University tuition fees set to rise again

Original post by Betelgeuse-

What?

Well for it to be a lifetime of debt they need to die before 51 (normally), i.e. before the loan is written off, and it's hardly insecure on the part of the student.

Reply 162

EuanF

2

Leave EU, recover £11.5bn a year, single biggest cut to deficit in a long time, we can subsidise our universities again, bish bash bosh

Reply 163

Original post by pol pot noodles

The graduate tax proposals reviewed by the Browne report, including one endorsed by the NUS, were only to be levied on new graduates. It's not a sustainable method since it would take until 2040 to raise enough money to fund the system.
Bitching about the end of the gravy train that others enjoyed isn't a compelling argument.

Did you miss the fact that I was on the gravy train? Am I not allowed to point out the injustice that what I got for free is now charged for?

A small graduate tax was politically unattractive but would have been fairer. Browne had his remit made very narrow to rule out any suggestion that previous beneficiaries should contribute.

Reply 164

Original post by EuanF

Leave EU, recover £11.5bn a year, single biggest cut to deficit in a long time, we can subsidise our universities again, bish bash bosh

You think any gains would go to students who don't vote :nope:

Reply 165

AverageExcellence

20

I thought i was unlucky being the first generation to be paying 9k a year... its getting ridiculous now, they say only 'top unis' will increase their price but its obvious pretty much all of them will,

Reply 166

EuanF

2

Original post by PQ

You think any gains would go to students who don't vote :nope:

Ah yes, all the under-18 population in universities

Reply 167

Original post by EuanF

Ah yes, all the under-18 population in universities

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2613/How-Britain-Voted-in
turnout for 18-24 year olds 44%
turnout for 65+ year olds 76%

Who do you think is the priority for any extra funds a government has?

Reply 168

EuanF

2

Original post by PQ

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2613/How-Britain-Voted-in
turnout for 18-24 year olds 44%
turnout for 65+ year olds 76%

Who do you think is the priority for any extra funds a government has?

The issue here is the rest of the student population needs to get its **** together and vote. It's not the government's fault you're too lazy to vote.

Reply 169

Original post by EuanF

The issue here is the rest of the student population needs to get its **** together and vote. It's not the government's fault you're too lazy to vote.

And it's not my fault that you're naive enough to
a) bring the EU referendum up in a debate on student finance
b) think that there would be any funds available in the short term following an out vote (this increase is scheduled for 2017 entry, the negotiations in the event of an out vote are likely to take 2 years before we're officially out and would get the windfall you're expecting)
c) think that any government would prioritise spending on a demographic that don't vote (and when they do tend to vote for other parties)

Reply 170

Original post by PQ

Unless you have to pay a deposit on accommodation, and find money up front to travel somewhere with what little you have (with no car), and then your parents have to pay extra in order to keep your spare room in social housing so they move into a smaller property and you have to find extra accommodation to cover all the holidays and can't go home for christmas anymore, or your family are reliant on your income to cover their rent and so you end up working more than recommended while studying to cover your own costs and theirs and you end up struggling to get by and your studies suffer etc etc.

Tuition fees and expenses while AT university aren't the only financial barriers to study.

It's true that there's no evidence SO FAR that the increase in fees has had an impact on participation...but there have been drops beyond what would be expected due to population changes in application rates for 2016 entry from English applicants...and it was always expected that students who had gone through their A levels or GCSEs with university as their planned destination were less likely to change course due to fees - the real impact will take longer to feed through in decisions on which GCSEs to take, whether to stay on for study post 16 or take up an apprenticeship or training position. Add in the massive cuts to funding of FE colleges that have come in with curriculum reform and it is very likely that applicant numbers and demand from english students will fall off a cliff over the next few years.

Maintenance loans are more generous now than they have ever been while tuition fees aren't paid upfront.
You can't argue that the current system would make going to university more of a struggle now. Free tuition wouldn't change anything you mentioned in your extreme scenario.

Reply 171

Original post by PQ

Did you miss the fact that I was on the gravy train? Am I not allowed to point out the injustice that what I got for free is now charged for?

A small graduate tax was politically unattractive but would have been fairer. Browne had his remit made very narrow to rule out any suggestion that previous beneficiaries should contribute.

You would be if it was an injustice. It isn't. I'm not on the gravy train and I couldn't care less. The government is subbing me 50k at generous terms to better myself, where exactly is the great injustice?

