[cite]Posted By: Rothko[/cite]BTW, just for information, NUS policy isn't for free higher education, it's for a graduate contribution (ideally a graduate tax based on ability to pay) but also that employers and government make an equal contribution. All three gain from a highly educated work force
Saga, you don't pay anything until you are earning enough to do so. So you pay nothing at the time and get the education. If it works out and you get the financial rewards, then you start paying it back. As long as admission policies are truly meritocratic and based on achievement rather than background, then there is no barrier to access to higher education and those that benefit from it pay for it.........but only when they can afford to do so. Some of them might end up paying back absolutely nothing at all.
They would be better off saving any money spent on keeping tuition fees down on tax cuts for those on low wages IMO - these people often have no access to any form of social mobility (like students do) but keep the country going day in day out. They don't complain, they just keep working......not throwing hissy fits.
This is just people complaining because they don't like things becoming more expensive...........no-one does! what's new?
There is far, far too much emphasis on the importance of going to university and getting a degree today, and there are far, far too many degrees and courses which are just not worthwhile. When you are at school if you are half intelligent these days you are encouraged to go to university - it is the right thing in many cases, but the point is that now if you dont know what you want to do with your life when youre 16/17, you just fall into going to university and spend 3 or 4 years getting a degree before working life and becoming an adult actually starts. In my opinion, we would be better off trying to err away from this culture and getting more people to just start working at 18 if they don't know what to do; I am 24 and it has taken a degree and a masters to become qualified to do my job, but I have learnt way more in 2 years of doing my job than in all of that education! And the only reason I fell into this job was because I went to uni not knowing what I wanted to do - and I think most of my mates feel the same! Unless you are going to become a doctor or a dentist or learn something very specific and practical, a foreign language etc etc, I think degrees are often highly, highly overrated. There are so many people who do sociology, politics, media etc etc without any real idea of what they are going to do with them, and those subjects are so broad brush when they are taught you don't actually learn how to do anything you just learn theories and ideas and history. Then half of the graduates go into recruitment or sales which they couldve been taught on the job...
I do think that you gain good experience and understanding of certain things from a degree, extracting information, analysis etc - but it could all be done in a far quicker time, 1 year or 18 months. I had 8 - 10 hours a week for my undergrad, and went to probably 3 of those on average, and I got a 2:1 comfortably; history has even less hours. People then spend 6days a week poncing about in their living room playing on a playstation. I loved uni and the drinking and the lack of responsibility and pissing about with your mates and was very lucky to have that experience, but in hindsight and as isawleaburnscore said, it is a meaningless existence and there are too many people who just go along for the ride with no direction; most of my mates who didn't go to uni are earning more money than me now cos they started work later and dont have any student debt! Also, if degrees were shortened, people could work for a year or two and then once they have learned a bit more about the world / what they want to do, they would be able to do a quick degree in a year or 18months (and might be able to afford it!).
It is the tuition fees that are being increased (by up to 300%). No-one has to pay these up front, and no-one has to pay them back until they are earning more than (I think) GBP 21,000. Then they have to pay 9% of their income. If the balance is not paid back after 30 years it is written off. So it is not "debt" in the normal sense of the word.
On the face of it this wouldn't disadvantage anybody.
I've voted Labour all my life but I'm finding it hard to pick the holes in this proposal.
There will be a knock on effect if student numbers are reduced because of the increase in fees.
I design and manufacture rigs and apparatus for research. Less undergrads = less future Phds = less people like me (support staff) employed by 4 star credited university s.
Hmmmm, there are a lot of useless courses out there at Universities but the bottom line is that it is probably cheaper for the government to keep the charade going than it would be to have all those "students" on those courses leaving college at 18 years old and going into a job market in which there are very few jobs....
Science/Medicine degrees should be fully subsidised and the rest be charged according to the needs of the employment market.
[cite]Posted By: Ormiston Addick[/cite]Hmmmm, there are a lot of useless courses out there at Universities but the bottom line is that it is probably cheaper for the government to keep the charade going than it would be to have all those "students" on those courses leaving college at 18 years old and going into a job market in which there are very few jobs....
Science/Medicine degrees should be fully subsidised and the rest be charged according to the needs of the employment market.
All science and medicine? Some of these courses may also appear a little obscure.
I'm sure there will be few courses some would call useless but others would argue they will benefit the country at some point in the future.
Recently I made a device that introduces oil/water droplets in an oil /water flow. Most people would look at it and think it a waste of time and money. A few will see the future value of this research.
Started my PGCE at Goldsmiths this year so my interest in this is threefold. Firstly as a student I am already paying just under £10000 in course fees and student loans to complete the course. As my course is vocational and I'm likely to end up in a fairly well paid job at the end of it I felt that the 10k was a price worth paying. However, if I were an undergraduate starting a three year BA, the prospect of graduating with a £30000 debt is off putting to say the least. As a working class kid from South East London (which I regard myself as) I would probably not go on to University given the choice.
The British have been historically horrendous at education the "working classes". There is a huge amount of evidence that points to the fact that despite the massive investment in compulsory and post-compulsory education under the new labour government, the percentage of students from working class backgrounds going to universities has actually decreased. This trend in education is often referred to, rather disparagingly in my opinion, as "limiting social mobility". It doesn't take too much to work out that an increase in fees of any kind will effectively price children from poorer backgrounds out from higher education thus cementing the position of the educated elite above a poorly educated, poorly paid population with limited opportunities. Our education system is slowly moving towards a similar system to that operated in the USA. Personally I don't see this as a "social mobility" issue rather than one of social equality.
Thirdly, as and educationalist working in a secondary school in South East London, working with children from very tough social backgrounds, how do I encourage them to strive for success, to maintain high expectations of themselves and their peers if, quite frankly, there really isn't any point? What is the point is getting qualifications for, I'd estimate, about 85% of the young adults I work with? The broader social implications of the kind of increases in tuition fees the Universities want to impose are huge. What we are witnessing is the start of massive, unrelenting and divisive social engineering on a scale not witnessed since the beginning of compulsory education in this country. Where New Labour failed, the coalition will dig the hole and bury the failure simply hoping it will all just go away.
[cite]Posted By: southamptonaddick[/cite]I never went to uni, so if my question sounds stupid, what can I say.
If the tuition fees go up why does that cost the parents more, as I see it the student doesn't pay it back until they are earning a certain amount.
Why should I pay my taxes toward somebody I don't know who in all probability is going to earn more than I ever will?
I believe that if you want something from life you have to pay for it, not expect others to pay on your behalf.
Loans don't cover the complete costs of living such as rent, food etc. so the Bank of Mum and Dad ends up subsidising most people to some degree.
As a student myself, it appears to me that most academic staff are paid too much anyway which is half the problem. This, allied to the fact that most unis have a sort of arms race, always building new labs and equipment, mean that the institutions are imo spending too much money. Every other sector has suffered from cuts, and have adjusted accordingly, the issue for me is that under these proposals, universities are not looking at efficiencies and will carry on spending regardless but rely on students to make up the shortfall. It's universally acknowledged that students should contribute towards their degrees, but in the space of 15 years we have gone from an undergraduate degree costing each student nothing, to it potentially costing over £27,000, and over time fees are only going to increase from that. It's unfair, discourages people from studying and is imo unsustainable.
If a price rise of 300% was suggested for any other good, everyone would find it ridiculous.
Loans don't cover the complete costs of living such as rent, food etc. so the Bank of Mum and Dad ends up subsidising most people to some degree.
As a student myself, it appears to me that most academic staff are paid too much anyway which is half the problem. This, allied to the fact that most unis have a sort of arms race, always building new labs and equipment, mean that the institutions are imo spending too much money. Every other sector has suffered from cuts, and have adjusted accordingly, the issue for me is that under these proposals, universities are not looking at efficiencies and will carry on spending regardless but rely on students to make up the shortfall. It's universally acknowledged that students should contribute towards their degrees, but in the space of 15 years we have gone from an undergraduate degree costing each student nothing, to it potentially costing over £27,000, and over time fees are only going to increase from that. It's unfair, discourages people from studying and is imo unsustainable.
