You are Here: Home

# Nick Cleggs Maths = FAIL ! Watch

1. (Original post by JMG89)
In the US.......... You think we are going to be in recession for the next 5 years???? and thus we won't be able to increase wages?
The US isn't in recession either.

Well the OBR said unemployment would be higher in 2015 than today, why would employers pay more than they need as their tax burden (NI and VAT) rises?

Meh I don't care, my repayment threshold is set to 15k and I paid £171 off on my Nov payslip...
2. He's either a liar or an idiot...

Or both...

And a c***.
Meh I don't care, my repayment threshold is set to 15k and I paid £171 off on my Nov payslip...
Good to see you're alright, Jack...
4. (Original post by Acerbic)
Good to see you're alright, Jack...
Well the OP's point is that only a monitory of people will pay off the loan.

They are saying that I'm hard done by due to this, but yeah I'd take your view.
5. (Original post by Acerbic)
He's either a liar or an idiot...

Or both...

And a c***.
How is he either?

(since the OP has agreed that he didn't say anything wrong)
6. From seeing another thread on Nick Clegg, it wouldn't suprise me he's not so great at Maths. He apparently did a Sociology degree.
7. (Original post by jb9191)
He basically has said someone who graduates and gets a salary of £21000

will pay back just £7 per month

After 30 years the debt gets wiped.

If a degree costs £9000 per year tuition x 3 = £27,000 debt for 3 year course

Plus maintenance - lets say £5000 per year so x 3 = £15,000

Then £5,000 extra through overdrafts etc.

Total debt = £47,000.

----------------------------------

In 30 years there are obvious 360 months. (30 x 12 = 360)

360 x £7 per month he says = £2520 paid back of £47,000

----------------------------------

Therefore, he is a blatant liar or he struggles with maths.

That would leave the taxpayer at a £44,500 deficit.

The fact is someone who is on £21,000 per year would pay back £157.50 per month (9% of their income). This is £150 more per month than the figures hes putting forward.

----------------------------------

Yes I know many graduates will get promotions and earn more and pay back more. However, a lot will not get jobs which will leave a burden on the taxpayer who in the end will be the rest of the graduates.

He is 100% trying to pull a fast one and its not working. Welsh students now have success and will not have fee's increased, I hope our fellow English students have the same outcome.

Do you know how sickening it will be to go to university and for me to pay £3290 because I'm Welsh yet someone who is English has to pay £6000-9000 for the same degree. I think that is extremely unfair.

It will cause national tension and division of the classes.
How is he either?

(since the OP has agreed that he didn't say anything wrong)
Liar: tuition fees pledge: broken
Idiot: false sincerity, quick to temper, swindled by Tories as many Liberals have been throughout history
C***: all the above, and so much more
9. (Original post by Acerbic)
Liar: tuition fees pledge: broken
Idiot: false sincerity, quick to temper, swindled by Tories as many Liberals have been throughout history
C***: all the above, and so much more
Ahhh yeah ok, those things on this thread, sorry.
10. (Original post by 786girl)
How since what he said is perfectly valid?
How since what he said is perfectly valid?
yes.
12. (Original post by jb9191)
the education budget is paid for by the taxpayer

the fact is the increase to tuition fees will by far outweight the cut to the education budget meaning universities can make more money from the taxpayers.
What it is actually saying is universities are running deficits at the moment, so instead of getting the 7k you were using earlier, and what it costs for an average undergrad, they are getting less than that. What it does not say is somehow they will get MORE than the 7k(which is what you have been pushing), but that they will get just that(or thereabouts). So they will get the true cost of an average undergrad, not below it as they are right now.
13. (Original post by ish90an)
What it is actually saying is universities are running deficits at the moment, so instead of getting the 7k you were using earlier, and what it costs for an average undergrad, they are getting less than that. What it does not say is somehow they will get MORE than the 7k(which is what you have been pushing), but that they will get just that(or thereabouts). So they will get the true cost of an average undergrad, not below it as they are right now.
So will universities get more money?

Universities have been struggling to meet surging demand for places. Many years of rising investment under Labour have given way to cuts as the economic climate has changed.

The government admits that, in general, the money raised from tuition fees will simply replace major cuts to teaching budgets.

The Browne review's conclusions were modelled on an 80% cut to teaching grants.

Cuts of 40% to the higher education budget were announced in the spending review on 20 October 2010. But that budget includes student grants, which are unlikely to be significantly cut, as well as the teaching grant, suggesting that teaching funds are likely to face cuts much deeper than 40%.

However, some universities may be able to charge fees high enough to enable them to increase their funding despite the budget cuts.

How are universities currently funded?

In the UK as a whole, income from fees - including fees paid directly by students such as postgraduates and overseas students - makes up about 29% of universities' total funding, which was £25.4bn in 2008/09.

Another 35% comes from government funding bodies, while the rest comes from other sources such as research grants, endowments and investments.

As a very rough guide, universities say the average classroom undergraduate degree costs about £7,000 a year to teach, of which just over £3,000 currently comes from fees and the rest from government funding. Courses such as medicine and sciences cost more.

If much of the teaching budget is withdrawn, vice-chancellors say they would need to raise fees to £7,000 to cover the shortfall.

You just produced an epic fail. Take note of the parts in bold.

Rather than £3000 from loans(taxpayer), £4000 from government funding(taxpayer) which equates to £7000 < yes the figure in bold.

Universities can charge £8000-12000 per year to teach a degree that costs £7000, thus making a profit and increasing funding. Plus they still get 60% of the government funding to go on top of that.(which is from the taxpayer).

They get more. It was even said by members of parliament today.
14. (Original post by jb9191)
As of current - the average course costs roughly £7000 per year.

£3290 tuition fee loan - tax payer pays up front
£3710 roughly - government funding from taxpayer

Some extra funding from sponsors etc

New system

£6000 tuition fee loan - tax payer pays up front
£2000 roughly government funding from taxpayer

Some extra funding from sponsors etc

Therefore, the current system the taxpayer pays the £7000 whereas depending on the increase implemented by the university, the taxpayer will fork out more.

In the new system with £6000 per year tuition fees it will be roughly £8000 cost to the taxpayer. If there was £12000 tuition fees, it would be a substantial amount extra - this is how top uni's like Cambridge & Oxford will boost funding.

The amount cut from government funding is not as much as the percentage increase on tuition fees. That's the issue. This is how the top half of universities who increase tuition fees will increase funding. Cambridge is expected to rake in extra funding through this method.
First of all, telling you to shut up is not an insult: it was quite valid advice.

Secondly, you have - for some reason - increased the cost of the degree by £1,000 under the new system (don't know why).

Thirdly, no university will be charging more than £9,000 to my knowledge: Oxford and Cambridge simply cannot charge £12,000.

Fourthly, there will be no direct increase in taxes to accommodate student loans; as the government will simply borrow the money required, and gain the rest from university levies.

As you so rightly said, if the cost of university was £7,000, and people are being charged £9,000, there will be excess funding. Given this excess of funding, why do students need to repay the whole loan? Since far less funding will be provided by the taxpayer, regardless.

Those earning high wages will accommodate the lack of repayments made by the lowest earners, while taking the burden from the taxpayers.

Finally, I was not trying to insinuate that earning £100,000 was commonplace. You do not need to earn this sum to repay your full loan, I was simply making an obvious example.
15. Ooooh Nickie why you such a thickie?
16. Perhaps they expect people who earn more than the bare minimum to pay more in and cancel that amount out.

Which isn't really fair.
17. (Original post by angelmxxx)
No no no!

It's 9% of your income OVER £21000!

Someone on £21500 thus pays back 9% of £500!
9%???????????? **** that, I heard if you leave the country for 10 years you don't have to pay it back.

See ya people.
18. (Original post by jb9191)
If I'm at Cambridge doing Computer Science for £12,000 per year.
Alas, while Computer Science is admittedly a rather theoretical discipline, I suspect it still requires you to be able to count.
19. (Original post by jb9191)
So will universities get more money?

Universities have been struggling to meet surging demand for places. Many years of rising investment under Labour have given way to cuts as the economic climate has changed.

The government admits that, in general, the money raised from tuition fees will simply replace major cuts to teaching budgets.

The Browne review's conclusions were modelled on an 80% cut to teaching grants.

Cuts of 40% to the higher education budget were announced in the spending review on 20 October 2010. But that budget includes student grants, which are unlikely to be significantly cut, as well as the teaching grant, suggesting that teaching funds are likely to face cuts much deeper than 40%.

However, some universities may be able to charge fees high enough to enable them to increase their funding despite the budget cuts.

How are universities currently funded?

In the UK as a whole, income from fees - including fees paid directly by students such as postgraduates and overseas students - makes up about 29% of universities' total funding, which was £25.4bn in 2008/09.

Another 35% comes from government funding bodies, while the rest comes from other sources such as research grants, endowments and investments.

As a very rough guide, universities say the average classroom undergraduate degree costs about £7,000 a year to teach, of which just over £3,000 currently comes from fees and the rest from government funding. Courses such as medicine and sciences cost more.

If much of the teaching budget is withdrawn, vice-chancellors say they would need to raise fees to £7,000 to cover the shortfall.

You just produced an epic fail. Take note of the parts in bold.

Rather than £3000 from loans(taxpayer), £4000 from government funding(taxpayer) which equates to £7000 < yes the figure in bold.

Universities can charge £8000-12000 per year to teach a degree that costs £7000, thus making a profit and increasing funding. Plus they still get 60% of the government funding to go on top of that.(which is from the taxpayer).

They get more. It was even said by members of parliament today.
Do you have trouble with the concept of averages? "Some universities "MAY BE" able..." is not the same as "on average, every university will be able to charge more and increase funding"(even though universities will have to provide loans etc for any such increase itself, thus not really increasing its own teaching budget, the money will keep running in the loans cycle). Do you also look at "it may be sunny in parts of Northern Scotland" as "it is definitely sunny all across the country"?
20. very good point! loll i think you should send that to Nick Clegg himself loll maybe even become his maths tutor loll but u have a very true point!

TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: December 1, 2010
Today on TSR

Find out how.

### Want £10K to start a business?

Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## 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
Useful resources

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups
Discussions on TSR

• Latest
• ## 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

Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.