Maintenance grants replaced with loans for new students

What are you talking about. This simply isn't true. Even with a master degree from Cambridge, I need to work a few years before I can have enough points to move to Australia.

Free education means that students from poorer backgrounds who would otherwise be deterred are more likely to take part. The taxation rates do not change, it means the distribution of government expenditure changes.

If your logic held true: under the new proposed changes, even less would be recouped as people would leave the UK, potentially even to countries where their absolute income is lower but their standard of living is higher. However, in reality, very few British people migrate, namely because we don't learn languages well so we don't have much mobility.

In sum, you are chatting ****.

Posted from TSR Mobile

So? They are getting extra money at the point that they need it (before starting at uni), but are not being subsidised by the taxpayer in the future after they have graduated and should be independent adults who are capable of earning their own money.

x

Why would they be deterred?You only pay back the money when you earn above £21000 paying £90 for each extra £1000 you earn.If they are being deterred its because of what those against tuition fees are incorrectly stating.

The current system actually helps improve access for poor people as Universities use the extra money to fund grants and bursaries to improve access(they actually have to ensure they do this for them to be allowed to charge fees).

In Scotland, where tuition is free, not as many poor people are attending their Universities due to them not being able to afford as good funding for them and the free tuition is paid for from English students studying in Scotland and from them getting a proportion of the money spent by English Universities on tuition fees as this is counted as expenditure.

I don't get why people believe the poor should pay for the middle class/rich as thats what free tuition fees it means they'll be paying for it with their taxes,while they never got to go themselves.Tuition fees will help to lower the inequality between these two groups as a lot of the middle class/rich will be paying back their tuition fees, which they should for the education that enabled them to earn much more than the poor.

What? It was obviously an example. You can change Australia for Germany. The specific example is not important. My point, which I think I made clear, is that geographical mobility is facilitated by acquiring a degree, and in today's increasingly globalised economy there are less incentives to limit oneself to a specific national labour market.



You're making false assumptions. I agree that Higher Education should be available for all of those who meet the conditions set by any University. If an educational system prevents students from low income families to access higher education, then it is a poor system. This can be solved by higher loans and lower interest rates.

And where exactly would you cut if you're not increasing taxes? The Defence Budget is at 2.21%. NATO requires it to be set at 2%. The current government wants to further increase Defence Spending, which I disagree with, but still, 0.21% is not enough.



What do you mean by 'less would be recouped'? If higher education is free at the point of use, there will be nothing to recoup. You can't recoup less than nothing.

As for the scenario you provided, you'll have a lot of trouble finding such a place (give me an example).



'We' don't learn languages well'. You make it sound like it is a factory setting. Besides, English is the international language. You don't need to know Swedish, German, Dutch or Portuguese to find work in private companies in the capital cities of any of these countries.

You also have less trouble accessing the labour markets of Australia, Canada and the US.

No your point is incorrect. We have left the EU (not that the average person was mobile anyway) because of linguistic barriers.

You can cut university places and make the process more rigorous, you can restructure pensions, you can become more efficient in defence spending. Why do we need 0.21%? There are plenty of places to restructure , I don't even need to list.

You are absolutely deluded, if you want to work in France in any bank, consultancy or indeed most jobs, you need French. Same applies in Germany, etc. Moving to US? Have you ever looked into the green card system? Same with Canada and AUS, I can barely move with two tops degrees and I've actively tried, never mind the average person.

If you are banging on about a globalising world, you will understand that everyone can speak English - Slovak or China man. What skills do you have to offer to a Chinese firm or Slovak firm?

Recoup from the loan payments. It's free at the point of use but students pay bsck on their loans.


Posted from TSR Mobile

The average person in the UK barely understands how interest works, never mind look at loan conditions in such detail. What you say, is also vastly incorrect, it's not a flat £90, you yourself don't understand, validating my point.

What grants and tuition fees? These are being eroded away.

Your arguments make no sense. Why would the poor pay? Are they not having children that may want to go to university? They too go free. If you are earning more, you are already taxed more. Why should people keep paying for learning etc. Furthermore, if you're that rich, you wouldn't even take a loan with interest payments. Only middle to poorer children take loans.

Posted from TSR Mobile

I was just wondering what you mean having two top degrees. I graduated in 2010 with 17500 in debt, interest rates rose every year, now my debt is 21,910. What worries me is new graduates willl leave with high debts and higher intrest rates. Ive have had jobs but not enough to pay my loan, id love to be able to get a high paid job to start paying off my loan.

Well, I went to Warwick and Cambridge. Not going to say my subjects but two prestigious (strong) ones. I won't struggle to get a job, but if I wanted to move countries as is being argued, it's not easy, there are lots of immigration/linguistic restriction.

I totally agree. I went with grants etc and my loan will still be around £35k.
For new students, hitting £51k+, that's a lot.

Were they both undergraduate degrees,

I can't say it's a bad thing. I qualified for full maintenance grants on top of the standard loans when I went to university and I reckon about 80% of my grant money ended up in an ISA. I had way more disposable money than students who didn't qualify for grants.

At least with this change students will think about whether they actually need to take out the maximum loan amount and as such have less money being wasted. The student lifestyle of binge drinking, nightly meals out, hanging around in £3 per drink coffee shops and constant two mile taxi trips really shouldn't be funded by the tax payer. I had so much spare cash at the end of university because I didn't waste it on such ****.

The real tragedy is that universities feel they can justify charging £9k+ in tuition fees for what tends to amount to about 20 hours per week sat in a room with 100 other people listening to a guy reading PowerPoint slides. The fees were £3k per year when I went to university and I definitely didn't feel like I got my money's worth.

No your point is incorrect. We have left the EU (not that the average person was mobile anyway) because of linguistic barriers.

You are absolutely deluded, if you want to work in France in any bank, consultancy or indeed most jobs, you need French. Same applies in Germany, etc. Moving to US? Have you ever looked into the green card system? Same with Canada and AUS, I can barely move with two tops degrees and I've actively tried, never mind the average person.

If you are banging on about a globalising world, you will understand that everyone can speak English - Slovak or China man. What skills do you have to offer to a Chinese firm or Slovak firm?