UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[russ_watters]

I find this very interesting (and I agree with you on this). But, I get the impression that many college professors dislike the idea of the university as career training center; even universities themselves try to downplay their career training aspect and instead promote this "life of the mind" nonsense that can be obtained in a public library.

I'm not sure where you are you get that idea, but it seems like the college-as-career-prep idea is prevalent and rising. The college I graduated from (Drexel) has tripled or quadrupled in size over the last 10 years and it is largely due to its marketing of (and success at) making sure its graduates get jobs.

Classroom learning, research, projects, papers, and exams are all critical to your academic pursuits. But to complete your education — to set you apart from other graduates — you must also gain experience in your chosen field. With Drexel Co-op, one of the oldest and most expansive co-operative education programs in the world, you can gain up to 18 months of résumé-enhancing experience by the time you graduate.

Drexel Co-op is based on paid employment in practical, major-related positions consistent with your interests and abilities; only a small percentage of students accept nonpaid co-ops. The benefits are obvious. Before graduation, you will have already sampled up to three different positions within your field of study. And after graduation, this experience pays off: recent graduates from Drexel typically receive a higher starting salary.

http://www.drexel.edu/undergrad/coop/

But most people do not or should become scientists or engineers. Scientists and engineers make up a small portion of university students. I think here in the US, universities churn out more people with arts and humanities degrees.

Just an example. Reading those books alone won't make you an investment banker or schoolteacher either.

Yes, there are still people who got to college to mingle, party, or find a spouse and yes, they do seem to take liberal arts. I didn't go to a predominantly liberal arts school, but I suppose if liberal arts students aren't interested in careers, then a predominantly liberal arts school wouldn't market itself as being for career training.

 

[mheslep]

I have to say, I still fail to understand the irony here. What if the US were much farther to the right that it presently is - a libertarian free market economy with virtually no government regulation of anything? Essentially the US of Right. Would you still think that the non-ironic thing for the US to do would be to move further to the right?

I'm not following your counter factual or its too late. But getting back to Russ's original statement, and using the definition for irony, "an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected": the US government is moving to the left in hopes that there lie better times. Yet, via Europe we are allowed foresight into what lies to the left, and we see there events that are contrary to what was, or might have been, expected (by the current US government).

 

[Mathnomalous]

So you don't think that somewhere along the way, the university will start spiraling downwards if it can not attract good students? That somehow, it can continue to accept (and perhaps graduate) year after year of entirely rich kids, with no regard to their academic qualifications?

I expect that to happen in the "middle-of-the-pack" schools. Places such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton will always remain the bastion of wealth. Have you ever heard of the term a "Gentleman's C"? At least in the case of one famous POTUS, he went through a prestigious institution despite signs that he is not that bright.

I'm not sure where you are from or where you get that idea, but here in the US it seems like the college-as-career-prep idea is prevalent and rising. The college I graduated from (Drexel) has tripled or quadrupled in size over the last 10 years and it is largely due to its marketing of (and success at) making sure its graduates get jobs. Just an example.

Yes, you are correct. But it seems to me, the universities that normally advertise their career placement services are for-profits. I do not expect an MIT advertising logo like "Come to MIT, we'll get you a job at Google." And still, I get the sense people attend these institutions because it will benefit their career prospects. As an example, you know MIT placed its entire courseware online, for free. Why did MIT do this? Because it knows people will still claw their way to an MIT degree.

Look at Harvard's Mission Statement:

Harvard College adheres to the purposes for which the Charter of 1650 was granted: "The advancement of all good literature, arts, and sciences; the advancement and education of youth in all manner of good literature, arts, and sciences; and all other necessary provisions that may conduce to the education of the ... youth of this country..." In brief: Harvard strives to create knowledge, to open the minds of students to that knowledge, and to enable students to take best advantage of their educational opportunities.

