[Closed] Oxbridge premium is £10k per annum...

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.

[quote=Junkyard ]Its not as th best paid graduates will stop paying it back - those who gained the most [s]dont continue to pay for the rest of their lives.[/s] pay more back in total

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).

[quote=Junkyard ]I am NOT disputing that point that I am saying it is NOT like a graduate tax which is what that point addresses.

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.

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.

[quote=Junkyard ]@ 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?

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

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 [i]try[/i] 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

[quote=bencooper ]As a Russell Group University graduate, I'd just like to apologise for pulling down the statistics

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.

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?

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".

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.

You don't, but it's not a bad place to start.

Interesting the Sutton Trust report at the heart of the article focuses more on apprenticeships than on funding options per se

Funny how politicians of all parties are so keen on a policy first proposed by the libertarian Milton Friedmann!!

You don't, but it's not a bad place to start.

And I thought you were an economist!

It's a very expensive assumption to assume that sending (nearly) everyone to Uni is a good place to start. Surely you'd want to see a proper cost benefit analysis first? If something like 60% of people don't get a financial benefit from their degree and the other 40% have to pay for it, that would (to me) suggest the basic assumption (that Uni is good for everyone) is wrong.

That's not what I am saying. I have not proposed sending everyone to Uni, far from it.

He is an elitist , as I am , and wishes only to send a minority/the best of the best to Uni and pro grammar schools as well IIRC. I dont know why he did not just say that when he refuted your point but he seems to like to stay vague/mysterious.

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?

Agreed but the problem is we think apprenticeships lead to jobs. We can train everyone to be engineers and mechanics and the like but if we dont have a skills shortage/vacancies in this area then it wont really help. We can still be training people for jobs that dont exist as you can do an apprenticeship FT at college for FREE / at all our expenses.

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.

I would also look at the utility of the course but THM is correct that those of us lucky enough to have done a degree did all learn and grow and it is a shame to restrict this and limit opportunity to just what society wants/needs. No one studying theology or philosophy but plenty do accountancy and ophthalmics. Some balance is required.

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

Oxford uni raised 2 billion in under 10 years from alumni and donations alone. A lot of uni's are now very aggressive in fund raising and also profiting from intellectual property etc. They also actively seek foreign students as they make a profit on them. If universities want to give poor students bursaries they certainly can (and should).

If you directly link funded courses to earnings post degree then you are bound to fail. The government cannot know in advance what degrees will be useful and lead to high earnings in the future. That is unless they rig the employment market a la doctors, but that is far more tricky for thosegraduating with history or fine arts degrees etc.

I'm told the value of an Oxbridge degree isn't the degree itself, but the network you create - so if you're a shy introvert you might waste your time and money. My Sis is at Oxford now, 'networking' her ambition is terrifying.

It makes sense, after all, education, unless you have a job that requires a specific degree (nurse, doctor, teacher etc) your education might get you your first job, maybe your second, your 'first real job' but after that who cares? If you're in your 30's and trying to get a new job, no one cares about the 2.2 you got in history 15 years ago, they want to know what you did last year.

I've got almost no qualifications, I really couldn't be arsed in school, which I regret now, but 5 years ago I was mentoring Graduate Trainees for a major bank and whilst I've decided to get out of the rat race and have a completely non-corporate job now, I earn a lot more than £16k a year, a lot more than my Wife with her 2 degrees and still have lots of potential to earn more without whoring myself to some corporate wage slave outfit. Did all my grafting in my 20s though and it took 10 years to catch up, not 3.

Agreed but the problem is we think apprenticeships lead to jobs. We can train everyone to be engineers and mechanics and the like but if we dont have a skills shortage/vacancies in this area then it wont really help.

There is currently zero feedback between courses offered at Uni and available jobs / careers, so the status quo is completely broken (in terms of matching resource to requirements in the economy).

I would also look at the utility of the course but THM is correct that those of us lucky enough to have done a degree did all learn and grow and it is a shame to restrict this and limit opportunity to just what society wants/needs.

You could call it a shame, but it does cost a lot of money for 50% or more of the population to spend 3 or more years not earning and then fund their courses etc.

As for learning, I've learnt far more out of Uni than in and my current expertise has very little to do with my degree other than they're both Engineering disciplines.

As for being elitist, not really, I just don't think sending everyone on a three year jolly is a great use of tax revenue e.g. you could slash Uni numbers and pump the money into the NHS and have a 7 day service. The main downside would be that your baristas, at Costa, would only have three A levels rather than a degree in Philosophy.

Can I point out engineering is a degree subject and while you could eventually reach a decent grade with an apprenticeship it will take you far longer to get chartered than if you have a degree or further.

[quote=Junkyard ]He is an elitist , as I am

Better keep that quiet from the comrades 😈

Agreed but the problem is we think apprenticeships lead to jobs. We can train everyone to be engineers and mechanics and the like

The irony is that engineering is one of the professions where you make use of stuff you learned in your degree years later 🙄

There is currently zero feedback between courses offered at Uni and available jobs / careers, so the status quo is completely broken (in terms of matching resource to requirements in the economy).

As for being elitist, not really, I just don't think sending everyone on a three year jolly is a great use of tax revenue e.g. you could slash Uni numbers and pump the money into the NHS and have a 7 day service. The main downside would be that your baristas, at Costa, would only have three A levels rather than a degree in Philosophy.

Better keep that quiet from the comrades

To each according to their ability to each according to their need. I see no contradiction but it is, clearly, not a typically lefty position.