Top-up fees go through

[Pussycat]

[s]The Cellar Bar wrote on 23:39, 27th Jan 2004:
[s]Pussycat wrote on 22:23, 27th Jan 2004:
It is theft, pure and simple.


Ahem, it wasn't me that said that.

[The Cellar Bar]

[s]Pussycat wrote on 23:51, 27th Jan 2004:
[s]The Cellar Bar wrote on 23:39, 27th Jan 2004:[i]
[s]Pussycat wrote on 22:23, 27th Jan 2004:
It is theft, pure and simple.


Ahem, it wasn't me that said that.
[/i]


holy shit - you're right. Apologies, huge great grovelling apologies. Wadda mistake to make.
Consider it sorted - and body duly chastised!!

[Pussycat]

Hehe.

[rr12]

i AGREE WITH WHAT THEY PUT THROUGH

[Guest]

singleton, maybe, whilst espousing your right wing bullshit, you should find out what your beloved adam smith actually said about the provision of education. i quote, "the expence of the institutions for education and religious instruction, is likewise, no doubt, beneficial to the whole society, and may, therefore, without injustice, be defrayed by the general contibution of the whole society". so there.

[tordenskjold]

Ahhh.. the wonders of democracy and the Scottish MPs has helped to usher in tuition fees. Quite an outpouring of anger (grief?) on the message boards tonight. Oh well. Having just watched the programme about the miners strikes in the early 80s made me wonder how government gets to mess people around so much and go against the (seeming) will of the people. Since many of people 'our' age won't even bother voting next election I fail to see how much will change.
I personally don't mind the idea of tuition fees but do disagree with the amount of people being practically forced to go to university by the fact that university graduation has become some sort of Holy grail for people of all backgrounds and a key component in this government's thinking. The Higher Education system IS in need of reform and MUCH more money to make it competitive and worthwhile for evceryone. As it is the amount of students have increaed greatly while the funding the universities get has not. It is about time this issue was addressed though I do not know from where this money should come or whether it would be preferable to reduce the amount attending.
I wanted the government to lose so as to damage Tony Blair, but now that they have wonthe sheer spinlessness of many of the MPs in the chamber has been brought into even sharper focus which itself may not be a bad thing. The highlight of the evening muct have been watching MPs trying to legitimise their changing opinions and also the ones who tried to legitimise abstention (which someone quite rightly pointed out should not be allowed to happen in votes such as this.) It probably won't be long before Scotland also has to introduce the fees, shame.
All in all just another performance from a government that has left many disenchanted and a reminder that many MPs should receive some sort of kick in the head should they visit thier constituences any time soon. Surely an, as yet, unreformed upper house will help to slow this bill much as it has done with fox hunting? If so all the better.

[Fenella Ice]

Although I don't think that top-ups are the best thing, at least tution fees still won't be anywhere near as high as they are in the US. My tution fees for four years here cost less than half of my sister's fees for one year in the US.

Always look on the bright side?


(edited for spelling error)

[hr]Duct tape is the force. It has a light side, a dark side, and it holds the universe together.

http://www.livejournal.com/users/fenella

[The Cellar Bar]

with reference to the Adam Smithh Institute, all I can say is...........sorry!! Really sorry. Really, really sorry. The Institute was founded by a couple of graduates from this University. And when you think of the Square Tower, the Pier, the blizzards, the nasty under tow on the West Sands, the busy traffic during various Opens, like I said all I can say is .....sorry. Sorry we didn't do something about them before some of the rest of the world took them even remotely seriously.
A couple of their passing cronies are also graduates from here. Including former Tory MP Rob Jones, who is actually a likeable human being and never really took them seriously. And the redoubtable (Lord) Mike Forsyth. My last memory of Mike Forsyth is of stepping over his prsotrate body at the bottom of the stairs in what is now Broons after he'd taken exception to me pulling his girlfriend at the top of the stairs. He fell, honest. But that's another story.

The unfortuante part about the "Wealth of Nations" and Adam Smith in general, is that it has become a Bible for some. And like all good zealots, they have picked and chosen those parts that suit their ends and then tagged the poor guys name on to the back of their ramblings. I don't think I've read quite so much anti-social, removed from the responsibilities and privileges of living in a society stuff ever. Adam Smith was representative of those who recognisedthat it is possible to live in a society and make a living while doing so without forgetting that you benefit in other ways from that process as well. And that there is some social responsibility involved in all of that. The quote is typical of his views and his writing. So it's no great surprise that they would disown it if you ever threw it in their face.

