|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Student fees - 'shameful, wrong and unfair'.
|
Ancient Mariner*
SOF Co-editor
# 105
|
Posted
Take part in our official SOF/Liverpool Hope University College research project
According to Frank Dobson, Labour MP in London, it is ‘shameful’ that a Labour government, that promised to make 'education, education, education' the focus of its reforms, is creating a ‘market’ for university places.
‘This idea is wrong and unfair,’ said Dobson recently on BBC News. ‘It's wrong in principle and wrong in practice.' Many agree with him and more protests are planned.
Now, in a special project between Liverpool Hope University College and the Ship, we want your opinion, from whatever country you are in, on an issue that affects most of us at sometime or other - as impoverished students (after the bar closes, at least) or financially-embarrassed parents.
Your views will form part of Hope students’ research and will act as a pilot for similar SOF projects in the future.
To get the ball rolling, ‘Pinky’, from Liverpool Hope, gives her opinion:
‘This academic year I am the only child of my parents in university and so the only person that has to pay tuition fees. However, next academic year this will change as my two siblings will be attending university where they will have to pay tuition fees. That is three tuition fees that have to be paid.
‘My parents earn too much to get any help with tuition fees. But the fact is that my parents have to contribute towards three tuition fees that reach the total of £3750 (US $5800). We will have to pay this as nowhere on the application forms does it question other siblings at university at one time. My parents will have to contribute as there is no way that our loans could cover the fees, rents and still have enough to live on for basic things such as food.’
So... what do you think? Are students fees a necessary evil? Are comfortably-off, middle-class parents bleating too much again? Are student fees the fairest way to generate funds for investment and expansion in higher education? Or will a Labour government watch as working-class families turn their backs on higher education for fear of getting into long-term debt?
Over to you...
[ 08. January 2006, 22:01: Message edited by: Erin ]
Posts: 1087 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Black Labrador
Shipmate
# 3098
|
Posted
Student fees are a disgrace. Students leaving university can now be £20k in debt. What sort of incentive to a higher education is that - particularly to people from working class backgrounds?
Part of the problem is the government's over expansion of higher education - aiming to have 50% of people with degrees. In my view this is unnecessary - it leads to masses of overqualified people with heavy debt. Better to return to the days of 20% graduates and no tuition fees.
Posts: 629 | From: London | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Laura
General nuisance
# 10
|
Posted
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the situation are, I recommend that anyone who cares about this issue in the UK fight changes beyond minimal fees payments tooth and nail, because I can tell you where you're headed. I don't know the average, but US students at private universities typically pay between $25,000 a year and $39,000 a year in tuition and fees. If parents haven't got trust funds they set up at the birth of the kids, that money is largely borrowed. Grants are generally only available to the most impoverished. I know many students now graduate from US colleges up to $100,000 in debt. I can't imagine how a person with a degree in Anglo-Saxon literature is going to repay that. Therefore, the cost pressures students both not to attend college, but also to pursue only those fields likely to enable them to repay these loans.
--------------------
Love is the only sane and satisfactory answer to the problem of human existence. - Erich Fromm
Posts: 16883 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I dislike fee's and do worry that some income groups are disadvantaged by them despite the fact that you don't have to pay them below a certain income threshold. The idea that some universities should be allowed to charge up to £4K (I believe) is not one I support because it will create a two-tier system with those with rich mummies and daddies becoming advantaged over those without them regardless of ability.
However, universities are desperately underfunded so something has to be done. Personally, I feel that a graduate tax would be a much, much fairer way of doing things together with the abandonment of false governmental targets. Those who are able to benifit from a university education and wish to do so should be allowed to but not everyone is or does.
Also, the "mickey mouse" courses should be closed. I mean by this the courses such as "decision making", "circus arts", "manchester united" and other such pointless escapades.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
I forgot to say that I personally know people (friends of mine) whose parents are expected to contribute towards the finacial cost of their education but don't - leaving my friends forced to flip burgers and pull pints when they need to study. Not Good.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
richt
Shipmate
# 4679
|
Posted
I believe Pinky may be mistaken with regards to the means testing process not taking into account other siblings at university. It certainlly did when I started university, and from talking to my brother-in-law I believe it does now.
I've thought long and hard on the subject of top-up fees and I think I've decided they're probably the best solution. I know I would have moaned about them when I was an undergraduate, as no-one likes paying £1000+ a year for something that was previouslly free (i.e. funded by the taxpayer). However, I know that fees certainlly wouldn't have put me off going to university, as it's common knowledge that your earning potential is significantly increased by having a degree.
I also know that the fees impact hardest on the (lower) middle-classes (as those from working-class backgrounds are usually exempt), a group which is put upon by both Labour and Tory governments and probably deserves a bit of a break, and that this puts pressure on both parents and students. However, I think it only fair that those who benefit from a degree should have to make at least a small direct contribution towards funding it.
P.S. Does this count as a homework thread? Seems a bit of a con having the students getting people to post on here instead of carrying out a proper survey.
Posts: 121 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pânts*
Ship's underwear
# 4487
|
Posted
i think there are too many graduates and too many people being allowed to go to uni. access to uni should be on academic ability. a degree seems to mean far less nowdays simply cos so many people get them. there are too many graduates for the number of jobs availible and graduates often end up 'wasting' getting a degree. it think it should be a limited number on academic ability, possibly supported by grants if neccesarly for families on lower income.
as richt says, in theory if you get a degree you have more of a chance of getting a higher paid job.
--------------------
I'm not here any more. Dial 999 to get me. (No. Please don't really. Bit you could PM me on my new number cos I never get PMs!)
Posts: 8380 | From: The Stables | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Bonzo
Shipmate
# 2481
|
Posted
Higher income tax at higher levels of income would be the best answer. People who have made a mint will, almost exclusively, have done so by benefiting from an educated society. We must allow people from all walks of life to achieve the highest standard of education in order to benefit us all.
