Tuition fees

[stoatsrevenge]

So we are to expect a massive increase in university tuition fees, as well as increasing interest ib student loans...

Here is the 6 year plan from the LibDem manifesto:

1
Scrap fees for final year full-time students

2
Begin regulating part-time fees

3
Part time fees become regulated and fee loans become available to part time students

4
Expand free tuition to all full-time students apart from first year undergraduates

5
Expand free tuition to all part-time students apart from first year undergraduates

6
Scrap tuition fees for all first degree students

How are they going to square this one?

civil - i've just looked at accountancy jobs being advertised at the large blue chip company i work for and they specify degrees. its what one of my children is thinking of doing. i'm worried his options will be much more limited without a degree

An interesting point of view, Civil. I absolutely agree that university is not the place for everyone at 18 - but realistically, going a few years later rarely happens - after a few years of earning, meeting your potential life partner (possibly) seeing friends settle down and maybe start families, most people arent going to opt out and spend 3 years at uni, I dont think (except my own DH, who did just that)

And if the jobs our kids want to do are graduate only professions - like accountancy or law - and have long article periods, they want to get started soon so that they are at least on a track by the time they're 24 or 25....

If the big accountancy companies are offering jobs to 18 year olds, they cant be as trainee accountants (in the professional sense) as the requisite post graduate qualifications need you to be just that - a graduate.

Not meaning to jump on what you say, I'm not coming across too well here, I do agree the fees will make us all think it through clearly - but not if you've got Cambridge potential or want to enter a profession, I dont think.

"Consequently a £30K debt, paid-off over 30 years, would end up costing more that double the amount initially borrowed. "

No, it wouldn't. In constant value pounds, an interest rate of 2%+RPI is an interest rate of 2%: the RPI component is wiped out by rising incomes. 10K at 2% over 30 years is 13300 in repayment in terms of the value of money at the outset.

If you assume 3.1% inflation, as your quote did, then if you had interest free loans the rate of interest would be effectively negative, and 10K would cost 6048 pounds (at the value they had at the beginning of the loan) to repay.

The way to think about this is to consider how much more the loan would cost to repay than the proceeds of buying the same amount of index-linked national savings certificates on the day you took the loan out. If you took out a 10K index linked loan and repaid it from the proceeds of 10K's worth of index linked certificates, you'd only use up 60% of the savings certificates by the end. That's why the current system is so weak: if the parents can afford to pay the fees, they simply take out the maximum loan, repay it from the capital they would have spent out the outset, and make a substantial profit on the transaction.

telsa, completely agree.

why not bank base rate plus 2.2%? I don't see why the Govt needs such a fantastic return on its money. At that rate (if I had any) I'd lend it out.

Will be interesting to see what happens on early repayment. If it's prohibited, will this turn a 'loan' into a 'tax' by the back door?

"Will be interesting to see what happens on early repayment. If it's prohibited, will this turn a 'loan' into a 'tax' by the back door?"

If Cable is really stupid then he'll not merely try this, but will prohibit pre-payment of fees (ie, the only way to pay fees is via a loan which does not permit early redemption). Which is a back-door tax, as you say, but also means that people who could simply provide money straight into education budget at no cost to the PSBR will instead spend the money overseas.

There was an interview with the Universities Minister David Willetts on Newsnight yesterday and he was very vague about early redemption penalties for loans despite being pushed on the question.

Willetts is absolutely fucked on this.

He knows that the sane policy is to permit pre-payment and early redemption, because they both get cash into the system now. The more of the money comes from long-term loans, the greater the risk of default and the greater the amount of money the government has to lend before appreciable amounts of money start to flow back in. Discouraging early redemption is the economics of the madhouse.

But Cable is caught in a position where party policy is to oppose tuition fees completely (typical Lib Dem: it's easy to make grand sweeping gestures if you're only expecting to engage in gesture politics, but it's all rather harder if you're actually in power) and therefore he wants some way to spin it to the party as a graduate tax, which isn't like loan repayments at all, oh no, would I lie to you.

Mortgage companies charge redemption fees because they want the interest from you to pay to their depositors, and they've made commitments based on the long-term income stream from your mortgage. You're charged, essentially, the net present value of the difference between the profit on your mortgage and then profit on re-lending that money. But none of that applies to the government, and their limiting resource is going to be raw capital, so anything which turns it over quicker can only be a good thing. They're charging interest to prevent some obvious abuses and to incentivise repayment, not to pay interest to depositors, so they want the capital back as soon as possible, while mortgage companies want it back as late as possible.

"And to think that Browne has the temerity to suggest that some teachers are uninterested in education and aspiration and only view universities as opportunities to study for work-related qualifications rather than about the widening of horizons and options. The very thought."

