Quote:
Originally Posted by roly
that's correct but not the point. i agree that students should make a contribution, i also think it should vary according to the type of degree taken. students taking vocational degrees like engineering, computing, law, medicine etc should pay less than people taking some arts degrees and stupid degrees like media studies. But it shouldn't be just the student that contributes. After living expenses etc students are going to have loans of £50k+ which is prohibitive to poorer students. and before you say poor students won't have to pay, there'll be a lot of students who are not considered poor but whose parents couldn't afford to contribute anything.
|
We adopted this in Australia after having free universal University education for many years. I agree that in an ideal world tertiary education should be universally free, however this is not a perfect world.
I would much rather schools such as Oxford or Cambridge be able to recoup the cost of delivering courses than a model which unfairly favours the LSE funding wise, which is currently the case. At the moment the funding model in UK higher education institutions is so inequitable that students really are no better off in the long run. The quality of education has suffered over the past 40 years due to the various decisions of mostly tory Governments to adopt inequitable funding models.
Compare the situation in other countries where you have to borrow from shark like private finance companies in order to go to University or College, the proposed system in the UK is far more equitable than that!
In other countries you cannot choose where you go, no matter how well you pass secondary school and you have to pay through the nose for an imperfect tertiary place.
Also, don't you want to see a system that forces international students to pay the REAL COST of tuition ? England can't keep giving it away, no other country does.