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

Higher tuition fees due to the recession? Watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Say a degree cost a university £10k per student per year to run (it'll vary wildly, but just to keep the numbers simple). Under any loan scheme, the taxpayer pays all £10k, and gets a bit back later when the student graduates, and earns above a certain amount. For those currently at uni, it'll be around £9k + maintenance loan payable on whatever is above £15k earnings.

    Ignoring the maintenance loan, the fees change will only recoup more money once the student has paid back more than £9k. This is paid at 9% of earnings above £21k, so to pay it back in one year would require the student to immediately land a job with salary £121k, and then only in the second year the new fees would pay back more. To kick in in the third year after graduating, the student would have to get a salary of £71k, fourth year would be £53k, fifth would be £46k and so on.

    I've ignored the maintenance loan, so these are actually too soon. Also, with a degree taking 3 years to complete, you're looking at a very long time before the new tuition fees start giving back to the taxpayer.

    So, with these deep cuts being made allegedly to get us out of a recession and quickly too, the 'benefits' of these rises in tuition fees surely kick in far too late to have any effect?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    Say a degree cost a university £10k per student per year to run (it'll vary wildly, but just to keep the numbers simple). Under any loan scheme, the taxpayer pays all £10k, and gets a bit back later when the student graduates, and earns above a certain amount. For those currently at uni, it'll be around £9k + maintenance loan payable on whatever is above £15k earnings.

    Ignoring the maintenance loan, the fees change will only recoup more money once the student has paid back more than £9k. This is paid at 9% of earnings above £21k, so to pay it back in one year would require the student to immediately land a job with salary £121k, and then only in the second year the new fees would pay back more. To kick in in the third year after graduating, the student would have to get a salary of £71k, fourth year would be £53k, fifth would be £46k and so on.

    I've ignored the maintenance loan, so these are actually too soon. Also, with a degree taking 3 years to complete, you're looking at a very long time before the new tuition fees start giving back to the taxpayer.

    So, with these deep cuts being made allegedly to get us out of a recession and quickly too, the 'benefits' of these rises in tuition fees surely kick in far too late to have any effect?
    It's not to get us out of recession, that's not the motive. The motive is to encourage better public finance and decrease the government expenditure defect.

    Should the burden for university education be on the tax payer? The tax payer currently subsidises a huge amount of university education, whilst the graduate (rather than student, as there are no upfront costs), pays just under £4000.
    Under current proposals, the burden will fall on the graduate, again not the student, people who chose to go to university, have been supposed all the way and once earning over £21,000 repay the cost of their university education.

    The proposals from Labour would mean that graduates earning over £6,500 would start paying back their tuition fees.
    Lord Hunt, a prominent Labour appointed Lord, agreed with me on this last week.

    The new proposals offer the best deal for the taxpayer, the graduate and don't forget,- the poorest students.
    There are no upfront costs, the debt is written off after 30 years, pay back is moved up to £21,000, the maintainance grant for the poorest students is being increase and whatsoever, university places won't be cut, and the international competitiveness of our universities wont be compromised.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    They risked the unity of the coalition over this, and the financial effects won't be felt until way into the future (costs of replacing windows aside). There are sound arguments for raising the cap on tuition fees, and everyone will have their own idea on what the best solution would be, but the coalition didn't need to do anything about it to the same extent as budget cuts elsewhere, in that those benefits are immediate yearly savings.

    The Lib Dems have been split in two, and I can't imagine that those who did vote with Clegg will be too happy about being forced to do so. It just seems silly to risk the stability of the government on something of far less than average urgency.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by super.teve)
    It's not to get us out of recession, that's not the motive. The motive is to encourage better public finance and decrease the government expenditure defect.

    Should the burden for university education be on the tax payer? The tax payer currently subsidises a huge amount of university education, whilst the graduate (rather than student, as there are no upfront costs), pays just under £4000.
    Under current proposals, the burden will fall on the graduate, again not the student, people who chose to go to university, have been supposed all the way and once earning over £21,000 repay the cost of their university education.

    The proposals from Labour would mean that graduates earning over £6,500 would start paying back their tuition fees.
    Lord Hunt, a prominent Labour appointed Lord, agreed with me on this last week.

    The new proposals offer the best deal for the taxpayer, the graduate and don't forget,- the poorest students.
    There are no upfront costs, the debt is written off after 30 years, pay back is moved up to £21,000, the maintainance grant for the poorest students is being increase and whatsoever, university places won't be cut, and the international competitiveness of our universities wont be compromised.
    you watch over the next few years/decades as the cap goes out the window and we end up with the American system.

    As for the best system its free education with a grant. That way finance is not a barrier to education and we'll get people at university on the basis of academic ability rather than ability to pay.

    Paying for education isnt a 'burden to be met by the taxpayer' its an investment.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    you watch over the next few years/decades as the cap goes out the window and we end up with the American system.
    Please remember that the American system is no where near as bad as people imply. They have public universities which are now cheaper than ours and then we have places like Harvard, a private university, which gets such massive endowments that it can afford to make their application process totally needs-blind.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by badtothebone)
    you watch over the next few years/decades as the cap goes out the window and we end up with the American system.

    As for the best system its free education with a grant. That way finance is not a barrier to education and we'll get people at university on the basis of academic ability rather than ability to pay.

    Paying for education isnt a 'burden to be met by the taxpayer' its an investment.
    My Cousins are within the American education system, one has graduated, they see it as THEIR investment in themselves.

    The tax payer has already invested heavily in people...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by super.teve)
    My Cousins are within the American education system, one has graduated, they see it as THEIR investment in themselves.

    The tax payer has already invested heavily in people...
    The taxpayer has already benefited from what they are removing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hopple)
    The taxpayer has already benefited from what they are removing.
    You make no sense.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    There weren't always tuition fees.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    We are part of europe now. Any student can go abroad to avoid the tuition fee rise. The interntional experience would also be a bonus on someones cv for a job application.

    Failing that you could out on your best scottish impersonation (equipped with kilt) and try to bluff your way into the scottish system.


    And while the motive isn't to get us out of recession it is a frequent argument that is made. i.e "we have to increase the fees to save money"
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Excandersham)
    We are part of europe now. Any student can go abroad to avoid the tuition fee rise. The interntional experience would also be a bonus on someones cv for a job application.

    Failing that you could out on your best scottish impersonation (equipped with kilt) and try to bluff your way into the scottish system.


    And while the motive isn't to get us out of recession it is a frequent argument that is made. i.e "we have to increase the fees to save money"
    English students will probably have to pay 6k in Scotland as well if the BBC is right. Don't underestimate the impact this is having north of the border, the Scottish government is looking at ways of making its own graduates pay back as well so that its universities can remain competitive, and most probably a graduate tax will come in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    English students will probably have to pay 6k in Scotland as well if the BBC is right. Don't underestimate the impact this is having north of the border, the Scottish government is looking at ways of making its own graduates pay back as well so that its universities can remain competitive, and most probably a graduate tax will come in.
    Most students don't oppose a student contribution. But a price of 9000 will deter students. This is evident in polls conducted with young people.

    There may be not theoretical reason why poorer students won't be put off, but judging by how the polls are currently turning out it does seem to cause students to rethink their options.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Higher tuition fees were not an inevitable outcome of the recession. Far from it. It would seem a logical step to invest more in indigenous higher education to spearhead economic prosperity. Yet the government has, on an ideological basis, gone completely against what any sane, intelligent person would call "common sense".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Umm, this may be a stupid question, but i'm wondering whether the increase in fees affect international students? I mean, does the fee for international students also increases three fold? :indiff:

    edit: Okay, found out from another thread. Won't increase in fees.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Excandersham)
    Most students don't oppose a student contribution. But a price of 9000 will deter students. This is evident in polls conducted with young people.

    There may be not theoretical reason why poorer students won't be put off, but judging by how the polls are currently turning out it does seem to cause students to rethink their options.
    Surely if people are put off by the tuition fee rises, without realising it won't actually cost them until much later (if at all) shouldn't be going to University in the first place? If they don't have the financial awareness to realise this, are they really clever enough for University?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Excandersham)
    Most students don't oppose a student contribution. But a price of 9000 will deter students. This is evident in polls conducted with young people.

    There may be not theoretical reason why poorer students won't be put off, but judging by how the polls are currently turning out it does seem to cause students to rethink their options.
    And how many of these were actually going to benefit the economy, and how many of them were people with CCCs and just wanted a 3 year booze-fest? It is a good thing that cost is starting to make people rethink options instead of taking it as the easiest way out of the "what do I do after A-levels" conundrum, it will mean that only those who are serious about their studies and actually are able to contribute to the economy after the taxpayer's investment in them go to university.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Excandersham)

    Failing that you could out on your best scottish impersonation (equipped with kilt) and try to bluff your way into the scottish system.


    And while the motive isn't to get us out of recession it is a frequent argument that is made. i.e "we have to increase the fees to save money"
    1. Ha ha, all you need to do is live in Scotland for 3 yrs prior to starting university

    2. Yup. Higher fees are not saving money!
 
 
 
  • 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.