University tuition fees set to rise again

Scroll to see replies

Disgusting. Thats the Tories for you though, not surprising in the least.

Why did we even vote the Tories in? I knew that something like this would happen...

Firstly the removal of maintenance grants, now this? Are we trying to make it so that only the richest people can afford to go to university?

Reply 101

pol pot noodles

Original post by Plagioclase

It is not a punishment. It is taking the cost for higher education for where it should come from, i.e. taxes. Germans do not have an issue with this because contrary to the British public, they seem to appreciate the idea of a society and social responsibility.

If we re-labelled our student loan repayments as a graduate tax would you suddenly be okay with it because it's now a tax? The idea that forcing people to pay for something through taxation is somehow more ethical than the exact same situation but merely via a loan instead is laughable.

Original post by Plagioclase

Completely agree with the bolded text which is precisely why the cost of university should come from taxes. The wealthiest in society, whether they went to university or otherwise, pay more and the poorer in society, regardless of whether they went to university or otherwise, pay less. If you think that there's too much inequality, which I would totally agree with, raise the taxes for the wealthy. Rather than sheltering the wealthy as this government is doing.

The government still heavily subsidises higher education. Let's get that out in the open.
The current system simply means those who directly benefit the most from this particular entitlement pay more back towards it's running. You're argument merely seems to be you want it to be paid all by the taxpayer just because it can be.

Original post by Plagioclase

Your argument about those who directly benefit the least paying the least would be more understandable if it wasn't for the fact that you pay interest and inflation on the student loans, which means for a significant spectrum of incomes, your debt rises at a greater rate at which you're paying it back. Those on the highest incomes will actually pay less for their university education than those who do manage to eventually pay off their loan, but not until it has accumulated a lot of interest.

If you're earning enough to pay it all off over 30 years but too much to have any written off, you've still done extremely well for yourself. We're talking about a career trajectory where you're earning over 40k during your thirties and ends up on about 65k a year. They'll be slightly, slightly worse off than someone who managed to pay it off in 15 years. I'll be sure to cry them a river.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 102

lahorizon

Original post by ZiggyStarDust_

No, that's not necessarily true. This depends on the TYPE of degree you go for. If more people went for, physics degrees,say, it's going to encourage more people to get jobs in higher sectors.

So more people,taking a physics degree, are likely to get jobs in quaternary sectors -> More money(higher paid jobs) -> Better economy -> Society is benefitted

You still benefit more due to the higher income. Your impact on the economy is likely to be very small in terms of the tax you pay. If you discover something ok but that is very unlikely. And if you don't study physics then someone else will do it instead and get that job. The only reason someone would want to do a physics degree is to either learn more/do research or because they know they will earn a much higher salary. They don't do it mainly because they think society is going to benefit so much.

Teaching someone basic maths/science/english has a much bigger impact on society. Also because you are 16 or under, your parents might decide to neglect you/spend their money on something else and not send you to school. That is why it is free to prevent that. With university you can make your own choice and you don't have to go university. If you decide to, then that is your choice because you want a higher income. That is obvious.

Reply 103

ironandbeer2

Original post by Drewski

Not really. It's just you've been fortunate enough to have the costs paid for. Doesn't mean they don't exist in the first place.

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

There absolutely is. A huge amount of people in the UK have no idea what real poverty is, actually having to struggle etc. I would say as much as 60% of the population. I'm not necessarily blaming them for it, especially if they were just born into comfort, but really those with well off parents have a very different set of pressures. They are expected to do very well in life, which can be a real curse. But let's not pretend that's the same thing as struggling to truly work your way up from nothing while constantly getting whacked by apparently 'for aspriation' governments.

Reply 104

username1204031

Original post by Drewski

In what other walk of life do you get something for nothing?

Healthcare? Infrastructure? All education before university? That's why we pay taxes.

Disgusting. The US has a huge problem with tuition fees, university is for the well-off, and that's the way this country is going. Of course all the privileged ***** that have paid for anything in their lives without mummy and daddy subsidising them don't see a problem.

There are too many stupid people in this country already. We need more people going to university, not less.

Reply 105

Jammy Duel

Original post by JordanL_

So you think sending a stupid university to a university where writing your name gets you a 2:2 and the best degree they offer is women's studies makes the country smarter and better off?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 106

Betelgeuse-

I think RIP this generation. A life of debt and insecurity

Reply 107

Betelgeuse-

The future:

A 50k debt laden degree needed to gain employment at mcdonalds or starbucks. No houses so everybody is crammed inside dirty small accomadtion for a price per month which leaves them with just enough for travel to work and a loaf of bread

Reply 108

Jammy Duel

Original post by Betelgeuse-

I think RIP this generation. A life of debt and insecurity

I didn't realise life expectence had crashed to 51, nor had I realised that this was a payday loan with dreadful terms for the stupid.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 109

username853993

Original post by ZiggyStarDust_

what's wrong with wanting to get an education without having to pay for it?

You know, some of us aren't so loaded that we could easily splash out on degrees.

I have a friend who's absolutely desperate to go to university but she worries she can't because she might not be able to afford it.

And what, you like the fact that the poorer people would be excluded from unis? Even if they have the sheer intelligence to be able to go to one?