But like I said - sorry!!!

[The Cellar Bar]

from the SAME page of the Adam Smith Institute
The Standards of Today
Chris Woodhead
The former Chief Inspector of Schools tells it like it is. Exams really are getting easier, more kids are leaving primary school unable to read, and leaving secondary without the skills needed to work or study. The quangos in charge of the exam system should be scrapped and the national curriculum torn up - leaving parents free to choose between competitive schools teaching different things in different ways. A must read - if you're one of the few who can.

The report card on competition in schools
By Steve Bradley and Jim Taylor
The year-by-year improvement in examination results owes more to the spirit of competition between schools than to Whitehall¹s increasingly centralized controls over them. Schools could produce still more improvements in the future if they were given even more freedom to manage themselves and compete for pupils.

Some, well most really when you think about it, people would consider that there was a basic total, absolute and undeniable contradiction between those two statements. Or on the other hand, something that links them together incontrovertibly.
Whichever way it is, the ASI don't seem to find much irony in publishing the two papers as part of their portfolio.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Pussycat wrote on 23:07, 27th Jan 2004:
And as for the plumber, I'm sure he won't be complaining when he needs a doctor, or a lawyer, or when the new software for his computer is produced, or when he needs his medicine made by chemistry graduates.

But, the doctor, lawyer, computer designer, etc will be being paid for their services in high salaries. They do not need free education as well.

Going to university is not a chore that doctors, lawyers, etc need to be paid to do - it is something we enjoy (or I do, at any rate) - I don't see why we shouldn't pay for it, if we can afford it. Yes, a uniform flat fee that everyone had to pay on first matriculation is a bad idea, but if the amount you pay is based on what you can afford, I think this seems a very fair and equitable system.

[Mr Comedy]

Whereas I agree with the basic precept of Adam Smiths rules of economic development, there needs to be a framework for this to exist within, hence an educational system, as Smith said. However, I think the educational system is becoming too easy, and therefore it is becoming less of a competitive qualification

[The Cellar Bar]

Doctor's, lawyers, teachers DON'T get a free education. They get what could be called a free education at point of receipt and then pay higher taxes and therefore a higher proportion of money back into the education system when they are in a position to do it. That's the whole point. You don't tax or otherwise charge talent in this country before it has a chance to blossom. Instead you encourage it and then both sides understand that there comes a time when some of that money is ploughed back into the system for the next generation.

Or at least that's the way the system was. Until we suffered the Thatcher years where everything was given a price and where even vocations which people entered because they wanted to make a contribution were translated into some sort of money making process. That may apply in the States where people ARE known to choose to be doctors because of the fat cheques available. But over here, hopefully, there are still those who go into the profession to make a contribution. If you start charging an admission fee - on the presumption that they are only in it for the money - then we will only get those who can afford to be here in the first place. And basically, the golden rule still applies - if you want to know what God thinks of money, look at the people he gave it to"

This country - Scotland - understood long ago that to exclude on the basis of ability to pay on the spot, excludes a damaging, penalising amount of talent. We can't afford to do that at any time in history. Fortunately, this Bill only applies in England. Sod them. Serves them right basically for a talent for reducing everything to having a price. But up here, we will suffer if it gets out to those in Primary School right now, that it's going to cost them and their parents something in the region of £30,000 before they are 25 years old, if they actually want to make a difference.

[Prophet Tenebrae]

I blame New Labour - their policy of 50% in higher education is blatantly ignoring the countries need for skilled tradesmen. Essentially, we have people going to university and then when they can't get a job, they go and train up as electrians and so on.

I'd go on but none of us really care and I'm sure we'd much rather debate what kind of twat Tony Blair is.

[Ashley]

As a fairly irrelevant aside, for lefties and non-lefties, George Monbiot at http://www.monbiot.com and in particular, http://www.monbiot.com/dsp_article.cfm?article_id=630 has an interesting criticism of ASI.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]The Cellar Bar wrote on 04:59, 28th Jan 2004:
They get what could be called a free education at point of receipt and then pay higher taxes and therefore a higher proportion of money back into the education system when they are in a position to do it.

They pay more back, but so do people who have not been to university - education is currently paid for out of general taxation - it is not a graduate-only tax.

The system being proposed would effectively see a situation where graduates would pay for their education over the rest of their lives - which is effectively a graduate tax - but people who do not go to university would not be paying for this eduacation. I do not see what is wrong with this.

[Pussycat]

Then perhaps those who would prefer not to pay for university education through taxation should pay seperately when it comes to them wanting the services of a university graduate? I can't see that being popular.

Fact is if I was going to uni with top up fees I probably would not be able to afford it full stop. If I was considering medicine for example, well that would be laughable. Far too much risk if I decided it wasn't for me, so instead we'l just have more graduates who felt forced to complete a degree that made them miserable just because of financial obligations.

Universiteiies need more funding? Fine, but not this way. It will turn universites into supermarkets of degrees where you either go for the one you can afford or the one that will make you most money regardless of whether you enjoy it. Education will become purely about money. Terrific.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]The Cellar Bar wrote on 04:59, 28th Jan 2004:
it's going to cost them and their parents something in the region of £30,000 before they are 25 years old, if they actually want to make a difference.


No, its not! Do you actually know what the proposals for tuition fees actually are? The point is that they are paid by graduates, after graduation for the rest of your life - it is NOT an up-front fee that you pay when you start your education, like the current tuition fee arrangement. The amount you pay back is based on the amount that you earn, so I don't understand where the figure of £30,000 before you're 25 comes from - in order to have to pay that kind of amount, you would have to be earning a ridiculously large sum of money straight after you graduate.

The basic points of the new proposals (taken from the DfES website - http://www.dfes.gov.uk) are:

- Up front fees would be removed .
- Repayments would start once the graduate is earning over £15K. If you were never to earn over £15K, you would never repay. If your salary were to drop below £15K, your repayments would stop. It’s worth remembering too, that loans for fees and other costs would be interest-free in real terms. Only inflation-rate interest is charged to maintain the value of the loans. The Government would cover the cost of borrowing. You would only pay back what you borrow.
- Payments would not be based on what is owed; they would be based on what is earned. This means that higher debt would not translate into higher weekly repayments.
- Payments would be made through the tax system like National Insurance or pension contributions.

[immunodiffusion]

[s]Pussycat wrote on 15:31, 28th Jan 2004:
If I was considering medicine for example, well that would be laughable. Far too much risk if I decided it wasn't for me, so instead we'l just have more graduates who felt forced to complete a degree that made them miserable just because of financial obligations.

But I think you miss the point - if you studied medicine, decided it wasn't for you, and went into a very low paid job, you would not have to pay so much, because the amount you pay is based on the amount you earn (similar to taxes or NI).

However, if you went into medicine, and liked it, you would earn a lot of money, and could afford therefore to pay for the course.

There is no real risk involved, as up-front fees would be abolished.

[exnihilo]

Yes, but the point remains that if you go to university under this system you will end up with a debt. The how and why of the repayment does not make it any less a debt. However, on the how and why of repayment the arguments are dangerously fatuous. I don't go to university, therefore I don't pay for it. Fine. I have private medical insurance, I'll have my NI contributions back please. I have a private pension too, so whatever tax is going towards that, I want back also. I have no children (and never will have), therefore I would prefer not to pay for schools. I don't drive or own a car, therefore I don't care to pay for the maintenance of motorways. I'm a pacifist, so could I not contribute to the armed forces, thanks. And so on and so forth to the level of the absurd. Simply: graduates are not some mysterious entity which is not part of society, they will in the main earn more than therefore pay more tax, their skills will be of benefit to the country as a whole. This is not a system of funding, this is a penalisation of learning. And all too much a part of th trend in this country to fear and hate the more able.

[Pussycat]

[s]immunodiffusion wrote on 15:38, 28th Jan 2004:
But I think you miss the point

No I think you do. If your salary drops below the threshold you stop paying, sounds good. But the money is hanging over your head for another 25 years - I belive they call it debt, perhaps you have heard of it. Now add to that your mortgage, maybe a car loan, your student loan and the day to day cost of living and you have a very ugly sum of moeny hanging over your head.

Debt can destroy people, literally, a fact that many students seem blissfully unaware of.

Asides from that you missed the point I was making, it turns education into a commercial farce. Why should people do degrees like English or Astrophysics for example which do not guarantee a high paid job when you can do something more likely to pay well? What about people who want to do research? They are, to put it bluntly, screwed. Instead they will base their choice of degree on money and nothing else and that is a very sorry state of affairs.