To think those against free university probably benefited from it?

[malificent7]

Im pro free university. Im nearly 40 and was good for me.
Many people on here have said society should not fund students.
I bet they either directly benefit from no fees as they went or indirectly benefited eg: their kids went for free or they use doctors, nurses, teachers who wete funded.

absolutely agree

I've read on here, that JC wanting free uni for students wouldn't help the poor as they don't go to uni anyway....

Yep. Pulling up the ladder behind them.

However, not everyone of a certain age or who had free university education is against others having it as well. Let's not be drawn into another inter-generational battle

I favour an approach based on subject studied - nurses, doctors, social workers etc should get free or discounted tuition.

Those studying theatre studies, Medieval English etc should get loans.

I'm against free university and live in a country where it hasn't been free since the 70s. I paid fees and am still paying off the "debt".

I still don't support "free" tertiary education.

Free university was good for me too and I would like to see fees abolished or at least cut - and not just to help students. I think university fees are ruining further education - everything is about money, the students are customers who must be pandered to and woe betide anyone who dares to fail them!

80s*, not 70s.

Nope. And we didn't have a choice anyway. Free was the option given.

I went back to Uni in my 30's and have no problem with paying it back. The amount is small and doesn't count as debt in any financial sense.

Why should my peers who don't chose to go pay for me to go?

the thing is and i,m just a few years older then you it was only a minority that used to go to university i trained as a nurse under project 2000 and it was the NHS that funded my course and my bursary at the time , we were affiliated to the university but not quite university students , but when Tony Blair wanted 50 % Of school leavers to go university it devalued some degrees and its extremely costly to pay for.

I don't support unlimited free university. I was one of the first years to pay fees in the U.K. so it didn't cost me nearly as much as it does now. In the 70s - 90s university was reserved for the brightest students. Now it seems like far more students go to university so I don't think it's realistic that they all get it for free. I would support no fees for public sector workers if they stay in the public sector for 5+ years. Primarily health but also legal aid lawyers and perhaps others that I can't think of.

I support 50/50 funding as big proposes: I do not support free for all, sorry, but you can't go for a university education at the expense of the tax payer and then obtain a shit degree with said uni education (eg, art degrees) most of those people end up leaving uni and fighting for a place on a graduate course that is entirely irrelevant and probably won't see them earn more than 35k in the next 2 decades, I used to hire for those kinds of graduate jobs in pub management and it was ridiculous how many people with useless degrees would apply with 0 job experience and a degree that was irrelevant. They seldom even got interviews. So I think those people should pay loans, but social work/nursing/medicine/law should have less loans/more grants or free tuition

By the way I've never been to uni, funded or otherwise

I was always very strongly pro university until recently... I am changing my mind a bit on this, especially now I have seen lots of students calling for other people to lose the vote, protesting violently to be given other people's money, etc.

I am not convinced it is necessarily fair for millions of 'fucking plebs' who will never see the inside of a university, to have to pay for other people to reap benefits of a university education, some of which are lkely to be life long.

Given the level of elitism flying around in today's society, how many seem to become radicalised left wingers now and call for things like the elderly having their votes removed, I think it would feel doubly unfair for us to rob the average shop assistant's pockets to pay for the little twats who come out with that stuff.

I'm happy for university to be free as long as the number of places are curtailed, with no funding for low value courses. Train teachers, nurses, solicitors, accountants - as long as the course is vocational, I'm in favour of subsidising the places.

Uncapped places for any desired course of study is not sustainable.

I still have a £8k student debt to pay off, it started at £25k.

Why should my peers who don't chose to go pay for me to go?

Everyone benefits from people going to university, whether they go themselves or not.

Why should childless people pay for schooling why shouldn't parents pay? Because the whole society benefits from a lot of university only jobs aka engineer teachers and doctors etc

I'd be happy for teachers, nurses, social workers and the like to have their tuition loans waived as long as they committed to at least twenty years in that profession.

All other degrees should be paid for and the loans enforced whether the person works or not. Far too many go and waste the place as never intend to work or pay the loan back.

There aren't enough jobs for people to stay in the public sector for 5 years. Dentists who want to provide NHS care can't because the contract value isn't there for them to do it. Lawyers who want to do legal aid work can't because there isn't sufficient legal aid funding to support it. How do you see that working out?

I'm still paying student debt years ago. It's incredibly annoying you pay fees depending where you live. Those who pay the highest include medical students, whom everyone benefits from. System need an overhaul.

Currently, you pay back student loans at 9% of your earnings above a certain level, for most of the rest of your working life.

It's essentially a tax, but worse than a tax, because rich kids whose parents could pay upfront are exempt. It's the reverse of tax - the low earners will pay back the most (due to the interest), the high earners less, and the really privileged nothing at all.

For that reason, I'd support it just becoming a graduate tax of say, 5%. All graduates pay - no interest - no getting out of it if daddy's rich. Perhaps those in shortage professions could be exempt or pay at a lower rate.

I'm all for free education, but not for 'vanity degrees'. The proliferation of second rate degrees, the length of the courses and the fact that so many on these courses are actually in lectures or studying for a very few hours each week has meant that it can be one big expensive doss with a big debt and a dose of reality at the end of it.

I just wrote this on another thread:

I don't get the tuition fees thing - and neither does my 18yo DD who will be starting her degree this autumn, loan forms all filled out already, and she understands better than most how it works (she and DH did some modelling of how much she will pay when for a variety of scenarios. Yes, its a lot). But, either the individual pays - when they are earning enough - or everyone does. A service 'free at the point of delivery' is good if it is something which applies to everyone (e.g. primary and secondary education) and progressive if it is particularly beneficial to the less advantaged/vulnerable (e.g. NHS). But tuition fees are of benefit mainly to the more advantaged half of young people. Regressive, not progressive

I'd add to that - I think there should be support for apprenticeships and vocational training - some at degree level, but a lot not. I think there should be some scholarships for the really gifted - the world is richer for having some really good classicists, historians etc. Incentives for companies to sponsor training in the skills we really need - engineers, scientists, mathematicians, computer scientists etc - but also 'trades' (this may overlap with apprenticeships)

I was talking to an 18 year old about this, he said he didn't understand why other 18 year olds were in favour of dropping tuition fees when it just meant that they'd be paying for university out of increased taxes in the long run anyway. University isn't free, this is just a debate about who pays for it and when.

I was in one of the first years to pay, so paid less than it currently costs. Paid for an undergraduate and postgraduate degree.

I don't support free university education.

In an ideal world it would be great, and I definitely think that for essential degrees like nursing, medicine etc there should be as much financial help as possible.

But given a choice between free uni, or putting more money into the welfare state and the NHS, I'd chose the latter

I paid fees, but not as many as people pay now. Straight up vocational ones - doctor etc I've no problem being free. I would also support others of all kinds being free up to a certain number to keep standards up. I don't think that unlimited places, plus free degrees works out fairly enough.

I also think the interest should be charged at government's cost of borrowing, plus cover admin and nothing more.

I had free university education.

I don't support free fees. I support some fees - reasonable ones. Certainly not £9K a year. £3K was do-able. Also with so many students going, it is impossible to fund everyone, no matter what the course and no matter whether they are suitable. Some "degree" courses are desperately trying to recruit students to fill their spaces. And bear in mind it was Labour who expanded higher education and turned lots of tin-pot institutions into "universities".

As noblegiraffe notes, the fees wouldn't be "free" anyway. Ds was a first-time voter and he was concerned that he may have escaped £27K fees but if he got a half-way decent job afterwards he would be hammered as tax increases would have to be levied on more people to fund the free fees.