If a price rise of 300% was suggested for any other good, everyone would find it ridiculous.
Totally agree with you that restructuring of Universities is absolutely necessary but this in itself will lead to a complete eradication of entire departments, even whole universities could disappear. The position of Goldsmiths teacher training courses is under threat with the education secretary stating that all funding for PGCE arts and humanities courses are likely to be completely stopped. The implications for this are very worrying.
v_f_r, I agree it is very worrying, although is that not what efficiency means? I'm no expert on the PGCE structure but if Goldsmith's department closed and another university's (say Greenwich's) increased, there must be economies of scale that can be gained. As with any cuts, certain people will lose out but as long as the possibility exists to study for a vital role such as yours, then I don't see the loss.
Going back to the issue, and without trying to sound too right-wing, given the events today, I can't imagine this is the cleverest thing our Prime Minister has said. Only in Britain could citizens be expected to pay more so that foreigners don't.
[cite]Posted By: allez les addicks[/cite]v_f_r, I agree it is very worrying, although is that not what efficiency means? I'm no expert on the PGCE structure but if Goldsmith's department closed and another university's (say Greenwich's) increased, there must be economies of scale that can be gained. As with any cuts, certain people will lose out but as long as the possibility exists to study for a vital role such as yours, then I don't see the loss.
Going back to the issue, and without trying to sound too right-wing, given the events today, I can't imagine this is the cleverest thing our Prime Minister has said. Only in Britain could citizens be expected to pay more so that foreigners don't.
Quite frankly, anyone who thinks that the Chinese give a rats arse about anything that a British Prime Minister says these days - whether it be Blair, Brown, Cameron or anyone else - doesn't have a bloody clue.
The Chinese see Britain as a declining 19th century power and most of them couldn't tell David Cameron from James Cameron.
The only reason they are interested in studying in the UK is that it is cheaper than the US college system and they can learn to speak English here which is crucial for them in getting a job back home in a company that sells stuff to the Yanks.....
so what did they do about the fact that students in scotland get Uni for free ? NOTHING not a word F**K all. This in crease in Uni fees worth a HUGE note that their not talking abot the whole of the UK. United Kingdom ----my arse.
so 100 footie herberts (as some on here think it was only a 100 giving out the shit) turn up withhammers and iron bars and decide to smash a gaff up--------------yep defo can see the OB asking them to move on and dont be naughty. Or maybe they would get Robo-coped up steam in and nick 30 and maybe some ofthose would get 2 years for afray-- which it is.
ooooooooooooo the poor loves they might have to pay tax for 40 years ---- really wot like the rest or the real World ! or 37 years so far in my case ---- and i paid my own fees via the Open Uni as well.
I'm sure I'm right in thinking that Uni courses don't require students to be there all day every day so there's defo time to do some paid work somewhere.
I went to college to do my electrical installation city and guilds and that had to be paid for , I got no help from the goverment for that but didn't expect any . While I'm on that subject it's about time the goverment started letting kids that want to from the age of 14 to do a day or two a week training for these type of jobs , I know by that age I knew I was never going to be doing any kind of office job.
[cite]Posted By: buckshee[/cite]I'm sure I'm right in thinking that Uni courses don't require students to be there all day every day so there's defo time to do some paid work somewhere.
I went to college to do my electrical installation city and guilds and that had to be paid for , I got no help from the goverment for that but didn't expect any . While I'm on that subject it's about time the goverment started letting kids that want to from the age of 14 to do a day or two a week training for these type of jobs , I know by that age I knew I was never going to be doing any kind of office job.
They do already. Bromley college takes children from the age of 14 to learn trades.
