Augar report: lower university fees, return of grants etc

[whistl]

Has anyone been hearing the news today about the newly published Augar report?

"Students can generally get jobs over holidays to boost their accounts."

I think that is dependent on location to some extent. In some areas it will be much harder, even impossible given the public transport issues another pp mentioned. I suppose there is always live-in hotel work, but don't they recruit for a longer season than university holidays? Maybe not.
I don't understand means testing an 18 yr old on its parent's income when the parent isn't under any obligation to make up the gap - but as people say that has been going since the 1960s (maintenance not fees as is still the case). There doesn't seem to be a principled reason for it (there might be if parents were obliged to pay, but that would raise all kinds of problems) so as various other people have said it's all a question of limiting expenditure on maintenance loans.

Isn't the real issue the interest rate? The reason many people (teachers, nurses) will never pay it back is partly that they are being charged a high rate of interest (starting with inflation + 3% while you're at university)!

A lot of the items being raised are indeed covered in the recommendations eg. Minimum grade thresholds etc. If you read pp206-210 of the report which is available to down load online it is written in plain English (as opposed to jargon) and makes an interesting read.

I am afraid life will always have the haves and have nots whether it is at school, youth grouos, uni, work, NCT clubs, mums and toddlers groups. There is no one size fits all.

A big positive is the access to level 2 and 3 qualifications for adults without such qualifications. I would never suggest that the funding is taken from that so every student is given a lump sum for uni. Even if that were to happen the ones with money would have more money! My youngest is yr 12 and my oldest is 9 years older and went to uni using plan 2 Student Finance so its not a shock to us! I get that until you need to access it for the first time you don't necessarily know in the ins and outs of sf. However there is an awful lot of publicity about it.

Sooner than I thought recommendations re interest and also that repayment is capped at 1.2 x amount borrowed addresses that!

There may well be publicity but the sums involved were cleverly never highlighted for political reasons. Aside from that it's neither here nor there. If you haven't got it,you haven't got it.If you have spent most of your dcs lives working up to the threshold you don't have spare cash to put away for uni,certainly not £45k . Couples don't earn £60k household the minute they start working. Most of us spent what little spare cash we had on getting a mortgage,childcare or our own education.

Those saying oh you get winners or losers are those who are getting their dc provided for by the state or they're wealthy enough to not notice £45k.

It isn't fair that some kids will have uni denied to them because they have parents unable to keep them there particularly when the taxes they pay fund other peoples' children.

If there has to be a threshold make it realistic.

It's interesting, there is surprisingly little publicity about the 'gap' - ie the part that parents are expected to fund but may not - although obviously a lot of publicity about other aspects of the scheme.

"Most of us spent what little spare cash we had on getting a mortgage,childcare or our own education." And don't forget pension!

As ever, interesting to think how they do things elsewhere. What about Europe? Leaving aside tuition fees for the moment, is the difference that most students study locally and live at home so at least don't need rent - that's certainly how I think of it, but is that the full picture? How do those living away from home whose parents can't/won't pay, fund it?

Just continuing my pondering, again leaving aside tuition fees as those loans are non parental means tested, is one of the real issues that in much of the UK, university for school leavers was, historically, closely associated with 'leaving home' ie paying rent. . And that is extremely expensive to fund if you then increase the cohort to nearly ?40/50% of school leavers - even more so as it has coincided with a huge increase in housing costs in some areas?
Not sure how you address that - but it may be partly why student finance seems to be more problematic in England (S & W are different I realise) than in some other European countries. (Not suggesting fewer people should go to university - though I know some people advocate it as the solution)

It’s free in a lot of Europe. Pre Brexit we were seriously starting to consider Amsterdam or Germany as were many around us. Hadn’t got far re the research. Quite a few of our friends with older kids were doing it. Uni was free but not sure how they funded maintenance. Might not have worked. Stopped looking into it when it was clear we were coming out. Denmark they even pay students to study.

What really bugs me is just under say household of £59k they can have the full loans. So tax payers aren’t even just paying for the very needy. Kids are having uni taken away from them for no fault of their own or for any moral reason.

It’s simply not fair and an out dated crap system. Can we really do no better? But then Tories love to hold the maj back by covering up helping a tiny percentage.

Its a lot less than that to get a full loan - more like £25k household income!

So what are you going to tell your kids - that they can't go to uni?

A big difference between the UK and much of Europe is however direct taxation: marginal rates of 55% are not unusual in much of Europe and somebody on a salary of 60k could expect to pay 35-40% of their salary in tax.

BTW not all of Europe offers free university education. Holland is following in the UK's steps with fees for students and the system there is still starting to crack due to underfunding, with academics striking to due their huge workloads.

I think it's interesting that none of the responses have picked up on the immediate effects of reducing fees, with the government most likely not making up the difference. Universities are going to see a substantial hit to their income, after several years of frozen fees & simultaneously with Brexit losses. There will be significant impact on what is offered to students: unprofitable courses will be shut down; more places will be offered to international students to increase teaching income; the move will accelerate the haemorrhage of top researchers from the UK; student services will be trimmed as much as possible; universities will increase rents and catering costs as much as they can; academic staff numbers will be reduced (leading to higher staff/student ratios) and staff salaries will be held down as much as possible.

What do you suggest we do?

We can’t tske a loan out ourselves for that amount. They want to do heavy weight degreees which don’t advocating working. None of the unis they want to go to near us so they can’t live at home.

Saying uni might not be an option will have to be considered.We could pay £1k per child per year and that is it. We can’t go into debt ourselves.

Some household £60k will be a 50/10 split so they’ll be paying high tax too.

I remember the discussions about Netherlands - and in fact IIRC the issue was that there was no funding for maintenance, either loan or grant. Maybe a lot of Netherlands students live at home.

The reality may be that there isn't democratic support anywhere for giving full maintenance support to students - and in England the fact that in the past it was quite 'usual' to leave home to go to university means we've ended up with this sort of compromise position to save money (I'm only specifying England as don't know the details of the system elsewhere!) - the maintenance 'gap' is part of that compromise even though (imv) it doesn't really make sense to means test adults by reference to parental income. As far as I know we don't do that for anything else - dentistry? optician? - though obviously the amounts here are much larger!

It may also be a throwback to the time when dc were dc until age 21 - then I think treating them as dependents might have made more sense.

Ah, cross posted about N'lands.

Should we also be looking at two year degrees, possibly with shorter summer holidays (I realise there are arguments about that being research time for university staff, but I suppose you have to balance that against students' needs. For many the summer is not a time when students can earn the money to pay next year's fees/maint.)

Depends on the subject I suppose - for eg engineering you obviously need a certain amount of time to cover the material. For history, english, and similar, does it really matter so much whether you spend two or three years - is the extra year worth the extra £19k? (not a science grad here, and do think that you gain something from the third year in arts/humanities, so no particular axe to grind!)

I would personally like to see a stronger tie in between Uni and Employment so that during the summer term students have internships which are set up as part of the degree and therefore student fee's are partly offset by a payment from industry (The payment for the internship could be 50/50 with the student receiving some payment for the work undertaken as well as a contribution towards fees). Far too many students leave Uni without appropriate work experience and I feel that this would work really well.

A lot of pre-clinical medics have summer jobs, and ad hoc work (think irregular event work) to pay for living costs. If they can, then every other course can. Most students are canny enough to start the summer before 1st year.

The only way the UK can increase student benefits is to increase taxes. UK state spend is about 38% of national income, France is 55%, even Sweden is only 50%. The Nordics are reducing theirs, and they do not see it as austerity but entirely appropriate innovation because of evolving ways of doing things and unstoppable demographics. We have reduced from 45% in 2010 to 38%.

If individuals do not value HE enough to fund it in the ways other students do, then it's a struggle to see how they would support say a 24% increase in UK tax levels (for UK state spend to reach 50% national income) and they'll have to pay more later for the immediate benefit of others paying for them now. The current HE system is already creaking, hence the review, resulting in graduate taxes to increase marginally. More state support in itself does not reduce entitlement and bitterness, for some it appears to have the opposite effect. France's 55% has not bought her civil or social harmony. Even that is unsustainable demographically, which is why the Nordics are reducing state spend.

Would be interesting to know - I suspect there are geographical areas where it would be very difficult to make much money from summer working, particularly where there isn't much public transport. I agree Irregular event work is a good source in some places, but I genuinely don't know how much of it there is in all areas - obviously in big cities there's quite a bit of it. Hence my question about whether summer hotel working is a realistic possibility.

I agree there's unlikely to be voter support for paying more tax for student finance. And then there is the interesting effect that those who have been on the current system ie since 2012,, may have their own views as to whether they should now pay more tax so that the very next-down generation to pay less. (And their parents of course).

For history, english, and similar, does it really matter so much whether you spend two or three years - is the extra year worth the extra £19k?

Like it or not, we live in a global economy. UK students currently graduate at 21 with a Bachelors. They have to compete against the skills of European students graduating with a full 2 year Masters at 23 or 24. It's not an accident that there are so many non-UK workers in high skill tech jobs.

There is just no way that UK students could graduate after 2 years and be competitive in the global market.

I realise there are arguments about that being research time for university staff, but I suppose you have to balance that against students' needs.

But if you want to retain world leaders in research in UK you can't remove yet more research time. We already underpay academics and struggle to compete against Europe/USA. Removing even more research time, even from the very top universities, would lead to a haemorrhage of our top researchers, with knock on effects for R&D in industry, start up companies etc.

What do you suggest we do?

Well I don't know your financial situation or the ages of your kids but.... we give ours £400 a month for 10 months (they live here in the summer and use our car so no food or travel costs), so you need to find an extra £3000 a year. (Or do you have triplets?)

Kids could earn £1k of that working in the summer. So £2k a year left to find. You're teachers so do some tutoring. As I said earlier I'm matched betting to cover some of the costs. Tighten your belts, earn some extra, borrow it. I know it's not easy, but hell would freeze over before I said mine couldn't go to university.

I think though, titchy, that you wish to do your best. Most of us do and understand if we have 3 children, we have responsibilities. It’s not the responsibility of the state to pick
up the tab for everything. The students are are supported by taxation. They don’t pay the fees up front. The government does.

Everyone with 17 year olds has had time to think about this. It’s not a new concept and most people live their lives knowing there might be university at 18 for children. If people have no spare cash, then how are holidays, a car and a mortgage afforded. Extend the mortgage, go without a holiday and think of ways the family can earn more. That’s what families do to support their children. The evidence is that nearly every parent manages this and certainly £60,000
Pa should mean it’s affordable.

"The evidence is that nearly every parent manages this"

That is interesting Bubbles - has research been done on what proportion of dparents do/don't pay the full parental contribution? It would be interesting to know. Though I suppose you would also need to have research on the number of people who end up not going to university because their parents can't/won't pay - that might be harder to research effectively, though someone may have attempted it!

Of course as pp say a student can sometimes earn in the summer but sometimes there are real barriers to that, depending on where you live. The other thing is the uncertainty - if you're an 18 yr old and you don't know if you'll be able to earn £3k next summer and the one after that (and the one after that if a 4 yr course!), you may be put off taking the risk of starting university. Does that concern in fact result in many young people not going to university? I have no idea - would be interesting to know if anyone has researched that.

Numbers of 18 year olds going to university has increased steadily over the last 30 years. The increase has been more or less equal across all income brackets. If young people were put off going because their parents wouldn't/couldn't support them financially we would see a decrease in students in the middle household income bracket (high income households can easily afford the cost, lower ones get full maintenance). We don't see such a gap.

Yes titchy - as a matter of impression it doesn't particularly seem as though a large number of "middle parental income" students don't go to university as a result of the parental contribution issue. It would be interesting to know about the research into how many parents do make up the contribution - my impression from mn (other threads, not so much this one) is that it is not that uncommon for dparents not to - but obviously that is not a scientific measure!

I don’t know of research but I was going to quote the student numbers titchy does. There isn’t evidence to say students are put off by parental reticence. There have always been parents that won’t pay and I guess the Students’ Union might have numbers on this and any hardship funds at the universities. I also suspect parental funds might mean students stay at home and go local. This might not be the best thing to do of course. Those who don’t go at all might be harder to assess but some apprenticeships might mop some of these up.

Also, before I forget, some universities are much cheaper for accommodation than others. Northern ones are cheaper than London. Therefore heavyweight courses can be done a bit cheaper if you take location into consideration. The holiday job situation is easier from y2 as students can stay in their university town/city accommodation and work there. That’s what DH did.