Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

University fees 'could triple to £10,000' watch

Announcements
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Or realise that paying £3000 per year, when the cost to educate someone is actually significantly higher than that, is not sustainable, and will come at a considerable cost the taxpayer which will not be reclaimed by normal means. That money may well be paid back through income tax and other salary related taxation, but the money is not being pumped into the universities properly - this is why tuition fees need to be raised, under the current system there's no guarantee that the government will fund the rest of the cost.

    I admit that £10k is a hell of a lot of money and it won't come instantly, it'll more likely jump to a closer figure (like £6k), but it'll make people weigh up whether it's of any benefit to go to university and make sure that our universities become for the academically capable - not everyone.
    Sorry but that's rubbish. Have you even considered the fact that every member of the cabinet got a free university education? And in fact the vast majority of MPs. And the vast majority of people living in this country who went to university. They got this free education because it came out of their parents' taxes, on the understanding that this arrangement would continue to exist.

    Now, what that generation did was get their free university and then say '**** you' to our generation, pulling up the ladder and spending the extra money that they could save from not paying for university on sofas and houses. The same thing happened right across the board in all aspects of life. Social housing being sold off, for instance. The ensuing spending frenzy of the last few decades has been fuelled by money that was not theirs to spend.

    If that generation feel so strongly that people ought to pay for their own university education then they ought to pay for theirs. I want that £30,000 per person to be put back into the economy from every single person who got a free education, if they are going to charge for ours. Doing anything else is hypocrisy of the highest order. They're foisting the debt caused by their generation onto us by a subtle backdoor route - through making us pay for the education that they had for free.

    Don't believe that this is anything about fairness or about making people think twice about university. We could cut the number of universities in half and make it free, and THAT would promote fairness and quality. What this is about is passing on the debt created by the 40+ generation on to us. I bet those in favour of fees are laughing their arses off at the thought of students like you who are actually in favour of paying for their sofas and houses by taking on £40,000 of debt.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    but it'll make people weigh up whether it's of any benefit to go to university and make sure that our universities become for the academically capable - not everyone.
    Wheres the evidence for that? It didn't happen with fee introduction or 'top up' fees.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougieG)
    Sorry but that's rubbish. Have you even considered the fact that every member of the cabinet got a free university education? And in fact the vast majority of MPs. And the vast majority of people living in this country who went to university. They got this free education because it came out of their parents' taxes, on the understanding that this arrangement would continue to exist.

    Now, what that generation did was get their free university and then say '**** you' to our generation, pulling up the ladder and spending the extra money that they could save from not paying for university on sofas and houses. The same thing happened right across the board in all aspects of life. Social housing being sold off, for instance. The ensuing spending frenzy of the last few decades has been fuelled by money that was not theirs to spend.
    Yes, they may well have gotten the university education for free, but that was at a time when it was economically viable to do. When a lot of the current crop of MPs went to university the numbers of students was a fraction of what it is now.

    Think about it, just under 500,000 UK applications went through UCAS this year alone (I realise that not all of them got a place). Do you really think it's a sensible move, economically, to say to each and every one of them "We'll pay up to £7,000 of your tuition costs" (Yes, it does cost some universities that to pay for staffing and facilities in the top institutions).

    If that generation feel so strongly that people ought to pay for their own university education then they ought to pay for theirs. I want that £30,000 per person to be put back into the economy from every single person who got a free education, if they are going to charge for ours. Doing anything else is hypocrisy of the highest order. They're foisting the debt caused by their generation onto us by a subtle backdoor route - through making us pay for the education that they had for free.
    By that logic, if you get a free sandwich from a shop one day, then it's on sale the next you should go pay for the sandwich you had yesterday. You don't pay for things retrospectively that were free when you used them.

    Don't believe that this is anything about fairness or about making people think twice about university. We could cut the number of universities in half and make it free, and THAT would promote fairness and quality. What this is about is passing on the debt created by the 40+ generation on to us. I bet those in favour of fees are laughing their arses off at the thought of students like you who are actually in favour of paying for their sofas and houses by taking on £40,000 of debt.
    Okay then, how do you decide which universities to cut? Sure you could go by the league tables, but a lot of them are subjective and are better than represented in the tables; that's why league tables after the top twenty are nearly always different - and differ every year. Hell, the Times and the Sunday Times rankings are different.

    To be honest, the vast majority of that post is "Well they didn't pay for theirs, why should I pay for mine?". Answer: Because times change, the economy changes, the face of higher education changes.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougieG)
    Sorry but that's rubbish. Have you even considered the fact that every member of the cabinet got a free university education?
    The fact your opening comment is factually incorrect makes it difficult to take the rest of the post seriously.

    You are right, but our parents chose to open up university education from the top 10% (or 5% depending on the age of your parents) to over 40%.

    Standards of living have improved as a consequence.

    MPs do the bidding of the people, and parents would rather expand higher education provision rather than keep it free.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Wheres the evidence for that? It didn't happen with fee introduction or 'top up' fees.
    There's a difference between <£30,000 debt from three years at university including living costs, and £30,000 excluding.

    Especially if the salaries for graduates are not much higher than the national average.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    There's a difference between <£30,000 debt from three years at university including living costs, and £30,000 excluding.

    Especially if the salaries for graduates are not much higher than the national average.
    Yes maths taught me there is a difference between £25,000 and £40,000.

    There was a difference between £0 (or slight profit) in going to uni back in the day vs £15,000 after fees, and again a difference to £25,000 after top up fees.

    Just because there is a difference in the 'debt' you leave with doesn't mean there will be deminished demand.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Yes maths taught me there is a difference between £25,000 and £40,000.

    There was a difference between £0 (or slight profit) in going to uni back in the day vs £15,000 after fees, and again a difference to £25,000 after top up fees.

    Just because there is a difference in the 'debt' you leave with doesn't mean there will be deminished demand.
    Fair point. But I think for lower paid graduate jobs, people would start looking at alternative methods of getting into that business.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Fair point. But I think for lower paid graduate jobs, people would start looking at alternative methods of getting into that business.
    I think the opposite will happen, more people are doing Masters and PhDs to try and get on the starting ladder/be more employable.

    For the most part it obviously doesn't work, but the mentality of 'more/better degrees means greater employablity' will be as hard to shift in peoples minds as 'house prices always go up'.

    In my view anyway.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    There's a difference between <£30,000 debt from three years at university including living costs, and £30,000 excluding.

    Especially if the salaries for graduates are not much higher than the national average.
    BTW the thing that would put people off/make them think more is if loans went back to the pre '97 arrangement of 'mortgage style' repayments rather than this dandyish approach where you pay when you can afford it and you share the profit from the investment in uni.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    Yes, they may well have gotten the university education for free, but that was at a time when it was economically viable to do. When a lot of the current crop of MPs went to university the numbers of students was a fraction of what it is now.

    Think about it, just under 500,000 UK applications went through UCAS this year alone (I realise that not all of them got a place). Do you really think it's a sensible move, economically, to say to each and every one of them "We'll pay up to £7,000 of your tuition costs" (Yes, it does cost some universities that to pay for staffing and facilities in the top institutions).
    No. That's why I think a huge number of university placements ought to be cut and replaced with paid apprenticeships and the like.

    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    By that logic, if you get a free sandwich from a shop one day, then it's on sale the next you should go pay for the sandwich you had yesterday. You don't pay for things retrospectively that were free when you used them.
    You have to ask how that sandwich was paid for. There's no such thing as a free sandwich. If you go back to the company again and buy another sandwich then you have subsidised the free one you already got. If it was subsidies by the government then you paid for it through taxes. If neither of the above, the company eventually goes bust from handing out lots of free sandwiches, which is a gross simplification of why the economy collapsed.

    Okay then, how do you decide which universities to cut? Sure you could go by the league tables, but a lot of them are subjective and are better than represented in the tables; that's why league tables after the top twenty are nearly always different - and differ every year. Hell, the Times and the Sunday Times rankings are different.
    The cutoff would be difficult, sure. But I think the bottom 100 or so could go without much fuss. There's not much to pick between TVU and Bristol, is there? If a quota of, say, 100 universities were to be decided upon to stay, and the rest to go, then a committee could be set up to decide the finer points.

    [/quote]To be honest, the vast majority of that post is "Well they didn't pay for theirs, why should I pay for mine?". Answer: Because times change, the economy changes, the face of higher education changes.[/QUOTE]

    That is not what I mean. The fact is that they are in the position they are in because they had their education paid for, and now that they have had that they are forcing us to pay, having reaped the benefits. There is no such thing as a free lunch, remember. I expressed myself far better in my earlier post:

    What everybody is missing here is that the current generation in power, the baby boomers, had everything fully paid for. Now they are in a situation where they ought to be paying for our education, on the understanding that we pay for the next generation and so on and so forth. It's a much fairer, more reliable and financially sound system because you get the money upfront and people pay what they can afford because they already do through tax. Graduates with good degrees pay more because they get better jobs.

    What is actually happening here, and it has been going on for years, is generational theft. The generation of our parents, and in some cases grandparents, had all of their education paid for by the generation before. Now that they have got that financial and intellectual benefit as a generation, they are saying '**** you lot' and pulling the ladder up, breaking the social contract that they became a part of when they went to university. It's theft to the tune of the £17,000 or so of debt that the average student ends up with and we're paying the price already. We're effectively starting adult life £17,000 worse off than the generation before us through absolutely no fault of our own.

    Something for the conservatives among us to bear in mind. Cameron isn't helping you. He's exploiting you. Daddy paid for his Bullingdon uniform, and through taxes he paid for his tuition fees. If Cameron, and every single one of the Tories and a lot of Labour, didn't pay their parents back the full cost of their tuition then they're hypocrites.
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougieG)
    The fact is that they are in the position they are in because they had their education paid for, and now that they have had that they are forcing us to pay, having reaped the benefits.
    I am almost an exact contemporary of Cameron and when I was a student previously I benefited from the system at that time.

