Tuition fees

[AJK]

I've grown up to realise that I am 100% right, 100% of the time.

Ah, I've figured out what you do now; you're a politician. AKA, a professional ******** artist.

The sooner this myth that people need and should go to uni stops the better of we will be.

I really don't think you can blame some "myth that people need and should go to uni" for your poor decision-making. Nobody is forced to do A-Levels, or to go to University. It's completely true that our educational system is incredibly skewed towards academic rather than vocational performance, but I don't recall being brainwashed in school with bright lights and pictures of universities. People can and should make their own choices, consulting with their teachers, career advisers, friends, colleagues and parents as needed.

I know plenty of people who chose not to go to University. I don't think I'm unusual in that regard.

 

[Irish_Tom]

RDM, it depends entirely on the alternatives to HE.

If there were suitable apprenticeships for skilled professions that meant you could reach the top without a degree it would help immensely. Then we wouldn't be so reliant on degrees which means fewer people would 'need' to go to uni…

 

[elmarko]

So what are the alternatives?

Fund it out of general taxation and make it free, effectively you end up increasing tax to pay for it (or cutting other services).

You increase taxes on those most able to shoulder the additional costs (I include myself in that sub-group).

It's not hard, we have more than enough money - just too much of it resides within the hands of too few.

We all benefit from having a well educated population & would all reap the benefits of increasing meaningful education.

I do agree we need to move away from just the standard university academic side & increasing the availability of worthwhile apprenticeships in many other discipline's (as it's only one path) but I don't think we should be adding debt to the standard university model which could result in putting off people who are well suited to university.

Paying taxes for future investment is a smart thing to do, education is one of those things we really shouldn't be shying away from spending good money on to get the best out of it.

 

[Glaucus]

I really don't think you can blame some "myth that people need and should go to uni" for your poor decision-making. Nobody is forced to do A-Levels, or to go to University. It's completely true that our educational system is incredibly skewed towards academic rather than vocational performance, but I don't recall being brainwashed in school with bright lights and pictures of universities. People can and should make their own choices, consulting with their teachers, career advisers, friends, colleagues and parents as needed.

I know plenty of people who chose not to go to University. I don't think I'm unusual in that regard.

Lol, of course it is. What do you think common consensus is. You don't need flashing lights to be brain washed. You just have too be bombarded constantly. Which very much happens.

 

[RDM]

You increase taxes on those most able to shoulder the additional costs (I include myself in that sub-group).

It's not hard, we have more than enough money - just too much of it resides within the hands of too few.

What level of taxation would you like to see?

We all benefit from having a well educated population & would all reap the benefits of increasing meaningful education.

Thought the person that benefits most from a (decent) university education is the graduate, should they not help pay for that advantage?

Which is pretty much what the tuition fees system does.

 

[Castiel]

You increase taxes on those most able to shoulder the additional costs (I include myself in that sub-group).

Which is effectively what the current student loan system does...it is effectively a limited liability tax which is repaid according to a lower limit in earnings. If you earn more, you repay more, up until that limited liability figure is reached...you are effectively helping to subsidise your own education and increased earnings potential....we should be investing more in education, however not to the detriment of everyone who may not want or need to attend University, but needs education from other sources such as apprenticeships and vocational education schemes.

 

[AJK]

Lol, of course it is. What do you think common consensus is. You don't need flashing lights to be brain washed. You just have too be bombarded constantly. Which very much happens.

So, do you buy everything you see advertised on television as well?

I don't believe there is a "common consensus" that people must go to University. Like I said, it's true that our educational system is massively skewed towards academic achievement and always completing the next set of entrance exams for the next educational level, and that there are far fewer opportunities than there should be for school-sponsored vocational training, work experience and/or apprenticeships. But despite all that, I have never been told at any point in my life in education that I must go on to the next level whether I want to or not.

Perhaps your teachers, and parents/guardians failed you on this, and forced you into a system you didn't want or need to be in?

 

[Theophany]

You increase taxes on those most able to shoulder the additional costs (I include myself in that sub-group).

It's not hard, we have more than enough money - just too much of it resides within the hands of too few.

We all benefit from having a well educated population & would all reap the benefits of increasing meaningful education.

I do agree we need to move away from just the standard university academic side & increasing the availability of worthwhile apprenticeships in many other discipline's (as it's only one path) but I don't think we should be adding debt to the standard university model which could result in putting off people who are well suited to university.

Paying taxes for future investment is a smart thing to do, education is one of those things we really shouldn't be shying away from spending good money on to get the best out of it.

Whilst I agree that paying for a future investment is a smart thing to do and education is largely a sound investment from a macroeconomic perspective, I think the choice of whether or not that investment is made is not one for government to make after a certain point in an individual's life.

Why should those who did not pursue education beyond the statutory age be forced to pay for it if they themselves became successful regardless of education?

Just seems to me that part of growing up and becoming an adult is making these decisions for yourself. If you believe HE is the right path for you, then why shouldn't you demonstrate that conviction by stumping up yourself? As to the argument that cost puts people off, I'd counter that twofold: 1 - if it seems expensive in the long run, is it really the right choice for you and 2 - is it right that moral hazard (i.e. the risk/reward of an investment) is removed from life? Success is not meant to come easy, it's something to work toward. The very idea of removing moral hazard merely exacerbates the problem of universities being oversubscribed with superfluous courses that are better served by apprenticeships.

I fear that the argument 'those most able to pay...' is used too often and ends up sounding like 'just go to the Bank of Higher Rate Taxpayers' more often than not, which to a certain extent I actually find offensive. Whilst I broadly agree with the principle of noblesse oblige, it should not be a solution for everything that the government can't afford any more than a myopic level of borrowing is.



Ugh jeez, Tory Boy is back again! :/

 

[Judgeneo]

Perhaps your teachers, and parents/guardians failed you on this, and forced you into a system you didn't want or need to be in?

This is a big problem we have currently. Many parents will make it known that opportunities exist outside higher education, but teachers are more often than not are clueless.


Far far too many teachers have no experience in other forms of employment, and almost completely unaware of what you can do without a university degree.


School > (Gap year?) > University > School - teacher.
This is what the majority of teachers have as their life experience, they simply haven't spent time with people who haven't gone to university before going back to advise the younger generations.

 

[Glaucus]

So, do you buy everything you see advertised on television as well?



Perhaps your teachers, and parents/guardians failed you on this, and forced you into a system you didn't want or need to be in?

How are occasional adverts the same?
There very much is a consensus and teachers, governments everyone pushes you to uni, if you meet certain targets. Of course there's people who don't go to uni. That does not in the slightest mean there's not a consensus.

It's very well knowen that you can chnage the way population think/feel by constant properganda.

On top of that there is very little knowledge of alternatives, of course parents don't know these optunities and will also push what they are told by teachers/schools and schools/teachers are clueless as its not what is pushed by goverment. The amount of opportunities for people I found whilst in work is unbelievable massive, compared to what schools tell you.

I'm not really bothered, it was a bad choice.
What I do get bothered about is the contuniued parroting of the same BS.

 

[AJK]

Judgeneo: Completely agree, in fact I'd say it would be extremely unusual to encounter a teacher at primary or secondary education level who has had any experience outside the pathway you describe: school -> university/teaching qualification -> teaching.

How are occasional adverts the same?

I was illustrating that your ability to think for yourself should not be removed by exposure to marketing, or pressure to meet some arbitrary target (where such a target exists at all).

 

[RDM]

Judgeneo: Completely agree, in fact I'd say it would be extremely unusual to encounter a teacher at primary or secondary education level who has had any experience outside the pathway you describe: school -> university/teaching qualification -> teaching.

I don't think it is that unusual, there are quite a few teachers who have come to the profession later in life (speaking as someone that is about to start a PGCE and is likely to be one of the older people on the course).

 

[Glaucus]

I was illustrating that your ability to think for yourself should not be removed by exposure to marketing, or pressure to meet some arbitrary target (where such a target exists at all).

Again this is nothing like the same. So you aren't pointing out anything.

 

[Monkeynut]

I can tell you that having completed A Levels very recently indeed the attitude of teachers was "Smart people go to university, dumb people go to do apprenticeships"

 

[elmarko]

Whilst I agree that paying for a future investment is a smart thing to do and education is largely a sound investment from a macroeconomic perspective, I think the choice of whether or not that investment is made is not one for government to make after a certain point in an individual's life.

The government would make no choices if it was simply free & paid for by general taxation.

It's a service which you use when required.

Why should those who did not pursue education beyond the statutory age be forced to pay for it if they themselves became successful regardless of education?

Mostly because it's a societal benefit, because they still would have the option & they are paying for the future.

Just seems to me that part of growing up and becoming an adult is making these decisions for yourself. If you believe HE is the right path for you, then why shouldn't you demonstrate that conviction by stumping up yourself?

But this isn't the case for everybody, many have economic assistance provided to them via the" bank of mom & dad" - making it only a moral lesson to the poor.

As to the argument that cost puts people off, I'd counter that twofold: 1 - if it seems expensive in the long run, is it really the right choice for you and 2 - is it right that moral hazard (i.e. the risk/reward of an investment) is removed from life?

The purpose of an education isn't always so to serve the economy of the UK.

It's also meant to expand the minds & critical faculties of the population, to safe guard our democracy & to encourage invention & innovation - not everything in like should be calculated in it's base pound value.

Success is not meant to come easy, it's something to work toward.

But should success be made more difficult?, or should it be made easier for more people to succeed?.

What is gained by success being difficult? - that sounds like ideology void of any real meaning to me.

The very idea of removing moral hazard merely exacerbates the problem of universities being oversubscribed with superfluous courses that are better served by apprenticeships.

This is a separate problem we can have free university education for all - but encourage the population to pick more suitable alternatives.

I fear that the argument 'those most able to pay...' is used too often and ends up sounding like 'just go to the Bank of Higher Rate Taxpayers' more often than not,

I include myself in the group I'd raise taxes on (as I'm more than comfortable).

In a society in which we have a deficit in public finances, a society which requires a certain income to pay for the continued maintenance it make senses to go after the groups who actually have money (when you need to get money).

Hey, I'd support raising taxes on the poor if we had a better income gap - infact I'd love to be in a society in which the "poor" pay most of a tax (as an indirect result of having a greater share of the income).

I don't think people complaining about tax being higher for certain earning brackets holds much water when you look at the income & wealth distribution statistics over the last 50 years.

which to a certain extent I actually find offensive. Whilst I broadly agree with the principle of noblesse oblige, it should not be a solution for everything that the government can't afford any more than a myopic level of borrowing is.

Ugh jeez, Tory Boy is back again! :/

Either we borrow, raise taxes, or society will eventually go-to the dogs.

It's really not a difficult choice, as slashing the services which many "Tory boy " would support firstly costs us more in the long term (in crime, mental health & reduced social cohesion) but they also ignore long term demand for goods & services.

Reduce living conditions & pay for the population & you will eventually destroy your customer base, a strong government enforcing taxation is required for businesses to protect them from their own greed & stupidity.

Sorry, elmarxo is back...

 

[Glaucus]

I can tell you that having completed A Levels very recently indeed the attitude of teachers was "Smart people go to university, dumb people go to do apprenticeships"

Nothing's changed then, sad. As it just isn't the case at all.

 

[AJK]

I don't think it is that unusual, there are quite a few teachers who have come to the profession later in life (speaking as someone that is about to start a PGCE and is likely to be one of the older people on the course).

Can't say I encountered many of them but good on you And indeed, someone I know has just completed a PGCE from a former career as a car salesman. I stand by saying that it's pretty unusual though, at least from my experience of teachers both at school and now.

Again this is nothing like the same. So you aren't pointing out anything.

Well fair enough, disagree all you like. Free country

I can tell you that having completed A Levels very recently indeed the attitude of teachers was "Smart people go to university, dumb people go to do apprenticeships"

It's a real shame that any teacher would have that attitude. Replace smart with "academically-inclined" and dumb with "not academically-inclined" and the statement gets a lot better, though it's still far too simplistic to be of much worth. This is where the unfortunate tendency of our system to consider exam results above all other measures of achievement lets students down.

 

[Irish_Tom]

Let's all blame the teachers!

I would argue that, again, the issue is a lack of a decent alternative.

If you have a bright kid who want's to be a mechanical engineer you're not going to recommend that they do an apprenticeship in John's MOT Centre over an engineering degree and there's very few genuine engineering posts that will take on 16–18 year olds.

I know that McLaren have offered an apprenticeship place to a kid with a BTEC diploma in engineering but it's not the norm, usually they are graduate placement schemes.

Until the system is revised, teachers (parents, adults in general) are going to recommend the best (or least worse) route to success which, like it or not, tends to be a university degree (depending on the career).

 

[Glaucus]

Airbus, RR and others have very good apprenataship a and you can certainly do a mechanical engineer without going through university. Although most will get you be techs, or even degrees eventually.


But agree the system is far to slanted to academic learning.

Why force someone to learn academic stuff when they have no interest. Keep science, math and English as core GCSEs but rather than picking other purely academic subjects. There should be alternatives, be it a trade, Diplomas etc.

 

[Westyfield2]

Fees does not equal cost, so it's wrong to assume that contact time should triple.
It just means you are paying more and govement is paying less. unvirsity should get around the same total.

Boom, this is what most students didn't understand. The amount of money the universities got was the same - what changed was the proportions of how much came from student/government.