I’m not sure how fucking up our higher education system is a small issue though. SFE is already on breaking point and most universities would now probably struggle to survive if the fees ever came back down.
It didn’t really get fucked up though, university admissions are still far greater than they were 10-20 years ago.
The rises were simply a case of who should pay for the degree, the taxpayer or the person furthering their career?
Many people don’t go to university and I don’t see why those people who are also more likely to be on lower incomes should have to pay towards degree education.
Like I say;
Shortage of workers and public sector should be free education.
Tax payer shouldn’t cover the costs of someone that goes on to earn £100k a year.
Tax payer shouldn’t cover the costs of someone that has no real plan and studies a nothing degree to delay going into work.
I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily a good thing. University’s, in general, have lowered their standards because now there’s an incentive of claiming extra tuition funds from students that would have never previously made the cut or, as you say, are now using it as a backup option instead of finding employment.
I agree on your public sector and high earning graduates points, but your last point is too much of a broad statement to effectively to put anything in place. A lot of non-Uni educated people misunderstand that earning a degree in x must lead to a job in x. Most employers only look at the transferable skills learnt from their degrees, and for the most part the actual subject is irrelevant. So how do you define a “nothing degree”?
The current system of increasing tuition and removing grants entirely did nothing to shift the debt from public funds to individuals, it’s just created a longer term bigger deficit that will be written off against public funds anyway. Despite the sweeping changes in the last year that meant 61% of graduates will start paying off their debt, rather than just 22% previously. It still remains that only 20% will ever pay off their debt fully. We haven’t really changed anything for the positive in the last decade.
Personally with your first paragraph I would say it does the opposite. Degrees are greatly devalued from previous generations, you’d like to think that the increased cost would be a deterrent for those half assing it to a 2:2.
Define a nothing degree - okay I’m not going to answer your question directly here as all degrees have their benefits. However, it’s not a case of a nothing degree, more a case of a useless degree for the person career path.
If you’re a nurse, doctor, accountant, lawyer, teacher etc. Degrees are very relevant.
However, far too many people study degrees and then go into careers that don’t necessarily need a degree.
I chose not to go to uni because I didnt want a job that required some form of chartership or professional accreditation. At the time I didn’t know what I wanted to do but I knew I wanted it to be sales based. I didn’t waste £30k+ on a degree I knew I wouldn’t use or need, though I would have enjoyed studying certain fields but cost wise it was stupid to do so.
In regards to the last paragraph isn’t it more to do with the people that are paying off their student debt are paying off a larger amount now which helps mitigate the people that don’t pay off the debt?
Sadly it’s not, mainly because of the way it’s marketed to us as 14-17 year olds. You’re obviously told about the debt, but at that age you don’t really understand the long-term repercussions, and even UCAS advisors just focus on the fact “you probably won’t pay it all back anyway”. My own student debt has now surpassed £85k with my masters, and £7k of that is interest alone, it’s pretty ridiculous tbh. I kinda started in the worst year because tuition fees were increased, I missed the final maintenance grants by a year, and the threshold for paying back the loan also got lowered whilst I was still at Uni.
The whole point of the changes initially were to make Uni “more accessible” to students like myself, from poor backgrounds, shit schools but still academically achieving the required grades. Whilst I benefitted because Exeter marginally lowered its grade boundary for me due to the school underperforming, I don’t really feel I benefitted from the financial side of system because as a “poor student” I essentially get lumped with the highest student debt out of everybody anyway. (Because they took away my grants)
Yes it is to mitigate the problem, and from their perspective I understand why they’ve lowered the threshold for that purpose. But I feel like they should either lowered the threshold and kept the same 30 year repayment period, or marginally increased the threshold when they made it a 40 year debt window. There’s a massive hit in earnings after 28k (pre-tax) is eclipsed, which in this day and age isn’t all that much in the first place. At £28k you’ll have 20% tax, 12% NI + 6% Postgraduate loan and 9% Undergraduate Loan all in effect. Thats going to have a quite an effect on those earning the very minimum for graduate jobs. We should be trying to encourage people to be educated, but the way we approach it atm is all wrong imo.
