Would you still go to university if fees were uncapped ?

Another argument I dislike is "Well Uni students can afford to pay it off". Erm no? Not every former Uni student earns hundreds of thousands as a top doctor, lawyer, investor etc. For example, I want to study Psychology. Now **** knows what this will yield. Hopefully, I become a writer or something in marketing and earn a ton, however I could just as easily end up struggling to make ends meet on £10,000 a year?

If you're only making £10,000 per year, you won't have to pay your fees back. You only start when you start earning £15,000 per year, and even then you only pay them back at a rate of 9% per year.

Additionally, after 25 years of being under the threshold, your loans for fees and maintenance are written off by the government.

Not under some of the latest proposals?

Proposals according to whom, however?

The only people who seem to think every university will start to charge £30,000 and there'll be no more loans for fees and maintenance are scaremongering TSR users.

The actual review hasn't even finalised yet, and the official policy of the Conservatives prior to the election was for fees to be raised yet the current system of loans and so on resting in place, while the Liberal Democrats wanted to abolish tuition fees in six years time. The coalition, however, have said they'll wait until the review before making any sort of decision.

Well I have the Daily Mail article infront of me (yes I know, i dont usually read it but its there so...) and I also read it in the economist yesterday about several proposed ideas.

I've not read the Daily Mail article, and as you highlight it's from the Daily Mail.

Is The Economist one titled Lurking in the long grass? If so, I don't remember any radical proposal apart from the idea that interest on loans wouldn't be inflation-pegged but pegged to the rate of interest that the government has to borrow the money. Nothing, however, to indicate a reduction in loans or anything else.

Plus, these are all proposals talked about and recommended by academics, economists, and policy-wonks. The reality is the review won't report until the autumn, and even then, the government isn't obliged to take on the recommendations of the review. To be fair, we have no idea how things will pan out considering the coalition element.

Thats the one, still pretty bad.

We know it wont effect 2010 students but say if I took a gap yah. would the changes effect 2011 students?

I corrected a few points there.

Yes i would. Uncapped fees doesnt mean all universities will make their fees impossible to pay. A few, like the Russel group, will be high as they are renowned univerisities. But the others, like other sectors of business, will charge fees that make them competative. If all unis tommorow charged crazy fees, at least a quarter will go under (bearing in mind that in the UK that has never happened).
Even with crazy fees the really disasvantaged and talented can still get scholarships, so the system would not necessarly impune the vulnerable. You should go university because it educates you, not as a stop gap when finishing FE.
Not charging fees all together is a moronic statement, if you want unversities to keep investing in yours and future generations education, they need to raise the cash to do it, and the taxes the people would have to pay to make that a reality would dwarf all other government spending departments. The current system is fair enough, the government lets you borrow, and you pay it back. Not doing that is sticking a big two fingers to the taxpayers of this nation thjat subsidise peoples education. This Nation helps pay for our right to an education, we should remember that from time to time

The vulnerable arent the poor or the rich. Its the middle class who dont qualify for scholarships and those who cant pay £20,000 + straight up, despite how academically talented they are. But hey, thats what happens as a result of working hard right ? Getting taxed ******** by the government and then expected to fork out such sums because some academics want money for research.

Its amazing how many people forget the middle class, especially as they constitute for most of the university goers in the country.

Saying the middle class is vulnerable is a little comical. The truth of the matter is that unlike the working class, if the middle class set aside some of their wages every month beacuase they were serious about their childs education, by the time they were 18 there would be a substantial amount of money there. Even with a family who's both parents earn only £25,000 a year each.

If one couple put aside £50 each, every month, for 18 years, thats £21,600. Not very difficult for a middle class if you ask me.

Additionally as far as im aware there is no requisite, at least for the majority of universities, to ask for all the cash up front, you can pay in installments.

So to be honest your argument is pretty weak compared to the working class who's social mobility is far weaker than the middle.

Finally if we dont fund research projects at universities this country would very quickly fall behind all the others, research creates new technologies and economies need ever greater efficiencies.

Brilliant naivety here.

My parents for example, did do this- they put aside £100 a week for a savings account, with the initial intention on sending me to a university in Canada (where I was born)- Now, not only did they not even save enough to pay for a full education during my year of admission... they also had cut back a great deal on leisure things (such as gym memberships, television etc)...

...(1) college/university is a luxury, and therefore a dimension of choice exists, whereby if you cant afford, you take the option of (a) a private loan or (b) not to go and pursue education somewhere else, or enter the labour market. Which is fine for some people, don't get me wrong- and I would have probably taken out a loan under a free market system such as one in the United States.

However, to make the fallacy that middle class families can simply 'put money aside' despite paying at a higher tax rate, paying higher rents/mortgages, alongside utility bills, alongside taxes, it's not easy enough to simply say 'oh, they can put money away, rather than go on holiday'...

However a working class family would never be able to put £100 a week aside in saving while your parents at least had the funds to attempt it. This final point is why middle class should pay and why working class deserve the help.

But kids at 18 don't usually have enough money to pay for their education themselves regardless of whether they're middle class. So why should some people be able to receive financial assistance but not others? Why can't everyone get a loan regardless of their background?

Because thats insane. Should Prince William and Harry got a loan for their education? Of course not. And why? Because their parents are very wealthy, even though they themselves arnt. Theres only so many loans that can go out before you need to collect the money back on them or you go broke. Hence the collpase of sub-prime mortgages and the economic collapse; too many loans and not enough of it being payed back.

Therefore with limited loans its only fair those who do not have the means to support their education both from thier own money or any other relatives should take priority