Why should I pay for your university education?
Discussion
Having been a student during the good old days when I got a grant, didnt pay fees and got dole money during the summer, I sympathise with those like my friend Duncan who worked hard for a medical degree and had £15000 to pay off at the end of it.
If I had not got a grant, and therefore not got a degree, I would not be working in IT contributing a five figure balance to the treasury each year.
Short sighted...never.
If I had not got a grant, and therefore not got a degree, I would not be working in IT contributing a five figure balance to the treasury each year.
Short sighted...never.
Students having to pay fees to continue studying is a bit of a joke. On top of study fees they might very well have to pay for housing, travel, general living and that's before going out or anything else.
I would imagine a weekend job would be possible but anything more would surely take time and concentration away from studying. Obviously there are bums at Uni but most go to work hard and will one day (fingers crossed) do something productive.
Paying to study isn't going to be a problem for a family who's well off or who live near the chosen educational facility, but not everyone is in such a position. Not suprising that many don't want to continue studying as they'd rather start working to earn money now rather than half kill themselves to pay for study and finish with a massive debt.
Not being able to continue your studies because the government prefers to spend money on, let's say, redecorating it's offices and making a mess of London and various methods of transport is the real shame. Maybe those who can afford to pay something should contribute to their studies but that's another one they'll probably make a complete hash of.
*All IMO*
I would imagine a weekend job would be possible but anything more would surely take time and concentration away from studying. Obviously there are bums at Uni but most go to work hard and will one day (fingers crossed) do something productive.
Paying to study isn't going to be a problem for a family who's well off or who live near the chosen educational facility, but not everyone is in such a position. Not suprising that many don't want to continue studying as they'd rather start working to earn money now rather than half kill themselves to pay for study and finish with a massive debt.
Not being able to continue your studies because the government prefers to spend money on, let's say, redecorating it's offices and making a mess of London and various methods of transport is the real shame. Maybe those who can afford to pay something should contribute to their studies but that's another one they'll probably make a complete hash of.
*All IMO*
douglasr said: Having been a student during the good old days when I got a grant, didnt pay fees and got dole money during the summer, I sympathise with those like my friend Duncan who worked hard for a medical degree and had £15000 to pay off at the end of it.
If I had not got a grant, and therefore not got a degree, I would not be working in IT contributing a five figure balance to the treasury each year.
Short sighted...never.
The phrase "You get out what you put in" springs to mind. Making genuine students pay up will only have a detrimental effect on concentration and performance.
Imagine working at another job before or after you go to work today. No time to yourself as your life would be work, work, eat and maybe sleep. Now over 3-4 years you'd be fatigued to say the least. Bodys and minds need rest for optimum performance. No optimum performance = bad results = no graduation.
I'm with the students on this one. Without wanting to go all namby pamby liberal on you "these guys are our future, mmmkay ?" 
What, you want this country to end up being full of thickies, just because only a few rich types can afford to go to uni ? (no 'fence to anyone who hasn't been to higher ed, but you know I'm gross generalising here ....)
Anyway, they DO end up paying for their education. Odds on your average Uni/Poly grad will go on to a much higher paying job than he/she would have got without the qualification(s), ergo they end up paying way more tax, NI etc etc.
Unless, that is, like me, they get totally disillusioned with the whole sh*tpot of a country and start looking at emigrating .....
What, you want this country to end up being full of thickies, just because only a few rich types can afford to go to uni ? (no 'fence to anyone who hasn't been to higher ed, but you know I'm gross generalising here ....)
Anyway, they DO end up paying for their education. Odds on your average Uni/Poly grad will go on to a much higher paying job than he/she would have got without the qualification(s), ergo they end up paying way more tax, NI etc etc.
Unless, that is, like me, they get totally disillusioned with the whole sh*tpot of a country and start looking at emigrating .....
The consensus so far seems to be that I should pay for the university education of others so that they can then earn more money, therefore pay more tax and that will benefit me. The other reason seems to be that they can't afford to pay and therefore they should not have to.
Well, if they are going to be paying more tax I guess that will be because they are being paid more money (might even be why they are going to university in the first place). If they are going to be earning more then the fairest system would be to allow them to borrow the money they need from a central fund, and to repay it when they start earning. Apart from being inherently fairer, such a system would help to weed out all those who are going to university (at least half?) simply to avoid having to start earning a living, and who chose easy arts subjects.
John
Well, if they are going to be paying more tax I guess that will be because they are being paid more money (might even be why they are going to university in the first place). If they are going to be earning more then the fairest system would be to allow them to borrow the money they need from a central fund, and to repay it when they start earning. Apart from being inherently fairer, such a system would help to weed out all those who are going to university (at least half?) simply to avoid having to start earning a living, and who chose easy arts subjects.
John
Thom said: What next?
To introduce a fee for babies who want to drink the milk of their mothers?
So you are saying that education to any level should be free for everyone, for no other reason than that it should be? Trouble with things that are free is that they aren't free, someone has to pay for them. I am suggesting that those who are benfitting should pay
John
Not like me to get too excited, but this is one that I just can't resist.
This is the 'Education, Education, Education' Government, remember?
One of the first things they did on gaining power was remove to the tax relief from the course fees for part-time vocational study (they replaced it with the £200/year ILA - anyone remember how quickly that was withdrawn??).
This might not mean much at first sight, but it hit any number of people studying with the OU for example whilst working because their parents couldn't affort to support them through study (non-vocational degrees are still heavily subsidised). Also the growing numbers of people who want qualifications but can't get sponsorship by their employers - mechanics, solicitors' clerks, junior accountants/bookkeepers.
This must be raking in plenty of cash - if my Masters hadn't been employer-sponsored, this tax hit would have cost me an extra four and a half grand. I'd say this was a disincentive for people to improve themselves.
Education, Education, Education - anyone in Government got a sense of irony?
This is the 'Education, Education, Education' Government, remember?
One of the first things they did on gaining power was remove to the tax relief from the course fees for part-time vocational study (they replaced it with the £200/year ILA - anyone remember how quickly that was withdrawn??).
This might not mean much at first sight, but it hit any number of people studying with the OU for example whilst working because their parents couldn't affort to support them through study (non-vocational degrees are still heavily subsidised). Also the growing numbers of people who want qualifications but can't get sponsorship by their employers - mechanics, solicitors' clerks, junior accountants/bookkeepers.
This must be raking in plenty of cash - if my Masters hadn't been employer-sponsored, this tax hit would have cost me an extra four and a half grand. I'd say this was a disincentive for people to improve themselves.
Education, Education, Education - anyone in Government got a sense of irony?
John, the way I'm reading your argument (and please forgive me if I'm wrong on this), but you're kind of saying "why should my tax go to pay for students eduction, coz I didn't go to university myself ?" (I'm guessing on that last bit of course)
Trouble is, where do you stop with this ? I dont want to pay any NI because I wasn't ill last year ? I want a rebate on my council tax coz my bin is only ever 1/2 full, but my neighbours is always full ? I dont want to pay for street lights, coz I've got a torch ?
(all IMO)
Trouble is, where do you stop with this ? I dont want to pay any NI because I wasn't ill last year ? I want a rebate on my council tax coz my bin is only ever 1/2 full, but my neighbours is always full ? I dont want to pay for street lights, coz I've got a torch ?
(all IMO)
I also had a grant when I went to university. Big difference now is the numbers game. Way back then (well, 79-83) about 10% of school leavers went to tertiary education, and the taxpayer could afford to pay grants - which were also means tested on the parents.
Nowadays (and in my mind related to the severe decline in educational standards in secondary schools, itself related to a decline in discipline) about 50% of school leavers go on to teretiary education - and the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay a grant.
A bit like pensioners - the country could afford to pay decent pensions when the numbers (and longevity) of pensioners was such that the working population could support them directly, but that is no longer the case.
Political ideals are fine when they match pragmatics, but when they are out of line it gets very hard.
Nowadays (and in my mind related to the severe decline in educational standards in secondary schools, itself related to a decline in discipline) about 50% of school leavers go on to teretiary education - and the taxpayer can no longer afford to pay a grant.
