quote:

---

Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
Student fees are a disgrace. Students leaving university can now be £20k in debt. What sort of incentive to a higher education is that - particularly to people from working class backgrounds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by richt: Does this count as a homework thread? Seems a bit of a con having the students getting people to post on here instead of carrying out a proper survey.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Yes Pants - but what counts as enough academic ability - esp considering that it is widely acknowleged that A-levels are not a reliable guide to university performance?

And student loans don't cover the basic cost of living btw.

---

something like a baccaulaurate (or however you spell it!!) but 'a' levels will do for the mean time. they show some committment to studying at least.

and student loans mightnt be far off, depending on how you spend them, and if you get a part time job too.

i agree with most of what richt is saying.
 

---

Posted by richt (# 4679) on :
 
Cool - thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure as I couldn't see how it links directly with the ship.

By the way, can I post up some corporate academic initiatives of my own...
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
well, I got A-level grades A, B, C. So I assume that counts as proving my right to be at uni?

The thing that does concern me is that students with tough home-lives may find it very much harder to get "good" grades then those whose situation is fairly stable and whose parents encourage hard studying. While it is not the job of the academy to change the world it is true that the former group of students are not always less intelligent than the latter.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
The Canadian experience may be somewhat different in that much of the university costs are paid by the governments through taxes. Taxes being progressive (whereby higher earning people pay a higher rate than lower earning people) are mostly raised from the wealthier residents. Our tuition fees are lower than those in the USA. University tuitions here have, nonetheless, risen over the years. My experience was in late 70s and early 80s, but I expect it is not that different now.

My parents were not middle-class. While growing up we did not feel like it, but we were certainly in the lower-class (in terms of income) - probably at or below the poverty line if you consider todays methods of determining such a line.

I have 3 siblings. My older sister graduated from university the year before my brother started. I started the next year, and my younger sister the year after that. Thus, for 2 years, 3 of us were in university at the same time. We did recieve some government grants, but mostly loans, for our education - it would not have been possible without them. Even at that, the grants and loans certainly not cover the entire costs of our education. In fact, I chose a co-operative program so that I could work every other four-month term to help pay my tuition and living costs. We each graduated with significant debt. While my debt was interest free until six-months after graduation, and then avaiable at bank prime, in 1982 that was about 17%.

When applying for government assistance, they did not consider how many children of the family were in university - I know because I dealt with them directly in my final year, being quite broke, and desparately not wanting to drop out with four months to go. The bank was more than pleased to lend me $2,000 to finnish the term, at the generous rate of 23.75% (funny how I remember the exact rate over 20 years later).

Was it wrong for them to make me borrow (from the government and/or the bank) for my education? No, I do not think so. It helped teach me about money management, what essentials really were and what I could do without if I had to. I was fortunate that my career path turned in a positive way after 5 years of working, and I was able to pay off the debt within 10 years of graduation.

I guess for me it depends on how much you think you should have to struggle for what you want.

Some have commented that it might be difficult to pay off your debt if you took a degree in certain fields. True. But to me that is just a life choice - some can afford it and some cannot. Just as now I can afford a Volkswagon but not a Rolls Royce, then I could only afford to study that which could provide an adequate income stream to be able to pay off my debt.
 

---

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 
Most of the posts on this thread would make a lot more sense if it really were true that graduates have significantly greater earning potential, but that's not true, and it becomes less true every time the government try to get more people into higher education for its own sake.
Most of my friends - Cambridge graduates - have been unemployed for months and/or had to take low-paying jobs. It's not uncommon to be rejected from literally hundreds of jobs, and I don't mean
the kind of jobs which are out of our league. I'm earning less than my little sister, who has about one A-level.
I agree wholeheartedly that higher education should be for a minority. What is the justification for trying to get 50% of people into university, escept possibly as a temporary drain for the unemployed - hide them in universities? There are more graduates than graduate jobs, and having more graduates is not going to solve that problem.
Grr.

[ 17. November 2003, 18:37: Message edited by: Talitha ]
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Again, who dictates who is and isn't going to get to uni? you?
 

---

Posted by moverly (# 4658) on :
 
Studying in a system where uni fees are the equivalent of £600 a year, I count myself rather lucky and am simply horrified at the idea of people having to incur massive debts just to get an education in the area their talents are in. Here, parents are legally obliged to support their children financially (if they are able to) during their first professional education (i.e. apprenticeship, degree, whatever). And as most people have a realistic option for studying their course within commuting distance of their parents' home, the financial burden can be reduced a bit more. But that's just here.

IMHO, if the state is to effectively give students tertiary education for next to nothing (which I think it should), it should be able to expect a certain performance and seriously take people to task who drag their feet and spend 8-9 years on their first degree (not an uncommon thing here). In other words, the state should invest, but do careful quality control, too, as the money they're spending doesn't just get pulled out of a hat.

To address the criticism that students use their student loans etc. to have a lot of luxury: that often happens at the expense of things many people would take for granted; so if a student sits around in a freezing flat all winter because they're in a cheap dig with dodgy heating and little insulation, and also lives off spaghetti with tomato sauce and does without a television (saving license fees and all that), then who am I to blame them for treating themself to a decent holiday? (possibly staying at a cheap and cheerful backpackers' anyway) In my experience, those students that really lash out are often still living in Hotel Mama and have their own summer job earnings to play with, or else wadfulls of Dad's cash, certainly not state money.
 

---

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
Again, who dictates who is and isn't going to get to uni? you?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Talitha:
Most of the posts on this thread would make a lot more sense if it really were true that graduates have significantly greater earning potential, but that's not true, and it becomes less true every time the government try to get more people into higher education for its own sake.
Most of my friends - Cambridge graduates - have been unemployed for months and/or had to take low-paying jobs. It's not uncommon to be rejected from literally hundreds of jobs, and I don't mean
the kind of jobs which are out of our league. I'm earning less than my little sister, who has about one A-level.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
This leaves me just over a grand for food, books, clothes. travel, beer, electricity, gas, phone, tv license and any number of other incidentals.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
Student fees are a disgrace. Students leaving university can now be £20k in debt. What sort of incentive to a higher education is that - particularly to people from working class backgrounds?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
just to clear up a misconception here. My loan for this year is about three and a half grand.

my rent for the nine moths is just over 2 grand.

This leaves me just over a grand for food, books, clothes. travel, beer, electricity, gas, phone, tv license and any number of other incidentals.

Hardly the life of riley is it?

---

no-one ever said it would be. youre there primarily to study. you chose to do it. you knew what it would be like.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Am I the only person in the universe who can tell the freaking difference between moaning and explaining?
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Travel, beer and tv listed in your essentials? Sorry, I cannot have much sympathy.

---

This does rather reflect the changing attitudes to being a student from when I was at university, and that was only a few years ago. Then gaining an academic qualification was only part of the experience of being at university.

There was, for a start, an opportunity to broaden ones horizons. This would include living away from home for the first time, which would require travel to/from home at vacation times. Also meeting new friends gives the opportunity to travel to meet them at their homes etc.

Then, there's a social life. Student societies are a great opportunity for people to take up responsible positions - in leadership or just helping freshers settle in. This, inevitably, involves time in bars drinking beer (usually, fine malt whisky being too expensive).

I'll grant that a TV isn't essential.

Of course, with increasing financial loads many students are being forced to forgo such fringe benefits. Many more choose a local university where they can stay with their parents. Many take up part time jobs thus removing the free time to be involved in student societies. It's turning universities into academic production lines rather than opportunities to become rounded adults.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
we have a "house" telly and I think I might look a bit stingy if I refused to contribute to the license?
 

---

Posted by pants (# 4487) on :
 
i didnt think students had tv licences!
 

---

Posted by Talitha (# 5085) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Give it another 10 or 20 years and see where it gets you. You are not likely yet where you have the potential to be.

---

I'm not going to say that's not true, because I can't know. But it is based on a knowledge of what has happened to people who graduated 10 or 20 years ago from today, and they are still in a minority among their generation. 20 years from now I will still be one of a huge surplus of '02 graduates...
 

---

Posted by The Coot (Icarus) (# 220) on :
 
The Australian situation is that we used to have free tertiary education (Bring back Gough!), but now have a Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) (there was another small fixed upfront scheme called Higher Education Administration Fee (?) of about $500 that lasted a couple of years). I believe in free secular education for all, but as this seems impossible in the economic rationalist climate; HECS while having some injustices is a workable implementation of Tertiary Fees - if you are willing to take the short term hits, tertiary education is still accessible.

(Oz$1 = US$0.71 = GBP 0.42 - wow! exchange rates have climbed!)
It has a scale of fees (just roughly) $2200 for Arts/Teaching courses; $5200 for Science/Engineering courses; $6-7000 for Medicine/Law courses.

The good thing ( ) about it, is that the 'contributions' can be can be deferred until one starts earning a certain level of income (about $25,000), except that it is indexed at the inflation rate; so is effectively a loan (and is written up as such in the deferral agreement you sign).

I believe it has adversely affected the participation in tertiary education of ppl in lower socio-economic groups. For someone who has lived on not very much, you look at the tertiary fees and think: 'Liberal arts, what's the point of doing that, won't make me any more employable so it is a wasted $7,000. Science, $15,000 and not really going to make me much more employable that Arts. Engineering, Law, Medicine: Now we're talking. Except the aggregate to get into these is substantially higher, so that disadvantaged students who are already behind the 8-ball have less chance of getting the high scores. And the short term opportunity cost starts coming into play: $20,000 - $40,000 that's a new car or a deposit on a home...

At present I owe $10,000 with no hope of paying it back (this does cause some financial anxiety), except that I am looking to do some more study in the hope of improving my circumstances, which will run me up another $21,000 and no guarantee of employment at the end of it. On the bright side, if you die with a taxable income less than the repayment threshold the debt dies also, it's not taken out of your estate.

Another ethical injustice of HECS is that rich people who can afford to pay the 'contribution' upfront receive a 25% discount on it! This means that those who have to defer the fee are effectively subsidising the cost of education for the people who are most able to pay for it!

A spin off from the user-pays education system, is that the government is allowing institutions to provide full-fee paying courses to local students (as opposed to the already available ones for overseas students) - I'm not sure about this, but I believe anything over the HECS charge goes straight down the Institutions gullet, so the institutions are clamouring for it. What it means is, the less academically able (or wastrels heh!), but wealthy students can bypass the minimum entry standards ie. if they are not offered a place on merit, they can buy one. (The saying: 'At Uni you get the cream, rich and thick' is becoming true. Again.)

Hence: Student fees - 'shameful, wrong and unfair' - all of the above. Unfair: Education is disparately contributed to by poorer students over richer students. Shameful: Education is no longer valued for its own sake or for modernist values of improving the common weal. Our equitable (Oz = Everyone gets a fair go) society is being eroded and barriers to tertiary participation are created for the most disadvantaged. Wrong: Education is moving away from merit-based to market-based.

[Note: the above is only loosely structured and isn't meant to be academic quality writing]
 

---

Posted by Sir George Grey (# 2643) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This does rather reflect the changing attitudes to being a student from when I was at university, and that was only a few years ago. Then gaining an academic qualification was only part of the experience of being at university.

---

My parents both went to university in the early 1960s (Westfield - now QMW, and Middlesex Hospital, now part of UCL) and their experience, interestingly enough, was quite different. They both got grants of course, but these were designed to cover basics not luxuries which included things like beer and more than the essential items of clothing. The social life was basic. A car? Forget it!
 

---

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :
 
I believe (a) that asking young people to go into debt is indeed shameful, and furthermore that (b) the government is guilty of deceit in its reasons for imposing this burden.

The government claims it's ok to do this because 'graduates get better-paid jobs' and that therefore the students are 'investing in their own future'.

BUT - I remember once sitting in a trafiic jam listening to the radio while a politician was going through the statistics. And if his figures were correct, I quickly worked out that in an average working lifetime, a graduate pays about £80000 more in income tax than does a non-graduate - far more than their university education cost. So really, the students aren't investing in their own future at all: they're giving up 3 or 4 years of their life to invest in their country's future. The politicians should be ashamed.
 

---

Posted by Toby (# 3522) on :
 
Here in NZ there were no fees back in my mother's day but now pay about $4-5000 NZ (higher for things like medicine and dentistry) for tuition alone. One of the suggestions that comes up fairly often from the student community is the idea of a universal student allowance, as student allowances are restricted to those whose households have a very minimal income (I have a friend whose single mum works as a teacher, which is not the most well paid profession here (around $35-40000/year maybe?) and who does not qualify because she earns too much). My parents earn far too much for me to get an allowance, yet they are not in a position to financially support my studies other than by giving me a small loan last year, which is more than most are able/willing to do, I imagine.

Living at home and being relatively fortunate with work and scholarships, I have mostly eluded debt, but it is a huge problem with many of my peers. And I suspect that those who squander their debt on overseas holidays and extraordinarily expensive cellphones and cars are a very small minority - I sure don't know any in this supposedly widespread group.

I think it is unfair to restrict university entrance too much, as there are many people for whom high school was really, really bad. Many people just hated high school. But when some of them get to uni they find a subject that they love and discover that they really do enjoy studying it. The academic who is (arguably) New Zealand's best historian apparently did fairly badly at school, but now churns out very well written and insightful historical texts. Giving university places only to those who do well at school exams can mean a lot of people missing out. (But by all means, we do need to give out more scholarships here) .
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sir George Grey:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This does rather reflect the changing attitudes to being a student from when I was at university, and that was only a few years ago. Then gaining an academic qualification was only part of the experience of being at university.

---

My parents both went to university in the early 1960s (Westfield - now QMW, and Middlesex Hospital, now part of UCL) and their experience, interestingly enough, was quite different. They both got grants of course, but these were designed to cover basics not luxuries which included things like beer and more than the essential items of clothing. The social life was basic. A car? Forget it!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Travel, beer and tv listed in your essentials? Sorry, I cannot have much sympathy.

---

Not all students live within walking distance to their lectures. Travel could be getting the bus to & from college every day.

Beer & TV. Whilst not essentials surely people are allowed to have a life. People go to college to learn life experience as well as academic study. They are not trappist monks!

I agree with all of the above about the vast number of students in this country. The government has created a switch for its own back by setting targets of 50% of school leavers to go into higher education. As a result we now have a fundamental skills shortage in industries such as building or plumbing. In addition to that the tax burden is too big for the government to bear, so students are facing increased levels of debt.

As a Christian I have to ask myself the question, is it morally right to condemn large sections of the population to live under the bondage of large amounts of debt. Personal debt in this country is by all accounts spiralling out of control. Rumours are rife that the economy could collapse as a result. And our government want to add to this more so by forcing parents and children to take out substantial loans

Can we not do this discussion in hell? I'm having to hold back!
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irish & Proud:
Can we not do this discussion in hell? I'm having to hold back!

---

This thread is being run under the normal rules for the Ship. Thus, if you want to rant about this subject you're more than welcome to open a new thread in Hell to do so.

Alan
Purgatory host
 

---

Posted by richt (# 4679) on :
 
I think the key point, is that there has to be a point where if people want additional education, they have to at least partly fund it themselves. Education is completely free up to A-Levels (age 18) and is currently approx. £1000 a year up to undergraduate level (or postgraduate level if you do a MMath or one of those other 4 year courses they offer). This isn't exactly the largest contribution in the world and nothing like the true cost.

I know university is traditionally about more than just getting a degree, but I don't think it's the governments responsibility to pay for people to learn to live on their own, drink beer, play sports and so on. A living allowance isn't provided during pre-university education, so I don't see why the government should provide one to undergraduates. Should people choose to do all of the above whilst studying, the loans that are provided have extremely low interest rates (about 3%), beaten only by the interest free overdrafts (up to £2000). With regards to the loans, I'm not sure if matters have changed in the few years since I graduated, but you only have to start paying them off once you reach a threshould, which for me is about £23000 (not sure of exact figure, but know I haven't reached it yet!).

