[Closed] Big companies - student university fees

Isn't one of the big problems that even though the parties may have wonderful ideas about how to tax people and redistribute the wealth to make things fair within society the biggest constraint is the actual systems they have at hand to fulfil these ideas and that to build a bespoke collection and distribution system fit for purpose is too expensive in these days of austerity?

Yes! It takes millions of pounds and a long time to implement changes. Many of these schemes fail miserably, such as the one intended to recover ill gotten gains from criminals. This cost the tax payer hugely more money than it recovered!

Keep it simple is my motto!

Middle earners are not earning £44000 pa. They are the top few %

so your premise fails right there - especially when we remain a low tax low spending country.

not got any opinion on your big companies idea.

however... the reason for the ideosyncracy of not considering combined incomes is it would have required a full means testing of child benefits which would cost nearly as much as it would have saved. the system proposed has been 'hacked in' to the tax system so that it will actually save some money, unfortunatly this leaves the disparity between multiple earner and single earner households. George osborne was very open about this and i am with him that it has been done to provide the maximum saving and miniumum expenditure that the country needs

Big companies in the professional fields such as accountancy, engineering etc often lose money in the first couple of years on those graduates as they train them up. Small companies often can't afford to do this and many of those graduates leave once they are chartered to join small companies. I think large firms contribute in this way.

I'm not commenting on the other points on this forum! 😯

I have seen it within my company, one of the main contraints is not the ideas it is how to implement that idea without spending too much money doing it within the existing infrastructure.

Senior managers at the moment seem to have even shorter tenures than MPs and governments and are not willing to spend money in the short term that will only be recovered through revenue and efficiency gains in the medium to long term.

It's all a bit sad really.

I think what you pay back should be related to how well you perform at University.

Get a
1st 80% discount on fees.
2:1 60%
2:2 40%
3rd 20%

Fail 0%

Might make people think about if university is right for them in the first place and when they are there an incentive to make the most of it.

Bazzer

Large corporations are the ones that tend to have proper graduate schemes, most SME won't. Large corporations also invest a lot of money in getting those graduates trained in business etc., you try and stick an additional tax burden on them as well and all you'll do is reduce the chances of graduates getting a decent job and therefore delaying the loan repayment further (assuming they would still carry some of the repayment burden in your system...).

Not that I'm a fan of graduate schemes anyway but I guess they work for some (my place is just about to introduce one - personally I think we'd be better off getting people already trained and experienced that are just as intelligent - there's plenty about at the moment).

When are we going to have a fair system?

Define fair!

FWIW, why not just add two pence onto the income tax of all who have received a university education - nice and easy, pay it back proportionately and over a lifetime!

+1 Bazzer!!

Define Fair!

Everyone bearing a proportionate amount of the tax burden - a percentage?

Surely, for example, hiking tax by 1% would be simpler and would raise a lot more money for the exchequer than messing about with child benefit.

This would accord better with this "were all in this together" spin we keep hearing!

were all in this together

Every time I hear that I think of Terry Gilliam's movie Brazil and its shambolic dystopian bureaucracy.

it does seem rather odd that the coalition trust a new labour darling to come do this review- the ex BP chairman who tried to convince us BP were beyond petroleum and then instigated the cuts that helped raise profits and lower safety standards at bp (see deepwater horizon, texas oil refinery)

as such this man was never going to put the burden of higher education onto companies
not that such a system would work

his basic premise seems to be create a 2 tier higher education system and saddle the poorer students with a lifetime of personal debt
exactly what the torys and the lib dems told us was bad about the last government

slashing investment in science and education for a short term gain in the blance sheet at the cost of long term development is going to destroy any chances of making britain great again

*
also of note higher earners are infact those on £42grand not 44 as george o lied us to believe in his speach, when they introduced their last cluster**** of a policy

Middle earners are not earning £44000 pa. They are the top few %

How many is a few?

Its 10% of all full time PAYE payers earn enough to get into the higher tax braket. . so around 5% or less of all workforce. (including part time and unemployed as well as self employed)

Define Fair!
Everyone bearing a proportionate amount of the tax burden - a percentage?

Surely, for example, hiking tax by 1% would be simpler and would raise a lot more money for the exchequer than messing about with child benefit.

