News UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[Mathnomalous]

Thanks to the Boston Globe for uploading these. Viewer discretion advised (blood, violence, etc)

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/12/london_tuition_fee_protest.html

Here is one sample:

 

[cristo]

Some great images!

I don't really know what to make of the protests. On the one hand I'm very supportive of the students not wanting to pay £9000 a year since it will simply make education unattainable for a lot of people. On the other hand, the violence is unacceptable. Though, I suppose, most of the violence was not by students but rather anarchists.

 

[Mathnomalous]

On the other hand, the violence is unacceptable. Though, I suppose, most of the violence was not by students but rather anarchists.

It is a complex matter, I suppose. It could be argued the mere presence of riot police elevates the tension in an already tense situation; on the other hand, it is possible a few rabble rousers take advantage of the situation and create trouble.

I think the police were using a technique called "kettling", used to block access to restrooms, water, or other necessities and slowly wear down protesters, or so the theory goes. Seems absurd to me, since a hungry, thirsty person will probably become more aggressive. In my opinion, the police should insert small teams of police officers in the crowd and remove those protesters that incite others to more aggressive behavior; the "inciter(s)" do not necessarily have to be arrested, but they could be detained for a few hours. It simply does not look good for the police if they start cracking skulls, even if the protesters are a rowdy bunch; the general public will always perceive the police as the big dog and the protesters as the underdog.

And while I have no problem with violence against the government, I think the protesters should not have behaved so violently just because of a tuition hike. Granted, access to education is important, but I would prefer if the use of violence against the government is used as a last resort and only when the government is clearly unjustifiably and inhumanely oppressing its citizens.*


*Yes, I do believe certain forms of oppression are justifiable and humane, such as paying taxes, not smoking in certain locations, or not consuming alcohol in certain locations.

 

[WhoWee]

On the other hand, the violence is unacceptable. Though, I suppose, most of the violence was not by students but rather anarchists.

Did the police release the identities or details of the people that were detained?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So all of the students are violently protesting the government releasing universities from arbitrary tuition limits? Are they really using violent force to try and FORCE the universities into government slavery?!

There's so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start...

 

[Insanity]

Img 24, I guess the third officer from the right didn't get the memo.

 

[JaredJames]

As much as I disagree with the violence, if the government are going to totally ignore the people who put them where they are, what do they think is going to happen? It's not like this hasn't happened before.

Plus the fact the Lib Dems promised one thing an then did a total U-turn. Anyone else would be prosecuted under the trade descriptions act.

 

[mugaliens]

TANSSAAFL, people.* When you demand lower taxes, more government action, less government spending, more government oversight, less government intrusion, more government programs (like tuition subsidies), less crime, more police...

...you're pulling the cat six ways to Sunday. Something's got to give, and it's not the cat.

We had a similar problem over here a couple of centuries ago. We solved the problem easily enough.

No, I'm not advocating revolt. It would help, however, if you were to start voting out those who wrongly believe governments exist for the sake of the government, and vote in those who realize that governments exist of the people, by the people, and for the people, and that when they cease to exist for those reasons, they should cease to exist at all.

*"There ain't no such thing as a free lunch." - Robert A. Heinlein

 

[JaredJames]

Mugs, I'd point out that the Lib Dems were voted in because they promised to eradicate tuition fees amongst other things - they had a huge student backing.

They did a complete u-turn on this promise and now the fees are being tripled.

This is one of the major factors in the violence.

I'd also add that the government is spend £10 billion+ on the olympic games. If there was ever a project that could be cut to save money that should have been it, not going straight for students. Plus, they were bidding on the world cup. What sort of country cuts monetary support for 16-19 year olds to remain in school for higher education and raises university tuition fee costs and causes thousands to be made redundant and then turns round and keeps the olympics and tries to bid on the world f****** cup. We need those like a hole in the head.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Just to be clear though:

1. UK gov't makes law arbitrarily limiting university tuition to an "affordable" level, with no regard to how much such an education actually costs...
2. Lots of people start going to school because it's "cheap."
3. Universities complain saying they can't stay in business without hiking up tuitions.
4. Government decides to raise limit (although the amount is still arbitrary).
5. Students violently revolt, without any regard towards WHY the tuition has to be raised...

