Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Higher education

Talk to other parents whose children are preparing for university on our Higher Education forum.

Is it a good idea to pay university tuition fees off upfront?

221 replies

SunnyDays01 · 23/02/2015 16:51

Apologies if this has already been done to death but if anybody has any advice regarding tuition fees in particular I'd be grateful. Just about to embark on the student loan route and it occurred to me that there has been a lot in the press regarding the pros and cons of paying university fees upfront. Anyone have any advice/answers? Thank you.

OP posts:
TheWordFactory · 28/02/2015 08:26

Event management is like most industries in that there are always a few high fliers but the vast majority of people working within it are not and do not require a degree.

Probably, the most people need is a one year course at a college covering the essentials.

But these days every course is transformed into a degree necessitating three years and. £££.

DontDrinkandFacebook · 28/02/2015 08:55

So true word and that's the case with so many degree subjects now. Years ago you could get a trainee position and work your way up in your chosen industry while you learnt on the job, earning money as you went. Now you come out at 21 with a shedload of debt, no actual work experience and you are starting at exactly the same level realistically as a 16-18 year old fresh out of school would have done 20 years ago. Although you can claim to arrive with a more in-depth theoretical knowledge of that industry, but sometimes that's worth shit quite honestly, if you have no actual relevant work experience.

Very few jobs going to graduates now actually require a degree, even less a non-industry specific degree, such as history or English for example. They don't even really require someone of degree calibre, but we've arrived at a ridiculous situation where not having a degree arouses suspicion about your ability to string a legible sentence together. Especially given that plenty of people with degrees clearly cannot, according to exasperated university lecturers and graduate employers.

The whole thing seems to have been a way of fudging the simple fact that there are very few decent job opportunities for young people any more, so they are kept off the dole queue by years of (often fairly pointless) education; all those years of chasing the carrot and stick and then it turns out the carrot wasn't even a real carrot anyway.

It just takes the majority of these young people 5 years longer to get started in the workplace, for no more money whatsoever, than it took my peers 30 years ago.

DontDrinkandFacebook · 28/02/2015 09:37

It is not always as simple as saying some degrees are useful and some not. A degree from Bristol or Oxford in English Lit or from Cambridge or Exeter in History will always show that you are intelligent and have a trained and analytical mind. Employers aren't stupid, they know this.

I do agree with you Abra1d despite what I have just said above citing English and History as examples. Years ago unless you went into medicine or architecture or something that required very specific industry based knowledge it was almost totally irrelevant what your degree was in. You still stood a good chance of picking up a graduate level job with a proper contract, good starting salary, full working benefits and often with ongoing sponsorship to gain a post-grad professional qualification, such as law, banking, accountancy etc. regardless of your chosen degree subject. There's many an accountant whose degree was in Geography or whatever, not finance.

The highest calibre, most ambitious students will still be picked up by the biggest and best companies and given graduate training positions, just as they always were. But just because we suddenly have four times as many graduates it doesn't follow that there are four times as many true graduate level jobs. The competition for the same or fewer jobs is much tougher. For everyone else who has a degree but isn't the creme de la creme they are probably left worse off in the long run than if they had never gone to uni at all.

The rise in unpaid internships is appalling, too. It's the most horrible cynical ploy that exploits desperate and disillusioned young people who have already done so much in the belief that it will improve their career chances. It has almost become the accepted norm that if you want a foot in the door of a highly sought after industry you have to be prepared to work for nothing at all, just to have something of use to put on your CV and to mark you out from the crowd. The saddest thing about the whole internship phenomenon is that only those students who can rely on the continuing financial support of their rich parents can afford to take them. Where's the justice in that? Hmm

The whole thing is a bit of a depressing mess. Employers take such cynical advantage. For crying out loud - even working as a shop assistant has been turned into an apprenticeship! They can't even resist the chance to pay some poor kid £2.50 an hour to 'train' them for three years to do something anyone with half a brain could learn inside and out in three months, for the grand prize of being free to leave and seek a minimum wage job with a zero hours at the end of it. Hmm

Fuck's sake - how did it come to this? Sad

TheWordFactory · 28/02/2015 10:02

It used to be accepted that a degree was an academic endeavour.

An opportunity to read, research, analyse etc. the course wasn't meant to train you in an industry specific way.

Many degrees today are essentially industry training and often not good training to boot since the courses are often dreamt up and taught by people with little actual industry experience.

DontDrinkandFacebook · 28/02/2015 10:05

agree

GentlyBenevolent · 28/02/2015 10:15

Word - you are very right.

ragged · 28/02/2015 11:07

I do indeed know a lot of thick people who completed a Uni degree. And some very fine thinkers who didn't.

My parents & their siblings (at Uni in 1950s-60s) hoped the degree would improve their job and lifelong prospects (which it did). Same for my grandparents & great-grandies who went to Uni. It was a practical decision more than an idealistic one. Also In my culture, certainly before the 1960s, it was as much a status symbol as much as anything else. If you (were male and) belonged to a certain class & had certain expectations & values, then you went to Uni because otherwise what the hell else would you be good for.

That said, my uncle (eldest male & several Uni degrees himself) declared a while back that what our clan really needed was a qualified Plumber. We still don't have one, quite annoying. Grin

TalkinPeace · 28/02/2015 12:48

Hear hear to WordFactory 's post at 10:02

Both of my grandmothers attended university - both then married straight out of college but to people they met through alumni networks.
Both of my grandfathers went to University. One went and joined the family firm, the other went into banking. I've no idea what their degrees were. It was not relevant.

The only family members where I do know what they did are the ones who stayed on and became Faculty.

lilahsmum · 28/02/2015 17:03

I graduated over 4 years ago on the old style payments scheme. I've only ever paid £17 off and it gets wiped in 21 years yet I now have money saved for a deposit for a house. I really wouldn't bother paying upfront especially with how high fees are now

Littleham · 28/02/2015 18:48

The Labour party has just announced an increase in the interest rates on the tuition fees. How much will that alter repayments?

DontDrinkandFacebook · 28/02/2015 18:58

nothing because they won't don't get in. Grin

TheWordFactory · 01/03/2015 07:40

So Labour propose to increase the interest rates on the loans ( which won't of course affect those who will never earn enough to pay them off) and reduce tax allowance on pensions thus providing a disincentive to save for old age.

Honestly, this is economic illiteracy!

uilen · 01/03/2015 09:04

Reduce tax allowance on pensions

For those earning over 150k, who shouldn't exactly be short of money in their retirement anyhow.

That said, I don't find Labour's policies on tuition and maintenance loans attractive either as an academic or as a parent. As an academic I am sure that they would try to fill the gap between 6k and 9k by telling us to cut costs (which given that the lack of increase 9k means in real terms less income will be very hard to do). As a parent I can't see how fees of 6k rather than 9k, no increase in maintenance loans, and higher interest rates on the loans, is going to benefit my DC.

DontDrinkandFacebook · 01/03/2015 10:16

Honestly, this is economic illiteracy!

Well obviously…..it's Labour.

noddyholder · 01/03/2015 10:23

One of ds fiat mates is doing Events management and is already raking in money yr 2

Kez100 · 01/03/2015 10:53

My dd would have loved an apprenticeship but they simply don't exist. She's doing a very industry focused practical creative degree and hopes to go freelance on graduation. It's a tough route but about the best chance she has if making it.

She has already had two small paid commissions so hopefully it will work.

Chances of her earning over 21k is unlikely but those that do earn way way higher, so there is a possibility but worth not paying upfront I would say.

GentlyBenevolent · 01/03/2015 12:20

Uilen - it will benefit everyone's children for the public finances to not have another black hole. The current system is unsustainable and must be fixed. Only the economically illiterate can't see that. There is no prospect of most of these loans being paid back. Better to get the money from other sources and stop giving our kids the impression that crippling debt is fine because you'll never ever have to pay it back....that's not just financially illiterate that's insane. But it's what the government has been doing.

noddyholder · 01/03/2015 12:31

I agree gently it sends a terrible message to 18 yr olds about debt and responsibility. Most of ds mates couldn't care less about the prospect of debt hanging over them as its what they are fed as 'the norm' and they don't really think they will be paying it back!

Fugacity · 01/03/2015 12:34

I think the student should pay for university, so I say loans all the way.

uilen · 01/03/2015 13:17

I have no problem with getting the money from other sources. I have no problem with cutting the numbers of students going to university. I also have no problem with measures to increase the repayment rates. I have a problem with a fudged policy which does not really make clear where the money is actually going to come from.

I believe that they would end up asking universities to provide the same services for (potentially) 75-80% of the current cost. This cannot be done without drastically changing the education which is provided. It would destroy our world leading universities. Personally, I would be OK because I could just escape to a top US university but it would have devastating effects on our teaching and research.

GentlyBenevolent · 01/03/2015 14:55

Frugality most of the students will never pay them back. It's a big old con.

GentlyBenevolent · 01/03/2015 15:03

The policy does make it clear where the money is expected to come from - it's clearer than under the current arrangements (which assume a proportion of repayment that has already proved to be ridiculously wildly over optimistic). The money will come from the public purse, they hope to recoup it as a result if other policies but if they don't, it won't be carried forward as a bad debt which hasn't been written off. It's more transparent and less contrary to accounting principles than is currently the case.

I agree that the only benefit to many students will be intangible (it's clear from this thread that even well educated people don't understand the problem of carrying forward massive doubtful debts) but that doesn't mean it's not real. Our biggest problem remains the pension black hole and nobody is even trying to fix that any more. It would be wildly irresponsible for any prospective government to allow a similar situation to develop with student loans.

Kez100 · 01/03/2015 15:05

If the Labour recommendation is for those earning more than 150k to lose 40% tax relief (presumably they will get 20% relief like the rest of us) I cannot see the numbers add up. They can only invest 32k a year anyway (grossed up to £40k) so they will all lose "£8k" tax relief per annum and lets be honest there aren't many earning 150k in this country. This adds up to peanuts so they must be meaning to reduce higher rate allowance for far, far more people than that.

Increasing the student interest rate won't make a huge difference either, as others have pointed out, as many wont repay.

I would very much worry for the Universities themselves and their funding.

TheWordFactory · 01/03/2015 15:27

I completely agree that the black joke if unpaid student loans needs to be resolved but this Labour policy ain't the answer by a long chalk.

Let's be honest, people like me, who were already considering covering my DCs fees, have just had their minds made up for them!

I think there's a good chance my DC will earn above threshold and I'm not happy about the new rate of interest.

I expect parents who can afford it will do the same.

So you're narrowing the numbers of those who would be likely to subsidise those who won't pay their loans back. And this is a numbers game no?

I think it will end up being the universities who will have to plug the shortfall via cut backs!

noddyholder · 01/03/2015 15:31

It is not strictly true that loans aren't considered for mortgage purposes. Unlike traditional loans which will be taken from the amount you can borrow student loans are exempt from this but recently when doing the new MMR affordability tests the monthly payment if you are making one is counted as an expense.

Swipe left for the next trending thread