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

[Creaky]

What about those of us who did not go to Uni? Should we pay for everyone else to go? And their kids? And why raise the expectations of all young people to such a level that they will not want to take on a 'normal/lesser' career?

Those of us who didn't go to university are benefiting from the university education that others have undertaken. Would you be happy to be treated by a doctor who had not gone to university, what about your kid's teachers or the architect who designed the buildings in the high street? Happy to get on a train designed by an engineer or have a judicial system run by individuals who haven't received a higher level education?

I do agree that the system has swung too far towards the idea of as many students as possible going to university whilst at the same time the number of apprentice places have shrunk - mind you how many young people would be happy to carry out a five year apprenticeship on a less than minimum wage?

It just seems wrong to me that a doctor leaving medical school after five years, followed by at least two further years foundation training before selecting a career path such as GP or surgeon will be burdened by a debt of at least £50,000 before even starting their career. In the same way most teachers study a university course for three years, a further year to gain their post graduate certificate of education and end up with a debt in excess of £30,000!

 

[Kazenga <3]

As a current University student I am not against the principle of fees- however £9k a year is ridiculously high, I think the previous £3k was much fairer.

I will be leaving Uni with a tuition fee debt of £27,000, not to mention the cost of living for three years- an additional £10k loan, which has to be heavily subsidised by my parents as my maintenance loan does not even cover my rent! These loans are hideously skewed as well, as they are calculated on your household income. I have friends with divorced parents who have their maintenance loan plus a non-repayable grant calculated purely on their mother's income, despite the father earning huge amounts. They are actually making money (cash wise) from being at Uni whilst many families are almost penalised for staying together/ having an income over a certain threshold.

As for the University fees, they are not repayable until the student is earning over £21,000 per year, at which point 9% is taken off earnings over that threshold. With that money being taken off it makes it even harder to get on the housing market unless you opt to pay for a very disfavourable long-term mortgage- this once again means many students will have to live at home for much longer to save up and indeed rely on parents for deposits etc. Given that a large proportion of students won't ever repay the debt in full (it is scrapped if not repaid 30 years after graduating) it seems to make little sense to charge so highly in the first place. I wouldn't say its a deterrent to wanting to be successful but its hardly encouraging.

 

[BigGully]

Personally I felt your post was a complete generalisation of a segment of today's society. I contribute towards the repayments of my debt, but I find the quantifying amounts of my debt to be largely unsustainable and as the post asked.. unjust. How is it right that young adults before they've even earnt a decent first salary are lumped with debt because they want to learn and contribute towards the society we live in. Compare this to other generations...cheap housing and free education. Or compare it Scotland, free education full stop...

I'm not suggesting for a second that society shouldn't contribute towards its own personal development, merely not cripple society with debt before they've even set foot on the professional doorstep.

But the 'debt' is just a cost to you or others on your personal decision to go to University, you are just wishing that the cost/debt is transferred from you to others, although it is very worthy for you to think your university degree is in someway necessary to contribute to society others that choose another career/employment pathway may not feel the same.

Your decision is likely to be based on a desire for a specific career or just as likely plugs a hole whilst you try to work out what exactly you want to do with your life, no problem with that, but if you succeed it will offer you a likely advantage in the employment environment and likely to deliver a higher salary than if you hadn't attended.

Its a life choice with on the whole particularly good outcomes, but to ask others that chose a different route to pay for you doesnt seem fair.

 

[Notters]

Those of us who didn't go to university are benefiting from the university education that others have undertaken. Would you be happy to be treated by a doctor who had not gone to university, what about your kid's teachers or the architect who designed the buildings in the high street? Happy to get on a train designed by an engineer or have a judicial system run by individuals who haven't received a higher level education?

I do agree that the system has swung too far towards the idea of as many students as possible going to university whilst at the same time the number of apprentice places have shrunk - mind you how many young people would be happy to carry out a five year apprenticeship on a less than minimum wage?

It just seems wrong to me that a doctor leaving medical school after five years, followed by at least two further years foundation training before selecting a career path such as GP or surgeon will be burdened by a debt of at least £50,000 before even starting their career. In the same way most teachers study a university course for three years, a further year to gain their post graduate certificate of education and end up with a debt in excess of £30,000!

Nail on the head there creaky, thank you.

 

[Pizza]

No. Who else is going to pay for it? The rest of us hardworking people? No chance. Stump up or get a job.

Throw away your TV, phone, car and laptop - universities trained the people who designed them, the people that run the companies that manufactured them and the people who designed the service infrastructure that allowed you to purchase it all.

Want nice stuff? Invest in a university infrastructure that produces high quality graduates from ALL walks of life.

 

[Badger]

As for the University fees, they are not repayable until the student is earning over £21,000 per year, at which point 9% is taken off earnings over that threshold. With that money being taken off it makes it even harder to get on the housing market unless you opt to pay for a very disfavourable long-term mortgage- this once again means many students will have to live at home for much longer to save up and indeed rely on parents for deposits etc. Given that a large proportion of students won't ever repay the debt in full (it is scrapped if not repaid 30 years after graduating) it seems to make little sense to charge so highly in the first place. I wouldn't say its a deterrent to wanting to be successful but its hardly encouraging.

