Is it "socially unjust" to charge young students for their university education?

[BigGully]

All they seem to do is lie around, smoke pot and listen to Pink Floyd!

I'm in ........

 

[stripeyshark]

I'm glad the tuition fee system was changed to it's current form before i started university (I'm now in my second year). It means I pay back 9% of all my earnings over £21,000. The previous group are paying back 9% of what they earn over £15,000. Therefore I am £540 cash better off every year than I would have been on the old system. It's what you are paying back that matters, not the debt itself. I can't believe that no one ever mentions this when the tuition fee argument is raised. I'm also glad i did my own research before I came to university - it's not that bad!

 

[StonehamPark]

I don't have a Degree and I've never been to Uni.

If I decide to go in the future, I'll pay for it myself.
I have no interest in paying for someone else's education, just like I have no interest in paying someone else's benefits.

Might be a harsh view but that's my opinion.

 

[desprateseagull]

A degree can be a good earner long term, so I feel some contribution should be made - though not the £9,000 a year that will saddle many students with massive debts for many years.

Amazing how nearly all Uni's decided that is how much tuition costs, when fees were introduced.. Has the quality of teaching risen, since then?

 

[mejonaNO12 aka riskit]

My student loan repayment gets taken each month from wage and I don't fell particularly crushed by the whole thing.

The only time I notice it and think "well, that's a shame" is when I get my bonus and more gets taken away.....but then I'm getting a bonus so soon get over the extreme trauma.

It was the best 3 years of my life and I got a degree out of it. No complaints here if I have to pay back a little bit a month.

WHATEVS

 

[yxee]

That ignores the changes that have occurred in the way that universities are funded.

When they received all their income from central government and commercial sponsorships they could afford to be selective in the students they chose for their courses despite them being free. A large proportion of their income is now dependent on how many students they attract rather than the quality of those students which doesn't create the right incentive to require appropriately high entry requirements.

Something can be 'free' and at the same time have limited availability.

I agree with this, if the limited availability is given on academic merit alone

 

[yxee]

Everybody should. Education benefits all society, so all of society should pay for it.

What fraction of people studying a degree actually use that knowledge in their subsequent employment? I would say 50%, at most. For many, it is a 3 year party to delay entry into the working world.

I will happily pay for a high quality education for someone else. I just doubt the effectiveness of many courses in our current system.

 

[beorhthelm]

Firstly, the point about useful degrees is a different question and should be addressed separately.

not really, its the heart of the question, the value to society inputs into the question what is justifiable for society to pay for. we didnt have this question until we decided to greatly expand the number of university places, and then asked how to pay for it.

 

[Garage_Doors]

Semantics - who decides what is 'school education' and what is advanced?

In my lifetime the school leaving age has risen from 15 to 18 - it could just as easily have risen to 21 which would make most university course just part of 'school education'.

The only reason it has risen is not to improve education but to reduce the unemployment figures.
School education ends at 16 then they go into higher education.

 

[yxee]

Firstly, the point about useful degrees is a different question and should be addressed separately.
Secondly, education does not just improve society via employment. A more educated and rounded society is simply better than an uneducated one, regardless of jobs.

But it is not for free. We can't educate people to their heart's content without some opportunity cost. Fewer trains, fewer bridges being built, hospitals... it's not like there is an infinite pot of money for anyone to learn as much as possible about whatever they want without paying their way.

If you want to study maths, fine. If you want to study fashion, sorry but I'd rather my money went into hiring more nurses for the NHS or teachers to reduce the class sizes in primary schools.

 

[BadFish]

I think having people university educated is good for the whole of society and therefore am happy to pay for others to gain access to skills, understandings etc that benefit us all. So I don't really think it is socially unjust but voted yes anyway.

 

[Jbanged]

In some countries one of them being Poland, the top universities are free of charge. Gaining entrance is hard and only the students who have a proven track record are accepted. Whilst the other students who don't have enough credit have to then pay university fees at a lesser university.
I personally quite like this approach. You can argue this is creating further social inequality. However, in this current time I believe more and more children have access to reading materials via the Internet, or other sources needed to aid their study.

 

[dazzer6666]

In some countries one of them being Poland, the top universities are free of charge. Gaining entrance is hard and only the students who have a proven track record are accepted. Whilst the other students who don't have enough credit have to then pay university fees at a lesser university.
I personally quite like this approach. You can argue this is creating further social inequality. However, in this current time I believe more and more children have access to reading materials via the Internet, or other sources needed to aid their study.

There will always be inequality in education as some people are more intelligent, or able to study, than others. The brightest should go to the best Unis - if they don't we won't produce the surgeons, scientists etc that we need. I really wish rather than setting targets for kids to go to Uni, previous governments used the money to set up more training centres, and fund more training, for non academic skills. Wonder how many potentially great mechanics, plumbers, electricians etc ended up doing a bloody media studies degree because if the pressure to go to Uni and the lack of opportunity to learn a decent trade...........

 

[Creaky]

The only reason it has risen is not to improve education but to reduce the unemployment figures.
School education ends at 16 then they go into higher education.

Why 16 and not 15

In any case referring to your earlier post -

Free school education yes. any advanced education above should be funded by the recipient.

You believe 16-18 year olds going to college should pay for their education - I wonder how much support you'd get for that argument.

I have to agree though that those supporting university fees can't really argue against the proposition.

 

[Creaky]

Firstly student loans are available to everyone, you neednt require access to cash or raise a loan or re-mortgage assets, your obligation to repay only starts when you find employment with an associated salary above £18000'sh.

You may not need to take out a mortgage but an outstanding student loan could very well prevent you from getting one in the future!

 

[yxee]

Why does having a free education stop trains being built? Why can't a train engineer or driver or cleaner go to University and get a degree if they so wish? Even if it is simply to learn something. It wont stop them building trains or driving them or cleaning them will it?

We're spending £90bn more than we're earning as a country. So if you want to spend more, you've got to cut something else.

And although you might be happy spending and taxing as much as possible, what you're asking for is everyone else in the country to support that.

 

[BigGully]

You may not need to take out a mortgage but an outstanding student loan could very well prevent you from getting one in the future!

Well you might want to say that the increase tax take from millions of others might effect those too, or you might want to say that the likely increased lifetime salary that degrees usually offer offset any disadvantage to any outstanding student loan, take your pick.

Ultimately earning a degree offers a likelyhood to considerably higher wages and opportunities in the workplace, crunching the numbers aint difficult.

The repayments, to me seem quite passive and manageable.

The repayment trigger is £21000 and you have to pay 9% of each pound over that, so an annual income of £25000 gives a repayment liability of 9% of £4000 a sustainable £365 per year, play with the figures as much as you want but it seems more than reasonable.

 

[Creaky]

We're spending £90bn more than we're earning as a country. So if you want to spend more, you've got to cut something else.

And although you might be happy spending and taxing as much as possible, what you're asking for is everyone else in the country to support that.

IF the current system cost less than the central government funding of universities did 40 years ago then arguments based on cost might be valid - however the current system of student loans costs the taxpayer far more than it used to!

 

[BigGully]

IF the current system cost less than the central government funding of universities did 40 years ago then arguments based on cost might be valid - however the current system of student loans costs the taxpayer far more than it used to!

Well I cannot comment on that as I do not know, but based on what it is today then it still seems a reasonable cost to offer an advantage to a job he might otherwise not be considered for without their degree.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

So if you want to spend more, you've got to cut something else.

No, no you don't. You can raise money to cover additional spending.