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
Tuition fee - is it fair
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
As you know many of us have to think of some ways to finance the expenses of going to university. A lot of us need to get a student loan from the government. After graduation they need to repay the loan and the starting salary for graduates is not that high. Also some of us found it necessary to do a part-time job in order to meet the expenses.
Given that education is a basic right people should have, is imposing a tuition fee something right to do?
Given that education is a basic right people should have, is imposing a tuition fee something right to do?
0
Comments
Like all these things, education is a privilege and should never be thought of any differently...most countries in the world do not have a formalised education system, and we should count ourselves lucky that we do...
But on the subject of tuition fees, I think it just got to the point where far more school leavers were going on to university than ever before (one third now, as opposed to one tenth in the 70s) and it was an ever increasing burden on the taxpayer.
The introduction of tuition fees was also partly an effort to get students to respect an education as a 'good' which they pay for. The idea being fewer drop-outs etc.
Of course, the reverse has happened, and many former polytechnics which accept local students, and those of less affluent backgrounds tend to have drop-out rates of up to 40% :eek: (Uni of North London is the highest I believe).
At the end of the day, someone has to pay for the education system. By shifting the balance from the taxpayer to student (consumer) it is argued that the system is fairer, and taxpayers money can be diverted to more immediate needs...the counter arguments being that students are not in a position to pay the tuition fees themselves, and thus have to borrow more to finance themselves, or take on p/t work to the detriment of their studies; and that students from poorer backgrounds are put off by the prospect of £15,000 debt after 3 years at uni.
These solid counter arguments led to the call for the "graduate tax", and we have yet to see whether this will be implemented.
And on go_away's point, if your salary is never above the threshold (c.£13,000), it is true that you will not have to repay the loans. But not many graduates earn less than £13,000
I don’t think that uni education is a right, but rather a privilege. Nevertheless, I would like to see something in place that would allow anyone interested and qualified to go for free or atleast with most of their expenses taken care of.
I think that there should be a qualification and slackers should not be allowed to easily exercise this privilege.
The problem with this is that although the student wouldn’t have to pay, the rest of society will through taxes. I wouldn’t mind that because I think that I rather pay for the education of our future through our pockets than pay for ignorance through our noses—but that is just me.
I also think it would be a good idea for the government to give monetary incentives to businesses that are willing to sponsor a certain number of students per year. In turn, the student works at that business for a few years post education and the business also get some type of tax cut. I have no clue if this is feasible, but I still can dream, can’t I?
Whilst I myself am a student, and do find it hard to get by (you should see the size of my overdraft!), I feel that the lack of grants is necessary. Whislt living in Scotland I have a somewhat easier way of it than many of you, as I do not have to pay tutiton fees, but it is still obviously an important issue to me. Gone are the days when it was a choice if you wanted to take out a government loan to get through university, it is now a necessity. But what other option is there? Surely the taxpayers money cannot finance millions of students throgh (at least) 3 years of university? At the end of the tay, as a general rule, graduates should be on higher wages than those without the benefit of a degree. And the fact that we have to pay for the right to have a better chance of getting there is just something I think has to be accepted. Obviously if it was possible for grants to be given to all students then i wouldn't argue, but I don't think it is financially possible.
Just for those of you who don't know, they have brought in a young person's grant up here (which unfortunately I can'get!) which does show the government are at least attempting to start to do what they can. Something is better than nothing.
Some businesses put people through college here, whilst they work an apprenticeship for them. As far as I know, its more of a 'skilled trade' thing as far as I'm aware, but I'm not really very sure.
There is such a thing as bursaries aswell over here, but that varies between unis, some are based on a kind of scholarship basis, i've seen others that benefit poeple whose parents were in the Armed Forces.
Given I'll be at uni in 6 months you can probably guess which camp I'm in! Surely a graduate tax is the best solution, kicking in after you reach a certain wage and after a certain number of years? That way you pay according to exactly how much benefit you receive, and the people who go on to gazillionaires will cover those who reap no benefit whatsoever from education. Everybody's happy!
It seems ideal. Having said that, there's probab;ly some glaringly obvious flaw which I've missed...
I think having fees makes people work harder as you want to get your moneys worth but as usual, people just above the cut off line who are by no means wealthy get hit in the pocket. :mad:
I can understand the logic behind having to pay but I do think it's unfair for those who cannot afford to go to university. It's all very well saying that they can just get a loan, but they're gonna have that on top of their heads for many years to come. This is the reason why I don't want to go to uni.
Why?
Oh, sure, an education is nice -- though a worrying proportion of people don't appreciate that -- and useful and almost certain to improve your quality of life. However, that doesn't make it a 'right.'
Unless you can argue otherwise, that is...
Surely a better question is why you want to deny yourself something you see as a right?
Thats simply because some people cannot afford it. I have seen some people who have the ability but prefer to go to work instead of uni because of this financial burden, which is a shame really.
Sorry to sound harsh!
This is because the more students these former poly can attract, the more money they get. This is another adverse effect on imposing tuition fee. In order to get the students, these so-called uni lower the standard of entrance. Uni of North London for example, as I know, takes students who only got one A level! :eek:
Yeah that really sound harsh! I think the basic point is, students should not be left to think about how to finance their way to uni. All they should worry about it to get good grades in A level and concentrate on study to get a good degree, then contribute to society in the end. Don't you think that would be much better than having to think about other things at the same time?
Sure they are entitled to education, but in that case, I would think something like a NVQ in floristry would be better than letting them to get in for a degree :rolleyes:
My Dad was at uni when there was no fees, his accommodation and food were paid for by the local authority. Very few people relatively speaking, went to uni then. But now the government want something like 1/2 of all young people to go to university. And like you said, there are "unis" which allow people in who frankly, shouldn't be there. Something has to give. You cannot give grants to everyone. Personally I think unis should be more restrctive, letting people in with (eg) 6 UCAS points is just stupid. Then the people who work hard and have the brains to do well will be able to have financial support.
But then you could say that having a highly educated nation is a very good thing for our nation in general- changing from the days of menial workers- miners, factory workers etc into a developed nation that makes things..(if that makes sense).
Very confusing.
Then you could say that to have most 18-22 year olds in uni is a better option than them being on the dole- loans have to be paid back- JSA doesn't. Good for lining the governments pocket.
Consider this:
I have just left my full-time job so that I can return to college and improve my qualifications. I'm applying to study for an NVQ2 in Graphic/Web Design, and the course is open to anyone without a formal entry requirement. I made this decision voluntarily, and with a view to better future prospects. However, I am lucky in that I have already been working so do not need to worry about how to pay for this education. Furthermore already having work experience will probably make it easier to find part-time work to pay the bills while I study (I'm not saying I agree with this, but it seems to be how many employers judge these days).
Now think of someone who is not in my lucky situation who wishes to apply for the same course. An inexperienced school-leaver from a poor background say. The second person may have as much motivation in wishing to study as myself, and an equal (or even better) chance of obtaining a qualification at the end of the course. But he/she feels put off applying because they have no up-front funding and would be worried about long-term debt at the end.
Surely the latter should have an equal chance to myself of taking that course. But the system discriminates between us. The same principle could equally be applied to a full time uni course.
I think that, in order to have a fair system, it needs to consider the individual circumstances of a student AND his/her ability and willingness to complete the course. Assessing individuals more closely when they apply would help eliminate the "time-wasters" referred to by PussyKatty, and help those who were unsure to make the right choice of course. But a means-tested reward upon completion of the course (a reduction on the amount of the loan to repay graded on an individuals financial situation for example) would also encourage the less well off to apply giving everyone a better chance. It would also provide an incentive to stay the distance and succeed.
What do others think about this point of view?