[Archived] The General Election 2015

[K-Hod]

They already are for the elite Imy, tuition fees have increased to an outrageous amount already.

That being said, it could be worse, we could be paying USA tuition fee prices!!

[Biddy]

Education should be free. Scotland in this case has got it spot on.

[Guest]

But the way that a student loan is paid back is, in my mind, fair. If I benefit from a higher income than I would otherwise have done, then it's fair that I put back in what I got out of it. I would not expect tax payers, particularly if the poor are now going to be paying more, to be subsidising my choice of going into higher education.

[imy9]

I'm actually in agreement with this. If we want this country to be successful we have to educate the most intelligent youngsters from whatever background. Grants should be available to anyone who is intelligent enough.

Nice to see we can agree on things too

German system enables all pupils (who are capable) to go to University free of charge.

[yoda]

Nice to see we can agree on things too

German system enables all pupils (who are capable) to go to University free of charge.

Even UK ones

[yoda]

Nice to see we can agree on things too

German system enables all pupils (who are capable) to go to University free of charge.

Even from the UK

[Mike E]

But the way that a student loan is paid back is, in my mind, fair. If I benefit from a higher income than I would otherwise have done, then it's fair that I put back in what I got out of it. I would not expect tax payers, particularly if the poor are now going to be paying more, to be subsidising my choice of going into higher education.

Thing is, such are the spiralling levels of debt being piled on students, it'll never be paid off as the debt is 'wiped' after 30 years.

What they don't tell you is that it isn't written off. The debt remains, but is put onto the taxpayer. Even if all current students get jobs which allow them to pay off a portion of their debts, the Govt stands to be in further debt of £280bn!

That cannot be right.

[Guest]

So I wonder what the level of government debt would be if students didn't pay the loans and fees off themselves.

You're enhancing the argument for students to pay their own way. And let's not forget that they pay back proportionally to what they earn, so there's as little impact on their income as possible. And if, fur whatever reason, they're not earning, then they don't pay during that time. What's not fair about it for students? And who exactly do they want to pay for it otherwise?

[Al]

So I wonder what the level of government debt would be if students didn't pay the loans and fees off themselves.

You're enhancing the argument for students to pay their own way. And let's not forget that they pay back proportionally to what they earn, so there's as little impact on their income as possible. And if, fur whatever reason, they're not earning, then they don't pay during that time. What's not fair about it for students? And who exactly do they want to pay for it otherwise?

The tuition fees though are ridiculous, particularly as we pay Scotland's for them. That is crap.

[Biddy]

So I wonder what the level of government debt would be if students didn't pay the loans and fees off themselves.

You're enhancing the argument for students to pay their own way. And let's not forget that they pay back proportionally to what they earn, so there's as little impact on their income as possible. And if, fur whatever reason, they're not earning, then they don't pay during that time. What's not fair about it for students? And who exactly do they want to pay for it otherwise?

There should be no tuition fees at all. Period. The current incumbents in parliament didn't have to pay it. The previous government didn't have to pay any. I didn't have to pay any. I had student loans to pay for my accommodation and living costs (which I have paid back) but I never had to pay tuition fees.

The level of debt on students today is ridiculous whether they ever have to pay it back or not.

As I say, Scotland have got it right but its a completely crap system where all tax payers fund them but the rest of the UK don't have the same privilege.

[Guest]

When it comes to higher education, I think the current system is right - borrow what you need to from the government to fulfill your studies, then pay back what you borrowed over time once you reap the benefits. It should be self-sustaining where possible, especially in the current times and particularly if the students who benefit in well-paid jobs will be able to spare it more than others.

Let's not forget that you pay back proportionally, which nobody seems to be acknowledging. It isn't like a normal loan whereby you have monthly obligations regardless of your financial situation. You pay back only when it's sunny days (you have a reasonable wage).

Scotland is a separate matter. I fully agree that their autonomy is to the detriment of the rest of the country and that it shouldn't be the case.

[Mike E]

So I wonder what the level of government debt would be if students didn't pay the loans and fees off themselves.

You're enhancing the argument for students to pay their own way. And let's not forget that they pay back proportionally to what they earn, so there's as little impact on their income as possible. And if, fur whatever reason, they're not earning, then they don't pay during that time. What's not fair about it for students? And who exactly do they want to pay for it otherwise?

I've just qualified as an NQT. I have a debt of £19k in tuition fees plus about £20k maintenance. (My degree was under the £3.5k tuition fees, PGCE was £9k).

I MIGHT be able to pay it off in time if I work full time for 30 years (hopehopefully and then some).

Every student who goes into a degree with a Govt loan now, is guaranteed to come out with a minimum of £27k debt (not accounting for rises) plus maintenance (average around £15k over a 3 year degree).

My point is that with the level of debt foisted on people that is unlikely to be repaid in full (the Govt's own fault), with anything not paid off becoming taxpayer debt.

Is that fair on either the student, taxpayer or Govt? Not imo.

A system of means-tested grants/loans for academic or vocational excellence, and greater provision of apprenticeships and vocational courses is the way forward.

As it stands, the Govt gives loans to people studying degrees in David Beckham, Harry Potter, Chavology, beach-combing and other daft degrees.

Loans/Grants should only be offered to students taking those courses that have a likelihood of guaranteeing a salary for the student in later life which allows the debt to be repaid. On top of this tuition fees need to come down to a more manageable level (say £5k/yr).

[Steve Moss]

We offer scholarships, grants and loans in the USA. Though I do think the grants and loans are badly managed.

In Arizona, the top graduating student of each high school class gets a scholarship that covers tuition, books, and room and board. The balance of the top 10 gets scholarships that cover tuition. The scholarship is limited to state universities, however (University of Arizona, Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University). I think that system is pretty fair.

The grants are based on financial need. They are not a lot, but would cover the expense associated with a junior college (two year degrees) and a large portion of the expense associated with university. They are not limited to state schools.

The loans are available to everyone, and will cover all expenses. Essentially, anyone who wants to go to university can if they are willing to go into debt. And that's the problem. Many students graduate with crushing debt with no decent job prospects to actually pay it back. As the loans are guaranteed by the federal government, the banks have no reason to exercise prudence in making them (similar to the lending that went on with Greece, I imagine).

I really think the system needs to be revamped in that loans should only be given for degrees that have a reasonable prospect for employment sufficient for repayment. And grants should be increased but limited to:

1. Those who achieve a certain minimal level of academic performance; and,

2. Are below a certain financial level (the affluent can pay their own way); and,

3. Should be in programs which society needs more of (fewer art majors and more engineers).

If the tax payer pays for them, then they should be tailored to return a benefit to society. In my opinion.

[Al]

We offer scholarships, grants and loans in the USA. Though I do think the grants and loans are badly managed.

In Arizona, the top graduating student of each high school class gets a scholarship that covers tuition, books, and room and board. The balance of the top 10 gets scholarships that cover tuition. The scholarship is limited to state universities, however (University of Arizona, Arizona State University and Northern Arizona University). I think that system is pretty fair.

The grants are based on financial need. They are not a lot, but would cover the expense associated with a junior college (two year degrees) and a large portion of the expense associated with university. They are not limited to state schools.

The loans are available to everyone, and will cover all expenses. Essentially, anyone who wants to go to university can if they are willing to go into debt. And that's the problem. Many students graduate with crushing debt with no decent job prospects to actually pay it back. As the loans are guaranteed by the federal government, the banks have no reason to exercise prudence in making them (similar to the lending that went on with Greece, I imagine).

I really think the system needs to be revamped in that loans should only be given for degrees that have a reasonable prospect for employment sufficient for repayment. And grants should be increased but limited to:

1. Those who achieve a certain minimal level of academic performance; and,

2. Are below a certain financial level (the affluent can pay their own way); and,

3. Should be in programs which society needs more of (fewer art majors and more engineers).

If the tax payer pays for them, then they should be tailored to return a benefit to society. In my opinion.

I would add to that Steve that they shouldn't be able to peddle their wares abroad until they have "paid their dues" in the country that gave them their chance.

[Guest]

Is that fair on either the student, taxpayer or Govt? Not imo.

So how should the £27k be raised if you don't think it's fair that you or the taxpayer should pay that cost of putting you through uni? The only way I can think of is if the universities sold products or services at a massive profit.

If you don't get a reasonable salary from it, you don't pay anything back. If you do get a reasonable salary, you pay it back. Somebody has to, Mike, and I still don't see what is unfair about it when it's proportional to what you earn, and only when you are earning.

[Steve Moss]

I would add to that Steve that they shouldn't be able to peddle their wares abroad until they have "paid their dues" in the country that gave them their chance.

I agree. I the taxpayers paid for it, then society should receive a benefit at least equal to the cost and preferably more so.

So how should the £27k be raised if you don't think it's fair that you or the taxpayer should pay that cost of putting you through uni? The only way I can think of is if the universities sold products or services at a massive profit.

If you don't get a reasonable salary from it, you don't pay anything back. If you do get a reasonable salary, you pay it back. Somebody has to, Mike, and I still don't see what is unfair about it when it's proportional to what you earn, and only when you are earning.

If you don't get a reasonable salary from it, why take the degree?

I understand that some people aren't concerned about the money and love the subject, or are trying to put off adulthood, but the taxpayer should not be subsidizing the education that does not give a return to society.

[thenodrog]

A young person from a poor background is less likely to go to university without the financial assistance that the grants provide. If you Google The Sutton Trust they have done research in this area to support this.

Universities will become for the elite again and generations of kids will have little/no expectations. From a personal point of view, I would not have gone to university without the grants that were offered.

More intelligent parents as a general rule will produce more intelligent kids. Hardly rocket science just genetics. Also a factor will be an academic background and a higher level of expectation.

[thenodrog]

But the way that a student loan is paid back is, in my mind, fair. If I benefit from a higher income than I would otherwise have done, then it's fair that I put back in what I got out of it. I would not expect tax payers, particularly if the poor are now going to be paying more, to be subsidising my choice of going into higher education.

20's is a tough enough time though with mortgages, cars and kids all coming along. Small wonder the more intelligent are producing fewer offspring and much later than their less intelligent counterparts.

[thenodrog]

There should be no tuition fees at all. Period. The current incumbents in parliament didn't have to pay it. The previous government didn't have to pay any. I didn't have to pay any. I had student loans to pay for my accommodation and living costs (which I have paid back) but I never had to pay tuition fees.

The level of debt on students today is ridiculous whether they ever have to pay it back or not.

As I say, Scotland have got it right but its a completely crap system where all tax payers fund them but the rest of the UK don't have the same privilege.

The problem is that too many are able to go to uni to do useless degrees. I've no problem with the state fully funding 30% of the brightest kids through uni cos that makes complete sense but imo there are too many pointless courses and too many others spun out over 3 years when they could be completed in half that time

[adopted scouser]

TJ Hooker

Didn't know he understood rhyming slang

**waits for another post to be removed

[imy9]

More intelligent parents as a general rule will produce more intelligent kids. Hardly rocket science just genetics. Also a factor will be an academic background and a higher level of expectation.

Being poor does not equate to a lack of intelligence. What you mean is opportunity. If two children with the same intelligence go to two different schools (one private and one inner city), highly likely that the pupil going to the private school will succeed.

I agree about the higher level of expectation, that supports my point. If people who are poor are deprived of going to university (or put off by the debt) then clearly their expectations are low and this will then be passed down to their children.

The problem is that too many are able to go to uni to do useless degrees. I've no problem with the state fully funding 30% of the brightest kids through uni cos that makes complete sense but imo there are too many pointless courses and too many others spun out over 3 years when they could be completed in half that time

This i agree with.

[T J Hooker]

TJ Hooker

Didn't know he understood rhyming slang

**waits for another post to be removed

I love you, you always make me laugh, I wish you'd post much more often.

[Baz]

But the way that a student loan is paid back is, in my mind, fair. If I benefit from a higher income than I would otherwise have done, then it's fair that I put back in what I got out of it. I would not expect tax payers, particularly if the poor are now going to be paying more, to be subsidising my choice of going into higher education.

If you earn more you pay more tax, therefore everyone is benefiting from your education.

Personally I think we should have funded courses for certain subjects we are lacking the skills for, or likely to need in future such as medicine, science etc...then we are reliant on bringing in foreign doctors.(for example).

Anything else people can still go, but under a lesser funded system.

[Amo]

The problem is that too many are able to go to uni to do useless degrees. I've no problem with the state fully funding 30% of the brightest kids through uni cos that makes complete sense but imo there are too many pointless courses and too many others spun out over 3 years when they could be completed in half that time

You won't be saying that when I graduate in Philosophy & Ethics!

[Mike E]

So how should the £27k be raised if you don't think it's fair that you or the taxpayer should pay that cost of putting you through uni? The only way I can think of is if the universities sold products or services at a massive profit.

If you don't get a reasonable salary from it, you don't pay anything back. If you do get a reasonable salary, you pay it back. Somebody has to, Mike, and I still don't see what is unfair about it when it's proportional to what you earn, and only when you are earning.

First point, why 27k? When I started it was 10k for the full degree. Why are the fees higher?

If the student doesn't pay it back, the taxpayer does. Do you honestly believe it is fair that the taxpayer potentially must subsidise someone studying David Beckham?