Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 48

Thread: Tuition Fees.

  1. #1
    Senior Member Alex696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar-2008
    Location
    Near Liverpool
    Posts
    1,006

    Default Tuition Fees.

    I thought I might as well write this because I'm bored of the subject and want to see if any of you lot have any input.

    First of all I would like to say that I consider myself a liberal, and I also still stand by my choice to vote for the party in the last general election. Before the May election this year Nick Clegg did indeed sign a pledge to say he would oppose a rise in tuition fees, however now the situation has changed, and I whole heartedly stand by the rise in the tuition fees cap. The situation as it is currently puts the cap around 3, 225, with graduates beginning to pay their loans when they reach an income of 15,000.

    The reformation of the tuition fees benefits the poorer students above all, and those opposing are actively helping reduce social mobility. The new system will mean that the level at which you pay is increased to 21,000. The average graduate salary lies currently at around 22,000-24,000 and average overall income in the UK at around 22,800. Is it not increasing the fairness of the system by excluding those far below the average income, at around 15,000, where it lies now, both in terms of graduates and overall? This will reduce all graduates bills significantly, while removing those who struggle to pay the most all together. Granted, students may have to pay it longer, but most fail to mention the vastly increased maintenance grants, being made more generous and progressive. It's also hugely more helpful to part time students, removing the previous pay up front policy. One of the primary motivations for my support also, is that of a free year for the talented and poorer students, what is more helpful than giving them a free year, increased bursaries, and a later starting date?

    I shan't go into the pipe-dream that is free higher education, you only have to look at Scotland to see the realisation that free education is not sustainable. I would also go into the gaping problems in Labours graduate tax, however to save making this an essay I won't.

    Thoughts?

  2. #2
    Senior Member kuku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct-2008
    Location
    Aylesbury
    Posts
    6,403

    Default

    40 grand is the sum of money you can expect to come out of a university charging 9 grand fees now. The combined income of both my parents over two years would just about cover that. In some parts of the country its a deposit on a house.

    Tell me how my little sister is supposed to feel ok knowing that she may always have such a large debt? How can she come out of university and follow her dream to set up her own company if shes so far in debt already?

    This debt is not the price of education it is a debt for life for some people even if you made 21,000 straight out of uni and into a job (which in the current climate isn't possible for a lot of graduates) and paid back 10% of your loan each year it would still take you 19 years to pay back what you owed, and that is not including the interested added by the student loans company which may be low but on a sum that large you will still end up paying out!

    Even with a free year IF my sister could get one she would still end up paying double what I have paid to go to university with 3 grand fees.

    I hate to be a nay-sayer and your point was very eloquently put - i'd like to think things are going to be as good as they say they are but even with all these great things put in place for poorer students the mental impact of knowing that a degree costs the same as a third of a house is going to turn them away (or in the case of some international students a whole house)

    There is no easy solution to this problem to be honest but I think a sliding scale of fees would have been more acceptable for the majority of people (Although that in itself is a can of worms). It also fails to take into account the rise in college tuition fees too, there is no support there for adults looking to retrain and now faced with a similar increase, its just all a little bit pants to be honest!
    Body Piercer and Creator of Body Poetry
    A Body Piercing advice site complete with fully detailed aftercare guides.

  3. #3
    Senior Member Smithy666's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr-2010
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    421

    Default

    Completely agree Alex.

    I've had so many 'debates' on Facebook and various forums about this, I don't think I can manage another lol...
    Piercings:

    4mm Lobes
    1.6mm Septum!
    1.6mm Left Lip
    (Retired)

    1.2mm Right Tragus (Retired)
    Left Nostril (Retired)

    Ink:

    Right Arm: Japanese Full Sleeve - Waves, Koi, Lotus Flowers and Cherry Blossoms. 19 hours. By Matt Hunt.
    Left Arm: Traditional Lady & Rose - Inner forearm. 3.5 hours. By Rachel McCarthy.


    Future:

    Lots More Ink!
    Both Lobes Stretched To Around 14mm
    Conch?

    Branding...?

  4. #4
    Senior Member quotidianaubergine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar-2006
    Location
    Bolton
    Posts
    6,219

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Alex696 View Post
    The reformation of the tuition fees benefits the poorer students above all, and those opposing are actively helping reduce social mobility.
    This is simply not true.

