Student Fees

[devogue]

I listened to Nick Clegg yesterday and then read this today:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11483638

While Clegg is still a lying bastard, I think that it all makes sense. I hope the bill is passed.

[JimC]

It seems similar to the HEX fee system in Oz, though possibly a bit more savage...

[devogue]

Let's see...

You come out of university with a degree and £30k of debt.

You pay nothing until you earn £21,000 per year. Well, boo fucking hoo - there is a huge army of people who earn the minimum wage of £12,334 per year with no way out. And the way they cry and bleat about £30k of debt! For fuck's sake, buy a house for £150k and you've saddled yourself with £300k of debt with all the interest and capital costs - debt is a fact of life, and £30k really is fuck all, especially if you are going to be in a higher earning bracket.

[klr]

Let's see...

You come out of university with a degree and £30k of debt.

You pay nothing until you earn £21,000 per year. Well, boo fucking hoo - there is a huge army of people who earn the minimum wage of £12,334 per year with no way out. And the way they cry and bleat about £30k of debt! For fuck's sake, buy a house for £150k and you've saddled yourself with £300k of debt with all the interest and capital costs - debt is a fact of life, and £30k really is fuck all, especially if you are going to be in a higher earning bracket.

Interesting point. Many people who complain about the level of university fees/debt wouldn't think twice about taking on a mortgage that might be an order of magnitude greater. You have to wonder sometimes if people have their priorities and sense of perspective right.

[devogue]

Let's see...

You come out of university with a degree and £30k of debt.

You pay nothing until you earn £21,000 per year. Well, boo fucking hoo - there is a huge army of people who earn the minimum wage of £12,334 per year with no way out. And the way they cry and bleat about £30k of debt! For fuck's sake, buy a house for £150k and you've saddled yourself with £300k of debt with all the interest and capital costs - debt is a fact of life, and £30k really is fuck all, especially if you are going to be in a higher earning bracket.

Interesting point. Many people who complain about the level of university fees/debt wouldn't think twice about taking on a mortgage that might be an order of magnitude greater. You have to wonder sometimes if people have their priorities and sense of perspective right.

I really am just completely and utterly sick of the outright lying going on. After Clegg clearly outlined the bill on Radio 5 Live yesterday and emphasised the crystal clear fact that there are no up front fees the presenter opened the phone lines and a load of ridiculously silly adolescents came on and bitched about not being able to afford to got to university because they were from poor backgrounds. One girl said that she would have to work in a shop rather than study French and become a teacher - it didn't matter one jot that Clegg said she wouldn't have to pay a penny until she had graduated, and that even then she wouldn't have to pay a penny unless she was earning more than £21,000. He took in to account the details of this girl's background and calculated that she would have to pay a whopping £9.00 a month if she was earning £25,000 as a teacher. She looked like a complete tit and just finished off by muttering that she didn't want to be "saddled with debt for the rest of her life" or some other crap. Clegg fielded caller after caller after caller in the same way.

Here's a fucking deal - don't go to university and work on the minimum wage for 30 years - you will earn roughly £370,000 in today's money. Do go to university, treat your fees as a personal investment of £30,000 in your own future, and earn £750,000 based on the average graduate salary today.

[Trolldor]

The problem with Uni fees rests on the quality of the Education.

Because of fees, academic achievement takes a back seat to bell curves and minimum requirements.

[Horwood Beer-Master]

I hope this attempt at the marketisation of education fails and brings this stinking Tory-Whig marriage down with it.

Alas, I shant be holding my breath...

[devogue]

I hope this attempt at the marketisation of education fails and brings this stinking Tory-Whig marriage down with it.

Alas, I shant be holding my breath...

The government has a responsibility to provide an equitable education to all children from all classes at primary and secondary level (the fact that that doesn't happen is indeed a disgrace, but it's a separate issue). "Marketisation" is an unnecessarily emotive term in this case - in suggests that the poor will lose out andthe rich will gain, but as I said above, and as Clegg has repeatedly pointed out, none of the fees are up front - if anything they are a retrospective tax, a small percentage of the huge financial leap that all graduates from all backgrounds will make.

After secondary education a person has choices - to throw their lot in with an apprenticeship or menial work, to accept a lesser wage commensurate with their lesser skills, or they can opt to extend their skills, a choice for which they will ultimately be richly rewarded. There should not be a flat cost to society to support those who will benefit most from their own natural aptitude - that section of society should pay more for the finanical advantage they will gain through their lives becuase of their extra education.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's see...

You come out of university with a degree and £30k of debt.

You pay nothing until you earn £21,000 per year. Well, boo fucking hoo - there is a huge army of people who earn the minimum wage of £12,334 per year with no way out. And the way they cry and bleat about £30k of debt! For fuck's sake, buy a house for £150k and you've saddled yourself with £300k of debt with all the interest and capital costs - debt is a fact of life, and £30k really is fuck all, especially if you are going to be in a higher earning bracket.

Interesting point. Many people who complain about the level of university fees/debt wouldn't think twice about taking on a mortgage that might be an order of magnitude greater. You have to wonder sometimes if people have their priorities and sense of perspective right.