    When Cameron was at university his fees were paid; he would have received the minimum grant about about £400 per year; and if he had bothered to claim he would almost certainly have received both Housing Benefit and Supplementary Benefit by signing on unemployed in the vacs.

    Essentially his parents didn't pay for that. The millions of taxpayers who hadn't been to university paid for that.

    Up until the 1970s it was just about plausible to say that taxpayers should pay for the privileged education of a small academic elite who by and large went into not particularly well paid public service jobs.

    However, by the 1980s that was no longer true. The majority of very high earners were graduates in private employment. Cameron and most of his circle went into the IB of its day which was management consultancy.

    The only way picking the taxpayers' pocket to subsidise higher education could be justified was if higher education became a mass participation activity for 18 years olds. John Major saw this as did Blair.

    The middle classes would only support higher education spending if it became the norm that their children went to university. No longer would their daughters go, at their expense, to the Oxford and County Secretarial College.

    TSR is full of people who would close down lower ranking universities. Perhaps my sympathies lie in that direction also but you have to understand there is not an iota of political support for it. No institution takes more than 60% working class students. Most ex-Polys take a minority of working class students. No government is going to turn round to a lot of middle class parents and say that your golden haired boy or darling daughter is not going to university.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    If it wasn't for the fees, than most people on TSR would not be able to go to university and get a degree. University places have increased several times since the beginning of the 1990s when grants were abolished and fees introduced.

    If voters wanted to bring back grants and abolish fees, they can do and students can vote for it if they want but they have to remember the number of university places will also have to be reduced by around 85% to pre 1990 figures to make the system affordable.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't care what the fees are, as long as loans are available from the government at very low interest rates - basically like now, but without the caps. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to go to university, but everyone should also have to pay for it in the long term. I also think there shouldn't be a cap - then universities can compete for students on more than just the Times university rankings and the prettiness of their campus.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Am I right in presuming this would be only for undergraduate degrees? I assume so given there are no student loans as such for postgraduates.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Wednesday Bass)
    but it'll make people weigh up whether it's of any benefit to go to university and make sure that our universities become for the academically capable - not everyone.
    You cant say that!!! This is TSR, the lefties will eat you!! :p:
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I don't care what the fees are, as long as loans are available from the government at very low interest rates - basically like now, but without the caps. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to go to university, but everyone should also have to pay for it in the long term. I also think there shouldn't be a cap - then universities can compete for students on more than just the Times university rankings and the prettiness of their campus.
    People shouldn't be choosing which university to go to based on what they can afford over what academic level they are capable of. It wouldn't be good for the country or university standards.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DougieG)
    People shouldn't be choosing which university to go to based on what they can afford over what academic level they are capable of. It wouldn't be good for the country or university standards.
    Well they can still shoot for the moon if they want. As I said, loans should be available for everyone - but I think people should be able to make the decision if they want to send less. I don't understand why anyone would oppose this greater choice other than because they wouldn't personally want to sacrifice education for money, but other people's priorities might be different.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    I don't care what the fees are, as long as loans are available from the government at very low interest rates - basically like now, but without the caps. I believe everyone should have the opportunity to go to university, but everyone should also have to pay for it in the long term. I also think there shouldn't be a cap - then universities can compete for students on more than just the Times university rankings and the prettiness of their campus.
    Hear Hear.

    The cap needs lifting, bringing competition into higher education is the best way to fund and improve it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Student tuition fees could triple to £10,000 under Government plans to slash direct state funding for universities, it emerged today.


    Ministers are said to be considering savage cuts to university teaching grants of up to two-thirds, with funding for arts and humanities degrees being removed altogether.

    Under plans expected to be set out next month, universities could be given more power to levy higher fees to make up the shortfall.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...-to-10000.html
    I bet students will go mad at this :rolleyes:
    It's all about Lord Browne wanting to reduce the amount the Treasury (therefore the government) is subsidising the higher education system. If fees went up to £10,000 a year it would effectively privatise universities overnight.

    The only solution seems to be a graduate tax which all the politicians are hinting about but haven't actually told the general public at large enough detail for them to come to a reasoned conclusion as to which method is better. However, introducing the graduate tax would mean the universities would have a few years of getting very little money compared to fees, meaning they would have a financial strain. It could also backfire on the student, resulting in them paying far more than they would normally have over the course of their life, assuming graduate tax is like all other taxes.

    The StudyGuys have made a video on this topic debating either side, it would probably be useful to aid in this discussion. We will also be following the process and reporting on any developements.

    (Title and first bit are unrelated, but most is about graduate tax and university fees).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I don't understand how people can support a graduate tax but not just an uncapping and the same loans system as now. The worst that'll happen with an uncapping is that someone will end up paying back the loan for the rest of their life, but that's exactly what a graduate tax is anyway. It's not like SLC hound you for the cash like Russian loan sharks. It's just with an uncapping, you won't pay more than you've received.

    It's worth noting that those paying a greater ammount were there a graduate tax - ie, those with well paying jobs - are those who already pay more income tax.
 
 
 
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?
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.