BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

Who should pay for degrees?

13:18 UK time, Sunday, 24 October 2010

Nick Clegg says the government won't allow universities to charge unlimited fees for tuition. Should fees be capped?

At the moment students in England, Wales and Northern Ireland pay up to £3,290 a year. The Browne Report, which looked into tuition structures, recommended that universities be allowed to set their own fees, with a levy if they charge more than £7,000.

Allowing universities to set their own fees may relieve the burden on taxpayers, but could lead to elite institutions charging more, pricing out the less well-off.

Has this announcement made you reconsider applying to university? Should higher education be subsidised? What does this mean for universities?

This debate is now closed. Thank you for your comments.

Error: Too many requests have been made during a short time period so you have been blocked.

Comments

Page 1 of 4

  • Comment number 1.

    Nick Clegg says the government won't allow universities to charge unlimited fees for tuition. Should fees be capped? Yes and make the banks pay them.

  • Comment number 2.

    Who should pay for universities? The banks

  • Comment number 3.

    Who should pay for universities? Fred-the-shred and others like him.

  • Comment number 4.

    As the future wealth of this nation depends on the quality of the young people who are now in education we need to be spending every penny we can scrape together to see them educated as well as possible.

    Anything else is rank foolishness, short-termism at a ridiculous level...

    It's also unfair to keep pitching the burden onto youngsters and parents who have not been given time to prepare. In the US, you start your kids' college fund as soon as they are born if not before, in the hopes that by the time they are ready to go to university, the money will be there to pay for it.

  • Comment number 5.

    I was applying for uni this year anyway since they've said this probably won't affect us, its the year after us who it will affect.

    However i don't find it fair that i will be spending the rest of my life under a debt that i probably won't ever be able to pay off.

  • Comment number 6.

    Who should pay for degrees? Society, through the taxes.

    The vast majority of people who better themselves by gaining one or more degrees, go on earn money and thus pay taxes. This mean they themselves contribute to the costs over time as well as to the benefit of the nation as a whole.

  • Comment number 7.

    the cost of university should be mainly funded by the taxpayer but students should also pay fees (probably via re-payable loans).
    Students who fail to complete a course, other than for very exceptional reasons, should be surcharged on top of the fee as they have taken a place which will have been denied to someone else. Costs could be reduced and the number of places increased by making distance learning (via the internet) an element of courses. If the OU can deliver whole degree courses this way, other universities should be able to deliver parts of their courses online.
    Students, like three I observed recently, also need to be advised that shopping for vodka, even at two bottles for £16, is not a wise way of disposing of their loans.

  • Comment number 8.

    "
    5. At 3:09pm on 24 Oct 2010, lauurenface wrote:

    I was applying for uni this year anyway since they've said this probably won't affect us, its the year after us who it will affect.

    However i don't find it fair that i will be spending the rest of my life under a debt that i probably won't ever be able to pay off.
    "

    So do what we had to do in the 70's. Get part time jobs to help cover the costs. I worked Saturdays at Burton's, Sundays lugging beer barrels on to trucks and a couple of nights behind a bar. By doing so, I left uni few only a small debt which was paid of in months of starting "real work".

    While I never had to pay for tuition fees (which by the way, you should not have to pay), £7,000 is rather small when compared to the cost of living at uni today, e.g. rent, food study aids etc, etc per year.

    People today think going Uni is about parties, drugs, sex and generally having a laugh. Well, with that attitude, it's not surprising people end up with owing silly amounts of money.

  • Comment number 9.

    "
    7. At 3:15pm on 24 Oct 2010, Denisleeds wrote:

    Costs could be reduced and the number of places increased by making distance learning (via the internet) an element of courses. If the OU can deliver whole degree courses this way, other universities should be able to deliver parts of their courses online.
    "

    Many universities are already doing this.

  • Comment number 10.

    This country needs to stay at the forefront of technology and academia in the world, not least to ensure economic recovery.

    I'm leaving with £28,000 of debt from my 4 year course in engineering, and I'm lucky- I have a salary to walk into next year, provided I work hard enough. Many of my compatriots aren't so lucky, and to be told that students and their families must foot the burden, by the very politicians who paid nothing for their university education is disheartening, to say the least. If I had to pay £50,000 for my education(which I would have had to if the fees were £7000/yr), I wouldn't have gone, and British industry wouldn't have my skills as of later this year

    I understand the need for cuts, and why they must be implemented now, but I would far rather that fewer, but more academic students were allowed into university to study more worthwhile degrees, than the current policy which appears to let everyone who has strayed down the school-college-university route which was certainly the default route in my experience. Those with Degrees, Masters and Doctorates need to become the academic elite once more.

    Vocational courses need to be encouraged far more, perhaps with subsidies, and companies who require a degree for certain staff postings ought to pay a levy for each posting, to help the cost of degrees be spread between those who benefit from them the most. This would also cut down on the ridiculous "you cannot do/be promoted in this job because you don't have a degree" baloney that seems to becoming the norm.

    Certain people who contribute a lot to society do require degrees, others, who contribute equally as much do not, yet current policy dictates that they must. Doctors need a degree. Nurses really should not, for instance.

    Whilst a free education would be nice, most people have no complaints with paying a reasonable amount toward getting educated. However, denying the most able academic candidates through financial means alone (like charging £7000 a year for a 4 year course) is not at all in the countries interests, and will lead to "haves and have-nots" based on financial means and not ability. Graduating this year, I'll not be personally affected financially, not least until there is a chronic shortage of those degree qualified people younger than myself who I will later rely on in life.

  • Comment number 11.

    As we are constantly told, the future prosperity of this country depends on having a highly trained and educated work force; therefore all education should be free to students, either by government funding or industry sponsorship

  • Comment number 12.

    Image Britain without a single graduate. How would it survive in the modern world? I think we might ask who benefits from degrees.

  • Comment number 13.

    Students should pay. It's suggested that high fees will only allow for the "super-rich" to go to university. I really find this hard to believe and I can't help but feel these "super-rich" are such a small proportion of the population that their careers are already sorted through family contacts, regardless of their education. If everyone had a large loan to pay off above a certain threshold, surely it's the fairest route through education by minimising the gap between working and middle class.

    I went to an excellent redbrick university and I never met any "super rich". What I did meet were students on £5,000 bursaries who literally drank it away and dropped out...

  • Comment number 14.

    Who should pay for universities ? Simple, the people who use them. Those who can't or whose parents cannot afford the fees should have them paid for by the government. Those on large salaries must pay for their kids to go to university, not the banks and not the other taxpayers. There should however be no subsidy for mickey mouse ,bums on seats courses, non occupational courses or courses in the media or performing arts.

  • Comment number 15.

    I couldn't care less to be honest with you i'm more concerned about the way its the most at risk from death and harm are going to be harassed the most. Apart from anything else why do we need a 50% uni uptake? i would rather see technical colleges reopening so proper trades could be taught from heavy engineering to decorating.

