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

Why must people continue to insist the fees prevent poorer students from goin to uni? Watch

    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Students have enough valid points without having to resort to untruths about not being able to afford it and how it'll 'deter' poor students. It just dilutes their entire argument and allows the opposition to come back with the same easy replies of "yes, you can afford it" and "poor won't be worse off since it's paid off proportional to your income". Every interview in the media is filled up with some tory MP explaining the £21k cap for the millionth time (as if anyone doesn't understand that bit?), when other issues (such as Wales and Scotland protecting themselves (and EU countries) against the rises while english students pay much more) are skimmed over with negligible debate.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    That's pretty stupid.

    No wonder we had a financial crisis if many people think like this.

    edit: before you 'clever' people will bombard this post with so-called 'it's not real debt', please don't. anyone who does not take this debt into account and writes it off because it isn't 'real' has some serious problems with how to handle money.
    Um, i consider it to not be 'real debt' as i do not have to pay it off like a normal loan, and there is no pressure to pay it if you do not earn 21k (although 15k for me). I do understand it will have to be paid back, but I am not borrowing what I cannot afford, which is in fact what caused the economic crisis.

    In fact i have no other debts, overdraft or anything. So I think I do know how to handle money, actually. I have a job in uni.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttx)
    It doesn't. All the evidence points the other way. What puts off students from poorer background is the immediate cost not the long term cost (+lot of other factors). So as long as a reasonable amount of money from the fees goes towards increasing bursaries, loans, outreach programs, etc. then it's beneficial to poorer students.

    Every increase in tuition fees in this country has been accompanied by an increase in students from poorer backgrounds attending university.

    Ironically news coverage student protests about tuition fees (which often fails to make it clear that tuition fees don't have to be paid upfront) has a bigger impact on putting students off university than the fees themselves.
    There's not been a big a jump as this though - I don't believe you can generalise what happened then to what's happening now.

    The poorer students are also going to find social mobility harder if they do go, as they'll be paying off a larger debt, this is also a reason why they'd be put off.

    I agree the media can have an effect but they're just reporting what's happening - it's better that then not reporting it at all. Besides, from the first rally there were thousands of people lining the streets and the media hadn't had an effect at all then, people haven't been happy since the start.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What I love is that, you have to think that the Tories won't get re-elected in 2015, the Lib Dems certainly won't. With the cuts and all, I doubt people will want that again and their policies. Labour will more than likely get back in, and Milliband has already said he will reorganise the system of tuition fees- and make this a key policy for Labour. This was on an interview on Sky News.

    I think people should calm down. Besides, if you're a current Uni student- it doesn't affect you, I don't see why you get so worked up! Sure, it is morally wrong, but look at it this way. Less people are getting degrees according to this right? Therefore, degrees are going to be more desired in a few years, provided the current system stays of course. With them becoming more desired, surely that means better job prospects for us right?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LPat)
    the people who are rich will be fine cause they can afford to pay, people who are poor will be fine as a large chunk will be paid for them, it's the middle folk who will suffer.
    Agreed.

    I consider myself one of these middle folk. I fund myself independantly at a London University and I am studying architecture. I am currently in my first 3 years so I am lucky in that respect. However I still have Part 2 and part 3, at least another 2 years. Which will be at the new rates. And when I leave uni I will most likely get a job earning over £21k a year, but not much higher. So Im getting hit there as well, because my course is not a micky mouse course that leads to a lower paying job.

    Thats alot of debt for students like myself who dont have a rich mom and daddy and arent lucky enough to be poor. This is hitting students such as myself the worst. The current crop of students will eventually pay for the errors of governments from decades before their generation. So dont accuse people of been fickle, it matters to some of us.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craiky1506)
    There's not been a big a jump as this though - I don't believe you can generalise what happened then to what's happening now.
    True, but it's always going to be the case you'll never know for sure what impact a policy will have until it goes into practice, but all the evidence favours the end outcome being positive for poorer students.


    The poorer students are also going to find social mobility harder if they do go, as they'll be paying off a larger debt, this is also a reason why they'd be put off.
    That doesn't really follow, social classification is generally done on the basis of occupation rather than purely wealth (which will decrease slightly). Any impact on occupation choice is likely to go in an upwards direction (i.e. students will go for higher paying jobs) although obviously this causes other societal problems (i.e. reduces the number of talented people in important but less well paid positions like teaching).

    Also I think people need to remember the debate here isn't between higher fees vs current fees, but rather higher fees vs a graduate tax (the proposal favoured by most of the anti-tuition fee groups like the NUS).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Syko)
    You smirk at the fact that is it 40k of debt, but when you are on a low paid job as most graduates who come out of University are, as well as having to pay for living costs, which DONT come with the student loan, as well as property prices which will once again balloon as the country comes out of recession means that it's a huge chunk of money to have hanging over your head!
    Surely if you are on a low paying job the 21k cap means you don't have to pay your loan back at the time? Also, if the majority of graduates are stuck on low paying jobs(as you are saying) can we really justify investing in their education, because they have been telling us for so long that they add so much value to the economy as high income earners.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Break To Build)
    I am looking at other countries. Norwegians do not pay for university education and can in fact be paid to take degrees, not to mention the wealth of grants and loans on offer to sustain them through the 3-4 years. Sounds pretty sweet to me.
    Norway also has one of the highest taxes in the world. I am not sure you would like it if you, and for that matter the ordinary taxpayer had to pay those here.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    Put yourself in the shoes of a kid from a working class family who parents didn't go to university and are on low incomes. What do you think the parents will say when the kid says 'mum, dad, I want to go to university'?

    The parents will say 'and put yourself in £40k debt? no chance'. Parents won't support their children's desire for higher education and they can't/won't give them the financial backing they need to go to university.

