Matt Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 It's not a waste of money though is it? It's a brilliant investment that only the rich can take advantage of. It is if you're not going to use the 'investment' hence saying its the people who just go to uni to toss a few years off because they don't know what to do and don't want to work, that have ruined it, for the 'true' students. It's expensive and unfortunate but I believe if you honestly believe you want to do a certain subject at uni, you're going to follow it through and take advantage of this wonderful 'investment' , you will make the money back doing the chosen career and reep the rewards. If you're just going because you're not sure you want to do the chosen subject as a career but you'll go anyway just to toss a few years off and live the student lifestyle then so be it, but its alot of money to gamble with if you're not going to follow it up, and i'm afraid too many people have done that and spoilt it for the people who go to uni for rewards it brings. A house is a brilliant investment, I'm not rich enough to take the advantage of buying one, yet... [and the arguement begins....why did I post in this thread ]
ousefox Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 It is if you're not going to use the 'investment' hence saying its the people who just go to uni to toss a few years off because they don't know what to do and don't want to work, that have ruined it, for the 'true' students. It's expensive and unfortunate but I believe if you honestly believe you want to do a certain subject at uni, you're going to follow it through and take advantage of this wonderful 'investment' , you will make the money back doing the chosen career and reep the rewards. If you're just going because you're not sure you want to do the chosen subject as a career but you'll go anyway just to toss a few years off and live the student lifestyle then so be it, but its alot of money to gamble with if you're not going to follow it up, and i'm afraid too many people have done that and spoilt it for the people who go to uni for rewards it brings. A house is a brilliant investment, I'm not rich enough to take the advantage of buying one, yet... [and the arguement begins....why did I post in this thread ] Well we are talking about ' the most competitive universities' here. I doubt many people are going to go to Oxbridge and then 'toss a few years off' really are they? All i'm saying is it's not fair on those who can't afford it and deserve a place just as much as those who, in this case, would be able to buy their chance to go to the best universities.
Leicester Lass Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 Cameron has rejected the claims: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13343824
Matt Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 Well we are talking about ' the most competitive universities' here. I doubt many people are going to go to Oxbridge and then 'toss a few years off' really are they? All i'm saying is it's not fair on those who can't afford it and deserve a place just as much as those who, in this case, would be able to buy their chance to go to the best universities. Perhaps this is the case of the most competitive and 'elite' universities, but if you're looking at 'standard' uni's and people like you are saying it's not fair people can't afford places that deserve a place, it is, I for one moment have never denied that or slagged those people off, It's the people that do go to toss it off have ruined it for them. I think we both agree (In a way), It is unfair, but some people have abused the system and spoilt it for everyone, especially the people that do deserve a place at uni.
ousefox Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 Perhaps this is the case of the most competitive and 'elite' universities, but if you're looking at 'standard' uni's and people like you are saying it's not fair people can't afford places that deserve a place, it is, I for one moment have never denied that or slagged those people off, It's the people that do go to toss it off have ruined it for them. I think we both agree (In a way), It is unfair, but some people have abused the system and spoilt it for everyone, especially the people that do deserve a place at uni. 'Teenagers from the wealthiest families would be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities' - we're only talking about the top universtities anyway... So you are saying it is fair or not? This whole thing doesn't really have anything to do with the poeple who have 'abused the sytem' though does it?
Matt Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 'Teenagers from the wealthiest families would be able to pay for extra places at the most competitive universities' - we're only talking about the top universtities anyway... So you are saying it is fair or not? This whole thing doesn't really have anything to do with the poeple who have 'abused the sytem' though does it? It's not fair but people have took advantage and ruined it for others, also life isn't fair. If you want something you have to work at it/for it. And perhaps I didn't make it clear (Hands up, My fault) but in regards to the sub title of the thread 'As if the main tuition fee debacle wasn't enough controversy' the main tuition fee is what I was referring to about people's arguments and why I think it is unfair to the people who a worthy of a place at uni but at the same time is the right decision, and keeps the people that have ruined and abused the system out (If it doesn't keep them out then more fool them for wasting the money).
ousefox Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 It's not fair but people have took advantage and ruined it for others, also life isn't fair. If you want something you have to work at it/for it. And perhaps I didn't make it clear (Hands up, My fault) but in regards to the sub title of the thread 'As if the main tuition fee debacle wasn't enough controversy' the main tuition fee is what I was referring to about people's arguments and why I think it is unfair to the people who a worthy of a place at uni but at the same time is the right decision, and keeps the people that have ruined and abused the system out (If it doesn't keep them out then more fool them for wasting the money). True, so people who have got top grades at A-Level have worked for it, but those who have worked equally hard but are rich get the oppurtunity to go to the best universities whereas the less well off don't... You're right, life isn't fair, and this sort of policy makes it even less fair, for no good reason other to line the pockets of the uni's.
Matt Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 True, so people who have got top grades at A-Level have worked for it, but those who have worked equally hard but are rich get the oppurtunity to go to the best universities whereas the less well off don't... You're right, life isn't fair, and this sort of policy makes it even less fair, for no good reason other to line the pockets of the uni's. When I say work I meant work - earn cash. Now yes earning your grades, correct you've worked hard but it doesn't earn you money, you need to gain the grades and go to uni to work to pay for it, if you've gone to uni to set yourself up for a good well paid career then wheres your worry? You don't pay for it until you finish uni and start working anyway for what I understand (Whether there is any intial up front payment, that I don't know, others obviously will) Unfair correct, but no-one made people to go to uni. You have two choices, you go and fork out for it, or you don't. Also just an quick thing i've thought of, how about students working or getting some experience in the field they think they would like to study for a career before going to uni, in order to earn abit of money to pay towards their uni fees, a longer work experience type thing, this way they earn money to pay for uni and have an insight into the career they would like to do, obviously people may struggle, jobs are hard to come by and without the piece of paper that becomes even harder but I don't mean a fully fledged high class job just a smaller menial job in the field. Also surely this would look very impressive on future CV's, obviously all that is in an ideal world and not easy to do but people don't have to go to uni straight from school/6th form, they can go in later life.
ousefox Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 When I say work I meant work - earn cash. Now yes earning your grades, correct you've worked hard but it doesn't earn you money, you need to gain the grades and go to uni to work to pay for it, if you've gone to uni to set yourself up for a good well paid career then wheres your worry? You don't pay for it until you finish uni and start working anyway for what I understand (Whether there is any intial up front payment, that I don't know, others obviously will) Unfair correct, but no-one made people to go to uni. You have two choices, you go and fork out for it, or you don't. Also just an quick thing i've thought of, how about students working or getting some experience in the field they think they would like to study for a career before going to uni, in order to earn abit of money to pay towards their uni fees, a longer work experience type thing, this way they earn money to pay for uni and have an insight into the career they would like to do, obviously people may struggle, jobs are hard to come by and without the piece of paper that becomes even harder but I don't mean a fully fledged high class job just a smaller menial job in the field. Also surely this would look very impressive on future CV's, obviously all that is in an ideal world and not easy to do but people don't have to go to uni straight from school/6th form, they can go in later life. The worry is that there are unequal oppurtunities for people. Yep you have to pay the fees upfront, so only the rich would benefit, and those that are deserving of a place who aren't so well off will have a much lesser chance of getting in. So it's just another example of a Tory government favouring the rich, although thankfully it looks as if this won't be happening anyway. I'm not arguing about paying for uni, although i probably would if i could be arsed!
Jon the Hat Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 The worry is that there are unequal oppurtunities for people. Yep you have to pay the fees upfront, so only the rich would benefit, and those that are deserving of a place who aren't so well off will have a much lesser chance of getting in. So it's just another example of a Tory government favouring the rich, although thankfully it looks as if this won't be happening anyway. I'm not arguing about paying for uni, although i probably would if i could be arsed! What? How did you go from "its unfair" (life is you know) to "those that are deserving of a place who aren't so well off will have a much lesser chance of getting in"??? A bit of leap of logic there. Are you a tabloid journalist? No? You may have missed your vocation!
ousefox Posted 10 May 2011 Posted 10 May 2011 What? How did you go from "its unfair" (life is you know) to "those that are deserving of a place who aren't so well off will have a much lesser chance of getting in"??? A bit of leap of logic there. Are you a tabloid journalist? No? You may have missed your vocation! They have a much lesser chance of getting in than somebody is rich, if they brought in these proposals.
