[Closed] Tuition fees

Molgrips - utter bullshine.

I did old style vocational nurse training and much later upgraded to a degree, The difference is huge. Amongst other things I was taught how to access, read and interpret research which is a qualitative difference from being told " we do it this was because thats the way we do it"

Well said SpokesCycles.

SpokesCycles - Member
Do all you right wing fan boys really think that people are going to uni to have a larf, muck about and party then leave with a degree that isn't any use?

Pass / Completion rates would imply its far greater than a minority

Spokescycles, you can do what you want. I just don't want to pay for you to do it.

Last time I was in hospital (following Avocadogate)

Rectal insertion ?

Backhander- since you will directly benefit, every single minute of every single day, from the work of someone with a university degree, I think you should have to put up a small amount of your tax money to help fund that. It's also a very small amount of money, and universities give an awful lot back to society (like I say, £1 of input generates £7.50 for the community).

Backhander; I don't [i]want[/i] to pay for Britain to have such an unnecessarily massive military, nuclear weapons etc, but I don't have a choice, do I?

So stop moaning about 'I don't want to pay for this and that which I can't see a direct benefit to myself from', because that's just selfish and blinkered.

The exact same way that non-graduates will benefit peoples lives every single day? What do they get?

I do think its quite legitimate to look at university funding and to discuss alternatives. Clearly full grants that were viable when 5% of the population went to uni is not viable when 50% do.

I think it is right that students should contribute. I do however think that running up huge debts is not the answer.

Mrs TJ got a degree in law when grants coved most of the cost of uni. She has spent the 30 yrs since doing poor law on lowish salaries. She has undoubtedly done good for society as a result of having a degree. She would not have gone to uni if it meant a huge debt - she was brought up to live within her means. Her family would not have been able to support her at all.

There is no doubt that having to run up huge debt to gain a degree puts off people from lower income families - thus reducing social mobility

Is a small graduate tax fairer?

Spokescycles - Should society pay for those skills your developing (through subsidy of the learning) or should the private sector oil company that will use you to increase their profit (through the wages they'll pay you)?

We need to get better at deciding what we subsidise as a society, whether that's cancer drugs, education, social housing, the arts....

[i]you can do what you want. I just don't want to pay for you to do it. [/i]

Just pretend your taxes go on all the other stuff; tax breaks for industry, that kind of thing...

Since, statistically, they'd have a lower wage they'll get increased tax credits/income based benefits.

Why should I fund that when I got a degree to get a higher income?

(This is, obviously, not my viewpoint, but it might put things into backhander's mindset).

[i]should the private sector oil company that will use you to increase their profit [/i]

They would pay if they didn't avoid tax wouldn't they?

Anyone know how universities are funded in other countries? I should ask my sister as my nephew is at uni in Amsterdam.

IIRC USA is that you pay for everything as you go - but scholarships are available for lots of stuff and there are jobs on campus for people who need to work to get thru but I know no detail

anyone?

Since, statistically, they'd have a lower wage they'll get increased tax credits/income based benefits.

i heard a tory mp say the other day that its all labours fault for introducing tuitition fees in the first place. which didnt quite make sense because surely if you disagreed with them being implemented, you'd get rid of them, not put them up!

toppers3933 - Member
i heard a tory mp say the other day that its all labours fault for introducing tuitition fees in the first place. which didnt quite make sense because surely if you disagreed with them being implemented, you'd get rid of them, not put them up!

And if you disagreed with them going up, you'd promise to bring them back down if/when you got back into power?

The woman was saying last night that the best universities charge the most. There are scholarships but they aren't going to be available to many people. I know one of her friends has one, and has got into Duke with it, but she is the exception. A top Ivy league school charges $50,000 a year. Upfront, no loans, funded by parent's savings.

Result is the best and brightest are often not given places while someone not as good but with the funds can go. So you end up with people who aren't the best getting degrees. This is my main issue with the new system- poorer people won't go to the best (i.e. most expensive) universities, regardless of what ahwiles says, because it is not viable for them to rack up £40,000 of debt. So you will end up with people who aren't the best for the job having the best opportunities.

One benefit of America's system is it's possible for a top American student to come to the UK and pay £10-15,000 a year, much less than they'd pay at home, get a better education and as a result they fund the British university they go to, reducing governmental input significantly.

whoops - double post

Dave - Moderator

They would pay if they didn't avoid tax wouldn't they?

Dave, they'll argue that they can only pay the high wages because they avoid paying the overly high taxes. Paying taxes would mean they're paying for stuff that doesn't directly benefit them, unlike the wages of staff which obviously does.

As a non-shareholder I'd prefer them to pay tax to society, but lower wages to individuals. I suspect I'm not one of Camerons target voters though.

Rectal insertion ?

Heh! No, I'm not a Tory!!

Can you imagine though? 😯

[i]"So what seems to be the problem, sir?"

"It appears I have a fruit that is popular in savoury dishes, lodged in my rectum, nurse."

"And how did said fruit come to be lodged in your back passage?"

"Erm..."[/i]

Spokescycles, you can do what you want. I just don't want to pay for you to do it.

To quote the old slogan: if you think education is expensive, try the price of ignorance.

surely less people with a degree would increase the value of said degree. im not sure higher tuition fees is the way forward, but every youth and his dog seems to think that going to university is the future. it just seems like the fashionable thing to do.

IIRC USA is that you pay for everything as you go - but scholarships are available for lots of stuff and there are jobs on campus for people who need to work to get thru but I know no detail

There are scholarships for US universities but they are in short supply. Universities are subject to the market, which means that the academically good ones cost tons of money and poor people have no chance if they don't get one of the highly competed for scholarships; and if you are not so well off you end up at a local community college.

There are jobs on campus but no more so than anywhere else. Most people have to work, many people do a full time job or two part time ones at the same time as studying. Because of this it can take four or five years to get through all the modules you need. My sister in law has a managerial job at a care home full time at the same time as putting almost all her money and spare time into a degree at a local college. It's a pretty hard life and she is extremely hard up.

"And how did said fruit come to be lodged in your back passage?"

Dave promised he was using KY

druidh, yeah and then welch on it when the time comes. genius. talk about betrayal. but hey, he must be the best politician in the world, because so many people fell for it.

Hows about we keep the tuition fees, reduce the grants given to universities even further, and push the public funding money towards the OU?

I'd put it to you that since its inception, the OU has done far more to open the advantages of a degree level education to those otherwise unable to attain one than all the other Uni's put together, and is one of the greatest examples of driving social mobility amongst the masses ever seen in the western world!

I just did a bit of googling to try to answer my own question about how universities are funded in other countries..

Germany is putting more money into universities.

http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20090618200051988

Looks like germany has a similar systenm to ours but fees are much lower and some grants are available as well as loans

No detail tho
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_loans_in_Germany

SpokesCycles - Member

... my main issue with the new system - poorer people won't go to the best (i.e. most expensive) universities, regardless of what ahwiles says, because it is not viable for them to rack up £40,000 of debt...

i understand that debt is scary, but yes, it [i]is[/i] viable for a 'poor' person to rack up the same debt as a 'rich' person, because the rate of repayment is entirely dependent upon their income when they start earning.

if the poor person stays poor once they graduate, then they'll make little or no repayments.

you don't need a penny to your name, and you can still go to the most expensive university. and borrow a load of money on top of the fees to spend on food, rent, bikes, etc.

and if you don't earn very much afterwards, then you don't have to pay it back, not a penny.

and the debt is cancelled after 30 years.

graduates at our place get paid about £22k - they'll pay back about £8/month. compared to £60/month under the old system that no-one complained about.

toppers3933 - Member
druidh, yeah and then welch on it when the time comes. genius. talk about betrayal. but hey, he must be the best politician in the world, because so many people fell for it.

Ed Miliband hardly qualifies for "best politician in the world".

"I'd put it to you that since its inception, the OU has done far more to open the advantages of a degree level education to those otherwise unable to attain one than all the other Uni's put together, and is one of the greatest examples of driving social mobility amongst the masses ever seen in the western world"

I'd agree with that. It does great work.

Synposis?

i understand that debt is scary, but yes, it is viable for a 'poor' person to rack up the same debt as a 'rich' person, because the rate of repayment is entirely dependent upon their financial situation when they start earning.

The point is that rich parents will contribute more money, so it's far more likely that a poor person will end up with much more debt than a rich one. So even if they both end up earning doing the exact same jobs, the poor person is disadvantaged. Although this situation is not restricted to higher education. The worry is that it will DETER more poor people, because they know that Mummy and Daddy can't help them out, or bail them out if needed when they are starting out in life.

and how is that different to the system we had last week that no-one complained about?

The amounts involved are higher.

I don't care about the funding, I care about the amount of money involved but much much more I care about the fact that it will lead to different universities charging different amounts.

I'd be interested to hear the real reasons why they've changed their views.

10 Downing Street meeting room last week.
Knock on Door.
David Cameron (DC): Come in
Door opens in walks (insert Lib Dem MP): Good afternoon Mr Cameron Sir
DC: Afternoon
Lib Dem MP(LDMP): Good afternoon Mr Clegg Sir
Nick Clegg(NC) Good afternoon, thank you for coming. You know why we asked to see you?
LDMP: I presume it’s about the Fees Vote? You know I’m going honour the election pledge and vote against it.
DC: No, no, no, not at all, of course we both respect your principles and you can vote as you choose.
LDMP: Excuse me?
NC: Like Dave says it’s not about the vote. We like you.
LDMP: You like me?
DC: Yes, we like you and think you could have a bright political future…
NC: Yes.Don’t you think it would be a waste if you spent years as a Back Bencher?
DC: ..dealing with constituency pensioners, NHS complaints, although I’ve..er we have some ideas about that…
LDMP: but I like serving my constituency, helping people…
NC: …the Conservative gov, err.. Coalition Government will need bright young things like you to chair committees, and panels….
DC: Why don’t you sit down, take the weight off your feet, use that seat by the cabinet over there…..
LDMP: I’m sorry, what cabinet? Oh I see….. !
NC: I thought you would…
DC: Why not come and see us again when we’re not so busy..
NC: …after the fees vote perhaps?
DC: That will be all…for now.
LDMP exits and closes door. Takes out mobile phone and dials.
Voice on telephone: Hello Mrs Lib Dem MP..
LDMP: Hi , listen dear, you know that house you fancied…
Mrs LDMP: Yes, the one you said we couldn’t afford on your MP’s salary..?
LDMP: Yes, well that might change……
Back in the meeting Room
DC: Well Nick, I think he got the picture..
NC: yes Dave, only another 20 to go…
DC: ....and 20 more promises to break..
NC:... I'm used to that!
DC&NC: Ha, ha, ha.....

and how is that different to the system we had last week that no-one complained about?

a) lots of people did complain about it - the Lib Dems suggested they might scrap fees altogether I believe
b) the fees are now potentially 3 times higher

This is my main issue with the new system- poorer people won't go to the best (i.e. most expensive) universities, regardless of what ahwiles says, because it is not viable for them to rack up £40,000 of debt. So you will end up with people who aren't the best for the job having the best opportunities.

the student loan debt in't a conventional debt, it is in essence a differed income related tax which is time limitedand doesn't ick in until you are close to natioanl average income

if the kid can't work that out they aren't bright enough to go in he first place

I saw the Simon Hughes interview where he said the new sytem was a vast improvement on the current one, more progressive, lower cost to the student, better incentives for those from a really poor family(free school meals qualifiers), asked what was his problem, it was essentially that he had stupidly signed a statement he shouldn't have

my understanding is that you can't "pay up front" which means all the potential bankers are trapped in the system and they are the people who will be subsidising the rest due to the overpayments they will be liable to.

The point is that rich parents will contribute more money, so it's far more likely that a poor person will end up with much more debt than a rich one. So even if they both end up earning doing the exact same jobs, the poor person is disadvantaged. Although this situation is not restricted to higher education. The worry is that it will DETER more poor people, because they know that Mummy and Daddy can't help them out, or bail them out if needed when they are starting out in life.

the real debt is in relation to the cost of living as a student for three years, that is where any deterence kicks in. This is also where having a family that can help gives you the leg up. Tuition fees in this context are an irrelevance as they are not payable if you are not earning over the threshold

the fees might be 2 times / 3 times higher, but the amount a student will borrow wont be.

consider a 3 year degree from last week, 3k fees + 4k living expenses = 7k/year = 21k.

(+ 3k overdraft + a hefty credit card bill = 25k total)

now consider a 3 year degree from today; 6k fees + 4k living expenses = 10k/year = 30k.

(+ 3k overdraft + a hefty credit card bill = 34k total)

34-25 = 9

9/25 = 36% increase in overall debt.

and it's the credit cards + overdraft fees that'll screw them.

a graduate at our place will be paid about 22k, they'll need to find about £150/month to pay off the overdraft, £75/month to clear the credit card, and £8/month* for the evil, crippling fees.

(*last week it was £58/month)

i've been thinking about this sort of thing, and i've changed my mind about graduate taxes, i think an actual tax would be the best solution to uni funding, but the new system is lots better than the old one.

the new system is lots better than the old one.

The only improvement is the increased threshold. In the amount borrowed, the interest charged and the differing fees at different unis it's worse.

Increased threshold AND shorter repayment period.

But actually, although I personally would be better off under the new system I still think it's rubbish.

The result that as a society we end up with shit loads of "thinkers" but a complete lack of "doers" - which is why we then have to ship all our manufacturing jobs to china, as jobs like that are "beneath" someone who's done a degree.

We shipped all our mass manufacturing to China because of cheap labour, not because people thought it was beneath them. Another idiot decision(like basing your economy on Finance and services) that will surely come back to bite us on the butt.

Anyway it was MrsT that kicked off the whole process of encouraging more people to get degree's(remember polytechnics?)for ideological reasons while at the same time decimating the manufacturing base.

We no longer have the sort of employment base to support all those who are now being discouraged from a university education by tuition fee's of any sort, you either have the "non-degree" jobs that immigrant workers are now doing or degree jobs that employers in the future may have trouble filling home grown talent.

Employers are not going to drop their standards and will more than likely import more degree educated people from abroad or ultimately move abroad as well educated personnel are vital for their business interests.

So you will end up with people who aren't the best for the job having the best opportunities.

Which is why we have the Chancellor we have.

you either have the "non-degree" jobs that immigrant workers are now doing or degree jobs that employers in the future may have trouble filling home grown talent.

In my day (I am 51) a lot of people went to work and studied by day release or similar to get qualifications - mine was in accountancy, no degree needed to get started. I started work at 17 and gained my qualifications some years later while earning money and paying into a pension etc.

I heard that university admissions has increased by 3 times in this time although TJ has suggested 10 times a couple of hours ago (5% to 50%). I do not know which is correct but a lot more young adults are now going into further education - is this really required? And someone has to pay for it hence the problem we now have.

Stuart Baggs did not go to Uni and he has done OK;-)

My cousin now lives in the USA and he is thinking of sending his 17 year old daughter to a UK university as it will be cheaper than than studying in the USA.

My daughter is 25 and it cost me £18k+ to put her through a 4 year law course, do not know how much her mother contributed. She still had a substantial debt at the end. (Never inquired as the level as she could 'not afford to eat' on the £35 a week I was giving her. Note I paid her rent, utilities, 2 x laptops etc so this was to feed herself)

Also agree with TJ regarding the difference over the years. My sister went to Bradford university in the late 1970's and she lived a lot less well then my daughters generation - not sure if that was a good thing or not.

Future students will not pay until the end of there education rather than up-front which is helpful to people from poorer families. We do need to train future generations but paying for it, and the balance between student and state is a difficult one.

blackhound - IIRC it was 5% went to uni of our parents generation (I am the same age as you)