Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
interestrateripoff

Raising Tuition Fees Is Paying Off For Everyone - Except Nick Clegg

Recommended Posts

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationopinion/11408555/Raising-tuition-fees-is-paying-off-for-everyone-except-Nick-Clegg.html

The trebling of university tuition fees is regarded as one of the great cruelties of this Coalition, one of the harshest blows dealt by the austerity era. Nick Clegg had hoped that voters might forgive him for his part in all this, but if anything, the voters’ desire for vengeance seems to harden as polling day approaches. And understandably so: he explicitly promised not to hike fees, then broke his word. So it’s a shame that no one would believe him if he pointed out that the reform has been a great success.

Across the country, universities are finding that something strange is happening. The predicted effect of the £9,000 annual fees – a permanent slump in applications from discouraged students – has failed to materialise. Now we are seeing more applications than ever, and a record number are from people with disadvantaged backgrounds. There’s more competition, with new universities and sixth-form colleges offering robust, no-frills degrees. The Scottish government, which abolished tuition fees, now has an embarrassing admission to make: if you’re gifted, poor and set on university, then England is the best place to be.

On the surface, the reform did seem rather mean. A generation ago, students paid nothing for tuition; Tony Blair then charged £3,000 and David Cameron raised it to £9,000. It seemed to stand to reason that this would deter all but the wealthiest families – which is why it was denounced as a heartless Tory plan cooked up with turncoat Liberal Democrats.

..

This is something that David Cameron ought to be proud of. His reform has been misrepresented from the offset: the word “fees”’ conjured images of large cheques having to be written. In fact, it works like a graduate tax: repayment is only required when students earn more than £21,000. Crucially, only about one in four graduates is expected to have to repay the full amount – the Government stumps up for the rest. So this new scheme was never, really, a money-saving exercise; it was an attempt to find fairer, more secure funding for universities and give more help to students who needed it most.

No one believed such claims at the time, but the evidence bears it out. When academics from Edinburgh University looked into this last year, they found that English universities now spend three times as much on poorer students as their Scottish counterparts. Those English universities that charge over £6,000 (ie, most of them) are obliged to spend about a third of the extra money helping disadvantaged students in whatever way they think best. Some provide summer courses, others lay on outreach programmes to high-achieving state schools. Others will offer bursaries.

Hmmm if your poor and live in Scotland the degree is "free" at the point of consumption, but if your poor and in England you get a summer course and £27k of course fees??? If I was poor I'd rather not have the debt and have the "free" degree and no summer course.

Everyone loves debt now so getting yourself a £40k debt now for a degree is all great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I sincerely hope the lib-dems have 0 mps afte the election.

Cameron and that other wee labour weaselly bloke are bad enough by clegg will be remembered as the biggets are* licked in history, IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a child I never dreamt that saving 60k to pay for m y children's university fees would become a big aim in my adult life.

Got to be done though. Kids coming out of uni virtually debt free will be have an outrageous advantage over their peers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are there so many applications if it is so expensive? Are all these people just hoping that they never have to pay it back or are they foreign students who will just disappear?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This nonsense has just made me decide to vote this election. I was not going to bother but I seem to be getting angrier by the day at LibLabCon and their media puppets.

What party has the best chance of causing an upset in West Yorkshire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How are there so many applications if it is so expensive? Are all these people just hoping that they never have to pay it back or are they foreign students who will just disappear?

On the West Bromwich thread there is/was a spat going on about whether those taking loans (house buyers) or those peddling them (banks) are to blame for HPI.

Parents and youth are being peddled tertiary education as the way to an useful and employed future. Many have no experience of whether it is necessary, but they believe it is.

Chasing the dream keeps everyone quiet and the loan enables.

When all your peers go to University however, the advantage disappears.

As well as an education though, everyone now has debt in common too.

(of course, there is a point to tertiary education for some individuals and for the country's competitiveness.)

(the real reason tertiary education is being peddled to parents and youth is because Government is faced with the dilemma of what do you do with the youth when there are no jobs, and you'd like them to fund their own social security for three years.)

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When I was a child I never dreamt that saving 60k to pay for m y children's university fees would become a big aim in my adult life.

Got to be done though. Kids coming out of uni virtually debt free will be have an outrageous advantage over their peers.

Dont they all coming out paying back nothing?

Only the "successful" ones will pay back the money.

It's not even a loan, it's a tax.

Are you gambling you child will be succesfull ?

Are middle of the road uni-graduates successful ? Or are they just cannon fodder for the taxation machines that is the british government ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the telegraph article.


And understandably so: he explicitly promised not to hike fees, then broke his word.

It wasn't just that. His election campaign was also based on not breaking election promises - with "No Tuition Fees" being a headline theme.

Apparently even before the election they knew they wouldn't be doing "No Tuition Fees" even if they got in power - the "No Tuition Fees" was a blatant lie from the outset.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jTLR8R9JXz4

A complete scam - another one.

Then there's the point that lots of the courses lead to nothing but burger flipping type jobs and going to University under the false prospect of getting a better job sets you back at least 3 years in the earnings race. A double whammy.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Evil, usurious payday loans are now capped so that total (re)payments cannot be more than double the amount borrowed.

Good, fair student loans have no such cap.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This nonsense has just made me decide to vote this election. I was not going to bother but I seem to be getting angrier by the day at LibLabCon and their media puppets.

What party has the best chance of causing an upset in West Yorkshire?

Depends which seat you're in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Parents and youth are being peddled tertiary education as the way to an useful and employed future. Many have no experience of whether it is necessary, but they believe it is.

Chasing the dream keeps everyone quiet and the loan enables.

When all your peers go to University however, the advantage disappears.

...

....

(the real reason tertiary education is being peddled to parents and youth is because Government is faced with the dilemma of what do you do with the youth when there are no jobs, and you'd like them to fund their own social security for three years.)

The reason why parents are still letting their kids pile into uni/further education is not because they think paying 6-9K pa is a great deal. It's due to the fact that if they don't get some piece of paper by their early twenties, then no employers except the supermarkets, burger chains and 99p shops will employ them. They will be condemned from the start to earning min wage , zero hrs contracts with no real room to work their way out.

For poor students who are not the next Einstein and with no chance of a scholarship to a Russell Group uni, the fear is not getting that piece of paper.

The politicians and employers have engineered this situation over the last 25 years. There are few decent jobs left in the UK for youngsters between 16-20yrs old. You either pay the fees/take the loan, or jump through hoops every fortnight to get a pittance of job seekers allowance. That's the reality.

And don't forget...every other young unemployed person in the EU is now challening for those bottom rung jobs....something that didn't exist 30yrs ago.

I was poor in the 80s , when fees were nil / very low. The fear was with me from the day I passed my A levels and waited for the uni acceptance to drop through the door. It continued for 4 years , until I passed the finals. God knows what it's like for kids now. I don't envy them one bit.

As for the writer's assumption that Scottish poor kids will flock to England to pay 9K pa.....poppycock. Absolute BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The reason why parents are still letting their kids pile into uni/further education is not because they think paying 6-9K pa is a great deal. It's due to the fact that THEY HAVE BEEN LED TO THINK if they don't get some piece of paper by their early twenties, then no employers except the supermarkets, burger chains and 99p shops will employ them. They will be condemned from the start to earning min wage , zero hrs contracts with no real room to work their way out.

For poor students who are not the next Einstein and with no chance of a scholarship to a Russell Group uni, the fear THAT HAS BEEN INSTILLED is not getting that piece of paper.

The politicians and employers have engineered this situation over the last 25 years. There are few decent jobs left in the UK for youngsters between 16-20yrs old. You either pay the fees/take the loan, or jump through hoops every fortnight to get a pittance of job seekers allowance. That's the reality.

And don't forget...every other young unemployed person in the EU is now challening for those bottom rung jobs....something that didn't exist 30yrs ago.

I was poor in the 80s , when fees were nil / very low. The fear was with me from the day I passed my A levels and waited for the uni acceptance to drop through the door. It continued for 4 years , until I passed the finals. God knows what it's like for kids now. I don't envy them one bit.

As for the writer's assumption that Scottish poor kids will flock to England to pay 9K pa.....poppycock. Absolute BS.

I chucked in a couple of comments into you post. Hope you don't mind

It's different now compared to the 80s

When everyone and his dog is going for a bog standard degree - do the opposite.

(That doesn't apply to vocational degrees in the sciences, medicine, philosophy, languages etc)

Edited by LiveinHope

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clegg was on the radio the other day repeating his claim that he had no choice about reneging on the tuition fee promise- in reality Osborne told Clegg not to do it and the Tories were prepared to accept it because it was such a key Lib Dem issue- or so they thought.

So the decision to break the pledge was Cleggs alone- which does imply that he had no intention of ever keeping it in the first place.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's quite obvious why tuition fees are not a deterrent, the debt isn't real. You get the rite of passage thing on the tax payer and only in exceptional circumstance will it need repaying, If the education pays off you become a high flyer. In other words heads the student wins, tails the student wins because the high flyer position is conditional on the degree and failure is a free rite of passage.

The whole thing is a sledge hammer to crack a nut, a Blarite dream to reward academic achievement and give the kids a dream rite of passage, plus GDP improvements and BTL thrown in. Do a Human Geography degree become an Amazon drone.

Edited by crashmonitor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

12 November 2010

http://

www.theguardian.com/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg

The Liberal Democrats were drawing up plans to abandon Nick Clegg's flagship policy to scrap university tuition fees two months before the general election, secret party documents reveal.

As the Lib Dem leader faces a growing revolt after this week's violent protest against fee rises, internal documents show the party was drawing up proposals for coalition negotiations which contrasted sharply with Clegg's public pronouncements.

13 November 2010

http://

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1329328/Nick-Clegg-plotted-ditch-student-tuition-fees-pledge-MONTHS-election.html

Nick Clegg was secretly plotting to ditch his pledge to axe tuition fees two months before the election, it was revealed last night.

In a grave embarrassment for the Deputy Prime Minister, secret papers have revealed that the Liberal Democrats drew up plans to abandon the pledge even as they were publicly promising university students they would oppose fees.

On March 16, a secret Lib Dem team set up to prepare for a possible coalition government decided to ditch the policy.

But a month later, Mr Clegg publicly denounced the ‘dead weight of debt’ facing students and publicly signed a pledge to oppose any increase in tuition fees. Every one of his party colleagues also signed the pledge.

Edited by billybong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Fraser Nelson's head moves further up the anus of neoliberal thought with every passing day leading up to the general election.

He obviously fails to mention that it is highly likely that the tripling of fees will cost the taxpayer just as much - if not more - than before because so many loans will not be repaid. But that's not the most idiotic part of his thinking. His main argument is that because the tripling of fees has not deterred higher education applications, this proves that the market likes them and therefore they are a good thing. It's about as stupid as saying that because house prices have tripled and yet there is still just as much demand for taking out 125% IO unrepayable mortgages, this means that ever higher house prices and higher loan multiples are a good thing. The evidence is that when you take away reasonable choice from people - i.e. Get a 10x mortgage, or bring up your family in an insecure environment, with no legal protection as a tenant - then the rational decision may be to get the unrepayable loan. As others have mentioned, the rational decision if you are a kid from a poor background and are unlikely to ever earn enough to have to pay a loan back - is to take out the loan.

The problem these guys have is that they use a prosaic and flawed market analysis to justify everything. They can't think outside the bounds of what their tired ideological dogma dictates.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem these guys have is that they use a prosaic and flawed market analysis to justify everything. They can't think outside the bounds of what their tired ideological dogma dictates.

There are a few on here like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't default on the student debt, so perhaps the best strategy would be to load up on as much credit card/loan capacity as you can, use that to pay the fees up front, then default.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I chucked in a couple of comments into you post. Hope you don't mind

It's different now compared to the 80s

When everyone and his dog is going for a bog standard degree - do the opposite.

(That doesn't apply to vocational degrees in the sciences, medicine, philosophy, languages etc)

No problem. It reads better with your additions ;)

The poor kids will not do the opposite unfortunately. The fear of ending up diploma-less at 21 and Tesco/McDonald's looming large spurs them to take the debt. A middle class kid with a decent wedge from his parents or a large inheritence coming their way later in life (eg...an average 2 bed house in 2030 worth £2M plus B) ) would be best advised to forego the uni experience and start out elsewhere...I agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont they all coming out paying back nothing?

Only the "successful" ones will pay back the money.

It's not even a loan, it's a tax.

Are you gambling you child will be succesfull ?

Are middle of the road uni-graduates successful ? Or are they just cannon fodder for the taxation machines that is the british government ?

Most of us are just cannon fodder, to think otherwise is to delude yourself. But we digress... I'm not really betting. Its' my gift to my children that they can have the same opportunity I had, and one that I did OK out of. If they don't want to go to University, fine. At the risk of being lynched I'll put the money towards their house.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a tax. You can opt out of this 'tax' by being rich and paying off the loan.

Even if it was a tax, a graduate tax is a terrible idea. Everyone should pay tax according to their current circumstances. Why should a decision I made at 17 mean I pay an extra 9% tax for my entire life, with no opt-out except leaving the country and never coming back? Go ask people who went to University in the 80s if they'll be volunteering for a graduate tax now.

This is a millstone round young people's necks. Soon we'll have a generation where most of them spend their entire adult lives enslaved to servicing one debt or another.

We should pay for the brightest to be educated as a public good, and pay for it fully. If we can't afford for 50% of youngsters to go to University, then fewer should go.

Nick Clegg is a liar and an idiot. The coalition agreement - written down in black and white - gave him the option of abstaining on the fees vote. I hope the Lib Dems end up with zero MPs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not a tax. You can opt out of this 'tax' by being rich and paying off the loan.

Even if it was a tax, a graduate tax is a terrible idea. Everyone should pay tax according to their current circumstances. Why should a decision I made at 17 mean I pay an extra 9% tax for my entire life, with no opt-out except leaving the country and never coming back? Go ask people who went to University in the 80s if they'll be volunteering for a graduate tax now.

This is a millstone round young people's necks. Soon we'll have a generation where most of them spend their entire adult lives enslaved to servicing one debt or another.

We should pay for the brightest to be educated as a public good, and pay for it fully. If we can't afford for 50% of youngsters to go to University, then fewer should go.

Nick Clegg is a liar and an idiot. The coalition agreement - written down in black and white - gave him the option of abstaining on the fees vote. I hope the Lib Dems end up with zero MPs.

+1.

They are starting to chase down overseas student loan holders now too (not very successfully though):

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2824568/Now-student-loans-company-plans-hire-bailiffs-overseas-chase-British-graduates-moved.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-22500989

http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2014/jul/28/graduates-move-abroad-pay-back-student-loan

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • The Prime Minister stated that there were three Brexit options available to the UK:   218 members have voted

    1. 1. Which of the Prime Minister's options would you choose?


      • Leave with the negotiated deal
      • Remain
      • Leave with no deal

    Please sign in or register to vote in this poll. View topic


×

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.