Should we abolish student fees?

I'd be a bit cautious with projections/bold claims re: how many people will pay off their loans given that it is a 30 year horizon we're looking at.

That said I don't see any reason why there should be an arbitrary time cap, especially when many people are at their peak earnings in their 50s etc... I mean potentially there could be an argument that it would be fair to deduct any remaining balance from someone's estate. I think the main issue is making sure that university is accessible to anyone who wants to go and in order to do that we need sufficient loans for living costs, fees etc...

I don't think a graduate tax is fair, some students minimise the amount of loan they require by working through the summer on internships or working during term time, as a result they don't need to pay back as much. Likewise if you chose to go to uni in London you're choosing to expose yourself to higher living costs than someone going to uni elsewhere, you need to pay for that. That, in itself, could pay off for you if you stay working in London and earning a higher salary.

So long as there are sufficient funds available for both tuition fees and living expenses I don't see any pressing need for grants based on how much someone's parents earn etc.. as the repayments come from the student's future salary. Why should one city lawyer on 100k a year have lower repayments for the same course as a colleague simply because before he was 18 he lived in a poor household. (I say this after being entitled to but not claiming the maximum loan allowed as a result of a parent on a low income - I worked during uni)

The one area where I think grants are useful is where there is shortage and the course graduates mostly go into public sector roles directly benefiting society - say nursing and teaching. At the moment we've got the farce where say nurses will still have a loan amount attached to them that may or may not ever get paid off, I think we'd simply be better off just going for grants there.

amigafan2003 said:
Well, I've just been given 25k to train to be a teacher, so it does happen.
Click to expand...

I think the above is fine and deserves funding as do nurses - though this sort of thing should be conditional on you going into a state sector teaching job for X years upon graduation (or only working for the NHS in the case of nurses), if you go on to private sector role or decide you fancy a different career etc.. then it should be paid back.
 
amigafan2003 said:
As there is a recruitment crisis in teaching atm it's an incentive to get high achieving graduates to train as Computing teachers.

As for how much student debt I have, if you really must know, I currently have 43k in student debt, my PGCE next year increases that by 15k. I'm doing a masters straight after, so another 10k. Then I'm possibly going to do a second degree (2nd degrees are now funded for STEM subjects) at the same time as my PHD, so possibly another 50k, so around 118k in total by the end of my academic journey.

Don't worry though, my PHD is fully funded, so you don't have to worry about that being added to my debt - you're paying for that out the goodness of your heart.
Click to expand...
Why all the tuition? What is your career/goal?

Why do a pgce then more education?
 
No it should not be FREE - Why should I as a non parent and a tax payer pay for someone else's children to be educated. Children should be the responsibility of the parents unless it is proved they have the ability and they can get a scholarship. - I have spent 40 years paying for the results of other peoples carnal lust.
 
DXP55 said:
No it should not be FREE - Why should I as a non parent and a tax payer pay for someone else's children to be educated. Children should be the responsibility of the parents unless it is proved they have the ability and they can get a scholarship. - I have spent 40 years paying for the results of other peoples carnal lust.
Click to expand...

Leave then, it is a fact that graduates earn several thousands more and are ultimately paying for your pension/NHS/police. If you so enjoy an anarchist society then you won't mind there being no roads or regulations governing how well made your products are.
 
Personally, if you want a degree you should pay for it.

If you make them free you get every slacker going to Uni for the party life and not contributing to society.

However, some degree's such as health/education related or anything that is seen as highly beneficial to the country should have their debt wiped off after X years in the industry. This will stop people taking a free degree and then working in another field.

That is my opinion as someone without a degree, who would in fact like to get a degree in various areas.

I'd rather the money was spent at the primary school level first. Let us make sure that everyone leaving primary education has a strong and firm grasp on the basics. Degree's are a choice, teaching children to read, write and do mathematics isn't a choice, it's a necessity.
 
AHarvey said:
Personally, if you want a degree you should pay for it.

If you make them free you get every slacker going to Uni for the party life and not contributing to society.

However, some degree's such as health/education related or anything that is seen as highly beneficial to the country should have their debt wiped off after X years in the industry. This will stop people taking a free degree and then working in another field.

That is my opinion as someone without a degree, who would in fact like to get a degree in various areas.

I'd rather the money was spent at the primary school level first. Let us make sure that everyone leaving primary education has a strong and firm grasp on the basics. Degree's are a choice, teaching children to read, write and do mathematics isn't a choice, it's a necessity.
Click to expand...

