Huge student fees to limit house prices further?

carolt

IveSeenTheLight wrote: »

Fair enough, the middle class, multiple children, losing benefits scenario seemed so specific and closelt likened to yourself.

While your not an owner, I understand your position and desire to provide for your children.

You may not be an owner or potential owner but you are still crucial in this discussion as you are included in the role as increasing the rental demand.

I raised the point earlier that this is likely to add to less people being able to pay off their debts / save for a deposit and is likely to simply add to the rental demand in the years ahead.

Possibly. But if all those people have less cash to pay for rent, then rents will reduce, as no-one borrows to pay the rent - it's not an investment - making BTL a less rather than more attractive proposition.

Plus far more people will choose not to rent at all, thus reducing demand further, instead staying in the family home for free, both students and graduates (those desirable "young professionals" that landlords always like to seek).

If you've just graduated and your debts are double what they would have been 5 years previously, renting a BTL flat is going to seem a lot less appealing, or even feasible. Paying off your huge debt, before the interest mounts even higher, will be your first priority.

Bad news for any landlord who rents to either students or "young professionals".



BTW, despite your desperate desire to drag me into this personally, I wouldn't 'add' anything to the existing rental demand - I currently rent.

olly300

jamespmg44 wrote: »

We need to constrain places at university to get the value of degrees back up and also because there's not enough money to fund 50% of the population going to uni - for further education, surely educational achievement at secondary level should be the most obvious entry screening requirement?

It shouldn't be the only entry screening requirement which it isn't now.

Middle class children have parents who ensure that:
1. They go to schools/colleges that teach the entire A level syllabus to a good standard.
2. They go to schools/colleges that show them how to write their UCAS form, or they will know someone who will tell them basically what to write.
3. Money to spend on the right ex-curricular activities to help them get into university and onto the course they want.
4. Money to spend on extra tuition and equipment if it's needed

Hence when they apply and get into university they immediately have an advantage.

So a simple constrain on secondary education disadvantages poorer students who go to poor schools.

Yes we should churn out less degree students in subjects like photography but tuition fees has already made students think about what subjects they should take.

jamespmg44

olly300 wrote: »

It shouldn't be the only entry screening requirement which it isn't now.

Middle class children have parents who ensure that:
1. They go to schools/colleges that teach the entire A level syllabus to a good standard.
2. They go to schools/colleges that show them how to write their UCAS form, or they will know someone who will tell them basically what to write.
3. Money to spend on the right ex-curricular activities to help them get into university and onto the course they want.
4. Money to spend on extra tuition and equipment if it's needed

Hence when they apply and get into university they immediately have an advantage.

So a simple constrain on secondary education disadvantages poorer students who go to poor schools.

Yes we should churn out less degree students in subjects like photography but tuition fees has already made students think about what subjects they should take.

Not sure what the UCAS system is like now, but when I applied over a decade ago different courses had different requirements - eg Law, Medicine, Engineering all required AAAAB at higher or better.

So for worthwhile degrees there already is a criteria that you say would disadvantage pupils from poorer schools....

Lokolo

THE_GHOULS_PARADISE wrote: »

ALL STUDENTS THlNK THEY ARE DOING AN 'AWESOME' CAREER UNTIL THEY UND UP ON THE STUDENT LANDFILL OF OF NOTHINGNESS. BUT THE BEST OF LUCK SECURING A JOB PLAYING GAMES ALL DAY LONG.

Who said I want to be a games programmer as a career?

Lokolo

neverdespairgirl wrote: »

Do you reckon the Uni types know the difference between less and fewer?

Please explain? So confused by this. (I am a little hungover though... )

Orpheo

ultrawomble wrote: »

True, but the drive to get 50% of 18-30 year olds in HE by 2010 does mean that there has been a cheapening of the worth of a degree.

I do not dispute this.

lostinrates

Lokolo wrote: »

Please explain? So confused by this. (I am a little hungover though... )

You got it wrong after talking about th- ere/y're/eir

A lot of people I go to uni don't know the different between they're, their and there..... I am pretty sure limiting university education won't change the fact that there are illiterate people out there.

Howver, I agree that the OP is stretching a bit. It might make student LL more risky with less students, but thats it.

I remember it by thinking of sand. Sand, an a beach is difficult to quantify...its not ''countable'' so there would be less sand if you took some away. But there would be fewer grains of sand in the lesser amount of sand there would also be fewer grains of sand...if you were prepared to sit there and count.

eta: this is my own aide memoire, I do not claim it is perfect! I make lots of language and grammar mistakes myself these days, though I think I'm getting a LOT better. HTH

edit: I got a there wrong in that post, hilarious!

ultrawomble

More is of course the opposite of both less and fewer

Lokolo

lostinrates wrote: »

I remember it by thinking of sand. Sand, an a beach is difficult to quantify...its not ''countable'' so there would be less sand if you took some away. But there would be fewer grains of sand in the lesser amount of sand their would also be fewer grains of sand...if you were prepared to sit there and count.

eta: this is my own aide memoire, I do not claim it is perfect! I make lots of language and grammar mistakes myself these days, though I think I'm getting a LOT better. HTH

Haha! I couldn't see where I had written less! Thanks :P

IveSeenTheLight

carolt wrote: »

BTW, despite your desperate desire to drag me into this personally, I wouldn't 'add' anything to the existing rental demand - I currently rent.

Ok, you won't 'add' to the situation, but from your post you wouldn't envisage reducing yourself from the rental demand, therefore you can still be 'included'

It will be interesting.

I foresee a huge change in the way we live and not necessarily for the better.

Peoples expectations are likely to change and possibly the most realistic outcome is that the country will become more European like in that more will rent than buy.

Certainly, I had a desire and determination to get my own place (initially to rent and then to buy) and I think the UK will still have the desire to move out of the family home.

How old do you think people will stay at home on average before they move out to a place of their own?