A bit like pensioners - the country could afford to pay decent pensions when the numbers (and longevity) of pensioners was such that the working population could support them directly, but that is no longer the case.
Political ideals are fine when they match pragmatics, but when they are out of line it gets very hard.
Size Nine Elm .... interesting reading, where did those figures come from ? Suprising if so, because that means that either 20 years ago when I went to uni, they must have been very very empty, or that there's been a 4 fold increase in the number of universitys in the country. Or that they're very very overcrowded now
I am eternally grateful to people like Johnelliott for paying their taxes, and allowing me to go to university. Without a grant, and payment of tuition fees, I would never have gone to university - my mother was a single parent, on a poor teaching salary, with 3 children, and could never have got any loans to cover even 25% of the costs of my medical education. It is demeaning to grovel to bank managers every 3-6 months, for small loans to eke out a subsistence income, which is what I had to do, and even then, I had about £6000 debt to pay off - quite a lot of money 25 years ago!
It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. If everyone is to have the opportunity of higher education, then the state cannot afford to fund it, so the individual pays. Or, be selective, decide what the country needs in terms of education and training, and pay for the brightest and cleverest to be educated.
One thing I do know, is that university access should never, EVER, be based on ability to pay - I would be on a factory floor, or in the army, if that had been the case for me.
I donate money to my old university now, to fund places for poor kids to get the same opportunity I had - that's how we should be paying - like car related taxes, the money should bypass the government, and be covenanted to education establishments to supplement their income.
It seems to me that you cannot have it both ways. If everyone is to have the opportunity of higher education, then the state cannot afford to fund it, so the individual pays. Or, be selective, decide what the country needs in terms of education and training, and pay for the brightest and cleverest to be educated.
One thing I do know, is that university access should never, EVER, be based on ability to pay - I would be on a factory floor, or in the army, if that had been the case for me.
I donate money to my old university now, to fund places for poor kids to get the same opportunity I had - that's how we should be paying - like car related taxes, the money should bypass the government, and be covenanted to education establishments to supplement their income.
Thom said:
johnelliott said:Trouble with things that are free is that they aren't free, someone has to pay for them.
That's why taxes are made for.
You don't pay taxes in the UK?
Yes, of course we have, and those taxes are increased by everything that appears to the recipient to be free.
I agree that a good many things should be paid for from revenue provided by taxation. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I am arguing that if the line is drawn so that university education is free to the the people directly benefitting from it then the line is being drawn in the wrong place.
John
If you're brainy enough (or have some uncompromising photographs of the Arch Deacon) then it really should be one of the benefits of being a subject of Albion.
Whether that should apply across the less disciplined disciplines (burger studies versus dentistry, for example) is of course another issue but in the broader context, not only should all 'worthy' courses be free but on arriving at one's Hall of Residence, the chamber's welcoming pack should include several bouteilles de Mouton Rothschild, a clutch of Monte Christos and a generous chilling chamber resplendant with four score quaffs of the brownest ale.
For these are the basic tenants of a quality further education and that, as they say, really is that.
Chin, chin.
Sensible policies for a happier Britain.
Whether that should apply across the less disciplined disciplines (burger studies versus dentistry, for example) is of course another issue but in the broader context, not only should all 'worthy' courses be free but on arriving at one's Hall of Residence, the chamber's welcoming pack should include several bouteilles de Mouton Rothschild, a clutch of Monte Christos and a generous chilling chamber resplendant with four score quaffs of the brownest ale.
For these are the basic tenants of a quality further education and that, as they say, really is that.
Chin, chin.
Sensible policies for a happier Britain.
The other issue with anything "free" is that it’s perceived value is less than if you had to sweat to pay for it...
Obviously a significant amount of intellectual "sweat" is required to pass, but I think there should be an element of having to pay for the privilege of education as well.
I expect that the difficult thing is finding the right balance; costs enough to have a perceived value, but not so much that it cripples you financially for years to come...
