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

David Cameron - "Before protesting, students need to get the facts straight." Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wacky9873)
    :facepalm: Um well when you pay back the government for the money you borrowed from them, you're going to have to pay back more than if you paid the uni upfront without taking a loan. You pay interest on the loan, that's how they're making money from it.

    You could have two people from the same uni and same course, one is a hard worker and contributes to society so earns more, but has to pay more than the other person for the same degree who might have been lazier and not worked as hard.

    The system essentially means that society is charging the people who are contributing more than those who are contributing less.
    You are forgetting that while the second person is paying more than the first in your example, the second will also end up with a much higher income even after it has been paid back (assuming that their graduate pay reflects the effort put in toward the degree / grades).


    I mean, there's still the fact that if you are earning 15k p/year and don't pay anything back, as a graduate I'm in a better position earning 30k p/year and paying back the 25k loan.

    (30 years * 15k income) - 0k loan = 450,000
    (30 years * 30k income) - 25k loan = 900,000 - 25k = 875,000


    Personally I'd still take the latter option though I guess in reality it probably means a much higher level of expenses in the form of a mortgage / luxuries etc.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I've been doing some math and thought I'd share (read: copy & paste) what I put up on facebook earlier...


    nb: these aren't necessarily robust figures, they're what I guess could be called preliminary figures that need reviewing / qa testing but I've not seen anything like this elsewhere to compare with yet so comments / suggestions / links are welcome and updates will (probably) be made shortly after making them =]


    so annyhow, as i was saying: its getting complicated with the calcs but its looking like everyone earning less than a mean of 26.25k p/y within the 30years after they graduate will be paying *much* less overall with the proposed system as i...t would take longer to payback that much in 30years [30yrs * 9% of 1k = 1,350 in total repayments for every 1k you earn per year over 21k p/y]...

    22k p/y = 2,700 in total repayments (vs 14,028);
    24k p/y = 8,100 in total repayments (vs 14,028);
    26k p/y = 13,500 in total repayments (vs 14,028);

    it would mean paying it back over 30 years, but I don't think that it could be reasonably argued that paying back 37.50 per month from a 26k p/y salary is over the top (esp in comparison to the 82.50 that would currently be charged based on the current 15k base)

    so yeah, not sure about the average salaries over 30 years for graduates but *on the surface* it definitely *seems* to be cheaper for the poorer students..

    still reserving judgement on it all for now though until the rest of the math is sor...ted.. kinda concerned that the amount repaid seems to peak between 33.5k p/y and 41k p/y -- isn't this the kinda salary that most graduates are aiming for / will be getting??

    ((nb: the peak's due to the balance of higher salaries repaying it quicker thus accumulating less interest vs smaller payments over a long time accumulating more interest.. you'd pay the most if you pay it off just before the 30years is up))

    also:
    [(30years * 36k income) - ~30k debt = 1.08mill income - 30k = 1.05mill ].. could be worse I guess but this is just income over 30years - would need to take into account expenses over 30 years too to get any proper perspective from this..

    ** that's at 6k fees per year and no support...

    at 9k fees and no support the peak is closer to 40k with 48k debt to be repaid over 30years

    = (30yrs * 40k salary) - 48k
    ...= 1.2mill - 48k
    = 1.152mill
    = 38.4k p/y

    = 1.6k repayments per year out of a 40k salary..

    is this bad?

    I guess the richer people should pay more toward the fees as they're the ones who benefited most from it, and those on an income less than 26k would be paying less but at the same time I can't yet get into perspective how many this would affect and by how much.. would i really want to only finish paying it off when I'm 55? If I'm paying less per month and it won't count against me when applying for loans/mortgages etc, will I really care? Has the government realised that it'll only be the very rich or those on a high salary that will get to pay this off (in which case you'll pay maybe 3x as much) and for the rest of us this will be a stealth graduate tax?

    So much confusion but then I can't help try and boil it down to 50quid per month vs 3.50; 90quid vs 45.00; 170 vs 125; 10-15 years vs 30; old system vs new..

