[IAMchocolatee]

Could someone please enlighten me, I am thinking about reapplying next year.

[Cirsium]

There is no pro vs con.

University fees (i.e. what it costs to provide lecturers and libraries and lab equipment) are actually a lot more than £9000. What's changing is not how much money the uni gets: it's how much the LEA (local education authority - i.e. taxpayers) subsidise each person.

So when I went to university (and I'm showing my age here) I paid about a grand a year of tuition fees: but I had to pay them up front. With the first wave of top up fees that rose to ~ £3000 a year, and now the majority of the fees will be paid by the student.

However, you pay this back in line with your earnings, and for someone on £24 000 pa, the total amount paid back to student finance will actually be about the same as it was this year. It is only those in the higher earning brackets who will actually end up paying back anything like the full £9000 of tuition fees.

Any clearer?

[metalthrashin'mad]

pros - you don't have to start paying anything back until you are earning £21,000 a year, and if you are earning this much, then the amount you pay back each time is probably fairly negligible to the amount you are earning, I would think. Under the previous scheme you started paying back when you were earning £15,000.
-you can still get a student loan to cover it anyway
- I would imagine more money goes into the universities this way? (only guessing, IDK if this is true)

cons - you have to pay back £27,000 in the long run, rather than ~£9000, which is a significant jump

[Kiirk]

I think Lib Dem's have done well, even though most people don't see it. Think of it as a graduate tax, you pay 9% on anything over 21,000 as it stands. Everyone has an opportunity for higher education, as the loan is free for the moment. If you earn more in the future, you end up paying more back in the long term compared to the 2011 fees. If instead you earn less than 21000 every year you are better off taking the new £9000 fees.

To sum it up, those who earn more pay more, and those who earn less pay less. I think (don't treat this as fact) it worked out you needed to average 40k a year to pay it all back. So the Lib Dems have successfully added an extra tax (it's not really a loan if you don't have to pay it back) to high earners.



Have a look here: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/stu...nt-loans-repay


EDIT: When I say Lib Dem have done well, this is in the grand scheme of things and their intended aims.

[River85]

(Original post by metalthrashin'mad)
pros - you don't have to start paying anything back until you are earning £21,000 a year, and if you are earning this much, then the amount you pay back each time is probably fairly negligible to the amount you are earning, I would think. Under the previous scheme you started paying back when you were earning £15,000.
-you can still get a student loan to cover it anyway
- I would imagine more money goes into the universities this way? (only guessing, IDK if this is true)

cons - you have to pay back £27,000 in the long run, rather than ~£9000, which is a significant jump

No, universities are actually seeing their funding fall.

Under the previous fee structure universities still received the money, so it's not like they're receiving more now, it's just that previously most of the cost was covered through taxpayers subsidising fees.

(Original post by Cirsium)
There is no pro vs con.

University fees (i.e. what it costs to provide lecturers and libraries and lab equipment) are actually a lot more than £9000. What's changing is not how much money the uni gets: it's how much the LEA (local education authority - i.e. taxpayers) subsidise each person.

I don't think LEA's are responsible for this now. It changed for 2006 intake onwards but LEA's still dealt with students, like me, who started their course prior to 2006. This continued until the end of 2010.

So when I went to university (and I'm showing my age here) I paid about a grand a year of tuition fees: but I had to pay them up front. With the first wave of top up fees that rose to ~ £3000 a year, and now the majority of the fees will be paid by the student.

What would be showing your age is saying there were no fees

I'm just saying that because you're making me feel old. I'm probably the only person still under the old (soon to be old, old) fees of 1.5k in my university.

[tsveta]

it will stop people taking ridiculous courses and make people actually work hard to get their degree as they want to make the 9k worth while.

[xDave-]

Pros: The government pays it for you and then you only pay anything back when you're earning over £21,000, and it's only a small percentage of what you get over that value.

Cons:

[metalthrashin'mad]

(Original post by xDave-)
Pros: The government pays it for you and then you only pay anything back when you're earning over £21,000, and it's only a small percentage of what you get over that value.

Cons:

Pretty much,the people who protested wildly, and didn't understand that it was certainly no worse, and possibly even better for them, are the sorts of people I wouldn't want to go to university anyway

[Beebumble]

Can someone explain to me how this is supposedly helping our 'financial crisis'?
It's all a bit confusing. They've cut the uni's funding so now the students have to pay full fees. Ok, but then the government still have to give out a loan for the fees and the loan doesn't have to paid back until the student earns 21 grand a year and even then it's at a minimal amount and gets wiped after 30 (?) years. So basically they'll be a lot of people who don't even pay their loan back and even the ones that do probably won't have done so until about 10 years from now. Under the old system wouldn't more people have paid off their loans and done so a lot faster? Plus this with that they're giving out more loans and bursaries to make up for change in fees. It just seems to me that they've gone through all this hassle of upping the fees when really it won't make that much difference at all.

Maybe I'm wrong and there's more to it then that and I just don't see it.

[kka25]

(Original post by tsveta)
it will stop people taking ridiculous courses and make people actually work hard to get their degree as they want to make the 9k worth while.

Also students can start complaining the value and lack of teaching support if they are experiencing it. With 9k, those lecturers better up their game.

[megaman70]

(Original post by metalthrashin'mad)
Pretty much,the people who protested wildly, and didn't understand that it was certainly no worse, and possibly even better for them, are the sorts of people I wouldn't want to go to university anyway

You try comming from a family that only earns a little more than 21k per year and then try telling me that a loss of 9% (which you cannot discharge by going bankrupt) of your income ubove 21k in addition to tax and NI is nothing to worry about!

The people who protested understood this pleanty
it is you who does not understand!

[oxymoronic]

(Original post by megaman70)
You try comming from a family that only earns a little more than 21k per year and then try telling me that a loss of 9% (which you cannot discharge by going bankrupt) of your income ubove 21k in addition to tax and NI is nothing to worry about!

The people who protested understood this pleanty
it is you who does not understand!

If you are earning 22k a year and start university in 2012 or later, you will pay 9% on 1k which is £90 a year or £7.50 a month.

In comparison someone who started university this year is paying on everything they earn over 15k. So this means on a 22k salary, this person will be paying on 7k, so 9% works out as £630 a year which is £52.50 a month.

Under the new system, people will not actually pay any more money than they did before and will probably actually end up paying less than they did on the old system due to the fact the threshold is higher (better for people on lower incomes) and the interest rates are a wee bit higher. Unless graduate salaries instantly triple between the 2011 intake of students graduating and the 2012 intake graduating, most people will only ever pay back pretty much the same amount as they ever would have done in the first place. Yes, there's an additional 5 years in which you have to pay it back but you're "gaining" that by being able to keep an additional 6k of your income before you start paying back your loan.

[cryptic-clues]

(Original post by Beebumble)
Can someone explain to me how this is supposedly helping our 'financial crisis'?
It's all a bit confusing. They've cut the uni's funding so now the students have to pay full fees. Ok, but then the government still have to give out a loan for the fees and the loan doesn't have to paid back until the student earns 21 grand a year and even then it's at a minimal amount and gets wiped after 30 (?) years. So basically they'll be a lot of people who don't even pay their loan back and even the ones that do probably won't have done so until about 10 years from now. Under the old system wouldn't more people have paid off their loans and done so a lot faster? Plus this with that they're giving out more loans and bursaries to make up for change in fees. It just seems to me that they've gone through all this hassle of upping the fees when really it won't make that much difference at all.

Maybe I'm wrong and there's more to it then that and I just don't see it.

Well, the entire global response to the financial crisis has been to cut down government funding in the name of austerity. So, the government direct subsidies have come down. Earlier, the education was subsidised, but now a loan has replaced the subsidy. So, in the short run the government spending comes down. And the neoliberalists think it will save us! Hah!

This is the reason the right-wing which promoted this nonsense is losing political ground in Greece, France and Italy. Because people have begun to see the fallacy and inaccuracy of their policies, which favoured the rich.

In a way, it is shocking that neoliberalisation which brought us to all this continues to dictate ways of getting us out of it.

[TheDefiniteArticle]

Pros:

Cons:

Despite not having to pay the 27k instantly, there is still a lot of stigma attached to that sort of sum - indeed, for some families, this could be more than the worth of their entire possessions.
'Graduate tax' is at a flat rate, rather than being a progressive tax over 21k.
Especially in poorer state schools, the way the loan is explained is insufficient and leaves students unaware of the provision.
No actual improvement to education.
A disincentive for potential skilled graduates to get those skills in the first place, thus diminishing our long-term economic power.
Widens the wealth gap due to above effects.
If different universities charge different amounts, one is generally paying more for better education, which discriminates against poorer families.
No guarantee that loan terms won't change.

[vandub]

(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
Pros:

Cons:

Despite not having to pay the 27k instantly, there is still a lot of stigma attached to that sort of sum - indeed, for some families, this could be more than the worth of their entire possessions.

But ten minutes of actually researching it will show that it is not big deal, and if you ever end up paying that £27k then you're probably doing pretty damn well.

'Graduate tax' is at a flat rate, rather than being a progressive tax over 21k.

Not sure what you mean, are you saying that it's regressive because the percent of earnings doesn't scale up to, say, 15% above £50k? Seeing as there is an upper limit on the total amount payable anyway, all that'd do would make some people pay off the debt quicker, not increase their contributions overall. I'd say only making those who are well off pay at all as the new system does is pretty progressive.


Especially in poorer state schools, the way the loan is explained is insufficient and leaves students unaware of the provision.

That's a problem with the explanation, not the system.

No actual improvement to education.

I'll grant you this, although a lot of the Student Unions are obviously pushing for improvements, plus unis are giving out larger than previous bursaries for living costs, which is the real issue for a lot of students.


A disincentive for potential skilled graduates to get those skills in the first place, thus diminishing our long-term economic power.

Again, not it they actually learn how the system works.

Widens the wealth gap due to above effects.

Nope.


If different universities charge different amounts, one is generally paying more for better education, which discriminates against poorer families.

Annnd, again, not if they actually research how much that £2000 difference in fees is gonna affect them as a graduate.


No guarantee that loan terms won't change.

You're right, and this is my main complaint about the new system, that the good things about it aren't even guaranteed.

Responses in bold.

[TheDefiniteArticle]

(Original post by vandub)
Responses in bold.

The point is that many will accept what others say as gospel and thus won't feel they need to research it to find out the truth. Do you bother researching what you strongly believe to be true?

[vandub]

(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
The point is that many will accept what others say as gospel and thus won't feel they need to research it to find out the truth. Do you bother researching what you strongly believe to be true?

If it was a subjective issue? Possibly not. If it was a matter of fact, as these changes are, and one that my future heavily depended upon? Absolutely. You can't oppose these measures just because some people are too thick to put effort into deciding what is a massive decision.

[TheDefiniteArticle]

(Original post by vandub)
If it was a subjective issue? Possibly not. If it was a matter of fact, as these changes are, and one that my future heavily depended upon? Absolutely. You can't oppose these measures just because some people are too thick to put effort into deciding what is a massive decision.

I can oppose these measures to protect the 'thick' when there are in fact many better ways to reduce the deficit - for instance, reintroducing higher tax bands - and don't give me the guff about all of our 'talent' emigrating - many of our rich are xenophobic *****.

[vandub]

(Original post by TheDefiniteArticle)
I can oppose these measures to protect the 'thick' when there are in fact many better ways to reduce the deficit - for instance, reintroducing higher tax bands - and don't give me the guff about all of our 'talent' emigrating - many of our rich are xenophobic *****.

I said nothing of tax levels, so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up, but the fact is that these changes are largely progressive, and it is the responsibility of the prospective student to research it. If they can't do that, university probably isn't for them.

[Blutooth]

Under the old system people who did not have the privilege to go to universty would be footing the bill for students. The change to the system is a fair and equitable one.

awaiting the incoming "liberal" negs.