Student Top Up Fees - A Morally Bankrupt Government.

Éomer of Rohan

How did Blair buy off Nick Brown?

Quoted from an Observer article, based on a survey compiled in September of '03
The survey covered 550 parents of children under 16, the generation that would be affected if fees are introduced in 2006. Asked whether introducing charges of up to £3,000 would make a difference to their children going into higher education, 71 per cent said that would make it either a little or much less likely that their child would go to university.

Asked what would happen if their child opted to study a subject that cost £3,000 at one university but £1,000 a year at another college, 72 per cent said their child was more likely to go on the cheaper course, with only three per cent committed to the most expensive course.

Although Education Secretary Charles Clarke has hinted that the poorest families will be exempt from the fees, the survey covered parents on up to £25,000 a year - less than average earnings, but far from on the breadline, so unlikely to benefit from full exemptions. This income bracket includes public sector workers and many 'middle England' voters.

Link to article.

Regardless of what one thinks of the results of Mr Blair's crisis week in politics, the results of the Labour spin machine are very clear - not only have the Student Top Up Fees passed (by FIVE VOTES, two of which we SDLP, and one of which was Nick Brown's!), but Blair and his close circle have pointedly escaped criticism by Lord Hutton.

In my opinion, it is an outrage that Top up fees should pass and it is not the first time that the politicians of Westminster have ridden rough-shod over the views of the majority of those people concerned about what was happening - twice now in a year, despite large-scale public protests, the UK government has disregarded the public and what makes this doubly hard to bear is that there is no real alternative - when the Conservatives did things like this prior to Thatcher, Labour got in and vice versa but the Tory reply to Top Up Fees was to close many universities across the country (specifically the ones upgraded from Polytech's to Universities years ago).

Amongst other thoughts that I have on this, I would be curious to know how many people agree with the leadership of the current Labour government that 50% of young people should go to university? When we look at the current system of wage labour, I certainly don't - in fact builders and plumbers can make more than I will at the end of a nine year tenure at University, emerging with a doctorate. The randomly chosen figure of 50% simply means that there will be an exponential increase in applications for law and medicine when the last thing we need in the UK, are doctors and lawyers - such is the pressure exerted on middle class students by parents and teachers alike - fully a half of the University applicants from my past Grammar school took medical or law courses.

Exchanging numbers for an increase in social disparity is simply not on.

Xterminator

Whinge whinge, that doesnt suit me personally whinge. That seems to me to be the tome of your post!

Basic education is a right.

Going to university is a privilige.

It is not unreasonable to be asked to pay for a privilige.

Getting back to your comments, that it might discourage people from attending university, well I see that as a good thing.
Also the no's of dropouts, (while reasonable compared to OECD average) espically on Technical courses could be addressed by making sure that the person who is applying is likely to see it through.

If it cost you very little per year, then the consequences to the individual are miminal, for dropping out, or repeating. If however you have to pay a fraction of the costs, then if can serve to concentrate the mind on the task at hand.
This financial consequence is important to getting the indivudualt to value the education they are receiving. You are investing in yourself. When you graduate you get a return on your investment.

I have seen too many students think that dropping out for a job offer, or repaeting because they overdid the social life during the year, missed too many lectures, and generally slacked off.

that is from the indivuals perspective.

From the governement perspective, obviously there is a limited pot of money.
The boom years have gone, and like it or not, total governent spending must be cut.
Now they have to make sure they are concentrating their spend in the effective manner, and this is why both Ireland and UK have been looking at student fees, with a waiver form the low income, to allow them to concentrate their spend.

There are obviously differences between the UK system and the Irish system, but the above facts are universal.

And although i dont believe it should make a difference,FYI i am doing a degree in IT in DCU at the moment, and i have paid my fees for the year. (Oscail)
It meant i had to make sacrifices, but I will work all the harder to ensure I get value for my money!

X

Going to university is a privilige. It is not unreasonable to be asked to pay for a privilige.

Damn Right.

It meant i had to make sacrifices, but I will work all the harder to ensure I get value for my money!

I agree. College for most people is somewhat of a party. For myself and my friends we got in, drank loads, and got medium results. If we had been forced to make a conscious decision as to the cost versus working, i think we all would have performed alot better in college. Personally, for non-specialist jobs like medicine or engineering, College is a must. However for most people in Business College is a waste of space, unless you're willing to work very hard. Which is very hard to do, unless you go in with that mindset. Sacrifices might make people study better :rolleyes:

I would agree with the last two comments.
I find it interestingly hypocritical that the tories would vote against such a measure.
Incidently where were the UUP and the DUP on the issue?

The money has to come from somewhere, and the safeguards on income levels seem reasonable.
The only concern I would have would be possibly that the measures would reduce incentives to move into a higher earning bracket.
But probably when you get to that bracket, it wouldnt matter that much anyhow, as the loans would be less than for a decent new car.

swiss

Interestingly, I just lodged my grant cheque this morning.

For me, my third level education is indeed a privilege, and I am acutely aware that I am being subsidised for that privilege. However, I feel that in several years time I will be in a position to repay those defacto loans to the government in the form of the higher taxes I will have to pay.

Even if unskilled labor does occasionally earn more than some professions, would the country really benefit from having a largely unskilled workforce? The reason for this disparity in take home pay in the construction sector is because of the continual building projects that are taking place in this country and the sheer volume of demand for workers in this sector, but at what point would a deluge of unskilled workers create an unequal (or even equal) supply/demand ratio of labor, which would doubtlessly cause pay levels to drop?

The reason the free fees initiative is in place is to give students from low to middle income families the same opportunity to learn and earn as those who can afford to pay for their own tuition. Without this, I would suspect that many otherwise outstanding scholars would have instead gone into unskilled labor. Perhaps they would have earned more, but I can't help but feel that that would be a loss best avoided.

Piliger

Blair won the top up fees vote and argument. The Tories voted and argued against it for the most corrupt and base political reasons of opportunism.

Students should have to repay a reasonable percentage of their Uni fees because they have been given an extra boost in life by the tax payers of society. They also get the benefit of not having to pay anything back unless they earn a minimum wage and their debt is written off after 25 years or so. What a wonderful gift from the taxpayer.

There are far too many students going to university for no good reason. They go often because they are too lazy to work and want to doss around for another three or four years - I spent four years with many of them. Often they don't know what they want to do in life and don't even know why they picked the subjects they did.

It's about time they were forced to take responsibility for their choices. By taking on the modest burden of their fees, far more students will give more serious thought to what the hell they are doing and will make better and more informed decisions.

I don't believe any reasonable student with half a brain would not go to Uni because of having to repay part of the cost. Any such student shouldn't be let anywhere near a place of learning anyway.

Cork

Basic education is a right.

Going to university is a privilige.

It is not unreasonable to be asked to pay for a privilige.

X [/B]

I 100% agree. Money needs to be directed at first and second level drop out rates before throwing it at third level.