University top up fees

[McScriven]

What are peoples views on this?

Me I think it's the best thing Blair has ever done. It will just stop all the wasters who go to Uni for a doss and a excuse to not get a job from bumming about and then working for a supermarket all their life in no field they've qualified in.

While those worse off might suffer a bit if it means that much to them there are ways around it especially with the concessions that are planned.

Thoughts? (No doubt I'll get a slagging off)

 

[Matty the Shrimper]

I think that it is an appauling thing to be bringing in. Being of the age where I will be the first year group to experience these new fees it seems completely crazy. If people do go to Uni to dos around then well I cant really help that but I would genuinly want to go to gain a degree and hopefully that will lead me on in later life.
Baring in mind it is not compulsary education wouldnt some kind of monitoring system be useful where if a student is not performing to their potenial they get kicked out meaning that those who are there for the right reason stay and get a good education.

 

[McScriven]

But that wouldn't work because by and large the people of these course do the work and obtain the degree but are only there to prolong going to work.

Why should I as a tax payer pay for someone to spend three years of their life partying and getting drunk while doing a bit of work and then not even doing the job for which they qualified?

 

[Beefy]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 08 2004,23:11)]Why should I as a tax payer pay for someone to spend three years of their life partying and getting drunk while doing a bit of work and then not even doing the job for which they qualified?

I could accept that argument if the Government hadn't publically stated on many occasions that it was their intention to get 50% of the population through Universities for the good of society. Fine, if its for the good of society then the whole of society should pay for it. If the economy is going to be uncompetative without more graduates then funding their degrees through general taxation is the only reasonable solution. Seeing as graduates supposedly earn all this extra in wages than non-graduates they are going to be payingn higher income tax anyway once they graduate.

See, theres two areas involved, university funding and student finance. Both need to be addressed but top-up fees seek to cure one (university funding) at the expense of the other. I'm going to be about £16k in debt from student loans and £3k in overdrafts when I graduate in July - thats money which has paid for my rent, my food and the odd half a shandy

, but which I'm going to have to pay back. With top-up fees and the tuition fee that would be another £10k leaving an overall debt in the region of £30k. Thats half a mortgage. How can that not put people off?

And top-up fees are fundamentally flawed anyway because they don't raise anything in immediate funds, which is what Universities need. Because the Government is going to be charging the fees after students have graduated (not even Labour would charge kids £5k a year up front), Universities aren't going to get the money that they crucially need until several years down the line.

 

[Napster]

The whole thing is basically an admission that Blair can't do his maths.

ps I spent 4 years wasting your taxes, Dave. And Im not a linguist. (Only a cunning one, before Ken says anything)

 

[Mad Cyril]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 08 2004,22:38)]What are peoples views on this?

Me I think it's the best thing Blair has ever done. It will just stop all the wasters who go to Uni for a doss and a excuse to not get a job from bumming about and then working for a supermarket all their life in no field they've qualified in.

While those worse off might suffer a bit if it means that much to them there are ways around it especially with the concessions that are planned.

Thoughts? (No doubt I'll get a slagging off)

I've no problem with people paying for their education but it should not be up front.

If you go to university you should have to pay a higher rate of income tax. It should reduce the amount of debt that people leave university with (meaning you can buy a car/house sooner) and it also means that rich kid Rupert can't rely on Mummy and Daddy paying for his university education as he will be taxed at the higher rate anyway.

My real problem is that by encouraging as many people as possible to go to university (to keep them off the dole queue?) there are a lot of students running up huge debts on questionable courses that will be of little value when seeking employment.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Mad Cyril @ Jan. 09 2004,08:51)]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 08 2004,22:38)]What are peoples views on this?

Me I think it's the best thing Blair has ever done. It will just stop all the wasters who go to Uni for a doss and a excuse to not get a job from bumming about and then working for a supermarket all their life in no field they've qualified in.

While those worse off might suffer a bit if it means that much to them there are ways around it especially with the concessions that are planned.

Thoughts? (No doubt I'll get a slagging off)

I've no problem with people paying for their education but it should not be up front.

If you go to university you should have to pay a higher rate of income tax. It should reduce the amount of debt that people leave university with (meaning you can buy a car/house sooner) and it also means that rich kid Rupert can't rely on Mummy and Daddy paying for his university education as he will be taxed at the higher rate anyway.

My real problem is that by encouraging as many people as possible to go to university (to keep them off the dole queue?) there are a lot of students running up huge debts on questionable courses that will be of little value when seeking employment.

Basically the only winners are the banks. Unis dont get anything out of it and for the graduates, the job market will even more tougher to enter.

 

[The Fitter]

I feel that we live (or should live) in a class society. If you want to go on to further education you should pay. If you can't afford to pay then get a job and join the rat race. If you can afford to pay, then pay and get educated.

All this equal ops shat gets on my nerves. I used to vote Lib Dem, or whatever the hell they call themself from one day to the next, but if they think people will happily pay extra tax so that poor Jimmy can go to University then they can kiss my sweaty hoop.

Top up fees, who cares. IMO pay your own way or get a job. Oh yeah and you will of noticed I have no idea what top up fees are, and I don't care too.

The Fitter (1 O level in maths, 1 CSE in English)

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (The Fitter @ Jan. 09 2004,09:22)]I feel that we live (or should live) in a class society.

I think you mean classless...

It's a difficult one to quantify. A lot of people paid taxes for the war against Iraq, yet that was unpopular amonst the Guardianistas...

The argument is thus: if we helped 10 students with their finances, and of those ten, five utilised the skills learned to make loads of dough, in the UK, then they will eventually pay more taxes to the UK- so effectively it's a non-argument- they will pay more in tax than they received from the State.

I had loans at uni and I worked. Basically because of pride. But I will defend those who get into a top university on merit and need assistance once there- we should nurture our talent, not throw them on the scr*pheap because they don't have the funds...

Having said all that, I am in favour of scaling down the number of polys. New Labour only made them unis to reach their target of 50% a uni graduate by whenever. By reducing the number of polys, only the very best will get into uni in the first place...

 

[Mrs McScriven]

As a graduate - I'd like to defend the choice and accesibility of universities. I worked very hard, held down 2 jobs and had the minimal amount of loan I could cope on. I am now crippled with a student loan (because when I graduated you started paying as soon as you earnt over £10k) and apart from £800 in my first year - which didn't cover halls rent - it's the only help I had.

Anyone that says university is an easy option hasn't been to university. If you don't do the work and get the grades - you don't go through to the next year. It teaches you responisbility, social skills and how much you can cope with in life.

It's not everyone's choice - and I agree you have to pay towards your education BUT different universities charging different fees will introduce elitism which will return us to a system where decent university education is only accesible to wealthy students.

 

[The Fitter]

Quote[/b] (Mrs McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,10:35)]As a graduate - I'd like to defend the choice and accesibility of universities.  I worked very hard, held down 2 jobs and had the minimal amount of loan I could cope on.  I am now crippled with a student loan (because when I graduated you started paying as soon as you earnt over £10k) and apart from £800 in my first year - which didn't cover halls rent - it's the only help I had.

Anyone that says university is an easy option hasn't been to university.  If you don't do the work and get the grades - you don't go through to the next year.  It teaches you responisbility, social skills and how much you can cope with in life.

It's not everyone's choice - and I agree you have to pay towards your education BUT different universities charging different fees will introduce elitism which will return us to a system where decent university education is only accesible to wealthy students.

Fantastic, that last paragraph is what I ment by class society.

Which did I mean Mr Napster? Class or classless?

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (The Fitter @ Jan. 09 2004,10:38)]

Quote[/b] (Mrs McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,10:35)]As a graduate - I'd like to defend the choice and accesibility of universities.  I worked very hard, held down 2 jobs and had the minimal amount of loan I could cope on.  I am now crippled with a student loan (because when I graduated you started paying as soon as you earnt over £10k) and apart from £800 in my first year - which didn't cover halls rent - it's the only help I had.

Anyone that says university is an easy option hasn't been to university.  If you don't do the work and get the grades - you don't go through to the next year.  It teaches you responisbility, social skills and how much you can cope with in life.

It's not everyone's choice - and I agree you have to pay towards your education BUT different universities charging different fees will introduce elitism which will return us to a system where decent university education is only accesible to wealthy students.

Fantastic, that last paragraph is what I ment by class society.

Which did I mean Mr Napster? Class or classless?

Oh. In that case class. Sorry.

Mrs Mc- we are always going to have elitism as long as we have fee-paying public schools...therefore I don't agree that different unis charging different fees will lead to elitism. It already exists all across the board.

The only way to eliminate the wealthy student getting university education at the risk of someone else just because of wealth is to reform the entire education system. No more comprehensives, no more grammars, no more public schools. That way children can't be discriminated against early doors.

Then one fee across all unis.

But all that will never happen. It's a pipe dream.

 

[McScriven]

Quote[/b] (Mrs McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,10:35)]It's not everyone's choice - and I agree you have to pay towards your education BUT different universities charging different fees will introduce elitism which will return us to a system where decent university education is only accesible to wealthy students.

Preparing people for real world then?

You pay more in life you get the best in most cases. Why should Uni be any different?

 

[Mrs McScriven]

But why should wealthy students (and by that I mean wealthy parents) have any advantage?? Parents shouldn't be means tested for their children's choice of higher education (as my retired parents were - a disgrace IMHO). We need an equal playing field where everyone pays the same - but not where graduates then suffer for the next 30 years (especially when first-time buyers have such an uphill struggle to get on the property ladder)

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (Mrs McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,10:54)]But why should wealthy students (and by that I mean wealthy parents) have any advantage??  Parents shouldn't be means tested for their children's choice of higher education (as my retired parents were - a disgrace IMHO).  We need an equal playing field where everyone pays the same - but not where graduates then suffer for the next 30 years (especially when first-time buyers have such an uphill struggle to get on the property ladder)

You go girl. I was means-tested as well- both parents were self-employed at the time, so took ages to process.

 

[McScriven]

In theory though what Uni you go to shouldn't matter. As all staff there should be qualified to a similiar standard so should the student apply themselves correctly they will still obtain good grades.

 

[Mrs McScriven]

Means testing full stop is a pathetic and disgraceful way of getting more funds. It was my choice to go to university - I paid to keep myself there and at 18 I wasn't my parents responsibility - so they shouldn't have been asked to pay.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,10:58)]In theory though what Uni you go to shouldn't matter.

A 2.1 from Birmingham Poly is not really the same as a 2.1 from Oxford, Dave.

 

[Mrs McScriven]

Means testing full stop is a pathetic and disgraceful way of getting more funds. It was my choice to go to university - I paid to keep myself there and at 18 I wasn't my parents responsibility - so they shouldn't have been asked to pay.

 

[McScriven]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Jan. 09 2004,11:00)]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,10:58)]In theory though what Uni you go to shouldn't matter.

A 2.1 from Birmingham Poly is not really the same as a 2.1 from Oxford, Dave.

Perhaps I'm being thick here but why not?

An A* in GCSE's at a public school is still the same as an A* in GCSE's at a comprehensive school.