MSE News: Parents' anger over tuition fees U-turn

zagubov

Taiko wrote: »

Name me a couple internationally acclaimed universities within those countries?

The nearest to the top in any rankings I've seen has been Copenhagen, and that's at #51.

Then factor in the domestic population, as that will make up the core of the student body. Students will usually go overseas based on prestige, although cost is now starting to creep into it. With some more famous universities in Scotland, there would be an increase in their applications.

Have to also factor in the number of English students who already go north of the border for university. With all those factors, I wouldn't think Scotland could afford it.

Dead easy I'd have thought. Just scrap the S6 year of secondary school and switch the money to the HE budget. What's the point of aping the A level system and keeping people in education until they're 22 at taxpayers expense? If it ain't broke, don't fix it.;)

Or start the academic year so it runs from January to November like in the OU in Scotland (and the UK for that matter).:D

animalhouse

and how long do you really think that interest rates on the student loans will remain low? Give it two years and they'll be up to the 'market rate'.
I really don't think that this government (or a proportion of the British public) understand how important education is to the well being of the country as a whole.

amstel2

We all know that politicians tell lies but in Clegg's & other snr Lib Dems case. When you physically sign a written pledge not to increase fees & stand their parading saId document in front of the media that takes the deceit to another level. Also when it comes to light that this pledge that has been a cornerstone of your party manifesto for several yrs was a lie all along. Apparently snr party members knew before the election it could never be kept well say no more.

The NUS should have pursued Clegg & co for breach of contract (it was a signed doc after all).

I think in 2015 Clegg will pay for his lies & lead the Liberals bk to 60s/70s when their parliamentary representation was in single figures. Especially with his failed attempt to get the AV voting system. I think he will end up in the Tory party in some capacity.

brummierebel

mr_jrt wrote: »

If you didn't want tuition fees you should have voted for a Lib Dem majority then. They didn't win so had to compromise. I fail to see why so many seemingly intelligent people have trouble understanding this simple concept.

In truth, the 9K is on such advantageous terms it's basically a graduate tax in all but name. I'm still paying off my post-1998 fees (2001-2004, fyi) and will be doing so for the next 10 years at the very least. It's not a great hardship as the interest rate is very, very low...and the new 9K loans have even better terms.

Ideally there would be no fees...but I view the the compromise that was made as taking the sting out of the worst that could have happened.

You are getting rather confused. As an individual I can only vote Lib Dem, and hope that enough other people vote Lib Dem so they will get a majority.

This is not about the Lib Dem manifesto. That was to abolish tuition fees. This was about the NUS pledge that prospective parliamentary candidates were asked to sign to vote against an increase. This is a significant difference. The Lib Dems asked all of their PPCs to sign it.

It is natural that, not having gained a majority, the Lib Dems would be unable to abolish tuition fees, especially given both main parties had conspired to produce the Browne review to raise tuition fees. However, an acceptable compromise would therefore have been to keep the current system in place. Thus they could have satisfied the pledge and still compromised on their manifesto. Presumably they would have voted against a rise if they were in majority government or in opposition. It was natural therefore to expect them to vote against the rise when their votes really counted, as part of a minority or coalition government, which was the most likely outcome before the election (so likely I bet on it). To not do so was a terrible betrayal - what is the point of promising to vote for something if you are not going to do it when it actually matters?

Another point is that your interest rate is very low - it is currently capped at Bank of England base rate + 1%. The new system is inflation +3%, off the top of my head currently around 4.5 percentage points higher.

I don't think these MPs should stand down at the next election. I want to see the likes of Nick Clegg and John Hemming lose their seats at the hands of the electorate. That is what they deserve.

Pee

There are bigger priorities for me than student's tuition fees.

In fairness, I am not a parent, but I am a voter. I am not in any way anti students, but as someone who struggled to go to University with parental help under the old system I see student loans being a huge step forward in terms of allowing people greater independence from their parents whilst continuing their education.

In my opinion there are too many places on too many courses so that graduates are churned out without enough "graduate calibre" jobs for them, which is unfair on them. It is pointless investing in your future if you are one of three people who will be chasing after one job. It would be kinder to limit the places and let people look at other options at age 18.

That said, in an ideal world tuition fees should be free to students. It just can't be as much as a priority as jobs for people or the NHS.

The_Jakal

When will people realise that tuition fees are not as bad as first thought. Ok, nobody wants debt and nobody wants the daunting facet of borrowing all of that money but there is a fair system where you only pay back what you earn.

I am 100% against charging for university but at least we do not have a fully privatised system such as in the US where students have to take out private loans in many cases to pay for tuition.

I am aware that this post is more about whether we should allow politicians to pull the wool over our eyes every 4 years but it's a harsh reality. If you don't take everything they say with a pinch of salt anyway then more fool you!

JimmyTheWig

The_Jakal wrote: »

When will people realise that tuition fees are not as bad as first thought.

That's not the point. They still did exactly what they said they wouldn't.

I am aware that this post is more about whether we should allow politicians to pull the wool over our eyes every 4 years but it's a harsh reality. If you don't take everything they say with a pinch of salt anyway then more fool you!

Exactly. But it shouldn't be that way.

The_Jakal

I completely agree that it shouldn't be that way.

I actually think that they should be held to account for bending the truth and leading us along (as should many people in society)!

amstel2

At the end of the day we live in an elected dictatorship. Every 4 to 5 yrs the westminster/Oxbridge/public school toffs .Take their noses out of the trough for 4 wks, parade round the country on a political beauty contest, tell lies, then squel back to their trough in Westminster.

Then they prattle on about those poor lads in Afghanastan "fighting for freedom" against an enemy supplied in the 80s by us & the Americans. Then said lads come back to a survellance state that would have made the Stasi proud where personal freedom & free speech is being eroded all the time & ruled by a Westminster/ Brussels elite.

Funny how muggers etc when caught take months to come to court & get slapped on the wrist but say the wrong thing on Twitter in Kangaroo court in days & banged up for months.

Time for a lie down.