To these ends, the College encourages students to respect ideas and their free expression, and to rejoice in discovery and in critical thought; to pursue excellence in a spirit of productive cooperation; and to assume responsibility for the consequences of personal actions. Harvard seeks to identify and to remove restraints on students' full participation, so that individuals may explore their capabilities and interests and may develop their full intellectual and human potential. Education at Harvard should liberate students to explore, to create, to challenge, and to lead. The support the College provides to students is a foundation upon which self-reliance and habits of lifelong learning are built: Harvard expects that the scholarship and collegiality it fosters in its students will lead them in their later lives to advance knowledge, to promote understanding, and to serve society.

Contrast it to Drexel's Mission Statement. Seems to me Harvard still promotes this idea of the well-rounded citizen and only vaguely alludes to high-paying careers.

Reading those books alone won't make you an investment banker or schoolteacher either.

I never implied that. However, if your main goal is to have an informed citizenry, all you need to promote is literacy and critical thinking, things that can be accomplished at the high school level.

 

[Gokul43201]

I'm not following your counter factual or its too late.

If it still doesn't make sense tomorrow, I shall try to rephrase.

But getting back to Russ's original statement, and using the definition for irony, "an outcome of events contrary to what was, or might have been, expected": the US government is moving to the left in hopes that there lie better times. Yet, via Europe we are allowed foresight into what lies to the left, and we see that events are contrary to what was, or might have been, expected (by the current US government).

My point: via Europe we are allowed foresight into what lies 7 marxes (fake unit) to our left, but not 2 marxes (i.e., why do we imagine the benefit curve is monotonically decreasing between the US and Europe?)

 

[mheslep]

If it still doesn't make sense tomorrow, I shall try to rephrase.

My point: via Europe we are allowed foresight into what lies 7 marxes (fake unit) to our left, but not 2 marxes (i.e., why do we imagine the benefit curve is monotonically decreasing between the US and Europe?)

Ok, got it. Hopefully this explains my skepticism: Decades ago after most of the West finally agreed that Stalin's Soviet Union, China under Mao was a disaster, we heard then (60's-80's) that Democratic Socialism from some European states was an enlightened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)" " (between the US free market "way" and the Marxist "way"). Now above you are, as I see it, suggesting there's is yet room for a "fourth way", somewhere in the diminishing gap between the leftward moving US and the rightward moving Euro states. Just as a matter of probabilities, I don't see it, leaving alone for a moment my own political beliefs that any move to the left is anti-freedom.

 

[Gokul43201]

Ok, got it. Hopefully this explains my skepticism: Decades ago after most of the West finally agreed that Stalin's Soviet Union, China under Mao was a disaster, we heard then (60's-80's) that Democratic Socialism from some European states was an enlightened http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)" " (between the US free market "way" and the Marxist "way"). Now above you are, as I see it, suggesting there's is yet room for a "fourth way", somewhere in the diminishing gap between the leftward moving US and the rightward moving Euro states. Just as a matter of probabilities, I don't see it, leaving alone for a moment my own political beliefs that any move to the left is anti-freedom.

That's close. What I suggest is that the benefit curve may have several bumps in its landscape and that it might be a good idea in the event of a sudden crisis to seek temporary shelter in the nearest local maximum (easily achieved by a few laws passed within a single legislative session) rather than seek out the most robust (potentially global) maximum (which might need very extensive legislative change). Specifically, the slope of the curve around our immediate position might point upwards to the left even if the more long-term behavior is upwards to the right.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I find this very interesting (and I agree with you on this). But, I get the impression that many college professors dislike the idea of the university as career training center; even universities themselves try to downplay their career training aspect and instead promote this "life of the mind" nonsense that can be obtained in a public library.

The engineering program at my university (University of Arizona) is very career-oriented. Students were trained in real-world problems in class, senior design projects were sponsored by private companies, and career fairs are held every semester. It was also common to have professors from Raytheon, Honeywell, and IBM for engineering courses.

The way I see it, if you're not going to college to get a degree for a specific career, then what the heck are you doing there?

 

[cristo]

The problem with this thread is that most of the people on this forum are American, and thus used to spending a ridiculous amount of money on education. In Europe, this is not the case and, in fact, in the UK most of the politicians making the decisions were able to go to university for free.

