Tuition fees/loans should be scrapped

[martin6 10]

Most loans will be written off, so this is a lot of red tape for nothing. However university has now become big business like diets/fitness, only interested about the money, don't care about the individual.

[unbeliever 10]

Not sure people realise that, especially ex-Liberal Democrat voters.

 

Without wanting to encourage your thread off-topic, the problem with the lib dems was an emphatic promise that was broken. It wasn't just a manifesto commitment, it went beyond that. People don't forgive that kind of thing quickly.

[El Cid 216]

My daughter has spoken of the debt from uni, I have told her not to worry, the perceived debt is there.

[sh3rb3t 10]

There should be stricter entry requirements in my opinion. Universities used to be for the very talented, however these days anyone can get through clearing with as little as CCC grades. It’s ridiculous! I don’t fully agree that the split of financial incentive should be a straightforward STEM vs Arts one though - it would be far better to raise the fees for those who can afford them, and for those taking Arts and other subjects that perhaps don’t allow for such a well paying job afterwards , and use the surplus made from this to pay for poor people who hit the stricter (i.e. AAA) requirement.

 

Of course, since A levels are now getting far too easy (much easier than they were in my day at least), this would be difficult to implement, since the very bright students are harder to differentiate.

 

I don’t dislike the scrapping of grants in favour of loans - after all, why should the tax payer have to pay? If a student wants to get a degree, and wants to make good money after, then they should absolutely be charged for it. Nothing is ‘free’… somebody is paying for it, and in my eyes, it should be the person benefiting from it - the student, if they chose an appropriate course in the first place.

[DnAuK 10]

Most loans will be written off, so this is a lot of red tape for nothing. However university has now become big business like diets/fitness, only interested about the money, don't care about the individual.

 

I realise I'm in grave danger of sounding like Snailyboy here, but do you have evidence to support that? From what I have seen it would not appear to be the case. As yet anhyway.

[TJC1 10]

We sent a far smaller fraction of people to university. Should we go back to that?

 

As already pointed out, the debt is on very generous and forgiving terms. People only pay back what they can afford when they can afford it.

It's essentially a graduate tax. I don't think it even shows up on one's credit rating.

 

Degrees are less valuable. And cost more. The defacto standard rather than exceptional qualification.

 

Theres a good argument for scrapping fees for what is a blanket qualification.

[unbeliever 10]

Degrees are less valuable. And cost more. The defacto standard rather than exceptional qualification.

 

Theres a good argument for scrapping fees for what is a blanket qualification.

 

It's still only about 50% of people who go to university. And the taxpayer is still paying about half on top of the fees. The students will be taxpayers too, so add it up and the students are paying three quarters and the rest of the population one quarter.

What you're suggesting essentially amounts to having the other half who don't go to university pay half the costs, rather than a quarter as they are now. Does that sound fair to you?

[TJC1 10]

It's still only about 50% of people who go to university. And the taxpayer is still paying about half on top of the fees. The students will be taxpayers too, so add it up and the students are paying three quarters and the rest of the population one quarter.

What you're suggesting essentially amounts to having the other half who don't go to university pay half the costs, rather than a quarter as they are now. Does that sound fair to you?

 

types of direct and indirect taxation, changes with each parliament.

 

Is it fair a healthy person pays for an unwell persons treatment on the nhs?

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 12:28 ----------

 

Rich middle class parents?

 

For sure in some cases. However it was free for everyone. Despite background.

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 12:31 ----------

 

Most loans will be written off, so this is a lot of red tape for nothing. However university has now become big business like diets/fitness, only interested about the money, don't care about the individual.

 

I sat on the boards in meetings with school execs.

A lot of talking was around the student 'experience' which I found disengenous then.

Students are commodities.

[unbeliever 10]

types of direct and indirect taxation, changes with each parliament.

 

Is it fair a healthy person pays for an unwell persons treatment on the nhs?

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first sentence.

 

The second is a bit off topic, but interesting.

If a person becomes sick through no fault of their own, it seems reasonable that we should all collectively pay for their treatment.

If a person becomes sick by abusing their body and catching for example diabetes as a result, the case is less clear.

In practise, it's our nature that we can't really look at somebody suffering as a result of an illness, self inflicted or not, and refuse them help. So we still help them. But we could look at effectively getting them to pay in advance with high taxes on blatantly unhealthy foods, the precedent for this having been set with cigarette taxes.

[TJC1 10]

I understand that there are more graduates in jobs where their degree is not required, many in lower paid jobs, not easy to get the correct numbers.

 

A degree is neither here nor there in a lot of cases. Universities make a lot of money now through volume of students and research, recruiting academics.

 

the teaching and qualification itself is secondary imho.

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 12:39 ----------

 

I'm not sure what you're getting at with the first sentence.

 

The second is a bit off topic, but interesting.

If a person becomes sick through no fault of their own, it seems reasonable that we should all collectively pay for their treatment.

If a person becomes sick by abusing their body and catching for example diabetes as a result, the case is less clear.

In practise, it's our nature that we can't really look at somebody suffering as a result of an illness, self inflicted or not, and refuse them help. So we still help them. But we could look at effectively getting them to pay in advance with high taxes on blatantly unhealthy foods, the precedent for this having been set with cigarette taxes.

 

I'm saying taxation distribution changes. We could afford

to cover fees but choose a different system.

You brought up the concept of fairness. It appears a lot of taxation is 'unfair' on the individual but exists for the greater good. Such as health care.

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 12:40 ----------

 

Car tax is another one. Why should a second hand car owner pay 200 or 300 when new cars are 0?

Both use same roads.

[Cyclone 10]

Car tax, you mean vehicle excise duty, which is deliberately based on how polluting the vehicles are... That's why.

 

---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 12:57 ----------

 

Rich middle class parents?

 

No fee's (to the student), and maintenance grants based on parental income...

[TJC1 10]

Car tax, you mean vehicle excise duty, which is deliberately based on how polluting the vehicles are... That's why.

 

 

it still doesnt change the fact we all use the same roads. That tax money goes to upkeep and maintenance. And is in no way linked to the value of the car or the wealth of the owner.

 

Good argument for abolishing tuition fees. I wouldnt be opposed necessarily. Economically or ideologically.