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

Reply 60
jacketpotato
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.

It's probably a graduate who has given them their job in the first place, though. I think it's entirely justified for the country to be subsidising university educations.

The nature of the most basic work most people do these days (beyond e.g. shop floor) requires some level of specialised knowledge, and higher education provides that. Of course university isn't "appropriate" for everyone, and indeed that's why not everyone goes, and I'm not arguing against that. The argument is that we currently need more people to go into higher education because otherwise our economy will stagnate.

It's quite clear from your post that you simply do not accept that educating more people beyond school will be of net benefit to our economy, and it's quite clear to me that this is the case.
Reply 61
WelshBluebird
No, because university fees are not paid until after you graduate.


Fair enough, hadn't thought of that.
Bambii

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.

Britain has changed since Victorian times. Sadly, nowadays, you can't send a 10 year old up a chimney or employ an 11 year old in a factory. Such jobs (in accordance with new, draconian and ageist employment laws), where they exist, demand older workers. In addition, many jobs require basic literacy and numeracy- many more than in Victorian times. For example, the retail sector has expanded considerably, while the juvenile workhouse sector has diminished somewhat. Now, you need a certain level of education to make someone remotely employable. It is in the interests of the economy that everyone is employable at some level and the demand for illiterates is quite small indeed. Hence, universal education. With graduates, we need enough grads to do graduate jobs and no more. If we want to stimulate the sector, we produce slightly more grads by lowering the price of university. If we don't need as many, we raise the price.
Reply 63
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?


Scottish students don't pay tuition fees already. Ace.

Plus, Britain has a LOT less people than India and China, compared with the British comparitively, very few people go through university in those countries.
Reply 64
hmmmmmm.........:|
Reply 65
no i dont think so, that means more people go to uni and waste atleast £3,000 per anum...
Morbo
It's probably a graduate who has given them their job in the first place, though.

This is nonsense. Many of the most prominent business men in this country didn't go to university and learnt their trade whilst working.

Moreover, sending people to university who aren't academic (or for whom there is no appropriate course) and who would benefit more from doing something else isn't going to create jobs.
Reply 67
Err.. I don't think so.
It'll be completely open to abuse by people who don't particularly want to go to uni but just can't be bothered to get a job. These people make up half the population of my sixth-form. :rolleyes: What a waste of lecturers time and tax payers money.
Reply 68
jacketpotato
This is nonsense. Many of the most prominent business men in this country didn't go to university and learnt their trade whilst working.

Take a look at this site:

http://specials.ft.com/ft500/may2001/FT33KQ4NKMC.html

The heads of most, if not all, of those companies - the biggest employers in the UK - will be graduates. My point was not "nonsense", and you are really just denying the facts now because your argument fails.
Morbo
Take a look at this site:

http://specials.ft.com/ft500/may2001/FT33KQ4NKMC.html

The heads of most, if not all, of those companies - the biggest employers in the UK - will be graduates. My point was not "nonsense", and you are really just denying the facts now because your argument fails.

Plenty of senior people in the business world didn't go to university - Richard Branson for one.
And lets not forget that not everyone works for enormous firms. People who run plumbing and electrician businesses (which we currently do not have enough of by the way), people who run building firms, people who run shops and family businesses, people who let properties etc. etc. - most of these people did not go to university.

Quite why you think that sending more and more people to university will benefit employment rates is beyond me. Do you think that people who choose not to go to university because they are not suited to it will suddenly be turned into CEO-of-a-Fortune 100-company-material overnight? You can't make everybody into a university type person. The world doesn't work like that, and lets not forget that we need plumbers and electricians as much as lawyers and medics.

Sending people to university doesn't give them better skills or make them more likely to employ people than they otherwise would, simply because they went to something called a "university". Many people benefit more from a non-university course or from working, and get their skills that way.
For a lot of students, who either can't be bothered to do any work or who are studying silly courses, university is now a complete and utter waste of time; and encouraging this time-waste for people who aren't suited to university doesn't benefit anybody.
Reply 70
Chattykatty88
By removing the barriers that prevent people from going to uni; namely tuition fees. What do you guys think?


Tuition fees aren't the main barrier. IPOS MORI do an annual poll where they analyse reasons teenagers give for not wanting to go to university, the five-year average results are:

I prefer to do something practical rather than studying from books - 47%
I want to start earning money as soon as possible - 44%
I can get a well-paid job without a degree - 31%
I do not enjoy learning - 30%
I’m not clever enough - 28%
I won’t get good enough exam results to get into a university - 28%
I do not need a degree to do the job(s) I am considering - 27%
I don’t like the idea of it - 22%


"Worry about student debt" (at 13%) and "Family can't afford it" (at 7%) don't make the top ten reasons. This figure is roughly the same as it was prior to the introduction of tuition fees which suggests they don't have that much of an impact. Furthermore 85% of those from lower income background said they would have been encouraged to apply to university if they'd known about the bursaries already available to them.

Rather than spending a billion pounds a year to abolish tuition fees it would make more sense to fund widening participation and aimhigher to expand their services.

One of the big reasons people from lower income backgrounds aren't applying is due to poorly informed perception of higher education. Spending 5 million on an ad campaign to promote higher education would be more effective than spending a billion on tuition fee cuts.

For a mere 150 million you could put a full-time higher education advisor into every single secondary school in the UK which would have a much bigger impact.

Spending a billion on fees would be a complete waste.
Reply 71
samanthaelizabeth
if eveyone wants graduate employment, who sweeps the streets? empties the bins? cleans public toilets?

we cant become super-elite, without flying in immigrants to do meanial jobs (bad idea) or returning to slavery (worse idea)

tuition fees are necessary, and if you dont want to pay them, then you dont really want to go to university - in which case we're all better off if you dont go and waste a tutors valuble time


And are you going to be the one that aims to sweep the streets, or scub **** from public toilets filled with needles? People need aspirations and that what university imbues them with.
Reply 72
Chattykatty88
And are you going to be the one that aims to sweep the streets, or scub **** from public toilets filled with needles? People need aspirations and that what university imbues them with.


University does not always equal a good job with decent pay.

What good will abolishing fees do?
Reply 73
Chattykatty88
And are you going to be the one that aims to sweep the streets, or scub **** from public toilets filled with needles? People need aspirations and that what university imbues them with.



Some people may be happy doing those things, or may see it less of a waste of their time to do that than to attend university - what's wrong with that?
Not everyone's aspiration involves university.
First of all, Say NO to international students, this would give a British Degree Prestiege, and make the degree more worthwhile, whilst freeing up places for those that are skeptical about going due to the fees. The fees can be lowered but not abolished. I think if they were something like £1000 a year, with free Accomadation, then it would stop people going to uni and p!ssing about because theres still a nominal cost.

And why not do degrees in vocational subjects, then give those in vocations reason to say "qualified" and not just because they have done a 2 day course.

I would suggest, that to pay for it, the lowest ranked universities on average, should be closed. and run as private colleges and remote/distant campusses.

any thoughts?
Reply 75
superluke2k8
The fees can be lowered but not abolished. I think if they were something like £1000 a year, with free Accomadation, then it would stop people going to uni and p!ssing about because theres still a nominal cost.


How would that stop people from going to uni?:confused:
University fees promote an elitist culture, as the rest of us have to get into thousands of pounds of debt to afford it.
Titch89
How would that stop people from going to uni?:confused:

I mean to stop people going to uni just because it saves them getting a job and gives the a reason to go get drunk.
it's them sort oof people that we don't want in university, so by making it £1000 year, it's not too expensive, yet, not so cheap people will just piss it away.
Reply 78
That won't stop people to uni. There will probably be more people going now who don't want to, than there are now.
Reply 79
superluke2k8
First of all, Say NO to international students, this would give a British Degree Prestiege, and make the degree more worthwhile, whilst freeing up places for those that are skeptical about going due to the fees. The fees can be lowered but not abolished. I think if they were something like £1000 a year, with free Accomadation, then it would stop people going to uni and p!ssing about because theres still a nominal cost.

And why not do degrees in vocational subjects, then give those in vocations reason to say "qualified" and not just because they have done a 2 day course.

I would suggest, that to pay for it, the lowest ranked universities on average, should be closed. and run as private colleges and remote/distant campusses.

any thoughts?


My only thought is that you appear to have made a number of contradictory points, whilst somehow avoiding ANY reasoning.

Latest

Trending

Trending