[Closed] Tuition fees

Forgive me if I am wrong but did the Lib Dems not pledge to either:

Vote against if in opposition
or...
Not increase tuition fees of they won the election

As it happens neither is the case and are merely working within the somewhat unexpected landscape of coalition politics.

Can no one understand the somewhat awkward spot they have found themselves in? If the vote had failed it would have undermined the government and maybe even forced another general election. Is anyone surprised that they have behaved pragmatically rather than idealistically? Rather naive if you were.

As it is though, we can't afford to put 50% of our youth through media studies degrees. Bring back YTS!

I'm still at university and will not be affected by the fee rises, but fully support the new plans.

Increasing fees does not price people out of going to university at all, it makes people consider if borrowing so much money is actually of benefit to them in the future. Look at is as in investment; you borrow£9000 a year to develop/educate yourself, but only do it if you think/know you will easily earn it back once graduating. You are effectively investing in your future.

In my opinion there are too many degrees out there and people just go to uni for the "experience". Don't get me wrong, it is an experience, but people might now question if its worth £27,000 in fees + everything else you have to spend.

I once saw Boris Johnson give a speech when he was Shadow Education secretary or some such. Apparently media studies has destinations stats way above the average degree!

The reason they have started using "pledges" is because they know that the electorate no longer believe and trust in promises

Next stop: Solemn vows? Oaths? What are the politicians going to do when they run out of synonyms for "promise"?

Not if you solemnly promise to do something then you do not compromise on it. By doing so you show your lack of integrity.

They are politicians for FFS? You'd have to be either naive or stupid to be surprised by something like this, especially from the LibDems who've already demonstrated they'll do anything for a sniff of power.

The problem that the LibDems have is one shared by other small parties - they can propose financially unimplementable manifestos in the knowledge that it'll win them some votes but they'll never actually have to make them work. Here however, the LibDems are in a situation where things do have to be implemented and therefore for once they're having to get involved in making some hard choices - not something they're really set up for.

Mrh, your argument means that people would only do degrees that result in large financial rewards, to cover the now massive cost of getting one. Hardly the best incentive for encouraging further learning and the betterment of knowledge is it?

I'd rather see university education being free, same as it was when I was there. In order to do that however I suspect it'd be necessary to step back from this idea of having 50% of school leavers going to uni - as I expect that's a huge increase in numbers (and therefore cost) by comparison with when I went (mid to late 80's).

After I left uni and had been working for a few years we actually tended to prefer to take people who'd been educated in the tech colleges rather than in university as they appeared to us to be better prepared for work.

Francis Bacon will be turning in his grave.

...as they appeared to us to be better prepared for work.

But less educated. University is not a boiler house to produce people "better prepared" for employers. Have any of us any idea what it will be like without an educated population?

edsbike - Member

Does that include transferring to the £9,000 fees as well?

Maybe everyone who agrees with this rise could have their fees retrospectively raised, you know, just to show they really believe it's the fairest system.

yes please!

i will never clear my debt, i don't care how much i owe - it's irrelevant.

however, the new repayment system would make me £50/month better off right now, and the debt would be cancelled sooner. which would make me ... about £130/month better off for ... the last 12 years.

giving me an estimate ISA fund of ... about £60,000* by the time i'm 65.

this new system would make me £60,000* better off. and i'm not a low earner - they'll get even more.

the new system is brilliant. - not perfect, but heaps better than the last one.

(*about £30,000 assuming zero growth)

I think the news about climbing the cenotaph and attacking Prince Charles and Camilla's car is outrageous... however...

I just have one question relating to tuition fees (and it's a genuine question, I don't already know the answer and I'm not being facetious) - is £9,000 a fair cost of tuition?

When you take into account all the lecturers salaries/support staff salaries/admin costs/insurances/books/facilities/technology/etc that a student uses during the average year at University, is £9,000 a fair cost? Is the cost higher than that? or lower?

I have been to University and view it as a privilege and not a right as some people are saying it is. As far as I know Universities are not owned by the Government or local authorities like schools are so why should the Government support them. I feel the same way about the banks that the Government 'bailed' out. If my company was going under would the Government help - I doubt it! So why should a private organisation like a University be supported and aided to the extent that they are being currently.

If it's a fair price and you want to go to University - then that is the price you have to pay. Deal with it. Further and Higher Education is a commodity just like anything else you pay for, you wouldn't expect the Government to pay 90% of the cost of your car when you buy it would you? or pay for the labour on a bathroom when you get that fitted?

And as for the vandalism and rioting that they have resorted to to get their point across - I think a lot of the protesters have lost sight of the goal they are trying to achieve. They are supposed to be protesting against something, how exactly are you demonstrating that by climbing on the cenotaph - a memorial to all those who died in the Great War. Mindless vandalism and criminal damage have no place in a protest and I have no sympathy for anyone who does such a thing.

OK rant over. Actually, it's less of a rant and more of a public outing of my feelings about what's been going on. Thank you for listening.

The reason they have started using "pledges" is because they know that the electorate no longer believe and trust in promises. [b]So they make a solemn and binding pledge which they guarantee will not be broken. Labour often, although not always, make the pledge deliberately vague, because they know that not keeping it is not an option. [/b]They are often in a hand written form and personally signed, just to emphasis the personal and serious commitment the politician concerned has to it.

[b]The LibDems have now, as a result of not only not sticking to their pledge, but actually completely contradicting it, totally devalued the pledge in British politics[/b]. And have seriously undermined even further, people's trust to the political process and politicians.

If only that were true Ernie - however lets not try and let your anti coalition hyperbole get in the way of a good story...

In the court case brought against him for breach of contract over a referendum on the EU Constitution, Gordon Brown's personal barrister told the court that [b]"manifesto pledges are not subject to legitimate expectation".[/b]

Get that!

In a court of law!

So, who devalued Pledges? Yep, your mate Gordon the moron, who lied to the electorate when he pledged us a referendum on the EU constitution!

Could Big Society be somehow harnessed to fund third level education? You know, like how the lifeboats are run?

Have any of us any idea what it will be like without an educated population?

My word! Can you actually be any more patronising to people without degrees?! The population should be provided with sufficient education via the state school system and not necessarily have to go to university to compensate.

Maybe the students should be less self serving and if they're so concerned about the level of free education for the masses then they should take up the mantle of improving state school education which truly would benefit the masses.

 

But less educated. University is not a boiler house to produce people "better prepared" for employers.

I think you might just have made the case for the increase in tuition fees right there...

I've always tended towards the pragmatic so when I made my education choices I did them with a consideration about career prospects in mind. If I'd have a big chunk of debt to pay back then I'd been ever more mindful - however given the tax I've paid over the years since I reckon the state has had a good return from investing in my education!

I'm not really up on all this, anyone help me out?
If the unis were only allowed to charge £X before the new proposals, how did they operate? Were they profitable/self sustainable?
Or did they receive govt subsidies so that people could go to university?
Honest question.

My word! Can you actually be any more patronising to people without degrees?! The population should be provided with sufficient education via the state school system and not necessarily have to go to university to compensate.

Utter bollocks. But I reckon once you read back over it, you'll realise that. Of course I could be more patronising, because I wasn't being patronising at all. Where will we get our teachers without arts and humanities degrees? Where will our writers, journalists, philosophers come from? Where will you get your lawyers from? Straight from 6th form?

We'll get em from Poland 🙂

Torminalis - Member

Forgive me if I am wrong but did the Lib Dems not pledge to either:

Vote against if in opposition
or...
Not increase tuition fees of they won the election

Nope - the pledge is quite clear.

[img] [/img]
I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament.

I think you might just have made the case for the increase in tuition fees right there...

I've always tended towards the pragmatic so when I made my education choices I did them with a consideration about career prospects in mind.

Thankfully, not everyone thinks like this. Coming from a background where I went to University with this in mind, and now don't use my degree at all, I'd rather have done something "less useful".

Torminalis - Member

Forgive me if I am wrong but did the Lib Dems not pledge to either:

Vote against if in opposition
or...
Not increase tuition fees of they won the election

You are wrong, and since the full details of the pledge has been posted on here several times, I really don't think you deserve to be forgiven. Have another look at the pledge :

[img] [/img]<

See ? ........no mention of winning or losing election, just very plain speaking words about pledging to vote against ANY increases in the next parliament and also pledging to find an [u]ALTERNATIVE.[/u]

As for those who cynically dismiss he importance of a pledge, it's probably worth remembering that two former leaders of the Liberal Democratic Party totally agree with me that a pledge is solemn and binding and therefore should not be broken.

Former LibDem leaders Charles Kennedy and Menzies Campbell both signed [i]exactly[/i] the same pledge as Nick Clegg. But they don't see any "get out clause" about "[i]voting against if in opposition or not increasing tuition fees if they won the election[/i]" or any other such bollox.

