22-01-2003 16:38									#1
	Paying For Uni Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: The Government is about to introduce a new test for those considering a university career. The central question will be punishingly direct. Do you want to run up a debt of £21,000 in order to go to the best British universities? Some people will, apparently, be put off applying to our elite institutions by the prospect of taking on a debt of this size. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is all to the good. The first point that needs to be made about the so-called deterrent effect of a £21,000 loan is that anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university in the first place. Incurring such a relatively small debt to pay for the huge economic benefit conferred by proper higher education is a fantastic deal. Over a lifetime, the direct financial benefit in higher earnings is around £400,000. Those who attend our best universities can expect to earn even more. Borrowing £21,000, at preferential rates, to secure twenty times that sum, is an offer you’d have to be a fool to turn down. And if you’re such a fool that you don’t want to accept that deal, then you’re too big a fool to benefit from the university education I’m currently subsidising for you.

The full article is at Times Online. I don't see anything wrong with his reasoning.

The problem with lefties is that they don't get to the facts of the argument, and above is what those facts are. It's no good going on about what class people are before entering uni - getting a degree automatically takes you out of the working class; that is, assuming you don't study for a degree in Beckhamology..

	22-01-2003 16:58									#2
	Tired of ads?

It certainly discriminates against poorer families.

Yes, some of us get a big job right after graduation, but many don't.

A person from a poor family will pay for servicing their debt by sacrificing Quality of Life, while someone whose family can 'help out' doesn't have to make those sacrifices.

That's a terrific incentive for poor people NOT to build up a huge debt they'll have difficulty servicing let alone paying off. People don't like living like animals for years, no matter what the ultimate benefit, I guess that makes them 'idiots'.

distilled:

Rich family Person: My family will pay it off. Might interfere with skiing season. Might have to bother Uncle Al to get me a job in his company for the summers.

Poor Family Person: Never eat out. Make sure you have some good books because you won't have any money for fun. Desperately search for a job that isn't completely demeaning.

Hmm....why wouldn't the poor guy just enter the workforce as soon as possible and enjoy the most significant chunk of what was once called the 'prime of one's life'?

If it wasn't for marijuana, I probably would never have gone on to university.

I'm all for public education.

It's even worse in Ontario, though, because now you cannot escape your student loan debts through bankruptcy. Even if you have no income or assets, the payments and penalties just keep piling up.

	22-01-2003 17:00									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

The problem is that what you'll get is a higher proportion of rich people at the 'best' institutions which will dumb down those institutions. Some of the best potential students will go to lesser instititutions 'cause the fees are lower.

If we have to have loans and fees, and I understand why we need them, then make them be the same for whatever university you want to attend. That way any applicant can apply to any university and the best institutions can get the best people. Even if it all goes to a central fund and then is distributed by the government.

That said.

If they want £21,000 per student and the student will earn, over their lifetime, £400,000 more than if they hadn't gone they will pay the government at LEAST £100,000 extra, £160,000 if it's all at the higher tax band.

Why is that bad?

	22-01-2003 17:26									#4
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by MikeH The problem is that what you'll get is a higher proportion of rich people at the 'best' institutions which will dumb down those institutions.

Why? I'm sure the government will introduce restrictions on universities to make them accept by merit.

quote: Some of the best potential students will go to lesser instititutions 'cause the fees are lower.

Read the article again - if they can't accept that short-term debt will massively boost their quality of life, then perhaps they do not deserve to be at (the best) universities at all.

quote: If we have to have loans and fees, and I understand why we need them, then make them be the same for whatever university you want to attend.

I would rather that student loans were made theoretically unlimited.

There's no way a middle- or upper-class student can go to university without parental support at the moment.

quote: That way any applicant can apply to any university and the best institutions can get the best people. Even if it all goes to a central fund and then is distributed by the government.

I think you're just speculating here.

quote: If they want £21,000 per student and the student will earn, over their lifetime, £400,000 more than if they hadn't gone they will pay the government at LEAST £100,000 extra, £160,000 if it's all at the higher tax band.

Because then you are effectively giving a tax break to those who went to university.

