Quizzes & Puzzles0 min ago
University Tuition Fees
One of the first policies of the Coalition Government was to triple University fees (despite Clegg promising not to).
We were told it would save us money at a time of austerity. Students were to take loans which they would payback when they got a good job.
Except many haven't and the Government are writing off the debts.
And the write offs are greater than the money saved if they hadn't increased fees in the first place.
Just about sums up this shambles of a Coalition.
Should the fees now be reduced to save money? Scotland and Wales seem to be able to afford to set reduced fees. Or is the policy of high fees designed to deter the plebs from furthering their education.
http://
We were told it would save us money at a time of austerity. Students were to take loans which they would payback when they got a good job.
Except many haven't and the Government are writing off the debts.
And the write offs are greater than the money saved if they hadn't increased fees in the first place.
Just about sums up this shambles of a Coalition.
Should the fees now be reduced to save money? Scotland and Wales seem to be able to afford to set reduced fees. Or is the policy of high fees designed to deter the plebs from furthering their education.
http://
Answers
"Go back to the old days of means tested grants, simples, I came from poor "pleb" back ground but fortunately at the time higher education was available through the grant system. The Whole loans business has been a fiasco from top to bottom." I agree with this. The loans business has indeed been a fiasco from start to finish, and to now find that, despite...
10:19 Fri 21st Mar 2014
Someone has to pay Grom
In the last resort it is the tax payer
otherwise we dont educate the young...
"And the write offs are greater than the money saved if they hadn't increased fees in the first place."
as an ex treasurer this sentence makes no financial sense
does it make sense to a voter?
You dont save money by not increasing fees - someone else has to pay
or else you dont run the courses or you run science courses without labs ( without the science )
Perhaps this is why there are no posts on this
In the last resort it is the tax payer
otherwise we dont educate the young...
"And the write offs are greater than the money saved if they hadn't increased fees in the first place."
as an ex treasurer this sentence makes no financial sense
does it make sense to a voter?
You dont save money by not increasing fees - someone else has to pay
or else you dont run the courses or you run science courses without labs ( without the science )
Perhaps this is why there are no posts on this
It's all circular money anyway whether the fees are increased but so are write-offs or lowered (by the way plenty of students are paying off their debt). My personal view, which I'm sure is minority, is that the full grant system should be restored but entry to University should be reduced dramatically to those who are actually academically capable.
"Go back to the old days of means tested grants, simples, I came from poor "pleb" back ground but fortunately at the time higher education was available through the grant system. The Whole loans business has been a fiasco from top to bottom."
I agree with this. The loans business has indeed been a fiasco from start to finish, and to now find that, despite trebling tuition fees, the cost of writing of the debt of unpaid student loans is now exceeding the income derived from raising the fees in the first place tells you the scheme is in a mess.
I agree with this. The loans business has indeed been a fiasco from start to finish, and to now find that, despite trebling tuition fees, the cost of writing of the debt of unpaid student loans is now exceeding the income derived from raising the fees in the first place tells you the scheme is in a mess.
Prudie, I agree. I can't understand why people think a Conservative government would want to prevent poor people from getting an education. That smacks of a victim mentality. Grammar schools were designed to give bright children from poorer homes a good education - and an opportunity to go to university.
Teh problem with the grant system was that the middle classes were caught in the middle as grant is done on parents income, BUT you are an adult, your parents (not wealthy) wont pay what can you do?
I thought grants stayed with you for life or until you pay? So how are they written off, unless huge numbers are dying.
I thought grants stayed with you for life or until you pay? So how are they written off, unless huge numbers are dying.
"Of course it's to deter the poor from getting an education."
How's that then, Canary?
A person's current financial status is not a consideration. If you are poor you borrow some money to go to university and if you remain poor (i.e. earn less than £16,910 in the coming financial year) you pay nothing back. Far from deterring the poor the system seems designed to deter those who will become slightly better off.
How's that then, Canary?
A person's current financial status is not a consideration. If you are poor you borrow some money to go to university and if you remain poor (i.e. earn less than £16,910 in the coming financial year) you pay nothing back. Far from deterring the poor the system seems designed to deter those who will become slightly better off.
And I forgot to add that if you manage to remain poor until you turn 65 (or until 25 or 30 years have elapsed, depending on when the loan was granted) it is written off anyway.
I believe many of the loans that have already been written off are those owed by graduates whom the government cannot trace. Many of these are foreign students who have subsequently left the UK without paying. You know, those of them who are contributing enormously to the UK’s economy by coming here and without whom the university system could not survive.
I believe many of the loans that have already been written off are those owed by graduates whom the government cannot trace. Many of these are foreign students who have subsequently left the UK without paying. You know, those of them who are contributing enormously to the UK’s economy by coming here and without whom the university system could not survive.
YMB, grants where exactly that, grants, no repayment necessary. The thinking was that ultimately the student would become a tax payer. For my own part I reckon I've repaid what I cost the state many times over. The thing is though, to get a grant you had to be on a proper course and that meant you had to pass aptitude tests etc. Since Knoo laybore set about dumbing the whole thing down with degrees in eastenders etc the chances that a "student" ever earns enough to repay the loan are remote.