People want stuff for free. It's not much more complicated than that. And, why not? If a person is offered an education for free or to pay $30K for it, what should they rationally choose? Free, of course. Paying less is better than paying more.

People also tend to be more willing to pay for something if they get something tangible. That's why people will donate $100 more readily if you give them a $2 coffee mug than if you give them a hearty "thank you." So, people will buy houses because they get a house. People groan more about paying for educations because it's not tangible.

I also think people overblow the real value of a college education. It's almost become a status thing - like something is wrong with you if you chose not to attend college, even if we had no direction. t's like college is a must no matter what - go there and take any degree program, just take SOME degree program. I think that's wrong-headed. If you don't know why you're attending college, then you shouldn't go to college.

Also, more sober analysis of the value of college should be done when a kid is about 16 or 17 - before the money starts going out the door. What degree program is contemplated? Why? What careers will follow that require the degree? Is there any certainty in what career is sought or can we rule anything out completely and approach the future from a process of elimination? Is there enough direction to warrant the investment?

Would it be better to attend classes at night and work during the day, to make money and avoid going into debt?

Some career choices aren't worth the investment, frankly. If you're going to get out of college and make $20,000 a year, and the college costs $40,000, that's two years of salary to buy an income you could earn at a gas station or in a bar/restaurant. It's o.k. to decide that the money doesn't matter - that the career will bring happiness and fulfillment - but one should make that choice with open eyes, and not with a false expectation that everything is going to be financial roses.

Very often, the "education" achieved by college students is approximately equivalent to what could easily be achieved by spending three hours a day in a library. Heck, when it comes to the American college students in my experience, I think going to the library for three hours a day would be more effective than what they actually do at college. Most kids at common, run of the mill US colleges and universities study painfully little, take classes which are painfully easy, and graduate not knowing shit about anything important.

For most people, college is an unnecessary waste of time and money. IMHO.

[Coito ergo sum]

I hope this attempt at the marketisation of education fails and brings this stinking Tory-Whig marriage down with it.

Alas, I shant be holding my breath...

The government has a responsibility to provide an equitable education to all children from all classes at primary and secondary level (the fact that that doesn't happen is indeed a disgrace, but it's a separate issue). "Marketisation" is an unnecessarily emotive term in this case - in suggests that the poor will lose out andthe rich will gain, but as I said above, and as Clegg has repeatedly pointed out, none of the fees are up front - if anything they are a retrospective tax, a small percentage of the huge financial leap that all graduates from all backgrounds will make.

After secondary education a person has choices - to throw their lot in with an apprenticeship or menial work, to accept a lesser wage commensurate with their lesser skills, or they can opt to extend their skills, a choice for which they will ultimately be richly rewarded. There should not be a flat cost to society to support those who will benefit most from their own natural aptitude - that section of society should pay more for the finanical advantage they will gain through their lives becuase of their extra education.

Does the program apply to education through age 17? Not just college?

[Feck]

a small percentage of the huge financial leap that all graduates from all backgrounds will make.

That's an assumption ! it also places the value on education as only a financial thing . The state rightly values education to secondary level , why the cut off ? what is enough education ? Every single argument for the state paying for secondary education can be made for further education .

[klr]

I hope this attempt at the marketisation of education fails and brings this stinking Tory-Whig marriage down with it.

Alas, I shant be holding my breath...

The government has a responsibility to provide an equitable education to all children from all classes at primary and secondary level (the fact that that doesn't happen is indeed a disgrace, but it's a separate issue). "Marketisation" is an unnecessarily emotive term in this case - in suggests that the poor will lose out andthe rich will gain, but as I said above, and as Clegg has repeatedly pointed out, none of the fees are up front - if anything they are a retrospective tax, a small percentage of the huge financial leap that all graduates from all backgrounds will make.

After secondary education a person has choices - to throw their lot in with an apprenticeship or menial work, to accept a lesser wage commensurate with their lesser skills, or they can opt to extend their skills, a choice for which they will ultimately be richly rewarded. There should not be a flat cost to society to support those who will benefit most from their own natural aptitude - that section of society should pay more for the finanical advantage they will gain through their lives becuase of their extra education.

Does the program apply to education through age 17? Not just college?

Yes and no. For second-level education In England, you have the choice of sending your child to a privately funded & fee-paying (aka "Public" ) school - which is very expensive. Or you can send them to a comprehensive (state-run) school.

Here in Ireland, it's much the same, except the terminology isn't quite as misleading ...

[mistermack]

What absolute crap. You don't pay anything till you earn such and such? Yes you bloody well do, because the debt is growing every day, as the interest accumulates.
The govornment sounds like a crafty double glazing salesman using that argument. You pay nothing till so-and-so, as if it's nearly free.

And what guarantee have you that a future govornment won't tinker with that rule? None whatsoever.

If I was poor, and looking to go to University, I'd go, run up huge debts with the bank and credit cards, and go bankrupt the day I got my degree.
Then have a couple of years off, travelling and spending the money I'd ripped off.
And look for a job abroad at the same time.
That's going to happen, it can't be just me that would think of that.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Let's see...

You come out of university with a degree and £30k of debt.

You pay nothing until you earn £21,000 per year. Well, boo fucking hoo - there is a huge army of people who earn the minimum wage of £12,334 per year with no way out. And the way they cry and bleat about £30k of debt! For fuck's sake, buy a house for £150k and you've saddled yourself with £300k of debt with all the interest and capital costs - debt is a fact of life, and £30k really is fuck all, especially if you are going to be in a higher earning bracket.

Interesting point. Many people who complain about the level of university fees/debt wouldn't think twice about taking on a mortgage that might be an order of magnitude greater. You have to wonder sometimes if people have their priorities and sense of perspective right.

I really am just completely and utterly sick of the outright lying going on. After Clegg clearly outlined the bill on Radio 5 Live yesterday and emphasised the crystal clear fact that there are no up front fees the presenter opened the phone lines and a load of ridiculously silly adolescents came on and bitched about not being able to afford to got to university because they were from poor backgrounds. One girl said that she would have to work in a shop rather than study French and become a teacher - it didn't matter one jot that Clegg said she wouldn't have to pay a penny until she had graduated, and that even then she wouldn't have to pay a penny unless she was earning more than £21,000. He took in to account the details of this girl's background and calculated that she would have to pay a whopping £9.00 a month if she was earning £25,000 as a teacher. She looked like a complete tit and just finished off by muttering that she didn't want to be "saddled with debt for the rest of her life" or some other crap. Clegg fielded caller after caller after caller in the same way.

Here's a fucking deal - don't go to university and work on the minimum wage for 30 years - you will earn roughly £370,000 in today's money. Do go to university, treat your fees as a personal investment of £30,000 in your own future, and earn £750,000 based on the average graduate salary today.

I've wondered about that kind of program here in the US. I thought it a good idea to extend to the poor guaranteed loans to pay for the education they want.

This person who wants to be a French teacher - I would tell her that one of the things about life is that we have to make choices and choices tend to have consequences. There are also other options besides just going the university route. Don't want to spend the money? She could take her knowledge of French, form a business called "ABC French Language Learning Center" and put out adverts in the newspaper for home tutoring and private lessons in French. Then she could, over time, own and operate her own school and teach all she wants to paying customers. She could join the armed forces, which generally provide or pay for education (at least they do in the US), in which case she wouldn't be saddled with the debt she fears, and she could even take advantage of teaching opportunities within the military and later switch to civilian teaching. Or, she could work full time during the day and take university classes at night over a longer period of time, paying her way in cash as she goes.

When I was at university, I worked during the school year, and during winter breaks and during the summer. Not having a lot of money, I only went on one "spring break" in my life, and it was by car - packed with 6 of us. Otherwise, I worked. I paid for my books in cash. I paid for my tuition in cash. I ate a lot of Oodles of Noodles, and baloney sandwiches - lots of spaghetti, as I recall. I drove a piece of shit car, with AM radio only and no air conditioner (I was lucky if the heat worked in the winter time - fuck, the driver door was busted and I either had to get out the passenger side or leave the window open like the "General Lee" on the American TV show "Dukes of Hazzard." Is that kind of method of paying for school no longer feasible?

This is starting to sound a little like "I walked five miles each way to school, uphill, both ways..." but, I think this kind of thing is relevant. One, college "kids" are not kids at all. They're adults, and at bottom it's their own business whether they go to college and why. Nobody is forcing them to go. If they want to, fine, and the default should be that if you want something, then it's you're responsibility to pay for it. The fact that the government is willing to facilitate loans and then base repayment on an income-sensitive formula would, I think, warrant a "thank you" instead of griping. Fuck that wanna be French teacher than. Don't go. Who gives a fuck. The world will still go on without her masterful French teaching abilities. She's the one who wants to be a French teacher - someone offers her help - and she looks the gift horse in the mouth.

[Coito ergo sum]

What absolute crap. You don't pay anything till you earn such and such? Yes you bloody well do, because the debt is growing every day, as the interest accumulates.
The govornment sounds like a crafty double glazing salesman using that argument. You pay nothing till so-and-so, as if it's nearly free.

And what guarantee have you that a future govornment won't tinker with that rule? None whatsoever.

If I was poor, and looking to go to University, I'd go, run up huge debts with the bank and credit cards, and go bankrupt the day I got my degree.
Then have a couple of years off, travelling and spending the money I'd ripped off.
And look for a job abroad at the same time.
That's going to happen, it can't be just me that would think of that.
.

Then don't go to college. It's not supposed to be free - adults are supposed to pay for the stuff they buy.

Usually - college loans for tuition are non-dischargable in bankruptcy. They are in the US, anyway. Not familiar with UK bankruptcy law.

You could run up debts on credit cards, but generally speaking someone who is 18 or 19 isn't going to be given tremendous limits, and by the time they run up a few grand in debts, their credit will be fucked enough that cards will stop approving them. The bulk of the debt - tuition costs - would likely stay around after any bankruptcy.