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

kayr_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I hadn't realised that this was a thread for the middle classes, I thought it was for parents with plenty of money to throw around who were trying to scare off parents and students from more normal backgrounds and return university education to those who can afford to pay for it.

We may be considering helping our kids financially through university, possibly by paying (some) tuition fees (jury's still out on that one) but that's not quite the same as having plenty of money to throw around! Some people may choose to spend less money on holidays, cars, going out etc and more on their children's education.

Oldernotwiser

kayr wrote: »

Sounds OK to me.

Not much of an axe, is it?:)

Taiko

You call that an axe? THIS is an axe!

The things I have to post to entertain myself in the office these days.

FrankieBoyle

kayr wrote: »

However I think the purpose of this forum is to gain/share information and thoughts which might enable parents and students to make the wisest decisions in a very complex situation.

That would be nice, wouldn't it? Looks like, other than yourself, all the parents have been chased away - AGAIN! !!!!!!?

FrankieBoyle

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

I hadn't realised that this was a thread for the middle classes, I thought it was for parents with plenty of money to throw around who were trying to scare off parents and students from more normal backgrounds and return university education to those who can afford to pay for it.

If that's an axe, I'll keep on grinding it!

There are few parents on this thread. It's just you and you're mates screaming at the few parents who venture on here.

So yes, keep grinding that axe, if you're aim is to prevent parents discussing tuition fees you're doing a great job! Well Done :T

Oldernotwiser

FrankieBoyle wrote: »

There are few parents on this thread. It's just you and you're mates screaming at the few parents who venture on here.

So yes, keep grinding that axe, if you're aim is to prevent parents discussing tuition fees you're doing a great job! Well Done :T

The only person I've noticed screaming on here is you. Most people are having a reasoned discussion, which sometimes involves different points of view.;)

nbldmum

Do my fees go up for each year of my course?
Your fees will probably increase by a small amount each year in line with inflation. But we don’t know for sure yet. The government has to make
that decision.
Came across the above in the student info that we have. Another bit of uncertainty, unless it has been decided upon since it was distributed.

dizzie

I agree with ONW that there should be fewer university places and that places should go to most able (in my opinion that should be "regardless of wealth"). The issue of "ability" is an interesting one. Does wealth buy "ability"? Well, certainly it can buy private tuition to bump up exam grades. There is also an argument that children at state schools in poorer areas are disadvantaged compared with those at good state schools and fee-paying independents. Whilst generally that may well be the case, from my experience certainly, the difference between state schools is not so clear cut. I can make a comparison between my own education and that of my children as follows:

Own Education - at a "dog rough" comprehensive school in NE England:
1. Main problem was that of "expectation". Lots of parents were unemployed (my dad also lost his job when I was 11). Many kids didn't see the point of school since their expectation was that they would go on benefits like their parents....so teachers found it difficult to motivate kids to do well.

2. But for those teachers who "stuck it out" at schools like mine, when kids did make an effort, they were often really great teachers. They put their heart and soul into teaching those of us who showed some interest.

My Children's Education - at a state grammar school

1. Clearly, no problems with expectation. There are a lot of "middle class kids" who have parents with good jobs.

2. Some great teachers...mixed with some really poor ones (unfortunately, because kids have to pass the 11 plus exam, there are some teachers who feel they can be lazy because, "kids will be able to get by on their own ability". By that I mean, they simply instruct kids to work from their text books and do little to no "active teaching").

Statistics will show that this school is a "good school", (and don't get me wrong, I am reasonably happy with it). They get good results in the "league tables" each year, but realistically I don't think that this is because they have on average "better" teachers than I had at school....it's just because they creamed off the so-called top twenty-something percent of kids in the 11 plus!

I don't know what the answer is to put kids from all backgrounds on a level playing field (I do believe that it should be level however, and that it should not be sloped in favour of the rich OR the poor...)

Thankfully, I think that "expectation" levels have improved in schools in poorer areas since my day and that effort should be made to improve it further. Having come from a long line of coal miners on one side of the family (and seamen/shipyard workers) on the other side, I was the first person in my family to go to uni, but have to admit my choice of course was not really an educated one. Other than what you can read in a paragraph on a job description in a careers manual, I didn't have a clue what it would be like to do a job that required a degree.

Salaries also meant little to me - when your family lives on benefits and when there is a lack of financial education in schools about a person's financial responsibilities in the "adult world", all you really register is that one job in the careers manual seems to be better paid than another. As an 18 year-old who had never been used to having very much, I didn't see much relevance in this.

So at the moment, my only answer to the problem of a level playing field is:

1. Putting effort into good careers advice, with special consideration for those whose families are in no position to help on this front.

2. Putting financial education on the school curriculum - I am a great advocate of MSE's idea in this respect for loads of reasons...particularly the "debt" issue. Money is not a dirty word - it's not the be all and end all, but it is hugely important that people understand it. On the flip side, I've also worked with young adults who came from quite well off backgrounds who had no idea how to budget and expected to have all that their parents had. They seemed ignorant of the fact that many of these parents actually started from humble beginnings, bought second hand stuff or went without and just worked hard to get what their adult kids eventually "saw")

3. Looking at other "measures" in addition to A-level results (? some sort of psychometric testing) and taking a broader overview of someone's overall "ability" .

Finally (sorry, I know it's been a long rant), my main concern IS that we are simply moving the country's debt problem down the generations (where it is inevitable that it will snowball into something bigger and uncontrollable). I don't think that £9k tuition fees are the answer. Some will pay back an awful lot of money and I worry that this will kill off the incentive to do well. Others will not pay back enough - some through no fault of their own, but others because they actively wanted an "easier ride" (e.g. just did a degree for "leisure purposes" because they couldn't think of anything better to do), or went "part time" after completing a degree because they either already had the security to (or were happy to) live on less. It has already been said that it is difficult to chase graduates who return to their home countries in the EU for student loan repayments and coupled with the level of debt going unpaid by home students, the taxpayer seems to stand to gain nothing at all from this measure. However, I cannot see that the longer term outlook for the economy will be helped by young people paying more still in a form of "graduate tax" which will reduce disposable income, and by the market being "flooded" by graduates which will make them cheaper to employ (supply and demand).

No, the only way in my opinion is to cut the numbers of degrees funded by the public purse. For crying out loud, we don't need everyone to be a scientist or a teacher...we need builders, plumbers, electricians and the like too (but sadly the way things are going, some bright spark will decide that a "degree" is necessary to be able to do these jobs too)

PaulW1965

dizzie wrote: »

Finally (sorry, I know it's been a long rant), my main concern IS that we are simply moving the country's debt problem down the generations (where it is inevitable that it will snowball into something bigger and uncontrollable).

Which is why it will probably never be written off......

(RPI 5.6% today folks - 5.6% plus 3% = 8.6%)

kayr_2

PaulW1965 wrote: »

(RPI 5.6% today folks - 5.6% plus 3% = 8.6%)

I might be totally wrong about this but I think they use the RPI from March the year before? Which might be slightly better, or worse, depending on the economic situation. Or I might have just imagined that. Does anyone know if it the interest rate will change on a monthly basis?

Also does anyone know if there has been any justification of the RPI + 3% rate while you're a student from the government/DeptBIS? (Obviously it will increase the loan amount which seems rather cynical on the government's part). They are charging RPI if you earn 21K or below, rising to RPI + ? as your salary rises (sort of logical) but if you are studying you pay RPI + 3%. Seems wrong to me, but maybe I've missed something.