    Why is everyone conveniently ignoring the fact that EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance for college students with low income) has been scrapped? Let me tell you how these changes are going to go down for poorer students, and I don't think you can understand this unless, like me, you come from a poor family in a very deprived area. EMA basically allowed me to go to college, it was 35 a week that my parents could simply not afford to give me. It paid for my bus fares to college, my lunches, and my textbooks. Tell me how capable students from a similar background are now even going to get to college, let alone university? Let's not forget also, that students from deprived areas get a generally worse lower level education - primary and secondary schools have less resources and poorer levels of teaching, higher levels of non-attendance and class disruption, and for those who are capable and want to work hard, like I was, these conditions means that it becomes very difficult to achieve what you want to. If you want to start charging student 9,000 a year for university tuition fees, first make sure that all students have a fair chance of getting there, and then make sure that it is actually worth it.

    In case you think I'm going off the point...I'm not...

    University can't be free? We're in too much debt? Oh, ok then, so the government's plan to cut education funding by 80% and put the cost on the shoulders of the students is FAIR? I'd like to know exactly how taking out around 40,000 (per student) in student loans is going to help the deficit, personally. I'll tell you how..it's not going to. This motion, put forward by the shameless Tories and supported by the even more shameless Liberal Democrats is PURELY IDEALOGICAL. It's not going to do what the government is telling you it will, they are lying to you. Fair would be a slightly higher tax on the super rich so that everyone, from any background, has a fair and completely free pop at improving themselves and reaching their potential. That would be democracy.

    Unfortunately, this is never going to happen, because politicians and lawmakers in this country are from the elite classes, they will never know what it is like to be poor, and they are not representative of the general population. Their ideal is to keep the rich where they are, and the poor where they are. If all the capable poor people were able to go to the top universities, there wouldn't be enough people doing labour-intensive, low paid manual jobs and trades, and that would be disasterous for a capitalist society such as ours. Let's face it, if everyone was intelligent enough to realise how corrupt our government actually was, then no one would vote for them and these a**holes would be out of a job. That's why they're so good at deception. I, for once, want to hear a politician who has the balls to say what the rest of the population are thinking without fear of being thrown out of parliament. I, for once, want someone in power to truly represent us, all of us, from all backgrounds, and run a democratic country instead of a dictatorship in disguise.

    God, I am so peed off!
    Last edited by quotidianaubergine; 12-10-2010 at 03:10 PM.
    currently: 1st lobes, 2nd lobes, nostril

    retired: 1.6mm lobes, 6mm lobes, snug, 2 x helix, septum, 2 x nostril, 5mm lobes, labret, 8mm lobes, left tragus, right conch, right double forward helix

  5. #5
    Senior Member Alex696's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar-2008
    Location
    Near Liverpool
    Posts
    1,006

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quotidianaubergine View Post
    This is simply not true.

    Why is everyone conveniently ignoring the fact that EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance for college students with low income) has been scrapped? Let me tell you how these changes are going to go down for poorer students, and I don't think you can understand this unless, like me, you come from a poor family in a very deprived area. EMA basically allowed me to go to college, it was 35 a week that my parents could simply not afford to give me. It paid for my bus fares to college, my lunches, and my textbooks. Tell me how capable students from a similar background are now even going to get to college, let alone university? Let's not forget also, that students from deprived areas get a generally worse lower level education - primary and secondary schools have less resources and poorer levels of teaching, higher levels of non-attendance and class disruption, and for those who are capable and want to work hard, like I was, these conditions means that it becomes very difficult to achieve what you want to. If you want to start charging student 9,000 a year for university tuition fees, first make sure that all students have a fair chance of getting there, and then make sure that it is actually worth it.

    In case you think I'm going off the point...I'm not...

    University can't be free? We're in too much debt? Oh, ok then, so the government's plan to cut education funding by 80% and put the cost on the shoulders of the students is FAIR? I'd like to know exactly how taking out around 40,000 (per student) in student loans is going to help the deficit, personally. I'll tell you how..it's not going to. This motion, put forward by the shameless Tories and supported by the even more shameless Liberal Democrats is PURELY IDEALOGICAL. It's not going to do what the government is telling you it will, they are lying to you. Fair would be a slightly higher tax on the super rich so that everyone, from any background, has a fair and completely free pop at improving themselves and reaching their potential. That would be democracy.

    Unfortunately, this is never going to happen, because politicians and lawmakers in this country are from the elite classes, they will never know what it is like to be poor, and they are not representative of the general population. Their ideal is to keep the rich where they are, and the poor where they are. If all the capable poor people were able to go to the top universities, there wouldn't be enough people doing labour-intensive, low paid manual jobs and trades, and that would be disasterous for a capitalist society such as ours. Let's face it, if everyone was intelligent enough to realise how corrupt our government actually was, then no one would vote for them and these a**holes would be out of a job. That's why they're so good at deception. I, for once, want to hear a politician who has the balls to say what the rest of the population are thinking without fear of being thrown out of parliament. I, for once, want someone in power to truly represent us, all of us, from all backgrounds, and run a democratic country instead of a dictatorship in disguise.

    God, I am so peed off!
    In an attempt to answer all this, I think I may split it up, anyway. The removal of EMA is being replaced with a similar system that will most likely allow around half the amount previously allowed – a reduction to around 10-15 from the current 30 maximum. The schools budget has so far been protected, so if you want to raise the subject of equality of opportunity, then fair play. The schools budget has been given a bump by around 2 BN and is to experience a real term 0.1% rise each year, taking education to around 39 BN up from around 35. The introduction of a pupil premium policy will result in around 7 BN over 4 years being directed at helping the young and disadvantaged.

    Where do you propose the cuts be made? The NHS is experiencing a rise in budget and the system is being replaced with one more favourable. The notion that the cuts are entirely ideological isn't true. Yes, the Tories may ultimately be in pursuit of the rolling back of the state, however these cuts remain necessary with the largest budget deficit in Europe. Also, why would it be fair to tax the rich more? The richest 10% of the nation pays around 53% of the tax already, granted I think we need to close the loopholes to make them pay the correct amount, but Labours championing of the graduate tax would result in even more tax evasion by the rich. I also don't think that has anything to do with democracy, as with your last paragraph I don't really see how that's relevant, if that's how you feel then vote for a workers party of something.


    Quote Originally Posted by kuku View Post
    40 grand is the sum of money you can expect to come out of a university charging 9 grand fees now. The combined income of both my parents over two years would just about cover that. In some parts of the country its a deposit on a house.

    Tell me how my little sister is supposed to feel ok knowing that she may always have such a large debt? How can she come out of university and follow her dream to set up her own company if shes so far in debt already?

    This debt is not the price of education it is a debt for life for some people even if you made 21,000 straight out of uni and into a job (which in the current climate isn't possible for a lot of graduates) and paid back 10% of your loan each year it would still take you 19 years to pay back what you owed, and that is not including the interested added by the student loans company which may be low but on a sum that large you will still end up paying out!

    Even with a free year IF my sister could get one she would still end up paying double what I have paid to go to university with 3 grand fees.

    I hate to be a nay-sayer and your point was very eloquently put - i'd like to think things are going to be as good as they say they are but even with all these great things put in place for poorer students the mental impact of knowing that a degree costs the same as a third of a house is going to turn them away (or in the case of some international students a whole house)

    There is no easy solution to this problem to be honest but I think a sliding scale of fees would have been more acceptable for the majority of people (Although that in itself is a can of worms). It also fails to take into account the rise in college tuition fees too, there is no support there for adults looking to retrain and now faced with a similar increase, its just all a little bit pants to be honest!
    The debt incurred from university is that of the price of education. Of course, there is truth in the notion the the fees are risen arbitrarily in many cases to create competition, but allowing an institution to be semi-autonomous will have this effect, unless you want to remove the independence of the universities and expand the public sector by making lecturers and such civil servants, then that's the way it will be. The fact of the matter is now, the cuts will effect higher education in a large way, and a fee rise goes some way to covering the quality of the courses provided. The government can't afford to pay for your education any longer, if the universities consider courses no longer viable economically, your sister won't have a course to go on, because they will remove it. The current system insists you pay 9% back after earning 15,000, is it not more reasonable to exclude the poorest at the exact same however extend the debt considering the situation we are in now?

    Either way, I find it amusing that first time voters or generally naive people voted lib dem off the fact that they thought free university was to come from it, it was never going to happen. The thing is however, I'll be willing to bet that most of them will switch to Labour, the party who championed the Browne report which confirmed this, introduced a rise in fees in 2001 after promising not to, and is not supporting a useless system such – graduate tax and was on top of this financially incompetent enough to allow a 3BN a week budget deficit be created.
    Last edited by Alex696; 12-10-2010 at 04:24 PM.

