This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Tuition fees are a good thing/

Where is the evidence that free education privileges intelligent people and nobody else? I've never heard that argument before and I can't find any research to back it up, sounds like you made it up tbh. One only has to look to Europe to see how well free higher education systems can work.

Somebody who gets FFF at A level is likely unintelligent and will not get into uni. And if they did, then what is the purpose of going to uni? It rather devalues the degree, and wastes people's time and money (putting people into education for 21 years of their live when, frankly, 18 years would already be sufficient for them to learn a trade, work and start enjoying the remainder of their lives).

I think it is something of a truism to suggest that university primarily privileges intelligent people.

There are countless tax-funded schemes, initiatives, programmes, benefits etc which are paid for by general taxation but only benefit a select number of people, that is the nature of taxation. Why should education be treated differently to child tax credits?

Because education primarily benefits the individual, and the social good that comes from their skills will be reflected by the wage they can command from their skills (and if it doesn't, then I'm afraid you chose a degree which doesn't efficiently benefit other people). Subsidising education effectively creates a double-benefit for, say, a law student, or a medic, or a banker. They gain entry into better jobs through their degree, and have their better pay package initially financed by the taxpayer - including by that guy who studied a B-Tech in Woodcraft because he couldn't pass GCSE Maths or English and therefore never went to uni but ends up paying for everybody else's privilege.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 181

Snufkin

Universities Forum Helper

21

Original post by Melancholy

Somebody who gets FFF at A level is likely unintelligent and will not get into uni. And if they did, then what is the purpose of going to uni? It rather devalues the degree, and wastes people's time and money (putting people into education for 21 years of their live when, frankly, 18 years would already be sufficient for them to learn a trade, work and start enjoying the remainder of their lives).

I think it is something of a truism to suggest that university primarily privileges intelligent people.

I don't agree that failing your A levels means you're unintelligent. It might mean you aren't academic or that you're a late bloomer, but lots of people go onto succeed at university who did badly in school. There are very few stupid people in the world, far fewer than most people think - nearly everyone has the capacity to learn.

I agree that the government shouldn't push all young people into going to university. I wish we could adopt Germany's system of respected technical colleges and proper apprenticeships that have equal status alongside academic universities. Unfortunately that kind of system won't work in Britain because people are prejudiced against vocational skills. But that is society's problem, I don't see how forcing academic students to pay for their degrees is going to help anyone, it certainly doesn't help the "unintelligent people".

Because education primarily benefits the individual, and the social good that comes from their skills will be reflected by the wage they can command from their skills (and if it doesn't, then I'm afraid you chose a degree which doesn't efficiently benefit other people). Subsidising education effectively creates a double-benefit for, say, a law student, or a medic, or a banker. They gain entry into better jobs through their degree, and have their better pay package initially financed by the taxpayer - including by that guy who studied a B-Tech in Woodcraft because he couldn't pass GCSE Maths or English and therefore never went to uni but ends up paying for everybody else's privilege.

All sorts of tax-funded services and programmes only benefit the individual. The single mum benefits from tax-funded childcare, the cancer patient benefits from NHS treatment, the Olympic swimmer benefits from tax-funded training etc. You haven't made the case for why education should be treated differently.

All over Europe both the individual and society benefits from free education. If it can work there, why not here?

Reply 182

username1148663

21

All this thread has shown thus far is that many of its posters need more education

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 183

Juichiro

18

Original post by The gains kinggg

aus man

http://www.melbournepolytechnic.edu.au/courses/certificate-iv-in-liberal-arts-2/apply

You can only use the UK loan system to do degrees here. So, your argument is irrelevant. And so is your insult of polytechnics. :colonhash:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 184

Juichiro

18

Original post by The gains kinggg

not my problem, in fact i couldn't give less of a ****

Yes, it is. If they are in relative poverty, they will be more likely to commit crimes and have a higher reproductive rate (and being poor that means they will need to get benefits - which you will subsidise) so instead of producing money or services, they will take more of your subsidy. So, yes, it is your problem.

Reply 185

cherryred90s

20

Original post by Juichiro

Yes, it is. If they are in relative poverty, they will be more likely to commit crimes and have a higher reproductive rate (and being poor that means they will need to get benefits - which you will subsidise) so instead of producing money or services, they will take more of your subsidy. So, yes, it is your problem.

How do you know they're more likely to have a higher reproductive rate?

Reply 186

Juichiro

18

Original post by cherryred90s

How do you know they're more likely to have a higher reproductive rate?

Mistake of mine. :smile:

The correlation regarding reproductive rate is not with socioeconomic status but with ethnicity membership. But then, ethnicity membership is correlated with socioeconomic status.

Reply 187

Fluorish_Blotts

5

Original post by SirMilkSheikh

The problem is that in today's age people are incredibly entitled. Going to university, no matter how rubbish the institution, no matter how ridiculous the degree, has entwined itself within the culture of England. Growing up means going to university and having a degree and passing a few exams where you have to memorise a bunch of things or write a few useless essays - young people measure their self worth on these worthless privileges.

If you tell an 18 year old that they will have to pay the cost of their degrees, then they'll throw a tantrum and vote for the party who promises cheaper education. Self-entitlement runs deep in this country.

The solution is to completely stop funding universities and degrees, apart from the essential NHS funded courses. Encourage people to learn a trade from the age of 15 which will provide them with skills, useful work and an income for the rest of their lives (or at least for the time being). 16 year olds need to learn and prepare to be adults again instead of university students remaining children well into their mid 20s.

Edit: If you don't want to fund a university or a degree, or any other such nonsense, then avoid paying tax if you can help it. I shudder knowing that 25% of my wages disappear every week into the coffers of daddy government.

While I agree that many careers shouldn't actually require degrees, in addition to NHS workers from the "essential NHS funded courses", our society also needs teachers, engineers, research scientists, legal professionals, tax experts, software developers & IT specialists, linguists to work as translators etc etc..

Reply 188

SRETGDGB E

@||TheUnknown||
@WoodyMKC
@TheonlyMrsHolmes
@beautifulxxx
@Black Cat
@trapking
@StrawbAri
@Zamestaneh
@ForestShadow
@AishaGirl

Reply 189

Aerospengie

12

Original post by The gains kinggg

Tuition fees are the fairest way.

Why should i have to subsidise someone else's ****ty liberal arts degree from some unknown polytechnic?

And why do students feel as thought they are soo entitled?

Blah blah blah give me some free **** that other people have to pay for.

business idea: increase price of mickey mouse degrees, use them to lower price of useful degrees

mickey mouse degrees (english, politics, psychology, sociology etc) are nearly universally taken by upper-middle class children who feel that they just HAVE to get a degree, but don't actually have any real life plan

they'll be able to fund the increased cost anyway, due to their upper-middle class background

the money can then be used to subsidise useful degrees for the sensible and lower-class trying to move up the social ladder

Reply 190

303Pharma

15

Original post by DanteTheDoorKnob

A lot of degrees are unlikely to significantly improve salary alone, if you're taking a degree for money reasons and you do something that has little monetary value that's a bad decision. If you're doing a degree to get into a profession (eg teaching) that's great, you need it, the skills are important.

I don't think higher education is a right for all, I don't think university education even teaches you very much.

Sounds like you are contrading yourself there. Other than the arts, I would imagine most other degrees teach critical thinking, and research skills. Pharmacy for example, also requires learning, and more importantly, understanding, a considerable amount of often difficult material.

Tuition fees are a good thing/

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you