    The notion that everyone can go to university because you pay nothing upfront is a myth. The maintenance loan alone is very often LESS than the cost of accommodation, so any student without their parents' financial support has to somehow make their own living.
    You mean like, having a job, like most of the rest of us do anyway?
    Anyway, how is that now any different at all to the old system? If you could afford to go to uni under the old system, you still can. If not, you'll have to work and save, or find a part time job, or live somewhere really cheap.

    Personally, if I'd been getting the full loan I could've just about lived on that and nothing else in first year. It would've been a bit grim, since I'd have had no money for socialising, but it would have been doable.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It really annoys me when people say you can't imagine how much this debt will put off poor people; going to uni is supposed to be an aspirational decision and the people who go are supposed to be ambitious and bright. If paying back a few hundred pounds a year when earning 21k is putting them off or just the fact there are higher debts involved, then clearly they are undervaluing how much uni will help them achieve and in that case they clearly aren't that passionate about it and may as well not go. The really poor people pay far less anyway so they have nothing to complain about.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hylean)
    You're all looking at it in the wrong light. It's not "real" debt. It doesn't affect your credit rating and you're under no obligation to pay it all back. It gets written off after 30 years and you don't start paying it back until you're earning over 21,000 pounds, at which point you pay back 9% of anything over that limit.

    As someone who is under the old system and was on 15k salary last year, I can tell you, even then the repayments were not that harsh. It really isn't that big of a problem. It won't affect your ability to get loans, it doesn't have to be fully repaid and the repayments are so small as to barely have any impact upon your salary.

    People need to look at the whole system, not just the amount of money that it amounts to. It's not 40k debt in real terms and that should be explained to people better.
    How patronising, i've already said it isn't 'real' debt, that doesn't mean it's not a huge amount and 30 years is a long time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'm a kid from a working class background out of a town in Essex. Only went to university cos i managed to score myself a scholarship in engineering.

    Don't see what all the fuss is about to be honest, people need to stop doing useless degrees in golfing, sports science and feelings. Start doing degrees that are helpful to all of us, like surveying and engineering, which will land you in a job once you finish university.

    Fees will never stop people who want to go university from going university. With these changes we might finally see students taking an educated decision and putting some real thought into their career paths, making sure they choose a course knowing their going to land a job after graduation.

    Budgets need to be cut somewhere, labor over spent and has devalued the degree so much that no one earns any money any more for having them,

    my two cents
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tashalls)
    How patronising, i've already said it isn't 'real' debt, that doesn't mean it's not a huge amount and 30 years is a long time.
    It's a huge amount which has no real effect on your life. 30 years may be a long time but that's the longest it'll be with you. You can pay it off sooner if you so wish. Plus, unless they're exceptionally crap, most graduates will not get stuck on 21k a year. You're just focusing on the number, not the entire system in place.

    Besides, for the argument on raising a family and such, most people will have a partner on a similar pay grade, so it won't be that draining.

    It really isn't that bad, not bad enough to avoid university for anyway.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    That's pretty stupid.

    No wonder we had a financial crisis if many people think like this.

    edit: before you 'clever' people will bombard this post with so-called 'it's not real debt', please don't. anyone who does not take this debt into account and writes it off because it isn't 'real' has some serious problems with how to handle money.
    To think of it as a "debt" is highly misleading. Your credit rating won't be affected, you won't be at risk of defaulting and the repayments are tailored to your earnings. It is essentially a TAX, and for the majority of graduates who are expected to be unable to fully pay back the loans, it works EXACTLY like a tax that is levied for 30 years.

    To be honest, I am struggling to understand why the Conservatives implemented this highly unpopular policy of fee rises rather than just levying a graduate tax, which would have a rather similar effects in terms of finance, but a completely different political meaning. I doubt you'd hear anyone complaining about how a graduate tax is a barrier poor students. It just makes no sense to me. :confused:
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The low income students will actually be financially better off under the new system so I really don't understand what their hysteria is about.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MovingOn)
    The low income students will actually be financially better off under the new system so I really don't understand what their hysteria is about.
    Better off? ... i dont see how you came to that conclusion.
    Poorer students will still get the same benefits they do now just adjusted to the higher fee's.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tommyjw)
    Better off? ... i dont see how you came to that conclusion.
    Poorer students will still get the same benefits they do now just adjusted to the higher fee's.
    No, those who get free school meals will get one or two years of their fees paid for. Currently everyone has to pay for higher education.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Athuwssr)
    Well your a class A douche bag.

    £9k a year for three years is an outrage.

    We only have to pay it after we earn £21k so we are better off apparently. Thats only £6k a year more but instead we will have debts of £40k instead of £20k.

    So anyone who goes to uni in 2012 is ****ed.

    Your a **** for listening to what the "coalition" are saying and being absorbed into thinking others will be better off under the new scheme when its total BS
    exactly when did he say you would be better off?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    To be honest, I am struggling to understand why the Conservatives implemented this highly unpopular policy of fee rises rather than just levying a graduate tax, which would have a rather similar effects in terms of finance, but a completely different political meaning. I doubt you'd hear anyone complaining about how a graduate tax is a barrier poor students. It just makes no sense to me. :confused:
    Free market pricing. Degrees which result in high-earning careers (STEM degrees) will be able to charge more, allowing them to expand and grow. Degrees which have poor career outcomes ("Mickey mouse degrees") won't be able to charge more.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LPat)
    the people who are rich will be fine cause they can afford to pay, people who are poor will be fine as a large chunk will be paid for them, it's the middle folk who will suffer.
    Its funny how the middle class are ALWAYS left out.

    Its like theres only rich and poor in the eyes of governments.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.