littlemisspanda – you question current average grad starting salaries, well finance and IT must bring the average up a bit. You’ve been working for a while? Average would have been less back then and it seems where you work pays less than average anyway. Your degree seems to have been less demanding than many so possibly all fair?

Meanwhile, in Scotland… 😉

anagallis_arvensis – Member

Cheaper uni’s not really available in the uk are they?

It’s not really funny, but we couldn’t help but laugh, the government line was “The max is £9000 but hardly anyone will do that.” Then out came the numbers and yup, pretty much everyone went with £9000. Nobody really knows if they were lying or incompetent.

I can’t talk about student loans without having some sort of apopleptic fit, but suffice it to say privatising student loans is madness on all fronts, and changing conditions on existing student loan debt (which would almost certainly be a requirement for privatising the existing asset) is also madness on all fronts. So I’m not really in favour.

Good luck to anyone getting results 😉 But don’t phone us for clearing, we’re busy. Well obviously I’m not, I’m skiving.

University Education in this country is still very cheap in comparison to a lot of other countries.

which ones?

Why should the uk tax payer not fund it? Why should it fund school education but not later education?

you question current average grad starting salaries

Just to point out that average is just that, it is made up of a lot of numbers above and below.

What do you say to a [enter any artsy degree programme] graduate?
Can I have fries with that…

The US is pretty pricey – Ivy league certainly, but we don’t want to go down that route I’m sure. I suppose a reason many Unis here charged the max amount was the artificial cap just means many would like to charge more but as there’s a cap that’s what they charge. If Unis are still getting the numbers of students they want then they’re charging the right amount, if not then they’d better cut their prices and let demand’n’supply sort things out.

I reckon people should wait, have a year out, do some menial jobs for a few years then work out what they want to do. It worked for me, I went into Uni focused on working hard to achieve my degree, I left with a first. I earned at a low rate for the first couple of years then moved into a more corporate job. I also have friends who wouldn’t have got their well paying jobs without degrees and know people who do just fine without one, just driving people into meaningless degrees is pointless and a cash cow – but if it teaches something and you genuinely benefit out of it then why not.

The UK taxpayer SHOULD fund further or higher education.

And yet it’s happening.

Has the government started taking £200/mo from my salary to give to a private company for no benefit whilst I have not noticed?

I’m no Tory, and I deplore the privatisation of essential services, and I do not think the SLC should be privatised. However I don’t think that they will suddenly allow a private company to whack up the interest rates and payments to any large extent. I hope I’m right.

Molly, have you seriously not noticed how much less this lot care about the previously revered middle classes?

Hmm.. I don’t think many tories care about much more than votes, so all I see is monumental incompetence. I don’t think they are being vindictive.. they may actually believe that helping big business helps everyone, I don’t know. And to some extent I think it does. The detail is in how it’s managed, and I don’t think this lot are bothered about how they manage it.

Why should the uk tax payer not fund it? Why should it fund school education but not later education

Because going to school is mandatory and benefits everyone, where as going to university is not.

I reckon people should wait, have a year out, do some menial jobs for a few years then work out what they want to do. It worked for me, I went into Uni focused on working hard to achieve my degree, I left with a first.

Are you making the assumption that no 18 year old knows what he/she wants to do in life or is able to focus/motivate themselves because you didn’t?

Year out is definitely fun and character building, but not sure why potentially wasting a few years in menial jobs is beneficial to motivated individuals who know what they want to do?

I went straight to uni after a year out, focused on working hard, and had plenty of time menial jobs while I was there (6 years worth). Didn’t get a first mind you.

The UK taxpayer SHOULD fund further or higher education.

What? All of it?

Not affordable as too many go now, was different in the past when a degree meant rather more than it does now. Can’t really reduce the numbers, without causing major problems, so we got what we got and students have to pay; will hopefully make them ensure they do a degree that’ll be worthwhile – financially or otherwise.

That would only be true of there was a market with different prices.

Because going to school is mandatory and benefits everyone, where as going to university is not.

so some education benefits everyone but more education doesnt?

Also can you tell me the places that make our degrees look cheap?

What are the problems with reducing numbers?

so some education benefits everyone but more education doesnt?

