Tony Blair is pushing it now!!!!! Watch

This discussion is closed.
PQ
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#21
Report 16 years ago
#21
(Original post by Bhaal85)
Haven't they also said that any debts not pid back within 25 years, are 'written off'?
Yes they have - which will effectively cap the fees after the guaranteed cap runs out in 2010/15(can't remember which).
0
Brown Patrick Bateman
Badges: 10
Rep:
?
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
I assume (perhaps wrongly) that ma tay bap afforded their beta Anjool a wery good education but beware of spouting stats which bear little relation or relevance to the actual circumstances for a number of our fellow students - I thank you
State school education all the way, in fact.

And comfortably living financially 100% independent of parents at uni thanks to paid employment during vacations.
0
tagzt
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#23
Report 16 years ago
#23
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
I assume (perhaps wrongly) that ma tay bap afforded their beta Anjool a wery good education but beware of spouting stats which bear little relation or relevance to the actual circumstances for a number of our fellow students - I thank you
yeh i agree completely, he is obviously one of these rich kids who can thinks every one should be paying more money, i think he deserves neg rep for his outrageous comments.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#24
Report 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by Jools)
State school education all the way, in fact.

And comfortably living financially 100% independent of parents at uni thanks to paid employment during vacations.
Hmm - I won't even attempt to accuse you of lying because I would then of course have to prove my allegations - that is however besides the point - and i shall retract that allegation.
Your position, although heartening, does not stand as a viable reason for your arguments in favour of Blair's attempt at elitism - if this was implemented in this country the divergence between the privileged and the have-nots would surely grow save for the relative few (like me!) who are able to win scholarships and/or financial assistance as reward for their intellect. Cases such as the aforementioned are few and far between and we may find ourselves in a society run by the rich and for the rich - it would become nearly impossible for the less priveleged to go to university and make decent successes of themselves owing to the inevitable downturn in enthusiasm by unis for vocational courses which would cost more than they are worth. Therefore u will have to explain ur side of the argument further and bear in mind Anjool that the perspective is specifically set for the sake of equity in the accessibility of higher education.

editing circa the mispelling of a few distinguishable words and the missing out of key words needed for coherence etc
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Anjool i don't know what perspective u are coming from but i can assure u that this tuition fees proposal is counter-productive with regard to higher education.
Giving greater funding to which the universitys are crying out for is counter productive? of course....

First, there is no guarantee of a cap which means universities such as the Oxfords and Cambridges of this world (and perhaps to a lesser extent LSEs and UCLs) can charge over the odds for courses at their universities.
I will take it you have failed to read the governments white paper in the slightest, please point me to your source that they can charge anything they want, which is what you imply.

Second, tuition fees are only really suitable to those who will be able to pay them off - a lot of people don't get dazzling careers after university and some are on the dole for a long time thereafter and really the govt. arent receiving those funds in those particular circumstances.
Thats not actually true, on average gradutes earn double (I think) than non gradutes, and since there is an increase of 2/3's in tution fees then this problem of people not working all the time, is solved.

Courses like Law which carry such prestige dont necessarily guarantee jobs especially in such a fiercely competitive environment - so the govt is being short changed here if there are those who arent able to pay off the debts of the fees even though they have gone to uni and got a degree. this is a drain public finances and what u could end up with iare a lot of students going to uni just to waste time instead of working - this could lead to a cull of vocational subjects and then the unis become elitist and dont give a chance to students of lesser intellect or of less privileges who werent afforded a decent education - what results - untrained workforce for the future...
yes, people will go to uni to waste time, and have no desire to get a good wage, they just want to incur debt and then be on the dole their whole lives? Now, thats a stupid suggestion, people go to uni want to get a good job that will usually be over 15000 a year, even for the few who do 'waste' their time, are you seriously suggesting that they will NEVER EVER work in a job over £15000? Now, if we take into account the New Deal program and the removal of benefits after certain time periods, and average wage rises, promotions etc....the number who will never pay back anything is tiny. Also, if they do, they are likely to come from a poorer background...hence won't owe as much anyway!

You seem to be neglecting the 'invisble hand' in the economy, there will be not be a a cull of vocational jobs, as the reduction in Labour in that market will be fuffiled as wages rise etc. Basic economics.

Universitys are already elitist, as the best courses have to have the best intellecut anyway.

Finally, your point about vocational is rubbish as the government is using other policy measures to deal with the Labour supply shortage in plumbing etc etc.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
no need to be so cutting corey - wait one moment please while i think of how to best counter ur points
0
pedy1986
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Hmm - I won't even attempt to accuse you of lying because I would then of course have to prove my allegations - that is however besides the point - and i shall retract that allegation.
Your position, although heartening, does not stand as a viable reason for your arguments in favour of Blair's attempt at elitism - if this was implemented in this country the divergence between the privileged and the have-nots would surely grow save for the relative few (like me!) who are able to win scholarships and/or financial assistance as reward for their intellect. Cases such as the aforementioned are few and far between and we may find ourselves in a society run by the rich and for the rich - it would become nearly impossible for the less priveleged to go to university and make decent successes of themselves owing to the inevitable downturn in enthusiasm by unis for vocational courses which would cost more than they are worth. Therefore u will have to explain ur side of the argument further and bear in mind Anjool that the perspective is specifically set for the sake of equity in the accessibility of higher education.

editing circa the mispelling of a few distinguishable words and the missing out of key words needed for coherence etc
How is this system elisist?? It is SOCIAL JUSTICE, I advise you watch Blair in 4minutes on Sky News in his speech
Besides, they have grants for the poorest which is ecouraging access into higher education from all backgrounds.

Your use of privelged....? You seem to be implying that everyone who is less privelged doesnt go to uni? No, people who don't have the intellect dont go to university....those without the needed qualifcations for the top courses can go to the 'lesser' universitys or go into vocational courses outside of universitys which will give them job market skills, for example modern apprentiships.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#28
Report 16 years ago
#28
(Original post by corey)
How is this system elisist?? It is SOCIAL JUSTICE, I advise you watch Blair in 4minutes on Sky News in his speech
Besides, they have grants for the poorest which is ecouraging access into higher education from all backgrounds.

Your use of privelged....? You seem to be implying that everyone who is less privelged doesnt go to uni? No, people who don't have the intellect dont go to university....those without the needed qualifcations for the top courses can go to the 'lesser' universitys or go into vocational courses outside of universitys which will give them job market skills, for example modern apprentiships.
My right honourable gentleman, there is are some fundamental flaws in ur arguments. I suggested that by implementing such a system there could be a danger that it would lead to elitism - i.e. mickey-mouse courses will be extinguished. furthermore apprenticeships are irrelevant in today's society because if u take the french and german systems universities are responsible for this sort of training - gnvqs nvqs etc. Apprenticeships today arent the same as in yesteryear - a relation of mine became a chartered accountant on such an apprenticeship - 35 yrs ago!!!!!!
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#29
Report 16 years ago
#29
Higher education is suffering from a funding crisis (so my tutors keep telling me) but Tony Blair is hitting the wrong people.

Those who are borderline poor are having to foot the bill and I'm sick of it.
An graduate earning £15,000 will have to pay 42% tax on their earnings, which is more than a millionaire (40%). Tony needs to sort out his act, and start charging those who can afford it.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Higher education is suffering from a funding crisis (so my tutors keep telling me) but Tony Blair is hitting the wrong people.

Those who are borderline poor are having to foot the bill and I'm sick of it.
An graduate earning £15,000 will have to pay 42% tax on their earnings, which is more than a millionaire (40%). Tony needs to sort out his act, and start charging those who can afford it.
v. good point
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
Anjool i don't know what perspective u are coming from but i can assure u that this tuition fees proposal is counter-productive with regard to higher education. First, there is no guarantee of a cap which means universities such as the Oxfords and Cambridges of this world (and perhaps to a lesser extent LSEs and UCLs) can charge over the odds for courses at their universities. Second, tuition fees are only really suitable to those who will be able to pay them off - a lot of people don't get dazzling careers after university and some are on the dole for a long time thereafter and really the govt. arent receiving those funds in those particular circumstances. Courses like Law which carry such prestige dont necessarily guarantee jobs especially in such a fiercely competitive environment - so the govt is being short changed here if there are those who arent able to pay off the debts of the fees even though they have gone to uni and got a degree. this is a drain public finances and what u could end up with iare a lot of students going to uni just to waste time instead of working - this could lead to a cull of vocational subjects and then the unis become elitist and dont give a chance to students of lesser intellect or of less privileges who werent afforded a decent education - what results - untrained workforce for the future... I assume (perhaps wrongly) that ma tay bap afforded their beta Anjool a wery good education but beware of spouting stats which bear little relation or relevance to the actual circumstances for a number of our fellow students - I thank you
Did you read his post?


Jools: Fantastic post xthup
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#32
Report 16 years ago
#32
(Original post by Jools)
Yet another ill-informed judgement. What's discouraging people is that they don't know the facts, and think they all have to pay £3k a year... in fairness the proposals really must be spelt out in English.