The point is, the majority of students have a choice - go away to uni, take part in all the activities available to you (or just sit and drink!), and fund this through loans and vacation work. Alternatively, you could stay at home, go to a local university and work at weekends, and probably graduate debt free. I along with most other students chose the first option and I definately don't regret it.

On a related note, I was talking to our secretary - she's just graduated with a 2:1 (studying full-time), whilst working 4 days a week here, so has actually come out of university better off than she went in (and has valuable work experience).

Finally, I don't believe in the arguments that "the country needs graduates" for providing them with free education and living expenses - yes the country does need them to an extent, but there are now graduates way in excess of the Britains needs. It's supply and demand. In comparison, there is a shortage of qualified teachers, so you get £6000 to do a PGCE, with further incentives for shortage subjects.
 

---

Posted by sophs (# 2296) on :
 
I think that part of the problem is the lack of knowlege about the top up fees. I am going through UCAS and hoping to study at Uni next year and went through the system last year. But i still don't know that much about the top up fees. At college we have had tutorial about all manner of silly things but never a lecture on top up fees or practical tips for budgeting ect.

I'm not sure if the idea of leaving Uni will put people off going (it hasn't put me off) But it will dissadvantage some people.
 

---

Posted by Astro (# 84) on :
 
Ok a parent type set of rather rambling views

1) Most parents do like seeing their children get into debt but are OK about their children going to university. I got a grant however grants were means tested and some peoples grants were only £50 a year which did not buy much in even back in the 1970's. On the one hand the government is applalled at the level of personal debt yet here they are teaching 18-21 year olds to get into debt. OK so they do not have to start paying it off until they get a reasonable size income, but by then they are probably looking at buying a home and then considering another huge debt - the mortgage. And thene the government have the gall to maon that young people are not saving for their retirement.

2) Tuition fees - these generally come from the parents, and if you have more than one child at university you pay more than one set of tuition fees - there is a very small allaowance for having mor ethan one child but most of the differnece comes in the parents having to make less contribution to their children's living cost - thus their children end up with larger loans!

Anyway it seems that job for which once O levels (school leaving exams for 16 year olds) were adequate now require degrees. If employers require univeristy graduates they should be prepared to pay for people to go to university.

3) it does seem a shame that there is peer group presuure to have so much stuff - overheard some students talking about broadband being essential - and of course if their student loans and overdrafts don't cover the cost of such stuff - then get a storecard

4) for the person who thought that travel was a luxery - often living a bit further away from teh university costs less so having zero weekly travel costs could actually cost more because of the higher rent.

5) finally - I think it is a good experience for 18 year olds to get away from home and learn to be independant of their parents - I suppose once this was done (for the males anyway) by military service - I think that society as a whole gains from this - so although I am having to pay tuition fees and parental support for my children to get through university I do not resent the part of my taxes that goes to wards other people's children going through university.
 

---

Posted by richt (# 4679) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro:

Anyway it seems that job for which once O levels (school leaving exams for 16 year olds) were adequate now require degrees. If employers require univeristy graduates they should be prepared to pay for people to go to university.

---

I think this is a result of there being a large number of graduates. The more graduates there are, the more employers are going to request graduates for any job that involves something slightly more complex than photocopying. (Which can be quite tricky sometimes )
 

---

Posted by anglicanrascal (# 3412) on :
 
FWIW I am majorly opposed to University student grants and feel that student loans are a much better way of funding the education system. It irks me the way that uni students are constantly demanding free higher education.

The way I see it, if you want to take on further education to advance your career, then it's your responsibility. If you want to study business or commerce or computer science or phsychology so that you can earn three or four times as much as I ever will, then it's your responsibility to fund that kind of investment in your life and skills. Why should my taxes go to support someone else's professional development? My taxes shouldn't go towards buying someone else a second Mercedes and a swimming pool for their back yard. If you want a high-flying career, then it's up to you to fund it yourself.

If a University education isn't going to further your career, then I also think that you should pay for it yourself - it's not right that I should fork out to pay someone's education hobby.

The Australian government's system is a good one where, if you go to University, you pay back the student loan only when your salary gets to a decent level. The more you earn, the larger part of your salary is (I believe) used to pay back the loan.

Pax,
anglicanrascal
 

---

Posted by adsarf (# 4288) on :
 
It's interesting to see contributions from people outside the UK. Generally the debate here recognises that there are universities in the UK and the USA, but not anywhere else, which is rather a limited view...

As of 2001/02 there were 90,135 students from other EU countries studying in the UK, about 5% of all students (there were 152,625 from outside the EU altogether, but we'll ignore them for purposes of this debate). Strip out the part time students, and the proportion goes up (oddly, French students are less likely than UK students to study at UK Universities part-time...) Under EU law, the UK must provide the same education to these students as to UK students, on the same terms. Whilst other EU coutries obviously do the same for British students, the British are too insular to take the option up in very large numbers (spend your years at University in the South of France or Italy maybe? Paid for by the French or Italian tax-payer? No it didn't appeal to me at the time either)

This is a real problem for graduate taxes. If these students go back home after they graduate, they no longer pay UK tax, but if they have taken out a UK loan, they still have to pay it. That's one important reason why a loan system is fairer than a graduate tax system.

The number of people qualified to go to University (which means basically people with A-levels) has risen continuously for more years than anyone can remember, and explosively after the invention of the GCSE. This is mainly because more people stay on at school now than formerly. Whilst the government spends less per student now than it did in the 1960s, the total spent on HE is vastly greater, which is why finding the money from general taxation is more of an issue now than it was then.

Fees are not, in practice, a very important issue since those who can't pay them generally don't have to, and there's little evidence that they put people off going to University either here or in other countries (like NZ) where they've been introduced. There's much better evidence that aversion to the debt needed to pay living costs puts a number of qualified students off attending University (but the vast majority of all qualified students attend University at some stage - at least in the UK). The current HE White Paper proposals wo'n't change that significantly. However, they may lead to greater differentiation between the 'Good' Universities (old, high-fees, attended by the privileged) and the 'Bad' universities (new, low-fees, attended by the poor). This wouldn't matter very much except that many employers are too impressed by the prestige of the University one attended to bother with finding out how much one learned there so this could strengthen patterns of elitism and discrimination which are already pretty strong in the UK. Speaking as an ex-Public school and Oxbridge white middle-class male, I naturally have mixed feelings about whether this is a Good Thing or not.

Another weakness in the current proposal is that universities will pay their own bursaries out of their own fee income, so the universities attended typically by the rich (e.g. Oxford) will have lots of money but few bursaries to pay, whilst others (e.g. Thames Valley) will have many disadvantaged students to support, but little fee income to do it with. This could lead to injustice if the moderately-poor (sons of vicars and the like) get a lot of help to go to Oxford, whereas the genuinely poor get little or no help.

In the UK we ration healthcare - its freely available at the point of use, but you have to wait to get it. With Higher Education we don't ration - you don't have to wait for your place because there isn't a fixed limit on places (although for a few years under the Thatcher government in the early 80s there was something close) but nor is it free at the point of use. Both are already expensive, and to make either both free and readily available would cost a lot of money. Questions of priorities.

Likewise, all the evidence is that HE tends to cement patternms of advantage and disadvantage. If you want to change someone's life chances through education, the earlier you spend money on it the better, so prioritising HE spending over pre-school or primary school (as we have historically in the UK) is not obviously the right priority either.

Sorry for such a long post, but the issues raised are genuinely complex. I hope at least a few people find it interesting
 

---

Posted by Jenny* (# 3131) on :
 
I am a final year student. for financial reasons I live at home and go to my local uni. this is £10 a week on bus fares. As it is impossible for me to travel home to get lunch, I eat lunch out, a refectory sarnie is around £2/3, and a coffe is 62p.

As i live at home i get a significantly reduced loan, around £40 a week.

Yes, my parents pay my fees for me, but I pay for food and contribution to rent etc. £40 a week is very little to live on, if I had to pay fees as well, i would be able to go to university.

I am 21, I am technically, legally an adult, so why are my parents expected to pay over £1000 a year on my behalf?

We are just over the threashold for my parents earing enough to pay my fees. There are forms and processes to find out people financial situation, but this does not take into account my sister who lives abroad and needs financial support from my parents.

As for 'top-up-fees', I am so cross about them. Some universities will be able to charge up to £3000 a year for students to study there. My university, being a good red-brick uni, may well charge this much. this will reflect well on my degree as it will be a 'better class' degree as it is more expensive uni, but it will stop people from going to uni.

I agree that less people should be goingto uni, but I do think there should be more emphasis on vocational qualifications. I never wanted to go to uni, I'll be glad to leave, but between college and uni i tried to work after a failed start to a different degree. The response i got from almost all jobs was 'if you have such good A levels why aren't you at university?' if I had been able to do a vocational qualification, things would be very different.

J
 

---

Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :
 
In 75 minutes I have a meeting with DfES (Department for Education and Skills) bods who are proposing to bring in radical changes to the administration of Hardship Funding. They seem to have no realisation that many students' parents don't pay the fees when they're supposed to, that £4000 is really too little to live off, and they are proposing a standard figure of £45 for all under 25 year olds to live off - including travel, food, household, day to day course expenses, utility bills etc. Its the same level as Job Seekers Allowance which is aimed at getting under 25 year olds into full time employment and is oh, about half the figure that the NUS reckons a student needs for the same costs.

I doubt it'll do anything, but I will mention the issues on this thread ...
 

---

Posted by Nunc Dimittis (# 848) on :
 

quote:

---

The way I see it, if you want to take on further education to advance your career, then it's your responsibility. If you want to study business or commerce or computer science or phsychology so that you can earn three or four times as much as I ever will, then it's your responsibility to fund that kind of investment in your life and skills. Why should my taxes go to support someone else's professional development? My taxes shouldn't go towards buying someone else a second Mercedes and a swimming pool for their back yard. If you want a high-flying career, then it's up to you to fund it yourself.

If a University education isn't going to further your career, then I also think that you should pay for it yourself - it's not right that I should fork out to pay someone's education hobby.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenny*:
I am 21, I am technically, legally an adult, so why are my parents expected to pay over £1000 a year on my behalf?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenny*:


I agree that less people should be goingto uni

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jenny*:
I never wanted to go to uni, I'll be glad to leave, but between college and uni i tried to work after a failed start to a different degree. The response i got from almost all jobs was 'if you have such good A levels why aren't you at university?' if I had been able to do a vocational qualification, things would be very different.

---

Yeah. This is a really important point. Its very rare for people with good A-levels not to go on and get a degree - this is one of the reasons why its actually very hard to say what the economic benefit of a degree is - there's no-one with the same qualifications except for the degree to compare a graduate to. Lots of professions that used to take straight from A-levels (Accountancy is a very good example) have shifted to pretty much Grauate entry only.

Mind you, a lot of degrees are very vocational. We teach TV Drama, Graphic Design, Advertising, fashion - all very focussed on specific vocations. It isn't all Physics, Classics and Art History.
 

---

Posted by Nightengale (# 5153) on :
 
The Liverpool Hope course tutor here! I appreciate all of the conversation that has taken place thus far, proving what an emotive issue this is.

However, the primary aim of the exercise is not to necessarily argue the rights and wrongs of student fees, but to look at the ethical implications of some sections of the application forms and how they can be addressed.

Pinky's was just one example. Here is another:

The loan request form requires information on both parents. This poses two distinct problems. First, if parents are separated and the applicant lives with one parent both incomes are asked for despite the fact that only a small amount from one parent may contribute to the upkeep of the child.

Second, if one parent is not contributing financially it is not clear on the form that that parent does not need to be consulted. The complexities of divorce and separation are not taken into consideration and as a result may cause distress and anxiety for all concerned.

Changing the government's mind on student fees is a monumental task, but if we can petition the government to make the application process more pastoral and ethical - that at least is some progress. We in the Pastoral Theology course welcome personal experiences and suggestions for improving the process.



[ 18. November 2003, 14:18: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
 

---

Posted by Irish & Proud (# 4825) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by adsarf:
Who would you throw out? On what criteria? I'm interested to see this idea surfacing on the thread so much because it implies that education isn't a universal right after all - and that's a pretty big claim.

---

I don't think anyone on this board has expressed the opinion that education is not a universal right. As an absolute education is a right. A free education is also a right (similar to free health care) which many of us would aspire to.

A free education (including tertiary education) was a reality until recently. Tuition fees were only introduced in the late 90s and were in my opinion a bad idea.

Many students (or parents) were already being saddled with massive debts as a result of the abolition of grants. Further burdens were added when tax breaks for supporting students were abolished and the government started to tax students. (I remember students getting threatening letters from baliffs due to being unable to pay their council tax!!)

The idea behind reducing the number of university places is not to deny a free education, but to make tertiary education there for the academically elite, those who will develop and further society and not just for those who want a high paid job on the other side. Current government targets will increase the burden of debt on society and that can only be a bad thing.

How do we do it? Not easily. A possible is to increase as has been sugeested above the number of shorter term vocational courses. Teach people some useful skills. Not media studies, marketing and advertising. Most jobs in the business world can be and are learnt on the job. Academic study does little to develop commercial awareness. It is difficult to learn this anywhere else than within a business context.

Many large companies will only look at CVs from people with a 2:1 or better. Not as a skills based notion but just to reduce the number of application forms they have to process for the few jobs that are there. This just further propogates the spiral.

I would much rather see us encourage young people to train in useful professions. After all aren't we short of skilled workers to fix our train tracks and our boilers. What use will having 50% of the population with degrees if we cannot build or repair the homes we live in.
 

---

Posted by Irish & Proud (# 4825) on :
 
Nightengale - welcome to the ship.

Interesting issue which surprises me. On the old grant application forms it was not compulsory to declare both parents if they were divorced.

As a result many people at my uni who declared only their mother's income received very hefty grants, despite the fact that their father was also supporting them.

Appreciate it may be difficult but at least the new method is fairer than previous which actually discriminated against non divorced parents.

Maybe the way to phrase it is to evaluate all of the incomings and outgoings from the household in which the student normally lives, including actual contributions from the absent parent rather than total salary. Forcing this to go via CSA could ensure that people do not vary their payments for the sake of making the form look better.

The other alternative is to get both parents to detail all of their incomings and outgoings in order to evaluate based on the full situation, i.e. 2 mortgages, other dependents, 2 sets of unitily bills, etc.
 

---

Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :
 
Better still , as from next year, the income of resident step parents will be taken into account when assessing loans/fee contributions.
 

---

Posted by sharkshooter (# 1589) on :
 
Whomever is contributing financially to the household should be included.

If that includes a natural mother and father and a step-parent or two, why not?

The choice to live common-law and/or remarry should consider the consequences to the children/students.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 
Do these sort of questions apply to mature students or others who live away from parents prior to going to university? And, do such students then have to pay the fees themselves or are their parents still expected to pay?
 

---

Posted by adsarf (# 4288) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irish & Proud:
I don't think anyone on this board has expressed the opinion that education is not a universal right. As an absolute education is a right. A free education is also a right (similar to free health care) which many of us would aspire to.
<snip>

The idea behind reducing the number of university places is not to deny a free education, but to make tertiary education there for the academically elite,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by adsarf:
Surely if its only available to a few it isn't a right? At least not in the sense of a Human Right. Or are you suggesting that Education is available as a right but someone other than the individual is entitled to determine what *kind* of education is appropriate?

---

Education is available to all as a right. Education has to stop at some point in your life though. I just advocate that we encourage more people to come out of the education process at an earlier stage, therefore reducing the tax burden of having to put so many through tertiary education.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
Ann - My sister had lived in her own flat for two years, working full-time, and supporting herself, and my parents were still assessed for her, and required to pay the full fees.

In UK, the fees and loans are assessed in March. A friend's father got made redundant in July this year, and their household income consequently reduced. Said friend made an application to the LEA (Local Education Authority, who do the assessment of income etc.), asking them to re-assess, based on the new levels of income. LEA said that they'd made the assessment, and it wouldn't now change til next year

All-in-all, I don't agree with the way it's assessed. They need to consider:

• Who is actually contributing to the household.
• How many dependents are being supported, whether as children, or through university.
• What other outgoings there are.

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
I began university in 1997, having deferred my entry for a year, and was one of the last students to have a grant. When I first applied to university, these grants had already been frozen for the best part of 8 years. Thus, when I got to University, they were what had been deemed appropriate in the late eighties, a time when inflation was at its peak in this country. Thus, I received 1800 a year, plus about 1600 a year loan, making just about 3 1/2 grand. If I had had to pay fees as well, I would have been stumped, as even working during the holidays did little to improve the tightness of my budget.

And make no mistake, it would have been me paying those fees. My father may have been old fashioned, but as far as he was concerned, I was over 18, I was an adult, and I was therefore responsible for myself. I lived away from home permanently. The whole culture at university that your parents would pay, and that you would be returning home every holiday did not apply to me.

From the interviews with poorer young people that I have seen on the television, it appears that a substantial number are put off by the severe debt which is vast becoming an inevitable part of student experience. I was reasonably careful with my money for the most part of my degree (apart from an awful period when I suffered from severe depression, and blew 400 pounds on books and CDs. Not good). However, I still left university with around £12,000 worth of debt. Fortunately for me, most of that was to my Uncle. If it hadn't have been for him, I would have had to drop out of uni.

I will never earn huge amounts of money, unless I strike it rich creatively, as I have a Theology degree. I know of very few high earners with a comparable degree. Fortunately I will be able to pay back my loan in full next year, as I am due to inherit rather a large amount of money, but that is just a happy coincidence.

Furthermore, in reaction to the government's policy of getting 50% of the country into higher education, a great many departments are actively lowering their grade requirements. Many lecturers are already overstretched, and yet they have to teach ever more students because more students means more funding. Nett result, many lecturers are suffering from stress, and a great many students get an impoverished education.

I do not really know what can be done about it if the country truly cannot afford grants. I wonder whether some sort of sponsorship for those on vocational style courses would not be in order. And some charitable scholarships for other courses may also help. I tend to favour a graduate tax, too. Perhaps a dual system could be established, whereby EU students are eligible for loans, in the same way as now, and UK students have to wait until they are earning a certain amount before a graduate tax becomes applicable (say, 20K or so).

I suppose the thing that really grates, (and I recognise that this is a childish argument), is that many of these politicians calling for top up fees and the like have been through university themselves. They received grants, some of them would not have been able to afford to go to university without them. And these grants were certainly reasonable. When I was working out my finances before University, my Dad tried to calculate what his grant would have been worth in 1997 terms. Turns out that his book allowance alone was equivalent to about £500 per annum. I had to skimp on book buying, as most courses had at least one set book, usually at least £15 pounds. My book budget had to be at least £100 per annum. This is a lot of money when you're trying to pay bills as well, but it was hardly the sort of thing that I should have beens kimping on.

All in all, I think it's a crying shame that students are now having to put themselves in so much debt while in the pursuit of knowledge. And if Laura is right about the direction in which we're headed, I had better start saving for my own children now (I don't have any yet).
 

---

Posted by frin (# 9) on :
 
Nightengale, is there a copy of the current, or even last year's, fees application forms on the web that you could link to? Given that a lot of people here will have gone through a different fees system, it might help us to engage with the current one more clearly.

I was one of the very last students to make it through the old maintenance grant system, to the point where the local government body responsible for administrating my grant had very little experience of doing so, and because my case was complicated would annually discover a new 'reason' not to hand over any money (which put me outside of any system for funding studies, whether loans or grants) until legal research, letters from my MP and faxes from the government could be produced to prove them wrong. That was a lot of effort every year.

Having now become a part-time student for medical reasons, the amount of support I might be entitled to is both meagre and means tested. It's something like £500 which is only for families earning up to £13,000 per annum. There is a strong assumption encoded in university and government policies that anyone who studies part time is doing so because they are choosing not to leave employment and that little financial support needs to exist for that group. That part-timers may have childcare, other caring responsibilities or disabilities which preclude them working while studying is not something taken into account by any funding mechanism (although universities sometimes waive fees for part-timers in receipt of certain state benefits).

Going back to the discussion about the number of university places - this is already capped by a number of things, including the physical capacity of a university and its teaching spaces, the number of available qualified teachers or lecturers, the number of students the university and the government agree should be admitted to courses/ the institution (or did this quota get abolished in the last few years). The 'problem' is that the government wants 50 percent of school leavers to go into degree level education, whilst simultaneously arguing that we should all pay more for the privilege as it will increase our earning capacity - but surely an increase of the pool of graduate workers will both work to decrease the salaries of that group and increase the number who end up taking jobs below the skill level at which they would like to work. The economic argument for paying high fees and top-up fees rarely addresses the impact of this.

'frin
 

---

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :
 
As another who started uni in 1997, I didn't have to pay any fees. Sadly, I didn't get any extra grant because my parents earnt too much. My loans and overdraft at the end of 4 years added up to about £9000.

I managed to avoid the severe deby many others got into by living in a very cheap (£30 a week) house in a 'dodgy' area, and only drinking the beers that were on 2-for-1 offers or suchlike. Book costs were avoided by virtually taking up residence in the library (which also saved on heating/electric bills), so not having to buy any for myself.

I think asking students to pay at least part of their fees through low-interest loans is not excessive. A debt of £10,000 at 3% a year which doesn't have to be paid back at all until you are earning above the threshold (currently about £24,000?) is not bank-breaking.

What is needed is a tightening of standards and discarding of "joke" degrees. The government needs to learn that a University Degree is not the only valid qualification one can achieve. Apprenticeships, vocational courses and academic degrees should all stand side by side, thus giving each student the chance to do what they want.
 

---

Posted by richt (# 4679) on :
 
I was yet another who started uni in 1997. From what I remember, I had a full grant of £1800 p.a. and took out loans in each year, totalling £5000. When I graduated I also had a £1000 overdraft. Averaging this over the 3 years gives an "income" of £3800p.a.

Of this, £180 per month for 10 months went on rent (a relatively high figure for Nottingham), and I was lucky enough to be able to live at home rent free during vacations. This totalled £1800, leaving £2000 for the rest of the year (call it 40 weeks for the 30 weeks of term-time, plus holidays where I stayed in Nottingham). That's £50 per week.

In truth, I didn't stick to that, probably spending an additional £1000 a year, which came from vacation work and saving money from working whilst doing A-Levels. Due to not having to pay council tax and there being a whole host of other ways to save money as a student I could live quite well on that amount (£4800p.a.), going out reasonably often (if cheaply), buying CDs and going away for a bit in the summer. With all the additional expenses and taxes I have now, I feel a lot less affluent than I did then.

My brother-in-law has just started uni this year, and appears to be living within the amount he gets from his student loan. He was also telling me how a lot of people in he has met managed to spend £300 odd in Freshers week and have nothing to show for it. I assume that they are either going to end up with one of these huge figures of debt, or they're going to get Daddy to pay for it.
 

---

Posted by Papio (# 4201) on :
 
Well yes. We have a rather nifty little corner shop in which can be purchased 8 cans of cheap and evil lager for a £5.

Books are a bit trickier. You pretty much have to buy them because the average class size is between 30 and 40 students and there are often only 1 or 2 copies of the course book in the library. As has been said, universities are under funded and mine is esp. under funded.

I really fail to comprehend how anyone with any claim to intelligence can truly believe that an income of between £3,000 and £4, 000 of which rent pretty much always takes at least half leaves enough change for designer clothes, cars, foreign holidays, going out every night etc*. Do you people not have even the slightest acquaintance with mathematics? This despite the fact that I know many students who have to pay their own fees out of their own pocket. A fact that will not change if universities can charge what they like. Such moves will price people out of an education.

*admittedly some students do this. Some students have a large number of maxed-out credit cards as well. On the other hand, the operative word here is some

And oooo yes. Sometimes I do go to said corner shop. Sometimes I even celebrate friend’s birthdays. When I was a society chair (last year) I even sometimes met my committee over a coffee or something. What an evil, profligate individual I must be How dare I want any social life whatsoever?

