Jeremy Corbyn Vol. 2

[48Valves]

eliot said:

So let's assume university fees are abolished by whatever party.
why is it that only university education is subsidised to this extent?
We are going to end up with degree qualified pot washers again.

University tuition fees should be subsidised for worthwhile courses. For arguments sake. Engineering, Medicine, Law or whatever particular skills are needed. Of course the places need to be given to those with the required abilities too.

Than if anyone really wants to do a degree in creative needlework then they should be charged full price with the threshold for paying it back lowered also.

[ellroy]

48Valves said:

University tuition fees should be subsidised for worthwhile courses. For arguments sake. Engineering, Medicine, Law or whatever particular skills are needed. Of course the places need to be given to those with the required abilities too.

Than if anyone really wants to do a degree in creative needlework then they should be charged full price with the threshold for paying it back lowered also.

Spot on. I've been saying that for years.

Education is a benefit to us all, but we really should look at some return on investment for society and another 2,000 Film Studies graduates with applied yoghurt knitting we can do without.

[sidicks]

ash73 said:

They should also be means tested; look at the numbers above. Bizarre that Labour pledged zero tuition fees for all, it's completely at odds with their supposed philosophy.

Why should tuition fees be means tested?

[Zod]

iphonedyou said:

AstonZagato said:

I suspect the answer is how it looks on the government balance sheet and income statement (not that such things exist). A student owing £9,000 is an "asset". The government spending on higher education appears £6000 a head lower than if it were capping fees at £3000. Put it at £3000, then spending goes up, deficit goes up, debt goes up. Writing off the £4500 in 30 years time is another person's problem.

Surely the £9,000 owed is effectively a liability, until such times as the former student earns above threshold. At which point it becomes work in progress, so to speak.

England no, that would mean the government owed the money. It's an impaired asset.

[sidicks]

ash73 said:

Because not all students need to take out a loan to pay them. If Corbyn spends £15bn/yr on zero tuition fees for all (including those who can afford to pay their own way) those from poor backgrounds will still need to take out loans to pay for the cost of living. Some of those loans will never be paid back, and it will cost the tax payer even more.

Most students will have no income and few assets.

What you probably mean is means test the parents? Which is even more wrong.

[Justayellowbadge]

sidicks said:

Most students will have no income and few assets.

What you probably mean is means test the parents? Which is even more wrong.

Student funding was always based on parents.

Back when the world were in black and white and I was at university, povs got a grant, the middle classes funded their offspring and the truly wealthy had accountants that proved their kids qualified for grants too.

[sidicks]

Justayellowbadge said:

Student funding was always based on parents.

Back when the world were in black and white and I was at university, povs got a grant, the middle classes funded their offspring and the truly wealthy had accountants that proved their kids qualified for grants too.

Of course, that was for maintenance grants not tuition fees.

Instead we now provide loans and only expect those loans to be paid back when the individual can afford it. Which seems entirely reasonable.

[djc206]

ash73 said:

sidicks said:

Why should tuition fees be means tested?

Because not all students need to take out a loan to pay them. If Corbyn spends £15bn/yr on zero tuition fees for all (including those who can afford to pay their own way) those from poor backgrounds will still need to take out loans to pay for the cost of living. Some of those loans will never be paid back, and it will cost the tax payer even more.

Whose means are you going to test? At 18 you're an adult your parents are under no obligation to support you financially so are you going to test the teenagers means?

[alock]

djc206 said:

Whose means are you going to test? At 18 you're an adult your parents are under no obligation to support you financially so are you going to test the teenagers means?

My parents earned enough so I received no maintenance grant in the 90s. My parents then gave me no money and told me to fund myself.

[turbobloke]

djc206 said:

Whose means are you going to test? At 18 you're an adult your parents are under no obligation to support you financially so are you going to test the teenagers means?

Back in the day, courses were means tested using parents' income when the student was in their 20s.

[anonymous-user]

alock said:

My parents earned enough so I received no maintenance grant in the 90s. My parents then gave me no money and told me to fund myself.

If you could demonstrate that you had lived independently for 3 years they weren't means tested.

[Welshbeef]

desolate said:

If you could demonstrate that you had lived independently for 3 years they weren't means tested.

Normal age to go to uni is 18.
Are you suggesting that children move out at 15years old ?

[turbobloke]

Welshbeef said:

desolate said:

If you could demonstrate that you had lived independently for 3 years they weren't means tested.

Normal age to go to uni is 18.
Are you suggesting that children move out at 15years old ?

Quite, not likely at all! Even then they'd have to have been supporting themselves with no dependence on parents during that time.

Also, three (or four etc) years at uni wasn't considered living independently so certain courses following on from a degree would see student grants means tested using parental income well into their 20s.

[alock]

desolate said:

If you could demonstrate that you had lived independently for 3 years they weren't means tested.

I went to uni a few months before my 19th birthday, straight after my A levels.

My parents weren't horrible people, they were just the type that stopped all pocket money at 13 because I was old enough to get a paper round.

When I went to uni they expected me to be self sufficient, working every weekend and through the holidays to fund my time there. I did get free board back at my parents one summer because the factory I worked nights at was nearer their house.

Funnily enough, I was able to do this because I had a good relationship with two companies that offered be as much casual work as I wanted. I think these days the relationships would be called zero hour contracts.

[anonymous-user]

Welshbeef said:

Normal age to go to uni is 18.
Are you suggesting that children move out at 15years old ?

I waited until I was 21, working in the meantime, but I wasn't making a suggestion, just responding to another post about the rules 'back in the day'

[anonymous-user]

turbobloke said:

Quite, not likely at all! Even then they'd have to have been supporting themselves with no dependence on parents during that time.

Also, three (or four etc) years at uni wasn't considered living independently so certain courses following on from a degree would see student grants means tested using parental income well into their 20s.

I left home after a levels and got a 'proper job'

After a couple of years I realised that working was other people so I applied to go to university.

It's a long time ago now but I am pretty sure I had to demonstrate that I had lived away from the family home.

[turbobloke]

desolate said:

turbobloke said:

Quite, not likely at all! Even then they'd have to have been supporting themselves with no dependence on parents during that time.

Also, three (or four etc) years at uni wasn't considered living independently so certain courses following on from a degree would see student grants means tested using parental income well into their 20s.

I left home after a levels and got a 'proper job'

After a couple of years I realised that working was other people so I applied to go to university.

It's a long time ago now but I am pretty sure I had to demonstrate that I had lived away from the family home.

Yes that sounds right and 18 / 19 is more likely than 15 after all. Mrs TB (I) decided to follow a postgrad course a few years after graduation and being married / living away from parents for the requisite amount of time meant her folks escaped means testing for the grant.

[Tuna]

edh said:

I still fail to see what promise he made apart from to seriously address the issue of student debt once in office. Not a manifesto commitment unlike that given on student fees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS7JmLY8EP8

"Every existing student will have all their debts written off" - Shadow Justice Minister during the election campaign.

[edh]

Tuna said:

edh said:

I still fail to see what promise he made apart from to seriously address the issue of student debt once in office. Not a manifesto commitment unlike that given on student fees.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JS7JmLY8EP8

"Every existing student will have all their debts written off" - Shadow Justice Minister during the election campaign.

Oooh yes, I remember that speech getting wall to wall media coverage for days - often cited as the speech that turned the polls round for Labour

- he must have read too many comments on twitter, daft politician shooting his mouth off I wonder what he thought he meant by "existing"?

[Slaav]

edh said:

Oooh yes, I remember that speech getting wall to wall media coverage for days - often cited as the speech that turned the polls round for Labour

- he must have read too many comments on twitter, daft politician shooting his mouth off I wonder what he thought he meant by "existing"?

If I understand correctly, the Shadow Minister has either himself lied? Or he has made it up? Or he has misinterpreted the statements and ambitions/pledges wrongly?

Let's give him/her the benefit of the doubt and assume it is the latter; does that then mean he/she has deliberately misinterpreted JC's words? Or have they simply misunderstood them as that was the impression given?

Again giving the benefit of doubt and it was a genuine mistake, are we to believe that HIS OWN SHADOW CABINET have read things into his claims/statements that would be unreasonable for a student to read????

Really?