'Is it time for a graduate tax?' poll discussion

digikidz

pteron wrote: »

Of course, the money you are paid also comes from your employer, so adding the graduate tax to the employer simply means they will pay you less.

I'm SAHM and my husband is self employed. He has had several apprentices over recent years, if someone self employed can take the time, money and effort to take on an apprentice and train someone from the outset, why can't large corporations any more?

Also, the tax would only be paid by employers for employees who are graduates. If your employer starts to take on people who aren't graduates and let them learn on the job, then the tax wouldn't be payable. Then there would be more openings for young people without them having to go to university, there would be less demand for university places and the balance of yesteryear could be restored.

craig86

digikidz wrote: »

I agree - but who offers apprenticeships nowadays? And many employers now stipulate a degree to be considered for many jobs that previously you wouldn't have needed them for.

I really don't want my children to have to rack up serious amounts of debt for the privilege of going to university in order to gain a degree just so that an employer will even consider them. But really, the job prospects of anyone 'bright' but not exceptional aren't there if they don't go to university. Want to get ahead in a bank, many corporate jobs, accountancy or whatever .... you can't get a job after A levels and be trained up any more .... you have to have a degree to get that job .... and then be trained up.

I am in my forties and people of my age could do that, (I know many people now who say that they wouldn't have been able to get into the job they are doing, and pretty high ranking jobs at that, if they were leaving school now) but not any more. So if you want your child to keep their prospects open, you really have to be looking to getting them into university.

I do think the onus should be on employers to give school leavers the opportunity to train and progress without having to go to University first. And not just in the typical vocational jobs either (construction, catering and so on) but in lab work, food technology, production, engineering and so on.

I agree. I certainly don't blame kids for feeling they have to go to university; that's the way things are at the moment. It's not their fault that there are so few apprenticeships and that so many jobs "require" a degree - even when it's not needed to actually do the job.

As you say, the onus is on employers not to be so insistent on applicants having a degree and to have more apprenticeships and training schemes. However, there will only be a change in culture when government policy changes. If the government said that they are making available grants for X medical students, Y science students, Z maths students, etc. which will be given out according to ability (with the numbers determined annually on the basis of need, probably by an independent body) - and that everyone else wishing to go to university would have to pay the full amount - that would cut the number of graduates and force employers to drop the requirement of having a degree. They could also give tax incentives for employers to run training schemes, and - as a previous poster said - improve careers advice in schools.

digikidz

But what that would do is price out the low paid, yet again, which is something that the system has been working for years to overcome. Those with deep pockets would be able to afford university places even without a grant.

Tax incentives for employers to train IS a good idea. I definitely think this needs a two pronged approach.

jackofhearts

matchmade wrote: »

they spend way, way too much time working in term-time on low-paid jobs rather than concentrating on their studies. This is a massive change from my time at university, when modest grants and a willingness to go into debt meant almost no one worked when they were meant to be studying.

Although I agree with some of what you are saying, Matchmade, I feel it is a little unfair to criticise current students who, due to the decision of past governments, no longer have access to grants (however modest) and so must work to fund their own studies?

Students today can't win - if they work they are at risk of being accused of neglecting their studies, if they depend on loans to get by they are accused of being 'scroungers' who are contributing to debt-ridden Britain.

craig86

digikidz wrote: »

But what that would do is price out the low paid, yet again, which is something that the system has been working for years to overcome. Those with deep pockets would be able to afford university places even without a grant.

Tax incentives for employers to train IS a good idea. I definitely think this needs a two pronged approach.

I understand your point but taxpayers can only be expected to subsidise a degree that's going to have some benefit (not necessarily financial) to society.

popadom

minerva_windsong wrote: »

more that the pressure that it's the two extremes of 'go to university and get a fantastic job and be made of money, or don't and end up living on benefits' is not helpful to the kids who aren't that academic.
.

my sister is just starting college now, and she is 16 and so worried if she dosnt get in to uni-her life is over...thats really worrying... it was pumped down my throat "fail your exams and your going to be on benfits" . Im not great at most subjects-but the ones i am good at, i excel.

Ive tried looking for training-but there isnt any! I thought there would be more apprentships... and i think there should be.:D

MSE_Martin

THE ORDER HAS NOW BEEN CHANGED

This should test whether the incumbent is winning by choice or default.

The vote was

Current system - students are loaned tuition fees but only repay 9% of earnings above £15,0002500 pts

Graduate Tax - no tuition fees but graduates pay a permanently higher rate of tax on UK earnings1351 pts

Make it free - increase tax rates across the board to pay for it.1264 pts


The new order is the reverse

So far, 1705 people have ranked the options

Headieboy

matchmade wrote: »

Speaking as a university lecturer in English, I'm afraid the quality of students has been dropping since the early 1990s. The best are as good as they've ever been, but the "long tail" has been getting worse and there are more and more of them with the same number of teaching staff. At the same time the unviersity sector is being casualised, as happened in the FE sector in the 1980s: I estimate 50% of staff are now on short-term contracts.

The principal weaknesses of contemporary students are:
- they spend way, way too much time working in term-time on low-paid jobs rather than concentrating on their studies. This is a massive change from my time at university, when modest grants and a willingness to go into debt meant almost no one worked when they were meant to be studying.
- they don't know how to write essays - they are used to a modular, cut-and-paste tick-box culture and spoon-fed teaching at A-level, so the majority lack independence of thought and simply have no idea how to use a library or research a topic properly. They think lecturers are there to tell them what to do and what to think. Unbelievably, you can get an A-level in English nowadays and only read 3 or 4 books over the two years of your course.
- the standards of spelling and grammar have slumped. They are very rarely taught in schools now. What are English secondary school teachers actually doing in their classes?

In my view university entrance should be made much harder and the numbers of students at least halved. The ones who don't get in shuold seek on the job tranining and vocational part-time courses, just as people used to do. There are too many mickey-mouse degrees and too many unprepared students who really need to get a life and do something more productive with their time. By making the university sector smaller and more selective, with higher standards, a degree might mean something again, and the HE sector would cost less all round.

As someone who is also employed by a University (but not in an Academic role), I wholeheartedly agree with these comments. The last Labour government put far too much effort in trying to get everyone into University to the detriment of the traditional trades. There are too many 'mickey-mouse' degrees on offer these days and too many teenagers are being 'pushed' into going to Uni, with many of them not finishing the course for one reason or another.

Some of those that do complete their degree course and graduate think they will be able to get a good job just because they have a degree. I have a few colleagues who think they should be paid more than someone else simply because they have a degree but they don't take into account that the other person has 20 years experience!

LizaMay

Students are duped into believing that university will lead to a better paid job, regardless of subject or results. Employers are being duped into believing they need a graduate to perform mundane jobs. Biggest loser - the taxpayer.

MartinWickham

As a society we are cheating our young people in terms of their education and expectations because, over recent ‘populist’ years, we have dishonestly and negligently failed to discriminate between the degrees which are worthwhile and those that are not.

We are cheating our academically most able because we are charging them for worthwhile study for which WE as a society should pay because WE would reasonably expect to reap a wealth of benefits in the years to come. If their careers progress, THEY WILL get to pay more tax through current taxation legislation.

We should be ashamed that we are doubly cheating our academically less able. We are not only charging them for a ‘dumbed down’ degree but we are also taking three years of their time for a qualification which is likely to be of little or no consequential employment value or remuneration advantage. Their qualification is not about opening doors, it more honestly resembles yet more obstacles and filtering leading to the very same jobs which previously required no degree.

In a decent society, education appropriate to the needs of its young people would be a gift, the same gift given to and freely enjoyed by the greedy ‘baby boomers’, those who are now stealing it from our younger generation.