The Case for Tuition Fees

[Solly]

There is an overwhelming case for increasing the paltry level of tuition fees in the UK. Our universities are suffering through ridiculously low levels of private funding.

Why should the taxpayer pay for the next generation of high-earners to get their post-18 education? Those who benefit should pay; of course not at the time of entry. Additionally, why should funds be diverted to further educating what are the intellectual elite when a quarter of children at 11 are barely literate or numerate. Surely primary schools have a "much better claim to more money than higher education".

The current system hands out money to the well-off. Please look at the issue with insight and not as a static picture. Those who graduate will earn more. Over a lifetime, why should the education of those who earn more be subsidised?

It is stated by some that to go to university one must have merit. Well, if one has the merit, one must also see that accruing what is a relatively small amount of debt is an exceptionally wise investment. What's next, a paid-off mortgage for all at 18 because otherwise the debt might put people off?

Just go and get this week's Economist (where the above quote is from).

[Zulu Elephant]

I completely agree

[Starchild]

People are more than willing to get into £100,000 of debt for a house but not £20,000 for an education. It boggles the mind.

I *should* be against tuition fees but the more I read about the Government's proposals, the more I support them. It's free up front, no payments until you make a reasonable income, and will provide funding for universities.

The thing that makes me worried about university next year is the up front payments. If university was free at the point of use and then paid for later, I wouldn't mind paying.

The cultural view of debt in the country really needs to be reworked.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Originally posted by Starchild
People are more than willing to get into £100,000 of debt for a house but not £20,000 for an education. It boggles the mind.

Well, for example, my house is now worth nearly three times what I paid for it. I can't say the same for my education.

[spartak]

If you ahver a degree your income is almost certainly goinbg to be more than what it would be without a degree so....

[Shi Huangdi]

How about a system like the USA where poor families can get money and help for their tuition, but richer families must pay the full amount(barring merit aid)

[Boris Godunov]

Any nation that wants to have a competitive, educated work force had better subsidize university education to some degree. It's ultimately in a country's best interest. But no, wealthy kids shouldn't be subsidized to the same degree as the poor, if at all.

[Solly]

The problem with Shi's and Boris' thinking is that the income of the family that the student comes from should be of any importance. In my opinion it shouldn't be, at all. Opportunity for all.

Starchild, I remember seeing a headline (but that's all) in someone else's paper, stating that Tory policy on tuition fees is effectively regressive. It is subsidising those who stand earn more over their lifetimes.

If a reforming China can realise the folly of an absence of tuition fees, then it's sad that many in our country still can't.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Park Avenue
The problem with Shi's and Boris' thinking is that the income of the family that the student comes from should be of any importance. In my opinion it shouldn't be, at all. Opportunity for all.

How is expecting the wealthy to pay their own way fully while granting subsidies to poor people who ordinarily wouldn't be able to afford university not giving opportunity to all?

What opportunity is there in reserving university for just the rich?

Having masses of people in debt is no good for an economy, even The Economist knows that.

[our_man]

Bah! Don't raise tuition fees! I look forward to having my medical education at the British taxpayers expense next year!

Just kidding.

There is some sense in having tuition fees. I just don't think it has been logically thought through by the British Government yet. Lower income families are still much less likely to send their children to university, so in effect their taxes end up subsidizing middle-class families sending their children to university. Having top-up fees for certain earnings groups would go some way to redress this balance.

If something isn't done, then the universities might be forced to take action themselves. For example they might increase the number of places for fee-paying non-EU students whom they can charge £20,000+ at the expense of British places. It's happened in Ireland; over half the medical places in my country are reserved for North American and Muslim 'buddy country' students because the universites want more money. Hopefully it won't come to that in Britain.

Even if they do bring them in, it'll still cost me less to study in England than Ireland, so I can't really complain.

[Ben Kenobi]

Shi:

I lost several scholarships because of this concept. They preferred to give to a much less qualified student who's parents made less money than mine.

I have no problem with giving scholarships based on merit, but I do have a problem with basing this on the income of my parents.

What if a student would prefer to be independent of their parents? In what sense will it matter what their parents make? What's stopping people on their application forms from lying as to the income of their parents?

I think this proposal is a good one. Rather than having students barred from university due to their lack of income, you will see them go in the hopes of paying off their debts later. No one gets a free pass, and the university keeps their funding up.

The problem would be in the transition, the first bunch as the university would need money to keep running, but would defer these payments to when the students graduate.

[Japher]

Well, I think Shi got the system wrong. Even the kids of rich people can get student loans, if the declare themselves independent of their parents. Only problem with this is if the parents continue to support the kid and the state finds out; tax fraud.

Our system is fine, the only thing I would change is dumping the independence requiring paper work until you are 24 y.o. 18 y.o. graduate HS and can't afford school because their stupid parents want to keep them as a right-off as long as they can... that's messed up

[Az]

I find it weird that people oppose free higher education. I mean, the costs are negligible, but the benefits are enormous. What's the problem?

[Solly]

Boris,

How is expecting the wealthy to pay their own way fully while granting subsidies to poor people who ordinarily wouldn't be able to afford university not giving opportunity to all?

Giving plentiful enough loans for the tuition fees and cost of living while at university ensures opportunity for all. If the commercial sector is unwilling to lend at a rate the government thinks is suitable, then only here should the government step in.

What opportunity is there in reserving university for just the rich?

I don't see how what I have proposed does that. On the contrary, the curreny system subsidises students from middle- and upper-class families. I'd like to do away completely with the connection between opportunity and the income of the family the student has come from: we're both after the same aim, I just think this idea of mine is the most sensible solution.

Having masses of people in debt is no good for an economy, even The Economist knows that.

If those masses of people, by going into debt, are expecting returns above and beyond the current rate of interest, then debt is the most efficient solution for those individuals.

[Solly]

I mean, the costs are negligible, but the benefits are enormous. What's the problem?

Why would people oppose paying for it then?