There is little doubt that Kennedy and Campbell would have voted in favour of the increases had they not made the pledge - they repeated pointed out that they had no choice but to oppose because of the pledge. Exactly the same rules, because of exactly the same circumstances, applies to Nick Clegg.

[i]"Walking through fire"[/i] my arse ......you're just full of crap mate ...... and a particularly worthless politician.

so, the new system is MUCH, MUCH, better than the last one, it's a tory policy, and this make's Nick Clegg the bad guy?

i really don't understand.

"i pledge ... to ... find a fairer alternative"

and he did, the new system is a huge improvement.

ernie, fair enough, though to my mind the wording of the pledge does somewhat imply that they will be in opposition, the 'vote against' bit is pretty cut and dry.

However, it could be argued that they have implemented a fairer system so its all swings and roundabouts.

Slippery swines the lot of them

How?

By your arrogance. I don't see how we the taxpayers can afford to send 50% of our kids to university if it's not to prepare them is some way for what lies ahead, given that for the vast majority that will include the need to find employment.

I'm not in favour of charging tuition fees for university at all (which is thankfully still the case here in Scotland), however I'm also not in favour of university being seen as the only useful form of further education and sending 50% of school leavers there.

"i pledge ... to ... find a fairer alternative"

A fairer alternative to tuition fees, in case you can't read plain English, although I suspect you can but like a teenager with bad attitude you prefer to pretend that you don't understand.

the new system is MUCH, MUCH, better than the last one

The LibDems should have put it to the electorate next general election then, if it's that good....maybe their voters would have agreed with them ? Because for the duration of this parliament they were committed to not increasing tuition fees. Which you know, was a corner post of their election manifesto. So even if it was a crap policy, they had no moral right to do anything other than support it.

The LibDems should have put it to the electorate next general election then, if it's that good....maybe their voters would have agreed with them ?

I suspect the LibDems were just trying to squeeze an extra few votes from students, without ever having to put there arses on the line and come up with an implementable and affordable policy.

No system is perfect and this one's no different. Students are just going to have to get their head around a long term repayment scheme as opposed to a normal debt as such. The repayment terms are pretty low if you're earning £40k+ and easily affordable. I'd prefer not to have to pay for my kids but Labour encouraged too many people to do degrees in too many subjects that don't add anythign to their employment prospects. I'd suggest university be for those who show their academic ability and application before going. there should be apprenticeships and FE colleges etc for those less academic. Uni's seen as an easy option to getting a job by too many. Stop all the part time courses and woolly subjects that have appeared over recent years...

Deadlydarcy, what I say is not utter bollocks. You say "University is not a boiler house to produce people "better prepared" for employers" yet claim that without university people are unable to be employed!! If someone aspires to a profession where a degree is required (teachers, lawyers etc) then go to university and get a relevant degree. But to imply that society would fall apart if not everyone had a degree is, whether you intended it or not, massively patronising.

Backhander, the universities got some of their budget from the government, some from industry, and some from tuition fees.

This new policy has cut the government money by 80%, and lumped all of that onto the tuition fees.
If the universities budget had been cut by the average amount of the cuts to all other departments (around 8% or something I think, I stand to be corrected on that), then the tuition fees would only have to rise to around £4000, from around £3400 as they were.

I suppose the argument comes down to whether or not you feel that having educated people in the country to fill all those important roles in society and allow the UK to compete in any way with the rest of the world is important. Or whether you're one of those more narrow minded people whose argument tends to be along the lines of 'I didn't go to uni and I'm doing OK, I pay tax, no one needs to go, look, I'm doing OK.'

There's also the FACT that half the Lib Dems went back on a promise to vote against a rise - there is literally no way in which a sensible person could argue that they haven't done this and not sound like a schlong.

ahwiles, I have no idea how you are managing to struggle so much to pay off your loan, especially given the fact that it should be a lot less than a current graduate's, I hope one day you manage it.

And another thing: my profession accepts both grads and non grads into training and I can hold my hand on my heart and say that the non grads can match the grads blow for blow throughout one of the hardest leadership and man management courses in the country. A degree is not the be all and end all of the making of an individual.

alpha - what industry?

I just have one question relating to tuition fees (and it's a genuine question, I don't already know the answer and I'm not being facetious) - is £9,000 a fair cost of tuition?

