University tuition fees

[Perry Milkins]

...and sadly many students will choose a university based on financial decisions and not academic merit. The whole thing stinks.

This will hit middle England very very hard. The only good thing to come out of all of this is that a couple of nice statements about education and child-benefit from Ed will see even more people moving over to Labour.

and many employers will choose degrees from Uni's inhabited by the rich...

 

[SeagullRic]

The key difference which many are forgetting is that degree loans are currently interest free i.e. if you owe £21,000 at the end, thats the amount you are expected to pay back. What this report suggests is that interest will be earned depending on how long it takes you to start paying it back. Hence if you don't get a job paying over £21,000 for 5 years, your going to end up paying an extra 7 or 8 thousand pounds. This won't be such a problem for "rich" graduates, but for those with no support financially from parents and/or contacts to get into a high paying job straight away, its going to increase the burden massively. For me, this is simply wrong.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Whether you see it as intentional will depend on your political leanings. But the effect will surely result in the private schools retaining more strongly their grip on the top universities. And that is what a lot of people are paying for.

 

[Tooting Gull]

...and sadly many students will choose a university based on financial decisions and not academic merit. The whole thing stinks.

This will hit middle England very very hard. The only good thing to come out of all of this is that a couple of nice statements about education and child-benefit from Ed will see even more people moving over to Labour.

Agree with this. The real implications are students choosing courses and universities based on the fees being charged rather than the suitability (or even whether to go at all). The current reality is that middle-income families hugely sub their kids at university, and this will make that impossible for many.

Also, the average might be £7,000, but consider what say Oxford might charge for something like PPE (a GENUINE licence to a top job, as opposed to so many other courses these days). If they charged £15,000-a-year in fees alone, they will simply fill the places with public-school types, and a bright working-class kid will have no chance of going (or even less than now).

The higher education system is designed to produce people that will be of value to the country and the economy in the future, I cannot see how making them leave with £30k plus of debt is in any way helping that aim.

 

[Uncle C]

Also, the average might be £7,000, but consider what say Oxford might charge for something like PPE (a GENUINE licence to a top job, as opposed to so many other courses these days). If they charged £15,000-a-year in fees alone, they will simply fill the places with public-school types, and a bright working-class kid will have no chance of going (or even less than now).

Are you sure you understand the basics of these proposals.

The debt only needs to be repaid when you leave, so its doesn't matter if you enter the course as rich or poor. Both are treated the same.

On graduating both will have the "GENUINE licence to a top job", so they will be equals in being able to pay back the debt.

Where is the rich / poor bias in that?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Agree with this. The real implications are students choosing courses and universities based on the fees being charged rather than the suitability (or even whether to go at all). The current reality is that middle-income families hugely sub their kids at university, and this will make that impossible for many.

Also, the average might be £7,000, but consider what say Oxford might charge for something like PPE (a GENUINE licence to a top job, as opposed to so many other courses these days). If they charged £15,000-a-year in fees alone, they will simply fill the places with public-school types, and a bright working-class kid will have no chance of going (or even less than now).

The higher education system is designed to produce people that will be of value to the country and the economy in the future, I cannot see how making them leave with £30k plus of debt is in any way helping that aim.

And both the Libs and Tories made a big thing about the social and financial divides increasing under a Labour government. This will only serve to increase the divide and seriously restrict social mobility.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Are you sure you understand the basics of these proposals.

The debt only needs to be repaid when you leave, so its doesn't matter if you enter the course as rich or poor. Both are treated the same.

Both might be treated the same but both will have very different feelings about being saddled with a 30k debt. Do you really believe that the poor will approach the idea of a 30k debt in the same way as a rich person? And it will only be the poor who end up with the full 30k debt as most affluent families will probably help their kids out.

 

[sten_super]

The only advantage from the government's point of view is that the fees advanced will be on balance sheet, so can from an accounting point of view be offset against the national debt, but it's financial fun and games rather than repayment of the deficit.

