Inequality in Britain

[Ladymuck]

Another interesting paper - entitled Increasing university income from home and overseas students: what impact for social mobility?

Essentially, this document examines the implications which (a) increasing fees in respect of UK/EU undergraduate students and (b) raising the intake of non-EU students, might have for underprivileged home students within our higher education system.

[James Barber]

Fascinating Ladymuck.

[Ladymuck]

You cannot have read it that quickly LOL!

[Ladymuck]

Tuition fees in universities to face increases of up to ?9,000? ?9,000?! That's some hike for - supposedly - "public" education. And David Willetts tells MPs this is a "good deal for students and universities"? I'm sorry Mr. Willett, I don't buy it. If anything, it's going to put people off from applying in the first place. How can that be good? Just what this country needs:-S.

[DJKillaQueen]

It's good for reducing public spending and that's about all. And that is PER YEAR. I would never have got anywhere had my University education cost me ?36K before I'd even earned a penny from it. What world do these politicians live in?

It will almost certainly put some students off and will make students think in some cases of only doing degrees that can realistically recoup the money, so it would be natural to expect closure of some courses or in worst case scenarios some smaller universities. On the latter it might not be a bad thing given the rise of degree courses that aren't worth the paper they are written on.

Universities could of course increase the number of foreign students they accomodate and graduates in some professions could arguably charge more for their services in light of the debt they'll have to repay but the reality also is that many graduates won't ever earn the ?21k to start paying it back or may take lower paid jobs to escape paying it back.

Whatever your background (apart from the very affluent) to be saddled with that much debt at age 22 is daunting.

[legalbeagle]

I think I'd be more inclined to agree with a rise in tuition fees if the standard of education received was higher. It seems to me that at the moment pretty much anyone and everyone goes to University, and some of the qualifications received don't seem to be very well respected or lead to a good job. If they were well respected qualifications that did lead to a good job, and there was a proper structure in place for repayment of debt (?x per month when you earn ?x per year sort of thing)then I don't think a debt repayment of ?27/36k would be impossible. Painful perhaps, but not impossible.

Instead, we now seem to aspire to send everyone to a University, as though a degree were the only worthwhile thing to have, and job prospects afterwards seem wildly unpredictable. I imagine the increase will put some people off. But perhaps some others would be better suited to a different kind of job training qualification in any event, and we should certainly be giving that kind of training/apprenticeship more respect.

[silverfox]

Don't be deluded by figures of ?27/36K - it's much worse than that.

These are only potential fees we're talking about. Students have to pay rent, utility bills, eat, clothe themselves, buy course books/materials as well as socialise with plenty of alcohol.

Even with fees at, say, ?6,000 a year outside the big cities, say Keele or Bangor universities, you must be looking at at least another ?150 a week to live (?7,800 pa).

Circa ?14,000 a year to go to University is a more likely average figure.

Edited to add the word 'average'

[DJKillaQueen]

I totally agree LB and can't see why we can't go back to a B-TEC and HND system for courses that don't require degree length or status. I think may fee paying students would be happier with that too.

And silverfox is right, many students incur further debt from living expenses. I worked all the time I was at University and was lucky enough to have free tuition and a full grant, but I still finished with an overdaraft of ?1500. That was 20 years ago. No way would be able to cope with the idea of finishing a degree with ?36k plus of debt now, unless I was studying medicine or law and had some realistic hope of repaying it.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

---------------------------------------------------

> Universities could of course increase the number

> of foreign students they accomodate...

This remains a good option with potential benefits for universities/students - provided that it does not result in the displacement of our own home students.

[david_carnell]

I can only speak from my own viewpoint and background - whilst my family were far from "well off" we were always comfortable. Clothes on back, food on table etc, domestic holiday once a year etc.

I was the first person in my immediate family who had been to university and there was some pressure to do so. I went to a decent if unspectacular red-brick and did a decent social-science degree and got a decent mark.

Tuition fees had been introduced in 1997 and I started uni in 2001 so close enough that I felt hard done by. My parents paid my tuition fees (approx. ?1k pa if I remember) and topped up my student loan to cover living costs. I still graduated with about ?14k of debt.

Now, whilst I am, in principle, opposed to further increases (or tuition fees at all) I never really think about that debt now. I'm now standing on my own two feet and making my way in the world. Each month a small amount comes out of my pay packet and goes towards paying it off. Each year I get a statement. It's just another form of tax for me along with PAYE, NI, my pension, my union subs, my civil service sports membership and my cycle scheme loan. I never see the money so I don't know any different.

So....I'm not sure whether this increase in fees will put people off. If they are that poor they get subsidies anyway and more student loan. At the end of three years, ?14k, ?25k or ?40k....does it really matter. Each month you pay a little bit and when you earn more, you pay more, just like income tax.

