Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    That would be incredibly naive without the proper market research, all evidence points to an almost certain decline in the students who will be prepared to go to university following the increase in tuition fees.

    In terms of the government, again I'd like to emphasise this point: the government is meant to be serving it's people. As a result investing in its people will undoubtedly reap the benefits of a more vibrant economy. If you look at many of the south east Asian countries like South Korea and Singapore, or the Scandinavian countries, they've all heavily invested in Research and Development and all as a direct result are reaping the benefits of strong growth and lower unemployment.

    What I'm saying is to cut off the high initial cost is short sighted because in the long term the country's economy suffers. And the potential growth lost is far higher than the initial start up costs.

    (NB people can't go into post graduate research without an undergraduate degree so a vast decrease in undergraduates will affect the population of post graduates. Moreover many undergraduates can still go into R and D)
    erm... i dont really understand the general point you were trying to make, but overall, the government has to cut at some places, it simply must. because the money government has is not all purely the taxpayers money, because some of the money is lended to it, it pays interests on it. interest is the MOST MOST MOST useless cost that the government has, but the more the government spends, the higher this interest will be. and sooner or later, if the government does not make cuts and pays more interests, the interest will grow near to what taxpayers pay to the government.

    so, there are two revenues for the gov. lending and taxpayers. there are two outflows. the interest and the UK overall. ok, fair enough, investing in the country, such as RD will mean higher revenue from the taxpayers. but on the other hand, it will mean higher interest as well, and this is the balance that is needed to be weighed as accurately as possible, so that the government gets the most amount of inflow and the least amount of outflow on interests). surely, if this balance accidentally gets broken - UK will either go back to the Stone age (where the questions then will not be how to have an educated country, but a more fundamental questions, such as how to survive without any economy) or will have to be bailed out by the Europe just like Ireland - but will the UK generate enough money if it gets bailed out, to pay the money back and the interest and also to have it's own independent economy - it again is a big question.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    Because they're economically stronger than us. Their national debt went down in 2010 by -0.8%. Their deficit is the one of the lowest in the eurozone. They have a strong manufacturing base which we do not have. They are not bankrupt. They're the ones bailing out other European countries.

    Simply put, they can afford it and we cannot. I'm not for higher fees, but I hate people who go on about who this will 'benefit'. Clearly - nobody on a personal level, everybody on a general level.
    And Finland, Switzerland, Belgium, Portugal, Sweden, Spain, Scotland? They all have tuition fees that are at least 10 X lower than the proposed fees. Are all their economies stronger than ours? How can they all afford it?

    And the point I was making was a general one, generally our deficit is reduced short term, generally our economy loses its ability to grow long term. Thus generally there's a net loss.

    Finally if Germany who are fiscally conservative relative to Britain see the general benefits to their society of lower tuition fees despite the cost (I'm talking 30 X Lower btw!) Why is it that England does not?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by angelmxxx)
    EVERYONE GETS A FEE LOAN, EVEN IF YOUR PARENTS ARE BILLIONAIRES.

    Those limits are only for MAINTENANCE loans!

    No Government would propose £9000 fees with no loans!
    ok, i didnt know that, i thought parent income affects loans as well. :confused:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vahik92)
    ok, i didnt know that, i thought parent income affects loans as well. :confused:
    There are 2 types of loans:

    1. tuition fee loans - paid straight to the uni, doesn't matter how much money your parents earn, covers 100% of the fees.

    2. maintenance loan - paid to you (the student), students with parental incomes over a certain amount (about £50k for now, going down next year I think) can get £3500ish. Students with parental incomes under this amount but too high to get a non-repayable grant can get a few hundred pounds of extra loans.

    Then there are non-repayable maintenance grants, which are tapered according to parental income (ie parental income under £25,000 and you get the full grant of just under £3000, which is to increase. Then as parental income increases above the amount, the amount of grant decreases, until you get to £40,000ish when you only get loans, no grants.)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vahik92)
    erm... i dont really understand the general point you were trying to make, but overall, the government has to cut at some places, it simply must. because the money government has is not all purely the taxpayers money, because some of the money is lended to it, it pays interests on it. interest is the MOST MOST MOST useless cost that the government has, but the more the government spends, the higher this interest will be. and sooner or later, if the government does not make cuts and pays more interests, the interest will grow near to what taxpayers pay to the government.

    so, there are two revenues for the gov. lending and taxpayers. there are two outflows. the interest and the UK overall. ok, fair enough, investing in the country, such as RD will mean higher revenue from the taxpayers. but on the other hand, it will mean higher interest as well, and this is the balance that is needed to be weighed as accurately as possible, so that the government gets the most amount of inflow and the least amount of outflow on interests). surely, if this balance accidentally gets broken - UK will either go back to the Stone age (where the questions then will not be how to have an educated country, but a more fundamental questions, such as how to survive without any economy) or will have to be bailed out by the Europe just like Ireland - but will the UK generate enough money if it gets bailed out, to pay the money back and the interest and also to have it's own independent economy - it again is a big question.
    The point I was making was that RD would cause long term growth, and that cutting RD would reduce it even if there is a short term reduction in costs.

    Many nations with both weaker and stronger than ours place a high value in higher education. For this reason, tuition fees in such nations are low. Countries which have invested in higher education have reaped great rewards in the long term. Even Scotland, our nearest neighbour part of the same country understands this value of higher eduction.
    Why is it that our nation does not put a high value on higher education as it does on other sectors so spending is reallocated to other sectors instead of higher education? How does this profit our nation as a whole? Is such a policy likely to make us more or less competitive in the global market which is increasingly knowledge based?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The increase of tuition fees is not very favourable among the young population wishing to seek higher education, perhaps this should of been taken into account. Furthermore, wouldn't the system proposed act as a hindrance for those of a less privileged background wishing to seek greater education? The tuition fees scheme would reflect a hierachical system similar the US where intellectual capabilities are viewed second before family status.
    • Specialist Advisor
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Specialist Advisor
    Your question got a lot of comments so I am coming to it first. We are continuing to keep roughly the same amount of cash going in to universities but via students who will bring public funding with them. We lend them the money to pay the charge the university sets so we save on teaching grant. The student does not have to pay out of their own money. They start paying back as graduates when they are earning more than £21k per annum. It is not like credit card debt as if your income falls below that you do not repay.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    The whole country will benefit- it's just that a lot of people are having trouble seeing that right now.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gemma :)!)
    The whole country will benefit- it's just that a lot of people are having trouble seeing that right now.
    Well done Einstein! I wonder how you came across this conclusion :holmes:
    I mean we get to pay more money, have more welfare cuts, have more public sector cuts. Yeah now I see how you came to your thesis.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    It almost always benefits the individual (at the very least in life experience), and society often (but not always) benefits. It's not an issue of two mutually exclusive choices.

    Of all the arguments for no tuition fees, "society benefits" isn't that great. The benefits to the individual are far greater than to society, so going by that logic the individual should pay something more towards it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Only 20% of graduates

    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MM1234)
    Only 20% of graduates

    The poorest 20% pay less, the richer 80% contribute more. Surely that's the definition of progressive? Clearly some more money is going to have to come from somewhere, I think this seems pretty fair.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Well done Einstein! I wonder how you came across this conclusion :holmes:
    I mean we get to pay more money, have more welfare cuts, have more public sector cuts. Yeah now I see how you came to your thesis.
    The question was Tution Fees who benefits- not welfare/public sector cuts. They're a completely different issue, to be honest. I don't understand why people think the tax payer should pay for them to go to university. I genuinely cannot understand it.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gemma :)!)
    The question was Tution Fees who benefits- not welfare/public sector cuts. They're a completely different issue, to be honest. I don't understand why people think the tax payer should pay for them to go to university. I genuinely cannot understand it.
    Same reason why the tax payer should pay for college students.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Breedlove)
    I'm sure we can all survive with a few less art students.

    The costs will stop people going to university just "for the hell of it"

    and instead make it a place where you go to get a great degree which you're actually interested in
    So Art students aren't interested in Art? They pay that much money to do something they aren't interested in?

    You know, Art & Design graduates don't all graduate to become Artists, which you clearly see as useless, obviously you're quite an unimaginative boring person.
    Nearly everything you see around you every day, everything you watch like adverts, films and animated films, everything you use, buildings you go inside, the clothes and shoes you wear, packaging and covers, the posters you have on your walls and the ones that are their to inform you, leaflets, games, the photos you see in magazines and papers. Practically every product that exists that has required a design to allow it to be made. They've all been created or designed or made by people from within this field.
    Art & Design is a very broad field, I don't feel you should count it as useless.

    Some people have talent that they wish to build upon and make a career out of, this country would be a very horrible place to be if people wishing to do this were held back or forced to do something they didn't want to.
    And if you're one of those people that consider Art and Design degrees "an easy ride", then you're quite clearly unaware of the work and ideas that students put into their qualifications.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by electriic_ink)
    Same reason why the tax payer should pay for college students.
    Everyone can go to college, not everyone can go to university.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cll_ws)
    So Art students aren't interested in Art? They pay that much money to do something they aren't interested in?

    You know, Art & Design graduates don't all graduate to become Artists, which you clearly see as useless, obviously you're quite an unimaginative boring person.
    Nearly everything you see around you every day, everything you watch like adverts, films and animated films, everything you use, buildings you go inside, the clothes and shoes you wear, packaging and covers, the posters you have on your walls and the ones that are their to inform you, leaflets, games, the photos you see in magazines and papers. Practically every product that exists that has required a design to allow it to be made. They've all been created or designed or made by people from within this field.
    Art & Design is a very broad field, I don't feel you should count it as useless.

    Some people have talent that they wish to build upon and make a career out of, this country would be a very horrible place to be if people wishing to do this were held back or forced to do something they didn't want to.
    And if you're one of those people that consider Art and Design degrees "an easy ride", then you're quite clearly unaware of the work and ideas that students put into their qualifications.
    The art degree was more of a joke early on and was not the subject of the rest of my post. Art degrees are still pretty useless degrees compared to Maths and Science degrees.

    Also, unimaginative and boring? Way to go with the assumptions just because I don't see a degree in art as being particularly useful. Perhaps companies will have to use different recruitment techniques to employ people from earlier ages (ie after A levels) which is something I see as a benefit as the employee will not have a massive debt looming over them and they could start work earlier.
    Perhaps I should have put it differently then, whilst I see art degrees as pretty useless, art itself does, of course, have lots of uses.

    Oh, and it's hardly rocket science. (another joke)



    Anyway, if you read my post with other degrees in mind then you might get what I was trying to convey. For example, I saw a post about a Psychology student on here that was one of the only few people who were actually passionate about the subject whilst the others seemed to doss around with little interest. THAT is what I was attacking in my last post, people studying for degrees in something for the sake of going to university.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gemma :)!)
    The question was Tution Fees who benefits- not welfare/public sector cuts. They're a completely different issue, to be honest. I don't understand why people think the tax payer should pay for them to go to university. I genuinely cannot understand it.
    It's really simple. Picture a country without any graduates. No Doctors, no scientists, no engineers, no bankers, no architects, no pilots. Graduates do not only benefit themselves, they benefit society which includes non-graduates. If non-graduates want the services that only graduates can provide, they should contribute towards the cost.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by David Willetts)
    Your question got a lot of comments so I am coming to it first. We are continuing to keep roughly the same amount of cash going in to universities but via students who will bring public funding with them. We lend them the money to pay the charge the university sets so we save on teaching grant. The student does not have to pay out of their own money. They start paying back as graduates when they are earning more than £21k per annum. It is not like credit card debt as if your income falls below that you do not repay.
    Thank you for your reply. I'd hope that such a calculation would factor in the decrease in demand for university places following the increase in fees. As a straight swap of government funding out, tuition fees in would obviously result in a net deficit in funding for universities.
    I can infer that this isn't likely the case as many universities have hugely cut back on lecturers and have even removed entire departments. If the replacement were exact Universities wouldn't feel the need to do this as their income would remain the same.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    It's really simple. Picture a country without any graduates. No Doctors, no scientists, no engineers, no bankers, no architects, no pilots. Graduates do not only benefit themselves, they benefit society which includes non-graduates. If non-graduates want the services that only graduates can provide, they should contribute towards the cost.
    Graduates get paid when theey graduate. Like any other job. Tbh, you don't need a degree to be a refuse collector- but everyone would suffer if those were removed from society.. no degree required.

    Cleaners? No degree required, but our shops etc would be a state without them..

    ALL jobs benefit society. Imagine if nobody worked in Tesco or any other shop- where would you get everything you need?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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

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