[Closed] Tuition fees

so, the new system is MUCH, MUCH, better than the last one, it's a tory policy, and this make's Nick Clegg the bad guy?

i really don't understand.

"i pledge ... to ... find a fairer alternative"

and he did, the new system is a huge improvement.

ernie, fair enough, though to my mind the wording of the pledge does somewhat imply that they will be in opposition, the 'vote against' bit is pretty cut and dry.

However, it could be argued that they have implemented a fairer system so its all swings and roundabouts.

Slippery swines the lot of them

How?

By your arrogance. I don't see how we the taxpayers can afford to send 50% of our kids to university if it's not to prepare them is some way for what lies ahead, given that for the vast majority that will include the need to find employment.

I'm not in favour of charging tuition fees for university at all (which is thankfully still the case here in Scotland), however I'm also not in favour of university being seen as the only useful form of further education and sending 50% of school leavers there.

"i pledge ... to ... find a fairer alternative"

A fairer alternative to tuition fees, in case you can't read plain English, although I suspect you can but like a teenager with bad attitude you prefer to pretend that you don't understand.

the new system is MUCH, MUCH, better than the last one

The LibDems should have put it to the electorate next general election then, if it's that good....maybe their voters would have agreed with them ? Because for the duration of this parliament they were committed to not increasing tuition fees. Which you know, was a corner post of their election manifesto. So even if it was a crap policy, they had no moral right to do anything other than support it.

The LibDems should have put it to the electorate next general election then, if it's that good....maybe their voters would have agreed with them ?

I suspect the LibDems were just trying to squeeze an extra few votes from students, without ever having to put there arses on the line and come up with an implementable and affordable policy.

No system is perfect and this one's no different. Students are just going to have to get their head around a long term repayment scheme as opposed to a normal debt as such. The repayment terms are pretty low if you're earning £40k+ and easily affordable. I'd prefer not to have to pay for my kids but Labour encouraged too many people to do degrees in too many subjects that don't add anythign to their employment prospects. I'd suggest university be for those who show their academic ability and application before going. there should be apprenticeships and FE colleges etc for those less academic. Uni's seen as an easy option to getting a job by too many. Stop all the part time courses and woolly subjects that have appeared over recent years...

Deadlydarcy, what I say is not utter bollocks. You say "University is not a boiler house to produce people "better prepared" for employers" yet claim that without university people are unable to be employed!! If someone aspires to a profession where a degree is required (teachers, lawyers etc) then go to university and get a relevant degree. But to imply that society would fall apart if not everyone had a degree is, whether you intended it or not, massively patronising.

Backhander, the universities got some of their budget from the government, some from industry, and some from tuition fees.

This new policy has cut the government money by 80%, and lumped all of that onto the tuition fees.
If the universities budget had been cut by the average amount of the cuts to all other departments (around 8% or something I think, I stand to be corrected on that), then the tuition fees would only have to rise to around £4000, from around £3400 as they were.

I suppose the argument comes down to whether or not you feel that having educated people in the country to fill all those important roles in society and allow the UK to compete in any way with the rest of the world is important. Or whether you're one of those more narrow minded people whose argument tends to be along the lines of 'I didn't go to uni and I'm doing OK, I pay tax, no one needs to go, look, I'm doing OK.'

There's also the FACT that half the Lib Dems went back on a promise to vote against a rise - there is literally no way in which a sensible person could argue that they haven't done this and not sound like a schlong.

ahwiles, I have no idea how you are managing to struggle so much to pay off your loan, especially given the fact that it should be a lot less than a current graduate's, I hope one day you manage it.

And another thing: my profession accepts both grads and non grads into training and I can hold my hand on my heart and say that the non grads can match the grads blow for blow throughout one of the hardest leadership and man management courses in the country. A degree is not the be all and end all of the making of an individual.

alpha - what industry?

I just have one question relating to tuition fees (and it's a genuine question, I don't already know the answer and I'm not being facetious) - is £9,000 a fair cost of tuition?

When you take into account all the lecturers salaries/support staff salaries/admin costs/insurances/books/facilities/technology/etc that a student uses during the average year at University, is £9,000 a fair cost? Is the cost higher than that? or lower?

There isn't really anything sensible to compare it to.

You could compare it to:

The cost to foreign students on many courses (well over £9000).

The cost of professional training courses, eg. IT certifications (in the £2000/week range).

Either of those make it sound like quite good value. But they're not really the same thing (the foreign students have an element of profiteering stuck in there, professional training course is not a degree).

Joe

alpha - what industry?

at a guess, cannon fodder

Actually, I'm an ex consultant at one of the biggest professional services firm in the world; an ex banker for one of the world's biggest banks and yes, currently "cannon fodder" as you put it, but that's irrelevant. The point I'm making is that having a degree does not suddenly make you so much better than a non grad, which seems to be the opinion of many.

Anyway, I'm braced and ready for the inevitable abuse for being Forces...

TJ and ernie are coming over terribly naive to be honest.

Alpha, you have found one example of where having a degree has less of an influence on a person's ability to perform a job.

There are many many more examples of professions where having a degree is essential.

The new fees mean that someone from a poorer background has to think purely about the financial implications of doing a degree i.e. will it benefit me financially to have a degree in my chosen field.

A person from a wealthy background does not have to make that choice, they can just go anyway and their parents will pay.

The person from the poorer background may have been able to make a better contribution to society than the rich person, but cannot justify the massive (say, £50,000) costs of getting a degree, so we all lose out. Where is the fairness in that?

TJ and ernie are coming over terribly naive to be honest.

I take it you've not been on STW long if that comes as any kind of surprise. I don't even read their posts any more.

Alpha, you have found one example of where having a degree has less of an influence on a person's ability to perform a job.

On the other hand the Navy were very keen on me getting a degree, to the extent they were willing to pay me for going to uni.

TJ and ernie are coming over terribly naive to be honest.

A bit like the two former leaders of the Liberal Democrats but not present one then ?

I wonder what makes Nick Clegg so wise and experienced ?

And I also wonder whether Nick Clegg's wisdom and experience will condemn the LibDems to another 100 years of opposition .......what do you reckon molgrips ?

The polls seem to suggest that yes maybe.

molgrips - Member

TJ and ernie are coming over terribly naive to be honest.

Pfffft. Honestly molgrips have you no sense of irony? You think it is acceptable for a politician to make a solemn pledge on a single issue, make a big thing of it to gain votes then discard it a few months later?

Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes do not agree with you.

Menzies Campbell and Simon Hughes do not agree with you.

And the electorate too apparently.....

[i]"The plan has put pressure on Lib Dem leader and Deputy prime minister Nick Clegg with his party seen in danger of suffering [u][b]lasting damage[/b][/u] in the eyes of the electorate. Its opinion poll rating has halved since the May election"[/i]

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2010/1209/breaking12.html?via=mr

So many "terribly naive" people in the world.........just as well Clegg is on the ball. And not too long, will be back on the backbenches.

So many "terribly naive" people

Isn't that the definition of anyone stupid enough to have voted LibDem?

I was only being mischievous about cannon fodder. I have a great respect for the role that you play. And whilst I can appreciate that a degree may have "less of an influence on a person's ability to perform a job", I am not, nor are many others here, particularly well placed to judge. However, as I understand it, about 85% of the entrants to Sandhurst have a degree. It seems that it may not be essential but it does look to be desirable.

? Where did my post go?

ok, the Page 6 link disappeared

Pfffft. Honestly molgrips have you no sense of irony? You think it is acceptable for a politician to make a solemn pledge on a single issue, make a big thing of it to gain votes then discard it a few months later?

Did I say I thought it was a good thing?

What I am saying is that it would be foolish in the extreme to stick to something you said BEFORE the situation got turned on its head, when that change was no longer the best course of action for those concerned.

make a big thing of it to gain votes

For centuries, politicians have been forced to make wild claims to gain votes - because the electorate are too stupid to understand how politics really works.

Tum te tum te tum.... 🙂

Are you out on bail Elfinman ?

Can't kettle me mate...

I just have one question relating to tuition fees (and it's a genuine question, I don't already know the answer and I'm not being facetious) - is £9,000 a fair cost of tuition?

