Student Fees

[devogue]

a small percentage of the huge financial leap that all graduates from all backgrounds will make.

That's an assumption !

Fair point. I should have said most rather than all (based on the fact that the average graduate salary is around £25k).

it also places the value on education as only a financial thing.

No - you are making an emotional appeal which isn't valid. The education itself is a separate issue. Of course subjects like Medicine, Astronomy, Ancient Greek and German Literature are immensely valuable to humanity in ways which can't be valued financially, but the question here is about the cold, hard cost of the education, because the only certainty is that the financial aspect will always be there. Education has to be paid for: professors and lecturers don't pay their bills with the intangible aspects of education, they pay with cash. So who should pay them?

The state rightly values education to secondary level , why the cut off?

I contend that the state should fully cover the costs of education through primary and secondary school up until the age of 18 when an adult is then in able to make an adult decision about their future. Because at that point certain choices are open to those who have the natural aptitude, brightness, intelligence, whatever you want to call it, that aren't open to those who don't.

what is enough education?

For some people learning to read and write is enough (or more than enough), for others a doctorate in astrophysics is enough (or not nearly enough). Once again, it's not the quantity or the quality - it's the financial cost to society, both students and non-students, that is under scrutiny

Every single argument for the state paying for secondary education can be made for further education .

No, it can't.

Again, every single child has a right to a fundamental and solid education. They should be treated equally and be given every opportunity to expand their horizons, learn, and develop intellectually. However, it is a fact of life that some children are more intelligent than others - these children have more chance of attending and succeeding in university while their peers drop out of education to contribute to society and the econonmy in other ways. They have more of a chance of eventually having a better job, better pay, better educated children, a better car, a better house, a better lifestyle, a better everything because there is a far greater chance that their salary will be considerably more than the less intellectual but hardworking child who will become a bricklayer, shopworker, roadsweeper or waiter.

If those people can't accept a tax/loan/fee on their own development above and beyond what the state should be liable for (and I have no problem with the state subsidising universities to a certain level) then they are being childish and selfish.

[mistermack]

I would just let people do as they please. I wouldn't cut down on the number of degree places as long as there were people willing to go there. Nor would I tie anybody down - if somebody wants to be a waitress who knows IT, that's up to them. I just wouldn't want to foot the bill. I think it's a fine idea to let people borrow money for uni, expecting to have to pay it back. That expectation will give enough people enough pause to examine whether they are making a good decision.

I would let universities determine what degrees they offer based on what people want to take. There is often value in many degrees deemed worthless by some. A classical liberal arts education can be very valuable in life - if the student actually learns something. Most of the time they don't, though because most university students are either not interested in really learning, or stupid.

That's all fine, because you obviously don't give a toss about social mobility. You didn't get elected on a promise of improving social mobility. But our govornment did, and are hell-bent breaking that promise in as many ways as they possibly can.
It's a very strange world that COMPELS you to go to school, up to a certain age, and then after that, makes you pay through the nose.
There is no doubt whatsoever that social mobility will be frozen by this measure.
Their excuse is that the economy is bad. But that's a short-term blip. They're taking advantage of a short-term problem to entrench privilege, which is what the conservative party has always been about.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

I would just let people do as they please. I wouldn't cut down on the number of degree places as long as there were people willing to go there. Nor would I tie anybody down - if somebody wants to be a waitress who knows IT, that's up to them. I just wouldn't want to foot the bill. I think it's a fine idea to let people borrow money for uni, expecting to have to pay it back. That expectation will give enough people enough pause to examine whether they are making a good decision.

I would let universities determine what degrees they offer based on what people want to take. There is often value in many degrees deemed worthless by some. A classical liberal arts education can be very valuable in life - if the student actually learns something. Most of the time they don't, though because most university students are either not interested in really learning, or stupid.

