Really shocked at myself for thinking this (tuition fees)

[Concordia]

I don't really want my kids to be paying back debt their whole lives.
I want them to be able to buy a home of their own.
If they want to do a longer course or a course at a more prestigiuous uni i don't want them to go for a less good option because they are scared of debt. i want them to achieve the best they are capable.
was at myself when i found myself wondering if we would inherit any money in the next 15 years which would enable them to avoid this.
feeling
it's rough that teachers and social workers will end up paying so much more for their degrees than investment bankers who can pay off quickly.
this government really doesn't give a sh*t about those in the £18, 000 to £35, 000 bracket. after all we must be pretty feckless to be that poor and our education isnt' important at all now, is it.

The government, and the baby-boomer generation, has a very self-centred attitude - what's in it for me, why should I pay for it?

They seem to think that higher education is only good for making more money at your job, when actually it is very beneficial to society as a whole.

Doctors, lawyers, artists, etc - universities are very goof for society's development, so society has a vested interest in enough people going to uni.

But people also go to university for their own personal benefit, even if what they end up doing has a wider social benefit too - so some sort of tuition fees is surely appropriate?

Even under the new proposals, courses and institutions will be subsidised. But if you go for a 'popular' course - which market forces will, I strongly suspect, dictate will be the ones that charge the full 9k but also lead to lucrative employment - you pay more.

And the 'public benefit' argument around education for education's sake is undermined by the number of non-academic degrees now being studied - all well and good, but I just don't believe that people with 3 Cs at A level studying business management at university add much value to the overall culture of the nation. Good luck to them, and I'm sure they will pick up decent employment as a result. But I'm not sure there's much of an argument for that sort of education being paid for entirely by the State (other taxpayers).

Have you been protesting the rising "out of control" house prices for the last 15 years? Or is educational debt different to mortgage debt?

Both house price inflation and extortionate tuition fees are wrong. Don't know what your point is, Alpine.

Alfa, I gather we will have the highest tuition fees of any Western developed nation - at least that's what they said on Radio 4 news so I'm inclined to believe it.

Tuition fees were a bad idea but tripling them is ludicrous. Don't see any of the MPs who got free tertiary education offering to pay back the costs of their degrees...

I agree that £9k is very excessive, and the fact that Welsh and Scottish students will receive a greater subsidy is very unfair, and I think will cause trouble in the future.

But to ask lawyers/bankers to pay £27k for their degrees, given their greater earning power, doesn't seem outrageously unfair to me. I can't help but think that it will be degrees that give access to those sorts of careers are the only ones that will charge the upper rate.

Mid-ranking universities offering degrees that are useful for say, the leisure industry (sports management, tourism?), won't have a market willing to pay £9k per year. Unless people really have taken leave of their senses.

I should say, 9k across the board would be excessive. But that's not what is being suggested....

I think that a graduate tax makes infinitely more sense.

If you go back 20 years to when I went to university, the system of free university education and maintenance grants was patently a massive subsidy to the middle and upper classes. Only 15% of school leavers went to university/polytechnics, and they were overwhelmingly from richer families. If you went to uni, you had a very high chance of earning a good salary afterwards.

Things have changed massively - with 50% of young people going on to uni, there is no way that they can all earn high salaries as a result.

So, either the repayment levels are set high enough that many people don't pay back much of their loans (and have a debt burden hanging over them forever), or you are taking a substantial amount of money from people on average or lower incomes, whilst those earning lots can pay their loans off quickly.

A graduate tax that only kicked in once you earned above the average full time wage (and was guaranteed not to take you below average earnings) would

a) make money for the treasury (since those earning lots would pay on all their income)
b) be fairer, as there would be no way that those with richer parents could avoid it
c) not hit those on lower earnings.

I agree there is the potential for some people to avoid paying by leaving the country, but there could be a mechanism for your education to be charged for directly if you left the UK within X years of graduating.

Of course, there is also the question of whether it makes sense for 50% of school leavers to go on to higher education in its current form, but that might be for a different thread :)

The high cost of buying a first home is also a concern to the 65% of school leavers who don't get to be university graduates.

True - They might not have graduate loans to pay back - but then they will, on average, be earning £300k less than a graduate over their working lives.

jackstarlight, I am really unconvinced that graduates now will have that much higher earnings compared to non-graduates, there are just too many of them for that to be the case, IMO.

