University top up fees

[Mrs McScriven]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,10:51)]

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?

You won't think like that when it's your own child's dream to go to university. You have the typical attitude of someone that's never been and think's Uni's a soft touch for teenagers who don't want a job and want to get drunk and have sex for 3 years.

Im pleased you think so little about me.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Jan. 09 2004,09:32)]A lot of people paid taxes for the war against Iraq, yet that was unpopular amonst the Guardianistas...

I would pay for an elite education system by taxing Guardian readers.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,11:02)]

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.

For a start, an Oxford lecturer will probably be a leading expert in his field. A Brummie Poly one probably won't.

Secondly, it's all about perception. Say I went to a job interview- who would you take- someone who only managed to get into uni by taking a poly route, or someone who managed to get to one of the leading unis in the UK, and got a good grade there?

Employers will always go for the Oxford graduate.

 

[McScriven]

Perhaps Napsterbut in theorey both grades are the same and an elitist divide is being formed because one went one place and another went to the other.

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,11:17)]Perhaps Napsterbut in theorey both grades are the same and an elitist divide is being formed because one went one place and another went to the other.

Dave, there's always been an elitist divide- since Oxford and Cambridge first started, in fact. "In theory" is great, but it never works.

It's like getting driving lessons from Michael Schumacher or some bloke down the road- alright you pass the test, but at the end of the day, what would you be most proud of? Who would you give a driving job to? Whose car would you like to be in?

 

[McScriven]

Your probably right Napster but still don't think the public should be made to pay for something, which after all is your choice to do.

 

[Vange Shrimper]

My view on all this is that i think that the top up fees is one of the worst things the government or Mr Blair himself has thought up. I've applied for university in September and currently the fees are £1125 per year. Plus you will have to pay rent on top. I havent got a clue how i'm going to afford all this and i think it's all a disgrace.

Because of this, many people in working class families are not going to apply for uni as they are worried about the money situation. By the looks of things, uni is only going to be for people who can afford this and if he keeps on raising the fees any more per year, the amount of people who want to go to uni will drop.

Rumour has it, the fees are going to go up again in the summer and to be honest, i'm really worried about all this now

 

[Napster]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,11:30)]Your probably right Napster but still don't think the public should be made to pay for something, which after all is your choice to do.

Fair enough. It's a good point, but I think as a whole university education should be encouraged as much as possible, but not at ex-polys. If university means latent talent is nurtured and society as a whole benefits from increased efficiency and productivity from more graduates, then I don't see how the "public" can complain. Plus the higher income that graduates receive (although sadly not in my case) the more taxes they pay...

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Quote[/b] (Napster @ Jan. 09 2004,11:28)]It's like getting driving lessons from Michael Schumacher or some bloke down the road- alright you pass the test, but at the end of the day, what would you be most proud of? Who would you give a driving job to? Whose car would you like to be in?

Michael Schumacher tends to crash at least a couple of times a year. I have never crashed or spun off.
On that basis and as I would qualify for a no-claims bonus I think I'd get most driving jobs over him.


Also just because Schumacher is supposed to be a great driver (even though he crashes more times a year than your average driver) doesn't mean he is a good driving instructor. Its like saying Alvin Martin played for England he must be a good manager. If Schumacher becomes a driving instructor with the same 'success' as Alvin became a football manager, life expectancy would halve overnight.

 

[chadded]

The way I see it is that University is like a high street shop. It's a service. You walk into a shop, buy a good and it's yours.

You go to a university, do the work, pay the money, and the degree is yours. No-one forces you to go to university, so why should anyone apart from yourself pay for it?


Also, I've been told that nowadays, because so many people are going to uni, the jobs the new graduates are doing are jobs that years ago, people with 'Only' A- levels did, so the worth of a degree is actually decreasing.

I've got no intention of going to Uni though. Getting a degree so that in the long run my bank balance is slightly healthier isn't my idea of an acheivement.

 

[Beefy]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,11:02)]

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.

The difference is that when you take a GCSE you are taking the same exam as everyone in your area and it is marked to the same standard and which tests you on a uniform curriculum. If I sit a GCSE at Southend High and my mate sits one at Eastwood then I know that I can compare my results with him.

But a degree isn't an award from the state or from a local authority. Its an award given by the University itself, which has autonomy to decide its own course structure and content and which sets and marks its own exam questions. Theres a degree of external moderation of coursework and exam papers, but on the whole theres little outside interference. Employers know which Unis have good pedigrees with teaching, etc and therefore which will provide students educated to a higher level. So my University of London degree from Royal Holloway is going to be worth more than one from Luton, but not as much as one from Cambridge.

 

[Beefy]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,11:30)]Your probably right Napster but still don't think the public should be made to pay for something, which after all is your choice to do.

Ok, so everyone stops going to university. What happens then? No doctors, no teachers, no lawyers (

), no one qualified for important engineering and manufacturing positions, etc and the whole country suffers.

I don't agree with wanting 50% of the public to go through University, but graduates form a very important part of the economy. And as has been said before, if (and its a big if) they end up in a good job earning good money then they will be paying far more in higher income taxes than they have taken out. Should that money only be given to schools for the kids of graduates? Or for graduate-only hospitals?

I used to share your opinion. I worked for four years after A-Levels and watched most of my mates go off to uni and get drunk every night. Eventually I decided that I'd regret not going if I didn't and went as a 22 year old mature student (meaning that I didn't have to pay any tuition fees). But when you come to uni you realise just how much of a financial struggle it really is. The loan barely covers your rent so if you don't want to be struggling for money and still want to have a good time you've got to find other ways of getting some money. Its not like its a free ride. As I've said, I'm going to be in the region of £18k in debt when I get out of here in July. But I don't mind too much about that, because its money that I've spent so its only fair that I pay it back. But what I do object to is this idea that people should pay in the region of £10k just for the priviledge of then getting into the sort of debt that I'm in now.

 

[The Fitter]

Quote[/b] (Beefy @ Jan. 09 2004,14:34)]

Quote[/b] (McScriven @ Jan. 09 2004,11:30)]Your probably right Napster but still don't think the public should be made to pay for something, which after all is your choice to do.

Ok, so everyone stops going to university. What happens then? No doctors, no teachers, no lawyers (

), no one qualified for important engineering and manufacturing positions, etc and the whole country suffers.

I don't agree with wanting 50% of the public to go through University, but graduates form a very important part of the economy. And as has been said before, if (and its a big if) they end up in a good job earning good money then they will be paying far more in higher income taxes than they have taken out. Should that money only be given to schools for the kids of graduates? Or for graduate-only hospitals?

I used to share your opinion. I worked for four years after A-Levels and watched most of my mates go off to uni and get drunk every night. Eventually I decided that I'd regret not going if I didn't and went as a 22 year old mature student (meaning that I didn't have to pay any tuition fees). But when you come to uni you realise just how much of a financial struggle it really is. The loan barely covers your rent so if you don't want to be struggling for money and still want to have a good time you've got to find other ways of getting some money. Its not like its a free ride. As I've said, I'm going to be in the region of £18k in debt when I get out of here in July. But I don't mind too much about that, because its money that I've spent so its only fair that I pay it back. But what I do object to is this idea that people should pay in the region of £10k just for the priviledge of then getting into the sort of debt that I'm in now.

We have no doctors or teachers now. We must have hundreds of law folk as I was recently stopped in the street and asked if I have had an accident in the last 3 years that was'nt my fault. Whats that all about.

18k in debt sounds like a dream. My credit card bill (4 of them) beats that. Add my 100k+ mortgage, thats proper debt. The difference is I got myself earning money before sinking my self in debt. You can never have too much finance, thats my oppinion.

Come to think of it I hope everyone goes to Uni (I hate that word, so gay sounding). The less people fixing trucks the more money I can demand doing it.