Tuition fee vote passed

Pokerface

EKIMIKE wrote:

I'm a student.

Fact is too many are going to university now. A lot of people shouldn't be. It simply doesn't suit them. They don't like studying and quite frankly they're only at uni to go out and get pissed. To them, the degree is a secondary concern in their list of priorities.

The way this government is managing this problem is pretty poor. It's not the best solution, it's probably not even the second or third best solution. It is however probably the most easily implementable solution. The Tories know more than anyone that the poor are easy to keep quiet - in the long run.

Get rid of the "crap" degree's. Too many degree's don't provide skills which bear comparison to the sheer cost of undertaking a degree.

Equally, protect and promote those studies which are of true value, economically and socially.

There's nothing more annoying than a financially 'comfortable' person dishing out generalised scorn on people my age when they're the ones that got it all for free. Bastards.

And by comfortable i mean if you've got a job and a place to live and a car. That's a rich life to me. Most people my age can't even get a 'decent' job without 20k + of debt hanging round their necks.

There should be tuition fee's. And i agree with the poster above that University education isn't so much a 'right'. It should however be reasonably accessible.

This sums up a lot of what I feel about it. Too many students go to uni 'just because'. Too many lame degrees. Not enough 'real' education.

I hope this fee situation will make students think twice about going to uni just as an excuse to get drunk for several years.

(I grew up and went to Uni in Canada - where we all had to pay high fees. Furthermore - I had to pay my own way through school, which meant a combination of loans and part-time jobs. So I guess i don't see what all the fuss is here....)

finchy

Whatever the rights and wrongs of this policy, wait a few years and then we'll see a massive brain drain as our brightest youngsters decide to bugger off somewhere else.

singlespeedexplosif

johnfinch's house, earlier.

morstar

So the general concensus is that there are lots of effectively worthless degrees out there and lots of people are just going to universities for universities sake.

+1 to all of that.

However, rather than just judging the students for being rather worried about how this will burden them financialy for many years, think about the plight of those students, many of whom are good, honest youngsters trying to find their way in the world.

Our entire education system (courtesy of both left and right wing parties) is geared up to the bizarre delusion that everybody should be an academic. From nursery age everything is geared up to the three R's at the expense of all other forms of learning and enrichment. KIds who aren't academically able are left on the scrap heap at a very early age and everybody else is channelled towards university regardless of the real worth of their going.

Where are the trades, where are the vocational skills? Education in this country is a disgrace because of policies that completely lack any strategic vision. Meanwhile we look to blame teachers for failing to force kids to engage with subjects they have no affinity for.

Let university be a place for the genuinely gifted at a much lower cost and develop an education system that engages students of all abilities at an appropriate level elsewhere at a much lower cost.

finchy

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

johnfinch's house, earlier.

Cheeky git, tinfoil hats are for conspiracy theorists.

d87heaven

At least the students have got off thier ar@es and are demonstrating.
Billions to the bankers - plenty of moaning but no one did anything.
Ministers stealing expenses - ooo you bad people.

i think this man should be prime minister, he'll sort it out even if he is a bit sweary..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ntfgdk-xk

Tom Butcher

Am I right in thinking they pay off 10% of their income above 20k - so 25k income they pay £500 a year ??

I'm just trying to work out how much they'd have to earn before they are actually paying off the debt rather than just slowing the rate the debt increases because of the 3% plus inflation interest they are going to be paying. Or have I got some of the facts wrong ?

Pokerface

Tom Butcher wrote:

Am I right in thinking they pay off 10% of their income above 20k - so 25k income they pay £500 a year ??

I'm just trying to work out how much they'd have to earn before they are actually paying off the debt rather than just slowing the rate the debt increases because of the 3% plus inflation interest they are going to be paying. Or have I got some of the facts wrong ?

If you had a high-quality university education you'd know the answer to your own question.

finchy

d87heaven wrote:

i think this man should be prime minister, he'll sort it out even if he is a bit sweary..... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L5ntfgdk-xk

LEGEND!!!!! The best ending to an interview ever.

garrynolan

u05harrisb wrote:

im 17 at the moment and am planning to go and do somthing along the lines of physics and nano-tech. TBH it sucks its gonne cost me more but hey ho! i want that degree and i will pay for it because in the long run im gonna be far better off, paying heavly for my degree and then earning well than no degree and working as shop assistant or a tele-sales man!

personally i dont think that the whole children form X income familys should get "extra" funding idea that many people talk about is a good idea, my parents are not well off, were not benifits but were not "rich". I am going to be paying my entire degree and expensise myself, as will i when i learn to drive and buy a car as i do now to fund my music and bike.

yes, im disapointed that i will pay more but everything is costing everybody more, why am I or anybody else any diffrent?

Not studying English then.... :oops:

RichN95.

A few days ago, in a group meeting at work (all science/engineering graduates), someone asked if anyone knew anyone personally who had an 'arts' degree who had a high paying job (50k+ as some in the room were earning).

No-one did, except me (one went to Eton and Oxford (1st class), possibly MI6, and the other worked his way up from the cold call phone room)

rick_chasey

What gets me enraged is this "too many people are doing sh!t courses therefore let's make every f*cker pay".

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater? More like throwing the grown man out with the bathwater.

Why ruin it for the large proportion of well meaning intelligent students for a few poor choices from universities who run the courses?

Furthermore, weren't those "mickey mouse" courses entirely designed to attract more funding in the first place? So they could get more students and thus more fees in?

If the degrees are so worthless, then why does everyone tell students throughout their entire education that the best way to get a job is to get a degree? How are they to know any different, if that s what they are taught?

Just because they're not 30+ doesn't mean they don't have intelligence - they understand that a worthless degree is just that.

There's a lot of underlying condescension to students when this issue is discussed, like they're not smart enough to really understand. This is not the case.

There are many different ways to fund university. People make out like raising the cap to £9,000 is the only option. It patently is not.

That the Tories have managed to make the rhetoric black and white, all or nothing for the £9,000 fee and still ferry all the anger towards the Lib Dems is quite astounding.

Finally, I do seriously wonder why people seem to think that having the majority of the demographic staying in education beyond the age of 16 is such a bad idea? And do spare me the anecdotal "I did it the hard way and look how great I am".

The continent seems to manage funding University well. That the UK seems incapable of it, despite being the 5th wealthiest nation on the planet to me at least, illustrates the nimby, narrow minded, self orientated, fundamentally unsympathetic, individualistic nature of the UK public psyche. The concern is not for what is best for society, but what is best for them and only them. The notions of citizenship I hear day after day almost always revolve around "I work hard, I pay taxes, I deserve sh!t, they don't".

It's shameful that such a wealthy country cannot have free education, and that so many people appear to be comfortable with that.

For those in your late 30s onwards - you'd better hope that the current crop of students - who ultimately will be running the country by the time you are too old to - don't take the same unsympathetic attitude.

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

A few days ago, in a group meeting at work (all science/engineering graduates), someone asked if anyone knew anyone personally who had an 'arts' degree who had a high paying job (50k+ as some in the room were earning).

No-one did, except me (one went to Eton and Oxford (1st class), possibly MI6, and the other worked his way up from the cold call phone room)

I can name plenty.

Annecdotal evidence means sh!t.

Hell, I earn more than all my friends, arts and science/engineering grads and I graduated within the last 3 years with a History degree.

Big deal.

There's more to life than earning cash, and there's more to contribute to society then cash. The state should recognise the market myopia and correct it.

RichN95.

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's more to life than earning cash, and there's more to contribute to society then cash. The state should recognise the market myopia and correct it.

If you don't earn cash, then the degree's free, so where's the problem?

rick_chasey

RichN95 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There's more to life than earning cash, and there's more to contribute to society then cash. The state should recognise the market myopia and correct it.

If you don't earn cash, then the degree's free, so where's the problem?

You need to be earning VERY little over your lifetime to not end up paying for it, let alone the interest on top which is based on a particularly high measure of inflation. There would be no point in doing this if it didn't ultimately mean that grads, whatever there income, as long as it is above a low threshold, would end up paying more.£27,000 of debt, minimum, plus, say £3,000 per year living costs is a help of a lot of debt to be saddled with before you even earn. That is enough to put people off, and that is the point. Nor is it fair, since it is a flat rate. There are many ways to get the funding. A flat, deferred fee is not an equal way to do it.

Wheelspinner

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are many ways to get the funding. A flat, deferred fee is not an equal way to do it.

1. Such as? Borrow funds from somewhere else to pay for the "free education" presumably. What would you cut? Health care? Disability services? Transport budgets? An education has never been and never will be free. Somebody, somewhere, pays for it.

2. If flat fee for all is not "equal", what the hell is? I don't understand your logic here: first, you say that education should be free for everyone (which would seem to me to be the utopian equal flat fee of zero quid), and now it is not the right fee determination method?

I'm not specifically disagreeing with your sentiments, just your argument.

rick_chasey

Wheelspinner wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

There are many ways to get the funding. A flat, deferred fee is not an equal way to do it.

1. Such as? Borrow funds from somewhere else to pay for the "free education" presumably. What would you cut? Health care? Disability services? Transport budgets? An education has never been and never will be free. Somebody, somewhere, pays for it.

2. If flat fee for all is not "equal", what the hell is? I don't understand your logic here: first, you say that education should be free for everyone (which would seem to me to be the utopian equal flat fee of zero quid), and now it is not the right fee determination method?

I'm not specifically disagreeing with your sentiments, just your argument.

1. Perhaps a little more tax? Say on high earners? UK high earners pay less tax than in any other big eu nation. Or perhaps a grad tax, which would be proportional to the amount you earn, rather than the rate at which you pay stuff back. That brings me on to 2.

Equal is how you define it, but usually with tax, which the fee ultimately is, it is fairer if it is done proportionally.

That I think education should be free is a separate point. I understand that in the UK political climate, voters will not tolerate anything less than the students paying their own way. I fundamentally disagree with that, but it's not a practical position to take. It's not utopian though. The Netherlands has free education, and France's fee is token compared to UK fees. That the UK can't manage what the Netherlands can is shameful.

Jez mon

Rick Chasey wrote:

Why ruin it for the large proportion of well meaning intelligent students for a few poor choices from universities who run the courses?


There are many different ways to fund university. People make out like raising the cap to £9,000 is the only option. It patently is not.

a) I wouldn't be so sure that the large proportion of students are well meaning intellectuals. Maybe at the top echelon of unis, but once you start to filter down to the lesser unis the intellectuals are distinctly in the minority.

b) Examples on the back of a post card please! The two I can currently get are:
1. increasing public funding, which requires higher taxes (as a current placement student earning a proper salary for the first time, they are too high already thank you very much ) or taking public money away from elsewhere, which is always going to be unpopular

2. Looking at bringing the private sector in more. This would work for some degrees, I can see that large companies might like the idea of sponsoring whole degree courses, so long as they had complete control of the course, they could then guarantee themselves quality graduates. The same with other degrees which directly lead to professions. However, it could leave smaller companies high and dry when it came to recruiting graduates. Then there is the fact that securing funding for arts degrees would be an issue!

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

If the degrees are so worthless, then why does everyone tell students throughout their entire education that the best way to get a job is to get a degree

I was reading a careers advice book recently, and the advice for people who wanted to become a rock musician was to go to university to study for a degree in pop music. :roll:

Wheelspinner

Jez mon wrote:

2. Looking at bringing the private sector in more. This would work for some degrees, I can see that large companies might like the idea of sponsoring whole degree courses, so long as they had complete control of the course, they could then guarantee themselves quality graduates.

They already do:

finchy

Wheelspinner wrote:

Jez mon wrote:

2. Looking at bringing the private sector in more. This would work for some degrees, I can see that large companies might like the idea of sponsoring whole degree courses, so long as they had complete control of the course, they could then guarantee themselves quality graduates.

They already do:

One day archaeologists studying our time will find that.

richk

Anybody know if any Scottish/Welsh MPs voted in favour of the proposals?

Anonymous

I'm, in principal, dead against the increase however there are a hell of a lot of people who go to university just for the laffs who aren't interested in study/drop out. The change may cull some of those that aren't determined to actually study.

Just playing devil's advocate. (actually, seeing as it's christmas, devil's advocaat.)

MattC59

Go easy on Rick folks, isn't it clear that his inane ramblings are clearly the result of a heavy night in the pub !!!

The question shouldn't be "Why shouldn't students pay" it should be "why should students be exempt from the effects of this recession".

Answers on a post card please...............

Gazzaputt

Education is a right but there must be a cut off point.

IMO education to the age of 16 is ample for the state to pay for.

After this further education should be paid for by the individual.

rick_chasey

MattC59 wrote:

Go easy on Rick folks, isn't it clear that his inane ramblings are clearly the result of a heavy night in the pub !!!

The question shouldn't be "Why shouldn't students pay" it should be "why should students be exempt from the effects of this recession".

Answers on a post card please...............

No need to go easy, it's pretty much how I feel. It probably doesn't help that my bosses go on and on about how they want students shot. I can't bite the hand that feeds, so I have to vent somewhere.

The youth is nowhere near responsible for the recession, yet they're the ones who will bear the burden to sort it out , so why not give them a break?

The whole "we're in this together" thing has been pounded into us the minute the Tories got into power, because, quite rightly, they understood that that discourse resonates with people. It provides them with the discourse to justify cuts that hurt everyone, especially those on lower incomes and the younger people, who ultimately are unlikely to vote tory anyway, and were not responsible for the problems. Ultimately, people are not in it together. The poorest and youngest are carrying the burden.

It's not in my personel interest, given where I work but christ, sort out the high end earners. There's an awful lot of top end tax that isn't paid and that's vastly more expensive than any tution fee or benefit claim.

finchy

MattC59 wrote:

The question shouldn't be "Why shouldn't students pay" it should be "why should students be exempt from the effects of this recession".

When they graduate they'll face a lifetime of paying higher taxes and getting worse public services to pay for national debts run up while they were still children. On top of this they won't be allowed to retire until later in life. So they're hardly exempt from the effects of the recession.

Paulie W

MattC59 wrote:

Go easy on Rick folks, isn't it clear that his inane ramblings are clearly the result of a heavy night in the pub !!!

The question shouldn't be "Why shouldn't students pay" it should be "why should students be exempt from the effects of this recession".

Answers on a post card please...............

Let's get this straight - students already pay but they are now faced witha 200% increase in fees. 200%! That's a hike by anyone's standards. The rise is due to the fact that the government is effectively cutting the HE teaching budget by 80%. Compare that to cuts in other areas. It's by some way the largest cut. There was a middle ground here - less swingeing cuts to the teaching budget, less astronomical rises in fees

But the government saw this as a soft target - a way of making significant savings -precisely because of the attitude demonstrated by a number of people on this thread: 'why should I pay for a bunch of lazy beer swilling students to do a media studies degree that at best will get them a job pulling pints in a Wetherspoons?' The riots have been way over the top but they have demonstrated that this wasnt such a soft target after all.

softlad

University is over-rated - always has been. Some of the most useless people I have ever worked with had very good degrees.....some of those degrees were even in a relevant subject...

rick_chasey

Paulie W wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Go easy on Rick folks, isn't it clear that his inane ramblings are clearly the result of a heavy night in the pub !!!

The question shouldn't be "Why shouldn't students pay" it should be "why should students be exempt from the effects of this recession".

Answers on a post card please...............

Let's get this straight - students already pay but they are now faced witha 200% increase in fees. 200%! That's a hike by anyone's standards. The rise is due to the fact that the government is effectively cutting the HE teaching budget by 80%. Compare that to cuts in other areas. It's by some way the largest cut. There was a middle ground here - less swingeing cuts to the teaching budget, less astronomical rises in fees

But the government saw this as a soft target - a way of making significant savings -precisely because of the attitude demonstrated by a number of people on this thread: 'why should I pay for a bunch of lazy beer swilling students to do a media studies degree that at best will get them a job pulling pints in a Wetherspoons?' The riots have been way over the top but they have demonstrated that this wasnt such a soft target after all.

Yes.