beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,412
fast track plumbing course is £3k plus full time over a couple months. or do it at college over a year or two. no grants, no allowances. same with builders and sparks.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
University tuition fees
- Thread starter sten_super
- Start date
fast track plumbing course is £3k plus full time over a couple months. or do it at college over a year or two. no grants, no allowances. same with builders and sparks.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
what do I win
I think tuition fees contribute to those kind of things, they make money for the universities and if you're a student you probably won't have to pay back your loan anyway.
This is another of my gripes. Universities sell places to rich foreign kids to make money. This is not always to the overall benefit of the course/college.
One point about top-up fees that never gets mentioned is the way many students are becoming passive customers, which is a bad thing IMO.
They are encouraged to think they are paying for a degree (rather than paying to study for a degree), and so feel they shouldn't be expected to do any work; they expect to be spoon-fed now, and told what exam questiions will be asked. If they can't find the answer on Google or Wikipedia, they can't be arsed.
Yet employers want people who can think properly, are well-organised, and hard-working. Unfortunately, top-up fees are creating the oppositie qualities and attitudes in too many students.
However, university managers won't kick out lazy or thick students, because as 'businesses', universities want the fees that students are paying; lecturers will say 'this student is no good, kick them off the course' but managers will say 'No, they are paying £3,000/£6,000 per year, we can't afford to get rid of them...and if we do, we might not be able to afford to renew your contract.'
The system stinks and is bordering on being corrupt, and it will simply get worse when fees are increased. But it will be us Lecturers who get slagged off, not the politicians or university managers; it's always the workers or front-line staff in any job who take the flak for idiotic political or managerial decisions.
They are encouraged to think they are paying for a degree (rather than paying to study for a degree), and so feel they shouldn't be expected to do any work; they expect to be spoon-fed now, and told what exam questiions will be asked. If they can't find the answer on Google or Wikipedia, they can't be arsed.
Yet employers want people who can think properly, are well-organised, and hard-working. Unfortunately, top-up fees are creating the oppositie qualities and attitudes in too many students.
However, university managers won't kick out lazy or thick students, because as 'businesses', universities want the fees that students are paying; lecturers will say 'this student is no good, kick them off the course' but managers will say 'No, they are paying £3,000/£6,000 per year, we can't afford to get rid of them...and if we do, we might not be able to afford to renew your contract.'
The system stinks and is bordering on being corrupt, and it will simply get worse when fees are increased. But it will be us Lecturers who get slagged off, not the politicians or university managers; it's always the workers or front-line staff in any job who take the flak for idiotic political or managerial decisions.
Okay, I'm curious. When I did my A-Levels at Lewes Tech they had numerous building type courses and these were funded in the same way as my As were i.e. you just applied and someone picked up the tab somewhere. I guess it was the local education authority. This was '85 mind.
User removed 4
New member
what was different about the state of the nations finances in 1987 compared to the present day ?
I pay the 40% tax rate and I didn't go to Uni so it would seem reasonable that everybody that earns approx £37k or above pays the higher tax rate because of what they earn. Add say a 5% for graduates and you pay for your education that has probably allowed you to earn more than me ( don't forgot 40% covers £37k to £150k ).
But who pays the course fees?
but it keeps several hundred thousand off the unemployment statistics and keeps the headline tax rates lower, so that's all good then.
User removed 4
New member
i'm pretty sure most of the people on these courses are on day or block release from building firms which pay the full rate for these courses.
Gazwag
5 millionth post poster
I'm sure the whole thing was different then. In the 80's the minority seemed to need go to university, today it just seems the in thing to do.
With more people looking to work at 16-18 then then now when it is maybe nearer 21-22 (not forgetting those with the financial luxury to "travel" for a year) then there were more taxes available to fund universities.
Last edited:
But by doubling or possibly further increasing tuition fee's, arent the government effectively nudging the possibility for more and more working/middle class Students to go to University?
As I say, I come from an average family, but my parents can't afford to pay my tuition fees, not that i'd expect them too, and I doubt they'd want to take out another loan to help me out. JUST fee's at 6k a year is 18K worth of debt, plus say 4k for your accomodation year one (taking a figure from a brochure i'm flicking through now) and 3k for year two and three, you're already looking at a debt of over 28K. Those accomodation costs are based on self catering, so add on to that living costs, things like bus passes, travel to and from University in breaks etc, and going out and your looking at a worrying amount of money.
I thought University was supposedly available to those from every social class, but what seem's to be happening is the complete opposite, the government reducing the possibility for the less well off.
As I say, I come from an average family, but my parents can't afford to pay my tuition fees, not that i'd expect them too, and I doubt they'd want to take out another loan to help me out. JUST fee's at 6k a year is 18K worth of debt, plus say 4k for your accomodation year one (taking a figure from a brochure i'm flicking through now) and 3k for year two and three, you're already looking at a debt of over 28K. Those accomodation costs are based on self catering, so add on to that living costs, things like bus passes, travel to and from University in breaks etc, and going out and your looking at a worrying amount of money.
I thought University was supposedly available to those from every social class, but what seem's to be happening is the complete opposite, the government reducing the possibility for the less well off.
The gradual erosion of 'free' higher education has been happening for a long long time. Started by Thatcher in 1990-ish, with the introduction of the loan system, and shamefully continued by the party I am a member of with the introduction of tuition fees. Whilst money is more scarse now...the ideology was present during much better and prosperous times.
And this is why I think the current system is so wrong.
Spiros
Well-known member
But if you want a decent university system it's got to be paid for somehow. Originally it was paid for by all taxpayers, whether they benefitted from it or not. So when I was a student in the mid-80s I paid no tuition fees, got a LEA grant and also got housing benefit. The system as it is now puts much more of the cost burden on the person who is benefitting from the course, ie the student. A lot of the costs are only payable if the student actually gets a job paying enough money to have made it worthwhile - it's not like a mortgage or a bank loan, it only gets paid back when you start earning enough to afford it. Is that really that unfair?
BTW - when I was a student there were frequent votes about loans versus grants. Although I got a full grant I personally thought loans were fairer as I didn't see why the tax payer should have to totally fund my drinking, etc when I was there.
BTW - when I was a student there were frequent votes about loans versus grants. Although I got a full grant I personally thought loans were fairer as I didn't see why the tax payer should have to totally fund my drinking, etc when I was there.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 35,412
f*** me people can twist some things. the students loans was originally designed simply to provide loans. (and does noone understand cabinet government?) tuition fees was a brand new idea from Labour, presumably when they realised they couldn't fund 50% uptake. tell everyone to go uni, but take the funding away and make them pay fees. i have honestly never understood the justification to this contradictiary policy, especially from a Labour government.
Exactly, it should be those people they are trying to persuade to go to university, not put them off. If fee's rise to 6-7k I'm not sure i'd even go, just cant see it being worthwhile, even if its to a decent university.
As it stands the bill would only become an act by 5 votes.
Thats assuming
Liberal front benchers abstain as per their Coalition agreement right
Liberal back benchers vote no
Labour all vote no
Conservative all vote yes
No account taken for PC, SNP, Green (who will vote no however) or any of the Nortern Irish parties.
Thats assuming
Liberal front benchers abstain as per their Coalition agreement right
Liberal back benchers vote no
Labour all vote no
Conservative all vote yes
No account taken for PC, SNP, Green (who will vote no however) or any of the Nortern Irish parties.
This.
I'm from a single parent family, my mum earns a fair bob (I think 20k?). I'm entitled and take 20 quid EMA a week.
I'm definately not having Uni funded for me by my parents. At all. The most i will get is a load of washing done for me when i come home during holidays.
Looking at 30k debts just for having an aspiration is insanity.
I'm optimistic it won't effect 2011 entry. I'm also cautiously optimistic that the bill won't even be passed. This bill may well effect scotland so the SNP will be willing to vote on it, and right now a 4 vote margian is tight, allowing for a bit of manuver from all the opposing parties.
Liberal MP's personally pledged to vote no on any bill's that aimed to increace tution fee's.
Superphil
Dismember
If university costs £x, then they have to find the money from somewhere. In the past it was taken from tax revenues.
Nowadays tax revenues have been cut, income tax is over 50% lower than it was a 25 years ago, the money still needs to be found.
If you go to university now and you end up with a debt of say £25k then thank goodness that the basic rate of income tax is only 20% now, and higher rate is 'only' £40%.
25 years ago you would have been paying 30% income tax. If you imagine when you come out of university and get your first job, say your starting salary is £25K PA, you'll pay about £4.5k in income tax. If the tax rate was 30% you would be paying about £7K in tax. So, take the excess £2.5K and use it to pay off your loan.
Job done, and as you start climbing the corporate ladder with your degree education, your earnings will increase, and you'll be able to pay it off even quicker. And hey ho, I won't have been taxed to contribute to your education.
The system has changed, but it doesn't seem to me that you are paying any more than you would have been 25 years ago when it was 'free'.
Nowadays tax revenues have been cut, income tax is over 50% lower than it was a 25 years ago, the money still needs to be found.
If you go to university now and you end up with a debt of say £25k then thank goodness that the basic rate of income tax is only 20% now, and higher rate is 'only' £40%.
25 years ago you would have been paying 30% income tax. If you imagine when you come out of university and get your first job, say your starting salary is £25K PA, you'll pay about £4.5k in income tax. If the tax rate was 30% you would be paying about £7K in tax. So, take the excess £2.5K and use it to pay off your loan.
Job done, and as you start climbing the corporate ladder with your degree education, your earnings will increase, and you'll be able to pay it off even quicker. And hey ho, I won't have been taxed to contribute to your education.
The system has changed, but it doesn't seem to me that you are paying any more than you would have been 25 years ago when it was 'free'.