I know you love calling out debating tactics but I am not sure it was one. The statistics seem to suggest no significant drop off in admissions, more people from deprived backgrounds going to university because there is more money for “living grants” – albeit this is changing to a loan system – and the government numbers suggest significant expectation of future write offs. In terms of policy I think it is certainly progressive for potential high achievers, but my criticism would be a substantial cost will be borne by people who don’t personally benefit from university – albeit this cost has been kicked down the road. I am also concerned that the “graduate premium” may decrease which will only increase the cost to government and therefore the population as a whole.

Paid off £11.5 k worth of student loan accumulated from a failed degree this year with my s-grade/GCSE level job, earning at the average uni cap right now and if I get promoted will be well over the Russell average.

So how would I be doing better from a degree again? And yes, exception not rule but not unique.

Personally I dont see what the article is claiming, they seem to be confusing correlation with causation, there are other factors that hold back those from poorer backgrounds, I sincerely doubt £9k per year plus loans is more attractive than £4k a year in loans even to those with the poorest money management skills imaginable.

Its not as th best paid graduates will stop paying it back – those who gained the most dont continue to pay for the rest of their lives.

retty sure you did claim young folk were better informed but it is not that important

he statistics seem to suggest no significant drop off in admissions, more people from deprived backgrounds going to university because there is more money for “living grants”

The first part is true- its just a fact- the second part[reason] is just a guess based on the first part. It could be that more are going because there are fewer jobs and youth unemployment was at record levels,
If we gave everyone 10 k free grant and tuition fees paid to go to uni do you think numbers would increase or decrease?

In terms of policy I think it is certainly progressive for potential high achievers, but my criticism would be a substantial cost will be borne by people who don’t personally benefit from university – albeit this cost has been kicked down the road. I am also concerned that the “graduate premium” may decrease which will only increase the cost to government and therefore the population as a whole.

Dont disagree

Personally I dont see what the article is claiming, they seem to be confusing correlation with causation, there are other factors that hold back those from poorer backgrounds, I sincerely doubt £9k per year plus loans is more attractive than £4k a year in loans even to those with the poorest money management skills imaginable.

Did you actually read the article? Because literally every one of those points is addressed in it.

Yes I did and they literally aren’t.

Please feel free to prove otherwise.

they seem to be confusing correlation with causation

I think it’s you getting confused. At no point do they state that going to Oxbridge causes higher salaries, but they are reporting a salary survey which shows that mean wages of Oxbridge graduates are higher than those of other groups.

I am NOT disputing that point that I am saying it is NOT like a graduate tax which is what that point addresses.

Keep up will you 😉

As for apay more it depends does someone on say 65 k pay less than someone in 150 k?

I think they[better paid] may actually be able to pay back less as they pay it back quicker but I have not done the maths. I would assume they have done something to prevent this – have they ? Genuine question masquerading as a point.

I think it’s you getting confused. At no point do they state that going to Oxbridge causes higher salaries, but they are reporting a salary survey which shows that mean wages of Oxbridge graduates are higher than those of other groups.

Again nothing to do with what I said.

Where you quoted I was replying to the second story which claimed that free fees and “higher” loan debts were causing less uptake amongst the disadvantaged than £9k of fees plus loans (where ineligible for grants).

Well it is for those on relatively normal salaries, because they don’t ever pay it back. For those people it is far more like a graduate tax than it is a normal loan – the fact that some other people totally unlike them do pay it back is pretty much irrelevant to them.

Those who do pay it back are far enough above average salary that I don’t think the socialists should be worrying too much about them. Likewise above a certain point you could argue that it is regressive as those who pay back faster pay back less in total. Again I’m not sure that sort of regression is an issue in the way it is if somebody on minimum wage is paying a higher proportion.

I did do the maths at some point – if you’re interested you could search my posts, I CBA 😉

It may share some attributes with a graduate tax but it is not a graduate tax. In much the same way my auntie is like my Uncle but there are still differences
Its not a graduate tax. It just isnt so its facile to keep comparing it to one

I do recall one you did FWIW ages ago You mean you did not save the Excel spreadsheet….beginners mistake dude 😉

I’m not sure that sort of regression is an issue in the way it is if somebody on minimum wage is paying a higher proportion.

IMHO all regressive taxes are wrong and whilst it will still be happening to those on highish earnings its still not fair.

It’s tricky though. Is it fairer to society to have a tax* which is progressive at lower salaries and regressive at higher salaries or one which is flat? Does that depend where the inflection point is#?

* yeah I know, but for the sake of argument
# is it higher or lower than your salary? 😉

Junkyard: would you be happier if it were actually a graduate tax?

Yes but those earning more are already paying big amounts of general tax. So the fact that you may pay back your loan slightly quicker make no real odds.

@ aracer they are both crap and we have a method of making it progressive at all rates so why pick which crap option is the least crap?

@ kona – I would prefer it to be fair and I have not given a graduate tax much thought tbh I was just countering those who claim loans are just a ” graduate tax”
Obv I would prefer it to be free with a workers council deciding collectively what degrees were offered and who benefits 😉

@ dragon you really missed the point as the more wealthy [ of the wealthy] pay less so it does make some odds assuming you care about the better off paying more than the less well off.

The whole point is the universities get paid at a fair rate. Of rich people can afford the fees without needing a grant so be it.

University is so much more than just about earning more later in life.

Which is? A grad tax?

Okay, junkyard: how about free (at time of consumption) uni fees plus a means-tested just about liveable grant in return for an extra…1.5%? income tax for the rest of the student’s life?

University is so much more than just about earning more later in life.

It is. It provides a highly skilled workforce to grow the economy and thus increase GDP. That’s why university education should be paid for by the state: it benefits the economy far more than it costs.

And the state gets it’s money from……..?

It provides a highly skilled workforce to grow the economy and thus increase GDP.

[Cynic mode]

That’s the 10% of grads who went to a proper Uni and did a real degree, whereas the other 90% with a degree in Media Studies from an ex-Poly working as a Barista in Costa just cost the tax payer £30k and will never earn enough to pay a penny back.

[/Cynic mode]

Maybe, just maybe, we should recognise the value that higher education contributes to the economy as a whole, and fund universities appropriately. That way students can attend based upon their academic potential, rather than their parents’ earning potential.

Definitely agree.

earned an average wage considerably higher than that in the OP for an Oxbridge graduate, given that I’m only 32 and already well above that.

Sounds a bit ‘willy wavy’…

I didn’t go to a prestigious uni, but had the fees in place now been in place 14 years ago I would never have gone at all.

Me too. Although my degree has no direct relevance to my work and I’m sure that until my current role has not been a consideration either.

Most of my colleagues would be in the same boat.

Not sure mine would be… Most of me me seem to be from a solid, stable and financially comfortable middle-class background with the ability to pay IMO.

That’s the 10% of grads who went to a proper Uni and did a real degree, whereas the other 90% with a degree in Media Studies from an ex-Poly working as a Barista in Costa just cost the tax payer £30k and will never earn enough to pay a penny back.

Or the people in professions which never used to require a degree, but now do. Nursing for example, which currently at least in universities I am aware of, gets funded by NHS and a bursary for the student. You could suggest that by working in the NHS people are already paying back and a graduate tax could make them pay twice.

And the state gets it’s money from……..?

People running companies, employing people, and paying taxes. Generally speaking, the higher the skill level, the higher the wage, and the higher the spending power and taxable income. Do try to keep up…

Sounds a bit willy wavy

Sorry, I suppose it was, but I and most of my colleagues (all educated to postgraduate level in a job that requires such education) probably wouldn’t have even gone to uni, never mind risen to where we seem to have if fees then were what they are now.

That’s the 10% of grads who went to a proper Uni and did a real degree, whereas the other 90% with a degree in Media Studies from an ex-Poly working as a Barista in Costa

[citation needed]

As a Russell Group University graduate, I’d just like to apologise for pulling down the statistics 😉

I saw a horrible advert recently for a university, I forget which one, but the tagline was something like “Turning good students into excellent employees”. University shouldn’t be about just getting a good job, it should be about improving the education level of society, which helps everyone. That’s why it should be free.

I’ve not noticed a glass ceiling in engineering to non-Oxbridge grads, and I guess medicine/dentistry are the same.

I think that’s right for medicine, although I’ve never worked in the South East where an Oxbridge / London degree may be more relevant. In Medicine at least, a far greater emphasis is placed upon post-graduate achievements/research etc, some of which is easier if you have ties to a decent university, of course. Also, universities get ranked separately for the quality of their medicine courses, and Oxbridge often aren’t at the top.

If my alter-ego had left school at 16 instead of doing A levels and then six years at university, I’d have had 8 more years of earning under my belt, and I suspect whatever I was doing, I’d be earning more than £16k / yr. As far as “earnings to date” go, after paying a higher proportion of tax and also tuition fees (not to mention professional subscriptions) etc my 31 year old reality is still not close to breaking even from my dropout alter-ego.

P.S. Support the junior doctors strike please 😉

Ben, it can’t be free. Don’t forget someone has to pay? And as zokes likes to point out, much better if someone else is doing it!

In the good old “free” days the poor effectively subsidised the better off. So the nostalgia seems slightly misplaced

THM: you seem to be struggling with the basic concept of how taxation in democracies works. Why? You know perfectly well that:

1) Taxation covers many things, including a lot of things most people don’t want or will ever use, Trident being an obvious one

2) People who are well educated tend to earn more, facilitate more economic activity, and thus more government revenue through taxation. They may also go on to innovate, build companies, and employ more people, who will also pay tax

3) Following on from (2), it is likely that those who have benefited most from higher education will also pay the most for it through greater taxation on their higher incomes

Now please, at least try to say something intelligent.

Sorry that I am unable to match your standards of intellgence, forgive me.

And tax is a tough subject after all, so struggling is understandable. My bad as the young generation say.

I will ignore the wider debate on the extent to which tertiary education is truly a public good or not. I will leave that to the clever folk.

Still if anyone else would like to make a contribution to my sons’ tertiary education, it would be most welcome. They will be making an important contribution to society in their future careers after all. Bank details to follow….

That’s not even trying…

True

Don’t worry – I’m an Oxbridge graduate and reckon I’m owed £200k.

Reality is though that huge amounts of tax payers money already go to universities via the RAE exercise and research council grants, plus other more convoluted routes. So students are already benefiting a lot from taxpayers money.

I think in a world of 50%+ of kids going on to uni then the tax payer picking up the whole cost is not sensible. However, universities should be encouraged to plow their own money back into supporting poorer students.

End of the day numbers of students are still increasing, so any fears fees would put people off haven’t turned out to be true.

What is this magic free money of their own that universities have that they should spend on poor students’ living expenses?

If my alter-ego had left school at 16 instead of doing A levels and then six years at university, I’d have had 8 more years of earning under my belt, and I suspect whatever I was doing, I’d be earning more than £16k / yr.

Idk about you but 16 yo me wasn’t deluged with full time job offers paying £275 a week!

Okay, junkyard: how about free (at time of consumption) uni fees plus a means-tested just about liveable grant in return for an extra…1.5%? income tax for the rest of the student’s life?

Its probably the fairest method if we wont provide it for free but i assume we would also need a threshold to start only where they get the “premium”. It also seems unfair as say training a brick layer costs over 10 k per year [ not had figures for about 10 years and i doubt it has got cheaper] but they wont pay anything back.
personally I would return it to being free [ for the reasons zokes notes] and also it being for the best of the best with a minority getting a degree. I would also introduce a weighting against private schools probably achieved by a clumsy quota system or some such – not thought that through – but some way to level the playing field.

Now please, at least try to say something intelligent.

Why would he do that when he can patronise the shit out of you?
IME Zokes just beat him in a few debates then he , literally, sulks with you for ever and you can mock him without reply .

I think in a world of 50%+ of kids going on to uni then the tax payer picking up the whole cost is not sensible. However, universities should be encouraged to plow their own money back into supporting poorer students.

I agree. I don’t see the point in getting a degree unless your profession requires it. Many who go to University would have been much better off doing an Apprenticeship / Vocational course which would benefit them career wise.

Currently about 60% of graduates(1) end up in non graduate jobs, which is great if you want them to spend three years smoking dope and dosing about at the tax payers expense (2), but not a good use of human resource.

(1) http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-33983048
(2) Their loans will never be paid back, so the bill for their dope habit is picked up by the rest of us.

i assume we would also need a threshold to start only where they get the “premium”.

There’s already a tax free allowance before you start paying income tax. There’s no need to make things more complicated.

So you may not earn a premium from the education but you will pay more tax anyway

I am not convinced that is fair.

I agree. I don’t see the point in getting a degree unless your profession requires it.

But that narrows down the defitnion of what is education for. It’s not IMO just about getting a better job or any job for that matter.

So at what point does the (imperfect) public good argument stop? The same logic should be applied to all forms of training that makes people better at their jobs and therefore able to contribute more to socisty either directly or indirectly via taxation. From that, the argument quickly breaks down.

Arguments have to progress beyond lets just tax higher earners though – a cliched panacea by now

On the broader point of education being good for all you are correct but if you are going to have to pay for your education one has to think about whether it will be worth it hence the focus on earnings.

Arguments will never progress beyond expecting those with the deepest pockets to pay the most unless you dont GAS about basic fairness.

What was it jesus said about the rich again and how easy they could be saved?
We do it to save them 😉
If you wont listen to us listen to him 😀

But that narrows down the defitnion of what is education for. It’s not IMO just about getting a better job or any job for that matter.

You don’t need to go to Uni to get an education, there are plenty of other options. Sending 50% of the population on a three year jolly with dubious educational benefits in many cases is not my idea of a good use of tax revenue.

Arguments will never progress beyond expecting those with the deepest pockets to pay the most unless you dont GAS about basic fairness.

Personally I think it’s more about efficient use of resources (given they are finite). If most people don’t need their degree for their future career (as seems to be the case in 60% of graduates), might there not be a better form of further education which they and society might benefit more from such as vocational / apprenticeships?

I don’t believe people have the intrinsic right to spend three years at University getting stoned whilst pretending to study some random media subject and then coming away with a worthless certificate, with the bill picked up by the tax payer. If the tax payer foots the bill, society ought to be getting something back for the money.