    Then there's the added complexity of government / uni subsidies / scholarships for the poorer students -- for anyone in this category the most you're likely to pay is about 15-19k...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrainFactory)
    This issue will be voted on next Thursday. If this is such a great policy, why didn't the tories include it in their manifesto?
    Politicians = liars.
    The obvious reason is that The Browne Report had not been released yet.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wacky9873)
    :facepalm: Um well when you pay back the government for the money you borrowed from them, you're going to have to pay back more than if you paid the uni upfront without taking a loan. You pay interest on the loan, that's how they're making money from it.

    You could have two people from the same uni and same course, one is a hard worker and contributes to society so earns more, but has to pay more than the other person for the same degree who might have been lazier and not worked as hard.

    The system essentially means that society is charging the people who are contributing more than those who are contributing less.
    Up to now, the government has been losing 27p for every £1 lent to a student, as the loans were interest free and beaurocracy heavy. They will still be losing money, unless they start charging 3%. The more they lend us, the more they lose in the short term (although it means they have a hope of recuperating the money they lend to students, rather than just giving it to universities and seeing it gone forever.)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Politicians need to get their facts straight


    "The first thing they need to understand is that given the state of our public finances, changes to higher education funding are unavoidable"

    85 billion is spent on all education, the exact breakdown is unavaliable. Proportionally to infant/primary/secondary/college education that are given to every child born, University education must be a tiny amount, especially since it is already subsidised by students and provides economic boosts to areas local to campuses which in turn is reclaimed through taxation.


    "These reforms are going to drive up the quality of higher education, because when more funding flows directly from the student rather than from government" - This is a jazzing up of their plans to privatise education as well as the rest of the public sector, privatization is another whole chapter though.


    "The third and most important thing the protesters need to understand is that these plans are fair." - Tory style forced opinion backed with Liberal jargon.


    "No one — I repeat, no one — will have to pay a penny of their loan back until they can afford to do so. Today graduates start contributing when they're earning £15,000. Under our scheme, payments don't even start until earnings reach £21,000 a year."

    Irrelevant, you will still have a loan three times the size of before. This connotes a more sinister consequence when you look at it literally. I'm sure you have all heard the classic political archetypes. Conservative - Rich for the Rich, Labour - Poor for the Poor, Liberal - For everyone. But this as well as various other changes being made by the current government fit into these archetypes far too snuggly. Raising the cost of education and raising the cap on repayment effectively creates a financial cage. Depending on what degree you do and its job prospects/the wealth of your family will determine its effects on you. If you come from a wealthy background it will cause you no harm, all others are hampered by it. If you take a Degree likely to provide you with a high paid job, Business/Economics/Engineering (Tory approved for +£££), you will be effected to a much smaller degree if you survive the rat race afterwards. For anyone taking a Humanities/Arts (Tory Disapproval For -£££) Teaching/or those that are unsucessful at finding a job afer uni (a huge amount) have their social mobility crushed. Most jobs on the market pay -£21,000 and have a cap on role progression. Those that get promoted in those jobs will suffer at higher wages and financially may make more sense to stay at a lower wage unless you expect to be catapulted into stardom. In terms of the cost of student loans, it will realistically be larger that x3 of its current price, thanks to the Torys plans to include inflation on student loans. A counter point could be that the idea is to shift focus from higher education being the gateway to success to encouraging entrepreneurial spirit, but this only leaves Academic success to be a wealthy mans persuit.


    "In fact, many of the lowest-income graduates will repay less than they do under the current system." + "best schools are incentivised to offer places to the most disadvantaged children"

    Irrelevant, simply a genture to play the fair game. The point is that it is still a birth lottery, Born in a poor family - Cheap Education, Born in a rich family - Free Education. For it to be fair you need a blanket policy that has nothing to do with your parents.


    "It is fair that there is a link between the cost of a degree and the financial advantages it has brought" - Clasical Tory ethos. Assuming the only value in a degree is its ability to earn you money.