I can safely say that with the tuition fees at £9,000 I would not have been able to afford to go to university. My undergrad degree was four years, so tuition would have been £36,000: add to that the loan to actually live at around £4,000 a year, gives £52,000. Now, what the government fails to add is that these loans will not be like the usual student loans that I got with no interest, but will be essentially a private loan (somewhat like student loans in the US).

And before someone say "well, you'll have to get a job while studying", that is not feasible. For a science student, the amount of time you are expected to put into your studies is way over that of a full working week (I think something like 60 hours was quoted to me once): there is no time to work on the side.

For those of you saying to just "get a scholarship", that is not possible either, since they do not exist. There is some help available for the poorest people, but there are no scholarships available which help the brightest students.

Finally, to answer Evo's point: yes, the Lib Dems did cost their manifesto in some amount of detail, and showed how they would eliminate tuition fees. However, what the public need to realize is that the Lib Dems did not get into power. We have a coalition government which is governing in accordance with the coalition agreement drawn up on that fateful day in May. These protests should have happened then, not now. The problem is that we are not used to coalition governments: in countries that normally have one, the main parties do not make such claims in their election manifestos, since they know they will not be able to hold them when the come to form the coalition government.

The way I see it, if you're not going to college to get a degree for a specific career, then what the heck are you doing there?

So, basically, the only degrees that should exist are the vocational ones: engineering, law, medicine? That's a very narrow-minded view.

 

[Gokul43201]

Unless I'm mistaken, tuition fees (in the UK) are subsidized via taxes. If the fees are being raised to some value closer to market rates, I imagine taxes would drop to lower values, as there is no longer a need for them to support education costs to the extent that they previously did (if not immediately, then at least over the medium-to-long-term)?

 

[cristo]

Unless I'm mistaken, tuition fees (in the UK) are subsidized via taxes. If the fees are being raised to some value closer to market rates, I imagine taxes would drop to lower values, as there is no longer a need for them to support education costs to the extent that they previously did (if not immediately, then at least over the medium-to-long-term)?

You might expect that to happen, but it won't: for example, VAT is due to increase by 2.5% in January.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The problem with this thread is that most of the people on this forum are American, and thus used to spending a ridiculous amount of money on education. In Europe, this is not the case and, in fact, in the UK most of the politicians making the decisions were able to go to university for free.

Who says the tuition paid in the US is ridiculous, and not just reflective of how much it costs for all of the faculty, staff and facilities?

It seems to me a $50,000 investment in a degree which will net you well over a million more over your lifetime is a pretty safe bet.

And before someone say "well, you'll have to get a job while studying", that is not feasible.

It's pretty common for american students to have a job while in school, engineering included. I did...

So, basically, the only degrees that should exist are the vocational ones: engineering, law, medicine? That's a very narrow-minded view.

That view is based in reality, and can include arts and humanities degrees. Why pay all that money for a degree if you don't plan to use it in your future career choice?

 

[cristo]

It seems to me a $50,000 investment in a degree which will net you well over a million more over your lifetime is a pretty safe bet.

You *may* net over a million more, but then again you likely will not. The last figures I heard quoted were that, on average, a graduate can expect to earn £100,000 more in their lifetime.

It's pretty common for american students to have a job while in school, engineering included. I did...

That's because the american course-load is not as heavy as that in Europe.

That view is based in reality, and can include arts and humanities degrees. Why pay all that money for a degree if you don't plan to use it in your future career choice?

Well, firstly, I think the whole point of this thread is that Europeans do not agree with "paying all that money!". But still, who's to know what their future career will be when they decide what to take at university at 18 years of age?

 

[russ_watters]

Well, firstly, I think the whole point of this thread is that Europeans do not agree with "paying all that money!".

Since it's free, who cares if it's useless?
[that, setting aside of course, that whether they pay it directly in tuition or indirectly via taxes, they are still "paying all that money". It doesn't go away just because it is out of sight.]

