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.

radishal I think we are saying the same thing

The point is that we need to work out what skills are needed because it will help the economy and the young people in their careers.

I agree with you but the OP talked about cutting fees for all which is what I said I don't agree with and it sounds like you don't either!

nope - always been fee paying where i am from and i never understood the whole free education debate. If i wanted to go to university - why should other people pay for me? The mind boggles.

I agree with you but the OP talked about cutting fees for all which is what I said I don't agree with and it sounds like you don't either!

Yeah maybe, the point is that the rationale for paying has to be good for the wider economy. The right skills is how the country will succeed in the long term. It isn't just about individual gain though which many seem to believe it is.

If i wanted to go to university - why should other people pay for me?

Because when you start work you will be higher skilled and benefit the country? Can't you see that?

How does saddling young adults with debt encourage people from poorer backgrounds to go to uni? Makes no sense.

Because it costs them nothing. They only pay a percentage back when they are not " poorer".

Someone disagreed with me about less places benefiting the independent schools. Yes, I realise the majority of your peers will have been from state school but that's because 93% of the population go to one. Bet the percentage from fee paying schools was higher than 7% though.

Because when you start work you will be higher skilled and benefit the country? Can't you see that?

That's not true either. Skilled at referencing or constructing an arguement perhaps. Not necessarily anything that benefits anyone but the person with the degree. And if you take a degree in your early 20's and have a five year gap in your 30's whilst you have children, the degree whilst helpful on paper is probably out of date in terms of skills.

Well they didn't benefit from a free degree, as everyone else had to pay for them via taxes.
I didn't benefit and don't see why it's now an expectation. If you want to take on additional studies which will improve your career prospects, then I think you need to contribute towards it.
I don't see why my taxes should be used for it while the country has so much debt / deficit. It's pretty rare for a whole student loan to be fully repaid. I'd rather my taxes went on NHS/social care.

I'd rather my taxes went on NHS/social care.
Which it will if degrees are free for nurses and doctors.

Caveat: I think all should be free.

That's not true either. Skilled at referencing or constructing an arguement perhaps.
People with arts degrees are very employable in the finance industry. They're good at referencing, they're good at spotting anomalies.
They are also the people that write policy, criticise governments. Change societal thinking.
Ken Kesey changed the way we look at mental health.
Charles Dickens was an ameliorist.
Harper Lee opened discussion on the nature of prejudice.
We know how to treat PTSD because we researched after the first Gulf war, went back into the history books and looked at shell shock.
All of these, and others are important.

raspberries it is true if the right degrees are funded, some of which will be arts. There needs to be a strategy to identify what is needed and fund those, with selection for those places on merit. Then other people can pay or undertake higher level apprenticeships. It's ridiculous to argue that because some degrees are pointless all students should have to pay.

Theres too many courses, too many going to uni now so support free uni. You need to restrict it to free to nurses, doctors etc useful skill courses im afraid. I support training on the job now. Get paid whilst learning. The whole education system needs looking at really.

Increased middle aged...i know of several friends who did archaeology etc who work in bars as no work in the field they studied in. Thats not paying back.

Yes I agree rach there would need to be quotas of what is needed. Some 'arts' degrees are vital and important though - think English for example would need a fairly high quota. There are also lots of skills gaps which if we organised higher ed in this way could be filled.

Whoever pays for archeologists working in bars isn't a good use of human capital or good for the economy or the individuals.

Another one here thinking that it's the course not the student that should be means tested. Higher demand for places should mean higher fees. Skills shortage areas should have free tuition and linked to a period of employment (there are already employers in my industry that will pay to put students through university with a contract linked to future employment).

I use my Corbynite sister as a prime example. Could have gone to university within a year or two of leaving sixth form on lower fees but chose to work in bars and travel until she was 24. Then decided to go to university to study in London (of all places) a degree in photography. Loves the London life, no intention of moving anywhere cheaper, graduated two years and still working in a bar and not using her degree at all. Huge student debts. Complains bitterly it should be written off. She's a victim of her own lifestyle choices not the education system.

I am against free university for all it is unrealtic. When I was at school, a girls grammar school, only the cream went to uni. Now a huge percentage go.

Speaking as someone who has put two children through uni, the first was in the first year of the 9k a year fees. The second DC is healthcare student and her fees are paid by the NHS but this stops this year. I am however in favour of this continuing as I believe the government has got it massively wrong assuming they will increase nursing numbers by making them pay for their training. IMO, working for free for 50% of the time over three years in return for your training means they are already paid for.

I agree that at current levels not everyone can be funded in the current system, absolutely that's true.

We need to change the system though because right now the course people choose are usually based on what they enjoy. This leads to lots of people interesting-sounding courses and poor old mechanical engineering struggling. It needs to be based on what will benefit them personally but also the economy depending on their own personal strengths.

And more people need to take apprenticeships instead and at higher levels - this is government policy. Nursing for example may well go down this route in the future.

Agree about the NS S funding.DD fortunately did hers before when it was paid for. They work really hard and do placement so they are working in a round about way plus long hours.

It's awful that they won't fund students who are halfway through?

I'm against free university and I paid for mine.

I believe there will be a lot of people who would take advantage of the system but going just for the sake of going and ended up dropping out etc.

I do believe that they should reduce the fees, and spend more on supporting schools, giving students a better education at the age of 17 and below. And also to better prepare young students to life after school.

As for university/college subjects like nursing, doctor, electrics etc(occupations that we are short of)..I believe it should be part funded or to be offered free if they finish the course and stay in the country for so many years to recontribute back into society, sort of like scholarships.

I'm not convinced that we should go back to free university immediately, but I'd definitely support lowering fees by half and making subjects like nursing and teaching, where there is a huge need for people to join the profession, totally free.

I don't think it is ridiculous that all students pay - worthy or not degrees.

The degrees that benefit society in terms of public sector jobs also benefit the recipient. They are safe, have good standardised pay and conditions. People are also free to take their degree and training and work in the lucrative private sector.

Offering free degrees in nursing or teaching means you get even less suitable candidates. There isn't an issue of affordability with student loans, everyone is free to borrow. The poorest also get money to live on.l

This is why a 'graduate tax', as opposed to loans for fees, won't work:

Because the so-called 'graduate premium' that students were all but promised turned out to be pie in the sky.

I remember, during the last labour government, being told by that government that anybody going to university would earn £x more over their working lives, so the cost of the fees would be a mere bagatelle.

The value of £x varied, ooh it's just like A level maths this isn't it, but diminished markedly over time. As if the young people were all too stupid to notice, or too keen to go to 'uni' and have three years' 'partying' to care.

£x reduced from £500k, around ten years ago, to somewhere in the region of £100k now. I don't even believe the £100k, if it's supposed to be an average.

Yes, clearly the people who study for high paying careers will earn more, but what about the people who studied archaeology and now work in a bar, mentioned upthread?

So a 'graduate tax' won't raise much, will it, if the salaries being taxed aren't as high as the students were promised?

I went when university (not 'uni') was free. I was incredibly lucky. I was one of around 10% of young people who were able to go. However, I don't think that our country can sustain paying for free university for everybody who wants to go.

Nor do I think that people studying medicine should get a free pass. Why should a hospital porter, say, or a healthcare assistant, pay more tax to give free education to a doctor who will earn a high salary across his or her lifetime? In other words, why is the doctor more vital or important than the porter or the HCA?

The vast majority of teachers don't do a teaching degree. I did a maths degree and didn't train to be a teacher until after 4 years in a different profession. The solution there is to pay off student loans incrementally the longer you work as a teacher, not to make the degree free. As someone mentioned above, this would encourage unsuitable candidates to take teaching degrees and also it wouldn't mean that students who do the degree actually have to take up employment as a teacher.

Income tax was higher a few decades ago.

it is true if the right degrees are funded, some of which will be arts. There needs to be a strategy to identify what is needed and fund those, with selection for those places on merit.

Right, and that'll be a totally cost-effective process, will it, identifying what is needed and funding it?

I'll get my crystal ball ...