How should uni tuition be funded?

Scroll to see replies

Keep the current system. You already get some 13 years of free education. And it's not as if you come out of uni and are expected to pay it back straight away, regardless of your situation.

That is the most ridiculous reason for supporting tuition fees I've ever heard. What does state funded primary and secondary education have to do anything?

It is rather odd that some people who take public money in the form of benefits, ESA, DLA, housing support, child maintenance, working tax credits, Help to Buy etc turn around and say higher education is somehow different and should not be paid for by taxes. Why is it?

Reply 21

Tiger Rag

Original post by Snufkin

Benefits are different. I didn't ask to be born with something that will probably leave me blind or kill me. You, however, have chosen to go to uni.

Reply 22

username1230881

Why would anyone possibly vote for 'students paying the full cost up front'? It would obviously exclude anyone without really rich parents.

Ideally, it would be taxpayer funded. But not enough people would support a party that supported that, and the (tabloid) press would rip it apart... the policy wouldn't even be implemented, and it certainly wouldn't survive.

So the best compromise, I think, would be lower tuition fees, and the rest from public funds. The amount of debt currently is ridiculous even for people doing three year degrees with the smallest loan - and it's beyond ridiculous for those doing longer degrees (like medicine) with large loans. So tuition fees should be no more than £3,000, and grants should return and be expanded in my opinion.

Reply 23

Snufkin

Universities Forum Helper

Original post by Tiger Rag

Benefits are different. I didn't ask to be born with something that will probably leave me blind or kill me. You, however, have chosen to go to uni.

I didn't ask to be born in a century where having a degree is necessary for a majority of jobs.

1st option.

What's wrong with the current system?
You want to go? Pay. Don't have the money? Borrow.
Seems fair to me.

What seems criminal to me is the perceived inferiority of alternatives to university and the expectation from much of society that it's 'just the next step' on a preset route.
It shouldn't be the case. That needs fixing.
But if you choose it, pay for it :smile:

Reply 26

brabzzz

Original post by doctorwhofan98

Why would anyone possibly vote for 'students paying the full cost up front'? It would obviously exclude anyone without really rich parents.

Nope. It's exactly the system we have today.
Those that don't have the cash to hand borrow it via a student loan.

edit - apologies, missed the 'full' bit in my quick reply.

I voted that option because medics, engineers, chemists and those expensive degrees SHOULD pay more - their education cost more, and, generally speaking, they'll make more. Every degree should cost what it costs. Loans obviously still available for all. Don't think it's worth it? Don't do it.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 27

Flame Alchemist

Of course it would be fab if we could get it fully funded, but the fact is that people from every single sector are fighting over that same government funding. Everyone wants more funding into healthcare, welfare, the arts, public services (e.g. transport, esp. for students), education (at all levels, not just university)...

There just has to be some amount of compromise. Either keep the current system (with maintenance grants as an additional consideration) or at least introduce some funding in order to lower the fees somewhat.

It's just not feasible for everything to be 'free'.

...on a side note, though, the biased nature of government funding into certain specific universities (i.e. Russell Group (i.e. Oxbridge)) should probably fall under some more scrutiny...

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 28

whorace

Who the hell voted for paying upfront?

Also, what is the hostility on here towards free education, it's not even a significant amount of the budget, how about scrapping useless nuclear submarines?

Reply 29

Saracen's Fez

Original post by davahna

In my own personal opinion, i think that the Government should lower the tuition fees to get into University. I think £9000 per year is absurd. Think about the individuals who's parents income is not adequate, and they want their child to go to Uni but the Government is preventing those from lower-class backgrounds to get to where they want. If the Government lowered the tuition fees, then he we see more individuals wanting to go to University, instead of doing Apprenticeships that don't really get them anywhere in life. The Government is alienating those who don't have as much money as the middle class workers, and it's not fair, what happened to all this Equal Opportunity Act?

Except it hasn't played out like that.

I don't think you'll find a fairer system than the current one.

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 30

Anna Schoon

Original post by Salwachemi

Your CircumstancesInterest RateWhilst studying and until the April after leaving the courseRPI, plus 3% (3.9% for 2015/16)If you were on a short course or finished your course early and should have come into repayment before April 2016*RPI, plus 3% (3.9% for 2015/16) until the April after you leave your course, then RPI (0.9%) only until April 2016If you come into repayment from April 2016Variable rate dependent upon income. RPI (0.9%) where income is £21,000 or less, rising on a sliding scale up to RPI+3% (3.9%) where income is £41,000 or moreIf you don't respond to SLC's requests for information or evidenceRPI plus 3% will be applied to your loan, whatever your income, until SLC have all the information they need so it will still not heavily affect the rates.

What you say applies to tuition fees only. As you confirm, interest starts accumulating at a rate of RPI (Retail Price Index, which is currently 1.8%) plus the 3% on top - so 4.8% at the moment - as you are studying. Don't forget that RPI is variable - the 1.8% figure is the first quarter of 2016. The whole thing could be called usury! When student loans were first introduced they were interest free. In The Netherlands, where they also have student loans, the interest rate is 0.5%.

Reply 31

IBIB

Bias towards the left wing of the poll, because people on here are poor left wing

Reply 32

Jammy Duel

As of writing, 25pc have it wrong, 40pc are half way there but stuck in the past, 33pc are pretty much right, and 2pc(myself included) are cruel mofos with the right general idea.

Reply 33

Jammy Duel

Original post by Snufkin

With many of those there is a difference in that arguably it is incredibly difficult to surivive without the state aid (many being chosendue to the likesof help to buy being included in the list), and as I'm sure you're aware from MHoC i do concede that style benefits are largely necessary, however i personally group taxpayers paying for your increased earning potential to be in the saved group as right and help to buy as things that it round be nice for the taxpayer to give you, but are questionably practical. I outright reject the notion that the taxpayer should pay for our further educations, and the only reason i even vaguely support right and help to buy is that it is not a bad thing for the majority of the population to own their own property, however i do not believe that or is for the best that most are university educated, in fact i believe that it should actually be restricted to a very small group of people and outright reject what recent governments have done which is to push as many as possible towards university to keep youth unemployment down. It makes the stats look better, sure, but it is to the detriment of a great many who do go to university as a consequence, and a large number who do not.

Reply 34

davahna

Original post by Saracen's Fez

Except it hasn't played out like that.

I don't think you'll find a fairer system than the current one.

This is why our current Government needs to be changed, because he isn't doing anything to help young people or students be successful in the future.

Reply 35

Jammy Duel

Original post by davahna

This is why our current Government needs to be changed, because he isn't doing anything to help young people or students be successful in the future.

When do you want the state to let go of your hand?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 36

davahna

Original post by Jammy Duel

When do you want the state to let go of your hand?

Posted from TSR Mobile

If the state lets go of our hand that means that we wouldn't have free healthcare or free education up to the age of 18, and there would be no such thing as benefits. This means mass amount of poverty all over Britain. So the question we should impose is why aren't the Government holding our hand TIGHTER?

Reply 37

Josb

Let each university set its own fees.

Reply 38

Smack

Volunteer Team

Original post by Josb

Let each university set its own fees.

That's essentially how it currently is, except that the government has set a maximum limit.

Reply 39

Yellow 03

Original post by Josb

Let each university set its own fees.

But even so, do you think that there should be any public subsidy? There must be some way (public subsidy or not) to allow access to university education to those who are talented and intelligent enough to go but can't afford it?