Tuition Fees Under Review: PM proposes to cut tuition fee cost for some courses
Scroll to see replies
Differentiating between different 'classes' and different courses is something that really irritates me. I'm on the lowest maintenance loan (which is barely enough to pay half of my uni accommodation) while my parents are espected to pay the rest, despite one of them being on an unsteady no-contract paid by hour job and the other being taxed more than half of their earnings - while having to provide for elderly grandparents and rising bills. One of my parents' blood pressure is high due to stress and they've had a few health scares - I feel really guilty having to ask for extra from them (causing more stress) after they've already done so much.
I think all students should be treated the same - it's not fair to expect our parents to pay for everything, when we're legally adults after the age of 18, and there's so many ways in which people can exploit the system regardless of any changes the government make.
Another thing I hate to say, but what's the point of parents paying for private school for their children if more and more concessions are being made for state school students? Personally, I'm in favour of the old grammar school/ secondary modern system - it gives disadvantaged students a better chance without impacting on those of us at private schools.
Honestly the whole system just makes me quite worried and annoyed
I think all students should be treated the same - it's not fair to expect our parents to pay for everything, when we're legally adults after the age of 18, and there's so many ways in which people can exploit the system regardless of any changes the government make.
Another thing I hate to say, but what's the point of parents paying for private school for their children if more and more concessions are being made for state school students? Personally, I'm in favour of the old grammar school/ secondary modern system - it gives disadvantaged students a better chance without impacting on those of us at private schools.
Honestly the whole system just makes me quite worried and annoyed
Original post by Loralite
Differentiating between different 'classes' and different courses is something that really irritates me. I'm on the lowest maintenance loan (which is barely enough to pay half of my uni accommodation) while my parents are espected to pay the rest, despite one of them being on an unsteady no-contract paid by hour job and the other being taxed more than half of their earnings - while having to provide for elderly grandparents and rising bills. One of my parents' blood pressure is high due to stress and they've had a few health scares - I feel really guilty having to ask for extra from them (causing more stress) after they've already done so much.
I think all students should be treated the same - it's not fair to expect our parents to pay for everything, when we're legally adults after the age of 18, and there's so many ways in which people can exploit the system regardless of any changes the government make.
Another thing I hate to say, but what's the point of parents paying for private school for their children if more and more concessions are being made for state school students? Personally, I'm in favour of the old grammar school/ secondary modern system - it gives disadvantaged students a better chance without impacting on those of us at private schools.
Honestly the whole system just makes me quite worried and annoyed
I think all students should be treated the same - it's not fair to expect our parents to pay for everything, when we're legally adults after the age of 18, and there's so many ways in which people can exploit the system regardless of any changes the government make.
Another thing I hate to say, but what's the point of parents paying for private school for their children if more and more concessions are being made for state school students? Personally, I'm in favour of the old grammar school/ secondary modern system - it gives disadvantaged students a better chance without impacting on those of us at private schools.
Honestly the whole system just makes me quite worried and annoyed
What concessions made for state school students?
Original post by Helloworld_95
If you're basing it upon benefit to economy that could end up with fees for less valuable degrees going up as they arguably have a lower benefit to the economy
Agreed to that extent.
Original post by Nathan.Brown.00
Your constructive criticism of the proposal suggests that you dislike the way in which Student Loans (since it is in effect, a tax) are paid.
So I assumed that you would rather tuition be free, my bad.
However, how would the UK decide whether a graduate can afford to pay for it in a way that wouldn't have lots of loopholes.
Should we factor income after housing and Income Taxes/NICs/other have been paid?
So I assumed that you would rather tuition be free, my bad.
However, how would the UK decide whether a graduate can afford to pay for it in a way that wouldn't have lots of loopholes.
Should we factor income after housing and Income Taxes/NICs/other have been paid?
I agree that the existing system works just like an earnings tax - this is exactly what I dislike about it; the whole emphasis is simply on their earnings, and not their financial stability nor financial security - which I think is a far useful measure (I'd also argue that prioritising a graduate's financial security is more important to the health of the economy than trying to get those graduates to repay their loan, but that's a different subject altogether)
I'd want to see the entire focus of the loan repayment system changing to put serious consideration towards a person's financial security and stability, and offer graduates the option to take an assessment similar to that of a commercial credit check, as a way to provide evidence to the SLC related to their rent payments, assets, savings, pension, debts, dependents (e.g. children, disabled family members), job security, etc. That probably wouldn't change anything for a majority of graduates who are in a good position anyway, but it would change a lot for the ones nearer the bottom. I don't think it's too difficult to do this because credit agencies do this all the time when assessing people for eligibility on commercial finance.
Sure that means a "loophole" would be that a graduate might deliberately go out of their way to spend their entire life being financially insecure to avoid repaying the loan, but they can do that already, and they'd be the ones who would spend their life suffering from it, so it's not a very good loophole.
I don't think this would reduce the amount of money that the SLC would recover either, it might actually increase it if the SLC were being more supportive of those people to encourage them to make the right financial choices in their life. If it means they reach a point earlier in their life where they're actively paying for their own mortgage instead of paying for somebody else's through private rents, then they're more likely to be in a position to eventually repay their loan in full.
If a graduate wouldn't be eligible for equivalent commercial loan repayments without a guarantor, then IMO there's no way the SLC should be expecting that graduate to make their repayments either. I'd like to see the SLC offer some realistic, helpful alternatives, such as allowing graduates to "freeze" their loan if they can prove that they're making significant payments into a Help-to-Buy account or a Lifetime ISA (used for a deposit on a house), until they are in a position where they'd pass the eligibility checks for commercial loans without a guarantor.
Original post by Helloworld_95
those at unis with more expensive living costs e.g. the London unis, Durham, Brighton, etc.
I will just say, this is definitely true for Durham re college accommodation. But if you look in Gilesgate, you can get a place from 45-65 per week w minimal/no travel cost. You can do this through all your years, or just years 2-3 for eg a three-year degree.
I know this is being picky lol and insider knowledge, and the general point you made is true (especially if we are discussing college cost which is horrifically high and for this reason a lot of people including myself are priced out of it) but it isn't true that living in Durham through a landlord is extortionately expensive. At least relative to parts of the South and especially London it's manageable.
Of course, it goes without saying, that pricing a person out of the "college experience" (the part linked with living in college, or living next to a cathedral, not so much the education or event) isn't fair. And a lot of the housing on the Durham market is poor quality, and landlords have started to take a hint and hike their prices.
On a wider scale, this is really part of systemic inequality. There are people out there making millions and billions, contributing nothing and giving back nothing. People who have fat salaries and engage in corrupt business practices (eg tax evasion/fraud such as that whole scandal with Google). On the whole, graduates of universities, unless they come from a very wealthy background, are not going to be among the highest earners and will earn likely less than their parents - most of them will never pay back the debt, especially with inflation. Why then can't the top 1-5% pay more tax to pay for this? Why won't big corporations with millions contribute something to education? Why does it have to land in the hands of the slightly-better-off-but-far-from-wealthy?
(edited 6 years ago)
Voting no because it still sets an uneven precedent. Humanities at Oxford will now cost less than, say, an Engineering degree at Keele. I think lowering tuition fees and increasing the standard maintenance loan are the right moves, but in line with the original question, is the point here that degrees that cost less to run should be cheaper? So what happens to nurses, medics, scientists and engineers who are in the expensive degrees? I can understand the anger that Law students pay the same as medics though.
Ironically though I'd imagine one of the future big benefactors would be....politicians. Cheaper fees for Oxford/Cambridge
Ironically though I'd imagine one of the future big benefactors would be....politicians. Cheaper fees for Oxford/Cambridge
Original post by Dalek1099
This isn't true for many students because the accomodation costs are becoming so high in many Universities, about £7000 a year at Durham not far below the full Student Finance, that poor students will no longer be able to afford many Universities because poor students also have many other costs to pay for like paying their parents when they come home outside term time because their parents can't afford to pay for them while they at home even.
Literally the rest of the paragraph you quoted was me talking about how I could see that wouldn't be true for students at unis with high accommodation costs, I actually named Durham as one example...
Original post by Roving Fish
PS. I'm one of those arts students that some other people in this thread don't seem to think exist - graduated and in a well paid job that contributes to society. 
Sorry btw, I was that "other people". Just wondering, what do you do now?
Original post by winterscoming
I agree that the existing system works just like an earnings tax - this is exactly what I dislike about it; the whole emphasis is simply on their earnings, and not their financial stability nor financial security - which I think is a far useful measure (I'd also argue that prioritising a graduate's financial security is more important to the health of the economy than trying to get those graduates to repay their loan, but that's a different subject altogether)
I'd want to see the entire focus of the loan repayment system changing to put serious consideration towards a person's financial security and stability, and offer graduates the option to take an assessment similar to that of a commercial credit check, as a way to provide evidence to the SLC related to their rent payments, assets, savings, pension, debts, dependents (e.g. children, disabled family members), job security, etc. That probably wouldn't change anything for a majority of graduates who are in a good position anyway, but it would change a lot for the ones nearer the bottom. I don't think it's too difficult to do this because credit agencies do this all the time when assessing people for eligibility on commercial finance.
Sure that means a "loophole" would be that a graduate might deliberately go out of their way to spend their entire life being financially insecure to avoid repaying the loan, but they can do that already, and they'd be the ones who would spend their life suffering from it, so it's not a very good loophole.
I don't think this would reduce the amount of money that the SLC would recover either, it might actually increase it if the SLC were being more supportive of those people to encourage them to make the right financial choices in their life. If it means they reach a point earlier in their life where they're actively paying for their own mortgage instead of paying for somebody else's through private rents, then they're more likely to be in a position to eventually repay their loan in full.
If a graduate wouldn't be eligible for equivalent commercial loan repayments without a guarantor, then IMO there's no way the SLC should be expecting that graduate to make their repayments either. I'd like to see the SLC offer some realistic, helpful alternatives, such as allowing graduates to "freeze" their loan if they can prove that they're making significant payments into a Help-to-Buy account or a Lifetime ISA (used for a deposit on a house), until they are in a position where they'd pass the eligibility checks for commercial loans without a guarantor.
I'd want to see the entire focus of the loan repayment system changing to put serious consideration towards a person's financial security and stability, and offer graduates the option to take an assessment similar to that of a commercial credit check, as a way to provide evidence to the SLC related to their rent payments, assets, savings, pension, debts, dependents (e.g. children, disabled family members), job security, etc. That probably wouldn't change anything for a majority of graduates who are in a good position anyway, but it would change a lot for the ones nearer the bottom. I don't think it's too difficult to do this because credit agencies do this all the time when assessing people for eligibility on commercial finance.
Sure that means a "loophole" would be that a graduate might deliberately go out of their way to spend their entire life being financially insecure to avoid repaying the loan, but they can do that already, and they'd be the ones who would spend their life suffering from it, so it's not a very good loophole.
I don't think this would reduce the amount of money that the SLC would recover either, it might actually increase it if the SLC were being more supportive of those people to encourage them to make the right financial choices in their life. If it means they reach a point earlier in their life where they're actively paying for their own mortgage instead of paying for somebody else's through private rents, then they're more likely to be in a position to eventually repay their loan in full.
If a graduate wouldn't be eligible for equivalent commercial loan repayments without a guarantor, then IMO there's no way the SLC should be expecting that graduate to make their repayments either. I'd like to see the SLC offer some realistic, helpful alternatives, such as allowing graduates to "freeze" their loan if they can prove that they're making significant payments into a Help-to-Buy account or a Lifetime ISA (used for a deposit on a house), until they are in a position where they'd pass the eligibility checks for commercial loans without a guarantor.
I see what you mean now, that could indeed be possible.
Original post by PQ
They could implement a graduate tax on people who went through university before fees existed and when everything was funded through grants...
You might not be able to easily catch 100% of them but you could get enough from the big professions.
You might not be able to easily catch 100% of them but you could get enough from the big professions.
Damian Hinds suggested in the same breath degrees being a.) Shortened by a third, b.) students commuting for them and c.) Students working jobs alongside them. He essentially wants to take away the students time for actually studying!
id say cut fees on courses producing skilled workers like doctors, engineers and scientists
It's pretty much the worst possible system you could feasibly devise. It gives a tax cut that only the richest of graduates would benefit from and does so by cutting money from the grants that go to the poorest applicants.
I have a good grad job lined up, I will pay back a **** ton of money for my education because of it. I am happy to accept this, I have done well purely because of my education, and other people in our society need support more than I need a tax cut!
The only problem with the current system is the regressiveness of the system and the skew to be had on earning decisions due to the interest. The richest graduates pay back far less than middle earners because they pay the loan back sooner and thus aren't subjected to the interest. To me, the only fair policy that is still sustainable enough for the public purse is a graduate tax.
I have a good grad job lined up, I will pay back a **** ton of money for my education because of it. I am happy to accept this, I have done well purely because of my education, and other people in our society need support more than I need a tax cut!
The only problem with the current system is the regressiveness of the system and the skew to be had on earning decisions due to the interest. The richest graduates pay back far less than middle earners because they pay the loan back sooner and thus aren't subjected to the interest. To me, the only fair policy that is still sustainable enough for the public purse is a graduate tax.
Original post by PQ
They’re talking about any review taking a year or more.
It’s more fiddling while Rome burns from the tories.
It’s more fiddling while Rome burns from the tories.
I'm not going to vote in the poll at the top of the thread, because I refuse to give oxygen to what is so obviously mere politicking for the election and in no way a genuine attempt to address university education funding.
There are real problems with the current model - student fees and loans are a broken system that will very likely lead to another economic crash and they bear down heavily on our generation - whilst at the same time denying quality technical education to many. However, I simply don't believe that the Tories are genuinely keen to address these things.
Sadly, Corbyn's promises on student loans were equally shallow.
"With earnings stagnant the write off of student loans means that governments over the next 20 years are going to have a whole in their income compared to forecasts."
This isn't quite right. Read the Institute of Fiscal Studies paper on tuition fees (Paul Johnson).
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/10531
The loan book has been sold off - let's say the loans are worth 3 billion - they are sold for let's say 2 billion, to reflect that the person buying them has to borrow at a higher rate than the government can. But, the government has shifted the risk of the loans not being repaid onto the buyer, who also gets any upside should more
than expected be repaid.
That's how I understood it anyway
He also explains why bursaries for nurses for example were cut - bursaries have to be accounted for in govt debt, but student loans don't
The accounting seems to fiddle the numbers
This isn't quite right. Read the Institute of Fiscal Studies paper on tuition fees (Paul Johnson).
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/10531
The loan book has been sold off - let's say the loans are worth 3 billion - they are sold for let's say 2 billion, to reflect that the person buying them has to borrow at a higher rate than the government can. But, the government has shifted the risk of the loans not being repaid onto the buyer, who also gets any upside should more
than expected be repaid.
That's how I understood it anyway
He also explains why bursaries for nurses for example were cut - bursaries have to be accounted for in govt debt, but student loans don't
The accounting seems to fiddle the numbers
Original post by Puppypower1
The loan book has been sold off - let's say the loans are worth 3 billion - they are sold for let's say 2 billion, to reflect that the person buying them has to borrow at a higher rate than the government can. But, the government has shifted the risk of the loans not being repaid onto the buyer, who also gets any upside should more
than expected be repaid.
than expected be repaid.
They sold £1.7bn of a £43bn total book. And took a £800 million hit in doing so.
https://www.ft.com/content/726e3158-d522-11e7-8c9a-d9c0a5c8d5c9
Original post by Puppypower1
"With earnings stagnant the write off of student loans means that governments over the next 20 years are going to have a whole in their income compared to forecasts."
This isn't quite right. Read the Institute of Fiscal Studies paper on tuition fees (Paul Johnson).
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/10531
The loan book has been sold off - let's say the loans are worth 3 billion - they are sold for let's say 2 billion, to reflect that the person buying them has to borrow at a higher rate than the government can. But, the government has shifted the risk of the loans not being repaid onto the buyer, who also gets any upside should more
than expected be repaid.
That's how I understood it anyway
He also explains why bursaries for nurses for example were cut - bursaries have to be accounted for in govt debt, but student loans don't
The accounting seems to fiddle the numbers
This isn't quite right. Read the Institute of Fiscal Studies paper on tuition fees (Paul Johnson).
https://www.ifs.org.uk/publications/10531
The loan book has been sold off - let's say the loans are worth 3 billion - they are sold for let's say 2 billion, to reflect that the person buying them has to borrow at a higher rate than the government can. But, the government has shifted the risk of the loans not being repaid onto the buyer, who also gets any upside should more
than expected be repaid.
That's how I understood it anyway
He also explains why bursaries for nurses for example were cut - bursaries have to be accounted for in govt debt, but student loans don't
The accounting seems to fiddle the numbers
https://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/treasury-committee/news-parliament-2017/student-loans-report-published-17-19/
"On the impact of student loans on the public finances, the Report concludes:
"- £6–7 billion of annual student loan write-offs are hidden from the deficit
"- Over £6 billion could be written off through the sale of £12 billion of student loans over the next five years "
a £6b+ write off over the next 5 years is not insubstantial.
(and I'm not a "he" )
Original post by Snufkin
Anyone can go to university, too.
Right they can now under the fees system. As soon as you abolish fees you need to cap the number of places. This is seen all over europe including Scotland and it usually results in entrenched privilege with wealthy people going to to the elite unis and community colleges for everyone else.
Those in their 40s did not get the choice to go to uni - most didn't. So why should they pay for 18 year olds to study for 3 years in which most cases it's unnecessary for their career?
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Top universities ‘will turn away more UK students’
- University isn’t as good as it used to be?
- Do you get paid to do a PhD or do you pay to do a Phd? Or both??
- Doing grad medicine?
- Seeking Advice on Student Finance Refusal for Second Degree Funding
- St Andrews 5 year VS England 4 year degrees
- Student Finance Problem- Second Degree
- 2 years of previous study can I get funding for Midwifery?
- Tuition Fee Loan rejected for second degree - but it's an AHP course?
- help with finances, graduate medicine?
- OU funding
- Mature student maintenance loans and grants
- Funding for a PGCE course?
- NHS and Student Finance Wales
- transfer to open university- student finance
- Accelerated Medicine
- veterinary medicine as a second degree
- Medicine 2nd Degree
- maintainance loan for eu students
- self funding university
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%Trending
Last reply 2 weeks ago
Got a third in my second year and the highest I’ve achieved in third year was 55%