That's not right though, is it? As others have said, this is a much larger issue that simply trying to reduce the national debt. Also, it was my understanding that the key reason that they couldn't introduce penalties for early repayment (to try to ensure that everyone pays the same amount of interest on a loan) was that then in the national accounts it would be treated as a tax rather than a loan, and therefore all student loan liabilities would have to appear on the balance sheet. At the moment it's all kept off-balance sheet and therefore has no impact on the national debt.

The key difference which many are forgetting is that degree loans are currently interest free i.e. if you owe £21,000 at the end, thats the amount you are expected to pay back. What this report suggests is that interest will be earned depending on how long it takes you to start paying it back. Hence if you don't get a job paying over £21,000 for 5 years, your going to end up paying an extra 7 or 8 thousand pounds. This won't be such a problem for "rich" graduates, but for those with no support financially from parents and/or contacts to get into a high paying job straight away, its going to increase the burden massively. For me, this is simply wrong.

The higher rate of interest would not kick in until the repayee starts earning more than £21k. Up until that point they would remain on the current rate of interest (which is effectively just an adjustment for inflation), so that's not the issue in terms of rich versus poor. The problem is that people with rich parents will be able to pay off the debt as soon as they want, and minimise the interest payments, whereas students from poorer backgrounds will have to pay it off one month at a time and accrue the interest throughout the repayment period. As I said above though, for national accounting reasons they will not introduce early repayment penalties.

And both the Libs and Tories made a big thing about the social and financial divides increasing under a Labour government. This will only serve to increase the divide and seriously restrict social mobility.

Do I need to remind you that this report was commissioned by the last government? Do you not think that Labour would be doing exactly as Vince Cable has been were they still in power? It's no good paying an independent 'expert' to look into this issue and then completely ignoring his advice. Stop trying to spin this into some kind of anti-coalition argument, it's boring and it has no relevance.

 

[shaolinpunk]

One thing that no one seems to have been mentioning anywhere... are the universities justifying the higher fees with the quality of service they provide? I would argue that a lot of the time they aren't and that is at the current fee level. There was no significant change in the standards from before the last fee rise a few years ago, so are we to expect anything different this time?

 

[Tooting Gull]

Are you sure you understand the basics of these proposals.

The debt only needs to be repaid when you leave, so its doesn't matter if you enter the course as rich or poor. Both are treated the same.

On graduating both will have the "GENUINE licence to a top job", so they will be equals in being able to pay back the debt.

Where is the rich / poor bias in that?

That is very naive, with repect. This is where you have to understand what is actually going on, as opposed to what the report would spin. Kids get subbed by their parents at university, at least the ones that can currently afford it do. That is a fact. What is also a fact is that fewer will be able to under these proposals. If you have a family able to alleviate the debt rather than incur all of it, it hugely affects your situation and decision-making.

Your 'both are treated the same' comment is a bit like saying everyone has the right to pay for private education/healthcare. Well, yes they do, but for many that 'right' is meaningless.

Up to a point, I'd agree with you about ONCE you have graduated, it's totally down to you (although I still think someone with no debt due to family help has a much better chance than someone with a massive debt). My concern is a student not even getting that far in the process.

 

[Uncle C]

Both might be treated the same but both will have very different feelings about being saddled with a 30k debt. Do you really believe that the poor will approach the idea of a 30k debt in the same way as a rich person? And it will only be the poor who end up with the full 30k debt as most affluent families will probably help their kids out.

I think you are doing the poor a disservice. If they have the drive, determination and intelligence to get these top jobs then they will factor in the debt. If they they dont then they are not the right people to be on the course anyway.

Rich and poor parents have always existed. Its a fact of life and even exists in communist states. You just have to grin and bare it.

 

[El Presidente]

Are you sure you understand the basics of these proposals.

