h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

last night i watched as a mockery was made of the education of future generations, l watched as the future was shattered by a narrow 5 votes. apparently the british "government" want a future of poorly educated young slobs. with no more qualifications than advanced burger flipping or shelf stacking. in a world where we have a shortage of trained professionals. the government seems to care only about making the problems worse through these top-up fees so that only the select ritch can attend. education should be for all. and this plot by the government to make the future worse so that their present day mistakes are forgotten should not be permitted.

My heart sunk as I heard the result live yesterday (curiously, on the World Service). For me, what is inexcusable is that the burden of debts is clearly upon the student, who is being treated in that sense as an independent adult, but that the scale of those debts is to be means-tested on the basis of the wealth or otherwise of the parents. Mr Bliar's definition of 'fair' is something I'd like to see.

Whoami?

I admit it's not nice, but you have to remember that the government doesn't have inexhaustable resources. They need to get the money from somewhere, and there are only two feasible sources: private enterprise, or the student.

It seems a bit two-faced of me to say so, since the new proposal won't affect me, but I wouldn't mind having more to pay off once I've finished education if it means I'll have a better one.

Of course, it's a bit dangerous to say that anywhere around campus, where people with parents on ludicrous salaries want to get grants!

- Jordan

I'm not suggesting that the Universities don't need the money, or that the Government's resources are infinite. However, there is no sense in which the new system is fair, and it won't actually offer a solution to the problem. If Mr Bliar wants to put 50% of people through a University education then the Universities are going to need more money.

I don't personally agree with fees for University students on the basis that the University education of some benefits the others too (think doctors, teachers, etc.) and so the fairest way to achieve the required funding is to *increase general taxation* - which of course scares the Government to the extent of giving them brown pants.

The argument that somehow this is unfair because it doesn't penalise graduates for their potentially increased earnings is a prime example of warped reasoning - we have a tax system that includes a higher rate of tax above a certain level of earnings, and besides, even without the higher rate, the more money you earn, the more tax you pay.

The above is, however, a comparatively minor gripe compared to the evils of means testing, which leaves students with different amounts of personal debt at the end of their course based on the financial situation of their parents. This is inexcusable - just because I happen to have been born into a family which, for the most part, lives very comfortably, but who have made considerable sacrifice to provide me with a fantastic education, does not make it fair that, once I have become independent, with my own wallet and my own right to vote, I should be landed with a vast amount of debt.

Whoami?

The evils of means testing... I recall a friend who commented that it impacts those in the middle hardest, because they're paying the full amount but they're only just making enough to afford it. I think he was right, he probably will have a harder time of it - which will probably be made worse because he isn't use to living a less privileged lifestyle. In contrast, I get my full fees paid and the full loan amount, and I'm actually living a better lifestyle at University than I do at home!

However, unless your parents are making you repay them for your education, you should actually be saddled with less debt - you'll be relying on a smaller loan amount, so you should have less of a loan to pay off?

To be honest, I don't mind that I'll have eighteen thousand pounds to pay off. If I get a better job because I've got a good degree, I certainly don't mind paying off a relatively small loan taken to pay for it. And I wouldn't mind paying even more than that, because I still think it would be worth it.

'...the University education of some benefits the others too...'

Yes, but a very specific some! If too many people go into certain subjects, we have market saturation, which is bad for the population as a whole because there is no return on the investment (of putting them through teritary education) and it would increase unemployment. Also, some people would be better suited to simply going straight to work rather than University, because (a) they would do badly, and (b) they might advance further working for three-four years than they will ultimately because of their degree.

I'm not economist enough to know the full implications of these moves, but I do know that if universities don't get more money they will get progressively worse, and I'm pretty sure that even higher taxation isn't the most elegant solution. Presumably, people who seek a university education do so because they want to pursue a career path which requires it, or because they have some other personal motivation, so it's not too harsh to expect us to pay for it.

In case you're wondering, my mother doesn't make enough money for my family to live 'comfortably'. That's why I get a whopping loan, and that's what I'll be paying back in later life.

- Jordan

Phantom, complain about the new system if you must, but do it without making such silly implications. If someone doesn't go to university, that hardly makes them a poorly educated slob. I think you'll find it's quite possible for someone to leave full-time education at 18 and have far more abilities than burger flipping and shelf-stacking. And if that really is all a person is capable of after that much education, is there any reason to believe that going to university will make any difference?

The government's greatest foolishness was in setting such targets in the first place for so many to go to university. There are jobs in the world that require higher education, and jobs that don't. Unless 50% of jobs require H.E., having 50% of students go to university just means having a number (probably a large number) of students who can't get a job that suits their qualifications. (Assuming jobs even exist that suit their qualifications, since we all know there are plenty of degrees one can get which have very little relevance to any job.)

Besides, when the matter was being debated, it was pointed out that the bringing in of these new fees means the getting rid of old ones, and there was some disagreement about whether it was the old system or the new system which would actually be cheaper for students. Unfortunately, neither side chose to give any actual numerical evidence, so I can't say who was right. But why jump to the conclusion that the new way is terrible and will prevent people from going to university?

There was that girl on question time, saying the binman should pay for her medical degree, because he'll be glad if he ever needs an operation. She conveniently missed out a few facts which may have been relevant to the argument:
1. She won't be doing the operation for free. She'll be getting well paid for operating on that binman. She won't say, "Well, you paid for me to get this education, so I suppose you should get free use of it."
2. He'll be paying for her regardless of whether she actually chooses to use her medical degree or chooses to never do another days work and live off the state for the rest of her life.
3. He won't just be paying for medical degrees, he'll be paying for lots of students to get degrees that won't help them to be of any benefit to the world in any way.

ok so i exagerated a bit with the burger flipping bit. but i belive that everyone who wants to should be able to go to uni, regardless of their families backgound. i for one would pay a higher tax, if uni was free for students.

Jordan: I think my parents will be generous in helping me with living costs / accomodation (they will probably agree to subsidise based on what I manage to scrape together), but as far as tuition fees go, I'm on my own. They'll be wanting to move to a nicer house, having spent the money they would have spent on luxuries on educating me and my brother instead. That said - I don't think the new system ought to affect me as I've applied already and hope to start in October. It's just in principle that I object to a system that is so apparently confused in its values.

Whoami?

For my two cents: I have not been to university, nor am I likly to. I come from a very unprivilaged background in which neither of my parents worked. now I've managed to scrable together an education from the stupid mess of the system and by luck got onto a profresional career that quite drankly I should have a degree to have.

So I'm paying taxes to send others to university. you'd think I'd mind but I don't, I earn enough to live more than reasonably and I'd prefare others not to face massive amounts of loans they have to pay back, 15k is just not enough in most of the world to live on, why should you have to pay it back then? this is all wrong, stick a penny on income tax and be done with it.

besides I hate taking to people who don't know what I'm going on about

-- DoctorMO --

DoctorMO, you've hit the nail on the head there. The Government is afraid to raise tax in any visible way. Their argument *for* the whole fees introduction was that people who have degrees are statistically more likely to be well paid (however much their statistics were inflated, the pattern is close enough). More income, more tax anyway.

OK, so I'm not earning enough to pay tax yet, but when I do, I'd be more than happy to pay a bit more tax if it was being invested in a system of higher education that genuinely based its applications system entirely on merit. The top universities are now taking more non-EU students (they pay full (£15-20k pa) fees) and the new fees won't stop that because they aren't enough for the universities to operate with.

Whoami?

there is just a few checks and balances I'd like to see, like a manditory 10 years in the NHS for all doctors that we pay to go through uni, or the company that wants them can pay 2/3s of the cost.

-- DoctorMO --