Quite so, 3Ts, hence the current system.
It is clearly not sustainable to send vast numbers of young people on another three years education free of charge. What needs to be done is the number of courses dramatically reduced and the number of universities (many of which are not worthy of the title) shut down. Then tertiary education can be reserved for those people who are (a) capable of undertaking it and (b) actually need it to pursue their chosen career. Blair’s idea of sending 50% of people to university was ridiculous when bearing in mind that in the UK only about 10% of jobs at most require degree level education. As an example in 2003 there were more UK university courses available in Forensic Science than there were Forensic Science posts (not vacancies, posts) in the UK and France put together. So the vast, vast majority of youngsters taking what is a fairly specialised course had no chance of gaining a position in that area of work and probably little chance of getting a job which would see a decent return for the Exchequer had the course been provided “free”. It is dishonest to instil false hope into such youngsters when many of them with such a degree will end up serving hamburgers or filling shelves.
A sensible use of limited resources? I think not.
It is clearly not sustainable to send vast numbers of young people on another three years education free of charge. What needs to be done is the number of courses dramatically reduced and the number of universities (many of which are not worthy of the title) shut down. Then tertiary education can be reserved for those people who are (a) capable of undertaking it and (b) actually need it to pursue their chosen career. Blair’s idea of sending 50% of people to university was ridiculous when bearing in mind that in the UK only about 10% of jobs at most require degree level education. As an example in 2003 there were more UK university courses available in Forensic Science than there were Forensic Science posts (not vacancies, posts) in the UK and France put together. So the vast, vast majority of youngsters taking what is a fairly specialised course had no chance of gaining a position in that area of work and probably little chance of getting a job which would see a decent return for the Exchequer had the course been provided “free”. It is dishonest to instil false hope into such youngsters when many of them with such a degree will end up serving hamburgers or filling shelves.
A sensible use of limited resources? I think not.
The Government Loans scheme also means that a large proportion of future generations are conditioned from an early age into thinking that having large debts is normal.
That combined with Credit Cards, Phone contracts and sky high property prices may be intended to 'enslave' generations into servitude.
Or, it may just hasten the time when large numbers of 'working poor' and unemployed put two fingers up to the whole shooting match.
The other scam of the growth in tertiary education funded by these loans is that billions of that money has been invested in colleges and uni facilities.
If in future, student numbers dwindle then many of them will simply go bust.
That combined with Credit Cards, Phone contracts and sky high property prices may be intended to 'enslave' generations into servitude.
Or, it may just hasten the time when large numbers of 'working poor' and unemployed put two fingers up to the whole shooting match.
The other scam of the growth in tertiary education funded by these loans is that billions of that money has been invested in colleges and uni facilities.
If in future, student numbers dwindle then many of them will simply go bust.
I have to agree with NJ ^^
The university situation has become a joke, no way is it credible that 50% of school leavers are capable of getting a good degree. A poor degree is worse than none at all. The Universities have become an industry in their own right but there are just not enough suitable students to fill all the places.
The university situation has become a joke, no way is it credible that 50% of school leavers are capable of getting a good degree. A poor degree is worse than none at all. The Universities have become an industry in their own right but there are just not enough suitable students to fill all the places.
Some of the reasoning was also to cover up that because of the massive drop off in engineering and manufacturing idustries there were no apprenticeships or opportunities for those who were suited to Techs and Polys. So those colleges became Universities and took on the same calibre of students but churned them out with dumbed down and sometimes irrelevant degrees. Oh and of course it keeps them off the youth unemployment figures for 3 years.
I remember many moons ago a teacher telling my parents I was university material .I longed to go but it wasn't to be .My wage was needed at home .
I would have loved to have studied and got a degree in Eng Lit .
That's all water under the bridge now and I get slightly annoyed when I see these students taking degrees in Mickey Mouse or Star Trek just because someone has told them they are really clever enough to do so,never thinking they are going to rack up huge debts and haven't a gnats chance of getting a job at the end of it .
I also remember my son going for an apprenticeship with British Gas some years ago .
He didn't have a degree and was turned down although he had good A level results in the relevant subjects . Speaking to someone from BG later ,he told me he would rather have someone who wasn't afraid of getting their hands dirty and learning on the job than someone with a degree whom when it came down to the nitty gritty hadn't got a clue !
Said son now runs his own business (without a degree )and is very successful in his field of work.
I would have loved to have studied and got a degree in Eng Lit .
That's all water under the bridge now and I get slightly annoyed when I see these students taking degrees in Mickey Mouse or Star Trek just because someone has told them they are really clever enough to do so,never thinking they are going to rack up huge debts and haven't a gnats chance of getting a job at the end of it .
I also remember my son going for an apprenticeship with British Gas some years ago .
He didn't have a degree and was turned down although he had good A level results in the relevant subjects . Speaking to someone from BG later ,he told me he would rather have someone who wasn't afraid of getting their hands dirty and learning on the job than someone with a degree whom when it came down to the nitty gritty hadn't got a clue !
Said son now runs his own business (without a degree )and is very successful in his field of work.
