Abolish Uni Fees - Petition

I’ve made a petition – will you sign it?

My Petition: Abolish University Tuition Fees

Click this link to sign the petition:
https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/165749/sponsors/Kn77OD65HgTz0Vxlmcf8

Dear TSR,

In 2012 the Coalition Government raised tuition fees to £9000 a year, which means students now face crippling debt. This shackling debt often lasts decades. Free education is a right not a privilege. We have to act now to take back what's rightfully ours!

Young students eager to better themselves as people are facing crippling debt after they leave university unless they are born of a very wealthy family. This ensures that the wealth stays with the families who have always had it. Worse still is the number of young people denied the chance of university due to their disadvantaged background. Free education is vital if we are to have a country that utilises the most talented rather than the most fortunate. Free education is necessary for equality.

This petition has to do well! If you agree with it please sign it and send it to all your contacts.

Thankyou,

The Awakener

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 1

The Awakener

OP

5

Young students eager to better themselves as people are facing crippling debt after they leave university unless they are born of a very wealthy family. This ensures that the wealth stays with the families who have always had it. Worse still is the number of young people denied the chance of university due to their disadvantaged background. Free education is vital if we are to have a country that utilises the most talented rather than the most fortunate. Free education is necessary for equality.

Reply 2

Tiger Rag

22

But you've already had 13 years of free education. And where will the extra money come from? it has to come from somewhere and it's only right that you pay for your own education.

Reply 3

JCal

6

You have absolutely no chance of this, I'm afraid. There's no inexhaustible government funding for education, so in the end it comes down to us. Also, i don't think most students have any debts other than their tuition and maintenance loans, which are barely a real debt; They're more like extra taxes.

Reply 4

The_Opinion

6

How is the debt "crippling", you only pay it back after you earn X amount, its not like a regular loan.

Reply 5

Tiger Rag

22

Original post by The_Opinion

How is the debt "crippling", you only pay it back after you earn X amount, its not like a regular loan.

It's written off after 30 years, regardless of how much you've paid back.

Reply 6

viffer

16

If someone chooses to go on to HE to improve THEIR earning potential why shouldn't they be expected to fund it themself rather than at the expense of the taxpayer.

Some degrees where society can benefit (eg doctor*) could potentially have some sort of concession but as a general rule......

* as an aside, I don't think doctors should be able to benefit to the extent that many do from using NHS facilities and if they leave the NHS completely any concession should be cancelled.

So, in conclusion, I ain't signing your petition.

Reply 7

Farm_Ecology

12

I'm conflicted.

I believe the Universities in the UK need a massive change in direction, and the fee structure needs to change as well.

My issue with making Universities free is that the rest of society should not have to pay for peoples hobbies or vague interests in learning. It is possible to learn a subject completely independent without the need to attend university. The tax payer should not have to fund say, someone's sewing lessons or fencing classes.

That said, improving our education as a whole is good for society, and developing more advanced skills allows a more skilled workforce. Which is why I think that some courses should be free, but the list would be restricted to more skill-based degrees or one which are more directly correlated with a specific and constructive job.

Beyond this, I think Universities should then be more open to the public, allowing non-students to access libraries and potentially allowing non-students to attend classes where there is room. Allowing self-schooled persons to sit exams for a fee may help encourage people to do their own reading and learning, as well as brining in some extra revenue.

As it currently stands however, I don't believe student fees should be scrapped.

Reply 8

The Awakener

OP

5

Original post by Tiger Rag

But you've already had 13 years of free education. And where will the extra money come from? it has to come from somewhere and it's only right that you pay for your own education.

Reply 9

RomeoSantos

10

I like the fees they help maintain the upper class

Reply 10

The Awakener

OP

5

Original post by viffer

If someone chooses to go on to HE to improve THEIR earning potential why shouldn't they be expected to fund it themself rather than at the expense of the taxpayer.

Some degrees where society can benefit (eg doctor*) could potentially have some sort of concession but as a general rule......

* as an aside, I don't think doctors should be able to benefit to the extent that many do from using NHS facilities and if they leave the NHS completely any concession should be cancelled.

So, in conclusion, I ain't signing your petition.

The amount a highly earning person will pay through taxes is larger than the amount funding their higher education costs. If HE is free more people will be able to access it. These people will end up with jobs that are better paid meaning they can pay more tax. This good for the economy and good for social mobility.

(edited 7 years ago)

no way

OP

Original post by RomeoSantos

I like the fees they help maintain the upper class

Troll

Reply 13

The Awakener

OP

5

Original post by sdotd

no way

Why?

OP

good on you man!

Original post by The Awakener

Why?

You have already had education free until the age of 18. No need for taxpayers to continue to fund your education

Reply 17

The Awakener

OP

5

Original post by sdotd

You have already had education free until the age of 18. No need for taxpayers to continue to fund your education

The amount a highly earning person will pay through taxes is larger than the amount funding their higher education costs. If HE is free more people will be able to access it. These people will end up with jobs that are better paid meaning they can pay more tax. This good for the economy and good for social mobility.

Reply 18

999tigger

19

Gosh what a sense of entitlement.
You still have the problem of who is going to pay for it? Why not the student getting the benefit?
Its not crippling devt vecause you only start paying when you earn over a set amount.
Crippling would be if it was a normal loan that you had to pay back 100% withing x years of leaving and took no account of earnings.

Reply 19

The Awakener

OP

5

Original post by 999tigger

Gosh what a sense of entitlement.
You still have the problem of who is going to pay for it? Why not the student getting the benefit?
Its not crippling devt vecause you only start paying when you earn over a set amount.
Crippling would be if it was a normal loan that you had to pay back 100% withing x years of leaving and took no account of earnings.

Public provision for access to higher and further education is now dead. Disadvantaged students must help themselves, whether by choosing to attend less expensive institutions or ones close to the family home in order to minimise living costs: a choice made according to means, not ability. Or elsethey can take out larger loans, up to £8,200 per year for maintenance alone. The government has had the audacity to suggest that because the superseded maintenance grants had been inadequate to meet living costs the new loans will mean ‘more money in yourpocket.’ But it is borrowed money, and will add an estimated £12,500 to the cost of a university education. The government argue that some or all of the loan may never be repaid. But this outcome would represent a signal failure to achieve social mobilitythrough gaining a degree: a graduate from a disadvantaged background locked into a lifetime of low pay. Higher income families are on the whole able to shield students and graduates from exorbitant levels of debt. For students from poorer families, their individual exposure to debt is greater and potentially more damaging, continuing to disadvantage them as they attempt to establish themselves. Those defending the fees policy claim that because the fees are not paid at point of access, they won’t have adeterrent effect on students from disadvantaged backgrounds. All have equal access to loans, and they will begin repayments only when their income reaches a certain threshold.Supporters of the policy have been able to point to the fact that the level of applications in the first three years of the new regime has not been reduced substantially. Recruitment has, of course, been encouraged by official assurances that the loan system is ‘fair’ and ‘risk free.’ High fees have also raised the stakes; school-leavers have been made to feel that the inflated price-tag attached to a degree is a measure of its enhanced value, and that it represents an essential personal investment. Behind the headline figures, however, a different picture emerges. The Independent Commission on Fees, established with the introduction of the scheme in 2012, reported in 2013 that working-class boys were being deterred by the rise in fees. Different parts of country are differently affected. A recent government report showed that young people from the most disadvantaged areas are now seven times less likely to participate in higher education than their counterparts in advantaged areas. ‘Access providers’, universities that were previously polytechnics or FE colleges, have suffered some quite dramatic falls in intake. Numbers of part-time and mature students have plummeted. A huge gap remains in participation between privileged and less privileged sectors of society, and this looks likely to worsen. One barrier to access apparent in the entry system has been the government’s manipulation of numbers entering higher education through the mechanism of A level results. In the first two years of the new regime, universities could expand recruitment of students gaining triple A or AAB results, favouring those with educational and social advantages at school. In 2015 the recruitment cap has been lifted altogether, but this has coincided with the introduction of a new barrier. A survey shows 20% of school-leavers are now reconsidering their plans to go to University after the government announced the scrapping of maintenance grants. Back in 2011 two teenagers mounted a legal challenge to the coalition government on the basis that ministers had failed in their duty to consider the disproportionate effect of the rise in fees on vulnerable groups. The Supreme Court ruled that there had been sufficient consultation in the Browne Report of 2010, which underpinned the fee rise, and that there ‘were various measures which are directed specifically at increasing university access to poorer students’. These spurs to access included means-tested maintenance grants up to maximum £3,387 per year, and a new National Scholarship Programme for students eligible for full maintenance grant, when it was announced that the funding provided for the programme ‘will be £50m in financial year 2012-13, £100m in 2013-14 and £150m from 2014-15.’ NSP scholarships provided an additional £2,500 for the first year of study. Now both the maintenance grants and the National Scholarship Programme have been scrapped; £50m has been diverted from the latter to deal with the crisis in postgraduate recruitment. There are also plans to cut the Disabled Students’ Allowance and require universities to take over provision, without safeguardsor consistency. .

Abolish Uni Fees - Petition

Quick Reply

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you