• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

How will History judge Tony Blair?

The Don said:
Possibly, maybe with something extra to help those from less privileged backgrounds and something else to help direct students to courses which are in the national strategic interest (like medicine, engineering, languages and so on)
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the 'extra to help less privileged', I'd want all of the state sponsored stuff to be pretty academic, driven towards STEMI so I wouldn't want to lower the academic standard too much to be honest. I'd need convincing that it was a good idea.

Undersubscribed, necessary fields like those you mention above would have some sort of extended reach but only if not filled up with applicants from the top 25%

This would require a return to fairly harsh competitive examination.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The underlying problem with the argument that graduates should pay for the benefit of their education is that it ignores the wider benefit to society. Graduates are teachers, doctors, engineers, etc etc.
Click to expand...

And what's the difference between state-funded tertiary education and taxpayer-funded business startup grants? Both offer a wider benefit to society after all.
 
Ian Osborne said:
And what's the difference between state-funded tertiary education and taxpayer-funded business startup grants? Both offer a wider benefit to society after all.
Click to expand...

The odds of a return on investment?

This is a guess. I have no idea if the numbers would show this.
 
3point14 said:
I'm not sure about the 'extra to help less privileged', I'd want all of the state sponsored stuff to be pretty academic, driven towards STEMI so I wouldn't want to lower the academic standard too much to be honest. I'd need convincing that it was a good idea.

Undersubscribed, necessary fields like those you mention above would have some sort of extended reach but only if not filled up with applicants from the top 25%

This would require a return to fairly harsh competitive examination.
Click to expand...

The trouble with that approach is that it's students from more affluent background whose parents can spare the money for extra tuition and coaching and schools (be the public or state) where a large proportion go on to further education who make the time for specific preparation for the examination whereas students from other schools just have to take their chances.

Over 30 years ago I sat the Oxford entry exam and went down and, unsuccessfully, interviewed for a place at Jesus College. Almost all of the other applicants I met had received specific tuition prior to taking the exams and had prepared extensively for the series of interviews. OTOH I think I was the first Oxbridge applicant from my school for about a decade and even if resources could have been made available to prepare for the exam and interview process, we wouldn't have really know what to prepare for.
 
The Don said:
They are. Then there are the tens of hundreds of thousands of graduates with less functional degrees who are working (or not working) in jobs that do not require a degree.
Click to expand...

Do not require a degree in your opinion or in the opinion of the hiring business?

Education is never a waste of money in my opinion. You might as well argue that schools shouldn't have art or music classes (for example) because they aren't required and parents can pay for these things after school if they want to learn useless frivolities like that.
 
MikeG said:
Oh FFS. Is that it? Is that the best you've got? "It's all self-imposed. It's the students fault they have a £50,000 debt" (in terms). I see. Have a little think and see if you can come up with a more grown-up argument than that.
Click to expand...

You're demanding I make a more "grown-up" response to your claim that you would punch Tony Blair in the face for student fees?

No, I think my response is at least as grown up as that. In fact it is much more so.

But ultimately it is a question of who pays for university education. Personally I would prefer students not to pay for tuition and for it to be paid through the local education authorities which ultimately means coming from taxpayers. But when the fees first came in it was generally regarded as an inevitable result of the increased numbers of students going to university.

Either you believe that people should be able to go to university without paying for it or you believe those who go should pay at least some of it (for those whose means-testing have suggested they can). In the former case, someone else will pay. I think politicians can disagree on this issue without having to be physically assaulted for implementing one or the other (would someone be justified in punching a politician for saying that tax payers ought to pay for their neighbour's philosophy degree?).

By the way, you don't get to quote me on something I never said. I have no idea where you get the 50,000 pounds figure from, but under Blair fees were *only* 3000 a year. For a regular three-year undergraduate course that's 9000 pounds. Are we talking about a masters and a PhD on top of it? That would be another four years - 12,000 pounds, for a total of 21,000 pounds?

It may be 9000 pounds per year now but that wasn't under Blair but under the Tories. Didn't you say you voted Tory in a recent election? Who are you going to punch in the nose in that case?
 
The Don said:
The trouble with that approach is that it's students from more affluent background whose parents can spare the money for extra tuition and coaching and schools (be the public or state) where a large proportion go on to further education who make the time for specific preparation for the examination whereas students from other schools just have to take their chances.

