Rioting students

[matt]

IMO university should be means tested - people from poorer backgrounds should get it for free and those who can afford to send their children to university should have to pay for it.

Unless its changed very recently uunviersity fees were means tested when I went to university a couple of years ago.

 

[scotsman]

Scotsman - why should education (well, more specifically further education) be free for all?! You'd have those with no interest in University subsidising those who do via their taxes to pay for students to potentially earn more than they do?! Yeah, that sounds fair and reasonable......

I just applied your philosophy to Disability benefit claimants and was physically sick. Why subsidise those who are ill and can't work? It's not as if it's our fault.

What about collective responsibility?

We have plenty of people who do not ever use or care about the railways subsidising them!

 

[yorkie]

I'll give a case study about two people I know at university, both do the same subject, and therefore will more than likely get the same type of job at the same salary. However:

Person 1) - does not have a student loan or grant - fees get paid by parents, no debt after university.

Person 2) - gets a student loan and maintenance grant to pay for university as parents do not earn enough to pay for it outright. Ends up c. £20k in debt after the three years, with the additonal interest afterwards.

Now do people think this is fair? The person from the poorer family will end up paying a lot more after the end of the three years.

IMO university should be means tested - people from poorer backgrounds should get it for free and those who can afford to send their children to university should have to pay for it.

it's not fair, but if Person 1's parents are a lot better off, he may well inherit more from them (not fair either), he may get the deposit paid on his mortgate from them (also not fair) and he may well get other things paid for by them e.g. transport costs (also not fair). I agree it's not fair, and there are some things we can do such as higher taxes for wealthy people (which I'd support!) and more subsidy for things that poorer people use (e.g. public transport!) however at the end of the day if someone has better off parents than someone else, that person is going to be better off than someone else, despite both of them potentially working just as hard as each other and achieving the same. Rich people often pass on their wealth to their children. We can't stop that, however unfair it is. This is just one example of it (out of many).

 

[scotsman]

I am one of you, not the previous generations who got lucky and avoided fees

I reckon a lot of graduates won't earn more than £21k as there are so many doing degrees that are pretty useless in the real world. If you earn more than £21k you can afford a few quid per month toward the cost of repaying the fees. It's not like if you earn more than £21k you suddenly have to pay loads! Only a small percentage of the amount above £21k will see deductions made to repay the loans.

1 - No you're not! I've yet to go, at the moment my tutition fees will be £0.00 (living in Scotland is fantastic!), but the Scottish Gov't is paying close attention to what's happening down south. Luckily, Labour is odds on to be the largest party in Holyrood next May.

2 - Those who earn over £50k subsidise those who wish to further their education (with public resources, I might add!) do so via income tax!

 

[yorkie]

1 - No you're not! I've yet to go, at the moment my tutition fees will be £0.00 (living in Scotland is fantastic!), but the Scottish Gov't is paying close attention to what's happening down south. Luckily, Labour is odds on to be the largest party in Holyrood next May.

Ah, I forgot that we subsidised you much that you don't pay student loans! Shouldn't it be me moaning at how unfair it is that I am having to pay loans while you get it free

2 - Those who earn over £50k subsidise those who wish to further their education (with public resources, I might add!) do so via income tax!

All of us who earn more than the tax-free threshold (what's that? £8k or so?) are subsidising it. The more people earn the more they are paying in tax, but that's only right.

 

[scotsman]

Ah, I forgot that we subsidised you much that you don't pay student loans! Shouldn't it be me moaning at how unfair it is that I am having to pay loans while you get it free

All of us who earn more than the tax-free threshold (what's that? £8k or so?) are subsidising it. The more people earn the more they are paying in tax, but that's only right.

1 - Scotland has just used it's grant better by investing in the public sector.

2 - It's £10k (Nick Clegg's last good deed) and that's the way it should be!

 

[90019]

Ah, I forgot that we subsidised you much that you don't pay student loans! Shouldn't it be me moaning at how unfair it is that I am having to pay loans while you get it free

Only fees are paid for with a grant if you apply in time, we still pay for everything else like you do.

 

[scotsman]

Only fees are paid for with a grant if you apply in time, we still pay for everything else like you do.

I've 18 months left till the joys of SAAS....

 

[90019]

I've 18 months left till the joys of SAAS....

Get your application in as soon as soon as you're able to, or you may not get the letter of confirmation until you've started.

I had the added joy of applying for a disablity grant, but thankfully a lot of that was done for me by the uni.

 

[Oswyntail]

Again, the question that has not been asked is "What does the country actually need?". If it needs a steady population of people educated to a certain level, then it is fair that the country should pay for that - and that is everyone, through taxation. However, rather than take that approach, the previous government decided that the easiest way to create this working stock of HE-educated people was to create a massive over-supply, and make the students pay (If you want to study rapid U-turns on policy in this area, look at Blair's absolute promise not to introduce tuition fees or raise them). This has created not only the current problems, but two others; first, that some occupations not previously thought to require degree level now do so - this means they can negotiate higher rates of pay, because their practitioners are better qualified (I know I shall bring howls of outrage, but the prime example of this is entry-level nursing); secondly, that we have had to provide many more HE-level establishments, at much greater cost than before . Unfortunately, one possible outcome of this approach will be that those with more confidence in their abilities will forego university, meaning that the better suited to "graduate" roles will be taken out of the "graduate-level" working stock.
This will all take about a generation to sort out, even if anyone has the political will to address it starting now.

 

[142094]

Unless its changed very recently uunviersity fees were means tested when I went to university a couple of years ago.

Since I started in '08 they haven't, can't speak for before then. At present everyone has to pay tuition fees at the same rate, those who come from a low income family can apply for a tuition fee loan, a maintenance loan (which is income assessed) and a bursary if that university gives one.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

it's not fair, but if Person 1's parents are a lot better off, he may well inherit more from them (not fair either), he may get the deposit paid on his mortgate from them (also not fair) and he may well get other things paid for by them e.g. transport costs (also not fair). I agree it's not fair, and there are some things we can do such as higher taxes for wealthy people (which I'd support!) and more subsidy for things that poorer people use (e.g. public transport!) however at the end of the day if someone has better off parents than someone else, that person is going to be better off than someone else, despite both of them potentially working just as hard as each other and achieving the same. Rich people often pass on their wealth to their children. We can't stop that, however unfair it is. This is just one example of it (out of many).

I agree, the wealthy should pay higher taxes and this should be used to subsidise things that the poor need, and yes you might not be able to stop wealthy parents paying for mortgages etc. However with university you can make them pay a bit more, especially since it seems that there is now a bit shift to get the cost of universities away from the taxpayer and on to those who go there.

 

[Ferret]

I just applied your philosophy to Disability benefit claimants and was physically sick. Why subsidise those who are ill and can't work? It's not as if it's our fault.

What about collective responsibility?

We have plenty of people who do not ever use or care about the railways subsidising them!

No, you didn't apply my logic at all. My argument was about the working man who isn't that well off subsidising people going to University in order that they be able to earn more than him. When you can tell me why that's fair, I'll agree that Uni education should be free. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[yorksrob]

No, you didn't apply my logic at all. My argument was about the working man who isn't that well off subsidising people going to University in order that they be able to earn more than him. When you can tell me why that's fair, I'll agree that Uni education should be free. I'm not holding my breath.

But by that argument, shouldn't sixth formers pay fees - since someone who drops out of school at sixteen may end up subsidising someone who stays on to complete A-levels?

The fairness is in ensuring that everyone regardless of background is able to enjoy education up to a level that suits their abilities. Then, if they do end up being paid more than someone who doesn't go to University - tax them.

 

[Ferret]

But by that argument, shouldn't sixth formers pay fees - since someone who drops out of school at sixteen may end up subsidising someone who stays on to complete A-levels?

You could possibly argue that - though I'd suggest we'd need to know how much more somebody who holds A-Levels earns compared to somebody who quit after their GCSEs. I'd venture to say not much.

The fairness is in ensuring that everyone regardless of background is able to enjoy education up to a level that suits their abilities. Then, if they do end up being paid more than someone who doesn't go to University - tax them.

Fine - so you'll support a Graduate Tax then for those who take a degree...?

 

[90019]

Fine - so you'll support a Graduate Tax then for those who take a degree...?

And those who end up in a low paid job but have a degree, would they have to pay that tax as well?

