This discussion is closed.
ben2111
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#21
Report 16 years ago
#21
(Original post by kildare)
No, people starting uni in 2004 or 2005 will not be affected.
ooohhhh... how mean! I start 2004/2005 ;-)
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#22
Report 16 years ago
#22
(Original post by oldthrashbarg)
I really do not get this (sorry)

I'm starting university in october. So will I pay the increased rate from:

A. Now on (i.e. all three years)

B. from 2006 (i.e. one year)

C. No at all (since I started my course before 2006)
C
0
ToshTrent
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#23
Report 16 years ago
#23
Sod upin the fees, what the govt shud do it get rid of all the crap mickey mouse joke courses

Some fair examples....

History
Geography
Turf Laying
Business Studies, <-- If you need to study it then you're not for it!!!
Economics
Knitting
Banking
Politics
English Literature
Foreign Languages <-- bar japanease cuz its funny
American Studies
Game Keeping
Equestrian
Zooology
Sociology
Philosophy
Drama

And there's a fair amount more too!

Kind Regards
Tosh
0
Rich
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#24
Report 16 years ago
#24
(Original post by Tek)
316 to 311.

Blair should be f**king hung, drawn and quartered.
Perhaps if people like the NUS weren't so nieave and adamant that they don't want fees, full stop, there might have been more likelihood of getting something fairer. The campaign so far seems to have stunk of the hard-left who think everything should be free and everyone should go to university. That is not the case. Since when has tertiary education been a right? SInce never. Next thing people will be demanding an above-average salary as a right. :rolleyes:
0
C0nnie
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#25
Report 16 years ago
#25
yeah well, where i live, i have we have to pay bout a lot more than £3000 cos were not classed as uk students and not classed as international, it's unfair, cos if we apply to any other country we're international, so we have no home country that's what we have to pay.
saying that, i do have sympathy for those who used to pay less than 1 third of what we pay...
btw why are there top up fees in the first place? what's tony blair using the extra money for?
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#26
Report 16 years ago
#26
(Original post by ToshTrent)
Sod upin the fees, what the govt shud do it get rid of all the crap mickey mouse joke courses

Some fair examples....

History
Geography
Economics
Politics
English Literature
Foreign Languages <-- bar japanease cuz its funny
Philosophy

And there's a fair amount more too!

Kind Regards
Tosh
lol
0
VoodooDoll
Badges: 8
Rep:
?
#27
Report 16 years ago
#27
i kind of support the idea as the general taxpayer who doesn't really benefit from a university education themselves shouldn't have to stump up the 11 billion higher education deficit. universities need more money so why not make the people who are going to benefit from them pay? its not like students have to pay while their at university, only when they earn over 15K, and even then the money will come directly out of their salary so they shouldn't even notice it missing. the only thing i disagree with is that blair is going back on his election pledge and that seems catagorically wrong. but the idea itself seems quite fair even though it is quite controversial.
0
smaug
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#28
Report 16 years ago
#28
(Original post by Rhianneth)
I support it too (kinda!) If you look at the other options then top-up fees are a better idea. Aren't the alternatives raising taxes (which no-one will be pleased with) or the conservatives' approach of restricting numbers goin to uni! Hmm, im thinkin topup fees are the most practical option...
But top up fees are a form of taxation, a kind of graduate tax.
Why should a graduate (a nurse perhaps) who is earning £25000 a year be paying proportionately more tax than a plumber or insurance advisor who is earning maybe £35000 a year? OK perhaps the graduate has got better long term prospects, but if we raised the money by slapping it on the top rate of income tax instead, then when she got promoted to a high level the graduate would have to pay more too.
Seems a lot fairer to me!
0
Moog
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#29
Report 16 years ago
#29
Instead of top up fees they should just stop ugly and fat people from going to uni. That would save money! Instead they could be cleaners and dustbin men etc...
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#30
Report 16 years ago
#30
(Original post by smaug)
But top up fees are a form of taxation, a kind of graduate tax.
Why should a graduate (a nurse perhaps) who is earning £25000 a year be paying proportionately more tax than a plumber or insurance advisor who is earning maybe £35000 a year? OK perhaps the graduate has got better long term prospects, but if we raised the money by slapping it on the top rate of income tax instead, then when she got promoted to a high level the graduate would have to pay more too.
Seems a lot fairer to me!
It's not a tax at all. It's a reduction in a subsidy.
0
Rhianneth
Badges: 0
#31
Report 16 years ago
#31
(Original post by smaug)
But top up fees are a form of taxation, a kind of graduate tax.
Why should a graduate (a nurse perhaps) who is earning £25000 a year be paying proportionately more tax than a plumber or insurance advisor who is earning maybe £35000 a year? OK perhaps the graduate has got better long term prospects, but if we raised the money by slapping it on the top rate of income tax instead, then when she got promoted to a high level the graduate would have to pay more too.
Seems a lot fairer to me!
I see what you're saying, but to be honest, if you choose to go into higher education and know that your job won't pay enough to cover your costs of education then thats not the general publics problem! You dont need a degree to have a highly paid job, most jobs (such as accountacy for example) are best entered early as you have to work your way up, so most will see it as unfair that they pay for the education of others...ok im startin to sound a bit rambly here...

