Comments on: Why shouldn’t medics and engineers pay higher fees?

By: peteW

peteW — Sun, 27 Dec 2009 15:13:33 +0000

there is this often repeated myth that engineers are high earners. hopefully the engineers of the future who read this wont be disappointed. but from my experience, i did an engineering degree in the 80s. of the 30 or so students i was with, 25 or so made it to the finals, and about 3 became engineers despite the other often repeated myth that this country needs more engineers. those who became engineers didn't earn much more than they would have for not getting a degree. i'm one of the few who 25 years on has stuck with it as a career. i took four years off working in the finance sector and made enough to dent the mortgage, but am now working on less than half that as an engineer again – at £20/hr. it is a good job, rewarding in other ways and employment is fairly consistent, but the money is not what you may think and in the uk never will be.

By: bernard

bernard — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:48:52 +0000

sorry didn;t mean to post twice – didn't seem to appear first time – should be patient

By: bernard

bernard — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:45:37 +0000

not a bad return ? not a good return either when you consider its over a career and doesn't factor in that the pounds earned in the future are worth less than those now ( net present value) – whereas the debt is now.
and £100k is a far cry from the £400k Blair promised in 2004.
remove lawyers+doctors+accountants and I doubt there's any financial advantage at all.

certainly the graduate on £17k has not much financial advantage yet you'd make him/her pay ! and he may well have a good degree and be doig a worthwhile job – you seem to think only of a good job as being a well paid job !
yes I'm sure many taxpayers realise they "benefit from" the UK having a well trained workforce and will be happy to pay for it – especially those who earn £100k *in a single year" as opposed to an alleged extra £100 in a lifetime.

By: bernard

bernard — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 14:39:20 +0000

not a bad return – well not a good return … especially when you factor in that many of those pounds will be earned at the end of a career (net present value) and so worth less.
and a far cry from the £400 k Blair claimed in 2003 – how much further will it fall ?
even if the premium stays at £100k if you factor out doctors and lawyers and accountants its likely that many graduates doing worth while jobs with worthwhile degrees get no financial return at all – quite contrary to your claim that having a good degree means a good salary ("If you go to to a good uni and get a good degree, you're likely to earn much more.")

"I don't mind paying £3.50 a week for something I've used and benefited from"
good and many people would agree that they benefit from the UK having well trained professionals even if not graduates themselves.

whereas, as I say, many graduates have not benefitted financially from having a degree so they will "mind paying £3.50 a week from something" they haven't "benefited from"

By: DuncanRobinson

DuncanRobinson — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 13:35:49 +0000

£100,000 return for a £20,000 investment? Not a bad return. And that's the average, which necessarily includes bad degrees from bad universities. If you go to to a good uni and get a good degree, you're likely to earn much more.

"come on, you've just said no one would complain at an extra £3.50 a week – even if earning as little as £17k – - make your mind up !!!!" I don't mind paying £3.50 a week for something I've used and benefited from. I would mind paying £3.50 a week from something I haven't used or benefited from. Do you see the difference?

By: bernard

bernard — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:57:39 +0000

" I thought you were in favour of taxing those who could afford it more. " I am ok I could have said £3.50 from each of the UK's taxpayer "on average" but I assumed that was obvious – you obviously appreciated thats what I meant !
"Two, why should someone on a low income pay extra for me to go to university and study history? "well I've already dealt with that one too – those who earn high wages should pay higher tax – not those earning £17k even if they did go to uni.
"People would complain" would they ??? come on, you've just said no one would complain at an extra £3.50 a week – even if earning as little as £17k – - make your mind up !!!!
"as they are the ones who benefit most " well apparently not according to Lord Browne – not financially anyway !! very little profit – £100k over a lifetime minus inital debt and factoring in net present value. Why should they pay for something which gives them no benefit? "many graduates doing valuable work that benefits society (answering that question) do not receive massive financial rewarsd !!__

By: DuncanRobinson

DuncanRobinson — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:38:23 +0000

"cool
no lets do it your way …
lets ask an extra £3.50 a week = £182 a year from each of the UKs 30 million taxpayers (not just those earning as little as £17 k and indebted from being a student )
I make that £ 5 1/2 billion a year and as you say ( you do say this don't you ??) we'd barely feel it !
no one would complain over such a miniscule rise in tax !!
yet that would pay for tuition fees nearly three times over !!!"

Okay, let's talk about your £3.50 poll tax. One, it's regressive, as it taxes everyone the same amount – I thought you were in favour of taxing those who could afford it more. Two, why should someone on a low income pay extra for me to go to university and study history? Why should they pay for something which gives them no benefit? People would complain, and they would have every right to.

Making graduates pay as much of their tuition as they can is the only fair way of doing it, as they are the ones who benefit most and who get the extra money in the long run from being more qualified.

By: bernard

bernard — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 12:01:07 +0000

cool
no lets do it your way …
lets ask an extra £3.50 a week = £182 a year from each of the UKs 30 million taxpayers (not just those earning as little as £17 k and indebted from being a student )
I make that £ 5 1/2 billion a year and as you say ( you do say this don't you ??) we'd barely feel it !
no one would complain over such a miniscule rise in tax !!
yet that would pay for tuition fees nearly three times over !!!

By: DuncanRobinson

DuncanRobinson — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 11:53:01 +0000

Those sums are correct, well done. If you think £3.50 a week is a lot at £17,000, then I just can't argue you with you.

By: bernard

bernard — Tue, 15 Dec 2009 09:23:37 +0000

"afford £1.75 a week when you're on £16,000? "
or £3.50 if you'er earning a princely £17k or £5 when earning a fortune of £18k or £500 a year when earning £21k – these sums are right aren't they ? its 9% on earnings over £15k

you make £1.75 seem like a tiny difference …
explain why its you say its a tiny amount for a indebted graduate to pay when earning as little as £15k struggling to pay rent, transport and food but when I want to have those on high salaries to pay £1.30 or so a week in order to scrap tuition fees you then say its a "political luxury"

oh by the way its occured to me the checkout girl (or man) you were talking of earlier (and who presumably you don't want to pay £1 or so a week for tuiton fees even though you say its affordable) is often a student !