Takver - That's a good argument for a graduate tax. A few points:

• Can the tax system cope with kicking in at the level you suggested? I thought it needed to be at a standard threshold - i.e the standard tax threshold of about £4k (hopefully going to be raised to £10k).

How do we make sure all the money collected actually goes to the universities?

jackstarlight - I think that the starting point would have to be set each year, say based on the previous year's median full time wage (mean is pulled upwards by the small number of ultra high earners).

How to be sure it all goes to universities - good question given how much the Treasury dislikes hypothecated taxes. And of course it would come in after the event, so to speak (though of course it could apply to those of us who already have degrees). But I'm sure that it would be possible to draft suitable legislation.

The browne review investigated a graduate tax and found that it wouldn't generate enough revenue in order to fund universities until about 2040 I think and would in the short term lead to rise in the amount of central spending from Government which we can't afford. I also think it could put very punitive levels of taxation on graduates on low salaries.

As Xenia has been pointing out for years, there is no money in caring and women continue to shot themselves in the foot by going into these roles for what is perceived as pin money, if men had to support a family on a social workers wage you can bet your life it would be higher.

'Alfa, I gather we will have the highest tuition fees of any Western developed nation - at least that's what they said on Radio 4 news so I'm inclined to believe it.'

Compared to the US. LOL! Haahahaaaa. And they have to pay up front there, too.

Somehow, it hasn't stopped people from becoming doctors, lawyers, teachers, nurses, etc.

Yes, many have lots of debt. Seem to manage okay.

No society can afford a system of free higher education for a vast percentage of school leavers.

Something's gotta give and since we're not a socialist nation, it ain't gonna be people voting for higher taxes to fund greater services.

Yes, in the past it was free. Well, yeah, in the past there were decent pensions and lower house prices.

The ship has sailed, folks. It's slipped past the horizon and all you'll get for crying over it is maybe a nice ocean view.

It's either this or a graduate tax but going for free isn't sustainable.

And anyone who thinks that will carry on in Scotland or Wales, too, ad infinitum, is kidding themselves.

A graduate tax is a terrible idea - it is a penalty for being educated. That's not how a civilised nation should behave.

Thyere is no point in going to university when it no longer gives you a leg up into a better job / career

so the only point to go would be a vocational course that you have to take at uni level - engineering medicine law etc

there is no point in saddling yourself with debt to do a non-vocational degree

the whole joy of education for education's sake is out of the window

this is what happens when a govt aims for 50% of the population at university - what is the point? Undergraduate degrees are devalued

Exactly, WW. The writing's on the wall for fee-free higher ed in Scotland.

Expat's right

huddspur, "The browne review investigated a graduate tax and found that it wouldn't generate enough revenue in order to fund universities until about 2040 I think and would in the short term lead to rise in the amount of central spending from Government which we can't afford. I also think it could put very punitive levels of taxation on graduates on low salaries"

I don't understand that argument - since the fees are loaned up front, and only repaid once income is over £21K (or whatever), I don't see how a graduate tax that kicked in at that rate could raise money more slowly.

It could put punitive levels of taxation on graduates with low salaries - it would depend on the level that it was set at and where it kicked in. If it didn't apply unless you earned over £21K, it would be no more punitive than a debt that you have to repay once you earn over £21K.

There is clearly a wider question as to whether society as a whole should fund tertiary education, rather than graduates contributing some or all of the cost, but that is a separate point, I think.

I think the problem is if you put the graduate tax at the same level as the proposed loan repayment level, then whats the difference between the graduate tax and the current system. You will still be paying money to the Government because you have a degree at a similar rate. The only difference would be that at least with the loan repayment scheme there is an end in sight ie when you've paid it all back whilst with the graduate tax then you pay indefinitely

Imo - The main practical difference between the graduate tax and the loan for fees approach, is thst the graduate loan introduces a 'market' into HE.

It allows variation in fees which in turn should reflect the true 'value' of the degree.

Whether this is a good thing or a very bad thing depends on your view point.

The reason many universities support the proposed system rather than a graduate tax is that it makes the link between the student and the university direct, cutting out the treasury/government as a middle man - that could and may create a 'market' as jackstarlight says; it also gives universities a good deal of independence from the state in contrast to a system where they depend upon all the money coming via the government. A lot of people in higher education feel chronically messed around by politicians with little real interest in or understanding of higher education and are attracted by a system that brings greater independence.

Be careful what you wish for, arionater.
Now that there is a direct link between the student and the University, the students are going to start asking hard questions about what exactly they are getting for their money.