Proposals for extra university places, that you buy

[Webbo]

So to summarise;

You cannot buy a normal state sponsored place so no less well off student will lose out.

You can only buy a place at above the going rate if you would have qualified anyway.

Sorry, I can't see the problem. You might as well complain that somebody can buy a Bentley while I'm driving a Renault. So what?

[Jon the Hat]

So to summarise;

You cannot buy a normal state sponsored place so no less well off student will lose out.

You can only buy a place at above the going rate if you would have qualified anyway.

Sorry, I can't see the problem. You might as well complain that somebody can buy a Bentley while I'm driving a Renault. So what?

Exactly my point. Then again, this stuff is what a lot of people spend their lives getting upset about when they could be doing something productive.

[l444ry]

Exactly my point. Then again, this stuff is what a lot of people spend their lives getting upset about when they could be doing something productive.

Just as well there are people who have a different attitude, otherwise Willets wouldn't have produced the quickest U turn in history.

But Cameron is becoming a dab hand at forcing his ministers into U turns isn't he? Perhaps he should stop behaving like a media whore and start behaving like a Prime Minister and check out what his government is coming out with!!

[DANGEROUS TIGER]

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.

The most stupid, and bigoted post for many, a day.

Are you really saying that only the rich support the Tories? That's what you appear to be stating. Absolute rubbish!

What a Muppet!

[l444ry]

The most stupid, and bigoted post for many, a day.

Are you really saying that only the rich support the Tories? That's what you appear to be stating. Absolute rubbish!

What a Muppet!

Perhaps we could all chip in and buy you a university place. Then you might understand what was written and make a sensible comment!!

[dave the caveman]

I only question how detached from reality the tories must be if they even thought they might be able to propose this kind of thing without having yet more scorn poured upon them.

They almost seem to enjoy making themselves unpopular.

[Webbo]

The Tories could propose mothers and apple pie and they'd still be called evil for it. And some people think that Daily Mail readers are foaming at the mouth bigots who rant and rave at unimportant things.

[Jon the Hat]

Just as well there are people who have a different attitude, otherwise Willets wouldn't have produced the quickest U turn in history.

But Cameron is becoming a dab hand at forcing his ministers into U turns isn't he? Perhaps he should stop behaving like a media whore and start behaving like a Prime Minister and check out what his government is coming out with!!

Well they could have faffed about for a year or two like Labour did in 97, but instead they have started the overdue overhaul of some heavyweight policy including University funding, Welfare reform, Pension reform, NHS bureaucracy among others. Some minor policy around the edges is bound to look a little silly and slip under the radar.

[FoxyPV]

Well they could have faffed about for a year or two like Labour did in 97, but instead they have started the overdue overhaul of some heavyweight policy including University funding, Welfare reform, Pension reform, NHS bureaucracy among others. Some minor policy around the edges is bound to look a little silly and slip under the radar.

Tories funding changes.

Cut 80% of University funding and put in place fees that will put off those from poor backgrounds. (and before you argue Jon, it does - many of Ms Foxy's students aren't considering going because of it even though she has informed that of exactly how much etc it will cost and what help they will get. She wouldn't have went had there been fees and she would have qualified for a full funding/ bursary)

Cut welfare - create a further underclass of people that because benefits are so low they are drawn into petty criminality. Don't worry the private sector will pick up the slack - bollocks - there are no jobs.

Propose swingeing cuts on the NHS that WILL affect frontline services because they will have to do the work of several people now instead of focusing on the patients.

Final salary pensions should never happen in any sector.

[Finnegan]

Sorry but defending this is just silly, didn't even Cameron backpedal? If there are places on courses they should go to the most deserving, in academic terms, not simply those who can afford it. If the best students happen to be rich and don't need loans, fine. But uni places that the poor can't obtain at all?

Even taking my socialist hat off, this is obvious elitism.

[Jon the Hat]

Sorry but defending this is just silly, didn't even Cameron backpedal? If there are places on courses they should go to the most deserving, in academic terms, not simply those who can afford it. If the best students happen to be rich and don't need loans, fine. But uni places that the poor can't obtain at all?

Even taking my socialist hat off, this is obvious elitism.

If you read the proposal it also said these places could be available to those with corporate sponsorship, e.g. from the major accountancy firms.

Not that I am diasgreeing with you per se, although I am less clear about why this in particular should be any more upsetting than the lots of other things the poor cannot obtain at all.

[Jon the Hat]

Tories funding changes.

Cut 80% of University funding and put in place fees that will put off those from poor backgrounds. (and before you argue Jon, it does - many of Ms Foxy's students aren't considering going because of it even though she has informed that of exactly how much etc it will cost and what help they will get. She wouldn't have went had there been fees and she would have qualified for a full funding/ bursary)

I have no doubt that the changes will put people off going to University. However I strongly believe that they shouldn't, and the fact that they are is more a factor of the negative press coverage and opposition politics than the facts. No one has been able to explain to me why this capped graduate tax approach which is coming in should discourage people going to University. Higher rate tax never discouraged anyone. Would you explain the difference because I really don't see it. I don't see any downside. You have a good well paid career then you pay your way, and you partially fund others (no change there). If you choose a less well paid (but perhaps valuable to society etc) career then you pay much less that the fees you theoretically incurred and probably less than you would under the current system.

Sadly those who see beyond the media noise will be those who would have gone anyway, and this will be a filter to the less well off who are scared off by the meaningless numbers peddled by the press.

[Finnegan]

If you read the proposal it also said these places could be available to those with corporate sponsorship, e.g. from the major accountancy firms.

Not that I am diasgreeing with you per se, although I am less clear about why this in particular should be any more upsetting than the lots of other things the poor cannot obtain at all.