Nice twist of words, if you don’t go to university then it doesn’t benefit you does it. If you choose to follow another path (the majority) then why should you fund the minority?

What? All of it?

Not affordable

I know. However, it still should, on principle.

Wasn’t it Major’s govt that said 50% of people should go to university? I think this was the start of the problem. I don’t think university is appropriate for that many people, but some form of higher education probably is.

I reckon a more intelligent approach to educating and training the population would have been a good idea, rather than pulling a number out of their arses then not bothering to think about the implications.

does going to uni make better plumbers? travel agents, middle managers in call centres?
The right amount of education is great.

if you don’t go to university then it doesn’t benefit you does it. If you choose to follow another path (the majority) then why should you fund the minority

Because you still need many (although certainly not all) of the people who do go to university and you will benefit from their education?

Suppose its hard to draw the line between degrees which benefit and should be paid for, versus those which only benefit the individual.

That would only be true of there was a market with different prices.

No – many don’t go at all, if some of those are put off by prices then more of them will go if prices drop.

Wasn’t it Major’s govt that said 50% of people should go to university?

Blair

Nice twist of words, if you don’t go to university then it doesn’t benefit you does it.

Interesting point of view.

If you choose to follow another path (the majority) then why should you fund the minority?

Because it improves the country as a whole kind of like the welfare state.

does going to uni make better plumbers? travel agents, middle managers in call centres?
The right amount of education is great.

I agree, but charging shitloads for it does not seem the best way of achieving this aim.

What? All of it?

Yes all of it. anyon would think that the UK didn’t receive any benfit from these graduates!

Not affordable as too many go now,

Then reduce the numbers.

Can’t really reduce the numbers, without causing major problems,

Well over the last few years the government has reduced numbers in lot of other areas so I can’t see why numbers can’t be reduced here too.

As far as I’m concerned the taxpayers in the early ’90s gave me money to go to unversity. I graduated and got a job and I now pay a not inconsiderable amount of tax, certainly a lot more than it cost to send me to uni in the first place. In addition to the personal tax there is also the wealth that my job helps to generate. In other words the taxpayer got a blinder of deal by paying for my education. In all the debates over the cost of sending people to university and the benefits that they as individuals receive, never is it mentioned anywhere the benefits that the country/taxpayer gets from a graduate.

Because it improves the country as a whole kind of like the welfare state

Maybe, maybe not, and the line that is crossed is that if the taxpayer was funding the training of Nurses, Doctors, Engineers….. then that in my mind would probably be acceptable and an obvious benefit to society as a whole. When you are funding 1000’s of students to study geography, media studies and sports psychology, its probably not.

Well over the last few years the government has reduced numbers in lot of other areas so I can’t see why numbers can’t be reduced here too.

What approach would you take? What we had in the 80s seemed fine to me but I’m probably wrong.

“If you want to change the world, be an Engineer.” Cock on mate.

Give me an apprentice trained engineer any time over a Uni only educated engineer. If you want anything done that is (in our industry).

Since the all the guff about paying to go to uni our apprentice applicants have risen to a very encouraging standard.

So, is there an argument for a quota system of grants? So, all engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, etc get a free ride; then other degrees get a limited number of free grants depending on the value to society of the degree?

NB this is a hypothetical question and not an indication of my personal views.

LHS why do you think free schooling is good then?

LHS why do you think free schooling is good then?

Everyone needs a minimum standard of education. Not everyone needs to be educated to be an expert in sports psychology.

I’d have it as view if you tweaked who was paid for and who was not.

So, is there an argument for a quota system of grants? So, all engineers, scientists, doctors, nurses, etc get a free ride; then other degrees get a limited number of free grants depending on the value to society of the degree?

NB this is a hypothetical question and not an indication of my personal views.

Although that sort of categorisation seems logical, it is fraught with difficulty.

It assumes that every engineer graduating from university will benefit society in some way. most do not i would have thought. What of those engineers who enter into private enterprise and profit from the public, surely that’s a case of paying for the same thing twice?

Doctors are much the same. If the state funds a doctor through university, then that doctor takes up employment in a private hospital, surely that is as much use to joe public for curing their ailments as a history of art graduate?

Perhaps there could be some sort of claw back of fees for those graduates who enter some form of employment which benefits the state? e.g. Doctors who work for the NHS get x% back of tuition fees for every year spent working, engineers who do government funded projects at agreed rates recover a percentage of their fees. As do lawyers working for the GLS.

Or even an RAF type scheme, which ties them into public sector jobs for a set number of years on the basis that their fees were paid for by the state? Although, thinking about it, that might end up with all the poor kids working in the public sector and all the rich ones cruising unchallenged into the top private sector jobs!

Seems a bit odd mind you, especially as they will be taking a salary/payment from the state anyway, but would tick the box of we’re-only-paying-for-your-education-if-it-benefits-us

Perhaps there could be some sort of claw back of fees for those graduates who enter some form of employment which benefits the state? e.g. Doctors who work for the NHS get x% back of tuition fees for every year spent working, engineers who do government funded projects at agreed rates recover a percentage of their fees

That’s really dodgy ground there. Shall we also expect those who have been in receipt of benefits to pay back that too?

That’s really dodgy ground there. Shall we also expect those who have been in receipt of benefits to pay back that too?

Not really the same though is it?

It’s just like a loan which you do can pay back via employment rather than cash (the same as the RAF sponsorship scheme). If you choose not to undertake public work, the loan crystallises and becomes a debt which you repay like any other student loan.

So if you take a government grant and go to university, but then decide upon graduating that you’d rather go and work for BUPA than the NHS, your grant is repayable like a student loan.

I’m just mulling over ideas btw, no personal view really. My llb was paid for by the scottish government and i paid full fees in england, so been on both sides of the fence.

Are you making the assumption that no 18 year old knows what he/she wants to do in life or is able to focus/motivate themselves because you didn’t?

Pretty much, but my advice is clearly best and I’ve ALWAYS done things right (this is an internet forum right :wink:).

I do believe in people having worked in crappy jobs though as it gives them a better appreciation of them and they will hopefully treat others still doing them better as a result of it.

Personally it also meant I was treated as a mature student and didn’t have to pay the fees they introduced that year!

Not really the same though is it?

It’s exactly the same. Taxpayer gives money which is spent either on an education or on benefits. Equally you could use healthcare as another example. Those who receive healthcare via the NHS are expected to pay it back, afterall they’ve had the benefit of that cash being spent, no one else has.

You also have the difficulty of defining what does and doesn’t constitute public works. I work in the oil and gas industry and the interesting thing is that the oil in the North Sea belongs to the UK, not the oil companies (they operate under license) would that constitute “public works”?

It’s exactly the same. Taxpayer gives money which is spent either on an education or on benefits. Equally you could use healthcare as another example. Those who receive healthcare via the NHS are expected to pay it back, afterall they’ve had the benefit of that cash being spent, no one else has.

No, honestly, it’s not.

Are you suggesting Student Loans are the same as benefits or healthcare and that we’re on dodgy territory for asking for the taxpayer funded loans back from students?

Are you suggesting Student Loans are the same as benefits or healthcare and that we’re on dodgy territory for asking for the taxpayer funded loans back from students?

I’m saying that a taxpayer funded higher education system is no different to taxpayer funded healthcare system or a taxpayer funded benefits system. Money comes from the taxpayer and pays for something for the individual. If you expect one group to have to refund that money then it isn’t unreasonable to expect any other the others to do the same.

I should add that my position is that Higher education should be taxpayer funded with no repayments. What I do not think is that it should be universal, rather it should only be open to those who have earned it.

Surely the difference is that healthcare is necessary, a degree is not?

A degree is necessary if you want to be a doctor and your healthcare system won’t be much cop without them.

So you’ve completely missed my point then?

A doctor working in a private healthcare is no use to the NHS using taxpayer, who funded his degree.

A doctor working in the NHS is useful, therefore his fees should be paid.

No I haven’t missed your point at all. I understand it perfectly and I have some sympathy for it, however you do appear to be missing the point that I’m making which is if you expect state funding from one system to be repaid (by whatever means you choose), then it stands to reason that state funding in other systems should also be repaid.

That doc will be paying a nice chunk of tax and spending lots of lovely cash on shiny things to keep retailers and VAT man happy.