Tuition fees

[Tangled up in Blue]

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-43106736

No question in my mind, that tuition fees should be free,as they are today in Germany etc and as they were in my youth,back in the early 70's, when I studied for a degree.Maintenance grants also need to be brought back.Thoughts?

 

[Napster]

http://www.bbc.com/news/education-43106736

No question in my mind, that tuition fees should be free,as they are today in Germany etc and as they were in my youth,back in the early 70's, when I studied for a degree.Maintenance grants also need to be brought back.Thoughts?

Completely agree. But then I would, with a daughter in sixth form.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

May has ordered a review, which will report back in 2019. This is their 4th review. We could do with some actual policy rather than just more talk, but talk is all that May has to offer.

 

[Member]

May has ordered a review, which will report back in 2019. This is their 4th review. We could do with some actual policy rather than just more talk, but talk is all that May has to offer.

Standard tory approach - implemented an ideologically based policy with absolutely no evidence that it will result in a politically acceptable desired outcome. And then retrospectively try and rustle up some 'evidence' that it is a good policy, even if that means asking the same question lots of times with slightly different wording/parameters until you get the answer you'd like.

Even from a self-interested perspective, the tories completely destroyed their younger voter base with the introduction of tuition fees. Spending years trying to 'evidence' your way out of it and pin the the blame on 'greedy universities' is ridiculous.

 

[rigsby]

If most of the debt will never be paid then we have all been wasting our money. So the old cliché that we all benefit, wheeled out by Angela Rayner on the radio today can't be true.

The figure of just 6% went to uni when I left school in the 80's, now its about 50%. Someone has to pay so why not make it a tax on those that had further education, or the companies that require a degree for their jobs. After all education is the new form of discrimination. It has now taken over from the class system that so many Labour supporters have historically fought against.

Rather than the likes of me subsidising a degree education for wealthy children who have already been to a private school. Why not invest that money for decent apprenticeships etc.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

If most of the debt will never be paid then we have all been wasting our money. So the old cliché that we all benefit, wheeled out by Angela Rayner on the radio today can't be true.

The figure of just 6% went to uni when I left school in the 80's, now its about 50%. Someone has to pay so why not make it a tax on those that had further education, or the companies that require a degree for their jobs. After all education is the new form of discrimination. It has now taken over from the class system that so many Labour supporters have historically fought against.

Rather than the likes of me subsidising a degree education for wealthy children who have already been to a private school. Why not invest that money for decent apprenticeships etc.

Actually,the figure was 8.4 % in HE (Higher Education) when I started my degree course in 1971.

Education is, of course, a basic right.It also benefits society as a whole.Speaking as the oldest of three brothers from a working class background, who all studied at degree level, (one of us at Cambridge), I'm quite certain that this would not have been possible for my family, had our widowed mother had to pay for tuition fees and had there been no maintenance grant back in the 70's.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Standard tory approach - implemented an ideologically based policy with absolutely no evidence that it will result in a politically acceptable desired outcome. And then retrospectively try and rustle up some 'evidence' that it is a good policy, even if that means asking the same question lots of times with slightly different wording/parameters until you get the answer you'd like.

Even from a self-interested perspective, the tories completely destroyed their younger voter base with the introduction of tuition fees. Spending years trying to 'evidence' your way out of it and pin the the blame on 'greedy universities' is ridiculous.

that's the crazy thing from their own perspective - each student has a vote as do their 2 parents and potentially 4 grandparents - potentially 7 voters for each student reacting to £50k debt and then 30 years later a chunk of that becomes national debt having increased by 6% each year. Makes no sense on any level. The interest alone would imply as a country we are better off paying it up front as a direct cost.

 

[rigsby]

Actually,the figure was 8.4 % in HE (Higher Education) when I started my degree course in 1971.

Education is, of course, a basic right.It also benefits society as a whole.Speaking as the oldest of three brothers from a working class background, who all studied at degree level, (one of us at Cambridge), I'm quite certain that this would not have been possible for my family, had our widowed mother had to pay for tuition fees and had there been no maintenance grant back in the 70's.

Very true, that's why we should spend more up until your 16. No need for certain people to stay until 18 and no need to have 50% at Uni. If they did in your day then maybe you and your brothers may not have gone.

I actually did a brick laying course at the Wiggins training centre in Thundersley back in the day when a private firm would actually provide such options. By then the government were paying but they still let them have use of the land and facilities. Our teacher was the world record holder for laying over 700 bricks in a hour. We even had labourers to knock up the muck etc.

No one gets that sort of training anymore as a lot of these college courses are no more than a glorified youth club to keep young men off the dole figures.....I know form experience having people work for me and from people have taught in places like prospects.

 

[Member]

Very true, that's why we should spend more up until your 16. No need for certain people to stay until 18 and no need to have 50% at Uni. If they did in your day then maybe you and your brothers may not have gone.

I actually did a brick laying course at the Wiggins training centre in Thundersley back in the day when a private firm would actually provide such options. By then the government were paying but they still let them have use of the land and facilities. Our teacher was the world record holder for laying over 700 bricks in a hour. We even had labourers to knock up the muck etc.

No one gets that sort of training anymore as a lot of these college courses are no more than a glorified youth club to keep young men off the dole figures.....I know form experience having people work for me and from people have taught in places like prospects.

Someone let Ron know, we could be in FF by the start of next season!

 

[Massimo Giovanni]

If students get a "proper" degree then they will pay it off as they will be in gainful, regular and well paid employment: now if they get a degree in Latin or Medieval Arts and Drama then maybe employment will be sporadic and harder to make repayments.
For sure the idea of full fees (bursaries are now long gone) for Nursing/medical training need reviewing however again it is unreasonable for the public to pay the likes of dentists to work and earn very well in private practice.

 

[Member]

I think people are forgetting that we have a progressive income tax system that means that people who earn more pay a higher proportion. Why do we need another tax that is just a copy of that? Seems a waste of time, effort and money.

 

[rigsby]

that's the crazy thing from their own perspective - each student has a vote as do their 2 parents and potentially 4 grandparents - potentially 7 voters for each student reacting to £50k debt and then 30 years later a chunk of that becomes national debt having increased by 6% each year. Makes no sense on any level. The interest alone would imply as a country we are better off paying it up front as a direct cost.

The idea is to saddle you with debt in the first place. Otherwise it wouldn't be 6% when the base rate is 0.5%.

I think it was Henry Ford who said "if people understood the banking system they would revolt". That's why I learnt things like matrix multiplication at school yet they never mentioned the word finance. Most people today don't even know the History of the Bank of England or who owns the Federal Reserve etc.

 

[Tangled up in Blue]

Very true, that's why we should spend more up until your 16. No need for certain people to stay until 18 and no need to have 50% at Uni. If they did in your day then maybe you and your brothers may not have gone.

I actually did a brick laying course at the Wiggins training centre in Thundersley back in the day when a private firm would actually provide such options. By then the government were paying but they still let them have use of the land and facilities. Our teacher was the world record holder for laying over 700 bricks in a hour. We even had labourers to knock up the muck etc.

No one gets that sort of training anymore as a lot of these college courses are no more than a glorified youth club to keep young men off the dole figures.....I know form experience having people work for me and from people have taught in places like prospects.

Studying as I did at Birmingham Poytechic, (as it then was), I met a lot of people studying for their HNC's and other technical qualifications.I have no problem with that whatsoever.In fact technical qualifications in the UK,compared to Germany,Switzerland and France etc are scandously undervalued.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

The idea is to saddle you with debt in the first place. Otherwise it wouldn't be 6% when the base rate is 0.5%.

I think it was Henry Ford who said "if people understood the banking system they would revolt". That's why I learnt things like matrix multiplication at school yet they never mentioned the word finance. Most people today don't even know the History of the Bank of England or who owns the Federal Reserve etc.

Is knowing the history of the Bank of England or who owns the US Federal Reserve any more useful than learning Latin, Medieval Art or Drama?

Studying as I did at Birmingham Poytechic, (as it then was), I met a lot of people studying for their HNC's and other technical qualifications.I have no problem with that whatsoever.If fact technical qualifications in the UK,compared to Germany,Switzerland and France etc are scandously undervalued.

I think we may be due a refund from Birmingham Poytechic.

 

[rigsby]

Is knowing the history of the Bank of England or who owns the US Federal Reserve any more useful than learning Latin, Medieval Art or Drama?

I think we may be due a refund from Birmingham Poytechic.

obviously not in your case but for many they may learn why they are born into debt, will spend their life in debt and how different it could and should be.

 

[Uncle Leo]

Studying as I did at Birmingham Poytechic, (as it then was), I met a lot of people studying for their HNC's and other technical qualifications.I have no problem with that whatsoever.If fact technical qualifications in the UK,compared to Germany,Switzerland and France etc are scandously undervalued.

Were you off the day they taught students how to spend the word 'tuition'?

 

[Mr Plow]

Standard tory approach - implemented an ideologically based policy with absolutely no evidence that it will result in a politically acceptable desired outcome. And then retrospectively try and rustle up some 'evidence' that it is a good policy, even if that means asking the same question lots of times with slightly different wording/parameters until you get the answer you'd like.

Even from a self-interested perspective, the tories completely destroyed their younger voter base with the introduction of tuition fees. Spending years trying to 'evidence' your way out of it and pin the the blame on 'greedy universities' is ridiculous.

Tuition fees were introduced by Labour in 1998 who then raised the cap in 2004 under the Higher Education Act. In 2009 Labour set up the Browne Review which is now why the majority of fees are over £9000.

 

[Tinks]

I have been fortunate enough to be able to put both my son and daughter through Uni and support them with their accommodation and tuition fees which meant their std loan was their means to survive.
I had no issues with my son and his uni but I did with my daughter and actually wrote to the university to request from them how they reached the figure they did and what I was actually paying for as my daughter (at that time) was actually only receiving tutuion from the university for 4 hours per week. Obviously I was met with the normal response etc, etc, and was told that no one challenges what they charge.
I did try and explain that I wanted justification for the monies given but to date still have not had a reply (and that was 10 years ago).
Do I think it is value for money? No I do not

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Tuition fees were introduced by Labour in 1998 who then raised the cap in 2004 under the Higher Education Act. In 2009 Labour set up the Browne Review which is now why the majority of fees are over £9000.

governments don't have to accept the findings of a review, the one May has announced today will be the third since the Tories came to power.
I was against the £3,000 fee but there is a big difference between that and £9,250 plus 6% interest. The only thing that has risen that fast in the last 8 years is national debt and maybe house prices. None of that is good news for this generation of teenagers.

 

[Mr Plow]

governments don't have to accept the findings of a review, the one May has announced today will be the third since the Tories came to power.
I was against the £3,000 fee but there is a big difference between that and £9,250 plus 6% interest. The only thing that has risen that fast in the last 8 years is national debt and maybe house prices. None of that is good news for this generation of teenagers.

I'm not debating your point that the fees are too high even though the majority will never fully pay back the loan, just pointing out the incorrect assumption that tuition fees were brought in by the conservative government when in fact it was Labour.