Turn on thread page Beta

Would you still go to university if fees were uncapped ? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by machiavelli123)
    Another perfect example of a policy targeting those on middle incomes. The super rich should be able to pay £30k without any difficulty and those on lower incomes will get non-repayable grants anyway, so won't be affected very much. All it will mean is that those on middle incomes who cannot afford to fork out £30k a year/pay back a collossal loan growing bigger every year with commercial interest rates will be priced out of the uni system. These are the same people who contribute most to the tax system itself (the super rich can afford to find ways to exploit loop holes in the tax system, hence pay practically nothing in tax). It seems rather ironic that those who pay the most tax and hence pay for the grants for poorer students cannot afford to send their own children to uni.

    I would argue that in actual fact it may result in the unis getting less money, if enough middle income students choose not to go to uni. Furthermore, I believe it would lead to a huge decline in the number of students applying for arts subjects which as has been said, may not lead directly on to a job. Anyway, if the fees are raised,it stands to reason that government funded grants will have to rise too, hence the government will have to either pay more, or reduce the number of grants given out.

    The only case where I can see an increase in fees would be beneficial is to discourage people going to uni for the sake of it to do a pointless degree in Eastenders Studies for example.

    When I look back at how good our parents had it, with not tuition fees whatsoever and compare it to the current situation...it makes me want to cry :sigh:
    How about if those on middle incomes paid 3k/5k/10k/15k, depending on where on the middle income scale they were?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Ray_Han)
    A*A*A*= academic merit
    Not necessarily...

    Well if they could give financial aid then that's fine. I doubt most could though without government subsidies.
    Shows the poor state of universities atm then...
    Offline

    14
    Most likely not.
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=im so academic]Not necessarily...



    Shows the poor state of universities atm then...[/QUOTE
    Perhaps, I feel they are underfunded, but simply removing tuition fees is too extreme. Even if there is financial aid it would be up to the uni to offer it. Have a look at my original post if you want.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    No. The quality of teaching and attention paid to undergraduates is not even near to approaching what I would deem fair for such fees. I would study for an Open University degree.

    It is obvious that we should be massively increasing fees for non-UK residents, especially for those from within the EU, and must stop the ridiculous subsidization of Scottish University attendance.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If i feel the price is worth it in the long run then yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ray_Han)
    How about if those on middle incomes paid 3k/5k/10k/15k, depending on where on the middle income scale they were?
    I agree a graded scale would be fairer, however that would lead us into murky waters. For example: If they have more than one child at uni, then they have to pay proportionally more, hence if you and your friend Bob both earn say £50k a year. You have triplets who all go off to uni at the same time, whereas Bob also has 3 kids, but are born with age gaps of 5 years. Then you may be priced out of sending all your kids to uni, whereas Bob may be able to quite happily afford for one to go at a time. Is it fair that your kids cannot go, despite you both having the same income, while his can? Under the current system, you would probably get by, however if each of your children has to pay £10k then the situation is likely to be very different.

    You may argue that parents on middle incomes often pay for their children to go to private school, however that is a matter of choice. When it comes to uni, there isn't an option of a 'private uni', so the same reasoning does not apply in the same way.

    Furthermore, a perhaps far more important point which I forgot to mention in my previous post. There appears to be an underlying assumption that someones parents will automatically be willing to pay the fees if they can afford them. In many circumstances, this is simply not the case. My parents are in the middle income bracket, yet are not contributing anything towards my fees. I have had to take out a student loan, and am not eligible for a grant due to their income. By the proposed system, even with a graded scale, it still discriminates negatively against those whose parents may have a 'comfortable income', but who choose not to spend it on their offspring. It seems unfair that although myself and my friend both recieve no financial support from our parents, he will not have a huge loan to pay off and I will. My parents may represent the more selfish dregs of society, it probably has something to do with the fact that they don't like me...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    1.) BAD idea. From an economic point of view, very few would argue that investment in education and healthcare isn't your best bet on long-term stability and growth.

    2.) I'd prefer the cap raised, yes, than be removed. But despite what someone else said, I'm against removing tuition fees as it will more than proportinally benefit those from higher-income households which could, technically, afford the higher fees.

    3.) I don't think the universities are being greedy, per se, although I do think 30 grand a year's actually a bit much.

    Also remember- despite what many forget, you DO pay a lot more than the 3000 odd pounds a year you think you spend on tuition fees. Whether it be through your loan repayments or taxation.

    The only way I think removing the price cap would work is to provide a massive financial aid and grants system, but the whole point of that is negated by the fact that removing the price caps were a way of minimising the deficit. A loans system could work, but as the OP said, private firms would charge exorbitant commercial rates of interest, and if the govt were to loan it, they might as well have invested it in education in the first place, preserve the current system and simply charge higher interest rates on the student loans.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not unless the service levels of the Universities to the students improved dramatically.

    By this I mean sea change improvements in guarenteed teaching hours; presentation quality improved; personalised 24/7 superfast broadbamd access to high quality media and resources and high quality and regular course feedback and review. Also, I would like to see much better accommodation and general facilities e.g. swimming pools, well groomed and maintained estates and recreactional facilities as the norm.

    At the moment, our universities are very poor on most all of these matters.

    I would also like to see far greater importance on the differentiation between Universities that deliver more academic courses and those delivering vocational courses. Other tertiary education provided to the less well able minds through Colleges with continued high quality support for those capable of learning 'trades'.

    I would like to see those unable to learn effectively supported with either jobs or other government sponsored functions that allow them to live with self respect and dignity.

    I'd also like to see nude "Question Time"

    Thank you
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Apostle)
    Not unless the service levels of the Universities to the students improved dramatically.

    By this I mean sea change improvements in guarenteed teaching hours; presentation quality improved; personalised 24/7 superfast broadbamd access to high quality media and resources and high quality and regular course feedback and review. Also, I would like to see much better accommodation and general facilities e.g. swimming pools, well groomed and maintained estates and recreactional facilities as the norm.

    At the moment, our universities are very poor on most all of these matters.

    I would also like to see far greater importance on the differentiation between Universities that deliver more academic courses and those delivering vocational courses. Other tertiary education provided to the less well able minds through Colleges with continued high quality support for those capable of learning 'trades'.

    I would like to see those unable to learn effectively supported with either jobs or other government sponsored functions that allow them to live with self respect and dignity.

    I'd also like to see nude "Question Time"

    Thank you
    I second this.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Uncapped fees would be better.

    This is how research, teaching and facilities can improve at a far greater rate. Many American unies are rich as fook :P:
    We would get "fair" loans and scholarships obviously.

    Harvard give out a crap load of scholarships for those that are able. Money is not the reason why people don't go to Harvard....

    You think the current fees don't already price people out of going to uni? Student loans, dude.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by llys)
    I second this.
    Why thank you Stanley
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It would be interesting to see what different universities decided to charge. A top uni could charge massive fees, and would perhaps see their prestige and exclusivity go up. Alternatively, a similar university could undercut the competition and charge much less, and would attract a surge in top applicants not wanting to spend so much, and therefore their prestige would go up as well.

    Forget league tables, that would be a true indication of how prestigious a university was, what it could get a away with charging without applicants leaving in their droves
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, just not in this country :ninja:
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    I love how everyone here is assuming that uncapped university fees = 30K per year fees. Can anyone actually prove that that would be the reality?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by machiavelli123)
    I agree a graded scale would be fairer, however that would lead us into murky waters. For example: If they have more than one child at uni, then they have to pay proportionally more, hence if you and your friend Bob both earn say £50k a year. You have triplets who all go off to uni at the same time, whereas Bob also has 3 kids, but are born with age gaps of 5 years. Then you may be priced out of sending all your kids to uni, whereas Bob may be able to quite happily afford for one to go at a time. Is it fair that your kids cannot go, despite you both having the same income, while his can? Under the current system, you would probably get by, however if each of your children has to pay £10k then the situation is likely to be very different.

    You may argue that parents on middle incomes often pay for their children to go to private school, however that is a matter of choice. When it comes to uni, there isn't an option of a 'private uni', so the same reasoning does not apply in the same way.

