UKC

What do you think then?

From a personal point of view our main impact is that No 1 son will get maintenance grant when he starts Uni this October but no 2 son will just get a load more debt when he goes in Oct 2016. When you personalise things ie one child being miles better off than the other then it feels bad but I guess I understand the inevitability of it and there has to be a cut off somewhere.

Maybe they could just have reduced on a sliding scale rather than take away altogether?

In reply to Babika:

One of the most interesting things is the ring fenced road fund, given some of the debates that have taken place on UKC in the last week.

In reply to Babika:

Not sure whether that's the most important aspect of this budget in the wider scale of things. I'm pretty sure the overall effect will be to widen yet further the gap between rich and poor, and I think he has some cheek hijacking the term "living wage" the way he did (though I'm not complaining about what is in reality a hike in the minimum wage).

But I agree with you completely about the sense of making changes on a gradual, sliding scale, basis. This change from maintenance grant to maintenance loan will have a similar, if smaller, impact as the student loan change. Most of those contemplating a gap year that year will go straight to university instead to avoid the change. So we'll have a bulge in university applications one year (meaning many students who could benefit from a university course will miss out) followed by a slump the following year (meaning students with barely adequate ability to benefit from a university course will get in). On top of that all the commercial gap year providers will see a slump in business - possible redundancies etc. Not well thought out I suggest.

Martin

In reply to Martin Hore:

That's nothing compared to the baby boom that will come before the changes to the child tax credit changes.

In reply to Babika:
Good to see VC andGC holders get 10k a year

In reply to Babika:

Provided they haven't changed the repayment mechanism it's not really debt as it has few of the features of debt, in particular repayments stop if you aren't earning and are only based on a threshold. It's really a graduate tax, and many will never pay it off in full.

So it's actually quite progressive for the Tories - only high earners will clear the lot.

In reply to Neil Williams:

the rest will be taxed to oblivion for the rest of their lives. Very progressive.

In reply to XXXX:


I would like to laugh at this but you are probably right. I know there are examples from around the world where both the birth rates and more surprisingly, death rates have fluctuated in accordance with government policy.

In reply to Neil Williams:

But it isn't a graduate tax. If you are rich Tory voter, like many negotiable taxes for the rich, you don't have to pay it because you can fund your own education. If it were a graduate tax, every graduate would have to pay it - which is fair. A tax also doesn't come with the stigma and stress associated with having a loan, even if the terms are generous.

In reply to ByEek:


So you pay in full. You still pay. Indeed, you pay all of it, whereas with the loan there's a good chance you might not.


There is no need for any stress associated with these loans, because they are paid out of payroll and if you stop earning, you stop paying.

Stigma, well, that's up to you.

FWIW I would prefer a return to free university places, but that would have to come with a reduction in student numbers back to 1990s levels to be viable.

Neil

In reply to steveej:

Hardly. That's emotive talk, not financial facts.

In reply to Neil Williams:

40% tax + 2% NIC +9% SL = 51% marginal tax rate.

I certainly feel the £200 a month that gets taken out of my salary each month. Especially since I left Uni 13 years ago and now have a family to support.

Luckily for me I've nearly finished paying it off, but I only borrowed about £15k and was lucky that it was the first tranche of loans - my first year was I believe the first year they brought the loans in.

In fact the first few years the balance kept going up becuase I wasnt paying off enough even to meet the interest that was accruing on it.

It will be much much worse in the future.

In reply to steveej:

I have no problem with student loans, too many people go to university to do bull shit courses because A it's what your supposed to do and B it delays joining the working world.
Go back to free and the numbers will be even bigger.
The loans should be totally interest free though.

He should be commended for the minimum wage increase. I think Labour should be embarrassed for bringing it in at too low a level and ingraining the idea of that low a level a pay as a fair starting salary for too many jobs.

Yes he's pinched the "living wage" phrase but with some justification. £9/hour in 2020 would equate to today's Living Wage of £7.85/hour rising by 3.4% per year for the next 4 years, it's only gone up by 2.9% per year (average) over the last 3 years. So it's fair based on current expected inflation to assume that £9/hour in 2020 is similar to what the Living Wage foundation would get to by then.


More loan for students. It's not, as someone, a graduate tax. Whilst a lot of students, who arguably don't benefit from a degreee, won't pay anything - there will be a lot of graduate jobs where it will be a 9% marginal tax rise for most of their working life. Those who do quickly rise to over £50k will clear them.

I've always thought student loan repayments should be income tax exempt - if you were a business and you paid for training you would be able to offset the cost against profits. In fact if as an employer I paid for an employee to do a masters degree through one particular scheme we use the employee would pay nothing, the company only 30% and that would be offset at 225% due to R%D credits. So it isn't without precedence to tax exempt university education.

In reply to Neil Williams:


You mean their wealthy family pays? (By wealthy, I mean they have £50k spare to pay the tuition fees + living costs for 3 years, assuming they have a single child going to university.)

If you were to receive the full maintenance loan, your maintenance loan will be £8200/year and your tuition fees will be the standard £9000/year for a total of £17,200/year of loan. Thats a total debt of £51,600 or £68,800 for a 3 or 4 year course.

I really struggle to see how burdening young people who are, by definition, coming from poorer backgrounds with such outrageous levels of debt so early in their lives is a good thing.

Bearing in mind that any outstanding loan is cancelled after 30 years, it feels to me like shifting the burden on to those who do get into decent careers and can make substantial repayments on their equally substantial loans. I think supporting people from low income families through further education should be a burden borne by society in general, not just those who get into successful careers post-university.

In reply to Babika:

I would like to thank George mouse sincerely for allowing me the luxury of another 4-years of 1% pay rises. After 3year pay freeze and the last 2 of 1%. I wish I was getting anywhere close to the award our elected representatives are in line for from the independent pay review!

In reply to kipper12:

I work for a local authority. The VERY FIRST thing the new council did after election in May was to award themselves an 11% pay rise, which they justified on the basis that there were fewer of them, so they needed to work a little harder. Oh how I chuckled at the f*cking irony.

In reply to Babika:

Finished my budget newsletter not long ago.

V complex, v political, quite clever, not v honest.

In reply to remus:

You aren't going to be able to avoid that with *any* system.


It isn't really debt because it doesn't have most of the features of debt, e.g. still having to pay if you have no income being the main one.


If it's decided that the state can't afford to fund the number of students currently in full time education over 18, which I would agree with as I think it's become too many, there needs to be another funding model. That those who benefit most from university (=end up being paid most afterwards) cough up the most money seems to me to be about as good as you can get as a model.

I would prefer it free, but that would *have* to come with a reduction in student numbers, and I don't think people would like that.

In reply to Neil Williams:


But you could make the system fair. Have a general graduate tax that everyone pays. Not only would this be less bureaucratic, it would be fair because even those from obscenely wealthy families who can currently pay upfront would still have to pay. And given those from wealthy families tend to be wealthy in their working life, it becomes a progressive tax because as a proportion of their income, they pay more than those on minimum (sorry I mean't living) wage.

Saying that you don't have to pay it off is silly. My wife graduated around 14 years ago with £10,000 loan. She has been paying it off ever since. Its current value is about £10,000. I reckon she has probably paid about £8400 into the system, but because interest, low payments and maternity she has been treading water. Please find me one sensible person who can tell you that that makes fiscal sense. The golden rule of loans is to pay them off with your savings because the interest rates are going to kill you. Those with money can afford to do that. We can't so we get robbed by exponential interest.

If Wonga is the Hare, student loans are the Tortoise but both have the same impact ultimately.

In reply to ByEek:

So you would go for an open-ended rather than capped tax I guess?

Your Wonga statement makes no sense, though; those are normal loans which you still have to pay if you are unemployed.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:


My point was that for many people, once they get their first Wonga loan, they are trapped in a debt spiral. When you get a student loan, you are similarly trapped. For many, you can never pay it off. You are always going to see a large chunk of your earnings disappearing into thin air. It is hardly an incentive to earn more money.

As for the general tax payer - he is going to end up paying these loans off eventually. So the whole thing is a farce. Why pretend they are a loan at all when they are far from that? It just seems a deeply unfair and prohibitive way of funding higher education.

In reply to ByEek:


I disagree strongly - it's much fairer than requiring up-front fees which *really is* a barrier to poor families.

It might not be the best, but it's *far* from the worst.

In reply to ByEek:

I think a better analogy would be like a credit card, where you pay 5% of the balance, of course it will take a very long term.

Plus is her loan education fees, or living expenses? Very different things.

In reply to Neil Williams:



Exactly, try the US system, most graduates have between £75-150k in debt on completion. Or the system here, free education at all levels, but you'll be paying a minimum of 30% tax on pretty much all your earnings from the second you starting working.

Education isn't cheap, the UK simply can't afford blairs dreams of everyone having a degree.

