02-12-2003 22:08									#1
	The Case for Tuition Fees Increase Your PM Length

There is an overwhelming case for increasing the paltry level of tuition fees in the UK. Our universities are suffering through ridiculously low levels of private funding.

Why should the taxpayer pay for the next generation of high-earners to get their post-18 education? Those who benefit should pay; of course not at the time of entry. Additionally, why should funds be diverted to further educating what are the intellectual elite when a quarter of children at 11 are barely literate or numerate. Surely primary schools have a "much better claim to more money than higher education".

The current system hands out money to the well-off. Please look at the issue with insight and not as a static picture. Those who graduate will earn more. Over a lifetime, why should the education of those who earn more be subsidised?

It is stated by some that to go to university one must have merit. Well, if one has the merit, one must also see that accruing what is a relatively small amount of debt is an exceptionally wise investment. What's next, a paid-off mortgage for all at 18 because otherwise the debt might put people off?

Just go and get this week's Economist (where the above quote is from).

	02-12-2003 22:18									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I completely agree

	02-12-2003 22:36									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

People are more than willing to get into £100,000 of debt for a house but not £20,000 for an education. It boggles the mind.

I *should* be against tuition fees but the more I read about the Government's proposals, the more I support them. It's free up front, no payments until you make a reasonable income, and will provide funding for universities.

The thing that makes me worried about university next year is the up front payments. If university was free at the point of use and then paid for later, I wouldn't mind paying.

The cultural view of debt in the country really needs to be reworked.

	02-12-2003 22:51									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Starchild People are more than willing to get into £100,000 of debt for a house but not £20,000 for an education. It boggles the mind.

Well, for example, my house is now worth nearly three times what I paid for it. I can't say the same for my education.

	02-12-2003 22:59									#5
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

If you ahver a degree your income is almost certainly goinbg to be more than what it would be without a degree so....

	02-12-2003 23:00									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

How about a system like the USA where poor families can get money and help for their tuition, but richer families must pay the full amount(barring merit aid)

	02-12-2003 23:14									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Any nation that wants to have a competitive, educated work force had better subsidize university education to some degree. It's ultimately in a country's best interest. But no, wealthy kids shouldn't be subsidized to the same degree as the poor, if at all.

	02-12-2003 23:34									#8
	Put an end to popups!

The problem with Shi's and Boris' thinking is that the income of the family that the student comes from should be of any importance. In my opinion it shouldn't be, at all. Opportunity for all.

Starchild, I remember seeing a headline (but that's all) in someone else's paper, stating that Tory policy on tuition fees is effectively regressive. It is subsidising those who stand earn more over their lifetimes.

If a reforming China can realise the folly of an absence of tuition fees, then it's sad that many in our country still can't.

	03-12-2003 00:06									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue The problem with Shi's and Boris' thinking is that the income of the family that the student comes from should be of any importance. In my opinion it shouldn't be, at all. Opportunity for all.

How is expecting the wealthy to pay their own way fully while granting subsidies to poor people who ordinarily wouldn't be able to afford university not giving opportunity to all?

What opportunity is there in reserving university for just the rich?

Having masses of people in debt is no good for an economy, even The Economist knows that.

	03-12-2003 00:48									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Bah! Don't raise tuition fees! I look forward to having my medical education at the British taxpayers expense next year!

Just kidding.

There is some sense in having tuition fees. I just don't think it has been logically thought through by the British Government yet. Lower income families are still much less likely to send their children to university, so in effect their taxes end up subsidizing middle-class families sending their children to university. Having top-up fees for certain earnings groups would go some way to redress this balance.

If something isn't done, then the universities might be forced to take action themselves. For example they might increase the number of places for fee-paying non-EU students whom they can charge £20,000+ at the expense of British places. It's happened in Ireland; over half the medical places in my country are reserved for North American and Muslim 'buddy country' students because the universites want more money. Hopefully it won't come to that in Britain.

Even if they do bring them in, it'll still cost me less to study in England than Ireland, so I can't really complain.

	03-12-2003 02:06									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Shi:

I lost several scholarships because of this concept. They preferred to give to a much less qualified student who's parents made less money than mine.

I have no problem with giving scholarships based on merit, but I do have a problem with basing this on the income of my parents.

What if a student would prefer to be independent of their parents? In what sense will it matter what their parents make? What's stopping people on their application forms from lying as to the income of their parents?

I think this proposal is a good one. Rather than having students barred from university due to their lack of income, you will see them go in the hopes of paying off their debts later. No one gets a free pass, and the university keeps their funding up.

The problem would be in the transition, the first bunch as the university would need money to keep running, but would defer these payments to when the students graduate.

	03-12-2003 02:11									#12
	Remove this text

Well, I think Shi got the system wrong. Even the kids of rich people can get student loans, if the declare themselves independent of their parents. Only problem with this is if the parents continue to support the kid and the state finds out; tax fraud.

Our system is fine, the only thing I would change is dumping the independence requiring paper work until you are 24 y.o. 18 y.o. graduate HS and can't afford school because their stupid parents want to keep them as a right-off as long as they can... that's messed up

	03-12-2003 02:34									#13
	Remove this text

I find it weird that people oppose free higher education. I mean, the costs are negligible, but the benefits are enormous. What's the problem?

	03-12-2003 02:36									#14
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Boris,

quote: How is expecting the wealthy to pay their own way fully while granting subsidies to poor people who ordinarily wouldn't be able to afford university not giving opportunity to all?

Giving plentiful enough loans for the tuition fees and cost of living while at university ensures opportunity for all. If the commercial sector is unwilling to lend at a rate the government thinks is suitable, then only here should the government step in.

quote: What opportunity is there in reserving university for just the rich?

I don't see how what I have proposed does that. On the contrary, the curreny system subsidises students from middle- and upper-class families. I'd like to do away completely with the connection between opportunity and the income of the family the student has come from: we're both after the same aim, I just think this idea of mine is the most sensible solution.

quote: Having masses of people in debt is no good for an economy, even The Economist knows that.

If those masses of people, by going into debt, are expecting returns above and beyond the current rate of interest, then debt is the most efficient solution for those individuals.

	03-12-2003 02:50									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: I mean, the costs are negligible, but the benefits are enormous. What's the problem?

Why would people oppose paying for it then?

	03-12-2003 04:04									#16
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Because they don't think on the long term. And that's why we have government.

	03-12-2003 05:48									#17
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: Originally posted by Smiley Because they don't think on the long term. And that's why we have government.

	03-12-2003 06:14									#18
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: The problem with Shi's and Boris' thinking is that the income of the family that the student comes from should be of any importance. In my opinion it shouldn't be, at all. Opportunity for all.

In my case I got huge amounts of financial aid but still came out of college with $20,000 in loans if all I got was subsidized loans I would have well over $100,000 in loans ATM while all of my friends with rich parents wouldn't be paying a cent. That hardly seems workable and if that was the case I wouldn't have had to go to a college that was a good bit worse than the college I ended up going to so I could have cashed in on merit money.

	03-12-2003 13:55									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: In my case I got huge amounts of financial aid but still came out of college with $20,000 in loans if all I got was subsidized loans I would have well over $100,000 in loans ATM while all of my friends with rich parents wouldn't be paying a cent. That hardly seems workable and if that was the case I wouldn't have had to go to a college that was a good bit worse than the college I ended up going to so I could have cashed in on merit money.

You seriously think that taking the university education out of the equation would remove the difference in wealth between you and your friends of rich parents? That difference would continue no matter what.

The fact is, you were insightful enought tonotice that $20k worth of debt is a piddling investment for the massive gains it provides you over your career.

	03-12-2003 15:58									#20
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by Park Avenue You seriously think that taking the university education out of the equation would remove the difference in wealth between you and your friends of rich parents? That difference would continue no matter what. The fact is, you were insightful enought tonotice that $20k worth of debt is a piddling investment for the massive gains it provides you over your career.

Well the gap between me and my friends with rich parents is a lot smaller in the current situation in which I was able to go to the best school that accepted rather than the best school I could affort (which would have been a much much worse school if it wasn't for need-based scholarships).
And you're right $20,000 is nothing, with subsidized interest rates I can pay off ridiculously easily while saving a good amount of money, but if I had to pay what I would have had to if I didn't have need-based scholarships, I'd be living on beans, rice and pabst in order to meet my student loan payments.

	03-12-2003 17:05									#21
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

All education here, from primary to universities, is payed by the government.

Isn't it great

	03-12-2003 17:16									#22
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: What opportunity is there in reserving university for just the rich?

Oh, university spots shouldn't be reserved for the rich, by any means. They should simply be reserved for those who can afford them.