The Student Room Group
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>
Uni students - Complete our survey >>

Student tuition fees "fair and equitable" says Jo Johnson

University minister Jo Johnson has defended tuition fees and student loans as "fair and equitable". Graduates now face debts up to £50,000 + but Johnson has defended the student finance system, claiming it is fair on both students and taxpayers.

Johnson explains, “Students pay on average roughly 65% of the cost through fees, while the taxpayer shoulders around 35%, through teaching grants and loan subsidies, and a much higher share if we add £6bn of annual investment in research. This is an equitable split.”

You can read more on the story here.

What do you make of this? Are £9,000+ loans fair and/or equitable? How much do you think university should cost?

Scroll to see replies

Easy to say for people who had their parents pay for it. Or not had to pay any tuition at all.
Reply 2
Avatar for ax12
ax12
20
Original post by Danny Dorito
University minister Jo Johnson has defended tuition fees and student loans as "fair and equitable". Graduates now face debts up to £50,000 + but Johnson has defended the student finance system, claiming it is fair on both students and taxpayers.

Johnson explains, “Students pay on average roughly 65% of the cost through fees, while the taxpayer shoulders around 35%, through teaching grants and loan subsidies, and a much higher share if we add £6bn of annual investment in research. This is an equitable split.”

You can read more on the story here.

What do you make of this? Are £9,000+ loans fair and/or equitable? How much do you think university should cost?


I think it's a difficult one. University isn't cheap, and I don't think it should be free. I don't know how you would decide what a 'fair' contribution from the taxpayer/student is. Personally I would favour scrapping fees and just introducing a graduate tax. A significant number of people will never pay off their loan, and it stops anyone being put off by rising fees.
I struggle to believe that from someone who had no university fees.
Original post by ax12
I think it's a difficult one. University isn't cheap, and I don't think it should be free. I don't know how you would decide what a 'fair' contribution from the taxpayer/student is. Personally I would favour scrapping fees and just introducing a graduate tax. A significant number of people will never pay off their loan, and it stops anyone being put off by rising fees.


But the issue with a graduate tax being you pay it on all income, as a percentage of income, and when you have officially "paid off" your contribution to university, you still have to keep paying as long as you are earning. So the highest earners could end up paying 2 or 3x what would have been their contribution through a student loan.



Also....do students really pay 65% through fees? When predictions are that half of all student debt won't be paid off by current student intakes? But its ok, i know how to solve that....raise fees by £250 year on year. Sorted.
Reply 5
Avatar for ax12
ax12
20
Original post by QuentinM
But the issue with a graduate tax being you pay it on all income, as a percentage of income, and when you have officially "paid off" your contribution to university, you still have to keep paying as long as you are earning. So the highest earners could end up paying 2 or 3x what would have been their contribution through a student loan.



Also....do students really pay 65% through fees? When predictions are that half of all student debt won't be paid off by current student intakes? But its ok, i know how to solve that....raise fees by £250 year on year. Sorted.


Ideally you'd pay it for 40 years after graduation, the same as the loan. This is how I see a lot of taxation works anyway, people who earn more subsidise things for people who earn less. You could also argue that they potentially got more benefit from their degree, so they pay more for it. As I said, this is just my view on the matter. I'd be interested to hear other ways to deal with it.

I don't know about the percentage we actually pay, he hasn't really given any source or data behind his figures, and the article barely discusses what he's talking about before moving on to A level results, so it would be good to see other professional/expert opinion.
@ax12 - If people don't finish paying off their loan, doesn't the government/university go into loss then?
Reply 7
Avatar for ax12
ax12
20
Original post by sulaimanali
@ax12 - If people don't finish paying off their loan, doesn't the government/university go into loss then?


I assume the government does as the university will already have the money that we've paid them.

I'm not professing to be an expert on the subject matter, just sharing my opinion on the article subject!
Original post by sulaimanali
@ax12 - If people don't finish paying off their loan, doesn't the government/university go into loss then?


Yes. Universities are being paid for now out of general taxation - about 1% of public spending.
The loans hope to recover that over 30 years - but most graduates won't pay the full amount.
Jo Johnson's figures of studenrs paying two thirds seem to be plucked from the air. Unless most students pay back less than 50% and the average is 65% then a minority pay back almost all or all the loan.
It's absolute madness.
Reply 10
Avatar for kac
kac
Original post by ax12
I think it's a difficult one. University isn't cheap, and I don't think it should be free. I don't know how you would decide what a 'fair' contribution from the taxpayer/student is. Personally I would favour scrapping fees and just introducing a graduate tax. A significant number of people will never pay off their loan, and it stops anyone being put off by rising fees.


Stupid.

A graduate tax you pay forever, whereas with a "debt" you have a chance of paying it off...
Asking a student forum if it's fair that students should pay up isn't going to lead to a diversity of opinion.

No one likes being taxed.
Reply 12
Avatar for ax12
ax12
20
Original post by kac
Stupid.

A graduate tax you pay forever, whereas with a "debt" you have a chance of paying it off...


"Debt" which essentially ends up being a tax. Fees just keep rising, but our ability to pay it back isn't getting any better. I don't think we can justify university for free. The only two options I have an understanding of are a graduate tax or the current fee system, but obviously my mind is open to other things.
Reply 13
Avatar for kac
kac
Original post by ax12
"Debt" which essentially ends up being a tax. Fees just keep rising, but our ability to pay it back isn't getting any better. I don't think we can justify university for free. The only two options I have an understanding of are a graduate tax or the current fee system, but obviously my mind is open to other things.


That makes no sense though. At least with a debt there's a small but possible way of repaying it! You also have option to study abroad and not get into debt, anyone with half a brain at A-Level did a foreign language.
Perhaps fees at a lower rate and more taxpayers money?
It's a balance between not having free university but having fees that can be paid back.
Original post by Meany Pie
I struggle to believe that from someone who had no university fees.


What exactly is your solution, then? To engineer a situation where only someone under the age of 30 can hold the position of universities minister?
Original post by Trinculo
What exactly is your solution, then? To engineer a situation where only someone under the age of 30 can hold the position of universities minister?


Perhaps it would be better for an actual student representative to actually represent students at a governmental level, and not the crazy NUS kind.
Original post by sulaimanali
@ax12 - If people don't finish paying off their loan, doesn't the government/university go into loss then?


Yes, the extra debt still present is written off by the government
Original post by Meany Pie
Perhaps it would be better for an actual student representative to actually represent students at a governmental level, and not the crazy NUS kind.


Does this mean having students as MP's? This would ensure an actual representation, but no way a student could juggle MP stuff and study.

Or do you mean more MP's who are recent graduates? People like Mhairi Black in scotland?

Or do you mean actual students, or recent graduates, at the upper levels of the Department of Education?

I think the last two are both feasible and necessary
Original post by Meany Pie
Perhaps it would be better for an actual student representative to actually represent students at a governmental level, and not the crazy NUS kind.


Problem is it's nigh on impossible to get moderates in student politics. They're generally either all-out Tories or mad Trots. And if you could find a moderate - why would anyone vote for them? The moderate view is that tuition must be paid for by the consumer of the education, the only question is when. As a student - why would you vote for a representative offering you free education vs someone offering you tuition fees/grad tax? Hence, you'll end up with a Trot.

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you