The Student Room Group

This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

I think university fees should be abolished

Scroll to see replies

Works for Scotland.
Reply 21
tehjonny
I think you can over-educate a population. No point having 3m doctors and no plasterers.

What's wrong with having well-educated plasterers?
Blanched


Secondly far far too many people go to university who don't deserve to. Many people seem to regard it as an excuse not to get a job and do ridiculous degrees at second rate universities and then complain about how much it's cost them, when really they shouldn't have gone at all. Fake universities (ie old polytechnics) offering silly degrees should closed. If you aren't clever enough to go to a proper university and study a good degree then you don't deserve to go. There are plenty of other career paths available for people who don't suit university. The government targets for getting everyone into higher education are reducing the value of a good degree and making a joke of the British education system.


Agreed.
Chattykatty88
If the government abolished fees then maybe they could aim for targets like 75-80% of youngsters going to university. If Britain wants to be a competitive economy with skilled and educated people, it needs to aim to get the whole of its young generation through the doors of a university. Britain annually churns out 300,000 graduates, whereas countries such as India and China churn out 2-3million. Therefore how can we compete? By removing the barriers that prevent people from going to uni; namely tuition fees. What do you guys think?


Do you know anything about the population of the UK? We don't physically have 2-3 million people of any the same school age to graduate every year. They do have 1 billion people in chian and india; India has an extortionate birth rate too. Getting rid of fees isn't going to magically make more 18 year olds appear to start uni. And how do you spose we fund universities then? We have some of the best unis in the world (oxbridge, ucl, durham, manchester, notts), because they all have good funding. If poorer people don't go to uni, it is rarely due to the cost. tuition fees are not payed until you get a good job with a good wage. If you go to uni and get a job with a crap wage, well then obvs wasn't much point in you doing that degree; graduates should go and get better paid jobs; and they almost always do. You should join the ukyp campaign, the staffordshire myps are leading it. google it :smile:
Reply 24
hazzypants
Do you know anything about the population of the UK? We don't physically have 2-3 million people of any the same school age to graduate every year. They do have 1 billion people in chian and india; India has an extortionate birth rate too. Getting rid of fees isn't going to magically make more 18 year olds appear to start uni. And how do you spose we fund universities then? We have some of the best unis in the world (oxbridge, ucl, durham, manchester, notts), because they all have good funding. If poorer people don't go to uni, it is rarely due to the cost. tuition fees are not payed until you get a good job with a good wage. If you go to uni and get a job with a crap wage, well then obvs wasn't much point in you doing that degree; graduates should go and get better paid jobs; and they almost always do. You should join the ukyp campaign, the staffordshire myps are leading it. google it :smile:


Not true. University is a place for an education, not just to train you for a job.
Reply 25
Everyone who wants free uni could just move to Scotland for a couple of years before uni? Higher annual precipitation is a small price to pay. :h:

That may be their key feature in a drive to get people to move here. :rolleyes:
Taxes would have to rise, it's just not feasable.
Reply 27
I think the fees should be abolished, but it should be made harder to get in.
80% of people going to university would be awful. There are plenty of essential jobs that don't need a degree. University isn't the sole reason for living.
Reply 28
Universities are struggling as it is. Abolish tuition fees, they'd probably resort to having a lot higher proportion of internationals who pay 20k. The govt should target poorer students with grants, while the bonus to peoples incomes from going to university makes the debt manageable. Its an imperfect system, but practical.
Morbo
What's wrong with having well-educated plasterers?

Its a waste of time. A lot of people aren't academic and aren't interested in spending yet more time in the academic stage of education. If plasterers want to be studying history thats all well and good, but they shouldn't be encouraged to do so just for the sake of it - I'm sure most plasterers would rather be out plastering


I find the idea of free university education quite distasteful. University is expensive, and confers a considerable long-term benefit on many of those who go. Those who get the benefits of a university education over their career should pay for it over their careers - its simple fairness.
Trying to get everyone to go, or even more than 50% of people to go to university is an utter nonsense. Practical training or starting work are much more suitable for a lot of people than a university education.
As long as everyone has the opportunity to go to university if its the right thing for them, that is enough.
Reply 30
personally i reckon there should be bigger grants for people doing degrees such as law, medicine and sciences whilst there should be reduced grants for people wanting to do stuff like film studies and art which at the end of the day dont really contribute to society (except in producing pretty pictures :p: ) and well hardly anyone from those degrees ends up in media or as a famous artist anyway.

this will reduce the amount of time wasters at uni who just want to do an "easy" degree in order to avoid work and encourage more people togo into and qualify in degrees that are badly needed.
Reply 31
tehjonny
I think you can over-educate a population. No point having 3m doctors and no plasterers.


The point is that university should be available if you want to go and are able enough. Having university fees closes the option of going to university to some who might wish to go otherwise. I don't think anyone's saying everyone should go to university, just that it should be open to more people.
Reply 32
jacketpotato
Its a waste of time. A lot of people aren't academic and aren't interested in spending yet more time in the academic stage of education. If plasterers want to be studying history thats all well and good, but they shouldn't be encouraged to do so just for the sake of it - I'm sure most plasterers would rather be out plastering


I find the idea of free university education quite distasteful. University is expensive, and confers a considerable long-term benefit on many of those who go. Those who get the benefits of a university education over their career should pay for it over their careers - its simple fairness.
Trying to get everyone to go, or even more than 50% of people to go to university is an utter nonsense. Practical training or starting work are much more suitable for a lot of people than a university education.
As long as everyone has the opportunity to go to university if its the right thing for them, that is enough.


Perfect
they should be abolished, but only for good universities. i wouldnt mind paying taxes (obviously when i have a real job) to send people to a decent univeristy for free. but i would hate the idea that i'm sending someone to study some crap soft subject at a ****** university
Reply 34
bambii
The point is that university should be available if you want to go and are able enough. Having university fees closes the option of going to university to some who might wish to go otherwise. I don't think anyone's saying everyone should go to university, just that it should be open to more people.



It really doesn't, though. The current system ensures that everyone can afford university, with the levels of support currently available.
Abolish tuition fees but ensure that only the top 20-30% of students go on to university.

Perfectly affordable.
Reply 36
cpj1987
It really doesn't, though. The current system ensures that everyone can afford university, with the levels of support currently available.


Yes but when the government says that something like 2/3 of people are eligible for a grant, they don't mention how small that grant sometimes is. There must be some people who really struggle to get through university because of fees and the cost of living.
Why do we want 70% of people going to university? I say the fees should stay and there shouldn't be so much pressure on young adults to get degrees. There are too many unemployed graduates as it is.
Reply 38
jacketpotato
Its a waste of time. A lot of people aren't academic and aren't interested in spending yet more time in the academic stage of education. If plasterers want to be studying history thats all well and good, but they shouldn't be encouraged to do so just for the sake of it - I'm sure most plasterers would rather be out plastering.

Don't be silly - everyone should be encouraged to educate themselves, regardless of what they do for a living. How else should we address the problem of these 'chav' classes?

I find the idea of free university education quite distasteful. University is expensive, and confers a considerable long-term benefit on many of those who go. Those who get the benefits of a university education over their career should pay for it over their careers - its simple fairness.

You forget that the country as a whole benefits enormously from having an educated population. Graduates are more likely to drive growth in our economy and create jobs for other people. It's not like a degree is simply a ticket to a higher salary; a higher salary is a benefit, but that benefit is not unjustified. By the country putting someone through a degree, it is investing in the country as a whole.

Trying to get everyone to go, or even more than 50% of people to go to university is an utter nonsense. Practical training or starting work are much more suitable for a lot of people than a university education.

What "a university education" is has changed significantly in the last generation or so, in response to the changing nature of the work that people have to do in a modern economy. Universities now provide much more varied and practical degeree courses to train people for the more specialized roles that we need to fill these days.

The higher education sector is no longer solely about the academia, as it was fifty years ago. Just as the compulsory secondary education age was increased to 16 when it was realised the masses needed more education to be able to do their jobs (which were moving away from manual labour), now it has been realised that the masses need more education to train them for the jobs nowadays that require more specialist knowledge/experience in order to do efficiently.

As long as everyone has the opportunity to go to university if its the right thing for them, that is enough.

Well here's the biggest contradiction of your post. You can't be against free university education if you support equal opportunities.

That said, if we want to remain competitive, we need to transfer some of the cost of higher education to the private sector - it can't be funded through general taxation.
Reply 39
:d

Latest

Trending

Trending