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

fivecandles

"Are you saying you should pay less the higher marks you get? And the better job you get?"

Not at all. They attended the same lectures at the same university for the same course. So they were provided exactly the same service by the university.

So irrespective of how they did in their degree or how they do in the future, they both should pay exactly the same.

The new system seems nothing more than a form of graduate tax. Higher earners are already paying more through higher income tax. Lower earners pay less through lower income tax. This seems like double taxation.

But they pay off their debt more quickly!!

Lower earners will be paying theirs for 30 years!

I don't see why it should matter what you earn. When the plumber comes round to fix the taps, the charge isn't a function of my expected future earnings! It's the same price whatever i earn.

Those courses that the govt want people to do (because of some perceived social/economic need) and don't necessarily pay well should be directly subsidized in the form of lower fees.

But two people on the same course should pay the same. They get exactly the same out of it. What then transpires with their lives is up to them.

Stoatsrevenge - The important point in my post was "compared to the current system". The maths are a little bit complex so I hope this explanation makes sense...

A high earner currently has to repay around £25k plus interest. This will rise to around £42k plus interest.

Giving a bit more detail, there is a level of earnings below which you will never pay off the debt as your payments over 30 years (25 years at the moment) will simply not be enough. The highest total repayment happens when you earn the right amount to pay off the debt in exactly 30 years. Once you get above that level the total amount you pay will go down as your earnings go up. That is a feature of the current system and does not change under the government's proposals. However, the increased size of student loans due to higher tuition fees means that high earners will all pay significantly more in total than they do under the current system whereas low earners all pay significantly less.

Fivecandles - No, someone just over the threshold will NOT be worse off. They will be substantially better off. I know you don't believe it but please do the sums. If we take someone earning £22k, £1k over the new threshold, under the current system they would pay £630 per year (9% of £6k) for 25 years, a total of £15750, so they will not even pay off the capital part of the loan let alone the interest. Under the new system they will pay £90 per year (9% of £1k) for 30 years, a total of £2700. You have to move significantly further up the earnings scale to find anyone who will be worse off.

As for complaining that I didn't give any pros and cons of funding out of general taxation, the pro and con I gave for tuition fees are compared with general taxation, and are therefore respectively a con and pro for funding out of general taxation. I thought that was obvious. However, for your benefit:

• Funding out of general taxation means that students should be able to leave university debt free or, at worst, with very low debt. Potential students will therefore not be put off by the possible levels of debt.

• Both universities and the NUS are against funding from general taxation as it makes universities dependent on the government for funding, significantly reducing their independence. Universities also believe that it reduces their competitiveness on the global stage.

As opposed to dependent on vulnerable and unsalaried students?

Don't get how universities would be less competitive if they were reliably funded.

We fund the NHS and we fund schools. Are they 'less competitive'?

I'm not seeing many genuine cons TBH.

'However, the increased size of student loans due to higher tuition fees means that high earners will all pay significantly more in total than they do under the current system whereas low earners all pay significantly less.'

Is that making the assumption that low earners will remain low earners throughout their working lives?

ph
Are you getting loan repayments and fee repayments confused? Surely maintenance loan repayments will still take as long to pay off , in addition to fee repayments.

fivecandles - I am only quoting the view expressed by universities. I don't know why they believe being funded from general taxation will make them less competitive. I haven't looked into it enough to understand their argument or say whether or not I agree with them. I do get the argument about independence, removing any power for the government to dictate the courses run and the number of students accepted, but I am not sure how important it is. Although I don't agree that there are no cons to the approach, I have a lot of sympathy for the view that universities should be funded out of general taxation. We've never done that entirely as far as I am aware. Certainly when I was at university the parents were expected to contribute towards the student grant. I remember at least one student on my course struggling because his parents refused to pay.

stoatsrevenge - For simplicity I have assumed that our graduate remains on the same earnings throughout his or her life, that interest rates remain unchanged and that there is no inflation. If I start putting in different assumptions it becomes horrendously complicated (and we can then start arguing about the assumptions!). And no, I am not getting loan repayments and fee repayments confused. They are all student loans and subject to the same rules. The typical debt for a student starting this year of around £25k consists of roughly £10k tuition fees and £15k maintenance. As the repayments are going down, both the maintenance element and the tuition fees element of the loan will take longer to pay off than they do at the moment for all graduates even if tuition fees weren't going up. However, a higher proportion of graduates will end up with some or all of their loan being written off after 30 years. For low earners the reduced repayments coupled with the loan being written off after 30 years means that they pay less in total under the new system even though they are paying for longer.

In VERY broad terms my calculations suggest that, if we take into account the effects of retail price inflation, wage inflation and changing interest rates and assume that our graduate starts on a salary of £25k, he or she needs to be earning an average of over £45k through the first 30 years after leaving university to be worse off under the government's proposals. However, there are so many assumptions and approximations in that calculation that I would regard it as little more than a guess.

Not all universities support this. The ones who support this are the ones who will definitely charge £9000 (and hope the cap will be lifted sooner or later, once the principle is in place). The supporters are the Russell Group unis - who will be given shedloads more money through the loan system. If the universities were funded through general taxation they would - as now - receive pretty much the same for teaching as elsewhere and not have the 'competitive advantage' over the rest (some of whom will now fail - at least 10 will close - and various others will merge).

If a number of so-called universities go out of business then that would be a one positive side effect of higher tuition fees. Less students wasting their money on worthless qualifications from worthless institutions.

The UK has way too many institutions calling themselves universities when really they are just community/technical/vocational colleges. Even many of the "elite" RG unis don't seem that impressive to a foreigner like me. Undergrad Math at Leeds or Math from MIT ... now let me think who to hire!

I think that view is vile siasl.

I have friends and family who work in universities that you would probably consider 'so-called'. In fact, the quality of the teaching at new universities is often significantly better than in RG universities where students may be lucky to get 3 hours a week of tuition often with a research assistant while the professors that draw them in do barely any teaching at all.

New universities are often accessible to students from low incomes often mature students esp women with children who complete degrees and post-graduate qualifications part-time.

The fact that you see the fact that they are threatened with closure with the thousands of job losses and limited opportunities for students esp from low income backgrounds as a good thing is crass,elitist and offensive really beyond belief.

'Less students wasting their money on worthless qualifications from worthless institutions. '

And what gives you the right to judge these things 'worthless' and 'wasteful'?

How you can see education and universities as 'worthless' is beyond me. Vile, truly vile.

You might think its vile ... i would say its just realistic

What is vile is the way Uk governments have convinced young people that by becoming a "graduate" would lead them to their dream job. What they were actually doing was suppressing unemployment figures, creating swathes of jobs in the "edueconomy" financed with the student debt, and leading grads to huge disappointment when they have tried to apply for the careers they desired.

Going forward its going to get much harder to obtain these elusive jobs since competition will be far fiercer than even now. Each year I interview more and more fantastic grads from the emerging economies. Most UK grads simply can't compete with the determination, drive and raw ability these people have. These people are from genuinely disadvantaged "low income" backgrounds not the nonsense poverty measures we get in this country.

Education is the absolute opposite of worthless. What is worthless and wasteful is pushing young people into doing subjects that are often inappropriate for them, that do not deliver their career aspirations and leave them in debt and without the skills they need to prosper.

What is 'vile' is the way you dismiss the fact that many new universities and many departments within much more traditional universities are facing bankruptcy and closure because of this philisitine government's social engineering as a 'good' thing. You show no recognition of the impact on indiivduals or society of the job losses that this will cause or the resulting lack of access to an education particularly for those from low income backgrounds and mature students.

You seem to be applauding the fact that university is going to be increasingly for the rich and for those who want to do science based subjects.

I find your perception of a university education purely as a means to getting a job objectionable.

University should be about education and yes, a degree, makes you more employable or provides the first step towards getting a graduate job.

I haven't seen anyone suggest that university is a sure fire means to getting a high earning job and anyone who goes to university for this reason is naive. BTW I have worked with 16-18 year olds including some of the brightest in the country in a deprived area for the last 15 years.

I would also like to know what your evidence is that 'Most UK grads simply can't compete with the determination, drive and raw ability these people have'

or what gives you the right to decide which people are from 'genuinely disadvantaged "low income" backgrounds and which are not.

or that young people have been pushed 'into doing subjects that are often inappropriate for them, that do not deliver their career aspirations and leave them in debt and without the skills they need to prosper.'

And just when we thought it couldn't get worse this:
www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/dec/19/university-funding-cut-tuition-fees?CMP=twt_gu
In summary, the government is likely to withdraw the funding for universities a year before the income from fees is due to arrive - meaning that they want several institutions to fail very soon. I absolutely agree that the places that will fail financially are not the places teaching poorly so-called Mickey Mouse degrees to inadequate students (all three points are mythical) - it is those places oriented towards spreading education (which industry claims to want and need) to those communities who did not traditionally get the chance to extend themselves. And a lot in the middle will struggle massively too - with course cuts, larger class sizes etc etc. Bad all round. The crusade is a fanatical ideological adherence to the market.

Whilst the Guardian and other opponents of the government accuse it of an ideological crusade, the reality is that there is no money. The government has been spending £4 for every £3 income. That is not sustainable. Whether the government is making the right decisions to deal with that is open to debate but suggesting that every single area of spending could be protected is not sensible. Having said that, I agree that it would be much better if the tuition fee income arrived at the same time as government funding was cut. I note that this is an "expected to announce" story which may mean it isn't set in stone as yet. I shall be hoping that the actual announcement isn't as harsh as the Guardian is suggesting.

But there IS money for things that the goverment wants to spend it on: MPs' expenses, shoring up the banks which continue to pay ridiculous bonuses, the training of police officers and soldiers and on and on.

Plus the fact that cuts in the short term are going to lead to huge costs to individuals and society later.

Who do you think is going to pay for the unemployment benefits and related costs of the reduncies? And what is going to happen to those people who can no longer afford to go to university but can't get a job either?

According to the BBC the settlement will reduce funding for 2011-12 by around 6%. The teaching budget cuts (which are much larger) are not going to happen until the tuition fee changes are introduced. Since the tuition fee changes are designed to cover the cut in the teaching budget that seems reasonable, although the fact that budgets are being cut is clearly not great.

Fivecandles - All the major parties accept that big cuts in spending are required. The opposition are, of course, putting the case against every individual cut as they should - I would expect the Conservatives and LibDems to do the same if they were in opposition. But government is about making decisions, which includes deciding which budgets to cut by how much. For what it is worth, the police and armed forces budgets are being cut. The only budgets protected from the cuts are the NHS and overseas aid.

Yes, the armed forces are suffering cuts. Local Service chiefs now to drive own cars. What hardship!

The armed forces are, of course, losing 17,000 jobs with the MoD losing a further 25,000. There will be 40% fewer tanks and 35% less heavy artillery. I could go on.

You can certainly criticise the way armed forces spending is being cut but to characterise it as "local service chiefs now to drive own cars" as if that is the only change is ridiculous.

Just pointing out one of the ways money has been wasted. A flippant remark. Sorry.

I do, however, think that the Armed Forces needs a good overhaul. Modern warfare does not warrant a huge Navy, Army or Air Force. Most communication can be done from land bases. Our young army recruits are being used as mercenaries in Afghanistan at the moment, and this should not be a source of national pride.

I think we also forget about the few thousand service people (combat troops, RN vessels, submarines, cooks, bartenders, fighter planes, etc) sitting in the Falklands twiddling their thumbs for months and months at a time, which they have been doing for the best part of 30 years! Maintenance and fuel costs alone must be phenomenal!

....then there's maintenance of the Royals - look at how ours live compared with their European counterparts. They wouldn't suffer if they had a cut in income for a year.

....then there are the taxes we lose by companies being registered overseas. And the news today about bank bonuses.

It just seems that there is one rule for business and finance (politicians friends), and another for the common man in the street. But I guess we should be looking forward to the opening of the first Tesco University - at least there will be a secure source of funding, rather than the penurious Great Britain plc.

I think this government is making cuts in our future hope and fabric of our society.

I agree with a lot of that. I think there is a lot of waste in the armed forces and, ineed, elsewhere in government. I don't agree with all your examples but that just illustrates the extent to which decisions are political - different people will have different views on what is waste and what is essential. The trick, regardless of your political colour, is to get rid of the waste and keep the useful stuff. Of course, you will always face a campaign from those with vested interests claiming that any reduction in funding for their bit of government will result in cuts to frontline services. Sometimes they are right, sometimes they are just trying to protect their own position.

I very much doubt that this government is intentionally setting out to make cuts in our future hope. That may be the effect of what they are doing although I hope it isn't. I don't subscribe to the "all Conservatives are baby-eaters who want to grind the poor into the dust" view. A few of their MPs have said pretty objectionable things but so have a few MPs from other parties. I tend to agree with the leading member of the opposition (Andy Burnham? Can't find the article so not sure) who recently said that political debate would be much better if we acknowledged that the main parties have similar aims (economic growth, prosperity, security, relieving poverty, improving social mobility, better future for our children, etc.) and that the real difference between them is about how to achieve those aims.

In 5 years time we'll be able to judge whether or not we think this lot have succeeded. If they haven't we can throw them out and have the other lot back. I am sure there will be those who say "it will be too late by then" but in my experience it very rarely is too late.

Completely agree stoats. As for cutting waste, what actually happens is that management consultants are paid thousands to find that pennies are 'wasted' on paper clips. MPs are allowed to fiddle the books to the tune of thousands but they put all their energy and more money on looking for benefit cheats. Likewise the banks and big business. Compare the amount of money which could be gained from pursuing the likes of Mr Top Shop and clarifying the taxation system with the amount to be gained from pursuing Fred Bloggs who may have wrongfully claimed 40 quid unemployment benefit for two weeks five years ago. It's hypocrisy of the very worst kind. And its not their kids who are going to miss out on university is it?

pr, as for your comment that you don't see that "all Conservatives are baby-eaters who want to grind the poor into the dust" . Well, Howard Flight's views about the poor being encouraged to 'breed' together with Lord Young's comments that most Britons "had never had it so good during this so called recession" and the loss of 100,000 public sector jobs a year as 'within the margin of error' really do suggest such an attitude. As long as the rich, largely public school educated MPS and their friends are ok, they really can't see the problem and they will continue to cut where they won't feel the impact.

'While Green lives and works in the UK, the Arcadia Group is registered in the name of his wife, Tina, who is resident in Monaco and so enjoys a 0% income-tax rate. In 2005 this arrangement allowed the Greens to bank £1.2bn, the biggest paycheck in British corporate history, without paying a penny in tax. This completely legal dodge cost the British taxpayer £285m, enough to pay the salaries of 9,000 NHS nurses or the £9,000 fees of close to 32,000 students. In an age of austerity, the link between tax avoidance and public sector cuts becomes crystal clear.'

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/03/topshop-philip-green-tax-avoidance-protest

That puts things into perspective don't you think?

The government makes CHOICES about what to cut and what not to cut and what to charge and what not to charge. The rhetoric of 'there's no money left' is very helpful to pursuing their agenda of shrinking their state which was always their agends anyway but you really do have to take what they say with a pinch of salt when they say there' no money left for the likes of us oiks whilst sending their own kids to Eton.