Register to reply

UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

Share this thread:
Mech_Engineer
#217
Dec21-10, 05:29 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Mech_Engineer's Avatar
P: 2,242
It has been claimed that it isn't "fair" for rich people to have a better chance to pay for their kids' to college. Being that wealth (usually) has a direct correlation to effort, and in the academic world grades are usually correlated to effort, is it "fair" for straight-A students to be more likely to get into college than straight-C students?

On the one hand academic accomplishment is defended and rewarded, but on the other economic success is looked down upon...
Kurdt
#218
Dec21-10, 08:18 PM
Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 4,981
The fact of the matter is that the UK has always had a socialist approach to higher education whether you agree with it or not. The fundamental matter is that most students disagree with the digression from the socialist policies of the past. This whole thread is getting bogged down in the minutiae of international ideaology.
Mech_Engineer
#219
Dec21-10, 09:10 PM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Mech_Engineer's Avatar
P: 2,242
Quote Quote by Kurdt View Post
This whole thread is getting bogged down in the minutiae of international ideaology.
What should we be discussing then?
Mech_Engineer
#220
Jan3-11, 09:34 AM
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
Mech_Engineer's Avatar
P: 2,242
So, has anything happened with this in the last few weeks? Are the tuitions going to be raised? Has anyone studied the projected consequences of the raise?
JaredJames
#221
Jan3-11, 09:35 AM
P: 3,387
Well the vote passed, the fees are being raised but I don't think it kicks in for three years.
P-Jay1
#222
Jan12-11, 06:12 PM
P: 35
I think the decision to an increase in tuition fees is atrocious. I do think something needs to be done about the shear volume of people being going to university, however this is not the answer. A ridiculous increase in tuition fee is just the governments way of looking after their own, i.e the rich; the upper class. It should be about ability and not ability to pay.

I firmly believe that only the cream of the crop should go to university and they should get their tuition fees, accomodation and other expenses paid for on top of a bloody good wage. And this would be paid for by cutting things like the tax a UK citizen pays towards the royal family, and taking away HUGE bankers' bonuses (tonight it was actually reported on the 10 O'clock news that the main man behind the HBOS shambles is getting a 2M bonus- What?!).

Regarding those protests I actually happened to attend as I am a current student in London. It's good to finally see students standing up (even if if did take a 3 fold increase in tuition fees) and taking action, which should have happened long ago because 3000-4000 is already beyond belief. However I do think the few protesters who did resort to violence gave the opportunity for the government to undermine the whole thing, which is a real shame. Nevertheless I think the message was recieved.
JaredJames
#223
Jan12-11, 06:16 PM
P: 3,387
Without going to deep back into this issue, I do agree that there are certain subjects that shouldn't be valid for student funding and/or students should need to be the best to get into uni. That way it's all about ability.

The problem now is that there are a hell of a lot of people in uni doing useless subjects that are worthless. It's a big waste of money.
mheslep
#224
Jan12-11, 07:19 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by P-Jay1 View Post
I think the decision to an increase in tuition fees is atrocious. I do think something needs to be done about the shear volume of people being going to university, however this is not the answer. A ridiculous increase in tuition fee is just the governments way of looking after their own, i.e the rich; the upper class. It should be about ability and not ability to pay.

I firmly believe that only the cream of the crop should go to university and they should get their tuition fees, accomodation and other expenses paid for on top of a bloody good wage.
Unlike, say, old age pensions or public transportation of which everyone takes part to at least some degree, public funding of U. education is one of most inequitable examples I can imagine. It is where the government takes by force, via VAT and other taxes that everyone pays, including the poorest, from those who don't happen to have the ability to make the marks required to enter the U., and give it to the elite few who happen to be born with the ability. That to my mind warrants the term atrocious.

And this would be paid for by cutting things like the tax a UK citizen pays towards the royal family, and taking away HUGE bankers' bonuses (tonight it was actually reported on the 10 O'clock news that the main man behind the HBOS shambles is getting a 2M bonus- What?!).
If the government eliminated all of the Royal income of 38M it would cover less than 10% of the 400M tuition cuts, and that is before saying good bye to the tourist income generated by the Royal Family. And those bankers can and will leave, just like Keith Richards, if enough people decide to redefine theft-by-government as an Orwellian fairness.

Regarding those protests I actually happened to attend as I am a current student in London. It's good to finally see students standing up (even if if did take a 3 fold increase in tuition fees) and taking action, which should have happened long ago because 3000-4000 is already beyond belief. However I do think the few protesters who did resort to violence gave the opportunity for the government to undermine the whole thing, which is a real shame.
Who undermined the protest? The government, or the violent protesters? If you indeed consider the violent actions a shame, then were you and others up front calling for them to stop wanton destruction? I've seen the videos; didn't see any calls for restraint, only the opposite.
JaredJames
#225
Jan12-11, 07:23 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
from those who don't happen to have the ability to make the marks required to enter the U., and give it to the elite few who happen to be born with the ability. That to my mind warrants the term atrocious.
I disagree with that statement, unless there is a mental condition preventing you, everyone has an equal opportunity to work hard and achieve the requirements.
mheslep
#226
Jan12-11, 08:33 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
I disagree with that statement, unless there is a mental condition preventing you, everyone has an equal opportunity to work hard and achieve the requirements.
And I disagree with this one, in several ways.

For some, even all the hard work in the world will not grant them the required A-levels required to allow them to join the 43% of the UK university aged population entering a university. There is a reason after all that is called "higher education", not "average bloke education".

In addition to the scholastic aptitude granted by genetics, it is well known that family influence has a great deal to do with scholastic achievement of children. Well to-do, intact families tend to encourage children to do well in school; poorer, broken families not as much. There are exceptions of course, if I recall you excelled despite a challenging background. But the statistics are what they are, and it is quite a thing to waive all that away with "everyone has an equal opportunity" to justify taking a share of some Welsh miner's VAT taxes to pay the tuition of someone down at Oxford (perhaps 9000 of a real 12000 tution paid by tax payers after a 3375 students fee).

Last, what if someone simply chooses not to attend university? What if they've simply have hated the academic classroom all their life, love working with their hands instead or whatever? Then who am I, or you, to tell them "cough it up for the man down at Oxford", especially when he's out kicking in windows?
JaredJames
#227
Jan12-11, 08:43 PM
P: 3,387
mheslep, as nice as the "why should they pay" argument sounds, I'd rather see the money being paid to someone to go to university than to some bum who hasn't worked all their life and spends their days in the local pub.

Regardless, I believe people should get into university on academics. Family life is irrelevant. The school system gives the equal opportunity, so there is no difference between me in school and someone else. If their home life is detrimental that is nothing to do with the schooling system and their home life shouldn't be taken into account - next to going into care, there's nothing anyone can do about that.

Now, if you aren't up to scratch (even with your best effort), then it's over. You don't go. That's what I'm trying to get at. If you don't meet the criteria, then there's little point you attending university. Especially not to do some mediocre course that has the job prospects of a Welsh coal miner when they leave.
mheslep
#228
Jan12-11, 09:09 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
mheslep, as nice as the "why should they pay" argument sounds, I'd rather see the money being paid to someone to go to university than to some bum who hasn't worked all their life and spends their days in the local pub.
"The money"? We can be more specific. It is his money, the guy at the pub if you like, and in the case of U tuition fees, like no other public funding case I can imagine, he has no way to directly benefit from the taxes he pays for another's tuition. Actually the situation is worse yet: he is forced to pay to increase the economic inequality between him and the U attendee, who will as a result have a higher lifetime income (almost certainly).

Regardless, I believe people should get into university on academics...
Sure, I agree with you. I'll encourage my kids to go and anyone else that will listen to do the same. I will not vote to have the cops and a tax collector visit my neighbors to yank money from them to pay for my kid's U education.

Now, if you aren't up to scratch (even with your best effort), then it's over. You don't go. That's what I'm trying to get at. If you don't meet the criteria, then there's little point you attending university. Especially not to do some mediocre course that has the job prospects of a Welsh coal miner when they leave.
Agreed again. We differ on how to get there.
JaredJames
#229
Jan12-11, 09:14 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
It is his money
If he has never worked and is on benefits, it is tax payers money.

I'd prefer to see the money go to education than to some bum who doesn't work and never has just so he can p*ss it away in the pub every day (you'd be surprised how many do that where I live).

As previously here, the money is a loan, they get it back once your working. So it's not just free money and as long as you go on to get a job they eventually get it back. So you aren't forcing anyone to pay it. I, eventually, will pay for my own tuition.
mheslep
#230
Jan12-11, 09:24 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
If he has never worked and is on benefits, it is tax payers money.

I'd prefer to see the money go to education than to some bum who doesn't work and never has just so he can p*ss it away in the pub every day (you'd be surprised how many do that where I live).
Oh, I misunderstood you. I was talking about sources of revenue, tax payers, and you were apparently referring to decisions as to where it should be spent - higher eduction vs welfare - fair enough.

As previously here, the money is a loan, they get it back once your working. So it's not just free money and as long as you go on to get a job they eventually get it back. So you aren't forcing anyone to pay it. I, eventually, will pay for my own tuition.
Nice idea, but if that were true the UK wouldn't be collecting 15% of its revenue from a VAT, for which everyone pays the same rates. The coal miner is helping you out when he buys his house, his car, his TV, and especially when he visits the pub.
JaredJames
#231
Jan12-11, 09:28 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Nice idea, but if that were true the UK wouldn't be collecting 15% of its revenue from a VAT, for which everyone pays the same rates. The coal miner is helping you out when he buys his house, his car, his TV, and especially when he visits the pub.
VAT is currently 20% as of 4th January 2011.

I can't blame the VAT rates on students. Not when we're p*ssing away 13 billion on 2 weeks of sport next year.

EDIT: Sorry, I see what the graph is now. VAT used to be 15% so I got confused. You are referring to revenue collected and not the value of it on a product.

Fuel duty 5% my a*s. They take something like 50p (or more) per litre plus VAT. There must be more than 5% coming from fuel.
mheslep
#232
Jan12-11, 09:35 PM
PF Gold
P: 3,081
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
VAT is currently 20% as of 4th January 2011.

I can't blame the VAT rates on students. Not when we're p*ssing away 13 billion on 2 weeks of sport next year.
Right, 20% rate, totaling 15% all money the UK government takes in. Also note that the "Betting and gaming duties" take in 1.5 billion. The point is one can't say you'll eventually pay for your own exclusive, some get it, some don't government tuition when there is a large flat rate sales tax in place.
JaredJames
#233
Jan12-11, 09:48 PM
P: 3,387
Quote Quote by mheslep View Post
Right, 20% rate, totaling 15% all money the UK government takes in. Also note that the "Betting and gaming duties" take in 1.5 billion. The point is one can't say you'll eventually pay for your own exclusive, some get it, some don't government tuition when there is a large flat rate sales tax in place.
Once I get a job, whatever I take out I am required to pay back + interest. I'm paying for my own tuition.

Public funds are used to initially pay the student loan, but if you pay it back you've paid for your own tuition. You are only paying someone elses via taxes when that person fails to get a job and repay their loan - hence me not liking certain degrees.

Ideally, everyone who took a student loan would be initially funded by the tax payer and then this money would be paid back once a job is acquired. However, this isn't always the case and so a proportion never pay it back.

I'd also add that if you take the total amount of VAT and other taxes I pay in my lifetime, it covers the tuition fees (the hidden bit you don't get a loan for and the government just pays) many times over.
mugaliens
#234
Jan12-11, 11:24 PM
P: 595
Quote Quote by jarednjames View Post
Once I get a job, whatever I take out I am required to pay back + interest. I'm paying for my own tuition.

Public funds are used to initially pay the student loan, but if you pay it back you've paid for your own tuition. You are only paying someone elses via taxes when that person fails to get a job and repay their loan - hence me not liking certain degrees.

Ideally, everyone who took a student loan would be initially funded by the tax payer and then this money would be paid back once a job is acquired. However, this isn't always the case and so a proportion never pay it back.

I'd also add that if you take the total amount of VAT and other taxes I pay in my lifetime, it covers the tuition fees (the hidden bit you don't get a loan for and the government just pays) many times over.
How much of your income funds another's tuition, percentage-wise?

FICA, FUTA, SUTA, at least I think I know where it's going.


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Should I use the grant or tuition reimbursement? Academic Guidance 1
Proof work - Topology Images and Inverse Images Calculus & Beyond Homework 0
Instate tuition question Academic Guidance 3
Looking for some tuition advice General Math 12
Why do I pay more tuition for stupid courses I don't need? General Discussion 39