MSE News: Student tuition fees could treble by 2012

Lokolo

divastrop wrote: »

Why should people pay taxes to fund the NHS if they never get ill? Why should people pay taxes to fund the military if they themselves are pacifists? Why should people pay taxes to fund the education system as a whole if they don't, and never intend to, have children of their own?

This is wrong. Everyone is entitled to the BASICS, which taxpayers pay for. Education is given as a basic up to (now) 18. This has been provided. Everyone is entitled to basic healthcare under NHS. Everyone is entitled to safety (police and fire).

University is not a basic. You are not entitled to go to university. It is an option which you should pay for. Just like private healthcare, private security etc.

angelofmel

I got the impression the restriction on the repayment after was to stop those who enter into really highly paid jobs or those from richer families paying it off quickly to miss the interest becuase they can afford to.
The article mentioned something about there'll be an assesment as to why the person is paying off more than the rate they should be paying on thier salary, so that if someone has been saving or working extra to pay it off quicker (for example) they'd possibly be allowed that, fine free.
thats just my take of the info on the article anyway.

personally i dont have a problem with these proposals. as long as the loans are there. i would've thought that if anyone who has the brains to study for a degree, they have the brains to work out the pros, cons and the potential that a degree should put them in a job with a wage that will pay that loan off in reasonable time, with appropriate work experience and the various other things that are needed these days to impress employers. i hope that the increase will get rid of those who go to uni for some fun, waste the money on nights out and rush essays the night before the deadline. perhaps the debt would make these people think twice about why they are going to uni.

Lokolo

angelofmel wrote: »

I got the impression the restriction on the repayment after was to stop those who enter into really highly paid jobs or those from richer families paying it off quickly to miss the interest becuase they can afford to.
The article mentioned something about there'll be an assesment as to why the person is paying off more than the rate they should be paying on thier salary, so that if someone has been saving or working extra to pay it off quicker (for example) they'd possibly be allowed that, fine free.
thats just my take of the info on the article anyway.

personally i dont have a problem with these proposals. as long as the loans are there. i would've thought that if anyone who has the brains to study for a degree, they have the brains to work out the pros, cons and the potential that a degree should put them in a job with a wage that will pay that loan off in reasonable time, with appropriate work experience and the various other things that are needed these days to impress employers. i hope that the increase will get rid of those who go to uni for some fun, waste the money on nights out and rush essays the night before the deadline. perhaps the debt would make these people think twice about why they are going to uni.

You would hope so, but people join this forum complaining that they didn't know their student loan had interest added onto it! :rotfl:

divastrop

Lokolo wrote: »

This is wrong. Everyone is entitled to the BASICS, which taxpayers pay for. Education is given as a basic up to (now) 18. This has been provided. Everyone is entitled to basic healthcare under NHS. Everyone is entitled to safety (police and fire).

University is not a basic. You are not entitled to go to university. It is an option which you should pay for. Just like private healthcare, private security etc.

So the Military is a basic, is it? Cosmetic surgery on the NHS, is that a basic? Bailing out the banks when they screw up and lose obscene amounts of money, is that a basic?
If tax money is only meant to cover the 'basics', then why aren't the likes of David Cameron and his cronies on minimum wage?

If health care is a basic requirement, then who is going to provide it when there is a shortage of qualified health professionals, as only the very well off can afford to go to university? Who is going to teach in schools?

Lokolo

divastrop wrote: »

So the Military is a basic, is it? Cosmetic surgery on the NHS, is that a basic? Bailing out the banks when they screw up and lose obscene amounts of money, is that a basic?
If tax money is only meant to cover the 'basics', then why aren't the likes of David Cameron and his cronies on minimum wage?

If health care is a basic requirement, then who is going to provide it when there is a shortage of qualified health professionals, as only the very well off can afford to go to university? Who is going to teach in schools?

- You only get cosmetic surgery in special cases (for example, you can't get your boobs upgraded from C -> DD)
- Of course military is a basic! It's country protection. You really want the next Hitler to invade our country?

You just have something against tories to be honest. You aren't even making resonable arguments against me, just venting.

For starters, in this new structure, why can only the "well off" go to university? Loans are available to all (within reason, no second degrees etc.), and grants are available to those on low income. So how will the poorer lose out in all of this?

Oldernotwiser

jrawle wrote: »

Does anyone have experience of getting a mortgage when they have a student loan outstanding? As far as I can see (and this is after analysing the situation myself, I'm not an apologist for the government!) a student loan isn't the same as a mortgage or credit card debt because it carries no risk. The repayments are tied to salary, so even if interest rates go up to 99%, you don't have to pay any more (unlike people with variable mortgages, who would be screwed). Likewise, if you lose your job or take lower-paid work, the repayments stop or are reduced accordingly.

Therefore, the only way that an outstanding student loan should affect a mortgage application is to reduce your available monthly income by a small amount. For someone on £25,000, it's £30 per month. I think it's unjust for mortgage lenders even to be allowed to take this into account, unless they are also going to look at whether people smoke (which costs much more per month) and how much people's mobile phone contracts cost (many people pay £30 or more).

Many of the comments in the media after the announcements are how the fees will saddle young people with debt so they will never be able to afford a mortgage, and I simply think that's nonsense. The proposed system it closer to a graduate tax payable for 30 years. I don't like tuition fees and wish university could be free, but unless we are going to have it restricted to 10-15% of the population again (which isn't going to happen) free education is unsustainable.

I agree with much of what you're written, except that someone earning £25,000 would be paying back £75 per month.

jrawle

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I agree with much of what you're written, except that someone earning £25,000 would be paying back £75 per month.

It's £75 under the present system, that's true. Under the proposed new system it would be £30.

To be honest, I don't think a lot of people will ever pay back the full cost of their tuition before the 30 years are up, let alone the interest, meaning a state subsidy, which is fine. I'd rather the means testing was on what the graduate earns, not on what their parents earned before they started university.

Someone earning (the index-linked equivalent of) £30,000 throughout their career will pay back £24,300 in total, which won't cover the £6000 fee and living costs for three years. The Browne report explains that this sort of subsidy is intentional.

billbecks

I've asked so many people this question but no one in authority seems to know the correct answer " if you are already in Uni, will the 2012 hikes apply. Help someone!!!!

jrawle

billbecks wrote: »

I've asked so many people this question but no one in authority seems to know the correct answer " if you are already in Uni, will the 2012 hikes apply. Help someone!!!!

Well it has been addressed in this thread, supported by a quote from the BIS website and a consideration of what happened when fees were changed in the past. Maybe that's not authoritative enough for you?

Whether or not you think the higher fees are fair, the point of them is to allow different institutions to charge different amounts to make more of a market, and give students something to consider when choosing a university. How can that apply to someone already at university? Ultimately people can choose whether or not to go to university in light of the new fees. People already there wouldn't be able to choose, which is good reason why the new fee levels will not apply to them.

You also have to consider how extra-complicated it would be to have some people attend university partly under one system and partly under another. Would the loan for the first year have to be paid back at a £15,000 salary but the remainder not until you earn £21,000? Would different interest rates apply to different parts of the loan? Written off after how many years? Need I say more?

bluenose1

mum2many wrote: »

Does anyone know how it works if your already at uni when the hike comes in?

My daughter is applying to go from sept 11 so could possibly have 1 year at the 3K level then 2 at the 6K level.

We are on average wage but would be unable to help her financially (husband been out of work for almost 2 years so got mortgage arears to pay off)

As we are in the middle money wise, not rich enough to have no money worries(like the mps bringing it in) and not on little or no wage (like SOME(not all) benefit scroungers) i dont think we would get any help through scholarships etc

I am in a similar position, the good news is that it appears it will only be for new entrants after 2012 so they should pay the reduced fee, that is also what happened the last time the fees were increased. The bad news for me is I have two younger children who will be paying the increase if they go to Uni.

I went to a Uni Open Day the other week and we were advised they are expecting bumper no of applicants. The Pharmacy degree that my son is hoping to do is already massively oversubscribed.