Want your children to be able to go to uni?

didn't Labour try to enforce this to favour state school pupils over private. Not sure if it went through in the end

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1030415/Universities-ordered-favour-state-school-pupils.html

I think simply equating a level grades is too simplistic, also would you put someone who'd been to a comprehensive over someone who had been to a state grammar etc.

To a degree yes I would, I would give a "points" advantage to those getting equal grades who overcome the disadvantages of larger classes, poor home life, low waged parents etc.

oxbridge make a lot of decisions based on interview performance. Yes and Public School pupils are trained to do well in them this does not tend to happen in comps.

I am not saying that Toffeenosedgit should not get into the top unis only that if it is a tie the state school pupil should get in first

I don't think it is a problem to be honest, the russell group universities also tend to look at ways that a potential student has shown an interest outside of school and oxbridge make a lot of decisions based on interview performance.

I think simply equating a level grades is too simplistic, also would you put someone who'd been to a comprehensive over someone who had been to a state grammar etc.

huddspur, yes they do and that is partly the problem.

Toffeenosedgit from Eton is trained to pass the interview and has all the advantages and confidence money can buy.

Johny with the same grades from Bog Standard comp probably has none of the above so if they have equal grades Johny should get in before Toffeenosedgit because if Johny has to overcome hurdles (bigger clsses) etc

Don't the top universities look at more than simply the a level grades though newwave.

I say pupils from Public Schools should take second place to state school pupils if they have the same A grades.

This will help balance the "old school tie" and the advantages a public school education gives including the training to smarm in at uni interviews

I suspect we will end up with a two or three tier system with:

Cheap universities for the poor (used to be called Technical colleges)

A middle tier for most of the others.

And a top tier (Russell Group) for the well off and well connected so the sons & daughters of the "superior classes" dont have to mix with their supposed social inferiors.

As David Lammy MP (Labour) has shown today Oxford had fifteen "road shows" at Eton and Marlborough and none at all in Tottenham.

Brasenose college (Oxford)"call me Daves" university has not had a black pupil for five years and all the Oxford Uni's did not take one black student this year.
Add

RRocks - and...?

Of course that's what the Tories want to do.

They want to ensure that only the rich can get to university, however stupid they may be, by removing all competition from bright but poor students.

Isn't that obvious?

jackstarlightstarbright - I think you're extrapolating from that higher taxes - I'm not really recommending higher taxes (except for the v v rich, possibly); I'd prefer a greater focus on cracking down on corporate tax avoidance, for example. 6 bn from Vodaphone, say, would plug a pretty big hole in the education budget.

The protests by UKUncut - not reported or discussd on Mumsnet, I suppose because it doesn't particularly involve kids/families directly, in the way that tuition fees do - mirror my views.

granted - in a (much earlier) reply to me you posted.

• "I personally would prefer education fees to be 100% funded by the state (maintenance costs only for the v poorest)"

Well wouldn't we all - in an ideal world? But it's only an option if you can fund it from tax.

I think the Government will win the vote on Thursday which as a Liberal supporter makes me feel a little uncomfortable.

There seem to be two views current:

1 that we are putting too high a proportion of our young people through university (graduates come out and can't get graduate jobs; few people do apprenticeships these days)

2 that the cost of giving all of these people a university education is too high for the taxpayer.

The latter suggests that we should cut the costs of university funding and the former suggests that we should cut the numbers of people going to university.

Why don't we cut the numbers of people going to university, and thereby cut the cost of university funding by restricting it to the more academically able?

The route we are going down just now is being sold to us as a way of making the user pay, which it may well do, but its effect will be to greatly reduce the numbers of people going to university by cutting out those who come from a background where taking on £60k to £80k of debt before you have a job is regarded as bonkers, rather than cutting out the less academically able. The less well off and those lower down the social scale where they don't have the confidence that they will get a good enough job to be able to pay off that debt and buy a house will be the ones who are cut out of university from now on. What happened to meritocracy?

RRocks

I've got a horrible feeling it's going to to get voted in .

Sorry to repeat myself - but not even Labour are proposing to raise taxes to cover the cost of student tuition.

It looks like a choice between graduate loans or graduate taxes. Either way - the graduates pay.

Dreaming - I guess there is nothing to stop a university staggering the fees increase if it can afford it.(they are being given the authority to set the fees level).

As to Wales - they are diverting other HE funds to subsidise tuition fees. And, as far as I can see their Universities will be less well funded as a result. Especially if there is a drop in English students attending them.

I think we all know how much the likes of Oxford and Cambridge will charge.

'As I said in the beginning of this thread ds will learn German and French and study in Europe for free if he wants to. END OF.' He doesn't have to learn another language, although it is useful. Maastricht and others in the Netherlands teach in English for their BAs, and I think they do at the Sorbonne as well for some courses.

It's not free over here, but 1850 euros per year looks more attractive.

Granted - only some will charge £9k, most will charge £6k I think as they will work out that they won't get the uptake on courses otherwise.

Agree, BoffinMum.

jackstarlightstarbright - not sure why you askedfor my opinion above on govts raising income tax to pay for unis - I never suggested that would be a good idea.

I mentioned agraduate tax, which I think is preferable to the system of 9K per annum fees + loans being suggested.

But have repeatedly made it clear that I think no fees for anyone is my preferred solution - or if fees have to be chargedfor some, for the some to be determined on merit ie academic ability, not wealth.

I think the idea of a graduate tax is wrong as well.

As a result of the 1944 Education Act, secondary education became free for the first time, as did university education. This meant different social groups were able to go to university for the first time, and also very many more women than previously.

We seem to have regressed and got ourselves into a situation whereby the social pool of graduates will narrow once again, and the gender gap between the educated and non-educated will widen. It is no good waffling on about how nobody pays anything up front, because people aren't stupid and they know full well it is in effect another mortgage with little prospect of a really good return on their investment if they are anything other than middle class white males (did you know the vast majority of black male graduates in this country went to London Met, for example? No dreaming spires for them).

The danger with this is that it weakens the country economically and runs the risk of increasing social unrest. The reasons for this are complex but suffice it to say these are exactly the reasons that countries like France and Germany have decided against adopting similar policies.

Thanks for link, whittingtonmum - that looks like tremendous fun!

Am in half a mind to go to that. Not the easiest fancy dress, though. Not as though most of us happen to have the odd suffragette outfit/bonnet/corset/whatever lying around, is it?

What do you think is a a cheap costume?

amicissima - you don't want to do that.

Think Buckingham is a bit pants, isn't it?

xenia - except there will still be lots of people going to uni in wales and scotland as they aren't affected. so presumably if people can't source english graduates they will just recruit scottish or welsh ones instead.

agree with what you say about labour.

We wouldn't have this problem if Labour hadn't got the economy in such a mess that we can afford very little and if they hadn't allowed so many people into university who shouldnt be there. Plenty of the examples above like nursing don't need a degree anyway so presumably market forces will ensure when there are few applying that those careers go back to being non graduate ones and firms will stop wanting a graduate to be a typist when she could as easily have done 2 years typing and shorthand at 14 and got a job at 16. We could find it works out being a better thing for everyone over time.

I can not believe this:
news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Politics/Tuition-Fees-Liberal-Democrats-Will-Vote-Yes-On-Higher-University-Fees-Nick-Clegg-Says/Article/201012115848940?f=rss

I am so sick of all these broken promises ! As I said in the beginning of this thread ds will learn German and French and study in Europe for free if he wants to. END OF.

But before that I'll be outside my MPs office dressed as a suffragette tomorrow and tell what I think of ladies who are for turning !
www.coalitionofresistance.org.uk/2010/12/nus-women-call-to-protest-outside-lynne-featherstones-office-8-december/

hi, I`m so glad that i found this topic, been steaming angry over the tuition fees since nick clegg (grrrrr) did his famous turn around.

What gets me is that when we were young we had grants to see us through uni, and most of us had to work to supplement this, then they bought in the loans and many of my younger colleagues took years to pay off their loans, making it difficult to get a mortgage until it was paid. Now my daughter is 16 and although she wants desperately to go to uni, she is absolutely terrified of the debt facing her, weve told her unfortunately its going to become the norm for her and her peers and they will be all in the same boat (feel that is totally lousy advice but....). My DH is a senior lectturer and his uni are already looking at job losses as they are going to lose government funding as the new fees are going to replace that, except the figures do not add up at all and the long and short is less money for unis which is going to result in less courses being offered.

However, what makes me furious is, 1: the government now asking youngsters and their families to pay an incrediable amount for their education when them themselves had it for free!!!! and 2: the media making out that students are lazy, aggressive and losing public sympathy with their protests, when all these media people again had their free education!!!! (oh so sure they are all different when they were young) Yes the media has focused on a few students geting out of hand, but we, as intelligent adults, know that that is a very small minority!!!

Yes definately want a peaceful family march as I have three children to get through uni (if thats what they choose - however, the alternative is.......what for gods sake!!!)

Rant over, for now!