  • Comment number 16.

    University Degrees should be free to all - and living expenses means tested. Just as they used to be.

    They are useful to our societies' future. Many totally essential - what degree one reads should not make any difference. Education to the maximum of one's ability should be free.

    This CONDEM attitude is short sighted as was all previous Tory attitudes. Yes I know that Labour introduced the loan system but it is still wrong.

    To effectively deny the poor (which charges do) access is wrong.

  • Comment number 17.

    "
    12. At 3:32pm on 24 Oct 2010, RitaKleppmann wrote:

    Image Britain without a single graduate. How would it survive in the modern world?
    "

    It would be like living in Toxteth.

  • Comment number 18.

    Courses should be directly funded from those requiring the skills supposedly gained from this "education".

    For Doctors, Lawmakers, Scientists and those going into the teaching professions the requirement and those who should pay to employ such people are obvious.

    For the rest of business the "requirement" is not so clear cut simply because a lot of the "skills" being taut have little to no value. The reason simply being universities in most workplaces are far behind the work place practices and pace.

    If someone is advertising for Degree level skills, then they should pay to have those skills employed and hence fund further gradutes.

    Maybe then we might actually see Universities and the Business world actually creating worthwhile courses that have a real world value, rather than a questionable curriculum created by those who have never worked in their lives.

    Too many adverts for Degree level skills are used simply as a way of filtering out candidates for no applicable reason I can think of.

  • Comment number 19.

    "
    11. At 3:31pm on 24 Oct 2010, grumpy Oxford Don wrote:

    As we are constantly told, the future prosperity of this country depends on having a highly trained and educated work force; therefore all education should be free to students, either by government funding or industry sponsorship
    "

    It should be wholly funded by the government. "Industry sponsorship" comes afterwards through employment.

  • Comment number 20.

    I certainly believe that we as students should pay for our future. Making sacrifices is key in life, hard work and dedication.. risk taking. However, an increase in the current amount sought, would be ridiculous. Is it not unfair that Scotland receive free/subsidised tuition rates when the rest of Britain pay a larger amount? I think a good idea would be to split the difference across the board.

  • Comment number 21.

    ' 8. At 3:22pm on 24 Oct 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    So do what we had to do in the 70's. Get part time jobs to help cover the costs. I worked Saturdays at Burton's, Sundays lugging beer barrels on to trucks and a couple of nights behind a bar. By doing so, I left uni few only a small debt which was paid of in months of starting "real work".

    While I never had to pay for tuition fees (which by the way, you should not have to pay), £7,000 is rather small when compared to the cost of living at uni today, e.g. rent, food study aids etc, etc per year.

    People today think going Uni is about parties, drugs, sex and generally having a laugh. Well, with that attitude, it's not surprising people end up with owing silly amounts of money.'


    I am working a part time job and saving as much as i can and i'm not really one to party. But when accomidation comes to around £100 a week plus food costs (which i granted is covered by the maintenance loan i would be getting, but only just) working part time can only get you so far. You also have to consider the fact that it would be just £7000 it would be £21,000 plus maintenance loans each year (which is about £5,000 outside of london and around £6,000 within london limits) comes out at around £36,000. I wouldn't qualify for any finacial help and although my parents will try and help as much as possible it will still be a lot of debt to be in when i first enter into the 'working world' and my chances of ever paying it off are very low.

    I think people underestimate the amount soon to be students actually know about finaces and other 'adult issues', but we are very well educated on the subject before going to uni. We are prepared for what we are about to let ourselfs in for. I dislike the fact that people think all we want to go to uni for is sex, parties and alcohol. For me this is definatly not the case, and for a lot of other students aswell. Although we will party, it's important to have a social life you can't really spend all your time locked up and studying, your not learning all the social things you will need to know for 'real life'.

    I have no problem with paying a small amount, i don't think we should expect a free ride, 'cause thats just not how life works.

  • Comment number 22.

    Nick Clegg says university fees will be capped. But, heh, this is the man who said university fees would not go up so why should we believe anything this gutless, spineless man has to say? Answer - we don't, because he lied to poor old Lib Dem voters and now he has lied to the public at large.

  • Comment number 23.

    As a Lib Dem supporter, I ultimately would like to see tuition fees abolished, but that clearly isn't remotely feasible in the current economic situation (and was never promised in the Lib Dem manifesto for this parliament, either). A cap is absolutely essential, preferably below £10kpa. Not good, but at least the Coalition has increased the salary at which graduates start to pay back their loans from 15k to 21k.

    And finally, will the BBC please stop referring to the Russell Group as "Britain's top universities" when they are not; they are just large research intensive institutions. The 1994 group (which represents smaller universities and includes Bath, York, Lancaster, Durham and St Andrews) actually has more members in the top 10 ranked universities than the Russell group.

    But I wouldn't expect the BBC to know anything about higher education.

  • Comment number 24.

    Yes university fees should be capped for UK students, and universities should be able to charge what they want for foreign students to make up the shortfall. It is the model that other countries follow, so what's the big deal?

    Oh I know - that is deemed "racist". Of course.

  • Comment number 25.

    Tuition fees should not be capped. They should be scrapped.

    Education is a basic human right. It should be paid for from general taxation.

    Fees are a scandal and make tertiary education the preserve of the middle and upper middle classes.

    The working class are discriminated against on the basis of their income lack of income) and are being priced out of education.

    With the proposals for education fees of £12,000 this would not simply price the working classes out of education, but also the lower middle class.

    People who are opposed to the cuts in education funding should campaign against them.

    The Communist Party of Britain is the organisation that people should get involved with to fight the whole concept of tuition fees, unless of course you want tertiary education only for the upper classes, as it was in the early 20th century.

    Communist View

  • Comment number 26.

    David Cameron April 2010 " We can not build our individual futures or the future of Britain on debt" funny that's what you're expecting students to do. The Browne report also suggested businesses should form more scholarships for students, is this likely to happen? No. Why were big businesses, including the banks, given £27 billion worth of tax cuts in July and students have to put up with a minimum of a 110% increase in tuition fees(based on tuition fees going up to £7,000)? Britain had the lowest businesses taxes on any G8 country and could have comfortably risen them 1.5% and still maintained that competitive edge. Banks awarded how many billions in bonuses this year? "We're all in this together" yeah with the exception of the people that put us in this mess and Gideon and Daves best friends.

  • Comment number 27.

    19. At 3:44pm on 24 Oct 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    "
    11. At 3:31pm on 24 Oct 2010, grumpy Oxford Don wrote:

    As we are constantly told, the future prosperity of this country depends on having a highly trained and educated work force; therefore all education should be free to students, either by government funding or industry sponsorship
    "

    It should be wholly funded by the government. "Industry sponsorship" comes afterwards through employment.

