News UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[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.

 

[JaredJames]

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.

This isn't the US, the scholarships here are few and far between and virtually impossible to get. I believe my university only has a few - with around 10,000+ students.

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).

As I stated previously, you'd be surprised at what a degree from a top UK uni can do for you. The moment people see Oxford or Cambridge in particular you are considered 'the best' even if you are utter crap.

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...

On the contrary, if they all cost the same then they need to work harder to attract students. If unis charge different rates, cost then becomes a factor in the decision. If they all cost the same, you truly have the choice of any university, and can do so on the grounds of how the university standards are for your choice of course and only merit determines your entry.

 

[xxChrisxx]

For example: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.

Well unfortunately for the above this thread isn't about harvard or any other US university is it? So let's face it its not really relevant.

Financial aid isn't available like that in the UK, because it was never needed before. The fees are a fundamental shift in how the higher education is funded over here.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This isn't the US, the scholarships here are few and far between and virtually impossible to get. I believe my university only has a few - with around 10,000+ students.

Is that because they're state-owned and have limitations imposed on them?

As I stated previously, you'd be surprised at what a degree from a top UK uni can do for you. The moment people see Oxford or Cambridge in particular you are considered 'the best' even if you are utter crap.

I'm afraid I just can't 100% buy into your claim. Companies can't stay competitive if they're hiring "utter crap" from prestigious universities. I stand by my claim that a perfect 4.0 from Kingston is better than a C-student from Oxford.

On the contrary, if they all cost the same then they need to work harder to attract students.

What about the fact that tuition isn't the only source of funding? Do they accept donations from Alumni? You said you need to be rich to get into Cambridge or Oxford, is that because you need to make a significant "donation"? Is the tuition limit only for show?

If unis charge different rates, cost then becomes a factor in the decision. If they all cost the same, you truly have the choice of any university, and can do so on the grounds of how the university standards are for your choice of course and only merit determines your entry.

Choosing tuition and having the ability to offer incentives as they see fit seems to be working in the US...

 

[xxChrisxx]

I'm afraid I just can't 100% buy into your claim. Companies can't stay competitive if they're hiring "utter crap" from prestigious universities. I stand by my claim that a perfect 4.0 from Kingston is better than a C-student from Oxford.

Old boy network.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Old boy network.

Networking is just as important as grades when it comes to getting a job out of school. If you have good grades, good experience, and interview well you can get a good paying job no problem. I'm not saying you'll get rich, but you'll do well for yourself.

Companies have to stay competitive, and hiring friends with crappy grades from a presitigious university doesn't get them there. If they are doing this, I wouldn't want to work there anyway. Find a startup that wants innovative minds and hard work regardless of pedigree.

 

[JaredJames]

Is that because they're state-owned and have limitations imposed on them?

I don't know and unless someone has something showing otherwise I have no reason to believe this is the case.

I'm afraid I just can't 100% buy into your claim. Companies can't stay competitive if they're hiring "utter crap" from prestigious universities. I stand by my claim that a perfect 4.0 from Kingston is better than a C-student from Oxford.

For me this has been proven, as per my placement experience.

What about the fact that tuition isn't the only source of funding? Do they accept donations from Alumni? You said you need to be rich to get into Cambridge or Oxford, is that because you need to make a significant "donation"? Is the tuition limit only for show?

Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say you need to be rich to get into there (not at the moment) but that money helps those 'less able' rich people get into a good uni such as Oxford.

Choosing tuition and having the ability to offer incentives as they see fit seems to be working in the US...

And we're not the US and have a rather dissimilar system. So it isn't a straight "ooh we should do that here and it will work".

 

[xxChrisxx]

No I mean google 'old boy network'.

ItsLike normal networks, but on steroids. And does have a suspicious tendency to favour mediocre people who are 'one of us' over better people who arent. Sad but true.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I don't know and unless someone has something showing otherwise I have no reason to believe this is the case.

Then why are there apparently many more scholarship opportunities in the US?

For me this has been proven, as per my placement experience.

So, have you been able to get a job out of school? Do you want to also force companies to offer flat wages for certain positions, and ignore academic pedigree?

Please don't put words in my mouth, I didn't say you need to be rich to get into there (not at the moment) but that money helps those 'less able' rich people get into a good uni such as Oxford.

Please refer to post #52:

You'd be surprised what money can do for you when it comes to certain universities.

What did you mean by this? What constitutes a good university, and why isn't EVERYONE going to Oxford and Cambridge if they all cost the same? This is making less and less sense to me...

 

[Mech_Engineer]

No I mean google 'old boy network'.

ItsLike normal networks, but on steroids. And does have a suspicious tendency to favour mediocre people who are 'one of us' over better people who arent. Sad but true.

Sounds like a hold out from old-style aristocratic society. I say screw them.

 

[JaredJames]

Then why are there apparently many more scholarship opportunities in the US?

This has been covered previously. They weren't required.

Do you want to also force companies to offer flat wages for certain positions, and ignore academic pedigree?

What?

Please refer to post #52:

What about it? It says money can help you, not that you need to be rich to go there as you said in your post.

What did you mean by this? What constitutes a good university, and why isn't EVERYONE going to Oxford and Cambridge if they all cost the same? This is making less and less sense to me...

Academic standards, it's a lot harder to get into those universities than it is for others.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

This has been covered previously. They weren't required.

So what's wrong with implementing more now?

What?

I was trying to point out (perhaps a bit vaguely) that if capping a university's tuition to "level the playing field" is ok, it seems to me that limiting offered salaries for certain positions at companies is a similar action that would help "level the playing field." We wouldn't want rich companies to have their pick of the best and brightest students, it's not "fair" to the little companies.

What about it? It says money can help you, not that you need to be rich to go there as you said in your post.

Uh, how does money help you though? If all of the universities truly cost the same, money would be of no help at all...

Academic standards, it's a lot harder to get into those universities than it is for others.

This is true in either system of university funding. Is this "fair" to the students that have a nearly spotless academic record?

 

[mheslep]

Gokul: as I recall you have academic experience in both the US and the UK. Can you comment on the course load comparison?

 

[mheslep]

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

Over the centuries Harvard has amassed a $27 billion endowment, the largest in the US and I suppose the world, from which it pays for things like scholarships (up many billions from the low it reached in the financial panic). I note at least some UK universities also have large endowments - Cambridge U is listed at £3.95 billion from which they no doubt supply tuition aid, as the UK government was never going to completely cover the cost of all those Dons and their kit.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Cambridge
http://www.hmc.harvard.edu/

 

[Mathnomalous]

I still think the tuition hike is ultimately a good thing. It forces prospective students to assess their options more carefully; when a person has to financially cover the cost of a product or service, that person tends to be more careful before spending money on that product or service.

It also forces universities to operate more efficiently; if the quality of a university is determined by how successful its job placement services dept. is and how well prepared its students are, those universities will start reducing or eliminating useless services, programs, staff, etc.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I still think the tuition hike is ultimately a good thing. It forces prospective students to assess their options more carefully; when a person has to financially cover the cost of a product or service, that person tends to be more careful before spending money on that product or service.

You're definitely right about that, although leaving an arbitrary "limit" in place doesn't help. Universities should be able to charge what their services are worth, and value should be decided by supply and demand economics (not gov't bureaucrats).

It also forces universities to operate more efficiently; if the quality of a university is determined by how successful its job placement services dept. is and how well prepared its students are, those universities will start reducing or eliminating useless services, programs, staff, etc.

You're right that universities operating in a free economy would compete for students through efficiency and education quality (and charge a tuition which is determined by how much students are willing to pay for it); but with an arbitrary tuition cap in-place (which is lower than their tuition would otherwise be) universities end up all charging the same, and instead the supply is artifically limited by the government. Apparently what ends up happening in the case of an artificial tuition cap is instead of universities competing for students, students compete for universities...