Tuition fee protest

chris_m

That photo wasn't from yesterday.

Procrastinator333

To add to the discussion on the entry path of accountants:

http://www.frc.org.uk/images/uploaded/documents/Key%20Facts%20and%20Trends%20in%20the%20Accountancy%20Profession%20for%20web1.pdf

Chart 23 on page 33.

And then to put the %'s in context, table 1.

So probably something like 60-70% of accountants took a graduate entry route.

wageslave

My Da was barely literate. We mocked him as he licked his pencil.

This is the honest to god truth.

I got my degree via the OU after being, barely, a sixteen year old mother.

My daughter is doing a law degree at, arguably, the best university in the country.

There are many things we don't need or deserve.

Cheap education isn't one of them.

Procrastinator333

My issue with the proposal is that in effect it is a graduate tax that is probably going to target the low-middle earners.

Yes under £21k you don't pay it back, but the interest accrues.

From:

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_labour/ASHE-2009/2009_age.pdf table 6a.

Between about the 30th quartile and the 85th quartile people earn between £21k and £48k in full time employment.

They have already stated the interest will be at a more commercial rate, some suggestions of up to 9%. The fees are £9k, you will get lent something like £3k for living expense too. So that is £36k for a 3 year course.

Lets assume it attracts a rate of 6%. That is an interest bill in year 1 of £2,160. Based on the 9% repayment over 21k, if you pay back the required amount, you have to be earning £45k just to be paying the interest back, let alone any capital. Anything under that and the value will grow.

Yes people can pay off more, but most won't. Most will always be a bit behind the curve in terms of earnings and will end up basically with a loan on which they don't even pay back the interest each year. In effect it will become a graduate tax. But who will pay that tax. Not the very low earners - sub £21k. Fair enough. But also, not the richest, the highest earners will clear it with a bonus or 2 and those with rich parents will also be fine. It is that very large group in the middle who willl be stuck with it for the 30 year term.

If they wanted to raise extra funds, a straigh graduate tax would have been fairer. Imo. Rant over.

Wookster

Really2 wrote: »

I have a question on fees which I do not know the answer to.

How many countries ranked above us pay higher fees than the UK?

Not sure, but with 46% of people going university, one must ask what is sets aside a graduate from a non graduate.

Instead of raising fees all these useless degrees (e.g. David Beckham studies/ "Media Studies") should be axed and only the top 30% of students should get to University.

Training through work should also be encouraged as it is in Germany.

wageslave

Wookster wrote: »

Not sure, but with 46% of people going university, one must ask what is sets aside a graduate from a non graduate.

Instead of raising fees all these useless degrees (e.g. David Beckham studies/ "Media Studies") should be axed and only the top 30% of students should get to University.

Training through work should also be encouraged as it is in Germany.

I couldn't agree more.

We, as a nation, voted in a coalition government as an end to extremist policies.

We voted out medja degrees and dole wallas.

I am fairly sure we didn't vote in 9k a year uni fees and censorship of the web.

Really2

Procrastinator333 wrote: »

To add to the discussion on the entry path of accountants:

http://www.frc.org.uk/images/uploaded/documents/Key%20Facts%20and%20Trends%20in%20the%20Accountancy%20Profession%20for%20web1.pdf

Chart 23 on page 33.

And then to put the %'s in context, table 1.

So probably something like 60-70% of accountants took a graduate entry route.

Not true, the two main high rank qualifications
ACCA is less than 50%, (less than 40% relavent)
40% for CIMA (only 20% relevent)
So the majority of qualified with those bodies are do not hold a degree.
The main point is you don't need a degree to get a good job in accounts you need ACCA or CIMA so if you dont study either of those you may be studying a further 3 years after leaving uni.
So a Degree is not a prerequisite for getting a good accountancy job and the majority do not go through the degree route.

fizz

Students will be students.....if there's a protest, they'll be there-it's just a doss to get out of 12 hours per week of lectures! Very happy that the new loans have been implemented because hopefully this will separate the wheat from the chaff! If you want to get a degree,better job,more money-pay for it. University is a privelige, not a right!
fizz.x
Oh and they don't all have to work in London when they've passed exams-the UK has LOTS of other places to work in!

Sapphire

N1AK wrote: »

Even if that's true it isn't the next crop of students who have had it cushy. It is the last 40+ years worth who have. No one is suggesting that the government ask past graduates to pay back grants.

Students today are feeling ripped off because previous generations who got free university education, are raiding education funding while at the same time setting themselves up for a comfy retirement by improving pensions (linking to inflation) and protecting the NHS.

Why? Because the political parties would rather screw the current generation of students (who don't offer enough votes) than anger the 40+ demographic who could cost them an election.

Why else would we protect free bus travel for the last generation, instead of helping the next one increase its ability to pay tax to fund future government spending.

Previous generations have not, in the main, had free university education, as you state with such certainty. Only a very small proportion of the population went to university in the past. It is unfair to ask hard-pressed taxpayers, especially those who have not themselves been to university, to pay the fees of 50% or more teenagers who want to go to 'uni', often as a default option, and often to study a subject that is of no practical value to society (or them).

There should be technical colleges to enable a proportion of teenagers to learn practical skills, instead of wasting time on media studies and the like. A proportion of teenagers should also be able to start at the bottom in companies and work their way up – this is a very good way to learn many skills and attain a really good career.

Procrastinator333

Really2 wrote: »

Not true, the two main high rank qualifications
ACCA is less than 50%, (less than 40% relavent)
40% for CIMA (only 20% relevent)
So the majority of qualified with those bodies are do not hold a degree.
The main point is you don't need a degree to get a good job in accounts you need ACCA or CIMA so if you dont study either of those you may be studying a further 3 years after leaving uni.
So a Degree is not a prerequisite for getting a good accountancy job and the majority do not go through the degree route.

I even pointed to the table and graph needed to look up the info. Yet you have still got it wrong.

As per table 1 and chart 23, Body, number, %:

ICAEW, 111,707,88%
ACCA 64,260, 50%
CIMA 58,370, 40%
ICAI 15,121, 94%
ICAS14,903, 94%
CIPFA 13,400, 48%

Or as a total, 188,000 are graduates out of 277,761. That is 68%. So my "guess" of 60-70% from a quick look at the numbers was a pretty good estimate.

Also, if you think ACCA and CIMA are the 2 main high rank qualifications you don't know much about accountancy.

EDIT: Agree they are not "relevant degrees", but a degree is required. The UK is actually quite uniqu in that. A lot of other countries it is an absolute requirement that you ahve done a degree in accountancy.