Student Fees

[B_crackoff]

Here's a breakdown of 2008 Post Grad costs internationally!

File:International tuition fees.png - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

As for students paying back tuition fees upon emigration, it's no different to the lock in clauses that most companies use for employees who have benefited from from various types of academic sponsorship.

One thing the Coalition is doing that I agree with, is the abolition of the Educational Maintenance Allowance - a turgid piece of Labour legislation that gave £30/wk - just to study to 16-18 year olds. It's not like they weren't still getting child benefit!

A bit of self motivation is a hell of a lot better, & what do you think teenagers spend their cash on - fags & booze!

However, it makes no sense to me that they want to make provision for poorer pupils.

£50-60,000 of debt should be bloody universal, or not at all - at graduation they are all independent adults, legally separate from their families. It ignores the fortunes of one's parents after an award has been made too.

I think most people will be baulking at the debt - not just the poor, so assistance seems specious, & only serves to silence the clucking hens of the left, rather than serve any reasonable purpose whatsover.

It would make sense for a middle income earner teenage girl to get knocked up, have some kids, then go back to uni, & get it practically free with a creche thrown in.

It's nonsense.

 

[Jason]

.. & only serves to silence the clucking hens of the left, rather than serve any reasonable purpose whatsover.

Politics - the art of the possible. There's been a major political storm to get this through and the clucking hens had to be silenced. I imagine the legislation will be revisited in a few years as there are all sorts of loopholes.

One loophole is that there doesn't seem to be any age limit on the loans. Someone who stops working at age 60 can now do a degree knowing that their subsequent income is never going to be big enough to trigger repayments. I'm told the champagne is flowing freely at the OU anticipating a recruitment bonanza (the UK university that specialises in adult learners and has very many students of this sort of age).

Perhaps a positive step (not much discussed) is that part-time students (who previously had to pay all costs and were mostly excluded from support) are now covered by this scheme. An effect may be that more people will consider a p/t degree and p/t employment, and this may well be worthwhile both for the individuals and the country.

 

[dandelion]

Are these fee increases in the UK being used to increase funding? Or to make up for budget cuts? The UK is already spending below the OECD average as a percentage of GDP.

The plan is to cut direct grants to universities and replace this with fees paid by students. presumably this will mean little change to current expenditure, but an anticipation that students will be paying back in the future. Some grants will remain, particularly for expensive courses which would otherwise not be viable.

Perhaps less money spent on trying to punch above their weight on the international stage, and fewer Chieftain tanks, nuclear subs and aircraft carriers, would help control the UK government's deficits more effectively than squeezing students and their families for every last drop of blood.

The defence budget is 7% of the total or £38 billion. The education budget is 17% or £88 billion. University funding from the HEFC appears to be about £7-8 billion (HEFCE : Circular letters : 2010 : 02/2010 - Funding for universities and colleges in 2010-11). Im not sure whether there is other funding on top of that, but presumably the current fees paid would be added to the figure.

So, ballpark, yes, you could chop 1/3 off the defence budget and everyone currently could have zero fees and maybe a subsistence grant. Trident submarine, anyone? Throw in a second hand carrier?

Defence spending is an insurance policy against certain unpleasant but hopefully remote possibilities. On the face of it, if we had adopted this suggestion, cutting 1/3 off defence and spending it on expanded university education over the last 50 years, we would now be better off. Though that is not quite the same thing as saying either that it would be appropriate to make the cut, or that the education purchased would be cost effective either.

 

[freyasworld]

here's a thought what about prisoners degree, are they paid for by the state or does the prisoner get into debt whist inside?

 

[Jason]

here's a thought what about prisoners degree, are they paid for by the state or does the prisoner get into debt whist inside?

I'm pretty sure that prisoners will pay the same fees as everyone else, so either they have the money to pay or they take a loan - and yes I think the loans are available. There is some state support for education of prisoners but I think most of it goes into basic literacy and the like.

So Freyasworld, getting yourself slung into gaol is not the way to get a cheap degree.

 

[B_crackoff]

Whilst reading another thread-Broke? I think it was, I revisited tuition fees today. As some of you will know, but maybe disagree (though I'm normally always right on the money in the end - I think pensions policy & migration costs run about a year behind me, & hell if you'd all bought gold...), statistical interpolation is something of a thing of mine.

I was so shocked by my findings, that I called a friend to discuss it - & apparently some other genius may have beaten me to the punch _ we'll see!

Anyway - here's THE SHOCKING TRUTH (& frankly I ,may have to make a volte face on my previous stance!).

IT IS GOING TO COST FUTURE GENERATIONS A FORTUNE - & to a large extent this one, but not in the way you think.

Here's the easy example - a student does a 3 year grad course, at full cost (£9K/ann), plus full expenses loan (about £6.75K/ann in London). The interest rate is inflation(whilst at uni) plus 3% (after uni). Therefore after 3 years the debt is nearly, so we'll round it for fun £56K.

Inflation runs at 5% - the repayable interest is therefore 8%. Annual interest on £56K is £4500.

Are you with me so far?! Good!

The payoff method is 9% of all income over £21K, for a maximum of 30 years.

Oh dear. To pay off THE INTEREST ALONE would be £4,500 as stated earlier.

However £4,500/9% = £50,000!!!

Therefore the amount needed to be earned to pay off the interest alone would be £21K PLUS £50K - i,e £71K / year. That's nearly 3 times the average wage!

These loans are'n't going to be paid off are they! And if inflation get's higher - the amount of even interest paid off will be negligible - leaving a massive burden to be paid by - THE TAXPAYER.

In fact the system will be FAR MORE EXPENSIVE for the taxpayer than it is now - it's simply another DEFERMENT of liability.

I actually paid back my loan @ £68/month. This was on a degree just over a decade ago. I paid my own tuition fees in advance each year by working all the time at Uni! (I know don't go there - I was the 1 in a million who had to pay frickin fees - I couldn't afford the£15K to go to the High Court - let alone a possible appeal after).

I didn't even owe that much - £7K. Yet to pay that amount now (£68/mnth), I could have more than 8 times the debt(!) & be on £30K. Not only would I not cover the interest, the interest to be added to the debt would be £3,700, which would also be compounded.

Why would I pay the same with 8 times the debt?

Frankly, you might as well stay on for your Masters & Doctorate, & spunk all your loans up the wall, because I don't think even 1 in 10 will ever manage pay these loans back. It will be all taxpayers.

How will I repay these costs? — Future Students – university fees and student finance for 2012

I really don't see the need for any kind of protest other than everyone else NOT going to university & having to pay put for the written off personal liability!

Check my calculations. I insist that on £56K you would attract £4.5K interest. To even pay off the interest you would need to earn £71K. After 30 years it is written off.

Is the average Grad salary as high as that !? LOL.

Who came up with this crackpot idea? This is another banking scam - it certainly benefits the Baby Boomers & those who never paid for their education too. It also absents from present liability the Coalition Government, just the same way Gordon Brown did with the Private Finance Initiative.

I can't get near a spreadsheet at present to accurately calculate the PV of these sums in 30 years, but I would imagine it would be (90% of 300,000 intake @ 3*£9,000) * (1.03n30) = £17.7Billion, plus at least 50% in payments not meeting interest = £26.5 Billion/annum! That's about the defence budget!

And, erm, that's tuition fees alone!

The current cost at the working system we have now is 6,000 * 3years * 300,000 students = £5.4 Billion state paid fees plus at most 2,000/ student fees per course (20-30%) not imagined to be paid or £0.8 Billion, for a total of £6.2 billion/ann.

We are deferring now what will cost 4 to 6 times in the future.

If you added in the living allowance loans...say the average loan debt is conservatively £45,000, then £45K/27 K * 26.5 Bn = £44 Billion/annum, as compared to a full time risk total at present of around £7-8 billion!

It's insane! It literally is an entire military budget escalation in costs.

What does anyone else think - this ain't a story you'll hear for a while.

 

[MercyfulFate]

College is quickly becoming pointless for anyone that isn't born rich. Fuck school, you can learn more on your own.

 

[B_crackoff]

College is quickly becoming pointless for anyone that isn't born rich. Fuck school, you can learn more on your own.

Lol, I know it was a long & detailed post...It actually states the OPPOSITE

In summary, If you earn the average UK wage(£26K or $42K), you'll only pay £450/$720 a YEAR for 30 years.

That doesn't even cover half the cost of tuition, let alone all the living expense loans! And don't forget the plus 3% over inflation rate of interest.

That means in real terms, each degree will cost every taxpayer 6 TIMES MORE because 90% will be written off, plus interest - but in 30 years time.

It's not only a deferral of expenses, but an absolute donkey of a scheme for anyone who doesn't die or immigrate in the next 30 years.

It's ridiculous. Nominally it's worse for the individual, but actually it's worse for everyone, especially those that didn't go!

 

[MercyfulFate]

Lol, I know it was a long & detailed post...It actually states the OPPOSITE

In summary, If you earn the average UK wage(£26K or $42K), you'll only pay £450/$720 a YEAR for 30 years.

That doesn't even cover half the cost of tuition, let alone all the living expense loans! And don't forget the plus 3% over inflation rate of interest.

That means in real terms, each degree will cost every taxpayer 6 TIMES MORE because 90% will be written off, plus interest - but in 30 years time.

It's not only a deferral of expenses, but an absolute donkey of a scheme for anyone who doesn't die or immigrate in the next 30 years.

It's ridiculous. Nominally it's worse for the individual, but actually it's worse for everyone, especially those that didn't go!

I'm talking here and I didn't read what you said. In the US average debt post-college is 25,000 dollars and there's no jobs. It's a scam.

 

[B_crackoff]

I'm talking here and I didn't read what you said. In the US average debt post-college is 25,000 dollars and there's no jobs. It's a scam.

Hey, there's no argument from me there:biggrin1:

Too many go to university - what happened to apprenticeships?

The UK average student debt is $40,000, & looks like going to $70,000!

The point is, this millstone is only ever going to be paid in 30 years time, it will cost 6 time more, & when it hits it will be a huge hole in public finances - it's more passing shit on to future generations whilst making moneylenders cream their pants.

Letting a net intake of about 300,000 immigrants in annually when there's 2.5 million out of work doesn't help their job prospects either, or their ability to take low paid jobs whilst at university.

 

[dandelion]

Well congratulations, I dont recall hearing it put this way before. I have heard some discussion of student loans pointing out the repayment starting point, rates and eventual writeoff and concluding that students should not be put off because the terms are pretty generous and better than the previous scheme even if the debts are bigger. I did note a few years ago that under the loan rules then, had I been getting those loans rather than the grants that existed when I was at university, then my own loans would have been written off rather than repaid.

The official figures on extra money graduates may earn in a lifetime are nonsense and always have been. They take no account of the declining quality of graduates as more and more people go to university, or the devaluation of the worth of a degree to lever you into a good job. If you were good enough to get into a university when it was much harder, then likely you were good enough to earn more than average whatever you had done.

I wonder whether the lib dems will be able to make something of this at the next election, by saying they have subverted the conservatives plan to make everyone pay to go to university into one where the average student will pay nothing. Only those who were already rich and expecting to get richer for reasons unrelated to attending university will end up paying their fees.

It strikes me as odd that a party who believes the rich should not be taxed - and which is trying to claw back the upper rate tax rise brought in by labour - should have approved an extra 9% tax on high earners. That is, if they truly believe it will make a blind bit of difference to whether the people concerned become tax exiles or start to manipulate their own incomes so that on paper they are lower.

Yesterday there was a flurry about rising immigration to the UK, which mentioned a chronic shortage of computer programmers and engineers. It is staggering that governments are pushing higher education because it is 'good for the country' but all they can do is push people through degree courses that arent going to help the real skills shortages.

 

[Jason]

It is probably easiest to think of the cost of a student loan to the individual as 9% of income over £21,000 for 30 years, and in most cases never repaid in full.

The cost to the government is not however 9%, or inflation plus 3%, Crackoff's 8%. The cost is the applicable bond yield. 10 year bonds put this under 3%, while 30 year bonds should get it nearer 2.5%. The government's calculation is that the money it will actually get back from students is equal to or greater than 2.5%. This does seem about right. I don't think there is much profit or loss for the government on the loans system, which is surely how it should be.

The 9% graduate tax will mostly be applied to standard rate income tax payers. In effect it increases standard income tax for graduates. This is precisely the income tax to raise if you want to maximise tax take. There may be issues a few years down the line with those on higher income tax bands paying a 9% surcharge. The solution of course is that as most higher tax payers are graduates then the higher tax bands should come down by about 9%. This should be legislation for the next government.

 

[B_crackoff]

Well congratulations, I dont recall hearing it put this way before.

If anyone ever thought what sustainability actually was, other than a buzz word, they might look a head a little. This will be disastrous!

I wonder whether the lib dems will be able to make something of this at the next election, by saying they have subverted the conservatives plan to make everyone pay to go to university into one where the average student will pay nothing.

I don't think any of them have a clue!:smile:

Yesterday there was a flurry about rising immigration to the UK, which mentioned a chronic shortage of computer programmers and engineers. It is staggering that governments are pushing higher education because it is 'good for the country' but all they can do is push people through degree courses that arent going to help the real skills shortages.

Unfortunately, Britain is the only country that actually does what it is supposed to do - that means a free market for services - both in & out of the EU.

This model behaviour means that it gets fucked over industrially, & so industry is depleted, industrial roles vanish, & therefore our top engineers nob off abroad.

I know a very high profile global company that cannot afford its own engineers, & has to have them in for projects @ exorbitant rates.

There are a thousand ways to disguise a subsidy, as the French & Germans daily show.

It's a shame we don't use some protectionism, & kick start apprenticeships.

BTW, it's likely that the off balance sheet liability of these student loans will have a present value of £1.2 Trillion!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! after 30 years.