British university fees more expensive than US on average

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/62a1d4e0-9213-11e5-bd82-c1fb87bef7af.html?ftcamp=engage/social_free/news/twitter/movingchart/audengagement&utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social_free&utm_term=news&utm_campaign=movingchart#axzz3sQausdwn


It's no wonder they don't want to give 16/17 yr olds the vote eh?

1) what about our loan system which eventually allows for unpayable debts to be written off...? what about the fact that if you're poorer than average you don't pay the full 9k?
2) so you're implying here that 16/17 year olds will not only vote for this sole issue, but they are selfish with regards to their priorities (e.g. the fact that lowering the fees for individuals will drag down more government resources needed for other areas)? why wouldn't they vote for things in the national interest more so than their fussiness over uni fees which , like I said, are either written off if unpayable, or cheaper if they start out poorer? you're giving me food for thought in terms of *not* thinking that 16/17 year olds having the vote is a good idea. especially if you're implying that 16/17 ear olds don't understand that they're better off under this kind of system than the previous one.

Let's be honest students and 16/17 year olds mostly are selfish.
They don't have a real value of money.
All they hear is £9000 a year plus living fees for uni! That sounds like a lot of money.
What they don't realise is that they will be rewarded via wage differentials in the future (assuming they find a good job and don't have to work in Starbucks). It is publicly acknowledged that those who attend uni earn more than those who don't.
Which is why I don't understand the case for reducing uni frees, or having uni free. We don't need that.
You only pay back your uni loan after earning a certain income, so yes, the low income earners don't leave. And it gets cancelled after a certain amount of years.
University is an investment in your human capital. You do reap what you sow.
16/17 year olds aren't ready- some 18,19, 20+ aren't ready either, but they are adults so we gotta give it to them to be democratic. Reducing the voting age is a whole other issue.

Worth noting thse numbers don't include private universities, which in the US are VERY expensive.

Now how about you consider an alternative argument..can you do that? What's the point in having a one sided view if you cannot consider an alternative before you post?

If you want to look witty, them back up your points with evidence, or something convincing.
Come back when you have something to contribute.
You tell me the other side of the view, and why my view is wrong.
That is how a debate/discussion works.

The absolute figure of student debt doesn't make much difference to anything. The key is to look at what will actually have to be paid, and in what circumstances.

I imagine everyone realises this, but just wants to score points here.

You can't simply look at the absolute value at then make conclusions on which is more expensive. You need to look at the repayment conditions (e.g. interest rates).

More than that, the US economy and the UK economies are entirely different and probably owes to the 320 million US population. Higher education in the US is likely equivalent to a vocational subject at level 3 college course in England for example, in terms of a local college education at any rate. University in the UK is mainly academic or for professionals: teachers, lawyers, doctors, architects etc. Law degrees are post graduate in the US whereas in the UK they're not. So, you need to see the bigger economic picture than to look at things at a micro level..ie university fees.

If we go off the Tory logic, having to pay more tax/fees is a deterrent to 'aspiration' and earning more?

Ah of course, you only care about 'aspiration' when it suits you.