How Should University Education be Funded?

[The Ham]

That's kinda an inevitable thing if the Government decides to make any adverse change that mainly impact younger people: The politicians making the change will be older and therefore have benefitted from the previous situation - which opens them to a charge of double standards. That doesn't by itself amount to a decent argument against the change though: Sometimes, changes that affect people adversely need to be made. I guess the killer argument for loans is that swapping from grants to loans came alongside a large increase in the numbers of people going to University, and that may well have been unaffordable if everyone was still getting grants and tuition paid for. I therefore don't really see the hypocrisy that you seem to be implying.

mods note - split from this thread

The issue with loans though is that, whilst they are kind of a graduate tax, those who earn a lot pay them off very quickly and so can stop paying this tax faster than those who earn an average salary who may end up paying the "tax" all their working life.

That's almost the worst of both ways. If it was graduate tax then those who benefit most would cover the costs of those who otherwise have part of their loan written off due to not earning enough in their lifetime. It would also be less costly to administrator.

Even a change in the tax rules for everyone could be better, as even as someone who doesn't have a degree I'll still benefit from those who do. What they looks like I don't know, but likely those on lower rates of pay would be insulated from paying extra, whilst those on good pay (most likely to have a degree, but there will be some - including myself - who are on good pay but without a degree) would have a larger tax bill. However for those with a degree near the cut off point may pay less than they currently do, whilst those who are earning a lot would likely pay a lot more over their lifespan than they do under the current system (but having benefitted the most from their reduction).

It would mean that those who came from overseas to study here and then worked great could be double paying for their degree compared to now (depends on your view as to if that's a good thing or not).

By all means log what costs are associated with an individual through Uni, so people understand what they've cost the country and so you can justify the costs for non British students. However there are likely to be better ways of recovering those costs.

 

[jfollows]

That's kinda an inevitable thing if the Government decides to make any adverse change that mainly impact younger people: The politicians making the change will be older and therefore have benefitted from the previous situation - which opens them to a charge of double standards. That doesn't by itself amount to a decent argument against the change though: Sometimes, changes that affect people adversely need to be made. I guess the killer argument for loans is that swapping from grants to loans came alongside a large increase in the numbers of people going to University, and that may well have been unaffordable if everyone was still getting grants and tuition paid for. I therefore don't really see the hypocrisy that you seem to be implying.

I don't mean to imply any hypocrisy here, however my point was that it's worth remembering the background of the politicians doing it, because in due course some of them might start saying things like "students get a good deal with their loans and can repay them easily over 30 years" when they themselves left university debt-free.

 

[Yew]

I guess the killer argument for loans is that swapping from grants to loans came alongside a large increase in the numbers of people going to University, and that may well have been unaffordable if everyone was still getting grants and tuition paid for.

I struggle to see how making it so that people earn more, and pay more taxes, is unaffordable. They're not paying circa 10K a year in Germany and France, they just have to pay some small administration fees. For the last 40 years, we've been suffering from a short-termist corporate accountant mindset, and it time to start taking a more long-term, pragmatic view.

 

[DustyBin]

I struggle to see how making it so that people earn more, and pay more taxes, is unaffordable. They're not paying circa 10K a year in Germany and France, they just have to pay some small administration fees. For the last 40 years, we've been suffering from a short-termist corporate accountant mindset, and it time to start taking a more long-term, pragmatic view.

In principle I agree, but too many graduates don’t earn enough to pay their loans back which means they aren’t paying that much tax either. Some degrees lead to excellent career opportunities whereas some don’t. See the earlier discussion around STEM subjects (although I’m not suggesting that they’re the only worthwhile courses by any means).

 

[Yew]

In principle I agree, but too many graduates don’t earn enough to pay their loans back which means they aren’t paying that much tax either. Some degrees lead to excellent career opportunities whereas some don’t. See the earlier discussion around STEM subjects (although I’m not suggesting that they’re the only worthwhile courses by any means).

That is typically only a small percentage though; and is usually a case of going into a less well paid field (such as arts and humanities, with their cultural significance) or extenuating circumstances. Most default graduate roles put people on a track to start paying back their loans.

 

[DustyBin]

That is typically only a small percentage though; and is usually a case of going into a less well paid field (such as arts and humanities, with their cultural significance) or extenuating circumstances. Most default graduate roles put people on a track to start paying back their loans.

I’m not sure how it works as a percentage, but I believe there are over a million graduates not paying anything back currently. I expect the number will fluctuate depending on the state of the economy, but I remember reading a report that said the percentage of graduates expected to pay back their loan in full is actually quite low. Anecdotally I know a few who will almost certainly fall into this category!

 

[SuspectUsual]

I’m not sure how it works as a percentage, but I believe there are over a million graduates not paying anything back currently. I expect the number will fluctuate depending on the state of the economy, but I remember reading a report that said the percentage of graduates expected to pay back their loan in full is actually quite low. Anecdotally I know a few who will almost certainly fall into this category!

That’s surprising, given the threshold for repayments is £524 a week, which is about 20% less than the median salary. If people aren’t earning at that level in significant numbers, it makes me wonder what the point of them entering tertiary education was

 

[najaB]

If there's a shortage of people studying STEM subjects, I suspect it's due to a lack of interest and/or awareness more than anything. Indeed my own journey through academia reflects this; at no point was I encouraged to study anything science or engineering related, I made the decision for myself!

You almost certainly where encouraged, just not overtly or directly in the school environment. It's as much about things that happen in school as much as it is about putting interesting science/engineering programmes on TV. As an example, Mythbusters did as much or more to promote engineering as anything done in school.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

The issue with loans though is that, whilst they are kind of a graduate tax, those who earn a lot pay them off very quickly and so can stop paying this tax faster than those who earn an average salary who may end up paying the "tax" all their working life.

That's almost the worst of both ways. If it was graduate tax then those who benefit most would cover the costs of those who otherwise have part of their loan written off due to not earning enough in their lifetime. It would also be less costly to administrator.

I would see the current system as the best of the both ways (tax and loan), not the worst.

A pure graduate tax has the advantage that no-one pays it unless they are earning enough to (hopefully) be able to afford it. But it carries the huge unfairness that some people will end up paying back many, many, times more than what their education cost. Worse - that risk of paying back over the odds applies only to poorer people, since anyone from a sufficiently wealthy background can avoid the risk by simply paying (or getting their parents to pay) their fees upfront, so they don't have to pay the tax.

On the other hand, a pure loan means people are not paying back more than they should (assuming interest rates are reasonable), but has the disadvantage that you still have to pay it back even if you can't afford it.

The current system means that people only pay back the actual cost of their education (plus interest) AND has the safeguard that people who can't afford it don't pay. In other words, it has the advantage of each system.

 

[nw1]

I would see the current system as the best of the both ways (tax and loan), not the worst.

A pure graduate tax has the advantage that no-one pays it unless they are earning enough to (hopefully) be able to afford it. But it carries the huge unfairness that some people will end up paying back many, many, times more than what their education cost. Worse - that risk of paying back over the odds applies only to poorer people, since anyone from a sufficiently wealthy background can avoid the risk by simply paying (or getting their parents to pay) their fees upfront, so they don't have to pay the tax.

On the other hand, a pure loan means people are not paying back more than they should (assuming interest rates are reasonable), but has the disadvantage that you still have to pay it back even if you can't afford it.

The current system means that people only pay back the actual cost of their education (plus interest) AND has the safeguard that people who can't afford it don't pay. In other words, it has the advantage of each system.

So how do Germany and France manage to not charge such high fees to their students, but merely, according to another poster, "a small admin fee"?

Presumably they get the income by other channels. If they can do that, why can we not?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 6 Jan 2023 ==

Someone I know has said they wouldn't be surprised if the Government were secretly paying/urging Prince Harry to keep saying and doing controversial stuff so he keeps getting the headlines, which takes attention away from their ineptness. Personally I think this is very cynical, even as someone opposed to them, but I wouldn't be surprised if the Government were at least grateful for Harry's antics right now.

And less cynically, the right-wing press are doubtless prioritising Harry over the government for two reasons: a) more juicy, and b) distracts attention away from a government who they would like to remain in power for the next 5 decades years.

Still, Sunak and Hunt really don't have the X-factor required for another Tory win in 15-18 months' time, IMO. They also do not appeal to the red wall seats, most of which will surely swing back. Plus, I see Labour gains in some rather more urban areas in the south, such as Milton Keynes, Watford, Swindon and even parts of Bournemouth and Worthing. Unless Starmer really messes up, I think it's odds on for a Labour victory of some kind now - even if it's a small majority.

One wonders whether the Tories will implement Plan B (if you know what I mean)? I suspect not, as despite his popularity with some, it would just make the whole party appear hopelessly disorganised and indecisive.

 

[JamesT]

So how do Germany and France manage to not charge such high fees to their students, but merely, according to another poster, "a small admin fee"?

Presumably they get the income by other channels. If they can do that, why can we not?

The glib answer is state funding through higher taxes. If you can persuade everyone to pay more so those who go to university pay less, I'm sure we can do the same...

 

[nw1]

The glib answer is state funding through higher taxes. If you can persuade everyone to pay more so those who go to university pay less, I'm sure we can do the same...

Well, the French and German politicians have obviously done that. It's certainly something I'd be in favour of, even if it's not the "British Way" (TM).

 

[dosxuk]

It's as much about things that happen in school as much as it is about putting interesting science/engineering programmes on TV.

Not much money in that for the likes of Amazon, Netflix or Disney+ though - and as we've all heard, the future of television means the BBC / Channel 4 need to be copying them more in order to compete, rather than investing in programming that most people won't want to watch.

As an aside, Mythbusters is almost unique in being able to straddle the line between general entertainment and educational such that it got a big enough audience, both for Discovery and the other stations it was sold to, to generally avoid the format being meddled with too much. That said, you can certainly see the impact of decisions from above though in the ratings-chasing, with the middle-late series' obsession with explosions and episodes entirely about popular television shows or films - especially compared to the early series where they used to have things like the historians / psychologists talking about where myths came from and how they've developed.

Scrapheap Challenge was a similar programme that didn't get too much alteration, but eventually the format went stale and the attempts to revive it turned off the viewer base, and unlike Mythbusters, the plug got pulled far too late to save the brand.

 

[edwin_m]

Curiously, technology programmes tend to live more on the non-mainstream channels such as Yesterday and Quest, but also to some degree on Channel 5.

 

[Domh245]

I’m not sure how it works as a percentage, but I believe there are over a million graduates not paying anything back currently. I expect the number will fluctuate depending on the state of the economy, but I remember reading a report that said the percentage of graduates expected to pay back their loan in full is actually quite low. Anecdotally I know a few who will almost certainly fall into this category!

Even when you are paying back, depending on the exact circumstances you can still end up with a net increase in 'debt' each month. I did a 4 year Mechanical Engineering course starting in Sep 2015 with a year-in-industry in the middle (with no tuition fee or maintenance loan for that, only the accrued interest), receiving only tuition and the bare minimum maintenance loans but at graduation my debt was just shy of £60k (36k tuition + 15.4k Maintenance + ~8k accrued interest) with a prevailing interest rate of 5.6% until April 2021 which effectively meant that I'd have to started earning £65k a year to start paying it back.

If however I'd graduated after 3 years in Summer 2018 with a balance of around £41k, I'd have "only" needed to go into a job paying around £43k in order to start paying back and reducing the loan value - not impossible but definitely on the higher end of graduate salaries!

As it is, with the current interest rates (capped at 6.5% until end of February, at which point it increases to 7.3%) I'd need to be earning around £75k (at 2.5 years from graduation) to be just paying back more each month than gaining interest (if my calculations are correct - which they possibly aren't as my calculated interest payments are slightly higher than indicated on my actual SLC balance, but point still stands that you need to be on quite significant - and frankly unrealistic in most cases - money to actually make headway into reducing -your loan balance!).

I daren't even bother calculating what salary I need to be on to be able to clear it by the point at which the debt is cancelled (in part because predicting thresholds & interest rates is not my forte) - but it would be silly, and would see me paying many times over what I actually received. Graduating into and around a period of high inflation has certainly not helped matters though as it's all normally pegged to RPI. Roll on April 2051 :')

 

[The Ham]

I would see the current system as the best of the both ways (tax and loan), not the worst.

A pure graduate tax has the advantage that no-one pays it unless they are earning enough to (hopefully) be able to afford it. But it carries the huge unfairness that some people will end up paying back many, many, times more than what their education cost. Worse - that risk of paying back over the odds applies only to poorer people, since anyone from a sufficiently wealthy background can avoid the risk by simply paying (or getting their parents to pay) their fees upfront, so they don't have to pay the tax.

On the other hand, a pure loan means people are not paying back more than they should (assuming interest rates are reasonable), but has the disadvantage that you still have to pay it back even if you can't afford it.

The current system means that people only pay back the actual cost of their education (plus interest) AND has the safeguard that people who can't afford it don't pay. In other words, it has the advantage of each system.

It depends on how you apply the graduate tax, only on those who take on the fees (which the wealthy can skip anyway by paying upfront under the current system) or on anyone with a degree obtained at a UK university.

Those who are not wealthy to start with but get a great job can pay less than those who get an OK job and don't ever quite pay it off.

For example you have a loan of £20,000 and pay about 2.5% a year in interest (which is very low given its RPI + 3%) you could be paying for 29 years (pay of £28,000, costing a total of £47,000), if you earn a lot you could pay off your loan in 5 years (pay of £75,000, costing a total of £24,000).

 

[DustyBin]

You almost certainly where encouraged, just not overtly or directly in the school environment. It's as much about things that happen in school as much as it is about putting interesting science/engineering programmes on TV. As an example, Mythbusters did as much or more to promote engineering as anything done in school.

Yes I agree. The problem with this however is that many people won't be aware of the opportunities STEM has to offer as a career, as opposed to just a hobby/interest. If you have a relative who works in a related field it's different, but not everybody does (I didn't).

 

[takno]

It depends on how you apply the graduate tax, only on those who take on the fees (which the wealthy can skip anyway by paying upfront under the current system) or on anyone with a degree obtained at a UK university.

Those who are not wealthy to start with but get a great job can pay less than those who get an OK job and don't ever quite pay it off.

For example you have a loan of £20,000 and pay about 2.5% a year in interest (which is very low given its RPI + 3%) you could be paying for 29 years (pay of £28,000, costing a total of £47,000), if you earn a lot you could pay off your loan in 5 years (pay of £75,000, costing a total of £24,000).

I suspect that a lot of people of Sunak's age are pretty unaware of the way the scheme works now. At that time the loans were much smaller, the interest rate was far lower, and the expectation was that most people would pay it off, but only once you were in a very reasonably-paid job, and in general that the people who never made it into graduate work wouldn't repay it at all.

The key difference was the interest rate, which was generally lower than you could make by putting the money in a savings account, and the fact that the amount was quite quickly written off. It never felt like a millstone around your neck.

 

[Yew]

On the other hand, a pure loan means people are not paying back more than they should (assuming interest rates are reasonable), but has the disadvantage that you still have to pay it back even if you can't afford it.

Do I stop paying income and other taxes on the money I earn above what I otherwise would without a degree, when I have finished paying off my student loan?

 

[The Ham]

Do I stop paying income and other taxes on the money I earn above what I otherwise would without a degree, when I have finished paying off my student loan?

No, but then as someone without a degree and earning a decent salary in an industry where the majority do have a degree (I managed to learn on the job, earning about what I would have with a degree at a comparable point - especially when you consider I wasn't paying back a student loan and had saved up a bit more for the first three years after college rather than eating into savings as I had been working) I would also be paying those taxes.

I'm aware that I'm an outlier, however it does highlight that there will be some who do have well paid jobs without having been to university.

 

[DerekC]

Does A level maths contain a grounding in statistics these days? Because raising the level of understanding of all the numbers that are thrown about by government and others would be very valuable, so that people can take a sceptical approach.

 

[Lost property]

Does A level maths contain a grounding in statistics these days? Because raising the level of understanding of all the numbers that are thrown about by government and others would be very valuable, so that people can take a sceptical approach.

I don't know about "A" levels, but, as somebody who did a Degree later in life as a mature student, I found the stats modules to be both enjoyable and informative, helped by the delivery of two different but engaging lecturers, and one aspect they stressed was...variables.

Stats are much loved by politicians and incompetent UK " management " alike, plus numbers are useful for selling a product or trying to support a media story, but, we were always encouraged to ignore the prominent figure and ask about the difference between "xx % " and 100%.....and why.

" We haven't had a meaningful energy supply policy for donkeys years, and the "regulator" spent years building a bubble based on small unviable energy firms charging less than a reasonable long-term cost for energy. "

Oh yes, the "regulator "....would this be the same regulator who contributed in no small way to an increase in domestic bills by taking a very lackadaisical approach, and ignoring "due diligence ", well who needs this inconvenient accounting principle anyway, as Sunak demonstrated when chucking as much as he could in the direction of some, carefully selected, chums, to start up suppliers ?....another Tory holy grail, well two actually, "private sector and competition " being zealously embraced because, thankfully, the tax payers will always be available when an organisation goes for a can of worms...and by then, those responsible will also have creamed off what they can for themselves

 

[The Ham]

Does A level maths contain a grounding in statistics these days? Because raising the level of understanding of all the numbers that are thrown about by government and others would be very valuable, so that people can take a sceptical approach.

I can assure you that I did 0% of A level maths but understand the difference between a 50% risk of something or a 50% increase in risk of something. With the latter being anything from almost zero to almost 100%.

 

[birchesgreen]

Does A level maths contain a grounding in statistics these days? Because raising the level of understanding of all the numbers that are thrown about by government and others would be very valuable, so that people can take a sceptical approach.

Yes, well the one my college does anyway. Pure, mechanics and statistics. AQA spec.

