Violent Protests As Mps Vote To Raise Tuition Fees

[jimbms]

When the uk government decided to call all places of further education "Universities", the reason for doing so was that there was a stigma attached to having a degree from a polytechnic as opposed to a uni. By doing this they cheapened all degrees. At around that time only 10-15% of school leavers went on to further education and those that did on average earned an extra £400,000 over their lifetime. Broon then unofficially raised the school leaving age to 18 to try to force more people into further education. In reality he was trying to reduce the unemployment figures. So these days we are at 45-50% of school leavers going on to further education, and it is estimated that those who do will earn an extra £100,000 over their lifetime. Quite a reduction from the £400,000 when the scheme started. Add to this the £40,000 debt that they will leave uni with and it is hardly worth the bother.

I have to agree on this but also add the factor that many will not be inclined to take a job just above the threshold for repayment of the student loan and many will be tempted to emigrate to avoid paying back this debt so for all those who have gone to uni we will find the top end of this generation will simply piss of to a place where they are not being fleeced leaving the UK with those who could not do this and resent the fact they have to pay back all this money so they take a lower paid job. The ones who did not go to uni but had some brains and instead did HND or similar in trades have found that they are in short supply so are cashing in and fleecing those who need them and quite right too because someone has to pay for the deliberate decline in trades people due to governments making school leavers believe it is not a worthwhile future. In simple terms a generation have been conned and let down by successive governments since the late 80's and both parties are as bad as each other and now society is suffering especially the younger generation.

[Alex]

 

It's always interesting the way so many people view it as a case of them subsidising some generic mass of pesky ungrateful students. Surely an equally valid view is that the tax you pay towards higher education entitles your children, members of your own family, or even yourself to take advantage of the same support.

 

Maybe an equally valid view, however in the economic situation we're in we need to cut back on taxpayer expenses, and I believe that free education until 18 is good enough, very good in fact, and that it is fair enough for those who choose to continue their education beyond this age to be expected to pay for it once they're in a decent job. Especially in this manner; only paying back once you earn over a certain sum, paying through your tax code etc etc

Besides which, your point entirely ignores the whole substance of the debate regarding fees: such as the possibility of such higher fees making a fair subsection of higher education the preserve of mainly the wealthy, the potential for fees to have a deleterious effect on the whole ethos of higher education (in accelerating the shift of focus away from education and towards fees chasing diploma mills), and so on.

 

I imagine it is very similar to that you describe already - the percentage of people in sink estates that go to Uni compared to the percentage of those from middle class households for example? Why aren't people ranting about that? Of course the possibility of higher education only being taken up by the rich does concern me, however I feel that given the manner of paying it back there should still be a take-up of Uni places by those without castles and palaces. I suppose we’ll see, if that really does become a big problem then it will need to be looked at I guess.

 

What is it that you expect? For everyone to become scientists and CEO's (in which case they'd probably be off Island for the rest of their lives)?

No, just making the point that far too many people go to Uni these days, people study idiotic courses that have no relevance to real life and it's a waste of taxpayers money sending them there - ie let them pay for it themselves if they want to.

 

That makes it sound like you begrudge contributing to primary and secondary education.

Yeah? Well that's not the case, I think our free education system is brilliant. I just don't think it should necessarily continue once you've been educated up to the age of 18/A level standard. We have to pay to do IOM college courses, I'm personally currently paying to study a diploma to get qualified for a job I want to do and have been for a few years now. Why should some people pay and not others?

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Maybe an equally valid view, however in the economic situation we're in...

Sorry, but that isn't a good enough excuse. We are in a shitty economic situation, but that's not the fault of those who want to further their education. That all our fault for allowing such a situation to arise by way of being relatively content at how economy was running and resigned to some of the worst effects of it. How many others need be take the 'hit' because of our nonchalance?

 

No, just making the point that far too many people go to Uni these days, people study idiotic courses that have no relevance to real life and it's a waste of taxpayers money sending them there - ie let them pay for it themselves if they want to.

What courses do you mean?

 

Why should some people pay and not others?

Firstly, if there is no free education people would far more likely only have a thorough education in what they do for work. And in any case, I believe that employers should be paying for the training required specifically for the workplace, not individuals.

 

Unless you are pretty well off I wouldn't think that you should pay for your college course.

[Terse]

LINK

 

Police 'alerted protesting mob to royal car'

 

 

Police outriders alerted a mob to a royal car by honking their horns and riding "aggressively" towards them, an eyewitness said today.

 

A convoy carrying Prince Charles and the Duchess of Cornwall was "well behind" the group of student tuition fee protesters who surrounded the vehicles, it was claimed.

 

But when motorcycle outriders tried to push their way through on their way to the London Palladium, demonstrators turned on the distinctive Rolls-Royce Phantom VI.

[Evil Goblin]

Sorry, but that isn't a good enough excuse. We are in a shitty economic situation, but that's not the fault of those who want to further their education. That all our fault for allowing such a situation to arise by way of being relatively content at how economy was running and resigned to some of the worst effects of it. How many others need be take the 'hit' because of our nonchalance?

LDV - suggest you refer to Exodus 20 v5 and other references in Numbers 14, Deuteronomy 5 and Jeremiah 32 - all true in this world, I'm afraid. It's a very old saying and not unique to the Judeo-Christian tradition (For the sins of your fathers you, though guiltless, must suffer." - Horace, "Odes," III, 6, l. 1.

[Alex]

Sorry, but that isn't a good enough excuse. We are in a shitty economic situation, but that's not the fault of those who want to further their education. That all our fault for allowing such a situation to arise by way of being relatively content at how economy was running and resigned to some of the worst effects of it. How many others need be take the 'hit' because of our nonchalance?

Sorry, but I do not agree. Taking tax off people who are struggling financially and using it to pay other people to better themselves & get themselves nice well-paid jobs doesn’t sit well with me. Personally I think it’s a better system for students to pay back what they took out – as and when they are earning enough.

 

What courses do you mean?

Sociology, Sports Science, Media Studies, David Beckham Studies etc etc – try googling “mickey mouse degrees” for further examples.

 

And in any case, I believe that employers should be paying for the training required specifically for the workplace, not individuals.

That is up to the employers and individuals concerned to decide, surely. What an odd thing to have a blanket opinion on. The course I am doing is not relevant to my current job, so I'm paying to study it, better myself & get a different (better paid) position. Why wouldn't I pay for that myself? It's not so hard to do, and I am by no means rich. I've also been on several evening courses through, about & paid for by work, plus I've paid myself for courses such as guitar and Spanish classes. It's all education, and it's not free.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Are you saying that people should carry the problems of their elders or that it is something that has always gone on?

[Evil Goblin]

Are you saying that people should carry the problems of their elders or that it is something that has always gone on?

It isn't a case of whether people should or should not carry the problems bequeathed to them by their elders - it is simply the way the world inevitably works. We have created a particular set of circumstances and for better or worse our children, grandchildren, etc. inherit that world as we've made it, with all the consequences, good or bad.

[jimbms]

And in any case, I believe that employers should be paying for the training required specifically for the workplace, not individuals.

What do you think an apprenticeship is? The only problem being is some want more than what is offered but then get upset when nobody will pay for it.

[La_Dolce_Vita]

Yeah, an apprenticeship is one example. I mean that overall there should be far far more emphasis on passing on the responsibility and costs for training onto the employers.

[jimbms]

Yeah, an apprenticeship is one example. I mean that overall there should be far far more emphasis on passing on the responsibility and costs for training onto the employers.

I think you woill find a lot of companies do offer some quite good training packages, what people seem to object to is the quite reasonable condition that if the company is willing to spend a few grand on training then they want some commitment that the employee will stay for a reasonable period or repay the costs.

[VinnieK]

in the economic situation we're in we need to cut back on taxpayer expenses,

 

Indeed, we do. However, I would argue that higher education isn't one of them. For a start, the UK spend on higher education has been below the OECD average for decades, with spending on infrastructure particularly lagging behind. Secondly, higher education really doesn't cost that much at all: being just over 1% of Government revenue. Thirdly, as common as it is to decry high student numbers, the number of students in UKHE isn't significantly higher than many of their European counterparts.

 

So, all in all the current cuts to higher education, which are not going to be made up by fees, represent a cut to a sector that's already suffering long term underinvestment, one that's not even terribly expensive, and comes at a time when a number of our European competitors are actually increasing their funding.

 

Despite the impact on higher education, which will be serious, these cuts will save the UK somewhere between piss all and bugger all in the grand scheme of things. But it makes good copy and Westminster can be seen to be doing something without alienating too many people, it is a foolish PR exercise that sadly seems to have worked.

 

I imagine it is very similar to that you describe already - the percentage of people in sink estates that go to Uni compared to the percentage of those from middle class households for example? Why aren't people ranting about that?

 

They did, back in the day when the grants were being abolished and when tuition fees were first introduced. The trouble is neither the media nor the public could have given a toss, and they still don't: By far the focus has been on the riots rather than the issues. Additionally, saying "why aren't people "ranting" about that?" serves no purpose: Just because nothing was done then doesn't then mean something shouldn't be done now.

 

Say the fees do have an effect, and say five years down the line the government decides to remove the cap on fees in their entirity. What then? Are we just going to once again point to the existing and previous inequality and glibly (and erroneously) remark "Oh well, why weren't we ranting about it then?"

