Turn on thread page Beta

    If they're properly managed, bring them on, say I.

    If your family can afford it, they pay; if they can't afford it, they don't pay. More money goes to
    higher education, more money goes to scholarships for poorer students.

    (If the government goes back to the Deering report and restores the maintenance grant, that'd be
    perfect. Unlikely, however.)

    Of course, proper management is the issue - not only in terms of assessing for fees, but also in
    terms of directing the money properly. Any extra money made from tuition fees since their
    institution has not, apparently, gone towards higher education, but has been taken by the government
    as a reason to cut funding, meaning that no extra money is finding its way into the sector.

    It just means an extra 3/4 years until proper financial autonomy...

    Becky

    Yes, I'm looking forward to having to pay even more money to study at university too.

    Rich

    Becky Loader wrote:

    [q1]> If they're properly managed, bring them on, say I. ... It just means an extra 3/4 years until[/q1]
    [q1]> proper financial autonomy...[/q1]

    Yes, further blurring the line being adult/child. I read an article in a newspaper recently (either
    today or yesterday - I don't know which paper or which day, as I read various crap newspapers in the
    canteen at Tesco's, and there the days all seem to roll into one) which made the points that:

    - adults are becoming more child-like (alcopops, getting married later, being immature and still
    student-like throughout their twenties, not saving enough for their pensions etc.)
    - children are becoming more adult-like (sex starting earlier, S-Club Juniors being 12/13-year-olds
    who are being sexy to pre-teens, Gap Kids makes children fashion-conscious earlier, etc.)

    An "extra 3/4 years until proper financial autonomy" would be just one more way in which we could be
    the first generation to never grow up. This could all end in a really big horrible mess.

    Alex

    Becky Loader ([email protected] com) wrote:

    [q1]> If they're properly managed, bring them on, say I.[/q1]

    [q1]> If your family can afford it, they pay; if they can't afford it, they don't pay. More money goes[/q1]
    [q1]> to higher education, more money goes to scholarships for poorer students.[/q1]

    When someone is over 18, they are an adult. Why should the wealth of relatives have any bearing on
    how they are treated regarding tuition fees?

    Matthew Huntbach

    "Richard Magrath" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> Yes, I'm looking forward to having to pay even more money to study at university too.[/q1]

    And if your family can afford it, why on earth shouldn't they subsidise a much-underfunded sector?
    University benefits you, me and, indirectly, everyone; this way you can benefit them, too.

    Becky

    "Alex Warren" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]...

    [q1]> - adults are becoming more child-like (alcopops, getting married later,[/q1]
    being
    [q1]> immature and still student-like throughout their twenties, not saving[/q1]
    enough for
    [q1]> their pensions etc.)[/q1]

    I don't know that I necessarily agree with all of that.

    I'd say that getting married later is a sign of a mature society, where women have greater equality
    and so don't have to rely on finding a husband for financial security, nor have their status judged
    by whether they're wed; where it's pretty socially acceptable not to be married, so people don't
    feel rushed into it; and where there are greater opportunities to take advantage of before 'settling
    down' (in terms of travel, employment, etc). There's more of a *choice* now, and that's not a
    symptom of child-ishness,
    IMO.

    In fact, isn't getting married *early* seen increasingly, these days, as a desperate wannabe-adult
    statement from someone who isn't particularly mature?

    And as for alcopops, what about babycham?

    [q1]> - children are becoming more adult-like (sex starting earlier, S-Club[/q1]
    Juniors
    [q1]> being 12/13-year-olds who are being sexy to pre-teens, Gap Kids makes[/q1]
    children
    [q1]> fashion-conscious earlier, etc.)[/q1]

    If children are more adult-like, does this article claim that they regress as they become adult age?
    Or do they remain adult-like?

    [q1]> An "extra 3/4 years until proper financial autonomy" would be just one[/q1]
    more way
    [q1]> in which we could be the first generation to never grow up. This could all[/q1]
    end
    [q1]> in a really big horrible mess.[/q1]

    I really, really doubt that. For a start, it doesn't seem to have had that effect in places like the
    USA - joking aside.

    Besides, for years and years in this country, richer parents have been forking out for their
    offspring at university: it's not something that's only come about since the introduction of tuition
    fees/loans. Even when there are opportunities to be more self-sufficient, plenty of students aren't.
    In the case of top-up fees, which I'm talking about here, it wouldn't mean students living on
    parental handouts, just having fees paid for them, so you could see it as a fairly worthwhile
    half-way house.

