"No student will be asked to pay upfront costs, there will be more financial support for poorer students and those who go on to earn the highest incomes will make the largest contributions after they have graduated."

True, but the idea of having £27,000 of debt in fees alone by the age of 21 probably puts off more students than that claim encourages to apply.

I disagree with those who say that this government seems determined to ruin higher education - I just think they want to stop everyone but the very richest attending. I'm not sure which is worse.

So the DBIS spokesman says "those who go on to earn the highest incomes will make the largest contributions after they have graduated."

A lie. It's been shown that those making the most will pay off their loans sooner and therefore pay less than other lower earners.

Earnings-wise, university is largely a waste of space unless it is Russell group. But it is great fun for those who can afford it.
Seems that both universities and students are getting more choosy

This is no bad thing. Blair was obsessed with sending more and more students to sub-standard universities to study sub-standard courses, when in fact school pupils should be told what options they have and allowed to choose whether to start work or go to university.

A simple matter really - while universities charge the same regardless of quality, students won't want to go to the ones that aren't good value.

That's something Europe does right - you can go to your local university and get a far more equivalent degree.

It's true that a degree in leisure services doesn't have quite the same clout as a degree in physics, but there's a problem if potential students stay away in their droves, there are mass closures of departments of leisure services but when the dust settles we see that the poor are staying away from any degree because they can no longer afford it and the rich and upper middle class have all gravitated straight back upwards to the remaining places in English and history. It'll be right back to the 1950s again.

I'm from a deprived northern city, I have two degrees in physics and I couldn't have done any of it without local education authority support. Which I'm very grateful for. I'm now a qualified member of a profession and I pay a lot more tax as a result of higher earnings.

The conservatives send out conflicting messages. They're quick to point out that education loans will only be repayable after the degree is finished while being equally quick to point out that the feckless and work shy poor should limit their needs and not get into debt over their heads. When they describe a degree as an investment they really only mean it's an investment for their own kind.

Poll of 16- 18-year-olds shows that 47% plan to go straight to work while 12% still uncertain about university education

At £3,000 a year tuition fees, the decision whether or not to apply for university was highly marginal.

At £9,000 a year it's just bloody ridiculous!

Clearly 16 - 18 year olds have much greater wisdom than than the cretinous nincompoops in the ConDem Catastrophe Government.

Insofar as you can make generalisations, it always makes economic sense for women to go to university, regardless of university or course. This is because the job prospects for women without degrees are utterly dire. Good luck to those at school who think that there are lots of jobs worth having for people who only have A levels.

The big jump in university numbers happened under Thatcher and Major, not Blair. It happened because more people stayed on at school because from the mid-to-late 80s, there were relatively few jobs for school leavers and employers preferred graduates. Sound familiar?

Student loans are not a debt in the usual sense as from 2012 nobody will collect until you earn 21k a year. It works like a tax. You pay it back when you can afford it, and if you don't get a good job you never pay it all back. And then after a set period the 'debt' disappears - like no real debt does.

You don't try and put people off working by telling them the huge amoung of NI and income tax they will pay over thirty years - so why concentrate on the maximum liability over thirty years rather than the fact that it is taken out of your wage packet at source at an affordable rate? Unless, of course, you quite like the idea of the debt-averse working class getting back in their box.

@DannyO

This is no bad thing. Blair was obsessed with sending more and more students to sub-standard universities to study sub-standard courses, when in fact school pupils should be told what options they have and allowed to choose whether to start work or go to university.

Er...no, he wasn't.

What he wanted was 50% to participate in higher education or training - not necessarily university.

Can't believe how many times this gets trotted out...

It's not a matter of whether we have to pay upfront - I'm in year 12 now and personally I don't want my education to put me in debt for the entire of my working life. I'd rather go to work and start earning then spend three years building up debts before I'm even 20.

I the undersigned pledge to abolish Tuition fees if we are elected in 2015. I believe in social mobility and that every child is entitled to the best education from whatever social platform they come from. Education for all not just the privilege but for all... Nick Clegg

I borrowed £10k (inclusive of interest) via a professional studies loan to pay the fees for a masters at a Russell group university. It is repayable over 5 years at £170 per month.

I suppose I have first hand experience of the feelings you experience from having a relatively large loan (although only 25 per cent of the likely debt exposure of an undergraduate!) with no expectation of significant salary inflation over the life of the loan. I suspect reaction to debt is a very individual thing - some will feel differently - but it makes me feel reluctant to spend, at times resentful, and regretful of my decision to take time out to study - I often find myself thinking of all the things I could be buying for £170 a month...., and it makes me more fearful of the future than I used to be. I can absolutely understand why many risk averse undergraduates will be reluctant to be saddled with debt stretching over 30 years, especially in the current climate, and with no promise of long term salary inflation to shrink it. The fact that it is not repayable until they find a job will not detract from this generalised and highly off-putting sense of fear and uncertainty.

Some students have seen the light, and are showing some sense!

For a career in law, medicine, accountancy, etc. you will need a degree - and other qualifications too - but the benefits outweigh the costs, and these degree courses are eminently worth doing: you can tell that, as they are always heavily oversubscribed!

For other courses, taking into account the cost of university - fees, food, accommodation, etc -and the loss of perhaps four years earnings, then degree courses fall into two groups: the 'no hopers' - art, history, etc. - where you stand no chance of breaking even (perhaps do it for fun!), and the rest, maths, sciences, engineering, etc where you might, just about break even.

With the latter group, at least some organisations will sponsor you to get a degree: by far the best route. But a word of warning, don't get taken in by the 'shortage of maths, sciences, engineering, etc grads' - this has been said for at least 50 years and simply isn't true. The only shortages in these subjects is a result of poor pay: did you ever hear of a shortage of accountants?!

Good. Let's get some common sense back into recruitment.

So, I wonder what the male-to-female ratio is like of those A-level grads that go to University. And which of your genders is the more subsidized. And if your culture becomes given-over to idolatry of 'credentialism', might you induce a class-divide between the genders?
Seems to be happening in America. Qui bono?

I too have had to pay back professional development loans and I agree with seren123 about what it feels like to see a large chunk of your income disappearing every month. Same is true of credit card debt.

However - the point of the new proposals is that you don't pay anything like this per month unless you are earning a lot. The rate is £7.50 a month per 1k over 21k (ie, you pay £7.50 a month on 22k, £15 a month on 23 k and so on). To pay back £170 a month on a new-style student loan (the old arrangements were much worse) you would need to be earning about 45k a year - your take home pay for this wage would be about 2.5k a month on normal tax/NI.

That is the difference - a commercial loan has to be paid back very quickly, regardless of what you are earning, and the student loan under the new scheme takes an affordable amount based on what you earn.

The greatest cost is adding inflation to the balance each year - an unknown looking forward, but a very definate figure being compounded monthly. You will need to earn £35,000 p.a. just to pay off the interest. Any lower and you are just going backwards. How many new post grads can walk into £35k.

It would be somewhat fairer to limit the debt to the amount originally borrowed at the starting point. Might show the government that there really is a cost to inflation and do something about it.

owever, despite the respondents' concerns, the poll by discount website MyVoucherCodes.co.uk found that students' knowledge of the costs was not very accurate, with 71% admitting they didn't know how much tuition fees cost.

That may well be because nobody knows for sure how much they will cost as the proposed fees haven't been agreed and confirmed for each university yet as far as I'm aware.

Am I missing something here?

Lasst government aimed to get 50% of school leavers into university, it never achived this and I think it got as high as 45%.

This article says that 12% are thinking of going to uni and 41% are planning to go to university, so basedo n these figures it does not look like much will change with regards for demand for places.

Clearly this may change when things become clearer, but I do not see how the results this survey can be interpretted as meaning that students are being detered from going to uni - the numbers just don't add up (note that I personally feel there will be an impact but this survey does not support my view)

@AnActuary

This is A-level students, not all school leavers. You'd expect most of those who continued onto A-levels (very broadly speaking the most academic 50%) to apply to uni.

claudiagrey - I agree, however it does not change what I was saying, the figures show that 41% of A-level students plan to go to uni and 12% are undecided (i.e. expect same level of demand - based on these figures - before and after the introduction of higher fees - note, I do not believe this buit that is what these figures reflect).

If it was all school leavers (not just a-level students) the figures would be saying over 50% of a-level students are planning to go to uni. So either way the figuyres do not reflect the thrust of the article.

Again, I want to make it clear, I am against university fees, was against the original introduction of £3K and I do believe the change will impact upon decisions to go to uni (especially amounst the less well off in society). I am just saying these figures do not back up my view (but it is a small sample)

I wonder where the next generation of self-employed

VETS

will be coming from? Ruritania?

Seems to me that universities and collages should compress their courses and cut the hols.

@kathysclown "No student will be asked to pay upfront costs, there will be more financial support for poorer students and those who go on to earn the highest incomes will make the largest contributions after they have graduated." True, but the idea of having £27,000 of debt in fees alone by the age of 21 probably puts off more students than that claim encourages to apply.

Try £39,000 as you need to include Maintenace Loan. This £39,000 does not include the monthly interest added on the very moment each student take out the loan. Therefore we are looking more likely at £56,000+. There is no guarantee of a job at the end of graduation and thus each and every one of our youngsters have to think very hard as to whether university is for them or not. I think this is a very difficult decision for any 17-18years old to make.

A-level students: go study in Europe, learn a language.. I know I would if I was in your shoes.

@AnActuary

The figures do reflect the thrust of the article. 39% of a-level students planning to go to university represent roughly ~20% of the total cohort for that year, assuming neglible numbers from the portion that don't do a-levels applying.

This is a significant drop from the 40-odd percent of each cohort that currently go to uni, even allowing for the undecided, if you were to extrapolate these figures.

To maintain the same levels *most* a-level students would need to apply.

Am I correct that this system sounds like the one we have in Australia. State can pay the fees up front and then when you earn a certain amount (I think around 40 000 AUD here in Oz) postgraduation you start paying it off?