That's all fine, because you obviously don't give a toss about social mobility. You didn't get elected on a promise of improving social mobility. But our govornment did, and are hell-bent breaking that promise in as many ways as they possibly can.
It's a very strange world that COMPELS you to go to school, up to a certain age, and then after that, makes you pay through the nose.
There is no doubt whatsoever that social mobility will be frozen by this measure.
Their excuse is that the economy is bad. But that's a short-term blip. They're taking advantage of a short-term problem to entrench privilege, which is what the conservative party has always been about.
.

Oh, no. I do. The greatest social mobility comes from facilitating people's choices, not limiting them and channeling them into centrally controlled corridors (which is what you suggested doing).

The loan program, it seems to me, does nothing but improve social mobility. You're poor. You want to be an engineer and make 50,000 pounds a year. Go to uni on borrowed money and pay it back as a reasonable percentage of your salary. Fair, and you're upwardly mobile.

Pay through the nose? They don't have to pay until they get out, and then the payback is tied to income. Sounds eminently reasonable. It's not unfair, though, to ultimately bear the burden of paying for that which you wanted and received. That's not strange - that's normal.

[Coito ergo sum]

A report by Kent University published last week found that one third of graduates from the class of 2003 earn no extra money as a result of their qualification.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/educa ... 22410.html

That fact alone should warrant a sit down between every parent and every university bound 16 or 17 year old, to have a discussion about what exactly is the goal with going to uni. What will be learned, and what is the expected outcome in five years?

That doesn't necessarily mean that people ought to drop out of school or not go. It means that there is a real risk of the finances being questionable associated with it, and steps should be taken to remedy that.

[Bella Fortuna]

The US system is roughly:

Kindergarten (age 5)
Age 6-11 - grammar school/elementary school
Age 12-13 -- middle school (formerly "upper elementary")
Ages 14-17 - high school
Ages 18-21 - college/university

Or, if you're like me, university was ages 17-28...

Sounds like you had a good time....

Errr... hardly. More like I couldn't afford to go full time as I had to support myself, so it took a grueling 11 years of part time night courses and working full time, not to mention getting married and divorced and married again in the meantime...

[mistermack]

Coito, what you are failing to grasp is that this is a change in the UK. Not the US.
It's a tripling of tuition fees IN THE UK. It's going to hamper social mobility in the uk. It would have no effect on social mobility in the US, but that's not the point.
It will in the UK because it will have little effect on the rich, but will deter the poor from going to University.
That''s the effect, and that's the intention.
.

[devogue]

I would just let people do as they please. I wouldn't cut down on the number of degree places as long as there were people willing to go there. Nor would I tie anybody down - if somebody wants to be a waitress who knows IT, that's up to them. I just wouldn't want to foot the bill. I think it's a fine idea to let people borrow money for uni, expecting to have to pay it back. That expectation will give enough people enough pause to examine whether they are making a good decision.

I would let universities determine what degrees they offer based on what people want to take. There is often value in many degrees deemed worthless by some. A classical liberal arts education can be very valuable in life - if the student actually learns something. Most of the time they don't, though because most university students are either not interested in really learning, or stupid.

That's all fine, because you obviously don't give a toss about social mobility. You didn't get elected on a promise of improving social mobility. But our govornment did, and are hell-bent breaking that promise in as many ways as they possibly can.
It's a very strange world that COMPELS you to go to school, up to a certain age, and then after that, makes you pay through the nose.
There is no doubt whatsoever that social mobility will be frozen by this measure.
Their excuse is that the economy is bad. But that's a short-term blip. They're taking advantage of a short-term problem to entrench privilege, which is what the conservative party has always been about.
.

Once again (and I will keep saying it), whether you are dirt poor or filthy rich you do not have to pay anything up front to enjoy the benefits of a university education. Your point about "social mobility being frozen" and "entrenched privilege" just doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

A dirt poor child from the backstreets of Belfast can work like crazy through the school system, get his A Levels, and then he can decide whether to study medicine, law, engineering, dentistry or whatever at university. He has a choice. He doesn't have to cry himself to sleep at night after having the door slammed in his poverty-stricken face. He doesn't have to beg and plead with his parents to find £30,000 so he can fulfill his dream. No - he has to fill in a form and then get on with his degree. When he graduates one of two things will happen - he will fail to get a job in his chosen discipline and the chances are he will earn less than £21k a year - he pays nothing. He does get a job in his chosen discipline and he enjoys the job satisfaction, intellectual stimulation and finanical rewards of his new position - he earns more than £21,000 a year (£9,000 more than the minimum wage) and he has to repay a certain percentage of his loan. If he earns £50,000 or £200,000 he pays the same percentage, but his £30k will be paid off more quickly. Either way, as CES says, he's not going to go bust, and he's not going to have to worry about choosing between having something to eat or turning on an extra bar on a crappy old electric fire to beat hypothermia, as many of our most vulnerable elderly have to.

[Coito ergo sum]

Errr... hardly. More like I couldn't afford to go full time as I had to support myself, so it took a grueling 11 years of part time night courses and working full time, not to mention getting married and divorced and married again in the meantime...

See, that was your first mistake...don't get married during college. It gets in the way of college sexcapades.

[Coito ergo sum]

Coito, what you are failing to grasp is that this is a change in the UK. Not the US.
It's a tripling of tuition fees IN THE UK. It's going to hamper social mobility in the uk. It would have no effect on social mobility in the US, but that's not the point.
It will in the UK because it will have little effect on the rich, but will deter the poor from going to University.
That''s the effect, and that's the intention.
.

I'm fully aware of that. It's still a loan-pay-back program.

I didn't say it would have any effect on social mobility in the US.

Why would it deter the poor from going to university? They can go, and they can pay the tuition back. Millions of people all over the world have done that. What the fuck? They won't go be engineers because they have a long term expectation of having to pay back the money? That's ridiculous.

[Bella Fortuna]

Errr... hardly. More like I couldn't afford to go full time as I had to support myself, so it took a grueling 11 years of part time night courses and working full time, not to mention getting married and divorced and married again in the meantime...

See, that was your first mistake...don't get married during college. It gets in the way of college sexcapades.

I was a commuter student and never had "the college experience"... guess I got gypped. :sighsm:

[Coito ergo sum]

Errr... hardly. More like I couldn't afford to go full time as I had to support myself, so it took a grueling 11 years of part time night courses and working full time, not to mention getting married and divorced and married again in the meantime...

See, that was your first mistake...don't get married during college. It gets in the way of college sexcapades.

I was a commuter student and never had "the college experience"... guess I got gypped. :sighsm:

The "college experience" is just a euphemism for partying and acting stupid and getting away with it.... it was fun at times, though. Having stories about brushes with the law, near death experiences, streaking, and "wild times" is pretty cool sometimes....

Just watch this show...



It's a good rough approximation.

[Lozzer]

Education should be a right, financed and provided by the public tax like everything else. The severe cuts to further education alone would prove sufficient; however, increased fees are apparently 'necessary', even when students attending universities in 2011 will have a lower standard of university education due to reduced amount of premises, tutors and overall general quality in university infrastructure. British universities shouldn't be marketised, and I resent how cavalier some are about it when it's inevitably going to result in an unwelcome privatisation. The current administration boasts 18 millionaires, all of which had the privilege of a free university education, and yet, they're the catalysts and promoters of a 'reform' which is set to draw up the ladder for those from poorer backgrounds.

We expected this nonsense from the Tories, but Clegg had given us his word, and contemptibly, he’s betrayed the bulk of his voting demographic. Dev, you talk about how we simply ‘can’t understand’ the packages proposals, and yet over half of the Liberal Democrats voted against it today. I don’t argue this by means of fallacious ad populems and argument from authority, but it shows that even those ‘grasped’ the legislature have rejected it, and if not due to political disagreement, but because of the integrity, fortitude and principle that the Liberal Democrats bragged before the election.

[Coito ergo sum]

Education should be a right, financed and provided by the public tax like everything else.

Basic education for children, yes. But not all education. If it was, why would anyone graduate? A fully financed life of leisure and learning in a college town? Best welfare program possible.... you want publicly financed degrees for adults choosing to change gears in their 30s?

And, it CAN'T be a "right." If it's a "right" then even if there isn't any money to pay for it, the government must provide it, and therefore teachers and other education workers would have to work for free if necessary to provide it. That obviously can't be the case.

It's a public service that can and should be provided when and to the extent that sufficient funds are available to pay for it in light of other societal needs - not a right.

[Lozzer]

Let's see...

You come out of university with a degree and £30k of debt.

You pay nothing until you earn £21,000 per year. Well, boo fucking hoo - there is a huge army of people who earn the minimum wage of £12,334 per year with no way out. And the way they cry and bleat about £30k of debt! For fuck's sake, buy a house for £150k and you've saddled yourself with £300k of debt with all the interest and capital costs - debt is a fact of life, and £30k really is fuck all, especially if you are going to be in a higher earning bracket.

Interesting point. Many people who complain about the level of university fees/debt wouldn't think twice about taking on a mortgage that might be an order of magnitude greater. You have to wonder sometimes if people have their priorities and sense of perspective right.

I really am just completely and utterly sick of the outright lying going on. After Clegg clearly outlined the bill on Radio 5 Live yesterday and emphasised the crystal clear fact that there are no up front fees

On the contrary:

The claim
“All the part-time students and the demonstrators wouldn’t pay any upfront fees whatsoever.”
Nick Clegg MP, Deputy PM, speaking to broadcasters, Thursday 9 December 2010

Cathy Newman checks it out
Nick Clegg has been playing Santa this week – handing out presents to curry favour with his rebellious MPs. One of his early Christmas presents was more financial help for part-time students.

Today, he said all part-time students would be able to avoid paying upfront fees as part of the coalition government’s “reforms” to higher education. But here at FactCheck we think we’ve spotted a festive fib.



The analysis
There are 300,000 part-time students, studying at institutions ranging from Oxford Brookes to the Open University. Some get government grants to help fund their studies, but many pay for their courses themselves.

The government has said it will start giving part-timers loans to cover the full cost of their tuition fees, just as it does for full-time students.

To benefit, students had to study for at least 50 per cent of their time – so someone who was doing a typical three-year degree course in six years or less wouldn’t have to pay any tuition fees until after graduating.

As part of yesterday’s last-minute concessions, Nick Clegg added a few sweeteners, promising that loans would go to part-time students who spent at least 25 per cent of their time at their books.

However, contrary to what the deputy prime minister said this morning, 100,000 part-time students won’t be eligible for the loans, so they’ll have to pay their fees upfront.
That’s because, according to the Higher Education Funding Council for England, about a third of the 300,000 part-time students are studying for less than 25 per cent of their time.

The Department for Business, Innovation and Skills confirmed to FactCheck that these students wouldn’t be eligible for support, and so would have to pay for their fees upfront.

Cathy Newman’s verdict
Nick Clegg’s had a traumatic few weeks. He’s been forced to break his pre-election promise on tuition fees, and now he’s at the helm of a deeply divided party. And it appears the pressure is beginning to show. In his desperation to shower his MPs with goodies, he’s exaggerated his largesse. Bah humbug.

http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/tui ... dents/5327

[sandinista]

Education should be a right, financed and provided by the public tax like everything else.

Basic education for children, yes. But not all education. If it was, why would anyone graduate? A fully financed life of leisure and learning in a college town? Best welfare program possible.... you want publicly financed degrees for adults choosing to change gears in their 30s?

And, it CAN'T be a "right." If it's a "right" then even if there isn't any money to pay for it, the government must provide it, and therefore teachers and other education workers would have to work for free if necessary to provide it. That obviously can't be the case.

It's a public service that can and should be provided when and to the extent that sufficient funds are available to pay for it in light of other societal needs - not a right.

No, education, including post secondary should be a right. Should be paid for the same way health care is paid for, teachers paid the same way doctors are paid. In countries with universal health care of course. Teachers wouldn't have to work for free. Take the money from military spending and put it towards education.