From Starship Troopers, probably quoted/paraphrased from somewhere else: things that are given have no value. That is, of course, the entire argument against Marxism/the welfare state in one little sentence.

An argument that the guys saying the kids themselves should pay for school didn't use on me but is nevertheless valid is that if the kid is made to pay for school s/he will place more value on it, take it more seriously, and thus get more from it. But if the parents pay for it, they can at least apply some pressure. If neither pay for it, neither the parents nor the kid have an external reason to care.

But still, who's to know what their future career will be when they decide what to take at university at 18 years of age?

Not many people, but they better decide quick, otherwise they'll end up in art history when they should have been in aerospace engineering...er, wait, is college still free if you redo it?

 

[JaredJames]

The cuts being made are too severe and so far the only people not affected are the rich (aka, the government ministers). Like I said before, the PM admitted that by increasing the fees for students (citizens of Britain) it meant they didn't have to charge more to foreign students.

The aircraft carrier thing, well that's a silly move in my opinion. Sharing with France may sound a nice idea, that is until relations break down.

The US way of thinking seems to be "you pay for it" when in Europe it's more about the government helping you to do so. Right or wrong, you can't apply US standards to the UK just like people keep showing me when I try to use UK ideologies on the US.

As a side, we pay the highest fuel duty in Europe. American's complain about paying a $5 for a gallon of fuel, in the UK that wouldn't scratch the surface. It's costing around $10 a gallon in the UK. So far as business goes and the like, I do prefer the American approach. The country is taxing itself to death. Wages get lower, jobs are cut and the government puts tax up. Yep, that makes sense.

 

[JaredJames]

Since it's free, who cares if it's useless?
[that, setting aside of course, that whether they pay it directly in tuition or indirectly via taxes, they are still "paying all that money". It doesn't go away just because it is out of sight.]

The student loan is repaid by the student once they start earning and is taken directly out of their wages by the government.

It isn't funded by tax payers unless you don't get a job once you get a degree. It's more of a loan from the tax payers.

The big problem I have is that with the current system I will leave university with around £25,000 of debt. With the new system, I would leave with £40,000 of debt. That is a big difference and those figures don't include interest.

 

[Gokul43201]

You *may* net over a million more, but then again you likely will not. The last figures I heard quoted were that, on average, a graduate can expect to earn £100,000 more in their lifetime.

How is this possible? The median household income in the UK is over £25,000 (from wiki page). That must make the median individual income at least £15,000. And if that's the national median, I'd imagine the income for college graduates would be even higher - maybe about £20,000/yr. It seems like you'd be able to completely pay off your college debt in less than 5 yrs, and easily go on to earn somewhere near £500,000 by age 50. Where's the error in these numbers? Could it be that the £100,000 figure you quote is lifetime savings?

 

[Kurdt]

There is nothing wrong with socialist policies. Where they fall down is where the system is abused and where those with power and wealth abandon their ideals. During the industrial revolution philanthropy was rife amongst businessmen from humble backgrounds. They built houses, hospitals, schools and libraries for their workers and the communities in which their busnesses were based. Social consciences among the wealthy in recent times seem to have diminished. The welfare system also needs reform because to a lot of people there is such a thing as a free lunch.

I certainly don't agree with the violence and the increase in tuition fees. The government should be supporting higher education.

 

[cristo]

Since it's free, who cares if it's useless?

Evidently it is not "useless", since the UK has some of the best universities in the world.

An argument that the guys saying the kids themselves should pay for school didn't use on me but is nevertheless valid is that if the kid is made to pay for school s/he will place more value on it, take it more seriously, and thus get more from it. But if the parents pay for it, they can at least apply some pressure. If neither pay for it, neither the parents nor the kid have an external reason to care.

Why should there be "an external reason to care"? These are adults at university, not kids in high school.

Could it be that the £100,000 figure you quote is lifetime savings?

Yes, that's what I meant. I think the statistic is that, on average, a person with a degree can expect to earn £100,000 more than one without a degree during their lifetime. If the cost of a degree is rising to near the expected gain, then one can argue there is less point in taking the degree!

 

[JaredJames]

A quick calculation, based on me earning the average salary of £20,000 when I leave with a degree in Aerospace Engineering and compared to my mothers £17,000 earnings with few qualifications, gives me £3000 a year more than her if I worked from 25 to 65. Which is £120,000.

However, assuming I progress and get a few raises here and there / better jobs (in this case I've simply taken this to be a fixed increase of £500 to my wage each year - giving me a maximum salary of £40,000 at retirement which is about average around here), it gives me the potential to just over £500,000 more than my mother (again, assuming she stays on £17,000).

So I'd say that the average salary over all degree courses would allow for earnings of around £300,000 more than someone without a degree.

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm not surprised people from the US don't 'get' the problem students in the UK have with this becuase of the fundamentally diffrent way it works over here.

How it traditionally worked in the UK was University education was free, you got government grants and company sponsorship to go to university. Everyone in government at the moment got a free University education.

The reasoning was as follows: Those that were smart enough to go to University got higher paid jobs, as such ended up paying higher rate taxes. Overall there was a net gain over a long period of time.

However only the smartest few going to University was seen as 'elitist' so targets were set to get more and more young people into higher education. So much so that people stared doing garbagety, useless degrees that are a total waste of time. As such grants because unfeasible and tution fees were introduced.

My problem with this isn't so much that fees are rising it's that the debt in many cases will never be paid back by the vast majority of people. Many won't even pay back the interest. As a good degree just doesn't gaurantee you a job anymore and student loans are now like a regular low interest loan.

In the US there is far more finanical support in the forms of scholarships and grants, that isn't in place in the UK simply becuase it wasn't needed.


Gokul

If the fees are being raised to some value closer to market rates, I imagine taxes would drop to lower values, as there is no longer a need for them to support education costs to the extent that they previously did (if not immediately, then at least over the medium-to-long-term)?

It seriously doesn't work like that. They have that level of taxation, it's not going to go down 'because there's nothing to spend it on'. They don't work out tax by how much they have to spend. They work out how much they can get away with and then decide what to spend it on. Bastards.



EDIT:
Jaredandjames, I wouldn't forget the fact that you'll be in a higher tax bracket. That's 300k gross not net.

Also don't forget that student loan repayement will increase. However you are unlikely ever to pay back the capital if you were a top up fee student already. I missed the top up fees, my loan is approximately 25k, the studet loans people take £80 each month which means I'm paying off the capital at a rate of £200 per year.

To further the point of saddling university leavers with debt. Assuming the full 9000 tuition + 4000 maintainence loan on a 4 year course, and many people meet their spouse at University. The average couple will have approximately £104k debt before they leave. Up north that's a second mortgage. Which is a hell of a lot of debt to have before you start life.


I'd make useful degrees free and make people pay full whack for bollocks such as media studies and the like.

[/rant]

 

[Ryker]

I can't seem to find the answer to this question, so I thought maybe some of you guys know. Would this tuition fee raise be applied in a way that if someone has enrolled in his first year of studies while the fees were still lower, but would still be studying when the raise comes into effect, he would have to then pay higher fees for the later years?

 

[xxChrisxx]

I can't seem to find the answer to this question, so I thought maybe some of you guys know. Would this tuition fee raise be applied in a way that if someone has enrolled in his first year of studies while the fees were still lower, but would still be studying when the raise comes into effect, he would have to then pay higher fees for the later years?

Fees will only apply if you start after the raise. At least that's how it worked with top up fees to begin with. So if you've already started you'll only be paying the basic top up fee.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Couple of points:

You don't HAVE to go into debt to go to college (at least in the US). Saving up for a few years can give you enough to pay for it cash (a good state school, not ivy-league. In-state tuition at the U of A is about $30k for 4 years these days i think). The fact that people think they HAVE to go into debt for college is just like people think they HAVE to go into debt to buy a new car- artificial. I was lucky enough to have my parents pay my tuition, and I plan to do the same for my children (we've already started a savings account for my first, and she's only a year old). I guess the US has more opportunities for people without money to go to college without debt if they're academically gifted enough though...


I'm more inclined to believe Jared's estimate of £300,000 (~$500,000 USD) over a lifetime, and it could easily be more IMO. £100,000 ($160,000 USD) only averages about £2500 ($4000) more per year if we assume you're working from 25 to 65 (40 years). If we take engineering as an example, an entry level engineer in the US will make an average of around $50,000 (£30,000), which is easily $10-15,000 more than a person with a high school diploma will be able to make. By 5 years an engineer can easily be making in the mid-60's or low 70's. So from the start you're making $100,000-150,000 more every 10 years, $400,000-600,000 more over your lifetime. That can also increase with experience and some good career choices.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Couple of points:

You don't HAVE to go into debt to go to college (at least in the US). Saving up for a few years can give you enough to pay for it cash (a good state school, not ivy-league. In-state tuition at the U of A is about $30k for 4 years these days i think). The fact that people think they HAVE to go into debt for college is just like people think they HAVE to go into debt to buy a new car- artificial. I was lucky enough to have my parents pay my tuition, and I plan to do the same for my children (we've already started a savings account for my first, and she's only a year old). I guess the US has more opportunities for people without money to go to college without debt if they're academically gifted enough though...

The thing is, the whole point of student loans is to allow it to be accessible to everyone, not only the rich. That thinking doesn't fly over here. You also forget that it really isn't that easy to save what would be the equivilant of £50k. Jobs simply don't pay enough, and we pay a hell of a lot more tax than the avarage Joe in the US.

People who have rich parents do indeed help pay tuition fees and maintainence. However this creates a cycle where you have rich parents allowing children to leave with no debt.

Those from poor households, get quite a lot of government help, it's certainly still a strugge.

Then you have my family who sit right in the middle. We earn just enough to qualify for no help what so ever, yet are taxed to the point where outgoings = income leaving little room to save. Sending me and my brother to Univeristy blew every single penny of savings my mum and dad and even then that didnt cover the costs of me going to Uni by a long shot. They did this so that we could have a better start in life.

I'm more inclined to believe Jared's estimate of £300,000 (~$500,000 USD) over a lifetime, and it could easily be more IMO. £100,000 ($160,000 USD) only averages about £2500 ($4000) more per year if we assume you're working from 25 to 65 (40 years). If we take engineering as an example, an entry level engineer in the US will make an average of around $50,000 (£30,000), which is easily $10-15,000 more than a person with a high school diploma will be able to make. By 5 years an engineer can easily be making in the mid-60's or low 70's. So from the start you're making $100,000-150,000 more every 10 years, $400,000-600,000 more over your lifetime. That can also increase with experience and some good career choices.

I'm on £25K as a mechanical engineer, that's about typical. Out of interest how much tax would typically be taken from your gross earnings?

 

[Gokul43201]

It seriously doesn't work like that. They have that level of taxation, it's not going to go down 'because there's nothing to spend it on'. They don't work out tax by how much they have to spend. They work out how much they can get away with and then decide what to spend it on. Bastards.

This is to Chris & cristo: So you say the portion of taxes collected previously for subsidizing education will not be returned to you? Okay, but that should mean that this money is being used somewhere else, to provide some other service. One way or the other, the money needs to be accounted for. If you're not getting cheap education out of it, you may be getting better roads (and therefore better vehicle mileage, fewer accidents, etc.). Right? (This is in the long term - in the immediate short term I imagine it is used to plug deficits, but again, the money for that too needs to come from somewhere.)

 

[JaredJames]

Or gokul, it's being spent in parliamentary expenses like buying duckhouses and cleaning the MP's moat.

There are lots of areas that money could be saved but some (such as above) seem to have been overlooked...

 

[xxChrisxx]

This is to Chris & cristo: So you say the portion of taxes collected previously for subsidizing education will not be returned to you? Okay, but that should mean that this money is being used somewhere else, to provide some other service. One way or the other, the money needs to be accounted for. If you're not getting cheap education out of it, you may be getting better roads (and therefore better vehicle mileage, fewer accidents, etc.). Right?

That's what the road tax and fuel duty I'm paying should be for.

To be fair quite a bit of what gets taken is national insurance contributions. So NHS, state pensions, etc. It's not like we're getting nothing for it.

As a proportion we pay an absultely mind boggling level of tax compared to you lot across the pond.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The thing is, the whole point of student loans is to allow it to be accessible to everyone, not only the rich. That thinking doesn't fly over here. You also forget that it really isn't that easy to save what would be the equivilant of £50k. Jobs simply don't pay enough, and we pay a hell of a lot more tax than the avarage Joe in the US.

Sounds like there's no middle ground over there- you can go to the equivalent of ivy-league, but there's no state schools or community colleges...

People who have rich parents do indeed help pay tuition fees and maintainence. However this creates a cycle where you have rich parents allowing children to leave with no debt.

I wouldn't call us rich, maybe upper-middle class. What it really takes is some forethought, a few grand a year, and a good-performing mutual fund...

I'm on £25K as a mechanical engineer, that's about typical. Out of interest how much tax would typically be taken from your gross earnings?

Around 30% in federal and state taxes, plus a little more for deductions like social security, medicare, etc. My take-home right now is about 60% of my gross, when I take into account everything deducted including retirement plan (401k), health insurance, etc.

 

[xxChrisxx]

Sounds like there's no middle ground over there- you can go to the equivalent of ivy-league, but there's no state schools or community colleges...

This is where the system falls down. It's clear that the UK govt has looks at the US model and though 'charging lots works for them so I don't see why it won't work for us'.

The problem lies in that 90% of Universities will be charging Ivy league prices, but not giving the prestige to go with it.

Around 30% in federal and state taxes, plus a little more for deductions like social security, medicare, etc. My take-home right now is about 60% of my gross, when I take into account everything deducted including retirement plan (401k), health insurance, etc.

Say what? Is that just you tax taken from income? If you are having 40% effectively taken,
You'll have to forgive my ignorance as I have no idea how things are taxed over there.

From my 25K I pay about £7 in tax NI and student loans repayment. So my net comes out to be about £18k.

 

[Gokul43201]

Or gokul, it's being spent in parliamentary expenses like buying duckhouses and cleaning the MP's moat.

I guess it's definitely possible, though I can't imagine all of it gets completely wasted. And I think the expense scandal may have helped put a little bit of a lid on at least the personal expenditure side of things ... hopefully for a little while at least.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Say what? Is that just you tax taken from income? If you are having 40% effectively taken,
You'll have to forgive my ignorance as I have no idea how things are taxed over there.

about 23% of my income is being taken for federal taxes right now, but I think that's a little more than I actually owe so I'll get a small refund come April 15th. About 3% is state tax, and another few percent is withheld for other assorted gov't programs. It all averages out to about 30% taken out for tax I'll never get back.

As for the other 10-12%, that's elective deductions. 6% into a Roth 401k retirement plan (contributions are post-tax, but earnings and income are tax free when I retire), a few percent for health insurance for my family (wife, daughter), few percent for healthcare savings account, and a few company-specific ones like buying an extra week for vacation. Like I said, everything said and done I'm getting about 60% of my gross earnings in my pocket, about 70% is "mine" after taxes.

 

[cristo]

Sounds like there's no middle ground over there- you can go to the equivalent of ivy-league, but there's no state schools or community colleges...

That's entirely incorrect. There are no private universities here: all universities are 'state' universities. The problem with education comes exactly when you try and run it like a business. At the moment, it costs the same amount of money to attend any university. If you start thinking business-like, then you might say that the 'better' universities would cost more, which means that they will increase their fees, making them utterly unattainable to all but the rich. Then, the less well off are stuck with the worse universities, earn less and therefore their children go to worse universities, etc..

That is why the cap exists, to force all universities to charge the same, and therefore allow people other than the well off a choice of university.