    " For the first time since the last government introduced tuition fees, part-time students who are studying for at least a third of their time will — subject to the usual conditions — be entitled to a loan for their tuition costs, and they will no longer be forced to pay upfront costs. " - Kudos for this, makes perfect sense.


    "Our Coalition partners have had a lot of stick for supporting this policy but their opponents should understand this: responsible politics is not about peddling fantasy policies without looking at the price tag and pleasing any crowd you're playing to. It means making hard decisions in the national interest, in line with your beliefs and in light of the finances you've been left with. " - I totally agree. but leads to an important point.


    If i was the king of england, i would raise the entry requirements for University acceptance but make the cost of a degree cheap. I would then encourage the use of adult learning/18+ collages and condense courses into a much shorter space of time. The theory is; anyone can go to University and study, but before you get there you must show the ability to work hard/do well and not be tripped up by past failings. I know many value University as a way of growing up, having fun and meeting new people, but it is not its purpose. This would avoid that and either save money or produce a lot more students of a much higher standard or both. Allowing access to those willing to try and not discriminating on the basis of after education profit, background or past failings.


    More than anything though, we NEED transparency of government spending and finances. This way we can avoid Politicians giving unreasonal promises and help stamp out corruption and exploitation of the system.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    This is a prime example of what alot of these people protesting are like. Despite the fact that you only start paying back when you can afford it at 21k per year people just see 3x the fee = RIOT and then they see nothing else but that.

    But in my opinion Cameron is right about most things he has said. There are alot of misconceptions flying around and these sort of fee increases and cuts are unavoidable.

    As for EMA I agree it should be removed as the system is so flawed it's unbelievable. But another system has to replace it as poorer students cannot be left out completely but it has to be means tested to a very high degree as the majority of people in my school who get EMA should not as they only spend it on booze anyway.
    Shut up, k?
    • Offline

      16
      (Original post by lesbionic)
      Shut up, k?
      And once again a prime example of the moronic and misinformed group of students that exist. This one acts like a child because he doesn't like what he hears(or looks at in this situation).
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Genocidal)
      And once again a prime example of the moronic and misinformed group of students that exist. This one acts like a child because he doesn't like what he hears(or looks at in this situation).
      No I'd disagree with that. I would argue why, but I do 'real life' discussions, not petty flame wars.
      • Offline

        16
        (Original post by lesbionic)
        No I'd disagree with that. I would argue why, but I do 'real life' discussions, not petty flame wars.
        Then don't try and start one with replies such as "Shut up, k" you damned hypocrite.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by burpleronnie)
        Politicians need to get their facts straight


        "The first thing they need to understand is that given the state of our public finances, changes to higher education funding are unavoidable"
        85 billion is spent on all education, the exact breakdown is unavaliable. Proportionally to infant/primary/secondary/college education that are given to every child born, University education must be a tiny amount, especially since it is already subsidised by students and provides economic boosts to areas local to campuses which in turn is reclaimed through taxation.
        The problem here is that education upto university is necessary for people, a degree is not. Additionally, universities do not run at profits, they have been running at a loss and indeed have been unable to spend as much as they did in the past on each student due to rising demand.
        "These reforms are going to drive up the quality of higher education, because when more funding flows directly from the student rather than from government" - This is a jazzing up of their plans to privatise education as well as the rest of the public sector, privatization is another whole chapter though.
        A false slippery slope that you have conjured up in your mind.
        "The third and most important thing the protesters need to understand is that these plans are fair." - Tory style forced opinion backed with Liberal jargon.



        "No one — I repeat, no one — will have to pay a penny of their loan back until they can afford to do so. Today graduates start contributing when they're earning £15,000. Under our scheme, payments don't even start until earnings reach £21,000 a year."

