Turn on thread page Beta

Gap Year 2005 watch

Announcements
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    PS Helper
    According to an article in todays Guardian students planning to take a gap year in 2005 will NOT have to pay top-up fees when they start their course in 2006, in a significant concession agreed yesterday by the government.
    The Commons accepted a government version of a cross-party amendment made in the Lords to the Higher Education Bill. Peers had feared that tens of thousands of students would decide against taking a year out because of the substantially increased fees they would have to pay if they did so.

    So, how are they going to do this? are they going to allow this if you apply for a deferred entry only? otherwise, how arethey going to organise it? Surely its going to be complicated enough without two different sets of financial rules operating at the same time! Anyone come across more info on this?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The only surprising about it is that they took so long to realise that this was the only practical, fair, and sensible thing to do.

    BBC article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/3833931.stm
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    Yes, this was in The Times as well.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Geogger)
    So, how are they going to do this? are they going to allow this if you apply for a deferred entry only? otherwise, how arethey going to organise it? Surely its going to be complicated enough without two different sets of financial rules operating at the same time! Anyone come across more info on this?
    I believe it was done in the same way when the current fees system was introduced, so presumably there is a precedent....

    ARRRRRRGGGGGHHHH!!!!!!

    This is the most angry I have ever been in my life

    First they introduce top-up fees the year I start

    Now the governement is providing a public service to one person at one price and to another - exactly identical apart from being a year younger - at a different one

    No court will stand for this except Bliar's crooked courts

    Mark my words, I WILL NOT PAY YOUR TOP UP FEES Mr. Blair - I will take your student loan, do my degree and move to America where you will get no benefit from it

    I hope you and your family die a violent death



    Anyone on legal aid PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE take this to court

    I am absolutely certain that this will not stand if if it gets to the european courts. This must be one of the stupidist and most illegal government proposals of all time.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Why do people welcome top up fees?

    you'll have to pay more to get on your course and pay more in debt after your degre...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Harry Potter -- this is an essential practical measure to prevent an application surge for 2005 entry. It could equally well be argued that under the previous idea that people in the year above you would be unfairly discriminated against for taking a gap year.

    (Original post by [-David-])
    Why do people welcome top up fees?

    you'll have to pay more to get on your course and pay more in debt after your degre...
    I don't think that's true for everybody.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alexander)
    Harry Potter -- this is an essential practical measure to prevent an application surge for 2005 entry. It could equally well be argued that under the previous idea that people in the year above you would be unfairly discriminated against for taking a gap year.
    Exactly. It would be pretty discriminatory towards 2005 applicants otherwise as the competition would absolutely soar. Oversubscribed unis like Nottingham, Manchester etc. would be turning away candidates they'd normally accept.

    (Original post by Alexander)
    Harry Potter -- this is an essential practical measure to prevent an application surge for 2005 entry. It could equally well be argued that under the previous idea that people in the year above you would be unfairly discriminated against for taking a gap year.
    You have a choice whether or not you want to take a gap year or not. It is ludicrous to clame that people taking gap years are being discriminated against, because they could simply choose not to take a gap year and they wouldn't have to pay the increased fees. That's like saying people who buy alcahol are being discriminated against becuase they have to pay exise duty on it. Anyone who chose to buy alcahol would have to pay the exise duty. However, I cannot choose my age.


    (Original post by slowjamz)
    Exactly. It would be pretty discriminatory towards 2005 applicants otherwise as the competition would absolutely soar. Oversubscribed unis like Nottingham, Manchester etc. would be turning away candidates they'd normally accept.
    You're missing the point.

    The previous system wouldn't be discriminating against 2005 applicants because all 2005 applicants would be in the same position. You can't say that 2005 applicants are being discriminated against in relation to 2006 applicants because they applied in different years. If you use that logic, 2006 applicants are being discriminated against becaise they have to pay more for university.

    Before this proposal:

    All people applying to university in 2005 face stiffer competition. Hence, all people applying for this public service at this time are being treated the same.

    All people applying to university in 2006 pay more top-up fees. Hence, all people applying for this public service at this time are being treated the same.

    I don't see how this is discrimination.

    Under this proposal, however, I will be attending university alongside other students - doing the same work, living in the same place and graduating with similar job prospects - but will graduate with larger debts. The only difference is that they are a year older. This is undeniably discrimination.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Potter)
    Under this proposal, however, I will be attending university alongside other students - doing the same work, living in the same place and graduating with similar job prospects - but will graduate with larger debts. The only difference is that they are a year older. This is undeniably discrimination.
    What about those on scholarships? Discrimination because your not intelligent I suppose.

    What about those in 3rd year? Discrimination because there older I suppose

    What about those who didn't even pay fees? Discrimnation toward the older generation...

    The line has to be drawn somewhere for a the system and that is all those currently in Year 11.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This a nice development for me - it goes some way to alleviate the trauma that was the England match.

    It is great news for people currently in Lower Sixth.

    However, there is still a notable gamble in applying for deferred entry in 2005. In the past, people would happily apply for deferred entry - safe in the knowledge that they were offered 'a safety net' - in that they could take a gap year and re-apply if the following occured:

    a) they missed their offer grades (and either did not make their insurance offer - or did not want to go)

    b) they were not made any offers in the first place (happens most notably for medicine and vet sci - as they can only hold a maximum of 4 offers) - people could reapply without paying the fee hike.

    c) if people changed their minds about their course/institution (and wanted to re-apply), they could do so without paying extra fees.

    Therefore, in my opinion, there is still a significant risk of paying the inflated fees for those applying to deferred entry (and thus taking a gap year in 2005) - especially for highly competitive subjects.

    (Original post by corey)
    What about those on scholarships? Discrimination because your not intelligent I suppose.
    It would not be illegal for a company to refuse to hire someone becuase they were stupid. However, it would be illegal for them to refuse to hire somone because they were a year younger than another applicant (assuming they were both adults). Discriminating against people based on intelligence is absolutely fine, becuase intelligence is a meaningful attribute that actually makes a difference. Discriminating against people because of their age, sex or skin colour, however, is wrong.

    (Original post by corey)
    What about those in 3rd year? Discrimination because there older I suppose

    What about those who didn't even pay fees? Discrimnation toward the older generation...

    The line has to be drawn somewhere for a the system and that is all those currently in Year 11.
    Did you even read my post? Was it hard to understand?

    I did not claim that we are being discriminated against for having to pay to-up fees. In fact, I actually stated that that would be false. "You can't say that 2005 applicants are being discriminated against in relation to 2006 applicants because they applied in different years." You've just proved my point. 2005 applicants would not be discriminated against by the system before this idea.

    You should have quoted slowjamz's post. Then it would have made perfect sense.

    We are being discriminated against because people who apply along side of us, with no difference apart from a year in age, are being charged less for a public service.

    The only "practical and fair" solution that everyone is talking about would be to increase the fees by £500 a year for four years. Simple.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Harry Potter)
    We are being discriminated against because people who apply along side of us, with no difference apart from a year in age, are being charged less for a public service.
    It has been mentioned before, but I will elaborate nonetheless. Whether you like it or not (or disagree with the method of implementation) - it is a fact that universities are underfunded and top up fee proposals have been passed in the Commons. You bemoan the top up fee hike for being 'unfair' because it involves higher fees being introuced in your year of entry to university.

    Just face it! You are a transitional year - in any overhaul of a system which involves perceived loss of benefits, it is inevitable that whingers like you will decide to **** a snook at the whole system. Please don't talk ignorant and ill-founded cobblers about (to paraphrase your argument) 'loss of benefits' or 'having to pay more for the same merit good that your predecessors (me and my cohort ) will enjoy for less money".

    Afterall, let's face it, you are NOT paying for the same good as me - you are funding a necessary cash injection to the dwindling establishment that is UK Higher Education. The extra money that you pay in tuition fees will lead to the creation of a superior good, which in the long run will result in better education provision by UK universities, improved research by them, increased levels of technological advance in the economy and a raft of positive externalities which will be set in motion by you paying greater tuition fees.

    You cannot say that having to pay increased tuition fees is an example of your cohort suffering an economic hardship for no gain - this is simply not true - you will gain from this. An example of a true economic hardship, whereby people have actually 'lost out' and ended up paying more than their predecessors for effectively the same good, would be house-buyers in the aftermath of Mortgage Interest Relief At Source (which was repealed by the New Labour government). You have not been 'done up the wrong hole' by the government - so don't act like it.

    Be happy - because thanks to great fellows like you who will be paying additional tuition fees, the great British tradition of top drawer H.E. may continue and the benefits to society will be immeasurable. Just content yourself with the fact that the next generation are likely to be the chief beneficiaries of your unrivalled act of goodwill, in paying higher fees.

    One day my children will thank you for your sacrifice, when they are learning in a more productive environment than the one you and I did, living in a more buoyant economy and reaping the rewards of the additional £6,000-£12,000 which you so kindly donated to UK HE and (which, incidentally, I would have put in trust for my children, having not had to burn money on tuition fees). Cheers!

    (Original post by mobbdeeprob)
    It has been mentioned before, but I will elaborate nonetheless. Whether you like it or not (or disagree with the method of implementation) - it is a fact that universities are underfunded and top up fee proposals have been passed in the Commons. You bemoan the top up fee hike for being 'unfair' because it involves higher fees being introuced in your year of entry to university.

    Just face it! You are a transitional year - in any overhaul of a system which involves perceived loss of benefits, it is inevitable that whingers like you will decide to **** a snook at the whole system. Please don't talk ignorant and ill-founded cobblers about (to paraphrase your argument) 'loss of benefits' or 'having to pay more for the same merit good that your predecessors (me and my cohort ) will enjoy for less money".

    Afterall, let's face it, you are NOT paying for the same good as me - you are funding a necessary cash injection to the dwindling establishment that is UK Higher Education. The extra money that you pay in tuition fees will lead to the creation of a superior good, which in the long run will result in better education provision by UK universities, improved research by them, increased levels of technological advance in the economy and a raft of positive externalities which will be set in motion by you paying greater tuition fees.

    You cannot say that having to pay increased tuition fees is an example of your cohort suffering an economic hardship for no gain - this is simply not true - you will gain from this. An example of a true economic hardship, whereby people have actually 'lost out' and ended up paying more than their predecessors for effectively the same good, would be house-buyers in the aftermath of Mortgage Interest Relief At Source (which was repealed by the New Labour government). You have not been 'done up the wrong hole' by the government - so don't act like it.

    Be happy - because thanks to great fellows like you who will be paying additional tuition fees, the great British tradition of top drawer H.E. may continue and the benefits to society will be immeasurable. Just content yourself with the fact that the next generation are likely to be the chief beneficiaries of your unrivalled act of goodwill, in paying higher fees.

    One day my children will thank you for your sacrifice, when they are learning in a more productive environment than the one you and I did, living in a more buoyant economy and reaping the rewards of the additional £6,000-£12,000 which you so kindly donated to UK HE and (which, incidentally, I would have put in trust for my children, having not had to burn money on tuition fees). Cheers!
    OK, I think you're getting my arguments confused (although I'm not sure, because you're using far too many big words for me to understand your post properly).

    I'll try and paraphrase my own argument for the sake of clarity:

    - I am not claiming that it is unfair that we are the first year to pay top-up fees. Obviously, I'm against introducing top-up fees that year, because I'll have to pay them.

    - I am not claiming that we are being discriminated against becuase the year above us will not have to pay top-up fees. As you say, it's just a simple price rise.

    - I am not claiming that we will get no benefit from the top-up fees, but now you bring it up, the benefit will be minimal to me.

    - What is unfair is that some people (those who took a gap year) going to university in the same year as me (therefore benefitting from your "superior good") will pay less fees, simply because they're a year older. There's no way of getting around it, they are being charged less than me for exactly the same public service, at exactly the same time, because of their age.

    As far as I can tell, you haven't addressed my argument, only claims which I didn't even make in the first place.

    btw, Corey, sorry for being so aggressive yesterday. I was in a bad mood.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Harry Potter]
    - I am not claiming that it is unfair that we are the first year to pay top-up fees. Obviously, I'm against introducing top-up fees that year, because I'll have to pay them.
    This was what I assumed all along, you despise the idea of a fee increase simply because you will be the first affected by it and you consider this to be 'unlucky' and even 'unfair'. This is simply not the case.

    - I am not claiming that we are being discriminated against becuase the year above us will not have to pay top-up fees. As you say, it's just a simple price rise.
    But you are paying for an improved good which will ultimately benefit the whole of society. Look beyond your life in the next five years and you will see my point.

    - I am not claiming that we will get no benefit from the top-up fees, but now you bring it up, the benefit will be minimal to me.
    In the short-term, maybe so, but there can be no doubt that you will benefit in the longrun.

    - What is unfair is that some people going to university in the same year as me (therefore benefitting from your "superior good") will pay less fees, simply because they're a year older. There's no way of getting around it, they are being charged less than me for exactly the same public service, at exactly the same time, because of their age.
    I don't believe that it is unfair. You are paying for a new-and-improved H.E. system. The ammended gap year proposals are necessary to avoid the catastrophic happenings which were on the cards for my year of entry.
    Would you rather that you didn't pay the fees, that universities scraped along and fell into debt, so that by the time your children come along they are attending third-rate institutions?.

    Yes, on a basic level - you will be paying more in tuition fees than a deferred entry candidate who is in your year at university. Is this unfair though? I think not, your argument seems to be governed totally by self interest.

    Tell me how your proposed scheme would work involving systematic fee increases of £500 year on year? And more to the point, tell me how somebody, somewhere along the line wouldn't 'lose out'.

    To be honest, it is highly likely that in your lifetime (simply because of your year of birth) - you will pay a lot more for petrol than somebody older than you will, but this is still exactly the same good (unlike universities, which will actually become a better good). I don't think you will come on here and protest about that though, do you?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    when fees were introduced in 1997 or whenever it was it was the same system - if you applied and deferred your place, you weren't subject to the new system. i don't see why it's discriminatory. there's got to be a changeover point, but at the same time there needs to be fairness throughout that year. i can't see why it would be taken to the european court, it's happened before.

    there's no point complaining about how it's unfair that "just because" people are a year older they don't have to pay...they have to change it sometime and some people are going to be unhappy...but there are concessions for paying it back and it will provide for high quality higher education in the long term. My brother didn't pay fees at all; my sister did - i have just avoided top up fees but things change!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    So do people in the lower sixth now have to apply deferred and take a gap year or else they have to pay the fees? Meaning that I can't just apply normally, and if I don't get in, go on a gap year and apply post A-Level?

    I'm in the lower sixth now.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tonight Matthew)
    So do people in the lower sixth now have to apply deferred and take a gap year or else they have to pay the fees? Meaning that I can't just apply normally, and if I don't get in, go on a gap year and apply post A-Level?

    I'm in the lower sixth now.
    I'm in the same position as you - Lower VI, considering a gap year etc.

    From what I understand, far as a gap year and 2006 entry to university is concerned, we have two options:

    1. Apply for Deferred Entry - and pay a maximum £1,100 p.a tuition fees
    2. Do not apply for D.E/somehow end up applying for standard entry in the year 2005 (whilst on gap year) - and pay £3,000 p.a tuition fees.

    Therefore, to take a gap year and qualify for the current level of tuition fees, we must apply for D.E. or otherwise pay inflated fees should we apply for standard entry whilst on a gap year.
 
 
 
Poll
Who is most responsible for your success at university
Useful resources
Uni match

Applying to uni?

Our tool will help you find the perfect course

Articles:

Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

Quick link:

Educational debate unanswered threads

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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.