This would accord better with this "were all in this together" spin we keep hearing!

so, you think its [b]fair[/b] for a single mum, earning 8k per year, working part time in a cafe, to contribute to the cost of a university education in applied drama for the son of a doctor and a headteacher, with a combined income of 150k?

or its [b]fair[/b] for the state minimum pension to be set lower than it could be, so that people who have retired with a company pension of £30k per year can get a free TV license and bus pass?

equally, you think its fair for either of these people to be taxed so that a teenage layabout can sit at home watching daytime TV on benefits rather than go out and get a job (any job, there's always vacancies at mcdonalds!)

Its 10% of all full time PAYE payers earn enough to get into the higher tax braket. . so around 5% or less of all workforce. (including part time and unemployed as well as self employed)

Is that your opinion or do you have a reference?

Zulu-Eleven - I don't see the point in those arguments really. I mean a single Mum earning £8k gets a lot of benefits right? More than she pays in tax? So she ain't really contributing to anybody else now is she?

Why should life be fair ?

FWIW, why not just add two pence onto the income tax of all who have received a university education - nice and easy, pay it back proportionately and over a lifetime!

Because that sort of thing would result in some graduates paying back way more than the cost of the education. It's worth noting that whenever this debate comes up it always focuses on how much an individual graduate earns and uses that as an excuse for charging more. What never seems to be taken into account is that this extra money will be taxed so the "average" graduate already pays more tax than the average non graduate. It also never seems to take into account the additional benefit that a graduate provides the country. Think of all the science and engineering that goes on and how that contributes to the wealth of the country, not to mention the health service. None of that would be possible without graduates.

The proposals of how when the money should be paid also makes no sense. There was a breakdown of graduate earnings a couple of months ago and from what I can recall the biggest earners were Doctors, Lawyers, Engineers. To [i]further[/i] penalise people who are already contributing to the country far more than they ever took out, is just daft.

Sorry but this is one topic that really annoys me. A Higher education should be a right for those who earn it, not a privalage for those who can afford it.

well, this page agrees with the 10% figure

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8151355.stm

but seems to suggest that the figure is Higher if you take the non-paye people into account, as most self employed/directors/etc earn more than this

In addition, a reasonable number of people have an income supplimented by non-PAYE income - for instance BTL, renting a room out, investments from a inheritance, etc

from what I can see, this is similar to the graduate tax, just worked out a different way. The trouble with a grad tax is it encourages those who graduate to leave the country

well, this page agrees with the 10% figure

That's my opinion too it's just that TJ has tried to make it sound like at most it's 5%.

I mean a single Mum earning £8k gets a lot of benefits right? More than she pays in tax? So she ain't really contributing to anybody else now is she?

Well, for a start we could afford to support her more if the money wasn't being pissed up the wall on Tarquin's drama course. same goes for the pensioner getting under £100 per week.

Because that sort of thing would result in some graduates paying back way more than the cost of the education. It's worth noting that whenever this debate comes up it always focuses on how much an individual graduate earns and uses that as an excuse for charging more. What never seems to be taken into account is that this extra money will be taxed so the "average" graduate already pays more tax than the average non graduate.

Well, thats the whole basis of progressive taxation isn't it! everyone on a higher wage pays back more than someone on a lower wage, even though they use the same services (or sometimes less) street lighting, NHS, libraries, schools etc. The expansion if your own argument is that non parents should not pay towards schools as they do not receive any personal benefit.

Thats why I asked for a definition of "fair"!

why should someone who crawls their way to the top of the pile and becomes a successful businessman [i]without[/i] the benefit of a university education be paying the same amount of tax as someone earning the same who did go to university?

Sorry but this is one topic that really annoys me. A Higher education should be a right for those who earn it, not a privalage for those who can afford it.

Totally agree and charging people who do badly at it seems fair to me.

I don't have to pay more for a Taxi because I earn more than my mate do I ?

Why should life be fair ?

Because we only get one and the clock is ticking.

why should someone who crawls their way to the top of the pile and becomes a successful businessman without the benefit of a university education be paying the same amount of tax as someone earning the same who did go to university?

For the others how can we be sure that having a degree was a major factor in their success?

The vast majority of my staff (who're quite well paid!) have degrees but very few actually have a degree that's related to what they've done for most of their career.

Well, for a start we could afford to support her more if the money wasn't being pissed up the wall on Tarquin's drama course. same goes for the pensioner getting under £100 per week.

But that's not the same thing at all! You want the richer to pay more than they do now which may or may not be appropriate depending on what you think different people should pay towards the running of the country. The idea of what is fair taxation is opinion, that is all.

