Help With Student Loans - HERE!

moob_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

When education was free and grants were available, only 10% of the population went to university, now it's almost 40% Can you guarantee that you wouldn't have been in that 30% who couldn't go?

Don't know where those figures came from, but, the 40% figure is undoubtedly skewed by the fact a large number of former colleges are now classed as Universities.

There has also been a significant cultural shift that can account for the difference - there's more acceptance for it to be the norm for kids to go into higher education.

moob_2

The_One_Who wrote: »

Why should non-compulsory education be free? Personally, I think you should be grateful that you aren't paying the full cost of a degree. £3,500 might buy the library a year's subscription to a journal. Do you want to pay to have access to all the journals you'll use? Do you want to have to buy every article you'll ever need, or every book you'll ever read?

There are a plethora of factors as to why higher education should be free - as it was years ago, far too many to go into on this thread.

The fact is it used to be free, and there was no reason to change it.

Oldernotwiser

moob wrote: »

Don't know where those figures came from, but, the 40% figure is undoubtedly skewed by the fact a large number of former colleges are now classed as Universities.

There has also been a significant cultural shift that can account for the difference - there's more acceptance for it to be the norm for kids to go into higher education.

In this context, the title of the institution doesn't matter, it's degree level study that's being discussed. I'm totally aware of the reasons for the expansion of HE but my original point still stands. When education was free and there were grants, far fewer people studied at this level; you can't have both!

Oldernotwiser

moob wrote: »

The fact is it used to be free, and there was no reason to change it.

As I pointed out in my other post, of course there were reasons to change it! The country may be able to fully fund HE for 10% of its population, it sure as hell can't afford to fund 4 times that number!

The_One_Who

Lots of things used to be free that now aren't. The NHS for one. Or what about milk for school children? Heaven forbid that I should have to pay 5p for a carton of plain milk.

In Scotland there are 50% of school leavers going into higher education (but I think this has dropped to just below that now), with England and Wales reaching roughly 45%. It doesn't matter if an ex-poly is now a university, it doesn't change the point that there are more and more people going to university. Or should only those going to pre-1992 universities get their education free since they are not going an ex-poly?

moob_2

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

As I pointed out in my other post, of course there were reasons to change it! The country may be able to fully fund HE for 10% of its population, it sure as hell can't afford to fund 4 times that number!

I understand and agree with your point - not fully however - as I believe that there was no need to completely abolish the grants system - those more in need should have assistance.

We seem to be embroiled in some kind of debate regards the rights and wrongs of a free education system on a thread where this topic perhaps shouldn't be encouraged as it's detracting from the main purpose of the subject matter. It's a far more indepth topic than you seem to give credit to.

moob_2

The_One_Who wrote: »

Lots of things used to be free that now aren't. The NHS for one. Or what about milk for school children? Heaven forbid that I should have to pay 5p for a carton of plain milk.

In Scotland there are 50% of school leavers going into higher education (but I think this has dropped to just below that now), with England and Wales reaching roughly 45%. It doesn't matter if an ex-poly is now a university, it doesn't change the point that there are more and more people going to university. Or should only those going to pre-1992 universities get their education free since they are not going an ex-poly?

You're being pedantic and deliberately missing the point. As I alluded to in my previous reply, this is a not the subject matter of the thread in question and is probably best left to lie, especially considering you seem to want to debate the wider aspects of government funding which has even less relevance to the subject matter.

Promises were made and broken by politicians in relation to the topic, which is where I take issue.

Oldernotwiser

moob wrote: »

It's a far more indepth topic than you seem to give credit to.

I'm happy to let the topic drop; as you say, it's off topic. However, having spent virtually the whole of my working life in and around FE and HE I am fully aware of how complex the issue is. I was keeping it simple so that you could understand it!

Oldernotwiser

moob wrote: »

Promises were made and broken by politicians in relation to the topic, which is where I take issue.

But they weren't! You got hold of the wrong end of the stick and thought that the interest rate was only 1% and that repayments were deducted annually. That's your problem, not the politicians'!

The_One_Who

Politicians also make and break promises every day. I'm surprised that this comes as a shock to you. Quite frankly, there are bigger things to take issue with regarding the government.