Viewing Thread:
"University Top-Up Fees"

Discuss.





Now.

Heh, Charge fees based on intellect.

That would be interesting. Straight A students pay no tuition fees, to encourage them to get further education. Those with all D's and E's pay thousands more, to compensate for the fact they are more likely to be wasting the taxpayers money by going into further education.

No, it's not fair, but it's equally unfair to charge the rich more simply because they're rich. Surely universities should judge on basis of intellect, not wealth?

On a vaguely topical issue, I just checked my online UCAS and I've just got an offer from Warwick. Huzzah. :)

Stryke wrote:
> That is as much crap as progressive taxes! It's not fair to be biased
> on basis of personal wealth.

Surely it's not fair to charge the poor so much that they cannot afford to get higher education? The only other alternative is that the government pays at all. Apparently, they can't afford to...

By allowing more people to go to uni, they are simply devaluing the calibre of the institutions, not to mention diluting quality of degrees.

Someone Who's Name I've Forgotten Because It's Taken Ages To Read All Your Views. It Was Probably Sheepy wrote:

Things like tuition fees should be weighted against family assets and income.

So, people from poor areas get cheap, or even free education, while people who's parents own several estates, or are just plain rich, pay through the nose for it.

--

That is as much crap as progressive taxes! It's not fair to be biased on basis of personal wealth.

And stupid people should be kept out of university. Bottom class uni's should be abolished. Napier, Thames Valley, Lincoln e.t.c are just wastes of time. Plus Newcastle, on principle. I reckon you should need grades CCC minimum to go to uni, preferably BBB. In fact, yeah, BBB. Plus you've got to show a genuine enthusiasum for your subject and for the general academic lifestyle. Sod the stupid townies who just want to study something utterly worthless like Media Studies. Mind you, I'm probably biased due to being middle-class. Or something.

I agree with Sheepy, the number of students should be limited. There's no point letting idiots go to University. Anyone who fails to achieve any C grades or above at A-level lacks either the brains or the inclination for further education.

I'm all for anyone being able to go to university, provided they are likely to get something out of it.

Rosalind wrote:
> Writing in a Sunday newspaper Mr Clarke said: "Many young people
> do not think twice about taking out a loan or credit to buy a car or a
> holiday.
>
> "But a holiday or a car are depreciating assets, unlike education
> which gives you a start in life."
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2487887.stm

As Insane Bartender has pointed out, this assumes you complete the three years, if you don't you've wasted a pile of money. A car, or holiday, gives a guaranteed return, where as education does not. So far about a 1/4 of my time at Uni has been somewhat pointless. Do I need 2 hours a week for a lecture about careers ? No, if someone needs that stuff we've got a big new careers building for it. And there's endless pointless tasks, like loads of readings which half the class doesn't do so you spend the seminars in near silence.

~~Belldandy~~

Working into your seventies is no great problem. If anything, it's an incentive to look after yourself. Our generation is likely to have an average lifespan of something approaching 100 years.

That's an entire century for cigarettes to rot your lungs, alcohol to dissolve your liver, and fast food to clog your arteries.

Your Honour wrote:
> People our age will have to work into our seventies, apparently.
>
> Great!
>
> :-(

Its not that bad. I like what I do now. Admittedly the pay sucks :(

People our age will have to work into our seventies, apparently.

Great!

:-(