I can't help feel that, socially, we should care more about people who can't afford education than whether or not the same people can afford a lambo and a second home.

[Zingari]

this proposal doesn't go far enough

i can't see why you can't buy a fookin degree if you've got enough cash to splash

the fookin poor are always moanin' and groanin' about summat or other being unfair

I always knew that educating the great unwashed would cause all this sort of uppitiness

[Finnegan]

Zingari, there, reading from David Cameron's diary.

[Webbo]

I can't help feel that, socially, we should care more about people who can't afford education than whether or not the same people can afford a lambo and a second home.

People who can't afford education are exactly the same boat under these proposals as they were before, in fact they could be worse off because the universities could have used some of this money for scholarships and bursaries.

The people who are against this aren't bothered about helping the poor just spiting the rich. It's the plain old fashioned politics of envy.

[DB11]

So to summarise;

You cannot buy a normal state sponsored place so no less well off student will lose out.

You can only buy a place at above the going rate if you would have qualified anyway.

Sorry, I can't see the problem. You might as well complain that somebody can buy a Bentley while I'm driving a Renault. So what?

I think the car analogy fits perfectly. You echoe my sentiments

[Finnegan]

Politics of envy, you what? I have never in my life wished for wealth. Your Tory heart may struggle to grasp this Webster, but some people don't actually live with a lust for money.

If a university has X places then those places should all go to the students who earn them through merit. There should be a fair playing field in regards cost. Don't you DARE suggest it's the left making it harder on the poor to get grants and bursaries, these things should be provided for by the state regardless. It's the government that decided this budget and the buck stops there.

[Number 6]

Don't see the problem with this. Sounds bad until you break it down:

• Best students should get hold of the limited places, regardless of money
  
• Due to less funding no more 'free' places can be had - therefore if you want it you gotta pay
  

If you are intelligent enough and have been told you have to pay yourself, you should stand a fair chance of getting a sponsorship?

[Webbo]

Politics of envy, you what? I have never in my life wished for wealth. Your Tory heart may struggle to grasp this Webster, but some people don't actually live with a lust for money.

I doubt that, but that's not what it means. It's the assumption that the well off don't deserve their good fortune, that the well off are somehow to blame for your poor fortune.

As I've stated on this thread more than once, and nobody has proved me wrong, the less well off are not losing out on anything due to these proposals. The well off can only benefit from this if they reach the required academic standard and by paying way over the odds.The amount of places that this will entail are negligible and yet we are getting the same old crap "the tories are are helping out the rich and making the poor suffer". That is the politics of envy.

[ousefox]

Don't see the problem with this. Sounds bad until you break it down:

• Best students should get hold of the limited places, regardless of money
  
• Due to less funding no more 'free' places can be had - therefore if you want it you gotta pay
  

If you are intelligent enough and have been told you have to pay yourself, you should stand a fair chance of getting a sponsorship?

How do you work that one out? Not all the best students can get these places, only the rich...

[Webbo]

How do you work that one out? Not all the best students can get these places, only the rich...

The govt are only funding a finite amount of places. The rich (or more probably people whose places are sponsored by their employers) can only buy places that would otherwise had gone to rich foreign students.

[Benji]

The govt are only funding a finite amount of places. The rich (or more probably people whose places are sponsored by their employers) can only buy places that would otherwise had gone to rich foreign students.

But do the universities not cap their places on capability and not what the Government asks of them? My university offered 120 places for the same course that Nottingham and Leicester offered between 200 and 400. Surely the choice of how many people can study at a university is capped based on space, teachers and accommodation etc.

Therefore, if a university can suddenly make space for "rich" students, there's no reason why they shouldn't be open to the general public. It'll make no difference to the university where exactly the money comes from, more loans will just be taken out and you'd expect the universities to make a decision purely on merit (entry requirements) and not the ability to pay more through international rates.

At the end of the day if any student has to buy their way into university they shouldn't even be there. If you can't make the cut against the general population then you shouldn't be taking the further education regardless. It just adds to the huge drop in value of university education.

I often fight the Tory corner but this doesn't sit well with me.

[Webbo]

But do the universities not cap their places on capability and not what the Government asks of them? My university offered 120 places for the same course that Nottingham and Leicester offered between 200 and 400. Surely the choice of how many people can study at a university is capped based on space, teachers and accommodation etc.

Therefore, if a university can suddenly make space for "rich" students, there's no reason why they shouldn't be open to the general public. It'll make no difference to the university where exactly the money comes from, more loans will just be taken out and you'd expect the universities to make a decision purely on merit (entry requirements) and not the ability to pay more through international rates.

At the end of the day if any student has to buy their way into university they shouldn't even be there. If you can't make the cut against the general population then you shouldn't be taking the further education regardless. It just adds to the huge drop in value of university education.

I often fight the Tory corner but this doesn't sit well with me.

If I understand correctly the govt still fund the universities to some extent and they also fund the loans meaning there are only a finite amount of places because there is only a finite amount of money.

The rich student would still have attain the entry requirement and if they weren't up to standard then they are unlikely to earn the degree meaning they've wasted their money.

EDIT; I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this, I couldn't care less one way or the other.

[Benji]

If I understand correctly the govt still fund the universities to some extent and they also fund the loans meaning there are only a finite amount of places because there is only a finite amount of money.

The rich student would still have attain the entry requirement and if they weren't up to standard then they are unlikely to earn the degree meaning they've wasted their money.

EDIT; I don't know why I'm wasting my time on this, I couldn't care less one way or the other.

If it was the case that the Government could not budget a single penny to another student through the loan system and some universities still had space and the capabilities of offering leading education without negatively affecting other students, there could maybe be an argument for it. But I'd find it very hard to prove that that was the case.