Ormiston Addick, that's the point I'm trying to make: that Cameron is saying we are raising domestic students fees in order to keep international students from oaying more. This is despite the fact that most domestic students will stay and contribute to our economy whilst most of the foreign students go back to where they came from, with the benefits of our education system, and not contributing anything to our tax system. That's quite wrong
Am I right in believing that we are now the only country with good university structures that has decided to shift the funding for students from a state/student mix to a system where the student is expected to fund themselves? Surely we are not seriously suggesting that it's OK for students to start their paid working lives with debts of £50,000 + hanging over them? My son is 30, has no chance of getting a job now that the universities are closing the departments that would have given him work. He has got absolutely nothing other than debts and is sinking fast. Employers like supermarkets just say he is over-qualified for the jobs that they advertise. He's worked so hard, he doesn't believe that the State owes him a living, has never claimed benefits until now, he believed that he could offer something back to society. He's a good honest person, but I'm seriously concerned for his mental health now, he's in real trouble. I can only see more of this happening and I can't believe that so many people seem to think it's OK.
[cite]Posted By: stilladdicted[/cite]Am I right in believing that we are now the only country with good university structures that has decided to shift the funding for students from a state/student mix to a system where the student is expected to fund themselves? Surely we are not seriously suggesting that it's OK for students to start their paid working lives with debts of £50,000 + hanging over them? My son is 30, has no chance of getting a job now that the universities are closing the departments that would have given him work. He has got absolutely nothing other than debts and is sinking fast. Employers like supermarkets just say he is over-qualified for the jobs that they advertise. He's worked so hard, he doesn't believe that the State owes him a living, has never claimed benefits until now, he believed that he could offer something back to society. He's a good honest person, but I'm seriously concerned for his mental health now, he's in real trouble. I can only see more of this happening and I can't believe that so many people seem to think it's OK.
Most Anglo/European models are moving towards the US self-funding model for higher-education and the results will be catastrophic in the long-term because you will inevitably end up with a shortage of highly-skilled engineers/scientists/doctors because only the children of the well off will be able to attend University - just like the old days.
In Asia, the developing economies have taken a very different approach and the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese and Singaporeans have a much higher level of state subsidy for students studying what they consider to be "national interest" disciplines, which are typically in the sciences but not exclusively.
This is exactly why the US has a massive - and I do mean massive - shortage of science/engineering professionals leaving firms like Google and other major US tech companies to try and recruit Indian/Chinese/Other Asian professionals in these disciplines.
Its all very well saying, "Why should my taxes go towards paying for a student who is going to go out and get a high paying job?" but the bottom line is that its actually a very sound idea to invest in your next generation of medical and scientific experts for the well being of the entire country.
Here in Australia we have a chronic shortage of trained Doctors because the previous government took away the subsidies for medical training and so now guess what? We are importing GP's from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and all points in between which is going down a real storm with the locals here given their well known racial tolerance.....and we have already had one very high profile malpractive case against an ill-trained Indian doctor.
Allez les addicks just seen your reply to my post earlier.
Sorry your arguement about the bank of mum and dad dosen't hold up. Tuition fees are going up for the student which mum and dad don't pay. The cost of living is the same for everybody. The first lesson a student should learn is "living within your means" and not to think that I'm on a three year bender but mum and dad will pay.
Maybe because I was part of the first lot to pay full tuition fees Im less motivated by it now. Kind of think, well I paid then why shouldnt others. I worked alongside my undergraduate studies, took a year out to earn to pay for my masters (£3300 not very well spent) and worked alongside my masters. I did this while others got bankrolled by mum and dad and invested their student loans in high interest accounts, bit of a sickener really. I came out of uni with a solid debt (not as much due to me working), while others got a nice lump sum.
The NUS annoy me, having been extensively involved at both Exeter and Bath Uni's in student politics on both the student and staff side of things. My main issue with them is in 1997 when Labour turned their back on students, went against a manifesto commitment and introduced tuition fees they did sweet fa. I was on the student exec at my local college (Yeovil) and we wanted to protest against the introduction of fees and were looking for both advice and support for a trip to london to deliver a petition and have a peaceful protest. We were told by the NUS national exec at the time that they could not offer any advice, encouragement or support.
When at University at Exeter when Labour again went against a manifesto pledge to raise fees, again the NUS didnt mount a full campaign.
When Labour introduced the Browne review, again the NUS were again particularly silent on the issue.
Now when the coalition government implement elements of the Brown review, the NUS are out in force talking about Tory scum and Clegg being a traitor and laying on buses for students.
Overall I think the main issue is that if tuition fees discourage people from going to university thats worrying, yes they can put all the systems in place to make sure that those who are have the ability (grades) and cannot afford it are supported so they can go. But if someone just looks at the fees and is put off its a bad thing. Thats where the criticisms of Uni only for the rich come from.
The plans will actually mean that payments are lower for the majority of students and the fact that you dont pay the fees at until you are earning whatever amount is great. Rather than the old system where tuition fees are paid up front which would be a particular disincentive to many.
[cite]Posted By: Thommo[/cite]Maybe because I was part of the first lot to pay full tuition fees Im less motivated by it now. Kind of think, well I paid then why shouldnt others. I worked alongside my undergraduate studies, took a year out to earn to pay for my masters (£3300 not very well spent) and worked alongside my masters. I did this while others got bankrolled by mum and dad and invested their student loans in high interest accounts, bit of a sickener really. I came out of uni with a solid debt (not as much due to me working), while others got a nice lump sum.
The NUS annoy me, having been extensively involved at both Exeter and Bath Uni's in student politics on both the student and staff side of things. My main issue with them is in 1997 when Labour turned their back on students, went against a manifesto commitment and introduced tuition fees they did sweet fa. I was on the student exec at my local college (Yeovil) and we wanted to protest against the introduction of fees and were looking for both advice and support for a trip to london to deliver a petition and have a peaceful protest. We were told by the NUS national exec at the time that they could not offer any advice, encouragement or support.
When at University at Exeter when Labour again went against a manifesto pledge to raise fees, again the NUS didnt mount a full campaign.
When Labour introduced the Browne review, again the NUS were again particularly silent on the issue.
Now when the coalition government implement elements of the Brown review, the NUS are out in force talking about Tory scum and Clegg being a traitor and laying on buses for students.
Overall I think the main issue is that if tuition fees discourage people from going to university thats worrying, yes they can put all the systems in place to make sure that those who are have the ability (grades) and cannot afford it are supported so they can go. But if someone just looks at the fees and is put off its a bad thing. Thats where the criticisms of Uni only for the rich come from.
The plans will actually mean that payments are lower for the majority of students and the fact that you dont pay the fees at until you are earning whatever amount is great. Rather than the old system where tuition fees are paid up front which would be a particular disincentive to many.
That's almost certainly because many of the middle-class wankers who get themselves involved in NUS politics have very firm ambitions about getting a nice little job in Labour/Union politics once they leave college so don't want to rock the boat with their mates in the Labour Party by campaigning against them.
Have a look at the number of ex-NUS people who go onto work for the Labour Party and then become MP's, you don't have to be James Carville to work out the connection.
I remember the middle-class twats from the shires screaming about "hating the Tories" and "class warfare" when I was at University from 91-94, most of them had never probably even set foot on a council estate.
when I was a student a lot of the demos would get hijacked by socialist worker muppets spouting the same ideological bollocks, massive turn off to the ordinary students, and I almost blame them for de-radicalising students. All they were interested in was a ruck essentially.
Violence at demos is wrong....but a 200% increase in fees? Yeah that's OK is it? What about a 200% increase in car tax or petrol for the folk who 'choose' to be motorists?
Comments
Sounds fair to me.
They would be better off saving any money spent on keeping tuition fees down on tax cuts for those on low wages IMO - these people often have no access to any form of social mobility (like students do) but keep the country going day in day out. They don't complain, they just keep working......not throwing hissy fits.
This is just people complaining because they don't like things becoming more expensive...........no-one does! what's new?
