Scrapping Tuition Fees

[fifi69]

AIBU to not understand why young people are not up in arms about tuition fees? I think young people have been screwed over by the government with regard to tuition fees, maintenance grant for poorer students and the compound interest that will be accrued on these loans. And yet I haven't seen many student demonstrations. I'm baffled as to why young people seem resigned to their fate. I'm not saying I was a firebrand when I was young, but I went on the Poll Tax riot and at least that worked!

I couldn't believe it, when Tony Blair did this. It was up there with the worst of his heinous crimes....

I'd happily pay more tax, to help fund further education for courses that are worthwhile.

If anything you're only reaffirming the view that members of the public don't understand the role of a nurse very well. I saw on twitter once someone post a picture discussing how a member of the public can see someone in a uniform popping a pill into a pot and they'll assume nurse. But what they don't see is what's going on in that persons head. Anyone can put a pill into a pot. But a nurse will be constantly evaluating and thinking whilst they're doing it; what does this drug do, the pharmacokinetics, how it's metabolised, absorbed and excreted, what effects do they wish to see, what are warning signs, what do I need to give alongside this, are there any effects they'll need to manage. This is something nurse's have to do with everything they do, they have a huge knowledge base underpinning everything they do and whilst others may be able to carry out their tasks, but it's the knowledge of why, what to anticipate etc which is vital to good outcomes.

So whilst you obviously have this idea of a nurse, this 'realistic expectation' as you put it, perhaps bear that in mind. That's what nurses do, as well as the caring side. That's what they spend so long in education to do. you may see fit to deem everyone who shows you some kindness whilst you're ill a 'nurse', but it's unrealistic and damaging. It's that perception that also makes it much harder for nurses to fight for pay rises and the like because people still have the idea that they just change bed pans and bath people.

It's something that's a great bugbear for me because I get a lot of shit for things like this in my job. People who decide to call me a doctor despite me telling them I'm not but 'well you're like one to me', creates problems for me, the patients and other staff.

Sorry x post

Pesky patients with their unreasonable ideas about being cared for. There should be a proper dialogue about what patients expect and what hcps can give and it starts with listening to complaints. Hcps are starting to do this but only starting.

Only 15% of people went to university when I went. Very very few people from my class at school went for example. The only reason my father cuold study medicine in the 1940s was because suddenly post WWII grants came in. So there was no past golden age when most people went free of charge to university. Even in my day that 15% of us didn't get it free - yes there were no tuition fees but unless you were very badly off you didn't get your maintenance/rent/food paid so you had to hope your parents would help out and make up what you were paid up to the amount of the "full grant".

A graduate tax as stated above would not be popular with those who have already paid the £9k and not likely. I would support going back to only having about 15% of teenagers going to university and the growth in recruitment from sixth forms by accountancy firms and the new apprentices lawyer scheme are examples of that already happening. My mother was a brilliant teacher. She went away to 2 years of residential teacher training from age 17 - 19. I don't think she was any worse than someone who did A levels, a degree and PGCE for teacghing primary school pupils. She had a 140+ IQ even in her 50s and knew as much as anyone I know. She was out there controlling classes of 40 alone aged 19.

In reality, university education is the same type of free as the NHS and school education. It is free at the point of use, and only paid for by higher earners. Lower earners pay reduced or no contributions.

It was Tony Blair's stupid idea of trying to send everyone to university. For some people university is great, for others they would be much better doing apprenticeship.
University should be only one way of getting qualifications and a good job. If you only need. 2Es to get in (a friend got in to read Biology with E in general studies and sociology and N in Biology and Chemistry) how is that ever going to produce a degree that amounts to much better than an A at a-level? She the spent several years applying to things that needed a biology degree and being rejected. Eventually she git a job she could have got at 18yo from a-levels, about 8 years later and nearly £25k debt. Not a bargain.

Mind you I don't think Tony Blair ever engaged brain round such things. I remember hearing a speech by him where he stated he wanted (academically) "75% of people to be above average".
Well, I guess the only way he can achieve that us by having the bottom 25% fail spectacularly badly, and I don't think he meant that.
(yes, he could have meant the mode, but I don't think he meant that.)

Have not RTFT but a first degree should absolutely be funded by the taxpayer. I had my fees paid and a full grant and have repaid that money over and over via my taxes. People always say that students will earn more. Well that's the point isn't it? They earn more and pay more tax.

And in any event we need people in professional positions. I don't see why a nurse should have to fund their own education.

Finally, education should be a right not a privilege.

namechange - so how would fees made your experience any different?

Having free University education in England would be very un-progressive. In Scotland (not a million miles from here), free education has betrayed thousands of people.

Free higher education means the government, which has limited resources, would be in the business of rationing its availability. The number of "free" places in Scottish universities is restricted in just this way. Back in 2010, the Scottish government cut the education budget whilst ring-fencing the number of places in universities. Simple math tells you that was an effective cut in spending per student.

Scottish Universities are dependant on English and non-EU students, who are exempted from free education and thus have to pay tuition fees just to offset the lack of funding provided by the Scottish government. For the Scots, it would be a disaster if England got free education too.

Far from drowning students in debt, the new, higher fees have started a boom in English universities - with a record number of people attending them.

If higher education is about improving life chances, a system that fails to help people from disadvantaged backgrounds isn’t worth much and should be changed immediately. Scotland has a strong record of failing to help the poor. In 2010/11, only £10.4 million went to helping the needy attend universities, in contrast to England, where more than a third of billion pounds were spent on poor students. Credit should go to the tuition fees increase, as it is mandated higher education institutions have to spend at least a third of the £9,000 on disadvantaged students.

The outcome is England has almost double Scotland's the entry rate for people from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Free higher education is well-meaning but badly-weighted approach to making education better. Universities must be able to compete worldwide, without needing to appease the government for additional funding, while also providing opportunities to the least advantaged. Instead of asking to abolish tuition fees, students should rather campaign for a moderate further increase in fees, which is a proven recipe to tackle such challenges.

Another answer is that companies start funding way more university places, but that opens up a very tricky path to avoiding dodgy selection criteria.

businesses have been the problem in the UK for decades now with crap apprenticeships, I remember there was a garage locally to where I grew up where the guy had a new apprentice very year, absolutely no intention of hiring them after just cheap labour. Then companies have the gall to complain about schools and 'skill shortages' (boarc) so thats why they have to rely on EU skilled labour which fuels brexit types.

Going to university in England is now hugely more expensive than going to university elsewhere in Europe. If countries on the continent can fund very cheap university education, why can't England?
And yes, students are now starting to drown in debt. Saying that there are now more students going to university just means that there will more young people drowning in debt. Those who have had to pay £9K a year fees are only starting to graduate now. They are paying very high levels of interest on their debt, way higher than you pay on a mortgage. And the government has broken its promise to raise the level of earnings at which you have to start re-paying, and have frozen it. Students have been outrageously misled and cheated - if this had been done by a bank rather than the government, students would be winning court cases now.

If countries on the continent can fund very cheap university education, why can't England?

Because people may much more tax on the continent, on the whole. Rates of 55-60% on income between 40k and 80k are quite normal, for example, while we don't tax even 100+k incomes at that rate.

I'd be happy to see higher tax paid by high earners.
Then maybe we could head towards a more equal and socially happier country.

Breaking you make a very valid point about "dodgy" selection criteria.

I am a chartered accountant. When I trained 30 years ago the vast majority of my fellow trainees were graduate entrants selected on the basis of education. The majority of the partners I worked for were not graduates but had qualified via firm sponsored traineeships secured through family connections.

Accountancy firms are now expanding the school leaver entry route again in response to fees.

I see it bears repeating that overall tertiary education participation is higher in Scotland than England (the headlines missed the 16% of Scottish students who enter through the non-UCAS college route). If you come from a poor background in Scotland you are 4 times less likely to attend a high tariff university. If you live in England and come from a poor background you are 7 times less likely to attend a high tariff university. These statistics are prior to the abolition of grants in the last budget which I assume will further impact poorer students in England.

It is oft quoted that Scotland is poaching English students at £9k per year to prop up our universities. Non-EU students are charged £18k per year for a 4 year degree and are therefore a much more attractive prospect. It is also often said that £9k fees do not in fact cover the cost for the fee payer, let alone subsidising anyone else, but I am not sure how true that is.

It's £5k a year for the OU!

No it's not. It's nowhere near that.

Straight from the OU website : The cost of full time OU study (120 credits) typically works out at £1786– £2130 per year.

And that's assuming you are studying full time which the vast majority of OU students don't.

That's wrong claarp (unless you're not in England?):
OU Fees

"The cost of full time OU study (120 credits) works out at £5572 per year."

Ah - Clarrp you've quoted the NI fees! This thread is about English fees.

Why should the government fund an adult in their training course? At what point should the government stop funding adults? I'm 35 and want to retrain as a Carpenter, should the government pay for it?

witchend "75% of people to be above average". is perfectly possible - average-mean results only occur at the same point as the median-50% result in an entirely symmetrical distribution. There are always going to be some people with less capacity for academic achievement due to disability etc, but there are plenty of low achievers with no lack of ability or capacity just lack of opportunity and good teaching. This image shows an entirely achievable skewed distribution of achievement where you raise everyone with the capacity to an above-average level.

An example of the skewed distribution. On average we have less than 2 legs, more than 75% of people have 2 legs and are therefore more than average.

The rule used to be one free course per person, at whatever age. So if you wanted to do a 2nd degree, you had to pay for that one yourself. But if you hadn't done a degree, you could do one for free as a mature student.
I don't see the relevance of whether someone is a child or not.

very few people went to university when I was growing up.
Plenty went to technical college or polytechnic though.
University was the preserve of academic subjects.
media, photography, music, plumbing, art, and any other non academic subject was not found at a uni.

Once all these subjects were offered at Degree level employers started to insist on applicants holding them. If the degrees weren't available employers would look for other qualifications.
Scrap all the non academic Degrees and go back to the old system, horses for courses

" caroldecker Sat 04-Jun-16 10:59:09

In reality, university education is the same type of free as the NHS and school education. It is free at the point of use, and only paid for by higher earners. Lower earners pay reduced or no contributions."

That's a good point and indeed the higher tax payers pay twice (if they use private schools and medicine). The only slight difference is that people like I am who enable our children to graduate debt free cause some of those higher rate tax payers (both my daughters pay 40% tax in their 20s for example) not to be paying for their university education although I paid and they would have inherited the money anyway so I suppose in a paying it forward sense they have paid ( less inheritance).

Why should the government fund an adult in their training course? At what point should the government stop funding adults? I'm 35 and want to retrain as a Carpenter, should the government pay for it?

If you were e.g steel maker then yes as this government specifically voted to block state aiding that industry.