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
The free market can take care of everyone's health needs.
Oh FFS how many times have I said this to you - health care and education are merit goods, they are goods which would be underprovided for in the free market thus harming society. This is basic economic theory which all economists agree on. I suggest you go and learn some economics before spouting such nonsense.
Someone else from now on.
I would. Benefits are unnecessary.
I don't agree that all people are entitled to higher education. People have a right to a certain level of education, but that right ends at 16. After that it is your choice to carry on into further and higher education, and you must be prepared to pay for a service.
I believe that the current influx of a much larger number of people in the UK's universities could be very damaging to the Higher Education. With all the old technical colleges now rebranded as universities and offering places to people with very poor qualifications, there is a great danger that a university degree (irrespective of the institute) is going to become seriously discredited. Too many people can get them too easily and standards are slipping greatly.
at a cost though, I don't understand how the drive to get more people into uni is going to work alongside higher fees. it seems to me that universities are far too interested in competing with each other and are forgetting about the "service" they are supposed to be providing. they're becoming far too commercialised.
my lecturer told me that my university was doing grand financially until the new Dean came into office and started making lavish investments to make the uni a centre of excellence for research. now we are millions of pounds in debt and they're having to shut down loads of departments (including mine
*breathes out
Because that's productive isn't it?
And how would the free market be good for education?
So I have a very intelligent 16 yr old who could make something of herself (hypothetically) but im a single parent and I cant afford to send her, what then?
What you seem to be saying is that if your wealthy and can pay for higher education then do it, if you cant afford it then get a dead end job . Why should it end at 16 years anyway? at 16 your not an adult are you.
There is funding in place for people in that situation.
I'm not saying that Higher Education should be limited to those who can afford it. I'm saying that it should be limited to those that deserve it.
16 is the age at which you are allowed to leave school. Anyone who goes into the sixth-form and university are making a conscious decision to do so.
One last thing, it's 'you're' not 'your'. I don't wish to be offensive, but I find it quite annoying when people do that.
Isn't that the same as grants
Yes and no. Grants were given to all students. The current funding is only given to people with a very low household income.
Not enough funding if you ask me. I'm not sure what the amount grants are, but I'm under the impression from people who applied for it that it's only a few hundred.
Sounds like you're insinuating poorer people don't deserve higher education.
And there are people who make the conscious decision to go to university but are deterred by the amount of money it costs even if they don't have to pay for fees and receive the full loan because the total cost of spending three years at university amounts to a considerable figure. Not to mention loans and debt scaring people off. The financial situation at home often decides for some people whether they go to uni or not.
Oh, one last thing; not having money makes life considerably harder for people, it annoys people when others don't realise that.
The funding doesn't amount to much. Plus the fact that potentially charges are involved puts lots of talented people from poorer backgrounds off saying that the average student debt is £12,000 may not seem much to you but to someone from a poor background that's a hell of a lot of money and is enough to act as a deterrent no matter how much the government tries to assure us otherwise.
University education should be solely funded by the state. There are many good reasons for this; firstly, the more people that go to university, the more educated our population is so the further forward we can move - helping our competitiveness. Secondly, these people will be in higher paid jobs thus paying more in taxes thus making university more than self-funding. Thirdly, there is an ever increasing demand for jobs that require degrees when we have people we can train to do these jobs why let them go to waste? Fourthly, there's the fact that we're going to financially cripple today's students who will have to pay their loans and fees back, pay an extortionate mortgage and save for their pensions - something's got to give. Finally, there's an old fashioned belief that not everything can have a price tag put on it, education is one of them - education is an invaluable resource to a person and society and we should maximise opportunities to use it wherever possible.
How else do you expect poor people to climb out of their poverty - you moan about these people on benefits not wanting to improve themselves, here are people who want to improve themselves and you seek to deny them help? How do you expect these people to get out of poverty? Or would you rather they stayed there because behind all this talk of dumbing down of degrees there's an uncomfortable feeling that these people could actually get the top jobs and you don't like the idea of competition?
If you have very poor A-levels you shouldn't go to university. You should either re-sit, or you should go and get a job. Posession of A-levels shouldn't guarantee entry to university. That should only be the case for those with good A-levels.
A-levels are an indicator of ability. A good set of A-levels indicates the ability and purpose of the person. That is why university entry is decided by A-level results and not IQ-tests.
A-levels are now an indicator of how fucked-up the marking system is that year.
