zonino Posted September 24, 2012 Share Posted September 24, 2012 In any case, with the kind of degrees people have been studying for of late, and the kind of careers they then go into, I see no justification for tax payers funding the students. Besides, having spent a lot of time at Oxford (not as a student, but still) and having been a student at a mediocre ex-poly, I think there is every justification for better ones charging more than worse ones. of course the problem being that the 'worse' universities then charge full whack so they don't seem 'worse' in comparison to the 'better' uni's Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abbotsmike Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 To clarify, on the old new system that I was on, payments start once you exceed 15k and continue even if you drop below (but as a % of income so you wouldn't pay if you were not earning).On the new new system payments are only taken from salaries over 21k (still as a % based PAYE deduction). You pay 9% of what you earn over 15 k on the old system, so earn less than that and payments stop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brainwave-generator Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 In any case, with the kind of degrees people have been studying for of late, and the kind of careers they then go into, I see no justification for tax payers funding the students. Besides, having spent a lot of time at Oxford (not as a student, but still) and having been a student at a mediocre ex-poly, I think there is every justification for better ones charging more than worse ones. of course the problem being that the 'worse' universities then charge full whack so they don't seem 'worse' in comparison to the 'better' uni's True in theory, but like in any product, that can only last so long. Somebody could bring out a new microphone tomorrow priced at five thousand quid, everyone would assume initially it must be some kind of uber awesome microphone. Within 6 months, word would have got round that it was complete duff, and nobody else would buy it. The same will happen, eventually, with universities. Whilst yes, initially, all of them will just go "COOL! 9 Grand it is!", the bad ones will be told about and the good ones will be told about and they will fall about in price order eventually. You never know, some might even become budget universities and come in at less than the old fees. Furthermore, in relation to my previous point, perhaps with the fees at 9 grand rather than 3, we may observe a shift in the next few years that sees potential students spend a bit more time thinking about the subject they choose to study, because dropping 27 thousand quid (plus cost of living whilst not earning) on a degree that takes you nowhere may be substantially high enough to make people think twice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramdram Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I was slightly amused in that the assumption was/is made that the graduates will be able to find a job in order for them to repay their loans, or is it "tax"? IF a student decides to take a degree in an esoteric subject will they ever get a job in order to survive let alone repay anything or even start paying into a pension fund? Or will they end up in the old standby, teaching? Some schoolfriends of mine went into archaeology, got a decent degree but seemed not to have realised that the demand for archaeologists was somewhat limited...they ended up teaching History, not what they had planned to do and consequently had a less than wonderful career. We read that folk will be obliged to work for longer because their pension might be inadequate and the state can't afford to have that many folk on a pension from 65...we read too that the general health of the population is improving and consequently living longer...given that folk will be working for longer in a "fixed" system of job suppply, where are all these "new" jobs coming from? It's all very well for those denizens of the political swamp to say "go self employed" but how many self employed could there be with them all earning enough to survive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry davies Posted September 25, 2012 Author Share Posted September 25, 2012 Some myths there Ramdram.Anyone born after 1953 will work until 66 not 65. Those born after 1960 retire at 67, then it will be 68 and then...?If a 24 year old grad today wants a small pension like mine in 2056 or 7 or 8 or...? the online calculators reckon they need to put away £300 a month cash for 40 plus years. Life expectancy for the poorer half of the population is actually falling. There is a 7 year gap between the 10% on £45K plus and the 80% on less than £30K. Come April a couple on median wages gain £300 p.a. from personal allowance rises (Hooray!) but they lose £3,000 through tax credit changes which will see off the "self-employment" myths (Boo!). It is forecast that life expectancy will decrease yet again, particularly for the disabled as Universal Credit will eventually deny almost all benefits unless they can work 24 hours a week. The interest now being applied to student loans is tied to inflation but unlike wages, benefits or pensions it is not tied to CPI, the lower figure, but RPI, and on reaching £41K a year will be RPI + 3%. RPI averages out at between 7 and 10% p.a. in "normal" times but shoots up during recovery from recession. It reached 24.9% last time and that was a baby recession compared to this!Interesting times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ramdram Posted September 25, 2012 Share Posted September 25, 2012 I'm lost Kerry. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-15372869 reporting on stats from the ONS who say we are all living longer...but the rate of increase varies depending on the socio economic bracket. Life expectancy is not falling for the poorer elements in society at all, simply that it is not increasing as fast as the better off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibbothegreat Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 I'd hazard a guess that for most people who are academic enough to pass, the prospect of higher income over the course of their life would make going to university a profitable decision and offset the cost and then some over the course of their lifetime. I have mixed feelings about tuition fees in their current form, but this argument really gets my goat. If through being well educated someone gets a higher income, they already pay more tax, and are less likely to use the state's services the more they earn. Why should they pay for it twice? And even accepting that they should just for the sake of argument, just reducing it to no more than a commercial transaction totally belies the benefit society as a whole gets from having its scions well educated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dbuckley Posted October 2, 2012 Share Posted October 2, 2012 If through being well educated someone gets a higher income... The answer to this question is to be found in Section A8, page 140 in the report linked to on this page: http://www.oecd.org/edu/eag2012.htm. The full report, should you choose to download it, is 570 pages, 5M PDF. People with tertiary (higher) education reap a substantial earnings premium in the labour market. On average across OECD countries, a person with a tertiary degree can expect to earn 55% more than a person with an upper secondary or post-secondary non-tertiary education. http://davidbuckley.name/pix/oecd_eag2012_chart_a81.jpg Note how little a degree is valued in New Zealand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry davies Posted October 2, 2012 Author Share Posted October 2, 2012 These figures are distorted beyond reason in the UK by the few grads that get phenomenal wages dragging the median and mean way above realistic levels. The unemployed ones are also not included which makes a huge difference. As an example of what a crazy world the UK is at the moment the median male full-time wage in London is £45K a year which means the "average" man is well into the top 10% of earners in the UK. Now that is patent rubbish when the vast majority are not getting anywhere near the national £26K average wage and 7%-10% (adjusted figures) are unemployed but a select coterie get astronomical wages. New Zealand is a very egalitarian nation for which you should give thanks. As for life expectancy the key quote in there is "These life expectancies show how long people would on average live if recent mortality rates continued indefinitely. But they won't," said Matthew Fletcher of Towers Watson.It is a projection similar to the one which calculated that the entire London area would end up six feet deep in horse manure by 1950. I agree with Gibbo's thesis though I would make a sliding scale for engineering degrees being fully funded with living grants and PPE having £50K a year fees. The latter get it back fiddling expenses within a year as an MP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibbothegreat Posted October 3, 2012 Share Posted October 3, 2012 To be clear, I wasn't doubting the link between level of education and earning power, although it's not a simple picture: our own industry would serve as an example of one where having a degree probably makes very little difference to either career prospects or income. My point was that there's already a built-in mechanism for recouping money invested in education where it does produce extra income. You can only assert that students should pay up front and accrue debt because of the benefits they stand to gain, if you ignore the fact that they already pay it back in spades. That, IMO, is mendacious and dishonest. I agree with Gibbo's thesis though I would make a sliding scale for engineering degrees being fully funded with living grants and PPE having £50K a year fees. The latter get it back fiddling expenses within a year as an MP. I like the cut of your jib! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BlueShift Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 I have no problem with raising fees in order to help curb our national debt habit. Its also worth noting, that in many cases fees haven't gone up as far as university earnings are concerned, its just that we now pay a bigger portion. I'm not sure people really understand the cost of a good tertiary education. Certainly when I wen't to imperial, my course 'cost' ~£16k a year. The government paid most of that. Now, you pay £9k, and they still pay the other 7... Anyway, If you are at all annoyed about paying fees, you should be apoplectic about the state of our national debt and what that will do to my future children and their generation unless we get out proverbial s%*t together... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andrew C Posted December 3, 2012 Share Posted December 3, 2012 Best leave the politics there gents. I've just had to self-censor myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erroneousblack Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 Changed since my day in the 80's. Fees paid, £1,000 a term maintenace grant, and rent paid by housing benefit! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Posted December 4, 2012 Share Posted December 4, 2012 ...national £26K average wage... As you say, that figure is grossly distorted by a small percentage of high earners. It might be the average (aka mean) annual salary but the median salary, ie the one where half of employees earn more than it and half earn less, is closer to £20k and the mode, the most 'popular', is even less at around £15k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kerry davies Posted December 4, 2012 Author Share Posted December 4, 2012 We should lock this, but first, the latest insanity of life in the UK. Tower Hamlets is the third most deprived Local Authority area in the UK with 48% of children living in poverty. TH is home to Canary Wharf and because of this the average male wage in TH is ....wait for it ... £78,000 a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.