--------------------
Love wastefully
Posts: 1150 | From: Stockport | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Yes Pants - but what counts as enough academic ability - esp considering that it is widely acknowleged that A-levels are not a reliable guide to university performance?
And student loans don't cover the basic cost of living btw.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
richt
Shipmate
# 4679
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
Student fees are a disgrace. Students leaving university can now be £20k in debt. What sort of incentive to a higher education is that - particularly to people from working class backgrounds?
Regarding the people who graduate with debts of 20k. The majority of people I've met graduating with such debts (medics and those on other long courses excluded) have done so due to leading a relatively extravagent lifestyle as students, buying laptops, minidiscs, etc., enabling the landlord of one of our locals to buy a Rolls-Royce, going surfing in mexico for 3 months, and so on. That's their decision - certainlly I'm not particularly shy of spending and managed to build up £6k of debts as an undergraduate (with minimal support from parents and working during summers). However, I know others who managed to get through university without taking out any student loans and with only very minimal financial support from their parents, so huge debts are not normally a necessary thing (as fees stand at the moment).
The government should ensure university is accessible by keeping fees reasonable and having support for those from poorer backgrounds. However, the tax-payer shouldn't be expected to support the relatively extravagent lifestyles which a significant proportion of students choose to take. A balance needs to be found somewhere.
Posts: 121 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ancient Mariner*
SOF Co-editor
# 105
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by richt: Does this count as a homework thread? Seems a bit of a con having the students getting people to post on here instead of carrying out a proper survey.
This is not a personal homework thread - and that is made clear at the top of the first post. It is a pilot project for other corporate academic initiatives in the future.
[ 17. November 2003, 17:42: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
Posts: 1087 | From: St Helens (near Liverpool) UK | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pânts*
Ship's underwear
# 4487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Yes Pants - but what counts as enough academic ability - esp considering that it is widely acknowleged that A-levels are not a reliable guide to university performance?
And student loans don't cover the basic cost of living btw.
something like a baccaulaurate (or however you spell it!!) but 'a' levels will do for the mean time. they show some committment to studying at least.
and student loans mightnt be far off, depending on how you spend them, and if you get a part time job too.
i agree with most of what richt is saying.
--------------------
I'm not here any more. Dial 999 to get me. (No. Please don't really. Bit you could PM me on my new number cos I never get PMs!)
Posts: 8380 | From: The Stables | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
richt
Shipmate
# 4679
|
Posted
Cool - thanks for clearing that up. I wasn't sure as I couldn't see how it links directly with the ship.
By the way, can I post up some corporate academic initiatives of my own... ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 121 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
well, I got A-level grades A, B, C. So I assume that counts as proving my right to be at uni?
The thing that does concern me is that students with tough home-lives may find it very much harder to get "good" grades then those whose situation is fairly stable and whose parents encourage hard studying. While it is not the job of the academy to change the world it is true that the former group of students are not always less intelligent than the latter.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
The Canadian experience may be somewhat different in that much of the university costs are paid by the governments through taxes. Taxes being progressive (whereby higher earning people pay a higher rate than lower earning people) are mostly raised from the wealthier residents. Our tuition fees are lower than those in the USA. University tuitions here have, nonetheless, risen over the years. My experience was in late 70s and early 80s, but I expect it is not that different now.
My parents were not middle-class. While growing up we did not feel like it, but we were certainly in the lower-class (in terms of income) - probably at or below the poverty line if you consider todays methods of determining such a line.
I have 3 siblings. My older sister graduated from university the year before my brother started. I started the next year, and my younger sister the year after that. Thus, for 2 years, 3 of us were in university at the same time. We did recieve some government grants, but mostly loans, for our education - it would not have been possible without them. Even at that, the grants and loans certainly not cover the entire costs of our education. In fact, I chose a co-operative program so that I could work every other four-month term to help pay my tuition and living costs. We each graduated with significant debt. While my debt was interest free until six-months after graduation, and then avaiable at bank prime, in 1982 that was about 17%.
When applying for government assistance, they did not consider how many children of the family were in university - I know because I dealt with them directly in my final year, being quite broke, and desparately not wanting to drop out with four months to go. The bank was more than pleased to lend me $2,000 to finnish the term, at the generous rate of 23.75% (funny how I remember the exact rate over 20 years later).
Was it wrong for them to make me borrow (from the government and/or the bank) for my education? No, I do not think so. It helped teach me about money management, what essentials really were and what I could do without if I had to. I was fortunate that my career path turned in a positive way after 5 years of working, and I was able to pay off the debt within 10 years of graduation.
I guess for me it depends on how much you think you should have to struggle for what you want.
Some have commented that it might be difficult to pay off your debt if you took a degree in certain fields. True. But to me that is just a life choice - some can afford it and some cannot. Just as now I can afford a Volkswagon but not a Rolls Royce, then I could only afford to study that which could provide an adequate income stream to be able to pay off my debt.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
Most of the posts on this thread would make a lot more sense if it really were true that graduates have significantly greater earning potential, but that's not true, and it becomes less true every time the government try to get more people into higher education for its own sake.
Most of my friends - Cambridge graduates - have been unemployed for months and/or had to take low-paying jobs. It's not uncommon to be rejected from literally hundreds of jobs, and I don't mean
the kind of jobs which are out of our league. I'm earning less than my little sister, who has about one A-level.
I agree wholeheartedly that higher education should be for a minority. What is the justification for trying to get 50% of people into university, escept possibly as a temporary drain for the unemployed - hide them in universities? There are more graduates than graduate jobs, and having more graduates is not going to solve that problem.
Grr.
