This discussion is now closed.

Check out other Related discussions

Call for universities to charge well-off students £30,000 a year

To charge a 21 more money and expect mummy and daddy to support them at that age is ridiculous. Once your 18, the government should judge you on what you have, not your parents, if they think students from families on low incomes can't survive on £3500 grand a year, then why do others have too?

Reply 81

fire2burn

17

Flying Cookie

Funding for aimless projects and degrees is wasted and significant projects led by serious researchers and professionals get ignored in the process and left in the hands of the big companies which don't always consider the side effects of their activities.

There are no objective measurements of worth and it can be difficult to justify projects in science particularly if they are in their infancy with practical/commercial uses not yet fully realised. Under your system projects deemed to have less worth or aim by some grand committee with a monopoly on funding would get to decide what is and what isn't worthy. That sets are dangerous precedent for science, which can sometimes struggle to justify projects whilst they're still on a theoretical or infant development level.

Reply 82

Edamame

3

Just no. That's not fair. The well-off should enjoy their money.

Reply 83

faber niger

17

Sure, it's a much better idea than blanket increases for all.

One has to remember than whatever system we have will always necessarily be "unfair" -- however, this seems to be the least worst option. Yes, it involves the rich subsidising the poor (an anathema to a society such as ours), but the other option would be to increase fees to a lesser degree for all, thereby pricing the poor out of the system (or piling crippling amounts of debt onto the backs of the poor, which would shadow over them for most, if not all, of their lives). Only a completely individualistic analysis can judge the latter option to be more acceptable than the former.

The problem, indeed, is that we live in such an individualistic, self-absorbed, solipsistic society. One could argue that such an attitude is inherent to human nature, a consequence of agonistic Darwinism; I, however, believe that people can overcome such base instincts (though, perhaps, rarely do).

Reply 84

LAX Inc

10

You gotta be :snow:

kidding me!

Reply 85

kjc_us

14

This is the most ridiculous thing I've read in a very long time. Students are given equal opportunities, services and treatment at university so they should all pay the same amount.

Reply 86

Edamame

3

What's not fair is they make intl students pay s***load of money!! They should even it out especially when intl students are usually the poorer students.

Reply 87

faber niger

17

cpj1987

The same product should cost the same price for ALL.

A hypothetical situation: you own a bakery. Baguettes cost £2.40. However, a homeless man comes into the shop with merely £1.50, but entreaties of his poverty. Would you refuse the homeless man the "product"?

The situation is completely analogous (as, of course, you would have to make up your profits, lessened because of this act of altruism towards this poor chap, from the richer customers, paying the designated amount).

Reply 88

lets_make_some_music

i think it should be calculated on how much money they will get from their parents, just becuase their parents earn alot of money doesn't mean the child will get any, wearas some "poorer" people may pay for nearly all of their childs university from savings

Reply 89

cpj1987

15

jismith1989

A hypothetical situation: you own a bakery. Baguettes cost £2.40. However, a homeless man comes into the shop with merely £1.50, but entreaties of his poverty. Would you refuse the homeless man the "product"?

The situation is completely analogous (as, of course, you would have to make up your profits, lessened because of this act of altruism towards this poor chap, from the richer customers, paying the designated amount).

How are the two comparable? A university education is not a necessity, and loans are (and should continue to be) provided to those unable to afford their courses outright.

Universities are not charities.

Reply 90

will274

4

London Met must go to subsidise me and my millionaire parents. Fact.

Reply 91

faber niger

17

cpj1987

How are the two comparable? A university education is not a necessity, and loans are (and should continue to be) provided to those unable to afford their courses outright.

Universities are not charities.

Hmm, to say that "university education is not a necessity" (which in absolute terms it isn't, but nor is anything -- things are only necessary with certain ends assumed, i.e. if we don't assume that human life is worth preserving, food is not a necessity; if we don't assume that meritocritous access to higher education is a positive thing, pricing intelligent people out of the market and saddling them with atrocious levels of debt is not a bad thing) is to imply that it doesn't matter if anyone goes to university, nor if anyone doesn't go. Of course, for the economy and social wellbeing of the country, not to mention scientific progress etc., it does matter.

You don't believe that huge loans, i.e. tens of thousands of pounds, even a hundred thousand pounds, may put a signinficant amount of intelligent kids off university (as they see it, primarily, as a financial burden for someone of their means)? Or if you do, you see it as an entirely acceptable thing?

Personally, I'm in favour of the Lib Dem proposal of abolishing university fees altogether (as universities aren't charities [though, incidentally, most private schools seem to get away with calling themselves such and getting the respective tax breaks] but they certainly should be a public service, more than a profit-generating business, as with the NHS, police, state schooling etc.). This policy, though, is a more realistic one in a time of economic brouhaha.

Reply 92

J234

jismith1989

A hypothetical situation: you own a bakery. Baguettes cost £2.40. However, a homeless man comes into the shop with merely £1.50, but entreaties of his poverty. Would you refuse the homeless man the "product"?

The situation is completely analogous (as, of course, you would have to make up your profits, lessened because of this act of altruism towards this poor chap, from the richer customers, paying the designated amount).

No, that's not analagous at all.

Tuition fees are justified because they're an investment in your future. You don't pay them soley for the satisfaction of consuming that product (unlike your bread example). Also, if you use loans no-one needs to have reduced tuition fees because in the long term they're responsible for their future earnings.

If we charged everyone the same tuition fees (reduced by reallocating grant money), and provided a loan that covered all their costs, then everyone would get a chance to attend university. Sure, some people will have an easier time (courtesy of their rich parents), but I'd rather give everyone the ability to comfortably attend university than the situation we find ourselves in now, where some students are left struggling because they're parents are assumed to be able to support their children when they can't.

Reply 93

J234

jismith1989

You don't believe that huge loans, i.e. tens of thousands of pounds, even a hundred thousand pounds, may put a signinficant amount of intelligent kids off university (as they see it, primarily, as a financial burden for someone of their means)? Or if you do, you see it as an entirely acceptable thing?

Meanwhile a tiered tuition fee system could also put some 'intelligent kids' off university.

jismith1989

Personally, I'm in favour of the Lib Dem proposal of abolishing university fees altogether (as universities aren't charities [though, incidentally, most private schools seem to get away with calling themselves such and getting the respective tax breaks] but they certainly should be a public service, more than a profit-generating business, as with the NHS, police, state schooling etc.). This policy, though, is a more realistic one in a time of economic brouhaha

Sure, there's some societal benefit to having a highly educated population, but most of the benefit (specifically in terms of higher average lifetime earnings) is passed onto the individual who goes to university. If we scrapped tuition fees, every taxpayer (many of whom don't want to go to university) would be paying for the university education of those who actually attend. So, why should someone who doesn't want to go to university have to pay for someone who does?

Reply 94

Flying Cookie

19

fire2burn

There are no objective measurements of worth and it can be difficult to justify projects in science particularly if they are in their infancy with practical/commercial uses not yet fully realised. Under your system projects deemed to have less worth or aim by some grand committee with a monopoly on funding would get to decide what is and what isn't worthy. That sets are dangerous precedent for science, which can sometimes struggle to justify projects whilst they're still on a theoretical or infant development level.

And the alternative is... ? Random funding for random projects with unsustainable aims e.g. those mostly funded by the bigger companies, in the hope that young aspiring scientists will make discoveries and advances by chance while barely leading a satisfactory financial life?

Funding education, but what are we, really, funding? That is the question and there is no real answer. And that is the problem.

As for the "infancy" of areas of research etc., science will never be "solid" or certain enough to assume that a certain piece of research will lead to something else. This doesn't mean that we should just stop trying, that would be ridiculous. The advances already made have been partly due to chance, but mostly thanks to organised research that can be sustained and makes sense in the long run.

You say that a "committee" on research projects would be dangerous for the freedom of research or something along those lines. Think about the committee as a board of admissions tutors at university. Are they unfair? Sometimes - but most of the time they make their judgements fairly accurately taking in consideration various factors e.g. PS, grades, reference. Also, this committee would be far more objective and useful than the short-term flow of business interests and international relations that might influence what research gets done and who it benefits. The committee wouldn't have any real monopoly over funding - do admissions tutors?

Reply 95

patientology

NO!
ever thought about students with rich but bitchy parents who dislike the philosophy degree taken?

nonono
its against all ethics and laws and my opinion...

Do it.

J234

So, why should someone who doesn't want to go to university have to pay for someone who does?

Well, if we accept your argument that those who go to university gain higher salaries, and we assume that taxes are bracketed based on income, those who pay more would generally be those who've benfited more. :wink:

Besides, I don't believe in the principle of viewing oneself as an island and only wanting to involve oneself in one's own affairs; altruism has a place in government policy. One should be willing to give what one can, when required and able, regardless of the benefit to oneself.

Of course, no policy can be absolutely perfect without researching the circumstances of each individual in the country and tailoring it to them, a methodology that is, of course, highly unpracticable.

Reply 98

CASmmj

thats ridiculous!
my family spend money on private education, quite alot, im now out of it but my brothers are still at private schools. but why should when i want to go to university should my parents have to pay £30,000 a year? when all of my friends parents pay like £3,000 or what ever it is.

Reply 99

faber niger

17

J234

because they're parents are assumed to be able to support their children when they can't.

You mean "because they won't"? As unless they've had a litter of twenty, it'd perfectly possible for a well-heeled family to support their kids through university (as many do through private schooling).

Indeed, I agree that it's a shame that there are some parents who would refuse to offer support, though able. That is a real problem, and, under whatever system, there would always be the possibility of loans. It is sad, however, that parents would act so selfishly. Ulitmately, I think there would be less rich people negatively affected by this policy than poor by the other alternative.

The real problem is more deeply-entrenched, of course, being the disproportionate cultural, social and financial divdes that Britain has, with our having the highest level of inequality in Europe.

Call for universities to charge well-off students £30,000 a year

Related discussions

Latest

Trending

Trending

Articles for you