Turn on thread page Beta

Would you still go to university if fees were uncapped ? watch

    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    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.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Probably not.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    I would still go
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .ACS.)
    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?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    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.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .ACS.)
    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.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    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. :p:

    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.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    would I have a choice?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .ACS.)
    I've not read the Daily Mail article, and as you highlight it's from the Daily Mail. :p:

    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?
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    Thats the one, still pretty bad.
    I guess. It's debatable, mind, as it depends on where you stand ideologically on who should bare the brunt of university education funding, and also the compromise made on economic efficiency made on higher education funding. (At the end of the day, it (everything including the interest the government pays) will be paid for, whether it be through taxes or students bearing the sole brunt by them solely paying for their tuition loans, it's just a question of how the brunt of paying should be allocated.)


    (Original post by adam_zed)
    We know it wont effect 2010 students but say if I took a gap yah. would the changes effect 2011 students?
    No one knows. It's up to the government to decide. That said, I think it's highly unlikely to affect students starting in 2011 as the report comes autumn 2010, then legislation and it going through parliament, etc. means it probably won't pass through all the hurdles until at earliest autumn 2011 (depending on how quickly the government react after the report is published).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .44_Magnum)
    I corrected a few points there.
    You missed my points here. To go to Stanford, my cousin would have had to work until he was 22, living with my uncle and aunt and thats even if he could afford that. He could take out a government loan at a super high interest rate, and take the risk of a debt mound. OR he could take a dead end job at wal mart and stay there until he is promoted to manager at 30.

    My cousins mum who works at wal mart is an immigrant, she came to america as a refugee and as such has no funds to accellerate herself to a profession, hence why she works at wal mart. Do you really think that considering how hard my cousin works, that she is just lazy and prefers to stay in an underachieving job working 7 days a week ?

    Noone said university is a right, but at the same time, it should not be restricted to the elite. Education is a factor of welfare and success in a nation, on several economic measures, even Armatya Sen sees it as one of the most important indicators in a country's progress. Even if my cousin had to pay $40,000 a year, there should be a loans system that is fair and allows smart MIDDLE CLASS students who aren't eligible for scholarships to attend. He is only going to the smaller liberal arts college because he can commute home and to his part time job.

    You sound quite out of touch atm. Its all well and good that you want to go as a mature student, but its a lot harder to do that in the states than it is here. Its also very very difficult to raise the capital you need to go there, as you will find if you plan to go to the US as a mature student.

    My arguement isnt that the fees should be lowered, but rather, due to the high fees, many middle class families that do work very hard end up getting the brunt of the deal. Middle class families are assumed to have saved money from their childs brith, they are assumed to be earning high incomes etc. They tend to work hard in schools and deserve a shot at the best colleges, same as the privately educated rich kids. if this means opening more scholarships where middle class students can have a shot based on academic merit (how it should be) then so be it.

    Education is not a right for all, i agree. However, it should be targeted for those who are academically more capable, not financially.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    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
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    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.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    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.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Macabre)
    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, (2010) to the extent where i would have still have had to take out a loan, but they also had cut back a great deal on leisure things (such as gym memberships, television etc), and more importantly, to even afford the mortgage on the house, had to also work extremely long hours.

    Now this may be fine for you, indeed, the principle that many libertarians take is that (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' which seems to be a presumption that many on TSR actually make. The system that was proposed in the thread assumed that kids from poor backgrounds would be entitled to generous bursaries and scholarships, whilst the very rich, who had enough in savings, could pay for university on their own. Which then leaves a vulnerable, large middle class who are not only the lifeblood of the economy, but also are likely to be forced to take out private loans, because they aren't eligible for the limited scholarships, nor do they have the money from savings accounts that simply aren't feasible. In reality, I think you have little to no idea what middle class expenditure ACTUALLY is, and certainly have a distorted view of what it would embody under this hypothetical model.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I's study abroad, most probably somewhere in the EU, if they have a repaying system that's more financially straining than the current. Under the current repayment system, uncapping the uni fees would most probably make no difference to the financial burden it would introduce to most people, since most people wont be able to repay it anyway.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phantom_X)
    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'...
    And being middle class you seem to think that a big house or a gym membership are one of many of lifes essentials which frankly is just not true. No one forced your parents to by a house more expensive than the poorer man, so in the cases of struggling with the mortgage i dont agree.
    I also dont agree with the gym membership or television. They are luxuries, so cutting back on them is not a tragedy but something the working class have to do all the time.
    We all pay utility bills so if your house wernt so big and your TV, Stereo's, computers etc. wernt in such energy draining supply, they might be cheaper.

    In terms of tax if you earn more, you pay more, simple as that. If you present to me stats or tax brackets which are unfair, i'd vote to have them changed tommorow, but somthing tells me after reading up till this point you wont do that.

    On a more realsitic note £100 week=£400 month. £4800 year. £27,000(The maximum cost of an English degree)/£4800= 5.625 years saving. 2.8125 years saving between two parents. Math doesnt lie so if your parents couldnt cut back for 3 years of their lives, the same distance as a degree, thats very poor financing indeed.

    On the point of education i dont see it as a luxury, but an essential part of a working economy. We need highly skilled people to enter the job market and University is the starting point for that. 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.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Macabre)
    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?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Smack)
    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
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Macabre)
    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
    The amount paid out in student loans via the government is extremely little, so your point about there only being a limited amount of loans to be paid out by the government is nonsense; especially when you take into account that education is something that we very much should be spending on!

    And why are you assuming that middle class parents have enough money to go around to support their children all the way through their university education? Many don't. Many have things to pay like mortgages etc.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you have a role model?
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.