Well you tell that to industry that requires a degree for everything nowadays, do you think they'll just lower their expectations now?
 
theone8181 said:
My wife finished her pharmacy degree in 2009, she was the last year of ~3 grand fees. She pays 188 a month so quite a bit more than 900 a year (not sure if the %ages changed when the fees went up) by my reckoning it should be paid off in 7 years (she's had 2 X 9 months off for mat leave). So she should pay it off easily before 30 years, the new scheme I can believe the vast majority won't pay back (not sure where the loan money comes from but how do they stay in business?). Fwiw I did an apprenticeship and one/hnc so I had no fees and in my profession of manufacturing quite often experience is more critical than qualifications.
Click to expand...

Think the overall feeling is the amount repaid per month is small compared to your take home. If your wife is paying £188 a month she is on around £42k a year.

£188 isn't a small sum but when you're take home is ~£2,600 it's not exactly skinting you.
 
amigafan2003 said:
I've discovered I have a love of academia.

I don't have a career goal - I don't really want a career at all tbh.
Click to expand...

Doing a PhD will remove that love of academia, trust me :p (unless you really like to-ing and fro-ing endlessly over semantics in journal reviews and grant applications!)
 
Typically people with degrees earn more. Hence why you don't pay back your loan until you earn over a certain amount.

The cost does need reviewing but as someone who has had to do it themselves I feel those who say 'well they'll pay more taxes' is unfair. They might pay more taxes nothing more than that. They may actually not use the degree and work in a low paid job, and I'm not knocking this, whereby they never pay back there loans.

In my opinion it's just to get the students vote and it's a purely selfish vote. 100 billion I read earlier to fund this - where this money is coming from I have no idea. You could pay for a hell of a lot of nurses, hospitals, police stations, schools, etc. with 100 billion.


M.
 
m4cc45 said:
Typically people with degrees earn more. Hence why you don't pay back your loan until you earn over a certain amount.

The cost does need reviewing but as someone who has had to do it themselves I feel those who say 'well they'll pay more taxes' is unfair. They might pay more taxes nothing more than that. They may actually not use the degree and work in a low paid job, and I'm not knocking this, whereby they never pay back there loans.

In my opinion it's just to get the students vote and it's a purely selfish vote. 100 billion I read earlier to fund this - where this money is coming from I have no idea. You could pay for a hell of a lot of nurses, hospitals, police stations, schools, etc. with 100 billion.


M.
Click to expand...

And the constant bribes with respect to Pensions aren't purely selfish? Regardless all money comes from thin air, before you start.
 
Any 'promise' that targets a group of people is selfish. But then I feel, in all hopefulness, that the majority of people will get old and that people who have been working all of there life, in any capacity, should be taken care of.



M.
 
m4cc45 said:
Any 'promise' that targets a group of people is selfish. But then I feel, in all hopefulness, that the majority of people will get old and that people who have been working all of there life, in any capacity, should be taken care of.



M.
Click to expand...

And we expect the yet born are different than old people in needing a society that isnt constantly pandering to a bunch of geriatrics, even the old dont benefit at some point, when it becomes so difficult to justify all the stress to be a nurse just to be held in contempt with a £20-30k salary, when they can just go elsewhere.
 
I don't think they should be abolished, not at all. What bugs me about this suggestion is that I worked my arse off to get a job which pays well, only to pay higher taxes to fund someone to get **** faced and study some pointless subject for 3 years? No thanks!

I am all for Medicine being free, but then bond them into the NHS for 3 years so they don't leave right away and never pay it back. This would hopefully solve the shortage of doctors. The rest should have to pay.

This view is somewhat unpopular among my friends who happen to be within the demographic who wants everything for free :mad:
 
Ahh yeah, bond them into enslavement, you'll find they'll just not bother in the first place. Can't force someone to do something for a pittance and be told their scum otherwise.
 
Yes should be abolished. Education is a right, plus everyone as a society benefits from a more educated society. I think we'd have a lot less racism, bigotry etc, more tolerance, respect and care to others as well.
 
StriderX said:
Ahh yeah, bond them into enslavement, you'll find they'll just not bother in the first place. Can't force someone to do something for a pittance and be told their scum otherwise.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry I disagree. In my industry if I get a job I am bonded into that job to a value of "X", reducing every year. I can leave but I have to pay the portion of the bond back. If a company invests heavily in you why should said investment be allowed to leave to do the same job else where?

It's not about bonding into slavery, it's about return on investment, or the lack thereof right now. People don't become doctors without the knowledge it is a difficult job and lets be honest, 3 years is hardly a long time if it was free of charge from the moment they walked in.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom