And the cuts just keep on coming !!

[mattx]

The Aimhigher university access scheme has been scrapped by the Eton Boys. Tossers.

 

Times Higher Education - Aimhigher brought down by coalition axe

[elsiegee40]

I am really starting to wonder how anyone will be able to afford to go to university.

 

My kids are in Years 10 & 12 and we are relatively well off, but we're still cringeing at the potential cost of getting them through university

[mattx]

I am really starting to wonder how anyone will be able to afford to go to university.

 

My kids are in Years 10 & 12 and we are relatively well off, but we're still cringeing at the potential cost of getting them through university

 

Similar to you - mine are 10 and 8 - I started saving for them when they were born - I worked out I won't be able to afford to send them if they want to go

With the costs of fees, cost of living etc - I just don't know what I will do should they really want it. If push comes to shove I'll move to a smaller property because I'm certainly not having a bunch of Eton knob ends screwing up my kid's education because they want to get rich off it.

I wonder how many places could be paid for instead of paying for this pathetic Royal Wedding Security ?

[torledo]

The Aimhigher university access scheme has been scrapped by the Eton Boys. Tossers.

 

Times Higher Education - Aimhigher brought down by coalition axe

 

But isn't this a case of one intiative to increase participation to be replaced by another, or another set of initiatives.

 

He added: “In the future, universities wanting to charge [tuition fees of] more than £6,000 will be required to participate in the National Scholarship Programme and will be monitored to ensure they enrol an increasing number of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.”

 

In a statement, the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills says that the government will work to establish a new “framework” for widening participation, which will place more responsibility on universities.

 

i think it's best not to be too reactionary to every 'axe' announcement until it can be seen how the alternative work out.

 

As for the whole meeting the cost of higher HE tuition fees debate, isn't this just another example of the generational wealth transfer that will continue to take place ?

it might not be what some people want to hear, but it may no longer be the case that the accumilation in net financial assets by the older generation as a group will be allowed to sit there increasing relative to inflation, in this new zero interest rate environment.

[and i am aware of how squeezed finances are at present, but on the whole over the last decade we've seen increases in wealth for certain groups at the expense of increased debts elsewhere]

 

Those savings and/or assets will have to be used to fund housing [through deposits for house purchase] and university education for the young. the former is undoubtedly a wealth transfer, the latter is arguably so aswell in that the funding of a graduate education could potentially see increased incomes for said graduates through their careers, if the oft-quoted statistic about graduate earnings power is to be accepted.

 

the problem with the coalition proposals is that, it seems to want to shift more of the burden on to repayment by the young and indebted once they start earning. but that still won't stop considerate parents using wealth/savings to reduce the debt burden.

ofcourse this cost burden has other effects that might not help the young, namely the parents doing the funding having to work for longer, not freeing up employment opportunities for the young ? But in the example that matt gave, of downsizing, if that happens increasingly that could allow for the young generations who wouldn't otherwise have the opportunity to buy such properties. i don't see tutition fees, and a proportionate increase as having an entirely negative outcome.

[SimpleSi]

I can understand that if you'd planned on paying for your children's higher education, the cost increases look horrendous.

 

But I think the problem is a mindset rather than a practical one.

 

in 99% of cases. your children will be able to borrow the extra money needed and pay it back as effectively an extra tax later in life when they are earning.

 

So if you were planning on paying for a lot of their costs, then just let them pay for the extra. They'll still be much better off relatively than the children of parents who aren't able to help out their children go to university.

 

regards

 

Simon

[torledo]

in 99% of cases. your children will be able to borrow the extra money needed and pay it back as effectively an extra tax later in life when they are earning.

 

but if, as i understand it, there will be no compulsion to pay fees upfront, what 'extra' are the students needing to borrow ?

 

it's the parents who need to spend if they want a reduction in the amounts that are clawed back from the students via the tax system when they start earning above 21k. OR if they want to elimate payments entirely, if that's possible.

[elsiegee40]

I can understand that if you'd planned on paying for your children's higher education, the cost increases look horrendous.

 

But I think the problem is a mindset rather than a practical one.

 

in 99% of cases. your children will be able to borrow the extra money needed and pay it back as effectively an extra tax later in life when they are earning.

 

So if you were planning on paying for a lot of their costs, then just let them pay for the extra. They'll still be much better off relatively than the children of parents who aren't able to help out their children go to university.

 

regards

 

Simon

 

Student loans didn't come on the radar until my eldest was comfortably at primary school... current sixth form parents will not have realised the likely impact and the need to save until it was too late.

 

The 'just get a student loan' argument is all very well, but who wants their child to be saddled with a large debt for that length of time? Not that parents have any choice, it's the way it will have to be

[Andrew_C]

If you are sufficiently poor, there are still grants for students. Mine started uni this year. She'll still have debts to pay, but not too horrific, compared to say a new car. That is, if she stops spending money she doesn't have...

[torledo]

Not that parents have any choice, it's the way it will have to be

 

indeed. this process is baked in.

 

but i do question how much scope there is to load more debt onto students, as a solution from politicians. Maybe the ultimate solution is that increased sacrifices and lower standard of living will have to be tolerated as a fallout from the credit boom......if people still want to send their kids to university. Rather than backloading most of the cost via the graduate tax clawback.

[MK-2]

just as an aside, our head went to a conference where vince cable spoke of the cuts, saying that the choices weren't taken lightly, and it came down to cutting from the health sector, secondary school funding or university funding and that was the one they decided on

[SimpleSi]

but who wants their child to be saddled with a large debt for that length of time?

 

You just need to have a paradigm shift

 

Its costs X pounds to educate someone at Uni.

 

This money can come via taxes on parents/taxes on students or money directly from parents (pretty much same thing as taxes on parents)

 

It still costs X pounds

 

If you don't want your children to pay back the loans and you can't afford to pay out while they are studying - just give them the equivalent take-home pay loss they will incurr each month once they are earning.

 

Same result acheived.

 

regards

 

Simon

[mattx]

just as an aside, our head went to a conference where vince cable spoke of the cuts, saying that the choices weren't taken lightly, and it came down to cutting from the health sector, secondary school funding or university funding and that was the one they decided on

 

I don't believe that for a second - the lib dems made a pledge, when they got a sniff of power they just caved in to what Uncle David wanted. The party has no backbone and come the next general election will be wiped off the face of the map whilst David and his rich chums laugh into their champagne glasses whilst saying 'old chap' and 'rar rar rar, we are richer than you'

[Hightower]

The way I see it is, degrees are not worth much nowadays because every man and his dog has one. Perhaps with limiting the amount of people going to university a degree might become meaningful again.

 

Not every job requires a degree, yet most request one nowadays, and it's at the point where it's just silly.

 

And by the way, I'm not saying dumping on the poor is the way to do this before you all jump on me.

[jamesb]

What about just encouraging students to do a few years of work before university? Let them see the real world a bit, get some genuine experience of something other than education, and have a little time to figure out exactly what they want to do? A 29 year old graduate with a few years of real work experience is in a much, much better position than the brand new graduate who's never seen anything outside a classroom. They're also less likely to abandon their degree mid-way, or change subject.

[nicholab]

Students Loans will now have to be used for paying student fees with students staying at home like in most other countries of the world. They will then have to work additionally in the holidays. I was at university for 4 years in the 1st two I had a student loan in the 2nd two I did not. I kept my part time job form sixth from to the end of university. Sorry folks students will have to stay at home to save money and not spend the time drinking.

[witch]

The way I see it is, degrees are not worth much nowadays because every man and his dog has one. Perhaps with limiting the amount of people going to university a degree might become meaningful again.

 

Not every job requires a degree, yet most request one nowadays, and it's at the point where it's just silly.

 

And by the way, I'm not saying dumping on the poor is the way to do this before you all jump on me.

 

Surely it depends on the degree? My son is studying Engineering Geology because he wants to do the job and a degree has always been required.

As for the cost of sending children to Uni - yes, it will go up but hopefully the fees wont ALL go up to £9000 a year. It would be a great shame if children who want to do valid degrees cant do them because of the size of the loan they will end up with, IMHO they should take the loan and perhaps the parents can help pay it back.

As for saving for Uni - when my children were born there were no fees to pay but I always saved for them for higher education or a deposit on a house or car or whatever, so now we are able (with a bit of belt-tightening) to pay such that each child (and there are three of them) will end up with half the loans they would have needed without our help.

Our pension is rubbish, but I couldnt in all honesty pay into my own pension and watch my children suffer.

On a related note, today is my youngest child's 18th birthday - so now they are all adults, I have no more responsibility, do I?

I agree that a few years work first is a good thing, as is lowering your expectations - most student rooms in the USA are shared and therefore cheaper. But OTOH, degrees are usually 4 years and so less intense, leaving space for a decent number of hours in a part-time job. The son mentioned above works 5 days a week, until 6 every day and then has a huge amount of lab time and course work, so doing a part-time job is very difficult

Edited November 26, 2010 by witch

[localzuk]

This is another example of the government removing 'national' schemes and replacing them with guidelines and expecting everyone to pick up the slack.

