Tuition Fees

twigglet

Member
I completely agree that it is a disgrace, I was having this arguement with a friend at uni yesterday. He thought that it was all OK, because at UCL he argued that the people can afford to pay more and are likely to come out with a high wage job and could therefore afford to pay the top up fees... This angered me immensely as not all students are lucky enough to have mummy and daddy rolling in money to pay off all their debts and have no worries about the future... personally i am extremely worried about completing my degree (in politics incidently, and yes i agree they are all as bad as each other!) and being up to my eye balls in debt.

It will be joe bloggs from a middle class family that just because their parents both work and earn a reasonable wage will be penalised by top up fees and may consider not entering higher education. This will then backlash on the country and economy with a lack of skills base available...
 

James McFadyen

New Member
According to Mr Blair today, he basically said that more focus is been put on primary/secondary schooling since they believe it to be the roots of good university placements and grading.

I find that somwhat single-minded, what about people with life experince in the field and they go into uni later in life, are they to be penalised for this?!

I think I would not be too far off the mark that actually getting a place at Uni is the least of our problems, it's getting through it without being in 10's of thousands in debt.

What about Postgraduate funding? No student loans available for that!

Apparently Education is supposed to be at the forefront of the Labour Party, but they are not doing so, they're being selective of this, treating only pre-uni students.
 

Naomi McFadyen

New Member
there goes the future doctors, nurses and teachers! :?
complain theres a shortage and then charge uni fees to put people off... charming :p
 

Banana

Member
I think it's such a great idea it should be extended. Surely possession of a few A levels puts you in a position to earn more doesn't it? :wink: Make 'em pay! Come to think of it, when 7 year olds go to junior school, shouldn't they start paying back their infants education costs, - I'm sure decent Key Stage 1 SATs results will probably result in them earning more? Make 'em pay!!

Go for it Tony - Mrs Thatcher must be proud of you :?
 

sparkling_quavers

Active Member
twigglet said:
I was having this arguement with a friend at uni yesterday. He thought that it was all OK, because at UCL he argued that the people can afford to pay more and are likely to come out with a high wage job and could therefore afford to pay the top up fees...

Tis a shame but that simply isnt true I have seen friends I went to school with graduate from various universities and struggle to get a graduate job. I went to Sheffield Uni to do my undergraduate degree (maybe not quite in the same league as UCL but still a red-brick and very well respected) and I saw alot of my friends apply again and again only to be against 500:1 odds. Infact one friend in particular. This lad was incredibly intelligent...straight a's at a level, came out with a first in his chemical engineering degree (infact the highest marks the the department had ever seen). He gained every award going, an offer of a 16,000PA salary to study a Phd there!! and something like a 96% average in his finals and this lad applied and applied for a graduate jobs to no avail. For him and the rest of our friends it was awful. If he was failing at getting a job then what for the rest of us?!?!?

I think alot of students are sitting in do-la-land about getting a decent job when you leave Uni.....

I left Uni 13,000 in debt from student loans....was the first year to have to pay tuitions fees. I was lucky enough to have to not pay them as my parents were on a low income. I lived for 4 years on that 13,000 (plus about 2 1/2 grand in overdraft which I still have half of now!) including paying all my accomodation etc etc....

I didnt let the money deter me from going to Uni as I wanted the life experience.... but financially now it is very difficult.... I really couldnt imagine being an extra 10 grand in debt through extra fees....

I rather agree with GC about reducing the number of courses (although I wouldn't want to be choosing which ones)..... making standards higher to get into University.... there are too many places which take people who get 2 E grades at University and thus Unis have to cater and drop standards....

According to Mr Blair today, he basically said that more focus is been put on primary/secondary schooling since they believe it to be the roots of good university placements and grading.
I agree there needs to be definate developments in this area. But what winds me up the most is the trial systems that are now working in many cities across the country. I know it runs in Nottm City- If you live withing the city boundary then the government will pay you 40 pounds a week to stay in education 16-18. Ie. they will pay some kid who has failed all his GCSEs to sit back and resit GCSE english and maths. They need an 80% attendance to get the money... but to most of them this is just an easy option and they couldn't get much more than that on some training scheme. Alot fo these kids have no interest in actually passing the exams they just use it to get the money!
 
im relieved that iv just missed out on the top-up fee for when i go2 uni in september, mainly because im planning on studenting for at least 5yrs. its alright getting a student loan whilst ur at uni...... its just when ur trying to pay it all back afterwards
 

Rambo Chick

Member
Im a poor student and am disgusted!! :evil:

and it isnt poor people who will suffer-they get their fees paid for them!!!, its the middle classes, who have to pay but have an average income that wont pay for such horrendous fees!

i say take the money out of the prisons!! it costs on average £27,500 to keep a prisoner for a year-that could put two students though uni with cash left to spare (with current average debt being around £13,000)!

and yes get rid of all the numptie courses like kite flying, origami, basket weaving and football studies-yes these are actual degree courses for gods sake!!!!

what a waste of money-STUPID GOVERNMENT!!!! :hammer

Carolyn

irate student :x
 

Big Twigge

Active Member
I have big student debts already and they are going to get even larger.
I am just glad that when I restart uni in september (fingers crossed) I'll miss out on the new scheme. I pity the person who makes the mistakes I've made by choosing the wrong degree course and then deciding to totally change~this scenario with the new tuition fees....v expensive I think :cry:
 

midwalesman

Member
Fees for these half wits in government.

Nevermind about the vote I was shocked and saddened when I heard about the Government thinking about doing it. It was all over the news and one particualr programme, I think it was on BBC one, had the Principal of Huddersfield Uni and some other Uni principal, and then some girl, quite clearly just finished Uni was saying how much it was a good idea. I nearly had a fit! I bet she got a job in the government and now doesn't care a jot. It's the same with Blair and all of them, they've had their cake and they don't want anyone else to have it for free like they did.

Although I understand the need for extra finance in universities, especially, being biased because I want to lecture. The whole problem has come about because, just like the trains and schools there has been a lack of investemnt by both the Conservatives and Labour. Now that Labour has spent 7 billion taking us to war they realise their skint and will have to borrow more and more cash.

I can't believe that a government which was elected by having a manifesto saying no to upgrading tuition fees has now changed its mind. It shows the duplicitous nature of this government at its very best. I'm sad to say I voted for them the last time, but voted for Plaid Cymru the time before. I won't be voting for them again. And cerainly not for the inept Conservative party, who I neither trust or would have the time of day.

Here are some considerations if I were going to university in a few years time, from a middle class family:-


1) Loans will cover fees, more loans will cover cost of living (food etc) over a period of 3 or 4 years dependant on the course. (5 or 6 if medical)

2) Hidden costs of uni. For a music student, buying music, text books, manuscripts, instruments that will improve your playing i.e Piccolo's and Eb or D trumpets etc. More students will work more hours to get extra money so that they don't spend all the loans, subsequently those who do work 2 or 3 jobs will see their work suffer eventually if they haven't balanced their lives correctly. Not to mention maintenace of instruments!

3) By the time you leave after 3 years, you will have loads of debt! There is no doubt that it will be 20,000 + or even 25,000+ in the future. That will certainly put people off going to uni in the first place, but it will also put graduates moving onto postgraduate courses. No postgrad MA or PhD candidates and surely where are the next people to teach at university going to come from ?

4) Even after discounting the academic angle, lets see what happens after uni. A person gets a respectable job, then starts paying the loans back, but because the job is away the person has to buy or rent a house (both cost loads!). The person needs a car for transport (and its not supplied by company), and thats paid monthly, further debt. On top of that the cost of life maintenance such as furniture for the house, TV's etc.

The students of the future will no doubt, without some financial aid, will be poorer, work longer in their lives to pay off the debt of educating themselves, struggle in life because of the cost of mortgages and car loans etc. Instead of encouraging people to university the government is succeeding in creating an environment where specific types of people get to university. i.e those who are rich get richer! As for the different levels of fees by universities that will end up a disaster because all things the government leaves to flexibility is going to go Pete Tong!

My view anyway,
 

BigHorn

Active Member
Just a thought.
Why should a bin man fund a law graduate though Oxford and see him go on to be a highly paid city lawyer or stockbroker earning millions.

The argument that the lawyer will pay more taxes doesn't wash any more.
When we had free education the higher tax rate was astronomically high (at one point as much as 87%) At that time the high paid graduate really did pay back his dues for the advantage he was given.

Nowdays the top rate of tax is 40% starting at a fairly generous amount. Relatively the rich pay much, much less tax than they did.
Times have changed. You can't have a low tax economy and 50% of school leavers going on to university without the means to pay for it.
It is just not fair to burden those struggling on working class wages with the bill.

