Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Plan for tuition fees to go up to a possible £7,000 a year? watch

Announcements
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Agreed with education should be free. All Universities should charge a maximum of £2,000 if absolutely necessary. I can think of a few sources of the money (they might not all be correct, I'm not really into economics)

    I don't really get why polytechnics will offer lower fees. They don't now, so why would they then? If anything they need the money more, because they've often got a lot of good computer systems, new buildings etc.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    How was the burden lower when they were called polytechnics?

    You only pay the same because people are prepared to pay it. If there was a drop off in applications the fee for that institution would have been revised.
    When they were Polytechnics more people had to pay maintenance themselves.

    There has been a massive increase since then on maintenance grants and bursaries. More working class people are attending University whose parents don't have the money to subsidise a lot of their son or daughter's maintenance so the government has had to dig deeper into its pockets.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i hope it doesn't
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I think what's going on with uni finances is such a horrible mess. I think a great idea is to reverse the financial rankings, as in:

    The government should provide top universities, say top 5 or 10, with all the funding they need, so that anyone can apply regardless of whether they have money or not. This way, the top unis can compete on an international level, the students will end up actually using their degree towards work that benefits the whole society, no time wasted.

    On the other hand, the rest of the universities should have fees, so that people think twice before applying just because they think it's the only option. Also, it gives the security that, if those students won't actually use their degree productively, at least they have paid the costs.

    I feel that this issue is handled in the exact opposite way by the authorities. I feel quite strongly about the education system and it really needs some reforms.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What annoys me most is all the over-seas students at my uni that are like "WHAT?! You're complaining that your fees are rising to £7K? That's CHEAP!" Grrrrrrr I want to rip their heads off!
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    The government should provide top universities, say top 5 or 10, with all the funding they need, so that anyone can apply regardless of whether they have money or not. This way, the top unis can compete on an international level, the students will end up actually using their degree towards work that benefits the whole society, no time wasted.
    So we end up with one university?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So you're happy with 51% income tax on income above 40k?
    how do you come to that conclusion? <see image> tho it still is a lot of tax :o:
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jermaindefoe)
    how do you come to that conclusion? <see image> tho it still is a lot of tax :o:
    Higher rate = 40%
    Loan = 9%
    NI = 1%

    (ok 'only' 50%)
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So on a 30k income you'll be on 4.5% more than than someone else and its just 28k you aren't being given at some other point in time surely?
    I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here! If you're saying the 28k my dad could easily afford is just money I wouldn't be getting later, then you're correct (not that it applies since I've graduated already). However, for my dad, that money is neither here nor there...had my degree cost that much in fees he wouldn't have missed it - against 4 years' income it's pretty insignificant to him.

    The point I was trying to make, is that for someone like me (parents willing and able to back them) it would still be financially easy. Yet for those in more challenging circumstances it would just heap more and more debt on them - I think that's unfair!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Nonsense idea.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So we end up with one university?
    What do you mean one university? No way, what, do we have only one university now? And there are tuition fees pretty much at all unis. So obviously fees are not putting people off going to uni. I'm just saying that rather than wasting money on bottom unis which don't produce efficient graduates and don't improve society by research, that money should go to the top 10 unis which actually maintain UK's top position as a world leader in education and research. Funding these top unis will ensure that they have all the key facilities for advancing and keeping up, if not competing with other countries. Also, this directly benefits society, which means it makes perfect sense for the taxpayer's money to go there. I'm sure people would rather pay for that than some thousands of students going to uni just for the sake of having a degree that they don't know what to do with.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Higher rate = 40%
    Loan = 9%
    NI = 1%

    (ok 'only' 50%)
    didnt realise the loan was being took in to account
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Flying Cookie)
    What do you mean one university? No way, what, do we have only one university now? And there are tuition fees pretty much at all unis. So obviously fees are not putting people off going to uni. I'm just saying that rather than wasting money on bottom unis which don't produce efficient graduates and don't improve society by research, that money should go to the top 10 unis which actually maintain UK's top position as a world leader in education and research. Funding these top unis will ensure that they have all the key facilities for advancing and keeping up, if not competing with other countries. Also, this directly benefits society, which means it makes perfect sense for the taxpayer's money to go there. I'm sure people would rather pay for that than some thousands of students going to uni just for the sake of having a degree that they don't know what to do with.
    If you reduce funding for 'bad' unis they will get worse and die. That will leave the 'new' bottom unis to have reduced funds, so they get worse and die. iterate the process until there are only 3-4 unis left...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    How would this change affect you?

    How are you worse off than pre topup fees when fess were payable in advance?

    38k is higher than the median household income, quite a bit more.
    dont know if this has been corrected yet, as it is totally incorrect:

    prior to the introduction of top-up fees, tuition fees charged to the student were a lot less, ~£1200 in the final year of that system.

    most students had that paid for them by their local council.

    they were charged on an annual basis, exactly the same as with top-up fees.

    fees for the entire course were not charged in advance


    prior to the introduction of student tuition fees, universities & polytechnics, in fact all UK education, was funded by the state
    the politicians who are voting on these issues have not paid any tuition fees in their lifetimes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joseph90)
    When they were Polytechnics more people had to pay maintenance themselves.

    There has been a massive increase since then on maintenance grants and bursaries. More working class people are attending University whose parents don't have the money to subsidise a lot of their son or daughter's maintenance so the government has had to dig deeper into its pockets.