This is what gets me, I came out of uni with a student loan debt of £12,000 (fees were paid up front back then). After 9 years I still haven't finished paying it back, that's with the lower £15,000 threshold and me earning a fair bit more than the average graduate salary. If a graduate comes away with £40,000 of debt now I just can't see the vast MAJORITY of them ever paying it all back. It's essentially just an extra tax for most of your working life.

I'm not against student fees but the balance has tipped too far towards the student paying for skills* which are vital to the country.


*I'm not including subjects which have no place as full degrees, like media studies, sociology, psychology etc.

 

[BigGully]

Those of us who didn't go to university are benefiting from the university education that others have undertaken. Would you be happy to be treated by a doctor who had not gone to university, what about your kid's teachers or the architect who designed the buildings in the high street? Happy to get on a train designed by an engineer or have a judicial system run by individuals who haven't received a higher level education?

I do agree that the system has swung too far towards the idea of as many students as possible going to university whilst at the same time the number of apprentice places have shrunk - mind you how many young people would be happy to carry out a five year apprenticeship on a less than minimum wage?

It just seems wrong to me that a doctor leaving medical school after five years, followed by at least two further years foundation training before selecting a career path such as GP or surgeon will be burdened by a debt of at least £50,000 before even starting their career. In the same way most teachers study a university course for three years, a further year to gain their post graduate certificate of education and end up with a debt in excess of £30,000!

Oh come on, any community benefits from a whole raft of skills and determinations, including University graduates but not exclusively by them.

Those key roles should be rewarded to reflect their worth and generally are, there have been times when certain critical professions either due to increased demand or just apathy towards them are incentivised, that seems reasonable, but a general sweep to say a young adult that makes a personal choice to do a degree should be subsidised by others not choosng that route whilst being just as important to any community remains unfair.

 

[alfredmizen]

Those of us who didn't go to university are benefiting from the university education that others have undertaken. Would you be happy to be treated by a doctor who had not gone to university, what about your kid's teachers or the architect who designed the buildings in the high street? Happy to get on a train designed by an engineer or have a judicial system run by individuals who haven't received a higher level education?

I do agree that the system has swung too far towards the idea of as many students as possible going to university whilst at the same time the number of apprentice places have shrunk - mind you how many young people would be happy to carry out a five year apprenticeship on a less than minimum wage?

It just seems wrong to me that a doctor leaving medical school after five years, followed by at least two further years foundation training before selecting a career path such as GP or surgeon will be burdened by a debt of at least £50,000 before even starting their career. In the same way most teachers study a university course for three years, a further year to gain their post graduate certificate of education and end up with a debt in excess of £30,000!

How am I benefiting from someone doing a degree in travel and tourism,theatre production or film studies ? The first two are courses that could and should be learnt on the job with maybe a day release at the local tech,and a degree in film studies is ridiculous, and i know of people that have done a degree in all 3 of these subject, as well as someone who did a degree in sports centre management.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

The best education systems in the world offer free university education. The governments see it as an investment in the countries future.

 

[wellquickwoody]

Why shouldn't everyone aim for the top?

By the age of 18 it is very easy to see those most likely to get there. Maybe free to the top 20% of A level students and everyone else pays?

 

[Kazenga <3]

This is what gets me, I came out of uni with a student loan debt of £12,000 (fees were paid up front back then). After 9 years I still haven't finished paying it back, that's with the lower £15,000 threshold and me earning a fair bit more than the average graduate salary. If a graduate comes away with £40,000 of debt now I just can't see the vast MAJORITY of them ever paying it all back. It's essentially just an extra tax for most of your working life.

I'm not against student fees but the balance has tipped too far towards the student paying for skills* which are vital to the country.


*I'm not including subjects which have no place as full degrees, like media studies, sociology, psychology etc.

Agreed.

Its also worth noting that for the amount paid in tuition fees, for a lot of degrees the actual amount tuition is a joke. I do History and I get 7 hours a week, 4 of which are basic lectures and only 3 seminars with more immediate feedback. Essentially I am paying £9k a year to read the library's books, teach myself the course and then have my work validated by the institution. Whereas someone who takes say, law for example pays the same amount of money and gets nearly three times the level of support. Obviously I knew all this before applying for History but it still doesn't sit right really.

 

[Creaky]

Oh come on, any community benefits from a whole raft of skills and determinations, including University graduates but not exclusively by them.

Those key roles should be rewarded to reflect their worth and generally are, there have been times when certain critical professions either due to increased demand or just apathy towards them are incentivised, that seems reasonable, but a general sweep to say a young adult that makes a personal choice to do a degree should be subsidised by others not choosng that route whilst being just as important to any community remains unfair.

Indeed they do but university students stand out as being a segment that have had to pay specifically to learn their skills.

How many bricklayers, plumbers, bus drivers, office managers etc. do you know that have paid to learn the skills necessary to carry out those occupations?

 

[brakespear]

first off, im against tuition fees - i went on the marches, the unionist i was

but when we start talking about the social justice of subbing those choosing to go to further education? very difficult to justify, unless we provide suitable three year subsidies to apprentices or those that simply go straight to full time work. when i hear people argue that its not fair, it too expensive, i think, why do you want to go? because of the perceived advantage. and if there is an advantage why do you not assign a value to that you are willing to pay?

what i would like to see is an overhaul of further education, with degrees shorter (they do not need to be three years) and grants/bursaries available for all but places substantially reduced. producing thousands of media students to work as assistant managers in Starbucks is not a productive use of either the person of the universities.

top post

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

It's socially unjust to perpetuate the myth that a university education will somehow give you a leg-up onto the jobs ladder in this country. Most degrees won't do that. For many roles e.g. in the finance sector six months experience will almost always win out over a top-class degree. It's about as outdated as the concept of a bank job is a job for life, or the concept of getting a toe-hold on the bottom rung of the property ladder in the South East of England before you're thirty. What a state for the nation to be in.

 

[beorhthelm]

... Essentially I am paying £9k a year to read the library's books, teach myself the course and then have my work validated by the institution.

good way of putting it. once graduated your employer will pay you substantial amounts of money to do the same. which is why i think the courses need condensing, there's no good reason a History degree needs 3 rather than 2 years. if we want to recognise more detailed research and understanding of a subject, we can tier the degrees based on years studied, rather as we do already with ordinary/honors and Masters in some respect.

 

[BigGully]

Indeed they do but university students stand out as being a segment that have had to pay specifically to learn their skills.

How many bricklayers, plumbers, bus drivers, office managers etc. do you know that have paid to learn the skills necessary to carry out those occupations?

Ahh but if a University graduate then chose to become a plumber, bus driver or bricklayer then in many cases they would fall short of the minimum salary requirement triggering the repayment demands anyway.

The critical point is that the outcomes of graduates statistically shows a likelyhood of higher lifetime salary's even after the repayment period, there are also many safeguards in place to ensure those that are historically and financially disadvantaged do not have the burden of these fee's.

 

[Creaky]

Ahh but if a University graduate then chose to become a plumber, bus driver or bricklayer then in many cases they would fall short of the minimum salary requirement triggering the repayment demands anyway.

The critical point is that the outcomes of graduates statistically shows a likelyhood of higher lifetime salary's even after the repayment period, there are also many safeguards in place to ensure those that are historically and financially disadvantaged do not have the burden of these fee's.

This premise may be arguable but i would suggest that those attaining a medical/accounting/teaching/veterinary degree are likely to be the type of people with the ability to earn a 'higher lifetime salary' than the average whether or not they attend university. It can be argued that university courses are simply providing the standard of education suited to the individuals ability in the same way that sixth form colleges and streaming in senior schools do.

Your argument still doesn't answer the fundamental question as to why certain occupations require an individual to pay for the training necessary to learn the skills to practice their chosen profession whilst others don't.

As for arguing that a university graduate could avoid repaying their loans by becoming a bus driver - I would argue that in such cases the cost of their education SHOULD become repayable whilst if they carry out an occupation for which their degree was a requirement any loan should be wiped out.

 

[Pavilionaire]

I wouldn't call tuition fees "socially unjust" but I think they are too high and young people that might otherwise buy property or start up businesses are hamstrung by debt.

I think the aim should be to get them down, especially for the core vocational courses.

 

[pb21]

Blimey, I'm surprised at your right-wind stance!

I think people should be paid to go to university. I agree re different subjects, but quality is important.

I am left-wing in the sense that your wealth (or really your parents wealth) shouldn't determine, or have a negative influence on, your chances of entering full-time education and that the state should primarily cover the cost. I do though think it is fair for the student to contribute an amount to that education though, it is a personal investment as well as a societal one and I would say that a cost of something like £1,000 is a fair and pragmatic amount. Certainly not £9,000 and neither the previous £3,000 loads!

 

[GreersElbow]

good way of putting it. once graduated your employer will pay you substantial amounts of money to do the same. which is why i think the courses need condensing, there's no good reason a History degree needs 3 rather than 2 years. if we want to recognise more detailed research and understanding of a subject, we can tier the degrees based on years studied, rather as we do already with ordinary/honors and Masters in some respect.

Very much agree with you.

I currently do BA (Hons) International Relations. The first year (which counts for nothing in terms of degree classification) was a crash course in politics. Despite me having a B in A level politics, I had to re do it. Its cost me £11,000 (fees + loan) to do a year which counts for nothing and learning stuff I already know about.
I think there could be an option 2/3 years, if you have relevant a levels you can do the 2 year. If you don't, you do 3 years.

I was in lectures which were laid out exactly how the AQA A level politics course was laid out.
1) Constitution
2) Executive
3) Legislature
4) Judiciary

Exactly like that...painful to say the least.