Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Universities - the process of costing out the new system has already started.

    Industry is also likely to put it's money where it's mouth is instead of bemoaning a lack of trained graduates actually helping to fund them through the system.
    Tuition fees of £3000 max, will not be enough.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bigcnee)
    Tuition fees of £3000 max, will not be enough.
    This is a worry I have. The government introduced the £1K fee, now £3K - will they keep increasing it in the future to whatever the universities want? I think if universities are gonna be given additional funding, they've got to be seen to be spending it well instead building overpriced administrative buildings.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Bear with me here - longwinded scenario planning using some big assumptions (if you're not interested in the logic skip down to ***)....

    £3000 tuition fees over 3 yrs + the minimum student loan £3000 is a total debt of £18,000 (obviously some people will have smaller tuition fees and larger loans and study for more than three yrs).

    Repaying £18,000 at a rate of 9% of income over £15k on the *average* national income (£20k) (assuming that the average income and the inflation added to the loan in interest are ~equal)

    means a repayment of £450pa

    and a total repayment period of 40 years.

    Most people graduate at 21 and retire at 65 - and so their working life is 44 years.

    ***
    This means that *any* increase above the £3kpa level for tuition fees is almost certainly not going to be repaid by the *average* graduate.

    So the only way tuition fees are going to be raised above £3k *and* recovered is to change the conditions of the repayment scheme...and make it less fair - something I don't think is likely to get through parliament.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by pkonline)
    instead building overpriced administrative buildings.
    hehehe - actually money for building doesn't come from the Teaching grant (or the Research grant although both have a component for building mainenence/rent)...there is a seperate fund available that has to be bidded for (can't remember the name of it right now but it's something daft like SRIF(?)).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nafisa)
    Yeah alright i appreciate that some are against tuition fees but m8 i need arguments for the intro of tuition fees, any other comments are not particularly useful 4 me !!! ok

    Always useful to have both sides of the argument mate
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pencil Queen)
    Who told you that?
    The same article in the economist that soulfish read, it said it costs £8,000 a year.

    Pencil Queen, don't graduates on general earn more than the 'average national income', considering that in general those that go to university earn more than those that don't, meaning that your stats are wrong. And anyway you best start saving then.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by JSM)
    The same article in the economist that soulfish read, it said it costs £8,000 a year.

    Pencil Queen, don't graduates on general earn more than the 'average national income', considering that in general those that go to university earn more than those that don't, meaning that your stats are wrong. And anyway you best start saving then.
    I'm afraid the economist is wrong - or misrepresenting the facts (ie that the price charged = the cost incurred)

    Most teachers earn the average national income - a lot of graduates earn well below it...at least for a good 5-10 yrs after graduating and in some cases longer (especially when children come along and people reduce their hours and their promotion prospects...more than half of students are female and if a good proportion decide to become stay at home mothers the repayment scheme wont have any claims on them at all). It's very rare for someone to progress from graduation straight into a £20k job (despite what uni's like to tell you in their prospectus's)...

    The gains in income from a degree are arguable (in fact men who take an arts degree earn less on average than men who took arts A levels and went straight into work) and changes to the structure of HE mean that the benefits of a degree are likely to change (if not lessen) - they wont vanish but assuming that the average earnings of all graduates are likely to be significantly higher than the national average earnings is an assumption that I wouldn't put any money on...it might be higher but significantly higher? The average graduate salary might be able to repay an £18k debt in 35 yrs and not 40...but that still only gives scope to raise tuition fees to just under £5000 pa - not the £10k market rate.

    As I said the calculation is based on assupmtions and averages...but it's unlikely that any government could get a bill through parliament asking average students to incur a debt that they will be unable to pay off on a full working lifetime at the average salary, without amending the repayment levels...the calculation was a simplified scenario not a complex model (as I said).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Actually universities charge far more, argue with the economist about its figures not me, ill believe them over you any day. Too many people are going to university as the government wanted it to lose its elitist image. I know a lot of people who earn a decent degree in a sensible field at a good university and then went straight to an 18-24k a year job. I understand it was a simplified model, but oversimplification can change the numbers.

    If the numbers are reduced anyway, which is what that bill's side effects are. It will be good as it would mean that those that put the effort (and the money) into their course will tend to come out with a worthwhile degree. Degree's are undervalued (in my opinion) at current as too many people have them. Law of supply and demand.

    I personally don't want to have to pay top up fees and if i should, they should be backdated so that other people who benefitted from university would have to pay the same as me.

