Rioting students

[yorkie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11726822

(watch the video)

Surely these rioters are not going to be able to get a job paying more than £21,000 per year (who is going to employ people who act like that?), so they will never repay their loans anyway!

The loans are only repaid on earnings above £21,000. (e.g. someone earning £22,000 pays a proportion of the £1000 above that figure toward their loan).

I think that they should be repaying the huge cost of educating them. It will be many years before they repay and if they don't earn a good wage they never will repay it, so what are they rioting for? Ludicrous.

 

[Oswyntail]

The arguments about who should finance Higher Education, and how are many, varied, and, as yet, unsettled. We have not even really worked out what or who should be in Higher Education. However, as a parent of current students, I feel the waves of anxiety that these changes force on them - and, as the base consumers of the service, they have not been consulted on any of this.
Having said that, there is absolutely no justification for the rent-a-mob antics seen today. It can only serve to alienate huge swathes of the population, large parts of which were actually quite sympathetic beforehand
[Actually, I had to laugh at the bit on the news when one of the rioters who, presumably, was not far into his 20s, referred to it being like the "old days of Thatcher - you've got the cuts, and now the riot". As if he'd know]

 

[yorkie]

Some of them are either stupid or incapable of reading/researching (evidence that too many people are doing degrees?) such as Matthew Wilde from Devon.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11728708

My friend and I are protesting against the fees. I'm a member of Young Labour and will be joining them at the rally.

Ah yes, the party that introduced fees. So, you support them then?

It's going to cost a lot of money to go to university. The wealthy can pay upfront but what about other people who will not have a highly paid job?

If you don't get a highly paid job, you will not repay the fees! Have you not done any research on this subject?!

I think the fees are grossly unfair for hard-working people who will be on low pay.

Unfair that they will never pay them?! How is that unfair?!

It is extortionate to charge such high fees. Why not just cut the number of places at university and keep the lower fees - go back to the old days?

Well, yes, the number of places probably should be cut, there are too many people doing media degrees and the like. Many of them will have to do more practical jobs (or, as happens at the moment in some cases, not get a job, and people from places like Poland who are more willing to work than them do the more practical jobs)

I'm doing my A-levels in Somerset and I was hoping to go to university in 2012 to study politics, but I'm not sure now.

I wonder how many people are studying politics compared to the number of people who can get jobs in politics. I suspect that his earlier suggestion of having less places may be useful here.

Teachers don't know what to advise students about higher education at the moment.

I'm sure the good teachers would say that if people are worried about fees, that they don't need to worry about repaying those fees until they earn more than £21k, and even then it's only the earnings above that that the fees are payable on.

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I'll give you something yorkie, you really can really well-analyse quotes

People seem not to realise that Labour introduced fees and got us into the mess which led to the needs for this rise. People also say 'Oh, the Libs said they would never increase fees etc, the back-stabbing lying ********'. Manifestos tend to be based on if the party gets a majority government, of course in a coalition; stuff is going to have compromised...

The actions of the rioters today was plain thuggery, if that's the way they behave then I'm glad some have been lumbered with higher fees!

Was nice to see on the news some idiot breaking the window, cheering, then realising an 7 foot pane of glass was about to land on him.

 

[90019]

I'm somewhat glad I decided not to go and be part of that!

 

[CheapAndNerdy]

I'm somewhat glad I decided not to go and be part of that!

I inadvertently stumbled upon it (14:40ish) when I visited the Tate Britain (about 200m down the road from where the main trouble was reported to be). Apart from having to carefully thread my way through a large number of people I experienced little inconvenience and had a pleasant hour or so in the gallery. Afterwards I continued down Millbank towards Westminster. There was quite a crowd at number 30 and I noticed a few people on the roof, but I continued towards the British Museum largely unimpeded.

I guess I missed the main argy bargy, but things seemed peaceful enough, if somewhat noisy, when I was there.

 

[theblackwatch]

Well, yes, the number of places probably should be cut, there are too many people doing media degrees and the like. Many of them will have to do more practical jobs (or, as happens at the moment in some cases, not get a job, and people from places like Poland who are more willing to work than them do the more practical jobs)

There are too many people doing degrees altogether. A lot of the problems stem from the fact that the Labour government decided that 50% of school leavers should go to university. On what grounds was this figure chosen - do 50% of jobs require education to degree standard? Of course not. To misquote a well known saying, "Is your degree really necessary?" - in many cases, I think the answer is no!

 

[90019]

I inadvertently stumbled upon it (14:40ish) when I visited the Tate Britain (about 200m down the road from where the main trouble was reported to be). Apart from having to carefully thread my way through a large number of people I experienced little inconvenience and had a pleasant hour or so in the gallery. Afterwards I continued down Millbank towards Westminster. There was quite a crowd at number 30 and I noticed a few people on the roof, but I continued towards the British Museum largely unimpeded.

I guess I missed the main argy bargy, but things seemed peaceful enough, if somewhat noisy, when I was there.

Yeah, but I had a much nicer and more productive day anyway

 

[Greenback]

There are too many people doing degrees altogether. A lot of the problems stem from the fact that the Labour government decided that 50% of school leavers should go to university. On what grounds was this figure chosen - do 50% of jobs require education to degree standard? Of course not. To misquote a well known saying, "Is your degree really necessary?" - in many cases, I think the answer is no!

Absolutely. Mrs G works in post 16 education and says that there are quite a few students who are simply not equipped for the intellectual challenge of the courses they are on. They are only in education because the last government decided unilaterally that 50% or whatever should be at University.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

If you don't get a highly paid job, you will not repay the fees! Have you not done any research on this subject?!

At what if you are earning 22, or 23? That is quite low pay, yet you will have to pay back massive student debts.

Unfair that they will never pay them?! How is that unfair?!

You can't say that all students will never have to pay the fees back! It's unfair because the generation that had the government pay for theirs, are now making it far more expensive to go to university. And it's unfair on those with deferred entry who have no idea whether they can or cannot afford uni now!

Well, yes, the number of places probably should be cut, there are too many people doing media degrees and the like. Many of them will have to do more practical jobs (or, as happens at the moment in some cases, not get a job, and people from places like Poland who are more willing to work than them do the more practical jobs)

I wonder how many people are studying politics compared to the number of people who can get jobs in politics. I suspect that his earlier suggestion of having less places may be useful here.

Oh dear. Do I sense a chip on one's shoulder?

I'm sure the good teachers would say that if people are worried about fees, that they don't need to worry about repaying those fees until they earn more than £21k, and even then it's only the earnings above that that the fees are payable on.

And you will have to pay the interest on the loan.

 

[yorkie]

At what if you are earning 22, or 23? That is quite low pay, yet you will have to pay back massive student debts.

Why don't you find out? At present you need to repay when earning over £15k, and the current amount is 9% of earnings above that amount. For someone earning £21k that is £45/month, for someone earning £24k that is £67/month. Under the new system someone earning £21k pays nothing.

You can't say that all students will never have to pay the fees back!

Read the quotes. The badly-informed moaning student said that it is "unfair" on students on "low pay", but this is a silly comment because students on "low pay" (£21k per year or less) will, in fact, pay nothing! It's quite a simple concept and if someone can't grasp that, they shouldn't be going to University quite frankly.

It's iunfair because the generation that had the government pay for theirs, are now making it far more expensive to go to university.

Well I'm not part of that generation. There are wider issues here, but I'm not going to get into that.

And it's unfair on those with deferred entry who have no idea whether they can or cannot afford uni now!

These people are concerned that when they get a job earning more than £21k per year they may not be able to pay a few quid per month? I think that should be the least of their worries. Some people who do degrees struggle to find a job in their relevant field (e.g. media).

Oh dear. Do I sense a chip on one's shoulder?

Actually I am eligible to repay student fees. But I just accept it, it's not a lot of money, I am happy to be in a position where I have to repay it!

Yeah I'd rather I didn't have to pay fees like the previous generations but I accept it is fair that I do. It's absolutely ludicrous to throw a wobbler over it, as some students did yesterday.

And you will have to pay the interest on the loan.

Yes, we do. Is this a surprise?

People who get very highly paid jobs will be able to repay the full loan. They can afford to! If they are earning, say, £70k per year, then really you have to say that their education should be paid for by themselves and not by society?

People who get a low paid job (less than £21k per year) will pay nothing.

People in the middle, earning not a huge amount, but more than £21k per month, say £28k or so, may find the payments to be annoying, they may believe they are unfair, they may feel they can't afford them, but the reality is that a few dozen quid per month when you are earning two to three thousand per month really isn't going to break the bank, and these people should bear in mind that there are many people who are much less fortunate than them on the dole or in low paid jobs who will have far more to worry about. They only pay repayments on a percentage of earnings above the threshold. If someone earns £5,000 above the threshold then they only pay a percentage of that £5,000.

 

[mumrar]

I have to say, watching the news reports I was totally disgusted. How can these people demand they need help to find some sort of future when behaving like that? There is no justification for such actions, although I do believe it was a minorty who caused it, this will be what the argument about fees will be remembered for.

I'm going to raise what I feel is not an extreme point of view, and that is that graduate's in their lifetime will on average earn more than non graduates. Add to that the fact that people not going to university and in to work are paying in to the tax system in those years (take my example of starting at 19-24 years shall we say, that was about £9000) and it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be free.

If I wanted to further myself at night school now I'd have to pay for it, and I'd expect to. But the fact that it doeasnt have to be repayed until over threshold earnings, and is at a very preferential interest rate, and it is just not the kind of debt we're used to associating the word debt with.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

But there is no guarantee that graduates will get a good, well paid job.

The student loans used to be quite a easy debt to cope with. It wasn't like the government were trying to make a profit from you and by and large most students didn't mind that. Now, the government is trying to make a profit from someone who will most probably give more money to the government in income tax.

I don't condone the actions of the small minority of students who turned the protests into riots, but what they were protesting about I do support.

 

[starrymarkb]

Maybe they'd been looking at the French. A few of my more militant friends have been suggesting revoultion.

As a more central person I'm thinking this government are making some crazy decisions. Aircraft carriers with no aircraft for example.

 

[mumrar]

But there is no guarantee that graduates will get a good, well paid job.

The student loans used to be quite a easy debt to cope with. It wasn't like the government were trying to make a profit from you and by and large most students didn't mind that. Now, the government is trying to make a profit from someone who will most probably give more money to the government in income tax.

I don't condone the actions of the small minority of students who turned the protests into riots, but what they were protesting about I do support.

There is no guarantee of the better paid job, but they certainly stand more chance than someone educated only to GCSE level. On averages this is true, and you can only base a situation on averages to be fair.

 

[yorksrob]

First of all, like most people on here, I don't condone or agree with rent-a-mob tactics.

That said, on the wider issue of student fees, whilst I agree that there has probably been an overemphasis on increasing numbers in higher education in recent years, I wonder whether this is something that has been driven by forces beyond the education systems control. For example, is it a case of employers expecting their new employees to have degrees when the job doesn't necessarily need it, as a way of avoiding the costs of training people themselves. Also, whilst 50% of school leavers in higher education might seem an arbitrary figure, we are probably affected by what our peer group countries do. What percentage do our European neighbours have, and can we as a country afford to be out of step ?

With regards to fees of £6000 - £9000, there is no doubt in my mind that this, together with maintenance costs will put many able students off. Are we seriously expected to believe that the bursery system suggested by the Vice Chancellors will help anyone other than the very poorest of society to join the very wealthiest of society to go to the best Universities? Anyone who believes in social mobility will see that this will seriously impede the prospects of young people from upper-working class and middle income families.

It is breathtaking that the present administration have cynically tried to palm off a 40% cut in the teaching budget as merely a response to the budget defecit, in collusion with University Vice Chancellors who scream blue murder about being able to choose the brightest students when Governments try to meddle in admissions policy (quite rightly IMO) yet who are obsessed with prostituting out their institutions to whoever is in a position to pay the most.

If the Establishment (for all the Parties are tarred in this shambles) really believes that people should pay for their own higher education, then they should levy a tax surcharge on those who had theirs for free in the past. The argument that it is somehow unfair to do this because the people at the time weren't made aware that they would need to pay extra, is a nonsense because we are all subject to unexpected and arbitrary tax rises at one time or another.

 

[Pumbaa]

With regards to fees of £6000 - £9000, there is no doubt in my mind that this, together with maintenance costs will put many able students off. Are we seriously expected to believe that the bursery system suggested by the Vice Chancellors will help anyone other than the very poorest of society to join the very wealthiest of society to go to the best Universities? Anyone who believes in social mobility will see that this will seriously impede the prospects of young people from upper-working class and middle income families.

Of course it will, its quite frankly ridiculous to think otherwise. I think the biggest cock-up in my eyes is the decision to make students pay full interest on the loans. It is not fair AT ALL to make students with a mid-range salary from 21k to 35k pay more for their education with interest, than a higher earner who is going to earn more over their lifetime. It's not fair - it's highly regressive.

It is breathtaking that the present administration have cynically tried to palm off a 40% cut in the teaching budget as merely a response to the budget defecit, in collusion with University Vice Chancellors who scream blue murder about being able to choose the brightest students when Governments try to meddle in admissions policy (quite rightly IMO) yet who are obsessed with prostituting out their institutions to whoever is in a position to pay the most.

Don't think this will be the last of it either. They might have been able to scare a majority of the public, and scare themselves with the prospect of ending up like Greece, but we won't. It's the sixth largest industry in the UK, and they are not only going to decimate it, but decimate any hopes they had of continuing economic recycling of skills and investment.

The student loans used to be quite a easy debt to cope with. It wasn't like the government were trying to make a profit from you and by and large most students didn't mind that. Now, the government is trying to make a profit from someone who will most probably give more money to the government in income tax.

Thoroughly agree.

I have to say, watching the news reports I was totally disgusted. How can these people demand they need help to find some sort of future when behaving like that? There is no justification for such actions, although I do believe it was a minorty who caused it, this will be what the argument about fees will be remembered for.

Like you say, the people demanding the safeguarding of the education of future generations were not the same people smashing Millbank. They were the Anarchist and SD factions, easily identifiable by their banners. And NEETs as well (not in education, employment or training).

I personally felt no twinge of remorse when I saw what was going on; all three parties are to blame. a) it undermined the aim of the day by NUS; b) Met police are naive to not have a larger police presence around political hotspots; c) the building should have been better protected by its own security or Tories not gone in. If they honestly thought that a march of 52,000 students and supporters going past the HQ of the very people that are causing problem in the first place is going to go well, they must be pretty thick!

The badly-informed moaning student said that it is "unfair" on students on "low pay", but this is a silly comment because students on "low pay" (£21k per year or less) will, in fact, pay nothing! It's quite a simple concept and if someone can't grasp that, they shouldn't be going to University quite frankly.

People who get very highly paid jobs will be able to repay the full loan. They can afford to! If they are earning, say, £70k per year, then really you have to say that their education should be paid for by themselves and not by society?

People in the middle, earning not a huge amount, but more than £21k per month, say £28k or so, may find the payments to be annoying, they may believe they are unfair, they may feel they can't afford them, but the reality is that a few dozen quid per month when you are earning two to three thousand per month really isn't going to break the bank, and these people should bear in mind that there are many people who are much less fortunate than them on the dole or in low paid jobs who will have far more to worry about. They only pay repayments on a percentage of earnings above the threshold. If someone earns £5,000 above the threshold then they only pay a percentage of that £5,000.

But how many Uni graduates will be on lss than 21k? Hardly any after the first three years of leaving Uni. Most don't find themselves with a salary of over 50k.

And of course if you have a well-paid job, you can afford to repay the entire thing. But under the current proposals, you will be able to do so, and pay less for the privilege of it! Again, the top costing courses will end up paying less. And if Daddy can afford to pay for your fees anyway, he can do so and pay even less. That is not fair, it is not progressive and is heralding back to the good old Tory ideal that if you're born rich enough, you can have it for the cheapest. Poor old lower middle class boy has no finance to draw on, takes out massive loans for his History or Biology degree, has a tremendous amount of debt to get through, doesn't have a salary high enough to repay it quickly and pays through the nose in interest on 36k debt.

That is not fair at all.

I don't think this is the end - national strikes next year anyone? They targeted the skilled working class in the 70s, now they're targeting the middle classes in 2010. I only live a mile or so from Toxteth too :-?

 

[theblackwatch]

With regards to fees of £6000 - £9000, there is no doubt in my mind that this, together with maintenance costs will put many able students off.

Will it? In my mind, £6,000-£9,000 is quite a bargain considering that graduates "can expect to earn at least £100,000, net of tax, more than non-graduates across their working lives" (Quote from Universities and Science Minister David Willetts). After all, why do people go to university? Presumably for most it is in the hope that it will enable them to get a better paid job - so why should others fund this?

 

[Kernowfem]

Did anyone see the reports on daybreak this morning? A female student claimed the violence was "justified"

Im scared, thats the voice of our future!!

Although i do wonder if those responsible for the violence were actually students and not just some trouble makers who thought the protest would be a great opportunity to kick off.

Protest all you want, it's nice to see people passionate about what they believe in, after all we live in a country that champions free speech, but leave the violence at home...it's never justified.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Will it? In my mind, £6,000-£9,000 is quite a bargain considering that graduates "can expect to earn at least £100,000, net of tax, more than non-graduates across their working lives" (Quote from Universities and Science Minister David Willetts). After all, why do people go to university? Presumably for most it is in the hope that it will enable them to get a better paid job - so why should others fund this?

Really? The course I want to do doesn't guarantee a well paid job at all. In fact, it guarantees a life of shift work, dealing with people in difficult circumstance - most doing that line of work get assaulted at one time or another as well. I'm doing the degree because I want to make a difference, not because I expect better pay. Is it then fair to expect me to pay the goverment interest when what I am doing willbenefit them anyway

 

[Hydro]

Will it? In my mind, £6,000-£9,000 is quite a bargain considering that graduates "can expect to earn at least £100,000, net of tax, more than non-graduates across their working lives" (Quote from Universities and Science Minister David Willetts).

That really depends on the degree being taken, I suppose.

I wouldn't argue much against an Engineering graduate earning more than myself (having completed a 3 year apprenticeship) over their career, maybe not more than 100,000 quid but they'd probably trump me. I say the same for a Medical graduate, a doctor vice a nurse, yes they would be quids in. Plus employment wouldn't be far away for either of them.

I bet I'll earn more than a graphic design graduate I know personally, currently plugging away in an off-the-street t-shirt print shop job though. I'd put money on it. I can't see my old college mates doing photography at Uni doing massively well to the tune of 100k more than myself or my fellow apprentices as a general rule. Why do these fields even need degrees? Do some students look at a prospectus and think "that sounds fun, I'll do that"? Not thinking, "this is a degree, it's the academic foundation for a career, and it's going to leave me paying it off for years - it better be worth it"

The world will always need engineers, doctors, lawyers, scientists, men and women of research and learning - traditional products of universities all around the world. Why do Universities now need to produce photographers? Graphic designers? Travel and tourism wallahs? Media luvvies? Wouldn't these choices be much better served by vocational apprenticeships? I'd say yes. You wouldn't accumulate debt, you'd learn on the job actually doing it, you'd have qualifications, and experience.

There needs to be a shift away from the degree as the be all and end all of post secondary education and more opportunities opened up in other avenues. University needs to be a carefully considered option rather than an automatic assumption.

 

[theblackwatch]

Really? The course I want to do doesn't guarantee a well paid job at all. In fact, it guarantees a life of shift work, dealing with people in difficult circumstance - most doing that line of work get assaulted at one time or another as well. I'm doing the degree because I want to make a difference, not because I expect better pay. Is it then fair to expect me to pay the goverment interest when what I am doing willbenefit them anyway

You're doing it by choice though - not because the government want you to! Should the government fund everyone's life choices?

I think Hydro makes some excellent points regarding degrees/university - there are far too many course offered which actually de-value the degree qualification. BA(Hons) in Dance anyone?

 

[Ferret]

You're doing it by choice though - not because the government want you to! Should the government fund everyone's life choices?

I think Hydro makes some excellent points regarding degrees/university - there are far too many course offered which actually de-value the degree qualification. BA(Hons) in Dance anyone?

Yes, there was a great lie perpetuated by previous Governments - do a degree, any old degree, and it'll lead you to great things. Alas, the business world saw through all this, but then, they were always going to. You can't imagine a company holding an interview with a graduate and saying 'I see you have a degree in arse-wiggling, that's just the qualification we've been looking for', can you?!

I know several of my friends went to uni because they couldn't be arsed to look for a job. I'm willing to bet there are lots of teenagers that still think the same. It seems times are changing, and maybe that won't be an option any more.....

 

[theblackwatch]

I know several of my friends went to uni because they couldn't be arsed to look for a job. I'm willing to bet there are lots of teenagers that still think the same. It seems times are changing, and maybe that won't be an option any more.....

Which is definately a good thing!

 

[yorksrob]

Will it? In my mind, £6,000-£9,000 is quite a bargain considering that graduates "can expect to earn at least £100,000, net of tax, more than non-graduates across their working lives" (Quote from Universities and Science Minister David Willetts). After all, why do people go to university? Presumably for most it is in the hope that it will enable them to get a better paid job - so why should others fund this?

Personally, looking at it from the wrong side of 30 with a mortgage, yes, £6000 - £9000 does seem like a reasonable price. But most people going to study are school leavers where this, together with the cost of living also in the form of a loan will seem like a huge millstone.

Whilst those studying for some professions, such as the legal or medical professions may well be guaranteed a good wage, this will not be the case for those uncertain of their professional path who are looking to increase their employability. They can add all of the provisions about cancelling the debt after a certain time that they like, but such a large debt so early on in life will inevitably be a huge mental barrier to further education (I suspect this strongly because it would have been for me). What worries me most is that this barrier will discriminate heavily against the large section of society whose parents are not poor enough to warrent burseries and grants, but who are not wealthy enough to absorb multiples of £000s of pounds easily. This is why I believe that these fee rises will serve to entrench wealth and privilege and further destroy social mobility in this country.

I suspect that the figure of £100,000 extra pay for graduates is heavily skewed towards a time when there were a lot fewer of them, however, whether this is the case or not, you are quite right. Those who gain more from the system should pay more into the system. That is what taxation is for.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Yes, there was a great lie perpetuated by previous Governments - do a degree, any old degree, and it'll lead you to great things. Alas, the business world saw through all this, but then, they were always going to. You can't imagine a company holding an interview with a graduate and saying 'I see you have a degree in arse-wiggling, that's just the qualification we've been looking for', can you?!

I know several of my friends went to uni because they couldn't be arsed to look for a job. I'm willing to bet there are lots of teenagers that still think the same. It seems times are changing, and maybe that won't be an option any more.....

Well you can argue about what sort of degrees people are doing, but I wouldn't mind betting that whatever Government we have, it won't want to be too far out of step with our competitor countries as far to what proportion of it's students go through higher education.

I suspect that if the business world refrained from asking for degrees for posts which twenty years ago didn't need them, demand might start to go down.

 

[scotsman]

No one else notice that the guys who were spraying anarchy symbols everywhere were the ones that started the trashing.

Also, yorkie, that's not analysis - just cynicism.

The fact is that education should be free to all, increase the fees and the poorest will inevitably suffer. £21k is not even the average earnings for a graduate, and given the high unemployment at the moment - the Government will lose out as more graduates won't be able to pay back and standards at universities will go down and tutition fees will go up again! (And then the poorest really won't have a chance!)

 

[Ferret]

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......

 

[yorkie]

Also, yorkie, that's not analysis - just cynicism.

Not really. As I said before, I have a student loan to repay, I am one of you, not the previous generations who got lucky and avoided fees (now that really was unfair, making society pay for them to get a better education). Yes I wasn't happy about having to pay fees. But at the end of the day you make your choice, no-one forces us to go to Uni. And ultimately we should be the ones paying for it, once we get a job earning enough money of course.

The fact is that education should be free to all, increase the fees and the poorest will inevitably suffer. £21k is not even the average earnings for a graduate, and given the high unemployment at the moment - the Government will lose out as more graduates won't be able to pay back and standards at universities will go down and tutition fees will go up again! (And then the poorest really won't have a chance!)

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.

 

[142094]

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.

 

[scotsman]

Maybe they'd been looking at the French. A few of my more militant friends have been suggesting revoultion.

The Socialist Worker Party have been working on that...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You're doing it by choice though - not because the government want you to! Should the government fund everyone's life choices?

[Tory mode]Why fund those who go to 6th form college? Carers looking after a close family member? The railways because some want people to go by train? Surely that's a lifestyle choice, relying on others to get them about. Disgusting. [/Tory mode]

Not very pleasant, is it?