  6. #6
    Senior Member kuku's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct-2008
    Location
    Aylesbury
    Posts
    6,403

    Default

    I actually voted for lib dem because I was impressed with how forthright and open they were about what they were doing, they weren't trying to butter what they were going to do and I thought them honest. Which is why I think I am so angry because Clegg has gone back on his promise.

    Sounds childish but its true and while I understand that as a government the tories and the libs need to make compromises in order to get anything done I feel that it was a complete cop out on the part of libs, he never seemed to be able to say why he had changed his mind or explain himself fully enough which is not good enough imo. If you are going to swear to something and have to go back on it at least have a damn good, well rationed and well explained reason!

    I understand there has to be a price on education when its at such a level but putting someone into almost 20 years worth of debt when already we are struggling with a national debt seems ridiculous to me. People talk of cutting courses which aren't 'viable' but how can you say something isn't 'viable'? Since when do we have the right to look down on someone's profession as non-viable! If we get rid of these smaller classes of students doing subjects that may seem to be useless to some we risk loosing entire professions, we risk becoming so streamlined and narrow in what people 'can do' as a job that we will have to hire people trained in other countries to cover the holes that appear... which again, with everyone talking about immigrants taking up english jobs, seems illogical.

    The fact of the matter is the cuts to higher education have already seen the closures of some smaller specialist universities and this to me almost sounds like the death knoll for all the other ones if people are having to suddenly face 20 years of debt for them!

    Also I think its unfair to blame labour sololy for the deficit, not only does it take two to tango (And the other parties cannot pretend they didn't know what was going on) but much of the problems with the banks started during all the privatisation and legislations that happened in Thatcher's years. I think they have made to be the scape goat in many ways although I do agree they contributed to it and certainly buried their head in the sand for too long, making the situation worse and I certainly don't think I will vote for them when the time comes around again!
    Body Piercer and Creator of Body Poetry
    A Body Piercing advice site complete with fully detailed aftercare guides.

  7. #7
    rjs
    Guest

    Default

    I personally think there should be a sliding scale of fees based on your exam results and what you're going to study...got 4 As and off to study at a top 5 institution for your subject? It's free. Got 2 Ds (and I definitely saw places offered for these sort of results when I was going through uni applications) and off to study at anywhere that'll take you? You can pay for it yourself. Note that I'm not making any judgement on the value of a subject here - a top-class history degree is probably of more value than a crap science one, before we get into humanities vs STEM - I'm only judging them on their academic rigourousness.

    Perhaps there could even be some weighting added to take into account the quality of secondary school you attended so if it's a crap school but you've still managed to get high marks it's seen as better than if you went to a private school where *everyone* gets high marks.

    Surely the best and brightest are who we want going to higher education, rather than just those who can afford it?
    Last edited by rjs; 12-10-2010 at 07:41 PM.

  8. #8
    Senior Member l0stf0rw0rds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct-2007
    Location
    East Sussex
    Posts
    629

    Default

    Something I haven't seen anyone bring up is the idea that you start paying back when you're earning 21,000 rather than 15,000. So our country is in a shit load of debt right? So if you don't earn 21,000 you don't have to pay it back, fair enough, but who /is going to pay it? There's more scope for people NOT to pay their fees than there is at 15,000 and there's more money that's not being paid back. So where's that money going to come from? The money that's paying for whoever to go to university but aren't earning enough to pay it back?


    All in all I'm extremely angry at all these education cuts, rise in fees and Nick Clegg.
    That is all.
    Current:
    8mm lobe, 1.2mm lobes x4, helix x3, rook x3, inverse navel, tragus, anti-tragus, conch, diagonal nipples x2, septum, double nostrils.

    Retired: Forward helix x2, helix, standard navel, Madison MD x3


    [ Split me wide open, and cut me in two
    There's nothing that I could ever hide from you ]


    *Becca


  9. #9
    Senior Member TitchTheAntiHero's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov-2009
    Location
    Winsford, Cheshire
    Posts
    763

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quotidianaubergine View Post
    This is simply not true.