In reply to Babika:

I'm less bothered about student loans than about working tax credit.
Concerns for me are that families with low incomes / single parents will have income reduced which could impact whether the children are fed or dressed appropriately. I don't know if that is one of the impacts but it is more of a concern for me than students.

Btw, can't students also get a job during their studies / gap year to off set some of the cost of living?

In reply to Neil Williams:

The increase in student fees from 3K to 9k has ended up most likely not saving a penny for the taxpayer. The extra money from all those students who get good jobs and pay back their loan, funds the least socially useful graduates and provides profits and running costs for the financial organisation running the loan book. Paying back puts particular financial stress on the kids from poorer families who do well. What on earth is fair in all that? If you back extrapolate, the number of students fundable on zero fee is much larger than many think (hardly a drop from current levels). This change to maintenance loans will add extra pressure on those kids from poorer families in a country rapidly going backwards in terms of social mobility.

When I went to University in the early 80s things were looking good for a more equal society where your prospects were based on ability and working hard rather than benefiting unfairly from family connections or being disadvantaged because of clear bias against underrepresented groups... how things change. I'd say the overall effect of all this may be that we have rewound back to the 70s or worse still. Sickeningly the cause of the degradation is being sold as what is needed to help the poorer students... Orwellian double-think is alive and kicking stronger every day.

In reply to Offwidth:

>I'd say the overall effect of all this may be that we have rewound back to the 70s or worse still. Sickeningly the cause of the degradation is being sold as what is needed to help the poorer students... Orwellian double-think is alive and kicking stronger every day.

I went to university from 1969-72, and the situation was extremely good for all students, from whatever background. (At Cardiff there were quite few sons of miners who had 100% grant). In my case there was a parental contribution, but also a grant. Then I went to the RCA film school from 1972-75, and in that case (based on a very gruelling three-day entrance exam), all students who were admitted were given 100% grant. Everything paid for. The grant was quite small, but it was enough to survive on. So I had no debt whatever when I entered the industry in 1975, though I was very poor.

In reply to Offwidth:

Only in their minds. The approach to this needs to be a calculated financial decision (does it make sense for me to go to University to follow my chosen career path?) There is no need whatsoever for stress, just rational calculation.

It also doesn't hit "poor kids" any harder than the middle classes. The rich get away with it, but equally the rich always do. And unlike means-testing on parents' income, it avoids pressure on middle class kids whose parents can pay but on principle won't - I knew a few of them.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Isn't part of the reason there are so many students in full time education over 18 because that is what the govenment wanted? 50% of under 30s in higher education, it was always going to cost alot of money. I imagine the unemployment figures are about to go up, until we see another turn around back to encourage people into education.

In reply to JoshOvki:

Setting arbitrary targets for % of students was a silly idea based on a false premise, something along the lines that 'On average graduates get paid more than non-graduates, ergo if more people graduate in whatever subjects or non-subjects they too will get paid more and we will automatically become a richer country.'

Nobody in the university sector - and particularly in the former polys and further education establishments - had the bottle to say that that was nonsense, what we needed (and in the early 80s actually had) was a diverse education sector, with universities for those who were academically gifted and motivated, polys for those who wanted more vocational training, and a further education sector that could cater for apprenticeships and in-service training.

In reply to Neil Williams:
Maybe you can counsel them. I'm sure they will listen with your support of a system that saves us no money as a nation, acts a complete discincentive apparently only due to their misunderstanding of finance and transfers less serious effects of debt onto those from the upper middle classes who are more able, through wealth or connections, to deal with it.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
Well pretty much all of our main national competitors acheive this easily enough and recognise how important it is for future continued growth. Locally you can include Scotland in that. The target, incidently, was HE qualified, not Uni educated. If we have made a mistake it is maybe around a lack of incentives for the courses the country needs most, especially in the vocational field.

In reply to all:

Fees are not paying for the student's tuition. They replace the cuts made by government to the Higher Education Funding Council and thus universities as a whole.

We ALL benefit from world class research institutions and we should ALL be paying for them.

In reply to Neil Williams:


I think this is where we completely miss to the point of a university education. It is not a function of economic units. At least not wholeheartedly. Education and learning is part of what it is to be a human being. University is not solely about gaining a career and as soon as it only becomes that, we might as well just give up. Similarly with health. We keep obsessing over the minutiae of how much health and education costs, forgetting the huge benefits both deliver. And funnily enough you can't measure much of that benefit in pounds, shillings and ounces. As a result it gets overlooked and dismissed because it can't be quantified, the economists get their way and before you know it, there is a huge and overwhelming feeling of loss at the pointlessness of it all. Higher education is well on its way to this place. We had something that was very good and open to all. We are rapidly moving to a situation where if you aren't that well off, there is no point going to university simply on cost grounds. Sad. Very very sad.