 

however I feel that given the manner of paying it back there should still be a take-up of Uni places by those without castles and palaces. I suppose we'll see, if that really does become a big problem then it will need to be looked at I guess.

 

What is it with the silly extremes, as if there's only three classes of people in the UK: The landed gentry, middle classes, and those living in sink estates? There's a reason reductio ad absurdum has a bad reputation.

 

More to the point, it's not simply a matter of paying it back. The current scheme clearly benefits the wealthy more than it does anyone else, simply because it allows them to pay off their loans up front or at least long before any interest begins to bite. Don't forget, the fees are still below market rate, and there's still a government subsidy there: is it really fair and right that the students of wealthy parents are going to be subsidised to the same degree as those of poorer families, when in addition to this fees are likely to be more of a burden to the latter?

 

No, just making the point that far too many people go to Uni these days, people study idiotic courses that have no relevance to real life and it's a waste of taxpayers money sending them there - ie let them pay for it themselves if they want to.

 

The 'relevance' of degrees has already been covered a few pages back. But I'd be interested in what you deemed relevant? The vast majority of degrees have no immediate relevance to what people call real life, or are so specialized in application that for the majority of people studying them there is no relevance to what they're going to end up doing. This applies equally to mathematics, physics, chemistry and so on as it does history, literature or philosophy.

 

If you want 'relevant' degrees, then that's tourism management, marketing, and a lot of other courses that tend to get people foaming at the mouth crying "micky mouse" like someone who had a trauma at disneyland.

 

We have to pay to do IOM college courses, I'm personally currently paying to study a diploma to get qualified for a job I want to do and have been for a few years now. Why should some people pay and not others?

 

Well, I suppose an argument could be made that diplomas cost an awful lot less than a full degree, and tend to be studied by those already in a career and who have source of income of their own to fund it, unlike 19 year olds fresh out of school.

 

However, I do tend to agree with you on this. I would like to see at least more in the way of subsidised professional courses being run on the Island, and I think it would generally be in the Island's benefit to do so. Perhaps instead of demanding others suffer the same obstacles you do, it would be better to argue for greater investment in all education at the expense of things like wasteful capital spending.

[Max Power]

Education is the cornerstone of any industrialised society. Depriving people of it is criminal and building up huge problems for the future!

 

I was taliking to a student teacher who, when he graduates, will owe £51,000 to the UK government! This is madness, it's a throwback to the days when only the rich upperclasses could afford to go to university. A typical Conservative policy!

 

Although there probably were non student troublemakers in their midst, how else does any group attract the attention of government and the media in this country? For the media to have majored on the trouble makers in this makes you wonder who is pulling their strings!

[jimbms]

I think what is being overlooked here is not the fact that everyone has the right to higher education at reasonable or no cost if they wish it but the fact is the UK is virtually going bust and no matter how much everyone shouts there is no money for it the same reason all the quangos and arts funding is being decimated, the pension bill is going up, the benefit payouts are going up and the higher earners and industry are pissed of with rising costs in the UK so are pissing off elsewhere therefore national income is falling, the place is going tits up, no matter which party was in power not one of them could sort this, what they needed was an all party coalition then that way there would be less fighting and more agreement on how to save and regrow.

[Drivel]

I think what is being overlooked here is not the fact that everyone has the right to higher education at reasonable or no cost if they wish it but the fact is the UK is virtually going bust and no matter how much everyone shouts there is no money for it the same reason all the quangos and arts funding is being decimated, the pension bill is going up, the benefit payouts are going up and the higher earners and industry are pissed of with rising costs in the UK so are pissing off elsewhere therefore national income is falling, the place is going tits up, no matter which party was in power not one of them could sort this, what they needed was an all party coalition then that way there would be less fighting and more agreement on how to save and regrow.

 

Exactly - there is just no money left to provide subsidised education for everyone. Especially all of the pointless degrees that a lot of people take these days only to go and work in an office at entry level which they could have done at 16-17 anyway. I used to work for the biggest Bank based on the island and the amount of 21 year olds who started working there straight from Uni was startling. They has all sorts of Social Sciences/Sports Sciences etc degrees and never had any intention of using them as they were always planning on getting a job in a bank, they just wanted to have fun for a few years off island. The IOM taxpayer paid for this!

 

What I also think is overlooked is why people are so afraid of working whilst they are at university instead of owing the government £50k + by the time they leave uni. Most people I know at uni have on average 3-4 lectures a week and could easily work 30+ hours and still have plenty of time for studying. If I was in a position where I would be owing thousands for my education I wouldn't hesitate to work at McDonalds for a few years whilst studying if it meant my future debt would be reduced.