Another one in ten

JayScottGreenspan

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Changes are needed to HE:

1. Scrap tuition fees before they get out of hand. £3k a year would have stopped me going to uni at all. Some Vice Chancellors now see ££££ signs in their eyes and want to double or triple this. If Graduates are a national asset then the government should fund their education. As they are to earn more later with their qualification then raise the money from taxation
2. An end to pointless expansion of degrees. We have serious subjects under threat as their departments are shrunk or closed, whilst social science nonsense degrees increase.
3. A vast expansion in apprenticeships. Lets train people to do skilled jobs.

+1

Couldn't agree more.

stephen163

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Think about the average income graduates earn in the 5 years after leaving Uni, then think about the size of repayments from Tuition Fees and student loans. Interest free and proportionate are irrelevant when repaying the thing will keep you broke into your 30s.

In comparison to the increased salary you will probably be earning, how will student loan repayments keep you broke?

With the present system, you pay 9% of anything over £1250/month. So say you are on £1250/month, or £15k a year. You pay nothing!

If you are on £1500/month, or £18k a year, you pay just £22 a month

If you are the average graduate salary of around £23k a year, you pay £60 a month.

Then say you hit the big time, and are on 50k a year - then you pay £262 a month, but your total salary then is over £4k a month.

Is is just me who thinks this is an extremely fair system? I don't see how it can make you broke! And as Martin Lewis keeps pointing out, the financially savvy thing to do is to not pay it off unless you really have to.

StevieJ

stephen163 wrote: »

Why would £3k a year tuition fees stop you going to uni? Why do people moan that they 'can't afford' to pay back their student loan when it is interest free and proportionate to the amount of money you earn?

I know it would be nice if University was free, but it's just not sustainable and we will get left behind as a country if it's not properly funded. I don't understand why the taxpayer on £13k a year should subsidise a future Doctor, Lawyer, Engineer or Scientist. It might be good for the country to encourage more people to uni by making it free, but the selfish ambition of the individual and the incentive of greater future earnings is symbiotic with the future success of the country too.

Don't wish to encourage more, way to many as it is.

tomterm8

Personally, I think tuition fees should be increased. Substantially. But at the same turn, meritocratic grants should be introduced so the brightest students in subjects we actually need get tuition fees and living grants paid for them.

StevieJ

stephen163 wrote: »

In comparison to the increased salary you will probably be earning, how will student loan repayments keep you broke?

Most students are only achieving the same positions as 'A' or 'O' levels would have opened up for them a while ago. Three years of wasted time (having a good laugh) and building up debts, does keep the dole queue down though.

stephen163

tomterm8 wrote: »

Personally, I think tuition fees should be increased. Substantially. But at the same turn, meritocratic grants should be introduced so the brightest students in subjects we actually need get tuition fees and living grants paid for them.

This is already happening in the subject areas with the most acute skills shortages. If you do a power engineering course at one of 6 or 7 Universities, you can apply to the Power Academy and get £2,200 a year for yourself plus tuition fees paid (as well as work placements). Little things like this do make make a difference.

lostinrates

tomterm8 wrote: »

Personally, I think tuition fees should be increased. Substantially. But at the same turn, meritocratic grants should be introduced so the brightest students in subjects we actually need get tuition fees and living grants paid for them.

I don't know what the situation is now, but I rmemebr at the time there were a few people from well off families who were eligable for grants because their step parents hadn't adopted them...which kept themunder a grant threshold.

People will always slip through the net, being just over eligability which will prevent them going or under in not straightforward ways.

stephen163

lostinrates wrote: »

I don't know what the situation is now, but I rmemebr at the time there were a few people from well off families who were eligable for grants because their step parents hadn't adopted them...which kept themunder a grant threshold.

People will always slip through the net, being just over eligability which will prevent them going or under in not straightforward ways.

I think the fairest way is to somehow get industry to sponsor the grant system. If a company can see a big skills shortage, it is in their interest to attract more people into their industry. Then, the company themselves can hold interviews and pick the best applicants themselves. I guess you've got to already be at uni to apply, but it is an incentive for young people to do a useful degree nonetheless.