        Irrelevant, you will still have a loan three times the size of before. This connotes a more sinister consequence when you look at it literally. I'm sure you have all heard the classic political archetypes. Conservative - Rich for the Rich, Labour - Poor for the Poor, Liberal - For everyone. But this as well as various other changes being made by the current government fit into these archetypes far too snuggly. Raising the cost of education and raising the cap on repayment effectively creates a financial cage. Depending on what degree you do and its job prospects/the wealth of your family will determine its effects on you. If you come from a wealthy background it will cause you no harm, all others are hampered by it. If you take a Degree likely to provide you with a high paid job, Business/Economics/Engineering (Tory approved for +£££), you will be effected to a much smaller degree if you survive the rat race afterwards. For anyone taking a Humanities/Arts (Tory Disapproval For -£££) Teaching/or those that are unsucessful at finding a job afer uni (a huge amount) have their social mobility crushed. Most jobs on the market pay -£21,000 and have a cap on role progression. Those that get promoted in those jobs will suffer at higher wages and financially may make more sense to stay at a lower wage unless you expect to be catapulted into stardom. In terms of the cost of student loans, it will realistically be larger that x3 of its current price, thanks to the Torys plans to include inflation on student loans. A counter point could be that the idea is to shift focus from higher education being the gateway to success to encouraging entrepreneurial spirit, but this only leaves Academic success to be a wealthy mans persuit.
        I thought the whole point of spending money on universities was graduates would contribute to society and the economy as they would earn more? If someone is not able to get a job after so much is spent on them then surely it is their fault, not the fault of the state? University is not supposed to be a 3 year ride where you shouldn't have to think about your future and work towards it, it is supposed
        to be a place for those who want to, and have the ability to, give themselves and consequently the economy a better future. If you want to spend a couple of years doing some pointless subject that is of no economic benefit to the state, do not expect the state to help you for it. Money, like it or not, makes the world work. And along with loans, the earning cap is also being lined with inflation.
        "In fact, many of the lowest-income graduates will repay less than they do under the current system." + "best schools are incentivised to offer places to the most disadvantaged children"

        Irrelevant, simply a genture to play the fair game. The point is that it is still a birth lottery, Born in a poor family - Cheap Education, Born in a rich family - Free Education. For it to be fair you need a blanket policy that has nothing to do with your parents.
        How much you are getting in a loan, how much you have to repay, the penalties associated with paying upfront, all make sure your parents have nothing to do with you need to pay.
        "It is fair that there is a link between the cost of a degree and the financial advantages it has brought" - Clasical Tory ethos. Assuming the only value in a degree is its ability to earn you money.
        Well yes, the entire time we've heard students telling us they are the future so they deserve state funding. Well if they are future then they ought to be judged by it.

        "Our Coalition partners have had a lot of stick for supporting this policy but their opponents should understand this: responsible politics is not about peddling fantasy policies without looking at the price tag and pleasing any crowd you're playing to. It means making hard decisions in the national interest, in line with your beliefs and in light of the finances you've been left with. " - I totally agree. but leads to an important point.


        If i was the king of england, i would raise the entry requirements for University acceptance but make the cost of a degree cheap. I would then encourage the use of adult learning/18+ collages and condense courses into a much shorter space of time. The theory is; anyone can go to University and study, but before you get there you must show the ability to work hard/do well and not be tripped up by past failings. I know many value University as a way of growing up, having fun and meeting new people, but it is not its purpose. This would avoid that and either save money or produce a lot more students of a much higher standard or both. Allowing access to those willing to try and not discriminating on the basis of after education profit, background or past failings.
        This is an indirect way of increasing university competition while avoiding the whole "Tories hate the new universities" nonsense that would have come up had they closed down non-beneficial courses. Agreeing upon a blanket minimum requirement would have been harder due to the range of factors involved(subject choice, exam difficulty variation, course requirements), this way market forces ensure only those universities/courses that should survive are in demand.
        [/QUOTE]
        Offline