The debt only needs to be repaid when you leave, so its doesn't matter if you enter the course as rich or poor. Both are treated the same.

On graduating both will have the "GENUINE licence to a top job", so they will be equals in being able to pay back the debt.

Where is the rich / poor bias in that?

If there was a decent bursary system, similar to that operated by the top universities in the States, I would be more relaxed.

We alreadu have a system for successful graduates to pay back the cost of their education though, it's called higher rate tax.

 

[Uncle C]

We already have a system for successful graduates to pay back the cost of their education though, it's called higher rate tax.

But the difference now is that we have a massive national debt and we are ALL going to have to play a part in repaying it.
Very little will remain untouched in the coming months. The real pain is to come for all of us. Its the graduates feeling it today and some other group tomorrow.

 

[Tooting Gull]

In March the LibDems claimed Lord Ashcroft owed £127million in unpaid taxes. That would help some universities out. Funny now they're in power they'd rather get the money back from penniless students than actually show some spine and get tough with the dodgers.

 

[ROKERITE]

I think you are doing the poor a disservice. If they have the drive, determination and intelligence to get these top jobs then they will factor in the debt. If they they dont then they are not the right people to be on the course anyway.

Rich and poor parents have always existed. Its a fact of life and even exists in communist states. You just have to grin and bare it.

A sensible post Uncle C. There's alot of unintentional snobbery from the Guardian types in this and other threads. It's a "those poor folk from Sunderland, and such disgusting places, aren't bright enough to realise a good university degree is worth running up a debt for; we need to protect them from having to think" attitude that I find condescending and insulting.

 

[WATFORD zero]

At least graduates won't be able to afford mortgages.

SSShhhhhh !

The last thing this thread needs now is Uncle Spielberg

 

[El Presidente]

But the difference now is that we have a massive national debt and we are ALL going to have to play a part in repaying it.
Very little will remain untouched in the coming months. The real pain is to come for all of us. Its the graduates feeling it today and some other group tomorrow.

It won't pay back the debt qiuckly though. The new rules will only apply to courses commencing in 2012-13, and therefore at the very earliest repayments will start in the summer of 2015, (and this ignores all those doing sandwich or masters courses, and those earning under the threshold).

As for ALL having to pay, I don't see Philip Green, 'friend' of the coalition, paying any tax on the £1.2 billion dividend he paid himself recently. It's Middle England who will pay for the profligacy and greed of the Non-Dom banking brigade.

 

[TonyW]

Unfortunately, anyone who voted for this bunch of inept tossers (that's either party by the way) has got exactly what they deserve.

The Conservative wankers would have us go back to the 1920's where higher education was a priviledge rather that a right.
And the bloody Liberals are just going along for the (brief) ride!

 

[Tooting Gull]

A sensible post Uncle C. There's alot of unintentional snobbery from the Guardian types in this and other threads. It's a "those poor folk from Sunderland, and such disgusting places, aren't bright enough to realise a good university degree is worth running up a debt for; we need to protect them from having to think" attitude that I find condescending and insulting.

Talk about having a deep-fried Mars Bar on your shoulder. We're all talking about the possible effects of increased tuition fees on participation in higher education. What the f**k are you talking about?

 

[Uncle C]

It won't pay back the debt qiuckly though. The new rules will only apply to courses commencing in 2012-13, and therefore at the very earliest repayments will start in the summer of 2015, (and this ignores all those doing sandwich or masters courses, and those earning under the threshold).

Surely a phased introduction is better than pulling the rug out now

As for ALL having to pay, I don't see Philip Green, 'friend' of the coalition, paying any tax on the £1.2 billion dividend he paid himself recently. It's Middle England who will pay for the profligacy and greed of the Non-Dom banking brigade.

Thats an excellent suggestion, lets smash the f*** out of every rich person who is responsible for job creation in this Country. That way they are sure to be incentivised to plough more money into the economy to create the jobs we need.