Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hi David,

    Approaching the debate from a slightly different angle, I was just wondering if you agreed that the rise in tuition fees will put off working and middle class applicants from applying? It's certainly the impression I've got; that these people don't think the prospect of trying to find a graduate job (which is tough enough already) whilst paying back three times the amount of debt, is worth the hassle.

    If you do agree, then doesn't this mean that the highest education is only accessible to those fortunate enough to be born in an 'upper class' family? Won't this only generate further class inequality?

    Thanks
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    You only start to ay back at 21k this puts you in a much better postion than people are in now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    You only start to ay back at 21k this puts you in a much better postion than people are in now.
    How is paying back three times the amount of money being in a better position? I can understand the system of paying back might be a bit more protective, but with the new rises we'll be paying back the loan for much longer.

    My original point still stands though, many of the working class and middle class will be put off with the prospect of having to pay these debts off on top of the likes of the mortgage, any separate loans, and so forth. A lot will simply opt for entry level jobs instead.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    How is paying back three times the amount of money being in a better position? I can understand the system of paying back might be a bit more protective, but with the new rises we'll be paying back the loan for much longer.

    My original point still stands though, many of the working class and middle class will be put off with the prospect of having to pay these debts off on top of the likes of the mortgage, any separate loans, and so forth. A lot will simply opt for entry level jobs instead.
    You will be paying back the loan for 30 years currently I think its 25 even if its 20 thats hardly a massive difference.

    As you only start paying it back when you earn 21k you will be in a much better postion. The thought of starting to pay back a loan at 15k seems to be a lot worse.

    Also I do not have the figures but im going by what David Willetts said in another thread that the repayments will be lower.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    It won't.
    They won't have to pay anyway.
    Welfare student fees.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    You will be paying back the loan for 30 years currently I think its 25 even if its 20 thats hardly a massive difference.

    As you only start paying it back when you earn 21k you will be in a much better postion. The thought of starting to pay back a loan at 15k seems to be a lot worse.

    Also I do not have the figures but im going by what David Willetts said in another thread that the repayments will be lower.
    I'd much rather pay back a third of the loan when I'm earning 15k then the full loan when I'm earning 21k. It doesn't really matter that the repayments are lower, the fact is the overall sum of the loan is going to be three times higher (plus whatever interest is added on for inflation adjustment).

    It's not a better system for the students, I don't see how you can really argue that.

    (Original post by Theconomist)
    It won't.
    They won't have to pay anyway.
    Welfare student fees.
    Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on why it won't discourage them from applying? And those on the lower-earning end of the scale may not have to pay anyway, but that still leaves a huge number of students in the middle who are faced with the full cost of tuition.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    How is paying back three times the amount of money being in a better position? I can understand the system of paying back might be a bit more protective, but with the new rises we'll be paying back the loan for much longer.

    My original point still stands though, many of the working class and middle class will be put off with the prospect of having to pay these debts off on top of the likes of the mortgage, any separate loans, and so forth. A lot will simply opt for entry level jobs instead.
    if everyone has to pay it back starting when they get a job of 21k a year, what's the difference between classes? We'll all have to pay back the same amount of money, starting at the same base salary earnings, whatever class.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    these people don't think the prospect of trying to find a graduate job (which is tough enough already) whilst paying back three times the amount of debt, is worth the hassle.
    It's interesting that you use the word "whilst", as though suggesting they are having to do both at the same time.

    It would be a lot of hassle if I were expected to be paying debts whilst looking for a job, because the fact that I don't have a job yet would mean I don't have an income to regularly pay off my debts with. However repayments do not have to be made until a person is earning at least 21k, which means that there is a lot less hassle than your post makes out.

    My original point still stands though, many of the working class and middle class will be put off with the prospect of having to pay these debts off on top of the likes of the mortgage, any separate loans, and so forth. A lot will simply opt for entry level jobs instead.
    Don't you think that in the vast majority of cases, having a salary of 21k (minus a tiny monthly amount to repay your student debt) is going to be higher than the salary you're going to get as a school-leaver?

    The fact that the debt will be three times larger makes the situation a bit worse for graduates than it is now, sure. But why would that make graduate jobs even less financially appealing than entry level jobs? Whether we're talking short-term or long term, I can't see why anyone would be financially better off if they choose not to do a degree than if they choose to do a degree.

    (Unless of course, you are able to get a job which pays just as much without having a degree - in which case, why should the taxpayer fund your degree when it does nothing to increase your earning power?)

    I'd much rather pay back a third of the loan when I'm earning 15k then the full loan when I'm earning 21k. It doesn't really matter that the repayments are lower, the fact is the overall sum of the loan is going to be three times higher (plus whatever interest is added on for inflation adjustment).
    The problem is, you're comparing the position of graduates before the fee increase vs the position of graduates after the fee increase. Obviously graduates will be worse off after the fee increase than before the fee increase, simply because the debt is higher.

    However, this does not translate to poorer people opting for entry level jobs and a big class division as a result. Graduates may be worse off than they were before, but they're still better off than people who take entry-level jobs, regardless of the fee increase.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by midpikyrozziy)
    I'd much rather pay back a third of the loan when I'm earning 15k then the full loan when I'm earning 21k. It doesn't really matter that the repayments are lower, the fact is the overall sum of the loan is going to be three times higher (plus whatever interest is added on for inflation adjustment).

    It's not a better system for the students, I don't see how you can really argue that.



    Perhaps you'd care to elaborate on why it won't discourage them from applying? And those on the lower-earning end of the scale may not have to pay anyway, but that still leaves a huge number of students in the middle who are faced with the full cost of tuition.
    student finance
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alibobs)
    if everyone has to pay it back starting when they get a job of 21k a year, what's the difference between classes? We'll all have to pay back the same amount of money, starting at the same base salary earnings, whatever class.
    Except the upper classes, who will opt out of student finance, pay fees up-front and so avoid incurring massive debts and pay less overall.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alibobs)
    if everyone has to pay it back starting when they get a job of 21k a year, what's the difference between classes? We'll all have to pay back the same amount of money, starting at the same base salary earnings, whatever class.
    I agree, but the perception is (from my experience anyway) that with the larger amount of debt for little added reward, a university degree isn't really worth it.

    Think of it if this way:
    A uni degree is the way to get a typically higher paid job (unless you start a business) so most people choose this path. However, it's a risk, because whilst some people get these higher paid jobs, others have to settle for jobs that pay the same as others that don't need a degree qualification.

    What I'm saying is, the working and middle class won't want to take this risk, as they'll have less financial support if they do only manage to secure a lower paid job, so they'll look for an entry level job instead. In this way, education is for the privileged, and so forth.

    Hope that's more clear.

    (Original post by tazarooni89)
    It's interesting that you use the word "whilst", as though suggesting they are having to do both at the same time.

    It would be a lot of hassle if I were expected to be paying debts whilst looking for a job, because the fact that I don't have a job yet would mean I don't have an income to regularly pay off my debts with. However repayments do not have to be made until a person is earning at least 21k, which means that there is a lot less hassle than your post makes out.

    Don't you think that in the vast majority of cases, having a salary of 21k (minus a tiny monthly amount to repay your student debt) is going to be higher than the salary you're going to get as a school-leaver?

    The fact that the debt will be three times larger makes the situation a bit worse for graduates than it is now, sure. But I don't see why that would make graduate jobs even less financially appealing than entry level jobs.

    (Unless of course, you are able to get a job which pays just as much without having a degree - in which case, why should the taxpayer fund your degree when it does nothing to increase your earning power?)
    Yeah you're right, I suppose I meant that on top of the bills you're already paying upon graduation (accommodation, food, and so forth), you'll be faced with a larger debt in the future. I'd say that this would definitely discourage applicants from lower earning backgrounds.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iamwhatiamnot)
    Except the upper classes, who will opt out of student finance, pay fees up-front and so avoid incurring massive debts and pay less overall.
    Feel free to explain how this is different to the situation at the moment. And what would you do about it? Force people who don't need to get a loan to get one anyway, in the interest of 'fairness'? It makes bugger all sense.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by LawBore)
    Feel free to explain how this is different to the situation at the moment. And what would you do about it? Force people who don't need to get a loan to get one anyway, in the interest of 'fairness'? It makes bugger all sense.
    I never said it was significantly different from the current situation, I was just pointing out the flaw in claiming that all classes pay the same amount.

    And obviously that is a ridiculous method to deal with it, i agree. The only way to truly solve it would be to abolish tuition fees, but i think it's pretty clear that that isn't going to happen anytime soon...
 
 
 
  • 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
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    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.