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

MrsBartolozzi

No there shouldn't be a graduate tax.
I (my husband and I - joint decision for me to return to education) paid for my degree tuition and living expenses. Any loans incurred were not as cheap and cheerful as the SLC loans, so why assume I got it all for free? This sounds a bit like all the road associated taxes car drivers have to pay and yet burger all gets spent on the potholed roads, it mostly goes in the "general taxes" pot.
If all the taxes went "back" into higher education then I might consider it, but as that's not likely then I say No to a graduate tax.

spiderhammond

I work for a charity doing the same job as others who don't have a degree, and earning the same amount, and I'm the same age, so it would be unfair if I had to pay a graduate tax. So my prefared order is:
Current system - students are loaned tuition fees but only repay 9% of earnings above £15,000
Graduate Tax - no tuition fees but graduates pay a permanently higher rate of tax on UK earnings
Make it free - increase tax rates across the board to pay for it.

I think the current system allows for people who don't earn big books to avoid huge repayments, plus the amount is finite.

Gareth_Lazelle

I think that the idea behind the graduate tax is that it is progressive - that is, folks with degrees on low incomes wouldn't pay much if at all extra tax, while those with degrees in the top-paid jobs would get hit,

I (obviously) don't know what you earn Spiderhammond, but if it's for a charity then I imagine you don't number amongst the top earners (most charities that I know of do not pay high wages), so I would imagine under most student-tax systems you would be fairly safe,

That said, when comparing like for like in tough-to-get (and higher earning) jobs. It is a lot harder for those without degrees to get posts when comparing them to those with degrees even if they are more competent in practice (it's amazing how much (mostly undeserved) store many employers put into degrees, and I say this as a graduate with a science degree - my suspicion is that a lot of the 'value' placed in degrees is to do with the old boys network...).

So maybe the non-graduates deserve a break in that situation, because they have to be that much better than graduates to get the jobs at all?

V_Chic_Chick

Alternatively -
- Close the bottom-end universities which attract mediocre candidates onto courses that won't help them in life (subjects like "Video Production" and "Football, Culture and Media" at universities like Cumbria, Bucks New, Thames Valley etc.)
- Where these universities are teaching genuinely useful subjects that have a clear benefit to society e.g. nursing and engineering, increase the number of places available at the remaining universities for those courses.

This would reduce the overall cost of higher education, meaning that
- There would no longer be a need to have tuition fees at all
- Students would graduate debt free
- Poor students with good grades would no longer be put off from applying for financial reasons
- Students of average intelligence would no longer be going to university and racking up debt on a course that won't help them in the long term
- University education would be restricted to those with a level of intelligence significantly above average
- Employers, finding themselves with a reduced pool of new graduates, would no longer demand degrees for jobs that don't really need them

This would be a return to the situation before all the polytechnics became universities, and those in power decided that 50% of school leavers should be going to university. It should be coupled with schemes to ensure that those from backgrounds which meant they had lower grades despite being bright (e.g. Leeds University's excellent Access scheme) could still go to university, and an increase in apprenticeships and on-the-job training.

In essence, the jam is currently spread far too thin, and should be restricted to the places where it is really needed.

Gareth_Lazelle

V_Chic_Chick wrote: »

This would reduce the overall cost of higher education, meaning that

I suspect you might find that many of the "useful subjects" are those that generally cost more per student rather than less,

So the end result of doing as you suggest is that the price per head of Uni education goes up - more so if it is true that the other students are subsidising the useful education...

One thing I would agree with is that we should move much more towards vocational qualifications - but sadly that requires a dramatic shift in mindset (i.e.: folks need to stop thinking that they are not equivalent to non-vocational qualifications),

The other aspect that we need to look at isn't volume of students at Uni, but quality of students. It is for the good of society in general if the best students go to Uni.

The previous situation was that only the rich got to go. The current situation is that almost anyone can go. We need to eliminate the duds who shouldn't be going even if they are from wealthy backgrounds, while still encouraging the bright but poor to go,

That would keep the numbers down while also ensuring that society in general gets the best possible result,

hayleythedaisy

I think people should secure a position that requires a degree (doctor, lawyer etc) through interviews and a level results, then the company should sponser the candidate through uni and tie them into a minimum term contract to pay back their fees.
This way there wouldnt be degree holders in call centres, and less people who didn't use their degree! And people could only go to uni if there was a justified reason to go, and I suspect there would be less people seeing it as a reason to go and drink!
If students want to go off their own back or can't find a sponser they should pay for themselves to go off their own backs.

Petef_2

Apologies if this is the incorrect place to put this comment:

Whilst there is a great debate about Student loans et al. The issue of the quality and value for money seems to have been missed. I have two sons at uni and my daughter is looking to go next year.

As they are usually away from home I don't think the parents see just how much free time is given to the students. I know that they are meant to 'read for a degree' but one of my sons spent the first year at home as the Uni was fairly local and there was a !!!! up with his accommodation.

Firstly he didn't start tutorials until October last year then had an extended Christmas Break that lasted well into the new year. He then broke up for Easter early had 5 weeks off went in to Uni at most 3 times and to date (16/9/2010) he still has not started hi course again. Yet he still had to pay his course fees and luckily as he was at home he didn't have to pay for accommodation. His course is a 4 year MChem course. So his loans are going to be huge (we help as much as we can but I am on a pension doing some occasional work and my wife is a learning support assistant).

So he has had to pay for a term where he had next to no tuition and the rest of the year was punctuated by long breaks. If he had been lectured instead of being 'on holiday' (he had done his course work and was spending his days on his Xbox and occasional outings for football during the day). The university in my mind is literally ripping him off because he will still be paying for this 'time off' in years to come. He in the meantime thinks its a great weeze because he hasn't actually seen the money or had to do anything other than fill in a form to get it, so doesn't appreciate that it does have to be paid back at some point in the future. Oh and yes we have explained it to him.

If they reduced the 'holidays' and spent more time working, he would be able to complete the same amount of course work in a shorter period and thereby finish the course sooner and therefore cheaper. My brother in law said the same about his son who was doing a completely different degree course. Its just money for old rope as far as the Uni's are concerned. So if he is not being tutored why is he paying. To any one else if you paid 3 grand for a course that was to last a year, you would expect to get good value for it, not two thirds of the way through be told that they don't need to do any more studying.

Has anyone else had a similar experience or is it just our family?

suited-aces

You're right pete. But if your idea was brought in, universities would be less able to bleed students dry, and lecturers would have to prise themselves away from their poor research, so it'll never happen.