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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The average benefit of gaining a degree is around £400,000! That is compared to someone who didn't get a degree. To me it's worth the initial outlay of £40k for an extra £360k over your lifetime.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I thought the whole point in higher fees was because we have less money than we did two/three years ago, before the economic crisis. What is the point in raising fees then saying poor students get 2 years free and you get it written off after such and such time. I'm not really against poorer students getting 2 years free but really what is the point in rasing fees if people can't pay for them. I don't know if this is true but people on here are saying the graduates often can't find jobs which means they are getting the debt written off, so the xtra money that universities are supposed to be getting won't doesn't sound like it will be as much as they think.

    Another point would the extra debt affect getting a good mortgage deal? When graduates start having kids and settling down they still wouldn't have paid off their debts.

    The government if they really wanted to increase it should have waited a bit, I think it was too. The didn't have to let the limit be 9,000. I think 5,000-5,700 would have been slightly better.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carlo08)
    The average benefit of gaining a degree is around £400,000! That is compared to someone who didn't get a degree.
    Where the hell did you find that grossly incorrect figure??
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Where the hell did you find that grossly incorrect figure??
    Friend of mine did a report on it and that was the conclusion. Do you have any better figure with reference?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed. I don't agree with the 2 years's free tuition as people on the course should be earning roughly the same, depending on where and who they're working for. The workers should theoretically be as well off as each other, meaning they can all afford to repay the tuition loans. All students should be able to pay of 27K after a certain length of time. Their should also not be a time limit ie: if it's not paid in 30 years, it's written off

    The gov't is only losing more money this way, by saying after an x period of time, the loans will be written off. What should be done however is to give a higher bursary amount to eligible students, to help them through. With the tuition fees, its a no no

    What the gov't has got wrong:
    free 2 year tuition fees for eligible students
    writing debts off after an x amount of time

    The 9K fees aren't something that they've necessarily got wrong. It's just that it's not a popular thing. Yes, it is going to be more expensive, but its not as bad as some people are making out. People are stopping going to university because they haven't read up on how student loans actually work. I would definitely prefer a rise of fees to 6K. To multiply the fees threefold is a lot more drastic than doubling the fees(almost)
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carlo08)
    Friend of mine did a report on it and that was the conclusion. Do you have any better figure with reference?
    £100,000 more over the course of their lifetime is the generally accepted figure.
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8401267.stm
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carlo08)
    The average benefit of gaining a degree is around £400,000! That is compared to someone who didn't get a degree. To me it's worth the initial outlay of £40k for an extra £360k over your lifetime.
    Then why not just tax everyone with high incomes a little bit more than now, and make universities free altogether?

    If your argument is that the people who go to university earn lots more than those who don't, then surely taxing the rich more would mean the university goers pay for universities?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Then why not just tax everyone with high incomes a little bit more than now, and make universities free altogether?

    If your argument is that the people who go to university earn lots more than those who don't, then surely taxing the rich more would mean the university goers pay for universities?
    I don't believe Uni should be free at all. People need to learn to take responsibility for their own education and free Uni would just mean a huge proportion of people would go just for the 'lifestyle' which would be a huge waste of taxpayers money.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Carlo08)
    I don't believe Uni should be free at all. People need to learn to take responsibility for their own education and free Uni would just mean a huge proportion of people would go just for the 'lifestyle' which would be a huge waste of taxpayers money.
    Aye, The 3-year long piss up while only notionally 'studying' their Business & Kermit the Frog BA, like a social right of passage rather than investment in human capital.

    Regardless of the cap level (or its existence), with a clause like "Graduates only start to repay once they're earning over 21k", you still have risk-free higher education, and no real disincentive from going to study your valueless Making Beans on Toast BSc from Urban Met' Polyversity. It's like only having to pay for a Scratchcard if it wins. We're subsidising poor decision making.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttx)
    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.
    The Higher Education Policy Institute reckons that the vast majority of courses will try to charge the full fee of £9000.

    If the fee cap was unlimited then what you were saying would apply, however would not necessarily be a good thing, as not every career that is important to society is high-paying (i.e. Nursing, R&D)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    The Higher Education Policy Institute reckons that the vast majority of courses will try to charge the full fee of £9000.

    If the fee cap was unlimited then what you were saying would apply, however would not necessarily be a good thing, as not every career that is important to society is high-paying (i.e. Nursing, R&D)

    The HEPI opinion is that while the government subsidises loans price signaling won't occur regardless of the limit.

    Impact on career choice is one of the major arguments in favour of a graduate tax instead of tuition fees.

    But there are a number of other arguments against a graduate tax as well, as it favours those from well off backgrounds (who can pay the fees upfront rather than the more expensive tax afterwards) and incentives graduates to avoid income tax (by going abroad or getting paid via capital gains).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ttx)
    The HEPI opinion is that while the government subsidises loans price signaling won't occur regardless of the limit.
    Yes exactly.

    But there are a number of other arguments against a graduate tax as well, as it favours those from well off backgrounds (who can pay the fees upfront rather than the more expensive tax afterwards)
    That's an argument FOR a graduate tax if anything

    and incentives graduates to avoid income tax (by going abroad or getting paid via capital gains).
    Oh yeah of course... that might have been enough to put the coalition off this policy. Thanks.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    (Original post by miiiiil)
    The loans will pay for your tuition, so you pay NOTHING until you are earning enough to pay, unless you choose to that is.

    Besides, even if you do end up with 40k debt its hardly like a credit card debt like everyone likes to make out.

    I do not consider myself to be 20k 'in debt', when in fact I am.

    Sensationalism brings out the moron in everyone who can't be bothered to understand the proposals properly.
    I agree pretty much entirely. The only worry, I think, is interest rates. If these rise significantly, people could end up having to pay 2K a year (or more) just in interest, so I believe rates should stay tied to inflation.

    Otherwise I think you're right, but my own personal view is that a fee cap for the most rigerous and worthwhile courses would be the best way, with less useful degrees uncapped.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    That's an argument FOR a graduate tax if anything
    The graduate tax is opt-in (i.e people who can't afford to pay the fees upfront can pay the graduate tax when they graduate instead), if you forced all domestic students through the graduate tax system people would just declare themselves international students instead to allow them to pay the fees upfront and avoid the tax.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by S129439)
    :facepalm:

    And you called him a douche bag. Man that's tragic.
    You explained that point well.....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    The conservative party have spent the last year telling everybody that debt is the biggest threat this country has faced since Hitler, and no one or no governement should ever, ever spend more than they earn, blah blah.
    Now, not only do they think being in debt of roughly 40k is acceptable, they're claiming it's progressive!
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by volts)
    The conservative party have spent the last year telling everybody that debt is the biggest threat this country has faced since Hitler, and no one or no governement should ever, ever spend more than they earn, blah blah.
    Now, not only do they think being in debt of roughly 40k is acceptable, they're claiming it's progressive!
    Well progressive as a description is completely separate to the amount. The poorest will pay less than they are now and the richest will pay more (average earners will also pay more but presumably not as much as the richest still). Hence it's progressive.

    As to "being in debt is bad" - they weren't talking about student debt. Debt to the student loans company is not in the same league as the debt they are referring to - credit cards and loans principally. The reason why they were moaning was because it was people defaulting on this debt that caused the credit crunch, it's not really possible to default on student debt, short of fleeing the country.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ily_em)




    Late payment fees? It comes out of your income, like a tax...

    Yes, it comes out of your income.
    Under this new system, if you are below the income threshold of 21k your debt does not go away. It doesn't creep off to die somewhere and it doesn't mean it stays the same amount.
    As we can see from an article in the Independent today, there is already a kind of late payment fee built into the system for those who don't repay because they are under the 21K threshold, except it's not actually called a late payment fee.

    "The Government tells us that those earning under £21,000 will not have to pay interest on their loans. But they will have to pay inflation in line with the Retail Prices Index, which is currently 3 per cent higher than the base rate of inflation.

    "If you ask anyone what paying no interest on a debt means, they would say the amount owed stays the same. The Government is being dishonest about the implications of this system."

    Paying for 30 years will for some people mean paying for the majority of their working lives.

    And if the govt. doesn't get enough money from past students, do you think they won't change the rules to get more out of past students?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

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.