Over 30 years ago I sat the Oxford entry exam and went down and, unsuccessfully, interviewed for a place at Jesus College. Almost all of the other applicants I met had received specific tuition prior to taking the exams and had prepared extensively for the series of interviews. OTOH I think I was the first Oxbridge applicant from my school for about a decade and even if resources could have been made available to prepare for the exam and interview process, we wouldn't have really know what to prepare for.
Click to expand...

And there's an element in there which is another argument for less rigourous or productive degrees. If nobody in your family ever went to uni then you are less likely to go to uni. If this generation has someone who goes to study 'history of Lithuanian art' then the next generation might have someone who goes on to be a doctor or whatever.
 
angrysoba said:
You're demanding I make a more "grown-up" response to your claim that you would punch Tony Blair in the face for student fees?

No, I think my response is at least as grown up as that. In fact it is much more so.

But ultimately it is a question of who pays for university education. Personally I would prefer students not to pay for tuition and for it to be paid through the local education authorities which ultimately means coming from taxpayers. But when the fees first came in it was generally regarded as an inevitable result of the increased numbers of students going to university.

Either you believe that people should be able to go to university without paying for it or you believe those who go should pay at least some of it (for those whose means-testing have suggested they can). In the former case, someone else will pay. I think politicians can disagree on this issue without having to be physically assaulted for implementing one or the other (would someone be justified in punching a politician for saying that tax payers ought to pay for their neighbour's philosophy degree?).

By the way, you don't get to quote me on something I never said. I have no idea where you get the 50,000 pounds figure from, but under Blair fees were *only* 3000 a year. For a regular three-year undergraduate course that's 9000 pounds. Are we talking about a masters and a PhD on top of it? That would be another four years - 12,000 pounds, for a total of 21,000 pounds?

It may be 9000 pounds per year now but that wasn't under Blair but under the Tories. Didn't you say you voted Tory in a recent election? Who are you going to punch in the nose in that case?
Click to expand...

The average student debt at graduation in England is apparently £32k now.

https://www.theguardian.com/money/2017/jun/15/uk-student-loan-debt-soars-to-more-than-100bn
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Do not require a degree in your opinion or in the opinion of the hiring business?
Click to expand...

In the opinion of the hiring business.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Education is never a waste of money in my opinion. You might as well argue that schools shouldn't have art or music classes (for example) because they aren't required and parents can pay for these things after school if they want to learn useless frivolities like that.
Click to expand...

I think there's a law of diminishing returns. If there is a finite amount of money (and there is), is it better to focus that money on those that need it most and/or those who will deliver the most benefit to the country ?
 
The Don said:
In the opinion of the hiring business.



I think there's a law of diminishing returns. If there is a finite amount of money (and there is), is it better to focus that money on those that need it most and/or those who will deliver the most benefit to the country ?
Click to expand...

Why would businesses hire graduates they don't need? It seems they must place some value on the education they received.

Arguments about limited funds would have more weight if the government hadn't just bunged the DUP a billion quid.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Why would businesses hire graduates they don't need? It seems they must place some value on the education they received.
Click to expand...

Not particularly, not if they're not paid a premium over non-graduates.

For example, there are thousands of graduates earning minimum wage flipping burgers, cleaning buildings, providing personal care and so on. I know this is purely anecdotal but a friend's daughter has a first in linguistics but cannot find a graduate job in her area and so is back working full time on the tills in the shop she used to have Saturday job in. It's not part of some long-term career move, just a way of earning a living.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Arguments about limited funds would have more weight if the government hadn't just bunged the DUP a billion quid.
Click to expand...

There isn't an infinite amount of money and demand for "free" education is pretty elastic. For sure £1bn is a hefty bung for the DUP but it's a drop in the ocean when it comes to fully funding tertiary education.
 
Much to be condemned for, much to be praised for. So many who worked in the social sector remembers 97-05 as times of plenty and the gov having your back.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The Don said:
Not particularly, not if they're not paid a premium over non-graduates.

For example, there are thousands of graduates earning minimum wage flipping burgers, cleaning buildings, providing personal care and so on. I know this is purely anecdotal but a friend's daughter has a first in linguistics but cannot find a graduate job in her area and so is back working full time on the tills in the shop she used to have Saturday job in. It's not part of some long-term career move, just a way of earning a living.



There isn't an infinite amount of money and demand for "free" education is pretty elastic. For sure £1bn is a hefty bung for the DUP but it's a drop in the ocean when it comes to fully funding tertiary education.
Click to expand...

If graduates are being hired over non graduates to even do till work etc then the employers must see a point to it. If she didn't have a degree maybe she wouldn't even be doing that? In any case as you say it's anecdotal. There are no doubt many people with linguistics degrees who are gainfully employed doing things of value to the nation. So the question then is should we limit those allowed to do it only to those prepared and able to take on tens of thousands of pounds of debt?
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If graduates are being hired over non graduates to even do till work etc then the employers must see a point to it.
Click to expand...


It's a cheap, easy filter. It means that, in theory, you're employing people that can read and write and follow instructions.

It's not that they want people with degrees, it's that they don't want people incapable of obtaining a degree who must, by definition, be useless - they couldn't even get a degree.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
If graduates are being hired over non graduates to even do till work etc then the employers must see a point to it. If she didn't have a degree maybe she wouldn't even be doing that?
Click to expand...

No, she was hired because she had worked there before, her having a degree or not was irrelevant to the hiring process.

Likewise with McDonalds, I'm pretty sure that so long as you satisfy their minimum standards, additional qualifications are no advantage and in some cases could be considered a hindrance.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
In any case as you say it's anecdotal. There are no doubt many people with linguistics degrees who are gainfully employed doing things of value to the nation. So the question then is should we limit those allowed to do it only to those prepared and able to take on tens of thousands of pounds of debt?
Click to expand...

There is a finite amount of money to be spent on education. Is it better that the money is targeted towards those people who need it the most and/or those areas which will deliver the maximum benefit to the country or should it be shared out regardless of need or value ?

IMO writing a blank cheque saying that all people are entitled to a fully funded tertiary education is as inappropriate as the current system. IMO there has to be some kind of filters where those who need assistance most are more likely to get it (so that Tarquin or his parents may have to find the money to pay for university - after all they found the money to send him to Eton) and/or it's used as a means to direct people towards subjects where there is a shortage of graduates and where it's in the national interest to steer them that way.
 
3point14 said:
It's a cheap, easy filter. It means that, in theory, you're employing people that can read and write and follow instructions.

It's not that they want people with degrees, it's that they don't want people incapable of obtaining a degree who must, by definition, be useless - they couldn't even get a degree.
Click to expand...

And there you have the 'value' of the degree.

To be honest I reject the whole idea that the value of a degree is measured by the salary you get after you graduate - otherwise we should only be churning out investment bankers from Oxbridge and we can close down everything else - but if we are arguing that fewer people need degrees then saying that 'you need to have a degree even to get work on a till these days' is not supportive of that line of thought.

The idea that a degree is preparation for a job - and the associated slightly strange idea that every graduate should immediately land a job in their chosen profession and their chosen location in order to justify their degree - to me misses the point.

The value of the education is the education. If you want to be honest about it there are no jobs that 'need' degrees - everything can be learned in other ways.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
And there you have the 'value' of the degree.

To be honest I reject the whole idea that the value of a degree is measured by the salary you get after you graduate - otherwise we should only be churning out investment bankers from Oxbridge and we can close down everything else - but if we are arguing that fewer people need degrees then saying that 'you need to have a degree even to get work on a till these days' is not supportive of that line of thought.
Click to expand...

Has anyone in this thread, other than you, suggested that the value of a degree is measured in the way you claim ?

Regarding the second part of your paragraph, if fewer people had degrees then we'd be back in the position we were 20-30 years ago. Those jobs that actually require a degree will continue to do so and those which are currently using the possession of a degree to mean "functionally literate and/or numerate" will go back to requiring GCSE maths and/or English above a certain grade.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The idea that a degree is preparation for a job - and the associated slightly strange idea that every graduate should immediately land a job in their chosen profession and their chosen location in order to justify their degree - to me misses the point.
Click to expand...

No-one other than you has made this ridiculous claim. OTOH if I'm investing £30k+ of the nation's money in each graduate then IMO it's reasonable to try to assess whether it's value for money.

For example if someone goes through all 'n' years of medical school at the country's expense and then decides that they want to be a chef then IMO that's not good value for money.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
The value of the education is the education. If you want to be honest about it there are no jobs that 'need' degrees - everything can be learned in other ways.
Click to expand...

You are of course correct - and the same it true for all education, but studying for a degree and passing the required examinations is a convenient way of demonstrating that you have acquired the required skills and/or knowledge.
 
The Don said:
There is a finite amount of money to be spent on education. Is it better that the money is targeted towards those people who need it the most and/or those areas which will deliver the maximum benefit to the country or should it be shared out regardless of need or value ?
Click to expand...

Could you answer my question also please? Is it right that the entry criteria for certain jobs should include the willingness to take on tens of thousands of pounds of debt just to be considered?

The idea that there is a finite amount of money to spend can be used to justify absolutely anything. And I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea that the government is always best placed to decide what is most valuable or who most needs it to be honest.

If we use the same approach to the NHS then we would see those able to pay charged at the point of use, people asked to take on loans to pay for surgeries, and subsidies available where the person was considered sufficiently valuable to the national interest to want to keep them alive/working or whatever.

And it could be just as easily justified by saying 'there is a finite amount of money available to spend on the NHS'

IMO writing a blank cheque saying that all people are entitled to a fully funded tertiary education is as inappropriate as the current system. IMO there has to be some kind of filters where those who need assistance most are more likely to get it (so that Tarquin or his parents may have to find the money to pay for university - after all they found the money to send him to Eton) and/or it's used as a means to direct people towards subjects where there is a shortage of graduates and where it's in the national interest to steer them that way.
Click to expand...

I don't believe for a second that this kind of 'command economy' stuff ever works. Governments don't know what kind of graduates we need any more than they know what immigrants we need (even though they pretend to) or what kind of goods we should manufacture (at least they seem to have given up that idea mostly).

All that does is perpetuate this nonsense that university is a glorified employment training scheme and the only value is the salary/job you get at the end.

And why should you pay for Tarquin to study the history of medieval cockroach racing? For the same reason you pay for old Mrs Muggins down the road's hip replacement.
 
The Don said:
Regarding the second part of your paragraph, if fewer people had degrees then we'd be back in the position we were 20-30 years ago.
Click to expand...

You say that as if it's a good thing.

We would have a less well educated society and one where opportunities are more limited for more people. A workforce better suited to 1980 than 2020 would not be progress.

Nor would a less well educated society be good for the country. A society less well able to understand complex issues might well suit those in power but they also do stupid things like vote for Brexit.

There's no reason to believe that somehow 11/12 years of education is the right number and 14 or 15 is somehow some unnecessary privilege which should only be reserved for those who want to pay for it. The world has moved on. It's complex and only getting to be more complex. We should be pushing for everyone to have MORE education, not trying to argue to go back in time 30 years.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Why would businesses hire graduates they don't need? It seems they must place some value on the education they received.
Click to expand...

When I mentioned this a page or so back I was thinking in particular of entry level office jobs, often administration and low level finance positions where they often advertise for graduates but don't specify an area of study, from what I've seen the pay is pretty much commensurate with what used to be paid for A Level school leavers for the same roles (compared to today's pay standards). If they aren't paying a premium and they anticipate a good response to the vacancy then it's a way of narrowing down the applicant pool and, in theory at least, guaranteeing a minimum standard of applicants. There may very well be many potential applicants of an equally high standard who haven't got degrees, but it takes more time to identify them from their Cvs and covering letters and there will be more unsuitable candidates too.

I think that there's also more of an attitude now that going to University is just "what you do", so some potential employers assume that if you didn't it follows that you're not up to standard.

Eta: Should have read on. I'm basically repeating what The Don said.
 
Last edited:
I completely agree that education is, as and of itself, a good thing. But that doesn't have to necessarily mean either University, or immediately after school. Robert M. Persig wrote an interesting section in Zeno's and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about this and about the difference between going into further education because it's what you're supposed to do and going into it because you've gained experience in the world, found what you want to do and come up against the wall of your knowledge, at which point you're seeking education for a known aim.
 
P.J. Denyer said:
I completely agree that education is, as and of itself, a good thing. But that doesn't have to necessarily mean either University, or immediately after school. Robert M. Persig wrote an interesting section in Zeno's and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance about this and about the difference between going into further education because it's what you're supposed to do and going into it because you've gained experience in the world, found what you want to do and come up against the wall of your knowledge, at which point you're seeking education for a known aim.
Click to expand...

I don't necessarily disagree with this but when dealing with society you do have to take into account 'what you're supposed to do' as an important influence.

If people are expected to go to uni then more will than if they aren't. And in general that's probably a good thing.

If people only waited until they had a good reason to be educated then a hell of a lot of people would never learn very much. Not only that but you need to be exposed to things and learn things to know enough to know what you want to do.

I think sometimes we get too tied up in individual cases in these kinds of discussions. Sometimes its better to just look at the big picture. Rather than think I'm paying £30k for John to go and study to be a doctor it's better to think 'I'm investing Xbn a year in education to make sure there are enough doctors (and scientists and engineers and teachers etc etc)' if some of that X ends up in the hands of rich people studying Angolan literature then that's incidental provided we are fulfilling the aim of having a well-educated, highly skilled society.
 
I wonder whether we'd be better off insisting university applicants must have a year's worth of National Insurance contributions first? Then, the people who fell off the end of school and landed in an undergraduate course on nothing in particular without knowing why would have a year to work out what they actually wanted to do. Those who already have a clear idea what career they wish to follow could take internships and pre-university jobs associated with that career, and when they apply for uni they'd impress their chosen educational establishment by the year they spent as a hospital porter or classroom assistant on the way to their course on medicine or teaching. And those that blithely meander out of tertiary education and into a career (or even just a job) that never uses their degree might get there without going to uni, saving themselves three years and the taxpayer a tidy sum.

I'm not advocating this; just pondering on it.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Could you answer my question also please? Is it right that the entry criteria for certain jobs should include the willingness to take on tens of thousands of pounds of debt just to be considered?

The idea that there is a finite amount of money to spend can be used to justify absolutely anything. And I'm not particularly comfortable with the idea that the government is always best placed to decide what is most valuable or who most needs it to be honest.

If we use the same approach to the NHS then we would see those able to pay charged at the point of use, people asked to take on loans to pay for surgeries, and subsidies available where the person was considered sufficiently valuable to the national interest to want to keep them alive/working or whatever.

And it could be just as easily justified by saying 'there is a finite amount of money available to spend on the NHS'
Click to expand...

...that same rationale is used in the NHS. As someone over 40 who doesn't have a manual job, I had to lobby hard to be allowed to get an ACL repair on the NHS. I eventually found a sympathetic surgeon, had I not done so then I'd have had a choice of doing without an ACL in my left knee (with all that entails for quality of life) or paying for the operation myself.

I would much rather that employers had appropriate entry qualifications but these days nearly 50% go on to university. IMO it's a cargo cult. I therefore cannot blame employers for requiring those qualifications. 30 to 40 years ago a similar proportion had 5 'O' Levels.


Archie Gemmill Goal said:
I don't believe for a second that this kind of 'command economy' stuff ever works. Governments don't know what kind of graduates we need any more than they know what immigrants we need (even though they pretend to) or what kind of goods we should manufacture (at least they seem to have given up that idea mostly).

All that does is perpetuate this nonsense that university is a glorified employment training scheme and the only value is the salary/job you get at the end.
Click to expand...

If you're paying for your own education then do what you like IMO.

If the state is paying for your education then it's not unreasonable that it should expect some kind of return.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
And why should you pay for Tarquin to study the history of medieval cockroach racing? For the same reason you pay for old Mrs Muggins down the road's hip replacement.
Click to expand...

I'd argue it'd be more like paying for a boob-job for a glamour model.
 
Archie Gemmill Goal said:
You say that as if it's a good thing.

We would have a less well educated society and one where opportunities are more limited for more people. A workforce better suited to 1980 than 2020 would not be progress.
Click to expand...

You seem to be assuming that the only education worth having is a university education. You also assume that the higher the rater of university attendance the better. Neither of these is necessarily the case IMO.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
Nor would a less well educated society be good for the country. A society less well able to understand complex issues might well suit those in power but they also do stupid things like vote for Brexit.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. The US has had much higher rates of University attendance than the UK and they elected Donald Trump. In fact he got the majority of white graduates.

Archie Gemmill Goal said:
There's no reason to believe that somehow 11/12 years of education is the right number and 14 or 15 is somehow some unnecessary privilege which should only be reserved for those who want to pay for it. The world has moved on. It's complex and only getting to be more complex. We should be pushing for everyone to have MORE education, not trying to argue to go back in time 30 years.
Click to expand...

Who is going to pay for all this extra education ?

If people typically enter the workforce 3 years later then you're missing 3 years of employment contributions AND incurring three additional years of cost.
 
I wonder when Mike G is going to return to explain how Tony Blair saddled his daughters with 50,000 pounds of debt and how it justifies Mike G punching Tony Blair in the face. Oh, and how his contributions to the thread are "grown up".

Come on, Mike G, let's hear it now!
 
angrysoba said:
I wonder when Mike G is going to return to explain how Tony Blair saddled his daughters with 50,000 pounds of debt and how it justifies Mike G punching Tony Blair in the face. Oh, and how his contributions to the thread are "grown up".

Come on, Mike G, let's hear it now!
Click to expand...

When you've come up with something better than "they volunteered for the debt", maybe I'll bother. As for punching Blair on the nose, maybe you've never used a figure of speech, so here is a link to help you can grasp the concept.
 
MikeG said:
When you've come up with something better than "they volunteered for the debt", maybe I'll bother. As for punching Blair on the nose, maybe you've never used a figure of speech, so here is a link to help you can grasp the concept.
Click to expand...

Wow! I'll do you the compliment of saying I did not expect such passive aggressive BS from you. You clearly have no argument if you have to resort to this kind of bluster.

In the past you have complained that people in this forum have started using the kind of hyperbole that has made the USA politics such a toxic wasteground and set yourself up as a champion of reason. If that's the case then maybe you should not start with hyperbolic violent fantasies. That's exactly the type of thing we see from certain posters in the USA politics forum and they mean what they say there. Don't start blaming me for taking you literally. I would have more respect for you if you just explicitly retracted your "punch him on the nose" comment, especially given the fact that you first made it "explicitly" to avoid being "ambiguous". Let me remind you:

I'll just be explicit about university tuition fees, because my initial "couple of monumentally stupid decisions" was ambiguous. If Blair were to knock on my door, the second punch on his nose would be because he saddled my children, and all their cohort, with a huge debt.
Click to expand...

Don't lecture others about misunderstanding "figures of speech" when your initial violent fantasy was explicitly about avoiding ambiguity.

And don't pretend I haven't made a reasonable argument about university fees.

Let's just analyze that one for a second. Your claim is that Tony Blair "saddled" your daughters and their age group with a debt that you later priced at 50,000 pounds (!). According to Archie Gemmil Goal's link above, this figure is complete bollocks. In that article it is *only* 32,000 pounds, but as you can see from the article itself, that refers mostly to student loans which your daughters' generation would almost certainly have taken out whether they paid for their fees or not, and it includes the costs of higher fees than Tony Blair was responsible for (they are now three times what they were). So the most you can claim that Tony Blair cost them is 9000 pounds, not the 50,000 you claimed.

So you should retract the strawman argument you have attributed to me and drop the ridiculous posturing about how you are the "grown up" who sees nothing worth responding to in my posts.

Furthermore, your use of the word "saddled" suggests that Tony Blair foisted these debts on your daughters whether they wanted them or not. In fact, it is your argument that people should be saddled with debts - namely the taxpayers who ought to pay the 50,000 pounds (your figure!) for everyone who wants to go to university. I mean, where else is the money supposed to come from? The money tree?

The bottom line is that someone has to pay for these fees!

But you pretend that there is not even a reasonable case for saying that people who choose to go to university in England (because ultimately it is a choice, however much you fume about it) should pay at least part of their fees. I think the onus is on you to explain why it is not even a reasonable position to take that university students should have to pay any fees and what the obvious solution is that doesn't involve "saddling" anyone with debt, particularly given that, as far as I can tell, you have voted for a Tory party that has tripled the price of university fees since Tony Blair's day.

If you want a reasonable discussion, I have more than demonstrated that I am holding up my end. All you have to do is explicitly retract your violent fantasies, stop flinging dung and stop making up bollocks. Do you think you can do that?
 
angrysoba said:
That was also Tony Blair's government. But again, he didn't saddle anyone with debt. Those who wanted to go to university had to pay 3000 pounds a year.

Now they have to pay 9000 pounds a year. If they want to go to university. Except in Scotland if I understand correctly.
Click to expand...
If you are Scottish or a non-UK EU citizen you do not have to pay any university fees on Scottish undergraduate degrees (often four years as opposed to three in the rest of the UK). The consequence is that the Scottish government has to limit university paces and the uptake of university places by persons from more deprived backgrounds is more limited than in England. Fees with loans initially seemed to broaden the background of university entrants in England, but as fees continue to rise I think this benefit will cease.
 
Planigale said:
If you are Scottish or a non-UK EU citizen you do not have to pay any university fees on Scottish undergraduate degrees (often four years as opposed to three in the rest of the UK). The consequence is that the Scottish government has to limit university paces and the uptake of university places by persons from more deprived backgrounds is more limited than in England. Fees with loans initially seemed to broaden the background of university entrants in England, but as fees continue to rise I think this benefit will cease.
Click to expand...
A correction to that, being Scottish has nothing to do with your eligibility for free university, it is about your residency in Scotland. Generally 3 years of being resident in Scotland prior to starting your university course will do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom