Tuition Fee Rises

if the payback is 9% and on an average earning of £35K at £14K over the threshold, you would payback £1260 per year, or £105 per month. It will take you without interest 39 years to pay it back, so depending what age you retire at the chances are you will never pay the debt back, so the logical choice is to take as much money as possible, especially if you are female and intend to raise a family and give up work or work part time.

Fair effort on the maths, from the dark end of that cave

I've never missed my student tax as I never had it to begin with. No idea how much I owe and quite frankly, couldn't give a ****. I doubt I barely knock the interest off it so hopefully I'll never have to fully pay it back no matter how much I earn. The system is a farce, joe public are still paying for it.

Just thinking out loud here, but if the debt is such a big issue for some, wouldn't you cut it in half straight away by staying at home and going to your local university, with a p/t job for beer and sh@gging money?

Just thinking out loud here, but if the debt is such a big issue for some, wouldn't you cut it in half straight away by staying at home and going to your local university, with a p/t job for beer and sh@gging money?

If you read further up the thread I have said that it's noticeable that so many are now doing just that.

Did you prefer the used 118 because it was easier to park and you didn't want to scrape a new car?

What makes it easier to park, it's a pretty bulky car due to a long bonnet? Seems you know as much about cars as you do about car financing.

Excellent diversion tactics by the way. If only you had the balls or nouse to reply to the actual questions/acusations.

Always said you were full of **** after your embarrassing made up email from Katharina, and your "I've worked with loads of billionaire's" rhetoric.

Look, it's alright that you've spent more on a car than you need to I'm sure you didn't have the time to do the calculations correctly, or one of your many billionaire friends paid your way, but I was just trying to help someone out on a forum, there was no need for you to get so annoyed at the fact we had two differing opinions.

Anyway, hopes all well in the world of expensive leases and Russian billionaire's (guffaw).

If you read further up the thread I have said that it's noticeable that so many are now doing just that.

Which is not to fully enjoy the uni experience.

Also comical how many people have degrees these days.

I have recently been reviewing cvs and one chap had just one D at A level and managed to get into a uni to achieve a third in media studies. Wouldn't agree that is worth subsidising.

Make it harder to get in and heavily subsidise those that are smart enough to gain entry.

If you are taking a uni course which costs £50k and getting a career average of £35k a year, you are doing something badly wrong. A half decent doctor, lawyer, accountant etc. should be earning double that by the time they are 40.

What about a teacher? Or you happy that they shouldn't be university educated?

Half decent doctor? Any doctor I imagine but if you think graduates will mostly be earning £70k at 40 you are seriously uninformed.

If you read further up the thread I have said that it's noticeable that so many are now doing just that.

So what is the average debt then? You said it's far more than £40k but when I asked you to break it down you didn't, so I'd be interested to know.

Which is not to fully enjoy the uni experience.

 

Also comical how many people have degrees these days.

I have recently been reviewing cvs and one chap had just one D at A level and managed to get into a uni to achieve a third in media studies. Wouldn't agree that is worth subsidising.

 

Make it harder to get in and heavily subsidise those that are smart enough to gain entry.

This.

University should only be for the most talented/intelligent, especially if it's subsidised using tax payers money.

This.

 

University should only be for the most talented/intelligent, especially if it's subsidised using tax payers money.

But where would all the labour MPs come from in the future?

What makes it easier to park, it's a pretty bulky car due to a long bonnet? Seems you know as much about cars as you do about car financing.

 

Excellent diversion tactics by the way. If only you had the balls or nouse to reply to the actual questions/acusations.

 

Always said you were full of **** after your embarrassing made up email from Katharina, and your "I've worked with loads of billionaire's" rhetoric.

 

Look, it's alright that you've spent more on a car than you need to I'm sure you didn't have the time to do the calculations correctly, or one of your many billionaire friends paid your way, but I was just trying to help someone out on a forum, there was no need for you to get so annoyed at the fact we had two differing opinions.

 

Anyway, hopes all well in the world of expensive leases and Russian billionaire's (guffaw).

Oh dear Simon, Sarb, Jeff. Time for yet another re-invention after another incontinent outburst. Lets be clear Ive never said I knew Katharina or was in contact with her. I have simply exchanged a couple of emails with her cousin.

My job is to recruit board members and major donors in Europe for a charity. The patron is a former US President. The minimum tariff for a place on the board is $500,000pa but many give much more than that. Naturally therefore all of them are wealthy and some are billionaires. Its my job, Im just salaried hired help. I don't pretend they regard me as peers or friends, although obviously the board members Ive worked with professionally for several years are friendly. We dont take money from Russia because the origin of the money is too murky. Last year you accused me of being a fantasist and I offered to introduce you to somebody I was meeting 300m from your office near Regent Street. You bottled out at the last minute claiming in a pm "My boss is a billionaire and I know him really well".

So what is the average debt then? You said it's far more than £40k but when I asked you to break it down you didn't, so I'd be interested to know.

It depends, obviously, on course duration and location. We were given some projected figures at work for a cross section of unis/courses, I'll dig them out after 1/2 term & give you the gist but you've clearly underestimated accommodation costs and living expenses.

