MSE News: Tuition fees to hit £9,000 as Government wins vote

Hellz85

Hi Kayleigh

We did the same degree! I see that on the thisisbath site that it will cost more to go to Bath Spa that Bath Uni! I'm sure you'll agree that this is not value for money! We had lectures/seminars that couldn't go ahead because there weren't enough rooms, even though you could clearly see there were- so much for admin staff. I enjoyed the course itself. The lecturers in SofR were very good but I started my degree majoring in music which I dropped because it was so poor and should never be called a degree. I also planned to be a teacher but due to the lack of support from the schools in Bath and the surrounding areas I chose a different path. Luckily I'm now in a job that I love.

I didn't enjoy 'university life' but by going I met my partner and I've now lived in Bath for 6 years. Hey, only another 6 years and 9 months until I am free of the student debt! Good luck with getting placements in nearby schools.

Helen

bestpud

AndyGuil wrote: »

The fees are not up front so they exclude no one from going to university who get the grades. The payment period is longer and the salary at which you start paying back is higher which means you pay back less per month. As before the loan is different from bank loans, so it does not effect loan, credit card or mortgage applications in the same way. Only the monthly outgoing is considered and as that is so small it has insignificant effect. The new fee system solves all the funding problems universities have and it takes the burden off people who chose/choose not to go to university and therefore did not benefit.

What I don't understand about this is they say it doesn't affect credit rating and so people can still get mortgages etc, but surely it does indirectly affect the credit available to them?

Income is reduced at source so less income = less available credit...?

Please tell me if I'm missing something but it seems to me those who leave with £40k upwards of debt will be affected by that debt for a long time to come...?

I'm not saying that's wrong, necessarily - rather I think it is misleading to suggest this debt has no impact on future borrowing.

bestpud

ghostmadlittlemiss wrote: »

The library has been running perfectly well on the fees we already pay for many years and is unable to expand any more as it's in a listed building. So out of the new fees, maybe we'll get more electronic journal access and have our lectures continue to tell us to remember to use the books as well.

I don't think they do run it with the current or previous fees tbh...

As far as I am aware, the unis are receiving less government funding and are replacing that with fees from students. The overall running costs etc are the same but they receive the funding in a different way.

The fees we pay now do not cover the cost of HE - not by a long shot!! It has always been heavily subsidised by the tax payer.

blue_monkey_2

Hellz85 wrote: »

The part that angers me is the tuition itself. The Uni I went to (Bath Spa) will probably be charging £6700 a year under the new fees. By the 3rd year tuition went down to 5 hours a week. At the time I think the fees were £1000-£1500. £6700 for 5 hours tuition a week?! I can't remember how many weeks there were in the year but for the sake of this we'll call it 30. That's about £45 per lecture/seminar!?! That doesn't take into account lectures being cancelled. Education should be of value- not a complete rip off!

So why can students not get a job for the rest of the time and finance their education instead of getting the loan? Just what are they doing with the rest of the time?

My friend has just done her Phd in her 'spare' time around a full time and demanding job that often takes her away from home for weeks at a time.

I think these new rules will actually wheedle out the ones that WANT to be at Uni, not the ones that are tagging along for the free ride.

If an ADULT wants to stay at school they, or their parents, should be financing it themselves not expecting the state to pay for them, they have already had free education for the last 15 or so years. Why should the state keep on subsidising children and adults forever more.

I hope that there is a boycott of uni in 2012 and those that WANT to be there will get the degrees they deserve and there will be jobs for them at the end of it as they will not be fighting every Tom, !!!!!! and Harry for those jobs. I'd happily go without if my children wanted to go to Uni - that is what we do for our kids, after all.

And as for EMA - don't even get me started on that!! Whose idea was it to pay kids to go to school - they should be at school or college because they want to. And if their parents cannot afford it then get a Saturday or a paper round to help them pay for it. It's all take, take, take and no give in this country. And lord forbid if anyone wants you to pay your own way through life.

Would be interesting to see how much the 'average' student spends each week on fags, beer and take-aways, maybe if they spent it on their fees instead of crap, they would not come away from uni with so much debt!!

blue_monkey_2

princess wrote: »

Well I feel sad about it.
DS has for a long time been wanting to study medicine. A 5 or 6 year course, coming in at around £50,000 fees, plus all 'extras' like living expenses. He would have been the first person in his family to go to university. Obviously to study medicine you need fantastic grades, but all things being equal he was expected to achieve them.
We/know how it works, we know you dont pay it back till you are earning etc, but the problem is this...
The 'honest poor' have a fear of debt. And a fear of failure. I cant encourage him to take out a debt of that much money, in fact I dont want him to go anymore. I have no idea if he'd even pass once he got there. How miserable to have that debt hanging over you if you failed after 4 years. He himself cant imagine having that sort of debt increasing with interest. It might seem nothing if you have plenty, but we have never had a debt like that for anything ever.
He is as a last resort looking into army sponsorship, they will pay some of the money if you sign up:(
Which is also not at all what I want for him.
Nobody like us would want their son to be in debt for this sort of amount. And I can only presume that society does not want people like my son becoming a doctor, which seems like another kick in the teeth on top of the fees themselves.

But how negative is this post? And it seems to be all about what YOU want. What about what your son wants? He clearly si desperate to go if he will even consider signing up to get into Uni. If he was a doctor he would be able to pay the loan off easily so do you think he cannot do it so do not want him to go?

How much socialising do you think he would do? tell him to save the money instead. Give him a good work ethic instead of him P*ssing the money up the wall.

Life is going to be full of loans - getting a house for example, it's an investment, you might not pay your mortgage you get chucked out. Is he never going to buy a house then?

You cannot earn enough to pay the student loan it gets written off.

At least your son can say 'I TRIED' what can he say if he doesn't go for it? 'Could I have made it?' Life is full of risks, if you never hold of the ropes then you'll always be left at the bottom of the cliff wondering if you could have made it to the top. And that is not fair on your son. It seems that you are the only one stopping him because YOU do not want him to have the debt.

AndyGuil

bestpud wrote: »

What I don't understand about this is they say it doesn't affect credit rating and so people can still get mortgages etc, but surely it does indirectly affect the credit available to them?

Income is reduced at source so less income = less available credit...?

Please tell me if I'm missing something but it seems to me those who leave with £40k upwards of debt will be affected by that debt for a long time to come...?

I'm not saying that's wrong, necessarily - rather I think it is misleading to suggest this debt has no impact on future borrowing.

You are right. The outgoings per month are taken into account but not the total loan amount. Say you earnt £30k per year, that means you are £9k over the threshold. At a 9% repayment rate that is £67.50 per month or £810 per year. That will come off your salary before it is considered for credit cards, mortgages etc. However it is the monthly outgoings taken into account, not the total loan. The reason for this is because the loan is not repayable if you are out of work or do not earn enough. It is effectively treated like a tax in a sense.

AndyGuil

laughingboy wrote: »

How will the new repayment structure affect previous students?

Currently it's 9% of any above £15000 and 25 years to pay it back. Will this now change to 9% of everything above £21000 and 30 years for graduates? (I graduated in 2007)

This seems grossly unfair to (potentially) retrospectively change loan conditions. If they can change it now what's to stop it being changed again in the future? I can see this in the pipeline...

" we will now increase the interest rate ..."
" student loans will never be written off ..."
" we will now take it from your pension ..."

It has no effect on previous or current students. They go on as before. Even if you join a uni with a tuition fee of £6k and they up it to £9k a year later those existing students' fees will not go up, only with inflation.

setmefree2

ManicMum wrote: »

do you feel the anger?

Me

laughingboy

AndyGuil wrote: »

It has no effect on previous or current students. They go on as before. Even if you join a uni with a tuition fee of £6k and they up it to £9k a year later those existing students' fees will not go up, only with inflation.

I was talking specifically about the loan repayments may or may not change for previous students (graduates) not about the new fees!

Anyone know the answer to this because I can't find it anywhere...

SurfBowlSC

The key is that only a small percentage of students will be charged the full 9k and they will be the ones from the more afluent backgrounds, with parents who can probably afford to support poor little Tarquin while he gets hammered every evening and "studies" with a hangover.

Everyone else will still get some form of subisdy. No doubt the government will still !!!! that up in the same way as the child tax credit shambles though.

Just as a thought, maybe it should be the Art, Media, Klingon courses that are the higher end of the fee scale in order to stop them becoming an excuse for not going out and getting a job.