ol' tony's making us pay for going to university now. well-he's making you pay. i'm scottish. i get a cheap loan that i don't have to pay back till i'm some random age.
IMO-tony's trying to discourage people from going to university. he;s making it harder for them. why? becase to many people are going! we're ending up with an educated public which is doing diddly squat with their education! i wanna study maths. i need 4 higher B's. that's easy shizzle! to study maths, you don't even have to be good at it! industries in freefall-why? because we have no cheap labour! why? because we all go to university and expect to earn 64% more than those not going to uni! and those who don't go to uni end up earning 40 grand a year off of child benefits! to get into university, you need 3 highers. 3! call me an elitist twatt, equal opportuniteis and all that-but 3? incase your wondering-highers are a 1 year qualification, not quite at A-level standard, but pretty hard. we do them in our second last year of school. in our last year, we ca do more highers, or advanced higers. AH's take you into first year university territory.3 highers is easy. caladonian university in glasgow's offering courses for people with CCC. the lowest possible entry requirements. what's a degree worth nowadays? IMO-to get into university, you should need at least 4 highers. all at least B's (or equivalent-e.g. ABBC). eleitsit, yes-but isn't that the whole point of university? if you can't get into it, you won't be able to hack it. start making washing machines. people need washing machines. we've got enough lawyers, thankyouverymuch.
alan aka a slightly peeved off genius
Speaking as someone who has spent a lot of time at university (7 years studying, 2 years working) I agree with you that too many people are going. I also think allowing polytechnics to become universities has lowered the standards for university entry and allowed people to gain degrees who otherwise would not have (I know people who were admitted to ex-polys with dreadful A-level results, scraped their way through uni with multiple re-sits of exams and now have a degree which is apparently equal to any other).
I also think students expectations are raised too high by the idea of university. Most of the people I know from uni are still (5-8 years later) in poor jobs which don't require degree level qualifications, earning between £13,000 and £16,000). The only ones who are earning a lot are the ones who studied computing.
The recent news interest in the girl who challenged Blair on Newsnight was, for me, not a good case. She claimed to be heading for £40,000 debt, but she is a student doctor, therefore will spend 5-6 years studying, some of which will be paid, and she'll be guaranteed a job when she graduates, unlike most student. I have a feeling the media only focussed on her because she was, er, photogenic 😉
stop whining!!!! i will have to these tution fees when i go to uni but i won't have to pay it back until i earn over £15'000 a year and then its only about a tenner a month. we all want something for nothing! well i'm happy to pay because i'm investing in my future! stop complaining, isn't it about time students started paying towards their keep in this country? if you don't like it then they is always europe!!!
Originally posted by proca666Its not about individuals investing in their own future, its about society investing in its own future.
stop whining!!!! i will have to these tution fees when i go to uni but i won't have to pay it back until i earn over £15'000 a year and then its only about a tenner a month. we all want something for nothing! well i'm happy to pay because i'm investing in my future! stop complaining, isn't it about time students started paying towards their keep in this country? if you don't like it then they is always europe!!!
If we train a doctor, an engineer, a philosepher, society benefits (not so sure about lawyers though...). Therefore society should pay. From general taxation.
The same applies to sparks or plumbers or brickies. We should all pay to train people to have the skills that we need them to have.
The people who get the more skilled jobs will then make a higher contribution back to society when they pay more tax.
I'm planning on going to university next year (september 2004). However, this year I've been taking a gap year. I'm drastically strapped for cash and yet I can't find any of these cheap manual labour jobs you speak of. I do live in suffolk which is hardly the industrial capital of the world. I've come to believe to get a job that you can actually survive on you have to either have a degree or you go on the dole.
I don't like the idea of top up fee's. I'm not sure on the why and the how of Tony introducing them. But, I do know that the less debt I come out of university with the better. I've been told that you also have to pay interest on the loan that you take out. Basically what Tony seems to be doing is upping the tuition fees and then upping the loan that you can take out so you have to pay more interest. Plus this will mean that theres more money circulating and stuff. I'm willing to pay for my education. But I'd still rather pay as little as possible.
On another point, the loan will only just be enough for you to survive on, you'll still end up having to spend all your savings and most probably have to scrounge off of your family.
Jim.
Originally posted by proca666i don't have to pay them-so i'm not complaining. one cripe i do have with them though, is that different uni's can charge different rates. and so hog all the good lecturers and not allowing poorer, bright students access to them.
stop whining!!!! i will have to these tution fees when i go to uni but i won't have to pay it back until i earn over £15'000 a year and then its only about a tenner a month. we all want something for nothing! well i'm happy to pay because i'm investing in my future! stop complaining, isn't it about time students started paying towards their keep in this country? if you don't like it then they is always europe!!!
i don't have to pay them cause i'm scottish. scots a. are extremly good at claiming undeserved benefits, and b. get a cheap loan for university. much like your new tuition fee's, but it doesn't change for each university. i think. im not positive though 😛
Originally posted by RedmikeCouldn't agree more. And I can't stand this 'why should people who don't go to unversity pay for those who do' rubbish. That's what happens in a functional society - that's why people who are perfectly healthy pay towards the care of those that aren't, or why those in jobs pay towards those who are unemployed. The minute you start making exceptions for certain groups that society doesn't feel like paying for any more, you're going to put the whole system at risk - and that matters because in general the system has served us pretty well.
Its not about individuals investing in their own future, its about society investing in its own future.
If we train a doctor, an engineer, a philosepher, society benefits (not so sure about lawyers though...). Therefore society should pay. From general taxation.
The same applies to sparks or plumbers or brickies. We should all pay to train people to have t ...[text shortened]... more skilled jobs will then make a higher contribution back to society when they pay more tax.
I also find it incredible that just a the time when everyone is being told that we're going to have to start saving towards our pensions much earlier in life, we're plonking huge debts on our youngsters, while at the top age range, people got a free education and retired at 55. It's absolute madness.
I am talking as someone who sneaked through university at the fag end of the grants era, but still came out after my Masters degree with an 18 grand debt.
Rich.
Originally posted by geniusNo complaining from any of you; it's non-Brits studying in the UK who pay through the nose. Cambridge wants >15000 GBP/year, and Imperial 12000, so I will have to amass about 25000 GBP in scholarships/awards for my education 😕
i don't have to pay them-so i'm not complaining. one cripe i do have with them though, is that different uni's can charge different rates. and so hog all the good lecturers and not allowing poorer, bright students access to them.
i don't have to pay them cause i'm scottish. scots a. are extremly good at claiming undeserved benefits, and b. get a cheap ...[text shortened]... w tuition fee's, but it doesn't change for each university. i think. im not positive though 😛
Granted, it would be even worse at similar private schools in the US. Actually, to attend the Univeristy of Maine (my home state) I would be paying approximately what the other two unis mentioned charge, and the one American school I applied to (University of California at Berkeley) would be on a par. So crikey, this education thing is pricey!
Originally posted by royalchickenOuch. This is the thing some British students miss when they whine about fees - they're still being heavily subsidised by the government.
No complaining from any of you; it's non-Brits studying in the UK who pay through the nose. Cambridge wants >15000 GBP/year, and Imperial 12000, so I will have to amass about 25000 GBP in scholarships/awards for my education 😕
Granted, it would be even worse at similar private schools in the US. Actually, to attend the Univeristy of Maine (my hom ...[text shortened]... ersity of California at Berkeley) would be on a par. So crikey, this education thing is pricey!
Originally posted by AcolyteSubsidi(z/s)ed by the government... Our government likes to spend its funds on converting high explosives to petroleum (amazing process...😉).
Ouch. This is the thing some British students miss when they whine about fees - they're still being heavily subsidised by the government.
Originally posted by Redmikeso we have to pay for people to be trained as doctors etc. as well pay for they services afterwards? we end pay their god damn debt when we pay for the work they do which ends up as their wages!! so why do we have to pay for them going to uni as well as paying thier bloody debt afterwards. i fail to see the logic in that!
Its not about individuals investing in their own future, its about society investing in its own future.
If we train a doctor, an engineer, a philosepher, society benefits (not so sure about lawyers though...). Therefore society should pay. From general taxation.
The same applies to sparks or plumbers or brickies. We should all pay to train people to have t ...[text shortened]... more skilled jobs will then make a higher contribution back to society when they pay more tax.
- Joined
- 20 Feb 02
- Moves
- 58336
You have to pay due to the fact that the current government have a target ot 50% of school leavers attending university to gain some form of higher education. The current funding system can not sustain this so a new solution is required.
I think the policy is a move in the right direction but that it has not been fully thought through. "Educating up" the economy has to be good, but you need to balance education with opportunity in the emplyment market.
There is no point spending years learning something that doen not improve your wage / employment opportunities. Also it just dumbs down the whole institution of university - what is the value of a degree if everyone has one? It is supposed to be a differentialtor. As any one with any business knowledge will tell you, if you can not differentiate your product (in this case yourself) you are not going to make much profit (ie wages).
Also, if the market is flooded with graduates, excess supply will force them into jobs that previously did not require a university degree as a requirement and this just acts as an unecessary barrier to non graduates. Do you really need a degree to work in a call centre? Apparently so!
The astute school leaver who wants to be rich should maybe look at 3 years in a specific trade then set up their own business. I wish I had
Andrew