Turn on thread page Beta

Tuition Fees Under Review: PM proposes to cut tuition fee cost for some courses watch

  • View Poll Results: Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
    Yes
    1,516
    68.26%
    No
    705
    31.74%

    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sceptical_John)
    Still, there seems something fundamentally unfair where an Eng lit student is subsidizing a physics student. We don't know how much by but my guess is it's at least £2k a year.
    Tbh I'd argue that gap is even more. As en engineering student I have a fair amount of contact hours and have been able to use lavatories with some pretty complex and expensive machines. Comparing that to, say, an eng lit student who only has maybe 10 hours of contact all in a classroom, there's definitely a value for money thing there!

    Whether or not students should pay more/less depending on their degree, idk
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    Hypothetically,

    To fund one medical applicant £13500 ("Greater benefit to society, considering the state of the NHS") -Priortised
    To increase admissions of medical applicants, it should be made affordable, therefore is decreased to £9000

    To fund one Art Applicant £4500 (Less benefit to society) Not priortised
    To compensate from losing £4500, then art students should pay £9000 too. Considering the Art students really dont have a significant contribute to society or enhancing the quality of life to the British Public, according to the article and current affrais; then a universal system ensures a continous stream of revenue to fund these degrees in the most cost effective way, in order to efficiently fund more priortised and expensive degrees such as engineering and medicine, whilst not jeprodising the quality of educatin for other students.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Sceptical_John)
    Still, there seems something fundamentally unfair where an Eng lit student is subsidizing a physics student. We don't know how much by but my guess is it's at least £2k a year.
    The point isn't to be fair to the individual, it's to be fair to the population.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helloworld_95)
    The point isn't to be fair to the individual, it's to be fair to the population.

    (Original post by Science99999)
    Hypothetically,

    To fund one medical applicant £13500 ("Greater benefit to society, considering the state of the NHS" -Priortised
    To increase admissions of medical applicants, it should be made affordable, therefore is decreased to £9000

    To fund one Art Applicant £4500 (Less benefit to society) Not priortised
    To compensate from losing £4500, then art students should pay £9000 too. Considering the Art students really dont have a significant contribute to society or enhancing the quality of life to the British Public, according to the article and current affrais; then a universal system ensures a continous stream of revenue to fund these degrees in the most cost effective way, in order to efficiently fund more priortised and expensive degrees such as engineering and medicine, whilst not jeprodising the quality of educatin for other students.
    Not much love for the arts here! Sure I can obviously see why you'd discount key state workers like the NHS (and that's done differently anyway). That's not my argument. It's more those that go on to work in business for huge sums of money.

    I guess its really difficult to know without hard figures and universities are notoriously opaque with this.

    Suppose course A costs 6k to provide and the course B costs 12k. At the moment it seems like we just even out the two to 9k. But then the person taking course B goes on to earn substantially more. Have they not had an unfair advantage?

    Secondly, I think you're both making huge assumptions about the 'value to society' is someone's value simply how much tax they pay in? That's a sorry state of affairs.

    I guess I'm arguing that a course should cost the amount to provide and any discount is taken off separately. Not as it is at the moment where one student subsidizes another.
    • Community Assistant
    Online

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Sceptical_John)
    Not much love for the arts here! Sure I can obviously see why you'd discount key state workers like the NHS (and that's done differently anyway). That's not my argument. It's more those that go on to work in business for huge sums of money.

    I guess its really difficult to know without hard figures and universities are notoriously opaque with this.

    Suppose course A costs 6k to provide and the course B costs 12k. At the moment it seems like we just even out the two to 9k. But then the person taking course B goes on to earn substantially more. Have they not had an unfair advantage?

    Secondly, I think you're both making huge assumptions about the 'value to society' is someone's value simply how much tax they pay in? That's a sorry state of affairs.

    I guess I'm arguing that a course should cost the amount to provide and any discount is taken off separately. Not as it is at the moment where one student subsidizes another.
    It's not just the arts that would be affected, you would see that subjects like Psychology and the Biological sciences would be affected too. Plenty of arts students go on to business, finance and law as they're some of the more viable career paths for students with any degree subject. If you want to cure that problem then you should be implementing a graduate tax, but then you have to deal with people seeking out opportunities outside the UK in order to avoid that tax. You can get people to pay back loans when abroad, can't get them to pay tax.

    The person on course B doesn't really have an unfair advantage as person B went into the course knowing that they would likely be paid more and person A knew they would likely be paid less. It's not unfair if you choose course A.

    A person's value isn't merely what they paid in, but student levels in the arts or rather 'less valuable subjects' (for lack of a better descriptor) are nowhere near to the point of dropping down to where it would start having an effect on the population as a whole.

