What are the pro's and con's of the 9k university fees?

I said nothing of tax levels, so I'm not sure why you'd bring that up, but the fact is that these changes are largely progressive, and it is the responsibility of the prospective student to research it. If they can't do that, university probably isn't for them.

And if they have no reason to doubt what they believe to be true?

Reply 21

TheDefiniteArticle

20

Original post by Blutooth

Under the old system people who did not have the privilege to go to universty would be footing the bill for students. The change to the system is a fair and equitable one.

awaiting the incoming "liberal" negs.

But a radical change needed to be made at some point in time which would undoubtedly piss off those whose chance to go to university would have been before the change in order to increase the education levels of the general populace; the previous generation will always miss out on somethings available to the next. We need to restrict university entrance based on ability (e.g. by making A Levels harder), not money.

Reply 22

username537845

2

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

And if they have no reason to doubt what they believe to be true?

Then they're being idiots by not at least doing a little research into a decision that will shape their whole lives.

Seriously, if you want to argue against the changes, this is not the line of reasoning to make.

Reply 23

Blutooth

16

Original post by TheDefiniteArticle

But a radical change needed to be made at some point in time which would undoubtedly piss off those whose chance to go to university would have been before the change in order to increase the education levels of the general populace; the previous generation will always miss out on somethings available to the next. We need to restrict university entrance based on ability (e.g. by making A Levels harder), not money.

This is not about ability, it is about what is fair. I don't think it is just to make people with no intention of going to university pay for the tuition fees of those who are likely to earn 100 thousand more over their lifetimes.

Though I do agree that there are far too many people taking on degrees that are unlikely to be of any benefit to them whatsoever. The govt wants 50% in HE which is silly. Some people wold better off doing apprenticeships, traveling abroad or entering the world of work.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 24

itchy and scratchy

13

For me I can think of one big pro - I have thought about where and what I want to study a lot more carefully. I'll be going to university at the age of 22 and I don't really see the new fees as an issue, and anyone who really wants to and is determined to get a degree should feel the same. I have friends that have gone to university simply because they didn't know what else to do and as it is seen as the norm, but personally I don't mind paying the new fees to go to a well regarded university studying the course I've always wanted to, as opposed to paying 12k on a course I don't love, at a university I don't love, coming out with a ****ty degree and possibly a few more friends.

Reply 25

Manitude

20

One of the pros is that students will expect more as they have a greater financial contribution to the degree, so standards should improve.

Reply 26

venenecinema

16

Most French universities are free, and very few of them rank highly in the international ratings. The ones which do rank highly are the few that you have to pay for. By this logic, increased fees should hopefully improve standards, and the public outcry was most likely caused by how it was poorly explained by parliament and also because Nick Clegg said that he would not be supporting the increased fees.

Reply 27

River85

17

Original post by venenecinema

Most French universities are free, and very few of them rank highly in the international ratings. The ones which do rank highly are the few that you have to pay for. By this logic, increased fees should hopefully improve standards, and the public outcry was most likely caused by how it was poorly explained by parliament and also because Nick Clegg said that he would not be supporting the increased fees.

Which is quite poor logic, with respect. Universities are not having their funding increased by increasing their fees. Rather they are attempting to make up the shortfall from the cuts in government subsify. Many teaching intensive universities in particular face financial difficulty.

If you mean that, as some people are paying (or, rather, borrowing) more, they will have higher expectations and be less tolerant of poor teaching and facilities and this will lead to change, remains to be seen.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 28

megaman70

2

Original post by oxymoronic

If you are earning 22k a year and start university in 2012 or later, you will pay 9% on 1k which is £90 a year or £7.50 a month.

In comparison someone who started university this year is paying on everything they earn over 15k. So this means on a 22k salary, this person will be paying on 7k, so 9% works out as £630 a year which is £52.50 a month.

Under the new system, people will not actually pay any more money than they did before and will probably actually end up paying less than they did on the old system due to the fact the threshold is higher (better for people on lower incomes) and the interest rates are a wee bit higher. Unless graduate salaries instantly triple between the 2011 intake of students graduating and the 2012 intake graduating, most people will only ever pay back pretty much the same amount as they ever would have done in the first place. Yes, there's an additional 5 years in which you have to pay it back but you're "gaining" that by being able to keep an additional 6k of your income before you start paying back your loan.

The critical difference's between the current fees and the old fees are the size of the loan and the interest rate.

The new fees will result in the base debt being much higher and the interest, being compound interest, will cause it to get bigger over time at an exponential rate - because the size of the initial loans is so high under the new system (27k minimum) this can quickly create a debt which a person can never pay off and student loans, unlike other loans, cannot be discharged with bankrupsy.

Under the old system a student who had someone to support him (pearents, a partner ect) could take out a minimum wage job and save up enough money to pay the loan in 1-2 years.
However everyone who I ever spoke to about this possibility at uni though that it would be a stupid thing to do because a person also had the option of putting this money into a high interest tax free ISA instaed of paying off the loan. These accounts have a high interest rate, much higher than the interest rate on the loan which means the person would effectivly have the loan and its interest under control but not actually need to loose the money.

if a person had nobody to support him then he could not do this witha minimum wage job but at least the interest rate on the loan would not quickly get out of control, this is a very significant thing for most people.

By comparason under the new system it would be very very difficult for a person who has someone supporting him to pay off his initial loan with a minimum wage job and to do it before the compound interest gets out of control would be almost impossible. Even if a person did succeed in doing it he would not have the option of leaving the money in an ISA because the interest rate of the new loans is higher than the interest rate you get with an ISA

someone who has nobody to support them would be in much more troubble than they would have been under the old system and certainly could not do anything with the debt before the compound interest makes the debt too hight to ever get rid of. every get rid of

one last point to make
I have been talking about the possibility to saving money and leaving it in an ISA
With ISAs you can only deposit arround 5k per year in them. under the old system enough money to cover the dept could be deposited in 2 years, under the new system it would take a minimum of 6 years. This is another factor which makes ofsetting the interest with the interest earned from an ISA even more difficult under the new system.

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 29

Hopple

18

Original post by megaman70

The critical difference's between the current fees and the old fees are the size of the loan and the interest rate.

The new fees will result in the base debt being much higher and the interest, being compound interest, will cause it to get bigger over time at an exponential rate - because the size of the initial loans is so high under the new system (27k minimum) this can quickly create a debt which a person can never pay off and student loans, unlike other loans, cannot be discharged with bankrupsy.

Doesn't the balance get wiped after 30 years? Okay, they might not have paid it all off, but it's not like it's going to follow them to the grave (or if it does, they've get bigger misfortunes to worry about).

Reply 30

unoh

7

**** fees get your first and pay it off when your swimming in cash (or your rich husbands pool)

Reply 31

marcusfox

16

Original post by IAMchocolatee

Could someone please enlighten me, I am thinking about reapplying next year.

Pros - it will stop people applying to study mickey mouse courses in made up subjects.

Cons - it will do nothing to stop people applying who don't know how to do their own research or even use apostrophes correctly.

(There aren't really any cons, it's a better system than the one where you had to pay back over £15,000. This is because you get to earn a higher salary before you start to repay and if you don't repay it all, it gets written off in a comparatively short time. So those on low salaries will never have to repay all of it, and only those on much higher salaries will have to repay a significant amount, or even all of it.)

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 32

Negaduck

12

If I have a family in future they will suffer for this increase in fees. If 9% of my income is disappearing every month for three times as long as it would have if I had gone to University the year before. Pity me.... PITY ME!

Reply 33

ChemGraduate

Original post by unoh

**** fees get your first and pay it off when your swimming in cash (or your rich husbands pool)

Or quite simply earning over £25,000 a year.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 34

Spaz Man

13

It will make people think twice before taking a media studies course.

Reply 35

unoh

7

Original post by ChemGraduate

Or quite simply earning over £25,000 a year.

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Why r u so obsessed with me creep

Reply 36

ChemGraduate

Original post by unoh

Why r u so obsessed with me creep

I do beg your pardon.

Who are you

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App

Reply 37

megaman70

2

Original post by Spaz Man

It will make people think twice before taking a media studies course.

No

It will make people from lower middle income backgrounds think twice before taking media studies (or whatever the mass media tells the gormless masses is the joke subject of the day)

It will will also deter these people from studying repsect accademic subjects such as chemestry, physics, english, law and history.

It will also deter the same people from studying a vocation specific degree such as certain types of medicine and engineering degrees

meanwhile the rich will be able to keep taking as many "joke" subjects as they like, thanks to the bank of mum and dad, and when they grow up and decide they want to do something with their lives they will be able to train to enter a profession, and if that does not work for them (say because they decided to party suring the course) they can just try again.

fees only hurt thoes who are less than privilidged

Reply 38

Spaz Man

13

Original post by megaman70

No

It will make people from lower middle income backgrounds think twice before taking media studies (or whatever the mass media tells the gormless masses is the joke subject of the day)

It will will also deter these people from studying repsect accademic subjects such as chemestry, physics, english, law and history.

It will also deter the same people from studying a vocation specific degree such as certain types of medicine and engineering degrees

meanwhile the rich will be able to keep taking as many "joke" subjects as they like, thanks to the bank of mum and dad, and when they grow up and decide they want to do something with their lives they will be able to train to enter a profession, and if that does not work for them (say because they decided to party suring the course) they can just try again.

fees only hurt thoes who are less than privilidged

Considering that undergraduate applicaitons for university haven't actually dropped since the fee raise came into effect and that sciences are more popular than ever cobined with the fact that "softer" subjects are less popular, how does that support your theory?