alchresearch Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 It's just like it always is under the tories. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-18984938 1) The universities set the admission and tuition fees, nothing to do with the Tories. 2) Tuition fees were introduced under Labour. 3) Several universities reduced their fees in December. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Don't worry, the privileged will get all those graduate jobs and the poorer folk who can't afford to further their education will do unskilled work, just how the tories like it. The graduate jobs will go to those who have degrees which are of use to the employers. Some of those graduates will, no doubt, come from less well-off backgrounds. Those who have other degrees will no doubt struggle to find a job. Neither those with good degrees who get good jobs nor those with 'unwanted' degree qualifications will have to pay for their education until their income exceeds a set amount. When a graduate - or even a non-graduate - earns enough to be required to repay a student loan, then you can hardly call that person 'poor'. Given that nobody has to repay a penny until they earn in excess of the amount set by the government, what does previous wealth (or the lack of it) have to do with it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 When will people get it into their heads that we don't need 50% of our young people going to university. There are too many of them getting Mickey Mouse degrees from Mickey Mouse institutions. Half of the students today shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a university unless they are there to clear the toilets. and the alternative is? It is cheaper to "encourage" the kids to go into FE than it is to pay them JSA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 The graduate jobs will go to those who have degrees which are of use to the employers. Some of those graduates will, no doubt, come from less well-off backgrounds. Those who have other degrees will no doubt struggle to find a job. Neither those with good degrees who get good jobs nor those with 'unwanted' degree qualifications will have to pay for their education until their income exceeds a set amount. When a graduate - or even a non-graduate - earns enough to be required to repay a student loan, then you can hardly call that person 'poor'. Given that nobody has to repay a penny until they earn in excess of the amount set by the government, what does previous wealth (or the lack of it) have to do with it? You said what I meant in post #10 but with more verbosity... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 How does further ed. cost more for poorer people? In fact could you define "poor"...? It actually costs less - as the loans available are means tested (based illogically on parental income) - for those from less wealthy backgrounds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 It actually costs less - as the loans available are means tested (based illogically on parental income) - for those from less wealthy backgrounds. Yep,never understood why parental income is taken into consideration..most students going to uni are 18 and above so are adults in their own right..it's up to them whether or not they want to invest in their own future... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Yep,never understood why parental income is taken into consideration..most students going to uni are 18 and above so are adults in their own right..it's up to them whether or not they want to invest in their own future... Absolutely agree. Adult decisions being made by them in order to potentially enhance their future income and yet the support they get is based on parents income. Mad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suffragette1 Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 Yep,never understood why parental income is taken into consideration..most students going to uni are 18 and above so are adults in their own right..it's up to them whether or not they want to invest in their own future... It's to save the government money of course. As with most things, it's the middle income earners who lose out the most as they can't afford to support their kids who are not eligible for any grants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 You said what I meant in post #10 but with more verbosity... I'm paid by the word ... and Bears are friendly with dragons, naturally speaking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pottedplant Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 It's to save the government money of course. As with most things, it's the middle income earners who lose out the most as they can't afford to support their kids who are not eligible for any grants. The fair way to save the money (or even use the same budget) would be to give all the students the same - so less , compared to what they get now, to some and more to others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.