Dav Posted January 28, 2004 Report Posted January 28, 2004 Well labour won the vote 316 to 311 which means top up fees will be implimented in 2005 thay dont understand the damage this will do to people going to university, the argument agains was much more solid then the supporting argument.
Guest Ezreal Posted January 28, 2004 Report Posted January 28, 2004 I'm not going uni but i know it will effect loads of people. Tony blair just stopped people from doing the same thing he did when he was younger and deffinatly just hit the last nail in his political coffin
Paine Posted January 28, 2004 Report Posted January 28, 2004 Well labour won the vote 316 to 311 which means top up fees will be implimented in 2005 thay dont understand the damage this will do to people going to university, the argument agains was much more solid then the supporting argument.unfortunately, its gonna affect me
Paine Posted January 28, 2004 Report Posted January 28, 2004 It seems the US is passing on its hatred of its leader to it's ally....
Dav Posted January 28, 2004 Author Report Posted January 28, 2004 luckly im am goint to uni this year so i will not be affected, unless i do a PhD after my BSc. The bill will prevent may people from middle income and low inclome familys going to university. it is "political suicide" in my new considering many working classes vote labor, however the prospectsm to people children are no longer good as thay cannot afford university. in 2005 i will be voting conservitive.
Paine Posted January 29, 2004 Report Posted January 29, 2004 I juust heard from my GCSE Law eacher that there is still a chance it will not get through, it has to be passed by the house of commons, and theres must be another vote aswell.
Dav Posted January 30, 2004 Author Report Posted January 30, 2004 yes 3rd reading is still to come but that will only make small changes to the bill in my opinion. I am licky i am making 2004 entry however if i want to take a heigher degree (Ph.D) i will be affected If labour hadnt already commited political suicide thay just did.
Aileron Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 So let me get this straight, the British parliament just raised the tution at all their public universities? It sounds like something that they HAD to do. Sometimes when one manages a budget, one has to do undesirable things to get it to turn out right. It seems that this is the case. Tuition bills are rising in both the public and private sector. The university I go to just raised their rates last year by something similar (4% I think). We all want college costs to be lower, but sometimes it cannot be done. What really needs to happen is that we need to change the reason why college costs are so high in the first place. Then, we will have more control to not raise them or even lower them.
Paine Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 Sort of... the idiot wants us to pay nothing while we're in UI, then pay it back from our wages in the future when we get a job -.-
Aileron Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 Now that sounds somewhat intelligent. Face it, given how much college costs nowadays, there is no possible way a student could get his own job to pay for college up front. To go through it, one must either get money from their parents or pay for it after college. Neither path is desireable, but given how much college costs nowadays, one may not have an alternative. It seems to back up my last statement. This new law sucks, but there is no better alternative. The problem is college costs are rising. A politician can do whatever he wants with tuition, but the costs will continue to rise, and if one lowers tuition, one has to make up for it. The source of the problem lies elseware in economic and social factors. In my opinion, there never was a possiblity of a University making profits by charging students up front. Previously, they relied on the ultra-rich to give them a continuous supply of grants and donations. Think about it, many schools are actually named after previous rich guys, Vanderbilt University, Caregie Mellon, etc. The rich people, having nothing better to do with their money, decided to spend it on a cause that would both benefit the community and give them a measure of immortality. The donated money to the university, and the university passed it on by lowering tuition below natural levels. The problem is that that source of money dried up. It still happens though not as much. Rich guys care more about making more money than showing off their wealth. Since their absence a few alternatives came up. Governments and companies both started picking up the slack, because both benefit from and educated populace. However, the problem is that governments have to save their money to support the baby-boomers. As you can see, the doors are closing on this issue. Sources that previously were there have gone and dissappeared. The solution? Strangely enough governments have to do nothing. Since the baby-boomers are retiring, there will soon be a shortage of labor acrossed the board. Unskilled laborers are easy enough to replace, but what about educated ones? Businesses are going to get more and more desperate for somebody with a degree, and sooner or later are going to invest money in colleges just to get more available. Businesses are known to be frugal, so this is note going to be as nice to the lower class student. Thus, I really think Blair is doing all he can to help the issue. The problem is that he doesn't have many nice options to choose from.
Jimster Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 the fees will more than likely point me away from uni, i should be applying next year for a place. but the only thing is, do i realy want to live my life after uni paying off debts? not realy, not for an extimated 25years. The actual value of a deg is redusing, too many people have them now more than ever, experiance is the only real way of getting anywere now. if i was an employer looking for someone, for example a sales manager, i would not look at the fact an application has a degree, i'd first look at the practical aspects, if you have a degree lets say, but the person has never used a computer, come up with practical things, never lived on his/her own two feet, but has a degree in maths.... and another has got full A levels and has been working, and has managed to stand on his or hers own two feet, i'd be more interested in the 2nd. you might have the mind, but do you have the manual dexteraty. the tought of a degree making you walk strate into a well paid job, is in most cases a fantacy.
mr. scruff Posted January 30, 2004 Report Posted January 30, 2004 Haha just move to scotland, where it doesnt matter chemical engineerring, now worries
Dav Posted January 31, 2004 Author Report Posted January 31, 2004 Yes the fact universities are underfunded is a problem, the solution thay have suggested will just cause more problems tho. They want to add an extra £3000 per student per year to the tuition fees. This means that students will go into huge debt when they come out of university, on avrage about £30,000. This will cirtianly deter many working class students from going in fear of debt. Less students at university will have a cascading effect, it will mean there are less people at the universities so they get less money and will still be underfunded. In addition the government targets of 50% of people going to uni by 2010 will not happen. The second effect of this is people that go to university will choose on prises (they dont have to charge the full £3000), people will go to the place they get less debt and not where will get them the best degree. There are other solutions to this problem, it can be paid for by taxation of the genral public. Govenmets tend to say thay want to reduce taxes and gibe more public service which doesnt add up, taxes will always rise. They can also introduce a graduate tax wich means graduates get taxed extra because they had the privilage of going to university. Jimster - the thing is graduate students are extreemly usefull to sociaty, expecially in science and engineering where there is a great shortage, idealy 60% of the population need to be getting degrees. Aileron - Since when were universitys into making profits? they make their money and use it to fund research and new facilities, not to put hefty sums of money in somones pocket.
Aileron Posted February 4, 2004 Report Posted February 4, 2004 Well, the profits go into the research, like you said. Its different in terms of where the money ends up, but doesn't really affect the educational aspect. I dunno, maybe a solution is to build more schools. Under basic economics, a high supply decreases demand. That still leaves the problem in terms of where to get the money to pay for the schools, but the solution is going to be in that general direction.
sean11 Posted July 23, 2007 Report Posted July 23, 2007 I'm a dirty spammer! Please DDoS my IP because I'm a !@#$%^&* bag. 71.156.46.38Also, sign up my email address for gay porn, because I'm a total homo. bigstudent101@gmail.com
NBVegita Posted July 23, 2007 Report Posted July 23, 2007 Please do not bumb very old topics. This topic is closed, if you would like to discuss the rising cost of education, please do so in a topic that you don't need to carbon date.
Dav Posted July 24, 2007 Author Report Posted July 24, 2007 indeed dont bump old topics. Just wanted to say that I made this topic 8 months before I started university and I graduated last week...
Recommended Posts