I am not ashamed of viewing education as a means to an end. I studied maths because it was a subject I enjoyed but I would not have pursued it if it could not have led anywhere useful. This does not however mean I am "uninterested in education" only uninterested in time wasters. Those people that hide out in university for 3 years doing pointless course that they then never use. It is a complete waste of resources. "Widening of horizons" is all well and good when you have that money lying around as spare cash. However, to study for 3 years and build up debts of over £10k then become a housewife (hence earning less than £15 so don't repay) is unacceptable and someone somewhere has paid for that course.

My views may be unpopular but I believe in a right to education and opportunities for all regardless of social and financial backgrounds. The children I teach only know that some of these courses will lead them to debts more than their parents earn in 3 years. This will frighten them away from it. This makes me angry! How can I encourage my children to follow their dreams and chosen career path when they are gifted enough to do it with course costs like this. I believe university education should be free or heavily subsidised. And yes, I'm willing to take the cost of this in my taxes, as everyone else should be. I also think this is all well and good reflecting on the cost of university here but how about Scotland. They still get free university education (even though changes are being considered but they don't intend to do as England do), if theirs is free ours should be too. This is hardly fair.

Surveying the list of "destinations for year 13 leavers" on my DCs school website makes me think that there is a lot of hiding out for 3 years going on. I may be being harsh but I find it hard to believe some of the courses will lead to either an expansion of the mind or a graduate level job, event management anyone?, perhaps a culling of these courses won't be a bad thing.

" I believe university education should be free or heavily subsidised. And yes, I'm willing to take the cost of this in my taxes, as everyone else should be."

2p on income tax at current participation rates. As a policy, it would make

"However, to study for 3 years and build up debts of over £10k then become a housewife (hence earning less than £15 so don't repay) is unacceptable and someone somewhere has paid for that course."

Hang on, you're in favour of funding education out of tax money. If you think that people who receive education have an obligation to repay the cost, isn't that, well, like a loan or something? Those "housewives" you deride (and hey, let's all pretend it's 1958 or something) have an education which enables them to support their children in schools better, have an attitude to learning which they pass on to their children, are better placed to engage in society at large and generally contribute to the gaiety of the nations. You need to make your mind up: either education should be free for all, in which case you don't get to complain about whether they work with the degree or not, or you think that degrees carry an obligation to pay back the cost to society, in which case welcome to the world of the loans.

"As a policy, it would make"...the 1983 Labour manifesto look like a vote winner.

'However, to study for 3 years and build up debts of over £10k then become a housewife (hence earning less than £15 so don't repay) is unacceptable and someone somewhere has paid for that course.' Why is that worse than someone who does a degree course and then decides that their vocation is to work in the charity sector and earn less than £15k now, or £21k as the limit will possibly be?

How can you say that a course is pointless? I read theology and philosophy and then worked in Local Govt finance for 10 years before doing my PGCE. Did I use my extensive knowledge of the Hegelian dialectic whilst sending a summons for non payment of Community Charge? No, I didn't. That doesn't mean that my degree was a waste though, as I learnt something. Education is never a waste.

You contradict yourself as well - you call courses pointless and slate someone for doing a course and then taking a career break, yet you say you 'believe in a right to education and opportunities for all regardless of social and financial backgrounds'. Does that not extend to tertiary education then? Who is to say that the housewife will not go back to work later and repay the loan. You make some sweeping assumptions.

"event management anyone?"

With HEFCE operating quotas, departments in more ahem academic areas can't expand. Are people doing event management because they have an urge to wear a striped jacket and a straw hat, or because they don't have the grades to get into more serious courses but want to go to university anyway? The relative grades being asked imply the latter.

And if people are just hiding out for three years, if it's funded by their own resources and their own debt, so what? When education is subsidised the state gets to take a high moral tone about utility of subject choices, but when it's funded by the students, then they get to choose.

"How can you say that a course is pointless? "

Mathematicians tend to assume that everything other than mathematics is pointless. One nice thing I found about spending a year dabbling in the humanities was that not a single person launched into a complaint about engineering being only for (fill in stereotype here). Back in the world of engineering, philistine complaints about other subjects not being "serious" are routine.

As you say, education is never a waste. Whatever the subject, whatever you do with it, knowing more is always better than knowing less. My communist grandfather, a staunch WEA man, would turn in his grave (had he not been cremated) at the idea of utilitarian views of education being seen as a working class position.

I guess people choose 'Event Management' because they think they will get a job out of it. I see a proliferation of these types of 'degrees' under the new mortgage yourself to the hilt for education regime (Tesco's Univesity degree in Shelf Stacking, guaranteed work experience while you pay 7k a year for the privilege). While the posh lark around doing Classics (if not drawn to their usual terrain of Law/PPE/Medicine)

The relative grades asked for a course are not a reflection of the difficulty of the course, but of its popularity. No-one would for instance say that a Biology degree is easier than a Chemistry degree and yet entry requirements for Biology are typically higher than Chemistry (AAA vs BBB at Birmingham). Entry requirements will also change year on year depending on the demand for places on the course.

" I see a proliferation of these types of 'degrees' under the new mortgage yourself to the hilt for education regime"

Quite. Now, one needs to ask oneself "why?"

One issue that the advantaged realise that degrees in Classics are actually worth more in the marketplace than degrees in event management, but parents and schools that aren't informed about these things will thing precisely the reverse (hence Browne's imprecation that there should be better career advice). Another is that all the old two-year HND and block/day release HNC qualifications have become degrees (or, worse, "foundation degrees") and not for the better.

Even if we accept (and I don't) that degrees should be measured financially, £50K for a classics degree from Oxford looks better value to me than £30K for an event management degree from wherever. And today, when they both cost £30K, anyone doing the latter who could do the former is nuts. That's why career advice needs to be better: to stop the idea that domain-specific qualifications which the domain itself often doesn't recognise (see, for the worst example, all those CSI courses) are more valuable - financially, academically, socially, intellectually, whatever - than other subjects.

Event management would probably get you a job at the EU organising their functions.

Tokyo - interesting comments about engineers - I am married to a weapons (electronic) engineer, Chartered status etc, and I have great respect for his knowledge. He on the other hand calls my hums degree 'mickey mouse', but he paid for it!

Well I would have thought being posh and larking around doing Classics would give you more contacts to set up an events management company than any degree at a lowly ranked university but I am not 18 and naive.

"I am married to a weapons (electronic) engineer"

" He on the other hand calls my hums degree 'mickey mouse',"

I'm a practicing engineer, now an engineering PhD student, who regards the OU Arts Foundation I did last year as the most challenging work I've ever done.

It worries me a lot. I currently work in a good uni and I do a lot of the hardship grant applications, so I see how even the current system is making people on 'normal' incomes struggle (parental income £50-60k but with three children at university...). Parents who can pay for private school will just pay, but local kids will be very discouraged from applying. I also feel rather cheated in terms of my financial planning: i did lots of calculations a few years ago and worked out how (with scrimping and saving now) we could afford for 3 children to go to university without getting large debt (something we had and would like our children to have). But all those financial plans are blown out of the water now. And then there's the personal angst - Dh and I met at Cambridge (both from state schools, only able to go because of the grant), but I can imagine in 10 years time Cambridge charging £12k because they know people will pay, and most places charging £7k, and ds1 having to decide whether he is prepared to pay another £15k - I want Cambridge to decide if he is right for the course, not him to decide whether he can afford it.
On a practical note, this really does affect those applying for university now. Don't encourage your children to defer! They will almost certainly be charged fees based on the year they start, so going in 2011 rather than deferring to 2012 may save quite a lot of money.

mm.. there's going to be a massive rush on next year which was already going to be really competitive because of the numbers of students who deferred this year in order to resit their exams to improve their grades in an attempt to get into their 1st or 2nd choice university. I'm teaching at least 3 students who are repeating their A2 year for this reason - to turn Cs into Bs or Bs into As. Next year the competition is going to be insane.

"Mathematicians tend to assume that everything other than mathematics is pointless." Don't ruin an intelligent conversation by resorting to insulting people. You cannot possibly know this as fact. My husband has a university qualifications in humanities based subjects (a Spanish qualification) and I have a great respect for his broad subject knowledge. My brother studied Law and I also hold great respect for the time and dedication and qualification he now holds.

You suggest I need to make up my mind on where I stand on this. I would say I agree with webwiz who in other words states that some courses lead no where and have no place as real courses. I state I believe in free education, I do but I believe you should only take this if you intend to contribute back to society. I believe in giving back to society (hence why I work in a state school) and admit to being naive when I expect it of others. It is unrealistic to request that everyone who takes should aim to give back and I admit that is my fault for wanting such a thing. In reply to your "what about a career break/someone who changes to a lower paid profession?" then so be it. My comment was merely aimed at people who took courses they had no intention of using, hence making the course pointless. scaryteacher you asked if I viewed your course as pointless (that or there abouts), I never said this, if your course was a means to an end of some type then it wasn't pointless since something has been achieved by doing it even if you haven't used that information directly.

I know though that a free system might encourage people wanting to hide for longer to do that but then again when university was only £1000 a year that didn't put those people off (£1000 a year isn't much really) and I remember the drop out rate in the first year as a result of these people.

On the issue of funding for medicine places, I think places are effectively limited by the NHS funding part of the places anyway, so universities cannot simply recruit as many medical students as they wish currently. I believe the Browne report has not yet dealt with those students funded by govt through training contracts (which includes doctors, but also midwives, nurses, social workers and teachers...)

But I could be wrong.

" states that some courses lead no where and have no place as real courses"

It's so nice to meet you, Mr Gradgrind.

I went to a seminar on Friday. I doubt it leads anywhere practical, or has interest outside its own academic study, just like the courses you think aren't "real" The summary is: "Moreover, for every ordinal strictly smaller than epsilon0 there is a larger T-definable compact ordinal. Although the ordinal strength of system T is known to be epsilon0, we don't know whether T-definable compact ordinals must be smaller than epsilon_0"

Can you guess the department? Or can you tell me where it leads to qualify as "real"?