Because we only get one and the clock is ticking.

Loads of other stuff in life is not fair, but we seem to think finances and Tax should be.

it does seem rather odd that the coalition trust a new labour darling to come do this review- the ex BP chairman who tried to convince us BP were beyond petroleum and then instigated the cuts that helped raise profits and lower safety standards at bp (see deepwater horizon, texas oil refinery)

They didn't it was a hangover from the last government, he was appointed in November 2009 - see [url= http://www.egovmonitor.com/node/30588 ]here.[/url]

Because that sort of thing would result in some graduates paying back way more than the cost of the education. It's worth noting that whenever this debate comes up it always focuses on how much an individual graduate earns and uses that as an excuse for charging more. What never seems to be taken into account is that this extra money will be taxed so the "average" graduate already pays more tax than the average non graduate. It also never seems to take into account the additional benefit that a graduate provides the country. Think of all the science and engineering that goes on and how that contributes to the wealth of the country, not to mention the health service. None of that would be possible without graduates.

Isn't the proposal that science, medicine and engineering degrees still carry on being funded, its the history of art and Klingon language courses where the students will be expected to pay back the full amount. On that level it does seem to be actually more reasonable than the headline suggests.

Args Zargh Klingon geryssh phinthl flszh shkgll

(I find my Klingon degree very useful in my working life thank you very much)

You want the richer to pay more than they do now which may or may not be appropriate depending on what you think different people should pay towards the running of the country.

Well, actually I think you'll find the opposite, I think people should be paying much less, as I believe that the responsibility, role and intervention of the state should be reigned in massively, but thats bye the bye.

The idea of what is fair taxation is opinion, that is all.

couldn't agree more - thats why I asked for a definition of "fair".

[i]why should someone who crawls their way to the top of the pile and becomes a successful businessman without the benefit of a university education be paying the same amount of tax as someone earning the same who did go to university?[/i]

...For the others how can we be sure that having a degree was a major factor in their success?

we cant be sure, but that makes the inequity even worse, since the bloke who [i]didn't[/i] use thousands of pounds worth of taxpayer money to become successful is still paying the same percentage taxation as the one who's pissed three years up the wall at his expense.

Graduate tax seems fairest to me as shouldn't put people off. I don't suppose we'd want to return to the days when only the cleverest people went do we?! At least the country could afford to pay for higher education then....

Graduate tax seems fairest to me as shouldn't put people off. I don't suppose we'd want to return to the days when only the cleverest people went do we?! At least the country could afford to pay for higher education then....

It has been fairly robustly dismissed in the report as "unworkable", "expensive upfront" and "counter-productive".

Well, thats the whole basis of progressive taxation isn't it! everyone on a higher wage pays back more than someone on a lower wage, even though they use the same services (or sometimes less) street lighting, NHS, libraries, schools etc. The expansion if your own argument is that non parents should not pay towards schools as they do not receive any personal benefit.

I've no problem with progressive taxation as it currently stands i.e. higher wages means a higher rate of tax. What I do have a problem with is an additional level of taxation over and above that for those that have a degree. The expansion of the argument would be those that have had medical treatment from the NHS should be made to pay a higher rate of tax which I think we'd all find unacceptable.

Isn't the proposal that science, medicine and engineering degrees still carry on being funded, its the history of art and Klingon language courses where the students will be expected to pay back the full amount. On that level it does seem to be actually more reasonable than the headline suggests.

That may be the case as I've not had a chance to read all the details.

I stongly disagree with the idea of a graduate tax. We already have a progressive tax system where by people who earn more pay a higher proportion of tax. To add more on top of this seems very "unfair". If any cost is attributed to the student then it should be a finite amount so that it can be paid back and the debt cleared. Otherwise it is a disincentive to achieve success.

My solution would be to massively cut the number of universities and courses available so that they are only available to the top percentages and then this should allow more money available to assist those who are clever enough but not wealthy enough.

Personally I envy the students I work with who are doing company sponsored degrees. It takes longer and is much harder work but they are not saddle with £'0000s of debt and get valuable experience that will probably see them better off than people going down the standard route.

tiger_roach - Member

well, this page agrees with the 10% figure

That's my opinion too it's just that TJ has tried to make it sound like at most it's 5%.

Because when you add in the part time workers and the workless people of wotking age it is around 5% - as I put in my post.