Seriously, this is such a clusterf--- I can't believe it.

This is what happens when a bunch of people are dependent on an un-funded government program and it comes crashing down...

 

[JaredJames]

Just to be clear though:

1. UK gov't makes law arbitrarily limiting university tuition to an "affordable" level, with no regard to how much such an education actually costs...
2. Lots of people start going to school because it's "cheap."
3. Universities complain saying they can't stay in business without hiking up tuitions.
4. Government decides to raise limit (although the amount is still arbitrary).
5. Students violently revolt, without any regard towards WHY the tuition has to be raised...

Seriously, this is such a clusterf--- I can't believe it.

This is what happens when a bunch of people are dependent on an un-funded government program and it comes crashing down...

There are a number of factors involved, far more than you're applying here.

Firstly, the quality of teaching at universities is poor and does not justify a 6000 hike to the prices. I speak as an Aero Engineering student.

Add to this the lying of the politicians to get into office, plus the fact we can apparently afford the olympics and a world cup bid and you're going to get riots.

I'd also point out that last year there were record university applications, on the grounds that there were no jobs for people leaving school, so the only option was go on the dole or go to uni. Some unis turned people away I believe.

You also have to look at the issue of people not being able to afford university anymore. You create an elitist education system.

The government need to realize something, if people don't have jobs and can't go to university, they are going to end up on the dole. The government is then paying for them.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

There are a number of factors involved, far more than you're applying here.

Firstly, the quality of teaching at universities is poor and does not justify a 6000 hike to the prices. I speak as an Aero Engineering student.

Universities should be run like businesses, and ask whatever they want for tuition. If it isn't worth it, don't go there!

Add to this the lying of the politicians to get into office, plus the fact we can apparently afford the olympics and a world cup bid and you're going to get riots.

How much money does an Olympics or World Cup bring in for local businesses though? The Gov't can't spend anything on anything else if students want free money?

I'd also point out that last year there were record university applications, on the grounds that there were no jobs for people leaving school, so the only option was go on the dole or go to uni. Some unis turned people away I believe.

Ok, higher demand means higher prices in a properly-functioning market situation. Artificially lowering prices through the gov't will create a shortage (as we're seeing).

You also have to look at the issue of people not being able to afford university anymore. You create an elitist education system.

But people don't have a "right" to an oxford education, and it's immoral to use the govt's guns to force them to give it to you...

The government need to realize something, if people don't have jobs and can't go to university, they are going to end up on the dole. The government is then paying for them.

Another reason the government shouldn't be involved at all!

 

[JaredJames]

Universities should be run like businesses, and ask whatever they want for tuition. If it isn't worth it, don't go there!

So the poor can only go to the 'lesser' universities they can afford? Yep that's fair.

How much money does an Olympics or World Cup bring in for local businesses though? The Gov't can't spend anything on anything else if students want free money?

Students are required to pay back student loans plus interest, it isn't free money. Let's not make things up here.

But people don't have a "right" to an oxford education, and it's immoral to use the govt's guns to force them to give it to you...

Oxford isn't always the best, but the best universities will start charging more and you end up with only the rich going to the best places. Hardly fair is it. I'm born poor therefore I'll only be able to get lower paid jobs and my kids will be born poor and so on and on...

Another reason the government shouldn't be involved at all!

But they end up with the burden either way (well actually the student loans company is private I believe).

 

[JaredJames]

1. UK gov't makes law arbitrarily limiting university tuition to an "affordable" level, with no regard to how much such an education actually costs...
2. Lots of people start going to school because it's "cheap."
3. Universities complain saying they can't stay in business without hiking up tuitions.
4. Government decides to raise limit (although the amount is still arbitrary).
5. Students violently revolt, without any regard towards WHY the tuition has to be raised...

These points are wrong.

Firstly, the government limited tuition fees and they subsidise the additional cost.
Now they have withdrawn some of that funding and universities need to rise tuition costs to cover the loss.

Not much on it, but shows why the rises are needed: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11677862

 

[Mech_Engineer]

So the poor can only go to the 'lesser' universities they can afford? Yep that's fair.

If you can't afford to pay for it outright, you'd better work hard in high school and get a scholarship. My Dad always told me- "fair" isn't always "equal." Is it "fair" that there are people with more money than others in the first place?

Students are required to pay back student loans plus interest, it isn't free money. Let's not make things up here.

So, what are they rioting about?

Oxford isn't always the best, but the best universities will start charging more and you end up with only the rich going to the best places. Hardly fair is it. I'm born poor therefore I'll only be able to get lower paid jobs and my kids will be born poor and so on and on...

Slippery slope argument, and invalid. I went to a state university, not ivy-league or anything. Grades, hard work, and networking make all the difference. There are lots of people that don't even go to college, its a fact of life.

But they end up with the burden either way (well actually the student loans company is private I believe).

Look the fact is a university has certain costs associated with their curriculum. They need money to attract the best teachers and have the best facilities. If you limit the money the university gets, you aren't giving the best education to everyone; you're lowering the bar because they have less to work with (and they might go out of business because of it).

 

[Gokul43201]

So the poor can only go to the 'lesser' universities they can afford? Yep that's fair.

Would you advocate the government also mandate the price of all housing? Otherwise the poor would have to live in cheaper accommodations than the rich, and how can that be fair?

 

[russ_watters]

So all of the students are violently protesting the government releasing universities from arbitrary tuition limits? Are they really using violent force to try and FORCE the universities into government slavery?!

There's so much wrong with this, I don't even know where to start...

Welcome to social democracy. The irony is that while the realities of economics seem to be forcing European countries to cut away at their socialist policies, in the face of the same economic problems, we're adding more. Horay for the strongest democracy in the world!

 

[JaredJames]

So, what are they rioting about?

Instead of leaving with £9000 of tuition fee debt, they leave with £27,000 tuition fee debt.

Slippery slope argument, and invalid. I went to a state university, not ivy-league or anything. Grades, hard work, and networking make all the difference. There are lots of people that don't even go to college, its a fact of life.

Certain universities have better employability than others. You can work as hard as like in some universities and your chances of getting a job are still less than someone who comes out of Cambridge.

Look the fact is a university has certain costs associated with their curriculum. They need money to attract the best teachers and have the best facilities. If you limit the money the university gets, you aren't giving the best education to everyone; you're lowering the bar because they have less to work with (and they might go out of business because of it).

The universities received some funding from the student and the rest from the government. The government are now removing some of that funding and as such need tuition fees to go up to cover it. The universities weren't necessarily limited before as the government covered the shortfall.

 

[russ_watters]

So the poor can only go to the 'lesser' universities they can afford? Yep that's fair.

In the US we have a variety of tuition assistance programs, including loans. A university degree has a payback of more than 10:1, so most people should be able to afford a student loan.

And by the way, fair? How do you define fair? Is it it fair to force me to pay for your college education? That doesn't seem fair to me. Capitalism is the ultimate in fairness. Everyone gets exactly the same opportunities and if you rise to the challenge, you get rewarded. What could be more fair?

 

[Gokul43201]

The irony is that while the realities of economics seem to be forcing European countries to cut away at their socialist policies, in the face of the same economic problems, we're adding more.

Why is that ironic?

 

[JaredJames]

Would you advocate the government also mandate the price of all housing? Otherwise the poor would have to live in cheaper accommodations than the rich, and how can that be fair?

It isn't fair. There are a number of things I believe the government should be dealing with but don't.

However, there are a number of key items, healthcare, education, police, fire service and a few more that I believe they have a responsibility to look after.

I'd also like to add here that our prime minister advocated the tuition fee rises for British Citizens by saying it would mean foreign students don't face such rises. Again, looking after foreigners before their own people.

 

[Gokul43201]

It isn't fair. There are a number of things I believe the government should be dealing with but don't.

However, there are a number of key items, healthcare, education, police, fire service and a few more that I believe they have a responsibility to look after.

