Ok, bringing it back on topic.... Jaz says that uni education should be free. I say top-up fees are a necessary evil. To go without them would cause more problems than to introduce them. The british have just got used to freeloading off the education system, the social security system and the national health service, so as soon as anyone suggests they pay for anything, it's decidedly unpopular. People will still go into higher education, but if they have to pay for it they might be rather more determined to see it through and to succeed at it than if it is paid for. Any arguments as to lack of doctors, engineers or other skilled professionals are immediately negated by the relative standing of those professions in the UK to the US and europe.
Don't forget the protest against two tiers of universities. Things are looking decidedly more like the feudal age...
i think that suppose I was a home student and had to pay top-up fees, i would prefer that to being in debt for thousands of pounds before i even start working.
How much are you willing to pay for your education, £300,000 perhaps. [9:50pm]« {tbone} » the wealth of nations is currently enough to support all the ppl on the planet...but it doesnt [9:51pm]« {tbone} » somewhere along the line we forgot that the betterment of the whole of humanity is the goal of society yes i might be a freeloader wanting a free NHS and Education but at the end of the day, if you Isaac fail at whatever you do and have kids that you want educated but can't afford too because they charge you for primary and high school education as well as health service and god knows whatelse then come back and tell me that top up fees, and unfree education is still a good thing.
i am gonna end up paying something over £160,000 by the end of my 5+1 years including fees and accomodation and food. Then there are other expenses like air tickets to go back home once or twice a year ... comes to £800 return each.
Ouch, that one is going to bite you in the ***, because I might remind you that I'm not exactly in a position to have children... The fact is that the money has GOT to come from somewhere. Universities are desperately under-funded, and consequently if you demand free education then you're just going to put them in a more difficult position. If fees are a problem to you then you're probably in a financial position that you'd not have to pay all or even any of them. If not, then what are you complaining about?
i know that, but you might adopt or well maybe in the future men can have children, i don't know, i'm sorry if that caused offence. i'm in a good finacial position luckily, however many people are not, and yes Unis are forced to take on poorer people, people from a non wite background hell, even the welsh (ts true) who might not pass the course because they don't care or aren't upto the grade. i'm complaing because i don't want my kids (though i won't have kids cause i hate kids, grrrr and prams, god damn prams i'm gonna ban them when i take over the world and we all live in some messed up socialist communist democracy) having to pay whatever for what should be a free education.
Where do you draw the line though? You get free education to 18. That's really not bad going you know. Why is britain the only country in the world with subsidised higher education? My point is that it's just reality that pushes the introduction of these fees. You think they do it for fun? Or greed? Nope. Necessity.
Nope. Nothing of the sort The actual reason is that during the first world war, with the patriotic spirit that existed in those days, a great number of young men volunteered for the service. Universities (which at that time were entirely paid for by student fees) suffered massively lower intakes, and many would have gone out of business (YES, a university is a BUSINESS). They managed to persuade the government to subsidise them to help them through. Thus the universities (of which there were far fewer back then) became nationalised. Then the polytechs were started after the second world war, and some of these have become universities now also (like oxford brookes for example). Many new universities were started in the 60s (eg UKC (University of Kent at Canterbury), University of Bath). So, student numbers rose massively, and yet still state-funded. As student numbers have continued to increase, this has been impossible to continue, and so tuition fees were introduced. Now the next step is about to occur, with Top-up fees.
if you didnt have free/subsidised uni education, then wouldnt the taxes be lower ? and wouldnt that have put people in a better financial situation and more able to afford 'unfree' education ?
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. my own thinkings summed up by someone else
Exactly. And if the NHS was sold off, taxes would be lower again, so people would be better able to afford medical insurance. Not that I believe that's the way to go. I think the NHS is a good thing for the most part. But it's swings and roundabouts. Uni Education could continue to be "free", and tuition fees even disappear also. It would just require everyone in the country to pay an extra £20 in tax every year (and that's EVERYONE. Not just those who actually have to pay tax). Is that fair?
And yet our GDP is lower and declining relative to other nations which charge for university education. I already stated that the relative earnings of industry actually pointed to paying for uni being MORE effective, rather than less as you are trying to show.
I suppose i have this thing against paying a third to half of what you make as some kinda tax or other and it is so hard for me to come to terms with because i have lived most of my life in Dubai where there are absolutely no taxes and the living conditions are much better than here.
not to fan any flames on the fire but if you flood a market with somthing the value of that somthing goes down. so if there are more people graduating from college in a particular profession providing more workers than there are job salaries will wind up going down and unemployment up (at least in that sector). though i dont have much of an opinion here because: 1. I live in the US not the UK so its not really an issue here 2. I have allready gone through college its just somthing i thought up for you guys to use one way or the other. cheers
yes but is the GDP up because of ppl being educated in that country or ppl from other countries moving to that country