Basically it's maximum £3k a year for those (parents) can afford it, if you're poor you don't have to pay squat. You only pay back the fees once you've graduated ("You don't pay zip till ur blinging" according to those awful government adverts), and only pay them back at a rate of about 10% of your wage so it shouldn't be an overburdening of debt.

And if it reduces the number of people going to university then that's actually a good thing - their strive to make more and more people go to uni means last year there were 42 graduates applying per job, compared to 37 last year. The degree is being devalued whilst there's much less competition over other skilled and well decently paid jobs which don't require an academic degree.

And universities are about to face a funding crisis - already top institutions like Durham have had to close down departments because they have no funding. How else should the Government fund education? The NUS idea of having a free grant for every student means £6.6bn a year expenditure = economic ludicracy.

At present the people who complain about £1100 tuition fees annually are the often the same ones who then boast about spending £40 in a night on booze, and spend summer dossing. Spend your vacations in paid employment and you can easily afford university. And be more prepared come graduation.
That is 10% contribution as well as income (and council) tax. This leads to an effective 42% taxation. Those earning £35,000 will have to pay 50%. How is this fair, in any shape or form?

You say that this will lead to less people being attracted to University, and you call it a good thing.

Surely you can see that poorer students will be the ones who can't go. It isn't as though a perfect cross-section of students will be put-off! The classification of "poor" students under this scheme (relative to the amount it will cost) will mean that many poorer students will not be able to afford University.
In a Western world country, which thrives on freedom and democracy, these new plans are seriously flawed.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#33
Report 16 years ago
#33
(Original post by Bigcnee)
That is 10% contribution as well as income (and council) tax. This leads to an effective 42% taxation. Those earning £35,000 will have to pay 50%. How is this fair, in any shape or form?

You say that this will lead to less people being attracted to University, and you call it a good thing.

Surely you can see that poorer students will be the ones who can't go. It isn't as though a perfect cross-section of students will be put-off! The classification of "poor" students under this scheme (relative to the amount it will cost) will mean that many poorer students will not be able to afford University.
In a Western world country, which thrives on freedom and democracy, these new plans are seriously flawed.
Why would poorer students be put off when it is their salary after graduation and not their parents which is the determing factor in the percentage of their incomes that they have to use to pay of their debts?
0
Bigcnee
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#34
Report 16 years ago
#34
(Original post by kildare)
Why would poorer students be put off when it is their salary after graduation and not their parents which is the determing factor in the percentage of their incomes that they have to use to pay of their debts?
Maybe because the huge taxation (that I 've already addressed) is a factor. Also those families who are considered to be less poor (e.g. income of over £20,000) will be hit badly by tuition fees.
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#35
Report 16 years ago
#35
(Original post by kildare)
Did you read his post?


Jools: Fantastic post xthup
don't try and imply clever things at my expense - i dont think that is the way to conduct a reasoned argument - why not attempt what corie attempted - Bigcnee has summed it up beautifully in his post
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#36
Report 16 years ago
#36
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Maybe because the huge taxation (that I 've already addressed) is a factor. Also those families who are considered to be less poor (e.g. income of over £20,000) will be hit badly by tuition fees.
But the top fees will be paid by the students themselves after graduation as a percentage of their salary. Why would the income of their parents have an impact on their decision as to whether or not they should attend university?
0
Kurdt Morello
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#37
Report 16 years ago
#37
I think it is all rather inequitable around the bottom of the scale with a matter of a few pounds making the difference between having to pay and not having to pay
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#38
Report 16 years ago
#38
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
don't try and imply clever things at my expense - i dont think that is the way to conduct a reasoned argument - why not attempt what corie attempted - Bigcnee has summed it up beautifully in his post
Fair enough, you didn't address any of the points he raised in his post though so I found your response a little strange.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#39
Report 16 years ago
#39
(Original post by Kurdt Morello)
I think it is all rather inequitable around the bottom of the scale with a matter of a few pounds making the difference between having to pay and not having to pay
Does it work like that though? I always thought that a graduated scale was used?
0
happysunshine
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#40
Report 16 years ago
#40
(Original post by Bigcnee)
Maybe because the huge taxation (that I 've already addressed) is a factor. Also those families who are considered to be less poor (e.g. income of over £20,000) will be hit badly by tuition fees.
I don't see why it should put anybody off, the poorer students pay less anyway in the end and they don't have to pay it off until they earn a reasonable amount. But anyway, if they are really intelligent, they wouldn't let it put them off.
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 (222)
60.99%
Yes- I don't like it (16)
4.4%
No- I want it (101)
27.75%
No- I don't want it (25)
6.87%

Watched Threads

View All