The fact is that almost every student I know is overdrawn. Many have used their overdrafts, as has Nunc, to pay for food, electricity etc. I am not saying that no student ever enjoys themselves once in a while. Of course we do. The point is that we can't read books 24/7 for several years. We would go mad. As Ferijen has pointed out, you get almost as much money on the dole despite the fact that the government claims to think that graduates and students contribute to society.
 

---

Posted by Irish & Proud (# 4825) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papio:
As Ferijen has pointed out, you get almost as much money on the dole despite the fact that the government claims to think that graduates and students contribute to society.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hildegard:
Fees for teriary education were introduced a few years ago by a government run by JOHN HOWARD, THE ONLY WORLD LEADER APART FROM TONY BLAIR WHO WANTED TO HELP INVADE IRAQ, who had noticed that people who had been to ordinary schools were getting to university.

---

Unfortunately, nice as it would be to blame Mr Howard for everything, it was a Labor government that introduced tertiary fees. The seeds of destruction of our free tertiary education system (won by Gough, All praise to the Great One) were sequentially sown by the evil John Dawkins (late 80s) and Kim Beasley (early 90s) (Green Papers and White Papers I can't remember which) Labor Ministers of Employment, Education and Training.

Of course the Liberal Party was laughing all the way to the bank.

Maintain the rage!
 

---

Posted by Puppycat (# 4941) on :
 
I know that for myself after 6 years at university I had a Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS)debt of more than $20,000 Australian. Not content with charging these fees to students for limited places the Federal Government is bumping up their fees and allowing students who don't academically qualify for one of the funded places to buy their way into a university place by paying up front fees. I'm still paying my student debt out of my taxes and can expect to be for a number of years to come yet.

There is something particularly offensive about government representatives telling people that the government cannot afford to, and will not fund free university places for students and it is necessary for students and/or their parents to pay all these fees when they themselves went through university at a time when it was free.

The government benefits in two ways with this policty. They get the higher taxes I pay plus the money for my HECS debt.

I guess the only way of getting back is to return the favour. When they are all old and retired and we are in control cut their pensions and health care benefits!
 

---

Posted by David (# 3) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Puppycat:
Not content with charging these fees to students for limited places the Federal Government is bumping up their fees and allowing students who don't academically qualify for one of the funded places to buy their way into a university place by paying up front fees.

---

quote:

---

On the plus side, at least the government has stopped discriminating against the stupid rich.

---

Because clearly the stupid rich are sorely discriminated against. yes certainly.

[Edited for UBB.]

[ 21. November 2003, 05:15: Message edited by: Tortuf ]
 

---

Posted by David (# 3) on :
 
Well, yes, they were. Prior to Gough , they were allowed to buy places at uni. Since then, they've had to compete for places like all the riffraff, which isn't fair given that their parents are rich.

I'm glad that has been redressed.

[ 21. November 2003, 04:19: Message edited by: David ]
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 
As a beneficary of a fullish grant back in the early 80s, I'm grateful that I'm not faced with the life limiting options faced by students today. But the core problem is that the student loan system doesn't pay enough; if it was adequately comfortable to live on what the loans pay out, then its offer of repaying the debt on the basis of what you are earning and only increasing the debt by inflation is a good deal. Where the problem lies is in the way that students are taking out commercial debt - which is not so forgiving.

The level of such student loans should be set at something above job seeker allowance - including a significant figure for rent. On that basis, it should include a significant top-up fee as well, and should be available for ALL tertiary education students, regardless of family circumstances. However anything less is unjust....
 

---

Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:
... The level of such student loans should be set at something above job seeker allowance - including a significant figure for rent. On that basis, it should include a significant top-up fee as well, and should be available for ALL tertiary education students, regardless of family circumstances. However anything less is unjust....

---

And the government's logic is that if you can live off £44 per week benefits given from one department (the Inland Revenue or the Department for Work and Pensions), a student (18-25) should be able to live off that too. In addition, they quite sneakily take the loan to last for term time only (i.e. 39 weeks in most instances). The maximum loan of £4000/39 weeks = £102 per week which, if I was working for the Department for Education and Skills (and I most certainly am not) would be sufficient to pay the living costs and (most of the) rent for the academic year (London, of course, gets a higher level of loan but the maths works out the same). Part time work should be able to pay for the 'extras' like, oh, the rent costs in most southern cities which are higher than £58 per week or even books (bizarrely thought to be quite essential for degree courses ).

'If' - and I quote from DfES bods I met earlier this week - 'you can provide a justifiable explanation why a student claiming hardship needs more to live off than someone on benefits (taking into account the additional costs of studying e.g. books and equipment) then we will pass it on to the minister.'

I leave the floor open for suggestions...

[ 21. November 2003, 08:35: Message edited by: Ferijen ]
 

---

Posted by kentishmaid (# 4767) on :
 
The thing that gets me is that, as a student, you are not permitted to apply for Housing Benefit, despite, in many cases, being on a comparable income to those normally eligible. Why they can't instigate, say, student housing benefit, payable for the 39 weeks of term, at the same rate normally applicable to others in their income bracket, I don't know. I was thinking about this the other night, and if, for example, they paid out 40 pounds a week for those on an eligible income, that would leave rent at more like 800 to a 1000 pounds a year for these students, which is much more manageable. In the case of students in halls, they could be informed by the university of the exact term dates, set up accounts with the university, and just pay the money directly to them. That way, student's living costs are directly reduced, and they end up paying for it when they themselves are earning.

And yes, student loans need to be increased, if that is the system they're insisting on sticking with. If they can manage to offer prospective teachers £6K/annum, then I don't see why they can't with prospective nurses, public sector workers etc who will be contributing just as much to society.

And I agree with whoever earlier said that it seems all the more galling considering that these very ministers have had the benefit of a free tertiary education. Perhaps part of their policy should include insisting that all such people pay a lump sum to their alma mater as a thank you to all concerned? If they can't afford say, a 20K lump sum, I'm sure they can take out an affordable loan to cover it.
 

---

Posted by benny gee (# 5204) on :
 
I'm a second year undergraduate, so I apologise if this turns into a rant about the current system. There seem to be two major issues here - ideological issues with student fees and practical issues with the current system. I'll start rambling about the latter:

Many people on here seem to believe that a years rent is about two thousand pounds. However, the current North/South divide in the housing UK market means there are huge variations in this and the loan system does not take this into account.

For example - I am a student in Oxford, officially the second most expensive place to study in Britain after London. London students get larger loans because of price issues, I do not. My monthly rent is £300 per month. Paying my rent for 12 months plus my tuition fees amounts to £4700 - more than my loan and money from parents combined. This is without utilities, food, clothes and about £100-worth of books per term.
Compare this to Sheffield, where I know someone paying £210 per month rent - that's £1080 pounds less per year. Although I can understand that it's hard for the government to set loans spacific to every variable, surely there must be some way to change this?

The system has also shown that it cannot take into account the huge inflation in house prices nationally. I know the house I'm now living in was £250 a month two years ago - a difference of £600 a year. Student support has not moved at the same speed, although I do not know the exact figures.

Fortunately, I managed to get a really good summer job and worked solidly for 3 months so I can afford a reasonable lifestyle. Even so, I am still dependent on my parents paying for my fees and 25% of the maximum loan (they miss the cut off point for more assistance by a couple of hundred pounds), despite the fact they are not legally required to. Because it is not a legal requirement, in 10% of cases they don't provide any assistance at all. Surely this proves that the system is not working???

As far as I can work out, some major changes need to be made. Firstly, I believe that students should not be dependent on parents, so loans should not be means tested AT ALL. The maximum loan needs to be significantly increased and hopefully set with respect to local conditions. By giving the student enough to survive without parental finance, this would remove the multiple child funding issue. The flipside of this is it does increase the amount of loan available, although if parents are still contributing students do not have to take out the full amount.

One thing that I do know is that the current situation cannot continue for too much longer. The majority of universities are struggling for cash - this does include Oxbridge. I know here that college rents are due to go up 60% in 3 years in some colleges to cover costs. As far as I can tell, HE is not included in "education, education, education" as quite frankly the situation is appalling. The idea of a 'marketplace' seems badly thought out - surely universities should be working together? Top-up fees WILL put off some top students from applying to appropriate universities, thus damaging the country's "knowledge-base" in the long run. As much as I think that the current Labour government has put up taxes too much in it's time in power, unless it can reallocate funds from somewhere else then raising taxes can be the only way to avoid reducing standards. Tax the rich as they're most likely to have been to uni and have kids who need smaller loans, but that's because I'm a leftie. And please please please can someone convince Blair to drop the 50% in HE figure? Choosing a nice, round, arbitary number as a target resulting in overstretched funding and pointless qualifications is not helpful.
 

---

Posted by Nightengale (# 5153) on :
 
Hi, this is the course tutor again. I must say I am thrilled with the debate, stories and genuine attempts to come to grips with an almost impossible issue. You are all well on your way to receiving an 'A'! Just kidding - that would be unethical of course. Thank you to everyone who has taken part so far. Perhaps we could debate a bit more on how the system could be more pastoral. There are some really appalling stories out there - could the situations have been different if handled in a different manner or is this simply an administrative issue that has no business trying to deal with individual cases? Over to you...
 

---

Posted by The Coot (Icarus) (# 220) on :
 
Is there provision in the UK system for assessing students as independent (ie. tested on their on income) by taking into consideration their family circumstances? Here, it was the case that once someone had married, lived defacto, worked full-time for 2 yrs, could not live at home due to violence, abuse or irreparable breakdown of relationship with parents who would not support them (not 100% sure on that one), they were considered 'independent' for the purposes of assessable income.

The education allowance I received (which differed from the usual Austudy/Teas) had a Living at Home rate; a higher Living away from Home rate; and a higher again independent rate. Unless they were classed as independent, students received the Living at Home rate, unless there was a case why they could not live at home (no space; detrimental home environment; unreasonable travel time). I suppose dividing students into these 3 categories has a pastoral element or at least takes into account differing life circumstances. This way there is some ironing out of the differential between students who live at home with everything laid on and for whom any allowance is surplus; compared to those who must live away from home by virtue of the higher rates.

What happens in the UK for the other 13 weeks of the year, btw? Do people go on the dole once the summer holidays start? Here education allowance is paid for the full 52 wks.
 

---

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by The Coot (Icarus):
Do people go on the dole once the summer holidays start? Here education allowance is paid for the full 52 wks.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by David:
Well, yes, they were. Prior to Gough , they were allowed to buy places at uni. Since then, they've had to compete for places like all the riffraff, which isn't fair given that their parents are rich.

I'm glad that has been redressed.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by there is no spoon:
We need more vocational training, and for it to be seen to have equal value as higher ed.

---

Quite a lot of university education these days is vocational - degrees in accountancy, management, business studies, marketing, etc, are not taken to satisfy a students thirst for knowledge, but to get them a job afterwards. It's the way all education is going nowadays. What is imoportant is not knowledge and understanding, but skills and training. The only reason you can't do degrees in plumbing or carpentry is that these are not seen as suitable careers for the middle-classes who dominate universities.
 

---

Posted by fatprophet (# 3636) on :
 
I think some kind of graduate tax is fair, with full bursaries for the best but poorer students and for those students of those subjects where the relevant skills and qualifications are in real demand in society.

I would hate for my taxes to be spent on some of the daft courses that seem to be run at some universities...
Could someone for example explain the social utility in bunch of young people doing theology at university ?
Hurrah for Engineering or medicine - lets give full student grants and free education to do such useful subjects but if a student wants simply to indulge some mere personal fad that will not assist the student to get a better job at the end then this should be at their expense and not be state subsidised.

The problem in the UK is that we seem to fund all and every student on a per capita basis and largely indiscriminately without consideration of the course that they are taking. The huge and unnecessary cost of paying for everyone to go to university who wants to go and can go, without considering whether it will do them or society any benefit, means what provision there is, is spread too thinly.
 

---

Posted by Sarkycow (# 1012) on :
 
People keep mentioning 'noddy' degrees, and disparagingly say of them, that they should be scrapped.

All well and good, but who decides what is a 'noddy' degree, and what is a good degree?

Is Theology a noddy degree?
Is Psychology a noddy degree?
Is Film Studies a noddy degree?
How about Drama, Art, any kind of Literature, Forensic Science?

There are not enough doctors - perhaps we should give bigger grants to people who choose to go to medicial school? That would make it more attractive.

University isn't solely, or even predominantly, about getting a degree which will get you a job. It's about learning, and a life-long love of it. It's about learning to be an adult, and independent, and look after yourself. It's about figuring out who you are, what your interests are, what you support, what you're against etc. It's about skills rather than simply knowledge.

Sarkycow
 

---

Posted by Mousethief (# 953) on :
 
Oh Sark you hopeless romantic!
 

---

Posted by The Coot (Icarus) (# 220) on :
 

quote:

---

Nightengale:
There are some really appalling stories out there - could the situations have been different if handled in a different manner or is this simply an administrative issue that has no business trying to deal with individual cases?

---

I'd say dealing with individual cases is unworkable and also becomes subjective. IMO, the only fair way to administer a more compassionate system is to have an agreed upon set of criteria for why a student should be exempt from being assessed by parental income. That together with different rates of allowance according to Living at Home; Away from Home and Independent; would make the system more equitable.

I suppose you could consider it pastoral care in aggregate...
 

---

Posted by Hildegard (# 4598) on :
 
Hiyer... Following debate with interest, but either I'm missing something obvious or I'm seriously out of whack... OK, that's a possibility...but I'm glad you picked up my "deliberate mistake" about the Liberal Government introducing fees... Seriously, what I don't seem to see too many people saying is: Free education is, if not exactly a right, a highly desirable GOOD THING which a just and caring society should strive to achieve. That's wot I fink anyway - and practically everyone else I know in the education sector, whether secondary or tertiary. Here in OZ the gov't put forth the ludicrous proposition that it was only right that students pay for their education, as they were the ones who benefitted from it via higher incomes etc. Bizarrely enough a lot of people seemed to have swallowed this enormous lie. A couple of points: (1.) I must remember when I am at the dentist, doctor, vet etc that I am receiving no benefit from their education; (2) One of the first things that third world countries try to do is to get their people educated, since an educated population will be better able to work, to look after their health, to take a responsible part in civic life and politics etc; (3) If graduates benefit from their higher education by having higher incomes, why are fees applied to individuals who aren't earning any income, or a low one? (4) And why don't they charge those sneaks who didn't even go to university and are earning a high income - yer rock stars, estate agents and such like? and (5) again on the "higher income" scam, isn't this "benefit" redeemed to the community by the higher taxes these individuals will be paying all their lives? So isn't charging them for their degree as well a sort of double-dipping?

No folks, I think that education is a good to the community, and the inevitable result of making it more expensive is that only the rich will be able to afford it, and that there will be a shortage of professionals in some areas.

From a viewpoint of my own theology, I can't support any scheme which favours some people over others because they have money.

I'd like to hear some theological reflections on the subject!
 

---

Posted by Hannahs-d (# 4672) on :
 
If you earn more then you pay more tax - so yes, if you have to pay an additional tax ontop because you are a graduate then you get a double whammy.
Student loans and tuition fees suck.
At 16 I can get married, get a full time job and get pregnant should i schoose to do so, at 18 i can vote, and get married without my parents permission,
but at 19 I still have to go cap in hand to my parents.
I'm an independent adult for all purposes except when the governemnt decides to charge my parents extortionate amounts for my decisions.

