Tuition fees

[Fenris]

I recently started a 4 (possible 5) year degree, when I leave I will be in debt to the tune of £54,000 AT LEAST.

People can bleat about choice but realistically, it doesn't exist. If I didn't go to university the chances of me getting a decent job, with decent pay in an industry I actually care about is minimal, as well as essentially removes my chances of getting on the property ladder (well not me really, luckily I have wealthy grandparents however this is not the case for everyone).

The idea that people "shouldn't" go to university is absurd, if someone is capable of going to university they should have that choice, fees should not be the deciding factor of whether or not talented and intelligent individuals should be capable of pursuing higher education. What the government needs to do is sort out entry requirements and ditch pointless degrees which lead people nowhere or have very high drop out rates. The people who shouldn't to university are those who aren't capable of meeting the entry requirements for their course or aren't absolutely sure why they want to go in the first place.

 

[explicit4u]

I recently started a 4 (possible 5) year degree, when I leave I will be in debt to the tune of £54,000 AT LEAST.

People can bleat about choice but realistically, it doesn't exist. If I didn't go to university the chances of me getting a decent job, with decent pay in an industry I actually care about is minimal, as well as essentially removes my chances of getting on the property ladder (well not me really, luckily I have wealthy grandparents however this is not the case for everyone).

+1

I'm not sure if it's an actual reality but it really does feel like if you don't go to university there's some kind of ceiling in place stopping you from having a decent job and a comfortable life.

I'm in a similar boat, 4 year degree and a minimum of about £52K debt and tbh I don't really mind. Provided I work hard and come out with a decent degree I shouldn't have any problem paying it back and chances are I wouldn't even notice it.

 

[Diagro]

A £40k job will net a £2k repayment per year. You will notice it

 

[lukeharvest]

I recently started a 4 (possible 5) year degree, when I leave I will be in debt to the tune of £54,000 AT LEAST.

People can bleat about choice but realistically, it doesn't exist. If I didn't go to university the chances of me getting a decent job, with decent pay in an industry I actually care about is minimal, as well as essentially removes my chances of getting on the property ladder (well not me really, luckily I have wealthy grandparents however this is not the case for everyone).

The idea that people "shouldn't" go to university is absurd, if someone is capable of going to university they should have that choice, fees should not be the deciding factor of whether or not talented and intelligent individuals should be capable of pursuing higher education. What the government needs to do is sort out entry requirements and ditch pointless degrees which lead people nowhere or have very high drop out rates. The people who shouldn't to university are those who aren't capable of meeting the entry requirements for their course or aren't absolutely sure why they want to go in the first place.

The problem is, most universities/courses now-a-days aren't designed to seriously test you. I know plenty of people, whom I studied with at sixth form, who actually have an easier life studying respectable degrees at respectable universities than back when they were doing four A-Levels. So a significant portion of A-Level takers are actually capable of going to university. You're absolutely right about the pointless subjects, but the issue is much more widespread than that. I know very few people outside of my university/course who work more than 25 hours a week on their degree, which has always made me wonder "what's the point?" if you're able to get away with studying only practically half the working week...

 

[Freakbro]

It was pretty silly to protest really in my opinion. To me, anything that makes people think twice about going to uni is a good thing. The Labour idea of "everyone should be able to go to university" somehow ended up being "Everyone should go to university", which helped no one.

It was actually Kenneth Baker, one of Thatchers Education Secretary's who first brought in the aspiration of half of all school leavers should go to Uni, and Thatcher herself who started the whole shake up of starting to privatise higher education with the introduction of fees - initially for international students.

New Labour just continued with the policy.

But don't let that get in the way of the fervour around here that New Labour are to blame for everything

 

[Theophany]

But don't let that get in the way of the fervour around here that New Labour are to blame for everything

Take your 'facts' and shove 'em up yer arse, leftie!! New Labour ruined everything!

 

[Dolph]

I never understood why people complain about this debt but not about the unlimited debt that is income tax where the same principles of wage qualification applies...

 

[Freakbro]

Take your 'facts' and shove 'em up yer arse, leftie!! New Labour ruined everything!

If only New Labour were left of center....I might have voted for them!

 

[platypus]

I never understood why people complain about this debt but not about the unlimited debt that is income tax where the same principles of wage qualification applies...

Why would students protest about income tax? Not many protest groups of that size outside the universities/unions.

 

[pitchfork]

What exactly were the protests all about a while back?

Yes fees went up, but the tuition fee loan system is beyond generous. Can anyone tell me exactly why the students were so up in arms?

Because charging for education is like saying "The rich deserve to be smart, the gifted don't"

It's fundamentally wrong. People from certain backgrounds will be boxed out.

 

[Castiel]

Students are being asked to help part fund their own education based on their future ability to pay...the better job you secure because of your education the greater the proportion you help fund....the greater part is still funded by the collective taxpayer and no one is being asked to pay more than they can ever afford.

It enables greater access to HE for more students and gives Universities the ability to offer better courses and help those in real need through bursaries and so on.

The alternative was a severe reduction in university places meaning many of the people who will attend University would not have been able to do so.

 

[leaskovski]

When you start paying it back, does it come straight out of your wage like the student loan, or do you have to set up an so or send a cheque in every month?

I can't expect newly employed students missing the money that much if it comes straight out, as they never saw it in the first place.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Castiel, is it really going to make that much of a difference?

As I understand it, the cost of a course per student, per year, has generally been around £12,000.

Under the old system, £3,000 of that was paid by the student and £9,000 by the government, now the roles have been reversed.

Anyone not taking a loan is obviously going to contribute more, but the majority will rely on a loan which is still going to come from the government coffers.

As such, all they've really done is move the money from one column on their accounts to another.

On the face of it, a higher loan should see more money recovered but with the way they've adjusted the repayment system, it sounds as though the total amount actually repaid isn't going to be much different to the current system.

Or have I misjudged it?

 

[Theophany]

When you start paying it back, does it come straight out of your wage like the student loan, or do you have to set up an so or send a cheque in every month?

I can't expect newly employed students missing the money that much if it comes straight out, as they never saw it in the first place.

It's PAYE. You never see the money, unless of course you go self-employed and do your own tax returns which I'd think to be highly unlikely as you're practically being conditioned for employment throughout your academic career.

Besides which, I think you can still take a 1 year holiday from repayments if you graduate straight into a job above the 21k threshold. I did (actually started with my employer the next working day after my graduation) but didn't take the holiday as I didn't really see the point in it.

 

[Judgeneo]

On the face of it, a higher loan should see more money recovered but with the way they've adjusted the repayment system, it sounds as though the total amount actually repaid isn't going to be much different to the current system.

Or have I misjudged it?

Thats the most confusing part of it all. Only high earners will be able to pay it off in less than 25 years. After that 25 years the government writes it off as they do today.


As I said earlier, for most students, the rule change just means they will be paying 2% of their salary for another 5-10 years. For them, the actual amount paid back/in debt is somewhat immaterial. This hits high earners the hardest, and no one really knows if the scheme will save much more money than the older version due to the 25 year write off period.

 

[Freakbro]

Thats the most confusing part of it all. Only high earners will be able to pay it off in less than 25 years. After that 25 years the government writes it off as they do today.


As I said earlier, for most students, the rule change just means they will be paying 2% of their salary for another 5-10 years. For them, the actual amount paid back/in debt is somewhat immaterial. This hits high earners the hardest, and no one really knows if the scheme will save much more money than the older version due to the 25 year write off period.

I think it's a bit naive to think that in a decades or two time, when there is this looming amount of unpaid Student Loans to be written off, that they won't then change the rules - extending the payment period would be one option.

 

[Glaucus]

Thats the most confusing part of it all. Only high earners will be able to pay it off in less than 25 years. After that 25 years the government writes it off as they do today.


As I said earlier, for most students, the rule change just means they will be paying 2% of their salary for another 5-10 years. For them, the actual amount paid back/in debt is somewhat immaterial. This hits high earners the hardest, and no one really knows if the scheme will save much more money than the older version due to the 25 year write off period.

You haven't taken into account inflation, not sure how much this will chnage the calculations though, as the 19k doesn't chnage with inflation. So for the second half of the loan you will be paying far more.
1992 average weekly pay £345
2012 average weekly pay £509

To many decades of people being taught they can do anything, which is frankly wrong. And to many crap universities and crap degrees.
Then lib dem supports forgetting that lib dems are not solely in power and can't stick to their manifesto.

Perosnally I think it should be two tiered, good courses that its decided the country needs, should be free to the top academic people. Everyone else on a system like what's currently in place.

 

[hellarda]

The main bit that has annoyed me (going to uni in september) is that the fees have tripled but I very much doubt there is a triple in contact time or the amount we get out of the tuition.

 

[Glaucus]

The main bit that has annoyed me (going to uni in september) is that the fees have tripled but I very much doubt there is a triple in contact time or the amount we get out of the tuition.

Fees does not equal cost, so it's wrong to assume that contact time should triple.
It just means you are paying more and govement is paying less. unvirsity should get around the same total.

 

[AJK]

The main bit that has annoyed me (going to uni in september) is that the fees have tripled but I very much doubt there is a triple in contact time or the amount we get out of the tuition.

Contact hours and quality of tuition are a factor of the institution itself, though, and have very little to do with the proportion of fees contributed by the student. If you choose a well-accredited course at a good University, with relevant material, taught by highly qualified and engaged academic staff, you'll see the benefits of an academic education.

If you choose a nonsense course at a less reputable establishment purely because you like the idea of three years of drinking culture, well then your expectations shouldn't be high!

(I don't know to which Uni or course you're going, of course - just illustrating.)