17 comments by 1 or more people

1. In a way, although possibly for slightly different reasons, i kind of agree. Its assumed that my parents can afford to fund my university education due to their earnings – however it is not taken into consideration the fact that i am one of four children. Now im pretty certain their earnings arent 4 times the amount of some people who are only children, parents earn less and get financial assistance from the government.

   I not trying to say that these people shouldnt get the support but i do question how fair the current system truly is..?

   29 Apr 2005, 11:36

2. I support fees.

   29 Apr 2005, 13:02

3. Whilst I understand what you are trying to say and agree that the system doesn't fully work at the moment … I think you miss the point.

   The question I ask is why should someone who is clearly smart enough to go to uni be denied the opportunity simply bacause they can't afford to pay the fees?!? The vast majority of these people go on to become valuable members of the community and like anyone else deserve the opportunity to get the best out of life!

   29 Apr 2005, 21:01

4. Chris, I'm not suggesting to take away some people's chance of going to university. The extra £650-odd could cheerfully be added onto the current student loan. This would allow the payment to be deferred.

   29 Apr 2005, 22:04

5. I completely agree that the system is currently flawed. I pay about 1/3 of the total fee amount, yet there are people I know whose parents have way more money than mine but don't pay any fees because their parents are no longer together.

   And about the many siblings thing – the amount of fees paid does go down if your fellow siblings are also at University, but I don't think anything happens if there are other dependent children at home. I agree with Amy that is seems incredibly unfair for her to pay the same fee as someone whose parents have no other dependents. But factoring that into the equation is just making it even more complicated!!!

   30 Apr 2005, 11:40

6. Even that will not strictly work. Many people from lower income families are already put off coming to uni due to the £12–15k debt that they will inherit. By adding on nearly another £2k for a 3 year course will only go further to putting them off.

   Money should never be a factor in deciding whether you go to uni or not

   30 Apr 2005, 13:58

7. I hate being poor

   :-(

   xxx

   03 May 2005, 01:07

8. michael howard

   a flat fee….

   kind of like the poll tax you mean. That sounds really good to me!

   08 May 2005, 18:13

9. "michael", that's really funny ha ha.

   Everything else in this world has a flat fee, so why should tertiary education be different? You don't find tramps going in to Asda and when they get to the checkout whipping out their "100% discount because I'm really poor" card, do you?

   Why not treat everyone the same?

   09 May 2005, 08:54

10. Justin

    I do not understand the "put off by the debt" argument. I pay no fees and get a full loan so presumably I am the kind of person who is meant to be put off by incurring this debt. I knew that I had to and wanted to go to uni and I was not put off by the debt at all as I know it is to be paid back later when I can afford it. I believe that even when a bank for example calculates your credit rating, say for a mortgage, this debt is not taken into account – so it not a "real” debt like other debts are.

    It is perfectly possible to live off a student loan and work in the summer holiday without having to take on other jobs or loans, as I have proved in the last 4 years. This year I am even running a car on the same amount!!!

    I do however think that a flat fee is not a good idea as I support means testing – I do not think the current system is perfect but it is not bad as a general principle, it just needs tweaking. However I am open to other ideas on this.

    The idea that your figure of £675 will come down though is flawed though. If less people go to uni (which I support) then the people who don't will want some kind of more vocational training which will have to be paid for. So the budget for unis won't stay the same, the money will simply move to a budget for vocational training. The figure will depend on how well funded you want these to be…

    Personally I believe that the way to make unis better and reduce numbers is for the government to cut the number of places it funds and for unis to drop or be made to drop courses with little or no academic content i.e. David Beckham studies etc. Then competition for places based on academic ability will be the only way unis can select their intake, hence you get the right people (i.e. those with academic ability) going to uni and the others not.

    I believe unis should offer degrees which have a rigorous academic content so that when someone has a degree you know they have done a well respected course. I have nothing against other qualifications called something other than degrees for more vocational courses from an institution called something other that a university being well funded and of the same merit but I believe there should be a distinction. After all isn't that what exams and qualifications are meant to do – distinguish between people??

    10 May 2005, 11:38

11. I guess my basic argument is to abolish means-testing. The system used at the moment is certainly not fair. Why do people assume that there is noone in this country who is "told" they can afford it but still put off by the cost of tuition?

    Why should parents have to fork out for their children to go to university anyway? At the age of 18 a student should be in charge of their own finances and, if necessary, their debts as well.

    10 May 2005, 16:57

12. Justin

    To take your argument to its logical conclusion therefore you should also be against some other things:-

    Income tax brackets – no means testing means introducing a flat rate tax system which by the way they do have in some countries.

    Income tax threshold – a threshold for income tax is another form of means testing.

    Therefore everyone, regardless of income, should pay a flat rate of say 28% (trying to ballence the books as we have 22% basic rate up to 40% top rate currently) In addition NI with no threshold of another few percent (Im not sure what the going rate is but Mr Browns extra penny above a certain threshold needs to be ironed out again).

    Idiologically VAT needs to be applied to all goods too since it is only reduced on some items considered non-luxury to allow these to be more affordable to those on low incomes. However since we are not means testing we cannot consider incomes hence no reduced VAT rates.

    Also to continue in this way but from a different point of view, if you look at benefits, these are done via means testing too. Hence without means testing either no benefits should be paid at all, so no unemployment benefit, child allowence, disability allowence…(however much the system is corrupt at the moment some of these need paying) or every-one should be given a flat rate benefit regardless of work status, child status, mobility status… Is this really fair or desirable? Interestingly the Greens had a slightly simillar policy at the recent election of no unemployment benefit and a "citizens allowence" paid to all.

    What this will do is increase the tax burden on the poorest and decrease it on the richest. I find myself therefore in the strange position of arguing in favour of some measure of progressive taxation!!!

    You are not really against means-testing since a flat fee for the cost of your education is not no means testing it is paying for what you use. Therefore you are in fact arguing for a fixed contribution towards every service you use. This however leads to a fixed charge for hospital operations (depending on the difficulty and cost of operation), local services – ie a return to the poll tax, and why stop at higher education, there is still secondary and primary school… You see where this is heading.

    Hence I believe that although not perfect some amount of means testing is necessary and desirable and I believe this should encompass higher education too.

    10 May 2005, 17:31

13. Perhaps I should have said "abolish means-testing of ability to pay university tuition fees" to make it clearer what I was talking about. Then a "logical conclusion" is no longer immediately apparent.

    However, there is one very large difference between tuition fees means-testing and your examples that you also haven't grasped. Tuition fees means-testing tests the student's parent(s) and not the student themselves. What state would the country be in when income tax, for example, is based on your parents' income?

    10 May 2005, 17:54

14. Justin

    1)I believe that means testing is an idiological point therefore applied to X doesn't really matter

    2) True, I agree but then a student will never be able to afford the cost up front so it had to be means tested on parents income. I agree now the system has changed but I think the reality is that most parents who can afford it help out with fees or some cost of living therefore it should rightly take into account their income.

    I think I am just hankering after a good (political) debate as a means of procrastinating!! Just wait till after exams…

    10 May 2005, 18:32

15. If you take out a student loan, I can't see why the fees couldn't be paid up front. In reality, the cost of the tuition fees is spread across the year as well.

    I don't see the flaw in my suggestion.

    Another thing: for a student living away from home, the non-means-tested loan available is £3070. This rises to a maximum of £4095 if "successfully" means-tested. The student in this case, I presume, will also pay nothing towards their tuition fees (of £1150), thus having a spare £2175pa floating around. These are the so-called poor.

    10 May 2005, 21:40

16. But a student loan is still a debt! They are not rich, because they are spending money they do not have, and have not earned. Taking on a debt of £12–15,000 is no joke, and if you come from a typically "disadvantaged" background, you do not have the support of (fairly) solvent parents, ie role models to follow who have shown you can make enough money to pay it off. Your last comment started with "if you take out…" but there is no way on earth I could afford to be here without one – coming to University meant I had to swallow the very strong values I have about debt and my eagerness to have a lack of it, and accept it as part of the territory – my parents don't support me at all, although I recognise I am in the minority on this front.

    I agree with Justin that means testing is a necessary and fair(ish) way of measuring income, even though the meanstesting on my parents has nothing to do with me. The idea of there being a fixed charge for University courses is good in theory, as long as it is due after we have finished and have jobs. But this added debt may put off some of the bright minds from "disadvantaged" backgrounds mainly, I think, due to a lack of confidence of being able ot pay it off (although if they're planning on coming to University they should be intelligent enough to know they either could eventually, or wouldn't have to under the current scheme) as it is such a big responsibility.

    The point is that if you have to completely support yourself, possibly over the holidays as well, you are already using up all of your full loan and the part time job you've got, and have probably already budgeted away the money you will earn over the summer for next year, which just doesn't leave room for tuition fees as well, unless your parents can pay it, which mine can't, or you can defer it until you actually start earning real money.

    And James, the people who are told they can afford it are the parents, not the students. If your parents are earning an income of £53,000, then I think they have a better chance of paying the tuition fees than you do, and the money has to come from somewhere. Plus there's this whole business thing about debts being kept too long makes you go out of business….....(apply to government, see where that gets us….)

    12 May 2005, 21:57

17. Sarah, I meant the phrase "to take out a student loan" in the sense of "to have/receive/apply for/get/have access to a student loan" and not in the sense of "to ignore/subtract".

    I also agree with you and Justin that means-testing is a fair(-ish) way of measuring parents' income because that is what it is designed to do. This does not affect, however, the student's ability to pay tuition fees. Your parents, for example, if they could give you money to help you out, they probably would. The assumption that all parents will help their children out financially (even if they can) is not one you can make, I'm afraid. In the case of particularly stingy parents (ones who can "afford" it but are trying to instill the idea of working for your own money, for example) their children will be worse off than you, just because they have been denied that extra £2175pa.

    As I have been saying all along, your point about incorporating tuition fees into your annual budget would not be a problem – the fees would simply be added to the existing student loan, which is paid back after graduation. If the idea of increasing the student's debt puts off any prospective student, then that student should think twice about coming to university. Intelligent students should see tuition fees as an investment in their career and should, if at the outset they are unable to pay the full amount, look forward to the time when they can afford to pay it back.

    13 May 2005, 10:18