A small graduate tax would have been fairer if you're only talking in terms of graduates, but the current system is fairer in terms of graduates vs school leavers.

Reply 172

TimmonaPortella

Original post by pol pot noodles

A small graduate tax would have been fairer if you're only talking in terms of graduates, but the current system is fairer in terms of graduates vs school leavers.

Fairer? So that the people who make use of their degrees to get into highly paid fields pay ever more, whilst those who make less productive use of their degrees pay proportionally less? This seems rather perverse to me, even leaving aside those who achieve financial success without relying on their degrees.

If I thought I had to pay an infinite sum for a finite service in this way I'd at least seriously consider getting out of the country. Many of our top graduates would.

Reply 173

Doones

Original post by Jam3898

When is the rise? If it starts next session then my parents won't let me take a gap year. FML

This news has come from a White Paper which means nothing has been decided. It's for discussion.

But even if it came into force for 2017 the max fee increase is only in line with inflation, currently 0.3%. Let's just say, though, inflation increases to 1% then you would have an additional £90 on a £9000 fee. Hardly going to break the bank...

And you don't pay it in cash up front - it's entirely covered by the SFE loan.

It doesn't affect your parents, or your ability to take a gap year.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 174

Original post by TimmonaPortella

Fairer? So that the people who make use of their degrees to get into highly paid fields pay ever more, whilst those who make less productive use of their degrees pay proportionally less? This seems rather perverse to me, even leaving aside those who achieve financial success without relying on their degrees.

If I thought I had to pay an infinite sum for a finite service in this way I'd at least seriously consider getting out of the country. Many of our top graduates would.

I don't understand your argument. Those who earn the most paying the most back into the system is the bedrock of a progressive society.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 175

Juichiro

18

Original post by Rock Fan

What do we all think of this
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/student-tuition-fees-set-to-rise-as-government-unveils-university-teaching-reforms-a7030671.html

It was expected. Given the current state of affairs, fees will just increase over time.

Original post by Airmed

I think it is ridiculous, imo. Instead of upping the fees, why can't they bring back the caps on the amount of students universities can accept?

You mean university students?

Original post by ZiggyStarDust_

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

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

3. 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.

4. 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?

1. That's naive. Someone has to pay for it. Either you or the tax payer.
2. Irrelevant. You are given loan. You don't pay upfront.
3. Again, she doesn't seem to understand how it works. See point 2.
4. Irrelevant. Poor people can still go to uni. See point 2.

Reply 176

TimmonaPortella

Original post by pol pot noodles

I don't understand your argument. Those who earn the most paying the most back into the system is the bedrock of a progressive society.

My argument is perfectly clear: that it is perverse that I should pay more for the same service than someone who squandered it solely on the basis that I used it productively.

Those who earn more already pay much more into the system. We don't particularly need to add to that with an unfair tax tied perversely to a specific service.

Reply 177

Original post by TimmonaPortella

My argument is perfectly clear: that it is perverse that I should pay more for the same service than someone who squandered it solely on the basis that I used it productively.

Those who earn more already pay much more into the system. We don't particularly need to add to that with an unfair tax tied perversely to a specific service.

You sound like one of those CEOs who claim that they worked hard to get where they are, implying that everyone else that isn't a multimillionaire CEO is simply bone idle.

Reply 178

Sportycb

11

Perhaps this won't be popular but we should be grateful for the system we have in place. In America the fees are just as high but they don't have anything like the student loans system which we have in place. If we in the UK are unemployed or have a low salary job we either don't pay our loan back or pay something proportional to what we earn. While in the U.S. they have bank loans where they must pay back lump sums every month and with a high amount of interest, no matter what their circumstances are. This is the same for many countries in the world.

For instance I graduated nearly 4 years ago (scary!) and I have paid back little of my student loan because I have never made the minimum salary and in all honesty I probably won't pay back even my maintance loan back let alone my tuition fees loan before it is wiped in 15 or years' or so time. (Assuming things continue as they are of course). Consequently I am very grateful of the system in place and I think an increase in fees will only affect a few people as a whole. So long as it is proportional to how much you earn I can't see how most people will pay it all back no matter how much they earn. The people who would be most effected are those who have very high salaries and have to pay a far high proportion back.

Reply 179

TimmonaPortella