Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by otester)
    What do you mean by released?
    I think they mean if the wealth was equally distributed


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    How about getting rid of tuition fees altogether? Scotland has free Tuition, why can't we? If money is the problem then how about more taxes on the rich and the bankers who need to pay their way more.

    Ironically it was these rich bankers who probably got free tuition back in the 70s and 80s, now their screwing our futures by making university unaffordable.
    How is paying absolutely nothing until you graduate and earn £21k unaffordable?
    Also, lol at most students paying the square root of sweet f.a. in direct taxes but complaining that rich people getting deducted half their wages in income tax and national insurance isn't enough.
    Students might get taken more seriously if they didn't keep coming out with infantile arguments.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Cuba, China and Vietnam all provide free university education for all. They can do it because the nations wealth is equally divided which means good eduction and public services.

    In Britain, America etc the majority of the nations wealth is possessed by a tiny few at the top, and if that wealth was released we would be a much better country.
    Wrong on all counts. The three countries you mentioned have high levels of inequality. They are also highly corrupt and have inefficient tax collection.
    Having free university tuition is a policy of choice, not necessity. It's not some inherent litmus test of human development.
    Also, British and American universities are collectively the best in the world by a country mile. Everyone in the UK is entitled to free tuition in most EU countries, yet hardly anyone takes it up. That's for a reason.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by I am Iron Man)
    I think they mean if the wealth was equally distributed


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    By force of the state?
    Offline

    9
    Maybe if graduate prospects were better, students would feel okay about paying £27,000 for their degrees. If the government is so adamant on increasing fees, maybe increase the benefits for students as well.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeoMarxist)
    Maybe if graduate prospects were better, students would feel okay about paying £27,000 for their degrees. If the government is so adamant on increasing fees, maybe increase the benefits for students as well.
    And what 'benefits' do you recommend?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ambitious1999)
    Cuba, China and Vietnam all provide free university education for all. They can do it because the nations wealth is equally divided which means good eduction and public services.

    In Britain, America etc the majority of the nations wealth is possessed by a tiny few at the top, and if that wealth was released we would be a much better country.
    Let's first discuss how you propose to spread the wealth. If your line of argument is taxation, then you would be wrong. Taxation does not yield any long-term benefits, as the wealthy will always find a way to not pay it.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Sebastian Bartlett)
    Scotland only afford it due to a nice fat stimulus from England. We are in enough debt and the sheer size of England and its education system vs minuscule Scotland makes it impossible. No fees = rubbish unis = morons = worse off country.

    Uni is affordable to everyone as everyone can get loans which they then only pay back when they make good money. Also barely anyone went to uni in the 70/80s and their was little international competition so it was okay to be state funded. Typical you just want to tax tax tax or as I call it destroying ambition and punishing achievement
    Germany can afford to make higher education free. They've got a larger population than us and have a similar proportion of students, too. There is absolutely no factual basis behind the claim that we can't afford it.
    Offline

    9
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    And what 'benefits' do you recommend?
    Like I mentioned, better graduate prospects and training programmes for graduates. Better housing for students so they don't end up sharing a bathroom with 10 other people.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeoMarxist)
    Like I mentioned, better graduate prospects and training programmes for graduates. Better housing for students so they don't end up sharing a bathroom with 10 other people.
    This is not necessarily the role of a government to directly create. Instead, the state should be creating opportunities for corporations to create more jobs, especially at lower levels. For example, starting a company is still far too bureaucratic and time-consuming. The process needs to be decentralised.
    Offline

    9
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This is not necessarily the role of a government to directly create. Instead, the state should be creating opportunities for corporations to create more jobs, especially at lower levels. For example, starting a company is still far too bureaucratic and time-consuming. The process needs to be decentralised.
    If the government are charging £27,000 for education then it better amount to something. Whether they create jobs or facilitate the creation of jobs, I still stand by my point that there needs to be better graduate prospects.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeoMarxist)
    If the government are charging £27,000 for education then it better amount to something. Whether they create jobs or facilitate the creation of jobs, I still stand by my point that there needs to be better graduate prospects.
    I don't disagree with you that better graduate prospects are necessary but my issue is with the line of reasoning that the state is responsible for directly improving these prospects. Employers need to be incentivised into doing this.
    Offline

    9
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    I don't disagree with you that better graduate prospects are necessary but my issue is with the line of reasoning that the state is responsible for directly improving these prospects. Employers need to be incentivised into doing this.
    I never said the state is 'directly' responsible. Who will create these incentives? The state so therefore they will need to make the first move regardless.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    Germany can afford to make higher education free. They've got a larger population than us and have a similar proportion of students, too. There is absolutely no factual basis behind the claim that we can't afford it.
    Of course we could afford it. That in itself isn't an argument for free tuition, in the same manner that I don't spend my savings on getting a new sports car just because I could technically afford it. The way public borrowing is structured, really there's a whole load of things we could 'afford' if we really wanted to indebt ourselves enough to pay for it.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Of course we could afford it. That in itself isn't an argument for free tuition, in the same manner that I don't spend my savings on getting a new sports car just because I could technically afford it. The way public borrowing is structured, really there's a whole load of things we could 'afford' if we really wanted to indebt ourselves enough to pay for it.
    I was responding to someone who said that we can't afford it, hence my argument. Of course you shouldn't invest in something just because you can afford it - there are plenty of other reasons why free higher education is an outstanding idea.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Plagioclase)
    I was responding to someone who said that we can't afford it, hence my argument. Of course you shouldn't invest in something just because you can afford it - there are plenty of other reasons why free higher education is an outstanding idea.
    Fair one.
    We do invest in higher education, a great deal. We simply finance it in a different method, a fairer method.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NeoMarxist)
    I never said the state is 'directly' responsible. Who will create these incentives? The state so therefore they will need to make the first move regardless.
    This comment suggests that your first 'port' of call is indeed the state rather than the company:

    (Original post by NeoMarxist)
    Maybe if graduate prospects were better, students would feel okay about paying £27,000 for their degrees. If the government is so adamant on increasing fees, maybe increase the benefits for students as well.
    The point is not who makes the first move, NeoMarxist. It's on whom the responsibility falls. If a company sees the benefit in hiring young talent, then it will do so. In the current climate, however, I don't see how or why a corporation will want to invest more in training and hiring an individual who will bring little benefit to them for 18 months.
    Offline

    9
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    This comment suggests that your first 'port' of call is indeed the state rather than the company:



    The point is not who makes the first move, NeoMarxist. It's on whom the responsibility falls. If a company sees the benefit in hiring young talent, then it will do so. In the current climate, however, I don't see how or why a corporation will want to invest more in training and hiring an individual who will bring little benefit to them for 18 months.
    You're entirely missing my point (yet again). The state has to set the motions and, like you said, provide incentives for these company's to hire more. Or they need to find a way to create more jobs for graduates. You can't put such a high price on education if it's useless. If students won't get jobs anyway, there shouldn't be such a high price on education vice versa.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aceadria)
    And what 'benefits' do you recommend?
    Students should get income support and housing benefit to pay for food, books and accommodation in halls. This could be possible if we had things like mansion taxes and more taxes for the rich.
    Students are trying to better themselves and society should do all it can to help them achieve their goals starting with more contributions from the rich and the bankers.
    • Community Assistant
    • Welcome Squad
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    Welcome Squad
    I don't think this will be viable. However, we need more grants and scholarships, as well as more graduate jobs to fill in the long run.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.