    Becky

    "Matthew Huntbach" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> Becky Loader ([email protected] com) wrote:[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> > If they're properly managed, bring them on, say I.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> > If your family can afford it, they pay; if they can't afford it, they[/q2]
    don't
    [q2]> > pay. More money goes to higher education, more money goes to[/q2]
    scholarships
    [q2]> > for poorer students.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> When someone is over 18, they are an adult. Why should the wealth of relatives have any bearing on[/q1]
    [q1]> how they are treated regarding tuition fees?[/q1]

    You bemoan the lack of funding in higher education (or, at least, what reaches your pocket). What's
    your solution, short of putting up taxes?

    Becky

    Becky Loader ([email protected] com) wrote:
    [q1]> "Matthew Huntbach" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]

    [q2]> > When someone is over 18, they are an adult. Why should the wealth of relatives have any bearing[/q2]
    [q2]> > on how they are treated regarding tuition fees?[/q2]

    [q1]> You bemoan the lack of funding in higher education (or, at least, what reaches your pocket).[/q1]
    [q1]> What's your solution, short of putting up taxes?[/q1]

    I'm raising an issue, not posing a solution.

    If at the age of 18, I'm in a job, I'm treated as an independent adult. The amount of money my
    parents are earning has no bearing on how much tax I have to pay on my own earnings. I am taxed only
    on myself. Why should I be treated any differently regarding payment of university tuition fees?

    This seems to me to be quite a fundamental issue of human rights. When you are 18, you are an adult.
    Treating you differently depending on who your parents are is wrong, it is an infringement of your
    right to be an adult, an independent person.

    In practical terms, of course I can see the argument "You are forced to pay X pounds for your adult
    child's higher education" is somewhat easier to accept than "You are forced to pay X pounds in tax
    which will contribute to the higher education of people in general, one of whom may be your child".
    But really this is a triumph of sentiment over logic. You still end up paying X pounds.

    Matthew Huntbach

    "Matthew Huntbach" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> Becky Loader ([email protected] com) wrote:[/q1]
    [q2]> > "Matthew Huntbach" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q3]> > > When someone is over 18, they are an adult. Why should the wealth of relatives have any[/q3]
    [q3]> > > bearing on how they are treated regarding tuition fees?[/q3]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> > You bemoan the lack of funding in higher education (or, at least, what reaches your pocket).[/q2]
    [q2]> > What's your solution, short of putting up taxes?[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I'm raising an issue, not posing a solution.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> If at the age of 18, I'm in a job, I'm treated as an independent adult. The amount of money my[/q1]
    [q1]> parents are earning has no bearing on how much tax I have to pay on my own earnings. I am[/q1]
    [q1]> taxed only on myself. Why should I be treated any differently regarding payment of university[/q1]
    [q1]> tuition fees?[/q1]

    When you are 18 and have a job, you have your own fulltime income to support yourself on. When you
    are 18 and go to university, you get £2800-£3800 for a loan. If you have to pay your own tuition
    fees, that's a big chunk gone. So it's natural for parents to feel the responsiblity to pay for
    tuition fees. Therefore it's down the your parents circumstances as to how much of the tuition fees
    are actually paid.

    [q1]> This seems to me to be quite a fundamental issue of human rights. When you are 18, you are an[/q1]
    [q1]> adult. Treating you differently depending on who your parents are is wrong, it is an infringement[/q1]
    [q1]> of your right to be an adult, an independent person.[/q1]

    I don't think so. If you feel so independent that you want to go it all alone, then by all means pay
    your own tuition fees. Nobody is stopping you. People grow up at different times.

    Ray Pang ([email protected]) wrote:
    [q1]> "Matthew Huntbach" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q1]

    [q2]> > This seems to me to be quite a fundamental issue of human rights. When you are 18, you are an[/q2]
    [q2]> > adult. Treating you differently depending on who your parents are is wrong, it is an[/q2]
    [q2]> > infringement of your right to be an adult, an independent person.[/q2]

    [q1]> I don't think so. If you feel so independent that you want to go it all alone, then by all means[/q1]
    [q1]> pay your own tuition fees. Nobody is stopping you. People grow up at different times.[/q1]

    I think you miss my point. Why should the amount of tuition fees you have to pay depend on your
    parents' wealth? If you were in a job at the age of 18, and the amount of income tax you had to
    pay was increased or decreased depending on how rich your parents were, wouldn't you regard
    that as wrong?