In reply to ByEek:

Once again, no we are not, unless you have a moral view against debt (if you'd call it that), in which case you probably need to look a little more practically at things.

I don't think it's the optimal situation we've got into, but I really don't go for all this doom-saying. It's an average solution - better than many countries, worse than many others.

In reply to Neil Williams:

So we should teach young people that debt isn't real money?

In reply to XXXX:
No, we need to teach them to critically appraise the situation they are in. Just categorising it all as "debt" is misleading. Different types of debt are acceptable and unacceptable for different reasons in different situations.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

What about a debt you will never repay, but will affect your take home pay by 10% for as long as you work? Seems to me if we are going to monetise education, our graduates are going to want paying properly to make up for it.

At the moment, it makes NO FINANCIAL SENSE to go to university, save from a very small number of institutions and courses.

In reply to Neil Williams:
Name a country other than the US where the debt situation for HE is worse.

It's not debt I object to (debt can be useful), its who has the debt in this case and what it pays for. Assuming fee increases break even for the tax paying public (not yet certain so we may have to pay more tax for increased fees as well) we are just transfering money from students with future successful careers into the pockets of finance companies and those with unsuccessful careers. We increase debt for those most likely to forge growth in the nation and we increase the debt relating to the public purse (albeit hidden off the government balance sheet like a PFI). What is the point of all that, the fairness of all that, the likely outcome for our growth as a nation from that?

In reply to XXXX:


Rather akin to a graduate tax rather than a debt, in a way.


I'd say "it depends", but that could be the case, yes. But people are still going.

In reply to Offwidth:


I was referring to the US. It's quite big!


That (minus the finance companies) is what we do when we pay taxes, to some extent.

In reply to Neil Williams:
They are still going through inertia, because the middle classes feel they have no choice and because the scale of the problem is being hidden from them. It's not guarenteed to continue and as such I think we are approching a period of significant instability for the lowest level HE instututions, cerainly so medium term. Some people will celebrate this as they dislike what the ex polys have become, but it leads to (like in the US) the need to import more expertise from abroad and a widening of social divisions at home.

Sure we pay tax to redistribute wealth but the new graduates now get to pay that twice and some of the new recipiants are the finance companies which are purely parasitic and lazy scrotes with rich families.

I wonder how many other such schemes that are cost neutral to the tax payer but dump loads of extra debt on a sector of our population the country could stand. The grant issue versus inheritance tax in this budget is a predictable combination to me. Take from those most likely to improve our future to give to those most likely to squander it. Classic old school conservative thinking in the face of liberal, evidence-based, ideas. Work hard enough and it wont be you (never mind most lose out and that history shows inheritances on average dont get spent as well as the tax take would be)

In reply to Offwidth:


What, even the many individuals employed by them? I fear this has turned into bank-hating.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

But if we apply that to universities in general, we should sack off all the arts and social science degrees and create a degree in sales assistants. Where does one draw the line between something that is generally good and wholesome and something that conforms to a capitalist economic way of thinking?

In reply to ByEek:

Difficult one, but as we live in a capitalist society that kind of appraisal is needed to some extent.

"Degrees for sales assistants" are part of the problem - the correct way to train for that is on the job.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:
Another childish snip. Recognising a pointless and wasteful beaurocracy isn't bank hating.

You seem to be in denial that increasing University’s fees from 3k to 9k with no likely saving to the taxpayer is a policy disaster (if this was know up-front they would never have got it through). You also seem to be in denial that although fees or grant loans 'shouldnt be a disincentive' to poor students according to the likes of you, that all the evidence and reasoning based on interviews shows they very much so are in practice. Even the US system gives massive discounts to disadvantaged kids. We just have a bit of fiddling about under the access agreement and now another nail in the coffin with the grant changes. If you look at research from the likes of the Nuffield and Rowntree foundations, if we looked after the kids from poorer families better we would easily make the future competive 50% mark for our economy and could afford to be a lot stricter on middle class grades. Our problem is less a target of 50% HE attainment and more like the current mismatch with around 70% for the middle classes and way too much wasted potential below that.

In reply to Offwidth:

Nothing childish about it.


I am not "in denial" about anything. I quite consciously believe it to be fact.


Again, I'm not in denial about anything, I disagree with you.

One of the things I think is quite important is that when someone's an adult, they can stand up on their own two feet regardless of who they are. I include in that being a student. Thus I would rather see a funding package that gave everyone the same opportunity/funding, whoever they are (or at least discriminates only on academic merit/potential). I *don't* in the slightest bit agree with parental means testing - as I've said elsewhere there are plenty of middle class parents who won't contribute to their kids' university education. If anything, it's often poorer parents who scrimp and save so they can. And the *really* rich just get what they like, that's a fact and we won't change it, we might as well just hit them with a bit of income tax and be done with it.

A graduate tax might be better. Free education for a reduced number of students selected solely on academic merit might be better. It's not the best solution, but it *is* IMO better than any one requiring up-front fee payment, and it's certainly better than US-style commercial freedom.


I don't know if I'm understanding you right, but are you saying that your social standing should affect the academic level required to access university? If you are that's what some term "positive discrimination", but I term wrong. We shouldn't be cutting *any* social group slack in terms of academic skill, we should be ensuring that there is quality State 5-18 education - and a motivation to take the best part in it - for *all* whoever they are.


I'm detecting a dislike for the "middle classes" here?

Neil

In reply to Neil W: I don't agree with your assessment that you're either an adult or a child, and that if you decide to go to university you immediately become the latter with all its responsibilities. For sure they should see a proportion of those responsibilities but not 100%. It would seem to me that it only encourages kids to stay at home longer, and certainly punishes those not from large cities who have to leave to continue education.

I find it rather depressing that the only motivation here for continuing education is the immediate financial....

In reply to Neil Williams:
I'm lost now as you are pretty vague on all the responses on the points I made. How about some clarity.

I still maintain the bank hating comment is childish.. you haven't said why it isnt.

We all need banks and other financial institutions, what we don't need is a new system that probably saves the tax payer nothing and may well end up costing us more and thats before all the extra debt. So what exactly is your fact? Do you support the fee increase or disagree with my view, preferably with some reasoning why (its hard for me to think of any logical line that agrees with increasing debt massively to our students with no saving to the taxpayer).

On what basis are you disagreeing that fee and maintenance loans are a real disincentive to students from poorer families. I agree they probably shouldn't be (in isolation) but the growing evidence of real poor kids is they are (there are evidenced incentives too... from the access agreement ...numbers currently are unclear but havent plumetted due to the extra work Universities do in this area). Its clearly not a disincentive to middle class kids (they are currently increasing in numbers and have no access agreement ). The 'isolation' point is important... the government is pushing strong rhetoric about irresponsible debt, the student debt will sit next to debt for kids, a house, a car, a business loan, family emergencies.... bright kids I know (and many of their friends) are opting for apprentice routes or part-supported vocational courses (especially nursing)... individually this is good news but at a national level having class divides on such a basis is not fair and is storing up problems socially and economically.

Your disagreement with parental means testing is fair enough but you need an alternative. Its not politically possible to just being treat everyone on academic merit, as a loan system is recognised to lead to massive unacceptable disadvantages to kids from poorer backgrounds. Looking at social standing is a requirement in the UK and the US: we do it through access agreements in the UK.

You can explain the middle class childish snipe as well. To me improving participation from any disadvantaged group is about fairness and maximising the contribution of everyone to society and the economy.

In reply to Babika:

I'm rather pleased to see that the smoke and mirrors of Georgie Porgie's seeming good news is being unravelled by the IFS as the days go by.

Watching the tub thumping yah-booing of Wednesday against the considered analysis of the past few days makes me wish that our politicians could treat us with more respect. If only he could pretend he's the DoF presenting to the Board and behave with the same clarity and dignity.

And pigs may fly

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
Missed your post Gordon. My point on the 70s was about we might be narrowing participation levels back to those years for disadvantaged groups.

In reply to Offwidth:

I still don't quite follow you. Which disadvantaged groups are you referring to?

In reply to Babika:
Disincentives to work; regressive; but who cares on the tory side when its great rhetoric for the supporters.

I cant even open the IFS link to copy it now everyone is looking to see what they, say. This will do...

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2015/jul/09/ifs-picks-the-budget-to-pie...

Edit: Opened now...

http://www.ifs.org.uk/tools_and_resources/budget/505

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:
The proportion of kids going to University from the poorest families after slowly improving for decades stalled at a pretty low level and may be heading backwards. The expansion of HE is pretty much all middle class.

I forgot the Sutton Trust work in my earlier posts... they are trying to analyse what might work most to close the attainment gap and acting practicallly on that research,

http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/responding-new-landscape-univers...
http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/subject-to-background/
http://www.suttontrust.com/researcharchive/family-background-access-high-st...

In reply to Babika:

The headlines are what people will remember, not the analysis afterwards. They do it because they can.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:

yes, I know, but I don't think Budgets of old times, or even fairly recent history, were presented with quite such disdain for the public

In reply to wbo:


I don't disagree with that in and of itself - which is why you get more support at uni than you do out of it. But I do think the aim should be for students to be able to stand on their own two feet and not subject to the means or whims/views of their parents. Which is why I would rather see a liveable maintenance loan (topped up with part time work if necessary) than "parental contributions" which not all parents provide.


It's more that it's unfair to make those who don't/can't partake in or benefit from it pay too much towards it, surely?

Neil

In reply to Offwidth:

I don't think there was anything unclear about what I said, but if you feel it was perhaps some more specific questions on what you don't understand (as distinct from what you simply don't like about my political views) may aid me in clarifying my views (and where I am unsure).


I can't be bothered arguing about something so trivial. But in all seriousness it seemed that you had a dislike of financial institutions, which of course have made their serious mistakes over the past few years but are essential for a capitalist system to function. However...


Do you have a reference that *these specific changes* will not decrease the cost to the taxpayer? As I find that very difficult to believe.


But it won't, and it shouldn't, because it is to all intents and purposes a tax - an extra 10% on income tax above a certain level, essentially. The biggest issue with debt is as you say *irresponsible* debt - the sort of thing that will leave you bankrupt if your income drops. This won't, because if you stop earning, you stop paying. That sets it aside from any other kind of debt.

You could call it a capped graduate tax and it would be exactly the same thing. Perhaps they should call it that.

And more importantly...anyone who is intelligent enough to be undertaking a University course is intelligent enough to understand that, aren't they? If not I perhaps return to my previous point about academic merit/potential. It is neither affordable nor justifiable for people to go to University *purely* for the life experience. You can get a very similar life experience by taking an apprenticeship and once you can afford it moving in with your mates. I know people who have done exactly that.

To me there are only two sensible reasons for going to University, and only those two need our support - one, as part of a long-term career plan (this one will be more common with the science subjects and was my take on it personally); and two, because of a strong desire for self-improvement in a specific subject area (this will be more common in the arts type subjects). If you desire neither of those you are wasting your time and money, and indeed everyone else's.


Where there is no money to be paid up front, the class divide is *entirely* in the eyes of the beholder.


Those being lower grades for admission? I don't agree with those either. The money is better spent filling the holes in the State education system. It might be a US-style view, but I strongly believe that if anyone with any background puts in the effort at school etc, they can achieve - but where they can't, we need to solve that *at the school level* rather than allowing lower grades for University admission just because your parents are poor.

And I do think in many areas the school system and culture surrounding it *is* failing to some extent - and that is a far more important thing to solve than just having increasing numbers of people go to uni without any particular plan off the back of it just to get a life experience at the cost of the taxpayer, many of whom didn't go.


And I can think of little fairer[1] than the idea that the parental contribution becomes irrelevant and everyone going to University sets out with the same support from the Government to make of as they choose. As it was, poorer families got a grant, but middle class families who wouldn't financially support their kids through uni caused their kids to lose out. Better to avoid that by tax take and giving everyone the same package than to try to force them to by other means.

[1] Ignoring the very rich families, but as I say you can't solve that and might as well just ramp their taxes up a bit to claw a bit of it back into the system more generally.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:



I've always seen talented people going to university as being beneficial for wider society, if they pick the right courses and then contribute to society when they graduate. A relative didn't have to pay anything himself during the 50's and 60's, and the UK branch of the company he started employs around 15 people in Sheffield and exports products around the world. I dare say I could have an idealised view.

In reply to Timmd:

I would be inclined to agree - which is why I'm strongly of the view that any selection should be on academic merit/potential and not a lot else. And if people are not reaching that potential in the school system for societal reasons (or because of bad schools) I'm more than happy for my tax money to go to solving that problem rather than just throwing subsidies at people at university level because it's an easier option than solving the actual problem.

I'm perhaps unusual in that I'm left-wing on taxation (I think we could justify a heavy increase to both the basic and higher rates of income tax, weighted towards the higher rate, and with an increase in personal allowance to take more low earners out of the income tax system entirely[1]), but I'm a bit right-wing on spending - i.e. I think it is vital to look massively critically at each bit of spending and do so very carefully. IOW I am happy to pay more tax in order to give real improvements to public services[2], but not to see it wasted as it so often can be.

[1] Money-go-rounds are an example of waste - if you are going to give people back "tax credits", better not to tax them in the first place and remove all that admin cost. It's like fining Network Rail - a totally pointless exercise.

[2] Transport is my key bugbear, but it applies equally to all sectors of public services really, including education.

Neil

In reply to kipper12:


To be fair, there are strings to the MP's pay rise, and it is ( in the spirit of a typical budget) a headline increase, but with reductions elsewhere, that may reduce gat headline figure, and is reported to be self financing from those clawbacks so. Some MP's have said that any net gain they make from this will be donated to charity or whatever. Is that for just this year of forever , I'm not sure.

In reply to Offwidth:


But you said that we might be going back to the 70s. I pointed out just how much better the situation for all classes of student was in the early 70s. Even if you meant the late 70s, it was still a manifestly easier time for the disadvantaged to go to university.

In reply to Gordon Stainforth:

It was an easier time to go if you could make it. Yet much fewer did (and a lower proportion did) than in the 1980s. Grammer places were often rationed for normal school kids (one boy and one girl in my village until I think the mid 60s) and when you made it the poorer kids then had to deal with the bullying. By my time there were no limits to grammar on ability and public schools gave lots of scholarships (these were the best students when I was at Uni... maybe as any culture shock was over and done with years before).

In reply to Offwidth:

How far are you generalising about poorer kids being bullied at university in the decades before the 80's? I only ask because my parents didn't encounter any bullying due to being from pretty poor families when they went to university during the 60's. Neither of them were lacking in self belief, I guess, but it's not something I've picked up on from them or family friends of similar ages and backgrounds. Though I'm not saying it didn't/doesn't happen.

In reply to ByEek:


Interesting topic!


Yes, but education and learning can be all sorts of things, depending on what you're good at. Learning skills is just as enriching and rewarding as pursuing academic education or more so depending on your talents: it's fulfilling individual potential that's what matters.

>...before you know it, there is a huge and overwhelming feeling of loss at the pointlessness of it all.

I think that's overstating the case. People like me will always feel overwhelmed by the pointlessness of it all - others will never know what it's like to feel that way, whatever HE funding model is in place in the UK


I agree that with this Budget, yes that is a step in entirely the wrong direction. I think we should be much better at looking at the actual *value* of everything we call education and deciding who should pay for it depending who benefits.

So, for a doctor, who's going to earn a shit-ton, guaranteed, do we need to publicly fund their training? Well we definitely want doctors, so there is an argument for public funding, but would we have no doctors (or worse doctors) if they had to pay for it themselves? I think the incentives of status and earnings are enough (although it might be worth funding people from poor backgrounds to ensure potential isn't wasted).

Do we want arts graduates? I think we do - we want the arts to be vibrant in our society. We want art taught in school, we want galleries and arts cinemas to visit, we want public art, we want live music and theatre, we want all this stuff going on in our communities so that we can have at least some hope of enjoying life rather than just working for money to spend on iphones and cars and then wondering why we can't escape the ever-present feeling of ungraspable impending doom and existential anxiety that is the result of leading a meaningless life dictated by the drudgery of capitalism. (This is a bit of a joke btw, I don't think arts graduates really allow us to escape this, but hearing some really good live jazz or seeing a brilliant, inventive film kind of helps). So if we want the arts alive in our society, and we know that good art makes no money since all the market churns out is vacuous tripe, then we should collectively put our hands in our pockets and publicly fund it. It's no good applying the doctor argument - 'you'll benefit from higher wages so you can fund it yourself' - to History of Art! You won't earn a penny with that one mate, you'll spend your career looking for public money to sustain any work you find!

Then there are vocational courses that deliver what employers need. So why can't *they* pay for them?

'Education' is so broad I think it's ridiculous that we shove the whole thing under basically a single banner and apply the same delivery model (HE) to the works regardless of what it is, what it's for, who's going to benefit and who can afford to pay for it. In an ideal world, everyone would be doing something that they're good and that they find rewarding. That doesn't sound like "everyone should have a degree and by the way you can pay for it yourself" to me.

In reply to Timmd:

The bullying I was referring to was for poorer bright kids outside their primary school peer group at grammar school or on public school scholarships. It happened (happens) much less at University and young adults deal with bullying better than kids.

