Student Tuition Fees Increase for 18/19 to £9585/year

[bromleygirl]

If we didn't think it was bad enough the cap being lifted from £9k/year for 17/18, I have found out that for the 18/19 year, fees are set to rise for Gold and Silver uni's under the new TEF to £9585/year and then 3% each year after - subject to parliamentary approval of course. I know the uni's try to spin it by saying think of it as a graduate tax but the 30 year debt will still go against our children as they start to apply for mortgages. It makes me really upset English kids stuck paying outrageous amounts of tuition to fund the greedy uni VC's when Wales and NI are paying £3k/year and Scotland are paying nothing at all.

I know the uni's try to spin it...

Fees were introduced and raised by government not universities - it's really important we target the right people here. The universities do not have the power to change fee structures, they are responding to massive govt cuts.

It amounted to only a few hours. Doing degrees over 2 years is, I understand, happening at some universities but I think it could be rolled out more widely.

No, it couldn't, for degrees to have valuable in a global economy.

My students have 15-20 contact hours per week and are expected to work 40+ hours during term time, with some work during Christmas/Easter breaks too, revising for exams.

They develop maturity over 3 to 4 years and do important placements/summer projects over the summer.

This simply can't be replicated in 2 years.

And if you can get good marks on a course without studying 30+ hours per week then ask very serious questions about the value and quality of that course - don't generalise to degrees as a whole. (Note that contact hours are NOT study hours. For every contact hour I expect students to study 2-4 hours independently.)

My older children have applied for mortgages recently and student debt IS looked at. If you are earning enough to get a London mortgage which some graduates are including my children then you are on more than the £29k salary quoted above and the lenders look at your spending -= your bank statements, what you spend on food, your credit card debt and the 9% graduate tax if you have it. If you are already paying over 40% marginal rate of tax on upper income and add 9% on to that that is almost half your income going before you even get started on things like child care costs. So yes the loan may be nothing for the lower earners, the teachers, the actors, those who go into low paid work but for a lot of graduates 9% is huge.

By the way I think it is very very unfair that we in England have to pay fees but not Scotland.

I have emailed my sons' university to ask if there is a discount for up front fee payment but not yet had a response.

Since when did we start comparing universities with businesses?Educational institutions should not be looking to profit from burdening students with debt - and they wonder why applications were down this year, and no it wasn't all down to Brexit!

But you actually are comparing university to businesses, in talking about value for money etc. The government has effectively turned students into consumers and got students/parents wanting consumer rights since 2012.

There is no way that I would do a VC's job for less than 200k+, because if I could get a VC job I could easily get another CEO job for much high salary and far less public scrutiny. VCs simply don't do the job for money - they do it because they are strongly committed to shaping and guiding higher education, against a flood of damaging government initiatives. (I do however agree that it is important for all members of the university to be valued and rewarded appropriately - many universities have been squashing salaries of mid ranked academic staff but not showing sufficient restraint for their senior management. But back in the real world academia is international and the latter could easily go abroad if not rewarded properly, as I myself am doing.)

I would also comment that the VC salaries quoted in the media are sometimes simply incorrect. The number quoted for my current VC is highly misleading.

BTW, as pp wrote, the only drop in UK application was due to the demographic drop in 18 year olds. But the loss in international applications is due to Brexit - we know this, because we have researched why numbers are down.

So you don't think that your adult children should pay for the privilege of going to a decent university? It's not like they are forced to go or that their degree won't permit them to pay off the debt.

"BTW, as pp wrote, the only drop in UK application was due to the demographic drop in 18 year olds. But the loss in international applications is due to Brexit - we know this, because we have researched why numbers are down."

I can tell you first hand from tracking the numbers at my DD's 6th form over the last 3 years, and from knowing the plans of DD's friends, some students are deciding to take a gap year and find work to earn funds ahead of going into uni or are deciding to take up apprenticeships. The increasing cost of uni tuition fees is definitely a factor in the drop in applications this year and as Lucksky stated, students are factoring in the long term impact to them over the next 30 years..

I didn't graduate with £50K debt, but, when I graduated, everybody was paying FAR more in tax. We lost 30% of gross income before it hit our bank accounts. Tax was FAR higher, and personal allowance was tiny. Now, no-one pays tax on the first £11K (ish) and then tax is only 22%.

Your point is absolutely spot on though. Moreover if you work out the numbers even with the 9% additional tax over £21k, a grad on, for example, £35k will still be taking home in real terms more today than 30 years ago.

22% back do you know something about the autumn budget the rest of us don't? :) Although frankly an increase in the base level of income tax would be no bad thing.

I can tell you first hand from tracking the numbers at my DD's 6th form over the last 3 years, and from knowing the plans of DD's friends,

Your experience above is not reflective of the rest of the sector at all

boys, not really. Tax and NI are 32% - it remains the third I paid back in the early 80s. Also the personal allowance has just risen with inflation. In my view we pay more tax now than we used to. Tax is far too high. My lawyer daughters are paying at least 42% tax/NI on a lot of their earnings. Basically the state steal half of our money to waste on public services and other areas of massive waste. I would support much lower taxes and much less state provision but the 75% of net takers from the system are not likely to agree to that as they like to continue to be on the take. They do very well out of it.

NI in early 80's was 9%, higher rate tax 60% Lucy (and supertax was 90%!!!) Even with the 9% loan repayments higher rate tax paying graduates are a lot better off than those days.

That is not so. Basic rate tax and NI when I started work in the 80s was abnout 33%. It remains at that level.
Some (not most people ) then and now pay higher rates. I agree the higher rates were higher but most people did not pay them. Also there were allowance for children, allowances for mortgage interest i the 70s MIRAS and allowances for pensions etc etc.

I don't agree higher rate tax payers are a lot better off these days. In fact once you get over £100k you lose the single person allowance entirely -0 something that never happened at any income level eveni n the 1970s when there were high rates of tax and your marginal rate is abotu 62% on the upper income plus 9% graduate tax which is about 72% plus you have high rents/ mortgages.

Never in British history have the higher earners borne such a high propoertion of tax as now and yet people still want to squeeze more out of us. No wonder we are fed up with it. I don't even get child benefit which I woudl have got in the old says. Blair even gave child tax credits to parents earnign up to £60k.

I do wonder if some of the posters here are even parents as they appear to have no concern for the fact that our children at the age of 18 will be taking on a substantial debt that they may not necessarily understand and that will stay with them and impact their lives for the next 30 years. I agree that universities need to cover their costs, but when universities have a choice to increase their fees above the cap to the max each year they are allowed by the government then I do need to question the morality of the university VC's and any parent of an 18 year old approaching university and the prospect of tuition debt would feel the same.

bromley

Some of them are probably not even 18

I agree with you

Yes Lucy but as you're at pains to point out all the bloody time your lawyer dd's were higher rate tax payers very soon after they graduated.

OP - fees is real terms have been decreasing since 2012. Costs have been rising, where the fuck do you think we were supposed to get the ££ from to pay eg increased NI conts? Costs were higher in 2013/14 than they were in 2012/13 (you know, inflation etc) - could we charge more to meet those costs? No. How about meeting inflationary costs in 2014/15? Increase fees? Nope couldn't then. Let's have a think about 2015/16? More rises in costs? Any more income? That'd be a no.

Could you run a business and pay staff inflationary pay rises, increased fuel bills, increased NI contributions etc without being able to raise the price at which you sell your goods? For five years?

lucy

Income tax. Basic rate today 20%; base rate 1986 29%. So 29 take away 20 leaves 9. Basic rate of tax is 9% lower today that in 1986. If you want to go back a couple more years basic rate was in the low 30s. But lets stick with our 9% differential.

NI. Upper and lower thresholds do flux so comparisons not quite so straightforward, but the rate today is around 3% higher. So that drops our differential back to 6%.

The coup de grace though is the personal allowance. I'm not sure quite how to categorise your assertion that it has just risen in line with inflation. So lets just deal with actual facts rather than alt facts

Personal Allowance. in 1986 it was £2,335. if it had just risen in line with inflation it would be around £6,280 today - well 16/17 tax year. In reality it was £11,000. £11,000, just to be clear, is a bigger number than, £6,280, about 75% bigger.

As far an inflation goes you may find this informative www.bankofengland.co.uk/education/Pages/resources/inflationtools/calculator/default.aspx

I do wonder if some of the posters here are even parents as they appear to have no concern for the fact that our children at the age of 18 will be taking on a substantial debt that they may not necessarily understand and that will stay with them and impact their lives for the next 30 years.

Alternatively BG it might just be that we, and our DCs, understand the concept of a graduate tax, and whisper it , progressive taxation.

boys

It might be .....but i doubt it

I should imagine its just one of those difference of opinion things

boys - I know the uni's spin it as a graduate tax but a tax does not hang around for 30 years and impacts your ability to qualify for a mortgage.

Titchy - If your swearing and attitude is any indication of the kind of people we have working at our universities then I am very concerned and you have been reported.

bromley

Why are you having a pop at titchy ?

Swearing is allowed

It might be .....but i doubt i

No it really is. [head bangs against wall]

boys

You dont agree that people can have a different view of things

Fair enough

BG no taxes generally hang around a lot longer, even after death.

However you think the earth if flat, I know, based on the actual evidence, that not to be the case.

Putting that aside for one minute what would be your solution?

Cut VC salaries. Taking Bath as the example. Lets cut the VC back to say £150k all in, so £300k saving spread across c15,000 students at Bath, saving them £20 each if passed on in full. Not convinced that will get us too far. Well arguably a reduction from £9,250 to £9,230 is a start.

But something much bigger needed. What would you do?

• a lot fewer students, and by extension far fewer universities
• raise tax rates across the board
• raise taxes and invest in a very different tertiary system
• a mix of the all the above?

Sorry boys

I have reread your head banging post and i dont really understand it (I understand the headbanging bit)

What do you think i am saying?

I know its a graduate tax and a progressive tax...i wasnt saying that it wasnt

You can't have been round very long OP if you think MN objects to swearing!!!

Yes my feelings are very much mirrored by everyone in HE. I don't genuinely understand why you can't see that having our income fixed for five years whilst still paying out ever increasing costs is not economically viable for more than a year or two. And now that we can increase fees by a whopping £250 a year of course we're doing so.

If you hadn't had a pay rise for five years you'd be pretty pissed off I imagine, and chomping at the bit when your employer finally decided to give you a 2.7% rise.

None of us likes the principle of fees. We're mostly pretty left of centre and ideologically feel the government should fully fund HE. But we also don't particularly want to be made redundant, or to have to teach ever-larger classes, with defunct equipment. Which is what generally happens to organisations when costs go up and income goes down.

in that case Rufus we are in full agreement. :)

I'm more concerned about where Titchy is alleged to have sworn. mental note to self to read threads more thoroughly