    Furthermore, a perhaps far more important point which I forgot to mention in my previous post. There appears to be an underlying assumption that someones parents will automatically be willing to pay the fees if they can afford them. In many circumstances, this is simply not the case. My parents are in the middle income bracket, yet are not contributing anything towards my fees. I have had to take out a student loan, and am not eligible for a grant due to their income. By the proposed system, even with a graded scale, it still discriminates negatively against those whose parents may have a 'comfortable income', but who choose not to spend it on their offspring. It seems unfair that although myself and my friend both recieve no financial support from our parents, he will not have a huge loan to pay off and I will. My parents may represent the more selfish dregs of society, it probably has something to do with the fact that they don't like me...
    I have thought about both of those points before. The first could be fairly simple to solve, if allowances are made for loans and fees, e.g if you already have send one kid to uni you get a discount on the second and so on.
    The second one, I agree is very difficult to solve. I really do sympathise with people like you whose parents would actually refuse to support you financially even if you needed their support, as it is in no way your fault. Perhaps granting loans to people like you but with a manageable level of interest to disincentivise people from abusing them, could work? I know it is unfair, and would disadvantage you, so there is probably a better solution out there.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ray_Han)
    I have thought about both of those points before. The first could be fairly simple to solve, if allowances are made for loans and fees, e.g if you already have send one kid to uni you get a discount on the second and so on.
    A fair response to the problem, however, even this if fraught with difficulties. Firstly the problem of determining the size of the 'discount'. Secondly the question of whether the discount only applies if the kids are simultaneously attending uni, or regardless of whether they all go at the same time. It is arguably the case that if the parents prepared in advance for the fees for all the kids to be paid in the same 3/4 years, the implications on their financial circumstances would not differ at all from if the case were that the 3 kids all went in different (non overlapping) years and vice versa.

    Then there is a third point to be considered, the parents pay taxes which fund the places in schools and unis. If they chose to educate their children in the state sector, then they are able to make use of the place they are are paying for. Whereas id they chose to go private, they effectively pay double, for the state school place they do not use and for the private school fees. It would seem that the system in place regarding fees for unis treats students from a lower income family as though they were going to a 'state uni' and students from a middle (or higher) income family as though they are going private, seeing as they are in effect paying for students to get a free education through their taxes, yet they are also forced to pay again for their own kids. There is no choice in the matter and although they paying for the equivalent of private schooling at uni level, they do not recieve any additional benefit from this.

    I totally agree with the principal of making sure that students from poorer backgrounds are not discouraged from attending uni, however consider the following scenario. There are 2 students, student A and student B. Both do the same course at the same uni. A comes from a poor background and thus recieves a grant, B comes from a middle income background and is forced to take a loan. They both achieve the same degree and set off to enter the world of work. Luckily A's grant is non-repayable, however B has a large student loan overshadowing him. They may have had different backgrounds before uni, but after they leave, it is clear that A is in a far more advantageous position. As the student loan is intended to be used by those who cannot afford the fees, I don't see the point of grants for some and not for others. Why is it deemed perfectly acceptable for student B to have to pay off a hefty loan, while not acceptable for A to have this same financial burden? Either get rid of them, or change the threshold to include any who have to take out a loan. I'm not saying grants for the rich, but for those whose families on modest incomes that are currently above the threshold currently for a grant.

    (Original post by Ray_Han)
    The second one, I agree is very difficult to solve. I really do sympathise with people like you whose parents would actually refuse to support you financially even if you needed their support, as it is in no way your fault. Perhaps granting loans to people like you but with a manageable level of interest to disincentivise people from abusing them, could work? I know it is unfair, and would disadvantage you, so there is probably a better solution out there.
    The more I hear from other, the more I realise that I am part of a surprisingly large number of people in a similar situation. It seems to contradict the principle of discriminating people on the basis of their parents. Would it be fair to punish the innocent children of a murderer because of his crimes? If not, why penalise those who derive no benefit from their parents financial status and who on the basis of being related are subjected to a loan (regardless of the interest rate) when others who have acted the same with richer or poorer parents have no such loan whatsoever to worry about?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by machiavelli123)
    A fair response to the problem, however, even this if fraught with difficulties. Firstly the problem of determining the size of the 'discount'. Secondly the question of whether the discount only applies if the kids are simultaneously attending uni, or regardless of whether they all go at the same time. It is arguably the case that if the parents prepared in advance for the fees for all the kids to be paid in the same 3/4 years, the implications on their financial circumstances would not differ at all from if the case were that the 3 kids all went in different (non overlapping) years and vice versa.

    Then there is a third point to be considered, the parents pay taxes which fund the places in schools and unis. If they chose to educate their children in the state sector, then they are able to make use of the place they are are paying for. Whereas id they chose to go private, they effectively pay double, for the state school place they do not use and for the private school fees. It would seem that the system in place regarding fees for unis treats students from a lower income family as though they were going to a 'state uni' and students from a middle (or higher) income family as though they are going private, seeing as they are in effect paying for students to get a free education through their taxes, yet they are also forced to pay again for their own kids. There is no choice in the matter and although they paying for the equivalent of private schooling at uni level, they do not recieve any additional benefit from this.

    I totally agree with the principal of making sure that students from poorer backgrounds are not discouraged from attending uni, however consider the following scenario. There are 2 students, student A and student B. Both do the same course at the same uni. A comes from a poor background and thus recieves a grant, B comes from a middle income background and is forced to take a loan. They both achieve the same degree and set off to enter the world of work. Luckily A's grant is non-repayable, however B has a large student loan overshadowing him. They may have had different backgrounds before uni, but after they leave, it is clear that A is in a far more advantageous position. As the student loan is intended to be used by those who cannot afford the fees, I don't see the point of grants for some and not for others. Why is it deemed perfectly acceptable for student B to have to pay off a hefty loan, while not acceptable for A to have this same financial burden? Either get rid of them, or change the threshold to include any who have to take out a loan. I'm not saying grants for the rich, but for those whose families on modest incomes that are currently above the threshold currently for a grant.



    The more I hear from other, the more I realise that I am part of a surprisingly large number of people in a similar situation. It seems to contradict the principle of discriminating people on the basis of their parents. Would it be fair to punish the innocent children of a murderer because of his crimes? If not, why penalise those who derive no benefit from their parents financial status and who on the basis of being related are subjected to a loan (regardless of the interest rate) when others who have acted the same with richer or poorer parents have no such loan whatsoever to worry about?
    For your first two points if we go into the technicalities, my system, if implemented exactly as I said, would probably not work so well. It is more the idea I am proposing and things like that could be ironed out if this were to come into effect.
    Sorry if I have misunderstood your third point, but I have interpreted it as those whose who choose to send their private schools having to pay double, for both private and state education at school level and again they pay more for uni education. Well that is the nature of wealth distribution in this country; the wealthy subsidise the poor, this is also seen in the NHS where those with private healthcare still pay national insurance. It would be too politically damaging to change that.
    For the point about the grant, if the grant threshhold was increased, then you could say the same for people above the threshhold, and so the line would have to be drawn somewhere. Perhaps it should be higher.
    In your scenario if B had a hefty loan, it is only repayable over a salary of £15000. Ideally the loan would not be so hefty due to help from parents when paying for fees, and this is the main problem with the whole system. If a solution could be found for this lack of parental support and the difficult (and totally undeserved) situation it would leave the kids in, the system could work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by machiavelli123)
    I agree a graded scale would be fairer, however that would lead us into murky waters. For example: If they have more than one child at uni, then they have to pay proportionally more, hence if you and your friend Bob both earn say £50k a year. You have triplets who all go off to uni at the same time, whereas Bob also has 3 kids, but are born with age gaps of 5 years. Then you may be priced out of sending all your kids to uni, whereas Bob may be able to quite happily afford for one to go at a time. Is it fair that your kids cannot go, despite you both having the same income, while his can? Under the current system, you would probably get by, however if each of your children has to pay £10k then the situation is likely to be very different.

    You may argue that parents on middle incomes often pay for their children to go to private school, however that is a matter of choice. When it comes to uni, there isn't an option of a 'private uni', so the same reasoning does not apply in the same way.

    Furthermore, a perhaps far more important point which I forgot to mention in my previous post. There appears to be an underlying assumption that someones parents will automatically be willing to pay the fees if they can afford them. In many circumstances, this is simply not the case. My parents are in the middle income bracket, yet are not contributing anything towards my fees. I have had to take out a student loan, and am not eligible for a grant due to their income. By the proposed system, even with a graded scale, it still discriminates negatively against those whose parents may have a 'comfortable income', but who choose not to spend it on their offspring. It seems unfair that although myself and my friend both recieve no financial support from our parents, he will not have a huge loan to pay off and I will. My parents may represent the more selfish dregs of society, it probably has something to do with the fact that they don't like me...

    A professor from Warwick Business School wrote about how uncapping tuition fees would benefit universities and the poor, whilst neglecting the middle classes. I mentioned most of what you have written to him, to which he simply replied in an email 'thanks'. Literally, i wrote him an essay and this is how the ******** replied.

    I dont think universities care about undergrads, they tend to care more about themsleves and postgraduates, a mentality which i fear will cause the cap to be lifted completely.....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    No, I would not be able to afford it.

    My family would go back to generations of intelligent people who never got a chance, while knowing that once this country gave enough of a damn to know that funding the capable to enter higher education was a good thing.
 
 
 
Poll
Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?
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.