Home Politics and Debate
Come and join our Support Circle, every Tuesday, 8 - 9:30pm! Limited spaces available! Sign up here

top-up fees and poorer students

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Taken from the DFES website:
From 2006 Universities will be able to set their own fees up to a maximum of £3,000 a year. So what you will pay depends on the course you choose. You can either pay the fee straight away, or pay it back later through the new Graduate Contribution Scheme, explained above. If your family earns less than £20,000, the Government will pay £1,100 towards the cost of your course, and if they earn less than £30,000 they will pay a smaller amount, on a sliding scale.

I don't want to sound too controversial here, but I don't see how it's fair for the Government to pay £1,100 of fees for poorer students - when the fees do not have to be paid upfront anymore.

A student from a poor background could go on to land a job with a higher salary than a student from a richer background, and yet he or she does not have to pay back as much through the Graduate Contribution Scheme.

While I agree with maintenance grants for poorer students, to help with living costs when parents are unable to help, I don't agree with this. Because paying back the fees would depend on the graduate's income, not the parents.

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Why don't they get a job in Burger King or McDonalds like most students? Then they can have a little for money to buy Special Brew and glue with.:)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Re: top-up fees and poorer students
    Originally posted by KoolCat
    Taken from the DFES website:



    I don't want to sound too controversial here, but I don't see how it's fair for the Government to pay £1,100 of fees for poorer students - when the fees do not have to be paid upfront anymore.

    A student from a poor background could go on to land a job with a higher salary than a student from a richer background, and yet he or she does not have to pay back as much through the Graduate Contribution Scheme.

    While I agree with maintenance grants for poorer students, to help with living costs when parents are unable to help, I don't agree with this. Because paying back the fees would depend on the graduate's income, not the parents.

    Yes. I agree completely with your views.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The thing is taht to make everyone pay would be political suicide, even for a man like Blair who still gets voted in even after he rapes this country of everything that is good and decent.

    No-one should have to pay for their education, though i think students loans are reasonable in that no-one else gets board paid for as well as education- providing that the student loan is not so low as to necessitate working 20 hours a week just to pay the rent.

    I have said this for a long long time now:

    Anyone who has EVER voted for Blair should be deeply deeply ashamed of themselves.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I do not think it is a good idea at all. The only reason that Blair wants to send so many people to university is to take pressure off of the employment market for a couple of years.

    If there were less people at the UK's universities, it could be covered by the State. Students would not have to pay tuition fees, let alone top-up fees. It's simply a tax on education.
Sign In or Register to comment.