Tuition fees may be uncapped (and other changes)

Originally Posted by Masque

All we will end up with is an elitist education system in this country and only people with money going to university, the examples of other countries such as the US and Canada is all well and good but this county is not used to these kind of charges, and it will be many years before it is accepted and in that time much of our home grown talent will not have gone to university due to the costs involved.

Those who are not rich should not be discouraged from University.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

At 27 she is finding that having and obtaining a degree wasn't the sinecure that it was held out to be..

Thanks for that. Her and many others it would seem.

---------- Post added at 09:45 ---------- Previous post was at 09:44 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Not everyone can afford to pay for University. Not every family can afford to save for University either, with two children and a mortgage I imagine the idea of saving for the cost of both children, or even one, to attend University will be too much for the average family. Especially since they are also removing the cap on tuition fees. At the moment two children on a three year course will require they save around £18,000 for the two of them on tuition fees alone. The governments plan looks to double that.

The USA example is poor because it's well known the difficultly students from poorer backgrounds face in going to University.


However this new system would further discourage people going into teaching, as the salary (£20,000 to £35,000) puts them in the group that will end up paying more than anyone else for their education. Earning enough for the government to charge interest and not enough to realistically pay it back any time soon.

This system screws over all but the rich and a lucky handful of the very poor.

Loans? Investment in your own future? Might be anathema here but is very common elsewhere.

---------- Post added at 09:49 ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 ----------

Originally Posted by Masque

And a massive increase in fees is going to ensure that we get that skillset and it is not going to put people off going to university due to the costs involved.

All we will end up with is an elitist education system in this country and only people with money going to university, the examples of other countries such as the US and Canada is all well and good but this county is not used to these kind of charges, and it will be many years before it is accepted and in that time much of our home grown talent will not have gone to university due to the costs involved.

See above. Regardless of whether we're 'used' to it or not we're competing with countries that are. Either this happens or taxes go up to pay, and there is little appetite or incentive for that given how poorly degrees are translating into work right now.

The comments on 'home grown talent' are a total fallacy. Per my previous comments there is little evidence that we are getting anywhere with the current system. If anything they are increasing concerns over the quality of UK degrees due in no small part to people being pushed towards university without the funding being there or being available. Students themselves complain about the quality of their courses and how little teaching they actually receive..

---------- Post added at 10:00 ---------- Previous post was at 09:49 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Those who are not rich should not be discouraged from University.

What would you suggest is done as an alternative?

There is always some financial discouragement for everyone bar the rich, it's about how it's looked at. Higher Education should be seen as a choice and investment in your future, not as something everyone should do just because.

In an idea world there would be no need to charge anyone for such things, however Scotland's experience seems to indicate that removing this incentive results in higher drop out rate.

As big a danger for me is people spending an extra 3 or 4 years that could be spent doing other things going to University to study something that will be of no help or use. It may make them more rounded people, or not as in my case, but that's not a good use of the taxpayers' money to be honest.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Loans? Investment in your own future? Might be anathema here but is very common elsewhere.

The plans seem to be making that investment a poor choice, not all degrees lead to high paying (40/50k plus) jobs and the sheer scale of finance that will be needed may make those routes less appealing. Social Work, Teaching and such are two examples of this.

Education isn't simply a tool to maximise your earning power after you leave university.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

What would you suggest is done as an alternative?

There is always some financial discouragement for everyone bar the rich, it's about how it's looked at. Higher Education should be seen as a choice and investment in your future, not as something everyone should do just because.

In an idea world there would be no need to charge anyone for such things, however Scotland's experience seems to indicate that removing this incentive results in higher drop out rate.

As big a danger for me is people spending an extra 3 or 4 years that could be spent doing other things going to University to study something that will be of no help or use. It may make them more rounded people, or not as in my case, but that's not a good use of the taxpayers' money to be honest.

I think the current system is fair. £9,000 over three years and interest linked to inflation but not any higher. Society benefits from an educated work force and should contribute towards it. This removes some burden from the tax-payer, and encourages personal responsibility from the individual but isn't so limiting as too seriously discourage those from poor or middle class backgrounds to be turned off.

The amount of debt incurred is static. As it's linked to inflation you don't have the prospect/worry of the debt continuing to amass though interest. It's also more manageable. £15,000 is better than way over £30,000 plus interest.

[Osem]

Our eldest is doing his GCSEs and thinking about the future. Once upon a time I'd have encouraged him to go to uni without a second thought but not now. My advice to him will be work hard, get the best results you can and then get out there in the real world before you make any decisions on what to do about further or higher education.

It's ironic that at the same time the degree has become a somewhat devalued currency here, the cost of taking one has escalated and seems to be heading north. Sadly, the market is flooded with debt ridden graduates doing all sorts of relatively menial jobs and with precious little chance of getting a decent one anytime soon it seems. In the push from above to increase the numbers going into higher education, not too much thought appears to have been given to what the resulting stream of graduates are actually going to do with their qualifications and whether they'll be of any real use in building their careers. The fact that we're still being told we need graduates from overseas to fill the gaps left by our own crop of talent rather indicates a lack of strategic planning somewhere along the line.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

See above. Regardless of whether we're 'used' to it or not we're competing with countries that are. Either this happens or taxes go up to pay, and there is little appetite or incentive for that given how poorly degrees are translating into work right now.

The comments on 'home grown talent' are a total fallacy. Per my previous comments there is little evidence that we are getting anywhere with the current system. If anything they are increasing concerns over the quality of UK degrees due in no small part to people being pushed towards university without the funding being there or being available. Students themselves complain about the quality of their courses and how little teaching they actually receive.

