Tuition Fees increase. Why are they 'fairer'?

[LadyBlaBlah]

I genuinely don't understand why the coalition are saying that their proposed hike in tuition fees is fairer and more progressive than the current system.

They never seem to expand on this point. Can someone explain the detail?

blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/university-tuition-fees-more-progressive-than-before/4836

Thanks for that

So, is it fair to say that they are saying "they will be fairer" yet they are not specifying exactly how they will be fairer. And furthermore where they have been more detail orientated, it is basically unworkable?

From what I can gather they are saying it's fairer because you only pay back when earningg reach 21K as oppose to 15K now.

The difference in earnings payback of 6k is probably equivalent in todays earnings as it was back when fees were introduced.

No matter how they dress it up student debt will increase 3 fold without the requirements of extra grants for students from lower income families. I don't know how they can say it's fairer. Perhaps I'm missing something.

Also they are proposing to charge interest on the debt too, which they don't now.

I was wondering if I was missing something too - they do keep going on about it being fairer so thought maybe there was some truth in it - doesn't seem that way ?

Slightly OT, but I thought this article was interesting as a different take on the issue.

Absolutely - 21 weeks a year @ £9k seems rather steep. And unjustified.

I think they say its fairer because graduates on incomes lower than 21k don't pay anything and those with salaries higher than 21k pay it back over a longer period of time so their monthly/annual repayments are lower.

It's not fairer - they're lying!

Does anyone understand the Welsh tuition fees statement?

According to BBC online

"the increase in fees for Welsh domiciled students, whether they study in England or Wales or Scotland or Northern Ireland, will be paid by the Welsh Assembly Government."

And they are

"proposing to pay for the subsidy by top-slicing the teaching grant for Welsh universities."

I wonder what the Welsh Universities make of being told that they can put up fees - but they have to pay the for top ups for Welsh pupils. And I bet they'll be so pleased to pay the massive top ups for Welsh Stude
nts at Russell Group Universities in England and Scotland.

And why would an English student pay the full rate to attend a cash strapped Welsh University?
It seems utter madness to me - but maybe I'm missing something.

DEpends whether or not you are Welsh

Jack beat me to it!

Does this mean if someones parents rent a flat in wales and make this their main residence they can get reduced university fees?

You have to be 'domicile' in Wales for 3 years. And then the lovely Welsh Assembly will pay for you dc's Uni education top up fee anywhere in the UK.

I think they would have to do it for 3 years.

Gotta be worth it.

and it's all free magic money from the fairies as well! Super!

catinhehat - think you mean the english, not fairies. its us who are subsidising lower welsh tuition fees as they get 1,300 extra income from national gov. My welsh relatives would say its all down to need - but why do better off people in wales need free prescriptions, low tuition fees and low hospital car park charges and those in england don't?

i too don't see how the lib dems can say tuition fees are far. perhaps they think if they say it enough we will believe them.

Agree with Kate, it's all lies about it being fairer. Nick Clegg was patronising students yesterday saying they didn't understand the proposals.

The money isn't magic money, it's not from the fairies, it's taxes that we are paying in. The money still has to be paid to the Universities from central funds, they just want to re-coup it back by putting it as a debt on the students, many of whom won't use their degrees in the workplace so won't pay anything back but many will, alot.

The money won't even start coming back until this Tory government is no more in 5 yrs but it just looks good for them on paper.

Basically, it's a shit idea because those whose degrees are worth doing will pay it back. Those whose degrees werent worth doing (from a degree=higher earnings POV) won't. How is that helpful?

It would have been far better to spend time identifying those socially useful degrees which dont translate to high paid jobs (nursing, teaching etc) which we NEED people to do. Make them free. Identify a few more where we have a real shortage (eg engineering) and make them subsidised

Then tell everyone else they have to pay. Hopefully , that would have the impact of destroying the crappy degrees/ Unis as no-one would do them, and so would lead to the necessary contraction of universities to a level where it's possible for there to be no tuition fees (eg as it was before the government decided it would be a great idea for everyone to go to Uni).

Then it's fair, because Uni is free providing you are academically able enough to benefit from a degree.

If Nick the Pegg was saying that people were protesting when they didn't understand the proposals, then I do wish he would bloody well explain the detail of the proposals. Usually we collectively get the answrs to these sort of questions on here.........but I put forward a deliberately vague strategy at play here. And being the cynic I am, I guess that means they are worse than everyone thinks.

BaggedandTagged, your idea would ensure that nobody from a poor or average background went on to study English, History, Art, Music etc. - basically everything which makes us a rich, cultured country. Do you really think these subjects should be kept for the elite?

No- not at all. Completely the opposite, but we have a very big problem which is that there are many more people going to University at the present time than we can finance and the higher number of graduates is not translating into a more attractive investment environment (which is what we need to fund this bloated tertiary ed sector)i.e. employers are saying " a lot of these degrees are not worth the paper they're written on" - the expansion of Unis/ upgrading og Polys and colleges of Higher ed was a huge mistake IMO.

I did history myself so am definitely not anti-arts degrees and there are many people who do those subjects who earn pretty good salaries.

I just dont see another solution. I suppose you could say "we'll finance degrees at these x unis" but that would only draw shouts of "elitism".

BaggedandTagged - We don't need to make it that complicated.

Just reduce student numbers by 60% and make it free for the remaining 40% .

The Coalition- I agree, but how do we do that in practical terms?

Do you just say "right, you 60% of Unis are officially shit so you're getting closed down"

I guess my suggestion was trying to do that, but making the students vote with their feet to achieve that end IYSWIM

But your plan still equates a degree in history, which is highly academic, with a degree in plumbing, which is not? Actually those history students with 6 hours lectures a week are already subsidising science degrees. And how would you earmark the history students who will go on to become high-paid lawyers (and therefore pay no tuition fees) and those who will become lowly historians (and pay the lot)? Actually, to base how valuable a degree is on how much money you will earn is to devalue the arts, isn't it?

If you reduce the numbers by 60% a lot of people will lose their jobs when some of the Uni's close down. No wonder some teachers/ tutors are happy with the proposals, it means they get to keep their places running and keep their jobs to the detriment of our brightest DC's.