I’m not sure how fucking up our higher education system is a small issue though. SFE is already on breaking point and most universities would now probably struggle to survive if the fees ever came back down.
It didn’t really get fucked up though, university admissions are still far greater than they were 10-20 years ago. The rises were simply a case of who should pay for the degree, the taxpayer or the person furthering their career?
Many people don’t go to university and I don’t see why those people who are also more likely to be on lower incomes should have to pay towards degree education.
Like I say;
Shortage of workers and public sector should be free education.
Tax payer shouldn’t cover the costs of someone that goes on to earn £100k a year.
Tax payer shouldn’t cover the costs of someone that has no real plan and studies a nothing degree to delay going into work.
I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily a good thing. University’s, in general, have lowered their standards because now there’s an incentive of claiming extra tuition funds from students that would have never previously made the cut or, as you say, are now using it as a backup option instead of finding employment.
I agree on your public sector and high earning graduates points, but your last point is too much of a broad statement to effectively to put anything in place. A lot of non-Uni educated people misunderstand that earning a degree in x must lead to a job in x. Most employers only look at the transferable skills learnt from their degrees, and for the most part the actual subject is irrelevant. So how do you define a “nothing degree”?
The current system of increasing tuition and removing grants entirely did nothing to shift the debt from public funds to individuals, it’s just created a longer term bigger deficit that will be written off against public funds anyway. Despite the sweeping changes in the last year that meant 61% of graduates will start paying off their debt, rather than just 22% previously. It still remains that only 20% will ever pay off their debt fully. We haven’t really changed anything for the positive in the last decade.
Personally with your first paragraph I would say it does the opposite. Degrees are greatly devalued from previous generations, you’d like to think that the increased cost would be a deterrent for those half assing it to a 2:2.
Define a nothing degree - okay I’m not going to answer your question directly here as all degrees have their benefits. However, it’s not a case of a nothing degree, more a case of a useless degree for the person career path. If you’re a nurse, doctor, accountant, lawyer, teacher etc. Degrees are very relevant. However, far too many people study degrees and then go into careers that don’t necessarily need a degree. I chose not to go to uni because I didnt want a job that required some form of chartership or professional accreditation. At the time I didn’t know what I wanted to do but I knew I wanted it to be sales based. I didn’t waste £30k+ on a degree I knew I wouldn’t use or need, though I would have enjoyed studying certain fields but cost wise it was stupid to do so.
In regards to the last paragraph isn’t it more to do with the people that are paying off their student debt are paying off a larger amount now which helps mitigate the people that don’t pay off the debt?
Sadly it’s not, mainly because of the way it’s marketed to us as 14-17 year olds. You’re obviously told about the debt, but at that age you don’t really understand the long-term repercussions, and even UCAS advisors just focus on the fact “you probably won’t pay it all back anyway”. My own student debt has now surpassed £85k with my masters, and £7k of that is interest alone, it’s pretty ridiculous tbh. I kinda started in the worst year because tuition fees were increased, I missed the final maintenance grants by a year, and the threshold for paying back the loan also got lowered whilst I was still at Uni.
The whole point of the changes initially were to make Uni “more accessible” to students like myself, from poor backgrounds, shit schools but still academically achieving the required grades. Whilst I benefitted because Exeter marginally lowered its grade boundary for me due to the school underperforming, I don’t really feel I benefitted from the financial side of system because as a “poor student” I essentially get lumped with the highest student debt out of everybody anyway. (Because they took away my grants)
Yes it is to mitigate the problem, and from their perspective I understand why they’ve lowered the threshold for that purpose. But I feel like they should either lowered the threshold and kept the same 30 year repayment period, or marginally increased the threshold when they made it a 40 year debt window. There’s a massive hit in earnings after 28k (pre-tax) is eclipsed, which in this day and age isn’t all that much in the first place. At £28k you’ll have 20% tax, 12% NI + 6% Postgraduate loan and 9% Undergraduate Loan all in effect. Thats going to have a quite an effect on those earning the very minimum for graduate jobs. We should be trying to encourage people to be educated, but the way we approach it atm is all wrong imo.