Is it "socially unjust" to charge young students for their university education?

[Pizza]

Irrelevant point.

Aside from the fact that my phone was built in China, my TV in Korea, my Car in Germany and my laptop in Japan, I have not denounced the need for universities and certain degrees but I don’t believe they should be public funded, on a thread which is discussing whether UK universities should be free.

By you logic why don’t you throw away your house, as it was almost certainly built by someone without a degree? How about your food, does the local farmer, butcher or grocer have a degree?

I’m self-made and successful and have mates with degrees who work in Tesco. No one is owed a higher education.

Clearly the point was not literal, but it may have been too subtle. Perhaps it should have been:

Who are you to say someone can't have a degree because their mum and dad are too poor?

 

[Gwylan]

If a degree is something which ...
a) is relatively difficult to get and so only the most capable (regardless of background) will obtain one
b) leads to a higher average wage over your lifetime

..then it should be free but in the sure and certain knowledge that the costs will be recovered from the graduate later in the form of higher income tax receipts. So we, in effect, borrow from future tax revenues to pay for education today.

Unfortunately, as with most qualifications in this country, the UK degree has lost an awful lot of its value and now too many people have them and they are no longer the guarantee of an increased salary and so future tax revenues from graduates won't have the differential that would recover the money spent. A common theme among recruiters now is that a first degree is relatively worthless and you look for a Masters when choosing the best candidates.

Therefore, although I believe that, in principle, higher education should be free, when 50% of school leavers start one, then it does not meet the basic criteria laid out above and the state shouldn't be funding it because, frankly, it doesn't justify the outlay.

Personally, I'd rather we re-thought the whole of further education, returned degrees to being something that 10-20% of people had and create viable, meaningful employment options to those who don't really need a degree for what they will do as a career so that they can work and earn.

Pretty much agree with this (although it was the Major government that turned polytechnics into universities, not Blair's). I'd add that there needs to be a proper apprentice policy too

 

[Creaky]

If a degree is something which ...
a) is relatively difficult to get and so only the most capable (regardless of background) will obtain one
b) leads to a higher average wage over your lifetime

..then it should be free but in the sure and certain knowledge that the costs will be recovered from the graduate later in the form of higher income tax receipts. So we, in effect, borrow from future tax revenues to pay for education today.

Unfortunately, as with most qualifications in this country, the UK degree has lost an awful lot of its value and now too many people have them and they are no longer the guarantee of an increased salary and so future tax revenues from graduates won't have the differential that would recover the money spent. A common theme among recruiters now is that a first degree is relatively worthless and you look for a Masters when choosing the best candidates.

Therefore, although I believe that, in principle, higher education should be free, when 50% of school leavers start one, then it does not meet the basic criteria laid out above and the state shouldn't be funding it because, frankly, it doesn't justify the outlay.

Personally, I'd rather we re-thought the whole of further education, returned degrees to being something that 10-20% of people had and create viable, meaningful employment options to those who don't really need a degree for what they will do as a career so that they can work and earn.

The obvious corollary to that argument is that those doing A levels or other further education courses should also have a fee attached to them.

The school leaving age has now effectively been raised to 18 - the argument put forward by the government for doing so is because research shows that those continuing education and/or training to the age of 18, compared to those who finish their education at 16, earn more money, are heathier and tend to be less likely to be in 'trouble' with the police.

Charging for continuing studies beyond the age of 18 on the basis that graduates have a higher earning potential strikes me as wanting your cake and eating it!

The comparison of the number of young people attending universities now with that of 40 years ago is equally, (if not more), applicable to the number of students taking A Levels. Likewise the disdain shown for the subject matter of some degree courses can also apply to many A Level courses, yet the government has made compulsory education until the age of 18, (which for the majority of young people means A level courses), and at the same time introduced a disincentive in the form of tuition fees for those wishing to continue their education beyond that age - and used the same argument of higher earnings to support both decisions!

 

[maltaseagull]

Nothing wrong with education but I think that if the student receives the benefit of a higher level of education, they should be able to fund it based on future earnings over a certain amount. Agreed fees are too high but someone has to pay for Scotland's free university places.

 

[Baldseagull]

Those of us who didn't go to university are benefiting from the university education that others have undertaken. Would you be happy to be treated by a doctor who had not gone to university, what about your kid's teachers or the architect who designed the buildings in the high street? Happy to get on a train designed by an engineer or have a judicial system run by individuals who haven't received a higher level education?

I do agree that the system has swung too far towards the idea of as many students as possible going to university whilst at the same time the number of apprentice places have shrunk - mind you how many young people would be happy to carry out a five year apprenticeship on a less than minimum wage?

It just seems wrong to me that a doctor leaving medical school after five years, followed by at least two further years foundation training before selecting a career path such as GP or surgeon will be burdened by a debt of at least £50,000 before even starting their career. In the same way most teachers study a university course for three years, a further year to gain their post graduate certificate of education and end up with a debt in excess of £30,000!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/expat/9667069/The-new-brain-drain-and-who-can-blame-them.html

How would we all benefit from the exodus of university graduates to Australia, Hong Kong, Canada and elsewhere?

 

[Kosmonaut]

I think there's actually a large general glut of graduates right now. Funding should only be provided for tuition for degrees in which there might be a shortage of graduates - but determining this would be very hard for a government.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

Who are you to say someone can't have a degree because their mum and dad are too poor?

Isn't that the point of the student loan - it allows everyone, should they wish, to go to Uni and to then pay back their loan once they have hot the correct level of income ? i.e. it has nothing to do with your parents wealth.

 

[Garage_Doors]

No.
Free school education yes. any advanced education above should be funded by the recipient.

No one has a right to a free advanced education.

 

[nicko31]

Can't see the issue with fees, you don't pay them up front. Why should the plumbers and electricans pay for the Arts students?

If fees were that bad numbers would be falling.

Tories have put on more debt than any other government, they have to do something

 

[yxee]

It is completely and utterly wrong to charge for any form of education.

Will you be picking up the tab then?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Will you be picking up the tab then?

I'm happy to pay my share.

 

[yxee]

I'm happy to pay my share.

And you're as happy contributing the same amount towards a fashion degree as a physics degree?
What if the student drops out after two years? Was it money well-spent?

If you make something free, someone will take it. I don't think that creates the right incentives for 17 year olds to make the correct decisions.

 

[BigGully]

Firstly student loans are available to everyone, you neednt require access to cash or raise a loan or re-mortgage assets, your obligation to repay only starts when you find employment with an associated salary above £18000'sh.

It isnt a matter of wealth as prospective students coming from low income families have very generous bursaries and benefits that will cover their fee's anyway and offer some spending money too.

Be careful not to just lurch between graduates and tradesman or Arts and Science playing off one against the other, each have their worth.

 

[BigGully]

I'm happy to pay my share.

I have to say that is a typical left of politics response, you seem unable to factor in any financial consequence, of course what you really mean is you will pay your share and make me pay even more.

 

[jimbob5]

Arguably is would be unjust but effectively it is free, unless they become so rich in later years in which case they pay relative peanuts.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Personally I think everyone should be allowed one-shot at a free degree. I can understand the issue some have with certain degrees but in principle I feel degrees in the arts are just as valuable as, say, the sciences. I feel you underestimate creativity at your own peril; Cambridge University won't let you do some engineering and architecture degrees unless you have an art A-level alongside your other qualifications. And it's no coincidence that the nations which value and emphasise art and culture have better economies and happier people.

I would also allow everyone one-shot at a free apprenticeship. In Germany, as I understand, electricians, heating engineers, plumbers and other similar disciplines have to be qualified and have to undertake regular re-examination to remain current and up-to-date. Because of this you can command a decent hourly rate. This arrangement has also engendered the due respect for these professions. Sadly I think the UK would simply see this as bureaucratic "I don't need to take an exam to unblock a bog/we'll have to pass the costs onto the customer" nonsense though. It's a shame, because it works well. Something else I have just found out is that customers can claim back taxes on building work and home improvements, the aim is to stop the cash-in-hand black market and keep the cowboys at bay.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I have to say that is a typical left of politics response, you seem unable to factor in any financial consequence, of course what you really mean is you will pay your share and make me pay even more.

Why would I make you pay more?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Be careful not to just lurch between graduates and tradesman or Arts and Science playing off one against the other, each have their worth.

I 100% agree.

 

[BigGully]

Personally I think everyone should be allowed one-shot at a free degree. I can understand the issue some have with certain degrees but in principle I feel degrees in the arts are just as valuable as, say, the sciences. I feel you underestimate creativity at your own peril; Cambridge University won't let you do some engineering and architecture degrees unless you have an art A-level alongside your other qualifications. And it's no coincidence that the nations which value and emphasise art and culture have better economies and happier people.

I would also allow everyone one-shot at a free apprenticeship. In Germany, as I understand, electricians, heating engineers, plumbers and other similar disciplines have to be qualified and have to undertake regular re-examination to remain current and up-to-date. Because of this you can command a decent hourly rate. This arrangement has also engendered the due respect for these professions. Sadly I think the UK would simply see this as bureaucratic "I don't need to take an exam to unblock a bog/we'll have to pass the costs onto the customer" nonsense though. It's a shame, because it works well. Something else I have just found out is that customers can claim back taxes on building work and home improvements, the aim is to stop the cash-in-hand black market and keep the cowboys at bay.

See what I said, it isnt FREE, nothing is FREE its paid by you and others, its tough for you HT, but there really isnt a money tree at nos. 11 Downing street, although your mob thought there was.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And you're as happy contributing the same amount towards a fashion degree as a physics degree?
What if the student drops out after two years? Was it money well-spent?

If you make something free, someone will take it. I don't think that creates the right incentives for 17 year olds to make the correct decisions.

Fashion and physics, in principle yes. Fashion has enormous cultural worth. I do think the university set up needs a shake up though as some degrees seem more aimed at getting students and money in the door via Blair's 50% idea than any real academic or vocational worth.

If someone drops out then it's a shame, and will always happen, but I'm sure it can be reduced with appropriate reforms.