Let Universities Raise Fees To £5,000, Says Access Watchdog

[monks]

Anyone noticed how much new building and landscaping work is going on in Universities these days?... When I was at Liverpool Uni (only 10 years ago) it was a big deal when the bar was refurbished. I hardly recognise the place now. All paid for with future graduates debt. Obviously worth every penny when you are released into the heady world of business with a 2:2 in Sociology.

[Cogs]

Because I suspected that you had.

Do you not think that other people should be offered the same opportunity that you were given?

Yes, of course I do. I have a very strong VI in that as well.

However, in the cold light of day, I just don't think the country is rich enough.

I mean, it wasn't spending enough before our economic troubles began, relative to competitors although it seems people here prefer random anecdotes of excess and sour grapes from drop-outs to actual figures:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stor...;sectioncode=26

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stor...;sectioncode=26

There were cuts in the last budget. There will be cuts in the next one. We are rapidly moving to the situation where what will be happening is that rather than government helping everyone equally, it will just be taking the edge off (mildly) for the very wealthy. A bit like if it dumped the whole of its arts funding into the National Opera to get tickets down by a fiver. Probably best to call it a day and accept we aren't the sort of country that can offer this to its citizens.

We won't need many skilled people anyway, there won't be jobs for them to do.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Cogs

[hilltop]

Anyone noticed how much new building and landscaping work is going on in Universities these days?... When I was at Liverpool Uni (only 10 years ago) it was a big deal when the bar was refurbished. I hardly recognise the place now. All paid for with future graduates debt. Obviously worth every penny when you are released into the heady world of business with a 2:2 in Sociology.

And to attract the students to pay the fees to pay for the Vice Chancellor's Maserati they inflated the number of First class degrees awarded, making the degree classification system worthless. Liverpool was where the rot first set in.

[billybong]

...sought to safeguard the interests of elite universities instead of students.

Harris, a former vice-chancellor of Manchester University, now president of Clare Hall, Cambridge, was appointed director of Offa in 2004 at the height of the backbench rebellion against the introduction of top-up fees.

His proposal is to bail out the universities/university staff INCLUDING HIS OWN when university entrance becomes more unaffordable due to the collapse of the economy.

Then if an upturn comes enough universities will still be around for students to be taken off the official dole and go into debt to pay for it and continue to help to keep university staff employment up.

[Stars]

We won't need many skilled people anyway, there won't be jobs for them to do.

Very true, and until we decide to build an economy upon rewards for genuine production and enterprise, rather than people buying up houses to f@ck each other over with, we wont

Edited May 23, 2009 by Stars

[Johnny Storm]

We arent that good at anything. Even if we were, it costs too much to make anything here, the tax burden, housing costs. No point.

The writing was on the wall when we became the nation that sold hair cuts to pay for cups for coffee.

[Cogs]

Very true, and until we decide to build an economy upon rewards for genuine production and enterprise, rather than people buying up houses to f@ck each other over with, we wont

I'd love nothing more than to see an industrial and scientific renaissance.

I've spoken to Boris (very, very passionate on the subject actually, surprisingly so) and Lord Sainsbury about it when they were in their old jobs. Mandy and Gordon made encouraging noises not very long ago. Then they brought in cuts.

Oh well if they aren't even going to pretend I don't see why I should. It seems clear that HE is important for the future. However, in the current climate all our attention will be focused on the short-term. You don't call your broker while you are trying to find a space on a lifeboat. Next to the NHS and primary education it looks eminently sacrificable amidst "hard choices" particularly as fees offer an alibi for doing so.

It does amuse me that advocates for axing the public sector are some of the same people who complain about fees. Put two and two together chaps!

Edited May 23, 2009 by Cogs

[Game_Over]

Yes, of course I do. I have a very strong VI in that as well.

However, in the cold light of day, I just don't think the country is rich enough.

I mean, it wasn't spending enough before our economic troubles began, relative to competitors although it seems people here prefer random anecdotes of excess and sour grapes from drop-outs to actual figures:

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stor...;sectioncode=26

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/stor...;sectioncode=26

There were cuts in the last budget. There will be cuts in the next one. We are rapidly moving to the situation where what will be happening is that rather than government helping everyone equally, it will just be taking the edge off (mildly) for the very wealthy. A bit like if it dumped the whole of its arts funding into the National Opera to get tickets down by a fiver. Probably best to call it a day and accept we aren't the sort of country that can offer this to its citizens.

We won't need many skilled people anyway, there won't be jobs for them to do.

The country is rich enough to pay over £100,000 a year to house one family in London.

That would pay the tuition fees of 20 students at 5K a year.

There is PLENTY of money - it is just going to the wrong people.

The money that is wasted now would pay for a first class education for EVERYONE

If you don't understand this, you will never understand why most people are so angry

[Game_Over]

I'd love nothing more than to see an industrial and scientific renaissance.

I've spoken to Boris (very, very passionate on the subject actually, surprisingly so) and Lord Sainsbury about it when they were in their old jobs. Mandy and Gordon made encouraging noises not very long ago. Then they brought in cuts.

Oh well if they aren't even going to pretend I don't see why I should. It seems clear that HE is important for the future. However, in the current climate all our attention will be focused on the short-term. You don't call your broker while you are trying to find a space on a lifeboat. Next to the NHS and primary education it looks eminently sacrificable amidst "hard choices" particularly as fees offer an alibi for doing so.

It does amuse me that advocates for axing the public sector are some of the same people who complain about fees. Put two and two together chaps!

What about 65 Billion on Quangos?

What about benefits paid to people who could and should be working?

What about public sector corruption and waste?

At least 20% could be saved without any reduction in front line services.

What you are saying is that there isn't enough money for front line services AND corruption and waste

So cut the corruption and waste.

But I suspect that would mean you lost YOUR job instead of a nurse or care worker.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Game_Over

[D.C.]

What about 65 Billion on Quangos?

What about benefits paid to people who could and should be working?

What about public sector corruption and waste?

At least 20% could be saved without any reduction in front line services.

What you are saying is that there isn't enough money for front line services AND corruption and waste

So cut the corruption and waste.

But I suspect that would mean you lost YOUR job instead of a nurse or care worker.

So you would prefer your children to have starved for the last 5 years?

[Game_Over]

So you would prefer your children to have starved for the last 5 years?

If the system wasn't corrupt and driven by peverse incentives I would still be working.

That is why I am so bloody angry

If I work my kids get hit with massive debts, but kids from 'poor' families get everything for free.

Like I said Socialism doesn't work - infact it's an inherently evil ideology IMO.

You tell me why I should work to keep some bogus asylum seeker in a 100K plus a year mansion in London while my kids run up massive debts paying University tuition fees.

I await your reply with interest.

:angry:

Edited May 23, 2009 by Game_Over

[Confusion of VIs]

For government determined to get British people into university they have a funny way of doing it. I don't know how students can afford to go to university let alone justify it. Unless you are going to pursue a work based qualification with good job prospects I honestly think its a waste of time.

I earn more than most graduates and I'm a heating engineer, what does that tell you about the prospects of studying for 6 years.

Tells me either we have too many graduates or not enough heating engineers.

[Cogs]

The country is rich enough to pay over £100,000 a year to house one family in London.

That would pay the tuition fees of 20 students at 5K a year.

There is PLENTY of money - it is just going to the wrong people.

The money that is wasted now would pay for a first class education for EVERYONE

If you don't understand this, you will never understand why most people are so angry

It costs a lot more than 5k a year. Fees in the UK are a contribution, not the full amount. International fees are about £14k here, in the US (free market, private institutions, much more generous research funding that subsidises teaching costs) you'd pay an average of $48k a year in fees and halls (the latter isn't always optional either). Even keeping a lab bench open for students over the course of a year is pretty expensive to do.

You are right, we can't afford this other stuff. And thats why it is creating huge debts that will necessitate wide ranging cuts where nothing is considered sacred. We aren't going to get out of this by making 'nice' cuts that nobody will notice to things everyone agrees are unnecessary luxuries; our standard of living as a nation is facing a substantial and for the foreseeable, permanent decline.

I don't like the personal tone of your other post but that is actually my argument, I probably will (and probably should) lose my job before a nurse or a care worker. Thats what I'm basing my argument on, so give me a break and lay off huh, this very much against my vested interest but I'm not a politician so I'll call it as I see it If you don't like the sound of it, neither do I!

[Stars]

If the system wasn't corrupt and driven by peverse incentives I would still be working.

You are quite correct

You need to hold that thought and apply it honestly to the perverse, destructive incentives set up by the real estate market

Making money by raising other's costs became incredibly popular..and (surprisingly) raised costs.

Socialistic welfare is only one part of this problem, the other side is the forms of 'capitalistic' welfare whose effects make the socialist welfare seem so attractive to many.

Edited May 23, 2009 by Stars

[Game_Over]

It costs a lot more than 5k a year. Fees in the UK are a contribution, not the full amount. International fees are about £14k here, in the US (free market, private institutions, much more generous research funding that subsidises teaching costs) you'd pay an average of $48k a year in fees and halls (the latter isn't always optional either). Even keeping a lab bench open for students over the course of a year is pretty expensive to do.

You are right, we can't afford this other stuff. And thats why it is creating huge debts that will necessitate wide ranging cuts where nothing is considered sacred. We aren't going to get out of this by making 'nice' cuts that nobody will notice to things everyone agrees are unnecessary luxuries; our standard of living as a nation is facing a substantial and for the foreseeable, permanent decline.

I don't like the personal tone of your other post but that is actually my argument, I probably will (and probably should) lose my job before a nurse or a care worker. Thats what I'm basing my argument on, so give me a break and lay off huh, this very much against my vested interest but I'm not a politician so I'll call it as I see it If you don't like the sound of it, neither do I!

I think that you were quite rude to me on a personal level in earlier discussions

But if I am mistaking you for someone else then I apologise.

I think I have explained very clearly why I am so angry about this and other issues

So far no one has even attempted to justify the things that I am unhappy about

The most anyone has managed is incoherent abuse.

You seem a decent guy, but I suspect that you were a supporter of the policies that got us to the position we are now in, which is both morally and economically bankrupt.

The road to Hell is paved with good intentions and the gates of Hell have been well and truly prised open in the last 12 years IMO

I think in the next 12 years, that the World view that got us where we are today will be utterly destroyed and the World view that I and others hold will eventually prevail.

I wish it hadn't come to this, I think what is going to happen will be very painful and ugly

But the people responsible are those who opened Pandoras box, not those who will have to try and close it.

[Game_Over]

Tells me either we have too many graduates or not enough heating engineers.

I think if you have a job that you enjoy that also pays well then you have got it made.

I would like my kids to get a degree in the hope that they will end up doing something worthwhile with their lives

And I would rather they did something they enjoyed even if they only earned a modest wage

rather than do a job they hated but paid well

[Game_Over]

You are quite correct

You need to hold that thought and apply it honestly to the perverse, destructive incentives set up by the real estate market

Making money by raising other's costs became incredibly popular..and (surprisingly) raised costs.

Socialistic welfare is only one part of this problem, the other side is the forms of 'capitalistic' welfare whose effects make the socialist welfare seem so attractive to many.

The people driving what you describe as a 'capitalistic' system were Socialist politicians who were using expenses to develop property which they then sold for a profit.

There is NO welfare in truly capitalist economies, welfare is a Socialist invention which traps people in poverty so that 'those who are more equal than others' can line their own pockets.

Champagne Socialism has had a good run, we are all now going to spend the next 10-20 years paying the bill.

:angry:

[Stars]

The people driving what you describe as a 'capitalistic' system were Socialist politicians who were using expenses to develop property which they then sold for a profit.

True - but the same incentives would have existed and it would have ended in the same outcome if they had not been socialists

There is NO welfare in truly capitalist economies, welfare is a Socialist invention which traps people in poverty so that 'those who are more equal than others' can line their own pockets.

See you are dodging by pretending not to understand - the incentives that destroyed our economy were created by the real estate 'market', not the benefit system

An effective welfare system for the rich has been incorporated into what we call 'capitalism', we call it the real estate market

[Game_Over]

True - but the same incentives would have existed and it would have ended in the same outcome if they had not been socialists

See you are dodging by pretending not to understand - the incentives that destroyed our economy were created by the real estate 'market', not the benefit system

An effective welfare system for the rich has been incorporated into what we call 'capitalism', we call it the real estate market

I don't agree that the outcome would have been the same if Nu Labour had not been in power.

The last Conservative government inherited a pile of cr*p from a Socialist government in 1979 and handed a golden economic legacy to Nu Labour who then turned it back into a pile of cr*p.

And the only way we are going to get out of this mess is by dismantling the huge, corrupt, inefficient Socialist client state created by Nu Labour in order to let Capitalism create the wealth to drag us out of the massive hole we are now in.

There is NO alternative IMO.

[Stars]

I don't agree that the outcome would have been the same if Nu Labour had not been in power.

The outcome seems to have been more or less the same in the US, and nu labour did not control the united states during this period

[Game_Over]

The outcome seems to have been more or less the same in the US, and nu labour did not control the united states during this period

I think what we are seeing is a unique combination of three factors

A Republican administration in America let credit rip in order to prevent 9/11 causing a recession and in order to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afganistan

The Eurozone let credit rip in order to give the illusion that the Euro was working and to pay for EU enlargement into Eastern Europe.

In the UK Nu Labour let credit rip in order to construct a huge client state in an attempt to keep the Conservatives out of government forever.

After all, what we are seeing is a once in 50-100 years event

So it is likely that the causes will be complex, but I think my analysis of what happened in the UK is accurate

[Stars]

In the UK Nu Labour let credit rip in order to construct a huge client state in an attempt to keep the Conservatives out of government forever.

And the conservatives would allowed the housing market to do the same ..because well, they did it before (several times i think)

You are talking about motivations, not causes

The benefit system did not cause the collapse - ergo removing the benefit system would not have prevented the collapse

[Game_Over]

And the conservatives would allowed the housing market to do the same ..because well, they did it before (several times i think)

You are talking about motivations, not causes

The benefit system did not cause the collapse - ergo removing the benefit system would not have prevented the collapse

When Labour gained power they had a once in a generation chance to reduce the number of people on benefit.

Frank Field was told to 'think the unthinkable' but Blair did not like the conclusions he came to.

So instead plan B was adopted, let credit rip, massively expand the public sector and allow mass immigration to fill the jobs created that people on benefits weren't prepared to do.

All the people on benefits would support Labour

All the people in the public sector would support Labour

All the immigrants would support Labour

This formula delivered 12 years of power for Labour

But unfortunately it has bankrupted the Country

Whether you agree with this analysis or not we are where we are

And benefits will have to be cut and public sector spending will also have to be cut

There is no alternative IMO

[Stars]

When Labour gained power they had a once in a generation chance to reduce the number of people on benefit.

Frank Field was told to 'think the unthinkable' but Blair did not like the conclusions he came to.

So instead plan B was adopted, let credit rip, massively expand the public sector and allow mass immigration to fill the jobs created that people on benefits weren't prepared to do.

All the people on benefits would support Labour

All the people in the public sector would support Labour

All the immigrants would support Labour

This formula delivered 12 years of power for Labour

But unfortunately it has bankrupted the Country

Whether you agree with this analysis or not we are where we are

And benefits will have to be cut and public sector spending will also have to be cut

There is no alternative IMO

There is nothing I feel in any particular need to disagree with you about here.

It's just that you are talking about motivations rather than causes

As the benefit system didn't cause the collapse, it's simple removal would not have prevented it.

[Game_Over]

There is nothing I feel in any particular need to disagree with you about here.

It's just that you are talking about motivations rather than causes

As the benefit system didn't cause the collapse, it's simple removal would not have prevented it.

Not sure why we are focusing on benefits

Other people keep bringing it up because they understandably are unhappy that I have jumped off the wage slave hamster wheel.

What caused the collapse was a credit bubble which was allowed to form because the government needed the tax revenues from the City and house sales to pay the huge benefit bill and the massively expanded public sector wage bill.

And now the bubble has burst the same factors are causing public sector borrowing to run out of control

The only way out now is to drastically reduce BOTH benefits AND the public sector wage bill.