    The problem with your method for costing is that it would cost an awful lot more to the taxpayer than the current option, with little overall benefit to anyone other than people who manage to get into higher paying jobs despite a supposedly lower value course. Essentially you're rewarding the exact people you set out to reward less or even punish.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Government doesn't care about an english lit student. They care about STEM and medical degrees as they benefit society.
    That's why they're subsidized and will be subsidized more in the future.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    Universities would offer contracts to their students, who would agree to pay to the university they attended a given share of their earnings in return for their degree course. Essentially, the university would be taking an equity interest in the graduate premium earned by the student, although any student who chose to do so could, alternatively, pay the full fees up-front prior to beginning their studies.
    I do like the sound of this, for the following reason:


    At the moment, graduates earning over 21K will start paying off student loans. The success (or lack thereof) of these grads does not affect how much the university will receives in funding from the government. Using the above model, universities would have to make their students do well in order to receive funds. Also, graduates who earn below this amount should cost the universities.

    This could be improved by:


    The max up-front fee that that university can charge you should be proportional to the earnings that current-alumni of that university earn (alumni who aren't in the grad tax will have to report their income) (this allows Cambridge/Oxford/other top uni to have higher fees)
    • Could have a min and max.
    • The max fee that the uni can charge non-UK students is double than what they can for local students. Optional: Unis may not have a higher fee for locals over internationals.




    Before I hear people calling me dragonican for daring to suggest that students should pay something to their degrees (shock horror), let me ask you, who do the degrees help? Before you say "everyone, because of the trickle down effect (educated people creating jobs for everyone else)" notice these points:

    1. High earners have higher social mobility (high taxes; fine, I'll go to Bermuda/Switzerland/Singapore and bank there)
    2. Globalisation makes this theory less likely to happen. Jobs are made, yes, but not in the UK.
    3. Quite a few people have degrees in things that aren't really worth government money (does [Insert any non-STEM subject here] help solve the housing crisis, or the healthcare, or create jobs?)
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    The talk about courses subsidising each other is nonsense. Most graduates won’t repay their fees (never mind their maintenance loan) - that’s the issue that the government has suddenly realised. With earnings stagnant the write off of student loans means that governments over the next 20 years are going to have a whole in their income compared to forecasts.

    The current system isn’t costing less - it is costing more (to the government as well as individuals). It just spreads the costs out over 30 years and they’ve only just realised this.
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    They should keep bursaries available and cut it to 6K. Realistically, most graduates will never pay back their debt.
    Posted on the TSR App. Download from Apple or Google Play
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by PQ)
    The talk about courses subsidising each other is nonsense. Most graduates won’t repay their fees (never mind their maintenance loan) - that’s the issue that the government has suddenly realised. With earnings stagnant the write off of student loans means that governments over the next 20 years are going to have a whole in their income compared to forecasts.

    The current system isn’t costing less - it is costing more (to the government as well as individuals). It just spreads the costs out over 30 years and they’ve only just realised this.
    Though I largely agree with what you're saying this is NOT the debate that is taking place if you listen/read to what politicians are saying. The debate is around what's a fair contribution for students to make.

    Hinds' headline is literally 'I want to make arts cheaper'
    https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/e...aper-3fxmng2hz
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Helloworld_95)
    The person on course B doesn't really have an unfair advantage as person B went into the course knowing that they would likely be paid more and person A knew they would likely be paid less. It's not unfair if you choose course A.
    Maybe we just have to agree to disagree here. I can't get past the point that if someone wants to do a humanities/art type course that their fee should be 50% more than necessary in order to make other subjects viable. Even if we just openly said it's unfair but that's life.
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    (Original post by Sceptical_John)
    Though I largely agree with what you're saying this is NOT the debate that is taking place if you listen/read to what politicians are saying. The debate is around what's a fair contribution for students to make.
    Well yes - that's obviously the spin they want to put on it because they're reacting to the threat from Labour who are talking about scrapping fees altogether.

    My point was that this (plus May's "it's too expensive" BS released today like she didn't vote in favour of increasing the fees despite lots of warnings that they hadn't followed the recommendations of the Brown review and what was proposed wasn't affordable for anyone) is a deliberate distraction. They want to shift the focus away from their disastrous management of HE (and FE which will as ever be ignored) funding and turn it into a much more manageable divide and conquer debate about "mickey mouse" subjects and "ex polys".

    The Treasury Committe made some recommendations yesterday that will also likely be ignored https://www.parliament.uk/business/c...blished-17-19/
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Nathan.Brown.00)
    I do like the sound of this, for the following reason:



    At the moment, graduates earning over 21K will start paying off student loans. The success (or lack thereof) of these grads does not affect how much the university will receives in funding from the government. Using the above model, universities would have to make their students do well in order to receive funds. Also, graduates who earn below this amount should cost the universities.


    This could be improved by:



    The max up-front fee that that university can charge you should be proportional to the earnings that current-alumni of that university earn (alumni who aren't in the grad tax will have to report their income) (this allows Cambridge/Oxford/other top uni to have higher fees)

    • Could have a min and max.
    • The max fee that the uni can charge non-UK students is double than what they can for local students. Optional: Unis may not have a higher fee for locals over internationals.





    Before I hear people calling me dragonican for daring to suggest that students should pay something to their degrees (shock horror), let me ask you, who do the degrees help? Before you say "everyone, because of the trickle down effect (educated people creating jobs for everyone else)" notice these points:


    1. High earners have higher social mobility (high taxes; fine, I'll go to Bermuda/Switzerland/Singapore and bank there)
    2. Globalisation makes this theory less likely to happen. Jobs are made, yes, but not in the UK.
    3. Quite a few people have degrees in things that aren't really worth government money (does [Insert any non-STEM subject here] help solve the housing crisis, or the healthcare, or create jobs?)
    Then all that would do is favour courses which purely earn the most money at the expense of studying other areas. You would also get a lt of people being thrown off their course.

    The current loan system is similar to a tax already as not many actually pay the loans off.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    It could be divided up into the different subjects, so that a uni who offers an Art course which has relatively high salary's post-grad (eg: 25k) will get more money than a Maths degree that has a relatively low salary post grad (eg: 30k).

    tbh, the main reason I like this idea is that students always complain how their uni has no incentives to care about their students, and thus has poor teaching. I think that in some way or another the amount a graduate earns in his/her field should reward the university they studied at.

    Also, about high dropout rates, is it really a bad thing? Most European universities have this style; this allows them to have lower required grades. (ie, a high-ranking university (when looking at league tables) in the Netherlands gave me an offer for three A*-C grades in my A-Levels; they let a lot of students in and they have a test at the end of the first term which kicks out a rather large number of students)
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    You need to look at the bigger picture and realise that simple taxes on earnings often leads to inequality because they don't take peoples' personal circumstances into account.

    The problem with a simple tax on earnings is that it tells you nothing about somebody's overall wealth nor how that tax will affect them. Knowing how much money somebody earns doesn't tell you how much money they have at the end of each month once they've covered bills and other basic living costs for themselves and their family.

    Even somebody on a wage which appears to be high on paper may have personal circumstances which mean they aren't getting to keep much or any of that money for themselves by the end of the month - e.g. if they're a single parent renting an apartment in London earning £50k, then they might be in a far worse position to afford to pay a tax on their earnings compared with somebody in a childless marriage renting an apartment in Leeds earning £30k.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by winterscoming)
    You need to look at the bigger picture and realise that simple taxes on earnings often leads to inequality because they don't take peoples' personal circumstances into account.

    The problem with a simple tax on earnings is that it tells you nothing about somebody's overall wealth nor how that tax will affect them. Knowing how much money somebody earns doesn't tell you how much money they have at the end of each month once they've covered bills and other basic living costs for themselves and their family.

    Even somebody on a wage which appears to be high on paper may have personal circumstances which mean they aren't getting to keep much or any of that money for themselves by the end of the month - e.g. if they're a single parent renting an apartment in London earning £50k, then they might be in a far worse position to afford to pay a tax on their earnings compared with somebody in a childless marriage renting an apartment in Leeds earning £30k.
    Indeed, that is a problem, but there aren't really any way for us to negate this, but governments have Income Taxes for a reason. A tax for paying off "student loans" (or whatever it would be called) would be relatively small (1-2% additional income tax).

    Geography can be accounted for: the amount of tax they pay could depend on the average income in their area, but that just raises questions on the kinds of jobs their area may be doing. Besides, its a rather small amount that will be taxed compared to the 20-30% we pay in general (I'm including NIC's, which generally increase the total % of income going to the government from 20% to ~30%)

    Edit: Actually, there are wealth taxes, but they don't work very well (which is why they aren't used).
    Also, wealth may be there before the grad went to uni, so if it was based on wealth the uni may get taxes that aren't caused by that person (causing unis to start unfairly admitting rich students)
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathan.Brown.00)
    Indeed, that is a problem, but there aren't really any way for us to negate this
    Well, actually there is - have a look at the Universal Credit system which the Govt is currently rolling out - It's by no means perfect, but its based on assessing people's circumstances to solve a similar problem to the one I've mentioned above with taxation on earnings for people with lower wages.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by winterscoming)
    Well, actually there is - have a look at the Universal Credit system which the Govt is currently rolling out - It's by no means perfect, but its based on assessing people's circumstances to solve a similar problem to the one I've mentioned above with taxation on earnings for people with lower wages.
    people receiving UC would still be paying taxes, so I'm not sure I'm understanding what you mean.

    Yes taxation can have that effect, but thats why there is tax free allowances, tax credits and housing benefits.

    Besides, the current way student loans are paid off would also be detrimental, the proposed system simply:
    1. Allows high quality uni's to receive more funding
    2. Uni's with poor records have to charge lower fees to keep "value for money"

    If you prefer the 9% over 21-25K (it's changing to 25K apparently) being the method of payment, thats fine, but my proposals (and that of Peter Ainsworth, whose article I got the beginning quote from) are "behind the scenes" proposals, nothing that would actually change the repayment system.
    Online

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Nathan.Brown.00)
    Edit: Actually, there are wealth taxes, but they don't work very well (which is why they aren't used).
    Also, wealth may be there before the grad went to uni, so if it was based on wealth the uni may get taxes that aren't caused by that person (causing unis to start unfairly admitting rich students)
    I wasn't suggesting wealth taxes, the point is that you can't assume that somebody's earnings will leave them in a position to be able to afford higher taxes.

    Somebody's wealth plays a significant role in how an earnings tax will affect them throughout their lifetime, so if wealth isn't a consideration then any such tax will have a disproportionate impact on the less-wealthy, even if the less-wealthy person earns more money in their lifetime as a result of being a graduate.

    For example, people who rent and are unable to put away enough savings for a deposit for a house (or borrow that money from family) will end up significantly poorer than people who own their house outright. Somebody paying off a mortgage (even if they only had very modest/average earnings) will end up with very low living costs toward the end of their life, but somebody who spends their whole life paying rent will never find themselves in that position.

    Unfortunately, it's a reality that even reasonably high-paid graduates are finding themselves in a position where being able to afford a house in some parts of the country is getting less and less realistic, so there's a very real chance that high earning graduates whose personal circumstances leave them unable to save for a deposit on a house will spend decades of their entire life paying rent and not even begin to acquire any wealth for themselves until their 40s, or possibly never.

    Even without an extra tax, a lot of higher-earning, less-wealthy graduates are already facing being poorer by the end of their life despite those higher earnings, and paying higher taxes. Adding an extra earnings tax on top just makes it even harder, widens the inequality gap for the less-wealthy, and might even lock them out of the housing market altogether.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by winterscoming)
    I wasn't suggesting wealth taxes, the point is that you can't assume that somebody's earnings will leave them in a position to be able to afford higher taxes.

    Somebody's wealth plays a significant role in how an earnings tax will affect them throughout their lifetime, so if wealth isn't a consideration then any such tax will have a disproportionate impact on the less-wealthy, even if the less-wealthy person earns more money in their lifetime as a result of being a graduate.

    For example, people who rent and are unable to put away enough savings for a deposit for a house (or borrow that money from family) will end up significantly poorer than people who own their house outright. Somebody paying off a mortgage (even if they only had very modest/average earnings) will end up with very low living costs toward the end of their life, but somebody who spends their whole life paying rent will never find themselves in that position.

    Unfortunately, it's a reality that even reasonably high-paid graduates are finding themselves in a position where being able to afford a house in some parts of the country is getting less and less realistic, so there's a very real chance that high earning graduates whose personal circumstances leave them unable to save for a deposit on a house will spend decades of their entire life paying rent and not even begin to acquire any wealth for themselves until their 40s, or possibly never.

    Even without an extra tax, a lot of higher-earning, less-wealthy graduates are already facing being poorer by the end of their life despite those higher earnings, and paying higher taxes. Adding an extra earnings tax on top just makes it even harder, widens the inequality gap for the less-wealthy, and might even lock them out of the housing market altogether.
    So instead you would suggest that instead of the person who benefits from the education paying, everyone else should pay instead, potentially making it more difficult for them to acquire any wealth for themselves.

    You're forgetting that someone has to pay for university education; either the graduate (who are the ones who benefit the most), or the rest of the population. free education would be fine, had the UK been any other country;

    the reason we need fees is because other countries have a very low amount of people who want to go to uni, so they can afford free education, here on the other hand, it's basically culture. Here, its "which uni do you want to go to" rather than "are you going to uni"
    • We could make it so that there are national minimum grades to go to university (or entrance exams), but I think we all know how Labour would react "those poor disadvantaged students won't get to go to uni because of the wicked performance-orientated tories". TLDR: never going to happen
 
 
 

University open days

  • Sheffield Hallam University
    City Campus Postgraduate
    Wed, 17 Oct '18
  • Staffordshire University
    Nursing and Midwifery Undergraduate
    Wed, 17 Oct '18
  • Teesside University
    Undergraduate open day Undergraduate
    Wed, 17 Oct '18
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university

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

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.