I agree with LB that a return in the standard of teaching needs to be addressed and I agree that an arbitary figure of 50% going to university is daft. University should be elitist, but only in terms of intelligence. Going to uni off the back of two D's at A-Level to study meedja for 3 years is a waste. 3 years in the world of work will do far more for you. And whilst uni is about far more than learning, that isn't an excuse for the state to fund three years of personal development. A complicated picture.

[????]

I find myself broadly in agreement with DC. University has seem to become an entitlement based on Tony Blair's rather arbitary target of 50% in Higher Education. It's diluted degrees - created too higher expectations and actually is not what the jobs market/Economy needs. The original mantra about being a knowledge based service economy blah blah was overstaed and nowadays looks even more outdated, especially as a significant amount of graduates can't even write or add propa - let's get some hi tech/engineering skills going again. If my kids don't have the academic capability I'm pointing them to plumbing - ?25K of debt to work in a call centre or flipping burgers..no thanks.

[Ladymuck]

I did my degree at evening classes whilst working full-time. It took me five years. I remember tears and stress, and as for the number of times I almost gave up because of severe sleep deprivation and the feeling of being unable to "keep on top", it's a wonder I managed it. But the satisfaction of finally getting that degree was all the greater as a result of that stress. The reason I chose to study part-time was solely on grounds of cost. I simply could not afford to give up work and pay for the course. It worked for me in the sense that I acquired no debt. For me, debt was a definite put-off and not an option. I would have liked to have studied full-time though as I feel I could have derived more enjoyment from my learnings. My performance might even have been enhanced as a result - who knows (though I did alright). Certainly, it would have been less nerve-racking.

Anyway, enough about that. Here are the latest observations from the IFS (I find their analyses worthy of some respect) on the subject of Higher Education Reforms. Whilst I have concerns over the possibility of potential students being deterred from applying, I am heartened to note the progressive nature of the proposed system of graduate repayment of tuition fees. I think that is only right. I also recall recently reading that any debt would be written off after X years, but am unable to find that article for the life of me!

[Ladymuck]

Sorry, forgot to provide the link: IFS on Higher Education Reforms.

[DJKillaQueen]

In America where there are high tuition fees the result has been a two tier system where the more affluent go to the better universities and the poorer end up at the cheaper less achieving universities (in other words your degree is worth what you pay for it). Is that really what we want here? Where the outrageous gap between public and state school provision is mirrored in adult education too?

[DJKillaQueen]

I think any support of the tuition fee rises is an antithesis to the title of this thread.

[DJKillaQueen]

You only had to pay LM because by that time the means testing of students had stopped. Under the system I went to university under you would have qualified as a first time mature student (after having done a one year access course) and would have received (depending on your means) a full maintenance grant and full tuition fees.

And to add that under that system only reputable courses/ colleges/ polytechs and Unis were certified for the funding. So there is no way that a mickey mouse course or college could set up and get students apart from those able to pay the full costs.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In America where there are high tuition fees the

> result has been a two tier system...Is that really what we want

> here?...

No, of course not. The idea of a two-tier system, with one type of education for one type of person and another type of education for another type of person would be a massive step backwards. I am hoping this will not happen given the progressive elements of the latest proposals. However, I do think that there will be more pressure on students to work (either full or part-time) whilst undertaking their degree (though whether they are able to secure employment is another question, of course).

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I think any support of the tuition fee rises is an

> antithesis to the title of this thread.

Who, here, is supporting higher tuition fees?

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> You only had to pay LM because by that time the

> means testing of students had stopped. Under the

> system I went to university under you would have

> qualified as a first time mature student (after

> having done a one year access course) and would

> have received (depending on your means) a full

> maintenance grant and full tuition fees.

I wouldn't have received a grant anyway. I was earning far too much at one of the "Magic Circle" firms of City Solicitors LOL! They were the days!

>

> And to add that under that system only reputable

> courses/ colleges/ polytechs and Unis were

> certified for the funding. So there is no way that

> a mickey mouse course or college could set up and

> get students apart from those able to pay the full

> costs.

Ahem!!!!! Are you suggesting that I attended a Mickey Mouse institution?;-)

[DJKillaQueen]

Oh yes...Disneyland University lol >:D<

When you say the new tution fees are progressive, how are they progressive?

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-----------------------------------------------

> When you say the new tution fees are progressive,

> how are they progressive?

The new proposals will mean that the number of graduates on low incomes having their repayments go up over the years will be massively reduced. I.e. the better off will end up paying more.

Sorry door just gone...

PS: cheeky mare!

[DJKillaQueen]

But the graduates on low incomes will be repaying a bigger tuition fee anyway so there's nothing progressive about the rise itself.

And whilst the repayment structure in how it's linked to repayments might well make it more expensive for those on better incomes it doesn't change the fact that many young people, will just be put off at the prospect of having a ?36K plus debt from the age of 22.

[Ladymuck]

Hmmmm, I'm guessing you haven't read the Institute for Fiscal Studies' analysis. I think you would find it interesting (link provided above):)).

[DJKillaQueen]

PMSL....that's a page about the import of Sambucca lol

[Ladymuck]

Eh?