This comment is awaiting moderation
I find all this talk about it 'deterring the poor' rather interesting. It would certainly have deterred me from going to University - I guess that means I'm also poor, despite being raised in a comparatively General-Studies-Friendly environment. Which is fantastic news, because now the world has to feel sorry and care for me.
The mathematics is what concerns me most. At £9,000 per year for tuition, plus £6,000 per year for accommodation, food and living expenses, a BA in History shall now cost £45,000 to study. And this £45,000, according to the BBC report, shall be paid back at 9% of a £21,000 per annum salary. That's £1,890 per year in repayments, with 'penalties' for overpayment.
£1,890 is 4.61% of that £45,000 debt. The BBC report states that this loan shall accrue interest at an above-inflation rate. Government inflationary target is 2%, so let's assume for the moment that they're able to keep it at 2%, and assume that portion of our 4.61% is swallowed by inflation, leaving 2.61% per year to cover both the 'above inflation' portion of the loan interest, and capital repayment.
The point is, whatever the 'above inflation' portion is, the minimum duration of this loan should the graduate's salary remain at the base repayment eligibility level is 38.31 years. And THAT assumes zero 'above inflation' contributions. Every 0.5% of additional interest the government claims increases the time taken to repay that loan by nine years.
Not only this, but for the duration if this debt, that 'graduate' is essentially paying an extra 9% Income Tax in terms of their quality of life.
Now, I realise that ultimately the system needs financing - and that some would argue it is fairer that students finance it themselves than receive subsidy from the tax system - but, that being the case, what motivation is there for talented students to go to an English university when they can attend equally prestigious universities elsewhere in the EU and the money they save in tuition is more than enough to offset any increase in living costs? Further to this, why should any graduate feel any obligation to remain in the UK and permit our economy to benefit from their skillset, if the state has had no notable financial role in their higher education?
Lastly, what moral authority do Ministers and Members of the House of Commons, who received their degrees completely free at the provision of the state when my parents were paying two-thirds of their income in taxation, have to make such massive changes to the university system? Granted, this last question can be asked of all politicians on both sides of the House who have voted to introduce and increase tuition fees over the past decade and a half.
I'm assuming these are questions to which the coalition government has already devoted significant thought and consideration, and I look forward to hearing their answers in the days to come.
---
P.S. This is a fee cap increase, not a mandated fee increase. Presumably, then, responsibility for the fee levels set by individual institutions lies entirely with those institutions themselves, with Vice-Chancellors being as culpable as government Ministers, and as liable to having their cars egged. Food for thought.