I take my hat off to people like Doc Nubbin who can contribute selflessly to assist less financially able people to gain a decent education, but those supported need to recognise the REAL value of the assistance by having to contribute as well.
The closest example I can think of is Jamie Oliver and his new restaurant staffed by less privileged “yoofs”… Ignoring how much it cost Mr. Oliver in time and money to get this off the ground, as well as putting the discussion about the monetary/marketing value of the exercise aside, I was absolutely flabbergasted at the apparent lack of appreciation displayed by some of the kids! Potentially the chance of a lifetime and they simply couldn’t be arsed… Perhaps if they had to contribute more than just their time, their perception of the opportunity would have been more positive?
Harrigan
Obviously a significant amount of intellectual "sweat" is required to pass, but I think there should be an element of having to pay for the privilege of education as well.
I expect that the difficult thing is finding the right balance; costs enough to have a perceived value, but not so much that it cripples you financially for years to come...
I take my hat off to people like Doc Nubbin who can contribute selflessly to assist less financially able people to gain a decent education, but those supported need to recognise the REAL value of the assistance by having to contribute as well.
The closest example I can think of is Jamie Oliver and his new restaurant staffed by less privileged “yoofs”… Ignoring how much it cost Mr. Oliver in time and money to get this off the ground, as well as putting the discussion about the monetary/marketing value of the exercise aside, I was absolutely flabbergasted at the apparent lack of appreciation displayed by some of the kids! Potentially the chance of a lifetime and they simply couldn’t be arsed… Perhaps if they had to contribute more than just their time, their perception of the opportunity would have been more positive?
Harrigan
We could open this topic up to other areas, such as why should I pay for someone's pension, or their heart by-pass, or that new bypass I never drive on, and while we are at it, I dont see why I should pay for the blue allsorts that Bassetts have introduced.
Seriously though, IMHO, graduates do contribute more to the pot in the future, so surely it is an investment?
Seriously though, IMHO, graduates do contribute more to the pot in the future, so surely it is an investment?
Being a student now (final year) I believe the system works OK at the moment. You borrow what you need and pay back when you can afford it. There will always be people out there with different financial situations no matter what the policy is at the time.
I think the problem lies with the whole idea that everyone has to go to uni. This creates some very (i dont want to sound stuck up) namby pamby subjects.
There are some courses in some universities that require '1 E' grade at A-level. This is taking away the whole idea of going to university is it not? This means most employees insist on you having a degree, and the cycle repeats....
We need good attractive jobs out there for the people that dont want/need to go to uni and to get rid of this image that if you want to get anywhere in life you must have a degree behind you.
I think the problem lies with the whole idea that everyone has to go to uni. This creates some very (i dont want to sound stuck up) namby pamby subjects.
There are some courses in some universities that require '1 E' grade at A-level. This is taking away the whole idea of going to university is it not? This means most employees insist on you having a degree, and the cycle repeats....
We need good attractive jobs out there for the people that dont want/need to go to uni and to get rid of this image that if you want to get anywhere in life you must have a degree behind you.
You're entire arguement seems to be based on the fact that the only beneficiary of the arrangement is the student. It has already been argued that that is completely wrong in that the student will, over their working life contribute far more to the tax fund than the amount they would gain even from a full grant. Also, the people who are going to university form the back bone of expertise of the country (regardless of what you think this, despite a few exceptions, is invariably the case).
I agree that a good many things should be paid for from revenue provided by taxation. However, the line has to be drawn somewhere, and I am arguing that if the line is drawn so that university education is free to the the people directly benefitting from it then the line is being drawn in the wrong place.
So do you want to pay more tax in the future as the tax that would have been paid by these high earners gets allocated to the rest of us to pay (remember the tax paid by university leavers far exceeds what they take out of the system)? Or do you want the country to import more and more skilled staff as we have even fewer experts kicking around. Or do you want the priviledged few who can afford to go through the system to be paid even more for what they do because of the skills shortage you've created?
Or are you just pissed off because of some dipshit tabloid short termism view that these students are getting pissed, taking drugs, getting laid at 'your expense'?
Regards,
Mark
Forums | General Gassing [Archive] | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff