didnt it?
Have students actually got anything to complain about?
- Thread starter Van Hellseek
- Start date
didnt it?
Ok, let me put it another way, did the Lib Dem Government go back on its promise?
The Liberal Democrat Mps did
not the government.
No promises where made by anybody actually in the government at the time they made them.
Precisely. The Lib Dems said that they would not raise tuition fees if they were elected. But they werent elected, a coalition was formed instead. So "the government" hasnt gone back on its promise because the government we currently have never made a promise not to raise tuition fees.
according to the news:
Labour leader Ed Miliband says it's a "bad day for families and young people across the country". He adds that the Lib Dem decision to go back on their pre-election pledge to vote against tuition fee hikes damages trust against politicians in general.
edit:
ok i see your point, its because we have a coalition government
So where there does it say the government promised?
(and on a side note, I think that Labour are the absolute last people who should be condemning other politicians for damaging the publics trust in politicians)
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
One of the issues that I have is that people act like this doesn't affect them. The current students are the people most likely to be net tax contributors and therefore paying for your state pension/healthcare etc when you retire. We need skilled people to contribute to the whole country's economy.
i agree
but we need a whole range of skills, some of them based on higher education and some of them not
(example, plumbers who don't have degrees yet are higher rate tax payers)
I am not against higher education and agree we need it, i am just questioning why students assume it should be free
Completely agree with this.
On top of that this tuition fees reform will actually make education free for many students who are unsuccessful in their careers (eg not earning enough money to pay back at all). They turn 53, their debt is cancelled, 66 and guys who paid off their quite large student debts are paying for his healthcare now.
Is this what you agree with? I don't see how that helps economy at all.
You either don't understand how this system works or assume that education is free until you pay for it fully.
There are many highly skilled workers who earn more than highly educated lot, judging by your logic, why would the graduates have to pay for their education if it's not worth it? Let's all become plumbers.
I mean seriously, if this country stops supporting higher education, its economy will quickly fall behind other European countries not even mentioning emerging markets of the Far East.
I will have emigrated by then so it doesnt affect me
But it will affect those who you've left behind.
Last edited:
Not me. I have enough provision paid for by myself and the covenant I have with the State regarding my service to it.
Besides whether they are net contributors or not is immaterial and let's remember some of the highest earners have no degree and being skilled doesn't necessarily mean you have to attend a University or acquire a degree.
The proposals allow for those on modest income to repay very little in contributions to their education and those who are fiscally successful contribute a very small percentage of their income toward their education. A very significant proportion of the actual cost of their degree is still being met by the taxpayer.
Even at £9k the fees at Oxford for example for full fee paying students range from £12500/annum to £28000/annum. This shortfall comes from both the University itself and the Government. The split between taxpayer and student will be estimated to be 40/60 in favour of the Taxpayer.
Is it not fair that the person who benefits most contributes most.
Last edited:
Screw 'em , dont care about them
I'll miss you.
What's changed? you will end up better off going to university after these changes than currently?
That is only if you value the success of an individual only in fiscal terms. That seems to be rather crass in my opinion.
As for healthcare, do you suggest that we treat people according to their net tax contribution?
Yet the state is still contributing to higher education, they are only increasing the amount that the one who benefit the most fiscally from that education contribute a proportion to it.
I don't think you understand how the system will work, nothing is free, someone has to pay and it is only fair that those who benefit contribute and this include both the taxpayer and the individual themselves. The proposed system does this.
Most of which charge fees for higher education. Also higher education is not being supported only by students, fees would be three times the highest proposed level for that to be the case.
Frankly Dolph I do not think that many have the gumption to realise this, they see the headlines and run about like headless chickens clucking about this and that without actually looking at the figures or the reality of the amounts they will repay given an averaged set of circumstances.
I despair at what the average student's ability to reason seems to be, I look at people like my brother who did go to University and is currently back at Oxford studying in fact and wonder whether the future graduate will be of that calibre or whether universal access has damaged it beyond repair.
Nail and Head
all the people they have found willing to speak have done nothing but reinforce this opinion due to their obvious ignorance on the real issues here.
Yeah I have that effect on people, they long for me after I'm gone
Hahahahaha. Excellent retort....
Oh come on, you can do better than that, you are almost trolling
For a start, redecorating is never nessecary whilst for many professions further education is. Secondly, tiling your bathroom certainly shouldn't be setting you back more than a grand, let alone almost fifty. Almost no one has the assets lying around to pay for university themselves on the spot.
Who has said it should be free?
Nobody minds contributing towards their higher education - I don't think education should be entirely 'free'.
How do you come to that conclusion? For someone like myself I would be paying back a much greater debt over a longer period. Someone on OCUK has already mentioned they are forking back ~£300 a month on their student debt and now people will be paying that back (although at a slightly reduced rate) for over twice as long.
You can argue that the changes are fair, but saying graduates will be genuinely better off is a total fib.