Rupert_Baehr Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 If Labour want to reduce tuition fees, why the hell did they introduce them in the first place? What kind of a daft question is that? Do you understand the difference between charging for something and not charging? Charging less for something is not giving it away for free. One that appears to be beyond your comprehension. Do you have a degree in underwater basket weaving or alpine flower arranging? If you - a political party - feel that education should be free at the point of service, then education should be free. (The NHS is free at the point of service.) Labour reneged on a long-standing principle. They introduced education charges and they opened up higher education to those who couldn't even read or write. (Towards the end of the last government, Mandelson said: "The courses are too hard; too many people are failing them. The universities should make the courses less challenging so that more people pass.") Really? How many employers are queueing up to hire illiterate graduates with worthless degrees? Labour introduced tuition fees. Education was never free (the state paid) but Labour said: "Well, the state can't afford [or isn't prepared to afford] to pay anymore. We would like everybody [and his dog] to go to 'university' but they will have to pay." When I left school (44 years ago) comparatively few people went to University. The state could afford easily to pay fees (and maintenance grants, too.) Subsequently, governments seem to have decided that both Further and Higher education were a way of massaging the unemployment statistics. Education became a profitable enterprise (for many 'establishments') and standards slipped. Yes, they have slipped. - The better universities (like Sheffield) have maintained high standards but some of the newly-promoted polys will take anybody with a blood temperature above 98'F (perhaps they'd accept somebody with a blood temp of 92 - providing they hadn't started to smell. (Well, not too badly.) 'Bums on seats' are what counts. An ability to read and write is no longer essential. (And if you want empirical evidence of this, look at some of the posts on this forum made by university 'students'. As an [ex-]employer I learned where to look. If the candidate came from Oxbridge, London, St Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh (what a dreamer!) - No problem. Durham, KCL, UCL, UL, QL, UCB,QH, USW,QMUL and LSE were the other universities. Then came the red brick universities, second-wave and plate glass and - after the OU, University and Buckingham and University of Ulster The New Universities. If you were applying for a place and you were very, very smart, would you apply for a place at a uni at the top of my list or a place at a uni at the bottom? As an employer, if I was faced with an applicant from a university near the bottom, I would certainly want to know whether (s)he could read and write ... The number of people attending universities had risen, but the increase in entry numbers had been obtained by a reduction in standards. Am I being over-cynical? I think not. I've experience from both (and the middle) sides of university education. When I was teaching post-16 students (in a well-reowned school) I had one student (bright, but bloody lazy) who managed to achieve two 'U's and an 'F'. Not a problem sir, our university (near Lorraine's airport) will be pleased to offer you a place. I wonder whether anybody offered him a job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael_W Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Bang on with that post Rupert ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alchresearch Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 When I went to uni in 2004 there were far too many there who were just there for a doss and dropped out by year two. If you make it too easy for everyone to start it puts unnecessary pressure on the entire higher education system, for unis, lecturers and students. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15050334 All good on the face of it, by little ed milliband. The problem I have with it is that they'll be funding it by charging those who earn over £65000 a higher interest rate on their student loan repayments. So those who choose to train to be doctors and lawyers will be funding those who do degrees in media studies and David beckham. Can't be right can it ? This story made me laugh this morning, they want to lower the fees and pay for it by taxing the "greedy" bankers. Anyone else think they are desperate to win the popularity contest irrespective of whether what they are suggesting is possible/useful:suspect: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Who are you to decide who should or should not go to university? and this is the problem with higher education:roll: It should be extremely elistist, the best students should get to go to university not anyone who wants to! Then maybe when they got there all the students would understand basic maths and time would not be wasted reteaching gcse level work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Abolish the fees!! my daughter is quite bright, gets her head down at school and does her best. but theres no way i could afford for her to go to uni, and i wouldnt want her to get into deep debt. so what is she going to do? wheres her incentive to do well? because the way things are she wont have the oppitunity to make something of herself! wheres the level playing field? should i tell her to just have fun at school because theres gona be no jobs and no oppitunity? think of it as a graduate tax. It doesn't affect getting a mortgage, if you can't pay you stop paying even if your circumstances change so you won't be in trouble if you lost your job and you only pay when you are in a good job. It really isn't a problem! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ampersand Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 That's a fact. He's got the whiff of Ian Duncan smith about him if you ask me !!!!! Class insult! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
love_rat Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 Apparently, they are going to stop all forms of taxation. Obviously, thats what would happen if an election was to happen tommorrow, but clearly we can't promise this as we are 3 years away from an election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ricgem2002 Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 But it is an affordable debt when you've graduated and got that good job paying a decent amount of money. Student loan repayments are minuscule. Its high time people realised that everything can't be handed on a plate - car, house, and so on. unless your a scot with free uni places/ free care for the elderly all paid for by us brits, makes you great to be british eh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joiner andy Posted September 26, 2011 Share Posted September 26, 2011 unless your a scot with free uni places/ free care for the elderly all paid for by us brits, makes you great to be british eh lets all move to scotland!!!!!!!!!! sounds fantasic, if i ruled the country i would try to make life comfortable, and i lot easier for EVERYBODY! not just the well off. but carlsberg dont make politicians do they Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.