So, what is the answer to the uni fees nightmare?(56 Posts)
Any ideas? Obviously we are stuck with the £9k nightmare now, but what are/were the sensible alternatives, given almost 50% of young people are wanting to go?
Also, heard Vince Cable saying that the previous Labour plans were to slash the budget fro university education to the same extent, so where would they have made their savings without doing likewise?
ds said he's going to go to holland to study where he's going to get the money for that is beyond me
Go back to polytechnics and save uni for academic courses only, go back to training while on the job where possible, so paying tax from the beginning of training, employers coughing up for some of the training. This did happen 15 yrs ago. It seems to have stopped. Why? Scholarships for bright poor children. uni should be based on ability not money or fear of debt.
My dh did go to uni. I didn't. I had a home by 23Yrs because of this We now have a very small mortgage and no debt. This is how I would like my children to live. Not saddled with debt till thier dying day.
Well yes, but what about if we want the current numbers to keep on going? Who should pay - and how?
Maybe invest more in vocational training? stop thinking that not having a degree makes you a failure?
The 'answer' is that, in future, we approach higher education more the way they do somewhere like the US. We regard it as a privilege rather than a right. Students value it more because they've paid for it - rather than seeing it as a three year 'doss' to delay getting a job (as was often the case when it was free). We encourage very wealthy people to fund universities philanthropically and provide scholarships for talented students. Parents start saving for our children's education at birth. Different/practical/vocational training for students that are not academic.. rather than channelling everyone down the same route. All of those kinds of things are long overdue
It is right that we would like to produce a highly educated population but there has to be a trade-off on costs.
"Parents start saving for our children's education at birth." A bit of a vicious circle, then. How about poor parents?
Scholarships will be very limited. They are at the moment at private schools, you have to be on the dole to get anything substantial. Otherwise a 10% reduction is not going to make a difference.
I don't think students would value something more because they've paid for it. Because they won't have paid for it. No young student has £50 upfront to pay for their course.
Sad say when you look up to the US as an ideal of where education should be.
'It is right that we would like to produce a highly educated population but there has to be a trade-off on costs.'
Why don't other European countries like France think the way that you do?
'We regard it as a privilege rather than a right.'
Privilege is for the privileged. We are a rich country and need to maximise the potential of all our people, not only those who can afford it.
Students value it more because they've paid for it - rather than seeing it as a three year 'doss' to delay getting a job (as was often the case when it was free).'
Students don't see university as a doss. Is that what Boris Johnson, Cameron and the Bullingdon Club see university as?
We encourage very wealthy people to fund universities philanthropically and provide scholarships for talented students.'
We don't need to rely on charity to fund the education of our people, we are a rich country that can afford to educate its people.
'Parents start saving for our children's education at birth.'
So parents who are wealthy are advantaged over the poor that cannot afford to save for education from their children's birth?
It is for the sake of the whole country that we educate all of our people, because many of our poor children are brighter than the privileged members of the Bullingdon Club.
Well said claig, we shouldn't need to rely on charity to fund the education of our people.
At the moment, the question is whether university should be funded through our national debt, or personal debt.
National debt is owed by children not yet born, who might never go to university. The personal debt will be owed by those who gain from going to university, and then only after they earn a decent amount.
I do have problems with the tuition fees policy - the redistributive interest rates, the lack of options for early repayment, etc. However, they are acceptable compromises given the coalition.
The Lib Dems have made themselves look idiotic, but that was always going to happen after they made unrealistic election pledges.
It's utter madness to assume 50% of the population are clever enough to get a degree and have three years of fucking about paid for by others.
Moondog - was your course big time fucking about?
Think I'll sell a kidney if DS decides he wants to go. Or maybe (slightly more practical) we'll have to re-mortgage.
Longfingernails - you are trying too hard making that distinction between national and personal debt. Those not yet born babies will only be born if current graduates work in hospitals delivering them, will only go to school if current graduates pay for the buildings, get to teach them etc etc. The blooming Big Society, remember?
You can now study to honours or foundation-degree level:
Hairdressing-salon management University of Derby
Fashion-and-lifestyle products Southampton Solent University
Watersports science and development University of Portsmouth
Sports-surfaces management Glyndwr University
Contemporary circus and physical performance Bath Spa University
Equestrian psychology Glyndwr University
Cruise management University of Plymouth
Surf science and technology University of Plymouth
Pop-music performance University of East London
Sexual-health studies University of Central Lancashire
these are the types of degrees that people feel i the taxpayer should foot the bil for, we already pay so much tax,i have no issue with helping to paying for sound degree that we will all benefit from but nobody who are for the students can tell me why i should be paying my tax to fund this, to be honest i feel let down by Labour.
they should not have allowed this if they have kept uni for the creme de cream then i feel i wouldn't have got to this situation i really feel if your child can only get high enough grades to study pop music i suggest may be uni is not the correct environment for your child and i question what these poor children's parents are thinking allowing their children to waste 3 years and get into debut to study surfing
Sexual-health studies University of Central Lancashire
I bet someone will be happy for the therapist when they get into trouble in that department.
I agree about the others, though.
Equestrian psychology? I bet you can say whatever you want in your thesis, how is anyone going to prove you right or wrong?
sexual health studies??? i thought you had to be a doctor to prescribe any medication a nurse to do an examination and as far a i no you can even get condoms in the £1 shop so i am not sure why you would need a whole separate degree as doctors and nurses carry degrees as a matter or course.
Ha ha! Love it
Most university degrees are a load of bollocks.
My view is that we should all be making sure that our DCs get a damn fine education for the course fees. For the cost I will be expecting that the teaching is of the highest quality, no dull lectures or meaningless tutorials.
I do think there needs to be some personal ownership on the part of the student so some fees should be payable but I think the level now set is too high.
I liked what Caroline Lucas suggested during the pre-vote debate, is is mentioned on the Green Party website:
"Because there are alternatives in terms of how we fund education. It may not be very popular to talk about it anymore. But does anyone remember progressive taxation? Does anyone remember a proposal such as business education tax? A small tax on the top 4% biggest companies in this country, which would raise £3.9bn and mean that we can scrap all tuition fees forever.
And if the government wants more ideas, why dont they think about a Robin Hood tax? Or cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance? Or cancelling Trident? And if they really cant come up with any ideas then I think we might go in there and sit them down and explain."
I think what I've always thought.
10% of the population should go to university. No more and no less.
If 10% went, they could have it for free.
But the moment everyone wants to go, it becomes untenable, and the degrees and the ultimate diplomas become gradually worthless.
Kaiserfootmuffs, I read an article recently that several European universities are trying to be included in the UCAS application process. They are comparable with UK universities, the courses are taught in English and the fees are cheaper.
I think we should go back to differentiating between universities and further education colleges. I don't see a problem with someone studying hair salon management, but it's not a degree.
Why? Your DS will pay back himself after graduation, and only if he earns more than £21000 a year.
My biggest worry is that this policy doesn't deal with the EU freeloaders.
So that he isn't lumbered with the debt. We, hopefully, will be in a better position to pay the debt than him.
Join the discussion
Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, watch threads, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.Register now »
Already registered? Log in with:
Please login first.