I don't follow your logic. Whether you are the son of a barrister or a barrista, you pay back the loan when you, yourself, earn sufficiently to do so. What does your class background or the wealth of your parents have to do with anything?
Universities are full of people from all backgrounds, not just 'middle class twunts', whatever that means. The kid who goes to university pays back his or her loan, not their parents. It is impossible for parents to do so, as you have to be earning at least £15,000 a year for the student loans company to begin taking money out of your account every month. I agree with you on your final point though. It became clear to me during the student protests that many people just haven't thought this through. SO many people were jumping on the anti-Cameron/Clegg bandwagon that they failed to see the bigger picture. Like I said, though, this will hopefully only help people like me. I'm in my final year now, and we may be seeing less graduates in the next few years. An interesting comparison is that despite this increase in fees, students in the US still pay more than we do, and we don't hear them complaining and kicking off. Why? Because they know that in return, they will be getting a 1st class education!
Quite, that is my interpretation of all those points, and you have your own. Regarding the bank, I would have fully nationalised it and used it as a means to stimulate lending with lower interest rates on loans and mortgages, which would hopefully challenge the idea that banks can profiteer from the low base rate indefinitely with no intention of reflecting it in their high street rates. It wouldn't be very dynamic, but it would be a tool of economic stimulation. Much more useful than flogging it to some foreign organisation for an enormous loss that we will all end up paying for. Obviously there is some risk involved, but it would be nothing like the risks of the investment arms of commercial banks. I'm no banking expert, but I think that is a great idea. I'm sure other people must have thought the same thing somewhere. Abandoning the north was in reference to the cancelling of virtually all the regeneration projects in the poorest areas in most need of jobs. Again.
Moog and Cheeky. Firstly the braying twunts point. A small proportion of the country went to public school or had rich or very, very educaionally interested parents to push their children, as a percentage these groups make up a disproportionate amount of those who are at universities in this country. There are whole Colleges at Cambridge / Oxford which (the odd token pleb aside) are full of the rich, and well to do, and are merely extensions of the private school system. This group acts as a majority and it dissuades others from attending. Second point, career advice. Grammar schools and private schools push pupils to consider university. Comprehensives, and particularly inner city ones, will be less (and much less, in some cases) likely to do this. There is a culture of the poor and deprived not being offered uni as an option. Debt is hardly likely to incentivise either these pupils, their parents or the schools careers officer. I make both these points from first hand experience.
It is that simple. 10 years ago a poor, clever, hard working comprehensive pupil might have considered doing a medical degree. But is much less likely to happen nowadays (£60000 debt just for the tuition) so her place will be taken by a richer kid who perhaps is less talented.
I was very angry at the tuition fees being increased, mainly because my age is the first affected. The thing that gets me very angry is that my cousins who are Welsh pay the old amount, and Scotland get it for free!? It's BRITAIN, why do we supply it for them and not for us?
Because the Scots have their own budget and can do what they want with it. In England we don't have that luxury. The fact that they can afford to fully subsidise higher education, prescriptions and the rest suggests the Scots get far, far too much money. And the fact that they only charge the English fees suggests they are bitter, racist idiots.
Yeah, they will be the majority soon and in terms of medical students coming through they outnumber men. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/h...l-outnumber-men-within-a-decade-research.html Still, they all get broody in their early thirties and go part time.
Education is a right and not a privilege. I will concede that the system did become bloated and untenable due to New Labour's one size fits all policy in that they made all these new Universities and subsidised all these nonsense courses like Media Studies naughty and Tourism Management.
I disagree to an extent. I think education of basic qualifications (GCSE's, A Levels etc.) up to the age of 18 is a right, not a privilege. After that though, university is a privilege, and therefore you should be expected to pay out of your own pocket or take out a student loan.
I went to University as the first year of students who had to pay tuition fees at all. The point being that people from more disadvantaged backgrounds cannot afford to keep themselves whilst at University let alone have to struggle to pay back £27,000 in fees and loans on top of that. When you graduate you'll see how little money is left just to pay your rent, bills and feed yourself in the current economic climate. On top of that you will need to start a private pension as it is very unlikely that you will get one from the state,. Add to that trying to raise the deposit to buy your own property and you will see how incredibly unfair this new system is on those from poorer backgrounds, especially as they are unlikely to inherit any money from relatives as living costs soar. We used to live in a meritocracy but no longer I fear...
That's fair enough LLST. You have experience after university that I don't have. Maybe I will end up condemning the rise like others. We shall have to see...
This. I have no idea how im going to afford a house, im probably gonna be living with my mum till im at least 28/29
I'll almost certainly be moving up to Liverpool after I graduate, where it is so much cheaper to rent a nice flat. The cost of living anywhere near London now is just absurd, I cannot imagine finding a place around here (as in anywhere near Watford/London) that I'd be able to afford without living extremely frugally. The cost of getting in and out of London (where you'd have to work in order to afford somewhere half-decent it seems) is also just mad.
They were but young people have realised there's no jobs going for them so they might as well go into education rather than sit at home on Jobseeker's Allowance.
There is that, but if you opt out of the London (and surrounding areas) housing ladder and earnings, you may never get back into it. If you do manage to earn well in the South East, afford a house etc. you always have the luxury of knowing that when you are 50, you can sell up your ridiculously overpriced estate, move to Lincolnshire and buy a house for 1/10 of the price and then live off the excess. And to all the people bemoaning the cost of living and buying a house, those expenses are not exclusive to graduates. Even thick people have to live and eat.
With respect to tuition fees: When a small percentage of the population who were the academically gifted went to University, We could afford to pay tuition through the usual tax structure. It was the case that these graduates on the whole earned more and more than made up for the cost in increased taxes. The government became increasingly interested in boosting the numbers going into further education focussed on targets rather than quality as they are in many spheres. Polytechincs and colleges were turned into universities, giving their degrees on the surface the same status. This combined with the dumbing down of GCSEs and A-levels, meant more and more people figured they deserved a degree placement. All of this coincided with an economic downturn which meant that in many cases a graduate would be earning less than someone who had worked from the age of 16 or 18. Increased total costs of tuition due to volume and decreased revenue gained from taxes from those students after qualifying, the money has to come from somewhere. I don't think it is fair that someone who has worked hard since the age of 16, funds through their taxes a student's education that they were not able to have themselves, that student unemployed or in a lower paying job, probably again being funded but that hard working mug. There are too many people going on to further education taking subjects which in the current climate are not going to get them jobs. If the figures are analysed independently of political bias, the new student loan system means that people actually pay less at a higher starting point. The figures may well be scary on initial inspection but if someone never reaches the trigger salary they never pay a bean. Imho further education should be free to those that deserve it academically, in subjects and courses which are deemed credible and required for the economy. Places should be available to a level that taxation and the employment market can sustain. If Richie Rich wants to do a degree in Tee Pee engineering at Stoke Poges College of Further Education, then by all means let him but he's going to fund it himself. It's unfortunate that the current system discriminates against the academically gifted but cash poor. A quick fix would be to offer more industry sponsored sandwich courses and bursaries but in the long run the whole education system needs a complete shake-up.