Personally I would have a system where the government funded completely those students taking Science, Engineering, Medicine etc. and charged the absolute full cost to those wanting to take the mickey mouse social sciences, politics, kite flying etc.
The entry requirements should be raised to where they used to be i.e any body less than 3Cs at A level would have no where to go. Thats fair - they could always re-sit them or go to night class if they were determined.
 

WhatSharp?

Active Member
BigHorn said:
Just a thought.
Why should a bin man fund a law graduate though Oxford and see him go on to be a highly paid city lawyer or stockbroker earning millions.

Because it could be his Son/Daughter!

though at the moment a Bin man probably WOULD get his son/daughter to uni without having to pay anything, however the trained proffessional whos not earning 40K+ a year would see their sons/daughers end up as Bin men/women.
 

geordiecolin

Active Member
Here's a point my mum raised to me on the phone the other night.... When the new scheme is introduced in 2006 there is going to be a funding gap. The old scheme students will be finishing and the new scheme students starting. If the whole idea revolves around paying when you've graduated, there won't be any graduates from the new scheme to pay! Granted, the government will make savings elsewhere from the new scheme, but i doubt these will cover the defecit.

Just a thought......
 

midwalesman

Member
Agreement.

I agree with Big Horn in most of what he said about the Tax angle and about the 50% of school leavers attending University and the 3 C's at A level.

However, here's my problem with that. The government are the ones saying, "You go to university because we want you to get the best education possible", but they are the ones who also want more money from students to fund the universities and take them off their budget. The next thing I can see happening is privitisation of Universities en-mass! It will happen... The figure of 50% is what the government want to get to as far as school leavers are concerned, they are pushing with one hand and taking with the other.

As for the grades, 3 C's, a high majority of A level candidates will get that, either by hard work or by the fact that a comparison of papers today against those of 10 to 15 years ago shows a difference in difficulty. This comment is not my own but my mother's who has taught for almost 30 years in secondary school (even taught me A level Biology!). When I visit my parents I sometimes have a look at the papers and I can answer most of them now, a fair few years after leaving school. Either she taught me well or I had to know more stuff! Since more people achieve the required grades more people go to university, like, more people get great GCSE's and more do A level. Is there evidence out there that this generation of students are far more intelligent than those who have gone through previously ? If you look at A levels and GCSE's every year the marks go up every year! Are we expecting a super brainy society ? The added problem of university attendance, is the perceived lack of trade jobs such as carpentry and plumbing. If higher grades and marking were stricter then there would be those who would go into these trades.

Yeah, I appreciate the Tax angle and agree 100%, but one thing that did rile me slightly was the issue of Mickey mouse degrees and sponsorship of students doing Medicine, Engineering and Sciences. There is no doubt that these students may well find the next world cure to AIDS or something equally as important, or build a eco friendly car or discover a new metal not previously seen. All deserving note, but in the meantime, Art subjects such as music and art itself suffer because of lack of unding by the government and also the universities themselves giving a larger portion of their budget to the sciences. NOT everyone would want to be a scientist or engineer, people tend to forget that Music is around us in society as much as there are bridges and roads. Music also mirrors cultural changes, can also aid in therapy for those in pain and is a means of communication for those who are handicapped. I was talking to a music therapy student the other day, and she said that a girl she was observing and taking care of, could not talk or read, but when the observer tapped a rhythm on the table the handicapped child responded with the same rhythm. Music can be used politically, religeously. When a person enters the car he puts on the radio, either for music or sport, a supermarket has music which tries to affect which products you buy.

The importance of music in our society cannot be measured. It can be part of the identity of an individual or society,understanding the music of other cultures is a way of increasing tolerance of others who are different.

That is not to say that I agree that there are far too many courses in Universities which are Mickey mouse type and have no society constructing purposes. I find it difficult to imagine learning a surfing degree in Barnsley!

One further point on music:-

It is also interesting to note that at one particualr University that I know of, a medical student with a musical background can be considered before that of a similar medical student of the same ability!
 

Rambo Chick

Member
BigHorn said:
Just a thought.
Why should a bin man fund a law graduate though Oxford and see him go on to be a highly paid city lawyer or stockbroker earning millions.

because the graduate pays the bin man's wages with his taxes!!! and if the bin man had a heart attack-it would be a graduate who helped him!

graduates fund the bin mans living, why shouldnt the bin man do the same??

and having such a degree does not guarantee a highly paid job!
 

lynchie

Active Member
Lets face it we all pay taxes for things we dont use, so I can't see that the bin man arguement is a fair one.

Anyway, my major gripe here is still this 50% target for people to go to uni?

Why? Why, all of a sudden do 50% of people in this country need a university education when most jobs are in the service sector and primary and secondary industries are struggling massively? We need a better structure for non-academic education through apprenticeships etc. If 50% of the country has a full degree, then 50% of the country will want to be managers, or at least in senior positions. So we have 1 manager for every worker? Am I missing something here?
 

WhatSharp?

Active Member
Another problem is the lack of Apprentiships, companies just can't be bothered to train young school leavers in basic trade skills. Whatever happened to the YTS?, abused by some companies perhaps but many more used it as a platform to train and recruit young employees. I was one myself, after completion I then went on to do my degree.

Once a person leaves school what do they do?, uni or the dole seem to be the only options.

No wonder our teenagers are running round the streets causing chaos.

It might sound a bit old fashioned and Dickension but there seems to be too much emphasis on going to uni these days. Possibly because there is no alternative way to learn a trade.
 

Cantonian

Active Member
Speaking as a parent, I don't wish my children to run up £1000's of debt so will endeavour to help out as much as possible.

How frightening has this University education become for parents?

My daughter is 17 and looking to go to medical school in Sept 2005 ( finishing in June 2011) My son has just started GCSE's so would start his degree( thankfully not medicine) in Sept 2007 (?finishing in June 2010).
My other daughter starts secondary school this September, going to University in September 2011 ( finishing in June 2014?).

For nine years (at least) we will be subsidising our children's fees, top-up fees and accommodation with at least 3 years of two children in uni at the same time.

Somehow I don't think that a new Prestige horn will be anywhere on the horizon!
 

Dan

Member
BigHorn said:
It is just not fair to burden those struggling on working class wages with the bill.

I do see what you are saying. Obviously there is a shortfall of funds for higher education. My personal bugbear, as mentioned before, is the burden on all taxpayers of bogus asylum seekers. We are all being burdened by these bills.

How about our government funding OUR future Doctors, Scientists, Teachers, Musicians, Professional workers and many many more before funding people that think they can come to this country to live for free.

It may sound a little ridiculous and even a little extreme. But I graduated 6 years ago, live in London now and am still paying off students debts (which are drastically lower than students post 2006 will have) and I cannot afford to buy a house. How will our future students pay off these debts, buy a house, raise a family and make provisions for pensions for their retirement? I really do not think the answer is in increasing tuition fees. Where will it end?

I think the points made about the cetain courses (eg BA hons basket weaving!!) are very valid. Maybe the system should be reviewing which courses should have higher fees paid by the student.
 

Rambo Chick

Member
yes i agree with lynchie-i can't understand either why it is so important for 50% to go to uni!

lynchie said:
Lets face it we all pay taxes for things we dont use, so I can't see that the bin man arguement is a fair one.

but if we all pay taxes for things we don't use, then surely the binman is just another worker who pays for such things including university education!
 

wewizrobbed

Member
Rambo Chick said:
yes i agree with lynchie-i can't understand either why it is so important for 50% to go to uni!

is it not related to all this 'equal opportunities' stuff, so that it can be seen that every child at every school has the same chance of a higher education, apparently regardless of academic achievements, since they don't seem to mean anything anymore (afterall why, after studying and working hard towards good grades at a levels/ highers etc should you be entitled to a good degree and job?!?) :shock: ? It is so daft. Also makes me sick to think that someone who hasn't bothered trying or attending school gets paid to attend classes, gets paid through further education, and gets taken away on special trips because obviously their lack of effort is to do with some deep underlying problem and not the fact that are too lazy and can't be bothered.

Btw, is there not no apprentiships because they've changed the school system (years ago I mean)?? It used to be that you sat an exam at eleven or something and that determined the further education you got...maybe I'm wrong. So the pupils that scored highly were at a different school from the pupils that didn't score so high. The former sat more exams and went to uni (and didn't have to pay stupid amounts of money) to study worthwhile courses. The latter were taught skills and trades. That makes sense to me. Making everybody sit all the same exams and learn all the same subjects is pointless when people are good at different things. Also, it has no relevance to background, wealth or any of that, just the qualities of the individual which is really what equal opportunities means :?.
 
Top