top up fees [Archive] - Winamp Forums

Gonzotek

18th November 2002, 22:18

Originally posted by Windude
What do you all think, mainly aimed at the brit students, past students, future students.

Education should be free.

Free? As in zero-cost? Why would a teacher work for nothing? How will she eat and clothe herself if she isn't being paid? How will educational buildings be repaired?

-=Gonzotek=-

Windude

18th November 2002, 22:21

Bilbo i will be soon, my education is secure but for others who are less well off it might not be. I know a few people who are going staright to dixons and such cause they can't afford uni.

and Gonzo, Education has been free a long time in the UK, (don't bother mentioning before world war 1). Subsidsed by the govt or some other thing.

c2R

18th November 2002, 22:23

Up until very recently, all university education for EU citizens in the UK was free, and grants were given by the government to allow kids to live on. Now, students have to pay for their tuition, and also get a tiny loan to cover living expenses. They are also talking about introducing so-called "top-up fees" where if you go to a better university, you would have to pay more.

In my opinion, the education itself should be free. However, students themselves shouldn't be given grants, rather loans of a reasonable amount (i.e. enough to cover the real cost of living for a year, not the two grand or so that they get at the moment) charged interest at the rate of inflation (so in real terms they are paying back exactly the same as they borrowed). This money could then be paid off over a 20 year period once students were earning more than £20.000 per year. Thus everyone is happy.

mmitchell86

18th November 2002, 22:23

Originally posted by Bilbo Baggins
I tel you its damned expensive, and it will get more so if Blair has its way.

Bilbo, you should study here in Australia, its a damn site cheaper, plus the education is better. Plus you don't see as much shit walking the streets.

Michael

J. Burnaway

18th November 2002, 22:24

You are referring to a University education, correct?
Public education is free up to the university level in the U.S., and quite expensive after that, though there are many options for financial aid and student loans - but it ain't free. There are state colleges that are a pretty good value.

Gonzotek

18th November 2002, 22:32

"Subsidized by the government or something"

It's never free. You(or someone) pay(s) taxes, then the government pays the school for x-number of students. If students are required to pay for their education, that will make taxes go down (or prevent them from going up as much).

There's no such thing as a free lunch.

-=Gonzotek=-

Windude

18th November 2002, 22:34

ohhh god
yes ok sure its all from taxes, same as the NHS.

c2R

18th November 2002, 22:41

Originally posted by Gonzotek
It's never free. You(or someone) pay(s) taxes, then the government pays the school for x-number of students. If students are required to pay for their education, that will make taxes go down (or prevent them from going up as much).

BUT....

You have to weigh up the benefits and disbenefits - if students are made to pay for their education, less will be able to afford to - so consequently less will go. This will mean there will be less skilled people available to work, so businesses will look elsewhere for skills. Thus the GDP of the country will decline in relation to other countries.

If, on the other hand, education is provided by the state, the amount of skilled workers will increase. Therefore your GDP will increase or stay constant in relation to other countries as firms invest in your stock of labour. This is a good thing, because as people earn more they become better off and more able to pay the taxes that fund the education system.

Therefore, although there's no such thing as a free lunch, the provision of education to all, rather than just to those that can afford it is more beneficial to society than if you create a well-educated rich elite.

hestermofet

18th November 2002, 22:45

I'm with c2R. I'm usually repulsed by any and all forms of social welfare, but education is special, in many ways, and definitely something in the interests of the Government, the taxpayer, and the nation as a whole.

dylman

18th November 2002, 23:03

c2R speaks sense.

I was lucky, in that I graduated 5 years ago, so I got my fees paid for me. Having said that, I'm still paying off my student loans today. I'd hate to imagine being a student in the modern climate. There are a lot of people in university today who may never be able to pay their loans back...

Bilbo Baggins

18th November 2002, 23:13

I may be one of those.

griffinn

19th November 2002, 01:35

Probably a "flammable" idea, but oh well...

Education should be free only for those who do their own work and pass exams. Those who consistently cruise, plagiarise, cheat, leech and/or fail at the exams should be made to pay all the fees they owe AND get expelled.

I've seen too many losers dragging their feet in uni year after year on government aid, achieving nothing. They must be made to go.

henry3k56

19th November 2002, 01:43

Education is semi-sort of free to everyone willing to recieve a greater return in life.

Everyone that owns residential property needs to pay taxes to support public schools. This happened to be a debate when the United States was a wittle country trying to make good for the general everyone.
Rich people would in-turn get a better education than a normal working class person. Arguements were that if it were for everyone, all would have the same opportunity to be whoever they achieve to be. In order for democracy to function people need to be educated on the matters that mean most to them. IE: They wanted the regular Joe to become senator or representative in Congress to hear their matters.

Scholarships and Education are beneficial in the long run because for the companies providing scholarships, it makes a person productive and possibly a future asset to that company if he/she works for them. Education at least prepares the next generation to battle the world and possibly have some better signifigance in the future of the world. I'm sure that if more than what is now deemed aspiring and ready to make a difference in the world, we would have resolved several problems that still happen around the world.

Trigear

19th November 2002, 06:32

you know, i saw "top up fees" and i immediately thought "strippers"...

i should have checked who started the thread first.

fwgx

19th November 2002, 07:59

Overall a very bad Idea, I agree with what C2R said, it's just Blair wanting to save some more money to pay the firemen. If Labour stay in power for a little longer the Uni education system will go completly tits up :hang:. Education is an nvestment in people and the future of the country, Blair just doesn't care about this as long as the nurses are happy. Because afterall, a lot of students don't vote (shame) and the issue that is allways thrown about at elections is the pay and conditions of nurses, that's where he get votes from. I'm lucky that I should leave with very little student debt at the end of 2004 thanks to my parents, but life is still very though. I'm getting my loan and not using it, my parents paying for me so really I'm living on a lot less than most. Thankfully I should be able to save quite a bit this year as I'm doing a year in industry andearning.

binary hero

19th November 2002, 09:15

Originally posted by mmitchell86

Bilbo, you should study here in Australia, its a damn site cheaper, plus the education is better. Plus you don't see as much shit walking the streets.

Michael
see you there. (well, that's the plan :))

will

19th November 2002, 09:30

With these topup fees the govenment is forgetting one thing:
The average person who has been to Uni earns £20,000 a year more than the average person who hasn't. This means that if you go to uni you end up paying, on average, a lot more tax.
This should be how you pay for going to uni.

So there should be no fees, and the higher earning taxpayers should pay tax which funds unis. You can't say much fairer than that.

fwgx

19th November 2002, 10:34

Although not everone with well paid jobs has been to uni, but I see your point.

Windude

19th November 2002, 11:51

thats true look at richard branson

Bilbo Baggins

19th November 2002, 12:31

Then again you hear the heartening stories of people on the streets who have degrees :)

will

19th November 2002, 13:13

Phily and bilbo: you are both right, but my point still stands that if you go to uni you pay more tax. So why should you pay for your education twice?

However, I accept that if you are a high earner who never went to uni, you are paying for an education you never had, and if you make very little money and went to uni you got an education for free. But I think in the whole, it would work out better for everyone, as more people would go to uni if it was more affordable.

Well, good for everyone except those who want to employ manual workers.

hgnis

19th November 2002, 13:15

Well, several use low interest student loans, financial aid etc.
I've even heard of a tax break for families with college students etc.
So it all depends.
As for "free" eduaction...subsidized or not, there is NOTHING LIKE FREE EDUCATION...you just don't see it till you're there :p
Here's a suggestion: Get off your tails and get a part time job or something.....not that I'm speaking from experience or anything
blah:

zootm

19th November 2002, 13:29

i don't have the money to afford my education. i would have to work longer hours than would allow me to go to university. there is only limited scholarships, so being subsidised by the government is my only way through university. the top-up fees would create an elitist, two-tier (sorry for media buzzword) education system - this cannot be allowed to happen. people should not be allowed to have a better standard of education simply because they come from a rich background. i know a hell of a lot of people who come from such a background, yet they come to me for help with their subjects.

the current scottish system is, in my opinion, excellent. you get financial help through university if your family is unable to support your education, and you have to pay it back, in the form of increased taxes, if you earn a wage over £10,000 (not a great deal for a graduate) at any point after you graduate. this way, you pay for your education when you can afford it, as opposed to simply not getting in the first place, and having to slug it through without hope of a skilled job, and a chance to rise through the ranks of society.

i am against the top-up fees. so is my university. so for now, i'm safe...

Velouria

19th November 2002, 19:39

I haven't had time to read through all of the posts in this thread but will try to soon.

For more information on top up fees and why it has become a bit more relevant in the UK as of late, have a look at an Imperial College Union (http://union.ic.ac.uk/no2fees/) subsite.

Hope this helps to inform people.
I'll be interested in hearing your views.

ps: I hear a lot of people saying that top up fees would exclude those from a poorer background. That's not strictly true as part of the scheme involves only charging those that can afford it and using the excess to subsidise those who cannot.

c2R

19th November 2002, 23:21

Originally posted by Velouria
ps: I hear a lot of people saying that top up fees would exclude those from a poorer background. That's not strictly true as part of the scheme involves only charging those that can afford it and using the excess to subsidise those who cannot.

If you believe that, then you'll believe anything. I have a friend who was going to start university soon, but can't because his parents cannot afford to send him. They earn too much to get government support, but all of their income is taken up by things like a mortgage on their house, and supporting three kids. Thus he will probably get a job, instead. The government are stupid to base such things on parent's income, as it's not really anything to do with them - parents will always want to do the best for their kids, but there's a point where they simply cannot afford anything else. Thus the government are, in my opinion, wrong in their approach to this whole issue.

Velouria

20th November 2002, 02:19

Originally posted by c2R
If you believe that, then you'll believe anything.

It's not a question of belief, it's a fact - The top-up fees scheme (at Imperial College anyway) specifically mentions the creation of a pot of money that would be used to subsidise poorer students.

I'm not gonna voice an opinion about top up fees yet, because I don't know all the facts but I'm seeing it from the point of view of being a student but also recognising that universities do need more money if they are to provide a quality service.

Avalon

20th November 2002, 02:22

Originally posted by Velouria

It's not a question of belief, it's a fact - The top-up fees scheme (at Imperial College anyway) specifically mentions the creation of a pot of money that would be used to subsidise poorer students.

I'm not gonna voice an opinion about top up fees yet, because I don't know all the facts but I'm seeing it from the point of view of being a student but also recognising that universities do need more money if they are to provide a quality service.

CUNY (City University of New York) used to be free... but I think things got so damn expensive and the quality of education was low that they had to charge to make ends meet. Also something called cuts to education didn't help.