Paying for university

[shadowmaster]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL1WF_b6YiA

[pumpman]

Originally Posted by nibbler View Post

Scotland manage to use their share of the block grant to pay for people's tuition fees, and it seems to be working here. That said nothing ever gets done by the local council so maybe the money is wrongly allocated.

Fixed.

At the present moment discounting the elephant in the room that is North Sea Oil , Scotland contributed 10 billion pounds more than it received from the treasury in the form of its bloc grant that is given to England, Wales and N Ireland. So the true fact is Scotland is subsidising the Union.

[crazy]

I think we've reached a point, where for the first time in History we can truly question from educational standpoint whether or not it's actually worth paying for a University education. We're at a point in time, where education has more or less been democratised. For those truly wanting to learn I believe it's completely possible to easily gain the same level of knowledge without ever needing to step inside the walls of a University. Which brings me to question, unless you're going to a top-tier University, is it really worth paying for anything less?

[BobF64]

At the present moment discounting the elephant in the room that is North Sea Oil , Scotland contributed 10 billion pounds more than it received from the treasury in the form of its bloc grant that is given to England, Wales and N Ireland. So the true fact is Scotland is subsidising the Union.

A Union that exists mainly because Scotland was almost bankrupt.

[BobF64]

I think we've reached a point, where for the first time in History we can truly question from educational standpoint whether or not it's actually worth paying for a University education. We're at a point in time, where education has more or less been democratised.

Indeed, University isnt actually required for every day life, it has just become so due to recruitment filtering.

This doesnt change it from a privilege to a right though.

The right to education ends at the point where you can read, write and do arithmetic sufficiently to cope with surviving on a daily basis.

[mediaboy]

My tuppence.

Just some background knowledge about myself: I'm was the highest achieving 16-year old male in state schooling within 10 miles of where I went to school, with 7A*'s and 4A's and a B (in painting in drawing, which given that I can neither paint nor draw seems fairly reasonable. It was stick figures that got me this grade! I go off-topic however. To return: ) I am currently doing 5 A-levels (Physics, Maths, Further Maths, Chemistry and English Literature) at an independent school on a 100% bursary - courtesy of the extracurricular work that I valued for the previous two years. My grades are predicted to be quite high - the school norm is to pass every A-level at A or higher - and as such it would seem reasonable for me to go to university and study physics with the intention of eventually either teaching this at college level or lecturing in universities, or alternatively researching. As you may or may not know, physicists are in short supply... there is a local college that has apparently (according to my physics teacher.. who is occasionally prone to exaggeration) advertised constantly for 5 years only to never find someone who is suitable to fulfil the job of an A-level physics teacher. Their current course is taught by the head of chemistry and the head of maths.

If university fees increase, university is not financially viable for myself. The student loan that I would have to take on to do a 4-year course in Physics (Astrophysics is my actual intended degree, but this is semantics) would financially cripple me till I was over 30, which seems essentially flawed. I could do better over my life to scrap those dreams and go with plan B - which includes working 24/7 in various theatres up and down the country..

There are so many people in the same position as me - minus the independent schooling bit.. all those posh kids really drive my locals up the walls - that I know. Predicted high grades, outstanding GCSE results, very intelligent people. They are all looking at the university fees and saying, almost without exception, that they cannot afford it. Some will go nonetheless and accept the financial limitations. Others have turned to their plan B's.

If the prices change, the support for those that don't have oodles of money needs to change, drastically, to match. Otherwise university will become a place for the rich, not for the intelligent, which would seem rather elitist, unless I missed something

Incidentally, like I said, I am in public schooling (which, for those not versed in the confusing words of education essentially means that it's private and that you're supposed to pay a load of money to go there). During my third week I was dragged, somewhat reluctantly, to a debate on university fees. As I was replacing someone, and as the debating system is somewhat flawed at my school, I somehow managed to end up on the team that was for raising university prices.

The general attitude was, "Sure, it'll lock out the people in state schools who are all poor people, and as we're all superior/more intelligent/better than them, there's nothing wrong here." The other attitude you got a lot of was, "University is only for english pupils. They shouldn't be open to foreigners." That, of course, is a different argument.

Needless to say.. by the end of the debate I was progressively passing notes to the side who were arguing against university fees. Something about my low-middle class upbringing objected to these kids slagging off indiscriminately everyone in a state school

I sincerely hope that these opinions are just isolated and not a reflection on the 'higher' class of society today.

Which brings me to question, unless you're going to a top-tier University, is it really worth paying for anything less?

In the opinion of nearly everyone I've spoken to about universities... no. Then again, my experiences of this are pretty much limited to Oxbridge graduates - my school is very picky about it's teaching staff - so I can't comment from a non-objective viewpoint.

[redddraggon]

If university fees increase, university is not financially viable for myself. The student loan that I would have to take on to do a 4-year course in Physics (Astrophysics is my actual intended degree, but this is semantics) would financially cripple me till I was over 30, which seems essentially flawed.

How do you work that out? Changes haven't been announced to the student loan system, so you statement is flawed.

You'll only pay when you start earning, and even then it'll only be a small percentage of what you earn.

[mediaboy]

You'll only pay when you start earning,

Yes.... but we're paying back twice as much...? I presumed that it was a fairly proportional line between money taken out and money that we have to pay back, please correct me if I'm wrong

As for 'small percentage of what you earn' - considering that as far as I can see my job will be earning between £20-25Kish/year for the work I do immediately leaving university then a 'small percentage' - despite still being the same percentage - is going to have a larger effect.

In some ways I'm lucky... 4 years isn't that bad. I have a friend who wants to do law.. They've sat down and played with figures... Including their living expenses for their 7 or 8 year course they could be borrowing in excess of £100K.. Which, I guess, given it's law, going to be paid back within 6 months

I suppose I cannot speculate on financial viability until someone actually says for defininite which universities are changing and to what /shrugs/

I stand corrected: Whilst a financial burden will increase on my generation, it may not be unmanageable. However, given that some students are already having difficulties with paying back their student loans and that the size of those loans is set to increase, then I would hesitate to state that it is definite on either side of the argument until something solid - unless I missed something solid - comes up regarding what the changes are going to be to university finances.

[Bugbait]

Sigh, the state of youth today. Just because you are intelligent and score higher academically doesn’t ENTITLE you to a placement at a top university. Aspiring students need to get it into their heads that a top tertiary education is a privilege and not a right. The vast majority of people have to make sacrifices in their lives to achieve their goals. More often than not those goals need to be moved to more realistic expectations.

I guarantee that over time, if top universities are more about prestige than quality then their desirability in the “real working world” will diminish. I know plenty of above average earners (£100k+) that either don’t have a degree, only have diplomas, or only performed at an average academic level. A degree from a top university can certainly give you a head start in life and may be a prerequisite for some careers but for anyone with some self motivation it is hardly a stumbling block.

In short, university education is NOT an entitlement but a privilege. If you’re not willing to make sacrifices to obtain your degree then you have to ask if it’s really worth obtaining?

Yes.... but we're paying back twice as much...? I presumed that it was a fairly proportional line between money taken out and money that we have to pay back, please correct me if I'm wrong

This is standard for any loan. Personal loans can easily cost you more than £2 repayment for every £1 you borrow. Mortgages may be proportionally cheaper but generally nominally larger.

[redddraggon]

Yes.... but we're paying back twice as much...? I presumed that it was a fairly proportional line between money taken out and money that we have to pay back, please correct me if I'm wrong

You might have more debt, but if you earn the same as someone who has a lower student loan debt, you'll still likely be paying the same percentage of your earnings.

All that means is you'll be paying it off for longer.

[Saracen]

....

I stand corrected: Whilst a financial burden will increase on my generation, it may not be unmanageable. However, given that some students are already having difficulties with paying back their student loans and that the size of those loans is set to increase, then I would hesitate to state that it is definite on either side of the argument until something solid - unless I missed something solid - comes up regarding what the changes are going to be to university finances.

There are a couple of solid facts though ....

1) Universities have to be paid for. I don't mean the fees you pay, I mean that if you want a university to exist at all, there's going to be a large bill for it.

2) Over recent years, the number of people going to university has been going steadily, and very substantially, up. And every extra student imposes an extra cost on that university that has to be funded from somewhere.

3) For a given pot of money available, if you drive up the costs of providing the service, you have three choices :-

- cut money spent per student. Quality goes down.
- raise funds from somewhere else.
- cut the number of students, thereby maintaining spend/student and, presumably, quality.


That's the first part of the problem facing the government. The second part is that the pot of money available isn't fixed, it's falling, just like it is for virtually every else.

So, we basically face either one of the above scenarios, or some blend of them. We could cut the number of students drastically. If we halve the 45%-ish to 22.5%-ish, it'll still be about 4 or 5 times as many going as did in my day. But can you imagine the screeches and caterwauling of those that were denied a place?

Or we could raise the money from elsewhere, such as by raising income tax. But, when lots of people have taken pay freezes or pay cuts, and by and large consider themselves the lucky ones because at least they've still got a job (and can still afford the mortgage/rent), is it fair to demand they pay billions more in tax to fund students?

The problem is that we have an economy in a mess, and so does much of the rest of the world. We need to reduce the deficit. At the moment, it's huge, and bear in mind that the deficit isn't the debt, it's just the rate at which the debt is going up. We're already paying millions (about £120,000,000 per day) in interest alone. Our debt recently broke through the £1 trillion level, and is expected to nearly double (£1.406 trillion by 2014/15) from the £777 billion it was (Public Finances Databank, HM Treasury, 24 March 2010). That doubling estimate, by the way, is not some politically motivated journalistic or think-tank scaremongering, it's an official government estimate (2010 Budget, table C3).

And those debt figures exclude little things like PFI commitments and the public sector pension deficit where (and here it is "expert" predictions) experts suggest that the true figure if you include those is more like £4 trillion to £5 trillion now, never mind what it'll be in five years.

At the moment, with the current deficit and the £120 million a day in interest, the deficit means we're still borrowing £456 million per day. And by borrowing that, I mean £456 million extra. We owe (roughly) £456 million more today than we did yesterday, and will owe £456 million more tomorrow than we did today. In fact, in the two minutes it took me to type that, we borrowed more than £600,000 more. Another 10 seconds, another £50,000 ..... remorselessly (excluding PFI, etc).

And the interest we're paying (about £40 billion a year) is currently about the same as we spend on defence, more than we spend on schools, and more than we spend on transport and crime (Home Office and the Ministry of Justice budgets) combined. And, as I've said, it's rapidly rising and will continue to do so for several years, even with the government's "austerity" measures. Our debt, and the £40 billion a year it costs us, is going to carry on rising, and costing us more every year, for several years at best, before we actually get to pay back the first penny of the debt. For the economy, it's like trying to win an Olympic swimming competition with a battleship anchor tied to your foot.


And here's the thing, mediaboy .... I'm not going to be the one paying it back. I'm of an age when I won't live to see much of the repayment, and while I do, I'm secure enough to up sticks and emigrate with my capital if I need to. It's you, and probably your kids, and quite possibly their kids, that will be paying it back.

So when I say that the pot of money is falling, it's a situation that is not going to change any time soon. Funds for everything are going to be tight, and the only options we have facing us are whether we have a really nasty time for a long time, or a slightly less nasty time for a hell of a lot longer. The first position is the government's stance, and the second is Labour's. Chucked into that mix is what the growth will be in the economy, and expectations/predictions there largely determines the two different views, but I'm not going into that.

The government's problem is that that scenario is insurmountable in the short term. Money is going to be tight, and either we continue to find uni's, in which case it's got to be paid for, or we don't, in which case a lot of kids aren't going to get the chance to go to uni at all. The only question is .... who pays? The current proposal is that the taxpayer and the student both pay, though in the student's case, it's only in the future when they start earning, and even then, only after they reach approximately average income. Those proposals also include protection for the poorest in society, outside of that fees arrangement, precisely so that it isn't an "only those that can afford it" situation. But students, and I'm thinking especially of a few NUS representatives I've seem mouthing off on TV recently, need to appreciate that Bugbait is dead right and a uni education is a privilege, not a right, and they need to lose the entitlement culture.

Like it or not (and most of us, and not just students, don't like it much) the world has changed. We've been living above our means for years, both personally in many cases and as a country, and so far, we haven't really seen any of the bills drop through our national letterbox. But over the next 3 or 4 years, at least, they are going to. We haven't seen the pain of the cuts yet, but by God, we're about to. And when you've got people facing unemployment, perhaps losing their home because they lost their job and can't keep us the payments or rent, when you get people panicking every time the post comes through the door in case there's another bill they can't pay, believe me, sympathy for student fees is going to vanish like early morning mist, if that's the worst of your problems.

So here's my message to students (generally, I mean, not targeting anyone on here), absent the sugar coating. The country is in a severe financial mess, and it's about to get painful. Student fees are part of that, but at least you have an option. If you think you'll earn enough to pay it back, go get a degree, or if not, don't. Either way, join the real world, and you'll find it's cold out there. If you don't like the fees, don't go to uni. Either way, wake up and grow up. The gravy train has broken down and, sadly, the timing is such that you were just about to get on and, through absolutely no fault of your own, got the smelly end of the stick.

That's life, and sometimes, it sucks. Get used to it.

[BobF64]

In some ways I'm lucky... 4 years isn't that bad. I have a friend who wants to do law.. They've sat down and played with figures... Including their living expenses for their 7 or 8 year course they could be borrowing in excess of £100K.. Which, I guess, given it's law, going to be paid back within 6 months

This is some indicator of the real issue.

Its not actually the money thats the problem, its that future students will have to carefully consider if their course is worth it or not.

Given the choice between doing a degree that has some realistic job prospect at the end and doing a degree in something flippant, people may actually have to choose the former.

At least it will probably mean fewer "harry potter/star trek/pointless celeb" degrees being offered.

[mediaboy]

Sigh, the state of youth today. Just because you are intelligent and score higher academically doesn’t ENTITLE you to a placement at a top university.

I'm not saying that I'm entitled to one (Although I will admit that there are a large proportion of people who do just presume they're going to get one, and that my confidence could have seemed arrogant, it does that on occasion). I am saying that university is potentially going to become unaffordably expensive for a portion of people who would benefit from it and that by raising the bar of the cost of universities then the system is going to cut out a set of people who would do wonders in that situation.

As for the things I mentioned: research, teaching, lecturing. These things would seem, to me, to require a degree of educaiton beyond A-levels. Would you like the people working on the next space rocket to be kids with an A-level in maths with mechanics, physics and hairdressing?

A degree from a top university can certainly give you a head start in life and may be a prerequisite for some careers

Like I said.. rocket scientists with A-levels in hairdressing My point through all of what I'm saying, which is getting lost a bit, is that university fees are going to alienate people wanting to go into those careers where university degrees are a [B]requirement.[/B

All that means is you'll be paying it off for longer.

Isn't this er.. what I said? I'm saying:

1. There will be MORE to pay off as student costs are looking set to increase
2. There will therefore be a longer period during which I am in debt (presuming I don't take out money for any other purpose, which I am going to aim to avoid for most of my life)
3. Therefore I will be financially burdened for longer of my life with student debt.

It seems to be essentially saying what people disagreeing with me are saying? Please tell me if I'm wrong about this, as there appears to be some confusion.


Excuse me if I don't reply to all of the wall of text from Saracen But still, highlights.

- cut the number of students, thereby maintaining spend/student and, presumably, quality.

This. Lets make universities a load more competitive, slash the number of places, definitely reducing the number of places that are added onto universities each year. Less students, more money per student. Yes, I'm sure that there will be lots of people that would hate this, with dreams of going to university. But, this way, universities become a place for the exceptional.

If we halve the 45%-ish to 22.5%-ish, it'll still be about 4 or 5 times as many going as did in my day. But can you imagine the screeches and caterwauling of those that were denied a place?

Yes I can imagine it. I hear it quite a bit from friends around here who try to toodle off to Oxbridge with A/B/B/B and end up competing against people with A/A/A/A. I hear it quite a bit from people who get conditional offers and don't pull their weight in their final examinations and lose their offer due to that. My point is, of course, that there is already situations that people think are 'unfair.'

In the end, does anyone actually think we need what is rapidly becoming half the country with degrees?

Although many current A-level students wouldn't be happy that it was them that 'lost' a place (and I draw attention to a former poster's note that I seemed to think, like many my age do, that I 'deserve' a place at a university) I'm equally sure that they would, given a year or so, get over it. Although I guess we'd have all those riots to deal with

<joke>

Then again.. if there were less university students.. there'd be less rioters! Problem solved!

</joke> (and who doesn't have to say when they're joking?)

And here's the thing, mediaboy .... I'm not going to be the one paying it back.

Indeed not, I'm paying your pension when you get there. I'm already paying some people's pensions through that thing called 'income tax' Although the nice tax man did tell me that I had some money coming back. I know that there is a cost, I know that someone somewhere has to foot the bill, and I know that it's going to be my generation. But that doesn't change the fact that by making universities cost more, they're alienating those who would make a difference but who don't have the money to get into a university to start making that difference.

And no, I'm not saying that this is everyone, nor that university is for everyone. I'm saying that there is a portion of people who they are just chopping out. The irony of my position is that I appear to be supporting students on one foot and cutting them down with the other. So; brief explanation: Cut student places, increase competiton, keep prices stable to allow that competition to be across all backgrounds and all social classes so that it's not a place for the rich.

Given the choice between doing a degree that has some realistic job prospect at the end and doing a degree in something flippant, people may actually have to choose the former.

Agreed. University is seen, and advertised as such by lots of people I know , a place to party and to get drunk/high etc. I know people that are going to universities for the partying.. And as much as I hate to sound the killjoy, I was under the impression that universities are places of learning... not a perpetual party with learning as a side-dish.

[BobF64]

Agreed. University is seen, and advertised as such by lots of people I know , a place to party and to get drunk/high etc. I know people that are going to universities for the partying.. And as much as I hate to sound the killjoy, I was under the impression that universities are places of learning... not a perpetual party with learning as a side-dish.

There has to be some sensible argument for Universities encouraging mature students, rather than party kids.

"25 or over, get a 50% discount on your fees!"

Or failing that, raising the legal age for drinking, driving and voting.

[neonplanet40]

Yea but then everyone would just wait till they were 25 to go to University then we would have a whole lot of new problems.

[Bugbait]

I am saying that university is potentially going to become unaffordably expensive for a portion of people who would benefit from it and that by raising the bar of the cost of universities then the system is going to cut out a set of people who would do wonders in that situation.

Who says that an academic measurement is the only barrier to entry for university? What’s wrong with testing a potential student’s commitment by seeing how resourceful they are about funding their tuition? After all, that’s how the “real world” or life after university works. Finding ways to fund your tuition is part of the university experience.

Again, back to a false sense of entitlement. This isn’t directed at you, but any student who feels their academic results alone should guarantee them a place in university that is heavily subsidised by university and non-university graduates alike.

As for the things I mentioned: research, teaching, lecturing. These things would seem, to me, to require a degree of educaiton beyond A-levels. Would you like the people working on the next space rocket to be kids with an A-level in maths with mechanics, physics and hairdressing?

I’m going to assume you’re being facetious here. Of course there are plenty of careers that require a higher level of academic prowess. This doesn’t preclude the need to earn them. Again, if people want to be the best at whatever they do they have to work hard, and this means more than simply study.

Like I said.. rocket scientists with A-levels in hairdressing My point through all of what I'm saying, which is getting lost a bit, is that university fees are going to alienate people wanting to go into those careers where university degrees are a requirement.

See above. If people want it, they have to earn it. If the country as a whole feels there is a brain drain then they can adjust accordingly by offering scholarships and/or discounted fees for key courses. Reduced fees for selective sources has been mentioned by many on this thread and it makes sense. The only ones who will be alienated are those not willing to do more than simply get good grades. In life you have to juggle many things at once so any students who can’t fund themselves through university aren’t motivated enough. Why waste subsidised fees on people who aren’t willing to go the extra mile and become fully contributing members of society?

1. There will be MORE to pay off as student costs are looking set to increase
2. There will therefore be a longer period during which I am in debt (presuming I don't take out money for any other purpose, which I am going to aim to avoid for most of my life)
3. Therefore I will be financially burdened for longer of my life with student debt.

Try a mortgage. Again, entitlement culture. If you can’t pay the fees, don’t do the course. If you can’t afford the repayments (house, car, personal or student loan) then don’t borrow the money. If more people had this simple sense and responsibility then maybe they wouldn’t be in such bad debt? Unfortunately for the majority, debt and its repayment is a natural and inevitable part of life.

"You" is being used in the general sense, not just directed at mediaboy.

This. Lets make universities a load more competitive, slash the number of places, definitely reducing the number of places that are added onto universities each year. Less students, more money per student. Yes, I'm sure that there will be lots of people that would hate this, with dreams of going to university. But, this way, universities become a place for the exceptional.

I agree in theory, but isn’t this another form of segregation? So it’s okay to level the playing field so the rich don’t hold an advantage over the poor but it’s okay to give smarter people a better start? Sure, if you’re smart then it’s a good idea. Then again, if you’re rich who cares about those that can’t afford the fees? Slippery slope.

Indeed not, I'm paying your pension when you get there. I'm already paying some people's pensions through that thing called 'income tax' Although the nice tax man did tell me that I had some money coming back. I know that there is a cost, I know that someone somewhere has to foot the bill, and I know that it's going to be my generation. But that doesn't change the fact that by making universities cost more, they're alienating those who would make a difference but who don't have the money to get into a university to start making that difference.

So the current working and tax paying population should pay for the potential of the future generation? Any student, upon graduation that can’t earn enough to repay their academic debt, even after the increases doesn’t have the potential to contribute enough to the future society. Any student that falls into that category doesn’t deserve a subsidised ride through university in my books. The people who WILL make a difference are those that can pay back their academic debt.

Cut student places, increase competiton, keep prices stable to allow that competition to be across all backgrounds and all social classes so that it's not a place for the rich.

Yeah, down with the stupid. Lazy is okay but stupid is not. Look for the heavy sarcasm .

And as much as I hate to sound the killjoy, I was under the impression that universities are places of learning... not a perpetual party with learning as a side-dish.

I would agree that universities are for learning, however it’s not restricted to just academia.