    However, there are sensible arguments for it, but i doubt that the current bill will pass as it is highly contreversial as people feel that education should be free.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'll have to ask my Dad where the economist got their figures from. He works there so may be able to find out.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude)
    i don't have to pay tution fees cos i'm under 19. but i thought that if u went to uni and u had to pay your own way, you could learn and they would just take out a certain number out of your pay check for the rest of your life.
    You don't pay tuition fees at school (unless you go to a private school). Top up fees are for university students, who already are paying £1125 in tuition fees a year. THe government want to charge extra fees of up to £3000 a year (depending on uni and course). Which means people who are intelligent enough to be at university, but who do not come from fairly effluent backgrounds will not be able to afford university.

    To give you an idea, I am not eligable for any grant from my LEA, so I have to pay £1125 a year in tuition fees. I have a student loan of £3000, of which £2700 is my accomodation fee. As you can see, that leaves me £300 for the year, which does not even begin to cover living costs (food, going out, other social stuff etc) let alone the fees. So at the moment, my parents have had no other option but to pay my fees for me, and I have to live off money they give me each month (fortunately I am lucky to have parents who have been prepared for university costs, so have been saving for a long while). As you can see, unless my parents win the lottery, it would be a hard stretch on them to pay an extra £3000 a year for me as well. Especially since my brother will also be at university in 2 1/2 years as well.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Chicken)
    To give you an idea, I am not eligable for any grant from my LEA, so I have to pay £1125 a year in tuition fees. I have a student loan of £3000, of which £2700 is my accomodation fee. As you can see, that leaves me £300 for the year, which does not even begin to cover living costs (food, going out, other social stuff etc) let alone the fees. So at the moment, my parents have had no other option but to pay my fees for me, and I have to live off money they give me each month (fortunately I am lucky to have parents who have been prepared for university costs, so have been saving for a long while). As you can see, unless my parents win the lottery, it would be a hard stretch on them to pay an extra £3000 a year for me as well. Especially since my brother will also be at university in 2 1/2 years as well.
    What you're not taking into account is the chanes in how the fees are to be paid which will be introduced along with the new fees.
    Rather then paying upfront like we do currently, you will pay back the fees at the end of your course. The ammount you pay back is linked to how much you earn, and you only start to pay back once you're earning at least £15k/yr.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by JSM)
    Actually universities charge far more, argue with the economist about its figures not me, ill believe them over you any day.
    Fair enough - for the record my figures are from HEFCE (Higher Education Funding Council of England - I'm currently in the process of returning my employers HESES analysis to the for next years teaching grant to be allocated)
    http://www.hefce.ac.uk/pubs/hefce/2003/03_29/03_29.pdf page 10 contains the base price and the weightings by subject etc etc.

    As for universities charging more most charge international fee payers between £7k and £10k for classroom based courses
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Just a quick question pencil queen. Are the figures that you mentioned earlier in the thread what it costs the Uni to educate a undergraduate or what the government gives the Uni to educate an undergraduate?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Just a thought, if up front fees are going to be abolished when top up fees are introduced, wont there be a period of at least 3/4 years where Universities wont be receiving any money from fees at all? As they'll have to wait for those entering Uni in 2006 to graduate and get a job that pays more than 15k?

    x-Laura-x (first post btw )
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Soulfish)
    Just a quick question pencil queen. Are the figures that you mentioned earlier in the thread what it costs the Uni to educate a undergraduate or what the government gives the Uni to educate an undergraduate?
    A mixture of both. (The funding model and the prices quoted earlier are actually used as a kind of audit tool to check whether the amount of money a uni got last yr + inflation is within 5% either way of what they would get if their funds where calculated from scratch using the funding model (daft but true)).

    Sorry this is all a bit complicated - I'll explain it as simply as I can skip any bits you find irrelevent
    The numbers were calculated back in 1998 when tuition fees first came in (to stop certain ex-polys from expanding their student numbers with only the £1k tuition fee to fund those students - ie to control growth in student numbers).

    HEFCE looked at the expenditure per student in a every subject and then worked out the average expenditure and grouped subjects of a similar cost together (into the 4 price bands (classroom, part lab, lab based and clinical) plus psychology, media studies and teacher training (which wouldn't fit neatly into the 4 price bands)).

    Every year it does the same calculation based on expenditure etc to calculate that years base price - and the base price (weighted by the different price bands and for things like part time, post graduates etc etc) is what is used to check that a university is recieving the right amount of teaching grant.

    So weighted base price (plus or minus 5%) (£2885+/- £144) is what the university will recieve - and is also what was spent on students the previous year.

    For the record (little fact I found out the other day that I though was quite interesting) most "new" universities spend all the money they recieve in their teaching grant (because it is their main source of income), the Russell Group unis recieve money from property/investments/endowments/research(although a lot of research actually gets subsidised by the teaching grant because charity work doesn't get charged any overheads and so costs us more to do than we charge) and end up with a profit of about £100 per student (which will generally get spent on new buildings/computers/libraries etc etc or projects that don't directly benefit the student).

