Tuition fees - what do you think?

[Matt H]

There's a lot of good posts in this thread.

 

 

 

Makes me wonder whether I'm actually logged on to mkivsupra.net or not

[supra_aero]

30 mins left until the verdict.

 

My hunch is the students WILL pay and their efforts today will be fruitless.

 

Take your bets!

[Snooze]

I agree. Government hasn't worried about any demonstrations thus far. A bunch of students waving placards won't stop them. It's not like they can go on strike or anything!

[supra_aero]

Dunno that's a pretty big fire. hmmm..

[Thorin]

Dunno that's a pretty big fire. hmmm..

 

Bring out the high pressure water cannons!

 

 

...not for the fire obviously. We're far too soft in this country.

[mwilkinson]

They won't and shouldn't budge. It will set a bad precedent.

[Tannhauser]

I think it's a real philosophical debate about what's fairest and for whom.

 

The American model, as far as I know, has always been that students - or their parents - pay bucketloads of money to go through college. The rationale fits in with the ideals of self-suffiency, low state intervention, paying for yourself, seeing taxation as bad and so on.

 

Traditional tory values lie in the same direction, so I think that even if there wasn't a massive deficit, they would be looking to put fees up. It's just part of Tory thinking.

 

To me, the massive problem with increasing tuition fees is that it lowers social mobility. 100 years ago, the well-off paid for their kids to go through university, and those educated kids then got into the top jobs. They in turn had the funds to send their kids to uni. Education and money went hand in hand, with each reinforcing the other. The poor didn't get much education, got the low-end jobs, couldn't afford to send their kids to uni...so the cycle continued. Those who were born rich had the access, those who weren't didn't, hence no social mobility. This doesn't seem to fit in with most people's ideas of a fair society, in which a kid born into situation A is as likely to succeed as one born into situation B.

 

I think raising tuition fees is a move back towards that situation. The stockbrokers will get their kids into Cambridge and turn out more stockbrokers. The lower middle classes (who miss out on the support for the poorest) will be confined to the value-brand unis, or not at all.

 

I emphatically don't agree with the previous government targets for 50% of school-leavers in university, but this feels like a retrograde step that's just in line with the general americanisation of the UK.

[dandan]

^^^^

 

Your post pretty much sums up my feelings on it.

[Terminator]

The Tories have never been about equal access for all, so no big surprise about the fee hike. If feel sorry for the able kids from poorer backgrounds who may be put off by the relatively astronomical debt that could face them. The well off will moan but just pay up, so little Cutherbert Snetherington Smyth, won't pay any fees or leave with any debt. I know of quite a few students who just invested their loans while mummy and daddy paid the fees. They made a nice little sum and were able to pay the loan back at the end of their course.

 

I think there should be a viable alternative to uni, via the work place. A company I used to use for all my personnel matters, never employed graduates. They head hunted good A level grade students and offered them a much better deal. On the job training with good pay. I have spoken to several of the trainees who said it was the best move they ever made, enabling them to buy their own houses etc, while the graduates were scrabbling around trying to find a job and somewhere cheap to live. I think too much is made of a university education, as too many degrees devalue the qualification and employment prospects are poor.

 

When I think of my son friend's who went to uni hardly any are working in the field they in which they graduated, if they are lucky enough to have a job.

 

I ought to add I come from a generation, who got a grant to go to university, so the state paid for my degree. With the benefit of hindsight, if I had to pay fees, I would not have gone to university, I would have got a job as there were plenty around at the time.

[Charlotte]

^^^^

 

Your post pretty much sums up my feelings on it.

 

And mine.

[RedM]

Agree with Tannhauser and Terminator.

 

This is basically the Tories doing what they've always done. Looking after the middle and upper classes and fucking over everyone else. They only want the 'right sort of people' to get an education.

[Shadow Beast]

its all kicking off in London now, not so much of a protest now, more the beginnings of a riot, quite a few people hurt both sides i understand and seems like they smashing the outside of the treasury to bits, thankgod reinforced glass!

 

Richie

[Westcoaster]

'Free' public education paid for by taxation, has been a cornerstone of Scottish education since 1616, so it's not a recent invention and has little to do with devolution.

 

There are many times more uni students now than when I left school in the early 80's and given that the 3 clericals in my work are all graduates doesn't make me think much of the value of their higher education.

 

I can only speak from a Scottish perspective, but I think that we should revert to a grant system for certain vocational degrees such as medicine, nursing, law, engineering etc. We should have a limited number of means tested grants for Arts degrees, so that only the most talented get the grants. Uni's and colleges can then sell off whatever capacity they have on a loan based system to the rest of the potential under graduates.

 

Schools desperately need to encourage the uptake of a proper trade education. We should emulate the German system of having Professor Engineers and allowing mechanics, joiners and other trades, the ability to take recognised and respected qualifications that close the gap on the class differences that are evident between graduates and tradesmen.

[Attero]

I haven't read any posts yet, but has anyone taken into consideration that this is tactic to make the country look good by saying it's owed more. Obviously this actually puts us into more debt because half of the debts are written off. They just haven't figured out yet that in 20-30 years time this will all bend us over and f**k us in the arse.

[snake]

That will be the last time the liberals get a chance to run the country. The student vote will see to that . It just goes to show politicians will say /do anything to get a vote.

[Scooter]

Agree with Tannhauser and Terminator.

 

This is basically the Tories doing what they've always done. Looking after the middle and upper classes and $#@!ing over everyone else. They only want the 'right sort of people' to get an education.

 

I'm not pro Tory, Labour or Libdem but to be fair the fact is that when I was in Uni the Tories were in and like Terminator I had no course fees and even received a small means tested grant, so that with working part time jobs etc I left with virtually no debt.............Labour a few years later abolished the grants and instigated student loans.......

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/student-grants-and-free-tuition-to-end-next-year-1251578.html

[Wez]

Some interesting comments in here.

[Terminator]

No Tories in power when I was at uni. I may be wrong, but I believe the reason that fees were introduced was to enable the education budget to be redistributed so that earlier stages of education got more money. The most important area of education up to 7 years still does not get enough, but politicians don't understand education.

[Digsy]

I still regard not going to university as the best decision I ever made. I may live to regret that statement one day but its done me well so far. I identified a course that got me exactly the qualificatons and experience I needed for the type of job I wanted to do, enrolled on it and never looked back. I managed to make a good impression and got a job off the back of the year-long work placement. I never even had an interview.

 

For personal reasons I recently applied for a "must have a degree" job at another company. Obviously I don't have a degree (the highest I went was HND) but by that time I did have 16 years of experience. I still got offered the job but decided not to take it.

 

I think its a real shame that companies use a degree as a coarse filter for who they do and do not want to employ. If I was a college leaver now I doubt I would be as lucky as I was 18 years ago, but IMHO the emphasis on going to uni is all wrong. Its meant to prove you can be educated to a "certain level" but it also seems to be marketed more as a life experience rather than getting a suitable education. Those who aren't going to be lawyers and doctors and vets seem to do any old degree at the uni that has the best sports ground / gig venue / local nightlife and start planning their sodding gap year the day they set foot on campus.

 

From what I gather you don't have to pay back your loan until you get a job paying over a certain threshold, so the gap year layabouts who just want a reason to move away from home and then don't graduate won't have to pay it back, which is wrong. The high flying sons and daughters of doctors and lawyers will be able to pay theirs off when they become doctors and lawyers themselves, which is right.

 

Its the hard working students who graduate and then land a job in a role that demands all their applicants have a degree, yet pays mediocre money, that wll suffer. Thats very wrong but I dont think its entirely down to the size of the tuition fees.

[Purity14]

It will put an end to some university degrees.

Who would go to uni and do "art" or "music" now eh?

[Paul]

It will put an end to some university degrees.

Who would go to uni and do "art" or "music" now eh?

 

And puppet making, I kid you not :blink:

[Tannhauser]

It will put an end to some university degrees.

Who would go to uni and do "art" or "music" now eh?

 

Plenty, because not everyone looks on a degree as a passport to a better job. Some just love their subject and want to take it to the next level.

[Paul]

Plenty, because not everyone looks on a degree as a passport to a better job. Some just love their subject and want to take it to the next level.

 

I love Aston Martins, is it right to ask the tax payer to fund one for me?

[Purity14]

Plenty, because not everyone looks on a degree as a passport to a better job. Some just love their subject and want to take it to the next level.

 

Id love nothing more than to be a mechanic, or a policeman, or even a fireman - but I dont want to be, because it doesnt pay too well.

I sure as hell wouldnt pay 9grand a year to see what its like... (Rubbish analogy, but there you go)

 

Whilst I understand what you are saying, I do stand by the fact that lots of students nowdays try to escape reality by clinging onto the education bandwagon until they are FORCED by life to get a job at the age of 25.

When they come out, they have an art degree and need to work - so they go and work in tesco.

 

But not all students are like that, obviously.

[Tannhauser]

I love Aston Martins, is it right to ask the tax payer to fund one for me?

 

No, but only because it's you.

 

I can see what you mean. Personally, I've got no kids, so yes, I could say 'why should I pay for someone else's kids'? But as I said before, I think the problem is that without a taxpayer subsidy, Higher Education becomes something that is restricted to those born with a silver spoon.