The thing is Universities, DO need to change. At this moment in people, so many people are going to Uni, doing an utterly stupid degree, getting student finance/grants off the government that do not need to be given out. University is an amazing experience, and I am so glad I am at Uni. But the fact that you can get into Uni with DDE at A-Level is really stupid. Of course the competition is increasing for universities because of foreign students, and the Universities are already extremely greedy with the prices some of the Chinese students pay to study at the Uni.

 

Even though i'm in favour of a change, the price hike is not the way to go about it. Universities do not need to become elitist again, it's unfair on those who come from a poorer background, but who are naturally gifted and intelligent. Even for me at Uni now, it's hard for me, who is going to be in thousands of debt once I get out Uni, whilst plenty of my friends have their parents pay their accommodation/tuition fees. It is unfair, but life is unfair unfortunately. A lot of poly universities just need to become defunct imo, but that's not going to happen because of the uproar it would cause.

 

The problem doesn't lie with the Universities, in my opinion, rather it lies with the College's and the service they offer before said university. If you pay to go to college you are more likely to get A*-A grades at A2 level than those who don't pay for an education. Why is that? I fully understand why a parent would pay money for their child to go to a grammar school because they want the best for them and the best for them is paid education. But on the other end of the scale, you need to look at those who would love to go to grammar schools but cannot afford it. Why is it that they shouldn't get the choice of better facilities, teachers and opportunities?

 

My parents would gladly pay for me to have private education if that's what I wanted but they wouldn't have much money for anything else. I would love to leave college with 4 A*'s at A-level but it's highly unlikely in the college environment I am in. What I'm trying to explain is that regardless of if a child get's all A*'s or all E's at A2 they should all be allowed the same level of education once they leave school/college. It shouldn't be a matter of fairness/unfairness; it should be a matter of standardisation of the education system from a grass-roots level up, imo.

pay tax to support students who spend half their time at Uni drinking? :rolleyes:

 

 

I wasn't going to comment and I'm sorry but I find that very rude and just sterotyping because the stories of students drinking always makes the papers. 95% of the students I know work extremely hard myself included, both at uni and holding down jobs for 16 hours a week and maybe even more. We need the extra help from the government/tax payers because some people would never be able to afford it or have any chance of carving a better future for themselves. It's not ideal no, but I at least work my arse off doing a $h!tty job at Sainsbury's which I hate to try and get by. If anything I go out drinking once a week and me and my housemates occasionally enjoy a night out in the week as well.

 

And I personally think this rise in fees is disgusting. I was under the impression they wanted more people to go to university to increase job prospects? Well I feel that this is only going to put people off because I wrestled for a good couple of years over the idea of getting into debt. For the current fees it's just about worth it but I can see some institutions [Warwick cough cough] becoming extremely greedy. There needs to be some change though as so many degrees are worthless. Geography for one! I know many people who have just finished and it's been a waste because they have a degree in a poor subject and are just back at home with mum and dad and doing the job they were holding down during their studies full time. A complete revision of the system is needed. Things such as charging different fees depending for different courses and a better loans system [as the current one is so incompetent]. These would be more beneificial than this proposal.

Edited October 15, 201014 yr by GrAmii

I can see St Andrews and Edinburgh being outraged if this goes through. They'll start crying that Oxbridge can charge more than they can.

 

On the flip side, with your fees going up to £7k pa the competition for places at Scottish Universities is going to get majorly intense

I fully approve of these excellent proposals, which will considerably strengthen this country. Universities should once again be elitist; the preserve of the upper classes and truly academically gifted. Those complaining they can’t afford the tuition fees will just have to accept career paths more suited to their background and means.

 

 

The thing is Universities, DO need to change. At this moment in people, so many people are going to Uni, doing an utterly stupid degree, getting student finance/grants off the government that do not need to be given out. University is an amazing experience, and I am so glad I am at Uni. But the fact that you can get into Uni with DDE at A-Level is really stupid. Of course the competition is increasing for universities because of foreign students, and the Universities are already extremely greedy with the prices some of the Chinese students pay to study at the Uni.

 

Even though i'm in favour of a change, the price hike is not the way to go about it. Universities do not need to become elitist again, it's unfair on those who come from a poorer background, but who are naturally gifted and intelligent. Even for me at Uni now, it's hard for me, who is going to be in thousands of debt once I get out Uni, whilst plenty of my friends have their parents pay their accommodation/tuition fees. It is unfair, but life is unfair unfortunately. A lot of poly universities just need to become defunct imo, but that's not going to happen because of the uproar it would cause.

