top up fees ?

Former Member

uni is gonna became so expencive that once again only the elete get to go to uni and the reast of up have to make do with less income or debts until we are in our 30´s

do you agree?

Former Member

Yeah you probably will.

But if you do finish your degree you should have a good job and be able to pay your debt off.

Former Member

Re: top up fees ?

Originally posted by luby
uni is gonna became so expencive that once again only the elete get to go to uni and the reast of up have to make do with less income or debts until we are in our 30´s

do you agree?

become

expensive

elite



If the government doesn't introduce some way of limiting the number of people that can get into university (now that there are courses who will accept very low A-level grades) then even people who go to uni will end up in lower income jobs simply because there won't be enough highly-paid jobs to go around.

I don't wholly agree with top up fees, but it annoys me that some people claim a ' I have the right to an education' argument - you've had your free education. A-levels/Highers/GNVQs/BTECs are enough to get you a job. If you want more it's only fair you pay.

Before anyone replies: Yes, I am at uni. No, my parents are not paying for me, I'm paying for myself!

Former Member

this narks me off too. at the moment, i wish people would stop fussng over fees. depends on where you go, but you should get a decent quality education with access to so much, like libraries, a student union, advice services, etc. for just over one thousand pound per year. you get skills which employers want, a wealth of knowledge on your chosen subject. some people don't even pay anything, and others don't pay the full amount. those that do pay usually have thei parents doing it for them, so it's not burning a hole in that student's pocket. the student loans are paid back at a very reasonable rate, so i don't think that's too much to stress over. if these new top up fees were introduced, surely some people would again get help towards paying? and for the unis that charged a lot, surely these would give you a much higher standard of education and student life? as they say, nothing in life is free

Former Member

Good news: Rumours are top-up fees will be ditched after the Prime Minister's "consultation exercise" gives him the excuse to do so. According to the papers the view is in Downing Street that it's not worth the hassle in the Labour Party, the unpopularity with Middle England and it would probably get defeated by Labour backbenchers anyway.

Bad news: They're looking at a Graduate Tax, probably an extra penny on income tax for all graduates which will either be for life or will stop when you've paid back the amount you borrowed.

Former Member

.

Former Member

Originally posted by girl with sharp teeth
how much do you want to bet that they'll decide on the "for life" option?

Actually I'm not that cynical. But what I do find interesting is that while the Prime Minister and Charles Clarke spoke of the necessity of reforming funding for higher education neither of them once mentioned top-up fees. I vaguely recall Charles Clarke saying in his speech about stopping payments once they've paid for their own education.

the thing that annoys me (and i am not overly feminist), is that with the new top-up fees the average female graduate, having had 2 children, will not pay off her student loan until she is in her 50s. this was calculated in the... independent i think it was. in comparison, the average male graduate will pay his debts by his mid-30s.

Hence why the government's big push for its third term will be free state provided childcare for all. That gets the women back to work paying off their loans, paying into pension schemes and paying taxes rather than the government having to default on unpaid loans of housewives. In which case I have to ask what is the point in anyone wanting to be a parent? The trouble is governments tend to see people as economic machines rather than people. But yes I totally agree it's unfair.

another point which i really can't understand is the fact that students from poorer families get help with fees and small grants. as everyone has to pay the loans back afterwards, what difference does it make how poor you were before? everyone is in the same boat once they've graduated so the fact that some people will have to pay back less than others strikes me as very unfair. they have the same opportunities as graduates from richer families and can earn the same salaries - but they don't have to pay as much back.

I disagree with this. Poorer students should get more help from the state because they are less likely to be able to have parents able to help them out with costs while they are at university. Also poorer students take on a bigger student loan so they are in fact paying back more to the SLC than rich students. Also on the subject of fees, where we currently pay them up front then it is important that poorer students get that help as the fees currently act as a deterrent. I don't think poorer students will get help with fees under the proposed system as the fees will be based on which university they go to. Grants for poorer students are also I feel fair because as I said they won't have rich parents able to help them out with costs such as accommodation and books.

Former Member

I agree with GWST about the poorer students thing (sorry, don't have the energy to quote). I don't think it's fair that poorer students get help with fees which are paid back afterwards. Because that "poorer" student could go on to land a job that pays twice as much as mine and pay back less fees. How is that fair?

It's fair enough to give them help with living costs while they are actually at university - which I think is what Kevlar was saying, but not with the top-up fees.

That's my moan over though. I am grumpy today. Too many freshers asking me stupid questions :impissed:

Former Member

Originally posted by KoolCat
I agree with GWST about the poorer students thing (sorry, don't have the energy to quote). I don't think it's fair that poorer students get help with fees which are paid back afterwards. Because that "poorer" student could go on to land a job that pays twice as much as mine and pay back less fees. How is that fair?

It's fair enough to give them help with living costs while they are actually at university - which I think is what Kevlar was saying, but not with the top-up fees.

I think the reasoning behind the financial help - and this goes for fees as well as loans - is that poorer students start out with much less, so even if they do get a fantastic job after graduation, they are likely to have a bigger overdraft/credit card bill than those who get more help from their parents. Take me, for instance: I returned from my year abroad in August, was unable to get a summer job for such a short amount of time, and I can't rely on my mum for money, as she's on income support. In fact, I have had to do the Tesco's run for the family when she's broke. Result - before I got my loan, I was nearly up to the limit of my £1800 overdraft and I have £850 on my credit card. Even if I find a job really soon, there is no way I can pay off much of that before the end of the year, so am almost certain to graduate with a scary amount of debt.

When top up fees come in (IF we can't persuade the government to drop them) the last thing students in my situation will need is £9 - 1200 to pay off, on top of their loan of £12-1600 and other debts. It's the price of a small morgage :eek:

Former Member

.

Former Member

The current system makes sense- in theory, richer children will need less loan than poorer children, and will get more parental assistance in any case.

My gripe is with the porposed system. Tuition would not be paid for until after graduation, yet poor people will pay less than rich ones, despite the fact that after graduation both poor and rich will ahve the same qualifications and the same job prospects. Therefore help with fees for those from poorer backgrounds is grossly unfair, and grossly stupid.

But thats Blair for you. Hope everyone who voted for the corrupt money-grabbing cunt is proud of themselves.

Former Member

Originally posted by Kermit
The current system makes sense- in theory, richer children will need less loan than poorer children, and will get more parental assistance in any case.

My parents earn too much money for me to get the extra £1000 loan and they have to pay full tuition fees.

Doesn't really seem fair as they're not giving me a lot of money although the government seems to assume they would...

I still had to pay for all my accomodation and books, etc, out of my own money. With only a £3000 loan I'm left with just £15 a week for food, going out, transport and books etc.

It took me a long time to persuade my parents that I wouldn't be able to survive without some money from them, and they're very reluctantly giving me a monthly allowance.

It seems very little compared to how much some of my friends with less well off parents are getting, and most of them are in catered halls. Friends of mine are getting a higher loan amount than me, having the majority of their tuition fees paid for them by the government and still have more allowance than me...

Hardly seems fair.

Former Member

.

Former Member

I think one good aspect of the new sytem is that it is attempting to remove student reliance on their parents so that students are fully financially indpendant.........

One thing that pisses me off............

The people in govt and all those cooking up these schemes got their uni for free and have reaped the benfit.

By the logic used by the govt i.e. universities need more money because they have been underinvested in then surely all graduates, Tony Blair, Charles Clarke, everyone, should help to pay for universities because it is the previous system that they went through that has resulted in the curretn funding crisis, why is it just our generation that should pay?

Former Member

Re: Re: top up fees ?

Originally posted by .NK

If the government doesn't introduce some way of limiting the number of people that can get into university (now that there are courses who will accept very low A-level grades) then even people who go to uni will end up in lower income jobs simply because there won't be enough highly-paid jobs to go around.

I don't wholly agree with top up fees, but it annoys me that some people claim a ' I have the right to an education' argument - you've had your free education. A-levels/Highers/GNVQs/BTECs are enough to get you a job. If you want more it's only fair you pay.

[/B]

With regards to the first point, the govt is not trying to increase the numbers in uni for the hell of it, the projections on the nature of the economy in the future indicate a need for far more graduates.........

With regards to the second point.

a) primary education is enough to get a job surely?

b) all education is paid for, it is simply the method that is controversial.

Why really should university be funded differently from other stages of education?

Former Member

Re: Re: Re: top up fees ?

Why really should university be funded differently from other stages of education?

Because it costs so much and not everyone wants to go to university...

...there are people who weren't interested in even going into sixth form or college.

Former Member

Or to any stage of education, why should university not be paid for through the tax system?