[Closed] Stoodents

Good point. What does it cost to get trained in the army? What abotu officers that get funded to get degrees? How much does their equipment cost? Is there no way we can make them pay for this?

Not the same thing as part of the terms of getting financial help you then have to serve for 3 yrs, so a different kettle of beans.

[url= http://www.armyjobs.mod.uk/education/grants/Pages/UndergraduateSchemes.aspx ]For info[/url]

i dont think i said useless. I said less useful. I also didnt say that there should be no artists etc, just that they should have to pay for their Uni fees like engineers and £21+ earners will have to.

I just saw a student on telly saying that "education had now become, like, an elite thing..."

Only if you get to join the "elite", AFTER you graduate.

Are these boys and girls actually, er, thick?

you might want to have a think about that one......

you then have to serve for 3 yrs

For free?

No cullen-bay but you did equate usefulness with earning potential. How do you rate a degree with no obvious vocational application? Someone else made reference to "pointless" courses. My point is that high-level study in any field has social utility.

might put a few off some of those pointless courses

And straight on the dole queue with the other one million unemployed 18-24 year olds.

I can think of better ways of scrapping "pointless courses" btw.

grittyshaker - Member
No cullen-bay but you did equate usefulness with earning potential. How do you rate a degree with no obvious vocational application? Someone else made reference to "pointless" courses. My point is that high-level study in any field has social utility.

ernie_lynch - Member
might put a few off some of those pointless courses
And straight on the dole queue with the other one million unemployed 18-24 year olds.

I can think of better ways of scrapping "pointless courses" btw.

flawed.

an apprenticeship

Hahaha.................you're funny ! 😀

ernie_lynch - Member
an apprenticeship
Hahaha.................you're funny !

I was on the protest in Newcastle. It was great to see so many 6th formers there fighting for their future education.

For a government so obsessed with reducing debt it seems odd to be creating so much for students.

The high earning chemical engineers can pay their whack so that we can have artists and philosophers in our communities.

As a high earning Chemical Engineer can I just as F and Right OFF. I already pay way more in tax than the vast majority of people in the country, something that I am perfectly happy with after all Tax revenue paid for my education and now I'm paying it back. To suggest that I should have to pay more again just so that we can have more humanities graduates is frankly ridiculous. All the arguments that have been put forward as to why graduates should pay additional tax have been based on economics, piss poor economics, but economics none the less. The only benefit that has been identified is the one that the individual graduate enjoys but no-one seems to have pointed out what the benefits are for the economy as a whole. There are many industries that generate large amounts of income for the UK government that simply would not exist were it not for graduates and penalising people for working in such industries is absurd.

As I see it you have look on a University education as being a good thing that should be funded through taxation for everyone, or if you accept that funds are limited then such funding becomes an investment and it is stupid not to invest where you will get the best return. This means that funding for the Sciences and Engineering etc should be maintained at the expense of humanities.

I do wonder though, when employment rises, will there be a clamour to have those that have received additional benefits to pay tax at a higher rate? After all the state helped them so why should they not be made to pay back these costs also?

For free?

Your point?

I can't remember where I saw them, but earlier in the year there were stats published about graduates and jobs. Grads from STEM subjects had one of the lowest rates of employability.... I'll see if I can find them.

Edit - found them:

...not all stem subjects but engineering and technology, and computer science do poorly.

I do wonder though, when employment rises, will there be a clamour to have those that have received additional benefits to pay tax at a higher rate?

RePack - My point as pretty clearly demonstrated in my first reply to you is.... WTF have the army got to do with it?

Moreover my point is...

Why should a particular 4-5 year selection of students be told they should pay so much for their education, for the rest of their lives, because the country 'apparently' needs to take aggressive austerity measures at this particular time?

Effecitvely we're asking those particular people to endure austerity for their entire lifetime, not just whils we address the current problem.

Lunacy, no?

The problem, in a nutshell, is we're reducing 'spend' by taking money from those who don't have any in the first place.

Meanwhile, mouth breathers get paid thousands of pounds a minute for kicking a football around, and politicians and bankers pay themselves big fat salaries and bonuses for getting us all in this shite in the first place. You don't see these shiftless ****ers going "well, the coffers are a bit tight this year, so how about we all work for a realistic wage for a bit?"

I wonder, if we sacked say 90% of the politicians, just leaving the ones who weren't crooks on the take, we'd be able to afford to educate our kids properly again? (-:

You don't see these shiftless ****ers going "well, the coffers are a bit tight this year, so how about we all work for a realistic wage for a bit?"