We are talking around half a million people

Even at 10 % it is by no stretch of the imagination "middle earners"

Well my figures say 4 million pay higher rate tax and there are 36 million people of a working age so that's at least 10% but given that the average income is in the mid-20ks then yes not middle earners.

well half a million part time people earning less than 40k doesn't have as much impact on the figures as the ~30m who are earning various figures who are in full time employment?

Even at 10%, its not middle earners, no. However, as far as household incomes go (taking in both earners), it's probably around the middle ground. The

The trouble with earnings is that everyone's perceptions are affected by their peers. In a survey in the US, something like 80% of people considered themselves middle class, and less than 2% considered themselves upper class. I've got a decent IT job, as I suspect do most people on here. Because a lot of the people I hang out with also have decent IT jobs, I don't consider 45k an awful lot of money. I think TV has a part to play as well - all the property shows feature people buying/building 500k+ houses - it makes it seem like that's not very much at all..

We already have a progressive tax system where by people who earn more pay a higher proportion of tax. To add more on top of this seems very "unfair"

So, its fair for someone who has not had the life chances to got to university, to pay for someone who has?

Quick estimate of higher rate tax payers,according to [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/money/tax/highrate-taxpayers-increase-by-20-per-cent-775684.html ]this study[/url] there were 3.7 million in 2007/08 out of a total of income tax (i.e. both self employed and employed)payers of 32.5 million see [url= http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/tax_receipts/table1-4.pdf ]here[/url] so that is 11.4% - so TJ's figures are as usual BS.

Even at 10 % it is by no stretch of the imagination "middle earners"

Well the news article I saw said that 6 million people would be affected. Only half the population work, so the percentage has to be something like 20% of working people.

Or pehaps there was political meddling going on there and the BBC just wanted to make things sound a lot worse than they really are.

The thing about statistics is that you can use them to easily distort the true picture.

So, its fair for someone who has not had the life chances to got to university, to pay for someone who has?

Given that the graduate will pay back far more than they take out, yes.

Given that the graduate will pay back far more than they take out, yes.

what if they dont?

What if they piss three years up the wall getting stoned before coming out with a 2.2 in media skills, before getting a job in a call centre?

36 million people of a working age so that's at least 10%

5lab - Member
well half a million part time people earning less than 40k doesn't have as much impact on the figures as the ~30m who are earning various figures who are in full time employment?

Even at 10%, its not middle earners, no. However, as far as household incomes go (taking in both earners), it's probably around the middle ground.

Except that on average households have roughly 1 earner, so average household income isn't much different to average wage. Certainly not twice as much.

yes but not everyone of working age actually works or pays PAYE.

Indeed which is why I say at least.

bazzer - Member
I think what you pay back should be related to how well you perform at University.

Get a
1st 80% discount on fees.
2:1 60%
2:2 40%
3rd 20%

Fail 0%

Might make people think about if university is right for them in the first place and when they are there an incentive to make the most of it.

Bazzer

Tell that to student who is in hospital and tell her the exam board have not accepted her operation or 3 week stay in hospital for cancer and therefore capped to a 3rd or the student who suffers a bereavement from the loss of their parents. But don't worry we'll give you more to pay back...

Just because you're not affected by government plans or what was great for you makes you inconsiderate to others.

I don't have kids but I would still consider parents who claim child benefit. Or should I just say no child benefit to anyone and btw I don't have kids.

Selfishness on this forum is amazing and thank god I didn't vote for you...I did? ah crap.

I await when you all moan and nobody listens as it doesn't affect others.

tiger-roach - fair point [I am wrong] I had not read whole thread actuually and missed links above anyway 😳

Tell that to student who is in hospital and tell her the exam board have not accepted her operation or 3 week stay in hospital for cancer and therefore capped to a 3rd or the student who suffers a bereavement from the loss of their parents. But don't worry we'll give you more to pay back...

Just because you're not affected by government plans or what was great for you makes you inconsiderate to others.

I don't have kids but I would still consider parents who claim child benefit. Or should I just say no child benefit to anyone and btw I don't have kids.

Selfishness on this forum is amazing and thank god I didn't vote for you...I did? ah crap.

I await when you all moan and nobody listens as it doesn't affect others.

If I am honest I would like to see higher education funded totally including a maintenance grant. But only for people who have proved its is worth funding them.