    (hope this makes sense and apologies for any brevity - as I say I'm buried in HESES ATM so only get to spend a few minutes at either end of the day and at lunchtime online)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i can understand why they want to intorduce this new scheme, but what im worried about is that a l;ot of money made out of the new fees will not make it into improving higher education noticably but be swallowed yp by existing funding problems.

    furthermore like chicken stated above, anyone who has two children nearing student age is most likely going to struggle to fund both of them.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by MattG)
    furthermore like chicken stated above, anyone who has two children nearing student age is most likely going to struggle to fund both of them.
    But it will be the children paying the fees after graduation - not the parents.

    The white paper actually takes some of the immediate pressure off certain groups of parents - students who's parents earn below £10k pa will get a £1k pa grant (meaning that they or their parents will have £1k less to find each year), and students who currently pay £1k in tuition fees up front will not have to pay until after graduation meaning that either they or their parents (whoever currently/would be likely to pay it) will have £1k pa more in their pockets during their time at uni.

    The debts are bigger (although for the poorest students they are likely to remain the same) but the immediate costs are removed making finding the cash to fund your own or your childrens way through uni should be easier.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Soulfish)
    What you're not taking into account is the chanes in how the fees are to be paid which will be introduced along with the new fees.
    Rather then paying upfront like we do currently, you will pay back the fees at the end of your course. The ammount you pay back is linked to how much you earn, and you only start to pay back once you're earning at least £15k/yr.
    Ok I wasn't aware of that fully. But still, if I was affected by top-up fees, then when I gradutate (assuming my regular £1125 a year tuition fees were already paid for me) then as mine is a 4 year course, I would already have £12,000 of student loan debt over my head. As I am doing a science, the top-up fees are likely to be high, so assume I have to pay £3000 a year, then thats another £12,000, so i'll be £24,000 in debt. How am I ever going to pay that off? Especially since the starting salary for the job i hope to end up in is only £13k-£14K, which isn't much especially as it will probably be in the south - which will mean I might have to live at home, and then when I get to £15K, they start taking money back. I'll end up at 30, still paying off debt and probably living with my parents!!!

    I know I shouldn't worry as its not going to effect me specifically, but my younger brother will start university in 2006, and will be effected.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Chicken)
    Ok I wasn't aware of that fully. But still, if I was affected by top-up fees, then when I gradutate (assuming my regular £1125 a year tuition fees were already paid for me) then as mine is a 4 year course, I would already have £12,000 of student loan debt over my head. As I am doing a science, the top-up fees are likely to be high, so assume I have to pay £3000 a year, then thats another £12,000, so i'll be £24,000 in debt. How am I ever going to pay that off? Especially since the starting salary for the job i hope to end up in is only £13k-£14K, which isn't much especially as it will probably be in the south - which will mean I might have to live at home, and then when I get to £15K, they start taking money back. I'll end up at 30, still paying off debt and probably living with my parents!!!

    I know I shouldn't worry as its not going to effect me specifically, but my younger brother will start university in 2006, and will be effected.
    It sounds daunting I know - until you realise that the size of the debt doesn't mean you pay it off at a higher rate - just over a longer period.

    It helps to look at a few examples.

    If you are earning £16k then you have to repay 9% of £16k-£15k (£1k) annually. So £90 a year - £7.50 a month...not that daunting when you consider that net pay of £16k is around about £800 a month.

    If you are earning £20k then you have to repay 9% of £20k-£15k (£5k) annually. £450 a year - £37.50 a month - and at £20k you will be taking home over £1,200 every month.

    If you are earning £30k then you have to repay 9% of £10k annually - £900 a year or £75 a month - out of a paycheck that will be heading towards £2,000 take home pay each month.

    If you are earning £100k then you have to repay 9% of £85k annually - £7650 a yr - £637.50 a month - out of a pay check that is likely to be over £6000 every month (this one is total guesswork as I've never earnt anything in this region before).

    It might take a long time (10, 20, 30 even 40 yrs) to pay off but it will be written off when you retire and I'd be more than willing to pay back the £12k that my course would have cost at these rates (unfortunately my student loan was under the old system which means the second I earn a penny over the national earnings average (likely to happen next year) my repayment amount goes from £0 per month to £90 per month...I'd much rather I'd have been paying it off in little and often payments like happens under the new system)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Say I earn £15K at first, then if i paid £90 a year, then it would take near 30 years to pay off my debt. I know my earnings are likely to go up after a while, but whatever happens I'll be paying off debt for around 20 years - thats a lonng time to be in debt!
 
 
 
Poll
Black Friday: Yay or Nay?
Useful resources

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.