	22-01-2003 17:39									#5
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

A tax Break most Students can´t use efficiently, cause they spent most of their time with learning and studying and not with working for money (at least here in germany and at least if they want to complete their studies as fast as possible )

Oh and (also at least here in germany) an academic degree is no guarantee for you to get more money out of your job (i.e. if you don´t choose the right fields like Industrial Management as your field of study), in some fields it isn´t even a guarantee to have a better chance on a job.

	22-01-2003 17:42									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's Because then you are effectively giving a tax break to those who went to university.

Like Mike said: Why is that bad?

It seems like an excellent incentive to create a more educated workforce to me.

	22-01-2003 17:47									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's Why? I'm sure the government will introduce restrictions on universities to make them accept by merit.

If the number of applicants is reduced the merits of the one that's accepted last will probably have a lesser merit than otherwise.

quote: Read the article again - if they can't accept that short-term debt will massively boost their quality of life, then perhaps they do not deserve to be at (the best) universities at all.

Who deserves to be at the university? Surely the costs will not be the same for everyone as some has to handle it by themselves while others get some sort of help. But that's beside the point. I can't really see how this links to them deserving a place or not. They deserve a place if they have the merits for it and the ability to handle the education. The money is another issue.

	22-01-2003 17:50									#8
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

"They deserve a place if they have the merits for it and the ability to handle the education."

Yes, and not being able to discern a simple and beneficial investment displays a lack of merit and ability.

	22-01-2003 17:54									#9
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Over a lifetime, the direct financial benefit in higher earnings is around £400,000. Those who attend our best universities can expect to earn even more. Borrowing £21,000, at preferential rates, to secure twenty times that sum, is an offer you’d have to be a fool to turn down.

how about this. if 15 years after graduating, i've made £400,000, the goverment can come and request £21,000
i'd give it to them. if not, the "system" hasnt work for me and the goverment should go back to see why it failed in my case

	22-01-2003 17:58									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Something kind of like that already happens Mark. The monthly loan repayments are linked to salary - the more you earn the more of the loan you are required to pay-off each month.

Your way is better, though.

	22-01-2003 18:12									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's [N]ot being able to discern a simple and beneficial investment displays a lack of merit and ability.

Different economic situations, different opportunity costs.

Sure, It might be beneficial but that's hardly a important merit, not all of them is going into finanical economics either.

	22-01-2003 18:34									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I don't think this is really about money, rather about how many people study at degree level in the long term. The Tories expanded university education quite substantially about 15 years ago suggesting everyone should have an opportunity to go to university (at the time it kept a lot of 18-21 year olds out of the unemployment figures). Now the Government is having to spend a lot of money to get kids to do vocational courses to be plumbers and similar.

(If you don't live in the UK you would not believe how difficult and expensive it can be to get a plumber to fix a burst pipe or someone to service a central heating boiler)

Basically they hope (but won't publicly admit) this will reduce demand for university places so that some of the crap universities won't attract enough students so will go bust and can be closed down.

	22-01-2003 18:51									#13
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Seeker It certainly discriminates against poorer families. Yes, some of us get a big job right after graduation, but many don't. A person from a poor family will pay for servicing their debt by sacrificing Quality of Life, while someone whose family can 'help out' doesn't have to make those sacrifices. That's a terrific incentive for poor people NOT to build up a huge debt they'll have difficulty servicing let alone paying off. People don't like living like animals for years, no matter what the ultimate benefit, I guess that makes them 'idiots'. distilled: Rich family Person: My family will pay it off. Might interfere with skiing season. Might have to bother Uncle Al to get me a job in his company for the summers. Poor Family Person: Never eat out. Make sure you have some good books because you won't have any money for fun. Desperately search for a job that isn't completely demeaning. Hmm....why wouldn't the poor guy just enter the workforce as soon as possible and enjoy the most significant chunk of what was once called the 'prime of one's life'? If it wasn't for marijuana, I probably would never have gone on to university. I'm all for public education. It's even worse in Ontario, though, because now you cannot escape your student loan debts through bankruptcy. Even if you have no income or assets, the payments and penalties just keep piling up.

Cry me a ****ing river. If the government supports all education for people, should they support all business ventures for poor people? Getting a degree is not the only way to "get ahead". SNOB.

If you think that it's unfair that rich people can pay for their kid's college while poor people have to get loans, than it's also unfair that rich people can give money to their children. It's just unfair to be rich and not poor.

	22-01-2003 18:56									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I'm for MarkG's suggestion. And 15 years later sounds about right, long enough to have established yourself but before you have children going to college.

	22-01-2003 18:59									#15
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by MarkG quote: Over a lifetime, the direct financial benefit in higher earnings is around £400,000. Those who attend our best universities can expect to earn even more. Borrowing £21,000, at preferential rates, to secure twenty times that sum, is an offer you’d have to be a fool to turn down. how about this. if 15 years after graduating, i've made £400,000, the goverment can come and request £21,000 i'd give it to them. if not, the "system" hasnt work for me and the goverment should go back to see why it failed in my case

Maybe you should go back to see why you failed.

	22-01-2003 19:05									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GP Cry me a ****ing river. If the government supports all education for people, should they support all business ventures for poor people? Getting a degree is not the only way to "get ahead". SNOB. If you think that it's unfair that rich people can pay for their kid's college while poor people have to get loans, than it's also unfair that rich people can give money to their children. It's just unfair to be rich and not poor.

That's exactly right. So we need to level incomes. One of the ways we do that is with social programs, and one of the most important social programs is education, stopping kids from poor families getting stuck because mommy and daddy can't afford to lay out the kind of cash a private education requires.

Why don't you just get rid of the public school system entirely, GP?

	22-01-2003 19:12									#17
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Cry me a ****ing river. If the government supports all education for people, should they support all business ventures for poor people? Getting a degree is not the only way to "get ahead". SNOB. If you think that it's unfair that rich people can pay for their kid's college while poor people have to get loans, than it's also unfair that rich people can give money to their children. It's just unfair to be rich and not poor.

Boddies just showed the difference in earnings between a college graduate and a non graduate. Sure, it's not the only way to get ahead but it's a good way.

It's in the interests of any country to get the right people in the right jobs. If that means giving intelligent people from low income backgrounds the opportunity to go to the best colleges then the government should do that.

The government does also support businesses in poorer areas development grants in areas of low unemployment etc. That's also beneficial to the country. You spend some money that gets people working and paying tax and off benefits. So you not only make money from their taxes but also save what you were giving them. It is just common sense.

	22-01-2003 19:14									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Frogger That's exactly right. So we need to level incomes. One of the ways we do that is with social programs, and one of the most important social programs is education, stopping kids from poor families getting stuck because mommy and daddy can't afford to lay out the kind of cash a private education requires. Why don't you just get rid of the public school system entirely, GP?

Why not get rid of the free market?

I guess I'm ok with a limited welfare state. I just don't think it goes forever. Should we pay for everybodies pilot training also? It comes down to where you want to draw the lines.

Are you really in favor of eliminating all income difference? "To each according to their needs"

	22-01-2003 19:18									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's Why? I'm sure the government will introduce restrictions on universities to make them accept by merit.

Sure, like Harvard did with Dubya...

And surely the need to take up a huge loan will be a threat to less well-off students, even those with high capacities. Taking up a loan is always a risk and an even higher risk, the poorer you are. Sure, if you succeed and do well in your studies, you can more easily pay it back. Yet, when I think back to when I was 18, I have to say that I did not know exactly how I would do in university competition. If I had had to pay so huge fees, I wouldn't have started my studies in the first place, especially because I'm studying something you probably call "Backhamology": History.
Now it turned out that I'm among the best current history students at the department. With such fees, my university would have lost my potential.

quote: anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university in the first place

Now this is most cynical! Economic existential fears rank among the toughest psychological pressures and someone who lacks the economic background to have something in the back-hand will be put off even if he has a high potential.
Thus only those students from a bad social background who additionally have a tough psychological armor, an extreme will and self esteem and studying one of those very few studies that guarantee high earning (especially technical) will go to universities . The rest of the places in good universities will be reserved kids of rich people who won't die if they fail (or even only need a semester longer).Rich people who don't know these existential fears simply can't understand what it means to live with debts! Saying that someone who fears debt doesn't deserve to go to university is more than cynical. Now I know some people at my university that don't deserve to be at university, but it's generally not those who would be put off by fees. Rather they're children of politicians or well-off professors who more often get good marks for nothing and are dumb and ignorant as hell who simply can't understand the problems of those who are less well-off. (Of course also only a certain part of those "rich children" are like this, but I talking about that group which is dumbest at university).
And all that already WITHOUT high fees. With higher fees, this will augment! It's already a shame to see that those mediocre guys get the best jobs after university even with medium or bad marks, while A-students without an important daddy get only relatively bad jobs if any.

	22-01-2003 19:28									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by GP Why not get rid of the free market? I guess I'm ok with a limited welfare state. I just don't think it goes forever. Should we pay for everybodies pilot training also? It comes down to where you want to draw the lines. Are you really in favor of eliminating all income difference? "To each according to their needs"

No, just enough to allow people to have the same opportunities no matter what their background (isn't that the American dream?). If everyone has a chance to make something of themselves then it's up to them whether they take it or not. We don't have to hand it to them on a plate. Just have it there if they want to work for it.

All we're saying is that if you want to go to uni and you work hard enough, and are intelligent enough, then there shouldn't be a financial barrier preventing you from going.

Similarly there's absolutely no point educating stupid kids at university just because their parents are the only ones who can afford it.

	22-01-2003 19:31									#21
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by GP Why not get rid of the free market? I guess I'm ok with a limited welfare state. I just don't think it goes forever. Should we pay for everybodies pilot training also? It comes down to where you want to draw the lines. Are you really in favor of eliminating all income difference? "To each according to their needs"

I'm not entirely at that point (I do see need for some income-based incentives) but I'm certainly closer to that than I am to free market (which IMO overemphasises the differences in contribution).

In my world the difference in incomes between top and bottom of the social scale would be 50%, not 50000%.

	22-01-2003 21:16									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

"All we're saying is that if you want to go to uni and you work hard enough, and are intelligent enough, then there shouldn't be a financial barrier preventing you from going."

How does the introduction of "top-up fees" and a much more liberal student loan system create a financial barrier?

As for Wernazuma's post, you are just trying to rationalise irrational intertemporal choices.

	22-01-2003 21:26									#23
	Suffering from ads?

I'd prefer there to be no fees. I understand why there are though, political priority. There aren't many votes in keeping uni education free and there aren't many votes in raising taxes to pay for higher education and the unis are losing talent to overseas institutions. Fine. Not what I'd go for in an ideal world. I'd prefer to pay a bit more tax and have uni education cost less to those who go.

Just make the loans the same for students whatever institution they go to and have the gov't spread the cash out. If they want to phase out the new unis and make more vocational colleges then great. Do that as well.

	22-01-2003 21:29									#24
	Got spare money?

Believe it or not, some people don't try to get an education to become rich. My college education, for instance, is a pretty bad financial investment (if I had to pay full tuition), relative to other possible investments.

	22-01-2003 21:30									#25
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Forget political priority. I've argued why there is a rational case for higher fees. I might as well show the full article now.

quote: The Government is about to introduce a new test for those considering a university career. The central question will be punishingly direct. Do you want to run up a debt of £21,000 in order to go to the best British universities? Some people will, apparently, be put off applying to our elite institutions by the prospect of taking on a debt of this size. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is all to the good. The first point that needs to be made about the so-called deterrent effect of a £21,000 loan is that anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university in the first place. Incurring such a relatively small debt to pay for the huge economic benefit conferred by proper higher education is a fantastic deal. Over a lifetime, the direct financial benefit in higher earnings is around £400,000. Those who attend our best universities can expect to earn even more. Borrowing £21,000, at preferential rates, to secure twenty times that sum, is an offer you’d have to be a fool to turn down. And if you’re such a fool that you don’t want to accept that deal, then you’re too big a fool to benefit from the university education I’m currently subsidising for you. I accept that some graduates will take up jobs which do not command handsome salaries. Individuals may pursue admirable work for which there is no great monetary reward, in the Church, the arts or public service. In these cases there is a strong case for the taxpayer bearing the cost of their degree. But why should the vast majority, who go on to benefit financially from their degree, be subsidised by me? Those of us who are net contributors to the State, graduates or not, are getting a terrible deal for our money. We could guarantee far superior healthcare and schooling for our families if only the Government gave us back the money which it confiscates from us in taxes and then spends on the schools and hospitals which it runs so badly. But of all the money wasted by the State there is perhaps no greater scandal than its mismanagement of the funds it takes to spend on higher education. The system it has built to disburse our money is inimical to equity, liberty and excellence. Higher education is now a nationalised industry, with universities utterly dependent on state support for their survival. Like all the nationalised industries which taxpayers had to subsidise in the past, from British Coal to British Leyland, UK Universities suffer from grotesque inefficiencies, low motivation, ministerial second-guessing, poor salaries, and a stifling excess of bureaucracy. But at least with British Coal the taxpayer was subsidising the poor. Although it was a hideously inefficient mechanism, giving taxpayers’ money to British Coal did transfer resources from the wealthy to keep working-class people in jobs. The stunning injustice of our current higher education system is that working-class people in jobs are paying taxes to subsidise the wealthy. Because anyone who graduates from university, whatever their social origins, is then in a position to make far more money for themselves than they ever pay out for their degree. The current system of university funding, with students paying fees which do not reflect the real cost of their courses, let alone the real benefits they will then accrue, is profoundly inequitable. But worse than that, in an effort to legitimise this unfair process ministers have progressively imposed a level of state control on universities which is crippling higher education. The State has set a national target for the number of students, it has decreed that state support for the best universities should depend on meeting specific recruitment targets from certain socio-economic groups and it now proposes to link future state funding to government oversight of internal university management. It is understandable why ministers should wish to set targets and monitor the management of institutions who receive Government largesse. They want to promote efficiency and productivity. But central planning is no more likely to work with universities than it did with pig-iron smelters in Siberia. As Alison Wolf, Professor of Education at the University of London’s Department of Education, has pointed out, the Government’s approach “is precisely analogous to the way in which the Soviet planners ran their economy and it has precisely the same drawbacks”. Quantity is measured rather than quality, research and innovation are cut back in favour of processing numbers, the whims of politicians take precedence over the individual judgments of professionals. The universities which once produced Rolls-Royce minds have become Lada plants. The British higher education system is betraying all the symptoms of strangulation by over regulation. Professors are paid peanuts, more students are getting progressively more worthless qualifications and our research ratings are dropping precipitately behind nations such as America where universities operate on a much more rational, market, basis. A centralised drive to increase participation in higher education brings no demonstrable economic benefits to the nation; all it does is confer a relative advantage in the jobs market to graduates. And that advantage is secured at considerable, and wasteful, expense. First-rate universities with superb research facilities do bring benefits to the nation, economic and cultural. But the only way Britain can match America in boosting such institutions is by freeing them from the State, allowing them to charge reasonable fees and giving academics the autonomy professionals deserve; in a word, by privatisation. The only reason they still make cars in Oxford is because the British motor industry is no longer run by the State. How much longer can we afford to run Oxford University on the principles of British Leyland?

	22-01-2003 21:39									#26
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Then you get the problem of corporate sponsorship affecting research which is epsecially a problem in science and engineering.

If you get an oil company massively sponsoring a chemical engineering department at a university do you think that there could be potential for the focus of the university's research to change?

Surely by the same reasoning you should also argue that all schools should be privatised.

	22-01-2003 21:56									#27
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Oh and don't forget that they are putting the fees back so you don't have to pay them in advance, a good thing, and bringing back maintenence grants for the poorest students.

	22-01-2003 22:11									#28
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by Boddington's As for Wernazuma's post, you are just trying to rationalise irrational intertemporal choices.

Sorry, maybe it's my English, but I don't get that. What choices do you call irrational.

	22-01-2003 22:28									#29
	Remove this text

What gets me about the whole tuition fees thing is whether its worth the money at all. I don't mean being able to get a better job at the end I mean the actual education you get. Although I didn't go to a decent university (maybe things are different there) I can honestly say that I could have done just as well using notes off the internet and recommended books, which many people did. The lectures were rubbish and the tutors were barely worth getting out of bed to go and see.
The fact that I had to pay a thousand pounds each year made me feel like taking a dump in a bag and hiding it somewhere on campus.

	22-01-2003 23:42									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well I am still waiting for that return on investment. University guarantees you nothing, in hindsight, I'd have probably been better off if I hadn't gone, I'd have been in a better financial position now. And I went to a very prestigious university, so figure that out