From BBC News
Tony Blair has defended the government's plans to impose top-up fees on university students, insisting the expansion of higher education would not be funded from taxation.

Top-up fees have been the focus of attack at Labour's annual conference in Bournemouth this week, and Mr Blair faces a substantial backbench revolt in a forthcoming Commons vote on the £3,000-a-year levy.

"insisting the expansion of higher education would not be funded from taxation"
So this isnt just a Tax on students then? Might I add students who actually want to do something good with their lives by gaining extra education and not just becoming one of the army of Robots working at the local McDonalds or whatever.

This Government just goes from strength to strength doesn’t it :roll: I think its really funny how Blair’s Brigade managed to raise Billions to fund a war on the Iraq War in a matter of weeks, yet to fund universities they are asking the students to pay almost 3 times as much for their tuition fees.
It makes me wonder just where the money goes, maybe it goes on Blair spending public money on upgrading the telephone exchange near his house at checkers to ADSL despite it not being anywhere near trigger levels set by BT… but that’s another story of public money wastage...

I shall be using my vote come May and it wont be for labour that’s for sure.

This Country! :x

The argument used that students should pay top up fees because they will, in general, be earning more, is flawed in that we already have a system for dealing with this - its called the 40% income tax band. Top up fees will mean that high earners are paying twice.

Also, perhaps a more lucrative and fairer way of making money for university funding would be to back-charge all those who got free degrees in the days of student grants, most MPs included. They could all pay the £1100 fees that students currently pay, so assuming a 3 year degree, each person with a pre-tuition fee degree would be charged £3300. Afterall, they are enjoying the higher salaries now, so why shouldn't they have to pay for it too like the younger generation now has to, and will soon have to twice over if Tony Blair stays in power.

Originally posted by t020


Also, perhaps a more lucrative and fairer way of making money for university funding would be to back-charge all those who got free degrees in the days of student grants, most MPs included. ..., so assuming a 3 year degree, each person with a pre-tuition fee degree would be charged £3300. .

back-charge.. come and try and get it tony!!! pah! wohhahaarghaha!

Originally posted by t020
The argument used that students should pay top up fees because they will, in general, be earning more, is flawed in that we already have a system for dealing with this - its called the 40% income tax band. Top up fees will mean that high earners are paying twice.

Also, perhaps a more lucrative and fairer way of making money for university funding would be to back-charge all those who got free degrees in the days of student grants, most MPs included. They could all pay the £1100 fees that students currently pay, so assuming a 3 year degree, each person with a pre-tuition fee degree would be charged £3300. Afterall, they are enjoying the higher salaries now, so why shouldn't they have to pay for it too like the younger generation now has to, and will soon have to twice over if Tony Blair stays in power.


Hang on t020 where am I and my husband going to get £6600 from? I gave up my job to be what I considered a good mother (not that I'm suggesting that working mums aren't good mothers) and as such I lost my place on the career ladder.

We have one income for 4 of us to live on, get no benefits whatsoever and pay for everything ie Council tax, dental fees, optician fees, prescriptions and numerous other things.

When it suits the government we are two people ie abolition of married couples allowance but when it doesn't we are one person ie I have no income but have to pay for everything.

Perhaps I should get a poorly paid job and get the government to subsidise me and claim all the benefits for childcare. Then I would qualify for free this that and the other. I know I've rambled a bit but had to get it off my chest.

Mo, the point is, why should it be one rule for one and another for another? You and your husband both got degrees, so by the governments reckoning you should earn more than if you hadn't. They think that students now should pay top up fees for the same reason - because we will earn more money. But why should one generation get away with it and still earn more, and the whole new generation of students have to be in considerable debts? Yes, we might earn more than if we hadn't done degrees, but there is already a tax on high incomes and its called income tax.

RPG - you may wish to reconsider this thread's title before Sidla sees it.

Nomme

There is no such thing as a free meal and by the same token no such thing as free education, or indeed cheap education, one has to pay for knowledge and it is very expensive.

When students qualify, they can earn high salaries, so why is it unfair to ask them to contribute to the high cost of their education?

Originally posted by halevan
There is no such thing as a free meal and by the same token no such thing as free education, or indeed cheap education, one has to pay for knowledge and it is very expensive.

When students qualify, they can earn high salaries, so why is it unfair to ask them to contribute to the high cost of their education?

So if this is the case, why not also back charge those graduates who DID get free education, as they will also be earning high salaries but they got their 'free lunch'?

I find it ironic that Tony Blair pushes for the introduction of top up fees, yet he himself received a free university education.

Originally posted by halevan
There is no such thing as a free meal and by the same token no such thing as free education, or indeed cheap education, one has to pay for knowledge and it is very expensive.

When students qualify, they can earn high salaries, so why is it unfair to ask them to contribute to the high cost of their education?

you used words like *can* earn. what if they dont? they are stuck with debts and no credit rating :(

Its almost like the government want to restrict university's to toffs again :(

Originally posted by t020
So if this is the case, why not also back charge those graduates who DID get free education, as they will also be earning high salaries but they got their 'free lunch'?

I find it ironic that Tony Blair pushes for the introduction of top up fees, yet he himself received a free university education.
Because things change. Roll with the punches.

My personal opinion is this.
The government shaft enough money out of us that Education should be free.

I do however agree with the 40% tax bracket.

I don't see why the government should charge students twice.
Why don't the scottish pay tuition fees at university?

Why just us saps the English?

If you were an English student wishing to get a degree in Scotland, you'd have to pay. However if you're scottish and get a degree in scotland... it's free!

Double standards. My vote... will NOT be for this f****** government come the next election. I promise you that Tony (I'm a sheister) Blurghh !

i find it interesting how "graduates" are supposed to earn more than those who haven't been to uni, as if we're one amorphous beast who all study the same subjects and get the same decent job afterwards.

a fairer way of paying for higher education would be to increase the top rate of tax to 50% - though Labour would never do this.

How about Higher Education coming free if graduates stay within the state system eg NHS, state education, local authorities etc. If they choose to leave the country or go into the private sector then the fees should be repaid, either by the individual concerned or by the business benefiting from employing them.

I find it ironic that Tony Blair pushes for the introduction of top up fees, yet he himself received a free university education.

Yeah, but he pays for his son's university fees. Anyway, how exactly would you propose to get back money from graduates before all this came into place? Considering how many people must have studied over the years until this change came about, you must be talking about millions upon millions. That, my friend, would take much man power and resources and would result in extra being spent on a existing or new government department to cope with this and how do you propose that is paid for????????? A further tax increase or the reduction in budget for the NHS or whatever! Are you prepared to pay more just so that current students can avoid paying top up fees?

Quote fixed by Sidla

Originally posted by Dick Dastardly
I find it ironic that Tony Blair pushes for the introduction of top up fees, yet he himself received a free university education.

Yeah, but he pays for his son's university fees.[/B]
He's not exactly going to miss the money as much as the average Joe is he?

I wouldn't have come if I'd have had to pay top-up fees.

My point is that all these MPs got free education and now want to make people pay. In my view, the Tories have the best policy whereby the 'mickey mouse' courses that often don't lead to graduate level employment are scrapped, thus lowering the numbers at university and therefore the costs to universities themselves. This way, top up fees aren't necessary.

If graduates earn more then they will pay more income tax - its as simple as that. Some of this tax goes to the universities. Top up fees mean graduates are paying twice - first for being in high income brackets and paying more tax, and secondly by having to pay top up fees from their degree.

The more you earn = the more tax you pay.

This simple equation should do enough to ensure high earning graduates 'pay back' what they owe.

Apparently as parents we are responsible for our "childrens" education up to the age of 25 yrs. First its 18 then its 21 and now 25 I hope we will qualify for free university education but if not then thats life. Everything changes as time moves on. There is only so much money in the pot and I know they can always find the money for wars but we are living in cloud cuckooland if we think that education is going to be free for everybody. If a graduate is earning £15000 then they dont pay anything back but if they earn £18000 they will pay a fiver a week and that was quoted on the BBC news by a government spokesperson. £15000 is alot of money to me and it doesnt seem too bad.

We could always get the Tories back who want to charge for everything. Education and Health. We should thank heavens Maggie and her lot are gone. Even if it does mean we have the lovely Tony:P

Originally posted by dilwise
£15000 then they dont pay anything back but if they earn £18000 they will pay a fiver a week and that was quoted on the BBC news by a government spokesperson. £15000 is alot of money to me and it doesnt seem too bad.


Hmm, not too bad you say... for up here maybe.

I think you'll find that the £15000 is london/south (ie. where there are jobs) i'd love to see someone down south live on £15k a year :lol:

the degree ends up killing their cashflow. but it creates it in the first place.... its a never ending circle :(

Originally posted by dilwise
Apparently as parents we are responsible for our "childrens" education up to the age of 25 yrs. First its 18 then its 21 and now 25 I hope we will qualify for free university education but if not then thats life. Everything changes as time moves on. There is only so much money in the pot and I know they can always find the money for wars but we are living in cloud cuckooland if we think that education is going to be free for everybody. If a graduate is earning £15000 then they dont pay anything back but if they earn £18000 they will pay a fiver a week and that was quoted on the BBC news by a government spokesperson. £15000 is alot of money to me and it doesnt seem too bad.

We could always get the Tories back who want to charge for everything. Education and Health. We should thank heavens Maggie and her lot are gone. Even if it does mean we have the lovely Tony:P


First of all, £15k is pretty poor, even for a graduate starting salary. Secondly. the Tories actually would scrap the top up fees plan and instead reduce university places by cutting out the 'mickey mouse' worthless courses that don't lead to graduate level employment. I think you'd agree this is very sensible.

Originally posted by t020
First of all, £15k is pretty poor, even for a graduate starting salary. Secondly. the Tories actually would scrap the top up fees plan and instead reduce university places by cutting out the 'mickey mouse' worthless courses that don't lead to graduate level employment. I think you'd agree this is very sensible. please explain what you think "graduate level employment" is and why you think courses that don't necessarily lead to highly paid jobs are "worthless".

i'm an archaeology student. i am extremely unlikely to get a job in the field that pays more than peanuts, if i manage to get one at all. i went to uni because i wanted to learn, not because i wanted a high-pressure, highly-paid "graduate" job in some soulless multinational.

the same is true of most people on my course. would you get rid of the course i'm doing because i won't earn a graduate salary?

Originally posted by miss_phaser
please explain what you think "graduate level employment" is and why you think courses that don't necessarily lead to highly paid jobs are "worthless".

i'm an archaeology student. i am extremely unlikely to get a job in the field that pays more than peanuts, if i manage to get one at all. i went to uni because i wanted to learn, not because i wanted a high-pressure, highly-paid "graduate" job in some soulless multinational.

the same is true of most people on my course. would you get rid of the course i'm doing because i won't earn a graduate salary?

No then, but people doing such courses should be the ones to pay their way. Those who are doing more vocational courses that lead to graduate level employment and therefore higher income tax levels in the future should not have to pay fees - they will do so in the future through taxation. Those doing it purely for their own benefit, be it to learn about something thats unlikely to get a job or to doss about getting drunk for a few years, should be the ones that have to pay their way, therefore removing the burden they put on the universities and taxpayers as a whole.

removed by spook

How about our history and archaeology graduates who continue to study at University those subjects in which they found themselves interested? Are they to be sacrificed to a culture of 'if you can't get a well paid job relevant to your degree pay for your own education'?

What happens when they do become high earners through TV, books and other avenues? Do they get their fees back?

Originally posted by max
How about our history and archaeology graduates who continue to study at University those subjects in which they found themselves interested? Are they to be sacrificed to a culture of 'if you can't get a well paid job relevant to your degree pay for your own education'?

What happens when they do become high earners through TV, books and other avenues? Do they get their fees back?

No, they don't. A very small percentage of these people will end up being high earning TV presenters, authors, etc. I don't think there should be any 'tax' on learning other than that of income tax which, according to Tony Blairs assumption that graduates earn more, should therefore act as a simple and effective way of graduates paying for their degree. However, if there continues to be high student numbers, aiming at 50% of school leavers, the universities need extra revenue to cope, and I don't think top up fees are fare because people who are doing the degrees to get well paid jobs will pay more tax into the system, so shouldn't have to pay twice. The only answer is to either drop the 'mickey mouse' courses, thus lowering student numbers, or to charge the top up fees on these 'mickey mouse' courses so that they pay their way, making up for not paying it later on in income tax.

Care to name some of these 'Mickey Mouse' courses?


Nomme

Manchester Metropolitan University do an MA in 'Spacial Design'.

And 'Sports Science' is very much a mickey mouse degree - just ask any students taking it!

Mickey Mouse Courses = American Studies, Media Studies.

Why is media a mickey mouse subject?

its actually quite interesting, despite its mockers you also need a fair few UCAS points to get onto the course.

Originally posted by Lickszz
Mickey Mouse Courses = American Studies, Media Studies.
Add to that the Surfing degree you can get down in cornwall or somewhere like that.

I'd like to do American Studies... they place you in an American uni for a whole acedemic year. Mmmmmm American female student... sweet! :thumbsup:

There's a protest in London today against top up fees. Did any of our forum members go?

It's a pity that previous governments did not recoup some of the money we laid out to finace the extremely highly paid professionald who were part of the "Brain drain " of the sixties and seventies. Don't just blame the present government, the previous lot were just as bad if not worse
A t a lower level we wouldn't have had subsidised stae education at all if it were not for pressure put on by politicains of the left leading to the 1944 Education Act guaranteeing free secondary education for all
However I do feel annoyed to hear that Diane Abbott an alleged Socialist has chosen fee paying schools as did Harriet Harma, but I suppose every barrel has a few rotten apples

well id ont understand why uni's need any more money as each one gets a good 9-10 million each year. i think its just that Tony wants more money

Why am I not surprised to see Blunkett is now backing Blair on theft from students...sorry, tuition fees.

Amazing what a few words in the ear can do!

Like..'Back me, or you are out on your ear. I will get someone else to relay my soundbites'

Amazing what a threat to his ill-gotten salary will do! :mad:

So, I see Bliar has managed to convince his party that top up fees are the solution to the funding problems for universities. I just don't understand how.

Consider the fact that the total cost of all of the new grants, concessions, etc amounts to almost the same amount as the total income generated by the scheme. Never fear, Labour assure us that all revenue generated by the scheme will go straight to the universities, and universities won't have this income cancelled out because all costs incurred through concessions and grants will be paid by the Chancellor. Hold on a minute.... that means the taxpayer will be funding all of the concessions for poorer students, which amounts to almost the same amount as the income generated by top up fees anyway. I thought one of the main points was so that the taxpayer didn't have to fund students? They'd still be doing exactly just that. Of course we all realise that the costs being almost equal to income generated won't last too long once the cap on fees is removed.

Poorer students will be put off university?? No, I don't think so. They will get paid grants and will probably be better off than students from poor backgrounds are now. Students from the wealthier backgrounds won't have to worry either - £3k a year is nothing to their parents who will end up footing the bill for them. The biggest losers are the students from stable middle class backgrounds, where there parents earn too much for the student to get his/her fees paid and receive grants, but would struggle to pay to put 2.4 children through Uni at £15k a head (+ accommodation, and future rises in fees). So the students from middle class backgrounds are too well of to have their fees paid by the state, but not wealthy enough for mummy and daddy to foot all of their bills - they will therefore be the ones starting out in life most in debt and paying back their fees for years, even decades to come.

Another justification for top up fees is that graduates command higher salaries than non-graduates and should therefore pay for the privilege. Surely though, if graduates were earning higher salaries they'd also be paying more income tax, so are already paying once for the privilege of working hard to command a higher salary?

OK then tory boy, it's easy to knock something, (typical tory scaremongering) but what would your lot do if they were in power? Let's here the alternative, what is it now.....ermmm Oh yes, we'll reduce the number of students able to attend university, because we'll reduce the funding, nobody will get a grant, everybody will have to pay their own way, poor or middle class or rich! Mmmm, that sounds fair. No poor people at university, we don't want those awful chaps sullying our rugger team do we!

By the way, in that comment about the 2001 Manifesto at the end of your post, you've made an error and missed 3 words off the end. It should read:- "We pledge not to introduce university top up fees, in this parliament"

The bill has been passed tonight, yes, but won't come into effect until the next parliament. So to call Blair a liar is a bit rich really.....:nono:

Whats the point in introducing a policy that will cost almost as much as it will generate???

If mickey mouse degrees were scrapped (e.g. 'Surf Science') and only the top 100 institutions were able to hand out degrees, the number of students would reduce and thus funding wouldn't be so much of a problem.

If Bliar is so confident that graduates will earn so much more than non-graduates, why not let them pay through all the extra income tax they will pay throughout their working life as a result of the degree? Why the need to pay twice?

P.S. If you're so anti-Tory, which judging by your previous posts you are, why are you so pro-Blair? Many of his ideas are very Tory, but most labour voters are too stupid to even realise this, and vote labour anyway simply on the basis that they've "voted labour all me laahhhf". True, New Labour are still basically all about taxing and spending and leading towards a nanny state, but they're led by a leader who most would see as a real Tory.

The answer to this problem should be to scrap all financial help to Mickey Mouse Students.

I agree!! Why should I pay taxes for somebody studying for a degree in Mickey Mouse!!!!!:D

How about this simple formula:

Amount of income tax paid by graduates - amount of income tax paid by non-graduates = portion of income tax to go directly to university spending.

i hope nick brown and his ilk rot in hell - spineless, self-serving b******s that they are.

this government can't find the money to fund universities properly, yet there was plenty around when they fancied having themselves a war.

re-introduce the top rate of income tax and universities could be far better funded by those who benefited financially from a degree (and a few that didn't ;) )

as it is, the government is having to spend £1bn in loans to unis before graduates will start paying their fees - fees which will generate... errrr... £1bn and only represent an increase in funding of 7%. wow.

Having recently been a student for 4 years (over bachelors and masters degrees) I do not mind having to repay a (relativley low)sum of money borrowed through the (government owned) university loans company. However I see the root of the problem being that the government insists (through policy ) that 50% of the population attend university.

To my mind university education enriches those with the intelligence to benefit; the continuous lowering of entry standards and the (labour) decision to turn polytechnics into universities simply degrades the value of a degree.

Thankfully at present the majority of employers know the difference between a red-brick uni and an ex-poly. They do however offer the *same* course. So in 10 years time your BEng from Sheffield and your BEng from Plymouth "uni" will be equivilant in the eyes of employers; thus employers will look for more than just your degree, so perhaps a masters will become standard and peraps employers will start looking abroad......

Brain drain?
The government have certainly put a stop to highly educated graduates going abroad for the money, they simply de-value the british degree. I'm glad I'm done with the British education system whilst emloyers still know whats what.

Would I want my kids to study in England?

Probably not. Unless there is some radical change.... this government certainly doesn't have the foresight for me; overseas is looking more and more tempting.

Am i just being nostalgic or did Britain used to produce fine minds who loved their country....

sadly disgruntled, yet educated, of Sheffield.

Originally posted by t020
No, they don't. A very small percentage of these people will end up being high earning TV presenters, authors, etc. I don't think there should be any 'tax' on learning other than that of income tax which, according to Tony Blairs assumption that graduates earn more, should therefore act as a simple and effective way of graduates paying for their degree. However, if there continues to be high student numbers, aiming at 50% of school leavers, the universities need extra revenue to cope, and I don't think top up fees are fare because people who are doing the degrees to get well paid jobs will pay more tax into the system, so shouldn't have to pay twice. The only answer is to either drop the 'mickey mouse' courses, thus lowering student numbers, or to charge the top up fees on these 'mickey mouse' courses so that they pay their way, making up for not paying it later on in income tax.

Graduates pay the same amount of tax as anyone else in their income bracket so you can hardly say they are paying for their course that way. Everyone who pays tax is paying for it including those who've never been to a university in their life.

Originally posted by Agent Smith
Let's here the alternative,
What's wrong with the current system?

Originally posted by t020
Many of his ideas are very Tory, but most labour voters are too stupid to even realise this, and vote labour anyway simply on the basis that they've "voted labour all me laahhhf". True, New Labour are still basically all about taxing and spending and leading towards a nanny state, but they're led by a leader who most would see as a real Tory.
Agreed. New Labour is very similar to Old Conservative.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Everyone who pays tax is paying for it including those who've never been to a university in their life.
Most people have never been in prison all their life but income tax still pays for it. A lot of people have no need for the NHS, but it is paid for by income tax. Most of us have absolutely no desire to go to war with other countries, but guess who pays for it?

Originally posted by Sidla
Most people have never been in prison all their life but income tax still pays for it. A lot of people have no need for the NHS, but it is paid for by income tax. Most of us have absolutely no desire to go to war with other countries, but guess who pays for it?

I wasn't complaining about having to pay for it I was pointing out that t020's reasoning was not exactly sound.

Although to be honest I don't understand why half the people I know who have been to university bothered, they ****** 3/4 years up the wall and now none of them want a job.

I think the biggest problem is the policy of sending 50% of all school leavers to University. This obviously leads to a huge increase in funding requirement so the big discussion about how this should be met....general taxation, top up fees - fixed or variable? But surely it cannot be that 50% of the school leavers now are academically capable of achieving degree status. All that is happening is that degrees are being devalued and a generation of students are leaving education so indebted that it will be years before this debt can ever be paid off.

I think the answer is to limit the numbers of university places to, say, 15 to 20% of school leavers who then could be more easily funded through general taxation. The limit should be on acadmic ability not ability to pay.

