Yes, we have this thing called the "BBC" here in Scotland and it's covered it in some considerable depth including the proposal to allow annual tuition fees in excess of £7k, thereby discouraging those from poorer backgrounds, and likewise raising interest rates on loans (ditto).
Student fees to hit £7000
- Thread starter Undesired Walrus
- Start date
Yes, we have this thing called the "BBC" here in Scotland and it's covered it in some considerable depth including the proposal to allow annual tuition fees in excess of £7k, thereby discouraging those from poorer backgrounds, and likewise raising interest rates on loans (ditto).
Evidence.
Aha. No evidence then.
I suspect it wouldn't. If a graduate is lumbered with a tuition fee debt of (say) £30k plus an additional £20k for living expenses, he or she is not going to be starting a first job at £21k a year. And what about those courses such my own, with an extended study period but comparatively low post-graduation salaries? Perhaps it's going to fine for doctors, but I'll bet you that these are the very courses which are going to hike up the costs and hence they end up as badly hit as many others....
As in free education? Seems fair enough. Allow everyone to reach their full potential based on academic expertise rather than ability to pay (or service debt, as the case may be).
Do we have data showing performance pre and post the Crawford/Barr funding system and introduction of fees in English universities?
Last edited:
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,646
We need Sam Harris to help us out. Surely science can be used to tell us what the right thing to do is?
Francesca R
Girl
Well done you spotted that. As there is no evidence for your point either. Participation of students from lower income brackets in HE has climbed steadily in the face of costs to the graduate rising steadily.
Thus, your argument strikes me as rather similar to a right wing fundy saying that raising the min wage 20p will kill jobs and ramp inflation. Alarmist, special-interest-serving and almost completely unsupported empirically.
Then she or he does not have to service the debt; at all. Still doesn't look like you've read it.
This is consistent with the proposal, isn't it? Point out where it is not if you disagree. I gave you a couple of handy bullet points above so you don't need to read the 64 pages (on the off chance that you haven't)
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,646
The data I heard presented on the radio this afternoon indicated an increase in those from lower income families going to university despite the higher costs of getting an education. It seems that being in debt for most if not all of your life is becoming the norm and is not a deterrent.
A problem I see is that with so many people going to university a degree will become economically worthless. How many jobs actually require degree-level education?
It seems to me that going university and a gap year traveling the world is rapidly becoming a rite of passage for young people, before they finally enter the real world and get a job at Tesco or a call centre.
Let's just summarise the
- The existing cap on tuition fees in England will be lifted, leaving the universities to charge what they want.
- Students will be entitled to a flat-rate loan of £3,750 per annum, repayable in arrears.
- Those from low income families (i.e. up to £25,000 pa) will be entitled to an additional grant of £3,250. Between £25,000 and £60,000 pa this will reduce pro-rata.
- Interest on the loan elements will be calculated at a "real" interest rate, basically the Government's real cost of borrowing plus an uplift for inflation.
- You start repaying this when you hit the £21,000 mark.
Now, the more astute amongst you will have noted that - notwithstanding Francesca's comments - these are going to mean that anyone with a very low household income (read: working class) are going to be faced with a potentially substantive debt in all cases and possibly a crippling level of debt if they wish to pursue the "expensive" university courses.
But not to worry, because if you've got less than £25,000 per annum income then you get a few thousand by way of modest mitigation. I'm sure carrying a university debt of (say) £40,000 is nothing if the state gave you a grant of circa £10,000.
It's grossly unfair; if you're from a poor background then frankly you can't afford to go to a good university. And if you're female then don't even think about giving up work to start a family, because your debt happily continues to accumulate additional costs for inflation.
That's a different one and, I think, a very valid point. Do we really need as many people going through University-level education in lieu of a much broader-based higher education and work-related training programme such as that employed in (say) Germany?
Let me give you a simple example: when I started studying architecture in 1986, there were 30 in my year. It was the largest intake that Strathclyde had ever taken. Last year, there were something of the order of 100. Now, six architecture schools thus equals 600 graduates each year against a total number of architects of only 3,000 in my country. We simply don't need that many - the industry can't support it, even in boom times. In short, we're giving ourselves a huge mass of well-educated unemployed. The English architecture schools likewise increased numbers, so they can't even move south with any certainty.
Talk about short-sightedness......
Francesca R
Girl
Bzzzzz. Sorry, caller, I am going to need to refer you to post 24 paragraph 2 another time. Press 8 to hear these options again . . . .
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
The Guardian breaks down the repayments for those who reach the £21,000 threshold.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/oct/12/what-browne-review-means-students
Whilst I appreciate coming out of university with a significant level of debt might put some off, I don't see those sums as particularly onerous.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/oct/12/what-browne-review-means-students
Whilst I appreciate coming out of university with a significant level of debt might put some off, I don't see those sums as particularly onerous.
Uzzy
Muse
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2007
- Messages
- 965
Pretty much this. We don't need masses and masses of people going to University, but that's pretty much the only thing on offer. When I did A-Levels not so long ago, nearly all the work on post A-Level life was aimed towards putting everyone into University. Skills based training in any sector played a very distant second fiddle to getting people into University.
Which is all well and good if we need 50% of the population going to University. But we don't. Not when there's something like 70 graduates per graduate job at the moment, which is the real thing that worries me. I can deal with debt after my University degree if I've got a good job that pays well. I knew going in I'd have debts, but it didn't put me off as I knew I could be rewarded after three more years of quality education, and I'm certainly from a fairly poor background. As long as I don't have to pay upfront, which as far as I'm aware, the current set up or the planned set up won't make me do, then I can cope with it as it's a productive debt. If I had to pay £6,000 up front then that'd stop Uni being an option.
But doesn't, interestingly, give the total level of debt which is used as a basis for the calculation or the total amount repaid.
Francesca R
Girl
. . . Because the "level of debt" that you are required to service is effectively capped at what you earn in excess of £21,000. The difference between what you earn and £21,000 is the basis for calculation of what you pay. The ceiling for that amount (assuming, say, you earn £200,000) depends--obviously--on the tuition fees you incurred.
Just read the thing. Bluster isn't your friend.
Just read the thing. Bluster isn't your friend.
Francesca R
Girl
This could well be true, although knowledge is cumulative and leads to economy-wide productivity growth yielding future gains and spillovers, and is not just about supplying the demand for skills today.
But suppose university graduates are over-supplied in some knowledge disciplines. Would continuing or increasing the public subsidy of that supply help? Or would transferring more of the cost to the graduate (in the form of an increased haircut to their individual future income) be more likely to balance it out? Should the supply of future graduates be limited by rationing so that a lucky few get protected behind an entry-barrier? Or should degree qualification be open to all, with the proviso that post-graduation success is a competition in which winners have to pay back a material chunk of their participation cost?
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,646
Or to phrase it another way: those who study the more economically useful subjects pay back a large amount of money and subsidise those who study the less economically useful subjects who pay back very little.
What is university education for?
Blue Bubble
Sharper than a thorn
Surely the proposed model is a strong incentive for someone to study in the most prestigious and expensive university, and upon graduation to emigrate.
I know that's what I would do.
As an alternative to the current model, David Colquhoun has written an interesting piece here. I'd be interested to hear any comments.
I know that's what I would do.
As an alternative to the current model, David Colquhoun has written an interesting piece here. I'd be interested to hear any comments.
I'm guessing that a top university could certainly charge £10,000 a year. Add a further £10,000 for living expenses and a debt of £60,000 is not out of the question.
If you're a middle-earner, say your salary gradually rises to £40,000 a year, you're not going to be able to pay that off quickly. Indeed it's going to be 10 or 20 years until that debt is cleared. While you're paying that off that's money you can't put towards buying a home or raising children.
Contrast that with wealthy parents who can easily pay off their offspring's loans for them (after all it's no more expensive than school fees in a top public school).
I was lucky, not only were my fees paid by the government but I also received a small proportion of the means tested grant (I left Uni in '88). If I'd had to take on significant debt I'd probably have ended up going to a much cheaper university and staying at home. My horizons would have been limited
Francesca R
Girl
What's the case that the state should pay for this out of taxes? It is, after all, £60,000 less it can spend on other things.
commandlinegamer
Philosopher
Perhaps the better question would be: What level of education should the state provide out of general taxation?
Ivor the Engineer
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2006
- Messages
- 10,646
Is all higher education equally deserving of state aid?