    & the government have had to keep increasing the amount of grant available, & the numbers of people who are eligible.

    at the same time, they have made uni's offer bursaries to more & more students, which is funded from their tuition fee income
    > so if you get a bursary, dont forget, your the one thats paying for it, its come out of your tuition fee loan.
    you dont get a reduction in your fees


    its a daftly expensive system

    what they should have done is continue to fully fund tuition costs
    (its cheaper to just fund a uni completely, than organising & accounting for 000's of loans)
    the grants available for living expenses would have reduced over time, to a point where there might be none available
    > if you want to move away to do a course thats available locally, you would have to fund your own living expenses, tuition would still be paid for you though
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edge)
    dont know if this has been corrected yet, as it is totally incorrect:

    prior to the introduction of top-up fees, tuition fees charged to the student were a lot less, ~£1200 in the final year of that system.

    most students had that paid for them by their local council.

    they were charged on an annual basis, exactly the same as with top-up fees.

    fees for the entire course were not charged in advance
    No... I don't think I'm incorrect.

    The point was they were not exactly the same as topup fees. With topup fees there is the option of a fee loan, before topup fees there wasn't. Thats why the upfront cost is lower now.

    When you said most students had fees paid by councils I thought
    1/3rd of students had them all paid, 1/3 on a sliding scale of payment and 1/3rd paid the full amount.

    How is the upfront cost higher now? - the part you highlighted as wrong.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    No... I don't think I'm incorrect.

    The point was they were not exactly the same as topup fees. With topup fees there is the option of a fee loan, before topup fees there wasn't. Thats why the upfront cost is lower now.

    When you said most students had fees paid by councils I thought
    1/3rd of students had them all paid, 1/3 on a sliding scale of payment and 1/3rd paid the full amount.

    How is the upfront cost higher now? - the part you highlighted as wrong.

    nothing is exactly the same as top-up fees


    the current tuition fee loan is a loan in your name

    when you start university, you pay the fees for that year yourself, whether that be from savings, a bank loan, or a loan from the SLC

    the tuition fee loan from the SLC:
    you authorise them to pay it to your uni, on your behalf.
    its still your loan, arranged between you & the SLC

    so effectively, just as with any other purchase which has a loan attached to it, you have paid the amount upfront.

    as you owe the SLC £3225, you have started uni with a negative balance already.


    under the old system, the maximum that fees ever got to was ~£1200
    most people had either all, or the majority, of that fee paid for them by their LEA.

    those from less well off backgrounds had their entire fees paid for them, & so will have started uni with a zero balance.



    you are still paying in advance with top-up fees
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edge)
    you are still paying in advance with top-up fees
    No the Treasury is (if the student has any sense) and you never have to pay them back.

    Is the upfront cost of a house higher or lower if a bank will give you a mortgage?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    No the Treasury is (if the student has any sense) and you never have to pay them back.

    Is the upfront cost of a house higher or lower if a bank will give you a mortgage?

    er no, the Treasury is doing no such thing

    the Student Loans Company is not part of the treasury
    it is a Ltd company owned by DIUS & the Scottish Government

    they are expected to ensure that all borrowers repay their loans
    here is one of the SLC kpi's:
    "KPI 5: reduce % of borrowers who are due to be in repayment but who are not currently in any repayment channel to 1.0% or less"



    are people really going to go to the effort required so that they dont have to pay back what they legitimately owe?
    you would have to make sure that you earn less than the earnings threshold for 25 years, for every single month that you are earning.
    dont forget that its likely that they will have other borrowings to be repaid, so they will be wanting to maximise their income, not minimise it.



    the upfront cost of tuition for a student is higher now, because fees have increased.
    you dont defer payment of the fees, you have the option to arrange a loan, which allows you to pay the cost over a number of years.
    that cost still exists, & that loan (cost) exists from the day you sign the contract.



    lets look at some of your 'sense' in numbers:

    to not pay back any of the loan, you have to earn no more than £15k per year

    on a 3x mortgage, the banks would offer you £45k
    so you could get a £50k property (if they existed)

    even if you started a job on £15k a year, salaries rise, so are you going to resign every time you start earning over £15k?

    or if you do a degree in an area that leads to professional quals, eg accounting, once your qualified you would be on ~£20k a year
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by edge)
    er no, the Treasury is doing no such thing

    the Student Loans Company is not part of the treasury
    it is a Ltd company owned by DIUS & the Scottish Government
    --------------------------------------------------------------------
    they are expected to ensure that all borrowers repay their loans
    here is one of the SLC kpi's:
    "KPI 5: reduce % of borrowers who are due to be in repayment but who are not currently in any repayment channel to 1.0% or less"

    ---------------------------------------------------------------------

    are people really going to go to the effort required so that they dont have to pay back what they legitimately owe?
    you would have to make sure that you earn less than the earnings threshold for 25 years, for every single month that you are earning.
    dont forget that its likely that they will have other borrowings to be repaid, so they will be wanting to maximise their income, not minimise it.

    lets look at some of your 'sense' in numbers:

    to not pay back any of the loan, you have to earn no more than £15k per year

    lets look at some of your 'sense' in numbers:

    to not pay back any of the loan, you have to earn no more than £15k per year

    on a 3x mortgage, the banks would offer you £45k
    so you could get a £50k property (if they existed)

    even if you started a job on £15k a year, salaries rise, so are you going to resign every time you start earning over £15k?

    or if you do a degree in an area that leads to professional quals, eg accounting, once your qualified you would be on ~£20k a year
    So where does the SLC get its money to give out if it doesn't come from the DMO of the Treasury?
    ---------------------------------------------------
    How are they doing on that KPI? :P
    ----------------------------------------------------
    Actually you would just have to not pay back the loan in 25 years (20 years earlier than the pre topup tuition fees age cap) to not pay it back. Staying under 15k a year would be to not pay any of it off.
    -------------------------------------------------
    Sorry, are you saying people with degrees cannot earn under 15k? Are you saying people have to own a home? Surely youve been to the Careers forum and seen how little some people are earning?

    If topup fees are an upfront cost then you're saying theres no cost after uni right?
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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.