I will probably regret starting this thread but I was am interested to hear everyones views on students paying for their own education etc etc. I myself am not a student at Uni and never have been...as a result this makes me more biased towards the new legislation and I was very amused at the young lady on Question Time (i think) that commented we the taxpayer should pay for her to go to Uni in case she became a doctor and saved lives blah blah rant rant.
Look forward to your comments :)

I have watched all the trouble that has surrounded the vote on top up fees for students with some interest.

i am not a student nor have i ever been one,i dont have anything against students as such except those i see trying to blagg a free ride on the tram lol

for my part i have always beleived that anyone going to university to study for lets say,the medical proffessions should have their fees paid in full,as they will be putting the knowledge they have learned back into society. true they then earn lots of money but we all need doctors and nurses,dentists,pathologists and the like. i would also include teachers and at a push lawyers.

what i firmly beleive in tho is anyone staying in further education for degrees that dont benefit society at large should pay for it themselves and not out of my taxes.

like i say i am not anti student,and im sure every student can justify their existance, but i have spoken to students who are at university for no other reason than they are delaying growing up and getting out into the big wide world,and taking courses in subjects that have no relevance to their future plans.and simply enjoy getting pi**ed up on west street.

these are the ones that in my opinion should be funding their own education

probably a hot potato but i wondered what the views were of others.

you must have been typing yours as i was doing my thread lol

probably should merge em

great minds think alike :thumbsup:

Maybe you should both learn how to use the search feature and post in the right forum too ... ;)

Threads merged.

:thumbsup:

Originally posted by Tony Ruscoe
Maybe you should both learn how to use the search feature and post in the right forum too ... ;)

Threads merged.

:thumbsup:

maybe I'll post what I want to where and when I want to...give you summat to do instead of posting sarcastic messages :)

Originally posted by major decker
maybe I'll post what I want to where and when I want to...give you summat to do instead of posting sarcastic messages :)

nice one MD:thumbsup:

Please use the thread to discuss the original topic - not for one-to-one messages, that's what Private Messages are there for.

(Will 'prune' this back to the last relevant post shortly.)

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Graduates pay the same amount of tax as anyone else in their income bracket so you can hardly say they are paying for their course that way. Everyone who pays tax is paying for it including those who've never been to a university in their life.

WRONG. In Tony Blairs words, graduates earn more money as a direct result of their degree. As you know, earning more money = paying more tax, therefore they're paying tax on earnings that are a result of their degree. Comprendé?

Originally posted by gizmo


what i firmly beleive in tho is anyone staying in further education for degrees that dont benefit society at large should pay for it themselves and not out of my taxes.


But don't you see??? The whole reasoning behind top up fees is that graduates go on to earn higher salaries so are financially rewarded. Earning higher salaries IS benefitting society at large - graduates will be paying more tax and spending more money to benefit the economy.

Originally posted by t020
But don't you see??? The whole reasoning behind top up fees is that graduates go on to earn higher salaries so are financially rewarded. Earning higher salaries IS benefitting society at large - graduates will be paying more tax and spending more money to benefit the economy.

Degrees can be non vocational too. I know plenty of graduates that do not earn anything like the 'average' graduate salary of 25k

Originally posted by Phanerothyme
Degrees can be non vocational too. I know plenty of graduates that do not earn anything like the 'average' graduate salary of 25k

Average graduate salary was quoted as being £21k but 2 days ago.... Non-vocational degrees perhaps should be funded by the student though because they are studying for themselves rather than themselves and also the generation of more income tax for the government.

Over a lifetime, the average student with a decent degree earns over £750000 more than someone doing a similar job with no degree...

thats what my tutor said anyway :P

as Sidla said, New Labour = Old Tories, while the Tories seem to be... well confused :lol: but heading in the right direction to becoming a serious opposition or leaders again.

Rubbish. As a society, we need to expand our knowledge and learning of ALL things, not just the ones that pay the bills.

Originally posted by Tony
Rubbish. As a society, we need to expand our knowledge and learning of ALL things, not just the ones that pay the bills.

Hmm, if everyone knew everything about everything no one would need jobs, and thus we'd have no economy :P

...and we wouldn't need students either! :D

I vote for compulsory total knowledge for all... now we need to sort out our education system to suit... then we won't need students.

...ummm I think I see a flaw in my proposal :P

Originally posted by t020
Average graduate salary was quoted as being £21k but 2 days ago.... Non-vocational degrees perhaps should be funded by the student though because they are studying for themselves rather than themselves and also the generation of more income tax for the government.

What sort of degree do you think most teachers/lecturers have? Accountants even?
When you say non-vocational do you mean things like English, French, Art, History, Geography, Maths etc etc?

Nomme

Originally posted by nomme
What sort of degree do you think most teachers/lecturers have? Accountants even?
When you say non-vocational do you mean things like English, French, Art, History, Geography, Maths etc etc?

Nomme

Fully agree Nomme, who decides what is or isn't vocational? Someone with a degree in Vocational Degree Decision Making no doubt.

I work in IT and people with IT or computer related degrees are few and far between. The degrees people have are varied and include archaeology, geology, maths, english, french, etc., etc.

Originally posted by t020
WRONG. In Tony Blairs words, graduates earn more money as a direct result of their degree. As you know, earning more money = paying more tax, therefore they're paying tax on earnings that are a result of their degree. Comprendé?

Do you have any figures for that or are you just going on Blairs word? It's not that I don't believe you, I would like to see them myself. Most of the people I know with degrees are in jobs where a degree is completely irrelevant, take my house 4 example - 2 people with degrees and 2 without, the 2 without are the highest earners.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Do you have any figures for that or are you just going on Blairs word? It's not that I don't believe you, I would like to see them myself. Most of the people I know with degrees are in jobs where a degree is completely irrelevant, take my house 4 example - 2 people with degrees and 2 without, the 2 without are the highest earners.

Exactly my point! If Blair is so sure graduates will earn more money, he should also therefore be so sure they will be paying more tax! He should put his money where his mouth is and use this extra tax revenue straight for universities.

Incidentally, if you want figures and graphs showing the facts (from a larger sample than 3 of your mates....) :

http://www.prospects.ac.uk/cms/ShowPage/Home_page/Labour_market_information/Graduate_Market_Trends/Graduate_and_non_graduate_earnings_from_the_Labour _Force_Survey__Spring_03_/p!eLdibF

Sorry to revive an old thread but I didn't want to start a new one with an old topic.

I was just chatting to someone I met about a year ago and she's considering doing a masters degree in American Literature. I asked her what job she wanted to do when she graduated with this MA and she said she didn't know. Then she says:

"<qos> i figured everyone has a degree so if i do an ma it might give me something else"

Yes love, it'll give you a masters degree in a pointless subject that is unlikely to get you a useful job anywhere. Maybe she could be a librarian in America somewhere eh.

She mentioned that she might like to go into media and design magazine layouts. If this is the case then why didn't she just go for an artworking or graphics course? Why waste her own time and the government's money putting herself through courses that won't benefit her? :rolleyes:

Please tell me if I'm being too harsh.

Well having a degree in any subject will improve your job prospects anyway. Especially having a Masters too.

It a level of achievment in achedemia and as such puts you in a better position for the job. However obviously if you're going to be in advertising and you're up against someone with a marketing degree or advertising degree, you'll be put down to the bottom of the pile.

I wouldn't mind to do film/media and production studies given the oportunity!

Yes but she's planning to do a masters in American Literature and has pretty much no intention of getting a job in a related area.

Doesn't that strike you as a complete waste of time and money?

Well if she's interested in that subject... then NO.

Fair enough if she's interested in the subject but her whole reason for going to University is to improve herself in order to get a better job when she leaves. If she doesn't even want a job in the subject anyway then I see it as a waste of her time and the tax-payers' money.

Just IMO. ;)

I reckon it still WILL improve her job prospects no matter the career choice.

So you think that a degree/masters, regardless of whether it is a Mickey Mouse subject, is still a useful asset when the student graduates?

Granted it does show that they have the resilience to see something long term through to the end and some employers may find this encouraging but my original argument was that I felt it was a waste of time when the student is only doing it because they think 'it might be useful' and deep down have no idea at all what they want to do with their life after they graduate so could not possibly know whether their chosen subject would be useful to them or not.

At least if you study graphics or engineering or a smiliar specialised subject then you have an idea of what kind of job you can aim for when you leave. I don't see the point in doing a course if you don't know what you want to do at the end of it. Again, just IMO.

Originally posted by Pauly
At least if you study graphics or engineering or a smiliar specialised subject then you have an idea of what kind of job you can aim for when you leave. I don't see the point in doing a course if you don't know what you want to do at the end of it. Again, just IMO.

If you study a specialist subject before you decide what you want to do then you're stuck with only being employable in that discipline. If you study something more general that you actually enjoy then that will give you the employability that DaBouncer talked about plus it enables you to make life decisions when you are more mature. imo.

Not sure that the degree -> higher income holds anymore. With the increasing number of degrees they are rapidly becoming devalued. For example I have 3 degrees, experience and am doing biomedical research which you would say is fairly professional and I earn rather less than say a beginning firefighter who were recently striking claiming how hideously underpaid they were for professionls

Bringing this thread back to life, the Tories today released details of their plan to fund higher education. The Guardian have a useful guide here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/Education/higher/news/story/0,9830,1299900,00.html) but I've summerised the main points below:


All undergraduate fees would be dropped.
The poorest students will still recieve grants of upto £1,500, as they do under the current system.
Students will be able to borrow larger student loans, and these will not be means tested.
The loans will be paid back as per the current arrangements (graduates have to be earning >£15k before payments are to be made).
Interest on student loans will be higher. Currently student loans are charged at a very low rate of interest. Under the Conservatives' plans students will pay typically 2% above base-rate.
The income generated from student loans will go towards funding universities.

What do people think of these plans? I'm certainly in favour of tuition fees being removed. I'm less sure about commercial loan rates being charged on university maintinance loans. However, I accept that Higher Education has to be paid for, and this seems a reasonably fair way of funding it. It's important to note that those who can't afford to, will never have to pay back their loans.

At least under this system, nobody should be discouraged from going to university on the basis of cost.

Originally posted by Tony
Rubbish. As a society, we need to expand our knowledge and learning of ALL things, not just the ones that pay the bills.

Exactly Tony, we should pride ourselves on the range of subjects offered by our universities.

Some people have said that only those doing degrees to benefit the state should get their education for free, such as doctors . Ok, so lets do that. And everyone will go to university and study medicine, and there will be loads of Doctors, surgeons, nurses etc. But there will be no lawyers, social workers, mathematicians, translators or architects to design the hospitals. It is just silly to try and suggest that only those doing degrees that directly benefit society should not have to pay tuition fees. Almost every course benefits society in some way, however obscure.

I don't disagree with contributing to the cost of my education, but just the way it is done. Parents have paid income tax to contribute to education. Then they support their kids through university. I then end up with huge debts to pay off, and will pay more income tax. Just doesn't quite add up.

I studied architecture and now have 7 years worth of student loans to pay off, and an overdraft, coming to over £20000. As I said, I'm not actually complaining about paying, just not more than once. I worked in McDonalds before i went to uni and during my holidays, and if I had stayed there, I would be earning more than double what I earn now, with no debts to pay off. And before someone says it, no, I won't have a sky high salary in a few years time. In fact, the store manager of the McDonalds I worked in earned more than I am likely to by the time I am 40.

Another thing that annoys me is when I hear people complaining about students. I recently went to the cinema and the girls in the queue behind me were moaning about students getting a discount. But if it weren't for the 40000+ students in Sheffield, there wouldn't be half the cinemas, leisure facilities, bars, shops and public transport networks. When students have to borrow money that they have to pay back in order to go to university, let them spend it however they like, don't try and say they can't go and and get ****** if they want to.

As for top-up fees, I agree with whoever it was who said that the middle class families will be the ones to lose out. And if they are intruduced, I would like to know exactly how the money is spent and I would like to see an improvement in the quality of a university education.

Charging commercial rates on loans is a terrible idea. No-one will want to take jobs that don't pay well right away, like social work. And contrary to what was quoted above, they start taking money off you when you're earning ten grand. I expect repayment to run at £100-150 when I'm working.

Its a bit odd to hear people railing against 'Mickey Mouse Degrees', and hear that people should only study things that are useful to society. What kind of society would it be with no artists or writers?

Certainly on average graduates earn more than non-graduates. But the best educated people I know are academics and teachers, where salaries are low. If making money is really your thing, become a salesperson, estate agent or property developer. None of these careers needs much education, you just need to be the right sort of person.

I think education should be free at the point of delivery, and entirely funded out of general taxation.

Originally posted by t020
Mo, the point is, why should it be one rule for one and another for another? You and your husband both got degrees, so by the governments reckoning you should earn more than if you hadn't. They think that students now should pay top up fees for the same reason - because we will earn more money. But why should one generation get away with it and still earn more, and the whole new generation of students have to be in considerable debts? Yes, we might earn more than if we hadn't done degrees, but there is already a tax on high incomes and its called income tax.

So by that logic all our parents should be getting child tax credit etc back dated.

Many of our parents gave up work to raise children with not half as much state help as there is now.

So that would cancel out the back charge of uni fees and be some left over as a payment from the government to our parents.

No I don't mean I think it should be back dated I just used that to prove a point. I think if the reasoning behind top up fees is because courses are value for money in that they will lead to higher salaries then surely doing such courses will lead to paying more income tax too? In which case, students of today will be paying twice over for their degrees - heavy tuition fees now and higher income tax later in life.

A better system would be to make it free!

I know , I know I want an ideal world.

lets make a new tax system.

Cigarettes tax = NHS

Alcohol tax = uni

you get the picture.

Oh yeah and make a saturated fat tax then the capitalists who can afford it can pay afford their own private health care too.