Why do you think university education is a more fundamental requirement than say, housing?

 

[russ_watters]

Why is that ironic?

We're supposed to be less socialistic than Europe but we're responding to the same crisis by moving to the left while they're moving to the right. That's pretty ironic to me.

Though perhaps the reason is they've hit a wall and realized they can't go any further left and we won't turn around until we get to that wall too.

 

[russ_watters]

It isn't fair.

It's not fair for a person who has more money to be allowed to buy a better house? Wow.

 

[Evo]

Mugs, I'd point out that the Lib Dems were voted in because they promised to eradicate tuition fees amongst other things - they had a huge student backing.

Did they offer any realistic ability to do what they said? If you believe nonsense because it sounds good, you deserve what you get.

I'd also add that the government is spend £10 billion+ on the olympic games. If there was ever a project that could be cut to save money that should have been it, not going straight for students. Plus, they were bidding on the world cup. What sort of country cuts monetary support for 16-19 year olds to remain in school for higher education and raises university tuition fee costs and causes thousands to be made redundant and then turns round and keeps the olympics and tries to bid on the world f****** cup. We need those like a hole in the head.

Are these the same group that made promises they couldn't keep? If you are running for office, you shouldn't be ignorant of what is going on. And the voters, shame on them if they didn't do their homework and chose to believe empty promises.

And I agree that the UK will never recoup the money spent. Look at China.

 

[JaredJames]

Why do you think university education is a more fundamental requirement than say, housing?

I don't, but the government actually has a fairly good grasp on housing at the moment. Not brilliant, but it deals with what it has to regarding it. By which, I mean they help provide housing to people.

 

[Gokul43201]

I don't, but the government actually has a fairly good grasp on housing at the moment. Not brilliant, but it deals with what it has to regarding it. By which, I mean they help provide housing to people.

Yet housing prices are primarily determined by the markets, and rich people live in nicer homes than poor people. If that's working reasonably well, and you mostly approve of it, why do you not support a similar solution for higher education?

 

[JaredJames]

It's not fair for a person who has more money to be allowed to buy a better house? Wow.

Sorry, I think I've got points crossed here.

I'm speaking in regards to people who don't have money being stuck in the poor areas and not being able to do anything about it. It's not fair that they are limited in their options to get out of said areas and now the options are becoming fewer.

I totally agree that if you have more money you have every right to have a better house, but it's when you end up in a society that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor it isn't fair. Which is basically what we have now.

 

[russ_watters]

Did they offer any realistic ability to do what they said? If you believe nonsense because it sounds good, you deserve what you get.

Obama promised he'd close 'Gitmo and even with it being impossible except as an empty gesture (move them to Chicago), people lapped it up. Unsurprisingly, 'Gitmo's still open. Perhaps if it was a more important issue, Democrats wouldn't be so quick to let it go.

No, it doesn't surprise me at all that politicians or the public would act this way. Its a mutually-destructive co-dependent relationship.

 

[JaredJames]

Yet housing prices are primarily determined by the markets, and rich people live in nicer homes than poor people. If that's working reasonably well, and you mostly approve of it, why do you not support a similar solution for higher education?

Again, as per my above post, my arguments come from providing equality to all. If you don't give someone in a poor are the chance to get out and improve their lives, it isn't a fair system. You are forcing them to stay there.

 

[Gokul43201]

We're supposed to be less socialistic than Europe...

I think we are less socialistic than Europe, by a lot.

...but we're responding to the same crisis by moving to the left while they're moving to the right. That's pretty ironic to me.

Not to me. Why should it be obvious that some kind of optimal solution to the crisis does not lie in between Europe's (relatively) strong socialism and the US's weaker form of socialism?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm speaking in regards to people who don't have money being stuck in the poor areas and not being able to do anything about it. It's not fair that they are limited in their options to get out of said areas and now the options are becoming fewer.

Well the premise is faulty, which makes the conclusion faulty. It is extremely rare for people who are poor to "not be able to do anything about it". The vast majority are poor as a result of their own choices. Therefore, it is fair that they reap the 'rewards' of their efforts.

For people truly in need and truly not able to do anything about - a freak accident takes their leg off at the knee and now they can't work at the job they did before - the government should help. But only those people.

I totally agree that if you have more money you have every right to have a better house, but it's when you end up in a society that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor it isn't fair. Which is basically what we have now.

You can't have it both ways. If you give a house to someone who can't afford it, you take a house from someone who otherwise can. That's not fair in my book.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I totally agree that if you have more money you have every right to have a better house, but it's when you end up in a society that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor it isn't fair. Which is basically what we have now.

So, you would prefer a society that makes the rich poor and the poor "less poor." Sounds like communism to me. Everyone with the same amount of money, the same opportunities, the same same same.

What if everyone had the exact same opportunities to go to universities and come out with a phd? Do you really think there are jobs for EVERYONE to have a college education?

 

[JaredJames]

Did they offer any realistic ability to do what they said? If you believe nonsense because it sounds good, you deserve what you get.

I should clarify here, the Lib Dems promised to eradicate fees. However, they've now raised them without so much as a fight. If they had stood up for what they promised it would have been something (and the vote wouldn't have passed) and tuition fees wouldn't have risen nor fallen. Not what they promised, but at least nothing changes.

We all new cuts were coming but from where was the question. The lib dems and labour weren't making as drastic cuts as the conservatives, they've just gone in and wiped out everything they felt like. Serves the voters right though, we did put them there so we have to live with it.
I would like to see them prosecuted under the trade descriptions act though.

Are these the same group that made promises they couldn't keep? If you are running for office, you shouldn't be ignorant of what is going on. And the voters, shame on them if they didn't do their homework and chose to believe empty promises.

And I agree that the UK will never recoup the money spent. Look at China.

A different party started the olympic ball rolling years ago (by paying £400,000 for a logo that looks like Lisa Simpson perform a sex act), but all parties had a similar view on it. It was never up for debate as to whether or not they'd go ahead.

 

[russ_watters]

I think we are less socialistic than Europe, by a lot.

Not to me. Why should it be obvious that some kind of optimal solution to the crisis does not lie in between Europe's (relatively) strong socialism and the US's weaker form of socialism?

Maybe I'm thinking too much like a capitalist, but I thought the whole point of socialism was that it is worth accepting a lower GDP in order to bring-up the lower-class to an acceptable level of development. So in an economic crisis, there isn't a middle ground*: any increase in socialistic practices will decrease future GDP and worsten/prolong the crisis. In other words, you can only increase socialism when you have extra cash available. That's why - my distaste for national healthcare aside - the '90s would have been a much better time to implement it.

So it seems like the more socialist realize that more socialism makes an economic downturn worse/longer, but the less socialist don't.

*The middle-ground of socialism vs capitalism is growth vs development of the underclass (simplified).

 

[JaredJames]

Well the premise is faulty, which makes the conclusion faulty. It is extremely rare for people who are poor to "not be able to do anything about it". The vast majority are poor as a result of their own choices. Therefore, it is fair that they reap the 'rewards' of their efforts.

Ah, so it's fair that I'm stuck not able to afford to go into higher education (from age 16 onwards) because my parents messed up in school?

You can't have it both ways. If you give a house to someone who can't afford it, you take a house from someone who otherwise can. That's not fair in my book.

Woah. At what point did I say take houses from people and give them to the poor?

If you reduce the options available to the lower classes to improve their lifestyle, how are they ever going to get into a position of being able to afford better housing?

 

[JaredJames]

So, you would prefer a society that makes the rich poor and the poor "less poor." Sounds like communism to me. Everyone with the same amount of money, the same opportunities, the same same same.

Did I say the same amount of money? No. It's when you are putting people in a position where it is difficult to change their circumstances I disagree with.

What if everyone had the exact same opportunities to go to universities and come out with a phd? Do you really think there are jobs for EVERYONE to have a college education?

This is on the basis every person goes to university and gets a phd. Firstly, just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean people will take it up (my sister hates school and couldn't wait to get out at 16) and it certainly doesn't mean people are suddenly capable of attaining the phd's.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's why - my distaste for national healthcare aside - the '90s would have been a much better time to implement it.

I'm a little confused about what you meant when you mentioned the response to the crisis. I thought you were talking about the stimulus bill, the TARP program, the GM deal, the Wall Street regulation bill, etc. I don't think of the Healthcare bill as being in response to the economic/financial/housing crisis.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, so it's fair that I'm stuck not able to afford to go into higher education (from age 16 onwards) because my parents messed up in school?

Well yes, but you're stepping well past the issue: In the US anyway, the vast majority of the poor have not completed high school.

Woah. At what point did I say take houses from people and give them to the poor?

You didn't. The flaw is that you don't recognize that reality.

If you reduce the options available to the lower classes to improve their lifestyle, how are they ever going to get into a position of being able to afford better housing?

What?! By giving them housing, you are ensuring that they will never need to work harder to afford it!

Don't act like opportunities don't exist or we're talking about an all-or-nothing situation. We're not talking about the difference between homeless and living in a mansion, we're talking about the difference between Oxford and a cheaper college. Maybe it's a lot tougher to become rich if you went to a mediocre school (doubt it, but ok...), but even a mediocre school opens up a relatively easy path to the upper-middle class if you take proper advantage of it.

 

[JaredJames]

You didn't. The flaw is that you don't recognize that reality.

Hmm, the issue in the UK is more down to the lack of affordable housing as opposed to taking houses off people.

What?! By giving them housing, you are ensuring that they will never need to work harder to afford it!

This is a whole other issue for me, it relates to the benefit state.

I'm talking about limiting education options. If you raise costs, fewer people go to uni. If fewer people go to uni and as we found last year there aren't jobs for them, the government then has to support them. Is it better to have people working in university towards a qualification (or in a college for a skill) or is it better to simply have people sitting around accepting handouts for doing nothing?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Did I say the same amount of money? No. It's when you are putting people in a position where it is difficult to change their circumstances I disagree with.

This whole argument is that poor people should be able to do the same things as the rich (or perhaps even the not-so-rich but not-so-poor) people. Problem is, this isn't possible without basically violating the rights of the rich, which is apparently ok with you because they're rich...

This is on the basis every person goes to university and gets a phd.

The point is that raising the bar doesn't increase opportunity, it just limits it elsewhere. If everyone has a college degree because they can get it for free or really cheap, you'll end up with a bunch of people with degrees in mechanical engineering driving taxis and working the gas pumps.

Firstly, just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean people will take it up (my sister hates school and couldn't wait to get out at 16)

EVERYBODY has the opportunity right now, but like most things in life you have to earn it.

and it certainly doesn't mean people are suddenly capable of attaining the phd's.

It doesn't mean people are capable of going to college at all, but you want to keep the bar nice and low just in case...

 

[CRGreathouse]

Ah, so it's fair that I'm stuck not able to afford to go into higher education (from age 16 onwards) because my parents messed up in school?

Can't you get a loan? That's what I did, and what most people do. Who seriously expects their parents to pay for their college?

 

[JaredJames]

University choice in the UK is a big deal. If you don't go to a university that is strongly rated in your course then your chances of getting a job after it are seriously affected. Cambridge has a 100% employability rate in some subjects, compared to only 70% for Kingston (where I'm at).

I don't like the idea of only having rich people able to go to somewhere like Cambridge and the poorer only being able to use the 'lesser' places. It puts a bias on people applying for jobs - it gives the rich a greater chance of getting jobs.

You make money the deciding factor in higher education, not academic ability.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a little confused about what you meant when you mentioned the response to the crisis. I thought you were talking about the stimulus bill, the TARP program, the GM deal, the Wall Street regulation bill, etc. I don't think of the Healthcare bill as being in response to the economic/financial/housing crisis.

Well setting aside the fact that Obama has linked healthcare to the financial crisis, even if it was completely unrelated, it would seem unwise to do something harmful to the economy at a time when you should be fixing it. IOW, even if one doesn't consider it part of the stimulus, it still affects our economy -- a lot, and negatively!

