|
|
Post by harrythepotter on Jan 27, 2004 16:20:00 GMT
Tonights the big vote. Make the bastards pay thats what I say!!!  |
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Jan 27, 2004 16:31:45 GMT
I agree, bastard that I am.
|
|
|
|
Post by IlfordDave1975 on Jan 27, 2004 16:36:33 GMT
typical ....... the generation that benefitted from HUGE grants remove the ability of the average school leaver to get to university even if they are academically capable of it.
My step-dad is from the same Uni generation as Mr. Blair
He was the son of a Coal Miner from weston coyne, he got into Oxford Uni, early 1970's His grant then was approx £2K a year.... a LOT of money back then, in 1994 when I went to uni my student grant was £2K , which after my rent was paid left me with £10 a week and half of that went on bills.
when I was at uni, the average medical student left Uni. with debts of £20K back then it was not a viable prospect for the average school leaver, this leaving that area of the medical proffession closed to all but those with well of parents, where is the fairness in that.
IMHO we should be going for a system like the australians use a Graduate Tax, where they are not put into huge amounts of bedt, with the pressures & stresses that this brings, put once earning pay an extra little %age of tax.
There are MANY proffessions that are essential in a modern western society that require a Degree, why are we taking these away from the average school leaver who is more than capable of getting a degree.
|
|
|
|
Post by harrythepotter on Jan 27, 2004 16:56:08 GMT
A tax such as the Australian system would be a better option definitely agree, although I do think that the people who benefit from graduates in society should fund them ie The State, businesses AND the graduates themselves.
In saying that I would be quite happy for a higher percentage of state money go towards funding hgher education PROVIDING that the amount of mickey mouse degrees were scaled down. There are too many people entering the workplace with a degree in Sports Studies for example (no disrispect to anyone with that degree) and not enough skilled workers out there.....
|
|
|
|
Post by IlfordDave1975 on Jan 27, 2004 17:08:04 GMT
oh I agree mate, far too many mickey mouse degree's
trouble with the current system & the future proposals is that it penalizes everyone.
I'm still paying £88 a month to pay off my student loans, even though I could get an defirment as I don't really earn enough, but I'm sick off all the paperwork invloved and just want rid of it....
My student loan has been sold to a private company, who get on your case all the time, just what people need.
I'm considering returning to Uni. to complete my degree, and it wasn't a mickey mouse subject either, there is a real shortage of Physics teachers, so I may go back and finish my Bsc in applied physics, then do a PGCE, but the debt required to do that, even if I do it part-time and carry on working is troubling me.
|
|
|
|
Post by BigDick on Jan 27, 2004 19:10:59 GMT
My old man was a farm labourer so we didn't have much money. I was able, through the grant system, to go to Uni and get a degree. Now I pay tax at 40%, surely this is my way of helping fund others? At the same time I have to find £1500 a year towards my daughters Uni costs and next year will have to start paying for my son as well. The current system is income tax in another form and after tonight will (probably) be even more so. Blair out  |
|
|
|
Post by owner on Jan 27, 2004 19:11:11 GMT
The problem with the legislation is that it doesn’t go nearly far enough. Nothing short of a commitment to a full privatization of higher education is needed. This would break up the government’s stranglehold, decentralize higher education, and open it to competition — as well as to a free marketplace of ideas. It would eliminate one piece of the huge educational bureaucracy of the government (which is now growing with the speed of a terminal cancer) and reduce it to a reasonable size. This would save the average peson huge amounts of money.
Being academically capable of attending university does not give anyone the right to commandeer the power of government to force others to pay for his education. If a society benefits from his being educated then that society justly rewards him as he produces the best goods and services at the best prices once he graduates. Until that time if he cannot afford the cost of education, then someone can fund him, such as his family, a business that relies on graduates, or the university. But, what about those who can find no such funding? Then, if society benefits from an individual’s graduation private firms are willing to provide loans that he can pay off as his rewards from society are achieved. It is for the individual to decide whether he wants to attend university based on the rewards he receives upon graduation; not on the state’s ideas of being academically capable, social class, nor its perverse notions of the value to the “public good”.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Jan 27, 2004 19:27:53 GMT
If HE was privatized would that not mean that places like Nottingham and Loughborough would charge more in the way of fees in order to get the cream of the crop from private schools, thus leaving the likes of me to go to Staffs or somewhere not thought to be as good.
I got lost in your second paragraph so maybe I should be at Staffs anyway! Nothing wrong with Staffs Uni by the way, just that it is nationally considered to be a worse university than Loughborough where I am, and I wanted to get away from Stoke-on-Trent for a few years.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2004 20:12:41 GMT
I'm sure there are people on the MB that are more qualified than myself to speak on this subject, since I don't know a great detail of what the government is proposing. I understand that the general gist of the Bill is that Universities will be allowed to put a price on their institution, and the fear is that an elite system willbe created.
Now like Pricey, I was at Loughborough, and as one of the better institutions it will naturally be in a higher price bracket. But where does this initial payment come from? I know that my parents wouldn't (and didn't) financially support me so I relied on the fact that coming from a low income family, I was means tested. Because of that system I had the full LOAN and didn't have to pay any tuition fees, as these were paid by the Local Education Authority. If the same system is in place, but with the tuition fees for example being the variable between the different institutions, then surely I'd still have been able to go to Loughborough University? Or if the fee of the Higher Education is paid post graduation, then that would mean more debt once earning an income of my own? Would that have genuinely been a barrier to me gaining access into the University initially though? Sure, it would have made me think more about going to such a Uni as Loughborough, but the system would still mean that I COULD go if I chose to do so? Lots of questions I know, but like I say I don't know enough about the details of the proposals.
Anyway, the problem comes from the fact that the government has made this ridiculous promise (the one that they seem so determined to keep for some strange reason) is to ensure that 50% of 18 year olds go on to university education by the end of this decade. Now that is unbelieveable to me. There were a lot of people that went to University from my college that, as nice a people as they were and still are, weren't ready for Uni at all, and went simply because they didn't know what else to do and, 'well everyone else is'. The number of graduates packing pies is on the increase. They have all this debt but there simply is not a sufficient number of well paid jobs to support and reflect the number of graduates there are. Also, the amount of graduates sitting there with degrees such as 'Media with Agriculture' are huge, and can tend to demean the value of having a degree.
Anyway, rant over ;D
East Midlands Potter BSc
|
|
|
|
Post by owner on Jan 27, 2004 20:20:19 GMT
Pricey,
Most likely universities would charge similar rates to the US for an education of equal if not better standard and your ability to earn justified rewards would also be of a similar standard. In a privatized system profitability is the motivation. Profits come from fees, endowments from successful alumni, and profitable research. Thus, anyone considering attending a particular university can objectively see the effects of an education from there by the success of its graduates and its research, and judge himself whether it is worth the expense just as he judges whether a television is worth his money. A university that discriminates unjustly has little to offer those it favours, as it dooms itself to failure in the marketplace of ideas. A university that values good students promotes scholarships to fund those who can’t afford the fees. It prospers as those students produce life enhancing and profitable research, and others earn high incomes in the world of business, many choose to reward the university with financing or to sponsor new students.
Those universities you consider not to be very good would be far better when they become free to decide their own outcome.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 27, 2004 20:24:48 GMT
Blair won the vote by a landslide!!! Well a whole 5 votes anyway |
|
|
|
Post by hesamentalist on Jan 27, 2004 22:19:55 GMT
Owner,
Having seen things from the other side, I can tell you that the Universities are a bunch of money-grabbing ársewipes.
Only 7 higher education institutions have said that they will offer courses costing less than the maximum amount.
Nottingham University, are one of the ones pushing for these fees due to funding shortfalls. One of the reasons for these shortfalls is that there used to be private funding for certain halls of residence - on the understanding that 90% of it's residents were from private school backgrounds. This agreement has obviously had to be scrapped.
Compare this new-found poorness with a couple of years ago. The first year that the current top-up fee system was introduced, they spent £500000 on campus landscaping work including putting little brass plaques on 250 trees.
Unfortunately, they are not unique in their ways. The bursars of these sorts of places are not the most grounded of people. I don't believe that giving them more funding and more freedom is going to stop them wasting money.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Jan 27, 2004 22:48:23 GMT
I tell you I lost you in your previous message so you reel out that lot...holy moly...  |
|
|
|
Post by haj23scfc on Jan 27, 2004 23:09:07 GMT
Its a bad day for higher education. Its not just the "making students pay" bit which is important although I believe the taxpayer should do because graduates benefit society.
Firstly this bill will create a market in universities where people will choose courses by price and not on academic grounds which is riddiculous!
The poor students are fine, they get grants, as are the rich sudents whos parents earn over £50,000 because they can afford. Its the ordinary people in "Middle England" who will suffer from this.
The office of fair access will put pressure on university admission tutors to select students from poor backgrounds and therefore parental income will affect university places and not academical ability!
Students wont stay on to do PHDs and masters because it means more debt too! Also no bank is going to give anyone a mortgage/loan with such debt!
We shouldnt be encouraging young people to enter adult life with debt either.
The government want more people to go to university - WHY?! there are too many people. If they want more money then they should get rid of crap courses like Beckham studies and hair and beauty!
The universities say they need more money but yet go round some unis and new buildings go up every week and they should save money by cutting down crap courses and places.
It is so stupid and will kill higher education and its dying as it is. Labour won't even give the money to the unis but keep it as another way to get money without raising taxes.
Sorry for my long rant but I am very annoyed about this and I want to setthe record straight so people dont just think this bill is about making students pay.
Cheers, Haj
|
|
|
|
Post by owner on Jan 27, 2004 23:15:57 GMT
HesAMentalist,
Universities will forever be “money-grabbing ársewipes” while they are in the shackles of government. When free they become virtuously “money-grabbing”; virtuous because they earn their money through voluntary exchange for mutual benefit.
“Only 7” shows that this legislation doesn’t go nearly far enough towards what it claims to address: the under funding of higher education.
Just as you are free to do what you like with your money, so the universities should be. The government forcing them to make the “right” decisions when spending their money is as immoral as forcing you to spend your money on whatever the state deems is “right”. Freeing the market for higher education prevents wastage as the universities can spend their rightful and earned wealth on what they see fit (and they are in better position to judge) and simultaneously the government can no longer waste other people’s money on something it is in no position to judge. What a university spends its money on is a matter for it and it alone. If the market thinks it is wastage the university changes or fails. As in any other free market the best run win. As it is now a university can spend what it likes with no responsibility to anyone, knowing that the government, with unlimited money, can bail them out.
Note, I don’t propose that anyone should give universities more funding; my argument is the opposite. I want them to earn their money in a free market.
Pricey,
My basic message is that it is immoral to force money from one person (tax payer) to fund another (student/university), and that the government has no right to support this nor to enforce it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Jan 27, 2004 23:16:17 GMT
Well I think my family are amongst those in 'Middle England', can you give me an idea of the annual household income for that bracket please haj?
I'm alright because I started this year, but my brother wants to be a doctor (already down from a vet because that costs even more) and I heard on the radio yesterday that at graduation he could owe in the region of £60,000 with the top-up fees which is an absolute disgrace and could stop him achieving his dreams.
|
|
|
|
Post by haj23scfc on Jan 27, 2004 23:21:35 GMT
Estimated debt for a doctor will be £64,000 but in all fairness they are guaranteed a job which earns a lot of money.
Its between £18,000-£40,000 really. I think the grant is for anyone whos parents earn under £15 or 18,000
Paul Farrelly (Newcastle-under-Lyme Labour MP) made an excellent point today saying a family who had 3 children who all went to uni but their family earned £20,000ish then they would be in big financial trouble.
|
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Jan 27, 2004 23:32:19 GMT
Yeah, 'Middle England' then, at the lower end as well unfortunately (I'm sure my dad would kill me if he knew I was saying this but it's not like I'm revealing the exact figure is it?).
I'm just trying to be as careful with my money as possible, if anything so they can help my brother get through higher education smoothly. I'm doing BSc Communication and Media Studies for 3 years so hopefully it won't be too bad, and my parents haven't been put out of pocket too much yet because I'm using my loan and wages from the summer to pay for everything.
At the slightest hint of my parents being financially stretched by my being at Loughborough I'll be out of here.
|
|
sand
Lads'n'Dads
Posts: 81 
|
Post by sand on Jan 28, 2004 0:08:29 GMT
Gutted at the vote result tonight.
Obviously there's been an awful lot of arm twisting and threats to get that kind of result. Stinks.
I'm looking at this as the parent of a second year student. He wanted to go to London, thankfully he didn't and went to Yorkshire, still costing a fortune though. We pay a considerable amount for him to be there, both in fees and rent, he works to get a reasonable social life and pay for transport to and from Uni and eat there (but that's another story). He will still leave there with debt, thankfully no credit cards - yet. It breaks my heart.
However, he isn't worried by the threat of debt, he is surrounded by people in the same if not worse position, who all feel the same. What the hell is going on? 20 years old and more debt than I would dream of, yet it seems perfectly acceptable to them all. What kind of culture is that? I must be getting old.
Now I can look forward to the next few years...and the terrifying thought that we could well have another three going to university at the same time. I'm so proud of our kids and want the very best for them, but at what price?
Tony Blair, no doubt you will drink to your success tonight, I hope it chokes you.
sand
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jan 28, 2004 8:22:54 GMT
The Australian system of a Graduate Tax, would, as Ilford Dave says, be much better. Not very different to the present proposals at first glance but psychologically much better for prospective students and their parents because it doesn't involve a lump of debt (ie money owed to the government sitting over the graduate's head for years after graduation.
I will reluctantly agree with the government on one point only - the actual cost of a University Degree these days, especially in the sience and technology subjects, is hugely more than it was in my day because of the increased cost of equipment which had not even been invented years ago. Another point is that many lecturer's in some subjects have woken up to the fact that they would be able to earn higher salaries outside education. To keep them in the Universities the question of those salaries needs to be addressed. The days of people becoming teachers/lecturers because they couldn't hack it in the outside world are long gone.
So something had to be done as raising general taxation would have upset as many people as the present poropsals.
The best choices would have been either a "higher earners tax" (on say salaries over £100k) and/or a graduate tax. The present proposals come a poor third and I can't for the life of me see why Blair has gone down this road.
|
|
|
|
Post by telfordstokie on Jan 28, 2004 8:45:51 GMT
The main trouble is that all the unis will charge the maximum price because if they don't they will be seen as crap (and will be because they won't have any money). The worst thing about it is that most Labour Mps disagreed with it but just voted for it becuse they want tobe in Tonys good books
|
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jan 28, 2004 8:52:02 GMT
Not sure that they wanted to be in Tony's good books - more like they know a defeat would have put the long term survival of a labour Government in question. Blair would have won a vote of no confidence if he had lost last night - but his chances at the next election would have been damaged. Strange when voting to ditch a manifesto promise is seen as the best option for survival.  |
|
|
|
Post by hesamentalist on Jan 28, 2004 11:21:09 GMT
People are already starting to take tuition abroad - especially in places like India.
A 64K debt is hadly going to encourage Doctors to train over here is it? Even if they do earn a relatively good wage (which I would say is debatable at the junior level) they will still be paying it back when their own children start University.
On top of huge mortgages and providing your own pension, it looks bleak for the young professionals of the future. Recession anyone ???
|
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Jan 28, 2004 11:30:22 GMT
Tesco and McDonalds anyone?
|
|
|
|
Post by sheffieldstokie on Jan 28, 2004 14:14:11 GMT
I've been at Sheffield Uni for 6 years now, so feel I'm qualified to say something on this. I did a masters in Chemistry as my degree, and ideally wanted to go to imperial college, but couldn't afford. In a way I'm glad though, because I've really enjoyed sheffield. I'm now doing Ph.D researching towards ways of replacing skin, for example in patients with 40% or more burns etc. which I believe will benefit lots of people some day.
With the new system students will be coming out with massive debts - up to 64K for doctors. not long ago you could get a descent house for that!! Repayments will start at 15K wages. When tax and everything is taken into account though, even earning 15K people will be paying out 42% of this. Now take into account a mortgage, and car repayments and it doesn't leave a lot! I would certainly think twice about going to uni now! Luckily I missed out on the worst of it.
The thing that really gets my back up though, is some of the other spending. PC brigade may want to stop reading now. Illegal immigrants and asylum seekers. Now I have no problem with legitimate cases at all, especially with people whoa re willing to work. But the area of sheffield I live in has plenty of asians who certainly don't work and claim how much money? Also people claiming dole money constantly. I understand that people get layed off work and need an income but I know people who have lived off the dole and job seekers for years on end.
Sorry for boring anyone, bu these are my views. so there.
|
|
|
|
Post by Coll40 on Jan 28, 2004 15:55:03 GMT
I've got 2 kids in High school and i'm dreading it. One wants to be a marine biologist, the other is undecided, but wants to go to university. I've got an endowment maturing around the same time, that should give them 5k each, then i'm buggered |
|
|
|
Post by Lakeland Potter on Jan 28, 2004 16:13:25 GMT
Coll, £5k is more than many students get from their parents so don't feel you haven't done your bit.
We might see the one who wants to be a Marine Biologist studying down here in Plymouth one day then? I will have left to live ooop north again by then though!
|
|
|
|
Post by Pricey on Jan 29, 2004 13:19:27 GMT
To the top for staffsstokie.
|
|
|
|
Post by Widget123 on Jan 29, 2004 13:44:20 GMT
for me its sad that so many young people start their employed lives in mountains of debt. i graduated three years ago and still owe the government about 8500quid i've paid off my over draft of 2000quid in the first two years after graduating. and a credit card which had 800quid on it. i'm not earning a bad salary so i can afford to do so. and i worked whilst not at university (easter, xmas & summer) on a bar doing 55hour weeks)but i do sympathise with graduates who for one reason or another dont find jobs with salarys which enable them to make the repayments.
I'm against "joke" courses like windsurfing or david beckham but its a sad day when the doctors, nurses and teachers of the future start their careers in the position the government has now put them in.
Widget.
|
|
|
|
Post by jaykaye on Jan 29, 2004 14:03:30 GMT
Those whose families are in a position to pay a little more should do, what’s more important, a new Range Rover to take the Poodle to the Vets or your kids education? I think the new tuition fees will be grant assisted and thus means tested. It won’t affect me though as I already have 25 masters degrees with distinction in almost every area of the education system, and since that bastard spider bit me I am infertile so I won’t be able to have kids. ;D
|
|