    = = = = = = =

    No that's called Industrial "exploitation" not "sponsorship" particularly as it is operated today

    Sixty Years ago the company I worked for had 5 year "student apprenticeship" for bright youths that paid any degree student fees and a reasonable maintenance grant in return for some work and training in the longer vacations . It was intended as an investment for the future - They understood that most of these students would leave at the end of the 5 years term to work for rivals - but still they thought the INVESTMENT was worth it.

    Why the devil don't companies do the same NOW?

    I suggest it is because they are greedy self centred and only interested in PROFIT to them NOT the COUNTRY.

    I read Electronics then a Masters in Mathematics - all completely free to me. I went on to utilize my talents in Education. Training many students in Physics - Electronics and Mathematics. Yet more investment in the Future. All due to the investment by an Electronics Company.



  • Comment number 28.

    The root of the problem is two fold.

    First, there is too much higher education capacity much of it poor quality.

    Secondly, buoyed up by government spending, senior administrators pay themselves far too much.

    The result is that two groups will now form, those higher education institutions that are high quality and those that grew up to serve the Labour vision of 50% of young people going to higher education. The exclusive colleges will welcome freedom to charge the market rate. The second group will not be able to attract students unless their courses are budget priced. These colleges will have to cut their costs, shrink in size or will close altogether.

    The government mustn't step in to subsidize these weaker colleges or allow them to support their finances by recruiting foreign students whose main intention is to bi-pass the UK immigration service. All this would do is perpetuate unjustifiably high salaries within that sector.

  • Comment number 29.

    "
    21. At 3:50pm on 24 Oct 2010, Lauren wrote:

    ' 8. At 3:22pm on 24 Oct 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    So do what we had to do in the 70's. Get part time jobs to help cover the costs. I worked Saturdays at Burton's, Sundays lugging beer barrels on to trucks and a couple of nights behind a bar. By doing so, I left uni few only a small debt which was paid of in months of starting "real work".

    While I never had to pay for tuition fees (which by the way, you should not have to pay), £7,000 is rather small when compared to the cost of living at uni today, e.g. rent, food study aids etc, etc per year.

    People today think going Uni is about parties, drugs, sex and generally having a laugh. Well, with that attitude, it's not surprising people end up with owing silly amounts of money.'


    I am working a part time job and saving as much as i can and i'm not really one to party. But when accomidation comes to around £100 a week plus food costs (which i granted is covered by the maintenance loan i would be getting, but only just) working part time can only get you so far. You also have to consider the fact that it would be just £7000 it would be £21,000 plus maintenance loans each year (which is about £5,000 outside of london and around £6,000 within london limits) comes out at around £36,000. I wouldn't qualify for any finacial help and although my parents will try and help as much as possible it will still be a lot of debt to be in when i first enter into the 'working world' and my chances of ever paying it off are very low.

    I think people underestimate the amount soon to be students actually know about finaces and other 'adult issues', but we are very well educated on the subject before going to uni. We are prepared for what we are about to let ourselfs in for. I dislike the fact that people think all we want to go to uni for is sex, parties and alcohol. For me this is definatly not the case, and for a lot of other students aswell. Although we will party, it's important to have a social life you can't really spend all your time locked up and studying, your not learning all the social things you will need to know for 'real life'.

    I have no problem with paying a small amount, i don't think we should expect a free ride, 'cause thats just not how life works.
    "

    University is in part about learning "real life", or it was in my day. For many, this is the first time they've been away from Mummy and Daddy, so it's whole new ball game.

    Unless you come from a rich family who "pay the way" for you, University life has always been a challenge, both academically and financially. Nothing has changed there, other than today, priorities seem somewhat confused and studying is sometimes not top of the list of priorities.

  • Comment number 30.

    Trash the Osborne / Thatcherite argument about humble taxpayers not wanting to subsidise those leaving University to get top jobs- instead focus on the alternative- either we drop the qualification requirements for doctors, nurses, teachers so that we have enough recruits from those who can't afford universities or we're all in it together and we all pay to have the medically and scientifically qualified people to provide out healthcare and research. Osborne has tried to play the class envy card but, presented by the proper argument, its clear that every taxpayer and his / her child benefits so all should contribute- I'm all for making tiers of degree standards. Those who study ancient history, politics and classics should maybe pay more for these hobby courses than those who choose to study those courses which help society directly. That way Britain can return to being the power house of invention and medicine it once was. We could, of course, return to the 'brain drain' of the 1950s caused by the 'bumping along the bottom' complacency of Harold MacMillan or perhaps the movement of those with enquiring minds into the banking sector in the wasted Thatcher years!

  • Comment number 31.

    All education should be totally free up to and including a first degree.

  • Comment number 32.

    "
    15. At 3:36pm on 24 Oct 2010, No Victim No Crime wrote:

    Apart from anything else why do we need a 50% uni uptake? i would rather see technical colleges reopening so proper trades could be taught from heavy engineering to decorating.
    "

    Fair point. However, there are already "technical colleges", they just tend to be called something else these days.

  • Comment number 33.

    There should be no tuition fee charges to UK citizens for any degree courses, but charges to external students should not be capped.

  • Comment number 34.

    Easy solution.

    It costs around £50,000 to maintain someone in prison, which is an OUTRAGEOUS sum of money.

    Cut prison costs by £10,000 per prisoner = average 85,000 x £10,000 = £850 million.

    Use this £850 million as university incentive to achieve top degrees so that those that achieve First class honours, student fees are respectfully reduced. A 2nd tier of reduced fees for those of Second class honours 2:1 in subjects specific to those of most importance to essential UK demand and economy.

    Whether using prison funds or whatever I think that instead of just having the grade of honours as incentive, add in a monetry incentive of fees reinbursement for high achievers.

    Even lower achievers can be incentivised by gaining employment on lower earnings and maintaining a level of employment for a specific period, could be 40 weeks + a year and for so many years then outstanding fees are reduced via contributing taxation so that lower earners are again also incenticised to achieve higher earnings potential without it being negated via heavy fees repayment by progressing their earnings level.

    Ultimately, I think that further personal achievement incentives should be added to drive up standards.

    I think such incentives could and should be part of the whole spectrum of university education, BUT, those areas which are vastly over prescribed should only receive incentives for the TOP tier of achievement.

    Hence, I suggest to whack the yearly student fee price upto at least £6,500 with a decent refundable incentive of upto £1500.00 per year for highest achievers and also so lower achievers who then find and maintain employment can also gain greater benefit.

    If such extreme bonuses can and are paid to bankers and many other professionals for basically doing very little, then surely providing greater benefits to those of REAL achievement is the most economically beneficial direction to travel.

  • Comment number 35.

    "29. At 4:19pm on 24 Oct 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    University is in part about learning "real life", or it was in my day. For many, this is the first time they've been away from Mummy and Daddy, so it's whole new ball game.

    Unless you come from a rich family who "pay the way" for you, University life has always been a challenge, both academically and financially. Nothing has changed there, other than today, priorities seem somewhat confused and studying is sometimes not top of the list of priorities."

    Oh, I totaly agree with that.

  • Comment number 36.

    So Nick Clegg is uneasy about the idea of unlimited tuition fees, but is quite comfortable betraying all those students that voted for the LibDems and their 'free education' policy!


    Mmmmmm - I guess he must be very uneasy about his credibility too!

  • Comment number 37.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 38.

    20. At 3:50pm on 24 Oct 2010, Frankster1992 wrote:

    I certainly believe that we as students should pay for our future. Making sacrifices is key in life, hard work and dedication.. risk taking. However, an increase in the current amount sought, would be ridiculous. Is it not unfair that Scotland receive free/subsidised tuition rates when the rest of Britain pay a larger amount? I think a good idea would be to split the difference across the board.

    = = = = = = =

    Sorry disagree - Making sacrifices is NOT key in life, hard work and dedication. RESPONSIBILITY is.

    I made no sacrifices at all in my life - Yet I had a family - a house - a car - a good well paid job - decent degrees - Never used the welfare system except when wife used the midwife - never out of work - excellent pension.

    But I WAS responsible - I planned for the future - never spending beyond my means.

    And the last is the biggest problem - getting a degree with loans IS spending beyond one's means. Education should be free for the future of the country!

  • Comment number 39.

    A tax on child benifit and single mothers

  • Comment number 40.

    I expect Clegg and Cable have had all the mirrors removed from their homes!

  • Comment number 41.

    "
    27. At 4:12pm on 24 Oct 2010, RichardGrey wrote:


    No that's called Industrial "exploitation" not "sponsorship" particularly as it is operated today

    Sixty Years ago the company I worked for had 5 year "student apprenticeship" for bright youths that paid any degree student fees and a reasonable maintenance grant in return for some work and training in the longer vacations . It was intended as an investment for the future - They understood that most of these students would leave at the end of the 5 years term to work for rivals - but still they thought the INVESTMENT was worth it.

    Why the devil don't companies do the same NOW?

    I suggest it is because they are greedy self centred and only interested in PROFIT to them NOT the COUNTRY.
    "

    In those days, the apprenticeship training was paid for by the Government. Thatcher stopped it in the 1980.

    In the 70's this approach had both good and bad constituencies. As the employer was not covering the cost, they'd take on lots of apprentices, which was good. After the apprentices had served their time, the Government funding stopped, so they lost their jobs, which was bad.

    Of cause in the capitalist world companies exist to make a profit. A company who employs an Apprentice/Trainee/Graduate, is "investing" capital into the Apprentice/Trainee/Graduate. If after 5 years (or whatever) the Apprentice/Trainee/Graduate leaves for a competitor, the company who "sponsored" that person, loses out while the competitor gains. Hence why it is harder to get a job without experience.

    So it's just down to simple economics for which there should be more Government involvement to ensure we do not have skills shortages.

  • Comment number 42.

    8. At 3:22pm on 24 Oct 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    So do what we had to do in the 70's. Get part time jobs to help cover the costs. I worked Saturdays at Burton's, Sundays lugging beer barrels on to trucks and a couple of nights behind a bar. By doing so, I left uni few only a small debt which was paid of in months of starting "real work".

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    That's a bit funny - if you were in University during the 1970's there were NO fees to pay and every student could claim a living allowance and housing benefits - And all students were also entitled to claim 'unemployment benefits' during the summer holiday!

    In fact, I know of very middle class students that used their grants to take long vacations travelling in Europe during their summer breaks! So if you felt it necessary to take part time work - why?

  • Comment number 43.

    While people debate the politics of this - i.e. who should pay, I think we need to question why University courses cost so much. For most degrees students actually get very little for their fees. 10-15 hours lectures / tutorials per week and access to a University libary is the norm. Why on earth does this need to cost £7000+ per year? To put that into perspective it's the equivilent of a good public school's yearly fees (for which you get so much more). My conclusion is that students are actually going to be funding not only their own tuition but the general running and research of the Universtiy, and this to me seems unfair. If universities want a 'market' let it be a true market and fund their research independently of students.

  • Comment number 44.

    "
    31. At 4:23pm on 24 Oct 2010, moreram wrote:

    All education should be totally free up to and including a first degree.
    "

    One would assume you what also allow people good enough to go on to MSc, Phd level?

  • Comment number 45.

    All education should be funded through the tax system up until the age of 18 years. After that, higher education should be funded by student loans, business grants and private bursaries/scholarships.

  • Comment number 46.

    Every student should receive a Grant of £6000 per annum and an Interest Free Loan of up to £4000 per annum, from the Banks.

    They caused this mess, that has us all suffering, how about they pay some back?

  • Comment number 47.

    Whats the point of a degree that is not tied to a job. Most degrees theses days are worthless bits of paper. The young have been fooled into going to uni so the last Labour government could hide its failing idealism by keeping unemployment down. Whats wrong with the UK no jobs too many people.

  • Comment number 48.

    It seems Clegg and Camaron are playing good cop bad cop with the people.

  • Comment number 49.

    I really don't know how Nick Clegg can look at himself in the face. Before the election he was in favour of not increasing fees now he want's them capped. Seems he just can't make up his mind what he wants. I wonder what Call Me Dave thinks. Not that I care.

    However, I thought eletism was the Coalition's goal.

    They can always ask their freindly banker chums to chip in if there's a shortfall providing they havn't spent all the money on their bonuses.


    This lot just make me very very angry.

  • Comment number 50.

    46. At 4:49pm on 24 Oct 2010, Spinonthis wrote:

    Every student should receive a Grant of £6000 per annum and an Interest Free Loan of up to £4000 per annum, from the Banks.

    They caused this mess, that has us all suffering, how about they pay some back?


    And the banks would just pass this additional cost on to their customers.

  • Comment number 51.

    "
    42. At 4:43pm on 24 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:

    8. At 3:22pm on 24 Oct 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    So do what we had to do in the 70's. Get part time jobs to help cover the costs. I worked Saturdays at Burton's, Sundays lugging beer barrels on to trucks and a couple of nights behind a bar. By doing so, I left uni few only a small debt which was paid of in months of starting "real work".

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    That's a bit funny - if you were in University during the 1970's there were NO fees to pay and every student could claim a living allowance and housing benefits - And all students were also entitled to claim 'unemployment benefits' during the summer holiday!

    In fact, I know of very middle class students that used their grants to take long vacations travelling in Europe during their summer breaks! So if you felt it necessary to take part time work - why?
    "

    I never said I paid fees; and nor people today.

    The "living allowance and housing benefits" were pittance, unless you were lucky enough to get into halls of residence or could stay with relations.

    I could earn more money during the the "Holidays" than signing on the Dole. In the first year, I signed on - once - but would have to wait two weeks for any money but have to go and sign on every week, a waist of "earning" time for me.

    I came from a working class family and was taught the values of work and a wage. My family helped me with food parcels, not with their cheque book. It was not uncommon for people from my background to half to work to pay their way, like it was not uncommon for people to travel far a field during the Summer break at their parents' expense, just that there were fewer of us.

  • Comment number 52.

    Quote "27. At 4:12pm on 24 Oct 2010, RichardGrey wrote:

    In the 70's this approach had both good and bad constituencies. As the employer was not covering the cost, they'd take on lots of apprentices, which was good. After the apprentices had served their time, the Government funding stopped, so they lost their jobs, which was bad. " /end quote

    Yes I was fortunate to get an Apprenticeship, and after 4 yrs had a trade as a Maintenance Engineer (electrical) this has seem me through the last 30yr + I have not had a day out of work unless I chose to do so.

    Apprenticeships are an investment in a Life Time of skilled work, and work that usually pays well above minimum wage. They do not provide jobs for life as they were in the 60's but that said, yes you could lose your job (and i was made redundant at least 3 times) but no one could take your skills from you or your right to work.

  • Comment number 53.

    Unfortunately there are degrees and DEGREES,or degrees of Degrees
    OK that is enough of being silly
    On the serious side there are certain universities that employers queue for graduates .in the main the obvoius two oxbridge then followed by the russell and red brick universities . If you want a job at the of the degreee then it is an advantage to have gone to one of the better universities.
    Simple as that.
    Better unviversities have better tutors ,and therefore higher wages .It follows on in resulting higher costs and therefore higher fees.

    ...Without a doubt if fees are capped the better and wealthier studentswill go aboard to LEARN ..NB. the place and quality of the knowlewdge is far more important that the degree...
    but that is another topic

    The problem of "The Degree" it has now become an established part of of New Labour" a prize for everbody" ,but unfortunately it is beginning to loose it's value .

    Capping fees will only cause further problems ,possible dumbing down


  • Comment number 54.

    Businesses are always complaining about students leaving universites without the skills they require. Let big business put their money where thier mouths are and sponsor courses that teach these skills.

  • Comment number 55.

    "
    46. At 4:49pm on 24 Oct 2010, Spinonthis wrote:

    They caused this mess, that has us all suffering, how about they pay some back?
    "

    It was failed Government policy which caused the mess the banks just took advantage of in.

  • Comment number 56.

    It used to be understood that students went to university, got a grant (not a loan), and paid it back in higher taxes on their (usually) higher earnings.
    However, under the last Tory government, the people who had to pay the higher taxes decided to make the current students pay the money in loans, and lower their own taxes.
    This is still going on. We should be training people according to their ability, NOT whether they are happy with an enormous loan.
    Student should not have to pay fees and get grants. If necessary, have a graduate tax once you earn over a certain amount. Not a loan repayment, getting the money and then having to pay it back is only good for high earners. Better never to see it in the first place.
    While we are at it, why not have a local income tax instead of getting your money and having to pay it back to the council.

  • Comment number 57.

    49. At 4:55pm on 24 Oct 2010, ziggyboy wrote:

    I really don't know how Nick Clegg can look at himself in the face. Before the election he was in favour of not increasing fees now he want's them capped. Seems he just can't make up his mind what he wants. I wonder what Call Me Dave thinks. Not that I care.

    However, I thought eletism was the Coalition's goal.

    They can always ask their freindly banker chums to chip in if there's a shortfall providing they havn't spent all the money on their bonuses.


    This lot just make me very very angry


    Why get angry about things you have no influence over?

  • Comment number 58.

    At 3:07pm on 24 Oct 2010, Megan wrote:
    As the future wealth of this nation depends on the quality of the young people who are now in education we need to be spending every penny we can scrape together to see them educated as well as possible.

    Anything else is rank foolishness, short-termism at a ridiculous level...

    It's also unfair to keep pitching the burden onto youngsters and parents who have not been given time to prepare. In the US, you start your kids' college fund as soon as they are born if not before, in the hopes that by the time they are ready to go to university, the money will be there to pay for it.

    _______________________________________________________________________________________
    Well said, Megan. You've hit the nail on the head, as so often. I am truly amazed, by the way, that so many people seem to think that a better educated workforce is obtainable only by reducing education. As for those who would have only those degrees that would benefit the needs of society, it's a real sage who can say what those needs will be in the future. A degree in Latin, anyone? It was considered essential once.

  • Comment number 59.

    46 Spinonthis
    Glad someone still remembers WHO caused all the economic troubles, NOT the unemployed, single mothers, disables, ill, etc., etc., etc..

    Did anyone notice the shadow chancellors reminder that, when labour came into power we were paying 10% of goverment spending on loans, and when they left we were spending 7.5%. So, who is the worst with the goverment purse?

  • Comment number 60.

    If you British Born and bred then ALL education should be free.If you are not British born and bred then you pay.Clegg/Cameron or uncle tom cobbly should have no say.Its such an important issue it should be voted on by the people.

  • Comment number 61.

    "
    54. At 4:56pm on 24 Oct 2010, Alba Al wrote:

    Businesses are always complaining about students leaving universites without the skills they require. Let big business put their money where thier mouths are and sponsor courses that teach these skills.
    "

    "Big Business" care about profit. If they cannot get the staff, they'd pack up and go abroad and make their money elsewhere, or, they head hunt other Businesses staff from home or abroad. They would not waste time, effort and money training people unless there was a cast iron guarantee that there would be a return on their investment. If their "investment" left after they'd be "trained up", the company loses out.

    This is why so many under 25's are out of work. No job without experience, no experience without a job.

  • Comment number 62.

    "
    58. At 5:00pm on 24 Oct 2010, Raymond Hopkins wrote:

    A degree in Latin, anyone? It was considered essential once.
    "

    It would help in botany with all those funny words ;-)

  • Comment number 63.

    Well, we need to set up a price comparision website for the university fees.

    Universities provide teaching services, but the knowlege is from somewhere else. In the way, they are similar to supermarkets. Prices need to be regularated.

  • Comment number 64.

    I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Finland can afford not to charge university tuition fees, with a take up of places fairly considerably above 50%. Why can't Britain? Yes, I know Finland is not so deep in a financial mess as the UK, but maybe, just maybe this is a result of essentially free university education, and the peace of mind that comes from having no, or very little debt at the beginning of a working life.

  • Comment number 65.

    50% by the state, i.e. through our taxes.
    50% by the graduate.

  • Comment number 66.

    46. At 4:49pm on 24 Oct 2010, Spinonthis wrote:
    Every student should receive a Grant of £6000 per annum and an Interest Free Loan of up to £4000 per annum, from the Banks.

    They caused this mess, that has us all suffering, how about they pay some back?

    =================================

    So muppet, WHOS money do you think it is that banks essentially lend out.
    If they were to provide zero interest loans, whos going to pay interst on savers money.

    MUPPET is just too good a word!!!!

  • Comment number 67.

    "
    50. At 4:56pm on 24 Oct 2010, Magi Tatcher wrote:

    And the banks would just pass this additional cost on to their customers.
    "

    Indeed. And without regulation, the so called banking levy will cause exactly the same outcome - the customer pays.

  • Comment number 68.

    "
    60. At 5:06pm on 24 Oct 2010, stevegrant wrote:

    If you British Born and bred then ALL education should be free.If you are not British born and bred then you pay.
    "

    Foreign students do pay.

  • Comment number 69.


    RichardGrey wrote:

    ........
    And the last is the biggest problem - getting a degree with loans IS spending beyond one's means. Education should be free for the future of the country!


    That would put Income Tax up by something around 3 to 5% according to a BBC report a while back, including those who don't go to university. Hardly fair on those who don't or cannot go.

    Having a separate higher rate of tax for graduates would be fair, if very unpopular, but then what's the difference between that and repaying a loan?

    The real root of the problem is however that having 50% graduating implies that 50% of jobs require a degree, which simply isn't true. I'm looking for work at the moment and frequently see what amount to what used to be called Office Juniors and such requiring a degree, which is a nonsense. A return to the City & Guilds, ONC/OND, HNC/HND and then Degrees structure would make far more sense, prevent students having false expectations about their future, and reduce debt (since G&G, ONC and HNC were always vocational and almost always funded by employers).

    The country doesn't need 50% of people being educated to degree level, it needs people to be educated to a level for which jobs exist. We cannot, as a country, afford such a luxury.

  • Comment number 70.

    Students should be paying for their university education. Anyone who wishes to place themselves in an advantageous position in the job market, and therefore reap the rewards that come with that should foot the bill for it.

    If you don't like it, don't go to uni.

    I don't expect many to agree with that, but that's how I feel on this subject and how I have always felt about it.

  • Comment number 71.

    "
    63. At 5:10pm on 24 Oct 2010, Lynn wrote:

    Well, we need to set up a price comparision website for the university fees.

    Universities provide teaching services, but the knowlege is from somewhere else. In the way, they are similar to supermarkets. Prices need to be regularated.
    "

    There should be very little fluctuation in tuition fees across the country. It simply needs to be under state control, and free at the point of service. Any such move is step towards privatization of the educations system, which should be a disaster unless, of course, you're able to pay.

  • Comment number 72.

    "
    69. At 5:16pm on 24 Oct 2010, Richard wrote:

    The country doesn't need 50% of people being educated to degree level, it needs people to be educated to a level for which jobs exist. We cannot, as a country, afford such a luxury.
    "

    So now all we need to do is dumb every student down the level required to work in fast food outlets, because that's all the jobs that exist at present.

  • Comment number 73.

    Pay for your own degree, you want to financially benefit from this education in the long term.

    People always seem to want something for nothing.

    To say the banks should pay is stupid. Why not with the mega profits of the supermarkets they pay as well ? Sadly people believe the hatred that the press has created and generated in blaming the banks for everything. Just remember Gordon Brown let them gamble and encouraged them and us to increase our personal debt.

    Blame anyone, blame Gordon Brown and Alistair darling.

  • Comment number 74.

    Get rid of rubbish degrees like media studies etc the state sohould only pay for degrees that will benifit others. Gone are the days when the tax earned by a person leaving uni will pay for the degree. Most degrees now are not demanded by employers. We have people with degrees stacking shelves at supermarkets because the degree they took holds no value in the work place. Why should the taxpayer pay for these kinds of degrees.
    Degrees used to be somthing of worth they are so devalued now employers ignore most of them.

  • Comment number 75.

    "
    69. At 5:16pm on 24 Oct 2010, Richard wrote:

    A return to the City & Guilds, ONC/OND, HNC/HND and then Degrees structure would make far more sense, prevent students having false expectations about their future, and reduce debt (since G&G, ONC and HNC were always vocational and almost always funded by employers).
    "

    In 70's, "City & Guilds, ONC/OND, HNC/HND" were mainly funded by the Government from which the companies claimed the money back from. In 80's this all changed hence the number of placed dropped significantly and all but disappeared by the 90's.

  • Comment number 76.

    When I came through university in the 1980s there was no question of paying fees. I even got a grant to contribute toward accommodation, food, books etc. Since getting my degree I have had a decently paid job as a teacher. I am not the only one who has benefitted from my degree, however. Thousands of young people have learned from a graduate in the subject they were studying. Having a highly educated society benefits everyone. And as I will not pull up the ladder I climbed I continue to support the abolition of student-paid tuition fees and believe that the state should pay.

    That said, if we are to have tuition fees, some examination should be made as to how Maastricht University (and other universities in mainland Europe) can manage to run with annual fees of only £1300; or how Turkish students can get a degree for only £400 per annum.

  • Comment number 77.

    The size of your parents' bank balance should not determine whether or not you are able to access higher education. Actual and potential academic achievement is the only factor that is important. The problem is that rich parents and independent schools are able to provide a level of support to that those less well-off parents and state schools cannot manage. Consequently, thick rich kids do better in life than intelligent poor kids which is a damning indictment of English society.

    And I say English deliberately. We should never forget the shameful fact that it was Blair's Labour government that foisted tuition fees on English students, with the support of Scottish MPs who voted for this legislation safe in the knowledge that it would never impact on their own constituents.

    Truly democracy in action.

  • Comment number 78.

    I think universities’ enrolments should be like that of adult colleges. Universities provide a detailed price list of individual courses to students. Students make their choices of the courses which interest them and pay for the fees.

  • Comment number 79.

    The present system is from a time when uptake and the number of universities was less than today. The system should be changed so that the undergraduate courses are condensed to 2 years. Courses should be free with maintenance loans. Universities should be allowed to have their own entrance exams. The third year should be spent in training for work. Spending one year in paid work in industry or public service unless they want to do a postgraduate course. The Postgraduate courses should be chargeable for which students can obtain sponsorship or pay for it themselves. As most graduates need to do a postgraduate course or training to get a job this system will formalise what is already a common practise.

  • Comment number 80.

    "
    77. At 5:39pm on 24 Oct 2010, RadialSymmetry wrote:
    "

    Here, Here.

  • Comment number 81.

    "74. At 5:31pm on 24 Oct 2010, Rulechangecrazy wrote:
    Get rid of rubbish degrees like media studies etc the state sohould only pay for degrees that will benifit others."

    Media studies isn't exactly a 'rubbish' degree, it teaches people who want to go into the meia industry essential skills, your probably more likely to get hired through a media studies degree than you are through a science degree, since it's more vocational and geared at you getting a job.

  • Comment number 82.

    Nushed wrote:

    Students should be paying for their university education. Anyone who wishes to place themselves in an advantageous position in the job market, and therefore reap the rewards that come with that should foot the bill for it.

    Well, when you see, for example, a doctor - you are also benefiting from his/her education. So it is only fitting that you contribute in a small way through your taxes.

    Now do you understand the concept? Or are you still struggling?

    If we were to follow your ridiculous logic through to it's conclusion and everyone were to decide that getting a degree were too expensive....what do you suppose you would do if you needed a doctor, or a dentist, or a lawyer...the list is endless.

    Please think before you post?

  • Comment number 83.

    It has become apparent that the kind of vocational training that used to be part of the workplace (i started worklife as a junior in a hardware shop) has now shifted to the taxpayer and the individual.

    University should be there for the higher subjects, the employers should have an obligation to train, and young workers should not expect to earn as much as their senior more experienced counterparts during those learning years, this would offset the cost to the employer and improve overall productivity and competitiveness, the trainee also benefits by not having an interest earning loan, and having progressive pay increases.

    When it comes to paying for Uni' - we should happily as a society fully fund courses which will lead to productive and societal gains - in engineering, physical sciences and human sciences. Perhaps other subjects could be part funded but certainly unworthy students and unworthy studies should not be funded by my taxes.

    Back to doing nightschool for your basics and keep university for the very brightest.
    I did not go to University but I did an OU couse at 28 years old - which I paid for.

  • Comment number 84.

    The ones which should be capped are the sensible degrees...like the traditional subjects or vocational degrees like Law.

    Hobby degrees like photography etc should be hammered to discourage them.

    There is simply no point in a lot of todays degrees, they're just an excuse to do very little for 3 years or so.

  • Comment number 85.

    Unfortunately, it is an expensive myth.

  • Comment number 86.

    We the taxpayer should fund university for graduans reading science, engineering or medicine degrees at 5 or 6 "proper" universities with extremely tough entrance criteria so that only our elite obtain degrees at my expense. The vast remainder should fund their own education entirely, (no state funded loans), if they want to waste time obtaining a so called degree in social, arts or sports rubbish. Oh, and part of my tough entrance criteria would exclude the scruffy or linguistically sloppy - like.

  • Comment number 87.

    Degrees for the Medicine,Engineering and Physics should be totally free.
    Degrees for Theology,American Studies,Media studies and the Arts should be charged at a rate that should cover all their cost and leave a surplus to be used for worthwhile Degrees.

  • Comment number 88.

    41. At 4:41pm on 24 Oct 2010, Kuradi Vitukari wrote:

    "
    27. At 4:12pm on 24 Oct 2010, RichardGrey wrote:


    No that's called Industrial "exploitation" not "sponsorship" particularly as it is operated today

    Sixty Years ago the company I worked for had 5 year "student apprenticeship" for bright youths that paid any degree student fees and a reasonable maintenance grant in return for some work and training in the longer vacations . It was intended as an investment for the future - They understood that most of these students would leave at the end of the 5 years term to work for rivals - but still they thought the INVESTMENT was worth it.

    Why the devil don't companies do the same NOW?

    I suggest it is because they are greedy self centred and only interested in PROFIT to them NOT the COUNTRY.
    "
    = = = = = = = =

    In those days, the apprenticeship training was paid for by the Government. Thatcher stopped it in the 1980.

    In the 70's this approach had both good and bad constituencies. As the employer was not covering the cost, they'd take on lots of apprentices, which was good. After the apprentices had served their time, the Government funding stopped, so they lost their jobs, which was bad.

    Of cause in the capitalist world companies exist to make a profit. A company who employs an Apprentice/Trainee/Graduate, is "investing" capital into the Apprentice/Trainee/Graduate. If after 5 years (or whatever) the Apprentice/Trainee/Graduate leaves for a competitor, the company who "sponsored" that person, loses out while the competitor gains. Hence why it is harder to get a job without experience.

    So it's just down to simple economics for which there should be more Government involvement to ensure we do not have skills shortages.

    == = = = = = ==

    Thanks - I thought it was the Tories. So Thatcher not only sold off the Railways and country owned manufacturing industries and the Lighter stuff - sold off Social Housing - deregulated Rents and Banks - BUT ALSO all our apprenticeship schemes too!!!

    And I hear they are now going to sell off our Forests - Ye Gods!! what a country The Tories created and still creating - Now the CONDEMS are continuing the decline. No wonder I vote Labour,

    I must add that the Student Apprenticeships we had were strictly reserved for a few 18 year olds who were off to Universities and would go into their Research Laboratories when finished as Research Scientists. There were more ordinary apprentices who did day release being trained for skilled jobs such as Maintenance Engineers. But in all honesty I never knew one that was refused a job inside the company. The management made it very clear they were doing the training for the entire Industry not just for themselves.

    It is also stupid to expect anyone just finished full time education to have experience - when they've never worked in the industry before. But Hey we have the CONDEMS in 'power' and that's stupid too.

    Surely if - as happened then - in the Electronics Industries they all 'swapped' apprentices at the end of the apprentices' training - They all won?? I know that was how my company viewed it. Mind you it was usual for companies to employ school leavers and train them too.

    So Thatcher destroyed an excellent system - Her boy Cameron seems hell bent to excel in the final destruction of the UK.

    The present government is not interested in ensuring we have skills - only allowing businesses to import all forms of skilled workers from elsewhere to save money.

    Further and Higher Education should be free to all those UK citizens who have the ability and determination to enhance themselves.

  • Comment number 89.

    "84. At 6:00pm on 24 Oct 2010, Sepenenre wrote:
    The ones which should be capped are the sensible degrees...like the traditional subjects or vocational degrees like Law.

    Hobby degrees like photography etc should be hammered to discourage them.

    There is simply no point in a lot of todays degrees, they're just an excuse to do very little for 3 years or so."

    I'm a photography Student and i'm going on to take it at Uni. I can tell you now that it takes more work than the other A-Levels i'm taking (History and Psychology). It's not a 'hobby' degree, trust me, it takes hard work and time. I am sick of people saying arts degrees aren't as important and science and english, the fact is some people aren't intelligent in thoes areas but have artistice flare. With out these degrees we wouldn't have things such as TV, music, websites, the theater, films even things like books and music, we would not be the cultral country we pride ourselves on being.

  • Comment number 90.

    81. At 5:53pm on 24 Oct 2010, Lauren wrote:

    "Media studies isn't exactly a 'rubbish' degree, it teaches people who want to go into the meia industry essential skills, your probably more likely to get hired through a media studies degree than you are through a science degree, since it's more vocational and geared at you getting a job."

    Codswallop. I, like most employers, if confronted by a media studies graduate or one with a degree in Physics would take the physicist every single time - irrespective of what the job was. Science develops the mind far more than Media Studies.

    And if Media Studies is vocational, why do you need to do a degree in it? Why not train on the job? The unemployment rate for media graduates is huge. The Government should cut the number of students on these course and give bursaries to help recruit students to shortage subjects like Physics, Maths and Chemistry.

  • Comment number 91.

    82. At 5:53pm on 24 Oct 2010, steve butler wrote:

    Well, when you see, for example, a doctor - you are also benefiting from his/her education. So it is only fitting that you contribute in a small way through your taxes.

    Now do you understand the concept? Or are you still struggling?

    No, I don't understand it. What exactly has my tax contribution to the NHS, in this particular example, got to do with this?

    That contribution is made regardless of who funded the doctor's degree. As it should be and it would be higher contribution overall if the doctor who is rewarded for their work with a higher than average salary was funded by the state to complete their studies.

    If we were to follow your ridiculous logic through to it's conclusion and everyone were to decide that getting a degree were too expensive....what do you suppose you would do if you needed a doctor, or a dentist, or a lawyer...the list is endless.

    I would go without probably. But the only ridiculous thing here is the notion that paying for your own higher education would result in zero qualified professionals.

    Please think before you respond.

  • Comment number 92.

    "
    83. At 5:59pm on 24 Oct 2010, Colonel32 wrote:

    University should be there for the higher subjects, the employers should have an obligation to train, and young workers should not expect to earn as much as their senior more experienced counterparts during those learning years, this would offset the cost to the employer and improve overall productivity and competitiveness, the trainee also benefits by not having an interest earning loan, and having progressive pay increases.
    "

    This is all very well and makes perfect sense, except how do you enforce this "obligation to train" on to the employers? Force them to take on people they "say" they do not require? Force them to pay the costs of training? This can only work if the there is a financial incentive for a business to do so, this can only work through some Government incentive, i.e. tax breaks. Enforcing such a rule, with no such incentives will cause more companies to go else where.

    In any case there are many companies in the UK who do take on graduates and train them in their own ways.

  • Comment number 93.

    Everyone I have spoken to has said that the Liberal Democrats can no longer be trusted - even those who tell me that they have traditionally voted Lib Dem. Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats have lost the confidence of the population of this country due to the disparity between what they said (in their manifesto) and what they have done. In other walks of life, this is called lying.

  • Comment number 94.

    47. At 4:51pm on 24 Oct 2010, Rulechangecrazy wrote:

    Whats the point of a degree that is not tied to a job. Most degrees theses days are worthless bits of paper. The young have been fooled into going to uni so the last Labour government could hide its failing idealism by keeping unemployment down. Whats wrong with the UK no jobs too many people.

    = = = = = = = =

    Degrees were NEVER tied to jobs - Degrees were designed to show the level of expertese shown by an idividual pursuing a subject of their interest. Having a degree in History didn't mean you can only be a Historian.

    Businesses and Commerce were ALWAYS saying "we want more graduates" now they've got them - but they are not using them. Hate to point out the reduction of unemployment figures was exactly why the Tories raised the school leaving age to 16.

    I agree with your last statement.

  • Comment number 95.

    "36. At 4:33pm on 24 Oct 2010, The Ghosts of John Galt wrote:
    So Nick Clegg is uneasy about the idea of unlimited tuition fees, but is quite comfortable betraying all those students that voted for the LibDems and their 'free education' policy!

    Mmmmmm - I guess he must be very uneasy about his credibility too!"

    "free education' policy!"

    Nowhere in the Lib Dem manifesto did it mention abolishing tuition fees in this parliament. It merely promised to cap them in this term and to seek to abolish them in the future - beyond the current 5 year term, which is still the aim of the party. But the Tories still want a Trident replacement, the scrapping of which would have freed up funds to allow this had we elected a Lib Dem government. Had you done so, and Nick Clegg had reneged on his pledge, you would have had valid reason for complaint. But this is a Coalition government and both parties have had to make compromises.

  • Comment number 96.

    Nushed wrote:
    At 5:53pm on 24 Oct 2010, steve butler wrote:

    Well, when you see, for example, a doctor - you are also benefiting from his/her education. So it is only fitting that you contribute in a small way through your taxes.

    Now do you understand the concept? Or are you still struggling?

    No, I don't understand it. What exactly has my tax contribution to the NHS, in this particular example, got to do with this?

    That contribution is made regardless of who funded the doctor's degree. As it should be and it would be higher contribution overall if the doctor who is rewarded for their work with a higher than average salary was funded by the state to complete their studies.

    If we were to follow your ridiculous logic through to it's conclusion and everyone were to decide that getting a degree were too expensive....what do you suppose you would do if you needed a doctor, or a dentist, or a lawyer...the list is endless.

    I would go without probably. But the only ridiculous thing here is the notion that paying for your own higher education would result in zero qualified professionals.

    Please think before you respond.


    Excellent, so the NHS funds degrees now does it?

    That confirms you are just trolling to try to provoke people. My mistake for responding to your nonsense.

  • Comment number 97.

    laughingjkings wrote:

    Everyone I have spoken to has said that the Liberal Democrats can no longer be trusted - even those who tell me that they have traditionally voted Lib Dem. Unfortunately, the Liberal Democrats have lost the confidence of the population of this country due to the disparity between what they said (in their manifesto) and what they have done. In other walks of life, this is called lying.

    The problem is that all the three main parties are just as bad as each other - they all lie through their teeth.

    So next time there's an election lets vote for....um.....er.....

    Revolution anyone?

  • Comment number 98.

    Given that the proposed new and higher fees would not need to be paid by students until they graduated and were then earning above £21,000, can someone explain how this discriminates against poor students? Once a student from any background was accepted onto a place they would surely all then be treated equally?

  • Comment number 99.

    96. At 6:23pm on 24 Oct 2010, steve butler wrote:

    Nushed wrote:
    At 5:53pm on 24 Oct 2010, steve butler wrote:

    Well, when you see, for example, a doctor - you are also benefiting from his/her education. So it is only fitting that you contribute in a small way through your taxes.

    Now do you understand the concept? Or are you still struggling?

    No, I don't understand it. What exactly has my tax contribution to the NHS, in this particular example, got to do with this?

    That contribution is made regardless of who funded the doctor's degree. As it should be and it would be higher contribution overall if the doctor who is rewarded for their work with a higher than average salary was funded by the state to complete their studies.

    If we were to follow your ridiculous logic through to it's conclusion and everyone were to decide that getting a degree were too expensive....what do you suppose you would do if you needed a doctor, or a dentist, or a lawyer...the list is endless.

    I would go without probably. But the only ridiculous thing here is the notion that paying for your own higher education would result in zero qualified professionals.

    Please think before you respond.

    Excellent, so the NHS funds degrees now does it?

    That confirms you are just trolling to try to provoke people. My mistake for responding to your nonsense.

    ----------------

    No, the NHS does not fund degrees. However, the taxpayer does already fund the salaries of doctors; a salary which reflects the time, effort and studies required in which to become one.

    You're free to call it what you like. I still maintain that if you wish to place yourself in an advantageous position and reap the rewards of said position, you should foot the bill for it. The argument which states that the 'man on the street' should fund the wish for the more comfortable financial existence of others doesn't wash and never will.

  • Comment number 100.

    It was the Labour government of the 1970s that ended apprentice not Thatcher.

 

Page 1 of 4

More from this site...

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.