This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Would an increase in tuition fees contradict the target of getting 50% to university?

Last month TSR members were asked to submit questions about university to Yoosk who were then going to ask them to Government Ministers along with other questions from the Yoosk website.

The questions have now been asked and the video responses recorded with David Lammy (the Higher Education Minister) and Lord Young (the Minister for Higher Education Students).

Question from hebe001:
Do you not feel that allowing universities to increase tuition fees contradicts the government's target of getting 50% of all young people to go to uni?

You can find more questions and replies in the Have your say forum, click on the green threads.

Reply 1

hebe001

12

That doesn't answer my question at all. He basically said (and tell me if I'm wrong) "we stand by our target, and the number of people going to uni is going up".
Not once did he attempt to justify unis being able to increase tuition fees year on year.

I also got the feeling that Labour plucked this "50%" figure out of thin air, made it their target, but didn't have a completely clear idea of how it would be funded. Therefore they've had to resort to allowing unis to increase tuition fees; which, as david lammy failed to clarify, contradicts their target of trying to get more people to go to uni.

Reply 2

300mg

1

He avoided the question magnificently.

Reply 3

eddybishop

Great answerr. Tuition fees are completely irrelevant to people like me who come from poor families, because of the generous student loans, and only affect the middle classes who have always been able to afford university anyway.

Reply 4

Grapevine

13

Lol, I couldn't detect an answer amongst that waffle.

Reply 5

utare

Okay so what was he trying to say... what was the answer?

Reply 6

BlackpoolCraig

11

It would contradict the 50% target. But then, one has to ask whether the 50% target itself was a good idea. And I certainly think it isn't.

Reply 7

300mg

1

The 50% target is stupid. University is meant to allow the top students to continue their studies, flooding universities with people for statistics sake is simply going to produce lower quality graduates with less respectable degrees, huge student debts and a lot of them will simply end up working somewhere were a degree is irrelevant.

Some people just aren't academic enough for uni, trying to encourage them by making watered down courses is just counterproductive.

Reply 8

musicbloke

17

Oh the irony of Wes Streeting (the NUS president who has stopped any national campaign against fees) asking that question. Erm, yeah, nothing said about the important numbers either i.e. student demographics. The point about these inner cities is as well as having the poorest students they also have the largest numbers of middle class families. Also, dude, it's number of students, not amount of students.

MB

Reply 9

Danny the Geezer

21

musicbloke

Oh the irony of Wes Streeting (the NUS president who has stopped any national campaign against fees) asking that question. Erm, yeah, nothing said about the important numbers either i.e. student demographics. The point about these inner cities is as well as having the poorest students they also have the largest numbers of middle class families. Also, dude, it's number of students, not amount of students.

MB

Erm you must live in London if your inner-city has the largest ammount of middle-class families. Really. :rolleyes:

Most cities in the Uk have a doughnut effect, with the inner cities having deprivation and it getting slowly more affluent as you get into the suburbs. The term "inner-city" refers to working-class kids and is typified by crime, deprivation etc. "Inner-city" schools are typically really rough. It's not Paris we live in where all the affluence is in the centre and the poor kids live in "les banlieuers"

Reply 10

krisblade

8

eddybishop

Great answerr. Tuition fees are completely irrelevant to people like me who come from poor families, because of the generous student loans, and only affect the middle classes who have always been able to afford university anyway.

What rubbish! Yes its easier for lower income families because of grants, and the UPPER classes could always afford it. But many middle class families cannot. Many people in the middle classes have two working parents earning a reasonable wage that pushes them above sutdent grants etc. But with university costing at least £8000 a year, many middle class families dont have that kind of disposable income, and middle class families with more than one child hoping to attend uni have no chance! Many students have to resort to commercial loans. I think you'll find any increase in tuition loans will merely push the middle classes out of uni beause of costs. This will have a MASSIVE effect, so dont be so quick to brush it off

Reply 11

teashoci

2

Hopefully. Forcing half the population into degree courses, devalues degrees.

We dont need 50% of the workforce with degrees. Stupid labour idea.

Reply 12

Gaishan

9

He completely avoided the question, and instead went on about how the number of people going to university is going up, alluding to grants etc. I guess he's implying that they'll meet the target regardless of the increased fees.

Reply 13

mattburton1

Typical labour MP avoiding the question. Can't expect much more from them I suppose

MB

Reply 14

crispycake18

50% with degrees?
Ludicrous in a word.
Push them up so only those who are truly dedicated or capable can take courses, and shut all the universities offering degrees on silver platters to E-students.

Reply 15

renlok

50% is a pointless target anyway and increasing the fees ...if they increase the fees much more most people i know wouldnt be able to afford it

Would an increase in tuition fees contradict the target of getting 50% to university?

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you