Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

'High quality' unis to increase tuition fees watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Why, because you have to pay a little bit more to provide for the poor.
    Because i'll end up being in EVEN more debt. The scrapping of maintenance grants will already cost students an extra £5,000/£6,000 atleast a year.

    Atleast there are systems that help the poor, the scrapping of maintenance grants/a possible increase in tuition fees will only discourage and penalize those who will actually be making a worthwhile contribution to society and the economy.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Daftpunker)
    You guys hold the power. No one is putting a gun to your head making you go to uni. If you want to see a stop to a rise in fees unite and make a stand and refuse to pay it.
    Hear hear.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazel37)
    Because i'll end up being in EVEN more debt. The scrapping of maintenance grants will already cost students an extra £5,000/£6,000 atleast a year.

    Atleast there are systems that help the poor, the scrapping of maintenance grants/a possible increase in tuition fees will only discourage and penalize those who will actually be making a worthwhile contribution to society and the economy.
    You will only start paying it back once you've started earning enough. It's not any different for those who never had access to grants in the first place.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazel37)
    Because i'll end up being in EVEN more debt. The scrapping of maintenance grants will already cost students an extra £5,000/£6,000 atleast a year.

    Atleast there are systems that help the poor, the scrapping of maintenance grants/a possible increase in tuition fees will only discourage and penalize those who will actually be making a worthwhile contribution to society and the economy.
    I don't agrer with increasing tuition fees but scrapping maintenance grants shouldn't be discouraging. You're already going to have a debt that you won't pay back. Considering what I've heard and seen from people who are entitled to these grants, changing it to a loan will probably bring many back down to Earth about how they spend their money...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazel37)
    Because i'll end up being in EVEN more debt. The scrapping of maintenance grants will already cost students an extra £5,000/£6,000 atleast a year.

    Atleast there are systems that help the poor, the scrapping of maintenance grants/a possible increase in tuition fees will only discourage and penalize those who will actually be making a worthwhile contribution to society and the economy.
    So. You'll only pay the debt if you become rich after uni and can afford to. It will make more of it loans but they only pay it back when they earn enough.

    There is no evidence that fees have made people less likely to apply. In fact the total amount of applications is growing.

    Why do you think a man working as a plumber shiuld have to pay for a son of a millionaire to attend university?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Since most students don't fully pay back the loan and it gets written off after 30 years wouldn't a small increase in tuition fees make very little difference to most students as it is likely to be written off except for those on very high graduate salaries and be more beneficial to the universities who are in need of funding? Furthermore, graduates from low income households are paying less back than when tuition fees were lower so they aren't the ones that need to be worried unless they end up becoming very successful and at that point their parents low gross income becomes less important.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LordGaben)
    Since most students don't fully pay back the loan and it gets written off after 30 years wouldn't a small increase in tuition fees make very little difference to most students as it is likely to be written off except for those on very high graduate salaries and be more beneficial to the universities who are in need of funding?
    The Guardian actually did the maths once and found that the increase to £9,000 p/a did not actually result in any increased income for the universities, because less people manage to actually pay it off. So any increase is totally pointless.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sir Fox)
    The Guardian actually did the maths once and found that the increase to £9,000 p/a did not actually result in any increased income for the universities, because less people manage to actually pay it off. So any increase is totally pointless.
    Really? Wouldnt not paying it off be a loss for government rather than the uni itself?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    So. You'll only pay the debt if you become rich after uni and can afford to. It will make more of it loans but they only pay it back when they earn enough.

    There is no evidence that fees have made people less likely to apply. In fact the total amount of applications is growing.

    Why do you think a man working as a plumber shiuld have to pay for a son of a millionaire to attend university?
    Just because the amount of applications hasn't changed, doesn't make it just to whop a whole load of debt onto students.