 

The problem with that approach here though is that without a coordinated effort, you'll end up with a post code lottery of academic participation.

 

Regarding being lumbered with debt. People are saying 'if you're poor you can get a grant' and 'if you're rich, this won't be an issue'. What about those in the middle? Those who don't have parents with masses of spare money which they can save for their kid? Even if a parent saves £100 a month from birth for their kids, they will still only scrape together about £25k (including interest). That wouldn't cover the new fees etc... They'll still end up needing a loan. (£100 a month is a lot of money to my parents, who are middle class, living in quite an expensive area etc...). What if they have 2 kids?

 

I left uni with £20k in debt in normal loans and on credit cards, as I was from the Isle of Man, didn't qualify for full grants etc... I have now been living in a single room for 4 years, I don't buy much for myself at all, and all my spare money goes into paying off my debt, meaning I've paid off over half in that time (no thanks to the banks though! They're no help at all). However, I am the exception to the rule. Students expect to come out of uni, get a well paid job and be able to go get themselves decent accommodation and live the high life.

 

They're going to be in for a big shock.

 

Students Loans will now have to be used for paying student fees with students staying at home like in most other countries of the world. They will then have to work additionally in the holidays. I was at university for 4 years in the 1st two I had a student loan in the 2nd two I did not. I kept my part time job form sixth from to the end of university. Sorry folks students will have to stay at home to save money and not spend the time drinking.

 

So people should be forced to go their nearest university? No poor people from Sheffield going to Cambridge then...

[Dos_Box]

I don't believe that for a second - the lib dems made a pledge, when they got a sniff of power they just caved in to what Uncle David wanted. The party has no backbone and come the next general election will be wiped off the face of the map whilst David and his rich chums laugh into their champagne glasses whilst saying 'old chap' and 'rar rar rar, we are richer than you'

 

Perhaps they only made these 'pledges' because they knew that there was no way they were going to win. Once they found themselves in a coalition they were suddenly placed in the position of going 'Er..umm.' When they found out there were very hard choices to make. It is swings and roundabouts. The Conservatives gave them concessions on nuclear power in favour of green policies (IMHO, nuclear is the far better option), and in return the Lib-Dems had to conceded some of their policies. As far as your 'toff' bashing goes, I do think it is rather unfair given that the last govt, and indeed the bulk of the leadership of the (now) opposition all come from privately educated and privileged backgrounds, and most have never done a hard day’s work in their lives (by definition of hard, I mean backbreaking for minimum wage and having to really wash their hands before each meal.

As for university, do students not get part time jobs like they used to part fund their living costs? Or is it now expected that all they have to do is a bit of studying and enjoy the student 'lifestyle'? Whilst we are on the subject. many here are concerned (me included) about their children going to uni and how they are going to pay for it. Has anyone thought about whether they should be going? What it is they want to do with their lives (they won't really know and given that most 'career advisors' have never had a job outside of career advising I doubt many would be choosing more sensible careers in science over media and other 'glam' subjects. Or are people now going to uni simply to obtain a generic degree because that is what is now simply expected. I suppose a simple test would be to get a teenager and show them 3 items. A saw, a computer and a pipe wrench. Ask them which they would use to provide for their future and most would choose the computer because it presumes that it will earn them more and be easier than the other two. Only later would you realise the truth.

Sorry, I've started to ramble, but class warfare annoys me. It's simply an excuse to throw blame about their personal situation onto someone else. After all, didn’t the Labour govt destroy our pensions and spend over four million pound a day in its final year that the country simply did not have or can I pour scorn over the party of ‘working class heroes’ in the same context you do ‘toffs’?

[aerospacemango]

Whilst watching a snippet of the "Young Ones" the other night, I was reminded of, what seems to be, the attitude of the current government........

 

The episode was "Bambi"

 

In the back of a limo were Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Emma Thompson and Ben Elton.....

 

"We're going to smash the oiks, rar, rar, rar!" Was the cry..............

 

Seems like nothing has really changed in 30 years.

 

My son is 6....the thought of how high Uni fees will be in 11-12 years.....It's mind-boggling!

[MK-2]

just out of curiosity, if labour had won the election and were in power now, and had put in place the exact same cuts, would those arguing it still argue it, or is it merely because the conservatives have put this in place?

 

and using a "but they wouldnt have" excuse is not a valid answer.

