Is it "socially unjust" to charge young students for their university education?

[Herr Tubthumper]

See what I said, it isnt FREE, nothing is FREE its paid by you and others, its tough for you HT, but there really isnt a money tree at nos. 11 Downing street, although your mob thought there was.

There seems to be a money tree in Germany? Shall I bring some seeds with me next time I visit?

PS I think you know what in mean by free, or FREE as you type.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

See what I said, it isnt FREE, nothing is FREE its paid by you and others, its tough for you HT, but there really isnt a money tree at nos. 11 Downing street, although your mob thought there was.

You've not answered the question...why would I make you pay more than me? There isn't a special tax code for BigGully you know. We will all pay our fair share.

 

[Nibble]

University isn't just about the formal education. Young people can learn a lot about life.

 

[father_and_son]

The school leaving age has now effectively been raised to 18 - the argument put forward by the government for doing so is because research shows that those continuing education and/or training to the age of 18, compared to those who finish their education at 16, earn more money, are heathier and tend to be less likely to be in 'trouble' with the police.

I love politicians and their casual disregard for the basics of cause and effect... And I hate the general public for swallowing their bull.

So someone has generated some statistic that says that if you compare A-level students to those who left school at 16, the A-level students are healthier. Therefore, clearly taking A-levels improves your health.
I'm surprised some innumerate MP hasn't suggested that we dispense A-level exam papers at GP Surgeries because of their proven power to improve health!

Can't possibly be the case that healthier children (ie those from a more affluent background with better housing, better nutrition and other socioeconomic advantages) might be more likely to go on to study A-levels for reasons completely unrelated to their health?

As someone with a Maths degree, this sort of sloppy claptrap annoys me more than it probably should.

 

[BigGully]

You've not answered the question...why would I make you pay more than me? There isn't a special tax code for BigGully you know. We will all pay our fair share.

I was pretending I was richer than you, ultimately you and I can never cover the costs of those things you want to give away for nothing, you know, higher wages here, free degrees there and more spending here and so on, so generally my view are those on the left want to 'pay their share' but inevitably most of the cost is passed on to others.

My view is why give away free university places to those that seem to already function successfully with longer term financial reward to them personally even after paying back the cost of their degree, why would you want to pass that cost on to me or you ??

 

[Creaky]

And you're as happy contributing the same amount towards a fashion degree as a physics degree?
What if the student drops out after two years? Was it money well-spent?

If you make something free, someone will take it. I don't think that creates the right incentives for 17 year olds to make the correct decisions.

That ignores the changes that have occurred in the way that universities are funded.

When they received all their income from central government and commercial sponsorships they could afford to be selective in the students they chose for their courses despite them being free. A large proportion of their income is now dependent on how many students they attract rather than the quality of those students which doesn't create the right incentive to require appropriately high entry requirements.

Something can be 'free' and at the same time have limited availability.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I was pretending I was richer than you, ultimately you and I can never cover the costs of those things you want to give away for nothing, you know, higher wages here, free degrees there and more spending here and so on, so generally my view are those on the left want to 'pay their share' but inevitably most of the cost is passed on to others.

My view is why give away free university places to those that seem to already function successfully with longer term financial reward to them personally even after paying back the cost of their degree, why would you want to pass that cost on to me or you ??

I see. Sorry, it went over my head. My basic premise is that as a first world wealthy nation we should be allowing our citizens to achieve their potential in whatever area that may be. And this should also be unhindered by finance. I fully appreciate that someone somewhere has to pay for it but if other countries can do it I have to ask why can't the UK? At the very least this idea provides hope. And hope is a commodity that seems in very short supply for the kids these days.

Both main parties have let me down on this. Tories for maintenance loans and especially Labour for bringing in fees.

 

[Creaky]

Can't see the issue with fees, you don't pay them up front. Why should the plumbers and electricans pay for the Arts students?

If fees were that bad numbers would be falling.

Tories have put on more debt than any other government, they have to do something

Are some young people just born as a plumber or an electrician? - Of course they aren't, most learn on the job or as apprentices, who pays for that training? That training isn't cost-free and those costs are paid by someone.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

That ignores the changes that have occurred in the way that universities are funded.

When they received all their income from central government and commercial sponsorships they could afford to be selective in the students they chose for their courses despite them being free. A large proportion of their income is now dependent on how many students they attract rather than the quality of those students which doesn't create the right incentive to require appropriately high entry requirements.

Something can be 'free' and at the same time have limited availability.

Good points.

 

[BigGully]

I see. Sorry, it went over my head. My basic premise is that as a first world wealthy nation we should be allowing our citizens to achieve their potential in whatever area that may be. And this should also be unhindered by finance. I fully appreciate that someone somewhere has to pay for it but if other countries can do it I have to ask why can't the UK? At the very least this idea provides hope. And hope is a commodity that seems in very short supply for the kids these days.

Both main parties have let me down on this. Tories for maintenance loans and especially Labour for bringing in fees.

But you would only bee giving free university degrees, that absolutely offers a higher lifetime salary to the middle and upper income families, as the lower income families already have 'free' access to it.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

But you would only bee giving free university degrees, that absolutely offers a higher lifetime salary to the middle and upper income families, as the lower income families already have 'free' access to it.

I'm not sure I fully understand why lower income families have free access to higher education. I'm aware of grants and bursaries etc but this only covers a small amount; 3 years of fees and living costs come to tens of thousands. It's a huge commitment even for middle classes.

 

[Creaky]

No.
Free school education yes. any advanced education above should be funded by the recipient.

No one has a right to a free advanced education.

Semantics - who decides what is 'school education' and what is advanced?

In my lifetime the school leaving age has risen from 15 to 18 - it could just as easily have risen to 21 which would make most university course just part of 'school education'.

 

[BigGully]

I'm not sure I fully understand why lower income families have free access to higher education. I'm aware of grants and bursaries etc but this only covers a small amount; 3 years of fees and living costs come to tens of thousands. It's a huge commitment even for middle classes.

Ok I may need to reposition myself here, sorry.

Those on lower income families can access bursaries and maintenance grants, the cost for the degree will work in the same way as any other student.

The payback only starts when each are in employment of £21000+, it seems reasonable that if two teachers working side by side at say 23 years old earning the same salary should have the same financial repayment obligations, rather than based on how their families financial situation was when each started their degree 4/5 years previously.

The key is that there is not an initial obstacle to accessing university degrees if desired.

 

[Husty]

No.
Free school education yes. any advanced education above should be funded by the recipient.

No one has a right to a free advanced education.

Even when said person significantly benefits our economy and our citizens?

 

[BigGully]

Even when said person significantly benefits our economy and our citizens?

But shouldnt that be reflected in their post graduation salary, rather than asking for a pre graduation benefit ?

 

[Pizza]

Isn't that the point of the student loan - it allows everyone, should they wish, to go to Uni and to then pay back their loan once they have hot the correct level of income ? i.e. it has nothing to do with your parents wealth.

In theory yeah, but it hasn't worked, the maximum combined grant and loan is around £6200 a year and depending on where you go to uni that could all that could go on rent and bills. The point is that it disincentivises potential high achievers from applying, as the financial burden after uni is phenomenal.

 

[BigGully]

In theory yeah, but it hasn't worked, the maximum combined grant and loan is around £6200 a year and depending on where you go to uni that could all that could go on rent and bills. The point is that it disincentivises potential high achievers from applying, as the financial burden after uni is phenomenal.

But statistically your view doesnt stand up, you are likely throughout your lifetime, especially if someone might be deemed a high achiever to earn considerably more if you go to university than if you dont.

The payback is quite passive and manageable, it doesnt even start to kick in until £21000 and even then you only pay back 9% on the money above that, so if a graduate earns £25 000 he will payback 9% of the £4000 which is £360 a year.

 

[Chinman3000]

In theory yeah, but it hasn't worked, the maximum combined grant and loan is around £6200 a year and depending on where you go to uni that could all that could go on rent and bills. The point is that it disincentivises potential high achievers from applying, as the financial burden after uni is phenomenal.

If all that goes on rent and bills then they will still have that level of debt even if, as you are suggesting, the taxpayer paid the eductaion costs for every little scroat to 'have a go' at a getting a degree just in case one of them turns out to be the next Einstine.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Even when said person significantly benefits our economy and our citizens?

So all those Assistant Managers in Maccy D's are significantly benefiting our economy and citizens?

 

[jimbob5]

All they seem to do is lie around, smoke pot and listen to Pink Floyd!