Student Riots

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dave B

Which has always happened, through general taxation. Now students are being asked to pay back their tuition fees on top of the income tax, NI, and VAT they already pay.

---

Politicians have always fiddled expenses from the tax payer. The rich have always squirrelled money offshore. Is it right? Of course not and should be stopped.

Students are asking for a benefit and expecting everyone else in society to pay for it. That is just not right.

There is not a limitless pool of money and if you want a the tax payer to provide an advanced education that will benefit you financially throughout your life, it seems fair to contribute towards it, doesn't it?

Quote:

---

You're right of course, but it is generally accepted that a well-educated population is good for society (I'll explain later) and the economy as a whole.

---

Agree. We need an well educated population that is fair, equitable and sustainable. We also need a responsible society that doesn't just take but that contributes fairly if it receives an educational and economic benefit.

Quote:

---

Becuase in any civilised society those able to pay make a contribution to the whole. If they're low earners they'll pay low tax, if they're high earners they'll pay high tax (assuming they don't snaffle it offshore). The genuine "have nots" are still protected by the benefits system so wouldn't be expected to make a contribution.

---

And if you receive a benefit that allows you to have a much greater earning potential, it's only fair to pay back a small proportion so others can do the same and not empty the pot for future generations.

Quote:

---

You seem to have this image of Oxbridge toffs sneering at the working classes as they wend their way to uni in daddy's Rolls!

---

Have I ever intimated anything like this or are you being slightly unfair?

Quote:

---

What I'm talking about is the ability of the "average" person to benefit from good further education without being asked to pay for it twice, which will enable them to make a more useful contribution to society.

---

I am only asking them to pay once if they earn a sufficient amount that allows them to contribute. Those that receive a good further education but are not able to contribute will be paid for by everyone, including those that don't receive this benefit.

I really cannot understand why this is so objectional. I believe in paying my way and contributing towards a society that benefit all including those that cannot support themselves (who, incidentially, I also expect to do their bit).

Shouldn't that be what we should all do?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

...Quite frankly, I find it distasteful and offensive that the elite of our society should seek to use those that are least able to represent themselves to pay for their privilidged education.

---

I don't understand this statement.
How do you consider those who wish to enroll in higher education "elite of our society"? Eligibility for enrollement in universities is based on academic qualifications, not social position.
Who are these that are "least able to represent themselves"? :confused: Any registered voter has equal representation.

Society as a whole benefits from those who have a higher education. I will always support my tax dollars funding higher education, and will continue to support this notion long after my kids have graduated and I am a pensioner for it is then that I will likely be required to increasingly call upon the services towards which higher education has directly contributed (I can only imagine that higher education has somewhat contributed to the development of an artificial hip or hearing aid :mark: ).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

Politicians have always fiddled expenses from the tax payer. The rich have always squirrelled money offshore. Is it right? Of course not and should be stopped.

Students are asking for a benefit and expecting everyone else in society to pay for it. That is just not right.

---

I can't see how you equate the fraudulent and (in some cases) criminal fiddling of expenses with what students are asking for :s

In any case, students aren't asking for "everyone else" to pay for their education. They're expecting to be taxpayers themselves one day, hopefully high earners. They aspire to making a contribution to the pot.

Quote:

---

There is not a limitless pool of money and if you want a the tax payer to provide an advanced education that will benefit you financially throughout your life, it seems fair to contribute towards it, doesn't it?

---

They will contribute towards it, though, through the taxes they themselves will pay. This is fundamental: you don't always pay for services at the time you use them, otherwise retired people wouldn't have access to the NHS for example. Every taxpayer contributes to a pot which benefits the whole, even if they themselves don't necessarily use each and every service which they fund.

Our local council has just part-funded a skate park which I'll never use. However, I see the benefit of kids having access to leisure facilities.

Quote:

---

Have I ever intimated anything like this or are you being slightly unfair?

---

When you use phrases like "elite of our society" and "privilidged [sic] education" you do rather conjure up images of a class divide, so I don't think I'm being unfair.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

How is it inaccurate if Beckham's latest hair cut, pumps, tattoo etc was part of the degree.

I'll agree that all papers sensationalise to some extent or another, The Guardian do it all the time, focus in on what the nasty Tories are doing whether they are or not doesn't seem to matter as long as they can scare the lentil munching yoghurt knitters into a hissy fit about it all then job done.

---

Seriously, why are you so bothered about David Beckham featuring in a degree course at a not so reputable university. I have good degree from a red brick university and I still consider it to be 98% worthless after taking profesisonal exams. Hell, if I'd taken a job in a different profession it would be 100% useless regardless and I still didn't have the benefit of swooning over David Beckham.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

Shame they didn't spell check them all though

---

My word, you really are amazing, aren't you? Your command of English is dreadful, yet you feel able to make statements like that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

If they are paying more income tax then they are not educated.

---

Pray tell us why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schmenke

I don't understand this statement.
How do you consider those who wish to enroll in higher education "elite of our society"?

---

Elite from an educational point of view. It's also true that elite reflects social standing, earning potential and career. More people from the "elite" have degrees than those in working class positions.

I thought this was a given otherwise why would people strive to go to Uni? Honestly, I can accept people having different views but do we have to go so "Janet and John"?

Quote:

---

Eligibility for enrollement in universities is based on academic qualifications, not social position.

---

100% agree and that is why these proposals are so fair. It allows anyone, regardless of social position, to compete based on academic achievement. When has that ever happened before?

Quote:

---

Who are these that are "least able to represent themselves"? :confused: Any registered voter has equal representation.

---

People from an academic background tend to occupy positions where they define policy such as politicians. Why should people with working calss jobs, people that tend to not have the privilidge and trappings of society, why should they have to pay for the elite.

Quote:

---

Society as a whole benefits from those who have a higher education.

---

Society as a whole benefit from everyone that contributes. Doctors and street sweepers or are you saying just because you don't have a degree means you contribute less to society?

Quote:

---

I will always support my tax dollars funding higher education, and will continue to support this notion long after my kids have graduated and I am a pensioner for it is then that I will likely be required to increasingly call upon the services towards which higher education has directly contributed (I can only imagine that higher education has somewhat contributed to the development of an artificial hip or hearing aid :mark: ).

---

We all support higher education. All I suggest (quite uncomprehensibly it seems) is that those that get a financial benefit from a university degree should pay a small proportion of that benefit to ensure the system remains viable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GridGirl

Seriously, why are you so bothered about David Beckham featuring in a degree course at a not so reputable university. I have good degree from a red brick university and I still consider it to be 98% worthless after taking profesisonal exams. Hell, if I'd taken a job in a different profession it would be 100% useless regardless and I still didn't have the benefit of swooning over David Beckham.

---

Just one of many worthless degrees that kids that would have been considered too thick to attend Uni a few years ago are now wasting their time and my money studying.

Did Hitchcock do a Media Studies degree at his local Poly, or Ford Coppola?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

100% agree and that is why these proposals are so fair. It allows anyone, regardless of social position, to compete based on academic achievement. When has that ever happened before?

---

I don't understand the extent to which it doesn't happen now. From the view that you and indeed the Government are putting forward about universities having 'failed' people up to now, you'd think that everyone in higher education was exclusively from the upper classes, as was the case a century or so ago. It's a complete fallacy.

As I have stated before in this thread, it seems as though the Government is trying to even out all the inequalities in education when people reach 18, rather than improving education prior to that to a standard at which such measures aren't required. Universities are not primarily about 'social mobility', but about education and learning. Or is this an old-fashioned view?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

People from an academic background tend to occupy positions where they define policy such as politicians. Why should people with working calss jobs, people that tend to not have the privilidge and trappings of society, why should they have to pay for the elite.

---

Where on earth does this notion that a university education conveys upon a person 'privilege' and 'trappings' stem from? Again, maybe it did 100 years ago, but no more. This hasn't been the case for literally generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skc

We all support higher education. All I suggest (quite uncomprehensibly it seems) is that those that get a financial benefit from a university degree should pay a small proportion of that benefit to ensure the system remains viable.

---

The system will never be viable unless fewer people go into it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight

Just one of many worthless degrees that kids that would have been considered too thick to attend Uni a few years ago are now wasting their time and my money studying.

Did Hitchcock do a Media Studies degree at his local Poly, or Ford Coppola?

---

I still don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I attended a good university, got a good degree classification as a result and later good job but I still consider 98% of my degree to be a waste of time after taking professional exams. In effect there is no difference between my degree and your so called worthless degrees.

In theory shouldn't the increase in student fee's reduce the number of so called 'worthless degrees' that university's are going to offer anyway? £27,000's worth of fees is definately going to make any potential university applicant think longer and harder about what courses they are going to apply for. If universities are struggling for cash, the first thing they should look at is the student uptake of courses and how much they cost to run. If a course really isn't viable they should remove it.