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

Clegg: Tuition Fee "Dreamers" Watch

    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArcaneAnna)
    Well...the fact that they're going to introduce education cuts will not save the country from it's economical fail. In terms of the financial situation - britain is ****ed either way.
    .
    May I ask how? The country has modest growth predicted for the next 3 years. Manufacturing is at an all time high, and the Markets have been reassured by the government's spending cuts, we have a triple A credit rating that is no longer at risk and the risk of a double dip recession is getting lower by the quarter.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Oh come off it! Do you really think the UK would be 1# on the list of countries to be nuked?? You're not a realist you are just a pro-empire, pro-sovereignty Tory.
    Pro empire? Yes lets go colonise India again Englishmen are the only civilised race.:rolleyes:

    Pro-sovereignty? Because its so wrong to want to live in an interdependent nation?

    Well done with the Ad hom argument. :facepalm2:

    Do you just find it hard to understand that no one knows how the next 20 or so years will turn out. The world is hardly peaceful now and there are many emerging threats.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Pro empire? Yes lets go colonise India again Englishmen are the only civilised race.:rolleyes:

    Pro-sovereignty? Because its so wrong to want to live in an interdependent nation?

    Well done with the Ad hom argument. :facepalm2:

    Do you just find it hard to understand that no one knows how the next 20 or so years will turn out. The world is hardly peaceful now and there are many emerging threats.
    So by your logic, if no one knows what's going to happen in the next 20 years it will probably involve a nuke. :facepalm: You speak of "emerging threats" like you've been spoon-fed a capitalist incentive guide to exploitation and false-needs. The real image is not with threats you fool, it's with PROFIT.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    People should realise that with growth then the threshold of £21,000 will actually be worth in 2016 about what £15,000 is now so realistically students will take on a larger debt with the same level threshold in comparison to salary intake.
    That isn't true, the £21,000 threshold will be adjusted each year, so it will not be the same. And even if it wasn't adjusted, the current threshold is barely adjusted either - so it would still be more.

    But the £21,000 threshold will be adjusted each year.

    And also, I would argue that it is the monthly repayments that matter, not the lump sum of debt, as that is not how it is paid back, and so repayments will be lower. I accept the figure might the scary, but it needs to be explained that it never has to be collected on if it can't be paid back.

    The argument about if this actually combats the deficit, however, is a valid one - and it won't in the short term, although long term is more debatable.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Oh come off it! Do you really think the UK would be 1# on the list of countries to be nuked??
    #1? Nah. For a country like Iran, target #1 would be Israel, followed by the USA I guess. I can't imagine the UK coming too far after those two, though.

    Let's hope they don't figure out a way to nuke more than one country. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I am sick of hearing all this fairer system ****, you know whats a fairer system than the one that is in place just now. They can keep that same system by doing a simple easy thing called prioritising. Education is one of the most important things we value in society so surely we should be spending a lot of money on it and spending less money on things we don't value as highly. Trident for instance, biggest waste of money ever, scrap it and use the money for continuation of EMA and stop the rise in tuition fees. Still don't get how it can be apart of the "defence budget" but thats another story. 3rd world countries are desperate for education not nuclear submarines... prioritise like they are you idiots, the taxpayer does not care for such douchery...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArcaneAnna)
    Well...the fact that they're going to introduce education cuts will not save the country from it's economical fail. In terms of the financial situation - britain is ****ed either way.

    Almost every country is as the Euro which we are linked to is a sinking ship. Greece has collapsed and many others will do so. The ones that cling on and survive will have an economy boost due to setting up deals to help the collapsed countries.

    Valid point. But it's not the only one that protesters are against. It's the fact that they're proposing the education cuts that will be the problem. Even if the unis can charge students more money, it still wont make up for the loss in funding - hence many unis will struggle and the universities will have to cut back on extras - like refurbishing and upgrading and maybe even compromise on the hours lecturers work = hence students will end up paying more but receiving less.
    Universities will get more funding, well some will.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11483638

    Take note of the paragraph ' So will universities get more money? '

    Universities have been struggling to meet surging demand for places. Many years of rising investment under Labour have given way to cuts as the economic climate has changed.

    In general, the money raised from tuition fees will simply replace major cuts to teaching budgets, especially in arts and humanities subjects.

    The Browne review's conclusions were modelled on an 80% cut to teaching grants.

    Cuts of 40% to the higher education budget were announced in the spending review on 20 October 2010. But that budget includes student grants, which are unlikely to be significantly cut, as well as the teaching grant, suggesting that teaching funds are likely to face cuts much deeper than 40%.

    However, some universities may be able to charge fees high enough to enable them to increase their funding despite the budget cuts.

    The Higher Education Policy Institute has predicted that almost all universities will charge fees of £9,000 - not just a few.

    The knock-on effect of this, it says, will be that it costs the government more than it has predicted to subsidised the loans - which may result in further fee or interest rate rises.


    Take note of the bold section above.

    The top universities will obviously ask for permission to charge the top end tuition fees.

    Then as that happens the universities below will also ask for permission to do so in order to stop a standards gap opening.

