Students Protests - University Fees

[EggFriedRice]

I absolutely applaud the protests by young students against the rise in university fees, why should they put up with the blatant lies by the Liberal Democrats, I voted for them, I believed what they told me during the run up to the election, now I feel betrayed, like so many other voters, how could they say one thing and then do the opposite? I witnessed today a demonstration by ordinary young people who will be affected by the increase in university fees, I witnessed the heavy police presence, the batons ready to charge, the police filming ordinary young people who have been betrayed, I witnessed the sad state of the UK,

Taxpayingmom,

Isn't your post arguing against yourself?

Now, students rather than studying medicine, or what ever for the love of it will be thinking only of the financial benefit. Their might be more money in plastic surgery rather than geriatrics, tough luck.

These proposals are changing education purely into a means to an end, where financial benefit is the primary consideration.

So many people on here seem to be missing the point that young people need hope and a future in this country. Why do so many older people think that just because they're ok, who cares about the plight of students. Seems a supremely selfish point of view to me.

People use the argument that this student debt is paid over years and years as some kind of justification for it. So it's a positive thing of course for the young people in this country to face being saddled with crippling debt for all of their adult lifes, and for banks to profit as a result. What utter nonsense.

"saddled with crippling debt for all of their adult lifes"

30 years after graduation is not "all of their adult lives", it's only five years longer than most mortgages.

"and for banks to profit as a result."

It will be entirely possible to attend University and then never pay back a penny.

I'm not saying that I support these proposals but let's at least get the criticisms about them right.

BadgerPaws if you combine high house prices (for those that manage to get mortgages) with hugely expensive university tuition fees, I think that you may find that for an awful lot of people such debt may extend all of their adult lives, in fact some may never be able to pay it back at all.

The point re the exact timeframe isn't the issue here in any case - the point is the huge amount of debt, the implications for creating a bigger divide between rich and poor and potential future skill shortages. I'd rather some political honesty and quotas as to what the country could afford in terms of university places if finance is the main issue.

I don't claim to be the Oracle, but the government's proposals themselves are not that detailed currently, details are available for people to read here:www.bis.gov.uk/policies/higher-education/students/student-finance

"I think that you may find that for an awful lot of people such debt may extend all of their adult lives, in fact some may never be able to pay it back at all"

The debt gets wiped out after 30 years paid off or not. That is by no shakes "all of their adult lives".

"The point re the exact timeframe isn't the issue here in any case"

Well to some extent it is, imagine you get a chance to ask a minister one question and you say that. You'll get shot down as quick as a flash because it's obviously wrong. It makes us look ill informed and therefore with ignorable opinions.

If we are to have any hope of getting this revoked we need to be informed and precise about what our objections are.

I agree with you about the divide problem and I do not like these proposals. But we need to rip them apart for what they are not what they are not.

I do wonder how many of the people who agree with the tuition fees have children under 17. I doubt that they do.

How would you all feel if the government suddenly announced that because you got a free degree all future and past graduates now have to pay 9% tax on all income over 21K.

Good point Christmaseve

Whilst I agree that there was not other option put on the table, that doesn't mean that there are no other viable options.

How would you feel if it puts one of your children off going to uni?

'Of course if there was a viable alternative that would see them get free FE then I would much prefer that but there is no such viable option.'

Do you think that the only viable option is the one advocated by the Coalition, the option that the LibDems had pledged they wouldn't support, only a few months ago?

christmaseve - I have a child under 17 and agree with the fees rise as being the least worst method of paying for higher education.

HTH.

I don't accept that these fees are in some way essential or that there are no alternatives. There are plenty of areas of government spending that could be looked at, university students (or sorry schoolchildren currently) are just an easy target.

Also if the country can't afford all the university places then why not have a quota of the number of places available at universities and make access based on ability not ability to pay. It would be more honest and personally I think most people would view this as a fairer approach than the government's elitist proposals.

It's very difficult to assess all entrants on ability without cutting out almost alla dult entrants, who often apply with life / job experience or specialist uni entrance certs such as access. yet certainly I know some university stats suggest that these same students tend to out perform their fellow course students.

But there is no reason why universities should continue to teach students who fail to make the grades, keep up or even attend as many currently do. I would far prefer to see students weeded out if they fail an exam or have poor attendance rates, rather than people be barred from giving it a shot.

You know what I would like to see only the top 20% going to uni and getting it free. That could have been an option.

Did you see the ex-Labour minister Purnell on Andrew Neil's show last night. Purnell was against the fee system when they were looked into by Major, but surprise, surprise, when Labour got into power, he saw what a good idea they were, and Labour started teh ball rolling. Then Purnell told us the usual Labour line. They agree with fees and some increase, but they wouldn't have doen it like this. He said they wouldn't have cut the state subsidy for universities by 80%. he said the fee increase was to make up teh shortfall. But Neil managed to ring the truth out. Neil said 80% of the teaching budget, and Purnell said yes. Then neil said 80% of the teaching budget for humanities and Purnell said yes.

So it seems that science undergraduates will have to pay up to triple their fees to subsidise humanities. Why is that necessary?
If it was really about money, couldn't they just cut back on what is on offer in the humanities, scale it back a bit, and not have to charge science and business undergraduates to make up the shortfall?
What happens when they decide to cut the science teaching budget subsidies in future? Will fees rise to £15000?

wring the truth out

They only insist on degrees because there are so many applicants with degrees. Why not take someone with a degree if they cost the same as someone without one? If less people had degrees and if there was a job shortage, then employers would take what they could get.

and there was not a job shortage

Labour started it at 3K, now it could go to 9K. Do you think that's the end of it? They all know it will go higher, one step at a time

In my view the government's policy is essentially privatising universities overnight whilst making a university education at the top unis less attainable for those who are not rich (as I understand it some unis will be able to set their fees at 6k and some 9k)- presumably the unis with good reputations will go for 9k - potentially making a university education at a better uni almost 10k more over the whole degree - not alot of money perhaps if you are wealthy but a significant sum of additional debt to put you off going to a good uni if you don't come from a wealthy background.

So universities without good reputations may die out, but the government won't have officially killed them - these universities just won't have performed. My issue with this is that there is no political honesty in this approach and it just increases inequality between rich and poor as I see it.

They might end up giving loans for 16-18 yr olds one day.

Does anyone know what is happening with EMA. Also you know how there was a vote on this yesterday. Do they have to vote on EMA and also scrapping Child Benefit for Higher earners, or is it just main issues.