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

Why is everyone so upset over tuition fees reform? Watch

    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Doesn't matter how its repaid, the fact is if you get in this year you pay £3000 odd a year and if you don't its £6000-9000 a year.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by d123)
    It's the principle. Education should be free. Like the NHS and other pillars of the welfare state, it's just something that I believe is important. Also £9000 a year is a hell of a lot of money. It may not seem like that much if you look at repayment rates, but being saddled with £27000 debt just from tuition fees isn't something anyone wants to have. Of course people who don't have a university education should pay to subsidise those who do! Besides, they benefit from it as well; not all graduates go on to be doctors, teachers etc but a substantial number work in careers that directly benefit the general public.

    Also, the problem isn't just with tuition fees, but also with the cuts to the university budgets. Funding for arts and humanities subjects is almost entirely ceasing. It's a separate issue to tuition fees but also one which enrages me.
    The country can't afford to subside 40% of the population to go to university, what part of this don't you understand?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TShadow383)
    I can feel the rage directed towards me coming, but still.
    Why is everyone really so upset over the reforms to tuition fees?

    Is it really that difficult to pay £1.72 a week on a £22,000 salary, or £15.58 a week on a £30,000 salary?

    Why are people trying to argue that those who don't have the benefit of a university education should be asked to help pay for those who do?

    It all seems utterly mental to me, and the whole situation seems to have got so far out of hand that nobody is actually looking at the big picture anymore.
    Tell that to every single medical student who will now have to pay £9,000 up front with no loan (£36,000 if they're doing a 5 year course) and that's IF the NHS keeps the funding in place (which they won't). :eek:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince Rupert)
    The country can't afford to subside 40% of the population to go to university, what part of this don't you understand?
    Do you know the average amount in tax generated in the course of a working life between a graduate and a non graduate? Even funding 40% of the population and you're well up on a net positive. Think your opinion through first.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I think its a rather stupid move on the part of the lib dems personally - all moral and ethical arguments aside. Seriously these changes to tuition fees aren't going to start pumping money back into the government for a few years yet. **ninja edit**: yes they can start selling insurance and securities on these debts: BUT WAIT! Even the banks don't have the cash to buy them!

    They start September 2012, plus 3 years for getting through the course, plus maybe a year or two doing work experience or just trying to find a job in the grad. market)

    So realistically, they're looking at seeing a return on that change in 5 years - mid next government. Also lets assume that labour get in (public opinion will change after these cuts have taken they're toll). Then labour reap the cash benefit.

    Even if the one of the condems do get in, the very act of doing this will shift a lot of votes to towards labour, reducing any majority.



    And another thing, this whole line about people who earn more should be taxed more. Guess what? - They earn more, therefore they spend more, therefore they pay more! VAT, more road tax, more council tax etc..
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Right...

    First of all we have the prospect of putting ourselves in rather large debt.

    Up from approximately £18,000-£33,000 to approximately £35,000 - £55,000.
    (depending on if you are either doing 3-4 year course, plus whatever maintence loans and grants you are entitled to)*Not including medicine degrees.

    Secondly, we are now being charged interest (RPI) + a maximum of 3%. With a salary of £21,000 your debt will only increase by RPI, but on a salary of £42000+ your debt will be subject to RPI + 3%.
    Much higher than the 1.5% being charge now.

    Let me put this into perspective...

    Say you leave university with a £40,000 debt and you are extremely fortunate to get a job at £42,000 p.a.

    You would pay 9% of £42,000 - £21,000 which is £1,890.

    But your debt would rise (at current RPI = 3.8% (This is quite low and could rise and be much higher) + 3%) by £2856.

    You see.... even with a rather decent job it will be almost impossible to pay your debt off, (remember they are against the idea of allowing people paying more than 9% of their salary, although this has not yet been put in stone).

    So you see, at the age of 50 when our children have left home we will still be paying 9% of our salary over £21,000, and will have been paying that for nearly 30 years.

    But REMEMBER those who can afford to pay their fees upfront will be exempt from this pleasure.

    Thirdly, we now have a system where different universities may well be able to charge different amounts, so people, to save money will go to lesser universities than they may well have done. Rather than having a system as we do at the moment where people, by and large, go to the best possible university they can grade depending, to one where people start to make decisions for economic reasons.

    Fourthly, we are now expected to pay nearly double-three times as much as we would have before, and in return, most probably recieve a lower standard of teaching.

    Now, I could probably go on for awhile, but I will just type one more:
    WE HAVE A POLITICAL PARTY, WHO SIGNED A PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST ANY RISE IN TUITION FEES, yet they kindly voted to triple them.
    • Offline

      13
      (Original post by Kerny)
      It isn't disastrous, but ultimately people will be paying MORE back.
      Yeah and?

      There's no harm in transferring the cost from the taxpayer to the student (who ultimately benefits).
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by winter_mute)
      Do you know the average amount in tax generated in the course of a working life between a graduate and a non graduate? Even funding 40% of the population and you're well up on a net positive. Think your opinion through first.
      So, how does someone coming out of university with a 2:1 in media studies, for example, make it more likely they'll pay more tax over a lifetime than a school leaver who goes straight into plumbing or the construction trade, for example? Please explain this one to me as you clearly know more about it than I could ever possibly manage...
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by karateworm)
      Also, whilst everyone can bang on about how poorer students aren't really affected... if you're not very well off, £9000 a year is going to put you right off.
      I really dont understand why tbh, its not like they cannot afford it - they are not paying anything upfront. They only have to pay it back once they are earning £21K - so, really, if you have ability and want to invest in your future, why is it that much of a put off? The lesser well off will probably not have to pay £9k anyway. It will probably put people off who are not very committed to further education and who would have went to less important courses such as 'Baking'.
      • Offline

        13
        (Original post by d123)
        It's the principle. Education should be free.
        Should be free, but I'm afraid, we just can't make it free. In addition, blame the Labour party who introduced it in the first place. (Where were the protests then?)

        Like the NHS and other pillars of the welfare state, it's just something that I believe is important.
        I believe education is important, but I don't think university should be free.

        Also £9000 a year is a hell of a lot of money.
        9% over £21,000.

        It may not seem like that much if you look at repayment rates, but being saddled with £27000 debt just from tuition fees isn't something anyone wants to have.
        Any outstanding debt is written off after 30 years. You pay what you can afford.

        Of course people who don't have a university education should pay to subsidise those who do!
        No, why should lower-income people pay more tax?

        Besides, they benefit from it as well; not all graduates go on to be doctors, teachers etc but a substantial number work in careers that directly benefit the general public.
        They would benefit from a tax reduction more.

        Also, the problem isn't just with tuition fees, but also with the cuts to the university budgets. Funding for arts and humanities subjects is almost entirely ceasing. It's a separate issue to tuition fees but also one which enrages me.
        Let's be honest - STEM subjects are a priority, or should be a priority.
        • Offline

          13
          (Original post by BambieWambie)
          If people are in that much debt, will they ever be able to afford to save for a deposit for a house? Start a family? Get married? etc.
          Bloody hell...

          9% over £21,000 - God this is better than the current system.

          Or perhaps, get a better job? :hmmm: (Which is irrelevant to tuition fees. If you are on the old system and get a £16,000 job, good luck saving for a deposit for a house. Oh and if you are on the new system, you don't pay a single penny if you're o £16,000).
          Offline

          2
          ReputationRep:
          (Original post by TShadow383)
          Why is everyone really so upset over the reforms to tuition fees?

          Is it really that difficult to pay £1.72 a week on a £22,000 salary, or £15.58 a week on a £30,000 salary?
          It people like me that would have loved to be a doctor and offer such an alternative to your A2+ 5yrs med school doctors, but now cant as i would have to find 9k per year without a fee loan ie impossible. I come from the sort of town where very few people would get the alevel grades for a good degree at a good university stright away so grad entry is the only option this now isnt feasable + im not poor both parents have good jobs drive newish cars etc.

          Education should be free as for developed countrys its the only way to keep up with the world now we have no industry etc. The cuts shoud be coming from else where.

          One question that ive never got an answer to is why are science degree going up in price when they are still being funded???
          • Offline

            13
            (Original post by karateworm)
            Also, whilst everyone can bang on about how poorer students aren't really affected... if you're not very well off, £9000 a year is going to put you right off.
            "£9000" as a number, yes.

            But there are bursaries/grants available.
            Offline

            0
            ReputationRep:
            (Original post by im so academic)
            Yeah and?

            There's no harm in transferring the cost from the taxpayer to the student (who ultimately benefits).
            I agree with you, but is it not unfair that those who go into higher education are punished every step of the way, so you have to pay tuition fees of £9k over time, then if you earn more as a result you have to pay the higher rates of tax and when the country goes broke they take as much more out of you to sort it all out, etc. Im all from social justice but people should not be punished for be ambitious, achieving and earning high salaries.
            Offline

            2
            ReputationRep:
            I agree, from a left-of-centre perspective. There are far more pressing issues than well-paid university students paying back a bit more money to the state (though no one will pay back more per month, and the poorest 25% will pay less per month). A sense of entitlement tends to lead to greed. Of course, we should have an entitlement to education (if capable), but we shouldn't assume that hard-working, and possibly low-paid, taxpayers should almost completely fund our higher education.
            • Offline

              13
              (Original post by sete)
              Right...

              First of all we have the prospect of putting ourselves in rather large debt.
              Which gets written off anyways.

              Up from approximately £18,000-£33,000 to approximately £35,000 - £55,000.
              (depending on if you are either doing 3-4 year course, plus whatever maintence loans and grants you are entitled to)*Not including medicine degrees.
              Same as above.

              Secondly, we are now being charged interest (CPI) + a maximum of 3%. With a salary of £21,000 your debt will only increase by CPI, but on a salary of £42000+ your debt will be subject to CPI + 3%.
              Much higher than the 1.5% being charge now.
              Same as above.

              Let me put this into perspective...

              Say you leave university with a £40,000 debt and you are extremely fortunate to get a job at £42,000 p.a.

              You would pay 9% of £42,000 - £21,000 which is £1,890.

              But your debt would rise (at current CPI = 3.8% (This is quite low and could rise and be much higher) + 3%) by £2856.

              You see.... even with a rather decent job it will be almost impossible to pay your debt off, (remember they are against the idea of allowing people paying more than 9% of their salary, although this has not yet been put in stone).
              So? Same as above.

              So you see, at the age of 50 when our children have left home we will still be paying 9% of our salary over £21,000, and will have been paying that for nearly 30 years.
              The point is that it still gets written off.

              But REMEMBER those who can afford to pay their fees upfront will be exempt from this pleasure.
              Well, it has always been like that.

              Thirdly, we now have a system where different universities may well be able to charge different amounts, so people, to save money will go to lesser universities than they may well have done.
              Their fault. Better universities = more rich = more grants/bursaries.

              ANd 9% over £21,000 etc etc.

              Rather than having a system as we do at the moment where people, by and large, go to the best possible university they can grade depending, to one where people start to make decisions for economic reasons.
              What's wrong with "paying" for quality? No way is an Oxbridge degree worth the same economically as a Thames Valley degree.

              Fourthly, we are now expected to pay nearly double-three times as much as we would have before, and in return, most probably recieve a lower standard of teaching.
              Lower standard of teaching? Work harder to get to a better university then. :dontknow:

              Now, I could probably go on for awhile, but I will just type one more:
              WE HAVE A POLITICAL PARTY, WHO SIGNED A PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST ANY RISE IN TUITION FEES, yet they kindly voted to triple them.
              :facepalm2:

              *It is a coalition.
              *The Tories are the majority of the Coalition.
              *Therefore the Lib Dems have to compromise.
              *They did not win the general election.
              *For the sake of the country, they broke their promise.
              *Otherwise it would have stirred up unnecessary political tension.

              In addition - how could you be so gullible to believe in the Lib Dem's proposals in the first place? When I first heard of it, I thought "*******s". Your fault in the first place for believing in such a system. So you should have expected it for it not to have worked. 6 year phasal-out of tuition fees, my arse.

              Also, I present this question to you - what if they actually did go with the 6-year plan, but then it failed? Best for them to come out now, then to go through with it and there would be serious consequences.

              To remind you - THE LIBERAL DEMOCRATS ARE NOT IN CHARGE!
              • Offline

                13
                (Original post by RectalExamination)
                I agree with you, but is it not unfair that those who go into higher education are punished every step of the way, so you have to pay tuition fees of £9k over time, then if you earn more as a result you have to pay the higher rates of tax and when the country goes broke they take as much more out of you to sort it all out, etc. Im all from social justice but people should not be punished for be ambitious, achieving and earning high salaries.
                I know, I don't believe in the progressive system anyways. I honestly thought there would be more people accepting of this as it's progressive.

                How wrong was I.
                Offline

                0
                ReputationRep:
                (Original post by sete)
                Right...

                First of all we have the prospect of putting ourselves in rather large debt.

                Up from approximately £18,000-£33,000 to approximately £35,000 - £55,000.
                (depending on if you are either doing 3-4 year course, plus whatever maintence loans and grants you are entitled to)*Not including medicine degrees.

                Secondly, we are now being charged interest (CPI) + a maximum of 3%. With a salary of £21,000 your debt will only increase by CPI, but on a salary of £42000+ your debt will be subject to CPI + 3%.
                Much higher than the 1.5% being charge now.

                Let me put this into perspective...

                Say you leave university with a £40,000 debt and you are extremely fortunate to get a job at £42,000 p.a.

                You would pay 9% of £42,000 - £21,000 which is £1,890.

                But your debt would rise (at current CPI = 3.8% (This is quite low and could rise and be much higher) + 3%) by £2856.

                You see.... even with a rather decent job it will be almost impossible to pay your debt off, (remember they are against the idea of allowing people paying more than 9% of their salary, although this has not yet been put in stone).

                So you see, at the age of 50 when our children have left home we will still be paying 9% of our salary over £21,000, and will have been paying that for nearly 30 years.

                But REMEMBER those who can afford to pay their fees upfront will be exempt from this pleasure.

                Thirdly, we now have a system where different universities may well be able to charge different amounts, so people, to save money will go to lesser universities than they may well have done. Rather than having a system as we do at the moment where people, by and large, go to the best possible university they can grade depending, to one where people start to make decisions for economic reasons.

                Fourthly, we are now expected to pay nearly double-three times as much as we would have before, and in return, most probably recieve a lower standard of teaching.

                Now, I could probably go on for awhile, but I will just type one more:
                WE HAVE A POLITICAL PARTY, WHO SIGNED A PLEDGE TO VOTE AGAINST ANY RISE IN TUITION FEES, yet they kindly voted to triple them.
                On your first point - Yes that's a lot, but its less per month than you would pay now. Granted, for longer, but I would argue its just as affordable on that income as the present system. In fact, I would say this basically amounts to a graduate tax.

                On your second point - interest will be tapered so that at the lower end of incomes it will be less. For instance, interest at £21,000 is 0%. But the example you've given is accurate as far as I know. Still, as I said, I think its affordable.

                And people on free school meals will be largely exempt also, but those who pay upfront are likely to be penalized, although the details for that aren't out yet.

                On your third point - that depends how many charge £9k, which is expected to be a lot. But I would also say that that is the students choice, those with good sense will 'pay' more for a better degree, in my view.

                On your fourth point - that will only be true for a few universities, most will receive more funding overall because of the increased fees, especially if they charge £9k.

                And to be honest, all the main parties have form on this - that's not a defense of the Lib Dems - and they're all equally bad in my eyes.
                • Offline

                  13
                  (Original post by brokenangel)
                  It people like me that would have loved to be a doctor and offer such an alternative to your A2+ 5yrs med school doctors, but now cant as i would have to find 9k per year without a fee loan ie impossible.
                  Supply and demand. There is a high demand for GEM, and there are people who are in a position to pay for it. In addition, it is still a second degree, so it's not fair for Medicine to be funded and not other second undergraduate degrees.

                  I come from the sort of town where very few people would get the alevel grades for a good degree at a good university stright away so grad entry is the only option this now isnt feasable + im not poor both parents have good jobs drive newish cars etc.
                  This new system should make people in that position work even harder. Coming from the "sort of town" simply won't be an excuse anymore (in fact, it shouldn't really be). Don't get the grades, don't get in - which is fair enough. Education is free up to 18, so everyone has the opportunity to get the top grades, albeit it's harder at a failing comprehensive school.

                  Education should be free as for developed countrys its the only way to keep up with the world now we have no industry etc. The cuts shoud be coming from else where.
                  Should be, can't be.

                  OK then, where do you propose that the cuts from then?

                  One question that ive never got an answer to is why are science degree going up in price when they are still being funded???
                  Surely this is a good thing so there won't be any "academic elitism"?
                  • Offline

                    13
                    (Original post by PerigeeApogee)
                    Okay then, how about this, anybody who gets heart surgery gets the costs paid by the gov't up front, but as soon as they've recovered they pay back the costs at a rate of 9% of their earnings over £21,000.

                    Sound fair? It should, because it's the same logic you've just used for higher education.
                    What bull**** is this. You cannot compare the NHS with university education.

                    Personally, if I had it my way, people should pay for stuff like operations etc etc. But what would this lead to? People dying since they cannot afford to pay. Hence why have the NHS.

                    You do not die if you can't get into university. How sick of you to compare a heart operation with the apparent notion that one cannot get into their Media BA course?
                   
                   
                   
                • 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
                  Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
                  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.