Brighton Breezy
New member
Had a debate with someone at lunch over this, Im pro them and hes anti them. What do people on here think? Good idea or bad idea? Why?
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Top up fees, your serious pros and cons?
- Thread starter Brighton Breezy
- Start date
bhaexpress
New member
You want a 'decent' education you pay for it like just about every other country.
bhaexpress said:
True .... but we already do - it's called excessive income tax.
If the government is serious about having 50% of school leavers attend university then extra costs have to be incurred. It then comes down to a choice of how those extra costs are to be funded. The choices are
1. From central government, but to do so would either result in a rise in taxes or cuts in other services, such as primary and secondary education, or health.
2. From entry fees paid at the outset of university education, this would be regressive and discriminate against people from poorer backgrounds
3. From exit fees paid once earnings reach a certain level, as is being recommended by the government
4. From a graduate income tax, so that those who directly benefit in terms of higher earnings pay for their education, perhaps many times over depending on how successful their careers are.
Alternatively the government could cut the number of graduates entering the university system. Clearly I would not advocate that as it would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas, and my name is not Mr Gobble-Breast-or-Thigh-but-no-sprouts for nothing
1. From central government, but to do so would either result in a rise in taxes or cuts in other services, such as primary and secondary education, or health.
2. From entry fees paid at the outset of university education, this would be regressive and discriminate against people from poorer backgrounds
3. From exit fees paid once earnings reach a certain level, as is being recommended by the government
4. From a graduate income tax, so that those who directly benefit in terms of higher earnings pay for their education, perhaps many times over depending on how successful their careers are.
Alternatively the government could cut the number of graduates entering the university system. Clearly I would not advocate that as it would be akin to turkeys voting for Christmas, and my name is not Mr Gobble-Breast-or-Thigh-but-no-sprouts for nothing
bhaexpress
New member
RoyalAli said:All the people who are pro Top-up Fees probably went through Uni on a grant.
Some of us never had the oppotunity.
El Presidente said:
- or just reduce what we pay into the EU !!!!
Last edited:
I have no real problem with the fees increase. Students won't be paying for their education, they'll paying towards it, the government will still pay most of it.
However, the variability is a disgrace. Even with extra support available, universities charging different prices will discourage poorer students from going to better universities.
However, the variability is a disgrace. Even with extra support available, universities charging different prices will discourage poorer students from going to better universities.
bhaexpress
New member
Westdene Seagull said:
Good point indeed Westdene.
fatboy said:
Dead right. I went to one of them.
I'd like to have seen the government been a bit more clever with the way it was paid. Something like, you pay for the lot out in the future out of income tax codes, if you pass, you get a 50% discount. Any unpaid balance is due after 10 years, whatever your circumstances - so that workshy wasters are still held accountable.
CAFC Matt
New member
As a currnet Uni Student I don't really know as I presume it erdaicates the need for a student loan so technically you are gonna be no worse off or am I wrong?
Last edited:
Brighton Breezy
New member
- Thread starter
- #12
The facts as I saw them were that for the poorer students their LEA's would give them a full grant to pay their fees, so if anything poor kids would be better off.
Middle class/working class kids though who just fall out of the bracket for full grants would suffer but this would make more think twice about going to uni and cut down on the people who just go because they dont know what to do and because its a chance to get pissed for three years.
I think they are good.
Middle class/working class kids though who just fall out of the bracket for full grants would suffer but this would make more think twice about going to uni and cut down on the people who just go because they dont know what to do and because its a chance to get pissed for three years.
I think they are good.
fatbadger
New member
If you want to think seriously about the issue of top-up fees then please remember first that, whatever the govt's rhetoric, and the way the media have been reporting it, this is not a student funding policy, but a university funding policy. So, don't think about the students, think about the impact on UK universities which, by and large, do a much better job than those in most of the rest of the world.
Quite simply, variable top-up fees will create the sort of market in higher education that will see, at the very least, several good universities closing down, many good departments (at those universities that will survive) closing down and thousands of talented techers and researchers either leaving the profession or disappearing off abroad. Sod the impact on students - this is what matters.
It is no coincidence that at the same time variable fees are being forced through, so too is localised pay-bargaining, which will have the same effects, only even more sharply so. Together, the two policies are a clear two-pronged attack on the UK Higher Education sector that will cause untold damage.
The idea that top-up fees are about students is helped by the absurd individualist ethos of the eighties which translates in this arena as 'individuals benefit from education, so individuals should pay for their education'. Society, the state and industry benefits from the education of the people. If variable top-up fees and variable pay are brought in, the damage that will be done to education in this country will have a serious knock-on effect on the economy, on society, and on the country's ability to operate effectively in the world.
Quite simply, variable top-up fees will create the sort of market in higher education that will see, at the very least, several good universities closing down, many good departments (at those universities that will survive) closing down and thousands of talented techers and researchers either leaving the profession or disappearing off abroad. Sod the impact on students - this is what matters.
It is no coincidence that at the same time variable fees are being forced through, so too is localised pay-bargaining, which will have the same effects, only even more sharply so. Together, the two policies are a clear two-pronged attack on the UK Higher Education sector that will cause untold damage.
The idea that top-up fees are about students is helped by the absurd individualist ethos of the eighties which translates in this arena as 'individuals benefit from education, so individuals should pay for their education'. Society, the state and industry benefits from the education of the people. If variable top-up fees and variable pay are brought in, the damage that will be done to education in this country will have a serious knock-on effect on the economy, on society, and on the country's ability to operate effectively in the world.
Last edited:
Apart from Blair & co's hypocrisy in that a free education was good enough for them but not students any more apparently, I have a couple of real problems with what they are proposing. Firstly, there is the argument that graduates earn more and so should have to pay for their degree. Well they already do.. it's called income tax and the more money you earn the more you give back to the state. Also, GRADUATES BENEFIT SOCIETY! Where would we be without all the doctors, teachers. lawyers etc? Up a creek without a paddle is the answer, so is it really right to make these people that our society needs pay even more than they already do to get the degrees they need to make a difference? The variable fees stink too, as people are going to have to 'go shopping' for a degree and make their decision based more on what they can afford and less on where they actually want to study.
I think they are a disgrace
I think they are a disgrace
Brighton Breezy
New member
- Thread starter
- #15
Yes fatbadger I agree to some extent, but being at uni myself I can speak from experience when I say that half the people I know are dossers and only here for the social life and doing mickey mouse courses. These people are draining funding away from the departments and students who are there for the working and dont offer crap courses to get more students.
fatbadger
New member
I agree Richie - the whole problem is this idea that 50% of school leavers should go to uni. The rhetoric is that it widens access - it doesn't, it only deepens access, i.e. the thick middle classes get in. Stop this happening and this will improve.
HOWEVER the policy has nothing at all to do with the number of students in university, the quality of degrees, etc. This is an ideological move - if only 100 people went to uni or if everybody went to uni, if the UK's higher education was the best in the world, or the worst in the world, the bunch of scum in Whitehall would be pushing this through without any interest whatsoever in the negative effects.
And, besides - if your worries are the wasters & the mickey mouse degrees (Management Studies, grrr), do you not think that putting up with these is a small price to pay for a good education system? Why screw the entire sector, and virtually everybody in it (except a few public schoolkids and the rich universities), just to try and sort out those problems?
HOWEVER the policy has nothing at all to do with the number of students in university, the quality of degrees, etc. This is an ideological move - if only 100 people went to uni or if everybody went to uni, if the UK's higher education was the best in the world, or the worst in the world, the bunch of scum in Whitehall would be pushing this through without any interest whatsoever in the negative effects.
And, besides - if your worries are the wasters & the mickey mouse degrees (Management Studies, grrr), do you not think that putting up with these is a small price to pay for a good education system? Why screw the entire sector, and virtually everybody in it (except a few public schoolkids and the rich universities), just to try and sort out those problems?
US Seagull
Well-known member
El Presidente said:
Well that wouldn't make sense. You'd have graduates leaving the country in droves with that idea. I wouldn't care, since I've already left.