This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

I think university fees should be abolished

cpj1987

Morbo

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?

Why should people be forced to waste time in formal education if they don't want to?
Lack of formal education =/= chav.

Reply 41

Morbo

17

cpj1987

Why should people be forced to waste time in formal education if they don't want to?
Lack of formal education =/= chav.

I said "encouraged", not "forced", and didn't assert any such equality that you are disputing. If anything: Good education ---> NOT chav.

Reply 42

bambii

Well, you wouldn't suggest that education in primary and secondary schools should be payed for in the same way; education's supposed to be a right. So why should people have to pay for university?

Reply 43

Morbo

17

bambii

Well, you wouldn't suggest that education in primary and secondary schools should be payed for in the same way; education's supposed to be a right. So why should people have to pay for university?

Education is not a right. I don't know where this idea comes from.

Parents, however, have a responsibility (morally and legally) to educate their children, and most people are of the opinion that the government should help with this.

Reply 44

Arrogant Git

I don't see why we need meaningless arbitrary targets for higher education. There is no good reason for the 50% target and a 75% or 80% target would be equally absurd. Forcing people into higher education who don't want to go is stupid- I don't see why university can't be open to all, but we should allow people to look closely at all the options, without trying to persuade them of the advantages of one path over another.

At the moment, in the midst of an economic downturn, graduates are struggling to find work. Artificially exacerbating this problem by making everyone a graduate is ridiculous- you'd end up in a situation where even very menial jobs can ask for a degree. The more people go into university, the less the economic value of a degree is worth. In a situation where people feel they need a degree to get a job, the academic value of the degree becomes less important for more people.

Economically, scrapping fees is a silly idea especially when coupled with a rise in uptake. You'd raise taxes to fund the restriction of the workforce. Since nearly everyone is going to uni in this magical fantasy land, everyone pays the taxes that they would have paid in fees so no-one really ends up better off and the poor saps who didn't go to uni end up forking out for the rest of us.

Reply 45

ForGreatJustice

13

bambii

Well, you wouldn't suggest that education in primary and secondary schools should be payed for in the same way; education's supposed to be a right. So why should people have to pay for university?

Why should tax payers pay for people to go through university?

Reply 46

cpj1987

15

bambii

Well, you wouldn't suggest that education in primary and secondary schools should be payed for in the same way; education's supposed to be a right. So why should people have to pay for university?

If secondary school wasn't compulsory, and people of that age could get jobs, I'd say fair enough if that weren't free either.
Saying that, there'd have to be more options for alternate courses/institutions at that level, because I would NEVER have paid for GCSE/A-Level education, so would need another way into university.

Reply 47

Roobagnall

13

I dont think they can be absolished but they certainly should be reduced.

£3000 a year is pretty steep.

Reply 48

Roobagnall

13

ForGreatJustice

Why should tax payers pay for people to go through university?

Technicaly they already do.
Govenment already pay for some of the tution (i cant remember how much)...

Hence they are called; Top up fees...

Reply 49

Domino9

Profesh

Considering that the United Kingdom is roughly one-twentieth as populous as either of the countries in question, I'd say our ratio compares rather favourably.

I think this guy knows what he's talking about.

StupidIdioticCrazyKate88 who started this thread, not so much.

Reply 50

WelshBluebird

16

bambii

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.

But thats the cost of living. Nothing to do with tuition fees (which is what the topic is about).

The only financial barrier to entry now, is living costs. And even then, it is possible to go through uni on government grants, loans, uni bursaries and parental support. Getting rid of tuition fees will not change that.

Reply 51

Morbo

17

ForGreatJustice

Why should tax payers pay for people to go through university?

Because those people graduate and take more productive jobs, which:
- contributes to corporate growth, creating jobs for others
- stimulates economic growth, resulting in an increase in tax revenue in the future --> better education/health services

So, you see, having a graduate in the country is better for everyone, and that's why people should be encouraged to go to university by the government subsidizing higher education.

Reply 52

bambii

cpj1987

If secondary school wasn't compulsory, and people of that age could get jobs, I'd say fair enough if that weren't free either.
QUOTE]

But before the victorian times, young children sometimes had to work because their parents couldn't afford to send them to school. You wouldn't go back to that system though. I know you're only speaking hypothetically, but you wouldn't really want compulsory education to end at 11.

Reply 53

Arrogant Git

Morbo

Because those people graduate and take more productive jobs, which:
- contributes to corporate growth, creating jobs for others
- stimulates economic growth, resulting in an increase in tax revenue in the future --> better education/health services

So, you see, having a graduate in the country is better for everyone, and that's why people should be encouraged to go to university by the government subsidizing higher education.

No it's not. If there aren't enough skilled graduates, we need to incentivise university, if there are too many, we do not. A graduate, economically speaking, is not necessarily better than a non-graduate unless he is doing a job that requires a degree. Paying for university with taxes worked when fewer people were going and growth in that sector needed stimulating.

Reply 54

jacketpotato

20

Morbo

Above post

The simple fact is not everybody benefits from a university education. Pretending that university is an aid to people who want to be plasterers or builders is a nonsense.

Of course, having a skilled working force is desirable and if a university course is appropriate to an individual they should take it. But its a nonsense to think that the best practical training is always inside a university. Many people benefit much more from practical courses which aren't university courses, and many people learn much more from actually working.
Interestingly enough, we currently have a deficit of plumbers and electricians. These skills are just as important as those learnt at university.

The country does benefit from people going through degrees if its the right thing for them. The country gains nothing - and indeed loses the money it costs, and three years of what is some of the most productive time in one's life - from putting people through university if its not appropriate for them.

You are trying to pigeon-hole everybody into a box which says "best thing for you is university", its quite wrong

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.

Nonsense. Equal opportunities doesn't imply free university-level education anymore than it implies that everyone should be getting a free HD TV funded by the tax payer. I emphasise the word opportunity. There is already a mechanism in place which allows students to start paying back their debt once they are earning. People should have the opportunity to go to university, but should pay for the enormous benefit provided to them by the taxpayers. I think it quite wrong for people who haven't been to university, and often have lower incomes, to be subsidising the costs of those who do go to university and then benefit from a higher paid job at the end of it.

Reply 55

bambii

WelshBluebird

But thats the cost of living. Nothing to do with tuition fees (which is what the topic is about).

The only financial barrier to entry now, is living costs. And even then, it is possible to go through uni on government grants, loans, uni bursaries and parental support. Getting rid of tuition fees will not change that.

But if university fees were abolished, would students not have more money to go towards the cost of living?

Reply 56

cpj1987

15

[QUOTE="bambii"]

cpj1987

If secondary school wasn't compulsory, and people of that age could get jobs, I'd say fair enough if that weren't free either.
QUOTE]

But before the victorian times, young children sometimes had to work because their parents couldn't afford to send them to school. You wouldn't go back to that system though. I know you're only speaking hypothetically, but you wouldn't really want compulsory education to end at 11.

I don't see why not. I'm not saying anyone would be unable to attend school after this age - it'd still be a possibility for everyone if they wanted it.

Reply 57

chariot9103

Considering how much funding the govt already gives towards uni, we are really getting a good deal. They pay more money per pupil than the pupils themselves as I understand.

Reply 58

sulpicia

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?