I would like to volunteer..

[decaff]

Just playing devils advocate, but why then if people are to pay for this should they not pay for education from the age of five onwards? Later of course.

 

But they do - through taxation in general... So why should FE be different?

 

Good point and you could argue for this until the cows come home, just as you can argue against it. Personally i think FE should be different, simply because it often involves students leaving home and it isn't fair that taxpayers pay for what is often (for many but not all) 3 years of partying and time wasting.

 

£9k tuition fees are far too high for all but the rich folk, but it is unrealistic to expect free university education.

[Chris_Sleeps]

it isn't fair that taxpayers pay for what is often (for many but not all) 3 years of partying and time wasting.

Then reform university, not it's funding. Two year intensive courses, cut the summer holidays out and they can be even shorter.

[Obelix]

Good point and you could argue for this until the cows come home, just as you can argue against it. Personally i think FE should be different, simply because it often involves students leaving home and it isn't fair that taxpayers pay for what is often (for many but not all) 3 years of partying and time wasting.

 

£9k tuition fees are far too high for all but the rich folk, but it is unrealistic to expect free university education.

 

Well that's the nub..

 

The problem is that too many people are going into FE - and by that the dropout and failure rate is too high. You want to stop people who are maniefstly too dim to do it from entering and make it harder so that although you have less people going in you still have as many qualified people coming out. That we we get the same number of useful people out, and those that are never going to get through are told that and directed to more suitable options, be that vocational training, into the workforce, apprenticeships or whatever.

 

Tuition is a benefit to the state and should be state funded to the limit of the students ability. Living expenses is something they should meet though IMHO.

[mj.scuba]

Just playing devils advocate, but why then if people are to pay for this should they not pay for education from the age of five onwards? Later of course.

 

But they do - through taxation in general... So why should FE be different?

 

5-16 eduaction is available to all, and if everybody only did the 5-16 education, everybody would have the same earnings potential. A person that goes on to FE will gain a higher earnings potential.

 

Personally I'd like to see both Government and student pay a fair amount (I'm undecided what fair is or should be) since both have a vested interest in turning out a highly educated individual.

[Obelix]

So why dont we charge people for A levels to the age of 18 then?

[mj.scuba]

So why dont we charge people for A levels to the age of 18 then?

 

Indeed why don't we?

[dosxuk]

Personally i think FE should be different, simply because it often involves students leaving home and it isn't fair that taxpayers pay for what is often (for many but not all) 3 years of partying and time wasting.

 

The 3 years party doesn't apply to any students I know, or to me or any of my course mates while I was a student - yes, we went out quite a bit in our first year, but once the second year started we could only afford (money and time) to go out every now and again. Also, from our student loan - which is not what is being protested about, the whole loans vs grants debate was lost and forgotten years ago now - once you took our tuition fees and accommodation out, there wasn't much left to go partying with, even if we decided not to buy any books / materials. There's a reason so many students have one or two part time jobs, and it's not because they've got so much spare time.

 

I don't understand the sense in burdening 18 year olds with at least £12,000 debt / year they're studying. A graduate tax, effective immediately for all graduates of a university course, including MPs, on all earnings over the average non-graduate earning. That way instead of thousands of people with debts they're going to take years to pay off, those who have graduated now will support those which are currently learning.

[Chris_Sleeps]

A graduate tax, effective immediately for all graduates of a university course, including MPs, on all earnings over the average non-graduate earning.

I don't agree with that. The high finance bankers or the elite lawyers would have to pay for others to be educated. It just isn't fair at all. Second homes don't buy themselves.

[Guest]

I would like to volunteer to personally flog the students who are kicking off in London today.

 

They clearly have no brains, and don't deserve to receive a higher education.

 

Someone has got to empty the bins, re-surface the roads and change faulty light bulbs in street lamps, and I think they've just volunteered for a career full of ****e.

 

If I was the police commander, I would've got a megaphone, and said: "We start shooting tear gas and rubber bullets in 30 minutes, anyone who doesn't want it, leave now"

 

Stupid scum, the lot of them.

 

 

Another little Hitler on here - we've got enough already thanks.

[Frazer1974]

Another little Hitler on here - we've got enough already thanks.

 

lol, why on earth do you liken me to Hitler. Think about it... really, come on.

 

React to what I actually said, not what you think I said.