Sunderland uni tuition fees announced


Status
Not open for further replies.
I signed upto a profession where I could retire at 60 and I paid a certain amount of my income towards a certain level of pension.

Goal posts are now being shifted. I will have to work till I am 65 (and probs 68 in next few years) and my pension contributions are about to increase by 50% while the amount we recieve will drop by 25%

Government happy to do that as they say it is fair (just 4 years after we agreed and signed upto the last fair system was agreed upon after public enquiry)

Everybody is being asked to take the pain just now so only fair that all graduates pay a lesser figure rather than hammer all new graduates for everything.

Any changes will have no effect on existing contributions etc though surely?
 
Any changes will have no effect on existing contributions etc though surely?

You would have thought that and that was what was agreed 4 years ago.....

Everybody is now gonna get hit....Many of those who are within a few years of retirement are looking to opt for early retirement now as if they stay on till the new rules are brought in they could end up having to work an extra 8 years for little more than what they get now. Government have lost the plot.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
So get a job and study part-time if you don't want to pay the fees. Taxpayers do not owe you a living. The OU runs courses that are graded as the same in quality as the Russell Group universities and cost just £700 a year. No one is being prevented from gaining a quality education.

You seem extremely outraged. I do agree with you the state does not necessarily owe you a living but they do owe you an education, what's the point of a state if it's not to improve the standard of life of those inside it? The rat race is all well and good as long as everyone's starting line is at the same position.
 
You seem extremely outraged. I do agree with you the state does not necessarily owe you a living but they do owe you an education, what's the point of a state if it's not to improve the standard of life of those inside it? The rat race is all well and good as long as everyone's starting line is at the same position.

The state do owe, and already give, everyone an education. It's free until you're 18 (A Level standard). One you're an adult, you can choose to be educated further, some will choose yes, some will choose no.

If you can't afford to pay the fees upfront, you can pay them back once you can, over a period of time with an interest rate linked to inflation. Nobody is being denied an education due to wealth (or lackthereof).

I really don't see what is unfair about this and why demonstations were deemed to be necessary.
 
Last edited:
The state do owe, and already give, everyone an education. It's free until you're 18 (A Level standard). One you're an adult, you can choose to be educated further, some will choose yes, some will choose no.

If you can't afford to pay the fees upfront, you can pay them back once you can, over a period of time with an interest rate linked to inflation. Nobody is being denied an education due to wealth (or lackthereof).

I really don't see what is unfair about this and why demonstations were deemed to be necessary.


I am not angry about tuition fees as such....I personally kicked off because I voted Lib dem partly because they publicly signed pledges (and thus bought my vote) on the basis that they would abolish tuition fees. Then voted in favour of tripling them. :oops::evil:
 
The state do owe, and already give, everyone an education. It's free until you're 18 (A Level standard). One you're an adult, you can choose to be educated further, some will choose yes, some will choose no.

If you can't afford to pay the fees upfront, you can pay them back once you can, over a period of time with an interest rate linked to inflation. Nobody is being denied an education due to wealth (or lackthereof).

I really don't see what is unfair about this and why demonstations were deemed to be necessary.

Say two lads do a pharmacy degree one in 2005 the other in 2012.

2005 lad pays 1200 quid fees plus his loan of around 3k so for the year = 4200

Pharmacy is a 4 year course so 4200 x 4 = 16,800 total debt when he graduates

2012 lad will now pay 8500 fees plys 3k loan = 11500 a year debt

11500 x 4 = 46,000 quid

Students will have an average debt three times bigger than those studying in 2005 just because they were unlucky when they chose to do there degree. Its hardly a fair way of raising fees. Graduates will enter profesions where they are doing the exact same job but earning less then there fellow workers all due to the time they went to university at the wrong time. Not very fair I think you will agree.
 
Last edited:
It's a bit of an odd argument to say you shouldn't change things because it might make something more(or less) favourable for the current generation compared to previous generations.

Nothing could ever change by that argument.

Increase prices? No, not fair that current students should have to pay more than their predecessors.

Decrease prices? No, not fair on the previous generation who had to pay the higher prices.
 
Say two lads do a pharmacy degree one in 2005 the other in 2012.

2005 lad pays 1200 quid fees plus his loan of around 3k so for the year = 4200

Pharmacy is a 4 year course so 4200 x 4 = 16,800 total debt when he graduates

2012 lad will now pay 8500 fees plys 3k loan = 11500 a year debt

11500 x 4 = 46,000 quid

Students will have an average debt three times bigger than those studying in 2005 just because they were unlucky when they chose to do there degree. Its hardly a fair way of raising fees. Graduates will enter profesions where they are doing the exact same job but earning less then there fellow workers all due to the time they went to university at the wrong time. Not very fair I think you will agree.

And a pharmacist in the same company who got their degree in the 80s will have no debts and pay nothing. The system stinks!:evil:
 
It's a bit of an odd argument to say you shouldn't change things because it might make something more(or less) favourable for the current generation compared to previous generations.

Nothing could ever change by that argument.

Increase prices? No, not fair that current students should have to pay more than their predecessors.

Decrease prices? No, not fair on the previous generation who had to pay the higher prices.

Or you simply make everyone who has benefited from a university education pay a percentage of their income over a certain level....That way nobody has a right to complain as everyone is being treated the same
 
It's a bit of an odd argument to say you shouldn't change things because it might make something more(or less) favourable for the current generation compared to previous generations.

Nothing could ever change by that argument.

Increase prices? No, not fair that current students should have to pay more than their predecessors.

Decrease prices? No, not fair on the previous generation who had to pay the higher prices.

Its not the fact that theyve simply been increased though theyve been trebled just two years after they were doubled.

The top up fees doubled tuition fees and now the new projeted fees have trebled the increase from two years ago.
 
I am not angry about tuition fees as such....I personally kicked off because I voted Lib dem partly because they publicly signed pledges (and thus bought my vote) on the basis that they would abolish tuition fees. Then voted in favour of tripling them. :oops::evil:

Error number one right there ;)

Saying that, I can see why you would be unhappy with the likes of Clegg as he'll obviously sacrifice anything for power. It still doesn't mean it's unfair though. :)

Say two lads do a pharmacy degree one in 2005 the other in 2012.

2005 lad pays 1200 quid fees plus his loan of around 3k so for the year = 4200

Pharmacy is a 4 year course so 4200 x 4 = 16,800 total debt when he graduates

2012 lad will now pay 8500 fees plys 3k loan = 11500 a year debt

11500 x 4 = 46,000 quid

Students will have an average debt three times bigger than those studying in 2005 just because they were unlucky when they chose to do there degree. Its hardly a fair way of raising fees. Graduates will enter profesions where they are doing the exact same job but earning less then there fellow workers all due to the time they went to university at the wrong time. Not very fair I think you will agree.

Student C, the one who went to university before 1998 (or thereabouts) will owe nothinh for his/her tuition.

I can understand that whilst this is unfair to student A (and indeed B when compared to C) - it's still much fairer to the taxpayer overall. If you want a higher education, you pay for it.

Or you simply make everyone who has benefited from a university education pay a percentage of their income over a certain level....That way nobody has a right to complain as everyone is being treated the same

Except the graduate pre 98 didn't know he would be charged at some random date in the future, whereas future graduates will know how much it will cost them.
 
I've not read the whole thread because I imagine it'll just be a childish battle between young and old posters, however I honestly think the new system will be more accommodating to all areas of society, and appears to be a much fairer system.

If the tuition rise does nothing else then hopefully it'll make people reconsider whether to go to university or not. Someone mentioned earlier that not everyone should be going to university and they're completely right.

Far too many people are told from a young age that they must go to college, then university, then they'll get a job. Not only is that misleading and naive, but it's also offers an incredibly restricted perspective on gaining employment.

I don't think this is a class issue, but certain people - namely student themselves - are making it into one.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I am not angry about tuition fees as such....I personally kicked off because I voted Lib dem partly because they publicly signed pledges (and thus bought my vote) on the basis that they would abolish tuition fees. Then voted in favour of tripling them. :oops::evil:

Lib Dems were in favour of a graduate tax. The way the new system has been set up, it is virtualy that, a graduate tax in all but name.
 
Say two lads do a pharmacy degree one in 2005 the other in 2012.

2005 lad pays 1200 quid fees plus his loan of around 3k so for the year = 4200

Pharmacy is a 4 year course so 4200 x 4 = 16,800 total debt when he graduates

2012 lad will now pay 8500 fees plys 3k loan = 11500 a year debt

11500 x 4 = 46,000 quid

Students will have an average debt three times bigger than those studying in 2005 just because they were unlucky when they chose to do there degree. Its hardly a fair way of raising fees. Graduates will enter profesions where they are doing the exact same job but earning less then there fellow workers all due to the time they went to university at the wrong time. Not very fair I think you will agree.

I bought a Freddo for 20p in Morrison's today. Someone that bought that Freddo in 2005 would have probably only paid 15p. Someone is 1995 would've paid 10p max. f***ing ridiculous, so it is!

This is what I pay on my student loan(I've just graduated):

"Student Loans Company will apply a 1.5% interest rate from 1 September 2010 across the UK.

Between 1 September 2010 and 31 August 2011, the interest rate may change because it is linked to the rates charged by high street banks. The rate will be the lower of the Retail Price Index (RPI) in March 2010, or 1% above the highest base rate of a nominated group of banks. The maximum rate of interest that may be charged between 1 September 2010 and 31 August 2011 is 4.4%; this was the RPI in March 2010.

Our customers monthly repayments are unaffected by the rate of interest. Customers with income based loans repay 9% of their earnings that are above the income threshold of £15,000."

My debt is probably about £15,000, including interest, I think which was all loans and excludes tuition fees which I don't have to pay back.

I will never miss the monthly payments, I currently earn about £20k so it's about £45 a month, and despite the interest I am paying I should get it paid.

On the new system I don't think I'd ever repay my debt because I'd be paying RPI+3%, which is a lot, and I wouldn't start paying it back for a year or two. I would however pay 9% of my earnings over £21k for 30 years which would probably cover the £15,000 if it was on the old terms.

Overall I it fairly win/win for the students and the government. The students will never miss the payments as they will only pay more as they earn more and the government will be happy because they will have a permanent income for 25-30 years. The 3% on top inflation is key to ensuring the government getting their money back.

I'd much rather have my terms than the new terms with the huge interest rate.
 
I bought a Freddo for 20p in Morrison's today. Someone that bought that Freddo in 2005 would have probably only paid 15p. Someone is 1995 would've paid 10p max. f***ing ridiculous, so it is!

This is what I pay on my student loan(I've just graduated):

"Student Loans Company will apply a 1.5% interest rate from 1 September 2010 across the UK.

Between 1 September 2010 and 31 August 2011, the interest rate may change because it is linked to the rates charged by high street banks. The rate will be the lower of the Retail Price Index (RPI) in March 2010, or 1% above the highest base rate of a nominated group of banks. The maximum rate of interest that may be charged between 1 September 2010 and 31 August 2011 is 4.4%; this was the RPI in March 2010.

Our customers monthly repayments are unaffected by the rate of interest. Customers with income based loans repay 9% of their earnings that are above the income threshold of £15,000."

My debt is probably about £15,000, including interest, I think which was all loans and excludes tuition fees which I don't have to pay back.

I will never miss the monthly payments, I currently earn about £20k so it's about £45 a month, and despite the interest I am paying I should get it paid.

On the new system I don't think I'd ever repay my debt because I'd be paying RPI+3%, which is a lot, and I wouldn't start paying it back for a year or two. I would however pay 9% of my earnings over £21k for 30 years which would probably cover the £15,000 if it was on the old terms.

Overall I it fairly win/win for the students and the government. The students will never miss the payments as they will only pay more as they earn more and the government will be happy because they will have a permanent income for 25-30 years. The 3% on top inflation is key to ensuring the government getting their money back.

I'd much rather have my terms than the new terms with the huge interest rate.

So what happens in 30 years time when the Government of the day starts having to clear unpaid debts?

Also, all the Unis are asking for towards top whack, so the Government is also having to cough up more up front (fewer student places to pay for this).

This is backfiring badly and someone is going to have to have the guts to admit there has been an almighty balls up.

Scrap this idea, graduate tax please!!!
 
So what happens in 30 years time when the Government of the day starts having to clear unpaid debts?

Also, all the Unis are asking for towards top whack, so the Government is also having to cough up more up front (fewer student places to pay for this).

This is backfiring badly and someone is going to have to have the guts to admit there has been an almighty balls up.

Scrap this idea, graduate tax please!!!

Then they clear them. The money would have already been paid to the uni so it doesn't matter. You also have to remember that as time goes by and inflation rises wages will go up meaning that the amount over £21k that people are paying money on will also so up.

The government clearly view this as an investment, generally if you go to uni then you will earn more money and will therefore pay more tax in the long run - on top of your loan repayments.

I think people are failing to look at the big picture here, much in the same way as they do with the bank "bailout". Which, by the way, the government will make a fortune from e.g. for every 1p rise in the RBS share price the government will make approx £906m. You don't see that on the front of the newspapers when talking about the big bad banks. Anyway, that's off topic but my point is that people get so caught up in ranting about things and moaning at someone else that they don't take the time to look at the issue in hand.

(I'm away out to get pissed so I am not ignoring any responses that may get made me this)

Edit: As someone else pointed out, this is essentially a graduate tax.
 
Last edited:
Yes, but there's still the money the graduate has failed to pay back and that hole is still missing. The interest rates only ensure the loaned out money does not devalue in market terms. Given the Unis have headed towards top whack in their demands (if they looked at cutting waste, they wouldn't have to charge these ridiculous fees), there's going to be a considerable gap due to more graduates failing to pay back.

I don't see increased tax (on top of the loans) from increased wages being sufficient to cover this. Anyone care to do some maths on this?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
:eek:

The first one was the child benefit fiasco

I didn't delete that fast enough. I admit that was not good. :lol:

Yes, but there's still the money the graduate has failed to pay back and that hole is still missing. The interest rates only ensure the loaned out money does not devalue in market terms. Given the Unis have headed towards top whack in their demands (if they looked at cutting waste, they wouldn't have to charge these ridiculous fees), there's going to be a considerable gap due to more graduates failing to pay back.

I don't see increased tax (on top of the loans) from increased wages being sufficient to cover this. Anyone care to do some maths on this?

I'll add I wasn't too averse to the loans until the Unis got greedy (though still pro-Graduate Tax).

It's just I see a car crash coming 30 years in advance here.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top