Would you still go to university if fees were uncapped ? Watch

Phantom_X
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#41
Report Thread starter 8 years ago
#41
(Original post by GoldenTriangle)
Uncapped fees would be better.

This is how research, teaching and facilities can improve at a far greater rate. Many American unies are rich as fook :P:
We would get "fair" loans and scholarships obviously.

Harvard give out a crap load of scholarships for those that are able. Money is not the reason why people don't go to Harvard....

You think the current fees don't already price people out of going to uni? Student loans, dude.
Obviously you have taken in the glamour that is harvard and neglected the dark side to american higher education. Harvard charges $30,000 a year just for tuition. This dosent include accomodation, which in cambridge MA, costs A LOT. + food/bills/societies (which are links to top jobs) etc. They cost A LOT and many bright students cant afford it.

example 1

My cousin lives in south carolina, where his mother works 7 days a week at Wal Mart and his father is an IT consultant ad a mid-range firm. They earn enough to have a moderate sized house, afford necessitiess and have enough for emergencies etc. They still take the bus to their jobs (except for my uncle who has a second hand car) and they havent been on holiday in 10 years. They are deemed 'middle class' by our standards.

My cousin is an intelligent boy. He scored in the top 5% of the state in his SATs and was accepted into Stanford, Columbia and Yale. He also applied to smaller colleges. Now even though he could go to 3 ivy leagues, he was not accepted into any scholarship programmes. He was either 'not poor enough' or he didnt get in the top 2% to be considered a worthwhile candidate. As a result, he is now attending a smaller liberal arts college, where once he graduates, he will still be in **** loads of debt, and will be unlikely to afford grad school at an ivy league. He is considering not going to college and becoming an IT consultant at my uncles place of work.

His friend on the other hand, is very rich. His dad is an investment banker at Meryll Lynch, and his mother dosent work, but has inheritance money from her rich parents. He did well in the SATs, well enough to get into Cornell and Columbia, but nowhere near as well as my cousin (i dont know what score he got however). He will be going to columbia next year and will probably end up working for a big bank upon graduation.

tell me the above scenario is fair. Ok so columbia gets monies to do as much research as they like, but they also take in rich, undeserving kids who can provide them this money. An academic institution (and a fine one at that) makes a contract with a wealthy family to educate their average son in order to get cash, whilst neglecting a bright middle class boy whose parents have worked every single day of their lives since migrating. My cousins family pay a higher % of tax than the second boys parents (if you look at it as a flat tax) and in turn get ****** over by greed. Tell me how that is fair ?

uncapping fees encourages greed, and encourages a situation like this. The notion that if you work hard you will acheive dies, it rather becomes, 'if you are rich, you will continue to become so'- capitalism at its worst.Quite frankly if this were the case, most students on this site wouldnt be able to afford university, and instead, wed be embracing a culture of debt burdens. No thanks.
0
reply
machiavelli123
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#42
Report 8 years ago
#42
(Original post by Ray_Han)
For your first two points if we go into the technicalities, my system, if implemented exactly as I said, would probably not work so well. It is more the idea I am proposing and things like that could be ironed out if this were to come into effect.
Sorry if I have misunderstood your third point, but I have interpreted it as those whose who choose to send their private schools having to pay double, for both private and state education at school level and again they pay more for uni education. Well that is the nature of wealth distribution in this country; the wealthy subsidise the poor, this is also seen in the NHS where those with private healthcare still pay national insurance. It would be too politically damaging to change that.
For the point about the grant, if the grant threshhold was increased, then you could say the same for people above the threshhold, and so the line would have to be drawn somewhere. Perhaps it should be higher.
In your scenario if B had a hefty loan, it is only repayable over a salary of £15000. Ideally the loan would not be so hefty due to help from parents when paying for fees, and this is the main problem with the whole system. If a solution could be found for this lack of parental support and the difficult (and totally undeserved) situation it would leave the kids in, the system could work.
My third point was really suggesting that if you are on a middle income, you have the choice not to send your children to private school, but when it comes to unis, there is only the 'private' option of paying fees. There is no free option such as state schooling which everyone could make use of if they so wished.
It is neccessary for the wealthy to subsidise the poor, however in reality, it is those on middle incomes who are having to remortgage their homes to pay for their child's education who are in fact subsidising the poor. They may not be particularly wealthy themselves. Those with countless houses, numerous accountants etc. do not subsidise the poor as they do not pay tax.

Regarding scenario B, I have doubts that a solution could ever be found when the system still bases whether or not you get a grant by your parents income. You cannot force parents to pay for their kids, that is the sad reality. Even if in most cases the hefty loan is in part paid off by the parents, there will still be some cases where students must pay it all off themselves. It is the whole principle of one group of people having any loan, regardless of size or the fact that it is only repayble after you earn £15k, while others for no particular reason, don't.
0
reply
Rusty_Mouse
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#43
Report 8 years ago
#43
If it increased by that much I'd be able to afford to start my own mini business instead of spending it on education.
0
reply
yoyo462001
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#44
Report 8 years ago
#44
My economics degree would be very very expensive.
0
reply
thenewromance1234
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#45
Report 8 years ago
#45
I would still go. I don't think the burden should fall on the taxpayer to subsidise university education.
0
reply
Ewan
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#46
Report 8 years ago
#46
I would still go yes, as university will add a lot to my future income. Universities should be held more accountable though. Theres no way I get value for money at the moment...

How they can justify higher fees I don't know. Will the standards of education drastically increase? I sincerely doubt it.
0
reply
cherrion
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#47
Report 8 years ago
#47
(Original post by Smack)
I love how everyone here is assuming that uncapped university fees = 30K per year fees. Can anyone actually prove that that would be the reality?
I have assumed from this http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle7130222.ece

It costs Oxford £16k per year to teach an undergrad. So its safe to say, that oxbridge would charge more than £16K to cover their own costs. If I was charged upwards of £16K I would expect much more for my money. As another post stated,
0
reply
RBarack
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#48
Report 8 years ago
#48
I would rather go to the US to study if that were the case ..
0
reply
stinky--pete
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#49
Report 8 years ago
#49
i'd still go but it would stop loads of people. i know people who can hardly afford it now!!
0
reply
lauren--c
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#50
Report 8 years ago
#50
I'd definitely have to seriously think about it, before getting myself into that sort of debt. Since I'm not sure what career I want, it seems like an awful lot of money for something so uncertain.
0
reply
.44_Magnum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#51
Report 8 years ago
#51
No, even now universities are really bad value for money. I'd probably go to the US or France when I was 21-23 and do a degree there, with American universities you get much more bang for your buck. I know a lot of American grad students who have come across to UCL and LSE and said, "is this it".

In fact high fees would be really good as far less people would go to uni - and the less people that go the better. At the moment a degrees pretty worthless anyway owing to the large amount of unintelligent people with them.
0
reply
Kreuzuerk
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#52
Report 8 years ago
#52
If the opportunity cost of doing something else was less, then no.
reply
jamz0770
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#53
Report 8 years ago
#53
I would probably still go but I'd look into uni abroad a fair bit more and see what else was available.
0
reply
NoNameAvailable
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#54
Report 8 years ago
#54
The other day, a teacher told that the best solution for this matter is to charge a fee according to the legal guardian earnings, or what is called they'd be charge according to their social pyramid place. But I think is not a good idea, then upper class people will get easier to university because they represent more money and lower class well vice-versa.
Any good things about this idea??
0
reply
Installation
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#55
Report 8 years ago
#55
Sacrifice the polys
0
reply
.44_Magnum
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#56
Report 8 years ago
#56
(Original post by Phantom_X)
My cousin is an intelligent boy. He scored in the top 5% of the state in his SATs and was accepted into Stanford, Columbia and Yale. He also applied to smaller colleges. Now even though he could go to 3 ivy leagues, he was not accepted into any scholarship programmes. He was either 'not poor enough' or he didnt get in the top 2% to be considered a worthwhile candidate. As a result, he is now attending a smaller liberal arts college, where once he graduates, he will still be in **** loads of debt, and will be unlikely to afford grad school at an ivy league. He is considering not going to college and becoming an IT consultant at my uncles place of work. Why should they take him though - he's got to make his own way in the world. I know a lot of Americans that realize university isn't an entitlement and that if they want to go to an Ivy League university they will have to work beforehand. I want to study in America at one of good but non Ivy league liberal arts colleges. So I'm probably going to work till I'm 21 or 22, then either go to LSE over here as a mature student or go over there.