        18
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by The_Great_One)
        Well i think students are making a mistake protesting. What would they rather have higher tuition fees...or some poorer universities closing down full stop...
        If Liverpool Hope and TVU closed down I don't think I'd really be that bothered.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by ish90an)
        The problem here is that education upto university is necessary for people, a degree is not. Additionally, universities do not run at profits, they have been running at a loss and indeed have been unable to spend as much as they did in the past on each student due to rising demand.
        My point was that although the education cuts will save money, proportionately to the entirity of the uks spending very little money is actually being saved. Begging the question as to why they are being made, especially considering the negative effects they have all round. Also considering that the increase in university costs will indirectly be passed on to the taxpayer through increased student loans, that Mr Cameron also claims will not be fully paid back by the majority of students.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        A false slippery slope that you have conjured up in your mind.
        As i said, its another whole chapter so i wont go into it and only offer america as a case study.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        I thought the whole point of spending money on universities was graduates would contribute to society and the economy as they would earn more? If someone is not able to get a job after so much is spent on them then surely it is their fault, not the fault of the state? University is not supposed to be a 3 year ride where you shouldn't have to think about your future and work towards it, it is supposed
        to be a place for those who want to, and have the ability to, give themselves and consequently the economy a better future. If you want to spend a couple of years doing some pointless subject that is of no economic benefit to the state, do not expect the state to help you for it. Money, like it or not, makes the world work. And along with loans, the earning cap is also being lined with inflation.

        Well yes, the entire time we've heard students telling us they are the future so they deserve state funding. Well if they are future then they ought to be judged by it.
        Clasical Tory ethos. Assuming the only value in a degree is its ability to earn you money. Contributing to society does not = earning more money. The majority of high payed jobs contribute little to society. Whats more valuable to society, well educated and healthy citizens or mac book pros and rolex watches?

        (Original post by ish90an)
        How much you are getting in a loan, how much you have to repay, the penalties associated with paying upfront, all make sure your parents have nothing to do with you need to pay.
        False, Students from wealthy backgrounds can and do have their education payed for by their parents. I know of several people from mid-higher income familys who have had their entire education/accomodation paid for by their parents.

        The new plans to assist people from poorer backgrounds is based on parental income.

        Its a parental lottery, exactly how i stated before.


        (Original post by ish90an)
        This is an indirect way of increasing university competition while avoiding the whole "Tories hate the new universities" nonsense that would have come up had they closed down non-beneficial courses. Agreeing upon a blanket minimum requirement would have been harder due to the range of factors involved(subject choice, exam difficulty variation, course requirements), this way market forces ensure only those universities/courses that should survive are in demand.
        Your going to need to explain this one a bit better. Its almost like you've read a completely different thread and then pasted it here by mistake. I will guess that you have probably misunderstood me. Raising the bar was refering to pass% rates, i/e knowing/understanding 60-75% of the course material usually equates to an A and the actual ratio of time spent at college to studying. Evidently a blanket minimum is not possible and had thought it too obvious to mention that it would need to be done on a course by course basis. In terms of you thinking it will increase university competition/cut out lower universitys/courses, i am not entirely sure on what basis you are actually arguing.
        Offline

        12
        ReputationRep:
        i still dont quite see how its fair that someone who leaves school at 16 to join the army, or become an apprentice has to pay taxes that will fund people on this forum to go to oxford university and then walk into a £35k p/a+ job.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by burpleronnie)
        My point was that although the education cuts will save money, proportionately to the entirity of the uks spending very little money is actually being saved. Begging the question as to why they are being made, especially considering the negative effects they have all round. Also considering that the increase in university costs will indirectly be passed on to the taxpayer through increased student loans, that Mr Cameron also claims will not be fully paid back by the majority of students.
        Because the student contribution at the time towards their education is too little. The cost of loans may go on to the taxpayer, but the overall funding required from the government will go down as the graduates will pay back into the system.
        As i said, its another whole chapter so i wont go into it and only offer america as a case study.
        America actually has both cheap public colleges and expensive private institutions that offer need-based financial aid.
        Clasical Tory ethos. Assuming the only value in a degree is its ability to earn you money. Contributing to society does not = earning more money. The majority of high payed jobs contribute little to society. Whats more valuable to society, well educated and healthy citizens or mac book pros and rolex watches?
        Students have been telling everyone how the future of this country's economy rests on graduates. If this is not true then why is the state responsible for funding their education? The NHS exists so that people can stay healthy and contribute to society, the police exists so that people can contribute safely, what is the point of a state-funded university setup if its result is not benefitting society. And yes economic benefit is a major part of this, like it or not you cannot just ask for money without giving it back into the system, the world' doesn't exactly run on goat fodder.
        False, Students from wealthy backgrounds can and do have their education payed for by their parents. I know of several people from mid-higher income familys who have had their entire education/accomodation paid for by their parents.
        You will be penalized for paying upfront as well as accelerated loan payments.
        The new plans to assist people from poorer backgrounds is based on parental income.

        Its a parental lottery, exactly how i stated before.
        Which is called a need-based system, but the basic loans themselves do not depend on who your parents are. These poorer backgrounds plans are for people in exceptional circumstances.

        Your going to need to explain this one a bit better. Its almost like you've read a completely different thread and then pasted it here by mistake. I will guess that you have probably misunderstood me. Raising the bar was refering to pass% rates, i/e knowing/understanding 60-75% of the course material usually equates to an A and the actual ratio of time spent at college to studying. Evidently a blanket minimum is not possible and had thought it too obvious to mention that it would need to be done on a course by course basis. In terms of you thinking it will increase university competition/cut out lower universitys/courses, i am not entirely sure on what basis you are actually arguing.
        [/QUOTE]
        There are a myriad of factors involved in setting blanket requirements. Course and exam difficulty can change through years, some courses are harder than others yet the easier ones would complain if they were set a higher pass limit, you cannot have the same cap across universities strong in different subjects or catering to different students(some may only take AAAs, others may take ABBs).
        Students will have to think more about the worth of getting a degree as opposed to other post school options, hence universities and courses whose degrees aren't worth the paper they are written on will inevitably fall.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        You have provided nothing new and so i am reluctant to respond.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        Because the student contribution at the time towards their education is too little. The cost of loans may go on to the taxpayer, but the overall funding required from the government will go down as the graduates will pay back into the system.
        As i said before, the cuts will save money, but the amount from what i gather is likely insignificant. You have merely reworded my previous point.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        America actually has both cheap public colleges and expensive private institutions that offer need-based financial aid.
        Again i will say it is a big topic that i dont want to get into now as it detracts from the current point.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        Students have been telling everyone how the future of this country's economy rests on graduates. If this is not true then why is the state responsible for funding their education? The NHS exists so that people can stay healthy and contribute to society, the police exists so that people can contribute safely, what is the point of a state-funded university setup if its result is not benefitting society. And yes economic benefit is a major part of this, like it or not you cannot just ask for money without giving it back into the system, the world' doesn't exactly run on goat fodder.
        Having an education does not equate to earning more money.
        Having a job that requires an education does not equate to earning more money.

        If bennifit to society was directly linked to earning more money then i would be inclined to agree with you. But it is not.

        Learning for self-fulfilment should be self-funded in my opinion as you will probably agree, but the proposed system will have the side effect of axing many of these courses and i feel britain will suffer culturally as a result of it. Whilst i agree that something needs to change, this is not the way to do it and money should not be the defining reason for its reform.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        You will be penalized for paying upfront as well as accelerated loan payments.

        Which is called a need-based system, but the basic loans themselves do not depend on who your parents are. These poorer backgrounds plans are for people in exceptional circumstances.
        Wow, how else to explain it?

        Say i am a student and i want to go to university.
        Situation 1(Rich): I am given lots of money
        Situation 2(Poor): i am given some money
        Situation 3(~): i am given no money

        Which one will personally pay more for university?

        Clearly the person in Situation 3 is at a disadvantage.

        The rationale behind the equal playing field is that on a individual level you are not responsible for who your parents are and should therefore not be limited by it.

        The system whether naturally occuring as a result of the dispersal of wealth or whether state implemented is not fair or reflective of this.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        There are a myriad of factors involved in setting blanket requirements. Course and exam difficulty can change through years, some courses are harder than others yet the easier ones would complain if they were set a higher pass limit, you cannot have the same cap across universities strong in different subjects or catering to different students(some may only take AAAs, others may take ABBs).
        Students will have to think more about the worth of getting a degree as opposed to other post school options, hence universities and courses whose degrees aren't worth the paper they are written on will inevitably fall.
        Although my proposal was merely a tag on afterthought, i think i see what you are getting at. Sorry for my brash response, i tend to start raging at the end of long posts. Practicalities aside i think my idea would have a positive effect on the educational system and rather than discourage university study would bothup the standard of higher education and promote a larger throughput by making uni prep more of a test of focus than an investment of time. One thing i will say, and i may be wrong on this point, arent the issues of regulating exam boards and their progressive simplification a direct result of them becoming privatised?
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by burpleronnie)
        You have provided nothing new and so i am reluctant to respond.



        As i said before, the cuts will save money, but the amount from what i gather is likely insignificant. You have merely reworded my previous point.
        In the long term though, it saves the government itself having to spend into the system without getting anything out of it. Its not about saving money as much as it is about making the system more sustainable.

        Again i will say it is a big topic that i dont want to get into now as it detracts from the current point.



        Having an education does not equate to earning more money.
        Having a job that requires an education does not equate to earning more money.

        No? But students and protesters have been telling us how they are the future of the country's economy and how the coalition plans will take away the economic benefits graduates provide.

        If bennifit to society was directly linked to earning more money then i would be inclined to agree with you. But it is not.

        Learning for self-fulfilment should be self-funded in my opinion as you will probably agree, but the proposed system will have the side effect of axing many of these courses and i feel britain will suffer culturally as a result of it. Whilst i agree that something needs to change, this is not the way to do it and money should not be the defining reason for its reform.
        Given the current economic crisis and the fact that cuts are having to be made across the board, subjects that offer no economic benefit whatsoever are simply a drain on the system and thus need to be axed. Want to do something for the sake of it? Fine, just don't expect the state to pay you for it at the expense of cutting jobs or healthcare funding. As for Britain suffering culturally (which is a ridiculously broad term and doesn't necessarily have a correlation to university funding), anything to back this up?
        Wow, how else to explain it?

        Say i am a student and i want to go to university.
        Situation 1(Rich): I am given lots of money
        Situation 2(Poor): i am given some money
        Situation 3(~): i am given no money

        Which one will personally pay more for university?

        Clearly the person in Situation 3 is at a disadvantage.


        The rationale behind the equal playing field is that on a individual level you are not responsible for who your parents are and should therefore not be limited by it.

        The system whether naturally occuring as a result of the dispersal of wealth or whether state implemented is not fair or reflective of this.

        But student 3 is being given (at least) the same money as the other 2 in the form of a loan. You are missing the fact that everyone, regardless of background, IS getting a basic loan. Any additional help, based on need, is just that.

        Although my proposal was merely a tag on afterthought, i think i see what you are getting at. Sorry for my brash response, i tend to start raging at the end of long posts. Practicalities aside i think my idea would have a positive effect on the educational system and rather than discourage university study would bothup the standard of higher education and promote a larger throughput by making uni prep more of a test of focus than an investment of time. One thing i will say, and i may be wrong on this point, arent the issues of regulating exam boards and their progressive simplification a direct result of them becoming privatised?
        The issue of exam boards comes because of the options people have, but at the same time giving students that choice means brighter students can pursue certain systems they feel are more in line with their ability than others. I wouldn't say its a matter of privatization per se, its more to do with the choice that can (and usually does) arise with it.
        Offline

        0
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by ish90an)
        In the long term though, it saves the government itself having to spend into the system without getting anything out of it. Its not about saving money as much as it is about making the system more sustainable.
        Not worth a response, feel free to justify that claim.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        No? But students and protesters have been telling us how they are the future of the country's economy and how the coalition plans will take away the economic benefits graduates provide.
        They are the future of the economy, my point still stands.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        Given the current economic crisis and the fact that cuts are having to be made across the board, subjects that offer no economic benefit whatsoever are simply a drain on the system and thus need to be axed. Want to do something for the sake of it? Fine, just don't expect the state to pay you for it at the expense of cutting jobs or healthcare funding. As for Britain suffering culturally (which is a ridiculously broad term and doesn't necessarily have a correlation to university funding), anything to back this up?
        +10 rep for not reading my post
        If there are less dancers, musicians, artists, historians, philosophers, theologians, actors and literists; All non profit or vocational orientated subjects that are being threatened by funding and uptake deterral, england will be a less cultural place.

        (Original post by ish90an)
        But student 3 is being given (at least) the same money as the other 2 in the form of a loan. You are missing the fact that everyone, regardless of background, IS getting a basic loan. Any additional help, based on need, is just that.
        The keyword is loan. As in money you need to pay back. As in money that will expotentially increase thanks to inflation now being included. A loan that is now three times the size of what it used to be + the cost of living. We are talking about a lot of money that student 3 needs to pay back, compared to the free education Student 1 enjoys and compared to the slightly cheaper education that Student 2 still suffers with.
        Offline

        1
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by burpleronnie)
        Not worth a response, feel free to justify that claim.
        Well currently the government pays a much larger amount into university funding by subsidizing the cost of education by more than 50%, thus leaving the government with a growing hole, and forcing universities to spend less per student each year as demand for places keeps increasing. Now you could argue that graduates pay it back in the form of tax etc, but graduate unemployment is only rising and there are many whose degree isn't worth the paper its written on who are struggling for jobs. The system is thus unsustainable and needs reform.
        They are the future of the economy, my point still stands.
        If your degree isn't contributing to the economy (as your initial point was presuming), how are you the future of the economy?
        +10 rep for not reading my post
        If there are less dancers, musicians, artists, historians, philosophers, theologians, actors and literists; All non profit or vocational orientated subjects that are being threatened by funding and uptake deterral, england will be a less cultural place.
        Because you need to go to university to be a dancer/musician/actor/artist. I mean, all those countries where they do not have a "Dance Studies" course are obviously less cultural, and Britain only got a culture when the Media Studies courses started popping up. If the only contribution your degree is making is something so vague as "cultural" (as you have presumed initially in this line of thought), then surely you are by definition not contributing to the economy, and hence not its future?
        The keyword is loan. As in money you need to pay back. As in money that will expotentially increase thanks to inflation now being included. A loan that is now three times the size of what it used to be + the cost of living. We are talking about a lot of money that student 3 needs to pay back, compared to the free education Student 1 enjoys and compared to the slightly cheaper education that Student 2 still suffers with.
        Except both Student 1 and Student 2 are both getting a basic loan as well, and will be penalized if they either refuse it by trying to pay upfront or make accelerated payments. The only extra burden Student 3 has is of any additional means based help he gets.
        Also, if the loan is linked to inflation, so is the threshold at which you need to start paying it back. And let us not compare "what it used to be", the whole point of reform is to move on from unsustainable systems like the one Labour created.
        Offline

        11
        ReputationRep:
        I think students have got the facts straight, they are paying 3x more fo something people before them got for free/cheaper at a higher quality. Sure, they have loans but debt is always a bad thing, even if it isn't gaining interest.

        I wouldn't be so against the rises if they actually made the teaching better, but people are just paying extra for the economy... not the education.
        • Political Ambassador
        Offline

        17
        ReputationRep:
        (Original post by mellie220)
        I think students have got the facts straight, they are paying 3x more fo something people before them got for free/cheaper at a higher quality. Sure, they have loans but debt is always a bad thing, even if it isn't gaining interest.

        I wouldn't be so against the rises if they actually made the teaching better, but people are just paying extra for the economy... not the education.
        Uni's all know they are going to have to drive up standards due to the fees. So far no uni has confirmed that it will be charging 9k Oxford is so far thinking of charging 8k

        So people should not go to uni because they have some crazy fear of a debt that they do not pay back until they are earning a good salary and in many cases may not have to pay it all back anyway.
       
       
       
      Reply
      Submit reply
      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.

      Updated: December 18, 2010
    • 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
      Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
      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.