    Why is everyone conveniently ignoring the fact that EMA (Education Maintenance Allowance for college students with low income) has been scrapped? Let me tell you how these changes are going to go down for poorer students, and I don't think you can understand this unless, like me, you come from a poor family in a very deprived area. EMA basically allowed me to go to college, it was 35 a week that my parents could simply not afford to give me. It paid for my bus fares to college, my lunches, and my textbooks. Tell me how capable students from a similar background are now even going to get to college, let alone university? Let's not forget also, that students from deprived areas get a generally worse lower level education - primary and secondary schools have less resources and poorer levels of teaching, higher levels of non-attendance and class disruption, and for those who are capable and want to work hard, like I was, these conditions means that it becomes very difficult to achieve what you want to. If you want to start charging student 9,000 a year for university tuition fees, first make sure that all students have a fair chance of getting there, and then make sure that it is actually worth it.

    In case you think I'm going off the point...I'm not...

    University can't be free? We're in too much debt? Oh, ok then, so the government's plan to cut education funding by 80% and put the cost on the shoulders of the students is FAIR? I'd like to know exactly how taking out around 40,000 (per student) in student loans is going to help the deficit, personally. I'll tell you how..it's not going to. This motion, put forward by the shameless Tories and supported by the even more shameless Liberal Democrats is PURELY IDEALOGICAL. It's not going to do what the government is telling you it will, they are lying to you. Fair would be a slightly higher tax on the super rich so that everyone, from any background, has a fair and completely free pop at improving themselves and reaching their potential. That would be democracy.

    Unfortunately, this is never going to happen, because politicians and lawmakers in this country are from the elite classes, they will never know what it is like to be poor, and they are not representative of the general population. Their ideal is to keep the rich where they are, and the poor where they are. If all the capable poor people were able to go to the top universities, there wouldn't be enough people doing labour-intensive, low paid manual jobs and trades, and that would be disasterous for a capitalist society such as ours. Let's face it, if everyone was intelligent enough to realise how corrupt our government actually was, then no one would vote for them and these a**holes would be out of a job. That's why they're so good at deception. I, for once, want to hear a politician who has the balls to say what the rest of the population are thinking without fear of being thrown out of parliament. I, for once, want someone in power to truly represent us, all of us, from all backgrounds, and run a democratic country instead of a dictatorship in disguise.

    God, I am so peed off!
    I must agree with the EMA point, my friend geniunely, when she went to college, used EMA to get to college everyday and without it she wouldn't have been able to,
    however I do think they need to tighten EMA, I get it myself, only a tenner a week, but tbh it goes on makeup and just generally not college stuff most of the time
    Pierced;
    9mm Lobes, Second Lobes, Right Tragus, Left Helix, Right Nostril, Central Labret, Inverse Navel, Tongue, Left Conch.

    2 Tattoos, a joker pinup on my leg and "into a beautiful manchester sunset" on my hip.
    Her tongues the ink and she write in a romantic slant






  10. #10
    Senior Member stasha-pistachio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr-2007
    Location
    Gloss-Sterr-Sherrr....
    Posts
    3,709

    Default

    I had 10 a week ema at college, and the bus fare was 14 :/ Though I know some whos mums bought their bus fare, and they spenttheir 30 on clothes or something.
    I think free travel would be a lot better spent!

    The man on the news this morning was annoying (A lib dem of some sort?) was insisting that a rise in fees is fine, because noone would be paying it upfront, and poor students would get first year free, so its a good thing! I only know two people who paid fees upfront (posh, rich parents). And 3k x 3 years =9k. 6k x 2 years = 12. Um.. yeah. And thats just a 3 year undergraduate at an average uni. And not the scary 9k fees.
    I'd much rather pay back my loan when I'm earning 15k, than be paying it back for 2/3/4 times as long when I'm earning that tiny bit more.
    The man sounded properly positve about it, like noone could ever POSSIBLY see anything negative about it. He was annoying me something rotten.

    The councils sacked all of our local teacher training and advisor centre, and most of the LEA. And closing all the libraries (and are on about stopping recycling next). I'm rather pissed about that, especially as everyone said education would be ringfenced. -ponders what council tax is for, let alone all the rest-
    Complete with a green straightjacket with circuit boards stuck all over!



    Current: 1" lobes, 4g conches, septum, 6g helix, daithy- helix, helix industrial, bridge, 8g both nostrils, one lonely nipple and both cheeks, vert labret an a sternum micro. Forearm branding, calf cutting and a split tongue.
    Retired: Nape, neck and chest micros, nipple, 4g tongue, eyebrow, snakebites. Several lobes, labrets and nostrils. Rook ):
    Next up: moar leg!

    And no tattoos D:

    tumblr



Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •