The real problem with the Browne review
is not the money per se, it's the attack on education in general.

And also however much you explain that there will be tiered payment back, you are inevitably going to put off the some of the best from the state school system off applying to the best universities. People think short-term. Better to live at home and go to the local university and save money, than go somewhere different that's better suited to you. Or not go at all.

£60,000 is an awful lot of money to most people, and though there are actually some decent arguments FOR introducing higher tutition fees, the main problem is you're destroying all the work that access schemes etc have been trying to do over the last few years
( Amberl was stripey and dominated Europe, Thu 11 Nov 2010, 23:26, 2 replies)

Also, people who are genuinely intelligent and motivated don't need to be validated by glorified private schools.

( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 0:49, closed)

Yeah - try putting that on a CV and seeing how well it makes up for the big, empty spaces in the section marked 'education'.
( Happy Phantom has been to Hastings, Brighton, and Eastbourne too, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 18:30, closed)

Try putting a degree on your CV instead of (up to) six years' relevant work experience.
Trust me, it's no substitute.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sat 13 Nov 2010, 16:49, closed)

Bollocks.
For many jobs you won't get past the first round of job agency monkeys because your CV doesn't fit the employers' minimum requirement that the applicant is degree qualified. The 'recrutment consultant' doesn't give a fuck if you're experienced, computer says no. They'll probably have plenty of applicants with a degree AND experience anyway in which case you're fucked.

On a similar note, there's a couple of guys I work with who have 15+ years experience in our industry but no degree. I have a couple of years of relevant experience and a BSc. Myself and the other younger guys with degrees are getting paid more than the guys with much more experience than us for the same job. Its unfair and wrong IMO, but that's company policy. When we recruit now, you only get in with a degree as a minimum.

Older guys with experience will have worked their way up into management (like my immediate team leader) over the last 20-odd years and obviously experience is everything once you've had a couple of jobs.

However, now you need a degree to get in at ground level, what chance does someone in their teens or early twenties have to prove themselves without a degree? Slim to none in many industries, when universities are churning out graduates by the thousand.
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 21:59, closed)

White-collar agencies weren't interested in whether or not I had a degree, the fact was I had almost no experience and so I couldn't even register with them.
And when it came to industrial work, the 4-5 year gap in my work history counted very much against me. You can argue to the contrary as much as you like, but that's what happened.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Sun 14 Nov 2010, 23:15, closed)

So how is a kid straight out of school with no experience any better?
They're not. Or are you seriously telling me that industrial employers will take on a 16 year old with GCSEs and no experience over a 21 year old with a degree and no experience for a technical position?

Everyone suffers the 'no experience' problem when they enter work, but having a relevant degree can hold the doors open to get that when that's all employers have to go on.

All the jobs I've ever had have had or been interviewed for have a minimum BSc. requirement, whether it was really needed or not. That situation is increasingly common for many positions where 20 years ago you'd get in with A-levels.
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Mon 15 Nov 2010, 7:09, closed)

Technical positions just didn't exist for the most part, I was going for actual obtainable jobs that would pay the bills.
And in those situations, an over-educated 22 year old with nearly no experience is usually on a par with an untried school-leaver with absolutely no experience.

Even when technical positions did exist, graduate-employers couldn't have been less interested if they'd tried. I asked for feedback every time and never once got an acknowledgment, so I've still no idea what I was doing wrong.
( The Mock TurtIe ™ --- Thinks you are a cunt, on, Tue 16 Nov 2010, 0:36, closed)

"£60,000 pounds is a lot of money to most people"
I agree it's a shitload of cash! what I disagree with is the idea that having £60,000 pounds-worth of "soft debt" as someone already put it should be a disincentive from studying. Incurring this debt has no negative consequences (please someone point some out if I'm wrong), and gives you the chance to dramatically improve your lot in life. You can't lose!

Of course, as has been pointed out, you might be better off not going to university. Having a degree by no means guarantees a better-paying job. Last time I checked, that's life, nothing's guaranteed. What the government are doing is making sure the choice to go to university is still risk-free for the individual without bankrupting the rest of the country in order to pay for it.

It's like a casino where you get to put down 60 grand of someone else's money on red or black. If you win big you get hundreds of thousands of pounds over the course of a lifetime, if you lose, "oh well, pay it off when you can."
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 9:05, closed)

Is your attitude to debt
the same as everyone elses?

I'm not sure that when I started uni, if fees had been more than nominal, that someone wibbling about student loans only being "soft debt" would have sounded convincing.
(haberman is singing in the changes, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 14:17, closed)

I guess that's what I'm asking
Everyone would agree that being in debt is bad. What I'm asking is a debt that you don't have to pay back a debt at all?
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 22:20, closed)

Incurring this debt
means that the vast majority who will earn over £21,000 will pay an extra 9% tax on that proportion of their income for the next 30-odd years of their working lives. They won't pay it off early, I incurred £7,000 of loans and I haven't paid it all off 9 years later.

Its effectively a tax on the children of the middle classes as the rich kids will pay up front, the poor kids won't pay at all.

Why is it fair that two people with the same degree doing the same job for the same wage will get taxed at different rates purely because their parents salaries were different when they were 18? Both have gone to uni and used the same resources, why does one pay more?
(The man with the flan swashed his buckle on, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 17:50, closed)

Good point.
That warrants some more thought. Thank you!
( pixel_fucker is going to need a bigger brush, Fri 12 Nov 2010, 19:33, closed)