Because we've had a generation of young people who have been led to believe that unless they go to "You-nee" then they'll never get a decent job. While this is true at top end where a degree is still essential, many others would be better off doing vocational qualifications and on the job training.

Fortunately, there are signs that things are starting to change with more big employers taking apprenticeships seriously. Someone who has just spent three years getting paid to learn on the job is going to much more experienced and employable than someone else who has spent the same amount of time dossing around at college and getting a worthless degree - and they won't have the debt either.

They weren't exactly lied to as the vocational and apprenticeship opportunities weren't available in large numbers for school leavers.
Couple that with a number of businesses complaining that state school leavers had poor literacy skills/work ethic, which led many businesses to recruit foreign workers.

When school leavers have real choice between apprenticeships or uni, the savvy ones will opt for an apprenticeship, as it will be in the best interests of both employer and employee, so long as the apprenticeship is a bona fide role which leads to a career/profession,

Perhaps then we can go back to having Polytechnics and Technical colleges which IMHO were fit for purpose.

Yes but now that everyone has to pay what benefit have we seen? Before we had the benefit of education being free/heavily subsidised, a fantastic benefit to the nation. Now it has gone, seems to me we have only lost out. Its not like we have seen any benefit at all to losing this asset to our nation. Its nothing to celebrate. Everyone was paying before but now that they are not is it noticible? Are they suddenly better off? No, they are worse off because now the young have a shit load of debt.

I have to give you credit for being able to shoehorn Jeremy Corbyn into any topic. It's quite the talent.

Hope you are paid well for it.

It was the Lib Dems that allowed things to get to this point in the first place.

A cynic might believe that the Tories want a dumbed down society as educated people might realise how they are screwing everyone over except themselves and their buddies.

I find the best way people get jobs in this country is to do volunteering for the job they wish they do, that way they get experience and the employee sees they can do the job.

All this degree and qualification malarky is a lot of BS if you ask me.. I know people who are dyslexic who are no good academically but are brilliant at the job they do.. if they needed to go to "uni" to get a degree before getting said job they'd probably not get the job in the first place !

we need less paperwork and more role-playing in the job actually doing the career they chose, I know people who are good at school, uni etc but you wouldn't want them in the workplace, not professional, bad attitudes etc will always try to gain that "edge" and basically bullies. It's promoting bad people.. that's a human man-made creation of the food chain of "ladder"

Uni is just an excuse to get pissed every weekend and travel on the tax-payers money.. but if the money was actually invested in a better way in creating more volunteering opportunities for the less educated, or the working class.. the employment figures would improve massively in my opinion.

The government and people have made uni too difficult for a lot of folks.

Basically, there is money to saved if people actually cared to save people.

Create a pathway for more volunteering chances for people who ain't the best academically, but are willing to learn and improve. Use the money instead to make it financially viable for employee's to do this scheme.

Eh

I've heard that less than half of all students will ever pay off their student debt in full as it is (my nephews and nieces being a prime example of a waste of space in that department spending three and sometimes four years at uni getting engineering and history degrees only to end up in supermarkets or as a nanny) so putting the price up probably isn't going to impact too greatly if they aren't altering the threshold you start repaying it from, the rate at which you pay and the maximum term

So you think young people should work for free? Would you be happy to work for nothing?

Christ don't give May ideas.

I agree


Good question which only they can answer

That's true. As long as the threshold and earnings percentage stay the same it doesn't matter if the annual fee goes up as you'll be repaying the same out of your pay packet.

The reason why so many students seem to be willing to take on so much "debt" is that it really isn't a debt at all. Many will never pay back their fees so if you never get a well paid job then you don't have to worry about them. Earn £21,000 and your repayment will be £90 a year. If you have no intention of getting a high paid job after graduating then your tuition is effectively free to you.

We'd be better off renaming the repayments as a "graduate tax" as that is what it effectively is.

That's true it's the thresholds for repayment and percentages that will make it fair or unfair.

As I see it this system allows an adult to make a choice; take a gamble on their future and if that gamble pays off effectively - then they pay for it. If they don't make sufficient gain out of it they don't have to. I wish my bookie was so generous.

Unlike a graduate tax which could potentially end up costing them more than was actually invested in them if this is actually capped at the genuine level of expense then you can't get fairer.

The alternative is the bill is picked up by everyone who is successful enough financially regardless of their personal choices education wise. As someone who chose to start working (and paying tax) at 18 instead I'd resent that

The only thing I'd potentially change about the system is I'd like to see similar funding made available throughout your life, with opportunities to draw on it for retraining a number of times. Not just for degrees but for a wide range of up-skilling. Build a system to support the fact that people may need or want to change career say four or five times over their lifetime

All because of that pledge...oh and because of Labour introducing the fees in the first place.

Yes, it was an underhand and sneaky way of doing things and I have nothing but absolute contempt for universities and science minister Jo "Brother of Boris" Johnson. One of his obsessions is to abolish all the current science research councils to form one mega-body but this unnecessary reorganisation will cost millions which would be far better spent on supporting pure and applied research. It is complete madness.

I'm missing something there - what was sneaky about announcing something in July that would come in in 2017, and then preparing for it's introduction in the Autumn of 2017?

It's not like Sean Coughlan (the BBC journalist) was caught by surprise, according to him it was

Trailed in May

July announcement

December website updated

Yes, you are. The departmental convention (conveniently ignored this time around) is to issue a departmental press notice, copied to journalists on the emailing list, when matters of this magnitude are actually about to be implemented and that is the key point here.

This was a clear underhand attempt to hide the tuition fee rise.

seems like a pretty poor attempt to me given Coughlan had already "broken" the story from the press release in July

Heck no need to rely on wikileaks for this one - you could have found out about it here
Last edited by platelet : 24-12-2016 at 20:03

You seem to think it's funny - it isn't because this actually sets a bad precedent and one that a future non-Conservative government might decide to follow and no one benefits from that malpractice because all it does is further undermine trust in politics.

What announcing things and the implementing them? I'll admit it makes a change from Dave's time but I don't think it's that funny or a bad precedent necessarily.

I do think the pretence that it was in some way a surprise is mildly amusing

If and when other parties start copying that bad and underhand precedent, I hope you won't be one of the first to then start squealing and whingeing how unfair and inappropriate the practice is on this forum.

Nope I don't tend to moan about imaginary deceit regardless of who I imagine is responsible for it.

Though I'll concede that if I become delusional enough I might fall into the trap of believing my own delusions like Coughlan. Feel free to call me on it if I do
Last edited by platelet : 24-12-2016 at 20:33

The current system of student finance is very generous as long as you know how to play the loopholes. If you are in your 50s or 60s (or even older) then you can get your tuition fees as a mature student without any chance that you will ever have to repay them. Move abroad on graduation and they'll never catch you. If you are a woman, meet someone who you have babies with and never work then you won't have to pay a penny.

On a serious note though, I do think that the system ought perhaps to be looked at so that it is broadly progressive and consistent. For example, I don't like the way that Osborne froze the initial income payback level so that it did not rise with inflation and I certainly don't like his axing of support grants for students from poor backgrounds.