How would changing the fee system change her ability to go to uni though? She can get all the money she is entitled to dependent on her house hold income for living, even if it does mean more debt if she wants it thats what it is going to take, hell if uni was free all the support for low income students would disappear such as bursaries

I think uni should cost money, the money has the come from somewhere but I dont think paying more than £9000 a year plus living loans is fair either (it needs to be a bit lower tuition fee wise like £4500 to £6000)

Reply 110

Betelgeuse-

Original post by Jammy Duel

I didn't realise life expectence had crashed to 51, nor had I realised that this was a payday loan with dreadful terms for the stupid.

Posted from TSR Mobile

What?

Reply 111

bob5124

Original post by pol pot noodles

Not against the concept in the slightest. Higher education funding has to come from somewhere so it's probably for the best if it's seen that graduates are taking that burden. Try telling that to self-entitled students though.
Don't agree with the corporate for-profit universities though, but hey ho if there's a demand...

Where do you get this nonsense from? Graduates tend to earn more, which means they pay more tax, and over the course of their life they pay off the cost of their degree many times over in the form of the extra tax they pay. They already took the burden before the 9k fees.

An educated population pays for itself in many different ways. From the extra tax they pay due to higher income, to the extra services they offer the country. This is just short sighted and greedy, You are hallucinating that they are not paying it back just because you have a poor understanding of the topic.

All this will encourage people to do is leave the country after studying their degree to avoid paying the money back, leading to brain drain, stripping the country of educated people just because the tories are greedy.

Original post by Drewski

In what other walk of life do you get something for nothing?

Another person who can't see the big picture and can't comprehend that a more educated population benefits the country as a whole.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 112

username853993

Original post by JordanL_

University isnt a right, not everyone should be entitled to go, in the US people that are genuinely clever get scholarships so no matter their income they can afford to go which is how it should be, if you work hard and do well you are rewarded, if you dont and perform average you shouldnt be allowed to get into university

There isnt a shortage of graduates for graduate level jobs so clearly we dont need more people going to university.

Not not going to uni doesnt mean people are stupid, there are plenty of other paths that lead to useful careers

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 113

Zargabaath

I was going to worry, then I saw "Universities that reach targets".
Ain't no way DMU reaching any targets, so I'm safe :rofl:

Reply 114

bob5124

Original post by lahorizon

You still benefit more due to the higher income. Your impact on the economy is likely to be very small in terms of the tax you pay.

Graduates still pay off the cost of their degree multiple times over due to the extra tax, so you have absolutely no case. There is no net loss due to funding education.

Original post by lahorizon

If you discover something ok but that is very unlikely. And if you don't study physics then someone else will do it instead and get that job. The only reason someone would want to do a physics degree is to either learn more/do research or because they know they will earn a much higher salary. They don't do it mainly because they think society is going to benefit so much.

Their motivation is not relevant. All that is relevant is that it is paid for multiple times over, over the course of the graduates life due to the higher income (which means there was no loss for the government), and any research produced benefits the country as a whole. I'm sorry if you think that there is no benefit to educating a population above GCSE level, but this is simply not true.

Original post by lahorizon

Teaching someone basic maths/science/english has a much bigger impact on society.

Irrelevant. Higher education still pays for itself many times over.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 115

undercxver

Things like this demotivates me. Sfe. :top:

Let's start rioting right now.

Spoiler

Reply 116

TenthBelt1993

Original post by bob5124

Another person who can't see the big picture and can't comprehend that a more educated population benefits the country as a whole.

I think this is complete bs.. I went to Oxford and studied Maths (and got an excellent grade) and I know quite literally nothing about my degree/my subject, nor is it of any use to me.

I can't even comprehend how little less academic degrees would 'educate' anyone.

In this country most people just see university as a chance to go and get pissed up on the government for a few years.

Reply 117

bob5124

Original post by TenthBelt1993

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

anecdotal

You used a personal experience or an isolated example instead of a sound argument or compelling evidence.

It's often much easier for people to believe someone's testimony as opposed to understanding complex data and variation across a continuum. Quantitative scientific measures are almost always more accurate than personal perceptions and experiences, but our inclination is to believe that which is tangible to us, and/or the word of someone we trust over a more 'abstract' statistical reality.

Example: Jason said that that was all cool and everything, but his grandfather smoked, like, 30 cigarettes a day and lived until 97 - so don't believe everything you read about meta analyses of methodologically sound studies showing proven causal relationships.

Reply 118

TenthBelt1993

Original post by bob5124

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/anecdotal

The reason why its not a logical fallacy is:

I went to one of the best academic institutions in the country doing one of the most academic subjects, as such almost all other degrees are way less rigorous/academic.

Even accounting for me being one person, the fact that there are so many degrees that are probably 5% as academic as mine allows my point to be valid.

(Plus almost all people I know who graduated from oxford [and other top universities] feel exactly the same)

Reply 119

ComputerMaths97

Original post by ZiggyStarDust_

Lies

You're just lying, stop it.

My family are in huge debt, I have not a single penny to my name. But guess what, I'm still going to University.

Want to know why? Because I know that if I work hard enough it is beyond worth my time, and it's exactly the same for everyone else.

The only problem is that everyone else is lazy and doesn't put the effort in so claims costs are holding them back when in reality it's their grades.