*crosses fingers* Here's hoping...

muttermutterturncoatwossnamenickbrownmuttermutter....

He's obviously been offered a job or something as a reward. What I think is unprintable here...

I don't get how Blair expects 50% of school leavers to go to uni...no wonder it's going to cost more! grrrr

results: 316 for, 311 against

---

by Barbara
I don't get how Blair expects 50% of school leavers to go to uni...no wonder it's going to cost more! grrrr

---

Yeah, I think this is the root of the problem. A lot of people have taken Blair and co. to task over these new fees, but very few have actually asked why it is that universities are in financial crisis? It wasn't like that 10 years ago, and back then institutions received no payments at all from students. It's a case of New Labour inheriting Old Labour's trick of not doing their sums properly.

If the government want 50% of school leavers to go to university then they need to improve secondary education so that those 50% have sufficient grounding to be able to cope. That hasn't happened, and as a result there are two factors that have led to the current financial difficulties:

1) Students are dropping out at a greater rate than ever before. The drop out rate is now 40%, and if the student doesn't complete a year then the university loses all funding they had for that student in that year (if it still works the way it used to that is!).

2) A whole range of new degrees have been launched, many of which are designed just to give people the chance to have degrees (the one in David Beckham springs to mind :rolleyes. This leads to education funding being spread too thinly. Many courses are churning out graduates with degrees that are neither use nor ornament to anyone, and this is sapping funding from courses which produce graduates who are vital to the workforce (e.g. medics, nurses).

Unfortunately, we now have to deal with the consequences and the money has to come from somewhere. I think the only way to deal with this is to introduce means testing for courses as well as income. As well as students from poorer backgrounds having to pay little or nothing towards their courses, I think that people going on courses that will give them skills vital to the workforce (the aforementioned doctors and nurses etc.) should have to pay proportionally less, or nothing towards their course. Otherwise, students will be put off doing these courses and the shortage of nurses especially will grow worse.

How you work out the 'value' of each course is another matter though

Can't believe there was only a 5 vote difference...grrrr

From 2006, students will have to pay up to £3,000 a year for their university tuition.

DJ Billy-I agree, certain healthcare students eg nurses have their fees paid and get a bursary.

What bugs me is that the Scottish MP's voted for the Fees, but they don't apply to Scottish uni's.

Someone remind me. Why are there Scottish MP's in the English parliament anyway.

---

by Vinnie
Someone remind me. Why are there Scottish MP's in the English parliament anyway.

---

That's a contentious issue in contemporary British politics.

Since Wales and Scotland (especially Scotland, being as it has more powers) got their own national assemblies, many English politicians and political analysts have questioned why foreign MPs are allowed to vote on English matters when English MPs aren't allowed to vote on Scottish or Welsh matters.

This has led to calls for England to have it's own national assembly, so each country would have an assembly and westminster would collect them all to vote on Britain as a whole. William Hague was one prominent politician who commented on this (i can't remember the quote though ) and he was derided for it.

Many people seem to fear English nationalism and they don't want it to grow. Of course, while Scottish MPs side with Labour they aren't going to change it.

Just to put a slightly different spin on this...

Is a three year degree worth £9,000?

I'd say yes it is - its an old argument, but the earning potential of the average graduate is substantially higher than the average non graduate. The average starting graduate salary is now £21k.

I led the high life at Uni. I spent WAY too much on alcohol and socialising and I was still comfortably off. My parents gave me about £50 every two months which was always greatfully recieved and spent immediately, but I could have easily managed without it. What did used to drive me mad that fellow uni students would moan about being skint at the same time as carrying a bag full of designer clothes they had just bought with their loan money.

I went to uni the year they abandoned Grants so I was supported with a 100% Student Loan. I'm now over £10,000 in debt with that, but paying it back is not crippling me. I'm paying a proportion of my salary before it even gets paid to me so I don't even miss the money as I only ever see it on my pay slip.

I don't believe that its fair that taxpayers shoud bear 100% of the burden of funding for Uni's when most of that population don't benefit from Higher Education. And maybe with the introduction of these fees it will mean that fewer people will drop out of courses they are unsuitable for.

I do like Rich's idea about Means testing for practical courses relating to vital skills.

**&&£R*£(£&!! I am outraged. I DISGUST this. I felt like spitting at Charles Clarke's son at school today

As far as the Top Up Fees go, I disagree with them on principle.

Everyone should have access to free education, up to undergraduate level. Not everybody should go to University, but everybody should have access to it. Just like everybody should have access to free healthcare if they need it, I think free education should be an underlying tenet of building and developing our society.

Paying for this education however, is a problem. The Labour government's solution to the problem is to make people pay for it. My solution would be to lower the number of students going to to University. Blair and his followers seem to think everyone should go to University, and well, it's a stupid idea.

Firstly, not everybody is suited to academic work. Secondly, if you push too many people into University and degrees, you end up with a deficit of people doing more 'menial' jobs and hands on work.

Get rid of the number of degrees that aren't worth the paper they are written on, stop trying to force people into Uni and let the levels of students cruise at wherever it settles. With less students, and maybe a minor raise in taxes (on higher earners, not the lower ones), it would be feasible to give people free higher education.

Another way to help the situation would be to share the UK's money better. Scotland and Wales get proportionately more from the budget than England does. That is why Scotland can afford to give free education. Granted, it can be said England has the majority of the wealth and so it doesn't need it, but i'm sure it would definitely help the country if the money was shared better.

---

by Sydney
The average starting graduate salary is now £21k.

---

That depends on the area the graduate works in, and the location as well, for instance, the IT sector is saturated with contractors and other people with far more experience than the graduates. As a result, most of the graduate schemes have closed, and those graduate jobs that are about are offering a pittence, so the graduates would be lucky to get as much as £16k per annum, most of them are £12-14k.

The figures that graduates are earning more money than people who didn't attend university are also bogus IMHO. The figures seem to be based on the graduates of 5 or more years ago, and the job market has changed completely since then.

My cold showing me some unexpected charity, I made it down to Westminster for 7 o'clock. The massed ranks of British students turned out to be two freezing huddles, the smaller on the corner of Parliament Square, the larger underneath the bust of Charles I. Later I discovered some leftie-infighting involving variously the SWP and fence-perching NUS was to blame for confusion over the time and place, though frankly if there was confusion over *that*, universities really are in crisis ...

Since the numerically challenged protesters were outnumbered by lines of coppers sporting the latest day-glow evening wear, I decided to throw my lot in with the hacks by a Westminster back gate that would put a manor house to shame. There was a real buzz going round the group, and I overheard many expletive-laced variations on "is Blair finished?". Hungry for news, I had Radio 4 on my portable, until I realized I was now in the perfect place to get it without looking like a marooned yuppie, and also that I was standing in an irony-free zone of 50 freezing students chanting "This is what democracy sounds like" while listening to The Archers. Graham Chapman, eat your heart out.

I was privy to the result bang on 7:15 courtesy of a bored cameraman: cue one rueful expletive followed by many hours of reluctant acceptance. The students of course didn't know, and watching them earnestly chant on for a few more minutes, as if they could force through justice by sheer willpower alone, was bloody heartbreaking.

Turns out I'd picked the spot where all the MPs were exiting, and I ended up a few feet away from the trio who had been all over the news earlier. (One beardy professional rebel, one reluctant supporter, one smug Blairite with sycophancy-induced halitosis.) A few clued-in students had separated from the phalanx of cops, and their allies were probably glad of it: they proved the righteousness of their cause first by dropping more f-bombs in front of a camera than a docker with Tourettes, and then by telling the right honourable members to "Grow some balls, for ****'s sake!" whereupon they were offered a night at Brenda's pleasure on charges of public obscenity by a 4ft nothing police woman. They promptly slunk off Kevin-style.

It was about then I found myself with a clear line of access to the Blair clone attempting to take his smugness to the point where it cancelled out the miserable reality of a leadership who had bludgeoned, bargained and lied for all they were worth, and still only scraped through with five votes. For a moment I thought about chancing the free B&B by giving that condescending leer the answer it begged for, but I let the moment pass and walked away. He wasn't worth it, I hope I'm better than that, and just like paying this overgrown debating club to run the country, it wouldn't have changed a damn thing. Blair's finished off what Thatcher started, and seen new Jerusalem snuffed out with neo-liberalism. We're going to see many a dark satanic mill builded on these pastures green.

I did the only useful thing left to me, and got blind stupid drunk. All told it was a rather depressing evening really.

(Edited by Byron 28/01/2004 22:20)

---

by Stoo
(quotes)
The figures that graduates are earning more money than people who didn't attend university are also bogus IMHO. The figures seem to be based on the graduates of 5 or more years ago, and the job market has changed completely since then.

---

Graduate Salarys 'Higher than Ever'

Thats where i got my information from. Its a very up to date study.

(Edited by Sydney 29/01/2004 09:22)

---

by Maffrew
Everyone should have access to free education, up to undergraduate level. Not everybody should go to University, but everybody should have access to it. Just like everybody should have access to free healthcare if they need it, I think free education should be an underlying tenet of building and developing our society.

---

I think the new system is a better one, albeit involving larger sums of money than before. Current fees are based on parental income, but I know plenty of parents who don't pay the fees for their children even though they're supposed to. Now that no money needs to be paid up-front for tuition ones economic state before going to uni shouldn't make any difference to your ability to go and is the responsibility of the student when and if they earn enough to pay it back. Student loans should cover up-front living expenses (whether it actually does or not will depend on where you go to uni). I don't agree with the bursaries and money off tuition which is proposed for less well-off students - it shouldn't be necessary and seems to me to be only a political concession to those who don't like the plans.


I don't agree with fee variability - I think it's likely to deprive those universities that need the money most.

I'm not convinced that the proposed tuition fees are going to solve university funding, though, which would seem to make the whole thing a bit pointless. The money won't start to turn up until 2010 and won't represent all that much of a boost to funding. And the universities don't just need this money for teaching. We have a couple of universities who can compete worldwide on research, and it very much in spite of their resources (I believe Harvard spends 2-3 times the combined money spent on research in the whole of the UK). The economic benefit of having a country full of graduates is somewhat lessened by them all buggering off to the US for more money to work on research which will benefit someone else's economy.

---

by Sydney
(quotes)

Graduate Salarys 'Higher than Ever'

Thats where i got my information from. Its a very up to date study.

(Edited by Sydney 29/01/2004 09:22)

---

To be more precise, it says starting salaries are higher than ever. Whether graduates end up earning more overall than they would have done if they hadn't gone to uni remains to be seen.

---

by Demona
(quotes)

I think the new system is a better one, albeit involving larger sums of money than before. Current fees are based on parental income, but I know plenty of parents who don't pay the fees for their children even though they're supposed to. Now that no money needs to be paid up-front for tuition ones economic state before going to uni shouldn't make any difference to your ability to go and is the responsibility of the student when and if they earn enough to pay it back. Student loans should cover up-front living expenses (whether it actually does or not will depend on where you go to uni). I don't agree with the bursaries and money off tuition which is proposed for less well-off students - it shouldn't be necessary and seems to me to be only a political concession to those who don't like the plans.


I don't agree with fee variability - I think it's likely to deprive those universities that need the money most.

I'm not convinced that the proposed tuition fees are going to solve university funding, though, which would seem to make the whole thing a bit pointless. The money won't start to turn up until 2010 and won't represent all that much of a boost to funding. And the universities don't just need this money for teaching. We have a couple of universities who can compete worldwide on research, and it very much in spite of their resources (I believe Harvard spends 2-3 times the combined money spent on research in the whole of the UK). The economic benefit of having a country full of graduates is somewhat lessened by them all buggering off to the US for more money to work on research which will benefit someone else's economy.

---

Favourably comparing one massively flawed system with another massively flawed system is playing this on Blair's terms; replacing the status quo and imposing top-up fees should be mutually exclusive. The government blaming the rebels for continuing a policy the selfsame government imposed has to be in the running for the all time record for front. Top-up fees were the only solution the government were *willing*, not able, to present, and the rebels should have played Blair at his own game and demanded he abolish up-front payments regardless.

It's already accepted £3,000 capped fees won't solve the funding crisis: an £8bn decifict is not going to be solved by £1bn revenue. What the Bill (I shudder to think that I'll soon calling it the Act) has done is open the floodgates for spiralling debts as soon as Labour can get away with it. In the short term, avoiding up-front fees is attractive: but try telling that to students mired in £50,000+ debt a few years down the line. It's a sweetner for a very bitter pill.

£3,000 bursaries for low income students are small rewards for debt that would put Del Boy to shame. They deserve a hell of a lot more.

No one should allow themselves to be emotionally blackmailed by that surplus parasite Blair. Let culpability rest on the culpable.

I despise Blair and his ilk intensely for Iraq (I have my own views about how Saddam could have been dealt with, before anyone calls me heartless), but I had sympathy for his position on the 'Newsnight' special the other week, while his interrogators came across as rather selfish. Maybe I'd feel different if I had ever considered going to university, but I don't see why people should have the benefits of courses funded by other tax payers when those students may well bog off abroad and never give back what they owe.

In a way, Blair in in Gilligan's shoes, condemned for what saying something he couldn't justify, but not being able to simply say 'I was wrong back then, but I'm right now'. Ironic.

---

by Sydney
(quotes)

Graduate Salarys 'Higher than Ever'

Thats where i got my information from. Its a very up to date study.

---

---

The most lucrative destination for graduates is, unsurprisingly, London and the south east.

---

Not surprisingly, it seems to be basing it's information on the London area.

I personally have seen very little evidence of the sorts of figures that report claims are being offered, a look on the various employment websites would confirm this.