Which is not to fully enjoy the uni experience.

I agree. I was chatting about uni to some of my students last Thursday and the majority of the girls who have part-time jobs, are all staying at home as it saves them money.

I guess saving money, earning, having the comforts of home outweighs the fun of moving away.

What is noticeable is that those young people whose parents have been to uni are much more blasé about it and are much more likely to be moving further afield.

It depends, obviously, on course duration and location. We were given some projected figures at work for a cross section of unis/courses, I'll dig them out after 1/2 term & give you the gist but you've clearly underestimated accommodation costs and living expenses.

Living expenses can be covered by the student, and should be in all honesty. Nothing wrong with working through uni.

This.

 

University should only be for the most talented/intelligent, especially if it's subsidised using tax payers money.

This

Universities and degrees should be elitist or else whatsthe point ?

Living expenses can be covered by the student, and should be in all honesty. Nothing wrong with working through uni.

Are you suggesting that there are enough part-time, term time, jobs available for every university student in the UK?

There are over 30,000 students in The Potteries. Where are 30,000 part time, term time jobs going to come from?

This

 

Universities and degrees should be elitist or else whatsthe point ?

If we all have degrees, it's worthless. We'd all end up doing PHD's and MBA's, which is even more money...

This

 

Universities and degrees should be elitist or else whatsthe point ?

Ask yourself why governments are businesses are both pushing for more to go to uni and you'll find the answer to your question.

Are you suggesting that there are enough part-time, term time, jobs available for every university student in the UK?

 

There are over 30,000 students in The Potteries. Where are 30,000 part time, term time jobs going to come from?

I don't know, when I went to Uni I worked at a call centre with about 3000 other students, and there was an enormous 118 118 down the road with lots of jobs as well. I think it is fair to say the following:

Tuition fees - 27k

Accommodation - £9k

Living expenses - £4k

Supplemented income (job/parents) - £5k

That is a loan of £40k.

I don't know, when I went to Uni I worked at a call centre with about 3000 other students, and there was an enormous 118 118 down the road with lots of jobs as well. I think it is fair to say the following:

 

Tuition fees - 27k

Accommodation - £9k

Living expenses - £4k

Supplemented income (job/parents) - £5k

 

That is a loan of £40k.

We can all make numbers up, but some if us work in that field and might, just possibly, be slightly more clued up than others.

I don't know.

Clearly, but it doesn't stop you does it.

I'll leave this thread to those who clearly have a great grasp of FE/HE in 2015 and how working class students view debt.

We can all make numbers up, but some if us work in that field and might, just possibly, be slightly more clued up than others.

I am more than happy for you to counter my numbers if you wish?

Clearly, but it doesn't stop you does it.

I don't know about the Potteries, you're correct, but I know about where I went to University.

And just because you lecture there doesn't necessarily mean you know student economics.

As said, I am happy for you to prove me wrong, and i will happily hold my hands up!

UJ and Tim, please discuss your personal issues over PM and spare us.

UJ and Tim, please discuss your personal issues over PM and spare us.

Trank you.

Trank you.

Ask yourself why governments are businesses are both pushing for more to go to uni and you'll find the answer to your question.

But he's right. What is the benefit, to the economy of someone doing "Event Management" for three whole years as a degree for example. There may well be government/business reasons behind it, but they aren't clear to a lot of people, including me.

Because it keeps a large number of young people off the unemployment statistics for 3 years? How's that for a starter?

Because it keeps a large number of young people off the unemployment statistics for 3 years? How's that for a starter?

Just out of interest, how does increasing tuition fees accomplish what they want then? As has been said a number of times on this thread, this apparently discourages applicants for university?

Because it keeps a large number of young people off the unemployment statistics for 3 years? How's that for a starter?

so, if they do not go and do a degree in Event Management or say, David Beckahm studies, they will NOT get a job?

Because it keeps a large number of young people off the unemployment statistics for 3 years? How's that for a starter?

Doesn't benefit anyone is my eyes. It would be better if that time and resources was used and directed for a good apprenticeship for example.

Yeah, it's not as if we put on any events, such as music festivals, concerts or football matches.

Yeah, it's not as if we put on any events, such as music festivals, concerts or football matches.

I'm not saying it isn't a useful skill, but a whole three years of a degree needed to cover it? Plenty of fetivals, concerts and football matches managed by people without having to do three years of a degree.

Depends on whether you want to treat it like a serious discipline or not. I'm not sure what the average curriculum covers, but then to be fair, neither are you. I went to Glastonbury this year, and all things considered, with 125,000 people and inclement weather, thought it was very well organised. The festival organisers on staff kept on top of things, the previous night's shít (literal and figurative) cleaned up and disposed of each morning, bands and equipment moved between stages. All that against the backdrop of a population equivalent to the Borough of Eastleigh that wasn't there before suddenly arriving by car, coach, caravan on your doorstep in a 3 day period. I know that's not nearly as bewildering as it might seem from a high level. There's clearly a load to it, but broken down and compartmentalised, such complexity can be managed. Worth spending three years on, I reckon - even if you don't organise something on that scale.

Just out of interest, how does increasing tuition fees accomplish what they want then? As has been said a number of times on this thread, this apparently discourages applicants for university?

It hasn't discouraged applications. Applications are rising, and the number from underprivileged backgrounds has never been higher.

Living expenses can be covered by the student, and should be in all honesty. Nothing wrong with working through uni.

Most students do have a part time job to subsidise the insufficient maintenance loan - which is the biggest restrictor to working class university entrance, as parents won't have the funds to make up the difference.

Although - on a side note, not everyone can get a job for various reasons - Oxford where I am do not allow it.

It hasn't discouraged applications. Applications are rising, and the number from underprivileged backgrounds has never been higher.

The amount of tuition fee money owed by students from underprivileged backgrounds has also never been higher.

It hasn't discouraged applications. Applications are rising, and the number from underprivileged backgrounds has never been higher.

Which is the point of the original article that a number of people are refuting.

The amount of tuition fee money owed by students from underprivileged backgrounds has also never been higher.

And yet, it is not block to their entry as parental income does not affect one iota of the payback process. You pay back when you can afford it at a set rate as has been said a lot on this thread.

I'm technically almost £40,000 in debt at the moment, but I'll only pay it back when I can afford it and at a more progressive rate (9% over 21k) than the previous system (9% over 15k). It won't affect my credit rating, and at no point will money be demanded. It's a tax. A tax that seems to be financial necessity if we are to send as many as we do to university at the moment.

The amount of tuition fee money owed by students from underprivileged backgrounds has also never been higher.

But is taken at a lower amount than previously, so they're actually better off from a month to month perspective, if not long term.

And yet, it is not block to their entry as parental income does not affect one iota of the payback process. You pay back when you can afford it at a set rate as has been said a lot on this thread.

 

I'm technically almost £40,000 in debt at the moment, but I'll only pay it back when I can afford it and at a more progressive rate (9% over 21k) than the previous system (9% over 15k). It won't affect my credit rating, and at no point will money be demanded. It's a tax. A tax that seems to be financial necessity if we are to send as many as we do to university at the moment.

Just out of interest, did you know how it would be paid back prior to going to uni?

what is the actual problem

The money paid back has no impact on credit ratings, will only be paid back when earning over £21k and that would be at a fair low amount

and there is a chance that you will never pay it back fully. The new system has opened the door to a more diverse selection of people going to uni...

what is the problem with that?

Which is the point of the original article that a number of people are refuting.

They can refute all they like, but they are also wrong.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/27/higher-fees-dont-mean-fewer-working-class-students-look-at-the-uk-for-proof

2014 = record applications, record applications from the most disadvantaged and also record entry from the most disadvantaged.

There is obviously still some way to go to make sure that university is an opportunity all have an equal shot at if they wish to, but the idea that this system has led to a vanquishing of the working class is completely incorrect.

Just out of interest, did you know how it would be paid back prior to going to uni?

By the time I started, I did. At the time of the student protests, I'm not really sure what I thought. There was just a lot of general vague anger. I think I was more worried on the 'slippery slope to privatisation' argument - but I don't see how we can go back to fully state funded when so many (rightly) now go to university.

UJ and Tim, please discuss your personal issues over PM and spare us.

Whoa! The Lounge gets moderated?! I didn't realise this. Does The Muppet Show get moderated too?

I'm a bit worried now, I feel like I need to be on best behaviour.

Does anyone remember that student from Brockenhurst college smashing up Tory HQ and threw a fire extinguisher at the cops? Ahhhh... good times..

By the time I started, I did. At the time of the student protests, I'm not really sure what I thought. There was just a lot of general vague anger. I think I was more worried on the 'slippery slope to privatisation' argument - but I don't see how we can go back to fully state funded when so many (rightly) now go to university.

Most I spoke to on the protests didn't understand what they were protesting about. Was utterly laughable show of aggression for most on that protest.

what is the actual problem

The money paid back has no impact on credit ratings, will only be paid back when earning over £21k and that would be at a fair low amount

and there is a chance that you will never pay it back fully. The new system has opened the door to a more diverse selection of people going to uni...

 

what is the problem with that?

People like to complain, innit.

By the time I started, I did. At the time of the student protests, I'm not really sure what I thought. There was just a lot of general vague anger. I think I was more worried on the 'slippery slope to privatisation' argument - but I don't see how we can go back to fully state funded when so many (rightly) now go to university.

Seems like you don't know whether you're coming or going.

From initially opposing fees out of a misguided sense of idealism, you're now fervently championing them for widening access, even though short-run data can't possibly capture the more important long-term impacts of the policy which we won't really know until the current cohort moves through the system and pays off the debt (or doesnt) and the next generation of university applicants adjusts to that experience.

More confusingly, you're now completely in favour of uncapped fees, dubbing current policy irresponsible, even though allowing universities to charge what they like would almost certainly price out those from poorer backgrounds. All while speaking about access with a straight face