Jon the Hat Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 They have a much lesser chance of getting in than somebody is rich, if they brought in these proposals. Their chances are unaffected - they have as much chance of anyone of similar academic achievement of getting a government sponsored place. Whether someone else can in fact pay their own way in doesn't affect the general population, just as having foreign paying students doesn't. The rich person may be able to increase their chances of getting in, but that doesn't in fact decrease the chances of the general population unless there is a limit on places. As the only limit is for govt funded places and this proposal is fro additional spaces over and above that, then this is not the case. So to say the general population have a much lesser (or even lesser) chance of getting in is not correct. the argument is to whether there should be a fast track, or a private schooling option, or private healthcare provision etc. And frankly you can whinge about all of it, but it is not going away. In general the state and the people should in my view be grateful that some people relieve the state of the burden and pay for themselves, while still paying all theirs taxes.
l444ry Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 It is always despicable when the rich and their apologists suggest policies to help the rich, but pretend that it is really helping the poor. Not only are they dishonest but they are spineless as well. The rich elite and their puppet politicians never cease to try to come up with excuses for their greed and their entitlement.
Jon the Hat Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 It is always despicable when the rich and their apologists suggest policies to help the rich, but pretend that it is really helping the poor. Not only are they dishonest but they are spineless as well. The rich elite and their puppet politicians never cease to try to come up with excuses for their greed and their entitlement. Well you would say that They are however entitled to spend their money, and having money does generally get you things. If Universities can charge a premium and generate more funds then who cares? These being the same universities who were going to have to close because of lack of money. None closing you say? But the press said they were going to. The poor wont go to University because they might have a successful career and have to pay graduate tax! More likely to poor won't encourage their kids because they believe the bullshit spat out by the media - but of course no one holds them accountable for anything... Edit: Sorry were you talking about the Union leadersship when you siad Rich elite?
ousefox Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 Their chances are unaffected - they have as much chance of anyone of similar academic achievement of getting a government sponsored place. Whether someone else can in fact pay their own way in doesn't affect the general population, just as having foreign paying students doesn't. The rich person may be able to increase their chances of getting in, but that doesn't in fact decrease the chances of the general population unless there is a limit on places. As the only limit is for govt funded places and this proposal is fro additional spaces over and above that, then this is not the case. So to say the general population have a much lesser (or even lesser) chance of getting in is not correct. Their chances are unaffected, yes. However if you read what you quoted you will realise that i said, there is a lesser chance of a poor student getting to a good uni in comparison to a rich one who would be able to pay more to get in. That is indisputable.
bmt Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 Wasn't aware there was political debates on Foxes Talk; reckon I may have a few things to add this evening after work!
Jon the Hat Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 Their chances are unaffected, yes. However if you read what you quoted you will realise that i said, there is a lesser chance of a poor student getting to a good uni in comparison to a rich one who would be able to pay more to get in. That is indisputable. Yes. My point is that that doesn't in fact affect the general population so who cares?
ousefox Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 Yes. My point is that that doesn't in fact affect the general population so who cares? because why should you have more of chance in getting in to a good university just because you have rich parents?
Jon the Hat Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 because why should you have more of chance in getting in to a good university just because you have rich parents? You have a better chance of doing everything if you have rich parents.
DB11 Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 People seem to be missing the important point Applicants would be required to meet the course entry requirements. As they still have to get the grades, my response is "so what?". If they're clever enough, then they can get in. Simples.
Dr The Singh Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 You have a better chance of doing everything if you have rich parents. Doesnt make it right though, its a fair fact that the richer you are the better contacts or you can buy the better contacts........the world is about who you know not what/or skills you have!!
Dr The Singh Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 People seem to be missing the important point Applicants would be required to meet the course entry requirements. As they still have to get the grades, my response is "so what?". If they're clever enough, then they can get in. Simples. For top uni's you still have to go through an interview process, so a clever chav vs a rich man's kid, with the folks giving a bursery or charitbale donation to the uni....tough choice???
DB11 Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 For top uni's you still have to go through an interview process, so a clever chav vs a rich man's kid, with the folks giving a bursery or charitbale donation to the uni....tough choice??? A chav wouldn't get into an elitist University regardless of who the competition was I do see your point though
ousefox Posted 11 May 2011 Posted 11 May 2011 People seem to be missing the important point Applicants would be required to meet the course entry requirements. As they still have to get the grades, my response is "so what?". If they're clever enough, then they can get in. Simples. Yeah they get in over somebody who also gets the grades for no other reason except that they are rich. The important point is that it's not fair.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.