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.
Options
Petition Against Tuition Fees
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
someone emailed this to me today
"Petition Against Tuition Fees
How many students believe that tuition fees should be abolished "
so i thought i would share it amongs other students (:eek2: NOOOO it got nothing to do with me before the you say "is it your site" uuugr i so sick of that one)
I just thought i would post it to see how many petition sig's would go up
Petition here :thumb:
"Petition Against Tuition Fees
How many students believe that tuition fees should be abolished "
so i thought i would share it amongs other students (:eek2: NOOOO it got nothing to do with me before the you say "is it your site" uuugr i so sick of that one)
I just thought i would post it to see how many petition sig's would go up
Petition here :thumb:
Post edited by JustV on
0
Comments
i dont know much about this, so out of interest how is it unfair?
If they were abolished id have more money so wouldnt turn it down. But it is a high level of teaching and a good qualification so i dont have a problem with paying that much i suppose.
So you can have two people, same course, same job, paying back different sized fee loans because when they were at uni their parents had different incomes.
That isn't what I call fair.
My mum when seh was working was paying around £20 a month and she was on a low income.
Do you have any understanding of how the system works?
The new system is a lot fairer than the old one- you pay when you leave, when you're earning your own money. What I am against is the way that people with poor parents get huge bursaries, and pay less fees- if you pay on graduation the amount you pay should depend on how much you earn, not on how much mum and dad earn.
I'm not against student loans, either, why should people not at uni pay for students to get pissed on cheap beer for three years? The amount loaned should be enough to live on properly, though.
It was scarasm...
the real trouble is that in many other EU countries, the gov't actually pays students an allowance (for housing etc) on top of free university which can last up to 6/7 years - we pay some of the highest taxes in the EU, so how can this be the case?
:yes:ish. Certainly, I'm a lot less against it than I was - students under this system get better support and a more realistic student loan whilst they're studying, and then when they finish and earn over £15k, they start paying everything off, but as a proportion of income, so the generation paying back their fees afterwards don't pay any more monthly than us older lot who *just* pay student loans. Yes, it's a much higher total and the payments thus last longer (and I'm still not 100% in favour of top-up fees) but it's still in little chunks, and I doubt that still having student loan to pay off has ever stopped anyone from saving up to buy a house. (Paying off credit cards and other debts accumulated is a different story!)
The thing I'm worried about though is 2011, when the top-up fee cap could come off, and the Oxbridges and LSEs of this world will try and justify charging £10k per annum.
But people with poor parents haven't got mummy and daddy to help them through tough times when they're at uni though. Hell, sometimes it was me lending my Mum money, when I was surviving off a combination off student loan, 7-hour a week job at boots, my overdraft and credit cards.
Stats consistantly show that poorer students are more likely to work longer hours to earn extra money and thus run the risk of getting worse degrees. Is that fair?
Hardship funds that exist for when people really need them, rather than doling money out wily nilly would be a fairer plan.
agreed. why should parents support their kids through uni if they have the money? plus there's no way people who are on the cut-off line can afford it, just no way at all.
the worry - as you said earlier - is the good unis like oxbridge or bristol etc can start charging what they want as they provide a better education and everyone knows it - and you'll get cut-price courses elsewhere. what could even end up happening is uni's dropping prices at the last minute to fill seats, so you'd have people on the same course paying different amounts....lunacy.
Am in for a well skint month, unfortunately I don't use my student loan for clothes or going out etc. Textbooks and transport seem to eat it all up, and the horse is costing me more this month than I earnt over the last month. :rolleyes:
Bollocks, I really need to get another job. :yeees:
I had a similar conversation last week.
Boyfriends dad is trying to get a raise so he's paid in the £30-40K bracket. Whilst he's under or at £30k, the kids get EMA, I think they get quite good child support etc, and if one of them was at Uni I'm fairly sure they meet the requirements for the grants.
However, once above £30k, bye bye EMA, down goes the child support, and I think that may well be the cut off point for the grants too. He also gets highly taxed in that bracket - as he pointed out, if he was earning over £40k it wouldn't really matter so much, but under £40k it really hits hard. I think it's a crap cut off point, but there are going to be problems no matter where it's put.
The student loan should be enough to live on, that's my big gripe. But I fail to see why poorer students get bursaries towards their fees when they don't have to pay until after graduation anyway. I fail to see why the children of those people who've worked hard to earn more should be penalised against the children of those who haven't.
When I was at uni my mum gave up work because I got more money with her at home than I did with her out at work supporting me. How is that fair? It would be even more unfair if I had to pay more back than the child of someone poorer, even if he got onto a graduate scheme and was earning £30 a year.
The fairest way of all is for there to be a graduate tax, so the high-rollers pay more than those who earn less in later life.
What's that supposed to mean? My parents work their arses off and get any money for that. How is that fair?
People that work the benefit system to their full advantage work enough hours to keep themselves just under the thresholds for benefits etc, only support one dependant who gets a full loan, reduced fees and a bursary, thus has far more money available to them both now and it the future.
NOT ALL BENEFIT RECIPIENTS ARE FRAUDULENT :rolleyes: I'd challenge anyone to live on benefits willingly. My Mum's been living hand-to-mouth for years, and has just now managed to land a job after having spent 18 months actively jobseeking and attending scores of interviews. I hate the implication that has come out in a number of these posts that most benefit claimants are feckless and/or diddling the system[/QUOTE]
Because most parents do if they can.
but then the only people who would ever go to uni would be the more well off people. i know for a fact there is no way i would ever be able to afford uni without my fees being covered. my dad is a single parent and he just doesn't earn enough money to be able to put me through uni without the help. my dad has always worked hard, he has a very well paid job but because its just his wages alone there is no way i could go to uni without the fee's being paid.
2. There are also plenty of people who don't get the help that others do despite having a lower disposable income.
3. You don't have to pay your fees now (on the current system) they get paid by SLC and you pay them back when you are earning. I see no good reason why what person X pays back for their fees when they get a job should be any different to what person Y has to pay back when they get a job for their fees because of what their parents income was.
It's probably because SLC assume that mummy & daddy will help their child through uni if they need it, but the student with the parents whose income is lower can't...
So what has that got to do with the tution fees you pay when you graduate?
You may have a weak point for higher maintanance loans for students from lower income backgrouds, but I'm still failing to see why fees should differ. I give you the two vets (assuming they were on the new system) I live with, who will probably end up with very similar jobs, why should one of them pay more than the other when they graduate just because of what their parents earnt while they were at uni?
I can't see any reason at all.
You pay the fees WHEN YOU GRADUATE, not before. That means the money comes out of YOUR WAGE, not mum and dad's wage.
So why should you pay less?