Abolish Tuition Fees, Vote Conservative!

[MikeH]

It's cutting services because it's cutting the number of higher education places. Effectively the same as if this government had planned a load of new schools and the Conservatives said they wouldn't build them if they got in power.

[*End Is Forever*]

Drogue,

Did the Lib Dems ever introduce tuition fees? IIRC correctly, they have never been in power, and thus could not have.

In Scotland (where the Liberal Democrats were in government), there was a seemingly clear majority against tuition fees. However, rather than vote to abolish tuition fees the Scottish Liberal Democrats sold out students, went into coalition government, and introduced a graduate endowment.

Mike,

It's cutting services because it's cutting the number of higher education places. Effectively the same as if this government had planned a load of new schools and the Conservatives said they wouldn't build them if they got in power.

At present, hundreds upon hundreds of graduates on certain courses leave University no better off than when they started. In fact, they leave University worse off than when they started; after all, they've just lost three years where they could be getting worthwhile training, or experience in work. The Conservative plan will ensure that such courses are curtailed, and an emphasis placed otherwise on vocational and other training that is actually of benefit to everyone.

University is not for everyone. University is not the be-all and end-all. Many people do not go to University and are still successful. A higher education policy should be based around ensuring that everyone who ought to go to University - regardless of background - does go to University. Only the Conservative policy recognises this.

Abolish tuition fees. Vote Conservative.

[MikeH]

The Conservative plan will ensure that such courses are curtailed, and an emphasis placed otherwise on vocational and other training that is actually of benefit to everyone.

1. The current government is trying to change uni courses to be more vocational.
2. If there is going to be more vocational/other training instead where's the funding for this coming from?
3. Just abolishing tuition fees doesn't have any effect on student poverty does it? It only effects graduate debt.

[CerberusIV]

It is called having a choice. Don't go to university unless you can either afford to do it regardless or you do a course that will get you a sufficiently well paid job to pay off the debt.

The people who really benefit from lots of students are those who work in higher education (otherwise they wouldn't have jobs) and the schools who can claim that x percent of their pupils went to university. Don't imagine that university is there to benefit the students!!

[MikeH]

Right... so your point is that rich kids should be allowed to do any course but poor kids should only be allowed to do vocational ones?

[*End Is Forever*]

Absolutely not. The point is that everyone who is capable of going to University should go to University. If you look at the figures you'd probably find that most of the "mickey mouse" courses (as suggested by, er, Margaret Hodge) are full of middle-class students who are at University simply because it's the done thing to do so...

[CerberusIV]

No, my point is that someone has to pay for it and I am a philistine who fails to see the need for courses in "leather studies", let alone turning out thousands of media studies graduates. Don't even mention social sciences or politics.

As for the rich kids, make sure they (or rather their rich, tory voting parents) pay enough to include a contribution to bursaries for poorer students.

[*End Is Forever*]

No, my point is that someone has to pay for it and I am a philistine who fails to see the need for courses in "leather studies" (snip)

Funny you should mention leather studies... someone explained to me the reasoning behind leather studies in Northampton (I think). The reason leather studies (unlike, say, sociology at UEL) exists is because there's a demand for it from employers in Northamptonshire. Perfectly legit course.

[Kidlicious]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
Don't even mention social sciences or politics.

Why not? Isn't this what it's really about?

[MikeH]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Absolutely not. The point is that everyone who is capable of going to University should go to University. If you look at the figures you'd probably find that most of the "mickey mouse" courses (as suggested by, er, Margaret Hodge) are full of middle-class students who are at University simply because it's the done thing to do so...

That was in response to Cerberus, my 1.2.3. post was in response to you.

[*End Is Forever*]

1. The current government is trying to change uni courses to be more vocational.

It's paying lipservice to that. For the most part, vocational courses are not concerned with higher education; so if all these extra students are going to into higher education under the government's plans, who exactly is going to vocational work-based study?

2. If there is going to be more vocational/other training instead where's the funding for this coming from?

It is something that will need to be looked at. However, vocational training means working more closely with employers; it is no good having qualifications which no-one wants.

3. Just abolishing tuition fees doesn't have any effect on student poverty does it? It only effects graduate debt.

Not under the current system, which requires students to pay up-front. However, it is true that the proposal to abolish tuition fees will, in comparison to the Labour proposals, largely be about reducing graduate debt.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Iain? Given the current budget deficit and the state of the world's markets, how will the Tories find the money whilst simultaneously tackling the pensions crisis?

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Iain? Why the Tories stop student grants, income support and housing benefit?

[Worthingtons]

The Rich can afford to pay for Students to study, and it should be 20% of the population, not 50%. Those earning high incomes have usually benefited from Education.

and **** pensions, people should save money and invest in property.
Cheers
Matt

[Drogue]

Originally posted by *End Is Forever*
Funny you should mention leather studies... someone explained to me the reasoning behind leather studies in Northampton (I think). The reason leather studies (unlike, say, sociology at UEL) exists is because there's a demand for it from employers in Northamptonshire. Perfectly legit course.

Wow Someone mentions my home town. Actually, there *used* to be a demand for the leather industry, with it being a major boot and shoe producing area, but that has died off much with the bust in manufacturing over the country. When CHurches was sold to Prada, that was the nail in the coffin

Iain? Given the current budget deficit and the state of the world's markets, how will the Tories find the money whilst simultaneously tackling the pensions crisis?

I know this isn't mean for me, but the answer seems clear. Cut funding of other things. The Tories think (and are probably right) that they can be more efficient. As the article said, by supporting fewer students, they have less of a shortfall. If they can reduce inefficiency in the police, the education system, the NHS, etc. then they can reduce the deficit. However, if the economy recovers, which it is predicted to slowly, there won't be much of a deficit.

Don't even mention social sciences or politics.

So people shouldn't study economics, or politics, or any other degress that qualify someone to run the country? Yes, maybe fewer courses (turn the old polytechnics back to being polytechnics, doing vocational courses) and leave the other the same. That leaves over 30% of the population going to university, ~15% going to do polytechnics, and the rest going into work or other training. Then leave the other universities alone with their courses. While some unis maybe shouldn't be teaching social sciences, at some universities they are decent degrees IMHO.

I don't think we need 50% of peope going to uni, but maybe 20 is a little too little (as suggested by Rothy).

In Scotland (where the Liberal Democrats were in government), there was a seemingly clear majority against tuition fees. However, rather than vote to abolish tuition fees the Scottish Liberal Democrats sold out students, went into coalition government, and introduced a graduate endowment.

Really? I thought Scotland was the only place where you didn't pay fees? Am I mistaken?