[Closed] Tuition fees

I wonder if the army is standing by for the reading of The Riot Act...

Where's the problem in getting those who are so desperate to go to university to pay for it or to shoulder the debt? If they want it, then pay for it.

Er, well there's this crazy idea that having an educated population is good for the whole country so we all benefit.. maybe if we could get people to go to some kind of big learning establishment these kind of ideas might be discussed a bit.. oh.. hmm..

Graduates earn more money (typically).
Non-graduates earning more than £50,000 probably have graduates working for them.
Having the right graduates benefits the country. Many of those benefits go to high earners. Therefore why not have free education for the graduates and have higher tax for high earners? Would another few % on higher rate of tax cover the cost of good tertiary education?

I am lucky I was at Uni in the early 1990's and had it free.
Current poor sods will have massive debts and have to work till 70.

Don't expect post men and receptionists to fund my education, but I do think that high earners could be taxed more to cover this cost, harder to avoid and doesn't just crap on the current teenage generation like current scheme will do.

Er, well there's this crazy idea that having an educated population is good for the whole country

Yes, but does all education need to be at a University? Does there need to be so many media studies graduates, or Beauty Management graduates? Could not much of this education be done outside of the tertiary education system and in the workplace instead?

Christ. I agree with Flash.

my student loan isn't a real debt, i really don't worry about it, it's basically another small tax i have to pay.

i've never known any different, if it helps you feel any better then i would like to say that i'm really very happy with how my post-graduate life is turning out.

X

CFH - most of it is done in the workplace. They call it placement though and don't pay folk for it.

Where are the jobs going to come from? Why has the budget for universities been cut by 80%?

Alpha1653 - You're missing the point!

Why should they have to pay for their own education, when your tax money could pay for it instead?

Errr...I don't think I am missing the point actually. Why should the tax I pay contribute to someone's non-obligatory education? I accept that having an educated population benefits wider society but Flash hit the nail on the head: why does this "education" have to take place at university? I'd be far happier if my taxes were spent on increasing the standard of our frankly dire state school education which would result in FAR more people having a higher overall level of education. And wouldn't society benefit more would be students went straight into apprenticeships and the work place to be educated in a trade?

As for making the wealthy pay more taxes...do you not think that 40% at £37,500+ is enough already? Or 50% at £150,000+??

 

Does that include transferring to the £9,000 fees as well?

Maybe everyone who agrees with this rise could have their fees retrospectively raised, you know, just to show they [i]really[/i] believe it's the fairest system.

I'm not against paying for a degree at all, but there should just be a fairer system that takes more from the people who benefit more from it monetarily.

Does that include transferring to the £9,000 fees as well?

I'd still pay back less under the new system. The way it's set up is a lot of people(think I've seen 50% quoted) will never pay back the value of their loan, therefore the total value above a certain amount is fairly immaterial, it will be in effect a graduate tax for a lot. It just means they'll pay back a % of their earnings over 21k for 30 years.

why does this "education" have to take place at university?

It doesn't, but that's a whole nother debate isn't it?

Also, there's this false belief that university is full of people doing these 'mickey mouse' degrees. The odd story in the Daily Mail about a university offering degrees in something silly and some people seem to think that that's what most students do.

In reality, the majority are doing 'proper' degrees.

I'm also pretty sure it doesn't cost £9000 a year to teach someone (probably one in a class of 50) a subject that doesn't involve much practical stuff (e.g. engineering or medicine).

The problems highlighted by Flash (too many Media students etc) are easily countered by upping grade requirements to get in, then you have only the best going. Not the richest.

Druidh- the ones who don't have jobs to fund uni can't as it is 😉

Anyway, as for the rioters, Fred has a lot to say about that-

why does this "education" have to take place at university?

It doesn't, but that's a whole nother debate isn't it?

It is another debate, true. But for all the people who complain about being put off from university and how this is unfair, getting educated via the workplace is a viable option. If not having a degree meant not being allowed/able to get a job then yes, subsidise it. But it doesn't, so why should we subsidise it?

I went to university in the early 80s. No one had a car, few had bikes, stereos were a rarity. Few folk worked either - but we lived far more cheaply and with far lower expectations than students now. Living as student now as we did then would vastly reduce the debt.

I know people who got degrees then that have been useful members of society that woulkd not go to uni under the present system. The debt would put them off. People from poorer backgrounds.

I thin tuition fees stink to high heaven. Learning should not be taxed. However I also feel that some sort of sensible contribution from graduates to university costs is realistic.

The real issue here tho is an outright lie or breach of promise from the lib dems. They signed a pledge to vote against tuition fees rises. They broke that and for that deserves all the bile coming their way. They will not get my vote again. They have lost all electoral credibility and will deservedly disappear after the next election

Medicine? Not much practical stuff?

but we lived far more cheaply and with far lower expectations than students now

Is this something you made up or do you have real proper evidence? That involves more than some people you saw the other night?

The real issue here tho is an outright lie or breach of promise from the lib dems.

What did you expect from a coalition? What should they have done? Stuck to their guns and ended up out of govt?

SpokesCycles - Member

Druidh- the ones who don't have jobs to fund uni can't as it is

Aye - and when I started working (without going to Uni) I couldn't have afforded such things either. As TJ says, as a society our expectations have risen beyond what we can afford.

CaptainFlashheart - Member
Er, well there's this crazy idea that having an educated population is good for the whole country
Yes, but does all education need to be at a University? Does there need to be so many media studies graduates, or Beauty Management graduates? Could not much of this education be done outside of the tertiary education system and in the workplace instead?

Well, one of the UK's competitive advantages is its creatives industries - media graduates are needed for that.

And why is your line of thinking never extended to those most useful of subjects classics, art history, linguistics, music, politics etc?

Won't we all end up paying anyway

If graduates have to pay more fees, they'll need to earn more money (or the govt writes the debt off), the companies will need to pay them more, and the cost whatever service the company provides will go up for the end consumer.

molgrips - we simply lived more cheaply with lower expectations than students I meet now. Expectations were lower. We did not own cars, motorbikes and fancy bicycles. We lived in quite frankly horrible housing that would rightly be condemned now. no one went abroad for a holiday, no one had nice consumer goods.

molgrips - Member

"The real issue here tho is an outright lie or breach of promise from the lib dems."

What did you expect from a coalition? What should they have done? Stuck to their guns and ended up out of govt?

I demand integrity from my politicians of whatever hue. If you sign a solemn promise to do something you should not renege on it. Its very simple. Lying is not acceptable.

Also, there's this false belief that university is full of people doing these 'mickey mouse' degrees.

True. The majority of degrees, as far as I know, are proper degrees. However, I'm pretty sure that a lot of them could be better catered for via apprenticeships. Not all, but a lot.

I'm also pretty sure it doesn't cost £9000 a year to teach someone (probably one in a class of 50) a subject that doesn't involve much practical stuff (e.g. engineering or medicine).

I don't believe it does and I would have major problems with a lot of degrees charging £9000 just because they can. However, remember that the role of universities is not strictly the education of students, but rather the furtherance of knowledge and learning i.e. research, which does cost money. Lots of money.

And why is your line of thinking never extended to those most useful of subjects classics, art history, linguistics, music, politics etc?

Linguistics?! One massive citicism of the UK in the international market is our general inability to speak languages. Languages are an incredibly useful degree to have.

I demand integrity from my politicians of whatever hue. If you sign a solemn promise to do something you should not renege on it. Its very simple. Lying is not acceptable

For bloody starters it's only lying if you KNOW something is not the case (or not going to be the case) when you say it. Seems to me the Lib Debs properly committed themselves to no tuition fees before the problem of a coalition appeared. So let's get that ugly and misleading little word out of the way.

I do understand that you are upset that they went back on their pledge, but tell me how they had a choice? I'll ask again - what should they have done?

However, remember that the role of universities is not strictly the education of students, but rather the furtherance of knowledge and learning i.e. research, which does cost money. Lots of money.

Lots of university funding comes from industry, at least with engineering, not as sure with something like English or Geography.

I agree with TJ.

Anyone here who voted Lib Dem and would again out of interest?

Linguistics?! One massive citicism of the UK in the international market is our general inability to speak languages. Languages are an incredibly useful degree to have.

Linguistics is not learning to speak a language now is it? 🙄

Linguistics is a science and sciences are intrinsically important.

.

molgrips of course it is a lie. They said they would not vote for a rise in tuition fees and they have.

what should they have done - had some backbone and integrity. If the price for coalition was an increase in tuition fees they should have walked.

I think they were foolish to go for a formal coalition anyway and made themselves look foolish in doing so - such as campaigning " no cuts now" and then accepting major cuts. However to pledge that they will do something as a solemn and binding pledge then do exactly the opposite stinks

what should they have done?

Voted against the rise.

It'd have been a lie if they knew they were going to vote for tuition fees and said they wouldn't.

I don't think they knew that when they made that policy.

It's unfortunate, maybe disingenuous, but not a lie.

Do you really think walking out on the coalition would have been the best thing to do? They had two choices:

1) form a coalition and get some of their policies adopted or
2) refuse to compromise and get NONE of their policies adopted.

Which best serves the people who voted for them?

Ok, timeout, I'm confused: CaptJon said, "And why is your line of thinking never extended to those most useful of subjects classics, art history, linguistics, music, politics etc?" i.e. asking Flash why he doesn't class them as mickey mouse degrees, yes?

And no, linguisitcs is not the learning of languages; it's the science of human language. What you have there is me being unintentionally patronising and assuming that CaptJon had confused linguistics with languages degree as there aren't many linguisitcs degrees about. My bad. 😉

Not sure there are many Lib Dem policies that have really been adopted. Only two that I know of:

-Being allowed to abstain on the tuition fees vote (but half of them voting yes anyway)
-Being allowed a referendum on the AV system (not prop. representation as they really wanted)

A great contribution to the world the Lib Dems have had then!

For bloody starters it's only lying if you KNOW something is not the case (or not going to be the case) when you say it.

There is a very strong case that the LibDems had already decided before election day, that in the advent of a coalition with the Tories, they would ditch the pledge. So they are liars on that count.

Besides, no one forced them to break their solemn and binding promise, so it's pretty clear that despite what they were saying, there was really no serious commitment. So they are liars on that count too.

Correct me if I am wrong but it wasn't made clear that the PR thing was going to be simply AV. And PR would be by far the most important lib dem policy as it would hugely increase their vote share and secure much greater lib dem influence for ever more.

I can see their thinking to be hoenst.

molgrips - do you understand the meaning of the words? Tosay you will do something and then do not do it means the original statement was a lie. It was clear and unequvical.

Its clear what their voters think about the course they have adopted - they won't vote for them again.

Supporting a queens speech allowing Cameron to form a minority government could have got them pretty much what they have got minus the ministerial cars and allowed them to retain their integrity.

Here you are molgrips :

[url= http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/12/lib-dems-tuition-fees-clegg ]Revealed: Lib Dems planned before election to abandon tuition fees pledge[/url]

So the LibDems were lying when they made their 'solemn and binding promise' .......they knew there was no commitment, despite saying the contrary.

The LibDems are liars.

You are wrong.

teh pledge from the tories is for a vote on AV.

The loans thing will never be fair.
eg ex workmates son and his friend both went off to the same uni.
Mate was a factory maint fitter, the other guys dad was/is a pharmacist owning his own business(drives a Jag XKR)
Guess who did and who did not get grants/loans?

Business people can fiddle their income to make it appear as if they have not earnt £xxx or whatever the system limits are ❗

Living in Scotland my daughter went to an English uni, I had to pay the fees ❗ and suffer 🙄

What has not been mentioned by all the learned people on these threads and all the media is the roll and costs to us, the parents.
Living cost such as accom, course materials etc. No grant/loan or whatever covers everything.
My daughter btw is now a teacher(27 special needs kids) , she had a waitressing job, ran the resteruant when owners took breaks, had a son, has an MA arts deg + her teaching degree and owes thousands to us and in loans.

Son took the apprenticeship route and has an HND electrical engineering quali. Changed to a job in civil eng due to his autocad experience and his employer is paying for his degree on a day release basis, in his last yr and going on to become chartered. At the same time as being dad of 3!!!

Tosay you will do something and then do not do it means the original statement was a lie. It was clear and unequvical.

I disagree on a semantic basis.

If I say "I am going to work tomorrow" then I get the sh*ts in the night and don't go, it's not a lie is it?

If I say "I am going to work tomorrow" whilst planning to skive off, it is.

Lynch - badly misleading headline there. Starts of saying they were planning to scrap their pledges, but later it says they were just planning possible compromise options. The first is reprehensible, but the second is entirely practical.

It was just another example of the Lib Dems selling themselves to the Tories.

They wanted PR, but they were only allowed a referendum on AV.

We haven't found any Lib Dem voters who would vote for them again yet.

[i]And wouldn't society benefit more would be students went straight into apprenticeships and the work place to be educated in a trade?[/i]

I think that the workplace has changed to such an extent that this really won't happen now. I have a feeling that apprenticeships only works effectively when the general form of employment is life long for a single employer with little swapping from employer to employer and minimal contracting. With the fluid workforce we currently have there is less incentive for a company to invest in an apprenticeship infrastructure.

On a semantics level, if they weren't planning to vote against any increase in fees, then they weren't lying.

What they have done is broken a dirty great promise which is morally worse in my book. There's none of us gets through the day without lying, mostly harmless enough stuff. I see a lot of lying on here.

But, if you promise to do something, then you should do it. And not be the weasel that Clegg is, with his head up the arse of a group that are going to make Maggie's government look like a day on the bouncy castle.

Either way Clegg is something that the swear filter would get. And he knows he is.

Molgrips - do yo work in marketing?

Every single Liberal Democrat MP signed a pledge to say 'I will vote against any increase in tuition fees.' Then some of them did not vote against a rise in tuition fees.

Only a lawyer or a marketing man would try to make out this is not a blatant lie

Oh FFS TeeJ, stop bloody digging your heels in. You're only arguing semantics now.

but later it says they were just planning possible compromise options.

Eh ? 😕

You don't "compromise" on a pledge..........that's the whole point of it ffs.

That fact that they were even considering compromising on their 'solemn and binding' promise, exposes them as liars.

Do you not see how compromise is an essential part of politics?

Not if you solemnly promise to do something then you do not compromise on it. By doing so you show your lack of integrity.

Alpha1653 - Member
Ok, timeout, I'm confused: CaptJon said, "And why is your line of thinking never extended to those most useful of subjects classics, art history, linguistics, music, politics etc?" i.e. asking Flash why he doesn't class them as mickey mouse degrees, yes?

And no, linguisitcs is not the learning of languages; it's the science of human language. What you have there is me being unintentionally patronising and assuming that CaptJon had confused linguistics with languages degree as there aren't many linguisitcs degrees about. My bad.

Thanks, but i wasn't confused. I think you might be though 😉

I don't understand why media studies always gets a beating, but reading classics or Latin doesn't. The former has much greater direct uses, people who do classics end up as MPs. Anyway, i've found most people have little clue what gets taught on degrees (beyond their own if they did one) but feel perfectly qualified to declare some useless and/or not academic enough to be taught at a university.

What annoys me most is those politicians who say the increases are needed to help pay down the deficit quicker, but are silent on what happens in five years when it is sorted. Universities will be fundamentally changed, will future governments restore their publicly funded teaching budgets? Or will they remain privatised like so many public services and shortly the NHS?

what no cheers this time when the fee rise was voted in
seem to remember the torries cheering giddily when osborne announced the cuts that brought the government here
dont suppose these guys were worried about tuition fees
[img] [/img]
caption contest anyone?

...you show your lack of integrity.

Not only that, but you also show your contempt for democracy.

Each LibDem MP had a clear and undisputed mandate from their electorate, to vote against tuition fee increases today.

Despite that, most LibDem MPs decided to vote for something which they did not have mandate for.

So liars with a contempt for democracy then........nice people 😐

Ernie - the only consolation ( and its not much) Is that they are finished as a political force and that will be Cleggs footnote in history - the man who finished off the lib dems
the are not even going to get a vote on AV thru.

Not if you solemnly promise to do something then you do not compromise on it.

But sometimes compromise is essential! There's no point in being so obstinate that you lose everything, is there? At least, not in my world. You guys would make truly terrible politicians.

Each LibDem MP had a clear and undisputed mandate from their electorate, to vote against tuition fee increases today.

You should know it's much more complicated than that. Unfortunately.

Dont recall any of the STW Leftie intelligensia being up in arms and promoting rioting in the streets over Nu-Labours breach of their election pledge to offer us a referendum on the European Constitution... 🙄

Or for that matter the Conservative breach of an election pledge that anyone caught with a knife would go to prison... No Leftie Liberals manning the barricades on that one either are there?

the point is the lib dems edged some marginal seats based on a lie they only got the chance to form a coalition because of that pledge

Molgrips - you cannot compromise on something you make a point of promising. Especially when you you use that pledge to gain votes. it shows a basic lack of integrity. Of course compromise is needed but not to the extent of losing your integrity

You are in marketing aren't you?

caption contest lol ,"thats done buggerall for the cause" after the damage thats been inflicted by them , i have no sympaphy for them at all, they have done more harm than good.

if you ask me the police have come away today looking much worse what idiot drove them into a few hundred portestors!

Promises like that are essential as bargaining chips when forming the coalition policies. If you've not stuck your neck on the line for something, your "partners" will know that you can be easily shifted on it and it's then worth nowt.

I see that Ed Miliband was unwilling to pledge to reduce the costs if Labour ever get in again. Is that because he really knows its the right thing to do? Mind you, I don't recall the last Labour government overturning many of Maggies policies either, despite kicking up a stink when they were in opposition.

You should know it's much more complicated than that.

Erm, no, not "complicated" at all .........in fact Nick showed just how easy it is :

[img] [/img]

See ? .....you sign a pledge and let everybody see you do it .....just to make absolutely certain that there is no confusion at all where you stand.

There's no point in being so obstinate.......

It was Nick Clegg's idea to be "obstinate" on tuition fees. No one forced him.

caption contest.......
"whatever happens dont say let them eat cake"

http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/04/labours-27-broken-manifesto-promises.html

druidh, I don't think you understand what a pledge is...........or at least you pretend that you don't understand.

We haven't even started looking at the LibDems broken promises yet....nuclear power, child detention, no immediate cuts, etc, etc.

That's a nice pin you're dancing on the head of.

The thing is with the Lib Dems, it's not just that they haven't done what they said they would, they are enthusiastically doing the exact opposite.

:tiifoilhaton:

if you ask me the police have come away today looking much worse what idiot drove them into a few hundred portestors!

They did it on purpose.

Okay ... haven't read all the threads but what if the gov't simply withdraw funding totally but then also not increase the fees nor dictate the fees structure? i.e. let the market forces do the work? What will happen?

[b]Education is not a right I am afraid ...[/b]

[b]Everyone wants to be the boss so who are doing the dirty work ehh? China? India?[/b]

And druidh yes New Labour were also a massive disappointment, your point is?

Molgrips - you cannot compromise on something you make a point of promising

If the situation demands it, then you have to. Government is not a war of principles, it's not a moral debate - it's about getting things done. Banging your fist on the table and shouting does not get anything done. Even Iain Paisley figured it out eventually.

The problem is that they should not make rash promises in the first place. Or at least word things appropriately. However that's not really practical. That photo of that pledge thing was a crass bit of electioneering. However, people won't vote for anyone speaking in practical terms, so they have to spout this nonsense to get votes. Consequently, everyone things all politicians are duplicitous scum when they often aren't. Being a politician is a no-win situation, so all you can do is get voted in and have a stab and doing a good job in terms of actually running the country.

I'm not in marketing, I'm a pragmatist.

Education is not a right I am afraid ...

It is, up to age 15. After that, it definitely should be a right.

That's a nice pin you're dancing on the head of.

Oh I see .......you think pointing out the difference between a pledge and a promise is mere 'pedantics' do you ? 😀

And yet strangely enough, Nick Clegg felt that it was extremely important to emphasise the fact that it was a [u][b]PLEDGE[/b][/u].

In fact, he signed it publicly and invited the press to photograph him doing so......have you seen the photo?

[img] [/img]<

Druidh - plenty of Tory U turns as well happening

Knife crime - pre election pledge for mandatory gaol sentences, post election - discretion for judges

NHS 24 - pledged to be scrapped - not happening.

None of these stand comparison with a publicly signed pledge on a single issue that was a major point on the campaign.

The lib demns are shown to have no integrity and face electoral oblivion quite rightly as a result

I've got the solution to the university funding problem.

If you appear on TV demonstrating an embarrassing level of spoken English, you can't go to university. Sorted.

molgrips - Member

It is, up to age 15. After that, it definitely should be a right.

Up to age 15 or 18 I agree but beyond that it's luxury (privilege) and not a right.

Therefore, it "should" be if those attending it see the value of it but I bet majority just see it as a way to become "bosses" to step on majority of the 3rd world maggots.

TandemJeremy - Member
Druidh - plenty of Tory U turns as well happening

Knife crime - pre election pledge for mandatory gaol sentences, post election - discretion for judges

NHS 24 - pledged to be scrapped - not happening.

Indeed. It's a feature of our political system.

None of these stand comparison with a publicly signed pledge on a single issue that was a major point on the campaign.

Says you (and ernie_lynch). You're merely arguing semantics here.

The lib demns are shown to have no integrity and face electoral oblivion quite rightly as a result

The other two major parties seem to have survived quite a while despite breaking all manner of promises.

Caption contest: "When I am king...."

can the damage done be charged to the student unions, why should the tax payer have to pay for the damage that students have caused,

kimbers - Member: if you ask me the police have come away today looking much worse what idiot drove them into a few hundred portestors!

Actually, I was cheering the TV when I saw footage of the police charging to drive back violent protesters. What do you expect the police to do when students are willing to occupy buildings illegally, cause vandalism and attack the police? Push them back with a playful nudge to the ribs? Ask them nicely? Not that realistic when snooker balls are being launched at your head now is it? But what happens when you charge? They move back. Job well done.

scraprider - Member

can the damage done be charged to the student unions, why should the tax payer have to pay for the damage that students have caused,

Damn right!

You're merely arguing semantics here. The other two major parties seem to have survived quite a while despite breaking all manner of promises.

Hardly semantics.

It has been become popular in recent years for politicians to make "pledges". Labour has been using the tactic quite extensively since the '97 election. In the 2005 election Labour made 6 pledges, and 5 in this last election.

The reason they have started using "pledges" is because they know that the electorate no longer believe and trust in promises. So they make a solemn and binding pledge which they guarantee will not be broken. Labour often, although not always, make the pledge deliberately vague, because they know that not keeping it is not an option. They are often in a hand written form and personally signed, just to emphasis the personal and serious commitment the politician concerned has to it.

The LibDems have now, as a result of not only not sticking to their pledge, but actually completely contradicting it, totally devalued the pledge in British politics. And have seriously undermined even further, people's trust to the political process and politicians.

When Nick Clegg first announced the formation of the coalition, he promised a "new kind" of politics.
We now know what he meant.

I guess this sort of sums up the LD's position:

Moral lesson: don’t make irresponsible promises in opposition. You might just find yourselves in power, and then where will you be? Faced with a lot of angry supporters who actually thought that you meant what you said.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/janetdaley/100067665/the-passing-of-the-tuition-fees-bills-destroys-the-lib-dems-credibility/

Well, one of the UK's competitive advantages is its creatives industries - media graduates are needed for that.

And why is your line of thinking never extended to those most useful of subjects classics, art history, linguistics, music, politics etc?

Personally I'd quite happily extend the line of thinking to those subjects. It's not like anybody's complaining about the shortage of history graduates we have in this country is it?

Yes let's just produce a country of drones who have only been trained specifically to earn money in a particular field, and have no wider knowledge or understanding of the world. Woop.

I do think there should be less students though - I don't see why university shouldn't be for the academically talented.