Turn on thread page Beta

What I think About Top Up Fees watch

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    In todays age what is an extra £6000 debt paid back over 20years when earning more that £20000? Not alot.
    Peanuts. If an Oxford graduate buys his/her first home for 100k and house prices increase at 15% a year then he can refinance and pay back the 6k in 4.8 months.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    its not quite the same as cars since surely enterance to top unis should surely be a meritorcy and buy a nice cars needn't be. I think that everyone when going to uni should be able if they so desire be able to go the best uni that they can. Don't you agree?
    Fully agree. Top-up fees do not impede this.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Speciez99)
    its not quite the same as cars since surely enterance to top unis should surely be a meritorcy and buy a nice cars needn't be. I think that everyone when going to uni should be able if they so desire be able to go the best uni that they can. Don't you agree?
    I'm just trolling to see who'll bite.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    Fully agree. Top-up fees do not impede this.
    I am not sure whether they are or arent personally. I have read articles from people from low income backgrounds saying how under the current system they have been put off by the debt they would incure, however it is difficult to assess whether this is a nationwide belief. In this issue I guess we will only know with time.
    The only 2 problems i have is that i dont think that we necessary need 50% going into highter education when skilled jobs like plumming, buliding, being an electricain, car mantience, plastering are becoming more in demand. I can not see the advantage of some of the degrees people are doing and i think that thus this might not be the way forward.
    and 2ndly that i dont think my fees should be decided on my parents income. Surely i am independant at 18 and it is unfair to expect them to pick up the tab for my education. I would prefer the money to be based on my future income however i dont see how you would be able to assess that, so the problem still remain.
    What is clear though is that universities do need more funding, quite whether this is the way to do it tho i dont know.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    there is an article on it at

    http://www.poptel.org.uk/scgn/articles/0310/page2.htm

    http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/regio...02/285958.html
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Ooh, chance for a rant, yay! (I haven't read all the thread so this may already have been said, apologies if it has!)

    Firstly, I'm for top-up fees purely because the universities desperately need more money and there is realistically no other way in which they're going to get it.

    However, what pees me off is this. The fees are paid after graduation - great, wonderful. However the amount you pay is determined byt the amount of money your parents have. How bloody stupid can you get?! I'm technically middle-class so under this system I would end up paying back far more - assuming I became a scientist here - than someone from a lower class background who goes on to work in the City. My parents could hardly be expected to pay back my fees for me, could they?!
    • Very Important Poster
    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Very Important Poster
    PS Reviewer
    Actually the way the fee remission etc is likely to work for poorer students means that the amount of debt will be more or less the same (maybe £1-1.5k less after 3 yrs of study than someone who recieves no support - certainly NOT the £9k that is being spouted by the papers) - however students from poorer parents will recieve more money to live on while they're studying....while students from families who would currently be expected to pay £1k pa up front will have that extra £1k pa in their pockets *while they are studying* (ie when they need it most)....in exchange for paying back the loan/fees *at a better rate* for a few extra years (7 if the government got it's predictions right....more likely 10).

    £45 a month out of £20k wages is not going to prevent someone from going to university - certainly not anyone with any sense and certainly not if it means they'll recieve enough money to live off in loans (and in some cases grant) which is not the case ATM.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mik1a)
    So anyway, before you go out on a protest against top up fees stop to think whether the motive for it is because you truly believe that top up fees should be stopped, or just so that you don't emerge from university in a small amount more in debt that you would have been.
    Irregardless, the fact is that people are being crammed into unneccessary higher-education that they really do not need. As a future medical student, I find it disheartening that people who actually go to university to do things other than drink alcohol and have sex have to pay huge fees to compensate for the mouth-breathing troglodytes who do.

    Things need to be changed, these quota-obsessed government policies are spoiling the education system, churning out millions of pointlessly educated brown-collar schmoes, and forcing serious students to rack up massive debts in the early stages of their adult life, when they should be building a life for themselves, not working off loan repayments.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I was on the Six o Clock News, The Today programme and Look East News when I asked an MP about top-up fees. <wants her 15 minutes of fame to last longer>

    I said something along the lines of "If graduates earn more, why would repayment start at £15,000 which is 25% below the national average wage?" To which she replied "I have no answer for that". I think said something like "the old system no longer works, and the new system is flawed - why have there been no real solutions?" after she started spouting off about how it's a good solution all round.

    Yeah, me - I was brave!! Are you proud?!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    I didn't tape it, and to think I call myself your stalker!

    Which MP was it?
    Anne Campbell, for Cambridge. The crews SOOO wanted a load of tweed-wearing stuck up public school people saying "we want top-up fees": they didn't get it. Not many of them exist in Cambridge anymore (or at least not openly..)
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    Anne Campbell, for Cambridge. The crews SOOO wanted a load of tweed-wearing stuck up public school people saying "we want top-up fees": they didn't get it. Not many of them exist in Cambridge anymore (or at least not openly..)
    My dad is bankrupt, my mother has abanded me and I want top-up fees....please dont try and associate support for them with a particular class of society.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    My dad is bankrupt, my mother has abanded me and I want top-up fees....please dont try and associate support for them with a particular class of society.
    I wasn't. I said that's what the MEDIA wanted.

    p.s. I don't NOT support them, I just think there are a lot of flaws that need sorting out e.g. the £15,000 thing.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by blissy)
    I wasn't. I said that's what the MEDIA wanted.

    p.s. I don't NOT support them, I just think there are a lot of flaws that need sorting out e.g. the £15,000 thing.
    My apologies - I mis-read your post.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piginapoke)
    While I agree with the gist of this I will add the following half-baked idea: Its not purely the fault of the quota-obsessed government that there are so many pointless students, rather partly the fault of the pointless students themselves wanting to go to university in the first instance (don't have the sense to realise they aren't good enough), partly the fault of the universities for offering ridiculous courses for these students, and partly the fault of employers for demanding that their employees have unnecessary qualifications.
    Of course it's the governments fault - these lazy people are going to want to spend as long as possible in full-time education, thereby avoiding having to get a job in the real world. The government should make courses more vocational, ie. only make people pay for courses if they don't get a job that is relevant (like some fellow doing a 4-yr course in History of Art, then going on to be a Fitness Instructor).
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Of course it's the governments fault - these lazy people are going to want to spend as long as possible in full-time education, thereby avoiding having to get a job in the real world. The government should make courses more vocational, ie. only make people pay for courses if they don't get a job that is relevant (like some fellow doing a 4-yr course in History of Art, then going on to be a Fitness Instructor).
    What happens if they desired and craved knowledge, yet wanted to be a fitness instructor? Should we deny them this opportunity?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    What happens if they desired and craved knowledge, yet wanted to be a fitness instructor? Should we deny them this opportunity?
    if they desired knowledge they wouldnt of gotten 2 Es at alevel
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    What happens if they desired and craved knowledge, yet wanted to be a fitness instructor? Should we deny them this opportunity?
    Even if that were so, the number that actually are interested in the subject, and don't just use the 4 or so years of 'studying' as an excuse to spend their time consuming intoxicants and copulating, would be minimal.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr White)
    Even if that were so, the number that actually are interested in the subject, and don't just use the 4 or so years of 'studying' as an excuse to spend their time consuming intoxicants and copulating, would be minimal.
    Don't you think that is a large generalisation. I mean just because some gets drunk and has a few sexual partners doesn't mean that they care any less about their subjects.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm completeley against top up fees for the reasons already mentioned (the two-tier system, poorer people paying less, despite having the same salary on graduating etc.) There is absolutely no need for 50% of young people to be in higher education, by reducing the number of places on courses that give graduates no real advantage in the workplace, funding can increase elsewhere. Otherwise we'll end up with a lack of workers willing to do lower paid skilled labour because they've been to university - surely it makes more sense for people who are less academic to do vocational training or apprenticeships.

    I also hate top up fees because of the way our beloved government managed to push the bill through parliament - by bringing all the Scottish MPs down, who would have been stupid to vote against the government since:
    1) Top up fees don't affect Scottish unis
    2) The government gives a fixed percentage of its total uni budget to Scottish unis, so their funding will go up because we're paying more

    As one MP said, it's obviously wrong that Scottish MPs can vote on acts that don't affect their constituencies, the only reason Blair's done nothing about it is that it helps him win controversial votes
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by corey)
    What happens if they desired and craved knowledge, yet wanted to be a fitness instructor? Should we deny them this opportunity?
    No. There are lots of ways a craving for knowledge can be satisfied without being in full time education. There's no earthly reason why anyone cannot become one of the world's foremost expert on Rennaisance Art without having a degree in the subject. This idea that you must have a degree if you are to have knowledge is a very new one.

    So, if it's purely a passion for learning a subject (that will have no bearing on one's career) we're talking about then there's absolutely no reason to have a degree in it.

    For those that have a passion and for vanity's sake want a degree there are still other ways to achieve this without being in FT education. What about the Open University? It's the largest University in the UK and offers tons of very good quality degree programs that can be studied at pretty much any pace and really don't cost a fortune.

    This idea that to get any sort of education we all absolutely MUST spend 3 years as impoverished FT students is nonsense.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: April 16, 2004
Poll
Do protests make a difference in political decisions?
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.