So, what is the answer to the uni fees nightmare?

No not mad, just don't want him to be saddled with a massive debt when he is just starting out.

I don't doubt he is smart and intelligent but if I can afford to help him why shouldn't I. Rather have the pleasure of seeing him benefit from it rather than get it when I'm dead.

thelittlestkiwi Repeat after me: it's not the government's money, it's ours.

I have much more faith in rich people deciding what good causes their money goes to than governments.

Let people keep more of their own money, and let them make their own decisions.

Isn't 'philanthropy' in the US tax deductible? So basically rich people are choosing where their tax is spent.

@ kaiserfootmuff

He might be eligible for a loan from the Dutch government.

Check out this link:

www.ib-groep.nl/studiepunt/nationaliteitenschema/natschema.asp?taal=en

The University of Maastricht runs its courses in English and has applied to join UCAS.

(Oops! Just seen previous post.)

Choude you are barking. Why not let ds pay his own fees?

If my dd goes to university I have every faith that she is smart and driven enough to pay back her own debt. She will get no handouts from me because she does not need them.

I think the top 10% should go to uni.

Well, but that is a choice you are making.

I am a bit worried that you seem convinced that your son will be worse off than you - you obviously aren't exceptionally rich, else you wouldn't have to remortgage your house to make the (personal) choice to pay upfront, so why have such poverty of ambition for him?

So that he isn't lumbered with the debt. We, hopefully, will be in a better position to pay the debt than him.

ChoudeBruxelles

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.

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.

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.

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 don?t they think about a Robin Hood tax? Or cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance? Or cancelling Trident? And if they really can?t come up with any ideas then I think we might go in there and sit them down and explain."

www.greenparty.org.uk/articles-and-speeches/09-12-2010-caroline-lucas-speech-student-protest.html

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.

Ha ha! Love it

Most university degrees are a load of bollocks.

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.

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? :)

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

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?

Think I'll sell a kidney if DS decides he wants to go. Or maybe (slightly more practical) we'll have to re-mortgage.

Moondog - was your course big time fucking about?

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.

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.

Well said claig, we shouldn't need to rely on charity to fund the education of our people.

'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.

"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.

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.