I would like to see a return of worthwhile apprenticeships, for people who are obviously bright but not suited to the academic nature of university.

As for the rest, shit happens in life, life is not fair. Sometimes things mean we cant take advantage of opportunities, sometimes they are our own fault other times they are out of our control. We just have to get back up and try again and look for the next opportunity.

Bazzer

yes the 11+ was successful iirc bazzer.

Instead of upping fees they should just cap places...make it so only the brightest people can get in to uni.

A degree should be something earned by academic excellence, not by the amount of money your parents have.

This would reduce the amount they need to give to unis, and make a degree a bit more worthwhile.

So, its fair for someone who has not had the life chances to got to university, to pay for someone who has?

yes beacuse we all benefit from a well educated society. Of course its not fair to pay for it if you cannot afford it.

make it so only the brightest people can get in to uni

how do we choose the "brightest"?

I agree I used to teach remedial maths at school.We had people on science degrees who need hep to actually work out an average...shocking.
Only problem is that those who are privately educated would be equiproportionally the brightest due to the advantage of their parents' wealth/their education. We need some method of equalising opportunity and rewarding the brightest. most non vocational degrees are relatively useless these days as very common.
the same is true of college courses.How many child care level 2 workers each year, mechanics, hairdressers when the jobs are in sales , call centres and shop work.
It is odd we pay people to go to college to any old sh1t and then make them pay to do some of the stuff we really need , Doctors, engineers, researchers etc,

how do we choose the "brightest"?

Simple those with best academic results. University's offer academic courses so surely that makes sense ?

yes the 11+ was successful iirc bazzer

Only problem is that those who are privately educated would be equiproportionally the brightest due to the advantage of their parents' wealth/their education

same things applies to state education too, richer kids do better

same things applies to state education too, richer kids do better

Problem is lots of people think its everyone else's fault they have not done well. "Its my parents fault" , "Its the governments fault" If your not that bright work harder, if you fail try again.

Bazzer

yes but the education given is the critical factor. Eton is clearly a better education than your average bog standard state school.
I agree all other things being equal richer peoples' children will still flourish. However with private education it is not equal in terms of the education received hence they disproportionately propser/ have an unfair advantage.

bazzer of course it can be done- by very few. YOu cannot really be suggesting that everyone who fails it is their fault and all the children of millionaires worked hard [ dumb royals at oxbridge is another classic]for their success. they have many advantages which makes achieving success so much easier.
I grew up in a council house and got a first no one else on my estate got a degree. yes we worked hard but we also had natural ability. Had we gone to eton we may be PM now though 😯

But there is always going to some people with more advantage than others and some will do better than others. As I said earlier life is not fair. In fact it might be the obssesion with fairness that has lead us to have spent more than we have earnt as a country.

Life kicks some people in the bolocks and sometimes they are the good guys and sometimes they are the bad.

Bazzer

I left school at 16, and then went to college before starting work. Other friends stayed on in six-form and then either work, college or university.

We didn't pay for any of these (including sub 16 education), and at college and university got grants. In fact I'm old enough to have claimed the dole in the summer holidays.

So lets move forward 30 years.

What happened (and when) that means that people should suddenly pay back these 'education' costs - what next, paying back any benefits you get, once back in work?

Or is it suddenly not now a benefit for the country to have educated people?

Life kicks some people in the bolocks and sometimes they are the good guys and sometimes they are the bad.

It kicks poor people more often and harder than the wealthy. Some people think it is better to try and minimise this and reward the good rather than the privileged.

I am going to put my neck on the line with this next statement 🙂

No one in this country is poor, the government and tax payer provides welfare that raises people way beyond what is poor in a global sense.

Bazzer

At the moment there are too many graduates with degrees that aren't in demand with employers. This means that:

1. Tax payers' money is being wasted on higher education for these people
2. More tax payers' money is being wasted on benefits for unemployed graduates

Wouldn't it be better if there were less graduates, but they had skills that were in demand with employers?

Maybe an increase in fees will act as a limiting factor on people getting degrees just to avoid starting work for three years? If employers want graduates, they will have to price the cost of their new graduates' qualifications into their renumeration strategy.

Wouldn't it be better if there were less graduates, but they had skills that were in demand with employers?

Its going to look like I have swapped side now, in truth I can see it from both 🙂

Would it not be a shame if we only allowed people to study stuff that employers wanted and had a fiscal value ?

Do we want to live in a world without art or litrature and blue sky science ?

Bazzer

[i]The proposals were given the blessing of the Business Secretary Vince Cable in the Commons yesterday despite all 57 Liberal Democrat MPs signing a petition during the election to vote against fee rises. He told MPs the package was "fair and affordable" and his earlier opposition to rises "no longer feasible". He also promised to close a loophole allowing high-earning graduates to see their debts off quickly, which would have resulted in them paying less than their poorer counterparts, who would have to spread their repayments over 30 years. He is considering charging a fee for paying off loan debts early.[/i]

A 'loophole'? This is just how interest works, the longer you borrow the money at a flat rate the more you'll pay back!

And the 'fee', thats' just pure profit for whatever organisation is the one who benefits. Boils my blood - and it doesn't affect me one iota!

W4nkers.

No one in this country is poor, the government and tax payer provides welfare that raises people way beyond what is poor in a global sense.

Again some balance is required. i see little point in having 50% of our population as graduates when 50% of jobs are not graduate level. I cannot believe people get into debt to achieve this.

I agree 100% with Bazzer on fees based on performance. This should apply to apprenteships also. I think it would also remove some of the stigma that aprentiships are for thicker people. I went to a crap school got crap GCSEs as the school didn't encourage me to work, nor pick up my mild dyslexia. I would stray away from using a certain word as I could not spell it, or lacked confidence to be the geek who took a dictionary to English. I did a Btec after school were I thrived with the right guidance and after saving up I went to university were I worked hard to get a 1st. I totaly agree that those who didn't work as hard or were not as gifted should not have gone to university. Employers give bonus by performance why not university too?

you got one and you are not sure 😉 yes 70%
I like the way you blame school for you shortcomings but want others to pay related to results....imagine they said the same as you about their uni or college.
PS you either pass or fail most apprenticeship -NVQ- most are not BTEC which do give grades. You also need to be empployed to do an apprenticeship the others are just vocational college courses

i see little point in having 50% of our population as graduates when 50% of jobs are not graduate level.

So higher education is all about jobs and nothing else ? Not about furthering the species and pushing the bounds of human thought ?

Its sad if that all we see education as, is a means to get a better job to earn more money !!!

Well maybe it's about investment return - is it worth the country investing in people to study something that is unlikely to give a decent financial return? I do think we need people to study all sorts of things but maybe some courses aren't any more worthwhile than on the job training. Also, so many people study one thing then work in a different area which is also not an ideal use of public funds.

I tried to avoid the NVQ/Btec thing as awarding bodies and names have changed since I took mine. I started out on a Btec which was renamed a GNVQ which was like an NVQ but full time.

I don't consider dyslexia a short coming. I do blame my school for not pushing me. The difference is if your University college isn't pushing you it's easier to move.

No we need more media studies students working in call centres with 30 k debts, below average wage earnings and little prospect of getting a better job as their degree lacks value in the real world.

Not about furthering the species and pushing the bounds of human thought ?

The difference is if your University college isn't pushing you it's easier to move.

that is usually done by the most able and brilliant minds of our time who would still get to uni anyway

Ooh you intellectual snob 😉

I don't consider dyslexia a short coming. I do blame my school for not pushing me.

Why didn't you push yourself?

Jonb I did, I worked really hard at college and uni and now in my own business I work very hard, apart from when I get distracted on here ha ha. I was put in the bottom set at school for many subjects were quality teaching was not given.

yes you got me I also believe football to be played professionally by the most talented and MTB professionally to be done the most talented and Elbry 😉

He also promised to close a loophole allowing high-earning graduates to see their debts off quickly, which would have resulted in them paying less than their poorer counterparts, who would have to spread their repayments over 30 years

i'm not sure if that includes me. minimum payments aren't actually high enough to cover the interest - so i pay an extra £50 a month - because i had a crazy idea that the debt should actually shrink!

Well maybe it's about investment return - is it worth the country investing in people to study something that is unlikely to give a decent financial return? I do think we need people to study all sorts of things but maybe some courses aren't any more worthwhile than on the job training. Also, so many people study one thing then work in a different area which is also not an ideal use of public funds.

Exactly right.

[i]Big companies in the professional fields such as accountancy, engineering etc often lose money in the first couple of years on those graduates as they train them up. Small companies often can't afford to do this and many of those graduates leave once they are chartered to join small companies. I think large firms contribute in this way.[/i]

True dat