In reply to Neil Williams:

Thats much better, I can understand where you stand now. You are talking about your opinion and beleif. I'm pretty amazed that you have missed the economic analysis of the tax effects of the new fee regime.... its been all over the papers and is based on modelling from the likes of the IFS. The future isn't certain (we may get a stable period of good growth, if we believe George's rhetoric, and if so the tax requirements reduce) but sadly the predictions are currently almost no change in tax and a significant probablility of even an increase. The fee changes sounds to me very much like one of your money-go-rounds if the tax requirements dont change but fees triple.

In reply to Offwidth:

I guess you would prefer University to be open to anyone who wishes to go regardless of academic merit (i.e. regardless of how much they will benefit from it, and by "benefit" I don't mean enjoy a few years of drinking and socialising etc without putting the effort and commitment into their subject).

I disagree with that, personally, and agree with Gordon that a return to a system of free education with maintenance grants for those who will benefit from it (in terms of developing a strong knowledge of their subject area, be that for self improvement or career reasons) but limited to those who, by way of academic aptitude, would benefit from it. But also funding for apprenticeships, technical colleges etc - basically a big shift from this idea that you need a degree to sweep the floor - a slightly overblown version of the truth but not far from the way things are heading.

I guess your preferred system would be more open - very large numbers of students funded by the State - would that not require a significant increase in income tax? With 5-18 education lacking in places, and that being something that is available and compulsory to all, I can't help but think that would be a better funding target. (In some ways I saw EMA, when that existed, as actually more of a benefit than grants for higher education).

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

Hi Neil,
It's probably best to clarify that 'University' is not homogeneous either between or within institutions, so it's quite a complex landscape. The big picture is that (vast oversimplification coming here) with most league-tables and metrics, the 120 or so Universities have settled down with the upper half being pre-92 trad unis, and the lower half being post-92 polys etc. The entry tariffs for U/G degrees tends to reflect this hierarchy (again v simplified).
The recruitment caps come off this year, so there will be no limit on numbers. However unis have KPIs like retention, progression, employability, degree standard etc. all of which affect their precious league rankings, all of which are affected by the level at which they set their entry tariff (also a KPI). The teaching effort also increases exponentially as entry standards are lowered.
As Offwidth is a seasoned academic, he knows this stuff, and is not (I think) arguing for lowering of standards. However, social inclusivity in HE is one of the great societal benefits unis can offer, and institutions have worked hard to incorporate non-standard entry routes, and all kinds of in-house support to open the doors to bright kids who for a wide variety of reasons didn't hack it at school.

In reply to paul_in_cumbria:

I can handle that, and I quite like the idea of it being about academic aptitude as a whole rather than just how you did on A-level exam day. I just don't support lower entry grades based on the simple fact of parental income; I would rather more attention was paid to academic aptitude for *all* candidates rather than just poor ones.

I'd imagine in actual fact it is, but as I'm not an academic (though I do have a degree and am in the process of doing a second one via the OU) I can go only on the content of peoples' postings.

Neil

In reply to Neil Williams:

I very much believe in standards and can hold to them reasonably well despite being in a mid ranked university in a mid ranked team. Our access agreements are not about lower grades, they are about things like school outreach, summer schools, and additional financial and pastoral support. All the things the Sutton Trust researched and found to work. Our range of entry qualifications is much wider than higher ranked institutions but we do still miss the old style, pre-EDEXCEL Ordinary and Higher Certificate and Diploma routes where larger numbers of disadvantaged kids once reached us with good standards. We have actually increased our entry grades in our team in recent years because we could (and still easily make our target entry numbers ... important to us as grade for grade most students coming through 'clearing' have struggled on our course). So our problem isn't grades, it is variability of ability and especially effort for those with a good enough grade. We sadly 'fail and terminate' lots of first years, very few of whom attend even at a minimum acceptable standard and do this despite the fee debt and the significant team efforts and close attendance monitoring (and subsequent actions), so unsurprisingly they have poor performance. The causes vary but the biggest number are middle class kids with A levels having too much of a good time. We refer a good number more of our first year who at least try hard or have much fewer module problems. Year 2 sees fewer referrals and much fewer F&T. We try and encourage all standard students to take a paid placement sandwich year as it helps get a better graduate job and cuts debt, We have more jobs available than students and the pay ranges from OK to excellent. Pretty much all Year 3 get an award of some kind and our graduates can easily get graduate level jobs and nearly all will be paying back most or all their fees.

Thats where I am 'coming from' so I really think you need to read a little more about what is happening around attainment gaps in our Universities and the likes of the IFS and Sutton Trust publications are a good place to start and those organisations are far from being idealogues.