His friend on the other hand, is very rich. His dad is an investment banker at Meryll Lynch, and his mother dosent work, but has inheritance money from her rich parents. He did well in the SATs, well enough to get into Cornell and Columbia, but nowhere near as well as my cousin (i dont know what score he got however). He will be going to columbia next year and will probably end up working for a big bank upon graduation.

tell me the above scenario is fair. Ok so columbia gets monies to do as much research as they like, but they also take in rich, undeserving kids who can provide them this money. How is the guy undeserving - you said he did well enough in his Sats to be accepted, it sounds like he worked to get the scores needed to be accepted. An academic institution (and a fine one at that) makes a contract with a wealthy family to educate their average son in order to get cash University education isn't a right, it's a service., whilst neglecting a bright middle class boy whose parents have worked every single day of their lives since migrating. My cousins family pay a higher % of tax than the second boys parents (if you look at it as a flat tax) and in turn get ****** over by greed. Tell me how that is fair ?

uncapping fees encourages greed, and encourages a situation like this. The notion that if you work hard you will acheive dies, it rather becomes, that notion isn't here today - if you are intelligent or talented you will achieve. Your cousins hardworking mum at walmart works hard, but she doesn't seem to be achieving much. 'if you are rich, you will continue to become so'- capitalism at its worst. Organizations, especially the ones that give you enough to be rich, don't carry dead weight. You may have a degree from Yale, but if you are in the bottom 10% performance wise or are loosing the company money you will be fired. You have to be good at what you do. Quite frankly if this were the case, most students on this site wouldnt be able to afford university, and instead, we would be embracing a culture of debt burdens. No thanks.
I corrected a few points there.
0
reply
daedalos
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#57
Report 8 years ago
#57
(Original post by RBarack)
I would rather go to the US to study if that were the case ..
The problem is it's difficult getting places to study in US. Statistics aren't making it assuring...
0
reply
adam_zed
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#58
Report 8 years ago
#58
(Original post by Phantom_X)
Universities in the russel group have threatened that if fees are not increased, they would consider privitisation, such as in America. This means fees could be up to 20-30 000 a year (sterling, soz i am using an american computer). even with a possible loans system, youd be charged commerical interest, meaning that if you dont get a job you will be in mountains of debt.

Would you still go despite this risk ? For arts students, this is an even more prevailing issue, as arts degrees do not lead straight into jobs for the most part.

1. do you think uncapped fees is a good idea ?

2. would you prefer the cap simply to be raised

3. can uni presitge and quality be maintained only through uncapped fees, or is this simply an example of greed ?

discuss.
1) No
2) Not really, £3225 is still a lot considering what you get.
3) Not at all? I suppose if a Uni wants to be elite and therefore archaic, it should.

If think the whole thing is rather silly, although I am a prospective student so I would say that. But the disgust about people who dont go to Uni having to pay top subsidize the fee of those who do is a silly argument. My parents pay council tax yet bar the basic maintenance schemes, none of the money is seen where I live, rather being spent on the larger towns nearby. Some people dont use public transport and they still pay taxes towards it. And by any means, I would have thought that people do benefit from paying to educate those as in theory it has a good effect on our economy.

Another argument I dislike is "Well Uni students can afford to pay it off". Erm no? Not every former Uni student earns hundreds of thousands as a top doctor, lawyer, investor etc. For example, I want to study Psychology. Now **** knows what this will yield. Hopefully, I become a writer or something in marketing and earn a ton, however I could just as easily end up struggling to make ends meet on £10,000 a year?

I know a family friend who went to Oxbridge and struggles financially while my friends Dad never went to uni and earns £80,000+.
0
reply
Jormungandr
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#59
Report 8 years ago
#59
(Original post by .44_Magnum)
I corrected a few points there.
By corrected, you mean ignored completely that there is ground between 'right' and 'service', like 'public or social good'.
0
reply
.ACS.
  • Community Assistant
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#60
Report 8 years ago
#60
I would still go, irrespective.

- Uncapped fees are a good idea. It's vital for sustaining higher education in this country and ensuring we have the best universities in the world. Don't forget that education isn't simply some fluffy thing where we impart knowledge, but it's a lucrative business.

- Raising the cap wouldn't work since some universities cost more than others. We need to ensure there is market efficiency, and this can only be done by having variable fees across universities. Some universities are worth £20,000 per year whereas others aren't worth £3,000 per year.

- I'm going to ignore university prestige issue, but it is without question that university quality can only be maintained through uncapped fees. To hire the best, you have to pay for the best, and this means a lot of money, far more than what is provided by the government in subsidies and also research grants. If we're not careful, we'll sleepwalk into the destruction of our higher education.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

Brexit: Given the chance now, would you vote leave or remain?

Remain (378)
79.75%
Leave (96)
20.25%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise