This discussion is closed.
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#1
Students from the poorest homes will receive up to £3,000 a year to meet the costs of university fees under plans unveiled by the education secretary.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3377081.stm

How do you all feel about this?
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#2
Report 16 years ago
#2
I think its a good idea in theory but it should be tested by acedmic ability and suitability. If that people that get this grant don't turn up to lecture's etc then I think they should get it taken away from them. So it should work rather like EMA's. Its threshold is £15,000 a year, very few students come from families that earn this little anyway.
0
*dave*
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#3
Report 16 years ago
#3
(Original post by amazingtrade)
I think its a good idea in theory but it should be tested by acedmic ability and suitability. If that people that get this grant don't turn up to lecture's etc then I think they should get it taken away from them. So it should work rather like EMA's. Its threshold is £15,000 a year, very few students come from families that earn this little anyway.
If they earn more than 15000 the parents should contribute anyway.
0
kikzen
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#4
Report 16 years ago
#4
im not sure student topup fees are a good idea.

if we maintain the numbers, then i suppose it is a good idea. but the problem is that we SHOULDNT maintain the numbers.
university is meant to be for the academically elite; to show how clever you are. we shouldnt have 50% of the people going to uni as clearly, some of these people will end up with useless degrees.

only properly academic degrees / specialised degrees (so im thinking of classic subjects, english maths sciences, law, medicine) should be at uni. the rest should go to different type of schools (vocational --> more academic places but not as good as unis) with these qualifications being equally respected in the related fields.

if, with the reduced numbers, unis are still needing money then maybe fees should be introduced (but all at similar levels, as not to discourage poorer people going to more expensive unis) with additional support for the poorer students.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#5
Report 16 years ago
#5
(Original post by kikzen)
im not sure student topup fees are a good idea.

if we maintain the numbers, then i suppose it is a good idea. but the problem is that we SHOULDNT maintain the numbers.
university is meant to be for the academically elite; to show how clever you are. we shouldnt have 50% of the people going to uni as clearly, some of these people will end up with useless degrees.

only properly academic degrees / specialised degrees (so im thinking of classic subjects, english maths sciences, law, medicine) should be at uni. the rest should go to different type of schools (vocational --> more academic places but not as good as unis) with these qualifications being equally respected in the related fields.

if, with the reduced numbers, unis are still needing money then maybe fees should be introduced (but all at similar levels, as not to discourage poorer people going to more expensive unis) with additional support for the poorer students.
Nobody has said anything about 50% of people being at uni. The government has said it wants 50% of under 30 year olds to have some kind of higher education qualifcation by 2010.

This includes:
NVQ Level 4 and 5
HNC's
HHD's
Degrees etc
Other higher level diploma's.

These can be studied at local collegesor even within companies. The universities may not be elite but its still the minority that go to them.

I don't think their is two many people in university at the moment but their is a danger of this happening. I think they are currently people that perhaps shouldn't be in university but it shouldn't just be the extreme elite We have Oxbridge for that.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 16 years ago
#6
Well it's good to see that along with fees they will introduce new bursary, grant and loan schemes. I was slightly worried that they would go back on their word but I'm please with today's announcement .
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#7
Report 16 years ago
#7
(Original post by *dave*)
If they earn more than 15000 the parents should contribute anyway.
What if your parents can't afford to? Life is not black and white.
0
Howard
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#8
Report 16 years ago
#8
(Original post by amazingtrade)
What if your parents can't afford to? Life is not black and white.
Well, clearly they couldn't contribute on a joint income of $15,000 unless they sold all their possessions and went to live in a trailer.
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#9
Report 16 years ago
#9
I hate top up fees. They are a totally stupid notion put forward by a right wing Labour government that's hooked on a lethal cocktail of Tory principals and achieving 'targets'.

