Wednesday 26th July 2017

[refitman]

Morning all.

[SpinningHugo]

Morning all

Someone was after evidence of this yesterday. Here is this morning's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... sh-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[adam]

Morning all

Someone was after evidence of this yesterday. Here is this morning's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... sh-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll forgive me for not taking Nigel Farage's word for anything.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

So animals get to Remain.

Lucky them!

[SpinningHugo]

Morning all

Someone was after evidence of this yesterday. Here is this morning's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... sh-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll forgive me for not taking Nigel Farage's word for anything.

Neither would I, but that rather misses the point.

[SpinningHugo]

Anyway, however bad we think things in the UK currently are, worth reflecting on the current state of the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... c027db51fb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[tinybgoat]

http://www.newstatesman.com/2017/07/man ... ions-table" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

If as I suspect, staying within the EU is the best deal on offer in 2019, we should not deny voters the possibility of taking it. Jeremy’s past Euroscepticism, his vote against both the Maastricht and Lisbon Treaties, actually makes him the best person to renegotiate a new future for Britain in the EU, not a Brexit deal which will harm the implementation of our manifesto and our vision of a People's Europe.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Anyway, however bad we think things in the UK currently are, worth reflecting on the current state of the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... c027db51fb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed.

But we mustn't be smug - we're heading the same way it seems

[SpinningHugo]

Anyway, however bad we think things in the UK currently are, worth reflecting on the current state of the US

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... c027db51fb" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Agreed.

But we mustn't be smug - we're heading the same way it seems ;-(

In rule of law terms, I really don't think we are, no. Thank God.

[adam]

From yesterday

I didn't assume "dealing with" student debt was a promise to write debts off. Clumsily phrased policy on the hoof, but it was a snap election. Almost everybody agrees a big chunk will have to written off anyway. Doing that and going further shouldn't be that difficult. Somebody is working on it now, I gather.

Part of the design of student loans is that a big chunk will never be repaid. The argument that some give that the present system doesn't work because "£X bn will never be repaid" is to misunderstand this. It was always intended that a huge chunk would never be recovered. It is a generous system (or at least was until the recent interest hike which is punitive),

I think it's much more than that, and it's why talk about writing off or abandoning loans should be taken much more seriously than it is.

I'm happy for somebody to come along and correct my maths here, obviously.

Students are borrowing for fees and living costs and are paying interest from the first day they draw down the loan (original student loans white paper - you will only ever pay 'cost of living' interest and it won't be chargable until the beginning of the financial year after you graduate' - I'm aware that was a long time ago). Estimates on average student debt on graduation are around £45,000

£45,000 x 6.1% interest = £2745 interest a year. So you have to be earning enough to pay £2745 just to stand still. (This is all based on one annual capitalisation of interest at 6.1% compounded year by year, which I think is the present situation. In fact given history you should expect that interest rate to rise over time - I've ignored that).

You only make repayments on 9% of the surplus of your income over £21,000 - it doesn't kick in at £21k on all your earnings. So if you earn £21,000 on the button you repay nothing at all - no interest, no capital.

I work out that 2745 - just the interest - is 9% of £30,500.

So to stand still in year 1- just to repay interest, no capital at all - you need to be earning £51,500.

Average graduate starting salary this year £19,000 to £22,000 (from here). Students on prestigious high-flyer graduate schemes can look to an average of around £29,000 (from here).

About 10% of the UK workforce earn more than £50kpa (from here)

So

Part of the design of student loans is that a big chunk will never be repaid

Big understatement. It's fundamental to the scheme that around 90% of people will never repay anything at all, ever. They might make some interest payments over the years but never enough to keep up. Within ten years almost everybody's student debt will have grown from £45,000 to over £80,000. Over 25 years around 90% of people will never have paid anything back and will owe getting on for £200,000.

This has to be written off somewhere. The government propose ignoring it, pretending that young people are being taught take responsibility for themselves and generally kicking the problem years down the line. Labour are talking about trying to resolve this now rather than then, and almost certainly finding a much much cheaper way to do this in the long term.

[tinybgoat]

https://labourlist.org/2017/07/staying- ... -movement/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
"TUC: Staying in the single market doesn’t mean complete freedom of movement"

[PaulfromYorkshire]

From yesterday

I didn't assume "dealing with" student debt was a promise to write debts off. Clumsily phrased policy on the hoof, but it was a snap election. Almost everybody agrees a big chunk will have to written off anyway. Doing that and going further shouldn't be that difficult. Somebody is working on it now, I gather.

Part of the design of student loans is that a big chunk will never be repaid. The argument that some give that the present system doesn't work because "£X bn will never be repaid" is to misunderstand this. It was always intended that a huge chunk would never be recovered. It is a generous system (or at least was until the recent interest hike which is punitive),

I think it's much more than that, and it's why talk about writing off or abandoning loans should be taken much more seriously than it is.

I'm happy for somebody to come along and correct my maths here, obviously.

Students are borrowing for fees and living costs and are paying interest from the first day they draw down the loan (original student loans white paper - you will only ever pay 'cost of living' interest and it won't be chargable until the beginning of the financial year after you graduate' - I'm aware that was a long time ago). Estimates on average student debt on graduation are around £45,000

£45,000 x 6.1% interest = £2745 interest a year. So you have to be earning enough to pay £2745 just to stand still. (This is all based on one annual capitalisation of interest at 6.1% compounded year by year, which I think is the present situation. In fact given history you should expect that interest rate to rise over time - I've ignored that).

You only make repayments on 9% of the surplus of your income over £21,000 - it doesn't kick in at £21k on all your earnings. So if you earn £21,000 on the button you repay nothing at all - no interest, no capital.

I work out that 2745 - just the interest - is 9% of £30,500.

So to stand still in year 1- just to repay interest, no capital at all - you need to be earning £51,500.

Average graduate starting salary this year £19,000 to £22,000 (from here). Students on prestigious high-flyer graduate schemes can look to an average of around £29,000 (from here).

About 10% of the UK workforce earn more than £50kpa (from here)

So

Part of the design of student loans is that a big chunk will never be repaid

Big understatement. It's fundamental to the scheme that around 90% of people will never repay anything at all, ever. They might make some interest payments over the years but never enough to keep up. Within ten years almost everybody's student debt will have grown from £45,000 to over £80,000. Over 25 years around 90% of people will never have paid anything back and will owe getting on for £200,000.

This has to be written off somewhere. The government propose ignoring it, pretending that young people are being taught take responsibility for themselves and generally kicking the problem years down the line. Labour are talking about trying to resolve this now rather than then, and almost certainly finding a much much cheaper way to do this in the long term.

There is certainly an opportunity for a very sensible policy on this in the next Labour manifesto!

[adam]

Morning all

Someone was after evidence of this yesterday. Here is this morning's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... sh-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

You'll forgive me for not taking Nigel Farage's word for anything.

Neither would I, but that rather misses the point.

It really doesn't. Farage is full of self-serving spiteful shit and even the stopped clock argument doesn't work with him. If he tells me that Corbyn is now pursuing his kind of politics I will feel that Corbyn is doing much better than I had thought on the EU. If he told me a flood was coming I'd go and water the garden.

[adam]

Supreme Court due to rule on legality or otherwise of Tribunal fees at around 9.45am.

[SpinningHugo]

Adam,

Why would it be 'cheaper'? For whom? Clearly for the (lucky few) whose fees are paid for them, who come on average from richer families and will go on to be richer than those who don't go to University. Not cheaper for everyone else who pays for them.

There are three principled problems with Labour's proposals to spend £12bn paying student fees out of general taxation

1. It is distributively unfair. You are giving a public good, three years of higher education, to a select group. It is not like secondary education, which is universal. You are making this distribution not on the basis of need (unlike say healthcare). That isn't fair.

2. (and this is a separate point) It is regressive. The people who are benefiting are the children of the wealthy who will themselves go on to be wealthy. This enormous sum was one of the reasons why Labour's manifesto was in distributional terms no more progressive than the Tory's proposals (see the IFS).

3. The opportunity cost. £12bn per annum is shed loads of money. Many multiples of what Labour was proposing to spend on the poorest.

The current system is fair. It basically works out as a 9% higher tax rate on earnings over £21k that is payable for 30 years. It is better than a graduate tax because it is capable of collection against those who leave the UK and is driving up higher education standards as students demand more for what they have paid for. Yes much of it will never be recovered. That isn't "ignored". It is factored into public finances. The current system is generous (save as I said for the recent interest hike, which is too high.)

There is no free lunch here. Someone is going to pay, the question is who is it fair pays? The beneficiaries, or people who are not the beneficiaries?

Oh, and to add.

IF there were evidence of the poor being deterred from going to University, this might be an argument for at least a reduction in fees.

We have two strong lines of evidence here.

First, we can compare applications pre and post the introduction and increase in fees and look at the data to see if there has been any deterrence effect.

Second we can compare England and Wales with Scotland, as close a comparator as we'll ever get, where there are no fees.

There is no evidence of any such deterrence impact, quite the opposite. That doesn't fit with most people's understanding.

The most we've seen is over the last two years a small increase in the drop out rate.

[adam]

Adam,

Why would it be 'cheaper'? For whom? Clearly for the (lucky few) whose fees are paid for them, who come on average from richer families and will go on to be richer than those who don't go to University. Not cheaper for everyone else who pays for them.

There are three principle problems with Labour's proposals to spend £12bn paying student fees out of general taxation

1. It is distributively unfair. You are giving a public good, three years of higher education, to a select group. It is not like secondary education, which is universal. You are making this distribution not on the basis of need (unlike say healthcare). That isn't fair.

2. (and this is a separate point) It is regressive. The people who are benefiting are the children of the wealthy who will themselves go on to be wealthy. This enormous sum was one of the reasons why Labour's manifesto was in distributional terms no more progressive than the Tory's proposals (see the IFS).

3. The opportunity cost. £12bn per annum is shed loads of money. Many multiples of what Labour was proposing to spend on the poorest.

The current system is fair. It basically works out as a 9% higher tax rate on earnings over £21k that is payable for 30 years. It is better than a graduate tax because it is capable of collection against those who leave the UK and is driving up higher education standards as students demand more for what they have paid for. Yes much of it will never be recovered. That isn't "ignored". It is factored into public finances. The current system is generous (save as I said for the recent interest hike, which is too high.)

There is no free lunch here. Someone is going to pay, the question is who is it fair pays? The beneficiaries, or people who are not the beneficiaries?

I am making an assumption about the costs of administration and so on, I know, but I said that on the basis that it would be cheaper, firstly, to not pay to administer a loan system that is actually a grant system and just pay out grants and, secondly, to meet the overall costs of these grants (because grants is what they are in 9 out of 10 cases whatever they might be called) by meeting them from the public finances at the borrowing rates available to the government rather than the government paying the commercial interest rate compounded for 30 years (which is what the current system does.).

I'm aware that there is a current climate that says that government borrowing is always a sin (and I'm not suggesting you say that) but are you really suggesting that the cost of government funding at the rates they have to pay would not be cheaper than the government paying the commercial interest rate on all of the interest, as well as paying all of the capital, on 90% of the total over time?

You deal with the distributional issues by raising tax rates on higher earners, not on effectively earmarking taxes. This doesn't work out as a 9% tax because 9/10 people will never ever pay it. It's a fraud on the taxpayer.

Writing off existing student debt is a very different issue and I suspect is more complicated than I can imagine. Nobody every suggested, when they cut prescription charges, that the scottish government would reimburse people who had been paying them for all of those years. But going forward the current system is a fraud and you are going to have to work to convince me that it isn't also an unnecessarily expensive fraud.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Adam,

Why would it be 'cheaper'? For whom? Clearly for the (lucky few) whose fees are paid for them, who come on average from richer families and will go on to be richer than those who don't go to University. Not cheaper for everyone else who pays for them.

There are three principled problems with Labour's proposals to spend £12bn paying student fees out of general taxation

1. It is distributively unfair. You are giving a public good, three years of higher education, to a select group. It is not like secondary education, which is universal. You are making this distribution not on the basis of need (unlike say healthcare). That isn't fair.

2. (and this is a separate point) It is regressive. The people who are benefiting are the children of the wealthy who will themselves go on to be wealthy. This enormous sum was one of the reasons why Labour's manifesto was in distributional terms no more progressive than the Tory's proposals (see the IFS).

3. The opportunity cost. £12bn per annum is shed loads of money. Many multiples of what Labour was proposing to spend on the poorest.

The current system is fair. It basically works out as a 9% higher tax rate on earnings over £21k that is payable for 30 years. It is better than a graduate tax because it is capable of collection against those who leave the UK and is driving up higher education standards as students demand more for what they have paid for. Yes much of it will never be recovered. That isn't "ignored". It is factored into public finances. The current system is generous (save as I said for the recent interest hike, which is too high.)

There is no free lunch here. Someone is going to pay, the question is who is it fair pays? The beneficiaries, or people who are not the beneficiaries?

This is an interesting topic and one I'm highly invested in. It's certainly complex.

I have a lot of sympathy with your analysis Hugo, but there are some flaws.

Firstly, in a philosophical sense, HE benefits more than the individual. If the education is of high quality, it should benefit the whole of society to have better thinkers, better problem solvers, more aware citizens. We are a long way from this. Assuming that not everyone does go into HE, then some well off kids are going to have to skip it to make way for the less advantaged. There will be pushback against such a change of course.

Secondly, the high fees are wrecking our Universities. Students understandable start to see their education as a purchase, and a pretty expensive one. They divide £9000 by the number of hours teaching they have and feel they have paid £30 for that tutorial or whatever. This really is a problem, because hE shouldn't be like that.

I could go on....

[adam]

Oh, and to add.

IF there were evidence of the poor being deterred from going to University, this might be an argument for at least a reduction in fees.

We have two strong lines of evidence here.

First, we can compare applications pre and post the introduction and increase in fees and look at the data to see if there has been any deterrence effect.

Second we can compare England and Wales with Scotland, as close a comparator as we'll ever get, where there are no fees.

There is no evidence of any such deterrence impact, quite the opposite. That doesn't fit with most people's understanding.

The most we've seen is over the last two years a small increase in the drop out rate.

Okay, anecdote ahoy, I quite accept this, but we (big inner city 11-18 comp, significantly above average fsm/pupil premium, hugely multi-ethnic (local community football team 'The United Nations of Heath Town')) have seen a significant drop in the number of students wanting to go to university, almost all of whom cite the long term costs to them - from around 80% of Y13 students to around 45-50%. I would add that there has been a significant rise in students going into apprenticeships alongside that, although virtually none of them are higher than level 3 apprenticeships and lots are level 2 - in other words they are leaving the sixth form to go to another sixth form level training regime at best, and a lot are going back to gcse level. (Edited to add - real numbers - about 80 kids in Y13 so a drop from 80% to 50% is a drop of about 24 out of 80 kids)

I think there are a number of mitigating factors that have kept HE student numbers high. The first is that schools and colleges, in dealing with sixth form progression, have always been hugely and overwhelmingly biased towards moving students into HE and the changing fees and loans regime has never had any effect upon us in that regard at all. At the same time individual universities had the cap lifted on student numbers on their courses. In addition to that this has happened alongside a significant economic downturn where 16-17 year old students see the reality of the job market and want to defer trying to enter it.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

@Adam @Hugo

The "free lunch" thing.

This perhaps isn't valid. We agree education is a public good. HE will probably pay back overall though a better educated society who are better able t provide for themselves and generate wealth.

So the argument really comes down, it seems, to whether those who don't participate in HE benefit enough from the economic and social activities of those who do to merit them being taxed for it.

I'd welcome this discussion in fact, because it makes us focus less on the mechanics of fees, classes, teaching methods and more on the impact of the education, which is less well researched I think.

[SpinningHugo]

Firstly, in a philosophical sense, HE benefits more than the individual. If the education is of high quality, it should benefit the whole of society to have better thinkers, better problem solvers, more aware citizens. We are a long way from this. Assuming that not everyone does go into HE, then some well off kids are going to have to skip it to make way for the less advantaged. There will be pushback against such a change of course.

Secondly, the high fees are wrecking our Universities. Students understandable start to see their education as a purchase, and a pretty expensive one. They divide £9000 by the number of hours teaching they have and feel they have paid £30 for that tutorial or whatever. This really is a problem, because hE shouldn't be like that.
..

I don't agree with either.

The first is just "trickle down" theory. "If we give this to the rich, the benefits will trickle down to the rest of us."

People on the left should not be endorsing that.

The second is untrue. It is a very good thing indeed that students feel they've paid £x for a tutorial. it means

(i) attendance rates improve

(ii) they complain when what they get is shit

HE should emphatically be like that. It should not be three years of dicking about paid for by other people. Standards are improving as a result.

Yes, this does lead to grade inflation, as Universities respond in the wrong way to that pressure, and that needs stamping on. But if you feel you're paying for something that increases your commitment.

[StephenDolan]

Morning all.

A late thanks to AK for another excellent round-up.

[adam]

The second is untrue. It is a very good thing indeed that students feel they've paid £x for a tutorial. it means

(i) attendance rates improve

(ii) they complain when what they get is shit

HE should emphatically be like that. It should not be three years of dicking about paid for by other people. Standards are improving as a result.

Yes, this does lead to grade inflation, as Universities respond in the wrong way to that pressure, and that needs stamping on. But if you feel you're paying for something that increases your commitment.

They're not paying anything for a tutorial. Nothing, they never well in 9/10 cases.

I accept that could be arguable - the idea that people will only really value the things they can see themselves paying for is a pretty hateful argument and undoes almost everything good about society - but only if people will actually be paying. When the amount of money loaned and the interest rates are as high as they are 90% will never pay anything. They are not paying for it. We all are, and it's costing us a lot more than it would if we didn't 'charge' them individually to start with.

[SpinningHugo]

The second is untrue. It is a very good thing indeed that students feel they've paid £x for a tutorial. it means

(i) attendance rates improve

(ii) they complain when what they get is shit

HE should emphatically be like that. It should not be three years of dicking about paid for by other people. Standards are improving as a result.

Yes, this does lead to grade inflation, as Universities respond in the wrong way to that pressure, and that needs stamping on. But if you feel you're paying for something that increases your commitment.

They're not paying anything for a tutorial. Nothing, they never well in 9/10 cases.

editing....

I don't know where you're getting this from, but the vast majority will earn salaries putting them into the repayment brackets

http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk/p ... dad=portal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[adam]

The second is untrue. It is a very good thing indeed that students feel they've paid £x for a tutorial. it means

(i) attendance rates improve

(ii) they complain when what they get is shit

HE should emphatically be like that. It should not be three years of dicking about paid for by other people. Standards are improving as a result.

Yes, this does lead to grade inflation, as Universities respond in the wrong way to that pressure, and that needs stamping on. But if you feel you're paying for something that increases your commitment.

They're not paying anything for a tutorial. Nothing, they never well in 9/10 cases.

editing....

I don't know where you're getting this from, but the vast majority will earn salaries putting them into the repayment brackets

http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk/p ... dad=portal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

1. Those are the old rates, the new repayment rate is 6.1% over £21,000
2. Look through my numbers in the longer post above that started this discussion today - I could be wrong and I'm more than happy to be challenged on detail but I think my numbers are right.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Firstly, in a philosophical sense, HE benefits more than the individual. If the education is of high quality, it should benefit the whole of society to have better thinkers, better problem solvers, more aware citizens. We are a long way from this. Assuming that not everyone does go into HE, then some well off kids are going to have to skip it to make way for the less advantaged. There will be pushback against such a change of course.

Secondly, the high fees are wrecking our Universities. Students understandable start to see their education as a purchase, and a pretty expensive one. They divide £9000 by the number of hours teaching they have and feel they have paid £30 for that tutorial or whatever. This really is a problem, because hE shouldn't be like that.
..

I don't agree with either.

The first is just "trickle down" theory. "If we give this to the rich, the benefits will trickle down to the rest of us."

People on the left should not be endorsing that.

The second is untrue. It is a very good thing indeed that students feel they've paid £x for a tutorial. it means

(i) attendance rates improve

(ii) they complain when what they get is shit

HE should emphatically be like that. It should not be three years of dicking about paid for by other people. Standards are improving as a result.

Yes, this does lead to grade inflation, as Universities respond in the wrong way to that pressure, and that needs stamping on. But if you feel you're paying for something that increases your commitment.

I don't think it's fair to lump education into the "trickle down" thing, which is usually associated with capital in a cash sense.

There's a great paper by McCulloch where he talks about the positive aspects of a "student as consumer" mindset and that the appeal to consumer rights led to some really positive changes in universities back in the last century. But he and others have shown that this metaphor is truly limiting in terms of what HE should be.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1 ... 0802562857" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[adam]

I don't know where you're getting this from, but the vast majority will earn salaries putting them into the repayment brackets

http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk/p ... dad=portal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Even on your linked to example

Gross income 30,000pa. Payments made £91pcm = £1092pa.

At 6.1% that would service the annual interest only - no capital repayment - on debt of around £17,000 - significantly less than the interest charged on just the fees element of student loans.

I don't dispute that lots of people will make payments over the years, but 90% of people will never do anything more than pay some of the interest due.

[tinybgoat]

The second is untrue. It is a very good thing indeed that students feel they've paid £x for a tutorial. it means

(i) attendance rates improve

(ii) they complain when what they get is shit

HE should emphatically be like that. It should not be three years of dicking about paid for by other people. Standards are improving as a result.

Yes, this does lead to grade inflation, as Universities respond in the wrong way to that pressure, and that needs stamping on. But if you feel you're paying for something that increases your commitment.

They're not paying anything for a tutorial. Nothing, they never well in 9/10 cases.

editing....

I don't know where you're getting this from, but the vast majority will earn salaries putting them into the repayment brackets

http://www.studentloanrepayment.co.uk/p ... dad=portal" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Yes, but the amount most of them pay back doesn't vary with course cost, so there's little incentive to complain about course quality on a cost basis.
This also leads to a big failing in the system, there's no incentive for universities to compete by offering lower tuition fees, if anything it's the opposite, anyone not offering the maximum fees risks appearing to offer an inferior course.
edit: inferior not interior.

[RogerOThornhill]

Morning all.

Economy is doing so well...oh...

https://twitter.com/ONS/status/890127223776215041

ONS‏Verified account
@ONS
Follow
More
0.3% growth in #GDP in Q2 2017

Where on earth did the IMF get their 1.7% for this year from? First 2 quarters amounts to 0.5%.

[adam]

Yes, but the amount most of them pay back doesn't vary with course cost, so there's little incentive to complain about course quality on a cost basis.
This also leads to a big failing in the system, there's no incentive for universities to compete by offering lower tuition fees, if anything it's the opposite, anyone not offering the maximum fees risks appearing to offer an interior course.

The original claim was that with a range of fees from £3000 to £9000 students would have a wider informed choice. In fact the initial average was £8345 and it has risen since then. There is a good guardian article about why this was always going to happen here.

[PorFavor]

Morning all.

Economy is doing so well...oh...

https://twitter.com/ONS/status/890127223776215041

ONS‏Verified account
@ONS
Follow
More
0.3% growth in #GDP in Q2 2017

Where on earth did the IMF get their 1.7% for this year from? First 2 quarters amounts to 0.5%.

Unexpectedly, it wasn't unexpected, apparently. Which goes back to your IMF question.

[PorFavor]

Good morfternoon.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Yes, but the amount most of them pay back doesn't vary with course cost, so there's little incentive to complain about course quality on a cost basis.
This also leads to a big failing in the system, there's no incentive for universities to compete by offering lower tuition fees, if anything it's the opposite, anyone not offering the maximum fees risks appearing to offer an interior course.

The original claim was that with a range of fees from £3000 to £9000 students would have a wider informed choice. In fact the initial average was £8345 and it has risen since then. There is a good guardian article about why this was always going to happen here.

@Both Indeed!

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Supreme Court due to rule on legality or otherwise of Tribunal fees at around 9.45am.

UNISON won

[RogerOThornhill]

In other news...

Jack Blanchard‏Verified account @Jack_Blanchard_ 12m12 minutes ago
More
Woah. Supreme Court unanimously rules the Government's sky-high employment tribunal fees are illegal. Big win for @unisontweets

Excellent.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

@RoT Snap!

[SpinningHugo]

Yes, but the amount most of them pay back doesn't vary with course cost, so there's little incentive to complain about course quality on a cost basis.
This also leads to a big failing in the system, there's no incentive for universities to compete by offering lower tuition fees, if anything it's the opposite, anyone not offering the maximum fees risks appearing to offer an interior course.

The original claim was that with a range of fees from £3000 to £9000 students would have a wider informed choice. In fact the initial average was £8345 and it has risen since then. There is a good guardian article about why this was always going to happen here.

I supported the Browne proposals. Neither Labour nor the Tories ever did.

Why is Labour promising this middle class sop, when all the information we have tells us that resources into pre-school education would be far, far more effective?

Toddlers don't vote.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

I liked Jessica Elgot during the GE and she certainly seems like a good sort today

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Yes, but the amount most of them pay back doesn't vary with course cost, so there's little incentive to complain about course quality on a cost basis.
This also leads to a big failing in the system, there's no incentive for universities to compete by offering lower tuition fees, if anything it's the opposite, anyone not offering the maximum fees risks appearing to offer an interior course.

The original claim was that with a range of fees from £3000 to £9000 students would have a wider informed choice. In fact the initial average was £8345 and it has risen since then. There is a good guardian article about why this was always going to happen here.

I supported the Browne proposals. Neither Labour nor the Tories ever did.

Why is Labour promising this middle class sop, when all the information we have tells us that resources into pre-school education would be far, far more effective?

Toddlers don't vote.

Interesting debate slides into anti-Corbyn bollocks. Nearly everywhere else in the EU has lower fees than us, but they seem to get on quite well. How so?

[HindleA]

https://www.unison.org.uk/news/2017/07/ ... n-workers/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.unison.org.uk/news/press-re ... yone-work/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


https://www.supremecourt.uk/news/latest-judgments.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[howsillyofme1]

Morning

Despise the transactional nature of treating something as important as higher education - we need all the education we can

I would also extend from universities to allowing access to FE for those who do not go to university at 18

I could accept a contribution from students but not 9000 a year which is obnoxious

As to anecdote, although not extrapolatable they do provide individual fata points that may end up showing reality

My own point -I know Adams school and I know yeachers, parents, kids and parents at 4 of its local neighbours too....my anecdote would be of the same fashion

It seems we have enough money to spend on useless nuclear weapons and subsidising Royalty

[gilsey]

I try to avoid joining any discussion that includes SH, but I'll have my tuppence worth on student loans.

IMO the system is profoundly dishonest for the reasons adam has given. The govt has created a massive income stream of 9% of earnings from, say, 10-20% of the working population for 30 years. As time goes on if the tories stay in, more and more of that income will be siphoned off by the private sector rather than returning to the treasury. They can't touch the capital repayments so they're making sure that those are minimised.

Labour are proposing to pay for it by a tax on higher earners, a high and increasing proportion of whom have degrees. The few who don't should be intelligent enough to realise that they benefit from the expensively educated professionals they're surrounded by.

However the tax is raised, paying for university education out of current taxation is considerably more transparent than creating private debt.

[HindleA]

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... al-problem" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


Young people can’t get the kind of help I did when I was homeless’

[Temulkar]

Morning all

Someone was after evidence of this yesterday. Here is this morning's

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/07 ... sh-people/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I said last night: a clear agenda.

[SpinningHugo]

Another triumph for Grayling, These were his fees.

The court primarily decide the case at common law, not under the ECHR or under EU law. It is thereby insulated against Brexit and and repeal of the HRA.

[Willow904]

@adam

Thanks for taking the time to work out the numbers on student loans. Excellent post.

I'm trying to remember how the grant system worked. All fees were paid for everyone? Maintenance grants only for the poorest?
So poorer HE students were helped more than wealthier ones.

So, yeah, OK, those who didn't go into HE got nothing, but they did benefit from 3 years of earning money, possibly a head start paying into a pension, maybe a decent apprenticeship scheme in something useful like engineering at the complete expense of their employer, that sort of thing. Often a very long way from the poor put upon stereotypical non-graduate being fleeced through taxes to pay for the education of the better off. If you tax the better off appropriately, the better off end up paying for things like HE anyway, not the school leaver on minimum wage, who is generally not a net contributor to the system, especially if you have a decent social security safety net to support those on lower wages when they need extra support between jobs etc.

Thus the argument about the poor paying for the wealthy is very weak. The arguments over the ultimate cost to the taxpayer, however, is extremely pertinent and adam's sums illustrate how much we are potentially being ripped off.

[Willow904]

Just in case anyone doubts adam's calculation on the percentage that could potentially never be repaid. From 2013:

http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/card ... loans.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

'My £39,000 debt will never get repaid': Debt time-bomb for taxpayers as 85% of students will never pay off loans

[SpinningHugo]

Nearly everywhere else in the EU has lower fees than us, but they seem to get on quite well. How so?

They don't. Most continental universities are complete crap compared to the UK.

Don't believe me, go do a first year of study in a French University. (Not an exchange: what they are expected to do in their first year.)

One way French (and Dutch and other) Universities sustain themselves is by admitting huge numbers of students who cannot cope with degree programmes, packing them into huge lecture halls, and then failing them after the first year. These suckers then re-apply (and pay) over and over.

Outside of a few elite places, the standard is unbelievably bad.

The reason we do so well in international league tables, and why so many students want to study here generating huge amounts of revenue, is that our Universities are, in fact, better.

If you try to fund Universities out of general taxation it is clear what will happen.

First, funding will be squeezed, as it was before the introduction of fees. Universities are a low priority compared to, say, the NHS.

Second, and as a result, Universities will do what they threatened to do. Go private. Look at the LSE, it is essentially already mainly a private university for foreign students because that is the only way it is financially viable as the fees are too low.

Ok, you say, pass legislation preventing Oxford, Cambridge, LSE etc from going private.

What that will do is that the good academics will leave, and go to work for new private institutions that can pay properly (or go abroad).

I am afraid I don't trust any government to fund Universities properly out of general taxation. Which is why Blair brought in fees in the first place.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

@adam

Thanks for taking the time to work out the numbers on student loans. Excellent post.

I'm trying to remember how the grant system worked. All fees were paid for everyone? Maintenance grants only for the poorest?
So poorer HE students were helped more than wealthier ones.

So, yeah, OK, those who didn't go into HE got nothing, but they did benefit from 3 years of earning money, possibly a head start paying into a pension, maybe a decent apprenticeship scheme in something useful like engineering at the complete expense of their employer, that sort of thing. Often a very long way from the poor put upon stereotypical non-graduate being fleeced through taxes to pay for the education of the better off. If you tax the better off appropriately, the better off end up paying for things like HE anyway, not the school leaver on minimum wage, who is generally not a net contributor to the system, especially if you have a decent social security safety net to support those on lower wages when they need extra support between jobs etc.

Thus the argument about the poor paying for the wealthy is very weak. The arguments over the ultimate cost to the taxpayer, however, is extremely pertinent and adam's sums illustrate how much we are potentially being ripped off.

Fees used to be paid by your Local Education Authority (LEA). When I started Uni in 1983 I think I got a full maintenance grant of £1600 a year, which paid for my accommodation (inc. full board) and left me a fiver a week for beer. Means testing gained teeth during the next few years and my mother returned to full time employment, so by the end I didn't get much grant. In those days you could sign on in the summer too!

As far as universities are concerned, what's really changed is the end of the block grant. They used to get a lump sum from central government for research and teaching every year. Now all their income comes from fees, research grants and earned income.

[PaulfromYorkshire]

Nearly everywhere else in the EU has lower fees than us, but they seem to get on quite well. How so?

They don't. Most continental universities are complete crap compared to the UK.

Don't believe me, go do a first year of study in a French University. (Not an exchange: what they are expected to do in their first year.)

One way French (and Dutch and other) Universities sustain themselves is by admitting huge numbers of students who cannot cope with degree programmes, packing them into huge lecture halls, and then failing them after the first year. These suckers then re-apply (and pay) over and over.

Outside of a few elite places, the standard is unbelievably bad.

The reason we do so well in international league tables, and why so many students want to study here generating huge amounts of revenue, is that our Universities are, in fact, better.

If you try to fund Universities out of general taxation it is clear what will happen.

First, funding will be squeezed, as it was before the introduction of fees. Universities are a low priority compared to, say, the NHS.

Second, and as a result, Universities will do what they threatened to do. Go private. Look at the LSE, it is essentially already mainly a private university for foreign students because that is the only way it is financially viable as the fees are too low.

Ok, you say, pass legislation preventing Oxford, Cambridge, LSE etc from going private.

What that will do is that the good academics will leave, and go to work for new private institutions that can pay properly (or go abroad).

I am afraid I don't trust any government to fund Universities properly out of general taxation. Which is why Blair brought in fees in the first place.

Those Universities were better under the previous regime too weren't they?

I note you omit Scandinavia and Switzerland from your analysis.

The problem IMHO with the French system is that the government wants control of the academic side as well as the finances. The quasi-autonomous nature of our institutions is a great asset and it is under threat! In France, the minister essentially appoints the professors. Can you imagine if Gove had that job?

[SpinningHugo]

Nearly everywhere else in the EU has lower fees than us, but they seem to get on quite well. How so?

They don't. Most continental universities are complete crap compared to the UK.

Don't believe me, go do a first year of study in a French University. (Not an exchange: what they are expected to do in their first year.)

One way French (and Dutch and other) Universities sustain themselves is by admitting huge numbers of students who cannot cope with degree programmes, packing them into huge lecture halls, and then failing them after the first year. These suckers then re-apply (and pay) over and over.

Outside of a few elite places, the standard is unbelievably bad.

The reason we do so well in international league tables, and why so many students want to study here generating huge amounts of revenue, is that our Universities are, in fact, better.

If you try to fund Universities out of general taxation it is clear what will happen.

First, funding will be squeezed, as it was before the introduction of fees. Universities are a low priority compared to, say, the NHS.

Second, and as a result, Universities will do what they threatened to do. Go private. Look at the LSE, it is essentially already mainly a private university for foreign students because that is the only way it is financially viable as the fees are too low.

Ok, you say, pass legislation preventing Oxford, Cambridge, LSE etc from going private.

What that will do is that the good academics will leave, and go to work for new private institutions that can pay properly (or go abroad).

I am afraid I don't trust any government to fund Universities properly out of general taxation. Which is why Blair brought in fees in the first place.

Those Universities were better under the previous regime too weren't they?

I note you omit Scandinavia and Switzerland from your analysis.

The problem IMHO with the French system is that the government wants control of the academic side as well as the finances. The quasi-autonomous nature of our institutions is a great asset and it is under threat! In France, the minister essentially appoints the professors. Can you imagine if Gove had that job?

How do the Scandanavians and Swiss do in the international league tables?