Did our higher education system deliver this godawful bunch of government ministers? (Higher Education - Free for all or Fee for all?)

Name: opinions4u

Hello doyoo user, You have to be logged in to use these functions... Login or register Close window

Send message to member

Product:	Higher Education - Free for all or Fee for all?
Date:	16/11/02 (96 review reads)
Rating:

Advantages: The current system is silly

Disadvantages: The current system is silly

There are times in life when I despair.

While I turned my back on the opportunity to enter higher education, I am one of the few left in the nation who seems to believe that higher education should be provided free of charge to all. I do have one or two criteria before the blank cheque is written and I will come to those later.

I disagreed when a previous government of different colour introduced Student Loans. If we, as a nation, wish to progress, we can surely afford to support our top young minds for 3 or 4 years as they develop their knowledge and skills further.

I disagreed when the Blair machine introduced tuition fees for all but the poorest students. Now that this New Labour administration wants to significantly increase these fees, I disagree again.

Before I expand, I will state a vested interest. Three children under the age of sixteen whom all have academic potential.

Access to higher education should be open to all who have the genuine potential to achieve, regardless of parental income. Assuming they do achieve, the nation will reap in future tax revenue from their income to retirement and possibly beyond. So, it is an investment for the future.

The current proposals, which extend an already rotten system of higher education funding, mean only the very poor or the very rich can genuinely afford higher education without significant parental sacrifice. There is an irony that a government filled with so many poor quality ministers, all of whom went through higher education with no tuition fees and a state grant for living expenses, is telling today's bright sparks they have to pay for themselves.

The very rich will have their fees paid for by rich parents. The state will pay for the children of the poor. So, pity the fireman. The teacher. The nurse. The bank manager (maybe not, but there you go) or even the ambulance driver whose office worker wife earns more than the threshol

d determined by the government. You guys are paying because you can so obviously afford it. See my article on remortgaging on how to afford it!

And if you cannot, just send your kids out to work at 18 or 16 and allow them to battle on without the benefit of the best education we can offer. It is just tough.

This stinks. I pay more income tax. My national insurance is about to go up. Married man allowances died with MIRAS early in Gordon Browns rule at the treasury. I pay more insurance premium tax for having the sense to protect my family and myself. Due to the £5bn tax on pension funds, my pension contributions have doubled. I see asylum seekers offered courses, healthcare, accommodation, and benefits at my expense. I see a tax credit system that encourages full time workers to go part time. I see the wealth for good causes generated by the lottery frittered away on patently poor causes.

Surely to God we can afford to fund ALL those young people with ability through a higher education system? If we can fund a degree for Myra Hindley, including paying for her living expenses, we can do it for the rest of the nation too.

I am not advocating a blank cheque policy. I think it is clear that we have too many available courses. Too many universities. Too many lecturers given the freedom to carry out unnecessary research. Although I accept a crucial need for research. There needs to be a clear debate about what courses are necessary. Whether universities should pay for the accommodation of their senior employees. What courses are economically viable? And what courses are patently ridiculous and should not receive a penny of state support.

Successive governments have channelled school leavers in to higher education with little regard for academic potential, simply to make the unemployment figures look good. It is time to stop this short sighted policy. There is no point in education for educations sake.
Edu
cation should be for a purpose. Not to simply defer entry to the workplace by three years. For those not academically suited, get them skilled in the workplace as soon as possible!

Taxing potential future incomes now by screwing parents who should be saving for their retirement is wrong. Taxing future earning through student loan repayments is also wrong. Graduates need to enter the workplace free of debt to focus on delivering their skills to the business or establishment that employs them.

We should reintroduce grants and abolish tuition fees. At the same time, we must slash the cost base of the universities and limit access to those with genuine potential based on a proven track record of examination success.

Any thoughts? Is this an outdated approach? Let me know!

Summary: