Turn on thread page Beta

Proposal that Independent school pupils should pay extra Uni fees watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexander)
    No. But if they do choose to, then it's a nasty financial burden.
    So is buying a ferrari. Doesn't mean they have to though, does it?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tagzt)
    Point taken but what then is a "cheap" private school? Lets say £1500 a term, in which case £4500 a year. This is still over four times the amount this parent has to pay for their child to go to university, and once i again i stress that they are paying less money for a higher level of education.

    Of course it is not fair to ask a parent who spends £4500 a year to be termed equally as wealthy as someone who pays £21000 a year but again this can be taken into account. Why not have a staggered system of payment where students from the most expensive private schools pay more money than cheaper private schools? This is jsut a suggestion but at the end of the day, asking everyone to pay the same for a university education without taking into account how much their parents could have afforded to spend on a private school education is just not right.
    I have to disagree...my parents scrimped and saved and made sacrifices so that I could go to a private school - something they never had the chance to. Why not make it the othe way round in that people who didnt contribute to their education do so at university? In foreign countries people have to pay for their schooling. I mean people who go to private school are not asking the government for more moeny are they? Whereas people who go to a state school will rely on using this government...why shouldnt people from private schools then have a chance to get money from the government to fund their education for what is essentially three years, when those at state school will have been using it for their entireity of education!?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexander)
    No. But if they do choose to, then it's a nasty financial burden.
    But that is their choice. I personaly think it is all over rated. If you are clever enough you will do well in a comprehensive school.

    I think some parents think far too much about education but not enough on happyness etc.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    I haven't read the whole of this thread cos I'm knackered and beginning to feel hungover but I think the point is being missed here. The government have announced that university fees will be paid AFTER people graduate, as a 'graduate tax'. Therefore surely it is unfair to differentiate between a privately educated person and a state-educated person? - the student who went to a private school could very possibly end up earning less than the person who went to a comp! Therefore asking them to pay more graduate tax is a bit harsh, don't you think?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meepmeep)
    So is buying a ferrari. Doesn't mean they have to though, does it?
    True. But no one is proposing that people who buy Ferraris should then pay something extra analogous to uni fees. And by using the verb "to have" I meant that they have to pay if they choose to send their children to independent schools, just like you have to pay if you choose to buy a Ferrari.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MadNatSci)
    I haven't read the whole of this thread cos I'm knackered and beginning to feel hungover but I think the point is being missed here. The government have announced that university fees will be paid AFTER people graduate, as a 'graduate tax'. Therefore surely it is unfair to differentiate between a privately educated person and a state-educated person? - the student who went to a private school could very possibly end up earning less than the person who went to a comp! Therefore asking them to pay more graduate tax is a bit harsh, don't you think?
    The idea is that ex-independent school pupils' parents will be able to afford to give their offspring more money while they are at uni, and thus higher fees may be charged them up-front. Which is of course placing an unfair burden on parents.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexander)
    True. But no one is proposing that people who buy Ferraris should then pay something extra analogous to uni fees.
    But people who drive Ferraris have to pay higher vehicle tax. So a more trained pupil should have a greater learning tax on them.









    Is it just me or did that argument sound really poor?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meepmeep)
    But people who drive Ferraris have to pay higher vehicle tax. So a more trained pupil should have a greater learning tax on them.









    Is it just me or did that argument sound really poor? :)
    lol I think this is taking the analogy beyond its usefulness...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I have said this before on this thread but I shall repeat. I think that it is unfair but I think it richer parents should pay more towards the fees, even if its only an extra £500 a year.

    I don't think it should matter what type of school you went to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emzie)
    all i can say to this proposal is **** of, no ****ing way.
    Erm, could you be a little bit more constructive? If it's that bad, you could always emigrate.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    no because i'm not in the mood after last night! all i can say is its bloody unfair to discrimimate regards to what school you go to. At uni all fee things should be equal as its seperate from school.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by emzie)
    no because i'm not in the mood after last night! all i can say is its bloody unfair to discrimimate regards to what school you go to. At uni all fee things should be equal as its seperate from school.
    Not a good start to the new year? Hope today's better.

    And it's "bloody unfair" that some students gets the luxury of going to independent schools while others are forced to go to comps. I respect your POV though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meepmeep)
    Not a good start to the new year? Hope today's better.

    And it's "bloody unfair" that some students gets the luxury of going to independent schools while others are forced to go to comps. I respect your POV though.
    I agree with you meepmeep. I'm just giving some support
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by happysunshine)
    I agree with you meepmeep. I'm just giving some support
    lol, thanks.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    We all agreed that all private schools should be scrapped and become state-funded and open to all then? I reckon the Tories should spearhead this too, show that they've changed, and actually really believe in a free eductation!

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MadNatSci)
    I haven't read the whole of this thread cos I'm knackered and beginning to feel hungover but I think the point is being missed here. The government have announced that university fees will be paid AFTER people graduate, as a 'graduate tax'. Therefore surely it is unfair to differentiate between a privately educated person and a state-educated person? - the student who went to a private school could very possibly end up earning less than the person who went to a comp! Therefore asking them to pay more graduate tax is a bit harsh, don't you think?
    good point. but then someone from a private school is more likely to get into a top university and earn more money than someone from a comp...surely this is the reason why parents send their children off to private school in the first place?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mjf)
    I have to disagree...my parents scrimped and saved and made sacrifices so that I could go to a private school - something they never had the chance to. Why not make it the othe way round in that people who didnt contribute to their education do so at university? In foreign countries people have to pay for their schooling. I mean people who go to private school are not asking the government for more moeny are they? Whereas people who go to a state school will rely on using this government...why shouldnt people from private schools then have a chance to get money from the government to fund their education for what is essentially three years, when those at state school will have been using it for their entireity of education!?
    yes your parents scrimped and saved but at the end of the day, they could afford to send you to private school and that is the bottom line. state schools are full of children whose parents also scrimp and save and still just cannot afford to send their children to a private school (im not implying that if they could afford it, they would automatically send their children off). Essentially what you are saying is that people who could not afford to contribute to their childrens education at school level should be penalised and forced to contribute more at university. I disagree with this idea, parents who send their children off to private schools are not using up government funds but that is their own choice, it should not mean they then should "claim their share" at university level.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tek)
    This proposal is awful for the following reasons -

    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.
    Are you going to be a doctor Tek? With your history degree?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexander)
    But there are very few counties which still have grammar schools (my county, Oxfordshire, certainly doesn't have any) and there are no serious proposals to restore them. I agree with not making anyone take the 11+, that is what happens where there are still grammars.
    In a county without grammar schools, the comprehensives can reach much higher standards - I just took a look at the website of the state school in Headington (can't remember the name - there is a link to it from http://www.headington.org.uk/) and the results there are fantastic. If this is in any way indicative of the standards of school sacross Oxfordshire, I think people should probably be questioning why they are opting for the private sector.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by *dave*)
    Are you going to be a doctor Tek? With your history degree?
    No, but I'll be contributing to society, obviously... :rolleyes:
 
 
 
Poll
Is the Big Bang theory correct?
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.