Increasing Tuition Fees : Yay or nay?

[DeletedUser4753]

9k fees are fine in my opinion

without any qualies or any luck finding a job after school can be hard and the wage is likely not going to exceed 7quid an hour, which for most people means you have to live cheaply and unless ya find another way of progressing these people will work till they die and never have the level of money or comfortability that a higher erner can achieve.

someone sighted the worst case scenario as a doctor doing a 7 year medical degree and paying for accommodation within a 100k a year loan.

a doctor can earn that a year in some cases, mr minimum wage needs about 8 years to accumulate that. so after 7 years of studying and a couple of years working minimum wage who was working all the time and new doctor are equal, after that doctors cash flow blooms to the incomparable.

solicitors accountant can charge 60-200 pound a hour(depending on area/quality of firm)
that's 10-30 times a factory workers wage, his 4 years at uni and a 50k loan make him 10-30 times more usefull? tis debateable.

so that's a large view on inequality imo, people get paid cause they went n got some papers.
I'm a intelligent bloke could of aced gsce's if I wanted but gave up, every one saw me as future scientist or doctor but I got bored of school so sacked it off, yet no papers mean I'm less valuable? again debatable.

then thiers all the little get out clauses students get.
don't pay after 10 years is it and the loan vanishes, can leave the eu and uk will no persue them for funds.
and you don't have to even begin to acknolwedge the loan exists till your earning 20k as they don't charge before hand. as I said most ppl no qualies get 10-15 k a year. and would love a massive 37 percent pay rise. and even then its a tiny. chunk of wage which if you have all the disposable cash isn't a burden. don't look at it as omg 100,000, they never gonna say oi pay it all up, see it as I get a far higher income at the cost of x percent of my wage above 20k.

if your going to uni for the party to be a lazy student doing a silly course in nothingness, then your proly in the same boat as mr no qualies, except he was earning money, you was partying
not gonna earn over 20 k with a degree in paper planes so no sweat.

if student loans are so bad get rid of the idiot courses and drive down all the higher end wages that people with degree's earn.
if the lecturer wasn't sat on a phd and demanding his top dollar salary to teach his field then students could pay less.
otherwise keep loans same and open your eyes to the massive leap up the ladder a good course gives you.

(daily finger warm up complete, now where's out lass )

 

[DeletedUser282]

Nay for me.

University fees need to be affordable, otherwise we end up with lots of extremely bright people from families who can't afford to help them with the fees who decide to not go to uni and not live up to their potential. And lots of quite thick people from rich families whose family will happily pay all their fees for them, going to uni in their place.

But then, I plan to go to uni in a few years, I'm biased.

Are you an idiot? Or did you just not bother to read up before deciding to assert your silly view.

Part-Time students get a much better deal under the new system than the old one. (Assuming 25% or more time spent studying theres now no up-front costs and they get a full tuition loan.)

You start paying back at £21000 not £15000 with a 9% rate until you pay it all back or until 30 years have past. So everyone is paying back less per month until they have payed it all off (which just takes longer now)
That seems fairly reasonable, it actually makes it easier to live in the short-term, just means you don't get rid of it as fast.

The rate of interest payed on it is now progressive (with 0% before you earn £21000) so the graduates who earn in the bottom 25% of career earnings, will actually pay back less overall in the new system than the old one.

Also people from families on lower incomes now get more generous maintenance grants.

So the poorest in the system are better off and everyone pays less per month, it's just that the people who earn more after their degree (using skills and qualifications gained from these several years being essentially funded by the government- seems pretty reasonable to me) will be paying back for longer before they pay it all off.

In summary, yay to the new system, it seems perfectly reasonable, and based upon your post and your fairly dumb groupings of people in your silly groups (@person from quote not OP), it seems that you are thinking that you are in the group of "bright people" but I would say that based entirely upon the content of your post you are (at least currently- no idea what kind of wonderful person you might turn out to be) within the subset of humanity you classify as "quite thick people"

 

[DeletedUser4083]

Split personality with the latter actually having done further research on the subject matter. Nice one Garg

 

[DeletedUser]

This sounds and looks very healthy to me Garg.

 

[DeletedUser]

Personally I think fees at £4k per year is high enough and then cut all the silly degrees out and sort out the rest of the spending elsewhere, maybe if the big guys stopped taking such big bonuses that might be a start.

£4k a year? Why not £3k? Why not free? Why not pay students to study (how it was in my parents' day)?

The simple fact is that it costs a lot of money to run higher education courses, a lot more than the £9k fees. Someone has to pay for it. Getting rid of the "silly courses" doesn't help. Banning bonuses doesn't help.

Students get a good deal, for all the reasons Gargareth gives above. The debt is big, but only repayable when comfortably affordable and it is written off after a certain length of time or if the debtor dies. It is a wholly safe debt, unlike a mortgage which can end up costing you everything you own if you lose your job or if your partner dies.

New Labour really messed up by trying to get 50% of kids to go to uni. Not only is there no way on earth that the state could fund such a folly (they must have known this at the time), but I can't think of anything more divisive than a system that says one half of society has "made it" (enjoy your graduate-only call-centres) and the other half is fit only for unskilled work. The most successful european countries still really value technical qualifications.

 

[DeletedUser4753]

im never going to have the strongest pro uni opinion, ima bricky and his at education

But what i would like to see is more a return to how things used to be.

For the trades it works so why cant it for everyone?

A joiner teaches his lad to be a joiner, he takes his nipper to work and teaches him via doing the job, this sort of guy will be 1000x better than the college fella who got taught it thier, thier is nothing like learning on the job.

Which is why i have a apparent disrespect for someones bits of paper, i went to college to build and turned up already trained a bit, i aced the course and watched as ppl who were very keen to learn, just couldnt under those circumstance, i can bet if i grabbed those lads and chucked on to sight they wud crumble, though if i took a few ppl as apprentices, taught them by them doing the job, ie cummon lets build the side of a house, not just lay a 20 brick long wall 5 course high.

Learn via experience, why do big companies recruit on ur bits of paper, maybe do basic qualities to see if they are bright enough and have the right skill set, but get them out of the class room, into the office, and help them do the job they wanna do, not sit him in a uni were the object of the game is "live the uni life" and cum out with a gold star.

Or even do a mix, school imo shud teach math and english, to high levels along with very basic history, geography and other less valuable subjects. thn ppl shud shud train qualies for a job whilst doing it, instead of via uni. Accademic people this would suite as they can walk into jobs as apprentice sort of ppl and get to it learning more useful things and doing the job, this already happens in the trades and anyone will tell you you learn more in the 1st week of working than u do at college, and thats whilst doing a specific trade, uni things are often far broader.

This wud also fix ppl's issues with fee's, the ppl are earning a apprentice wage so are happy, and company gets a cheap worker as thier incentive for teaching them, no debt wud exist.

 

[DeletedUser282]

Likely to be a long post, as I have just so much to say about your post. (@d1mension)
Well then, starting at the top.
You want things back to how they used to be you say? When Precisely is this?
Are we talking some time before the second world war? If so I'm not sure that you can make much of a comparison between Britain's economy then and the economy now.
Or After and before 1997 when tuition fees were paid by local education authorities and grants and loans could cover maintenance costs?
Or after 1997 when the old system of tuition fees (where less was paid than under the current system but it was paid back more likely)
This seems doubtful, and I highly doubt you are referencing the current system. (You seem to be fondly remembering a time that didn't actually exist.)

Now you say It works for the trades, why can't it work for everyone?
Well the answer to this should, incredibly obviously, be because the trades are different to lots of professions.

Now let's address some of the problems of your proposals.
So under the system you propose, we have a system where at school people are learning english, maths and a bit of some other subjects, I can only hope that you forgot to add science here, as if we aren't teaching our children science, then we aren't going to making many more advancements in technology.
On that point, given that we aren't sending people to uni under your system anymore, what about doctors? Are we training them all on the job too, based entirely upon what works in the trades, or do they get to be taught properly? I can only hope that under your system that doctors get to be taught properly, or the health and life expectancy of this country would be falling pretty quickly.

Are we still allowed scientists under your system? Or are we just sticking to current technology and hoping that it never breaks because we won't be able to fix it if it does? (Understanding of basic quantum ideas is necessary for the invention of the computer)

What about Lawyers? Should these people be getting degrees in law, or shall we just train them on the job and collapse our legal system completely because it works in the trades?

What people in financial services, which is one of the major parts of the British economy, do we need them to have any understanding of Finance? Or shall we just train them on the job and watch our financial system collapse because it works in the trades?

What about teachers (and lecturers if we keep any univerisities )? Are they still allowed to go to university? I feel like if they didn't then we might be going back a bit.

What about manufacturing? It can be done without higher education, but if it is then it'll be rubbish, we need people to understand engineering and mathematics and physics for it to be done efficiently.

I'll refer you to this quote:
“We are currently preparing students for jobs that don’t yet exist—using technologies that haven’t been invented—in order to solve problems we don’t even know are problems yet.”

I can accept that in the trades you don't need a university degree for your job. Not everyone needs to go to university. In fact a lot of people that do go probably shouldn't and there are quite a few degrees which are fairly pointless.
But scrapping university education altogether is an incredibly bad idea, as for a country to remain competitive and develop, we have to doing new things, innovating, getting better at what we are doing. People need to be taught to think, and that is what university can do very well, get people better at thinking and solving problems.
An example of a fairly major problem that will occur at some point, our current energy usage is largely based around a finite resource of fossil fuels. If we cut education and just do what you suggest, then we end up not generating any new technology or any new system of energy, and the problem overwhelms us.

Maybe you and people in your profession don't need to think, maybe people in the trades can be mindless drones who are only able to do their particular trade, but we do need people who can, and university can be a great help in this regard.

(Not trying to say that your job is unnecessary, someone has to build houses for those who think and dream.)

I also would suggest that maybe if you used your words properly and checking your spelling, it may add some substance to your message, obviously in short messages on some form of IM then such is unnecessary, but when trying to make a point about how you believe education should be, I would suggest that writing properly may make you more likely to persuade people than your use of
"no debt wud exist" or "thier incentive" or "Accademic people"
Things like that (in my opinion at least) have a fairly destructive affect on your post.
Just a semi-friendly note.
(Don't want to discourage you too much though as I noted that this most recent post uses capital letters which is definitely a step in the right direction from the last one you posted in this thread. Congratulations.)

 

[DeletedUser]

Academics need to be a minority. Last I checked, stem cells and software don't make for good eating.