    The universities way down the academic ranking table will try and if they fail then less students will go there meaning that institution will either close or struggle massively.

    The majority of universities will be allowed to increase fee's in order to increase funding and reputation.

    If Cambridge and Oxford increase fees to increase funding then the universities below will follow otherwise their reputation will suffer not only in the UK but in International tables.

    Don't forget the funding from the government comes from the taxpayer, as do the loans that are taken out - the taxpayer pays them loans up front initially and then after graduation the graduate either 1) pays them back in total, 2) pays some of the loan back, or 3) pay none of it back.

    The average university course costs £7,000 per year for tuition. If universities start charging £9,000 per year they have made a £2,000 profit in funding per year for that particular course without even taking into account government funding on top of that.

    If the system is implemented I can see either

    1 - all universities increasing fees a lot to compete with each other in order to stop an academic standards gap opening.

    2 - the majority of universities increasing fees and those that can't going out of business. This will then put people out of jobs which will then mean less tax being paid into the system so another hit on the taxpayer.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    So by your logic, if no one knows what's going to happen in the next 20 years it will probably involve a nuke. :facepalm: You speak of "emerging threats" like you've been spoon-fed a capitalist incentive guide to exploitation and false-needs. The real image is not with threats you fool, it's with PROFIT.
    The hell are you even talking about? Capitalism has nothing to do with this so don't turn this into some idiotic argument over ideology.

    We have nuclear weapons.

    We do not know whats going to happen in 20 years, the world is hardly peaceful now and its only going to get worse.

    If we get rid of nuclear weapons we cannot get them back.

    The cost of trident is a drop in the water in terms of government finance of your going to cut something then cut something that uses a lot more money than the Trident does.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    oh no!! hypothetical threats, what are we going to do with all this scaremongering?
    Are you aware that there were calls of a similar nature to dramatically slash the size of the RAF in the late 30s?

    That would've gone well.

    The simple fact is that the next trident system will be designed to last another 50 years, and we have no idea how things will change in that time. A nuclear deterrent is hardly something we can knock together in a few weeks if problems arise.

    (Original post by jb9191)
    People should realise that with growth then the threshold of £21,000 will actually be worth in 2016 about what £15,000 is now so realistically students will take on a larger debt with the same level threshold in comparison to salary intake.
    The threshold is going to rise in line with inflation. I'm not sure if they mean by that CPI or RPI (I would imagine CPI).

    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Oh come off it! Do you really think the UK would be 1# on the list of countries to be nuked?? You're not a realist you are just a pro-empire, pro-sovereignty Tory.
    Hold up.
    You're using "pro-sovereignty" as an insult now?
    So, wanting the UK to be able to control its own affairs is a bad thing?
    You whaa?

    (Original post by Aj12)
    May I ask how? The country has modest growth predicted for the next 3 years. Manufacturing is at an all time high, and the Markets have been reassured by the government's spending cuts, we have a triple A credit rating that is no longer at risk and the risk of a double dip recession is getting lower by the quarter.
    To add to this, all of the positive action we take to reduce the deficit brings down gilt yields, which lowers the cost of borrowing. Yields are lower now than they were when the last government was printing £15,000,000,000 a month of them to artificially lower yields.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    May I ask how? The country has modest growth predicted for the next 3 years. Manufacturing is at an all time high, and the Markets have been reassured by the government's spending cuts, we have a triple A credit rating that is no longer at risk and the risk of a double dip recession is getting lower by the quarter.
    Rights, I'm no economist but even I can see that uemployment is going to go through the roof. It's already hard enought trying to find a job, and now even more people will be left without one as the cuts come into place, plus the vat is rising again [ and those few % will make a difference].

    I don't believe the situation will get all that much worse, but it's not going to be getting any better either. Apart from the damage that's going to hit education from all of this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    The hell are you even talking about? Capitalism has nothing to do with this so don't turn this into some idiotic argument over ideology.

    We have nuclear weapons.

    We do not know whats going to happen in 20 years, the world is hardly peaceful now and its only going to get worse.

    If we get rid of nuclear weapons we cannot get them back.

    The cost of trident is a drop in the water in terms of government finance of your going to cut something then cut something that uses a lot more money than the Trident does.

    (I'm going to
    make
    mini-paragraphs
    as well.)
    Why do you want to get people back?

    The whole point of war is based on capitalist incentives.

    The main aim of modern day warfare is not with "defense against threats".

    Clearly you have not thought this through. It might be in the name of justice or peace or progress but it just doesn't mix with me.

    Our government should be insuring homeland security by not committing such atrocities miles away for other countries commodities.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArcaneAnna)
    Rights, I'm no economist but even I can see that uemployment is going to go through the roof.

    Unemployment is being to lower and the private sector is set to create 1 million jobs over the next 4 years.

    It's already hard enought trying to find a job, and now even more people will be left without one as the cuts come into place, plus the vat is rising again [ and those few % will make a difference].

    See above

    I don't believe the situation will get all that much worse, but it's not going to be getting any better either. Apart from the damage that's going to hit education from all of this.
    See bold. Most of what your saying is not true
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flob)
    That isn't true, the £21,000 threshold will be adjusted each year, so it will not be the same. And even if it wasn't adjusted, the current threshold is barely adjusted either - so it would still be more.