 

[Gokul43201]

If you start thinking business-like, then you might say that the 'better' universities would cost more, which means that they will increase their fees, making them utterly unattainable to all but the rich.

I don't think this speculation holds water. Were it true, this would be the case among the top private schools in the US, but it isn't.

For example:

Harvard College will increase financial aid for undergraduates by 9 percent, to a record $158 million, for the upcoming 2010-11 academic year. This $13 million increase will help keep Harvard affordable and ensure no change in the financial burden for the more than 60 percent of students who receive aid. The estimated average need-based grant award is approximately $40,000.

As a result of this investment, families with undergraduates receiving aid at Harvard will pay an estimated average cost of approximately $11,500 next year, which is unchanged from the current year.
...
In 2007, Harvard introduced a new financial aid plan that dramatically reduced the amount that families with incomes below $180,000 are expected to pay. Families with incomes above $120,000 and below $180,000 with assets typical for these income levels are asked to contribute 10 percent of their incomes. For those families with incomes below $120,000, the parental contribution declines steadily from 10 percent, reaching zero for those with incomes at $60,000 and below.

The median household income in the US is somewhere around $45,000. If you are at the median and get admitted to Harvard, you will get a 100% scholarship! I wouldn't describe that as utterly unattainable to all but the rich.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/sto...duate-financial-aid-by-9-percent-for-2010-11/

 

[JaredJames]

I have to say, that Harvard thing sounds quite good. It seems really well thought out (at least based on what is above).

The problem is, the UK doesn't have this system.

Let me give you a comparison, the UK universities do have some scholarships, but they are generally for individual students (a sort of recognition of excellence type thing and are really hard to get - I went for one). In Kingston they have a bursary system in place for students with low income families. However, in my first year I fell into the lowest bracket (household income under £17,000) and so I got the maximum bursary available, this totalled £600. Hardly that exciting and not really much help in the grand scheme of things.

The current student loan system is that everyone is entitled to 75% of the maintenance loan designed to help with living costs and the full tuition fee costs, with the final 25% of the maintenance loan being decided on the basis of parental/guardian income.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

That's entirely incorrect. There are no private universities here: all universities are 'state' universities.

Ok, not a good thing in my humble opinion. Sounds like a monopoly in which there is no competitive incentive to innovate and perform...

The problem with education comes exactly when you try and run it like a business. At the moment, it costs the same amount of money to attend any university.

So you get in based on academic merit alone, fine. You have to have some excellent grades to get into an ivy-league in the US too.

If you start thinking business-like,

This isn't a bad thing...

then you might say that the 'better' universities would cost more, which means that they will increase their fees, making them utterly unattainable to all but the rich.

The cost of a university will be driven by both supply and demand. If a particular university wants to attract the best teachers and have the best facilities (to in turn attract the best students), they will need to offer incentives such as better salaries. There is a trade-off though, because as they charge more less students will be able to attend. So they can't just charge whatever they want- there is an optimum.

Then, the less well off are stuck with the worse universities, earn less and therefore their children go to worse universities, etc..

First, we're still talking about getting a degree from an accredited university, which means a better job than out of high-school. Even so, there are student loans if you want to go that route, in addition to the fact that private universities will also offer scholarships to the best and brightest students to keep their academic ratings up. Such scholarships are based on academic achievement, so a "less well off" person can get in.

There's also a point of diminishing returns for students. You could pay $50k to get a degree in a top-20 rated state school, or $150k for an ivy-league; but the education in the ivy-league certainly wouldn't be 3 times better (and tons of companies will display interest in a person with a 3.5-4.0 GPA from the top-20 school).

Student choice forces universieites to compete against each other to attract students; this competition keeps the system in check. If all universities cost the same, there's no need for innovation, and no room to work with for attracting teahcers or building facilities...

That is why the cap exists, to force all universities to charge the same, and therefore allow people other than the well off a choice of university.

In the UK it could be choices are so severely limited that I'm not getting it... In the US choices are plentiful for any student quality and income bracket- and hard work pays off as a good job out of school regardless of tuition.