If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Of course you'll get some people who'll go to mess about but you also get people like that in Secondary school and it's free so I don't see why it shouldn't be the same for university.
Because there's a shortage of nurses so it acts like an enticment for people to go into nursing. I don't pay tuition fees, it's great.
i'm paying mine back at a rate lower than it accrues interest, i owe £16,000 and that was for living costs alone in london, under the 1998-2006 arrangement where i didn't have to pay fees (cause of means testing) - also under that scheme my debt will only be written off when i reach retirement age
not every graduate goes into high flying jobs, i haven't yet, but at the same time my knowledge helps on my job a lot
at the same time, funding issues have to be sorted out, but i dont think a US style system would help - i personalyl think universities offer a lot of chances to people, and a chance to learn adult skills in a semi-independent manner, and i think taxation could fill the gap, but even a graduate tax would be better tbh
Yes, it needs an extra payment injection. This should come from the students themselves. Why should taxpayers, most of whom have probably never even visited a university in their lives, have to fund this? In case you haven't noticed, the Government doesn't have a pot to piss in at the moment. They've got about £500billion lent out to the banks, meaning that banks now get to lend you back money that is already yours - and charge you interest for it! You couldn't make it up. The Government isn't going to cough up the extra money - students are.
Here's the proof. When tuition fees were brought in, they said that the fees would be capped at £3000 for the first 3 years. Prices would only be allowed to rise according to the rate of inflation. Unless I'm very much mistaken, it's currently £3,140 a year. The cap on fees expires in 2010. Already, there is widespread talk that fees will rise to £5,000 per year or more. So no matter how much bleating there is from student organisations, they're going to be the ones who have to cough up the extra money. It's simply a question of whether they will have to pay sooner or later.
http://www.rsc.org/images/DigestofPrimewaterhouseCoopersReport_tcm18-38708.pdf
This study shows that on average, graduates DO earn more than those without a degree, with people studying science degrees earning higher than other graduates (since fewer and fewer people are getting good science degrees so those that do are more in demand). There has also been other research demonstrating this.
While I appreciate it might not be true of all graduates, you do have more options as a graduate than someone who has just left school with generic A levels and has not trained in anything specific, or is not interested in working their way up an organisation. Graduates can walk out of uni into 20-25k a year jobs; there aren't many people just with A levels who can say the same. Of course, it does vary from individual to individual, different people have different aims and aspirations and someone will always cite someone they know who left school with 1 GCSE and is now on 100k a year, but on average graduates do earn more, thus will be paying more tax.
Producing our own graduates has numerous benefits, not least reducing our reliance on immigrants to fill job positions that do require a lot of education and training, e.g. doctors. With our aging population, it is of benefit to everyone that in the future we have highly qualified people earning more, and thus paying more tax to provide for the services that are going to be needed. I would also say it brings other benefits to the country; properly trained and education people in specific sectors that SHOULD have training and education. For example, up until relatively recently it was not necessary for social workers to have a social work degree, meaning that they often had no specific education with regards to aspects of the law relevant to their profession, amongst other things. To my way of thinking, having university educated people in various professions, particularly public sector professions, can only be a good thing and be of benefit to all. This doesn't automatically negate the value of experience, and experience combined with the proper education would be even better.
I just think that the quality of education at universities will not improve simply because students are paying higher fees; it seems ridiculous that students should have to pay more to recieve the same servicve.
So, i agree with firefly, i doubt the standard would go up. I think that the goverment wastes a lot of money on some very silly things, and much could be saved...
plus the banks thing has nothing to do with me, i am not a saver, homeowner, or invester, they fucked up thus they should dig themselves out, yes, the goverment has chosen to bail them out but i assume that the banks are going to have the pay this back...thus i see not many problems here with putting more money into HE in the long term...
The original point of introducing tuition fees was to introduce more competition in universities. Labour have, as ever, missed the point. By scrapping the cap and letting institutions charge what they wish, and vary charges as well, that is the way to get universities competing for students. Heck, universities could even make special offers in the same way as shops do, if they're that desperate to get bums on seats!
A system like this would also enable universities to create larger support systems for students. Poorer students would be able to get more help from universities, because they could afford to issue it. This would also help a cash-strapped government, as it would mean fewer bills for them. It also means universities being able to invest more in student unions, and educational tools - in other words, driving up standards. As it happens, I totally agree with you. I think universities have to do far better in order to justify charging £3k a year, never mind £5k. I, for one, would feel like I was being robbed blind if I was attending a university where I only received 10 hours tuition per week and virtually no personal contact with a lecturer or tutor, whilst being charged £3k a year for it.
If they start wasting it on admin and pet projects, they'll soon find themselves going bankrupt. And frankly, I wouldn't mourn the passing of some of them.