Should university be free

Scroll to see replies

Absolutely not - higher education is not a human right. You want it, you pay for it.

In fact I'd go as far as to say that the current fees are not enough, though the proposed tiered system looks somewhat promising. Ideally the student loan scheme would be scrapped entirely and fees would have to be paid upfront - teach all those workshy 18 year olds that you can't have everything handed to you on a plate.

Yeah remove access to education for those from lower class backgrounds and make classism more prominent. What kind of privileged ******** is this?

Reply 21

AndrewSCO

Ahhhh if only you guys lived in Scotland :cool:

Reply 22

Nader77

"Higher education is a human right" so we have to pay for human rights now?lmao

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 23

Nader77

"Higher education is a human right" so we have to pay for human rights now?lmao

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 24

1682795

It would be beneficial for students but not University, if you want free education you might as well expect worse conditions with regards to facilities, teaching, equipment etc.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 25

Lkathryn08

Original post by #ChaosKass

I don't see anything wrong with what I've proposed.

Young people who want to go to university can get a part time job when they turn 16, and then work full time for a couple of years once their A-levels have finished. Assuming they are still living with their parents during this time, they would have saved enough for the tuition fees and majority of living costs for their three years of university. Then they can get a part-time job while at university and, complete with internships in the summer, will have more than enough to get themselves through to graduation. Plus all this experience they have amassed will put them in a good position to get a decent job after uni.

This way university is accessible to all, while also allowing young people to get a wide variety of work and life experience.

You have a very warped idea of how much 16 years olds earn, certainly not enough for three years tuition and living fees! I know people who have to work to get the funds to go to uni now because their loan doesn't cover rent! In an unskilled job at the age of 16 where the minimum wage is £3.87, this is not feasible... And you think there's enough jobs out there for all those 16 year olds fresh out of school with no work experience...
I know your purpose on here is to annoy people and it's working as it does represent some people's opinion... Sigh
Just remembered you also want 18 year olds doing a year of unpaid military service, so that's a year wasted and a year's less earnings from those trying to pay for uni, as if that would ever be possible...

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 26

username2053059

Original post by #ChaosKass

To be honest I think all 18 year olds should have to enrol in a year of compulsory unpaid military service anyway.

Are you on crack? I mean, 1 years enrolment in the armed forces isn't a bad idea, but UNPAID? And you want to increase the debt burden that comes with going to university? (kids are already heavily subsidised by the bank balance of mummy and daddy of course).

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 27

username2053059

Original post by AndrewSCO

Ahhhh if only you guys lived in Scotland :cool:

huehuehuehue
:tongue:

@Impressive Meh, Scottish uni's aren't exactly sh*teholes are they?

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 28

AzidicArcturus

No. It's best to make it easier for brighter students to pay for university fees by reducing them according to the grades they have. For example, an AAB grade A-level student only has to pay £5,000 per year, but an A-level CCC grade student has to pay £8,000 per year, with the max yearly uni tuition fee being £9,000. This will make it easier for the brightest students to stand out more when they have difficult financial situations, and to make students who aren't doing well in school focus more on education than procrastination. As a result, this provides an incentive to education for parents to look at when their children goes to university - to work to the best of their ability. Of course, student loans should still be available.

Since May is bringing back grammar schools, this should synergise well with the scaling tuition fees mentioned above, for example with A grade working class students.

(edited 7 years ago)

Original post by #ChaosKass

Absolutely not - higher education is not a human right

Why?

And are you really expecting a 16 year old with no work experience to land a job that will cover £9000 + accommodation fees (£3500-£6000) a year for 3-4 years? Are you crazy? I swear this is a troll account.

Anyway my answer would be fees should return to 3k a year. That was acceptable.

Original post by AzidicArcturus

That's exactly how you end up with the rich getting richer and the poor remaining poor.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 31

ha.anon90

Original post by niteninja1

Should university be free

No it shouldn't.
We should pay cause most people would just go to uni to kill their time and just go for fun. So their parents dont get them married off.

And some would go for the freedom. The clubbing,drinking...

Peace ✌🏼️

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 32

scblx

Living in a country where university is free (Germany - well you have to be approx. 500-600 euros/year as "contribution" but that's not really a tuition fee, it also includes a bus/train ticket for the whole area where you study) I think that some tuition fees might be necessary.
The German universities are all massively underfunded and overcrowded. And by crowded I mean that we definitely have a sort of "mass education system". I think this is different in the UK - here in Germany, you might have lectures with 600 other people or even more, there were even incidents where they streamed the lecture to another room as well because one wasn't big enough. Even in the smaller lessons/tutorials there might be around 60 people. Nobody will really know you and different from the UK, they don't care if people drop out. Some departments try to make people fail and drop out on purpose (they take more people and then they need to seperate "the good" from "the bad" as they say).
Also, it is really weird that there are people who just enroll for the bus ticket. Because it's still good value for money then. Furthermore, German unis provide a lot less student accommodation than UK ones. The vast majority will have to live in privately owned accomodation and it's an enormous struggle to get a place in student hall (especially in popular cities). Another problem is that it's easier to drop out and change and there are people who study for a really long time. But also this is an advantage - you don't have to worry too much if your course turns out not to be right for you, that's not such a big deal here.

I mean, I definitely see the advantages - nobody really has to be put off to go because of money, it's affordable for everyone, you don't necessarily finish with debts. Education IS a human right and should be open to everyone. But good education needs to be financed somehow. I think there should be students fees, maybe not as high as in the UK. I would propose having student fees and support for people who might not be able to finance their studies otherwise.

Reply 33

Maker

Should be free, it makes no sense that education up to 18 is free but then have to pay thousands for post 18.

Reply 34

#ChaosKass

Original post by Maker

Should be free, it makes no sense that education up to 18 is free but then have to pay thousands for post 18.

If you don't like the sharp change from pre-18 to post-18 then surely the logical thing to do would be to charge for pre-18 too.

Personally I think that might be going a little too far, however I'd gladly welcome the introduction of fees for education post-GCSE.

Reply 35

Reue

Original post by Maker

Should be free, it makes no sense that education up to 18 is free but then have to pay thousands for post 18.

It makes perfect sense as you are legally required to remain in some form of education up to 18, then free to do whatever you want afterwards.

Reply 36

SummerStrawberry

Original post by #ChaosKass

Supply and demand: you're going to end-up with an over-saturation in the market for part-time and low-skilled jobs, so employers will be able to drive down wages. You then end-up with people only being able to start university when they're 25, and therefore enter the graduate workforce seven years later than they would have previously done. That's bad for everyone, because older people in part-time and low-skilled jobs get paid less/replaced by an 18-year-old who will accept less. In addition, the highly-skilled jobs which require a university education become more under-saturated, so those in them demand more, raising wages. The rich get richer, and the poor get poorer. Add that to the fact that people spend less time working in the more highly-paid jobs, and you've got a recipe for long-term, drawn-out economic decline. Some doctors, for example, spend 16 years in training from starting medical school to becoming a consultant; if they didn't start until 25, they'd be 41.

On a social level, you've just put a massive, university-sized wedge between the socio-economic classes. Anyone with parents with enough money will simply pay their children's way through university as soon as they finish sixth-form. University once again becomes the domain of the children of the rich and powerful, and straight away you lose a great deal of social mobility. Why? People trying to work their way into university will just give up. They'll seek to make the best of their current situation, rather than trying to make their current situation the best. That can only be bad for everyone.

This is, in effect, the system of thirty/forty years ago, when only the very best/rich went to university at all, and a degree meant something to employers more than another tick for another box. Social mobility has increased since then, and it's partially due to the fact that almost anyone can get a degree. It's diminished a degree's worth, but going back to a similar system where your ability to get a degree depended largely on your ability to pay is a very, very, dangerous prospect.

This is, I think, the fact of the matter: right-wing populism is growing, and people are going to want to know why their taxes pay to subsidise universities and students who - in their mind - spend it all on alcohol and drunken nights out. Universities, students, and the government have, I think, a responsibility to make sure that people don't feel that, and to ensure that their degree has worth to themselves and society; the alternative may be that a government is elected with a mandate to reduce student loans.