Norman Lamb interview: What is the way forward with tuition fees? Watch

Queen Cersei
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
TSR's miser visited Lib Dem HQ to ask your questions to Norman Lamb MP, the Minister of State for Care and Support, and Parliamentary Private Secretary to the Deputy PM Nick Clegg.

Check out the video below!

Q12. You have apologised for signing the 'No Tuition Fees' pledge. What do you think is the way forward with tuition fees?



Does this change your opinion on the tuition fees? Do you agree that Miliband's promise will only benefit the highest earning graduates?
0
reply
Everglow
  • Political Ambassador
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
'What's not to like about that system?'

He openly admitted that graduates who do well post-uni should be taxed notably more than those who don't do so well. So essentially the government is punishing those who work hard at university and earn high-paying jobs. That's what I don't like.

Poor answer here that reminded me of the Tories more than anything else. Nicky Morgan made a similarly unconvincing response to the tuition fees issue, claiming that students are somehow better off under this present system than the previous one. It's just not true, especially when tuition fees are a mess in the UK, i.e. with Scotland getting free tuition, Wales getting £3,000 tuition fees and England having to pay £9,000! I'm not sure what NI pay, but I think they pay the full £9,000 as well. How is this fair? How is this beneficial to English (and possibly Northern Irish) students?
0
reply
k4l397
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
I think that answer was very 'politiciany'. Although I'm glad he actually apologised for not sticking to a commitment the party made instead of reeling off a list of excuses. I personally don't mind the current tuition fee system although personally I'm a believer in free education. I think he danced around the question quite a bit tbh, mentioned no flaws in the current system and suggested the one they've made is almost perfect. It's good but that doesn't mean it should remain as it is - it's definitely not fair when you consider other students in the UK (Scotland etc,) have free or cheaper education. Also I'd question how Scotland can afford to provide free education and still have world class universities but England can't?

(Original post by Reluire)
'What's not to like about that system?'

He openly admitted that graduates who do well post-uni should be taxed notably more than those who don't do so well. So essentially the government is punishing those who work hard at university and earn high-paying jobs. That's what I don't like.
I get what your saying but I'd slightly disagree. I don't think it would be fair for someone who is in a much lower earning job after university to be paying the same amount as someone earning a lot after university. Often people who earn more still earn a significant amount more than someone who is in a lower paid job even after student finance reductions, tax and national insurance. It's also not uncommon for those who attain higher paid jobs to have got it through being given more opportunities in the first place, not necessarily because they worked harder. I'm sure there are loads of people who work extremely hard who will never earn the same amount. It's not so much punishing, but since they've got more out of the system, they get charged more since this will give other the chance to have the same opportunities they did.

I understand what you are saying but you can hardly charge someone on a lower income the same sort of money you'd charge someone on a higher income (because they can't afford it), and you can't lower the amount those on higher incomes pay otherwise you'd need to find that money from somewhere else.
0
reply
BigBadWoofWoof
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
Just 'writing off' a loan is a terrible idea. You're encouraging people to be lazy. You're going to only worsen the budget deficit. It's no good. Meanwhile, taxing people who earn more encourages 'brain drain', where the people who are most capable end up working abroad to avoid the tax; that is, if they don't lose incentive and become lazy thanks to the bad policy.

The size of the loan you get should be based on statistics, sort of like based on how much an insurance company charges people, that predict how likely you are to be able to repay the loan.

These statistics should be based on the average graduate salary of the course you attend and your a level course. That way, the government doesn't get into a mess with giving loans to people who go to low ranking universities and fail to get a well-paying degree and are unable to pay back the loans.

Sure you might think its 'unfair', but how is it less unfair than banks being less willing to loan to people who are unlikely to be able to pay it back?

If you did not work hard and failed to achieve a decent set of a level results (I'm talking about people with grades like BCC) and end up going to a low ranking university course, what evidence is there that you'll work hard for the rest of your life to try and pay back your debt? Not much, really, considering even some of the better qualified people are finding it difficult to get a job.

If you are unable to get an offer from a decent university course you should be highly discouraged from going to university.

That's my point.
0
reply
BigBadWoofWoof
Badges: 6
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by k4l397)
I'm sure there are loads of people who work extremely hard who will never earn the same amount.
If you did 8 hours + of academic work a day for at least 6 days a week since the age of four focused on a proper subject like maths to until you leave uni, you're going to be earning a pretty decent sum assuming you picked a respectable university degree. In fact, regardless of your background, you're likely to be one of the top in the country for your age group, so you're going to be very competitive.

Just because you didn't work hard doesn't mean you should scapegoat the people that did as being 'more fortunate' while pretending you worked harder than them. Period.
0
reply
k4l397
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by BigBadWoofWoof)
If you did 8 hours + of academic work a day for at least 6 days a week since the age of four focused on a proper subject like maths to until you leave uni, you're going to be earning a pretty decent sum assuming you picked a respectable university degree. In fact, regardless of your background, you're likely to be one of the top in the country for your age group, so you're going to be very competitive.

Just because you didn't work hard doesn't mean you should scapegoat the people that did as being 'more fortunate' while pretending you worked harder than them. Period.
If you can find a child that does that from that age without any aid or encouragement from their parents then you'll need to let me know I don't doubt that quite a lot of top earners work hard to get to where they are (although quite a lot don't). My main point is even if you do pay more, you still are earning significantly more than someone who earns a lot less - hence you are in a better position to pay more to ensure the educational system remains at its current standard. I don't see why people who have been successful because they've been able to receive a good university education are complacent that they have to pay more - they are literally paying back for giving them the tools for their success. That's my opinion anyway, although I accept what you are saying.
0
reply
ridwan12
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by Reluire)
'What's not to like about that system?'

He openly admitted that graduates who do well post-uni should be taxed notably more than those who don't do so well. So essentially the government is punishing those who work hard at university and earn high-paying jobs. That's what I don't like.

Poor answer here that reminded me of the Tories more than anything else. Nicky Morgan made a similarly unconvincing response to the tuition fees issue, claiming that students are somehow better off under this present system than the previous one. It's just not true, especially when tuition fees are a mess in the UK, i.e. with Scotland getting free tuition, Wales getting £3,000 tuition fees and England having to pay £9,000! I'm not sure what NI pay, but I think they pay the full £9,000 as well. How is this fair? How is this beneficial to English (and possibly Northern Irish) students?
He hasn't even addressed the large hole that will occur due to vast amounts of students defaulting on their loans as they will never earn the wage needed to begin repayments within the 30 year or so period. He hasn't addressed the fact that this system is going to cost more than £3k system, meaning it was a waste of time and tax payers money (future tax payers money), around £1.5 billion a year once it reaches the 48% default rate.

It is a failed experiment.

http://www.theguardian.com/education...y-costing-more
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
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

Would you turn to a teacher if you were being bullied?

Yes (94)
24.48%
No (290)
75.52%

Watched Threads

View All