University was never designed for everyone, i believe it was to top 10% of students it was originally aimed at. And obviously the more people in higher education, the less valuable my degree is.
but i cannot do the job i love without having first managed to get a degree.
so i have a choice, do a job i hate and where I'm not fufilling my potential, or go through a degree get huge debt, and get a job I love, but is not this huge salary everyone seems to expect a degree to lead to.
I choose to do a 4 year degree in chemistry.
I g raduated this year, i had to pay tuition fees of over 2.5k despite havign a year in industry (yes you do have to pay fees whilst doing a year in industry) and not having to pay fees in my final year as I got married (and my husband was as poor as me).
I came out with debts of over 11K even with having had to work every holiday and getting a paid year in industry.
I didn't live lavishly. We had times when we couldn't afford to turn the heating on, and when i had to cash in my penny jar, just to buy beans so i could eat.

loans barely cover accomodation (which incidentaly is not unsually infested with mice and or cockroaches - lovely)

in addition to all that, I'm married to another graduate - we are starting off our married life with huge debts due to fees and loans - we don't have the privilige of being able to consider saving a deposit for a house or starting a family.
YES, student fees are obviously shamefull, wrong and unfair,
they leave the less well off in huge financial difficulties whilst assuming it will be ok because all graduate jobs pay well.
have you tried getting one??? and they frequently don't pay well.


 

---

Posted by Jengie (# 273) on :
 

quote:

---

University was never designed for everyone, i believe it was to top 10% of students it was originally aimed at. And obviously the more people in higher education, the less valuable my degree is.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ship's Meerkat:
Hmmm. I'm a student, and I think the current system just about works. Admittedly, there are too many people being put into university for no better reason than Mr. Blair says so, but the loan system works well enough.

The only thing I think should definitely be changed (not considering myself knowledgeable enough about the many other contentious issues), why should students or their parents pay tuition fees? Haven't centuries of work on the education system been done to offer education equally to all who are capable?

Without that, I think the current loan is enough to survive comfortably on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Nightengale:
Perhaps we could debate a bit more on how the system could be more pastoral. There are some really appalling stories out there - could the situations have been different if handled in a different manner or is this simply an administrative issue that has no business trying to deal with individual cases? Over to you...

---

Nightengale we will try to debate your question but as it is such an emotive issue, the likelihood is that we will keep deviating back into the rights and wrongs of fees, grants etc.

For what it's worth I would say the only way to make it more pastoral is to encourage the local authorities who are processing claims to be a bit sensitive. There are many broken families out there and a lot of hurt people. Even reading one of the forms can put someone off applying as they think 'there is no way I am answering that question!'

I have a vague recollection of when I filled my grant application form in, in 1991 when I was going to Uni, that I had to go in and discuss the application form with someone at the Belfast Education & Library board (the LEA in modern speak). Perhaps for sensitive cases these interviews could be done in private with the prospective students, if only to encourage them that all of these past hurts were not going to be brought into a public arena.

I do also feel that if government is going to saddle our youth with huge amounts of debt, which will hang over them for years to come, that they should be given counselling and advice on managing the debt and how to pay it off. Again this is making the system more pastoral.

I am a graduate. I get paid well. However, my salary barely covers the cost of supporting my family.

It is me & my wife's decision for her to be at home for our kids whilst they are young. This is due to wanting them to be brought up in their parents care and not having to spend large amounts of time in day care.

If we also had a large amount of graduate debt hanging over us, we would not be able to afford this investment in our children's future.

(Told you I couldn't resist it! )
 

---

Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Irish & Proud:
I do also feel that if government is going to saddle our youth with huge amounts of debt, which will hang over them for years to come, that they should be given counselling and advice on managing the debt and how to pay it off. Again this is making the system more pastoral.

---

I don't agree that coming out of University with thousands of pounds of debt is great (but I'm not about to come up with the answers either), and part of my job is to deal with the mess that is created by LEA Assessments (some Hampshire students are 9 weeks and waiting for their assessment to come through !) - but just for clarity's sake - modern student debts are horrific, but they are not the same as mortgages, bank loans, credit cards etc. etc. I get my monthly pay slip of £x. Then my tax, national insurance, pension and student loans are taken off and I take home £x-lots of money (and my student loan is only, currently, 4% of the 'lots of money bit' of that equation). In terms of the actual method of repayment of student debts, its the same as a tax, and given my estimated earnings, size of loan etc, its a tax I'm going to be paying for at least 10 years. Debt counselling/advice would imply that an individual is seeking information about budgeting, money-saving etc. in order to manage their repayments from their available income. Student loans never make it that far as they're never part of the available income in the first place. In terms of priorities, it is much more important to pay off that overdraft/credit card bill, or to keep your mortgage at a rate you can afford, than to pay your student loan off.
 

---

Posted by Ferijen (# 4719) on :
 
Apologies for double posting - sorry, the last post should have said that my student loan repayment is only 4% of my gross pay, which isn't so much compared with the 28% of tax, NI and pension which I pay.

It would be more reasonable to campaign that the level of loans went out so that students could avoid loans attracting high rates of interest (credit cards and some overdrafts are included in this). Unfortunately, the government just says that there is 'no more money'.
 

---

Posted by Ship's Meerkat (# 5213) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ship's Meerkat:
Hmmm. I'm a student, and I think the current system just about works. Admittedly, there are too many people being put into university for no better reason than Mr. Blair says so, but the loan system works well enough.

The only thing I think should definitely be changed (not considering myself knowledgeable enough about the many other contentious issues), why should students or their parents pay tuition fees? Haven't centuries of work on the education system been done to offer education equally to all who are capable?

Without that, I think the current loan is enough to survive comfortably on.

---

The question is where are you at uni - and what is the cost of your accomodation. That is the thing that makes the difference; where accomodation is still cheap, the present level of loan is probably sufficent. But in the more expensive areas 'down South', but increasingly elsewhere, the implicit rent figure is a bad joke. Can you please tell us what you are paying for your rent per week and whether you have to pay that for 52 weeks a year - and can other students do likewise.

---

Well, I'm at Cambridge- not generally the cheapest place in the world to live, and I could say a few vindictive little things about Sainsbury's cornering the market... but my weekly rent works out at a shade over £75 per week, other expenses aside.

The start of term would have been a bit tough, because my loan only appeared a fortnight ago, but I'd done a year in industry and saved a reasonable amount of money. With this, I am confident that I'll be able to get through the four-year course without scavenging or resorting to eating my boots.
 

---

Posted by vivvyenna (# 5243) on :
 
I've been reading this for so long I have forgotten half the points I was going to make.
1)they do consider other siblings at uni.
2)The poorer your background the more loan you get, but that keeps you poorer longer.
3)The thing that annoyed me and friends most was the fact that they advertise the student loan as interest free, but its not. Mine increases by about £300 a year. Although you dont have to start paying it back til you earn over a certain income, the longer you leave it the more you'll have to pay.
4)There are various grants, sponsorships etc available. I got one this year just by writing a letter. If you are worried about being poorer than necessary because of uni look for one of these.
5)I agree that many students spend money badly, but its hard to work out who is genuinely needing money and who just wasted what they had.
6)I think until now they have asked about both parents but not step-parents, but this is going to change. For me this is good because my step-ma earns nothing so they'll give me even more debt (good and bad, more money for now, more money to pay back another day!)
7)Doesnt it say somewhere in the Bible that debt is bad?
8)As much as I hate debt it does seem to work in most cases. Loans give most people who need it some money, and the government doesnt have to cover it all. I'm not sure where I stand on top up fees at present.
That'll do for now. Happy discussing.
 

---

Posted by Ender's Shadow (# 2272) on :
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by vivvyenna:
3)The thing that annoyed me and friends most was the fact that they advertise the student loan as interest free, but its not. Mine increases by about £300 a year. Although you dont have to start paying it back til you earn over a certain income, the longer you leave it the more you'll have to pay.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hildegard:
Still wondering what people's views are on the principle of discrimination on financial grounds here, ie that people are discriminated against educationally if they don't have money.

Isn't discrimination of this sort wrong in principle? Do we really believe that the wealthy not only will, but should inherit the earth? that the poor are less worthy?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ender's Shadow:


The problem is when you put it round the other way; if you are not going to discriminate on the basis of wealth, you have to make a university education totally free at point of access, so it must be paid for by general taxation. If so, its claims must be set against health / welfare / foreign aid. On the whole depriving a village of a well so that I can go to university doesn't quite work for me....

---

© Ship of Fools 2016


UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0