Much has been said about student fees in recent days. In my view, there are two key questions:
- Is it right that lower earning taxpayers (many of whom don't go to university), should subsidise students, who leave university earning much higher wages? At present, so many students are going to university that the burden for lower for taxpayers has become unsustainable. What is wrong with saying that students should make some contribution to their university studies, as their counterparts do in most other Western countries? Once the new tuition fees have implemented, Government will still fund - through the taxpayer - 40% of university finance.
- Does the new tuition fee policy assist those on lowest incomes? It is vital that students from lower income backgrounds are not discouraged to go to university because of the cost. For this reason, in contrast to previous policy under Labour, no fees will need to be paid up front, no loans will be paid back until students earn more than £21,000, and pay-back will be varied according to how much a student is earning. For example, if a student is earning just £25,000 a year, payment would amount to £7.50 a week.
Further to this, there will be additional support for students on low incomes: a new £150 million National Scholarships Programme to help the poorest students into the top universities; maintenance grants for students from lower-income families will increase from £2,906 to £3,250; and partial maintenance grants will be available to students from families with incomes between £25,000 and £42,000. For the first time, part-time students will also be able to get a loan.
"By decile of graduate lifetime earnings, the Government's proposals are more progressive than the current system or that proposed by Lord Browne. The highest earning graduates would pay more on average than both the current system and that proposed by Lord Browne, while lower earning graduates would pay back less. By decile of parental income, graduates from the poorest 30% of households would pay back less than under Lord Browne's proposed system, but more than under the current system. While all graduates from families with incomes above this would pay more, graduates from the 6th and richest (10th) deciles of parental income would pay back the most under the proposed system".
In an ideal world, of course it would be good if university education was free. The last Labour Government introduced tuition and top-up fees, because they knew this was not possible. Nevertheless, at least the new student fees - will help the poorest students, and lighten the burden for lower income taxpayers. It is a fairer solution for all.
You can read more HERE and HERE.
You can read more HERE and HERE.
Students misread the situation and rather than negotiating the circumstances with Members of Parliament, MPs and ultimately the Prime Minster, they find the mere solution to be the use of violence whilst protesting. However, I agree that it is our democratic rights to protest but aren’t we going too far and look rather uncivil? People in the UK need to have more gratitude and treasure what we have which is ‘Freedom’ and a law that allows us to disagree with political decisions without fearing for our lives. If we look at Mediterranean countries students pay an average of 50.000 to 100.000, please see the link: http://www.dubaifaqs.com/universities-dubai.php (accessed 11 December 2010).
ReplyDeleteThis was also compared with America’s universities with an average cost of 10, 000 to 25.000 annually, please see the link: http://www.infozee.com/usa/expenses.htm(accessed 11 December 2010).
This new proposal is not going to change the situation dramatically as there will be additional support for students on a lower income. Even the other students don’t need to pay back their student loans until they are earning above £25,000pa.
So I say what is all this fuss about? Did we forget altogether that we can at least ensure that our rights are protected; this is perhaps the best way to protect our professional teachers to get back to teaching at universities. If it results in there being a shortage of students for a period of time the deficit of this period must be taken upon by society for results of a prosperity economic climate to be achieved. Wasn’t this what we were protesting for a short period of time ago?
Lastly, it is also true that we need to accelerate our economic climate and use our own resources in order to get the financial crisis back on its foot. Although we are active students we are not so economically active to assist the deficit climate or at least this will not happen until we have graduated. So, as a student I say it is enormous change, but the changes will have to come sooner or later and we need to adopt the situation to the way it suits us or, if so determined that the changes are unnecessary why not ask the government for a review on the matter??
Amend it or Adopt it
by Samantha Anderson