Yahoo Answers is shutting down on May 4th, 2021 (Eastern Time) and beginning April 20th, 2021 (Eastern Time) the Yahoo Answers website will be in read-only mode. There will be no changes to other Yahoo properties or services, or your Yahoo account. You can find more information about the Yahoo Answers shutdown and how to download your data on this help page.
Trending News
Students - they were happy in the haze of a drunken hour, but heaven knows they're miserable now...?
As students protest about the raising of tuition fees, please consider which scenario you would rather see:
1) Universities do not raise tuition fees. Teaching and academic budgets are slashed to make up the shortfall, and some institutions will have to jettison certain degrees. Smaller Universities may even have to disband or close.
2) Universities do raise tuition fees. Students on the most impoverished parts of society will get significant assistance as they do now. However, middle earning families may struggle to meet the shortfall. Applications from the UK will drop, meaning as a percentage, overseas students will be greater as their fees are unlikely to rise.
Which of the two scenarios are more beneficial to the UK?
Deighton - whilst that is true for the fees, it is not true for the loans - sorry, I should have distinguished that in my question. Middle-earning families will not be applicable for the maximum student loan, and will have to make up the extra needed for accomodation etc themselves. I admit that is nothing new - but the fact remains that less people ARE inclined to go because the debt they will owe is edging nearer £40 - 50k as opposed to the £12 - 16k of recent years.
10 Answers
- Michael BLv 71 decade agoFavorite Answer
The real problem is not the fees nor the loans - it is the system which makes them necessary.
We send almost half our young people to university. In other words, many with no more than average intelligence are there. On this scale, then, it becomes financially impossible to educate them and maintain them on a free, or even a subsidised, basis. They must pay their way
Now a university, arguably, should be a place where the brightest can go to learn things the rest of us cannot aspire to. For most of us, even for some with excellent brains, there can be other routes to success. Apprenticeships once existed in large numbers. Once, engineers, accountants and solicitors could learn their trades on the job, and many did, taking articles and studying as they worked. One of my best friends gained chartered engineer status by a combination of part-time study and practical experience. It was normal for nursing (a practical skill if ever there was one) to be similarly studied. Now, in contrast, we send all these people to university for three years - to an abstract mode of study and an academic environment not suited to many, some of them even doing courses which often admittedly do not lead to a career.
This is a huge waste of effort (many excellent brains are uselessly employed teaching BA courses in silly subjects to mediocre students), of money and of talent. All that can be said in its favour is that it keeps the kids off the streets - and with the recent resurgence of student activism, it is not even successful in that.
If we reverted to a state of affairs where there were multiple routes to the top and employers took more direct responsibility for selecting and educating the workforce they need, we might be able to limit numbers, close two-thirds of our universities and once again subsidise degree course students. Whether we should pay up to subsidise them is another argument - but at the moment it is quite impossible.
How did we get into this remarkably unproductive dead-end?
- Anonymous1 decade ago
Neither is good for UK plc.
Our universities should not be 'dumbed' down and should be kept to the very highest standards of excellence but that shouldn't depend on who can afford it the easiest. Anyone of the highest standard should be welcomed with open arms. We should be paying the best students to sacrifice three or four years of their lives for the advancement of the country as we used to. It shouldn't depend upon whether or not mummy or daddy can afford it.
Ahhh shame, to anyone who’s against the students as they have either never been to school or else they all want to pay extra for their primary and secondary school education too. Lol.
The Tories are creating a system to educate the rest of the world at the expense of British students. I'm not sure why Cameron backtracked when he was in China as regards keeping caps on tuition fees for foreign students, as when they originally made the announcement, the Tories said that they were removing the cap on foreign fees. This would be so that Universities could charge foreign students whatever they wanted. I just don't understand why he's announced a complete and utter reversal of the policy that he's already announced. I just don’t understand it. That’s not like our Dave at all. He doesn’t usually do kneejerk policy reversals, does he? Oh, I forgot, he was in China. Poor Dave. He must have had a hard time tippy toeing around his policies for the Chinese, or they've just plain and simply ordered him to change his policy. By the time the Tories are finished with our university system, only the Chinese will be able to afford it. There won’t be any University education for most British students, just one for the rich and a UK supply branch of the Chinese education system. Why waste time on an education system, when you can order those clever Brits to do it for you?
Then to rub salt in Poor Dave's university policy wounds, the day after all the usual Chinese human rights media fuss and just to show him who’s boss, the Chinese handed out a two and a half year sentence to a man who kicked up a major fuss for the Chinese by raising some concerns about the water poisoning of 400 school children. It looks like Poor Dave’s university fees policy and those 400 schoolchildren will just have to lump it. It’s amazing that a few Chinese can pull off what British students can’t, no matter how much they wreck the place. Well done Poor Dave, you had a most successful visit in China. You stood your ground and didn’t let those Chinese treat you like their b***h.
Oh My Cod! - lmao
- Proud InfidelLv 71 decade ago
Maybe the solution is tailor degree courses to suit future needs and do away with those secondary or not fit for requirements.
I agree with the comment that university education should go to the brightest and not the time wasters or life long students,downsizing would be better thus producing exception results rather than mediocre or useless degrees at present.
Why should we continue to fund foreign students in these cash limited times and I would add the mystery of the ghost students would become a thing of the past,too many fade into the social background so are problematic and not worth the trouble.
- Anonymous1 decade ago
They were happy to let all their rights be stripped away under the last administration and sat and did nothing.
We are all in this together, it is the Socialists who were happy to let a Labour administration try and bring in 42 days imprisonment without trial (always a good Fascist ploy), and Conservative/Lib Dems along with a few right minded Labour MPs who stopped it.
Where was the marching on the Streets then.
What amuses me is this slogan Education is a Right not a Privilege.
Thus showing their ignorance of History, it is a privilege hard earned and remains a privilege that should be available to all, but when the Socialists moved into the Teacher training schools in the 80s we had a decline in History teaching since, and it shows.
Yes 2 is the way forward from the alternatives given.
- How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
- Confused HalLv 71 decade ago
There is a third forth and fifth way.
3. Raise income tax - but no political party is willing to do that as they are terrified of the way they will be portrayed in the media.
4. Introduce a graduate tax
5. Raise fees and change the structure but do it gradually not by tripling it overnight.
But the argument is missing the bigger picture society also benefits from that student getting an education. For example a doctor contributes to the health of the nation, a teacher contributes to the education of the nation, entrepreneur, scientists engineers etc contribute to the wealth of the nation. Yes many students will benefit financially from a university education, but if many potential students are put off by massive fees society as a whole suffers.
What we have at the moment is smoke and mirrors - this has little to do with deficit reduction, the cuts to the education budget are being implemented now, the fee raises dont take place until 2014 when according to the government the deficit will be ended.
The protests also involve the education maintenance allowance which will make it difficult for many families on low incomes to provide A level education which is the pre requisite for university education at the age of 18.
This policy has nothing to do with deficit reduction.
- FaithLv 61 decade ago
Hi O! i really have no clue...but the sound of universities closing down is sad...
What about scholarships?? Won't that be an answer to those middle earning families who have to struggle? Take care!
To Jack below: Yes, our O does write well!
- Anonymous5 years ago
I will swap you, all iv'e got to look forward to a day of hard graft eventually when i can be bothered starting!
- Anonymous1 decade ago
why do middle earning families pay a shortfall? The repayments are made after finding work, as I understand things, your folks don't pay. It is in fact a large graduate tax, with a higher rate graduate tax for the most successful.
Please explain. Have I misunderstood
- MechomanLv 51 decade ago
Sorry, no sympathy... too many people think uni is for everyone when it isn't. Only the best should go there, not every tom, dick and harry.