    Matthew Huntbach

    Matthew Huntbach wrote:

    [q1]> Ray Pang ([email protected]) wrote:[/q1]
    [q2]> > "Matthew Huntbach" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q3]> > > This seems to me to be quite a fundamental issue of human rights. When you are 18, you are an[/q3]
    [q3]> > > adult. Treating you differently depending on who your parents are is wrong, it is an[/q3]
    [q3]> > > infringement of your right to be an adult, an independent person.[/q3]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> > I don't think so. If you feel so independent that you want to go it all alone, then by all means[/q2]
    [q2]> > pay your own tuition fees. Nobody is stopping you. People grow up at different times.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I think you miss my point. Why should the amount of tuition fees you have to pay depend on your[/q1]
    [q1]> parents' wealth? If you were in a job at the age of 18, and the amount of income tax you had to[/q1]
    [q1]> pay was increased or decreased depending on how rich your parents were, wouldn't you regard that[/q1]
    [q1]> as wrong?[/q1]

    But parents pay the tuition fees - the student pays nothing. If the student gets less than the full
    loan, the parents are supposed to make it up to the full amount, so in theory at least the finances
    of the student are independent of the wealth of the parents.

    Alex

    Alex Warren ([email protected]) wrote:
    [q1]> Matthew Huntbach wrote:[/q1]

    [q2]> > I think you miss my point. Why should the amount of tuition fees you have to pay depend on your[/q2]
    [q2]> > parents' wealth? If you were in a job at the age of 18, and the amount of income tax you had to[/q2]
    [q2]> > pay was increased or decreased depending on how rich your parents were, wouldn't you regard that[/q2]
    [q2]> > as wrong?[/q2]

    [q1]> But parents pay the tuition fees - the student pays nothing. If the student gets less than the[/q1]
    [q1]> full loan, the parents are supposed to make it up to the full amount, so in theory at least the[/q1]
    [q1]> finances of the student are independent of the wealth of the parents.[/q1]

    Yes, so the finances of the student are quite obviously NOT independent of his/her parents. Rather,
    the student depends on his/her parents to pay the fees. It is exactly as if an 18-year old with
    wealthy parents were made to pay a higher rate of income tax than an 18-year old with poor parents
    on the grounds "your mum and dad can help you out".

    Now, I'm fully aware of the argument "subsidising students at university is a transfer of money
    from the poor to the rich, because university students are more likely to have rich parents than
    people who don't go to university". But it seems to me that if that is our concern, let us be
    honest about our intentions and have a tax system in general which takes more from the rich and
    less from the poor.

    Isn't it odd - if we raised income tax enough to pay proper grants and fees to all students, people
    would get angry about it. Suppose we had a special tax on all rich people who are parents of young
    adults, which was used to pay for universities. People would get even more angry about that. But
    disguise it as something that isn't a tax, and suddenly it becomes ok. It's rather like this idea of
    "compulsory savings" to pay for pensions. It's being discussed, because labelling it "compulsory
    savings" rather than "tax" makes it sound better. As someone who doesn't have children, personally I
    think I *should* be made to pay more income tax to support universities. Why should the burden be
    thrown onto those who aready have paid out plenty of money raising their children?

    Matthew Huntbach

    [q1]>If your family can afford it, they pay; if they can't afford it, they don't pay. More money goes to[/q1]
    [q1]>higher education, more money goes to scholarships for poorer students.[/q1]

    Does this latest top up fees idea work like the previous one whereby students on equipment and
    teacher-intensive courses have to pay thousands extra than those on courses like english? Whilst I
    don't think the current fees/loan system is too objectionable, I've always been against the top-up
    fees idea because it seems to be segregating those who 'can' and those who 'can't' afford university
    even more, which rather goes against the point of equalising opportunities. The idea that you'd have
    to choose your subject as well as your uni based on how much you could afford seems to restrict
    students even more which surely isn't the objective here. I think that the means tested systems are
    very good for families with very low income, not too bad for families with a high income but highly
    disabling for those in the middle. Considering that many of the lower middle band of students will
    have been at the same comprehensives as low income students, with the same teachers and facilities
    and will still have been able to get to uni it always seems like they're being penalised by making
    them pay more tuition fees. Becca

    "Matthew Huntbach" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
    [q1]> Ray Pang ([email protected]) wrote:[/q1]
    [q2]> > "Matthew Huntbach" <[email protected]> wrote in message[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q3]> > > This seems to me to be quite a fundamental issue of human rights. When you are 18, you are an[/q3]
    [q3]> > > adult. Treating you differently depending on[/q3]
    who
    [q3]> > > your parents are is wrong, it is an infringement of your right to be an adult, an independent[/q3]
    [q3]> > > person.[/q3]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q2]> > I don't think so. If you feel so independent that you want to go it all alone, then by all means[/q2]
    [q2]> > pay your own tuition fees. Nobody is stopping[/q2]
    you.
    [q2]> > People grow up at different times.[/q2]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> I think you miss my point. Why should the amount of tuition fees you have to pay depend on your[/q1]
    [q1]> parents' wealth?[/q1]

    It shouldn't. It should be the way it is now. Everybody pays the same amount towards tuition fees,
    it's just that for poorer families parents (IMO) rightly pay less, and the government/taxpayer
    subsidises the rest. They can't afford to pay it, and would otherwise miss out on the opportunity to
    go to university.

    [q1]> If you were in a job at the age of 18, and the amount of income tax you had to pay was increased[/q1]
    [q1]> or decreased depending on how rich your parents were, wouldn't you regard that as wrong?[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]> Matthew Huntbach[/q1]

    Yes I would, as you either go on to university or get out in the real world and sustain yourself.
    You get the job to live your own life. You don't go to university to sustain yourself - you go to
    get a degree.

    [q1]>But parents pay the tuition fees - the student pays nothing. If the student[/q1]
    gets
    [q1]>less than the full loan, the parents are supposed to make it up to the full amount, so in theory at[/q1]
    [q1]>least the finances of the student are independent[/q1]
    of the
    [q1]>wealth of the parents.[/q1]

    All this depends on the parents actually agreeing to pay the tuition fees. I know in theory this is
    what happens, but in practise I know at least five students who have to pay their own fees.

    Becca

    "Becca Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:1026461366.13920.0.nnrp-12.c1ed...ws.demon.co.uk...

    [q1]> Does this latest top up fees idea work like the previous one whereby students on equipment and[/q1]
    [q1]> teacher-intensive courses have to pay thousands extra than those on courses like english? Whilst I[/q1]
    [q1]> don't think the current fees/loan system is too objectionable, I've always been against the top-up[/q1]
    [q1]> fees idea because it seems to be segregating those who 'can' and those who 'can't' afford[/q1]
    [q1]> university even more, which rather goes against the point[/q1]
    of
    [q1]> equalising opportunities. The idea that you'd have to choose your subject[/q1]
    as
    [q1]> well as your uni based on how much you could afford seems to restrict students even more which[/q1]
    [q1]> surely isn't the objective here.[/q1]

    [q1]> I think that the means tested systems are very good for families with very low income, not too bad[/q1]
    [q1]> for families with a high income but highly[/q1]
    disabling
    [q1]> for those in the middle. Considering that many of the lower middle band of students will have been[/q1]
    [q1]> at the same comprehensives as low income students, with the same teachers and facilities and will[/q1]
    [q1]> still have been able to get to uni it always seems like they're being penalised by making them pay[/q1]
    more
    [q1]> tuition fees.[/q1]

    But none of these objections hold if the means-testing is properly graduated, do they? That seems to
    be the problem here, more than the prospect of the fees themselves, which wouldn't cause more
    segregation as the wealthy would effectively subsidise the less wealthy.

    Becky

    [q1]>But none of these objections hold if the means-testing is properly graduated, do they? That seems[/q1]
    [q1]>to be the problem here, more than the prospect of the fees themselves, which wouldn't cause more[/q1]
    [q1]>segregation as the wealthy would effectively subsidise the less wealthy.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Becky[/q1]

    I saw in the paper today that they want middle class students to pay more/have less loan - this is
    what I object to since middle class doesn't necessarily mean very wealthy. I'd like to see the very
    wealthy (ie. those who have already been able to afford to send their kids to Eton and the like)
    charged more than the wealthy (ie. lesser known private school goers) who in turn should be charged
    more than the middle class people like my parents who have worked very hard to get to the financial
    position they're in now and have to continue to work in order to stay there, meaning that they
    couldn't afford to fork out another 7-10,000 in school/university fees each year without struggling.
    It's the same argument as the income tax thing I suppose - why should someone earning X 000 have to
    pay the same tax percentage/fees as someone earning 100X 000. But that's life. Becca

    "Becca Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:1026495175.3407.0.nnrp-07.c1ed3...ws.demon.co.uk...
    [q1]>I'd like to see the very wealthy (ie. those who have already been able to afford to send their kids[/q1]
    [q1]>to Eton and the like) charged more than the wealthy (ie. lesser known private school[/q1]
    goers)
    [q1]> who in turn should be charged more than the middle class people like my parents who have worked[/q1]
    [q1]> very hard to get to the financial position they're in now and have to continue to work in order to[/q1]
    [q1]> stay there, meaning that they couldn't afford to fork out another 7-10,000 in school/university[/q1]
    fees
    [q1]> each year without struggling.[/q1]

    Should a wealthy person be charged more for a loaf of bread then a poor person?

    "Becca Taylor" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:1026495175.3407.0.nnrp-07.c1ed3...ws.demon.co.uk...

    [q1]> I saw in the paper today that they want middle class students to pay more/have less loan - this is[/q1]
    [q1]> what I object to since middle class doesn't necessarily mean very wealthy.[/q1]

    But they're using 'middle-class' as a synoymn for 'wealthy'. It's the use of the phrase that I think
    is most mistaken in this context.

    I'd like to see the very wealthy (ie. those
    [q1]> who have already been able to afford to send their kids to Eton and the like) charged more than[/q1]
    [q1]> the wealthy (ie. lesser known private school[/q1]
    goers)
    [q1]> who in turn should be charged more than the middle class people like my parents who have worked[/q1]
    [q1]> very hard to get to the financial position they're in now and have to continue to work in order to[/q1]
    [q1]> stay there, meaning that they couldn't afford to fork out another 7-10,000 in school/university[/q1]
    fees
    [q1]> each year without struggling. It's the same argument as the income tax[/q1]
    thing
    [q1]> I suppose - why should someone earning X 000 have to pay the same tax percentage/fees as someone[/q1]
    [q1]> earning 100X 000.[/q1]

    But, again, as I'm saying, they shouldn't. If it's a decent graduated tax system, everyone should
    pay what they can afford.

    I think it's worth pointing out that, as I often do, that wealth is not equal to effort put in.
    Comparatively low-paid people may be working as hard as anyone, but they do not receive the
    financial rewards, so they're in effect being penalised more than the middle classes who may have to
    fork out that little bit more when it comes to tuition fees or such like. Somebody's got to be a
    social worker/nurse/teacher, etc.

    Becky

    [q1]>But, again, as I'm saying, they shouldn't. If it's a decent graduated tax system, everyone should[/q1]
    [q1]>pay what they can afford.[/q1]

    And some people can afford to pay £1000 out every year but notice its loss, whereas others don't
    notice it at all.

    [q1]>I think it's worth pointing out that, as I often do, that wealth is not equal to effort put in.[/q1]
    [q1]>Comparatively low-paid people may be working as hard as anyone, but they do not receive the[/q1]
    [q1]>financial rewards, so they're[/q1]
    in
    [q1]>effect being penalised more than the middle classes who may have to fork[/q1]
    out
    [q1]>that little bit more when it comes to tuition fees or such like.[/q1]
    Somebody's
    [q1]>got to be a social worker/nurse/teacher, etc.[/q1]
    [q1]>[/q1]
    [q1]>Becky[/q1]

    I know what you mean, but I really hate this anti-snobbery thing that's going on in the UK at the
    moment whereby a student whose parents haven't got well-paid jobs and therefore has to get through
    uni without any support is perceived as being a stronger person than the student whose parents have
    worked hard all their lives to be able to support their children and let them spend their time at
    uni studying! Surely there's something wrong here where the successful people are criticised for
    somehow being weak? Incidentally, my mum's a social worker so I really do know the inequality of
    effort put in in comparison to amount paid. Becca
 
 
 
Poll
Were you ever put in isolation at school?
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.