 

 

Universities should be elitist in terms of academic abilities, NOT elitist in terms of 'class' or parents' wealth like Ethan suggests. I do think there's too many people who aren't smart enough going to university and doing pointless courses, but it's no good just shutting off universities to those people without giving them alternatives. There needs to be more apprenticeships, more specific training in technical skills for kids at school who aren't that bright, and most importantly, a rebuilding of Britain's industrial base and opening up many more jobs for people there. Unfortunately, New Labour were too timid to rebuild industry after Thatcher destroyed it, and I certainly don't expect the Coalition to do anything about it with their lust for cuts.

 

On the Browne report, I don't think it's as black-and-white as some people are suggesting. The proposal to raise the threshold where graduates start repaying their fees to over £20,000 would mean about 40% of people would never have to pay a penny back. In fact, if the government proposes a cap of about £6-7,000 while raising the threshold in line with what Browne suggests and maintaining the commitment to write off outstanding debts after 25 years, I might be able to grudgingly accept it.

 

But what really worries me is the proposed 'free market' for Universities, which would almost certainly mean in practice that lower-level universities would charge much lower fees than the Redbrick unis. That really would create a two-tier education system, as (rightly or wrongly) poor students WOULD be deterred from going to the better universities due to the psychological stigma of taking on a lot more debt, which would be disastrous for social mobility in this country. That's why there NEEDS to be a cap at a relatively low level - and to be fair, Cable has hinted that might be what the government decides on.

 

Plus, maybe the most worrying thing - I'm worried that, with this gradual shifting of the burden from taxpayer to graduate, we might be opening the door to eventually introducing upfront fees for students - which would be the most regressive solution of all.

The Universities Minister David Willetts has said having no cap on fees would be wrong, which chimes with what Vince Cable has said. So i'm reasonably hopeful this won't be as dreadful a solution as I'd feared.

Nick Clegg has said that today as well. Perhaps his conscience is catching up with him, finally.

Nick Clegg has said that today as well. Perhaps his conscience is catching up with him, finally.

He and Vince Cable made it clear all along that they were unhappy with the idea of unlimited fees and that they would do all they could to avoid that.

He has hardly been vocal throughout his time in office, generally, has he? I get the impression the only reason he's been vocal about this is that he knows his political position would be untenable if he accepted the uncapped fees.

He has hardly been vocal throughout his time in office, generally, has he? I get the impression the only reason he's been vocal about this is that he knows his political position would be untenable if he accepted the uncapped fees.

 

I think it's a case of they've been embarrassed and shamed by Menzies Campbell's highly principled and courageous stand.. A former leader of the party, and VERY respected politician (in fact, one of the few MPs I personally DO actually have a great deal of respect for) amongst his peers and the country as a whole, making a very public stand which is strongly opposed to his leader and the Coalition generally has gotta sting Clegg, Cable, Hughes, etc, so, now they finally find their voice....

 

Campbell's seat is in a university constituency (part of his constituency is St Andrews) and he's basically massively respected in Scotland as someone who truly believes in representing the people who voted for him... Good on yer Ming....

I think it's a case of they've been embarrassed and shamed by Menzies Campbell's highly principled and courageous stand.. A former leader of the party, and VERY respected politician (in fact, one of the few MPs I personally DO actually have a great deal of respect for) amongst his peers and the country as a whole, making a very public stand which is strongly opposed to his leader and the Coalition generally has gotta sting Clegg, Cable, Hughes, etc, so, now they finally find their voice....

 

Campbell's seat is in a university constituency (part of his constituency is St Andrews) and he's basically massively respected in Scotland as someone who truly believes in representing the people who voted for him... Good on yer Ming....

Indeed!!!

 

The almighty Ming C has not only been voicing his concerns on the Uni front [although it doesn't directly affect St Andrews as our fee's are all dealt with by Salmond and his band of arseholes in Edinburgh] but he's been very strongly campaigning to save RAF Leuchars from being axed which has paid off :cheer: and while many FibDems have become mini-Tories he is still very much a LibDem and that is why i voted for him and will continue to do so regardless of Clegg et al and their selling out for power.

 

From Ming's Facebook:

 

Menzies Campbell: Nasty, brutish and refusing to go away

by Ming Campbell on Sunday, 24 October 2010 at 00:00

As leaked documents tell of 109,000 violent deaths in five years, will the war's supporters finally admit they were wrong?

 

 

I can't see Clegg speaking out about the war in such a manner, can you?

As leaked documents tell of 109,000 violent deaths in five years, will the war's supporters finally admit they were wrong?

I can't see Clegg speaking out about the war in such a manner, can you?

 

To be fair to Clegg on that score, when he stood in for Cameron during PMQs a while back, he did say he thought the war was illegal....

 

To answer Ming's question, no I'll never think the war was wrong. It was the right thing to do AT THE TIME. Anyone can look in hindsight at things and say a decision was wrong. :rolleyes:

Edited October 26, 201014 yr by Common Sense

Indeed!!!

 

The almighty Ming C has not only been voicing his concerns on the Uni front [although it doesn't directly affect St Andrews as our fee's are all dealt with by Salmond and his band of arseholes in Edinburgh] but he's been very strongly campaigning to save RAF Leuchars from being axed which has paid off :cheer: and while many FibDems have become mini-Tories he is still very much a LibDem and that is why i voted for him and will continue to do so regardless of Clegg et al and their selling out for power.

 

From Ming's Facebook:

 

Menzies Campbell: Nasty, brutish and refusing to go away

by Ming Campbell on Sunday, 24 October 2010 at 00:00

As leaked documents tell of 109,000 violent deaths in five years, will the war's supporters finally admit they were wrong?

I can't see Clegg speaking out about the war in such a manner, can you?

Clegg's response to this report was closer to a call for a full enquiry than I've heard from any minister form this or the previous government.

To answer Ming's question, no I'll never think the war was wrong. It was the right thing to do AT THE TIME. Anyone can look in hindsight at things and say a decision was wrong. :rolleyes:

 

It was NEVER right Chris, Iraq wasn't our problem, WMDs or not, and, no, I DONT CARE if Saddam was a "nasty bloke" or not. Read my lips - NOT OUR PROBLEM.. In fact, the problems in the Middle East just got a hell of a lot worse when we invaded, Iraq is hardly a safer place now, and it appears that Blair just didn't even bother to find out whether or not Bush and Rumsfeld actually had an effective post-invasion plan... We actually legitimised Al Qaeda to some extent by invading Iraq and it led directly to the radicalisation of British muslims and the July 7th Terror attacks.... And anyone who says different is either an idiot, a Sun-reader (well, same as idiot really...), a Neo Con or a Nu Labor politician....

This piece of spin in Comment Is Free from John Hemming (a Lib Dem MP) is simply WONDERFUL...

 

Liberal Democrats in government are about to scrap student tuition fees for 54.2% of students. This may come as a surprise, but that is because this side of the story isn't really being told.

 

The Institute for Fiscal Studies has shown that for 54.2% of students in the future it does not matter how much their tuition actually costs. They will pay the same 9% of income over £21,000 a year for 30 years. In other words this new system is a graduate tax in all but name. It is why Vince Cable, the Lib Dem Business Secretary, calls it a graduate contribution.

 

It is, however, not an open-ended graduate tax as it has a cap. The cap works in such a way that graduates with higher earnings get to a point at which they have paid more than the original cost of their education. That additional amount goes up with the scale of a graduate's earnings and when they've reached that point they stop paying the graduate tax.

 

To me, that seems – given that we have a coalition government – a reasonable way of fulfilling both the Liberal Democrat policy of scrapping tuition fees as well as the NUS pledge in which we stated we would campaign for "a fairer system". This is that fairer system. People have got to get away from looking at this issue as student debt. It is not a debt, in most ways. The bailiffs won't come round if you don't pay the full amount because you have a low income. In fact, if you do not earn more than the threshold you pay nothing at all. In essence, what we have is a future tax liability.

 

So to that extent the adage "if it quacks, it's a duck" seem appropriate. If the payments are like a tax system, in which you pay a percentage of income, then it is a future tax liability.

 

It is also worth looking at the other changes that have been made since the Browne review. One is to increase the top rate of interest. This has the effect of making graduates who earn over £41,000 per year pay more into the common fund. The second change is that the scheme ensures those people who wish to pay upfront are unable to buy themselves out of making a contribution towards the less wealthy graduates. This means that the broadest shoulders bear the biggest load and that is only fair.

 

Recent discussions have concentrated on aspects particularly relating to full- time higher education. In a sense that is because this is the area where the questions as to whether or not the Liberal Democrats have done a U-turn are key. To me, it is clear that we have not stood on our heads. We have delivered "a fairer system", which is what we pledged to do. To give you a clear example: regardless of "the fee", the lowest-earning 25% of graduates will pay less in future than they do under the current regime.

 

There is more in the proposals that makes the system fairer. First, all students will have access to some finance for living costs. Those whose household income is under £60,000 have access to up to £3,250 in grants. This means the poorest students will be £700 a year better off. Second, there will be particular bursaries to encourage social mobility so that children of lower-earning households are encouraged to go to university; and there will be a requirement for universities to do more themselves to encourage those from disadvantaged backgrounds into higher education. Last, we will now have support for part-time students, treating them as equal to full-time students, and they will also be asked to pay a capped graduate tax.

 

Of course, in an ideal world student tuition costs would be paid for out of general taxation. Sadly, however, we do not live in an ideal world and are also in a coalition. Nevertheless, the current government proposals are far better than the current system. More will be done for poorer students, and the plan means that the "fees" element has no effect on the payments made by the majority of students. That is because the students don't pay fees, but pay a levy through taxation – which for 54.2% of students is not affected by the amount of "fee".

 

That is why I believe we have not only delivered on our pledge of a fairer system, but also delivered substantially on scrapping student tuition fees.

Indeed, the delusion of some Lib Dems never ceases to amaze me. The blog Lib Dem Voice makes for quite amusing reading as well, as Lib Dem activists try and kid themselves about how much influence they have over the Coalition...

Perhaps Labour - who set up the Browne review in the first place - might like to tell us what they'd do. Of course they introduced fees in the first place - having said in the election campaign that they wouldn't.

 

Of course Hemming's piece is spin in the sense that he's trying to kid himself that this doesn't represent an increase in tuition fees. He doesn't help his case by using ridiculously accurate figures like 54.2% when that is just a forecast. As a statistician I would want to see a phrase like "just over half". However he is right to point out that there will be gainers as well as losers from these changes.

Perhaps Labour - who set up the Browne review in the first place - might like to tell us what they'd do. Of course they introduced fees in the first place - having said in the election campaign that they wouldn't.

 

Of course Hemming's piece is spin in the sense that he's trying to kid himself that this doesn't represent an increase in tuition fees. He doesn't help his case by using ridiculously accurate figures like 54.2% when that is just a forecast. As a statistician I would want to see a phrase like "just over half". However he is right to point out that there will be gainers as well as losers from these changes.

 

The Browne report was set up by Mandelson, who thankfully has now seemingly sodded off for good. Labour have pledged they will vote against the Coalition's policy. I agree that they really need to spell out exactly what their policy on tuition fees is sooner rather than later - I hope it will be a much more modest rise (say to about £6000), with perhaps a higher threshold to start repaying debts and correspondingly a much less deep cut in the state university funding - this is assuming a graduate tax is dead in the water.

The SLC is behaving like a dodgy sofa company, in that it charges a monthly interest the moment a student starts their course. This interest charging amounts to compound interest and it is far more than the bank would pay for anybody saving account. Further more, if it is genuine a good and fair system, then why charge interest? Why not just have the loan whereby the students will repay the moment they started earning and get a proper job? Why add more stress onto the students? Didn't our chancellor gave the state of our economy akin to having a credit card loan i.e. we are spending way beyond our means? So how does the Student Loan differs from that? A Loan is a Loan, in that the debtor have to repay the creditor. Instead of investing in the futures of our young generation, we are off-loading the responsibility of funding from the government to our young. We are hampering them in being able to get a mortgage and also to put aside for their pension.

 

We won't go back to the 1971 but what about the 1980s? Currently this government has taxed us by stealth and you had forgotten that we are going to be paying 20% VAT. Furthermore, currently, what I want to know is why are we paying such high tax for what amounts to very little service? All I hear on a daily basis is what our council is already a meagre service it is going to cut in order to save money. When I came back from visiting my birth country, I feel as if I had step back into a 3rd world country, not a civilised country that I though UK should be.

 

Okay - currently the economy is bad, but is the government going to recalibrate back to the stage where it can help out with the university funding? Should George Osbourne's gamble pays off and our economy grew, will we refund our children? We were told when they set the fees i.e. capped at £3290, it won't go any further. And look what's happening here - it is being tripled.