To think scrapping tuition fees is a terrible idea

[bumbleymummy]

Just that really. Corbin saying he's going to scrap fees from September. Bloody stupid idea and something else that we can't afford to pay for.

Ive worked for big FTSE 100 companies and most of the accountants have done AAT or ACCA rather than degree route. Previous companies (from small family to large) I've worked for were the same. Alot of the companies will pay for the training, its also so common that quite often you can change jobs part way through and the new company will carry on paying for your training.
It seems much better to get on the job training to me for certain things

The accountancy firm I worked for much preferred to take students who'd just finished their A Levels and train them up, they also took apprentices straight from school. They almost never employed graduates, despite many cvs coming through the door from graduates of maths/accountancy type decrees. I expect this is fairly common?

in the days of no tuition fees, only about 3 to 5 per cent of the school leaving went to university. It was really elitist.
Was that better?

@AntigoneJones, that is not accurate. Although participation rates have continued to rise over the last 17 years, they already stood at c. 40% in the years immediately before tuition fees were introduced (I started in 2001 and was one of the first intake to pay tuition fees, which were then just over £1K a year).

Figures can be found here, but it's a PDF so will start to download if you click: <a class="break-all" href="http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110206224126/education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000839/SFR02-2009webversion1.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110206224126/education.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR/s000839/SFR02-2009webversion1.pdf

A lower % going to university would be fine if the competition for the places was fair and as many barriers as possible were removed to people from less wealthy backgrounds. It's not particularly fair that we're outfitting many students with degrees these days that have a huge price tag and no real differentiating benefit in the job market.

I ask again - what exactly are the barriers to children from non-wealthy backgrounds?
It's always trotted out in debates, but I fail to see any (or any the Government can do anything about, anyway).
Students have always worked while at university, even back in the days of grants, and many parents don't financially support their children through university.
Why should children from poorer backgrounds be any different?

My parents didn't give me a penny and refused to sign the grant form saying as much. So I got nothing. Worked all the way through. Loans would have been a godsend.

I'd like to point out that the way to make degree courses 'harder' and discourage those who are doing apparently 'pointless' degrees is to raise the entry grades. University should be a meritocracy.
I work at a sixth form and I can tell you that the kinds of students we are sending to uni has changed since the introduction of fees. Many working class student do not want the debt, don't have any financial safety net and worry about the long term effect on their earnings.

For what it's worth- I was the first year to take out a student loan and paid £1000 a year in fees. It didn't give me pause at the time because I didn't see it as a lot of money. In fact, I didn't notice it until I was in my late twenties and was trying to save to buy a house. Those who think it isn't a limiting debt haven't thought about the knock on effect on those trying to get on the property ladder and struggling with the cost of living.

NannyOgg The UCAS numbers suggest your 6th form is an anomaly.

I'd like to point out that the way to make degree courses 'harder' and discourage those who are doing apparently 'pointless' degrees is to raise the entry grades. University should be a meritocracy

Would there be any point when you can study for a degree with the OU with no qualifications whatsoever?

I ask again - what exactly are the barriers to children from non-wealthy backgrounds? It's always trotted out in debates, but I fail to see any (or any the Government can do anything about, anyway)

And I'll reply again. Not being able to identify the reason for a barrier doesn't mean that the barrier doesn't exist. The fact that "working class/poorer" teenagers are disproportionately less likely to go to university tells us there is a barrier. Identifying it would be brilliant. I'm not necessarily going to say it's financial; I suspect it is, but that's not my point.

Why is it that Actors tend to be posh?

I know it's because if they have no work they can always move back in with mummy and daddy.

If you grow up poor your less likely to take risks, like you know - go to University.

YABVU

It used to be free and now it's ridiculously expensive. The reason for the fees going up from £1200 a year was the coalition government stopped funding higher education.

Universities are in meltdown. They need students to come and study and pay fees so they can continue and numbers are increasing year on year while staff numbers are not. In fact, many universities are imposing recruitment freezes and "voluntary" redundancy schemes to save money. If they started to receive state funding again student numbers would at least level off and they would be able to pay staff to deal with things.

The other problem with fees, and this is something many academics have said to me, is that students feel like they are buying a degree rather than the opportunity to earn one. Academics feel they are under immense pressure to make the course "worth it" for the young people now paying £9k a year.

I have a doctorate so am academically inclined but the current fees would almost certainly have put me off going at all or I would have gone abroad to study.

I think education should be free for those on a low income. I tried for my degree but just couldn't afford to get into the kind of debt that student loans involved and would hate to think that my children would be deprived of the chance of improving their prospects by the thought of crippling themselves with debt before they have started living. In the days when a degree meant a better job I can sort of understand contributing to the costs but I know a qualified biochemist working in a supermarket because they can't move abroad because of family commitments. There are people with degrees unemployed, working as shop assistants and cleaners. A degree is not a passport to a better job these days, it is a stepping stone which may help.

For people who have spare income the thought of getting into debt to get a degree is surely less scary than for someone whose every last penny goes on rent and food. People should not be denied a higher education because of their financial circumstance, if we think that this is fine then we might as well start giving out flat caps to people under a certain income and instructions of how to doff them when their more affluent neighbours walk by.

This is supposed to be a forward thinking country. Student loans and tuition fees were a mistake in the first place and it's about time they were abolished.

I think the government should have a quota system similar to the Australian visa system. Every year they could publish the list of degrees/qualifications that they would sponsor. This list would be based on what the country/economy needed e.g. Science teachers, nurses, engineers etc. These degrees would be "free" but the graduate would need to commit to working for the NHS etc for a number of years to pay their fees back so to speak

I think.its a good idea. It's more than enough debt and stress to put young people of going to uni and the suicide rate for uni students is astounding. It's one less piece of stress for students.
My daughter want to train as an English teacher she's 15, and even she was concerned with the debt. We are in a comfortable position money wise but certainly not well off enough to help out money wise. And I believe every young person deserves the chance to make something of themselves...the money they will pay back in once training is complete should more than balance the books.

I think education should be free for those on a low income

So, should someone with a low family income be able to do Media Studies at an inferior institution with no fees, and someone doing Engineering at Imperial but with a medium family income, perhaps only a thousand pounds above the low income cut off, have to pay the full whack?

I think they should be lowered back down to what they were before the tories raised them. The price is ridiculous now. When I was at uni I had 3 lectures a week!! Certainly don't think it's worth the 9k!

I hope all those of you saying that the money would be better spent on primary and secondary education are protesting the Conservative's new funding formula. Even head teachers whose schools are set to 'gain' have resigned.

There are nationwide events run by Fair Funding for Schools this Friday. Find out how you can support and unite.

If you were one of the first your debt probably wasn't that huge. Loads of young people don't go to uni because they worry about the debt while, on the other hand, people who don't really want to go to uni are getting into debt because they've been told they can't get anywhere without a degree. This is debt that many of them won't ever manage to pay off because they'll never earn enough but will still hang over them. Government can still equalise the whole thing through taxation. We need to invest in higher education, stop it being purely vocational, make it for the love of learning and then extaordinary things can happen.

The other problem with fees, and this is something many academics have said to me, is that students feel like they are buying a degree rather than the opportunity to earn one. Academics feel they are under immense pressure to make the course "worth it" for the young people now paying £9k a year.

Although I'm against uni fees, that's not a particularly strong argument given that some schools charge £30 grand a year plus.

For all those griping about 'non-essential' degrees, one of our biggest industries is tourism and people don't come here to see management consultants or traders, they come for art, music, drama, history, film. Who do you think produces, curates and enables such things?

It should perhaps be means tested. But free? No way. I left school and got a job at 16 well the hell should I pay for students to go to uni twice a week for a few hours and end up qualified to be my boss overnight?

Fields we actually need could be subsidised I suppose but not free. We are taxed enough already, every service we already have is crippled- why would we add to that?

I found it surprising idea. Labour wishes to ensure a distribution from the upper 5% towards the lower 95% and the abolish-in of tuition fees helps the top 5% a great deal more as a higher proportion go onto university

Far better to increase the level of income before students have to pay it back and temper the interest rate charged on the loan. That would be more helpful to children from poorer backgrounds