Definitely not for the 4 hours a week of teaching I got at uni.

They would claim it is if you add everything in, but then if you've ever worked at a uni you'll know there are loads of complete slackers/dossers working in uni admin, the professors get paid pretty astronomical wages, often for not doing that much. etc etc

I predict there is going to be a lot of students complaining or maybe even suing unis now for bad service - if you're paying that much you are going to expect pretty good standards, and the extra money is only to make up for a shortfall so won't be going into smaller class sizes, more resources etc.

I went to a 'red brick' uni, and I would not have been at all happy with the standard of organisation/teaching if I was paying £9000 a year.

Thanks ed.

I suppose the argument comes down to whether or not you feel that having educated people in the country to fill all those important roles in society and allow the UK to compete in any way with the rest of the world is important. Or whether you're one of those more narrow minded people whose argument tends to be along the lines of 'I didn't go to uni and I'm doing OK, I pay tax, no one needs to go, look, I'm doing OK.'

Elfinsafety - Member

Can't kettle me mate...

Pot, kettle , black???

[img] [/img]

On the point of students only applying for subjects that carry a good chance of securing a higher salary, the assumption is that graduates will be less likely to take subjects that do not attract high salaries.

The question we need to ask is 'is there societal benefit from having graduates from those less attractive subjects and if so, should society subsidise them?'.

This would be irrelevant over time.

If society really does really need graduates from these subjects to fulfil key roles, then the salaries paid for them will rise to ensure they remain attractive career options. As many of these posts are public sctor this would be an added burden to the taxpayer but a 'market proven' one.

LOL - the shortened version of "Richard" is in the swear filter!

csb - Member

If society really does really need graduates from these subjects to fulfil key roles, then the salaries paid for them will rise to ensure they remain attractive career options. As many of these posts are public sctor this would be an added burden to the taxpayer but a 'market proven' one.

Along similar lines - there was a shortage of trained nurses in Scotland a few years back and the Government subsidised training courses in order to remedy this.

the new system is a huge improvement.

How, precisely?

As has been discussed at length, the new system will massively increase the personal debt of those who do attend university.

But, as also keeps being said, most will never pay it off, and will have the debt wiped. So, who's paying for it then eh? In fact, as it's a loan, who's paying for it [u]now?
[/u]
Yup, that's right, the treasury.

So, just how does this massive increase in fees in any way shape or form help the UK economy?

Even better - at about the same time the massive black hole in the treasury's books appears with people having their debts wiped as they reach retirement, guess what else they'll be needing???

Pension, more healthcare etc etc etc.

So in actual fact, the new policy doesn't save any money now (when we allegedly need it to), and leaves an even greater problem than is currently looming with an ageing population and pension black hole.

Just which genius thought that was a good idea?

Really druidh? I thought they all had the same bursaries set UK wide. Nursing students are funded completely differently to most students for most of the courses. You get a bursary of around £6000 pa and it has been this way since moving to university / college based nurse training not hospital based in the 90s

Part of the issue is that in public sector jobs the market is rigged - so salaries cannot rise if there is a shortage of staff. What is done in nursing when there is a shortage is to recruit from overseas

LOL - the shortened version of "Richard" is in the swear filter!

Dick!

Ah - my bad.

Pot, kettle , [b]black[/b]???

Mixed-Race actually.

Sigh.

🙁

Still time.....

Welcome back Elf!

I set em up................. You knock 'em in

TandemJeremy - Member
Really druidh? I thought they all had the same bursaries set UK wide. Nursing students are funded completely differently to most students for most of the courses. You get a bursary of around £6000 pa and it has been this way since moving to university / college based nurse training not hospital based in the 90s

I don't know the specifics TJ, but my wife was considering this as an option a few years back and there were specific grants available. Maybe it was for re-training ex-nurses? Either way, it indicates that society could value certain less well-paid roles enough to subsidise training.

backhander was right its all a big conspiracy wikileaks started it!

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201012090034

Csb your faith in market forces is touching but has very little basis in reality. And backhander, yet again, is science and engineering the only thing of value to society?

parliament square is looking a sorry state today...

I reckon ID those that were there and then add the clean up costs onto their fees when they attend uni...