Labour want to scrap tuition fees Watch

Sara_t
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
This would apply to new students commencing university this september. Those part way of their degree would not have to pay any additional fees. Thoughts?
0
reply
XOR_
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
Basically the reason I might not vote Labour.
2
reply
Croco
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#3
Report 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by XOR_)
Basically the reason I might not vote Labour.
Why?
0
reply
TheRedGoldfish
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
Personally I feel this is a *****y last minute attempt to get young voters to vote (tonight's the last night to register). Statically speaking, the majority of young students will vote Labour so they are trying to get as many onboard as possible. It's basically bribery is what it is.
1
reply
Rakas21
Badges: 21
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by Croco)
Why?
It's pretty fiscally iresponsible, it will cost over £10bn per year and mainly benefit middle class people since the poor get the full whack (i should know, i got it).

Reform is needed but scrapping them is stupid.
0
reply
Croco
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
(Original post by Rakas21)
It's pretty fiscally iresponsible, it will cost over £10bn per year and mainly benefit middle class people since the poor get the full whack (i should know, i got it).

Reform is needed but scrapping them is stupid.
But I thought that was obvious? They will never be able to get rid of tuition fees for the reasons you stated but they may be able to reduce them. Better than nothing.
0
reply
username2911200
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#7
Report 1 year ago
#7
(Original post by Croco)
Why?
Why should taxpayers fully foot the bill for Chantelle's criminology degree from an ex-poly, who will not find decent employment (if any at all) and will pay next to nothing back into the system? The policy would make more sense if they were offering free degrees for medicine, nursing, dentistry and other directly employable subjects, as these students would actually be worth giving free degrees to.
0
reply
Croco
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#8
Report 1 year ago
#8
(Original post by Glassapple)
Why should taxpayers fully foot the bill for Chantelle's criminology degree from an ex-poly, who will not find decent employment (if any at all) and will pay next to nothing back into the system? The policy would make more sense if they were offering free degrees for medicine, nursing, dentistry and other directly employable subjects, as these students would actually be worth giving free degrees to.
Someone's bitter. Tax payers paid for the degrees of these *****y politicians so why can't ours be paid for? You don't know **** about any other student apart from yourself so to make such assumptions about the students, their degrees and choice of university is a bit up your own arse. No. A lot up your own arse.
2
reply
username2911200
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#9
Report 1 year ago
#9
(Original post by Croco)
Someone's bitter. Tax payers paid for the degrees of these *****y politicians so why can't ours be paid for? You don't know **** about any other student apart from yourself so to make such assumptions about the students, their degrees and choice of university is a bit up your own arse. No. A lot up your own arse.
It's not unknown or undocumented that some degrees lead to better employment than others. If Labour wanted to give degrees to people who will actually contribute to society, financially and employment-wise, that would be a better idea. Why should taxpayers fund degrees for people who are at best going to end up in a minimum wage job for the majority of their lives?

To be fair to the politicians, they studied good degrees. Milliband and Cameron studied PPE at Oxford, Blair studied Law at Oxford, Thatcher studied chemistry at Oxford, etc. If they didn't become politicians they would have had (and did have) successful lives anyway if they didn't become politicians, and greatly paid back into the system.
0
reply
Croco
Badges: 7
Rep:
?
#10
Report 1 year ago
#10
(Original post by Glassapple)
It's not unknown or undocumented that some degrees lead to better employment than others. If Labour wanted to give degrees to people who will actually contribute to society, financially and employment-wise, that would be a better idea. Why should taxpayers fund degrees for people who are at best going to end up in a minimum wage job for the majority of their lives?

To be fair to the politicians, they studied good degrees. Milliband and Cameron studied PPE at Oxford, Blair studied Law at Oxford, Thatcher studied chemistry at Oxford, etc. If they didn't become politicians they would have had (and did have) successful lives anyway and greatly paid back into the system.
Because it's giving people a chance at life. What those people choose to do is up to them. Fat lot of good those degrees did them. They ended up being politicians and we're in this mess. If only they'd used their brains and their degrees might actually have been of some use. Lowering or no tuition fees may create better politicians.
0
reply
username2911200
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#11
Report 1 year ago
#11
(Original post by Croco)
Because it's giving people a chance at life. What those people choose to do is up to them. Fat lot of good those degrees did them. They ended up being politicians and we're in this mess. If only they'd used their brains and their degrees might actually have been of some use. Lowering or no tuition fees may create better politicians.
People have these chances in life already. Nobody pays any tuition fees upfront at all and only pay back a slither of their salary after they start earning £21,000+ after graduation. People can choose to study any degree they want now and become as unemployable as they like now, don't make the taxpayer and the country as a whole suffer even more for people's unwise decisions about what to study and where.

I really don't see how lowering or abolishing tuition fees would make better politicians, you're clutching at straws for a non-existent point. I don't see any politicians who studied media studies, criminology or fashion studies.
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
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

How old were you when you first saw porn?

I've never seen it (221)
22.95%
Before I was 12 (347)
36.03%
13 (153)
15.89%
14 (111)
11.53%
15 (56)
5.82%
16 (36)
3.74%
17 (11)
1.14%
18 (8)
0.83%
Between the ages of 19 - 25 (15)
1.56%
Over 25 (5)
0.52%

Watched Threads

View All