Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    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.
    More graduates doesnt always mean more higher paying jobs, it just means more graduates working in McDonalds. If you hadnt notice there is a glut of graduates with large numbers in non graduate jobs. If all the graduates are going to earn mich more, then they wont have a problem paying off the loans. You cant have it both ways.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Oh bugger off. You go to uni, come out and pay a fixed % of your income to balance out the subsidy you got on the outset. You stop paying it 30 years later.

    This is a fair price to pay for a more learned population.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .....Jeff458)
    good on you man!
    https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/165749

    Can you sign?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    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 The government has had the audacity to suggest that because the superseded maintenance grants had been inadequate to meet living costs the new loans will mean ‘more money in yourpocket.’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. .
    I would like to have read and commented on this. Unfortunately without a single paragraph break, I CBA.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    No I think if you want a higher education you should pay for it. Making it free will encourage even more people to go to university instead of doing other things like apprenticeships or going straight to work.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Oh bugger off. You go to uni, come out and pay fixed % of your income to balance out the subsidy you got on the outset. You stop paying it 30 years later.
    This is a fair price to pay for a more learned population.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    ???
    Tuition fees act as barriers to the less fortunate. This reduces people being able to go to uni. Not only does this makes a less learned population it destroyes social mobility and makes sure wealth stays with those who have always had it. It means that uni access is for those who are most fortunate not those who are most talented.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    There is no point doing this because there are already enough people going to university without the government making it free.

    Also, we should be encouraging more students to take up apprenticeships and going straight to paid work- not everyone is suited for the academic nature of a university education and we should be encouraging those people to learn a trade or do some,thing else.

    Not to mention that it would be very expensive to fund.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    And why should the taxpayer be funding your own personal academic pursuits? And it's not as though this debt will have a huge impact on your life. The UK's system seems fairly reasonable - you only pay back what you can afford.

    If you want to spend 3-10 years of your life studying sociology, art or gender studies, do so at your own expense.

    I'm also not convinced by the argument that society owes you anything if you decide to become a doctor, an engineer, or a scientist, either. You are already compensated for your work in the form of a salary when society (the consumer) pays for the goods and services you help provide. Why should we pay you twice?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    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/petit...65HgTz0Vxlmcf8

    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
    Why should the taxpayer give us a free ride
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    Bernie said free education however he supported a graduate tax which is basically what we have in the UK.

    His main point was you should not be in debt just to attend
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    ??? Tuition fees act as barriers to the less fortunate. This reduces people being able to go to uni. Not only does this makes a less learned population it destroyes social mobility and makes sure wealth stays with those who have always had it. It means that uni access is for those who are most fortunate not those who are most talented.
    Bullcrap of the highest order.*

    There has been no evidence that tuition fees deter the poor from attending university. In fact, there is really no way that statement makes sense considering they're the most likely to get all the support they need (financially) whilst at university with the full maintenance amount and mandatory access bursaries given out by universities.

    The system atm ensures anyone able to go to university can go, and in return they pay a bit of their income (after a high threshold) for a set amount of years. *

    It's completely nonsensical to claim that the poor can't afford university, if anything it's the middle class that can't.*
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not sure if abolishing Uni fees is a realistic goal.

    I'm also not sure if I personally support the idea. I mean, I really dislike the current fees but I'm not sure if getting rid of Uni fees altogether will be beneficial in the long-term.

    What I am sure of is that I support lower Uni fees. Maybe a maximum of £5,000 per year. Alternatively, we could have lower fees for those who are obtaining degrees in subjects that highly benefit society (Law, Medicine, IT, Engineering, just to name a few).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The Awakener)
    ???
    Tuition fees act as barriers to the less fortunate. This reduces people being able to go to uni. Not only does this makes a less learned population it destroyes social mobility and makes sure wealth stays with those who have always had it. It means that uni access is for those who are most fortunate not those who are most talented.


    Tuition fees reduce people being able to go to University?

    We are talking about England right? And not countries like the USA and Canada?
    Offline

    22
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FantasticMsFox)
    I'm not sure if abolishing Uni fees is a realistic goal.

    I'm also not sure if I personally support the idea. I mean, I really dislike the current fees but I'm not sure if getting rid of Uni fees altogether will be beneficial in the long-term.

    What I am sure of is that I support lower Uni fees. Maybe a maximum of £5,000 per year. Alternatively, we could have lower fees for those who are obtaining degrees in subjects that highly benefit society (Law, Medicine, IT, Engineering, just to name a few).
    So basically the UKIP policy of making STEM free at university? (Science, technology teaching, engineering, medicine and maths).
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I actually like that the UK has world-leading universities across the board. I'd prefer that it stays that way with a big budget for all of them. Universities aren't just places to teach or learn, they're hot spots for research.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    I'm not exactly from a wealthy family. I'm actually the first to go to uni in my entire family, and have been very close to losing my home, but the current system for university fees makes it very easy for poorer students to live. Maintenance is decided based upon your parents' wages, and you don't have to pay back any of the debt until you earn enough to live with the repayments. Our system is very good and hasn't deterred me at all from uni. In fact, it's made me look at uni as a very easy option to get a high paying career and to enjoy myself, so I can give back to the country that's helped create me. I'm very glad that I'm not going to be a freeloader my whole life.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    But the interests keep increasing in the meanwhile, don't they?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I find you petition to be stupid and just a waste of time. I don't agree with you statement of a "crippling debt" as it is just like a regular loan you would borrow and pay back. Also with a student loan you don't have to pay the entire loan back in one go you can pay in small installments and even that only becomes the case after you start earning over a certain amount. The first 18 years of education is compulsory by law so thats why it's being funded by taxpayers but university is a choice it's not compulsory. I understand a lot of people can't afford university but student loans are always there to help. I doubt the government has the money to spend on HE and even if the govt did it that would mean an increase in tax for people. If you want to go to university than be prepared to pay out of your own pocket and if your not prepared to pay don't go rather than expecting free HE.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Adrono)
    But the interests keep increasing in the meanwhile, don't they?
    Well yeah, it's a loan. You don't have to pay more per month, though. The amount you pay back is decided solely on the amount you earn, not the amount you owe.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    *sigh* Lefty liberals wanting to steal from the taxpayer. Nothing new here.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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.