The Tories have announced plans to abolish university tuition fees but charge students a higher rate of interest on loans. At present, interest on student loans is fixed at the rate of inflation, the Conservatives would raise this to a fixed amount above the Bank of England base rate.
The Conservatives say students would be better off, because they would do away with university tuition fees.
Earlier this year a controversial bill allowing universities to charge up to �3,000 in tuition fees was passed by peers.
Education Secretary Charles Clarke said that the Higher Education Act will give universities an additional source of independent funding while protecting access for students from poor backgrounds.
The Liberal Democrats have said that they too would abolish tuition fees while keeping low interest student loans - this would be funded by a higher income tax band.
Who's got the right policy? Send us your views.
This debate has now closed. Thank you for your comments.
Your comments:
 | SUGGEST A DEBATE This topic was suggested by Jon Harrison, Hartington, West Derbyshire, England:  What do you think of the Conservatives' plans to abolish university fees?  |
A mature student who graduated this year will currently accrue around �50 per month in interest on a student loan. An ex-student earning 1300 per month (15,600 per annum) will therefore get to watch his/her student debt slowly spiral out of control as the interest exceeds the repayment rate. Frankly, we are already at the point where it is almost viable for mature students to go from graduation to bankruptcy in the same day in order to avoid being crippled by un-repayable debts. Do we really want to see the interest rates on these loans increased all the more?
Michael, UK Simple solution: Stop pointless 3 year degrees in origami, and share the money pot amongst those who are looking to pursue useful degrees in the workplace!
Garry Charles, Cheshire, UK
| I'd have been better going on the dole and having a litter of kids when I left school |
The current system is a joke. As a graduate earning below national average wage I get to enjoy such �benefits' from my degree such as an tax rate effectively at 40% (paying of loan, income tax, NI etc) Compounded with the need to invest in a pension that probably will not pay a quarter what I need when I retire. Not to mention buying a house and starting a family. The government's policies have really set me up for a future of reward and prosperity. I'd have been better going on the dole and having a litter of kids when I left school.
Colin, UK Who benefits from all this debt? Lending money to students is taking advantage of school leavers who probably have no idea the kind of debt they are getting themselves into. Getting into debt in order to go to college is presented as the only option.
Anon, N. Ireland
As a student in Scotland, my fees are paid for by the SAAS. If they were not however, I believe it to be better to pay the extra interest on the loan than have �3000 pounds extra. This would allow anyone who is actually interested in working after university to pay off the loan early and avoid paying too much.
Darren Drummond, Whitburn, West Lothian
None of the policies are correct in my opinion. They are ways of avoiding the main problem, which is that there are too many students at university. How can the system work when the available funding is spread across so many students in so many institutions? The simple solution would be to stop forcing unsuitable candidates into the university system, instead bringing back more vocational training. This would free up funds for quality institutions, creating higher quality graduates that are not crippled by debt when they graduate.
Dan, Imperial College, London In a rich nation like Britain, university education should be free to citizens for most subjects and courses. The emphasis should be on servicing ability rather than profit. Better to increase income tax for these purposes. But also need to revert to harder A levels so to identify true student ability. Regards.
Terence Barnes, Alton UK
Well, again the sensible approach has been lost in amongst political rhetoric and party squabbling. A graduate tax could fund both Universities and grants, whilst also making students think carefully about the benefits of going to University in the long run. Why are all the main parties afraid to admit that university isn't personally suitable or economically necessary for everyone?
Nick Pickles, Durham University, UK
| I'm currently a student at Portsmouth University and I can tell you none of the mainstream parties have got it right |
I'm currently a student at Portsmouth University and I can tell you none of the mainstream parties have got it right. There are loads of students at Uni who just shouldn't be there. With the government encouraging more and more to go to University it just devalues a degree. If the Tories had said they would bring back grants and reduce the number of students going down to say 30% I'm sure it could all be funded through direct taxation. It's about time Universities had demanding entrance requirements again. I had over 300 UCAS points, I only needed to get 180 for my course. Also, about 45% of all students either drop out or don't pass their first year. That's reason enough to reduce the numbers going.
David R, Portsmouth I think it is a great idea, a fair deal for students. Labour has broken two election promises on higher education, and has consequently forced many hard-working students into debt, as if buying a first home wasn't difficult enough already.
Steve, UK
As other people said, this plan makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Maybe the parties should all look abroad for other systems. In Holland, where I studied, students get a loan for the length of their course which is turned into a grant if the course is completed in time. The only people discouraged by that scheme are the people who are unable/unwilling to work hard enough to finish on time.
Wouter Engels, Southampton,
| I completely agree with The Conservatives, fees should be abolished |
I completely agree with The Conservatives, fees should be abolished. As a current student I am to be run into debt by those fees, which for the record were not started by The Tories but by Blair's Labour Government, despite a 1997 election pledge of no tuition fees.
Steve, UK Regardless of the new Tory proposal (but hurrah! for reopening the debate) the same questions remain. So whilst there are proposals to 'encourage' pupils to stay on at high school, undergraduate students have to take out student loans. It's all very well to say students can pay it off when they get high paid jobs, but what impact does it have on postgraduate education & research in this country? Who will seriously think about doing a PhD with �40k of debt already behind them?
Until the PhD stipend increases to be commensurate with a decent wage, I don't think we will see a reverse of the brain drain that is happening. I suppose the vast majority of people don't care about this aspect, but without enough PhD students, we're not going to get the medical breakthroughs & technological advances we have done. However, to answer the question, I think the Lib Dems, as ever, talk the most sense.
Helen, St Andrews, Fife
No student should be expected to pay for tuition at university, neither should their parents. We have already paid general taxes and the cost should come from this source. How can any Government or parent expect young people to start out adult life with thousands of pounds of debt? It seems to me that the taxes we pay don't pay for the same things these days, as they used to.
Steve, Louth, UK
| As a student I find the Tory proposal very worrying |
As a student I find the Tory proposal very worrying. At least with the inflation linked loans there's no worry about my loan debt spiralling after graduation. If they were at commercial rates then I would have to put a lot more money into paying them off quickly when I graduate to prevent me gaining further debt. This could be a very major burden for a graduate who's trying to get a mortgage in this era of rapidly rising house prices. Also surely those from poorer backgrounds have to borrow more and will experience this problem more so than their wealthier counterparts. Personally I think the lib dems have the best policy right now, although it's not perfect. Something all the parties seem to be very ignorant to is that the student loan isn't enough for most students to live on, accommodation fees frequently take up most or all of a student loan, and even when they don't you certainly can't afford more than 2 text books a year before having to work or borrow extra money.
! Anon, UK
None of the options on offer addresses the real issue that financial burdens disadvantage the less wealthy. Grants, or no charges at all, are the only fair system. To avoid waste and to encourage hard work grants could perhaps be tempered by a requirement to produce results. Current options simply offer degrees, not with honours, but with debt.
JohnM, LyneMeads,UK
The Liberal Democrats have the better idea. Theirs is the only one that will reduce the debt burden placed on students while funding Universities a sensible amount; it will also go some way to redressing the gap between rich and poor. I'd add a policy of taking the emphasis off obtaining a University degree and putting it onto obtaining career training on the job, a "back to apprenticeships" policy and working for oneself, an "entrepreneur's policy".
Everyone will be encouraged to realise their potential from early in their education but going for a degree is not really the best way for many to do that and the education system needs to be a lot more flexible to meet that challenge.
David R, Plymouth UK
The best policy is the Government's. Free at the point of use, and paid back, after graduation, on an ability to pay, simple.
Ollie, London, UK
At the moment only the richer students pay tuition fees, and the poorer students take out the larger loans. So now the Tories want to remove the fees, and increase the interest on the loans. So the rich will get richer, and the poor poorer. Standard Tory policy- why is everyone so surprised?
Neil K, Oxford
None of the parties have got it right. The only solution is for the government to stop overproducing students and refuse to fund people on courses of no use to the economy. With the money saved, students doing useful degree courses could be supported better and tuition fees scrapped.
Graeme Phillips, Guildford, UK
This sounds like a very devious attempt of trying to win votes. In any case high interest loans are fraught with dangers. Students need as much assistance as possible and the present system requires a few modifications but appears to be the most efficient for the majority of students and has provision for those that cannot afford fees because of their poorer backgrounds. I wouldn't trust the conservatives in the slightest to stick to their pledge to help poorer students.
Raymond Rudaizky, London U.K. My student loan repayments already take �30 a month out of my already pretty low salary, so I have no idea what I'd do if interest rates were higher. Students would just be saddled with debt for even longer. At least they (or their parents) pay their tuition fees while still at uni - loan repayments are a burden for a decade or more after graduation, at a time when many graduates can't find those mythical highly-paid jobs we're all told about in the newspapers.
Allie, London
| At last a published policy that probably can see some sense and honesty |
At last a published policy that probably can see some sense and honesty, rather than we will not from Labour and then they do. It makes sense, it treats all students equally and it is fair this is probably why Labour will find it unpalatable, but for the Tories, for me they have a winner.
Mike Hall, Kingham, UK None of the options on offer addresses the real issue that financial burdens disadvantage the less wealthy. Grants or no charges at all, are the only fair system. To avoid waste and to encourage hard work grants could perhaps be tempered by a requirement to produce results. Current options simply offer degrees, not with honours, but with debt.
John M, Lyne Meads, UK
By increasing the number of students the government have kept otherwise unemployable youths off the unemployment figures and have saddled them with massive debts into the bargain. Remove all fees, bring back grants and proper entry criteria.
Roger, Stockport, England Well, now all they have to do is pay for their room, board, and other incidental expenses and we can call it "the intellectual dole." Did you say the Conservatives are proposing this? Apparently they are so desperate to win an election, they are prepared to out labour Labour.
Mark, USA
| No party has the right policy |
No party has the right policy. Employers should pay for the student's education in the form of a corporate student tax on every graduate they employ. If a company wants and needs the skills a university education can bring to an employee, the company should pay for it.
Adrian, Manchester This is what they call a no-brainer: the Lib Dems, obviously. Education accessible to all and funded on ability to pay.
Anon, UK
Is this not a gimmick designed to appeal to the better off middle classes whose parents might not be able to afford the upfront fees but can afford a decent monthly allowance. It will certainly create added pressure for graduates to go for high income jobs immediately on graduating, since those who do not will face higher and higher bills for the cost of their university education, which begs the question as to where the next generation of teachers or nurses will come from or, come to think of it journalists!
Ben, London, UK
Easy. Graduate income tax. The argument being used says that those who benefit most from their education should pay for it. Benefit is quantified by looking at how much more an average graduate will earn. Using this argument it is then logical to suggest that those graduates who earn more and therefore have benefited more should have to pay a greater contribution.
Catherine, Imperial College, London
Go even further - bring back grants! I was "paid" to go to university in the 80s; I pay high tax now and would be glad to see some go towards students. (Just scrap the Mickey Mouse degrees first, please.)
Ray Gray, London, England
The Tory plans would appear to benefit those who earn more and are therefore able to pay their debts more quickly and accrue less interest. Those who graduate into lower paying jobs will have a credit card-type debt hanging over them for much longer. Is this so surprising from the Tories?
PK, Cardiff, UK
Slightly higher interest rates on a greatly reduced debt... sounds extremely sensible!
James, London, UK
| Scrapping fees will reduce the direct funding going to universities |
Scrapping fees will reduce the direct funding going to the universities. All Michael Howard promises is vague "additional funding" to replace this lost income, which is clearly at odds with his main promise to cut public spending. His policy of charging higher interest on loans will mean even larger student debts. His policy will result in less cash for the university and bigger debts for students...only the banks providing the loans will do well out of his lunatic scheme.
Peter (university researcher), Nottingham (U.K) Neither party has got it right. There are too many graduates. Stop funding noddy courses, face up to the fact that not everyone is suited to university and cut the numbers down. Just because you have a degree is no guarantee of success, you can earn just as much money doing learning a trade.
Profter, Harrogate, UK
At first glance, Tories' idea of abolishing tuition fees looks great. However, as I understand it, they plan to fund this by raising the interest rates on student loans. Surely this is 'robbing Peter to Pay Paul'? Student debt is a big enough problem as it is - without raising the interest rates on student loans!
Sarahjayne Sierra, Oxford, Oxon I've always thought that higher education should be free at the point of delivery. We should fund all education from direct taxation, as an intelligent workforce not only benefits the graduates, but helps the country become more prosperous as a whole.
Andy Roberts, Southend-on-Sea, Essex, UK
None of the parties have got it right. The fixation with getting more and more young people through university devalues the experience and is a crafty way of stating that you have slashed youth unemployment. A relatively "elitist" system should remain paid for out of general taxation, with much more emphasis being given to vocational and life long learning in the workplace or by distance learning. The argument that people will financially benefit from a university education and that they should pay for it for most of their young adult life is disingenuous as if they do earn so much more they will doubtless pay it over in taxation anyway.
George, Sanderstead
So let me get this straight? The people who are unfortunate enough to need loans are going to be propping up the higher education system whilst the wealthier elite can avoid contributing at all. How very Tory.
Andy MacInnes, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
