4 ms·

It should be noted here, that in the past (10-20 years ago), Germany did not have any tuition fees ... and fared very well with this model for many decades. On

It should be noted here, that in the past (10-20 years ago), Germany did not have any tuition fees ... and fared very well with this model for many decades. Only lately, because the German govnmt wanted to save the costs for the universities, they invented the fees with the argument, that with more funding, the quality of education could be better. But many universities just used the money to cover costs, that where not covered any more from the money they got from the country. So, essentially it was a cost reduction program to reduce costs for the state finance ... thus freeing money that could go to banks and big companies. The system was not well received by the students and also some German countries dropped the program, thus putting some pressure on the others, since the students prefered the universities without fees. I guess, that was the reason now, that the last country dropped the fees. In my opinion, countries like GB make a big error by forcing enormous fees unto students. In the result, the students which do not come from millionaires houses are either at the mercy of the banks for decades or many people that well could study, just do not. Thus the nation looses many talents (in both outcomes).

shamney 12y ago
student loans in the UK are provided by the government at relatively low interest rates. There is a minimum earning threshold before repayment can begin and a hard limit on the total proportion of income that can be taken for repayment. So no one is "at the mercy of the banks" and only a small number of people have been discouraged from attending university.
- PythonicAlpha 12y ago
  > and only a small number of people have been discouraged from attending university. How do you know that. Have you asked the people? I doubt what you say (not about the loans, I guess you know better than I, but in the US people are really at the mercy of the banks). Even, when only few are discouraged, you have a loss. The UK gvnmt should know: You can't have both: Save money and have good education for all without losses. When many use the loans, the savings for the UK are limited, since not all will be able to repay the money in full. Also the UK looses the money from the people that did not attend university. And it looses innovation -- all things that can not be calculated, but might finally well excell the pennies, the UK saves now. It even might loose the future (UK already has nearly only banking left as most important industry, so innovation would be really needed to revive the former proud "empire").

shamney 12y ago

student loans in the UK are provided by the government at relatively low interest rates. There is a minimum earning threshold before repayment can begin and a hard limit on the total proportion of income that can be taken for repayment. So no one is "at the mercy of the banks" and only a small number of people have been discouraged from attending university.

PythonicAlpha 12y ago
> and only a small number of people have been discouraged from attending university. How do you know that. Have you asked the people? I doubt what you say (not about the loans, I guess you know better than I, but in the US people are really at the mercy of the banks). Even, when only few are discouraged, you have a loss. The UK gvnmt should know: You can't have both: Save money and have good education for all without losses. When many use the loans, the savings for the UK are limited, since not all will be able to repay the money in full. Also the UK looses the money from the people that did not attend university. And it looses innovation -- all things that can not be calculated, but might finally well excell the pennies, the UK saves now. It even might loose the future (UK already has nearly only banking left as most important industry, so innovation would be really needed to revive the former proud "empire").