Student Fees

[Coito ergo sum]

I hope this attempt at the marketisation of education fails and brings this stinking Tory-Whig marriage down with it.

Alas, I shant be holding my breath...

The government has a responsibility to provide an equitable education to all children from all classes at primary and secondary level (the fact that that doesn't happen is indeed a disgrace, but it's a separate issue). "Marketisation" is an unnecessarily emotive term in this case - in suggests that the poor will lose out andthe rich will gain, but as I said above, and as Clegg has repeatedly pointed out, none of the fees are up front - if anything they are a retrospective tax, a small percentage of the huge financial leap that all graduates from all backgrounds will make.

After secondary education a person has choices - to throw their lot in with an apprenticeship or menial work, to accept a lesser wage commensurate with their lesser skills, or they can opt to extend their skills, a choice for which they will ultimately be richly rewarded. There should not be a flat cost to society to support those who will benefit most from their own natural aptitude - that section of society should pay more for the finanical advantage they will gain through their lives becuase of their extra education.

Does the program apply to education through age 17? Not just college?

Yes and no. For second-level education In England, you have the choice of sending your child to a privately funded & fee-paying (aka "Public" ) school - which is very expensive. Or you can send them to a comprehensive (state-run) school.

Here in Ireland, it's much the same, except the terminology isn't quite as misleading ...

What's "second level education"? Like - high school -- age 14 to 17-ish?

[klr]

...
What's "second level education"? Like - high school -- age 14 to 17-ish?

12/13 - 17/18 ish ...

[Thinking Aloud]

The English system is roughly:

5-12 Primary
12-16 Secondary (national qualifications - GCSE) *
16-18 6th form (national qualifications - A-Level / other)
18-> University 3/4 years (Bachelor's degree)
University 1 year (Master's degree)
University +++ (Doctorates)

* Everything up to 16 is mandatory, to all intents and purposes. Everything after that is optional.

[Feck]

I 'm still waiting for a reply BTW .

[devogue]

.

[devogue]

This is starting to sound a little like "I walked five miles each way to school, uphill, both ways..." but, I think this kind of thing is relevant. One, college "kids" are not kids at all. They're adults, and at bottom it's their own business whether they go to college and why. Nobody is forcing them to go. If they want to, fine, and the default should be that if you want something, then it's you're responsibility to pay for it. The fact that the government is willing to facilitate loans and then base repayment on an income-sensitive formula would, I think, warrant a "thank you" instead of griping. Fuck that wanna be French teacher than. Don't go. Who gives a fuck. The world will still go on without her masterful French teaching abilities. She's the one who wants to be a French teacher - someone offers her help - and she looks the gift horse in the mouth.

You have put it far better than I ever could.

[Coito ergo sum]

The US system is roughly:

Kindergarten (age 5)
Age 6-11 - grammar school/elementary school
Age 12-13 -- middle school (formerly "upper elementary")
Ages 14-17 - high school
Ages 18-21 - college/university

Presently, I think that up through high school is mandatory, except that at age 16 a student may normally drop out if the student has parental permission. Some places are starting to make that age 18 (i.e. can't drop out until adulthood) (example, Manatee County, Florida, and the entire state of Oklahoma). In the US, such policies are made generally at the state level. There is no federal mandate, as far as I am aware.

So, the terminology is different, but I think the gist of it is the same.

[Feck]

Nope I didn't think so We are all agreed then are we ?
A:All graduates make massive financial gains
B:education has no value other than in personal financial gain
C: Graduates who do make lots of money don't actually pay income tax or other taxes on that on that money
D: An educated population is not something a country should aspire to .

Good it's nice to see we are all thinking ..looking in this thread I can see some education failed ,no matter who paid for it .

[mistermack]

Usually - college loans for tuition are non-dischargable in bankruptcy. They are in the US, anyway. Not familiar with UK bankruptcy law.

I had a feeling that might be the case. It seemed an obvious dodge.

You've disappionted me though. I have to agree with your other post. The benefits of a degree are way over-valued these days. There are far too many people going to university, and often for degrees that bear little relevance to the work they end up doing. It's a huge wast of human effort, in a lot of cases.
I have two nephews and a niece who left university in the last few years.
One worked as a lawyer,( after an English degree ) got very well paid, but then had a kid and hasn't worked since. One got a sports-science degree and now detects water leaks, and one did IT and is now a waitress. There is a real problem, but don't think this is the best way to solve it. None of them would have got any value from the £30,000 debt they ran up.
I would cut down drastically on the number of degree places available, and start a new system of further education tied to jobs, where courses and qualifications are directly linked to people already in employment.
Anyway, if they scrapped all the degree courses in useless subjects, there would be plenty of money available for courses that would actually benefit the country in some way.
This legislation will affect women more than men in the real world. When a woman takes a break to have kids, her debt will be mounting up with the interest.
And will a man be liable for a woman's £40,000 debt, if he wants to marry a woman fresh out of University? Or vice versa. I have no idea where the law stands on debts accumulated before you marry. Maybe people just won't get married.
.

[Coito ergo sum]

Usually - college loans for tuition are non-dischargable in bankruptcy. They are in the US, anyway. Not familiar with UK bankruptcy law.

I had a feeling that might be the case. It seemed an obvious dodge.

You've disappionted me though. I have to agree with your other post. The benefits of a degree are way over-valued these days. There are far too many people going to university, and often for degrees that bear little relevance to the work they end up doing. It's a huge wast of human effort, in a lot of cases.
I have two nephews and a niece who left university in the last few years.
One worked as a lawyer,( after an Enlish degree ) got very well paid, but then had a kid and hasn't worked since. One got a sports-science degree and now detects water leaks, and one did IT and is now a waitress. There is a real problem, but don't think this is the best way to solve it. None of them would have got any value from the £30,000 debt they ran up.
I would cut down drastically on the number of degree places available, and start a new system of further education tied to jobs, where courses and qualifications are directly linked to people already in employment.
Anyway, if they scrapped all the degree courses in useless subjects, there would be plenty of money available for courses that would actually benefit the country in some way.
This legislation will affect women more than men in the real world. When a woman takes a break to have kids, her debt will be mounting up with the interest.
And will a man be liable for a woman's £40,000 debt, if he wants to marry a woman fresh out of University? Or vice versa. I have no idea where the law stands on debts accumulated before you marry. Maybe people just won't get married.
.

I would just let people do as they please. I wouldn't cut down on the number of degree places as long as there were people willing to go there. Nor would I tie anybody down - if somebody wants to be a waitress who knows IT, that's up to them. I just wouldn't want to foot the bill. I think it's a fine idea to let people borrow money for uni, expecting to have to pay it back. That expectation will give enough people enough pause to examine whether they are making a good decision.

I would let universities determine what degrees they offer based on what people want to take. There is often value in many degrees deemed worthless by some. A classical liberal arts education can be very valuable in life - if the student actually learns something. Most of the time they don't, though because most university students are either not interested in really learning, or stupid.

[Bella Fortuna]

The US system is roughly:

Kindergarten (age 5)
Age 6-11 - grammar school/elementary school
Age 12-13 -- middle school (formerly "upper elementary")
Ages 14-17 - high school
Ages 18-21 - college/university

Or, if you're like me, university was ages 17-28...

[Coito ergo sum]

Nope I didn't think so We are all agreed then are we ?
A:All graduates make massive financial gains
B:education has no value other than in personal financial gain
C: Graduates who do make lots of money don't actually pay income tax or other taxes on that on that money
D: An educated population is not something a country should aspire to .

Good it's nice to see we are all thinking ..looking in this thread I can see some education failed ,no matter who paid for it .

A. not all graduates make massive financial gains. For some, not having a degree would be better financially, due to other opportunities being availalbe.
B. Education does have value other than personal financial gain, and I don't see as anyone has said it doesn't.
C. Graduates who make a lot of money become the rich who aren't paying their fair share, so they should be prevented from being that. LOL.... but, yes, people who make money tend to pay income taxes.
D. An educated population is something a country should aspire to - that's why it's nice to offer guaranteed loans to people who want a higher education. Being educated, however, is not the equivalent of a college degree. I have a friend who has no college degree who is better educated than most folks I know. Self-educated after high school. Most university students aren't really getting great "educations" or becoming "educated people" in the classical sense - the statistics on what college graduates graduate knowing are not encouraging on that point.

[Feck]

A graduate tax would be more fair (and do the banks out of some money ) charge graduates a 1or 2 % extra in income tax .It doesn't saddle people with debt ,it doesn't put poor people off going to University and it might cut down on frivolous Degrees ?

[Coito ergo sum]

The US system is roughly:

Kindergarten (age 5)
Age 6-11 - grammar school/elementary school
Age 12-13 -- middle school (formerly "upper elementary")
Ages 14-17 - high school
Ages 18-21 - college/university

Or, if you're like me, university was ages 17-28...

Sounds like you had a good time....

[Coito ergo sum]

A graduate tax would be more fair (and do the banks out of some money ) charge graduates a 1or 2 % extra in income tax .It doesn't saddle people with debt ,it doesn't put poor people off going to University and it might cut down on frivolous Degrees ?

Less fair, actually. If a person gets through college by the sweat of his brow and pays for it by working until 2am at the local bar, why should they get saddled with an extra tax?

Why isn't a guaranteed loan that they don't pay back until after graduation, coupled with an income sensitive payback scheme fair? That's more than fair, actually. Someone who is poor and wants to go to college should look at that and go: "wow! holy shit .... I....don't know what to say.... thank you...."