    And surely your argument about a plumber paying for a millionaires son to go to university is mute, it costs approximately £50,000 a year to keep a criminal in prison. So surely with your reasoning, why should someone who's never committed a crime have to pay to accommodate and feed a criminal?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazel37)
    Just because the amount of applications hasn't changed, doesn't make it just to whop a whole load of debt onto students.

    And surely your argument about a plumber paying for a millionaires son to go to university is mute, it costs approximately £50,000 a year to keep a criminal in prison. So surely with your reasoning, why should someone who's never committed a crime have to pay to accommodate and feed a criminal?
    The debt only gets paid back if you can afford it though. They don't demand money back from people on the dole you know. I'd also add it's wiped after 30 years so you have to earn a lot to actually pay it all.

    Not really, putting a criminal in prison keeps society safe, sending a millionaires son offers no favour to the working man.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    The debt only gets paid back if you can afford it though. They don't demand money back from people on the dole you know. I'd also add it's wiped after 30 years so you have to earn a lot to actually pay it all.

    Not really, putting a criminal in prison keeps society safe, sending a millionaires son offers no favour to the working man.
    I know you only pay it back when you get paid over £21,000 and it gets wiped after 30 years. It still doens't change the fact that even just by doing a bachelors degree you'll come out with £50,000-£60,000 of debt.
    Maybe the working man should be less selfish and put the future of his country first.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazel37)
    I know you only pay it back when you get paid over £21,000 and it gets wiped after 30 years. It still doens't change the fact that even just by doing a bachelors degree you'll come out with £50,000-£60,000 of debt.
    Maybe the working man should be less selfish and put the future of his country first.
    Well you only pay it back if you earn a sizeable amount.

    hahahahahahaha. You're happy to tax people who can barely afford to live just to pay for some posh snobs uni fees.

    Why should university be free anyhow?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by United1892)
    Well you only pay it back if you earn a sizeable amount.

    hahahahahahaha. You're happy to tax people who can barely afford to live just to pay for some posh snobs uni fees.

    Why should university be free anyhow?
    University shouldn't be free, I never said that. I just think they should have kept it how it was, before scrapping maintenance grants.

    First of all, if your parents earn over a certain amount, the student wont get any maintenance grant. So really it doesn't make a difference if the student comes from a rich family or not. Maybe you should stop character-assassinating people.
    Infact, a rich person would be borrowing less, AND the family would be paying more tax. I have a friend and 40% of her family's earnings go to tax.

    Everyones tax is based off what they earn, m8. If someone is earning less, they'll just have to deal with it essentially.
    Why should their lack of success jeopardize someone elses?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I don't even get the point, it's not like they're ever going to actually see anywhere near all of this money paid back. They're increasing it to figures where theyd may as well just keep going, because nobody is ever going to pay them.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazel37)
    University shouldn't be free, I never said that. I just think they should have kept it how it was, before scrapping maintenance grants.

    First of all, if your parents
    earn over a certain amount, the student wont get any maintenance grant. So really it doesn't make a difference if the student comes from a rich family or not. Maybe you should stop character-assassinating people.
    Infact, a rich person would be borrowing less, AND the family would be paying more tax. I have a friend and 40% of her family's earnings go to tax.

    Everyones tax is based off what they earn, m8. If someone is earning less, they'll just have to deal with it essentially.

    Why should their lack of success jeopardize someone elses?
    Well for a start tuition fee rises aren't linked to the maintenance grant. Secondly yes I am aware people over a certain earnings will get smaller loans as they aren't needed. Not everyone can be succesful, without binmen society would be sizeably worse than one without accountants. These people deserve to be able to live penalising them to pay for folly courses like media studies is wrong.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Moleman1996)
    I don't even get the point, it's not like they're ever going to actually see anywhere near all of this money paid back. They're increasing it to figures where theyd may as well just keep going, because nobody is ever going to pay them.
    Some People will pay them back. Basically it gets money from those who succeed from the education.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Puddles the Monkey)
    Is this a return to a two tier system where the best education is a reserve for the wealthiest?
    Nope. I think it's a bad idea to increase the costs, but it's not reserving the best education for the wealthiest.

    For your student loan, you pay back a % of your wages up until a certain amount of years before it gets wiped off. It has nothing to do with your background or previous wealth - remember that in England you don't pay your student loan back until you're earning.

    That means that everybody has the same opportunities. People paying the higher amounts will probably be doing degrees or going to universities that are likely to get them high paying jobs, therefore they will be able to pay back the student loan. Think about it - most people do have to borrow money. It's a tiny proportion that don't. And in the end the people paying the higher amounts obviously all have the same chance at a higher paying job, so can afford to pay for the higher costs.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hazel37)
    I have a friend and 40% of her family's earnings go to tax.
    Thank you for writing all of that. My family are in the 40% tax bracket, but it doesn't mean we're rich. My sister still has a student loan for her tuition fees, still has a maintenance loan and still has to have a job to pay for her rent and her food and her clothes.

    My parents can't afford to just give her money for her rent, etc. In fact, they can't give her any at all, so she works incredibly long hours evening/weekends to pay for her living costs because of her pitifully small maintenance loan. Then there's her friend - whose dad pays her £300 a month - that gets the full maintenance grant.

    It's all based on incomings, not assets, etc, and people aren't as well off as others think they are. It's a stupid system and quite frankly unfair.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    The Tory's would struggle to lose much more support from young people so I think they just don't give a crap anymore about how there policy's will affect young people's lives. I think there are two pretty obvious ways in which this could be bad for young people, for one, it could put some off even attempting to apply to some top universities due to extra cost. Also I think what the Labour spokesperson said about a two tier system is absolutely right - that should not be allowed to happen.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by celloel)
    Thank you for writing all of that. My family are in the 40% tax bracket, but it doesn't mean we're rich. My sister still has a student loan for her tuition fees, still has a maintenance loan and still has to have a job to pay for her rent and her food and her clothes.

    My parents can't afford to just give her money for her rent, etc. In fact, they can't give her any at all, so she works incredibly long hours evening/weekends to pay for her living costs because of her pitifully small maintenance loan. Then there's her friend - whose dad pays her £300 a month - that gets the full maintenance grant.

    It's all based on incomings, not assets, etc, and people aren't as well off as others think they are. It's a stupid system and quite frankly unfair.
    If your family's in the 40% tax bracket they've got access to far, far more resources than most in Britain. Rest assured they could have planned how to save for their children's maintenance at university, they've just prioritised something else. I find it hard to argue that people substantially poorer than you should pay higher taxes to fund something your own family is unwilling to prioritise.

    The system is deeply flawed, and I do believe we should try to move back towards a system with non-means assessed support, but it's hardly the biggest injstice in the world. Quite often I find it's middle-class children having a fairly hard time at university because of it, whereas the poorest back home are a lot more comfortable. The middle class students are quick to complain it's so grossly unfair they have to work long hours or can only afford the bare necessities for three years of uni, but very seldomly show any support, solidarity or even recognition for the fact that the working class ones have been in families suffering this for the first eighteen years of their life - and what's more had no choice in this compared to people who could have chosen to get a job for a couple of years before uni and saved up to enjoy a more comfortable time. Sure, I'm relatively comfortable at uni now and glad for that, but my mum couldn't have supported me financially at all and I suffered plenty from poverty before I came here - no heating in cold winters because we couldn't afford to have a boiler fixed, no-frills dinners for me and my brother whilst our mum barely ate, having to divert time from studying to babysit at weekends so she can hurt which probably cost me a place at Cambridge. Sorry to rant, but I have never, ever seen any of the chilren from middle-class families who have to actually watch their spending and struggle for the first time in their lives to get what they want realise in the slightest that the "lucky" students they moan about have suffered worse for their entire lives with no choice whatsoever in the matter for them.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.