Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
University tuition fees
- Thread starter sten_super
- Start date
Uncle C
Well-known member
Yet again you conveniently miss the point that the debt only become repayable (slowly) if the graduate gets a good job and earns in excess of about £21,000 a year. At that point are they still to be considered poor?
If they dont get a job to that value then they repay nothing.
It's moronic comments like this that mark you out as a complete idiot time and time again, rather than your political views.
Just to clarify, you've decided that 40% of the electorate are unable to find a coherent argument and resort to swearing, simply because they are left leaning. I'm actually quite embarrassed for you.
This is the crux of it really. I feel education should be a right, not a commodity you purchase.
As I have said before, we should all have one shot at getting as far as we can in the education system without having to worry about the cost of it.
Fair enough.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,863
sad to see this has degenerated in to partisan politics. Labour's policy was to follow Browne's report too.
we'll never resolve this untill we decide that university education is for the academically gifted few, and provide a respected alternative for the majority. this debate is ignored over distraction about thresholds and tax arrangements of people not involved.
we'll never resolve this untill we decide that university education is for the academically gifted few, and provide a respected alternative for the majority. this debate is ignored over distraction about thresholds and tax arrangements of people not involved.
£21k is below the national average. In my mind a 'good' job should at least pay above the national average.
KneeOn,you are correct on that point .Thank you for pointing that out.That 's the good news for my eldest...now for the bad news,the youngest is 16 and WILL be clobbered!
KneeOn,you are correct on that point .Thank you for pointing that out.That 's the good news for my eldest...now for the bad news,the youngest is 16 and WILL be clobbered!
Only if he earns above £21k though....
ROSM
Well-known member
not strictly true, labour's policy was to commission the report. They never committed to follow it.
As for your second, to some degree I agree with you but given that most nursing education is done via university now then we may need to accept that university is not the bastion of the academically gifted but the seat of further education that many jobs require
Teaching is the same
clapham_gull
Legacy Fan
- Aug 20, 2003
- 25,741
.. and the Legal Profession.
No, Uncle, I think you miss the point: when young Tarquin and Petronella graduate with £30,000 of debt, mummy and daddy will pay (much of) it off for them, or say, 'OK sweetheart, you pay off your student debt, and we'll give you the money for a deposit on a flat, because you won't be able to save up for place of your own for a few years.'
Kids whose mums and dads are bus drivers, factory workers, shop assistants, etc, won't have this generous financial support, so they will carry the debt with them for years and, in turn, perhaps never be able to save the deposit to buy a place of their own.
Perkino
Well-known member
- Dec 11, 2009
- 6,039
Universities charge about £20,000 a year for a student and currently only £3290 is paid by the student with the rest being paid from taxpayer's money.
It's only the fact that we pay the shortfall that allows uni's to operate and students to get degree's which, in most cases, earn people better paid jobs.
What that means is a student who leaves school at 16 and works in McDonalds full-time earning £12,000 a year is contributing so that some of his school friends can go to uni for a few years and achieve higher education and then start work aged 19 earning £25,000.
I agree that all education under 16 should be free but any further education should be paid for. It may also decrease the number of students who go just to doss about and thn drop out after the first year
It's only the fact that we pay the shortfall that allows uni's to operate and students to get degree's which, in most cases, earn people better paid jobs.
What that means is a student who leaves school at 16 and works in McDonalds full-time earning £12,000 a year is contributing so that some of his school friends can go to uni for a few years and achieve higher education and then start work aged 19 earning £25,000.
I agree that all education under 16 should be free but any further education should be paid for. It may also decrease the number of students who go just to doss about and thn drop out after the first year
KneeOn,the abusive language I can cope with,the lack of a decent coherent argument is harder to take.Whatever your politics,I suggest you think more before hitting the keyboards,you will never attract new recruits to your cause by blindly lashing out and ignoring reality.
Fine.
Take out New Labour, they weren't a left wing workers party but a centre with a very slight lean to the left pratagonist party. New Labour are a seperate party for all intents and purposes to Labour.
By increacing the top level of tution fee's that the government will not take a slice of and removing an upper limit entirely with the fear that government will take an increacing cut you are looking at 7 thousand pounds over three years.
21 grand tuition fee's for having the balls to have an aspiration to move from a working class to a middle class life becasue although yes, there are other ways to move, having a degree in some of the newer emerging academic areas such as Computing (which is what I want to do from September 2011) is going to make the process more likely to suceed and do so at a much quicker rate.
3 grand times 3 is 9 grand. Right now tution will set me back 9k. The jum from 9 K to 21k is an insane jump. Its not progressive in the slightest. I hoped to come out of uni with 21 grand minimum and although the Bill and subsequent Act won't affect me thank god it will affect my sister, my friends and many millions of working class children.
Saying that the lowest earning families won't be affected and rightly so is a bit of a cop out because the families who will get the most support (rightly so as you say) are those earning 15-8k or less.
Those families such as mine who earn more than the lowest quantile (the 15/18k or less strata) but not as much as the median wage in the UK (25K) are left in the shit. As are those earning over 25k a year but less than say 60k.
Thats actually where the majority of people lie. between 25k and 60k a year. I don't see why a government (yes including new labour, and the Coalition) made up of people much older than our selves who we don't get a chance to vote for can make such a drastic change because they messed up finances.
If New Labour did this, i'd be equally as livid, and I am absolutely livid.
Okay so its not a Tory conspirisy to keep the working class OUT of the middle classs and upper class it is a mechanism that ensures that the Upper and Upper Middle class families dont' slip down. Which in its self isn't awful, but when it puts those at the bottom and indeed, in the lower middle at risk of losing social mobility then its utterly wrong but unfortunately a Conservitive ideology byproduct.
I don't think that reality is hiking up tution fee's from 9k over 3 years to 21k over three years. And thats before you account for accomodation, equipment, living costs, going out costs (because whether you agree or not, Uni is an experience and is full of drinking and partying and its a last bit of life where you can do that) and then emergancy costs such as broken bedding, washing machine etc etc when living in private housing.
That realistically means 35 thousand pounds in debt. Thats more in debt that the median annual wage is. Utter joke IMO and is part of the Liberals selling out their ideas and the Tories trying to make the upper middle and upper class stay where they are and shutting out the working class as a result.
Uncle C
Well-known member
Most new graduates are about 24 years old. The national average is calculated from employees up to the age of 65. Sounds like you are suggesting that, at the tender age of 24, graduates should jump way up this band.
This type of thinking may have been appropriate in the 60's when only about 2% of the population gained degrees, but today every man and his dog goes to university, and thats fine, but they cant all expect to jump way up the wage bands.
You probably wont agree, but having a degree is nothing special in the employment market unless of course its first class honours.
I think in fairness the first response was born out of frustration for the situation rather than a political response.
Uncle C
Well-known member
This is neither new nor a revelation. It has always been thus.
Crap argument. We all pay for things we dont use.
And then when income tax is taken, also helps to pay for other students, and frontline services and other services along with counsil tax (which will be more than some one living in a counsil house). Forgot that bit?