Tories showing their true colours again.

angrypirate

chucky wrote: »

that's the point, we're going to not allow a potential student to study to get a degree if the student/family cannot fund the education.

how can that be a good thing?? allowing people with more money or a better ability to pay to get a degree instead of others who cannot pay or cannot afford to pay.

of course it's limited and with it being limited the government is going to cut off the ability of many to get a better education by their ability to pay and not their intelligence.

don't forget - "we're in this together".... no wait...

Have you considered this -
1. the government, by way of the long term student loan, is ensuring everyone is able to get access to the funds for their degree.
2. There are a number of pointless degrees out there that do not increase earning potential.
3. Potential students for these courses are no longer bothering to go to uni due to the huge debt they will get themselves into for no realistic job benefit as their earning potential will be no better with these "degrees".

I do think that the fees are way too high, but in having the fee high it ensures the people who go to uni are those who are serious about studying something worthwhile. If you are bright you can still go to uni regardless of your financial background - the idea being that if you are, you will get a decent job and be able to afford to pay the loan back

chucky

angrypirate wrote: »

I do think that the fees are way too high

exactly, by having higher fees we're automatically deterring people from wanting to be educating themselves at university level due to the financial burden they will put on themselves, parents and family.

people will automatically say that these people aren't the right people for university but it doesn't work like that - students simply won't want to go to university because of the high cost.

ILW

ninky wrote: »

i wouldn't want to be saddled with that amount of debt before i even started working, would you? that's before you even start to look at the costs of getting on the housing ladder or building any sort of life.

I would love it if someone were to offer me a loan that I only had to pay back if I could afford it. If someone has the brains and the drive, they can go to university. If they think it,s not worth the hassle, then fair enough, nobody is forcing you to.

robin_banks

chucky wrote: »

exactly, by having higher fees we're automatically deterring people from wanting to be educating themselves at university level due to the financial burden they will put on themselves, parents and family.

people will automatically say that these people aren't the right people for university but it doesn't work like that - students simply won't want to go to university because of the high cost.

Spot on. But whoever came up with this policy is a special brand if idiot.

They will have simultaenously dettered many from going to University whilst coming up with a policy that is unaffordable.

Blinding, truly bucking flinding.

robin_banks

angrypirate wrote: »

Have you considered this -
1. the government, by way of the long term student loan, is ensuring everyone is able to get access to the funds for their degree.
2. There are a number of pointless degrees out there that do not increase earning potential.
3. Potential students for these courses are no longer bothering to go to uni due to the huge debt they will get themselves into for no realistic job benefit as their earning potential will be no better with these "degrees".

I do think that the fees are way too high, but in having the fee high it ensures the people who go to uni are those who are serious about studying something worthwhile. If you are bright you can still go to uni regardless of your financial background - the idea being that if you are, you will get a decent job and be able to afford to pay the loan back

Get a degree, do a science based phd, work like stink for this, earn 20 grand, beautiful. On the up side you won't be paying back your loan......hence my comments about the governments unaffordability. This is not saving the taxpayer money. Nor is it benefitting the student.

lostinrates

chewmylegoff wrote: »

perhaps, but it would only be good if the people who can't get in are all rich and could afford to go anyway.

say there are 100 places at oxbridge and you need AAAA to get in.

say there are 200 people who get AAAA.

so, only 100 are going to get places at oxbridge.

but, of the 100 who didn't get in, 5 say "by the way here is a lot of money" and they get in as well. the other 95 cannot afford the cost, and they are left outside.

i don't think this would be a good thing, personally.

the other problem with this policy is that it could lead universities to effectively means test students, such that they reject all of the rich ones, and then say "oh but why don't you buy one of our special places". fine if you're loaded, but not if you are merely wealthier than average.

All of this already happens.


Those whose parents have money and don't get into the ''good'' unis here go to Ivy league ones often enough. That money could stay in UK economy, boosting prospects of homegrown students and future workers.

(fwiw I also think ''diverse'' study is valuable, and think its important the playing ground between all full fee paying students should be equal).

Also worth noting is not all parents able to be provident will be.

lostinrates

ninky wrote: »

then i'm struggling to see what they are suggesting. either everyone has to meet the same criteria of achievement to be accepted or they don't. if someone meets the same criteria of achievement as another applicant why would they volunteer to pay more?

They are suggesting a level playing ground between students who can pay full fees...from here or abroad, but the current selection (including protecting quotas of disadvantaged students) remain.

Mr_Mumble

The ASI blog post on this issue, effectively saying what I have but more succinctly

ninky wrote: »

if you think the level of debt being proposed by the new system is not prohibitive to many then you are daft.

That's a different discussion. This particular proposal doesn't change the level of debt students will have.

I actually agree that it's scandalous that higher education funding is being cut before a whole host of other government expenditure. I'd slash hundreds of billions before touching higher education (including scrapping the 250,000 "teaching assistants" non-jobs that have been created over the past decade). The political classes (I include Labour along with the Lib Dems and Tories here) have decided to go with a US style higher ed system. Ridiculous considering the tax take in Britain compared to the US imho.

chucky wrote: »

that's the point, we're going to not allow a potential student to study to get a degree if the student/family cannot fund the education.

But they can fund the education. Whether they can pay for the education is a matter for years after their graduation.

how can that be a good thing??

It stops people who choose not to attend university from funding those who choose to attend university to take David Beckham studies! It makes the student think about the financial consequences of deciding where and what to study.

This is "unfair" in inter-generational terms but as in my reply to ninky this is unrelated to whether or not someone buying their tuition impacts on someone who gets a subsidy, via the state, for tuition.

Atom

mbga9pgf wrote: »

No it doesnt. Intelligent successful people make their own luck; socialists whine and gripe why its "not fair for them".

:spam:

What a load of dribble.

lostinrates

angrypirate wrote: »

Have you considered this -
1. the government, by way of the long term student loan, is ensuring everyone is able to get access to the funds for their degree.

I agree with this. I do also agree with others that the high fees are offputting to many who are those who nee to be least put off.

2. There are a number of pointless degrees out there that do not increase earning potential.

This is true. And if people want to fund themselves on them, that's fine by me. Its these degrees that least serve those who have less financial support and need the degree to earn itself (by far the majority of students I'd have thought!) and have disillusioned soe of my peers, certainly.

3. Potential students for these courses are no longer bothering to go to uni due to the huge debt they will get themselves into for no realistic job benefit as their earning potential will be no better with these "degrees".

I do think that the fees are way too high, but in having the fee high it ensures the people who go to uni are those who are serious about studying something worthwhile. If you are bright you can still go to uni regardless of your financial background - the idea being that if you are, you will get a decent job and be able to afford to pay the loan back

I hope people are not put off the ''right'' course, and I fear this may be the case. I don't know how affordable it is. Its important its talked about thoroughly but if it really is affordable my fear is people saying to people whose aspiration hopes are borderline and whose ability is anything but will be put off simply by everyone saying its too much.

Financial background most certainly should not be the deciding factor for an individual: financial future however should be relevant to the majority.