Turn on thread page Beta

Proposal that Independent school pupils should pay extra Uni fees watch

    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Like I've said before I am stuck on what I think on this issue. It is going against the richer but I'm sure they are rich enough to survive anyway. I don't know what I think.
    What makes you think indepenant school pupils are richer? Some parents go through great financial hardship to put their children through private education and may be worse off financially than a family that puts its children through state education.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    I don't really support this, but that seems more logical than charging them more.
    Since when did logic come into it with these "anti-middle class" idiots?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Like I've said before I am stuck on what I think on this issue. It is going against the richer but I'm sure they are rich enough to survive anyway. I don't know what I think.
    The point is that it's unfair to keep on charging the middle class, especially when they MIGHT NOT be able to afford it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    I don't actually attend an independant school.

    It costs a lot to put a child through education. If parents pay for their children's education, they are saving the state a lot of money. Therefore it would seem reasonable to charge these students less.

    I don't really support this, but that seems more logical than charging them more.
    Yeah, I noticed that you didn't. And maybe I worded that last post kinda wrongly. Anyway, if I were redesigning the system from the ground up, independent schools wouldn't exist, as it does give an unfair advantage to those who have been educated in this situation (eg. smaller class sizes, less disruptive students) but that's another convo for another day, and I do realise that I'm on the comp size of the fence so am liable to be biased.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Where did this "equal opportunities" come from? In what way is it euqal, exactly, that well - off people have to fund the univeristy education system twice over, when they have already been paying 40% tax and when they have already been paying for state schools without actually using their place there??

    I do not wish to see university fees at all - THAT is what would be called equal opportunities, happysunshine. Charging well-off people is simply NOT the way forward in this case.
    I'm happy to pay the same as everyone else. But if somehow it was a choice of rich paying more over the poor paying more then obviously the rich should pay more. I couldn't care less how much tax they pay they can't exactly be living in the gutter if they are paying so much tax.

    Hmm I don't think my arguing is very strong right now... I'm tired
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    What makes you think indepenant school pupils are richer? Some parents go through great financial hardship to put their children through private education and may be worse off financially than a family that puts its children through state education.
    I would expect that, generally, the average wealth of a family who have entered their child into an independent school would be greater than the respective figure for comp school students.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I'm happy to pay the same as everyone else. But if somehow it was a choice of rich paying more over the poor paying more then obviously the rich should pay more. I couldn't care less how much tax they pay they can't exactly be living in the gutter if they are paying so much tax.
    No, you're missing the point. The solution is not to keep on taxing the rich (but we've established that those who may be affected by this scheme will NOT necessarily be rich per se), the solution is to abolish top up fees all together. THAT is the only way to ensure equality across the board for ALL classes.
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Hmm I don't think my arguing is very strong right now... I'm tired
    You'd be right there.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meepmeep)
    I would expect that, generally, the average wealth of a family who have entered their child into an independent school would be greater than the respective figure for comp school students.
    Probably, but there are some comps in the 'leafy constituencies' where the families are quite wealthy, as wealthy as some who in other areas send their children to a private school.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    No, you're missing the point. The solution is not to keep on taxing the rich (but we've established that those who may be affected by this scheme will NOT necessarily be rich per se), the solution is to abolish top up fees all together. THAT is the only way to ensure equality across the board for ALL classes.

    You'd be right there.
    I agree. But the only way to do that is increase the taxes even more which will affect the rich.

    Well it's not my fault I'm very tired... I can usually list a whole load of useless points about the rich and the poor.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I agree. But the only way to do that is increase the taxes even more which will affect the rich.

    Well it's not my fault I'm very tired... I can usually list a whole load of useless points about the rich and the poor.
    Or not have so many people go to university. That way the money saved could fund loads of people through university.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Probably, but there are some comps in the 'leafy constituencies' where the families are quite wealthy, as wealthy as some who in other areas send their children to a private school.
    Everyone should go to the same type of school.

    I think it's great that families who are rich send their children to a comprehensive school. Good on them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Or not have so many people go to university. That way the money saved could fund loads of people through university.
    That wouldn't work. Unless you have vocational teaching courses or something. We have a massive teacher shortage as it is and those that go into teaching usually aren't AAA grade students.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Everyone should go to the same type of school.

    I think it's great that families who are rich send their children to a comprehensive school. Good on them.
    But these families would never send their children to a crap inner-city comp.

    You say everyone should go to the same type of school but you don't say why you think this, which is rather important.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    Or not have so many people go to university. That way the money saved could fund loads of people through university.
    I tend to agree, but how would you implement that now other than raising fees or forcing universities to close?
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    That wouldn't work. Unless you have vocational teaching courses or something. We have a massive teacher shortage as it is and those that go into teaching usually aren't AAA grade students.
    Some are, but what I mean is abolish courses which don't lead into teaching, of which there are many.

    There may be problems with teaching numbers, but there are other ways to address these problems which we will not discuss now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I agree. But the only way to do that is increase the taxes even more which will affect the rich.

    Well it's not my fault I'm very tired... I can usually list a whole load of useless points about the rich and the poor.
    The money does not necessarily have to come from a tax increase. Even if it did, at least it would be tiered, so you would only pay as much as you could reasonably afford, which is A LOT fairer than penalising people for the type of school they went to.

    Under your proposed scheme, in the future, you might see more people deciding to go to state schools to avoid university fees, thus placing MUCH more of a strain on the state system, so state schools would need more funding, which would probably have to come from increased taxes. Hence your scheme is stupid
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meepmeep)
    I tend to agree, but how would you implement that now other than raising fees or forcing universities to close?
    It would be very radical, but maybe that's what this education system needs?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    But these families would never send their children to a crap inner-city comp.

    You say everyone should go to the same type of school but you don't say why you think this, which is rather important.
    I am very biased. I don't have any economic/politic views because I know little. But morally I think it's a good idea as it gets rid of the class system and allows a more equal education but I suppose the poorer classes will stick together anyway.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I am very biased. I don't have any economic/politic views because I know little. But morally I think it's a good idea as it gets rid of the class system and allows a more equal education but I suppose the poorer classes will stick together anyway.
    When you're in an argument, it's not a good idea to admit that you are "biased" and "know little". Doesn't really bode well for your argument, to be honest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Case 1: A boarding student from Westminster School (£21,000 fees per year) goes to university. He will most probably be at Oxbridge or a top university. His parents now find they are paying £20,000 less a year to provide their son with a higher level of education than they were before.

    Case 2: A state school student goes to university (the total income of his parents is £21,000 a year). Now his parents suddenly find they are having to stretch to pay for their son's university fees, which are the same as another student whose parents are in a completely different financial league.

    Now you cannot deny that there is a problem, of course this is taking the two extreme examples. However the principle is simple, why should parents who can afford to send their children to schools where the fees are huge (Westminster is the most expensive, Eton is around £15,000 a year, others can be £10,000 or lower) then suddenly be able to pay a minute fraction of what they were paying for a lower level of education?

    Just because you go to an independent school does not make you incredibly wealthy, however it would be quite easy to take into account scholarships/bursary funded students when deciding how much a student should pay. I think there is a massive problem here and think the proposal is certainly along the right lines of trying to solve it.
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling in the run-up to Results Day 2018?
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.