[ 17. November 2003, 18:37: Message edited by: Talitha ]
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
moverly
Shipmate
# 4658
|
Posted
Studying in a system where uni fees are the equivalent of £600 a year, I count myself rather lucky and am simply horrified at the idea of people having to incur massive debts just to get an education in the area their talents are in. Here, parents are legally obliged to support their children financially (if they are able to) during their first professional education (i.e. apprenticeship, degree, whatever). And as most people have a realistic option for studying their course within commuting distance of their parents' home, the financial burden can be reduced a bit more. But that's just here.
IMHO, if the state is to effectively give students tertiary education for next to nothing (which I think it should), it should be able to expect a certain performance and seriously take people to task who drag their feet and spend 8-9 years on their first degree (not an uncommon thing here). In other words, the state should invest, but do careful quality control, too, as the money they're spending doesn't just get pulled out of a hat.
To address the criticism that students use their student loans etc. to have a lot of luxury: that often happens at the expense of things many people would take for granted; so if a student sits around in a freezing flat all winter because they're in a cheap dig with dodgy heating and little insulation, and also lives off spaghetti with tomato sauce and does without a television (saving license fees and all that), then who am I to blame them for treating themself to a decent holiday? (possibly staying at a cheap and cheerful backpackers' anyway) In my experience, those students that really lash out are often still living in Hotel Mama and have their own summer job earnings to play with, or else wadfulls of Dad's cash, certainly not state money.
Posts: 293 | From: in a hilly land | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
Again, who dictates who is and isn't going to get to uni? you?
Exam grades.
I know it's far from perfect. There would be inevitable unfairness. Maybe they could counteract it by discriminating slightly in favour of kids from schools which get bad grades.
But even with its imperfections, it would be better than the present system, in which the unqualified suffer because they're not qualified and far too many others are, and the qualified suffer because there's nothing to distinguish them from the other 50% of the population competing for 10% of the jobs.
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
just to clear up a misconception here. My loan for this year is about three and a half grand.
my rent for the nine moths is just over 2 grand.
This leaves me just over a grand for food, books, clothes. travel, beer, electricity, gas, phone, tv license and any number of other incidentals.
Hardly the life of riley is it?
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
Most of the posts on this thread would make a lot more sense if it really were true that graduates have significantly greater earning potential, but that's not true, and it becomes less true every time the government try to get more people into higher education for its own sake.
Most of my friends - Cambridge graduates - have been unemployed for months and/or had to take low-paying jobs. It's not uncommon to be rejected from literally hundreds of jobs, and I don't mean
the kind of jobs which are out of our league. I'm earning less than my little sister, who has about one A-level.
Based on your profile, you are 22 years old. Give it time. Nothing comes that quickly. Unemployed for months is not the end of the world, nor is your little sister making more than you. Give it another 10 or 20 years and see where it gets you. You are not likely yet where you have the potential to be.
My starting job out of university paid less than a worker on the production line at General Motors. After 2 years, I tool a job that paid 10% less than that due to a glut in the market in my field. I felt much the same way then, too.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
This leaves me just over a grand for food, books, clothes. travel, beer, electricity, gas, phone, tv license and any number of other incidentals.
Travel, beer and tv listed in your essentials? Sorry, I cannot have much sympathy.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Papio
Ship's baboon
# 4201
|
Posted
Wasn't asking for any and travel means going home to see my family over christmas. Just pointing out that loans are not too over-generous for the benifit of those who thought they were.
--------------------
Infinite Penguins.
My "Readit, Swapit" page
My "LibraryThing" page
Posts: 12176 | From: a zoo in England. | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tom Day
Ship's revolutionary
# 3630
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Black Labrador:
Student fees are a disgrace. Students leaving university can now be £20k in debt. What sort of incentive to a higher education is that - particularly to people from working class backgrounds?
There is a fundamental difference between student fees and Student loans. Fees contribute to the debt but are not the main part of it.
I can see the need for students to have loans - as I think that it is a fair way of utilising the countries money (and I have just finished uni with over £15000 of debt so I'm not just saying this)
However tuitio fees have always hit a nerve with me - partly because the £1000 (ish) that you do pay is hardly anything of the money that is spent on you. It is almost a token amount. I hope they do not introduce top-up fees, although that will hit middle England more than anyone else due to the fact that there looks like there is going to be quite a lot of means testing on them.
Tom
--------------------
My allotment blog
Posts: 6473 | From: My Sofa | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pânts*
Ship's underwear
# 4487
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Papio:
just to clear up a misconception here. My loan for this year is about three and a half grand.
my rent for the nine moths is just over 2 grand.
This leaves me just over a grand for food, books, clothes. travel, beer, electricity, gas, phone, tv license and any number of other incidentals.
Hardly the life of riley is it?
no-one ever said it would be. youre there primarily to study. you chose to do it. you knew what it would be like.
--------------------
I'm not here any more. Dial 999 to get me. (No. Please don't really. Bit you could PM me on my new number cos I never get PMs!)
Posts: 8380 | From: The Stables | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Travel, beer and tv listed in your essentials? Sorry, I cannot have much sympathy.
This does rather reflect the changing attitudes to being a student from when I was at university, and that was only a few years ago. Then gaining an academic qualification was only part of the experience of being at university.
There was, for a start, an opportunity to broaden ones horizons. This would include living away from home for the first time, which would require travel to/from home at vacation times. Also meeting new friends gives the opportunity to travel to meet them at their homes etc.
Then, there's a social life. Student societies are a great opportunity for people to take up responsible positions - in leadership or just helping freshers settle in. This, inevitably, involves time in bars drinking beer (usually, fine malt whisky being too expensive).
I'll grant that a TV isn't essential.
Of course, with increasing financial loads many students are being forced to forgo such fringe benefits. Many more choose a local university where they can stay with their parents. Many take up part time jobs thus removing the free time to be involved in student societies. It's turning universities into academic production lines rather than opportunities to become rounded adults.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Pânts*
Ship's underwear
# 4487
|
Posted
i didnt think students had tv licences! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
I'm not here any more. Dial 999 to get me. (No. Please don't really. Bit you could PM me on my new number cos I never get PMs!)
Posts: 8380 | From: The Stables | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Give it another 10 or 20 years and see where it gets you. You are not likely yet where you have the potential to be.
I'm not going to say that's not true, because I can't know. But it is based on a knowledge of what has happened to people who graduated 10 or 20 years ago from today, and they are still in a minority among their generation. 20 years from now I will still be one of a huge surplus of '02 graduates...
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
The Australian situation is that we used to have free tertiary education (Bring back Gough!), but now have a Higher Education Contribution Scheme (HECS) (there was another small fixed upfront scheme called Higher Education Administration Fee (?) of about $500 that lasted a couple of years). I believe in free secular education for all, but as this seems impossible in the economic rationalist climate; HECS while having some injustices is a workable implementation of Tertiary Fees - if you are willing to take the short term hits, tertiary education is still accessible.
(Oz$1 = US$0.71 = GBP 0.42 - wow! exchange rates have climbed!)
It has a scale of fees (just roughly) $2200 for Arts/Teaching courses; $5200 for Science/Engineering courses; $6-7000 for Medicine/Law courses.
The good thing ( ![[Tear]](graemlins/tear.gif) ) about it, is that the 'contributions' can be can be deferred until one starts earning a certain level of income (about $25,000), except that it is indexed at the inflation rate; so is effectively a loan (and is written up as such in the deferral agreement you sign).
I believe it has adversely affected the participation in tertiary education of ppl in lower socio-economic groups. For someone who has lived on not very much, you look at the tertiary fees and think: 'Liberal arts, what's the point of doing that, won't make me any more employable so it is a wasted $7,000. Science, $15,000 and not really going to make me much more employable that Arts. Engineering, Law, Medicine: Now we're talking. Except the aggregate to get into these is substantially higher, so that disadvantaged students who are already behind the 8-ball have less chance of getting the high scores. And the short term opportunity cost starts coming into play: $20,000 - $40,000 that's a new car or a deposit on a home...
At present I owe $10,000 with no hope of paying it back (this does cause some financial anxiety), except that I am looking to do some more study in the hope of improving my circumstances, which will run me up another $21,000 and no guarantee of employment at the end of it. On the bright side, if you die with a taxable income less than the repayment threshold the debt dies also, it's not taken out of your estate.
Another ethical injustice of HECS is that rich people who can afford to pay the 'contribution' upfront receive a 25% discount on it! This means that those who have to defer the fee are effectively subsidising the cost of education for the people who are most able to pay for it!
A spin off from the user-pays education system, is that the government is allowing institutions to provide full-fee paying courses to local students (as opposed to the already available ones for overseas students) - I'm not sure about this, but I believe anything over the HECS charge goes straight down the Institutions gullet, so the institutions are clamouring for it. What it means is, the less academically able (or wastrels heh!), but wealthy students can bypass the minimum entry standards ie. if they are not offered a place on merit, they can buy one. (The saying: 'At Uni you get the cream, rich and thick' is becoming true. Again.)
Hence: Student fees - 'shameful, wrong and unfair' - all of the above. Unfair: Education is disparately contributed to by poorer students over richer students. Shameful: Education is no longer valued for its own sake or for modernist values of improving the common weal. Our equitable (Oz = Everyone gets a fair go) society is being eroded and barriers to tertiary participation are created for the most disadvantaged. Wrong: Education is moving away from merit-based to market-based.
[Note: the above is only loosely structured and isn't meant to be academic quality writing]
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This does rather reflect the changing attitudes to being a student from when I was at university, and that was only a few years ago. Then gaining an academic qualification was only part of the experience of being at university.
My parents both went to university in the early 1960s (Westfield - now QMW, and Middlesex Hospital, now part of UCL) and their experience, interestingly enough, was quite different. They both got grants of course, but these were designed to cover basics not luxuries which included things like beer and more than the essential items of clothing. The social life was basic. A car? Forget it!
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Adeodatus
Shipmate
# 4992
|
Posted
I believe (a) that asking young people to go into debt is indeed shameful, and furthermore that (b) the government is guilty of deceit in its reasons for imposing this burden.
The government claims it's ok to do this because 'graduates get better-paid jobs' and that therefore the students are 'investing in their own future'.
BUT - I remember once sitting in a trafiic jam listening to the radio while a politician was going through the statistics. And if his figures were correct, I quickly worked out that in an average working lifetime, a graduate pays about £80000 more in income tax than does a non-graduate - far more than their university education cost. So really, the students aren't investing in their own future at all: they're giving up 3 or 4 years of their life to invest in their country's future. The politicians should be ashamed. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"What is broken, repair with gold."
Posts: 9779 | From: Manchester | Registered: Sep 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Toby
Shipmate
# 3522
|
Posted
Here in NZ there were no fees back in my mother's day but now pay about $4-5000 NZ (higher for things like medicine and dentistry) for tuition alone. One of the suggestions that comes up fairly often from the student community is the idea of a universal student allowance, as student allowances are restricted to those whose households have a very minimal income (I have a friend whose single mum works as a teacher, which is not the most well paid profession here (around $35-40000/year maybe?) and who does not qualify because she earns too much). My parents earn far too much for me to get an allowance, yet they are not in a position to financially support my studies other than by giving me a small loan last year, which is more than most are able/willing to do, I imagine.
Living at home and being relatively fortunate with work and scholarships, I have mostly eluded debt, but it is a huge problem with many of my peers. And I suspect that those who squander their debt on overseas holidays and extraordinarily expensive cellphones and cars are a very small minority - I sure don't know any in this supposedly widespread group.
I think it is unfair to restrict university entrance too much, as there are many people for whom high school was really, really bad. Many people just hated high school. But when some of them get to uni they find a subject that they love and discover that they really do enjoy studying it. The academic who is (arguably) New Zealand's best historian apparently did fairly badly at school, but now churns out very well written and insightful historical texts. Giving university places only to those who do well at school exams can mean a lot of people missing out. (But by all means, we do need to give out more scholarships here) ![[Smile]](smile.gif) .
--------------------
'Civilization is only savagery silver-gilt'
Allan Quartermain
Posts: 99 | From: Aotearoa/New Zealand | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sir George Grey:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
This does rather reflect the changing attitudes to being a student from when I was at university, and that was only a few years ago. Then gaining an academic qualification was only part of the experience of being at university.
My parents both went to university in the early 1960s (Westfield - now QMW, and Middlesex Hospital, now part of UCL) and their experience, interestingly enough, was quite different. They both got grants of course, but these were designed to cover basics not luxuries which included things like beer and more than the essential items of clothing. The social life was basic. A car? Forget it!
What was different? The expectation that there was more to university than getting a good degree (ie: that the social interactions and chance to stretch themselves in more areas than academia was considered important ... things like involvement in sports, being part of a band, helping to run a student paper ...)? Or that money was tight?
Money has always been tight ... in fact learning how to stretch a limited budget to cover essentials such as housing, food and books while still being able to have a life is one of those non-academic abilities gained. Though, ironically, with mounting debt and loans it may actually be a life lesson learnt less often rather than more ... if you know you're leaving uni with £10k debt you're less inclined to budget carefully, you're just walking straight into the consumer-debt culture of personal loans and credit cards. If, however, with a bit of effort and self-will you've a realistic chance of leaving university with no debt then people are more likely, IMO, to be careful about their spending.
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Irish & Proud
Shipmate
# 4825
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by sharkshooter:
Travel, beer and tv listed in your essentials? Sorry, I cannot have much sympathy.
Not all students live within walking distance to their lectures. Travel could be getting the bus to & from college every day.
Beer & TV. Whilst not essentials surely people are allowed to have a life. People go to college to learn life experience as well as academic study. They are not trappist monks!
I agree with all of the above about the vast number of students in this country. The government has created a switch for its own back by setting targets of 50% of school leavers to go into higher education. As a result we now have a fundamental skills shortage in industries such as building or plumbing. In addition to that the tax burden is too big for the government to bear, so students are facing increased levels of debt.
As a Christian I have to ask myself the question, is it morally right to condemn large sections of the population to live under the bondage of large amounts of debt. Personal debt in this country is by all accounts spiralling out of control. Rumours are rife that the economy could collapse as a result. And our government want to add to this more so by forcing parents and children to take out substantial loans
Can we not do this discussion in hell? I'm having to hold back!
Posts: 221 | From: Somewhere with not enough rain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Irish & Proud:
Can we not do this discussion in hell? I'm having to hold back!
This thread is being run under the normal rules for the Ship. Thus, if you want to rant about this subject you're more than welcome to open a new thread in Hell to do so.
Alan
Purgatory host
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
richt
Shipmate
# 4679
|
Posted
I think the key point, is that there has to be a point where if people want additional education, they have to at least partly fund it themselves. Education is completely free up to A-Levels (age 18) and is currently approx. £1000 a year up to undergraduate level (or postgraduate level if you do a MMath or one of those other 4 year courses they offer). This isn't exactly the largest contribution in the world and nothing like the true cost.
I know university is traditionally about more than just getting a degree, but I don't think it's the governments responsibility to pay for people to learn to live on their own, drink beer, play sports and so on. A living allowance isn't provided during pre-university education, so I don't see why the government should provide one to undergraduates. Should people choose to do all of the above whilst studying, the loans that are provided have extremely low interest rates (about 3%), beaten only by the interest free overdrafts (up to £2000). With regards to the loans, I'm not sure if matters have changed in the few years since I graduated, but you only have to start paying them off once you reach a threshould, which for me is about £23000 (not sure of exact figure, but know I haven't reached it yet!).
The point is, the majority of students have a choice - go away to uni, take part in all the activities available to you (or just sit and drink!), and fund this through loans and vacation work. Alternatively, you could stay at home, go to a local university and work at weekends, and probably graduate debt free. I along with most other students chose the first option and I definately don't regret it.
On a related note, I was talking to our secretary - she's just graduated with a 2:1 (studying full-time), whilst working 4 days a week here, so has actually come out of university better off than she went in (and has valuable work experience).
Finally, I don't believe in the arguments that "the country needs graduates" for providing them with free education and living expenses - yes the country does need them to an extent, but there are now graduates way in excess of the Britains needs. It's supply and demand. In comparison, there is a shortage of qualified teachers, so you get £6000 to do a PGCE, with further incentives for shortage subjects.
Posts: 121 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
sophs
Sardonic Angel
# 2296
|
Posted
I think that part of the problem is the lack of knowlege about the top up fees. I am going through UCAS and hoping to study at Uni next year and went through the system last year. But i still don't know that much about the top up fees. At college we have had tutorial about all manner of silly things but never a lecture on top up fees or practical tips for budgeting ect.
I'm not sure if the idea of leaving Uni will put people off going (it hasn't put me off) But it will dissadvantage some people.
Posts: 5407 | From: searching saharas of sorrow | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Astro
Shipmate
# 84
|
Posted
Ok a parent type set of rather rambling views
1) Most parents do like seeing their children get into debt but are OK about their children going to university. I got a grant however grants were means tested and some peoples grants were only £50 a year which did not buy much in even back in the 1970's. On the one hand the government is applalled at the level of personal debt yet here they are teaching 18-21 year olds to get into debt. OK so they do not have to start paying it off until they get a reasonable size income, but by then they are probably looking at buying a home and then considering another huge debt - the mortgage. And thene the government have the gall to maon that young people are not saving for their retirement. ![[Projectile]](graemlins/puke2.gif)
2) Tuition fees - these generally come from the parents, and if you have more than one child at university you pay more than one set of tuition fees - there is a very small allaowance for having mor ethan one child but most of the differnece comes in the parents having to make less contribution to their children's living cost - thus their children end up with larger loans!
Anyway it seems that job for which once O levels (school leaving exams for 16 year olds) were adequate now require degrees. If employers require univeristy graduates they should be prepared to pay for people to go to university.
3) it does seem a shame that there is peer group presuure to have so much stuff - overheard some students talking about broadband being essential - and of course if their student loans and overdrafts don't cover the cost of such stuff - then get a storecard ![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
4) for the person who thought that travel was a luxery - often living a bit further away from teh university costs less so having zero weekly travel costs could actually cost more because of the higher rent.
5) finally - I think it is a good experience for 18 year olds to get away from home and learn to be independant of their parents - I suppose once this was done (for the males anyway) by military service - I think that society as a whole gains from this - so although I am having to pay tuition fees and parental support for my children to get through university I do not resent the part of my taxes that goes to wards other people's children going through university.
--------------------
if you look around the world today – whether you're an atheist or a believer – and think that the greatest problem facing us is other people's theologies, you are yourself part of the problem. - Andrew Brown (The Guardian)
Posts: 2723 | From: Chiltern Hills | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
richt
Shipmate
# 4679
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Astro:
Anyway it seems that job for which once O levels (school leaving exams for 16 year olds) were adequate now require degrees. If employers require univeristy graduates they should be prepared to pay for people to go to university.
I think this is a result of there being a large number of graduates. The more graduates there are, the more employers are going to request graduates for any job that involves something slightly more complex than photocopying. (Which can be quite tricky sometimes )
Posts: 121 | From: Nottingham, England | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
anglicanrascal
Shipmate
# 3412
|
Posted
FWIW I am majorly opposed to University student grants and feel that student loans are a much better way of funding the education system. It irks me the way that uni students are constantly demanding free higher education.
The way I see it, if you want to take on further education to advance your career, then it's your responsibility. If you want to study business or commerce or computer science or phsychology so that you can earn three or four times as much as I ever will, then it's your responsibility to fund that kind of investment in your life and skills. Why should my taxes go to support someone else's professional development? My taxes shouldn't go towards buying someone else a second Mercedes and a swimming pool for their back yard. If you want a high-flying career, then it's up to you to fund it yourself.
If a University education isn't going to further your career, then I also think that you should pay for it yourself - it's not right that I should fork out to pay someone's education hobby.
The Australian government's system is a good one where, if you go to University, you pay back the student loan only when your salary gets to a decent level. The more you earn, the larger part of your salary is (I believe) used to pay back the loan.
Pax,
anglicanrascal
Posts: 3186 | From: Diocese of Litigalia | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
adsarf
Apprentice
# 4288
|
Posted
It's interesting to see contributions from people outside the UK. Generally the debate here recognises that there are universities in the UK and the USA, but not anywhere else, which is rather a limited view...
As of 2001/02 there were 90,135 students from other EU countries studying in the UK, about 5% of all students (there were 152,625 from outside the EU altogether, but we'll ignore them for purposes of this debate). Strip out the part time students, and the proportion goes up (oddly, French students are less likely than UK students to study at UK Universities part-time...) Under EU law, the UK must provide the same education to these students as to UK students, on the same terms. Whilst other EU coutries obviously do the same for British students, the British are too insular to take the option up in very large numbers (spend your years at University in the South of France or Italy maybe? Paid for by the French or Italian tax-payer? No it didn't appeal to me at the time either)
This is a real problem for graduate taxes. If these students go back home after they graduate, they no longer pay UK tax, but if they have taken out a UK loan, they still have to pay it. That's one important reason why a loan system is fairer than a graduate tax system.
The number of people qualified to go to University (which means basically people with A-levels) has risen continuously for more years than anyone can remember, and explosively after the invention of the GCSE. This is mainly because more people stay on at school now than formerly. Whilst the government spends less per student now than it did in the 1960s, the total spent on HE is vastly greater, which is why finding the money from general taxation is more of an issue now than it was then.
Fees are not, in practice, a very important issue since those who can't pay them generally don't have to, and there's little evidence that they put people off going to University either here or in other countries (like NZ) where they've been introduced. There's much better evidence that aversion to the debt needed to pay living costs puts a number of qualified students off attending University (but the vast majority of all qualified students attend University at some stage - at least in the UK). The current HE White Paper proposals wo'n't change that significantly. However, they may lead to greater differentiation between the 'Good' Universities (old, high-fees, attended by the privileged) and the 'Bad' universities (new, low-fees, attended by the poor). This wouldn't matter very much except that many employers are too impressed by the prestige of the University one attended to bother with finding out how much one learned there so this could strengthen patterns of elitism and discrimination which are already pretty strong in the UK. Speaking as an ex-Public school and Oxbridge white middle-class male, I naturally have mixed feelings about whether this is a Good Thing or not.
Another weakness in the current proposal is that universities will pay their own bursaries out of their own fee income, so the universities attended typically by the rich (e.g. Oxford) will have lots of money but few bursaries to pay, whilst others (e.g. Thames Valley) will have many disadvantaged students to support, but little fee income to do it with. This could lead to injustice if the moderately-poor (sons of vicars and the like) get a lot of help to go to Oxford, whereas the genuinely poor get little or no help.
In the UK we ration healthcare - its freely available at the point of use, but you have to wait to get it. With Higher Education we don't ration - you don't have to wait for your place because there isn't a fixed limit on places (although for a few years under the Thatcher government in the early 80s there was something close) but nor is it free at the point of use. Both are already expensive, and to make either both free and readily available would cost a lot of money. Questions of priorities.
Likewise, all the evidence is that HE tends to cement patternms of advantage and disadvantage. If you want to change someone's life chances through education, the earlier you spend money on it the better, so prioritising HE spending over pre-school or primary school (as we have historically in the UK) is not obviously the right priority either.
Sorry for such a long post, but the issues raised are genuinely complex. I hope at least a few people find it interesting
Posts: 24 | From: Hampshire | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jen.
Godless Liberal
# 3131
|
Posted
I am a final year student. for financial reasons I live at home and go to my local uni. this is £10 a week on bus fares. As it is impossible for me to travel home to get lunch, I eat lunch out, a refectory sarnie is around £2/3, and a coffe is 62p.
As i live at home i get a significantly reduced loan, around £40 a week.
Yes, my parents pay my fees for me, but I pay for food and contribution to rent etc. £40 a week is very little to live on, if I had to pay fees as well, i would be able to go to university.
I am 21, I am technically, legally an adult, so why are my parents expected to pay over £1000 a year on my behalf?
We are just over the threashold for my parents earing enough to pay my fees. There are forms and processes to find out people financial situation, but this does not take into account my sister who lives abroad and needs financial support from my parents.
As for 'top-up-fees', I am so cross about them. Some universities will be able to charge up to £3000 a year for students to study there. My university, being a good red-brick uni, may well charge this much. this will reflect well on my degree as it will be a 'better class' degree as it is more expensive uni, but it will stop people from going to uni.
I agree that less people should be goingto uni, but I do think there should be more emphasis on vocational qualifications. I never wanted to go to uni, I'll be glad to leave, but between college and uni i tried to work after a failed start to a different degree. The response i got from almost all jobs was 'if you have such good A levels why aren't you at university?' if I had been able to do a vocational qualification, things would be very different.
J
--------------------
Was Jenny Ann, but fancied being more minimal.
Posts: 5318 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ferijen
Shipmate
# 4719
|
Posted
In 75 minutes I have a meeting with DfES (Department for Education and Skills) bods who are proposing to bring in radical changes to the administration of Hardship Funding. They seem to have no realisation that many students' parents don't pay the fees when they're supposed to, that £4000 is really too little to live off, and they are proposing a standard figure of £45 for all under 25 year olds to live off - including travel, food, household, day to day course expenses, utility bills etc. Its the same level as Job Seekers Allowance which is aimed at getting under 25 year olds into full time employment and is oh, about half the figure that the NUS reckons a student needs for the same costs.
I doubt it'll do anything, ![[Frown]](frown.gif) but I will mention the issues on this thread ...
Posts: 3259 | From: UK | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nunc Dimittis
Seamstress of Sound
# 848
|
Posted
quote:
The way I see it, if you want to take on further education to advance your career, then it's your responsibility. If you want to study business or commerce or computer science or phsychology so that you can earn three or four times as much as I ever will, then it's your responsibility to fund that kind of investment in your life and skills. Why should my taxes go to support someone else's professional development? My taxes shouldn't go towards buying someone else a second Mercedes and a swimming pool for their back yard. If you want a high-flying career, then it's up to you to fund it yourself.
If a University education isn't going to further your career, then I also think that you should pay for it yourself - it's not right that I should fork out to pay someone's education hobby.
I think it's really sad, rascal, that you too have become yet another one of the mass-production, capitalist, consumer-driven, economic rationalist masses...
What we are forgetting here, is that university degrees are NOT only about being able to get a higher paying job. The original purpose of the university was the discovery of knowledge, and its promulgation. I believe university still has this purpose behind it: most of those who are researching cures for cancer, genetics, disease process, new ways around old problems, discovering old manuscripts which shed light on areas of history - all these people are making a contribution to society in ways they couldn't if they were not doing those degrees. If higher education and research further our society then I think it's not too high a price to pay for that education.
You are against "grants" - which indicates to me you have no real understanding of how things work at a graduate level. Coot is accurate in his outline of how it works at an undergraduate level.
Universities receive funding quotas for the number of postgraduate students they get; this money has nothing to do with the actual students, but everything to do with how universities are funded by the government. The more research students you have, the more funding you attract. This is why universities offer scholarships to graduate students.
I feel angry, that people on this thread are asserting that students who receive scholarships of grants tend to waste them on pleasure. There are many many months when I go into overdraft, or live of credit because I can't pay the bills; if I was not living with my sister I'd be unable to afford basics like water and electricity.
Admittedly, I have not been employed for the duration of my degree: but this was a conscious choice on my part. During my honours year I found it very very hard working part time and trying to shoulder a full time load. I was constantly sick, and constantly on the bread line because what I was earning was not covering my expenses.
My scholarship for my masters covers these things adequately, though it can be a tight pinch. But I would prefer to tighten my belt than to have to try to juggle work and uni. I am grateful for the opportunity my scholarship affords me, and I hope that my research, my music which I have been able to produce as part of it will go back to the benefit of society.
It's not just about the money. It's about the soul of society. If you rationalise it all on an economic model, then you bankrupt your soul... (But I guess you are one of these people, rascal, who sees music, art, literature, liberal arts and so forth as just "optional extras" that you can spend your leisure time on - and therefore they are not important, and time and money shouldn't be wasted on them. That to me reads as the sterilisation of creativity - and yet more orientation towards that which makes money.)
For what it's worth, I have no hope of a job after I finish at the beginning of March. There is not much you can do with a Masters degree in Composition, because music in this country DOESN'T PAY (unlike Sport *spits vehemently. @#$%$%#%ing sport!). You needn't worry, anglicanrascal, your precious tax dollars wont be going to fund my BMW and second Audi, or my mansion in Belleview Hill. (You might want to look into how your tax dollars are going towards funding the World Cup or the Wallabies or the Kangaroos, or any number of other sporting teams. For such a numerically small country we have a remarkable presence in the sporting world. Gee I wonder where all the tax money is going??!)
If I have no job prospects why did I do music at all? Because that is my identity. It's not just a nice "educational hobby" (thankyou very much), but something which requires many more hours of patient honing of skills than I'll bet you have ever devoted to anything. In order to be competitive as a composer, you need to have a firm grasp of the tools of composition, of the mechanics of music, of the philosophy that produces it. I believe music is worth preserving because of this, and because of its integral relationship with philosophy; music has much to reveal about the way we think, it has abilities to reach parts of the human self even our own consciousness cannot reach. Even if my "career" doesn't pay, my music has infinite benefit to those who hear it - and that is what counts. BUT: in order to attain those skills I needed to study hard and give my life to it. I do not regret this choice.
I can only hope, rascal, that if you decide to go on for ordination training, you will pay for it out of your own purse. To do anything else, given your stated opinion here, would be nothing short of hypocritical. Maybe then you will see exactly how tough it is as a postgrad student... (Assuming you even have a degree?)
Posts: 9515 | From: Delta Quadrant | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
adsarf
Apprentice
# 4288
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jenny*:
I am 21, I am technically, legally an adult, so why are my parents expected to pay over £1000 a year on my behalf?
This is exactly the argument the Government is currently using to shift further towards loans and (delayed payment) fees which (as an adult) you will pay back yourself. Parents will still often wind up paying them.
quote:
Originally posted by Jenny*:
I agree that less people should be goingto uni
Who would you throw out? On what criteria? I'm interested to see this idea surfacing on the thread so much because it implies that education isn't a universal right after all - and that's a pretty big claim
quote:
Originally posted by Jenny*:
I never wanted to go to uni, I'll be glad to leave, but between college and uni i tried to work after a failed start to a different degree. The response i got from almost all jobs was 'if you have such good A levels why aren't you at university?' if I had been able to do a vocational qualification, things would be very different.
Yeah. This is a really important point. Its very rare for people with good A-levels not to go on and get a degree - this is one of the reasons why its actually very hard to say what the economic benefit of a degree is - there's no-one with the same qualifications except for the degree to compare a graduate to. Lots of professions that used to take straight from A-levels (Accountancy is a very good example) have shifted to pretty much Grauate entry only.
Mind you, a lot of degrees are very vocational. We teach TV Drama, Graphic Design, Advertising, fashion - all very focussed on specific vocations. It isn't all Physics, Classics and Art History.
Posts: 24 | From: Hampshire | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightengale
Apprentice
# 5153
|
Posted
The Liverpool Hope course tutor here! I appreciate all of the conversation that has taken place thus far, proving what an emotive issue this is.
However, the primary aim of the exercise is not to necessarily argue the rights and wrongs of student fees, but to look at the ethical implications of some sections of the application forms and how they can be addressed.
Pinky's was just one example. Here is another:
The loan request form requires information on both parents. This poses two distinct problems. First, if parents are separated and the applicant lives with one parent both incomes are asked for despite the fact that only a small amount from one parent may contribute to the upkeep of the child.
Second, if one parent is not contributing financially it is not clear on the form that that parent does not need to be consulted. The complexities of divorce and separation are not taken into consideration and as a result may cause distress and anxiety for all concerned.
Changing the government's mind on student fees is a monumental task, but if we can petition the government to make the application process more pastoral and ethical - that at least is some progress. We in the Pastoral Theology course welcome personal experiences and suggestions for improving the process.
![[Help]](graemlins/help.gif)
[ 18. November 2003, 14:18: Message edited by: Ancient Mariner ]
Posts: 2 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Irish & Proud
Shipmate
# 4825
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by adsarf:
Who would you throw out? On what criteria? I'm interested to see this idea surfacing on the thread so much because it implies that education isn't a universal right after all - and that's a pretty big claim.
I don't think anyone on this board has expressed the opinion that education is not a universal right. As an absolute education is a right. A free education is also a right (similar to free health care) which many of us would aspire to.
A free education (including tertiary education) was a reality until recently. Tuition fees were only introduced in the late 90s and were in my opinion a bad idea.
Many students (or parents) were already being saddled with massive debts as a result of the abolition of grants. Further burdens were added when tax breaks for supporting students were abolished and the government started to tax students. (I remember students getting threatening letters from baliffs due to being unable to pay their council tax!!)
The idea behind reducing the number of university places is not to deny a free education, but to make tertiary education there for the academically elite, those who will develop and further society and not just for those who want a high paid job on the other side. Current government targets will increase the burden of debt on society and that can only be a bad thing.
How do we do it? Not easily. A possible is to increase as has been sugeested above the number of shorter term vocational courses. Teach people some useful skills. Not media studies, marketing and advertising. Most jobs in the business world can be and are learnt on the job. Academic study does little to develop commercial awareness. It is difficult to learn this anywhere else than within a business context.
Many large companies will only look at CVs from people with a 2:1 or better. Not as a skills based notion but just to reduce the number of application forms they have to process for the few jobs that are there. This just further propogates the spiral.
I would much rather see us encourage young people to train in useful professions. After all aren't we short of skilled workers to fix our train tracks and our boilers. What use will having 50% of the population with degrees if we cannot build or repair the homes we live in.
Posts: 221 | From: Somewhere with not enough rain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Irish & Proud
Shipmate
# 4825
|
Posted
Nightengale - welcome to the ship.
Interesting issue which surprises me. On the old grant application forms it was not compulsory to declare both parents if they were divorced.
As a result many people at my uni who declared only their mother's income received very hefty grants, despite the fact that their father was also supporting them.
Appreciate it may be difficult but at least the new method is fairer than previous which actually discriminated against non divorced parents.
Maybe the way to phrase it is to evaluate all of the incomings and outgoings from the household in which the student normally lives, including actual contributions from the absent parent rather than total salary. Forcing this to go via CSA could ensure that people do not vary their payments for the sake of making the form look better.
The other alternative is to get both parents to detail all of their incomings and outgoings in order to evaluate based on the full situation, i.e. 2 mortgages, other dependents, 2 sets of unitily bills, etc.
Posts: 221 | From: Somewhere with not enough rain | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