Anyway I dont really have much knowledge of the topup fees planned, but I personally think taxes in this country are paying for our health and majority of education etc. Higher education is still seen as an option, and many still dont consider it important (though personally, its a high priority of mine!) so making everyone pay for our 'optional' education seems slightly...uhh...asking too much?! argh why am i bothered - it reallllly wont affect me haha oh dear, im feeling in an arguementative mood!!
0
smaug
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#32
Report 16 years ago
#32
(Original post by kildare)
It's not a tax at all. It's a reduction in a subsidy.
So you see all post 16 education as a luxury that should be paid for do you? And would you like to extend charges to A level students too?
0
zero101
Badges: 0
#33
Report 16 years ago
#33
(Original post by ToshTrent)
Sod upin the fees, what the govt shud do it get rid of all the crap mickey mouse joke courses

Some fair examples....

History
Geography
Turf Laying
Business Studies, <-- If you need to study it then you're not for it!!!
Economics
Knitting
Banking
Politics
English Literature
Foreign Languages <-- bar japanease cuz its funny
American Studies
Game Keeping
Equestrian
Zooology
Sociology
Philosophy
Drama

And there's a fair amount more too!

Kind Regards
Tosh
U TWAT
economics is NOT a mickey mouse course
0
smaug
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#34
Report 16 years ago
#34
(Original post by Rhianneth)
I see what you're saying, but to be honest, if you choose to go into higher education and know that your job won't pay enough to cover your costs of education then thats not the general publics problem!
If you are well educated then it is not just for your own benefit. Society needs an educated population - not just the obvious like doctors and nurses and teachers etc, but also writers, actors, musicians,
journalists, scientific researchers, archeologists and so on.

People who have chosen to do jobs that require a higher level of education than others should not be penalised financially.
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#35
Report 16 years ago
#35
(Original post by smaug)
So you see all post 16 education as a luxury that should be paid for do you? And would you like to extend charges to A level students too?
No, nor did I in any way suggest this.
0
Ben.S.
Badges: 2
Rep:
?
#36
Report 16 years ago
#36
Neither is zoology, philosophy, history, geography, politics or are the foreign languages.

Ben
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#37
Report 16 years ago
#37
(Original post by smaug)
If you are well educated then it is not just for your own benefit. Society needs an educated population - not just the obvious like doctors and nurses and teachers etc, but also writers, actors, musicians,
journalists, scientific researchers, archeologists and so on.

People who have chosen to do jobs that require a higher level of education than others should not be penalised financially.
Yes there is a benefit to society, hence why even with the introduction of top up fees the governement will stay pay the vast majority of students fees.

However at the same time, the marginal benefit to society is much higher for primary and secondary education and, as these are presently seriously underfunded more money needs to be put in. This money has to come from somewhere, hence top up fees.
0
llama boy
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#38
Report 16 years ago
#38
(Original post by kildare)
No, nor did I in any way suggest this.
No, you didn't.

You might want to explain what the significant difference between the two is, though. It seems that all the same arguments "for" could apply to A Levels as well.
0
kes
Badges: 0
#39
Report 16 years ago
#39
I know I sound stupud and imature, but hey it makes me feel better ;-)
BLAIR NEEDS TO GET HIS HEAD OUT OF HIS ARSE AND SEE REALITY (soory, but I wanted to say that...if you disagree, oh well, its a free country and all that)

ANYWAY:
I wanted to also know when these things are coming in; I've heard its 2006, but I'm planning to start in 2005 (having a gap yr 2 pay for uni...) so would it affect me? Would I have to start paying for the extra fees? Also, does anyone know any links to where this info is? (not that I don't trust you, but I want summat I can see if you know what I mean...)
0
kildare
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#40
Report 16 years ago
#40
(Original post by llama boy)
No, you didn't.

You might want to explain what the significant difference between the two is, though. It seems that all the same arguments "for" could apply to A Levels as well.
I think it's unrealistic to expect someone who hasn't reached the legal age of maturity or indeed stopped seriously developing intellectually to be faced with this choice.
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

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (220)
68.11%
No (103)
31.89%

Watched Threads

View All