'Don't pay your kids tuition fees upfront' Discussion Area

setmefree2

The_One_Who wrote: »

But I also don't believe in trying to scare prospective students who by and large have no option but to take a loan unless they want to take a few (or a lot) years out to work and save.

But I thought you wanted students to be fully informed....

Anyways, I'm just trying to vocalise why parents (and instinctively students) find this loan system so scary, it's the tax.....

Soubrette

setmefree2 wrote: »

But I thought you wanted students to be fully informed....

Anyways, I'm just trying to vocalise why parents (and instinctively students) find this loan system so scary, it's the tax.....

I don't find it scary - I find it enraging :mad:

I won't be voting LibDem again and I'm looking forward to my local MP crashing out in the next election and I shall be telling them this on the doorstep. They've already lost a very local election, some seats in the county elections and hopefully he'll lose his seat in the forthcoming general election.

Don't tell lies to voters LibDem - it'll bite you where it hurts!!

melancholly

setmefree2 wrote: »

But my main point regarding this thread is this. What sort of demotivating effect will paying 41p in the £1 at such a low threshold have on 2012 students earning potential? And how do you quantify that when looking at the impact of paying Tuition Fees upfront?

you see, to me, it seems like it doesn't matter what anyone says, you're going to disagree because you're mad about the situation. you can't understand that most parents don't have a spare £45K and that your situation is the exception rather than the rule.

it doesn't matter how much regular posters have stated that they don't like the changes. however, that doesn't mean we want to put anyone off going to uni unless they come from a wealthy background.

all i want are the facts to be made clear and students to be encouraged to understand the loan system as much as possible. that doesn't require scaremongering or sugar coating, but if you're going in full tilt on scaremongering with a dozen posts at a time, then the other side of the arguement needs putting across.

however, you seem to support parents making all the decisions and controlling their children rather than helping develop them into adults who are financially responsible. this just doesn't make any sense - so i can only assume that you are just disagreeing with any post i have written on principle, regardless of content.

melancholly

Soubrette wrote: »

Don't tell lies to voters LibDem - it'll bite you where it hurts!!

although those of us who started uni in 1998/1999 will remember the lies in the election manifesto of labour, who promised never to introduce tuition fees and then went ahead and did it. lies on HE aren't new and they aren't unique to the LibDems.

the only ones who appear trustworthy on it are the tories, who want to privatise the system and make it more expensive. that's hardly something that will get my vote!

just don't think the LibDems are the only ones to be difficult to trust..... they are really all as bad as each other.

Soubrette

melancholly wrote: »

although those of us who started uni in 1998/1999 will remember the lies in the election manifesto of labour, who promised never to introduce tuition fees and then went ahead and did it. lies on HE aren't new and they aren't unique to the LibDems.

the only ones who appear trustworthy on it are the tories, who want to privatise the system and make it more expensive. that's hardly something that will get my vote!

just don't think the LibDems are the only ones to be difficult to trust..... they are really all as bad as each other.

I unfortunately agree with you.

I'm hoping that if the LibDems lose by a landslide then it will be the start of least not doing the exact opposite that your manifesto states.

I actually believe that the manifesto should be treated as a contract and voting for that party as an acceptance of that contract - the truth is much easier to stick to when there is a financial disincentive to lie!

melancholly

Soubrette wrote: »

I unfortunately agree with you.

I'm hoping that if the LibDems lose by a landslide then it will be the start of least not doing the exact opposite that your manifesto states.

I actually believe that the manifesto should be treated as a contract and voting for that party as an acceptance of that contract - the truth is much easier to stick to when there is a financial disincentive to lie!

you see i hope the tories lose in a landslide and then they can't continue down the terrible path that they've started where we might end up with a US system with US costs. the introduction of private providers, not required to meet the same standards as existing unis, is not a good prospect. although the LibDems have gone back on their word, they are the smaller part of the coalition and these changes are being driven by the tories. (not that i want to vote for anyone right now - they're all as bad as each other!)

The_One_Who

Soubrette wrote: »

I am not someone who feels that students should make no contribution but an £80,000 loan or a 9% tax increase is too much imo. A £20,000 loan or a 2-3% increase in tax - fair enough with the proviso that the party bringing it in has the political guts to only admit our brightest and best to university rather than trying to herd in as many people as possible so the youth unemployment figures can be fudged.

I am also someone who thinks that higher education should be more restricted to those who are academically capable. And if that happened there would be more money to go around and the funding system would be able to cope.

setmefree2 wrote: »

But I thought you wanted students to be fully informed....

Anyways, I'm just trying to vocalise why parents (and instinctively students) find this loan system so scary, it's the tax.....

Yes, there's fully informed and being deliberately misinformed. You seem to want to scare students into not going to university at all unless they some from a wealthy family. No one is trying to shy away from the numbers in this, but higher education costs and the pot of money is only so big.

melancholly wrote: »

the only ones who appear trustworthy on it are the tories, who want to privatise the system and make it more expensive. that's hardly something that will get my vote!

To be fair, it depends on who from the Conservative party you speak to, they don't all want it privatised. A lot of them want students to be aware that it costs money and that the funding needs to come from somewhere, preferably their own pockets, at least somewhere down the line. They want to ensure that there isn't the sense of entitlement and/or the something for nothing culture continuing when it is unsustainable.

melancholly

The_One_Who wrote: »

To be fair, it depends on who from the Conservative party you speak to, they don't all want it privatised. A lot of them want students to be aware that it costs money and that the funding needs to come from somewhere, preferably their own pockets, at least somewhere down the line. They want to ensure that there isn't the sense of entitlement and/or the something for nothing culture continuing when it is unsustainable.

i'm going by statements by Willetts on wanting to open HE up to private providers. i know not everyone shares his views, but he's the Minister of State! unless those who have different opinions speak up soon, they will be tarred with the same brush.

(and my view is that students who benefit financially from uni do pay back in the form of general taxation - i know now everyone agrees with this, but i think limiting student numbers and cutting fees makes sense!)

The_One_Who

melancholly wrote: »

i'm going by statements by Willetts on wanting to open HE up to private providers. i know not everyone shares his views, but he's the Minister of State! unless those who have different opinions speak up soon, they will be tarred with the same brush.

(and my view is that students who benefit financially from uni do pay back in the form of general taxation - i know now everyone agrees with this, but i think limiting student numbers and cutting fees makes sense!)

Buckingham is a private university, isn't it? I'm not sure if there are any others though.

I think we have two options. We can either limit student numbers so that there is enough money to go around (but that has it's own problems), or students are going to have to fork out the money to pay for the education. The government can't continue to support everything and anything.

nbldmum

The articles and u-tube presentation were very useful. Couple of comments:
1. As a 2011 open day veteran and prospectus reader I have been staggered by the number of non-3 year courses out there which are not just your conventional doctor, dentist and vet. There is a lot more potential debt out there than people seem to be calculating (which may never be repaid, never mind getting my mind around this hanging around for 30 years).

2. Some 3 yr plus courses are also charging fees for sandwich year outs (5 x £9k plus living....has this all really been costed out?).

3. The repayments are based upon rpi - I think that I am right to say that this isn't set in stone and therefore those monthly repayments could conceivably alter over time, and therefore make monthly living a tad tight.

4. Fairness seems to be a mantra word these days. No up front fees for anyone shouldn't put anyone off irrespective of household income. The payback is based on salary and therefore irrespective of the student's family income. I can understand there being financial support to help with maintenance as this is going to be dependent on whether the parents can help, but I still can not fathom the unfairness that seems to help certain individuals reduce their fees (and overall debt) but is not available to others with so-called wealthier families. Surely either it is not available at all or it is available for all (which is a nonsense - just lower the fees).