less competition for jobs at that level, so in the long run they may be better off.
Also hopefully we will get away from companies now only taking on people with degrees. I have came across situations where professionally qualified accountant with years of experience has got to an interview, asked why they didn't mention their degree on their cv, when told they didn't have a degree, the company has stopped the interview and told them it was against company policy to employ anyone without a degree.
We need to get back to training on the job and degrees should be the exception for the academic, rather than the norm.

What about the knock-on effect?
It used to be that University was the place where you went to get away from your cosy little home environment - to discover life, the big wide world and realise that they do things differently in other locations/social classes/families. It was where you learnt to think, learnt to self-organise.

It will now merely be a preparation for employment. It will be where the Haves pay a huge amount to jump through hoops (and cannot risk experimentation or failure) to get a job at the end of it. And when they have paid this massive cost, how charitable do you think they will feel towards the HaveNots?

It will divide the country into those lucky enough, wealthy enough, brave enough to go to University and those too scared, too poor, too lacking in self-belief to go. And there will be a bunch who claim maximum loan with no intention of ever paying it back, who will get it in the neck from both sides!

I'm surprised that they raised the school leaving age to 18. I was waiting for them to start charging for A Levels too. It seems crazy to insist that teenagers who don't want to be in education must stay on, yet a few years later teenagers who do want to be in education are given a financial disincentive.

It also seems absurd for a Government to say that we have moved beyond the Industrial Revolution and we must now be a knowledge-based economy - but then not put their/our money where their mouth is. Education is not so much fivecandles' 'basic need' but more an 'infrastructure' like roads and the national grid.

< and breathe ...>

• a bit off topic, but Bruffin I wonder if competition at the high level you are aiming at for your child will decrease? It seems to me that the majority the approx 50% intake of independently educated youngsters currently studying at Oxbridge will still be likely to apply, being more likely to count on some support from parents. For many, whatever their school background, when considering the extent of their future debts, is it not likely that they will try to get the most "bang for their bucks" and apply for universities most likely to make them marketable later? And then jobs which are highest paid?

Surely potential doctors, dentists, vets and lawyers and their ilk will still apply, given their potential future earnings? The problem will more likely hit teachers who will earn enough to pay back loans but not enough to pay back comfortably. There are plenty of other occupations in this bracket, including research scientists, medical and otherwise, nurses, many civil servants doing important work like ensuring building standards are safe, roads are properly maintained...the list is endless. these people are far less visible than the doctors whose important calling is often quoted as a reason to keep paying fees, but their work is also essential to society.

In most cases the doctors will still train, because they know they can suppport themselves later and competition for these high paying jobs might well increase. We are just as likely to need the less visible services of staff, experts in their fields, on far lower salaries to ensure our security and quality of life but it is here that I fear we shall lose many key people. There is no point training doctors if the lab researchers choose to go into the City instead.

My argument would be the same as Middlemarch's, that those people who do not themselves go to university do benefit from those who do: not only from the doctors and nurses and midwives, but also the people who write books and do research for television, the people who do medical research, the social workers, the teachers, the engineers, the lab assistants.

Show me a person who has never in their life made use of the higher education of another person and I will let them off paying!

And then explain what we are going to do with all those youngsters who should not be at our new elite universities when there aren't enough unqualified jobs to go round.

Just to get the facts on the table...

Students do not have to pay tuition fees up front. Graduates will not pay any of their tuition fees back until they are earning £21,000 (this figure will be adjusted for inflation annually). They then pay 9% of anything they earn over that amount, so a graduate earning £25,000 will pay about £6.92 a week and a graduate earning £30,000 will pay about £15.58 a week. After 30 years any outstanding debts are written off even if you haven't paid back a single penny. The rate of interest paid depends on how much you earn but it is capped at RPI + 3% (RPI = Retail Price Index, i.e. the rate of inflation) for anyone earning over £41,000. Student loans will in future be available to students on part time courses provided they are doing at least 25% as much studying as a full time student - they currently have to pay their fees up front. The poorest students are also eligible for grants towards their housing and transport costs. These do not have to be repaid.

Some have suggested a graduate tax as an alternative. However, the only practical difference between that and the government's proposals is that a graduate tax is effectively an infinite tuition fee. Under the government's proposals your repayments will stop when you have paid back the loan plus a capped amount of interest. Under a graduate tax you could end up paying a lot more.

Comparing the government's proposals to NUS policy, the differences are:

• The NUS want student loans, tuition fees, etc. to be handled by an independent trust which can raise money by selling bonds against its future income. That one's really going to get them out on the streets - "What do we want? An independent trust fund! When do we want it? Now!"

• The NUS want rich students to be able to pay their tuition fees up front.

• The NUS want all courses to charge the same tuition fee regardless of the length of the course and the reputation of the university.

That's it. In all other respects NUS policy on student finance matches the government's proposals.

This post is not intended to take sides. It is purely outlining the facts.

I am well aware of the above facts and so are all the university teachers I know. However, with what we know about the psychology of students, we are convinced that the effect of the fees is that statistically more working class students will be put off university studies, because longterm debt is something they will worry more about. Yes, it may be illogical, yes it may be wrongheaded, but we believe it is still going to be the effect and it is not an effect that I, personally, want to see.

Cory - As I say, I am not taking sides and I certainly wasn't intending my post as a response to yours (which hadn't even appeared when I started typing!). You may well be right. I am not sure that there is any conclusive evidence from other countries one way or the other, and in any case there is no guarantee that the experience of other countries would be repeated here. My main concern is that a lot of this debate (not necessarily on this thread) seems to ignore the facts.

Thank you for the figures prh. Perhaps the government needs to advertise them more clearly. I am aware that Higher Ed needs funding from somewhere and am not averse to having people contribute more financially, or to having changes to the system so that degrees are no longer the be all and end all. I don't, however, like the oft repeated opinions about who should and should not attend university and the constant denigrating of degrees and the young people who hold them, of which people do not have direct experience.

These commentators in general are not really able to say with any accuracy what benefits or otherwise the subjects confer on the young people who graduate in them. And five candles is right - it is always someone else's child who shouldn't receive higher education funding. It is an unpleasant intellectual snobbery (often expressed ungrammatically, I notice)

I write as someone with a postgrad degree in a traditional subject, academically capable children and a family income which means (fingers crossed) we shall be able to support our children for as long as they wish to study. But Cory is right. Too many students without such a safety net will baulk at the thought of big debts if they feel they will not achieve a high income.

'If less people have degrees then there will be less competition for jobs at that level, so in the long run they may be better off.'

I'm not sure if you realize the implications of what you've just said bruffin.

What you're saying is that less people will be in a position to compete in the jobs markets because they won't be able to afford to go to university and this is a good thing because it will make life easier for your own kids. Do you get how that sounds to other people?

'Education is not so much fivecandles' 'basic need' but more an 'infrastructure' like roads and the national grid.'

Not quite sure I said it was a 'basic need'. What I said is we pay taxes and the Govt makes decisions about what to spend them on. There are many, many things that Govt spends money on that are not 'basic needs' i.e. an illegal war in Iraq or public libraries.

My view is that funding university education (most notably doctors, teachers, scientists) is more necessary than funding the training of the police or the army. But that's not the Govt's view.

Really it would be a sad, shrivelled sort of society where govts were only paid for 'basic needs'.

'those people who do not themselves go to university do benefit from those who do'

Totally, totally agree.

Plus the fact that graduates are likely to be higher earners and therefore likely to pay higher taxes anyway.

I just find it bizarre that the people on who society is most reliant and who devote their whole lives to public service - teachers, doctors etc - will also have to shoulder the burden of the costs of universities in addition to paying their already higher taxes for the rest of their lives. These are also people who will probably take least out of the system in terms of benefits etc.

pr,

the fact that students will pay their tuition fees after they graduate (WITH INTEREST potentially for the rest of their working lives) really doesn't make it much better! What they'll end up paying is substantially more than the £9000 per year at the same time as they might otherwise be saving up for a house or children or just trying to pay the rent!

Fivecandles - As I say I am not taking sides in this debate, merely laying out the facts.

Yes, anyone who takes a loan will generally end up paying out more than they borrowed. That is the nature of loans. However, they will NOT be paying for the rest of their working lives. Any outstanding debt is written off 30 years after they graduate, so in their early 50s for most students. The repayments are 9% of their earnings over £21,000 (and the £21,000 gets uprated with inflation every year. For what it is worth the current scheme has payments at 9% of earnings over £15,000, so the government is proposing to substantially lower repayments).

To give a full example, let's ignore inflation and assume our graduate earns £30,000 a year throughout their working life. They will therefore pay back £840 a year (roughly £15.58 per week) for 30 years, a total of £24,300. At the end of that time the debt will be written off. If they have been to a university that charges the full £9,000 per annum tuition fee they won't even have repaid the capital, let alone any interest.