I do think that you gain good experience and understanding of certain things from a degree, extracting information, analysis etc - but it could all be done in a far quicker time, 1 year or 18 months. I had 8 - 10 hours a week for my undergrad, and went to probably 3 of those on average, and I got a 2:1 comfortably; history has even less hours. People then spend 6days a week poncing about in their living room playing on a playstation. I loved uni and the drinking and the lack of responsibility and pissing about with your mates and was very lucky to have that experience, but in hindsight and as isawleaburnscore said, it is a meaningless existence and there are too many people who just go along for the ride with no direction; most of my mates who didn't go to uni are earning more money than me now cos they started work later and dont have any student debt! Also, if degrees were shortened, people could work for a year or two and then once they have learned a bit more about the world / what they want to do, they would be able to do a quick degree in a year or 18months (and might be able to afford it!).
On the face of it this wouldn't disadvantage anybody.
I've voted Labour all my life but I'm finding it hard to pick the holes in this proposal.
I design and manufacture rigs and apparatus for research. Less undergrads = less future Phds = less people like me (support staff) employed by 4 star credited university s.
Science/Medicine degrees should be fully subsidised and the rest be charged according to the needs of the employment market.
All science and medicine? Some of these courses may also appear a little obscure.
I'm sure there will be few courses some would call useless but others would argue they will benefit the country at some point in the future.
Recently I made a device that introduces oil/water droplets in an oil /water flow. Most people would look at it and think it a waste of time and money. A few will see the future value of this research.
The British have been historically horrendous at education the "working classes". There is a huge amount of evidence that points to the fact that despite the massive investment in compulsory and post-compulsory education under the new labour government, the percentage of students from working class backgrounds going to universities has actually decreased. This trend in education is often referred to, rather disparagingly in my opinion, as "limiting social mobility". It doesn't take too much to work out that an increase in fees of any kind will effectively price children from poorer backgrounds out from higher education thus cementing the position of the educated elite above a poorly educated, poorly paid population with limited opportunities. Our education system is slowly moving towards a similar system to that operated in the USA. Personally I don't see this as a "social mobility" issue rather than one of social equality.
Thirdly, as and educationalist working in a secondary school in South East London, working with children from very tough social backgrounds, how do I encourage them to strive for success, to maintain high expectations of themselves and their peers if, quite frankly, there really isn't any point? What is the point is getting qualifications for, I'd estimate, about 85% of the young adults I work with? The broader social implications of the kind of increases in tuition fees the Universities want to impose are huge. What we are witnessing is the start of massive, unrelenting and divisive social engineering on a scale not witnessed since the beginning of compulsory education in this country. Where New Labour failed, the coalition will dig the hole and bury the failure simply hoping it will all just go away.
Loans don't cover the complete costs of living such as rent, food etc. so the Bank of Mum and Dad ends up subsidising most people to some degree.
As a student myself, it appears to me that most academic staff are paid too much anyway which is half the problem. This, allied to the fact that most unis have a sort of arms race, always building new labs and equipment, mean that the institutions are imo spending too much money. Every other sector has suffered from cuts, and have adjusted accordingly, the issue for me is that under these proposals, universities are not looking at efficiencies and will carry on spending regardless but rely on students to make up the shortfall. It's universally acknowledged that students should contribute towards their degrees, but in the space of 15 years we have gone from an undergraduate degree costing each student nothing, to it potentially costing over £27,000, and over time fees are only going to increase from that. It's unfair, discourages people from studying and is imo unsustainable.
If a price rise of 300% was suggested for any other good, everyone would find it ridiculous.
Agree
Going back to the issue, and without trying to sound too right-wing, given the events today, I can't imagine this is the cleverest thing our Prime Minister has said. Only in Britain could citizens be expected to pay more so that foreigners don't.
Cameron in Beijing
Quite frankly, anyone who thinks that the Chinese give a rats arse about anything that a British Prime Minister says these days - whether it be Blair, Brown, Cameron or anyone else - doesn't have a bloody clue.
The Chinese see Britain as a declining 19th century power and most of them couldn't tell David Cameron from James Cameron.
The only reason they are interested in studying in the UK is that it is cheaper than the US college system and they can learn to speak English here which is crucial for them in getting a job back home in a company that sells stuff to the Yanks.....
so 100 footie herberts (as some on here think it was only a 100 giving out the shit) turn up withhammers and iron bars and decide to smash a gaff up--------------yep defo can see the OB asking them to move on and dont be naughty. Or maybe they would get Robo-coped up steam in and nick 30 and maybe some ofthose would get 2 years for afray-- which it is.
ooooooooooooo the poor loves they might have to pay tax for 40 years ---- really wot like the rest or the real World ! or 37 years so far in my case ---- and i paid my own fees via the Open Uni as well.
I went to college to do my electrical installation city and guilds and that had to be paid for , I got no help from the goverment for that but didn't expect any . While I'm on that subject it's about time the goverment started letting kids that want to from the age of 14 to do a day or two a week training for these type of jobs , I know by that age I knew I was never going to be doing any kind of office job.
They do already. Bromley college takes children from the age of 14 to learn trades.
THAT HAD TO ENDURE THAT YESTERDAY
Most Anglo/European models are moving towards the US self-funding model for higher-education and the results will be catastrophic in the long-term because you will inevitably end up with a shortage of highly-skilled engineers/scientists/doctors because only the children of the well off will be able to attend University - just like the old days.
In Asia, the developing economies have taken a very different approach and the Chinese, Japanese, South Koreans, Taiwanese and Singaporeans have a much higher level of state subsidy for students studying what they consider to be "national interest" disciplines, which are typically in the sciences but not exclusively.
This is exactly why the US has a massive - and I do mean massive - shortage of science/engineering professionals leaving firms like Google and other major US tech companies to try and recruit Indian/Chinese/Other Asian professionals in these disciplines.
Its all very well saying, "Why should my taxes go towards paying for a student who is going to go out and get a high paying job?" but the bottom line is that its actually a very sound idea to invest in your next generation of medical and scientific experts for the well being of the entire country.
Here in Australia we have a chronic shortage of trained Doctors because the previous government took away the subsidies for medical training and so now guess what? We are importing GP's from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and all points in between which is going down a real storm with the locals here given their well known racial tolerance.....and we have already had one very high profile malpractive case against an ill-trained Indian doctor.
Sorry your arguement about the bank of mum and dad dosen't hold up. Tuition fees are going up for the student which mum and dad don't pay. The cost of living is the same for everybody. The first lesson a student should learn is "living within your means" and not to think that I'm on a three year bender but mum and dad will pay.
The NUS annoy me, having been extensively involved at both Exeter and Bath Uni's in student politics on both the student and staff side of things. My main issue with them is in 1997 when Labour turned their back on students, went against a manifesto commitment and introduced tuition fees they did sweet fa. I was on the student exec at my local college (Yeovil) and we wanted to protest against the introduction of fees and were looking for both advice and support for a trip to london to deliver a petition and have a peaceful protest. We were told by the NUS national exec at the time that they could not offer any advice, encouragement or support.
When at University at Exeter when Labour again went against a manifesto pledge to raise fees, again the NUS didnt mount a full campaign.
When Labour introduced the Browne review, again the NUS were again particularly silent on the issue.
Now when the coalition government implement elements of the Brown review, the NUS are out in force talking about Tory scum and Clegg being a traitor and laying on buses for students.
Overall I think the main issue is that if tuition fees discourage people from going to university thats worrying, yes they can put all the systems in place to make sure that those who are have the ability (grades) and cannot afford it are supported so they can go. But if someone just looks at the fees and is put off its a bad thing. Thats where the criticisms of Uni only for the rich come from.
The plans will actually mean that payments are lower for the majority of students and the fact that you dont pay the fees at until you are earning whatever amount is great. Rather than the old system where tuition fees are paid up front which would be a particular disincentive to many.
That's almost certainly because many of the middle-class wankers who get themselves involved in NUS politics have very firm ambitions about getting a nice little job in Labour/Union politics once they leave college so don't want to rock the boat with their mates in the Labour Party by campaigning against them.
Have a look at the number of ex-NUS people who go onto work for the Labour Party and then become MP's, you don't have to be James Carville to work out the connection.
I remember the middle-class twats from the shires screaming about "hating the Tories" and "class warfare" when I was at University from 91-94, most of them had never probably even set foot on a council estate.