Is education in the UK a scam ?
Options
Comments
-
I don't understand this argument. Plenty of people just !!!!ed about at school too, no-one is asking them to pay back their school funding costs on top of normal taxes. Everyone has to pay for other people, that's how a tax system works. I barely use the NHS, libraries, public transport, social care, and have no kids going to school, yet I still pay for all of that, which I completely agree with. The question is why is university different? Regarding education specifically, where should the cut off be? I'd argue that many more jobs are requiring degrees or apprenticeships than a few decades ago, and both university education and apprenticeships should be funded by the state just like A-levels are. Those who benefit most from it will pay more in taxes anyway (and higher earners should pay more tax full stop IMO).It is such a waste of taxpayer’s money for those who are just doing degrees at the universities for fun to try a student life and getting loan for maintenance up to £11k tax free on the top of tuition fee for up to four years.
This is actually where the incentive of study at the university to do easy to get micky mouse degrees is coming from for those who do not actually have talent to study at the universities.
You might have spent 4x£9,250 for tutition pay and 4x£11,000 for maintenance which equate £81k in total. But If you are doing a job that will pay you less than £25,725 you will not pay a single penny back anyway.
Remember that we're only talking tuition fees here. Unless you're from a poor or rich background, you're going to have maintenance loans to pay back anyway so it's not like a free ride.0 -
I don't understand this argument. Plenty of people just !!!!ed about at school too, no-one is asking them to pay back their school funding costs on top of normal taxes. Everyone has to pay for other people, that's how a tax system works. I barely use the NHS, libraries, public transport, social care, and have no kids going to school, yet I still pay for all of that, which I completely agree with. The question is why is university different? Regarding education specifically, where should the cut off be? I'd argue that many more jobs are requiring degrees or apprenticeships than a few decades ago, and both university education and apprenticeships should be funded by the state just like A-levels are. Those who benefit most from it will pay more in taxes anyway (and higher earners should pay more tax full stop IMO).
Remember that we're only talking tuition fees here. Unless you're from a poor or rich background, you're going to have maintenance loans to pay back anyway so it's not like a free ride.
I agree with all you say.
What I don't like about the current funding system is it's described as a "loan" and as a "debt". It's neither really, but I'm sure that that terminology must have some marginal effect of putting potential students off university.
Just fund it from general taxation revenue like all the other "economic goods" that society benefits from. If a degree means your earnings are greater in future, then you pay more in tax. I suppose you could introduce a hypothecated "graduate" tax, but I think that's a slippery road.
I also, on principle, am very uncomfortable about the individual paying for education, which is what I consider a degree to be.0 -
Agreed.Manxman_in_exile wrote: »I agree with all you say.
What I don't like about the current funding system is it's described as a "loan" and as a "debt". It's neither really, but I'm sure that that terminology must have some marginal effect of putting potential students off university.
Just fund it from general taxation revenue like all the other "economic goods" that society benefits from. If a degree means your earnings are greater in future, then you pay more in tax. I suppose you could introduce a hypothecated "graduate" tax, but I think that's a slippery road.
I also, on principle, am very uncomfortable about the individual paying for education, which is what I consider a degree to be.
The current system is pretty bizarre, it's essentially a graduate tax but with a cap, which actually makes it less progressive. On the plus side, it means low earners won't pay it all back so will ultimately contribute less.
However, high earners will pay it all off relatively early and then see their effective tax rate drop, which is not progressive. My wife will be in this situation soon: she's earns about twice as much as me and is in the higher rate tax bracket, so she'll pay an 42% (IC+NI) on any extra pound earned once her student loan is paid off. Meanwhile, muggins here is in the basic rate tax bracket but I have to pay 41% (IC+NI+SL) on any extra pound earned. A bit ridiculous.0 -
I don't understand this argument. Plenty of people just !!!!ed about at school too, no-one is asking them to pay back their school funding costs on top of normal taxes. Everyone has to pay for other people, that's how a tax system works. I barely use the NHS, libraries, public transport, social care, and have no kids going to school, yet I still pay for all of that, which I completely agree with. The question is why is university different?
Of course they are different. Children education is required by law to give all children the same start in their life so no children will be left disadvantaged; Higher education is not. Education provided to children provide basic skills needed by any job, Higher education is not.
NHS, social care, public transport provide benefit to society, wider communities. What benefit to society, to the taxpayer if people are using student loan to study at the university just for fun to study mickey mouse degrees. After taking £80k of loan and finishing degrees they are working in the area which does not need degree at all getting paid lower than £25K. The taxpayer will not get back something in return, not a single penny.
Compared it to those who study medicine, Dentistry, Accountancy, Engineering, etc. Finishing their degree they fill skills gap needed for this country. How many of them do not pay their tuition fee back ?? That tuition fee that has been paid back could be used to fund other people to study at the university.0 -
NHS, social care, public transport provide benefit to wide communities. What benefit to the community, taxpayers will get if people are using student loan to study at the university for fun. After taking £80k of loan and finishing degrees they are working in the area which does not need degree at all getting paid lower than £25K. The taxpayer will not get back something in return, not a single penny.
.
I'm afraid you have a much more materialistic and cynical view than I. I value education (including higher education) for its own sake. Not all value can be measured by pounds and pence.0 -
I think you're the only poster who has spoken about students going to university "for fun". I don't know anybody who has done that.
I have no problem with students taking purely "academic" degrees so long as the degree is academically rigorous. This could, as somebody else mentioned, include a degree in interpretive dance. If the student acquires good academic skills, that's fine by me. I see higher education as a "good" (in the economic sense) that has value in itself and, hopefully makes the student a better person. I don't agree that degrees should be solely vocational.
Where I probably agree with you is that some HEIs are simply not worth attending and it is ludicrous that they charge the same tuition fees as other better (eg RG) institutions. This is where the whole funding system is a sham.
And I probably agree with you that some students shouldn't be allowed within a 1000 miles of a university.
And far too many people go to university.0 -
Indeed, this sounds like the whole "people living off benefits and having 8 kids" trope. It's so much rarer than is usually characterised by those who use it as an argument.Manxman_in_exile wrote: »I think you're the only poster who has spoken about students going to university "for fun". I don't know anybody who has done that.
To suggest that having a more educated workforce provides no benefit to society or the taxpayer is simply ludicrous.
I agree with this, the original idea that different courses would cost different amounts based on the quality of education and cost to teach the course compared to other subjects was never going to work. Why? Because government funds to universities were cut so severely by the 2010 coalition government that they all basically chose to whack every course up to the maximum £9k to compensate for reduced funds.Manxman_in_exile wrote: »Where I probably agree with you is that some HEIs are simply not worth attending and it is ludicrous that they charge the same tuition fees as other better (eg RG) institutions. This is where the whole funding system is a sham.
I also agree with this, there is too much emphasis placed on it. While I think university tuition should be government-funded, I would say the same of equivalent vocational courses and apprenticeships.Manxman_in_exile wrote: »And far too many people go to university.0 -
Would be nice for the snarky who pop up to tell students they should shut up and pay up for their studies to dip into their pockets and pay for their previous primary and secondary schooling. But it doesn't happen, does it? They never even offer. I wouldn't expect more than convenient intellectualised excuses.
To make it clear where I stand, I think students in the long term should have been made to pay something to discourage them from wasting time at university, and kept fees around 3k and have kept the grant.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards