Turn on thread page Beta

Proposal that Independent school pupils should pay extra Uni fees watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hope I don't turn really rich ... I may take back some of my words :rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hildabeast)
    Personally I think the idea reasonable. If parents have been paying £10000 a year to send their children to independent schools there is no reason why they shouldn't pay the same for their children's university education.
    But surely these parents really deserve a financial break after having to spend £10k a year on school fees, and should be able to spend money on themselves rather than their children once they're off to uni.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Well you may think I'm making excuses but my head hurts and I'm too tired to read posts properly. What was he trying to say?
    He said that if the system is implicated, parents will send their children to state schools to avoid paying more money for university.

    This will put pressure on the state system, which will require lots more money thrown at it.

    This money would have to come via taxes.

    You seemed to interpret this as Tek saying everone should go to state schools.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Hmm very good point. Yes and no. I suppose teachers, doctors and nurses etc should get all university fees paid for. I suppose that'd be fair.
    It's not only teachers, doctors, and nurses who benefit society. Almost every university graduate will contribute to society in a positive way, mainly theough the economy, and hence they should also have their fees paid for them.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexander)
    But surely these parents really deserve a financial break after having to spend £10k a year on school fees, and should be able to spend money on themselves rather than their children once they're off to uni.
    They don't 'have' to spend £10k on their children's education. There is an option; the state sector :rolleyes:

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Yes, I was suggesting that in order to avoid university fees, middle class children may be sent to state schools, which will place pressure on such schools. This is bad.
    I got that and thought I responded to that? It isn't bad!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexander)
    But surely these parents really deserve a financial break after having to spend £10k a year on school fees, and should be able to spend money on themselves rather than their children once they're off to uni.
    But that is their parents choice nobody is forcing them to send their kids to these expensive schools. What is wrong with grammer schools? They offer a good alternative and you don't have to pay for it. I think grammar schools should be bought back in all authorities but not the 11+ (the 11+ should only be taken by those who want to go to grammer school).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hildabeast)
    They don't 'have' to spend £10k on their children's education. There is an option; the state sector :rolleyes:

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    YES and so many middle class families will send their children to state schools to avoid university fees, which will place a great strain on state schools!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lord Huntroyde)
    He said that if the system is implicated, parents will send their children to state schools to avoid paying more money for university.

    This will put pressure on the state system, which will require lots more money thrown at it.

    This money would have to come via taxes.

    You seemed to interpret this as Tek saying everone should go to state schools.
    Oh no I didn't. I new exactly what he was saying, I was twisting what he said and changing it so it was how I wanted - sort of.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    Well society benefits from university graduates (eg doctors, teachers, etc) so society should pay for them.



    1) Society benefits from University graduates because we need a skilled workforce. In fact, we need Doctors and teachers, so why should we raise fees, which will restrict Higher education access, when we clearly need these people?

    2) It is unfair to tax the middle class any more than they are already. To make any group of people pay more for education is simply morally wrong.

    3) Not every middle class family will be able to afford this scheme, so fewer of their children will be going to university. This is wrong because:
    a) Education is a basic right and in a developed country our core education should be extended to University.
    b) We'll see fewer Doctors and teachers graduating when we need said people.
    If this is implemented so it affects any pupil going INTO an independent school from a certain date in the future, parents know that this will happen.

    And as for 1), are you suggesting that the comprehesive system is incapable of creating doctors and teachers? As for point 3, if it is implemented as I have suggested, then parents will take into account the cost of university as well as the cost of the school. Not every child can afford to go to an independent school and a child of similar ability to some students inside public schools can not attend simply because of the wealth of their family.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Oh no I didn't. I new exactly what he was saying, I was twisting what he said and changing it so it was how I wanted - sort of.
    That's a good tactic. :rolleyes:
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    Oh no I didn't. I new exactly what he was saying, I was twisting what he said and changing it so it was how I wanted - sort of.
    Were you? How?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    It's not only teachers, doctors, and nurses who benefit society. Almost every university graduate will contribute to society in a positive way, mainly theough the economy, and hence they should also have their fees paid for them.
    I'll agree with that. But there will come a time when too many people will have degrees and so their salary wont be anything better than someone who hasn't got a degree - so some wont contribute that much.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    YES and so many middle class families will send their children to state schools to avoid university fees, which will place a great strain on state schools!
    If there is an increased demand for more state schools, LEAs will be given money to build new ones. It is the right of every single child in this country to have a state education unless their parents opt out. In my area there are no private schools or state grammars at all and the standard of the comprehensives seems a lot higher than elsewhere.

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meepmeep)
    If this is implemented so it affects any pupil going INTO an independent school from a certain date in the future, parents know that this will happen.

    And as for 1), are you suggesting that the comprehesive system is incapable of creating doctors and teachers? As for point 3, if it is implemented as I have suggested, then parents will take into account the cost of university as well as the cost of the school. Not every child can afford to go to an independent school and a child of similar ability to some students inside public schools can not attend simply because of the wealth of their family.
    1) No, I'm suggesting that we shouldn't have to pay for university education at all.
    3) Your scheme might lead to problems in private school pricing structure, and it would need comprehensive negotiations with Universities to be implemented. Is it worth it? No - we shouldn't be charging our students anything, we should be extending the free core education because we are a highly developed country and we need a highly developed workforce.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hildabeast)
    If there is an increased demand for more state schools, LEAs will be given money to build new ones. It is the right of every single child in this country to have a state education unless their parents opt out. In my area there are no private schools or state grammars at all and the standard of the comprehensives seems a lot higher than elsewhere.

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
    You just highlighted one problem there in that not all state schools are any good whatsoever. In some areas, the only "good" option is a private one.

    And where will the money for LEAs come from? Taxes!! So why not just raise taxes and offer free or reduced university education to everyone?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    YES and so many middle class families will send their children to state schools to avoid university fees, which will place a great strain on state schools!
    The proportion of students in public schools is small. Of these people, I would expect only a minority would be forced to switch from independent to comp. Thereby, the strain on the system would be far less than if there were a sudden influx of babies during a baby boom period.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i wnt to a comprahensive skool and i diz ok. r u sugestin that compi scools r no gud? i willl av to nok your blok off.

    Sorry there are a not of good comprehensive schools out there capable but od producing doctors and teachers but there are also a lot of bad ones.

    It depends mainly on what area its in.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meepmeep)
    The proportion of students in public schools is small. Of these people, I would expect only a minority would be forced to switch from independent to comp. Thereby, the strain on the system would be far less than if there were a sudden influx of babies during a baby boom period.
    I'll skip over the amazingly bad analogy there and just point out that there are in fact a great number of not so well off middle classes who would seriously consider state schools if it meant reduced university fees, especially if they would have to scrimp and save to send their children to private schools. Extra university fees on top of this may be too much...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    In some areas, the only "good" option is a private one.?!
    In areas where there are no states grammars comprehensives tend to thrive. In my experience state schools are often undermined by private ones in the area. Anyway, poorer students don't have the option to choose the better private schools in these areas so why should anybody else?

    (Original post by Tek)
    And where will the money for LEAs come from? Taxes!! So why not just raise taxes and offer free or reduced university education to everyone?!
    Its fundamentally unfair that the university education of old etonians et al should be partially subsidised by poorer taxpayers.

    x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x
 
 
 
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.