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

Only the good Uni's should survive. Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    That'd be you stuffed then, wouldn't it?


    I don't think the tuition fee setup is perfect, but it is acceptable. The major problem is the lack of accountability universities are held to over graduate prospects. Course places should be based on prospects, not just how many willing teenagers there are to sign up for a lifetime of debt to waste 3 years on something not worth the paper it's printed on.
    This is the major misconception about the tuition fees. It is inherently not a debt. It is not even supposed to be called a loan, instead a grant.

    Effectlively, it's just a graduate tax of 9% of earnings over 21k for 30 years. The amount you repay ultimately does not change if your 'grant' is 27k, 60k or 100k.

    It is the 'debt' mentality that causes all this frenzy confusing prospective students, dissuading them from actaully going to uni
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brimstone131)
    This is the major misconception about the tuition fees. It is inherently not a debt. It is not even supposed to be called a loan, instead a grant.

    Effectlively, it's just a graduate tax of 9% of earnings over 21k for 30 years. The amount you repay ultimately does not change if your 'grant' is 27k, 60k or 100k.

    It is the 'debt' mentality that causes all this frenzy confusing prospective students, dissuading them from actaully going to uni
    It is literally debt.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    It is literally debt.
    Its not debt like a loan from a bank or a mortgage though is it? Debt that if you dont make a payment could screw you over big time.

    Its essentially 9% tax on whatever you earn over £21k for 30 years.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jack22031994)
    Its not debt like a loan from a bank or a mortgage though is it? Debt that if you dont make a payment could screw you over big time.

    Its essentially 9% tax on whatever you earn over £21k for 30 years.
    It's still debt.

    It's still 9% of those earnings regardless of if your degree was any use. In 25 years time when an average salary is over £40k, that repayment is going to be a hefty imposition on a modest income.

    It's a debt that you have zero escape from.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    It is literally debt.
    Although technically speaking, it is a debt, it bears viturally nothing in common with a conventional loan.

    A debt shows on your credit report, this does not.

    A debt, although an offence to not pay, is paid my you voluntarily making payments to a body. This is taken out of your salary, by force

    A debt generally is not written off by time. This is written off after 30 years.

    Instead of telling students they have a 40k loan over their heads, what they should be told (because this is what it is) is that if you want to go to uni and take a student loan, any earnings over 21k are taxed at 9% - in effect, a graduate tax.

    I know first hand the fear that is instilled into prospective students - I had one bloke from UCAS come and speak to me and my friends and say that going to uni saddled you with debt for life - this is just not true.

    I agree that it is a bitter pill to swallow, but it needs to be simplified by the govt to say what it really is, which is a tax on graduates earnings in order to repay their degree costs
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)


    It's a debt that you have zero escape from.

    you can screw off abroad good luck to SLC and HMRC getting the debt back
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    It's still debt.

    It's still 9% of those earnings regardless of if your degree was any use. In 25 years time when an average salary is over £40k, that repayment is going to be a hefty imposition on a modest income.

    It's a debt that you have zero escape from.
    Unless youre self-employed and know how to get around tax loopholes which in turn will get you out of of this etc :lol:

    You are right but it should not be compared to something like a mortgage (which people do) - two totally different things. Not paying a mortgage, can destroy your credit rating, get you repossessed and you could lose everything. That is not the case with a student loan.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brimstone131)
    Although technically speaking, it is a debt, it bears viturally nothing in common with a conventional loan.

    A debt shows on your credit report, this does not.

    A debt, although an offence to not pay, is paid my you voluntarily making payments to a body. This is taken out of your salary, by force

    A debt generally is not written off by time. This is written off after 30 years.

    Instead of telling students they have a 40k loan over their heads, what they should be told (because this is what it is) is that if you want to go to uni and take a student loan, any earnings over 21k are taxed at 9% - in effect, a graduate tax.

    I know first hand the fear that is instilled into prospective students - I had one bloke from UCAS come and speak to me and my friends and say that going to uni saddled you with debt for life - this is just not true.

    I agree that it is a bitter pill to swallow, but it needs to be simplified by the govt to say what it really is, which is a tax on graduates earnings in order to repay their degree costs
    Look, I agree it's acceptable. I'm taking my loans, I'll become qualified in my subject, and my earnings will make it worth it. I've made a lot of poor decisions to wind up being a mature student, but with a little bit more wisdom behind me, I've made a very sensible choice by investing in my education. 9% is as you said a bitter pill to swallow, I'll be paying back way more than I borrowed over the next up to 30 years, but I'm not getting there without a degree so I'll suck it up.

    But for the 18-year-olds without the benefit of living in the real world, choosing courses that are a waste of time, who are going to still wind up being paid the same as a none graduate, that burden for them is another matter altogether. They're agreeing to a 9% deduction of everything over £21k, sounds fine. That's a respectable income. But that repayment point is fixed. Fast forward 25 years and £21k is no longer respectable. And while they're still sat in their jobs next to none graduates earning exactly the same, they're also making those 9% repayments.

    It's not all students that it will be a burden to, but there are people enrolling now who are unnecessarily going to be saddled with 30 years of repayments for the poor choice in subject and institution they are making now. It's not right that universities aren't held to account for that.
    • Section Leader
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Samendra)
    was a good troll thread?
    Ah the sound of rapid back-pedalling.

    Clever...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    Although the way OP put it wasn't the best, the overarching point he brings up is true.

    The number of frankly useless degrees on offer today is alarmingly high. University used to be for the relatively high-achieving; now any Tom, **** or Harry can get in. This has resulted in degrees falling in worth. Jobs which didn't need a degree now need a 2:1. One factor which could be attributed to this is the oversaturation of degree holders in the job market.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BigYoSpeck)
    Look, I agree it's acceptable. I'm taking my loans, I'll become qualified in my subject, and my earnings will make it worth it. I've made a lot of poor decisions to wind up being a mature student, but with a little bit more wisdom behind me, I've made a very sensible choice by investing in my education. 9% is as you said a bitter pill to swallow, I'll be paying back way more than I borrowed over the next up to 30 years, but I'm not getting there without a degree so I'll suck it up.

    But for the 18-year-olds without the benefit of living in the real world, choosing courses that are a waste of time, who are going to still wind up being paid the same as a none graduate, that burden for them is another matter altogether. They're agreeing to a 9% deduction of everything over £21k, sounds fine. That's a respectable income. But that repayment point is fixed. Fast forward 25 years and £21k is no longer respectable. And while they're still sat in their jobs next to none graduates earning exactly the same, they're also making those 9% repayments.

    It's not all students that it will be a burden to, but there are people enrolling now who are unnecessarily going to be saddled with 30 years of repayments for the poor choice in subject and institution they are making now. It's not right that universities aren't held to account for that.
    I agree with you, but it is on earnings over 21k, that's i think the only acceptable part.... meaning you earn 31k, you repay 900 a year. I think you're right that uni's need to be held accountable, and you're right, its not fair on fresh 18y/o's.... but something needs to be done to reduce students doing degrees putting them in fields where they have no hope of repaying..... if that means scaring them a bit, i'm not sure thats too bad.

    like i met up with a girl i used to live near last week.... she's doing film studies, with placement, so 4 years of her life, but doesn't actually want to do anything related as a career.... smh
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KMLeeson)
    What you're suggesting is ridiculous! Tuition fees should be free for those who actually want an education and who will actually put in the effort where as if you're simply going to Uni for the experience or more specifically, to just party and get hammered, I think there should be charges put in place to prevent that happening. Just my personal opinion, I don't mean to offend anyone!
    And how would you make the distinction between the two groups?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kyou)
    Although the way OP put it wasn't the best, the overarching point he brings up is true.

    The number of frankly useless degrees on offer today is alarmingly high. University used to be for the relatively high-achieving; now any Tom, **** or Harry can get in. This has resulted in degrees falling in worth. Jobs which didn't need a degree now need a 2:1. One factor which could be attributed to this is the oversaturation of degree holders in the job market.
    That still doesn't justify removing more than 3/4s of the universities in this country simply because they used to be a polytechnic, as OP suggested.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Desmos)
    And how would you make the distinction between the two groups?
    I'm not overly sure, it's never going to happen. Perhaps lie detector tests or monitoring things such as grades, attendance and participation. I understand that not everyone is academically inclined which is why effort and commitment would be just as important, if not more important than the grades achieved.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Cubone-r)
    That still doesn't justify removing more than 3/4s of the universities in this country simply because they used to be a polytechnic, as OP suggested.
    tbf the train of thought has value...... if just being on a level with everyone means getting a degree as it does now, it makes everyone's life harder, an far more difficult to distinguish yourself from other job candidates - not to mention more money spent on the degrees by the govt.

    If you reduce the supply of degrees, their inherent value is going to go up.... meaning that those academically (or financially) fortunate will benefit from fewer competition, and the economy can benefit in the short to medium term

    What reducing the supply of degrees will do is make our workforce far less competitive compared to other economies, and will likely have a worse effect on the economy as less GDP can be created, less tax revenue, less FDI etc

    not sure i support OP but there is a good point
    • #1
    #1

    gotta agree
    also i think the phd selection criteria is a bit off
    i got a 2:1 from one of the unis you mentioned above, a middle 2:1, and got top a level results in my school, not just school, area, like out of five schools, but some body from my school who was an average student ABB at best, gets a 1st from a pervious poly - which are known to give out a ridiculour amount of firsts, and gets a phd offer.
    i feel as though phd superviors sometimes weight a 1st from a bad university the same. e.g someone got a first from sheffield, and the supervisor was like he's choosing between me and this other guy, but to get into sheffield the entry requirements are alot lower, so unless you somehow loose all ability during 3 years, i dont understand the comparison...
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brimstone131)
    tbf the train of thought has value...... if just being on a level with everyone means getting a degree as it does now, it makes everyone's life harder, an far more difficult to distinguish yourself from other job candidates - not to mention more money spent on the degrees by the govt.

    If you reduce the supply of degrees, their inherent value is going to go up.... meaning that those academically (or financially) fortunate will benefit from fewer competition, and the economy can benefit in the short to medium term

    What reducing the supply of degrees will do is make our workforce far less competitive compared to other economies, and will likely have a worse effect on the economy as less GDP can be created, less tax revenue, less FDI etc

    not sure i support OP but there is a good point
    I agree with all of your points. I've always been of the opinion that we should go back to the old tripartite system where we send those who are academically gifted to grammar schools, those who have more vocational or creative skills to technical/ art schools, and everyone else goes to the bog standard comprehensive.
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by KMLeeson)
    What you're suggesting is ridiculous! Tuition fees should be free for those who actually want an education and who will actually put in the effort where as if you're simply going to Uni for the experience or more specifically, to just party and get hammered, I think there should be charges put in place to prevent that happening. Just my personal opinion, I don't mean to offend anyone!


    I think you're wrong there. I disagree, because I believe education to 18 is a universal human right. No question. But this is all you need to be able to move into the world of work and start contributing to society.

    However, what tuition fees do is mean students have to make a concious decision about whether investing in their future is worth the size of tax repayments.... it puts a price on either using or wasting three years of life and means they can decide if they can make a good enough investment that they ultimately will profit from it... ie.. can I earn more than i spent on the investment

    I agree with you though, far too many people waste their time at uni..... they go to uni because 'its what evryone does'
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I've just had a good look at the uni league tables. Out of the top ten, the unis OP proposed keeping one isn't even in the top ten- ffs Coventry is ranked higher than LSE! Another is trumped by a former technical college- Imperial is 7th, below Loughborough. What's so brilliant about these universities? I think OP thinks there is no life outside London!
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by princessmaire80)
    I've just had a good look at the uni league tables. Out of the top ten, the unis OP proposed keeping one isn't even in the top ten- ffs Coventry is ranked higher than LSE! Another is trumped by a former technical college- Imperial is 7th, below Loughborough. What's so brilliant about these universities? I think OP thinks there is no life outside London!
    OP is an idiot and is likely still doing their A levels.

    Uni league tables are for the most part meaningless.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    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.