Debt taken on to expand the economy, causing a strong net positive effect, should be seriously considered, not dismissed with a wave of a hand because it doesn’t benefit the upper classes.

Again, University graduate percentages VERY clearly map, historically, to economic success of the countries hosting them. This is not coincidence.

Nothing troll-like about your response.

There will be plenty of people who will repay little of their loan fees. Graduates who quickly become parents and make the choice not to go back to work, for instance.

I’m sorry, but I’m afraid your idealistic talk about university being an “experience” does not pass muster. As a tax-payer, I am not in the business of providing free “experiences”. You can be fairly sure teenaged tax-payers working in Helmand would not put it so politely. If school-leavers want a three-year-long “Red Letter Day”, they can pay for it themselves. I have no idea how you can suppose loans should be taken out by the govt in my little girl’s name to spare others from paying their way.

@26 Leon,

Indebting the unborn is not investing in the future. It is investing (for want of a better word) in the past.

I understand you have no problem with crushing poorer people with debt, but they’re not the sheep you’re looking for, they understand the consequences of these reforms *all too well*. The spite is yours, and only your side’s.

Very very few british university degrees are, afaik, worth the 27k, when there are good degrees in other EU countries, taught in English, which are FAR cheaper. It’s *your* propaganda which is saying that they are, and confusing the issue.

Graduation rates are VERY clearly linked to a country’s economic success, and we’re going to see our top talent go elsewhere, and EU graduates take the increasing number of graduate-only jobs here. This is the Tory plan, nothing else.

(Students should be paying no more than 1k, at best, with living grants as well and expanded participation. It’s called investing in the future, which the Tories are in denial about, again.)

Sorry i feel like a bit of a troll replying to your post but i feel you have completely missed my point.

I am glad you acknowledge the point that these fees will have an impact on peoples decisions whether or not to go to university or what course they should take, that i supposed is pretty much a given. My point was however that this being the case, the people who will be put in this situation are those people who’s parents cannot afford to fund them and it will have little bearing on the choices of those people who’s parents are already funding them debt free. Are you seriously saying that certain subjects such as the arts should be the sole domain of the privileged few and that poorer student should not have as much of a decision on their university choice?

I would also like to take issue with your stance on worthless degrees, university is an experience that isn’t sole about your C.V. it is an experience that broadens you as a person and that is always useful. We may well have skills shortages in certain areas and a surplus in areas but i don’t think that is something that should be solved by forcing people into degrees by prohibitively high fees. Further to that society in general would be far less diverse and cultured if we all went into academic high earning careers.

As for people paying nothing, i really would like to see the figures on how many graduates do actually go on to earn less than this threshold and how many of them stay below that threshold for their whole life, because i imagine it is a very small amount. I do agree that we should have a system whereby the ideals which you are proposing occur, however this seems to be a very cack handed way of approaching that. The other thing to note is that as far as i understand it, the figure of £21,000 is not £21,000 in todays money which will then be adjusted for inflation and such but it is £21,000 in 4 years when the first lot of people starting on this system graduate and so is actually not worth as much as it sounds.

If people are not being deceived, I’d like very much to know how the likes of “Jen” (who has also posted above) came to the truly bizarre conclusion that she would need to sell her home before her daughter went to university in order to pay the tuition fees.

Just the other day, on LFF Jen wrote:

“I did try to sell the house last year to try and raise the money for the tripled fees faced by my daughter …”

https://www.leftfootforward.org/2011/06/unshocking-poll-reveals-teenagers-put-off-by-gbp9000-a-year-tuition-fees/#comments (post #10).

We should assume that:

a) Jen is not stupid
b) Posters such as Jen are: genuine; trying to get on in the real world; not trapped in some sort of spite-filled left-wing bubble

If she has not been misled, how do you suppose she arrived at her desperate conclusion?

@21, Elijah

I know from personal experience that reading medicine can be a monstrous undertaking financially; the best of luck.

I think you need to look at things from a broader perspective.

The proposed scheme will allow graduates on low incomes to repay zero. Their tuition will be paid for by other tax-payers (some of whom will be non-graduates on low incomes). This is not unaffordable for the student.

People who earn more will have to pay a contribution towards the advantageous eduction from which they are benefitting. If not them, then who?

Some people will look at the numbers and conclude that the cost of a particular degree course is not justified by the benefits. In many cases, this assessment will be correct. If the student himself does not think his course is worth the £27k price tag, how can he possibly make a case that someone else should stump up?

Many degrees are truly worthless. I say this as an employer who has binned countless CV’s over the years from useless, dull applicants who think that the social science degree at a they studied (at a “university” that also offers certificates in hairdressing) on the back of D’s and E’s in “vocational” A-levels makes them in some way more attractive than the 19-year-old who can explain how he saved his boss some money last week.

If such a bare-bones analysis encourages students to choose engineering over meeja-studies I don’t think we should be overly concerned.

Medics often have to make a similar decision about intercalating. Is it an indulgence? Will it confer an advantage? Who should pay?

And there is certainly nothing wrong with choosing not to go to university. In almost every industry you will find people who have succeeded on their wits alone. This is something we should celebrate, lest we become even more dogmatic about “qualifications” that have little intrinsic value (and which are, in any case, very frequently the subject of falsification).

There is nothing you will learn from a distance-learning MBA that you couldn’t work out running your own business for a couple of months.

What is most important is that young people make correctly informed choices on a range of options that are not limited by party-political propaganda. That so few people on LFF can bring themselves to agree with this point speaks volumes.

That part of what Hughes said struck me. Everyone is focussing on headline figures etc and, clearly, that is crucial, but whether you are asking someone to part with £9k, £27k or nothing at all, it is vital not only that people understand how, when and how much they must pay, but also what they are getting for their money.

I think it is nothing short of a scandal that people are being told that a degree is the be-all-and-end-all. Utter rubbish. If someone is going to spend (potentially) £20k+ on an Arts degree from the University of Bedfordshire, they should be told how employers will regard that qualification.

I go to medical school, around 40% of my year is graduates and many of the rest are from privileged backgrounds. A large section of these people have their fees paid for them (and many their living expenses) by their parents and as such will leave university with little or no debt (even after two degrees). I do not have this luxury, my parents could not afford to pay my fees for one degree let alone two, luckily i am going into a profession where the debt i have incurred from my studies (which will be over£40,000 even on the current system as i study in london) will be overshadowed by my eventual salary and so financially i am still better off.

However many people go into professions which don’t have such a high salary, most graduates will by the time the new threshold comes into place probably exceed that level but many by only a little and they will begin to ask themselves what have they really gained from going to university. Neither of my parents went to university however their wage exceeds the new threshold and people from similar situations might well ask, why should i go to university and incur life long tax deductions from debt when i could just go into the family business or they may find that at least their choice of course is influenced by financial matter.

Those people who are as now privileged enough to have upfront funding from their parents and so reduced debt burdens will not face such deterrents and will be able to pick and choose the subjects they wish to study. It cannot be right that there is one system for those from wealthier backgrounds and another for those from poorer backgrounds, peoples choice of university should be down to their personal preference, finance should have no bearing on it.

This as such is why i reject your claim that just because you do not have to pay fees up front you can set fees at whatever level you like and still call them affordable.