Labour WILL scrap TUITION FEES

Scroll to see replies

Original post by Jack22031994

I'm a Tory, and I do believe I should somewhat pay for my degree (through some sort of system) and especially my Masters which Im currently doing.Why should someone working in Sainsbury's or Lidl pay for my degree or anyones degree?

It 'benefits society' apparently....

:dontknow:

Reply 21

Jack22031994

Volunteer Team

Original post by hezzlington

It 'benefits society' apparently....

:dontknow:

I can only buy that argument for Doctors and Nurses etc...

I really dont see whats wrong with the current system. It does not prevent anyone from going to uni from whatever background.

The only system, I wouldnt support is a graduate tax as that means two people could end up paying a different amount for the same degree from the same uni, which I think is wrong.

Reply 22

hezzlington

Original post by Jack22031994

Two people with the same degree from the same uni would pay back different amounts based on their salary though.

Reply 23

Jack22031994

Volunteer Team

Original post by hezzlington

Two people with the same degree from the same uni would pay back different amounts based on their salary though.

Yeah exactly - I dont think thats fair. As what other areas of life do you apply that kind of logic?

Reply 24

Plagioclase

Original post by hezzlington

I draw the line at what I deem should be compulsory education (up to GCSEs) and then A levels equip students with the slight honing of transferable skills that GCSEs begin to develop. Happily subsidized by the taxpayer.

A bit too much of a long term issue for me to address. I'm not clued up on robots.
Healthcare is a different issue entirely. You make use of the healthcare system only when you require it, not to better yourself..? Apples and oranges.

Compulsory education is a completely arbitrary boundary though. The fact of the matter is that society needs graduates, it's in everyone's interest to have graduates, so it's also in everyone's interest to heavily subsidise graduates, recognising the contribution they make to society. It's not different at all from healthcare, both are systems that are essential for the functioning of the kind of society that we all want to live in, and it's therefore fair that the cost is spread across the population, unless you subscribe to very depressing indeed utilitarian views that only see value in education in the financial benefit it brings the individual in question. If that's what you believe then there's not really a lot I can say about that other than I disagree profusely.

Regarding automation, it's an extremely important issue (widely discussed in academia and the tech industry, utterly ignored by the public and government) which is going to define the next few centuries and bring about the largest displacement of labour since the industrial revolution, which is why the current attitude of society (to ignore the problem) is suicidal. Suicidal for the public, not for the industries who will profit wildly from it, because it's inevitable. It's something I would strongly recommend that you (and everyone else, for that matter) become familiar with.

But the amount the degree costs itself doesn't change. The degree itself needs to be paid for. I'm not talking about maintenance grants and the cost of living for the student.

The argument I was disputing is that free tuition => graduates sky-rocket. I don't really see what this has to do with this, my point is that changing tuition fees has very little impact on how many people go to university because it's already accessible to everyone, the only thing that it affects is fairness.

I'll play devils advocate here:

Are you considered 'educated' if you have a degree in..say...Art History? This is why I pointed out there are other ways of getting 'educated'. Why do you need a degree to get into the tertiary sector...

I agree that this is to some extent beyond the limit of the utilitarian "society needs graduates" argument. I can't find myself able to tell an engineering student that they're entitled to free education though, and an art history student that they aren't. It just seems hideously unfair, and there is still value in doing an art history degree.

How can you refute that? Why would there not be a flooding of the market with graduates? It already is flooded, or at least starting to in otherwise 'under-subscribed' industries like engineering. I don't think tuition fees should be used to control graduate numbers at all, you're right. I think that the in-demand subjects that the workforce requires; doctors, nurses, whatever the case be at the time, should be subsidized. Any other course should reflect the cost, and not subsidized by the tax payer. I've not put much thought to this, I'm not sure how you'd go about accurately determining 'what the workforce requires' on a yearly basis but it would be a good place to start?

As you yourself probably know, there are a lot of people at university who probably shouldn't be. The reason is, as we have already discussed, largely down to the fact that in this country, the respectable pathway is school => university. Vocational pathways exist, but they are discriminated against from the very start (think BTECs versus GCSEs). If this pressure didn't exist and those who would benefit from university went to university (rather than the current situation where loads of students are going to university "because it's what you do") and those who would benefit from other pathways went to those, you'd have much fewer going into university.

I'm from a single parent low income background, and of course I don't want life after graduation to be difficult. I finish uni in a week. My graduate friends are already struggling.

So why are you supporting this system then, which is going to likely take 10% off everything you earn above £21k for the rest of your working life? This political establishment hates young people and is giving huge benefits to the old and wealthy at our expense. Why are you supporting this?

Reply 25

hezzlington

Original post by Jack22031994

Yeah exactly - I dont think thats fair.

It sounds completely fair?

Original post by Jack22031994

As what other areas of life do you apply that kind of logic?

Income tax. The more your salary...the more income tax you pay.

Reply 26

SonoLuma

Original post by Spratty

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-party-scrap-tuition-fees-university-win-general-election-manifesto-2017-jeremy-corbyn-a7727951.html

They are also announcing a national education service.

hahah... HAHAHA!!!

No, the only time that we can trust or believe ANY party claiming to represent us as students, is when they DO it, not when they ASSURE us that they will.

Reply 27

Jack22031994

Volunteer Team

Original post by hezzlington

It sounds completely fair?

We can agree to disagree I guess, we do agree on the basic principle :smile:

Income tax. The more your salary...the more income tax you pay.

Yeah, but you arent 'buying' income tax like you are a degree. You wouldnt have other things priced relative to your income really. Like food or a new TV right?

No no no no no

Awful idea. Like there's not already enough btec students going to university.

We need less people going to university, there's already too many graduates. Close all universities not in the top 30.

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 30

hezzlington

Original post by Jack22031994

Yeah, but you arent 'buying' income tax like you are a degree. You wouldnt have other things priced relative to your income really. Like food or a new TV right?

Ah I see what you mean.

The price doesn't change based on salary, just the amount you pay back does.

Reply 31

JustPadz

Newsflash, you're still paying for it somehow, the thousands it costs a year for you to go to uni isn't getting magically wished away by the magical wand that is the labour party. No, instead your mummy's and daddys will just pay even more your tuition fees and more via taxes and you will eventually too.

Reply 32

hezzlington

Original post by Jirga

Awful idea. Like there's not already enough btec students going to university.

We need less people going to university, there's already too many graduates. Close all universities not in the top 30.

What a silly idea.

Reply 33

Jirga

Original post by hezzlington

What a silly idea.

Why?

Reply 34

hezzlington

Original post by Jirga

Why?

Closing down institutions that provide jobs, contribute to the development and progress of science/arts, provide fantastic enrichment opportunities for young people (and mature students?), synergy with local and international businesses/universities on the basis of some arbitrary, subjective ranking system?

What about post graduate courses that aren't offered at the top 30? Part time/online courses for people who require it? People sometimes pick universities based on geographical location, rather than ranking. Or because they prefer course content at a particular uni. It's not all about rankings

(edited 6 years ago)

Reply 35

Trapz99

I do not think it's a good idea since if you want a university education you should pay for it. Most of the country doesn't even go to university so it's not a necessity, it's a luxury and should be paid for. We already have a lot of university students who could be better suited for vocational training, we don't need more students.

Reply 36

Jirga

Original post by hezzlington

Closing down institutions that provide jobs, contribute to the development and progress of science/arts, provide fantastic enrichment opportunities and synergy with local and international businesses/universities on the basis of some arbitrary, subjective ranking system?

What about post graduate courses that aren't offered at the top 30? Part time/online courses for people who require it?

You said in your FP "There is no evidence to suggest that having a huge amount of degree holders is beneficial to society.", it's the same reason here.

"In 2014–15 there were 164 higher education providers (excluding further education colleges) in the UK in receipt of public funding via one of the UK funding councils." That is way too many, perhaps top 30 was exaggerated, but there needs to be less. It's causing oversaturation.