Labour Manifesto Scraps Tuition Fees

[bojorojo]

So the draft manifesto says Labour want to scrap tuition fees. Like thousands of other students, my DD2 has student debt of £40,000. Is this fair on existing students and how will university funding be affected? What are the likely consequences?

*So, today we hear that the Tories will raise University tuition fees, and require that universities use this money - not to educate undergraduates (and the fee isn't economically/financially sustainable in the long term for universities) - but to establish schools - academies or free schools.

Crap.*

Not sure it says that at all. See below from the manifesto:

"We will make it a condition for universities hoping to charge the maximum tuition fees to become involved in academy sponsorship or the founding of free schools"

They wouldn't be expected to FUND the establishment of a new school - just lend their expertise like this:

www.kcl.ac.uk/mathsschool/home.aspx

Their results are impressive:
www.kcl.ac.uk/mathsschool/Results/A-level-results-2016.aspx

'Lending their expertise' is providing funding though. Who is going to pay the academics to take time out from their university teaching and research to 'lend their expertise' in order to set up a school? The universities are expected to do so. This requires money and while it won't involve funding the whole school, it could take up a significant proportion of a lecturer's time which will incur costs to the university.

So the fees increase will not go towards undergraduate teaching, nor to improve the conditions of the very many academics on zero-hours contracts. It is supposed to solve a problem which has in part been created by cutting the funding to schools.

It is astonishing that people do not realise that lending expertise costs universities money. If I spend most of my time helping set up a new maths academy, then either my department has to put a higher teaching load on my colleagues to cover or they have to find the money to pay for a replacement for me. I just can't work more than I already do (10+ hours every day of the week.)

It would also be very misguided to think that the KCL school is going to be typical. KCL has a large pool of talented, motivated, well-supported students to choose from in London. Replicating the same success in Bristol, Newcastle etc would be virtually impossible because the pool of applicants will be much smaller/lower achieving when they enter.

Universities actually have less money now because instead of being funded directly by the government, they have fees which are unlikely to be ever paid back.

The argument that we shouldn't scrap them because it is unfair to those who have already paid is illogical. Should we never have any progressive social policies because it would be unfair to people who didn't benefit from them? And I say this as a parent with two kids in University and two who are likely to go.

I do think there is an argument for smaller numbers going to university though. I know so many bright young graduates working dead end jobs who would have made fantastic skilled tradespeople. And I think many young tradespeople these days are just not bright enough for their jobs.

But the differential in starting point between the fees and no fees group would be huge. £27K - plus maintenance. And would the introduction be staggered? Everyone would be taking a gap year or two or three to avoid fees.

This has all been caused by the "50% going to university" insanity. Degrees devalued, disappointed graduates working in coffee shops, introduction of fees and scrapping of grants.

Good job too! Another reason to vote labour.

Well. My dd just received a statement from the student loan company. She graduated last summer. As she is accruing £195 a month in interest on her loan she has concluded that her chances of paying it off are slim. Who benefits from the interest and why is the rate so high?...

I think it's a great idea.
Young people shouldn't have to cope with all that debt on leaving uni.
We need fewer glorified polly's calling themselves universities and fewer courses.
Young people shouldn't be made to feel like a failure because they haven't been to uni.
Fewer courses would mean that employers wouldn't be looking for degrees if one wasn't available for their subject, so they'd take A levels instead.
Many courses have been rendered as Mickey Mouse Degrees, because a vocational qual would have been better.
I do hope labour are elected, this might be the helping hand they need.

.

But I don't think Labour will be closing down all the former polytechnics and colleges of higher education. They are not proposing a system of returning to a core group of universities with high entrance standards. Now it would be just as many institutions with just as many students... and previously paying schmucks and those who didn't go paying for them.

No, I don't think labour will close them down. I just think people will be more realistic about universities and courses will be academic rather than vocational.
I hope we return to the poly and college system where every man and his dog aren't encouraged to do degrees.
We need plumbers, electricians, car mechanics, actors, actresses, musicians, photographers, etc etc etc.
You don't need a degree for these and so many other subjects, but due to high fees and the possibility of huge profits, young people were talked into doing a degree, that might prove useless as many were dumbed down to be achievable by a larger population. Hence making more profit for the private loan companies.

The Scottish evidence shows poorer students suffer finding places with no fees, and education grants to Scottish universities have been cut, meaning more foreign students required to pay the bills. Even less places for poor people.
With this and social care, I cannot understand the Labour position that the rich should not pay.
If the Conservatives had a plan to halve university places but make them free with a living grant regardless of income, there would, rightly, be outrage - Labour do it and it is the best thing since sliced bread.

My 20 and 22 year olds are furious about this - on 3 and 5 year courses, tuition fees alone have left them with £27k and £45k of debt plus maintenance loans (we helped with accommodation). It might sound selfish but how unfair is it on them and the few years of students before then to have all that debt and for others to have none...

Zizza
Vote conservative and it won't happen.

We can afford fees and costs for our children ...... but if the Labour Party want to get basic rate tax payers and people eligible for in work benefits to subsidise my children going to uni (estimated saving to us in excess of £100,000) I don't mind......

Add that onto my parents continuing to receive winter fuel payments and the triple lock pension (to add to the final salary schemes they're on) and no worry about social care bills (one of them has a degenerative illness)..... then I'll inherit their house too.

I would have thought it would be the Labour Party making difficult decisions about means testing not the Tories.

Why do Labour believe in universal benefits when they should be a safety net not an entitlement????

Just seen that Labour has said that students going in the Autumn will not have to pay. Ha! They suddenly realised that 18-year-olds would not like this policy as it stood.

Here's some info from Full Fact about attendance at uni for disadvantaged children (their words)

fullfact.org/education/young-peoples-participation-higher-education/

Labour have also said that those part way through their course will not have to pay for remaining years. They may have just earned a lot more votes!

From a parents point of view with the current fees, it is the amount of interest that I hate

Two4One

Because not everyone can afford what you can, there are more that can't than can.
Universal benefits become an entitlement when people can't afford to live, let alone have thousands to spare for their young adult offspring to attend uni.
Most people have to stop support around the age of 18.

Gilly -

I know. So why not means test fees - Labour think earning £80,000 is rich so they can draw the line in the sand on taxation. It would be much more progressive to means test other things too. It doesn't make sense especially as tuition fees alone are going to cost £9.5 bn per year.

Sorry if my post was offensive - I was using numbers to illustrate a point I was frustrated about because there seems to be a contradiction with labour's narrative.

Maybe I'll go and enjoy the sunshine!!!

241 Labour like universal benefits as they then control what people spend their money on, denying them choice.
Choice leads to unfairness, so must be stopped.

Two4One

Sorry, I must have misinterpreted your post.
I suppose means testing would be better, but if fees were lower and young people didn't have to get in so much debt and the high interest, then it would be the best solution.
But as nobody is offering or suggesting this imo scrapping is better than the current situation.
I know of bright people who haven't gone to uni because the thought of debt. They have been brought up to think that debt is wrong and you shouldn't have what you can't afford.
Maybe, it's a typical wc mind set, they were all from wc families in the NW.