 

[Aussie_Rail]

Before I deffered my course at my Uni, in almost all the toilets, someone had written above the toilet paper dispesers "degrees, please take one". Funniest thing ever. And its true. I know people who did arts degrees in nothing in particular and are wondering why they even went in the first place.

A degree is not a passport to some secret world.

 

[Ferret]

And those who end up in a low paid job but have a degree, would they have to pay that tax as well?

How many people take a degree and end up working in McDoodles for the rest of their lives though? Life is all about choices.

As an aside - let's say we make Uni free for all, on the somewhat naïve and simplistic grounds that UK plc will see the benefits. All you'll get is a bunch of people going to Uni because it's free, not because they want a degree. Many will drop out meaning that taxpayer's money is wasted. The fairest way of making sure that the taxpayer is protected is making students pay for the service they are using. Maybe not all of it, but a significant sum. I'd like to see business make a contribution too, with Government funding making up the short fall - after all, we all need Doctors etc at some point.

 

[Greenback]

That is one way of looking at it. The other is that only the brightest and best students should got to University in the first place, but elitism is not in vogue at the moment, even if it refers to academic ability rather than wealth.

In the past when there were far fewer courses, far fewer institutions, and far fewer places at Universities, degrees were worth more and valued more. The problem that we have now and in the future may be that the brightest and most able students are deterred from going to University by the prospect of the fees and the huge debts they will incur. Yet a less academically able individual may end up doing a medical degree or science degree simply because Mummy and Daddy can pay for everything.

I think this all started when Polytechnics began to become Universities. There was a huge expansion in the Higher Education sector and we need to critically examine whether this has actually been successful or not. I wonder how many of the people who go to Uni are doing so for the right reasons?

 

[90019]

How many people take a degree and end up working in McDoodles for the rest of their lives though? Life is all about choices.

That's not the point. Some people can and will choose lower paid jobs over higher paid ones given the choice.
Would you go for a higher paid job you didn't like doing, or a lower paid one you enjoy?

So, can you answer the question as to whether those who end up in a low paid jobs with degrees should be made to pay an extra tax?

 

[Ferret]

That is one way of looking at it. The other is that only the brightest and best students should got to University in the first place, but elitism is not in vogue at the moment, even if it refers to academic ability rather than wealth.

In the past when there were far fewer courses, far fewer institutions, and far fewer places at Universities, degrees were worth more and valued more. The problem that we have now and in the future may be that the brightest and most able students are deterred from going to University by the prospect of the fees and the huge debts they will incur. Yet a less academically able individual may end up doing a medical degree or science degree simply because Mummy and Daddy can pay for everything.

I think this all started when Polytechnics began to become Universities. There was a huge expansion in the Higher Education sector and we need to critically examine whether this has actually been successful or not. I wonder how many of the people who go to Uni are doing so for the right reasons?

Me too. Labour I recall had a target of 50% of people going to University. This is all well and god, but what were people studying? If it was just to study arse-wiggling and Dominoes then what was the point?! I'll leave it for others to judge if getting people to go to University to study was a way of keeping unemployment figures down!

That's not the point. Some people can and will choose lower paid jobs over higher paid ones given the choice.
Would you go for a higher paid job you didn't like doing, or a lower paid one you enjoy?

So, can you answer the question as to whether those who end up in a low paid jobs with degrees should be made to pay an extra tax?

Yes - if you've used the University then you should pay for it, or at least make a very significant contribution, as part of my previous post on the matter.

 

[yorksrob]

You could possibly argue that - though I'd suggest we'd need to know how much more somebody who holds A-Levels earns compared to somebody who quit after their GCSEs. I'd venture to say not much.

If resultant earnings are the main criteria as to how much somebody should pay for their education, surely the most logical way to do this would be through the income tax system

 

[Ferret]

If resultant earnings are the main criteria as to how much somebody should pay for their education, surely the most logical way to do this would be through the income tax system

That's the thing though - 90019 says (with some merit) that some degree-holders choose lower paid jobs, so if we went through income tax alone then they'd not really be paying for the education which some would argue they are wasting.

 

[Eng274]

I am torn between which side of the argument I want to side with. I am tended towards saying "yes, degrees are excellent thing to have" but then I am doing a highly rated and very useful degree in mechanical engineering.

I think it was Greenback who mentioned the upgrading of polytech colleges to universities; this is a fair point, but in many cases courses are generally sold on their accreditations by professional institutions (i.e. my course is accredited by IMechE). I do agree that this process has diluted the value of a degree to some extent, but it always depends on the subject.

Without wishing to sound 'holier than thou', i do tire of the plethora of obscure subjects one can opt to study. I know of an accountancy graduate and a modern languages graduate who bum around working in a pub because they either can't/won't get a degree relevant job.

I cannot comment too much on tuition fees, since I am from Scotland. I do believe though that the plans to triple the fees some courses charge is criminal, and especially more so for engineering courses, where there is a great deal of scientific equipment and laboratory space which does eat into a university's budget. I am not from a wealthy background, and without SAAS paying my fees i'd still be pulling pints or working up from apprentice level.

 

[Greenback]

That's the thing though - 90019 says (with some merit) that some degree-holders choose lower paid jobs, so if we went through income tax alone then they'd not really be paying for the education which some would argue they are wasting.

The trouble is , I;m not sure that there are sufficient numbers of higher paid jobs to match the number of graduates! In 1995 I was told by a lecturer that there wer eso many graduates that anything less than a 2:1 was useless. Now, I ge tthe impression that only a Masters will help you stand out from the crowd academically!

I am torn between which side of the argument I want to side with. I am tended towards saying "yes, degrees are excellent thing to have" but then I am doing a highly rated and very useful degree in mechanical engineering.

I think it was Greenback who mentioned the upgrading of polytech colleges to universities; this is a fair point, but in many cases courses are generally sold on their accreditations by professional institutions (i.e. my course is accredited by IMechE). I do agree that this process has diluted the value of a degree to some extent, but it always depends on the subject.

Without wishing to sound 'holier than thou', i do tire of the plethora of obscure subjects one can opt to study. I know of an accountancy graduate and a modern languages graduate who bum around working in a pub because they either can't/won't get a degree relevant job.

I cannot comment too much on tuition fees, since I am from Scotland. I do believe though that the plans to triple the fees some courses charge is criminal, and especially more so for engineering courses, where there is a great deal of scientific equipment and laboratory space which does eat into a university's budget. I am not from a wealthy background, and without SAAS paying my fees i'd still be pulling pints or working up from apprentice level.

It very much depends on the subject. There seems an element of truth in the reports that more and more students are opting for media courses and art/design rather than engineering or medical degres. I am not denigrating such courses out of hand, but it seems to me that as a society we have a greater need of doctors and engineers than sculptors. ad executives and TV producers! (a bit simplified I know!)

 

[Ferret]

Greenback - I'm not sure there are either. Like I said, life is all about choices, and I guess the increase in tuition fees may lead to some deciding that doing a degree in arse wiggling isn't actually worth it!

 

[imagination]

One thing that doesnt seem to be being brought up much - what happens to people who have already started their higher education? If they end up having to pay more than they thought they would then they've made a choice based on false information which could cost them a lot - particularly in areas where people need to spend a long time in university before they qualify.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Greenback - I'm not sure there are either. Like I said, life is all about choices, and I guess the increase in tuition fees may lead to some deciding that doing a degree in arse wiggling isn't actually worth it!

And lead some poorer people who should be going to university not to.

 

[Ferret]

And lead some poorer people who should be going to university not to.

You're understanding of the issues really seems to be lacking Ralph.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

You're understanding of the issues really seems to be lacking Ralph.

Really? Having spoken to many students about this the consensus from people that were going to go to university (and not to study pointless degrees) was that they didn't want to anymore as they would end up paying twice for the privilege. They would pay the interest, and then end up paying higher taxes to write off the debt that was accrued from people who end up not getting a job.
Let's remember I spend my time with people applying, and looking to apply. I doubt you do.

 

[Ferret]

Ralph, you're attempting to turn it into yet another rich v poor debate when it's nothing of the sort.

Yes, people don't want to pay more for anything - that's human nature. However, Yorkie's post earlier sums things up perfectly - I'm not going to be repeating what he said but I suggest you read it, digest it, and then come back with a more sensible line of argument.