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.

I can't agree with you, but that is an ideological difference of opinion, and we are both entitled to our view.

What I can't understand is why you think it such an 'out there' idea? With the implication it is undoable financially.

Tuition fees are a very, very recent development in history of HE. They were absolutely the norm for decades. Scotland still don't have them. The Lib Dems would offer maintenance grants.

I don't understand you talking about the free tuition pledge as if they were a pledge to offer free diamond necklaces (ie frivolous and unaffordable).

Well no, not really- you still have to put in the hard work and learn things, you don't just pay the fee and get a certificate in return

Spectacularly missing the point there. The point is that if everyone has a degree then it loses it's effect. Back in the 80's you could get a good job with just a handful of good GCEs. Now, you need a degree because so many have them - it's become the new base line. If even more go to uni, the new "norm" will then be raised to a doctorate or equivalent higher degree level. Employers need a way to differentiate and will chose from the applicants with the highest qualifications - that's why even some call centres have degree as minimum entry requirement these days, when the job could be done by someone with a handful of GCSEs.

hiphop You obviously haven't RTFT. No, I did not get my university education for free. I am still paying back my loan.

Ovenchips, I think Corbyn is promising this just to get the younger vote. I think the money could be better spent -There have been several really good suggestions on this thread.

there was a documentary about educated people are more likely to vote Labour - having a more open view of the world as a community. Those who have less were apparently more likely to voted Tory because they are more likely to be locally centred.. I worked from 15 - left home at 17 and worked till I was 21 as a Tory ..paid for my education at uni ..then could afford to travel and left a Labour supporter. .. so for me it pans out..why... because you have a world experience...I am also ex Army and was so pro Britain. Actually, I was very small minded and thought simply working meant I was worldly - it doesn't. the UK is not that important...everyone is. .

It's harder to govern healthy, happy and educated people..also people with low income tend to waste money on things that give a instant happiness... (not all) however if given the opportunity to get out of low income with education, financial support and access to information, mental and physical health support, they stop and start and start to save...work towards goals etc.... ..i dislike the Tories harping on about family values too. Not everyone is happy in a family ...divorce rates aren't always bad news...less people are staying in abusive or dangerous situations.

Interesting then that the Tories want to remove free meals/reduce money in support services ..mental health ..etc ..privatise the NHS ..(yes it isn't safe) get people (mostly women) to take time off work (less pension) to look after relatives.....increase restrictions on the Internet. ..etc.. then keeping people uneducated. ..uninformed and unhealthy. ... which will propagate more Conservatives.
This will mean bigger divides. ... .more unhappiness. .more health issues and more people unable to change their situation. ..Tories are fixated on business. Cheap labour...big profits...long hours...(how did the 0 hours contract not get nipped in the bud under the Tories ? ...it shouldn't exist )....they have a top down theory that does not pass money down.

What is the Aim of the government?

I think we should be aiming for the our society to be healthy, educated or trained (have opportunities )...as then healthy happy people ..can create business ...can stay well....can solve issues.. can be productive. ..are more likely to take care of their environment. ..will make better decisions and work to be healthier happier and know this means supporting each other and giving people opportunities to better themselves.

Yes, education should be free - However, it shouldn't be cut and dry. I think GCSEs ...should be free for 3 attempts but you must wait a year between attempt 2 and 3. A second attempt at A levels or level 3 should be paid for unless you complete a degree in the same subject. A 3rd attempt is only free if you wait a year. (After working at a college, I know that many people need to leave to realise where they will be working and how hard it is without that level of education)
A second degree or higher should be paid for..unless you go into teaching (and teach for 2 years) or nursing etc.. (note each year the gov could nominate subjects of importance. . we need more enginneers...IT security. .etc..) unfinished degrees should be paid for. If you do more than 40% of a degree and leave it should be paid for.

I always objected to paying for other people to go to University when I couldn't afford to go and had to go straight out to work up in the city. It's right that people pay for their Higher Education, they will be the ones that are earning so much more once they go to work. If I had been able to go to Uni it would have been 1965 and full grants were available then for everyone.

I always objected to paying for other people to go to University
Even though you reap benefits from their education?

Even though you reap benefits from their education?

They also reap the benefits by virtue of higher wages!

Not to mention, when I need the services of a professional such as a solicitor, architect, etc., I have to pay a pretty hefty fee to do so.

There seems to be a chasm between degrees for the public sector and degrees for the private sector. I'd accept that public sector workers are doing a service beneficial to the greater public and perhaps there should be some trade off in the form of reduced loan repayments, but those who go on to work in the private sector or leave to move abroad, should rightly pay back the costs of their uni education as there is no broad public benefit.

I really don't see the big issue with fees, it's a pretty negligible amount of my monthly pay that disappears before I see it; I agree that it's more of a graduate tax.

I was thinking more along the benefits of drug development, green energy, etc.

Is he proposing to also scrap/write off old student loans too ?

littlemummy

educated people are more likely to vote Labour

Not sure the previous election results show this.

They also reap the benefits by virtue of higher wages!

But the higher the wages the more the individual contributes in tax and the percentage of total tax paid by highest earners has been increasing rapidly, because of policies like raising the PA disproportionately.

Graduate wages as a whole have been squeezed while increases to minimum wage have supported non-graduates.

Hey hiphopfrog, are you sure you can read I said post graduate at the top of the missive!!!!! And I am old enough to remember the so called 'free education.' Which if you did economics you would have been taught a GCSE Level came from the hard workers of the General Publics NI Contributions. And it was the Conservatives who first instigated it.

Maid of stars I do not know if you are aware but most of our ecological research is done by our universities to find alternatives and help maintain the Eco System on our planets. The latest 'Greenhouse Gases, and the dwindling Antartic Crisis where brought to the attention of the world through Doctorial Reports etc. That's why we need educators. Also in the Uk we are not able in Companies up and down the country to provide for ancilliary research and development to improve our society as a whole. They leave it to the Universities and Colleges to do. So in essence we are restricting our own development by not allowing students who have the aptitude to progress in those fields because they cannot afford to go to college and pay the said fees. Scrapping fees and going back to the old system who enable them to apply and contribute more.

MaidOfStars Tue 23-May-17 17:08:35
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

Maid so in an ideal world all students leaving school at 18 should have the opportunity to go to university, particularly those from poorer backgrounds? Our country is run from the bottom up; we need cleaners, shop workers, baristas, call centre workers etc – these jobs do not require a degree but will need to be done by somebody – do you propose either the rich who choose not to go to university or importing “foreigners” to do these jobs? Suggesting that everybody should go to university for free effectively devalues and de-motivates all those who never wanted to; it has nothing to do with "not getting ideas above your station" and everything to do with every individual being different.

In 2015, 31% of 18 year olds in England were accepted on to FULL TIME university courses in the UK - this doesn't take account of part time or those studying abroad so actual the figure will be higher. If you are proposing that we should seek to increase this figure by abolishing fees, how will universities deal with the increase in numbers? How will society deal with the drop in available workforce?

From Full Fact - The entry rate to university of 18 year old state school pupils in receipt of free school meals was also at a record high in 2015—a figure of 16%. That's compared to 31% for those who didn’t receive free school meals. This in itself is a slightly misleading figure as we know that not all children from poorer families are entitled to FSM as they are not "poor enough". That is a truly incredible figure and demonstrates that fees are absolutely not discouraging university attendance as a whole (despite individual anecdotal cases cited by PPs).

So in essence we are restricting our own development by not allowing students who have the aptitude to progress in those fields because they cannot afford to go to college and pay the said fees. Scrapping fees and going back to the old system who enable them to apply and contribute more
I couldn't agree more. I am arguing against the idea that only the person who gets a degree gains any benefit from said degree via the process of higher wages (sometimes; I earn less than my two best friends who didn't go through university/degree-based higher education).

Suggesting that everybody should go to university for free effectively devalues and de-motivates all those who never wanted to
I never suggested that everybody goes for free. I support free tuition for those pupils most suited to academic pursuits and a degree. Having read this thread carefully, I realise that this disadvantages those who do not go to university for whatever reason, and would support investment in alternative paths to a fulfilling job/career.

I would not support the widespread availability of degrees we see today. In the University Of MaidOfStars, there are about 13 subjects, that's it.

And a wink for the above post, as it's only slightly tongue-in-cheek.

university tuition fees should stay and be extended to all schools too

why should my taxes be spent on educating someone elses kids?

if you want your kids to go to school then you should pay directly for it

maid absolutely agree, all students leaving compulsory education should be supported in the best way to achieve their potential. This could well mean far fewer going to university, but more being given training opportunities via other means. It pays to invest, but all too often it is seen that university is the either the only, or certainly the only worthy, route.

university tuition fees should stay and be extended to all schools too
why should my taxes be spent on educating someone elses kids?

Is that you Theresa?

I agree with you and a few others. I think certain subjects should be funded, but most should not. It devalues having a degree when everyone studies for one. More and more jobs require a degree of some sore, some don't even specify what type.

Today, the masters is the new bachelors. Even with my ridiculously high students loans, I probably won't pay it all back.... Especially now that I am a part time employee (possibly future SAHM)
It's just encouraging people to study Micky mouse degrees

I think the current rate of fees is hideous. I was one of the first years to pay fees and £1000 was quite reasonable but being saddled with all that debt when you graduate paying £9000 a year. Most people will never pay it of anyway.
Though with Brexit we are going to loose lecturers and researchers as they won't be able to get EU research grants

Carol decker. google 'election' 'eduction a key factor ' I was as surprised as the next guy.... so I find it interesting conservatives wanna make cuts from early in schools.... I knew there was already a mini 'scandal ' in colleges...but now in mainstream education too.
www.google.co.uk/amp/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/39936927

COLLEGES: so colleges are a huge positive investment for governments - I was told (can't find the source right now) that for every £1 spend on a person in ed in college they return £4 into the economy. .. So a few years ago the government started removing funding. This was millions to each college. Then they had 'proof' colleges couldn't run at a profit. so they had cause to merge them. (Again the aim of a college isnt to run at a profit. It was yo help with more vocational qualifications. .to pick up the lost kids and help them move forward, to help adults who messed up back years ago and give them another chance to train or retrain..or get the basics .)

To the average jo the mergers mean lots of travelling, as where as before say brick laying was taught at several colleges it's now in one... so in rural areas you have to travel to do the subject you want...oh but wait they cut the budget for travel help... increased travel prices and forced colleges to increase the means tested income level ... so parents and older students have to factor in 600 - 1500 for a train or bus a year (maybe less in London? ). Actual in class teaching is reduced as everyone is getting work experience as an apprentice. ....except that there are few jobs (area/company depending) at the end as the company just takes on new apprentices. .so 2 or 3 years of low pay, no travel help, no food help...(restricted geants for apprentices) but they are 'employed, learning and off the street.

Now there's the 24 plus loan and the 19 plus loan.

YOU SEE a mentality that wants everyone to pay... means everyone.

A mentality that's wants to bring back free education is a means tested one which few have mentioned. THIS means if you are able to afford it you pay. If you can't you don't.