When you take into account all the lecturers salaries/support staff salaries/admin costs/insurances/books/facilities/technology/etc that a student uses during the average year at University, is £9,000 a fair cost? Is the cost higher than that? or lower?

There isn't really anything sensible to compare it to.

You could compare it to:

The cost to foreign students on many courses (well over £9000).

The cost of professional training courses, eg. IT certifications (in the £2000/week range).

Either of those make it sound like quite good value. But they're not really the same thing (the foreign students have an element of profiteering stuck in there, professional training course is not a degree).

Joe

alpha - what industry?

at a guess, cannon fodder

Actually, I'm an ex consultant at one of the biggest professional services firm in the world; an ex banker for one of the world's biggest banks and yes, currently "cannon fodder" as you put it, but that's irrelevant. The point I'm making is that having a degree does not suddenly make you so much better than a non grad, which seems to be the opinion of many.

Anyway, I'm braced and ready for the inevitable abuse for being Forces...

TJ and ernie are coming over terribly naive to be honest.

Alpha, you have found one example of where having a degree has less of an influence on a person's ability to perform a job.

There are many many more examples of professions where having a degree is essential.

The new fees mean that someone from a poorer background has to think purely about the financial implications of doing a degree i.e. will it benefit me financially to have a degree in my chosen field.

A person from a wealthy background does not have to make that choice, they can just go anyway and their parents will pay.

The person from the poorer background may have been able to make a better contribution to society than the rich person, but cannot justify the massive (say, £50,000) costs of getting a degree, so we all lose out. Where is the fairness in that?

TJ and ernie are coming over terribly naive to be honest.

I take it you've not been on STW long if that comes as any kind of surprise. I don't even read their posts any more.

Alpha, you have found one example of where having a degree has less of an influence on a person's ability to perform a job.

On the other hand the Navy were very keen on me getting a degree, to the extent they were willing to pay me for going to uni.

TJ and ernie are coming over terribly naive to be honest.

A bit like the two former leaders of the Liberal Democrats but not present one then ?

I wonder what makes Nick Clegg so wise and experienced ?

And I also wonder whether Nick Clegg's wisdom and experience will condemn the LibDems to another 100 years of opposition .......what do you reckon molgrips ?

The polls seem to suggest that yes maybe.

molgrips - Member

TJ and ernie are coming over terribly naive to be honest.

Pfffft. Honestly molgrips have you no sense of irony? You think it is acceptable for a politician to make a solemn pledge on a single issue, make a big thing of it to gain votes then discard it a few months later?

Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes do not agree with you.

Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes do not agree with you.

And the electorate too apparently.....

[i]"The plan has put pressure on Lib Dem leader and Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg with his party seen in danger of suffering [u][b]lasting damage[/b][/u] in the eyes of the electorate. Its opinion poll rating has halved since the May election"[/i]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1209/breaking12.html?via=mr

So many "terribly naive" people in the world.........just as well Clegg is on the ball. And not too long, will be back on the backbenches.

So many "terribly naive" people

Isn't that the definition of anyone stupid enough to have voted LibDem?

I was only being mischievous about cannon fodder. I have a great respect for the role that you play. And whilst I can appreciate that a degree may have "less of an influence on a person's ability to perform a job", I am not, nor are many others here, particularly well placed to judge. However, as I understand it, about 85% of the entrants to Sandhurst have a degree. It seems that it may not be essential but it does look to be desirable.

? Where did my post go?

ok, the Page 6 link disappeared

Pfffft. Honestly molgrips have you no sense of irony? You think it is acceptable for a politician to make a solemn pledge on a single issue, make a big thing of it to gain votes then discard it a few months later?

Did I say I thought it was a good thing?

What I am saying is that it would be foolish in the extreme to stick to something you said BEFORE the situation got turned on its head, when that change was no longer the best course of action for those concerned.

make a big thing of it to gain votes

For centuries, politicians have been forced to make wild claims to gain votes - because the electorate are too stupid to understand how politics really works.

Tum te tum te tum.... 🙂

Are you out on bail Elfinman ?

Can't kettle me mate...

I just have one question relating to tuition fees (and it's a genuine question, I don't already know the answer and I'm not being facetious) - is £9,000 a fair cost of tuition?

Definitely not for the 4 hours a week of teaching I got at uni.

They would claim it is if you add everything in, but then if you've ever worked at a uni you'll know there are loads of complete slackers/dossers working in uni admin, the professors get paid pretty astronomical wages, often for not doing that much. etc etc

I predict there is going to be a lot of students complaining or maybe even suing unis now for bad service - if you're paying that much you are going to expect pretty good standards, and the extra money is only to make up for a shortfall so won't be going into smaller class sizes, more resources etc.

I went to a 'red brick' uni, and I would not have been at all happy with the standard of organisation/teaching if I was paying £9000 a year.

Thanks ed.

I suppose the argument comes down to whether or not you feel that having educated people in the country to fill all those important roles in society and allow the UK to compete in any way with the rest of the world is important. Or whether you're one of those more narrow minded people whose argument tends to be along the lines of 'I didn't go to uni and I'm doing OK, I pay tax, no one needs to go, look, I'm doing OK.'

Elfinsafety - Member

Can't kettle me mate...

Pot, kettle , black???

[img] [/img]

On the point of students only applying for subjects that carry a good chance of securing a higher salary, the assumption is that graduates will be less likely to take subjects that do not attract high salaries.

The question we need to ask is 'is there societal benefit from having graduates from those less attractive subjects and if so, should society subsidise them?'.

This would be irrelevant over time.

If society really does really need graduates from these subjects to fulfil key roles, then the salaries paid for them will rise to ensure they remain attractive career options. As many of these posts are public sctor this would be an added burden to the taxpayer but a 'market proven' one.

LOL - the shortened version of "Richard" is in the swear filter!

csb - Member

If society really does really need graduates from these subjects to fulfil key roles, then the salaries paid for them will rise to ensure they remain attractive career options. As many of these posts are public sctor this would be an added burden to the taxpayer but a 'market proven' one.

Along similar lines - there was a shortage of trained nurses in Scotland a few years back and the Government subsidised training courses in order to remedy this.

the new system is a huge improvement.

How, precisely?

As has been discussed at length, the new system will massively increase the personal debt of those who do attend university.

But, as also keeps being said, most will never pay it off, and will have the debt wiped. So, who's paying for it then eh? In fact, as it's a loan, who's paying for it [u]now?
[/u]
Yup, that's right, the treasury.

So, just how does this massive increase in fees in any way shape or form help the UK economy?

Even better - at about the same time the massive black hole in the treasury's books appears with people having their debts wiped as they reach retirement, guess what else they'll be needing???

Pension, more healthcare etc etc etc.

So in actual fact, the new policy doesn't save any money now (when we allegedly need it to), and leaves an even greater problem than is currently looming with an ageing population and pension black hole.

Just which genius thought that was a good idea?

Really druidh? I thought they all had the same bursaries set UK wide. Nursing students are funded completely differently to most students for most of the courses. You get a bursary of around £6000 pa and it has been this way since moving to university / college based nurse training not hospital based in the 90s

Part of the issue is that in public sector jobs the market is rigged - so salaries cannot rise if there is a shortage of staff. What is done in nursing when there is a shortage is to recruit from overseas

LOL - the shortened version of "Richard" is in the swear filter!

Dick!

Ah - my bad.

Pot, kettle , [b]black[/b]???

Mixed-Race actually.

Sigh.

🙁

Still time.....

Welcome back Elf!

I set em up................. You knock 'em in

TandemJeremy - Member
Really druidh? I thought they all had the same bursaries set UK wide. Nursing students are funded completely differently to most students for most of the courses. You get a bursary of around £6000 pa and it has been this way since moving to university / college based nurse training not hospital based in the 90s

I don't know the specifics TJ, but my wife was considering this as an option a few years back and there were specific grants available. Maybe it was for re-training ex-nurses? Either way, it indicates that society could value certain less well-paid roles enough to subsidise training.

backhander was right its all a big conspiracy wikileaks started it!

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201012090034

Csb your faith in market forces is touching but has very little basis in reality. And backhander, yet again, is science and engineering the only thing of value to society?

parliament square is looking a sorry state today...

I reckon ID those that were there and then add the clean up costs onto their fees when they attend uni...

There are specific "return to nursing" courses - perhpas its that. I think they were subsidised but bot sure
As a previous registered nurse you don't have to retrain at all.

Um, relevance kimbers?
Just a cheap dig? Your life must be dull.....

just right wing conspiracy nut glenn beck assosciating the tuition fees demonstrators with wikileaks

reminded me of your consipracy theories about assange yesterday

cheap, yes
dull, never!

I was only being mischievous about cannon fodder

Ha! I thought I was going to attract no end of abuse! I'm not sure of the precise percentage of grads at sandhurst but my point is that, because I arrived naive and arrogant to think my degree made me more capable, for a year I stood in awe of what some of the 19 year old nongrads could do and it made me realise that having a degree is not the be all and end all.

As for it being the only example, like I said, I'm an ex consultant and banker and the same applies re grads v non grads. But maybe they were exceptions rather than the rule...I don't know.

As for jobs where a degree IS essential, then go to university and get that degree. I just think that there are too many students (and this applies to many many friends of mine) who do a degree without asking themselves why they're doing it. Maybe this will get rid of the students who do degrees because they are putting off getting a job or who are just there for the nightlife, whilst enabling those who are determined to get a degree to do just that.

At the end of the day, the govts making cuts because it has to, not because it wants to screw over a load of students. Every single sector is taking a hit at the moment...why should students be ring fenced? (Ooooh, contentious!) To those who say it enriches society, I'm pretty sure investing the money in increasing the level of state education wood benefit the majority a whole lot more...

 

Whatever. Feel better?

I just think that there are too many students (and this applies to many many friends of mine) who do a degree without asking themselves why they're doing it. Maybe this will get rid of the students who do degrees because they are putting off getting a job or who are just there for the nightlife, whilst enabling those who are determined to get a degree to do just that.

I agree with the first bit, but it's also going to put off students who are academically bright but poor - getting into massive debt is a different proposition for well off middle class families who know ultimately they could probably find the cash to pay it back if they really had to.

At the end of the day, the govts making cuts because it has to, not because it wants to screw over a load of students. Every single sector is taking a hit at the moment...why should students be ring fenced?

Well, as you're a banker I can see why we're in this mess then with an economic brain like you've just shown.

How will lending 9k pppa save the skint treasury right now? It's no different than subsidising the fees and lending 3k pppa. Only there's at least a chance they may eventually get most of that 3k back and can budget accordingly. As has been pointed out - most will never pay back the full new loan, leaving a later government with a nice big extra black hole in its finances, just when it's scratching its head on how it's going to pay all these pensions too.

As for jobs where a degree IS essential, then go to university and get that degree.

Since when did a degree become vocational training?

Reducing university education to simply something you do to get a job, cheapens and degrades the wonderful institution of Education as a whole, and is very blinkered, ignorant and narrow-minded.

My view is that you go to university to learn how to [i]learn[/i]. The educated mind, like an exercised muscle, is a more capable and healthy mind.

zokes - Member

the new system is a huge improvement.

How, precisely?

low-to-average-ish earners will pay back a lot less (tens of thousands of pounds)

higher earners (around £40k-ish and above) will pay back a lot more (tens of thousands of pounds)

you are right, this seems to have little to do with 'the economy' and 'the deficit', and quite a lot to do with 'stuff the tories wanted to do anyway' (reducing treasury spending)

paraphrasing you (cos i'm feeling cheeky):

"As hasn't been discussed at length, the new system will massively increase the personal wealth of low-to-average-earners"

To those who say it enriches society, I'm pretty sure investing the money in increasing the level of state education wood benefit the majority a whole lot more...

Please tell me the spelling mistake was meant to be ironic.

low-to-average-ish earners will pay back a lot less (tens of thousands of pounds)

higher earners (around £40k-ish and above) will pay back a lot more (tens of thousands of pounds)

I'm not sure if that's true, because high earners will pay it off quicker and this pay a lot less in interest. Often lower earners are only paying the interest for quite a while.

My view is that you go to university to learn how to learn. The educated mind, like an exercised muscle, is a more capable and healthy mind.

grumm - i've lead people through the maths several times already - go back and read my posts please!

🙂

in summary; most people will never clear the debt - and i'd rather pay £40/month for the next 30 years, than £90/month for the next 40 years

stick the difference in an ISA = £40,000 (maybe more)

Why should it be seen as a luxury? Why shouldn't taxpayers foot the bill? I'm more than happy to help contribute towards the education of others, in the same way I've enjoyed an education because of the contributions of others before me.

Why shouldn't we, a a 'Society', be prepared to support each other more? Isn't that an ultimately good thing?
Do we not ultimately all benefit?

Or is there no such thing as 'Society'?

this is basically a graduate tax - in everything but name

in the same way I've enjoyed an education because of the contributions of others before me.

So, what's the difference in terms of [i]your[/i] expenditure, between paying for someone else's education on the one hand, and on the other, your own?