 

[Typhoon]

Does A level maths contain a grounding in statistics these days? Because raising the level of understanding of all the numbers that are thrown about by government and others would be very valuable, so that people can take a sceptical approach.

Looking at one board (OCR), candidates for A Level are required to take three papers (Pure Maths, Pure Maths & Stats, Pure Maths & Mechanics). Stats is half of the second paper. Interestingly (for me at least) candidates will be given a data set in advance of sitting that paper. Stats includes probability.

The content is on pages 47-57 of the syllabus )https://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/308723-specification-accredited-a-level-gce-mathematics-a-h240.pdf)

It is certainly more than was required when I finished teaching 'A' level Maths over 30 years ago and more than I covered in my degree over 50 years ago (where it was very optional, although Probability on its own was a mandatory course).

However, the degree to which this is any more than a mechanical exercise ('Calculate the standard deviation ....', 'Use an appropriate normal distribution to find an estimate ...', 'Test at the 5% significance...') is debatable. It would really take someone in the field to judge. My gut feel is that it equips candidates to produce stats; whether that is quite so true about questioning stats, I don't know.

 

[nw1]

Looking at one board (OCR), candidates for A Level are required to take three papers (Pure Maths, Pure Maths & Stats, Pure Maths & Mechanics). Stats is half of the second paper. Interestingly (for me at least) candidates will be given a data set in advance of sitting that paper. Stats includes probability.

Sounds broadly similar to what I did, over 30 years ago now admittedly. We had Pure Maths and Applied Maths, 50:50, taught by two different teachers. Pure Maths included a lot of calculus and trigonometry, while Applied Maths was further split into Mechanics and Statistics. I think we must have had two papers, a Pure Maths paper and an Applied Maths paper containing Mechanics and Statistics sections, though I have to confess I can't remember for certain.

I can't remember the exact details of the stats we did, but we covered normal distributions and inter-quartile ranges. I do "think in percentages" though, and generally take more note of percentages than absolute values. For example, doing something to save 1% of your heating bill seems, to me, a futile exercise, even if it's saving a large absolute value.

 

[jfollows]

However, the degree to which this is any more than a mechanical exercise ('Calculate the standard deviation ....', 'Use an appropriate normal distribution to find an estimate ...', 'Test at the 5% significance...') is debatable. It would really take someone in the field to judge. My gut feel is that it equips candidates to produce stats; whether that is quite so true about questioning stats, I don't know.

Exactly so.
My feeling, admittedly as someone for whom mathematics was easy until degree level at least, is that what really needs to be taught is the value of a questioning mind and an understanding of how to find things out for yourself.
For example, newspapers typically have headlines along the lines of "20% of people think X" and then go on to expound on how terrible it is that these people think that way. Yes, but 80% of people don't think X, which could be presented as a very good state of affairs.
So reading through the bald statistics to get real understanding and meaning out of them is what's most important, I think, and understanding normal distributions can be a means to that end but are not an end in themselves.
The best teachers and lessons I had at school were the ones which made me question things and think for myself, in whatever sphere.
Improving the level of understanding of mathematics will be done with a measure which will be like hospital waiting list figures - it's not necessarily the case that the figures track a significant change although they play their part in understanding it.

 

[Gloster]

Going back a bit, I always thought there were two basic reasons for the old non-repayable grant system. Firstly, that increasing the number of educated people in the workforce helps the economy in general. Secondly, it removes the unfairness of having people who would do well in further education, but cannot afford to continue (my partner’s aunt was like this: good enough for university, but unable to able to get a grant; she was later one of the earliest Open University students.)

One other comment about grants versus loans. What about those in my situation: getting three years through a four-year course and then having to abandon due to illness? I had a grant, but someone with loans would have a massive debt which would hang over them for years.

 

[nw1]

Exactly so.
My feeling, admittedly as someone for whom mathematics was easy until degree level at least, is that what really needs to be taught is the value of a questioning mind and an understanding of how to find things out for yourself.
For example, newspapers typically have headlines along the lines of "20% of people think X" and then go on to expound on how terrible it is that these people think that way. Yes, but 80% of people don't think X, which could be presented as a very good state of affairs.

And of course, (and not wishing to derail this thread, but merely proving the point with a well known example) something actively supported by 37% of us is definitely "the will of the people".

Percentages are what count, but media and politicians love to befuddle us with large-sounding absolute values. "ONE HUNDRED MILLION Americans want Trump to return RIGHT NOW!"

 

[SuspectUsual]

Sad to say, but for most kids of sixth form age, their main interaction with statistics is likely to come when they place a bet.