 

i just wanted to gauge if its the government as a whole people are against, or just the conservatives

[witch]

What I dont understand is, how can Scotland etc not have fees at all? (for the Scots only, of course!)

[Dos_Box]

Whilst watching a snippet of the "Young Ones" the other night, I was reminded of, what seems to be, the attitude of the current government........

 

The episode was "Bambi"

 

In the back of a limo were Stephen Fry, Hugh Laurie, Emma Thompson and Ben Elton.....

 

"We're going to smash the oiks, rar, rar, rar!" Was the cry..............

 

Seems like nothing has really changed in 30 years.

 

My son is 6....the thought of how high Uni fees will be in 11-12 years.....It's mind-boggling!

 

So, you're basing you're class hatred on a 30year old episode of The Young Ones?

 

YouTube - Young Ones - bambi

[torledo]

This is another example of the government removing 'national' schemes and replacing them with guidelines and expecting everyone to pick up the slack.

 

The problem with that approach here though is that without a coordinated effort, you'll end up with a post code lottery of academic participation.

 

Regarding being lumbered with debt. People are saying 'if you're poor you can get a grant' and 'if you're rich, this won't be an issue'. What about those in the middle? Those who don't have parents with masses of spare money which they can save for their kid? Even if a parent saves £100 a month from birth for their kids, they will still only scrape together about £25k (including interest). That wouldn't cover the new fees etc... They'll still end up needing a loan. (£100 a month is a lot of money to my parents, who are middle class, living in quite an expensive area etc...). What if they have 2 kids?

 

I left uni with £20k in debt in normal loans and on credit cards, as I was from the Isle of Man, didn't qualify for full grants etc... I have now been living in a single room for 4 years, I don't buy much for myself at all, and all my spare money goes into paying off my debt, meaning I've paid off over half in that time (no thanks to the banks though! They're no help at all). However, I am the exception to the rule. Students expect to come out of uni, get a well paid job and be able to go get themselves decent accommodation and live the high life.

 

They're going to be in for a big shock.

 

 

 

So people should be forced to go their nearest university? No poor people from Sheffield going to Cambridge then...

 

ofcourse there are those in the middle who are squeezed by meeting the cost of higher fees, but the wealth has to be there in some form, whether it's in pension pots, cash savings, housing equity. Such savings can't exist without debt somewhere else in the system. some people may not be all that cash rich but have substantial equity because they live in that 'expensive' area. so you could argue it's a case of either make tough financial choices or seek an alternative to the choice of higher education. But the increasingly favoured option, which i'm saying doesn't have much mileage left, is to foist all the burden of the debt onto future income earning capacity of the graduates-to-be....further government subsidy probably has even less mileage.

 

Granted not all these stores of wealth are as easy to access as having significant cash sums on deposit in a bank, but then it's all about making tough choices [re the sacrifices i mentioned earlier] rather than increasing subsidies from government.

[aerospacemango]

just out of curiosity, if labour had won the election and were in power now, and had put in place the exact same cuts, would those arguing it still argue it, or is it merely because the conservatives have put this in place?

 

and using a "but they wouldnt have" excuse is not a valid answer.

 

i just wanted to gauge if its the government as a whole people are against, or just the conservatives

 

I'm against a Party going back on their pledge....

 

If Labour did the same, then I would be just as angry with them. In fact, probably worse, for they would've let down their core vote.

 

As far as your 'toff' bashing goes, I do think it is rather unfair given that the last govt, and indeed the bulk of the leadership of the (now) opposition all come from privately educated and privileged backgrounds, and most have never done a hard day’s work in their lives (by definition of hard, I mean backbreaking for minimum wage and having to really wash their hands before each meal.

 

I would respectfully suggest that that is a rather simplistic view of things?

 

Unless you have proper evidence that that is the case....then it remains an unknown, and therefore is just conjecture and hearsay. Regardless of where the leaders come from, they have an ethos to look after ALL the voters....not just the rich ones...or "toffs" as you so quaintly put it!

 

Bank bonuses unbound | Comment is free | The Guardian

 

Indeed!

[aerospacemango]

So, you're basing you're class hatred on a 30year old episode of The Young Ones?

 

YouTube - Young Ones - bambi

 

No...I was using it as an illustration of (MY BELIEF) the Con-Dem attitude towards the students.

 

Also, I have no class hatred....My partner is a former public school pupil, so that would be ridiculous! (Though I do not expect you to know that!)

Edited November 26, 2010 by aerospacemango