Indeed. Something that riled me immensely in a recent [i]Grauniad[/i] article was the following dross from a female banker, who spake thus:

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2010/nov/20/what-people-earn?showallcomments=true#comment-fold ][i]"Am I worth it? Relative to what? To what my colleagues earn? To a nurse? Compared with a nurse, I'm well paid, but that's because society doesn't value nurses properly."[/i][/url]

As a somewhat lapsed nurse, I'm beyond sick of people trotting out this kind of cheap platitude. FFS, it's not as if she has any real interest in getting off her financial merry-go-round and changing the [i]status quo[/i].

Quite simple really: if you want to go to university to better yourself and ultimately benefit from a higher salary at the end of your degree then pay for it, invest in yourself, either by immediate personal contribution or by taking a loan that you pay back when you're earning. To the argument that we need students to create a rounded society, correct. But not in the numbers that there are currently. We also need workers to support industry, apprentices for trade skills etc. If the Government tries to subsidise every student out there, then we're ****ed...how many students go to uni for the experience/independence and couldn't give a monkies about what degree they do? Answer: lots. Why doesn't the Government force students to pay more and invest the money they would have spent on students in normal state schools to raise the (currently frankly appalling) level of state education where everyone can benefit from it?

But not in the numbers that there are currently.

So this is really all about cutting down the number of students then ? I suspect you are probably right.

"Singlespeedpunk - Member

They lost any vague support I may have been able to muster when they set fire to a wreath of poppies from the Cenotaph. Almost made me wish the last Harrier off the Ark Royal could make one last straffing run...."

Did they form a neat line so they could all have a go, or was it possibly just a couple of them?

I thought the scene around the police van was brilliant, a screen of students stopping the bawbags from trying to destroy it. And a lot more people involved in that than there was in lighting stuff on fire.

so, we've all agreed that everyone has the democratic right to the highest education possible in this country if they have the skill/talent/ability/aptitude then? good. So It just comes down to paying for it, but, the richer get a better education, cos they can afford it? and don't have to worry and stress as a consequence like the poorer? It's as simple as that. There is reason to protest, I'm not sure half those students even know why they are "protesting". They are protesting for the educational and democratic rights of the poorest in society.

@cullen-bay - I agree that arts/humanities students shouldn't be subsidised more than any other.
@gonefishin - I'm not suggesting that you pay more tax. Just making the point that high earners contribute to the funding of so called pointless/less useful degrees and that is as it should be.

I think that there probably are too many students funded to study at a level that they're not really capable of without remedial support. The dole though seems a less useful option for workless would-be students.

I'm not suggesting that you pay more tax. Just making the point that high earners contribute to the funding of so called pointless/less useful degrees and that is as it should be.

Which is what already happens in our tax system. High earners already pay more both in absolute and relative terms.

To suggest that I should have to pay more again just so that we can have more humanities graduates is frankly ridiculous

Naah - it's so we can fill the pockets of Irish bankers, innit.

but, the richer get a better education, cos they can afford it?

Perhaps, but the university route is open to everyone, if they're prepared to pay for it after they have their degree.

IMO it's a good thing. If you choose to do a degree, then it's funded in the form of a loan. If you do well, get a high paying job you pay it back. If you do badly or your degree means you work in a low paying industry, then you don't. At the end of the day, you pay back relative to how much you earn. I'm surprised all the socialists are up in arms, I would have thought this would be right up their street.

For those that think that university education should be free, where do you suggest the money comes from to pay for this? Bear in mind that universitys are a business, and will quite happily supply courses to as much demand as there is, so how do you cap attendance? Government set targets? Is that dictated by the money available? How do you reconcile the tax of low earners paying an economics degree students education, when he goes on to earn 6 figure money?

Its not just about paying back fees, its about British society and where we want to go with it.

Many students in the next few years may not be able to study near home to cut down on bills as its expected by the government that several Universities will go bankrupt. The government intends this to happen and is supportive of them going to the wall and shutting down. At least 3 are already on the list of 'won't last long', before the fees competition truly starts.

Universities will probably break into 2 fee charging groups - those who go for £6000 and those who go for £9000. It is very likely that any institution who charges the lower fee will be seen as 2nd rate and so will its graduates. Therefore as many as possible will try to charge £9000, which is in theory 'exceptional' but in reality is going to happen in a lot of places unless they want to loose all status and respect.

Some University colleges are already speculating on breaking away from government control (I cant remember if the first one to suggest this was at Oxford or Cambridge). This will essentially make them fully private and as such they will have NO restrictions on fee charges whatsoever. So, the elite, also known as the very rich, could (in theory) have to pay £20,000+ per year (or whatever fee makes the college special enough) to go to somewhere 'exclusive'. It will also mean there will be no requirement to take any poor people at all, nor will any other critera be set by the govenment for private establishments which once would have aimed for some attempt at equality.

Already 1 private 'University' specialising in law (as far as I know, never part of the state system) is expanding into other sites in the UK, probably as a result of the change to fees.

Its not just about paying fees - its about who Britain will become, about class and wealth, probable access only to the very rich at certain institutions, re-starting a system of snobbery and 'Ivy league' atmosphere, privatising Universities so that the nation has no control over who attends them or how exclusive they become.

Its the sneaking underhand privatisation of the education system that many people will not realise until its too late and the results of that choice for snobbery, elitism, employment prospects and running the working classes into massive debt. And debt is an excellent way to control people.

For those that think that university education should be free, where do you suggest the money comes from to pay for this?

Out of general taxation, like it used to be.

How do you reconcile the tax of low earners paying an economics degree students education, when he goes on to earn 6 figure money

Well that 6 figure salary will actually be taxed you know (not to mention the wealth generation associated with many graduate jobs) so it's not like that graduate is being given something for free. Think of it as an investment. The government pays a relatively small amount of money up front and sees a large return on it's investment over around 35ish years. I find that quite easy to reconsile.

I'm all for Universities being elitist, it's just that I'd like to see that based on ability not wealth.

and running the working classes into massive debt.

I don't understand, how does university fees equals working class debt?

Well that 6 figure salary will actually be taxed you know (not to mention the wealth generation associated with many graduate jobs) so it's not like that graduate is being given something for free. Think of it as an investment. The government pays a relatively small amount of money up front and sees a large return on it's investment over around 35ish years.

That'll be of great comfort to those that earn below the average wage and still pay a proportion of that graduates education fees.

I'm all for Universities being elitist, it's just that I'd like to see that based on ability not wealth.

How does "if you get a good job, you pay for your university education" discriminate against the poorer members of society?

What are the other countries charging for their education system? I know you have to pay in the US but what about the rest of the world?

To my mind some people on here seem to be missing the point. The fees are in place because the gov are going to stop funding the universities so it won't be a case of the chem eng paying for humanities degrees. Humanities degrees simply won't exist. The fees will never be payed back by the low earning arts student so the uni will not have the funding to run the course. Higher education will be populated by laywers, economists, and doctors all of which do not create wealth. On top of which this approach actually encourages graduates going overseas to avoid paying tax in the UK.
The higher education sector is bloated and needs trimming but to throw a generation of young people on the scrap heap seems to me like throwing the baby out with the bath water.

One thing that's always puzzled me is why an arbitrary line gets drawn at 18 on education. Clearly leaving education at 18 is nowhere near enough for some career paths; whereas for others, they could have left at 13/14 for an apprenticeship.

For those that think that university education should be free, where do you suggest the money comes from to pay for this?

I believe there didn't used to be a problem pre-tuition fees...

That'll be of great comfort to those that earn below the average wage and still pay a proportion of that graduates education fees.

You can apply that sort of logic to any benefit that is government paid but not used by everyone. Why single out University education?

By elitist I meant that only those who have the ability, i.e. have obtained the necessary qualifications, should go to University. Many of the poorer sections of society are debt averse and to effectively saddle these people with debt would be a dissincentive to go to University. It's all very well saying that if you don't earn enough you won't pay anything but I expect that the intrest on the system that is being proposed will start to rack up from day one so if it takes longer to start paying back you'll end up paying back more.

As I've said, general taxation is where I think the money should come from and if that means fewer people going to university then so be it.

You can apply that sort of logic to any benefit that is government paid but not used by everyone.

Indeed. There aren't a whole lot of people who agree with us invading Iraq or Afganistan. Can they request a refund on the part of their tax that paid for the MoD?

Great post Midnighthour, and spot on.

Thanks for the reasoned replies guys. I still feel that asking the whole population to pay for something that benefits the few (in the main) is a strange concept. I understand that the tax that person pays back if they become successfull will more than cover the course, but I just can't reconcile someone on 19k paying for the university education of someone that goes on to earn 100k.

I would suspect that those of us on here that don't want general taxation to pay for university didn't go, and those that do, did? Would that be fair?

I love all the sniping at 'pointless' degrees on here. To me there is nothing more pointless than churning out endless shallow corporate drones who have no wider knowledge or understanding of the world and care only about how much money they can make and how shiny a car they can buy.

But each to their own eh?

I think Ben Goldacre was right when he tweeted:

"there's something grim about ppl in their 50s+ who had free education charging today's kids, AND expecting them to pay off their debt"

And the protests are about more CUTS to university funding too, framing it as students 'not understanding the proposed fees' isn't going to work.

I know plenty of student both when i was at uni and now that spend what i do on a mortgage on drinking and pissing around.

I really have little sympathy, There are planty of options available, Work based training etc or even god forbid a part time job to pay for education rather than piss ups.

I think maybe its a little high but they pay it back when they are on a resonable wage and eventually will be in a better situation,

I'm like many people out there who did a degree and now actually works in a completly unrelated field that doesn't need the qualifaction I studied for. It will put people like myself who wasted time and money for nothing.

I think there are a few layers of unfairness in any system, but S_S's comments are interesting.

Plenty of students do a degree that they never use. For some its because there were no jobs in it when they left, for others it's because they were not very good and for yet more it's because they didn't enjoy it anymore. At some level, if it puts some people off doing courses that don't result in related jobs then it's a saving, and I'm not the only person who hates the idea that you can get a degree in "surf science" etc. But at the same time, there have to be people who do arts degrees when there's no arts jobs or the skills would vanish. There have to be people who do engineering when there's few engineering jobs, or the knowledge is lost. There are plenty of people who treat university as a lifestyle choice - a period of their life they're entitled to do minimal work, scrape through and use their loans to pay for beer. These people should not be encouraged to go to university, quite the opposite. But there are more than enough students who study hard, may use their loans to go to the odd party but generally do what they're paying to do, get on with it and don't come out earning much over average. For them, massive increases are often too much to bear and will simply put them off altogether. And for them and the government, it's a waste of money - they'll never recoup the cost and the student will never see these great benefits that are talked about.

Most of the people I graduated with from a good red-brick uni engineering course are not on more than 25K now, nearly a decade later, and not through lack of trying. So these high flying careers with massive wages from studying such degrees are a falacy, some people get them, but not many.

I believe the problem is at least partially caused by intake quality and entry grade lowering in order to get numbers up to get more funding, and to match their "low income family" intake. But it's more complex than that and most people just do not understand the funding structures involved in universities so it's hard to discuss on a public forum, but that's the reason the general public don't see the subtleties of where the problems lie.

tree-magnet - Member
Thanks for the reasoned replies guys. I still feel that asking the whole population to pay for something that benefits the few (in the main) is a strange concept. I understand that the tax that person pays back if they become successfull will more than cover the course, but I just can't reconcile someone on 19k paying for the university education of someone that goes on to earn 100k.

Presumably you apply that line of thought to everything public money gets spent on? And the logical conclusion is surely over a certain income level you pay for everything at point of use.

Useless/pointless degrees - why does media studies always come up? The UK has a huge creative industries sector worth billions.

Not using their degree - degrees aren't just about the content, but also the skills you learn.

Beneficiaries paying for degrees - there are three main benefiicaries: graduates (higher earning potential), businesses (skilled labour supply), public (stronger economy)... why not expect all to contribute?

QUOTE:Useless/pointless degrees - why does media studies always come up? The UK has a huge creative industries sector worth billions. UNQUOTE.

It tends to come up because it's generally considered to be the very epitome of a Mickey Mouse degree. It's even, perhaps especially, derided by many within the media.

Contemporaries of mine, now working for Future Publishing, Euro Money, the FT, the Daily Telegraph, BBC, Guardian Media, Current TV and Rock Sound share one thing in common, none of them have degrees in media studies.

Anecdotal evidence is pretty flawed, hey? Well, yes, but I'll wager that a decent degree in English, a foreign language, history, law or politics will stand the aspiring media worker in infintely better stead, it certainly seemed to work in the aforementioned examples.

If you want to expand it to the creative industries as a whole, there are a raft of specific and technical degrees in art, graphic design, CAD etc that people require.

a highish flyer gaining £1k in salary per year

If you're only increasing your salary by £1k a year you're crawling, not flying

The College as a Philanthropy. Worth a read:
http://chronicle.com/article/The-College-as-a-Philanthropy/125176/