This will do nothing to increase the quality of education. This is not extra money going to Universities. It is to make up for the fact that the Government is slashing its' contributions to the Universities' teaching budgets by (that's by, not to) two-thirds. What will happen is that the top Universities that will attract students anyway will fare better, while education at the bottom of the pile will be a mass affair with massive classes and little or no resources.

[Ignitionnet]

Originally Posted by danielf

This will do nothing to increase the quality of education. This is not extra money going to Universities. It is to make up for the fact that the Government is slashing its' contributions to the Universities' teaching budgets by (that's by, not to) two-thirds. What will happen is that the top Universities that will attract students anyway will fare better, while education at the bottom of the pile will be a mass affair with massive classes and little or no resources.

Universities will be competing for students rather than relying on a block grant and fixed incomes irrespective of quality or relevance of courses. Without being able to get money from the government to offer weird degrees in irrelevant nonsense they can either improve and focus or fail.

It'll also make students more conscious of the quality of their courses. As they pay more they'll expect more and if they aren't getting value for money they will most certainly make sure the institutions know about it.

So saying it'll do nothing is merely equating quality with cash, specifically government cash.

Education at the bottom of the pile is already a mass affair by many accounts.

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Universities will be competing for students rather than relying on a block grant and fixed incomes irrespective of quality or relevance of courses. Without being able to get money from the government to offer weird degrees in irrelevant nonsense they can either improve and focus or fail.

It'll also make students more conscious of the quality of their courses. As they pay more they'll expect more and if they aren't getting value for money they will most certainly make sure the institutions know about it.

So saying it'll do nothing is merely equating quality with cash, specifically government cash.

Education at the bottom of the pile is already a mass affair by many accounts.

A lot less students will be able to afford to go to University so judging the quality of the course is a small consultation if they did. Even at the moment people can take the a smallish level of debt in order to go, this will simply discourage even very talented candidates from University if they are from a poor background.

I don't think the government is cutting University funding so drastically because they want to improve 'quality' or to remove pointless degrees.

How will these increased fees be funded?

If it's by loans, how will students without collateral get these loans (and if they get them from the Government, HMG still has to find the money up-front)?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Hugh

How will these increased fees be funded?

If it's by loans, how will students without collateral get these loans (and if they get them from the Government, HMG still has to find the money up-front)?

Do they need collateral for student loans at the moment? The money has to be found up-front by the lenders at the moment, so again no difference to now. The main difference is that more of the outlay of taxpayers money will be repaid in the future.

Originally Posted by nomadking

Do they need collateral for student loans at the moment? The money has to be found up-front by the lenders at the moment, so again no difference to now. The main difference is that more of the outlay of taxpayers money will be repaid in the future.

How do you work that out?

At the moment, the student borrows approx 3k pa for tuition fees, and 3k for accommodation. If the fees go up to 6k pa, the student will need to borrow 6k for tuition fees, and 3k for accommodation; HMG has said they will only start reducing the block grant if the fees go over 6k pa.

So, if the Government (who will be the main lender to students, because who else would loan 27k to an 18 year old with no collateral), will have to pay out 33% more up front for each student, with no reduction in the block grant payment to the University.

right back atcha......

I don't think this will actually happen. The sums involved are eye-watering and would be such a drastic hit that the government will never go though with it, it will either be changed prior to a vote or quietly dropped.

The Liberal Democrats will take such a hit at the next election if it did go though. The level of debt a student would have at the end of their three years would be far too much.

[nomadking]

At the moment the taxpayer pays part of the fees that doesn't get repaid. If a higher proportion of the fees cost is in the form of a loan, when that loan is repaid, they have got more of the money back.

In the US students deal with $100,000+ student loans and still those from poorer backgrounds attend college. It's just that they have to be sure that they have the ability&determination and the right course&career in order to justify it.

At the moment, the University's get a block grant of between 3-5k* per student (in addition to the Student fee of 3k).

The Browne report states the block grant would only be reduced if the student fee was over 6k - so if the Uni puts the Student fee up to 6k, it will still get the block grant of between 3-5k.


*this can be occasionally higher, depending on the course

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education...the-world.html

Originally Posted by Telegraph

An analysis of international data reveals that a small rise would push England to the top of a league table of the most costly places to study – overtaking nations including Iceland and the United States.
The University and College Union, which conducted the research, called on the Coalition to scrap a proposed tuition fee hike to avoid the "unenviable" tag.

Originally Posted by Telegraph

But the latest report warned that England would become the most expensive place in the world to study if fees rose to just £5,000.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11525031

Originally Posted by BBC

Accepting the "broad thrust" of the report, Mr Cable suggested that students might expect to pay fees of about £7,000 - more than double than at present - with the option of a higher level of fee.

The government are deluding themselves on this, it is utterly unacceptable. If the Liberal Democrats back this they certainly have lost my vote, although that was already on the line with their drastic scientific research cuts.

Least we'll be able to afford state of the art Nukes.

[TheDaddy]

I doubt people will bother, what's the point of such a debt when over the course of an entire career you earn on average 100k more than some one with out a degree, just seems a shame that we can't find a happy medium where university isn't out of the reach of most or avaliable to all.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/ed...k-1835911.html

---------- Post added at 13:37 ---------- Previous post was at 13:36 ----------

Originally Posted by Damien

Least we'll be able to afford state of the art Nukes.

Wont have anyone to make them though...