50% uni take up is frankly ridiculous and unnecessary, and giving up on that shouldn't change the access policies and it shouldn't become socially elitist again. And it wouldn't be because they could afford to get rid of tuition fees and give larger grants to those families who need it.
Quite frankly I'm not sure why they turned all the polytechnics into universities, it seems what we need is a system where there is local vocational potentially shorter qualifications, where a university is just overkill. Anyone can get to any level they like and it would solidify the jobs market which is currently regarding numerous degrees as junk or there are is a surplus in graduates.

Access, I can only see this as harmful to access. I have enough worries with the prospect of 9k of debt+overdraft... I wouldn't want any more. Although it will be essentially free at the point of delivery the debt is still there and although some people won't care it will be a big disincentive for many. The thresholds are also such that it will hit the working and middle classes harder with the grants being only for the smallest minority.
Also I have it on good knowledge that the point about variability of fees is going to be essentially moot because all of the russell group are intending on charging 3000 across the board on all courses. Perhaps this is where they intend the access regulator to come in, but the opinion of the Registrary of Cambridge was of distrust towards the regulator when he came to a meeting about the green paper at Clare last year. This is mainly because the access regulator has no regulation or particularly clear guidelines but really big teeth. If it does nothing then it is pointless, if it starts to interfere with universities' admissions procedures and charging the government will find itself in rather a lot of trouble.
There has been some justification, if I recall for example by the new vice chancellor, that Cambridge won't have access problems because we've found a way to give out more bursaries. Excuse me! Graduates are going to be expected to pay for their education through normally higher taxes, through tuition fees and contributions to your uni are going to be going to going towards rectifying an ill-concieved scenario as well. We can also find the money to do this when some colleges are millions in debt and trying to recoup everything they can through charging their students - a la Kings. Right....

Then there's also going to be degradation of the academic community. What the government has failed to notice is that a significant amount of the academics in to university through the grant system in the 60s and 70s and would not have been able to afford university by any other means. Academia, like most other public service positions, is a poorly paid profession and with the amount of debt we're talking about, not only are we unlikely to see the spectra of applicants we did from that era, we're also going to have less people generally wanting to go into academia.
This could well result in a collapse of quality and perhaps also numbers of academics. Which would be disasterous.

Then there's just the general principle behind it, it's clear that Margaret Hodge believes the dustman shouldn't subsidises the doctor. What she fails to realise is that is not only not equitable, but it also goes against the prinicples of Labour, or at least Old Labour. Not only might the dustman need the services of the doctor just as the doctor will need the services of the dustman the doctor will pay higher income tax and thereby compensate for the differential. If you are to believe that a dustman shouldn't subsidise a doctor I would suggest you also need to think that the doctor shouldn't subsidise the dustman's secondary school education as surely they wouldn't need that to collect bins? Or is that unfair, what should we have the right to? At what point should someone's destiny be decided? At birth - by what their parents earn as it would be in a purely capitialistic society?
Also, this will adversely affect skilled public sector workers such as teachers, doctors, etc perhaps the most. This system will have them paying a disproportionate amount for choosing to help the community rather than going for the highest paid job they can find, perhaps leading to further skills shortages? When the government implement this it I bet that they'll be writing off teacher's tuition fees within a few years to get good candidates to apply.

So to surmise, I don't like, at all. It's myopic and against what should be the principles of the labour party. It's designed to not offend middleclass labour voters just enough so that they vote labour again at the next election and they're being sensationalist in deliberately misinterpreting principles (such as Margaret Hodge did) whilst actually carrying out conservative policies.

By the way if you think this is a long rant, don't ask me about the state of the railways... I live in a connex area when not at uni :rolleyes:

Alaric.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#10
Report 16 years ago
#10
Why would someone going to a 'good' uni doing a 'good' course have their degree devalued just cos a lot of people have degrees?!

IMO every1 who wants to do one should do one, even for a laugh.
0
kikzen
Badges: 14
Rep:
?
#11
Report 16 years ago
#11
(Original post by pkonline)
Why would someone going to a 'good' uni doing a 'good' course have their degree devalued just cos a lot of people have degrees?!

IMO every1 who wants to do one should do one, even for a laugh.
whats with the 'good's?

it will devalue their worth because its like any old fool can get a degree.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#12
Report 16 years ago
#12
(Original post by kikzen)
whats with the 'good's?

it will devalue their worth because its like any old fool can get a degree.
Sure 'any old fool' can get a degree, but surely most people can decide which ones are better?
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#13
Report 16 years ago
#13
As I said on my above post there are NO plans or ever have been plans to get 50% of young people into uni. Its the media manipulating it. The plan is that by 2010 50% of under 30's will have some kind of higher education qualification.
0
pkonline
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#14
Report 16 years ago
#14
I don't see why we need a reason for education the people of our country. We should all be pleased that loads are going to uni and learning loads.
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#15
Report Thread starter 16 years ago
#15
(Original post by pkonline)
Sure 'any old fool' can get a degree, but surely most people can decide which ones are better?
Exactly. Degrees are tiered meaning that an unitelligent person is unlikely to steal a very able persons job. The fact is there are too many intelligent people and by cutting university places their future would be decided by their university not by how they work outside university.
0
AT82
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#16
Report 16 years ago
#16
(Original post by pkonline)
I don't see why we need a reason for education the people of our country. We should all be pleased that loads are going to uni and learning loads.
I think people are worried about the standard of educaton dropping but I don't think it will. I think more people will just go to things like higher education places etc. Most universities simply haven't got room to expand much more.

A degree from Oxbridge will be woth more than one from Salford, a degree from Salford will be worth more than one from Paisley etc.
0
Hannah
Badges: 0
#17
Report 16 years ago
#17
The new system (like the current one) is totally unfair. It discriminates against children whose parents are married for gods sake! The threshold of £15,000 includes the income of both parents ONLY if they are married. So if the mother of the student was remarried it is only her income that gets counted not the household income. the fathers income is not counted either.

Also with the new system the loan does not have to be payed back until you are earning more than 15,000. WHAT YOUR PARENTS EARN DOESNT MATTER AT A STAGE WHEN YOU ARE EARNING YOUR OWN MONEY, INTELLIGENCE AND HARD WORK WILL HAVE DECIDED YOUR INCOME. So why do people from low income get up to £300 pounds a year waived from their debt and middle,high-income families do not when the children will be equal when they go out into the world. Nothing is paid up front. There is no need for subsidies for students from low-income families. At the end of a degree course all students will have the same ability to go out and earn money money regardless of their background. It doesnt work, it isnt fair.

*rant over*
0
tititata
Badges: 0
#18
Report 16 years ago
#18
its been said that uk uni now are keen to recruit more international students just bcoz one international student = 3 local ones in terms of tuition fees..
overseas tuition fee are normally well above 6k or even 10k at those top unis.
0
MadNatSci
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#19
Report 16 years ago
#19
(Original post by pkonline)
IMO every1 who wants to do one should do one, even for a laugh.

For a laugh?! When it costs all that money to put someone through university??

Anyway, I can't see how these proposed top up fees are going to benefit the universities at all. If they're being paid afterwards what happens while the students are at uni?? And since it costs around £8000 to educate each student, I reckon the places are going to lose money. And students are going to be put off. Lose-lose.
0
Alaric
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#20
Report 16 years ago
#20
(Original post by tititata)
its been said that uk uni now are keen to recruit more international students just bcoz one international student = 3 local ones in terms of tuition fees..
overseas tuition fee are normally well above 6k or even 10k at those top unis.
international students are very much in demand!
My dad used to be admissions officer for kent and he'd be frequently travelling to UAE, america and europe (they sent a different guy to asia). Basically they could recoup the costs of a trip if he could persuade two or three to come to Kent, any more was a bonus.

Most universities seem to do this, hell his annual europe trip was with a load of other admission officers.

Alaric.
0
X
new posts
Back
to top
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

Do you get study leave?

Yes- I like it (147)
60.49%
Yes- I don't like it (11)
4.53%
No- I want it (68)
27.98%
No- I don't want it (17)
7%

Watched Threads

View All