    But the £21,000 threshold will be adjusted each year.

    And also, I would argue that it is the monthly repayments that matter, not the lump sum of debt, as that is not how it is paid back, and so repayments will be lower. I accept the figure might the scary, but it needs to be explained that it never has to be collected on if it can't be paid back.

    The argument about if this actually combats the deficit, however, is a valid one - and it won't in the short term, although long term is more debatable.
    The increase in fees will leave thousands in life long debt.

    I have already proven this in many other threads.

    Interest on a bigger total debt amount means more interest debt repayable every year.

    4% of £25,000 = £1,000 + repayments of loan on top of this interest compound.

    4% of £50,000 - £2,000 + repayments of loan on top of this interest compound.

    Without taking interest growth into account - lets say at 4% over 10 years.



    Current system - £25,000 debt

    10 years later will be a debt of £37,271 - an increase of £12,271


    New proposed system - £50,000 debt

    10 years later will be a debt of £74,542 - an increase of £24,542

    ----

    Not only is the actual amount in the first place more, the interest compounding annually will leave graduates crippled for life financially under the new system.

    Yes many will not go ten years without repayments but its easy to see how interest compounds much quicker on the larger initial sum than it does on the smaller initial sum.

    Also under the new system more loans will not get paid back so that will put a huge burden on the taxpayer meaning either a tax increase to cover it or money taken from elsewhere. More than likely it will be a cut in the education budget in the future which will in turn drive university academic standards down and leave the value of a degree nationally and internationally less attractive and worthwhile.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AnAverageSmoker)
    I am sick of hearing all this fairer system ****, you know whats a fairer system than the one that is in place just now. They can keep that same system by doing a simple easy thing called prioritising. Education is one of the most important things we value in society so surely we should be spending a lot of money on it and spending less money on things we don't value as highly. Trident for instance, biggest waste of money ever, scrap it and use the money for continuation of EMA and stop the rise in tuition fees. Still don't get how it can be apart of the "defence budget" but thats another story. 3rd world countries are desperate for education not nuclear submarines... prioritise like they are you idiots, the taxpayer does not care for such douchery...
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Trident is a great peacemaker.
    Aj12 meet AnAverageSmoker
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    (I'm going to
    make
    mini-paragraphs
    as well.)
    Why do you want to get people back?

    The whole point of war is based on capitalist incentives.

    The main aim of modern day warfare is not with "defense against threats".

    Clearly you have not thought this through. It might be in the name of justice or peace or progress but it just doesn't mix with me.

    Our government should be insuring homeland security by not committing such atrocities miles away for other countries commodities.
    How do you get from talking about trident to this? The point of modern warfare is defence against threats THATS WHY WE HAVE TRIDENT NUCLEAR DETERRENT GOOGLE IT.

    Trident is part of guaranteeing homeland security. The government apparently already does a good job because guess what there has been 1 terrorist attack in the last 10 years and countless others stopped. Many of which you will not know about as its kept out the press
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Low Profile)
    Aj12 meet AnAverageSmoker
    Don't miss quote me you tool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArcaneAnna)
    Rights, I'm no economist but even I can see that uemployment is going to go through the roof. It's already hard enought trying to find a job, and now even more people will be left without one as the cuts come into place, plus the vat is rising again [ and those few % will make a difference].

    I don't believe the situation will get all that much worse, but it's not going to be getting any better either. Apart from the damage that's going to hit education from all of this.
    Actually unemployment is forecast to be down to 6% by 2015 (from 8% now). Whether that will really happen we don't know, but the signs are generally pretty good, especially considering the cuts.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    No its not scaremongering its just called being a realist. Iran is trying to develop nuclear weapons. North Korea is as unstable as ever and if their missile program continues will likely be able to hit Europe pretty soon if they can't already. Hardly the time to get rid of our deterrent
    North Korea can be easily obliterated without nukes, same applies for Iran. If either country launch nukes we're certainly not their primary target and we're very far from both countries as well (geographically there's few countries further from us than NK). I don't see why we need a "nuclear deterrent" when our nuclear capability completely dependent on the US, and if Iran or NK does nuke us they'll be inevitably invaded and destroyed by a huge number of countries (Europe and America). Not that this will ever happen obviously.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Looks like the Lib Dems have blown their chances completely.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CombineHarvester)
    North Korea can be easily obliterated without nukes, same applies for Iran. If either country launch nukes we're certainly not their primary target and we're very far from both countries as well (geographically there's few countries further from us than NK). I don't see why we need a "nuclear deterrent" when our nuclear capability completely dependent on the US, and if Iran or NK does nuke us they'll be inevitably invaded and destroyed by a huge number of countries (Europe and America). Not that this will ever happen obviously.
    As I said to low profile. Tell me what the world will be like in the next 20 years. As another poster pointed out they wanted to cut the RAF drastically in the 1930's.

    Its called a deterrent for a reason. Also most of the posters on this forum seem to have some jumped up idea of how much Trident actually costs the country. If you want to cut something Trident should hardly be your first target
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 9, 2010
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.