I have not once said that higher education should only be pursued those from weathy families. I said that higher education should be open only to people who are high achievers. I don't think that it is right that people who have barely passed should be allowed to study for a university degree.
People aren't put off by the cost of university. They're put off that when they won't have enough disposable cash to go out and get trashed every evening. When they see how much of the loan has to go to cover costs (which is the whole purpose), they realise that it won't be the big piss-up that they were expecting.
The funding and loans that people receive is actually a great deal. As a student myself, I've see how much people get and how easy it is to get. I saw a University Counsellor to ask about basic budgeting (even I'm not infallible), and the first thing that she did was to tell me all the different bursaries I should apply for. All I wanted was advice on how to better moderate my spending, so that I've have more money to spend when the weekend came round. I've heard people complain about a lack of funds. However, the poverty-stricken student is a myth. I've not once heard someone complain about not having enough money to buy food. They complain because they've just bought a new PS2 and now they can't afford to go out and get trashed. They complain because they've just bought a new TV and DVD player, and now they can't afford new rugby boots. It's all relative. I've met plenty of students from a variety of backgrounds, and not once have I heard someone complain about not being able to afford the essentials. Plenty of students complain about a lack of funds, but they're always available to go to the Student's Union for a pint. Incidently, I make do without a Student Loan as I am not eligible for one. But that's neither here nor there.
You make some very conflicting statements. One minute you're claiming that all university graduates will end up working in such highly paid jobs that the tax revenue will be great enough to continue funding the next generation of student. The next minute, you're claiming that students leave with so much debt that they can't afford a decent home. Which one is it? Also, Student Loan repayments don't kick in until the person's income reaches a certain level.
As for trying to deny poor people access to certain things, give me a break. I've not once said that higher education should be limited to the wealthy. Far from it. If people are intelligent enough to study at a university and have shown their ability with a good set of A-levels, they are more than welcome to go to university, irrespective of their background. I have more than enough confidence in my own abilities to not be "afraid of the competition".
Oh im so sorry, obviously Im one of these people who had a very poor education :rolleyes:
to be honest I found it rather petty you pulling me up on a slight grammar error !!!
Edited to add I have just read you sig :
"Don't sweat nothing petty" then pulling me up for a petty little error
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. Maybe you're a wee bit jealous that these people can afford new PS2s and TV/DVD players and you can't? Besides they're paying it all back as a loan so what does it matter what they spend it on? I disagree with you by the way, I don't think students do get enough - most have to get jobs and work either in the holidays or during term time and then still struggle, especially in the second year when there are additional costs of utilities and rent as GWST and Kermit pointed out in the other thread. Now we hear from them about what a struggle it is and yet you say that students are swimming in money - I think you overlook the effect of job incomes, parental contributions, bank loans and credit cards that get many people through university which should not be the case.
I was comparing the effects of the present system against the desirability of free higher education. If you have free university education these students go on to in virtually all cases paying the top rate which is more than enough to pay for the next generation of students. Under the present system the government expects us to pay back the loans and tuition fees, pay for an extortionate mortgage and save for our own retirement? That was what I meant and what I said, maybe you should double check my posts if you find them complicated to grasp. Whoop-de-doo! You get a few grands leeway - fact is the level at which you start paying back the loan is a level that most graduates should easily be earning at so it really makes little difference - the debt is still there.
Yes you are trying to deny poor people access to higher education, I don't think you comprehend how daunting the thought of all that debt and charges is to someone from a poorer background. It puts people off going to university even if they are able enough to go. If these people are intelligent enough to go to university by whatever standards, you surely must agree that we should send the nation's brightest to university and remove any deterrents for them going? If you have enough confidence in your own abilities why do you begrudge these people a chance to study and gain knowledge and improve their lives?
If the institutions were in place then yes, you could have universities for the elite and technical/vocational colleges for the moderately average. But times have changed now and regardless of whether there's a dumbing down of degrees, a degree is what you need to get a decent job. And even then it's no guarantee, as no doubt we're all aware!
perhps not but there are other courses, HND for instance, but they still involve going to university. that's just the way the system is.
I didn't say you did, I said you insinuated it.
You have yet to define 'good' A-levels or what being a 'high achiever' entails. I agree people with no educational ability or motivation probably shouldn't go to university, but the fact is whether universities accept them or not.
Yes people are put off by the cost of university. You have fees, rent, cost of stationary, books and other equipment, living costs and a social life to fund. People want the full university experience and it costs a substantial amount. If people didn't think students were already financially crippled there wouldn't have been so much protest against top-up fees by students themselves.