So while Europe is doing things to reduce the harm of their socialism to help recover, the US is trying to add a piece of socialism that (according to you) is isn't intended to help but is nevertheless massive and expensive and (according to me) does harm at a time we should be helping.

The president said that in addition to helping millions who lack coverage, the health care legislation is central to the goal of eventually rebuilding the economy stronger than it was before the recession that began more than a year ago.

He said Medicare and Medicaid, government health care programs for the elderly and the poor, are the "biggest driving force behind our federal deficit."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32088107/ns/politics-white_house/

And this, of course, while the healthcare bill does virtually nothing to deal with the Medicare/Medicaid funding issue.

 

[JaredJames]

Can't you get a loan? That's what I did, and what most people do. Who seriously expects their parents to pay for their college?

Yes in most cases, but it's the leaving debt that has now tripled (£9000 to £27000 for tuition alone - that doesn't include living costs).

 

[Mathnomalous]

Apples and oranges.

The market price of a house is determined by present market conditions while the market price of a university education is determined by prediction of market conditions X number of years in the future. When you buy a house, you get to enjoy the shelter offered by said house immediately; when you buy a university education, you primarily get to enjoy the benefits when an employer hires you and determines what your education is actually worth to that employer. A house will have the same price regardless of who buys the house; an education will vary across individuals even if the price paid is the exact same. A house is tangible, an education is intangible.

With that being said, I welcome the idea of privatized higher education. It is going to force many universities to play by market rules and to actually deliver a quality education or training. The beauty of it all is that knowledge itself is not affected by market forces; a person paying $10 to learn calculus will learn the same thing as a person paying $1,000 to learn calculus.

To make it clearer, it is the difference between buying a BMW and buying a Honda. Both cars will get you from A to B in a similar fashion, the primary difference being the BMW signals you have $$$ while the Honda says you got $; the primary function (getting you from A to B) will be almost the exact same for both cars.

 

[russ_watters]

Can't you get a loan? That's what I did, and what most people do. Who seriously expects their parents to pay for their college?

Because people in their '50s are a lot better able to afford college than people in their '20s, I think parents should pay for college for their kids if they can. It becomes something passed-on from generation to generation.

 

[JaredJames]

With that being said, I welcome the idea of privatized higher education. It is going to force many universities to play by market rules and to actually deliver a quality education or training. The beauty of it all is that knowledge itself is not affected by market forces; a person paying $10 to learn calculus will learn the same thing as a person paying $1,000 to learn calculus.

A nice post.

However, in the UK university ranks do play a big part in becoming employed once you graduate. See above post for notes on it.

 

[JaredJames]

Because people in their '50s are a lot better able to afford college than people in their '20s, I think parents should pay for college for their kids if they can. It becomes something passed-on from generation to generation.

Yes well for my mother, a single mother, who earns £17000 a year. Paying out the £9000 tuition costs (as of a years time) plus any living costs (excluding a part time jobs for me which would pay around £80 a week) would give a total of about £12000 per year. Yep, she could afford that.

I am the first in my family to go to university. I'm able to do so because of the current costs.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

University choice in the UK is a big deal. If you don't go to a university that is strongly rated in your course then your chances of getting a job after it are seriously affected. Cambridge has a 100% employability rate in some subjects, compared to only 70% for Kingston (where I'm at).

And you have to work accordingly hard to get into those schools. Does it really make sense for them both to cost the exact same?

I don't like the idea of only having rich people able to go to somewhere like Cambridge and the poorer only being able to use the 'lesser' places. It puts a bias on people applying for jobs - it gives the rich a greater chance of getting jobs.

Just because you're rich doesn't mean you have the grades to get into the good school, and it doesn't mean a "regular" guy can't get excellent grades in high school and get a student loan to go to the good school. "Rich" people aren't the only ones who get into good schools, or get good grades.

If you're "poor" and don't like where you're at, you'd better study hard and earn the right to get out of there. It shouldn't be the public's job to give it to you.

You make money the deciding factor in higher education, not academic ability.

I'll bet getting straight A's at Kingston is a lot better than straight C's at Cambridge...