Tuition Fees FTW (Yes i am going to keep posting English matters on this mostly american site)

[Robbo]

STUDENT TUITION FEES RIOTS: Violent protests were 'marvellous' says Labour MP | Mail Online

I dont know much about the Fees and how much they go up themselves but this will directly effect me next year (Thanks Cameron + Clegg)

Just want to see what you guys think of this tbh

[Pete]

I don't see why people are protesting as they are. Tuition fees almost always go up every year, as the operating costs of the universities go up. Granted, the one guy did promise that fees wouldn't go up, but really, when can you trust a politician? Obama's promised "hope and change"™ and it's been nothing but the same ole shit. Bush Sr. promised no new taxes, and we wound up with new taxes. I can understand being upset with being mislead or even outright lied to, but when the prices of everything else around you are going up*, you can only assume things like education will as well. You'd think the kids going to prestigious schools like Cambridge and Oxford would know that.


*Except Mets tickets, because they suck!

[Aerif]

Squall, that was really quite a poor article to direct the topic with, especially since most of the world doesn't know what's happening in the UK.

Basically, these protests are occurring because Nick Clegg signed a pledge (alongside every other member of the Liberal Democrats) that tuition fees would not rise. Instead the upper cap on fees is to be tripled to £9000.

Obviously things are getting more expensive as time goes by, but as it stands these universities were limited to charging something like 3k a year, and in one year's time they'll be able to change three times as much, which is quite a huge increase.

I think most of the protesting seems to be concerning the traitorship of the LibDems though. Even though British politicians tell as many lies as politicians of other nationalities, they don't tend to lie about key points of thier manifesto. Clegg won thousands of student votes because of his pledge, and as a result of breaking this, I wouldn't doubt if the LibDems get next to nothing in the next General Election.

Oh and the kids from Cambridge and Oxford don't care. They're all rich!

What makes it worse is that the two main culprits of this change (Clegg and Cameron) did not have to pay any fees at all when they went to University.

It's students from poorer backgrounds who are hit hardest, since the UK has very little in the way of scholarships (I mean, being sent to university for free because you can kick a ball - what an absurd notion!).

These violent acts are being done by idiots in balaclaves and hoodies, graffitting Anarchist symbols on police vehicles. They're just hijacking the otherwise peaceful protests led by students who voted for Clegg based on his biggest promise.

Of course, as a Scottish student it doesn't have any direct impact on me at this time, since Scottish students studying in Scotland or the EU have their fees paid by the government.

---

Oh and Squall, being British you should know...

ENGLAND =/= BRITAIN

England isn't the only country that the tuition fees increase applies to, it also applies heavily to Wales and Northern Ireland.

[smurphy]

It is sort of ridiculous that the Tories are implementing these measures. Why? They are essentially pricing poorer students out of an education at the third level, which is a must to find a decent job in these times. So they are guaranteeing the age old adage "rich getting richer, poorer getting poorer". So much for equality in the system. And I can feel your pain as the b*stards in control in Ireland are implementing similar measures, pricing many out of an education. But we cant protest because as soon as we show how unhappy we are the c*nts in the Gardai baton charge without provocation and without hesitation.

Seriously, the systems in both our countries are doing their best to f*ck us up the arse. The anger will hopefully materialise into something more tangible in the near future. Viva la Revolution!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Pete]

You guys don't have student loans over there?

I paid about $15K a year for my college (room and board included), and all the government could kick in was about $500 a year. My school wasn't even considered an expensive one, and I wound up having to take out about $20K in student loans from different agencies as well.

I can understand how it sucks that the rate is affecting so many people adversely, but I think there should be some more established means of getting the money for an education. I'd have to imagine that there is some kind of student loan system.

[Aerif]

Just to clarify Pete, there are Student Loans in the UK, however they can only be paid back at a fixed rate (without incurring steep penalties, if they even let you do it anymore), meaning that if you borrow £42k you could likely be in debt until it expires (a whole thirty five years after your education finishes).

Repayments don't have to be made until you're earning over something like £17k pa. But the real problem is being considered to be 'in debt' for years, despite having the means to pay off the debt.

[Jin]

Is it really any surprise that the Lib Dems betrayed their constituencies? This is a party that ultimately evolved from the Whigs, after all.

But seriously, I love watching a good riot. And yes, I'm fully aware of the hypocrisy of saying that when I've never had to experience their effects around me personally, but I don't care. The energy and conviction of the crowd is almost intoxicating; it's so easy to lose yourself in the pure passion of what's going on. It's no wonder so many get drawn into them, even when they resort to violence. Revolutionary fervor is as natural as one's sex drive, and the end results are often as empty and unfulfilling...but in that moment...

[Robbo]

Yeah Aerif Sorry about the referring the Britain as English i always do nothing iffy intended there btw Sincerest Apologies.

And i posted the first topic post as that because im in a Lazy mood, Im Heavily biased obviously cause im an Upcoming Uni Student Providing i get Grades Obv and Because i didnt know that much about it anyway all i knew was the numbers and promises had been broken.

and i dont want to post too much here because i'm more interested in what others have to say.

EDIT: I live on the edge of Liverpool so I probably wont be able to go to Uni and have most likely wasted a good 12 years of my life seeing as that was a goal. Thats Pretty Vauge basically in England im not sure about Northern Ireland and Wales about wealth but in my experience its mostly Southerners who have the most Wealth Im a Northerner although My Family do have a decent amount of PA for the North it still Wont Cut it.

[Pete]

Just to clarify Pete, there are Student Loans in the UK, however they can only be paid back at a fixed rate (without incurring steep penalties, if they even let you do it anymore), meaning that if you borrow £42k you could likely be in debt until it expires (a whole thirty five years after your education finishes).

Repayments don't have to be made until you're earning over something like £17k pa. But the real problem is being considered to be 'in debt' for years, despite having the means to pay off the debt.

I seee. Here, we have something along the lines of a 10 year plan. They give you a 6 month grace period, where there's no interest incurred and no payments to be made, so that you can find a job. After six months, regardless of your working status, you have to pay a set amount each month for 10 years, until your loan is repaid. Obviously, the larger the loan, the larger the monthly payments. The real kicker is that even bankruptcy can't get rid of these. Thankfully, I was able to knock mine out completely as of last month.

[Aerif]

EDIT: I live on the edge of Liverpool so I probably wont be able to go to Uni and have most likely wasted a good 12 years of my life seeing as that was a goal. Thats Pretty Vauge basically in England im not sure about Northern Ireland and Wales about wealth but in my experience its mostly Southerners who have the most Wealth Im a Northerner although My Family do have a decent amount of PA for the North it still Wont Cut it.

This is a little off topic, but if you don't mind moving away from home you could always go to a Scottish Uni. Like I said before, Scottish Unis are free to Scottish people, but even still the English-student fees are capped at around £1800 a year (4 year degree) with the SNP government having no plans to increase them.

Just something for you to mull over

[Robbo]

This is a little off topic, but if you don't mind moving away from home you could always go to a Scottish Uni. Like I said before, Scottish Unis are free to Scottish people, but even still the English-student fees are capped at around £1800 a year (4 year degree) with the SNP government having no plans to increase them.

Just something for you to mull over

Mhmm thats actually a really good idea Thanks although i was thinking about doing Philosophy and Theology and so far only Uni's i have found are Oxford and Cambridge sadly.

[smurphy]

Just thought I would post a link of unprovoked police brutality against peaceful protestors protesting against raising fees. So much for the police being there to protect the people. This is footage you would expect to see in totalitarian countries as opposed to the pseudo democracies which the Republic of Ireland and the UK are.

First is unwarranted brutishness from the Garda Siochana( aka the police force) in Ireland against students peacefully protesting against the raising of fees. Sh*tty quality, but I think the footage is quite shocking. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-REt8...has_verified=1.

And during the recent protests in Britain against the raising of fees after the MET had "kettled" a group of protestors. You are looking for the footage at 1:10. YouTube - Mounted Police charge protesters at Whitehall 24 November

[Unknown Entity]

Is it really any surprise that the Lib Dems betrayed their constituencies? This is a party that ultimately evolved from the Whigs, after all.

It was a little bit of a surprise, I'll be honest. They were very popular this year among students who'd only just got the right to vote (at the age of eighteen). At the age of eighteen, most of us are preparing for university, and the idea of no fees sounded fantastic. Of course, a student who hasn't dabbled in political news for the last eighteen years and hears the word "free" and "university" in the same sentence if you vote LibDem... once you have the vote of the politically naive students, you've pretty much won.

I understand that Clegg's terms weren't based on having a coalition, but the fact remains that he vowed to vote against any raise in university fees.

Proposed plans want the price to go up to £9,000 ($14,185.62) per year for, with most courses, for four years. That's a grand total of £36,000 ($56,743.2) plus other expenditures (accommodation, travel, food, clothing, etc). You're looking at at least £40,000 worth of damage, if not more before you're even twenty-three years old.

Oh, and get this; then you have to find a job. There's no guarantee of a job after you've completed a course at university. There's job cuts coming in left, right and center. So that heavy price will be on someone's head for possible years until they have a job with a high enough pay so to pay it back... which'll probably take one or two decades.

Also, you have to take the quality of service into account, and if you're getting what you pay for. £9,000 is three times as much as what it was before... so will we be getting three times as much the service? Will we get more in the way of our education? I wasn't happy with a free education service when I was at college because of the lack of support I was given - I'm not paying "HOW MUCH?!" for that same service.

It's ridiculous. I don't condone violence of the sort demonstrated at these "riots", but the government needs to realise that they've made a dangerous group of enemies. Most students now don't have much to loose.

[Pete]

I'm really failing to grasp how this is so horrendous. The figures Unknown posted are pretty comparable to what you'd be faced with in America, for a fairly priced education. I know plenty of kids who pay far more than that. Hell, my girlfriend paid 40K a year for her college, as does my brother.

I understand that the students were lied to, and I agree that it wasn't right to do that, and that sure, peaceful protests were the right way to go about things. The only real difference is that Clegg broke his promise and jacked up university prices. I'm sure it does come as a shock to the students, who thought they were getting a free... or cheaper ride, but I'm still not seeing it as being a huge a deal. You go to a school you can afford and make the best of the education you receive.

However, I know that the job market sucks, but it's a global issue. I know plenty of American college graduates who are currently unemployed and are essentially willing to take any job they can find... and not even having success with that. Some of them are having to defer their loans for a few years so they can get on their feet. Sure they won't have to pay a single cent until then, but they're racking up interest like nobodys business.

[smurphy]

40 K a year is just a grotesque sum of money for a college to be charging a student. How the hell can a sum like that be justified? If college in america is anything like what I have experienced in Europe, charging money like that is just taking the piss. A few hours of facetime with lecturers over 2 semesters, at most 20 hours of lectures a week with a few hundred other students in the room and administration. All for 40 K? And if that is a four year degree that adds up to 160 K in debts plus interest. So many college places in america cost a few dozen grand less than a long term mortgage. Talk about being (not) able to get ahead in life.

[Unknown Entity]

I'm really failing to grasp how this is so horrendous. The figures Unknown posted are pretty comparable to what you'd be faced with in America, for a fairly priced education. I know plenty of kids who pay far more than that. Hell, my girlfriend paid 40K a year for her college, as does my brother.

Over £25,000 a year? That's a ridiculous sum of money.

Think of it as buying a car, and you have two options which give you the same features. They both look the same and work the same. One car is £3,000 and the other is £9,000. Which would you pick?

It's horrendous because it's unnecessary. As it is, some people can't afford the £3,000 per year and adding £6,000 on top of that doesn't help. Apparently, these changes are going to give more people easier access to a university... I don't understand how that works, because there's no small print telling people what a moron they are if they're paying that much for a education.

Also, what happens if someone fails at uni? If it's anything like how college was, it really isn't always the students fault. If you get landed with an incompetent teacher, and you fail, then you're losing more money.

[Sean]

I spend ~ 3K a year after books going to a community college, which is basically high school that I pay for. (Speaking to the quality of students, here, not the quality of my education)

If/when I switch and go to a university for my bachelors after my associates is finished, I'd be looking at around 8-9 a year if I go to one in my state. That's a pretty fair price in my opinion.

20 year loan on 20 grand to finish a bachelors isn't bad, but here we can pay more into principle each month to pay it off faster, and some can get 3K a year in government assistance (pell grants) that don't have to be paid back, and government backed student loans where the government pays your interest while you're in school and for 6 months after you graduate.

I can't see where the problem comes from, honestly. Maybe the economy is different over there, but seriously? Hearing college was 3 grand a year (4K US) for a quality education pisses me off. I pay that much to deal with a bunch of pieces of shit who are going to college for free and don't give a shit, thus bringing down the rest of us.

[Aerif]

Yea, the economy in the UK is very different from that of the UK. Most things in the UK are inheretly going to be at least 1.5x the price of that in the US because market's like round numbers, or something - recall when Sony sold PS3s for $400/£400/€400 at the same time.

The best example I can think of is arcade games, in the US (as far as I'm aware, the info may be out of date) you paid $0.25 for a credit on a machine, in the UK you'd be expected to pay £1.00. Back when £1 = $2, that was eight times the cost!

Also according to the website that never lies, Americans earn a good bit more than Brits do, so that's another reason why the money issues seem so odd.

And while I agree that $40k a year is almost enough to make me sick (I get Uni for free, like I love to keep saying ) - it is a very different situation in the States. Also imagine having your fees triple in one year for the same education.

[Alpha]

My newspaper reported that some students suggested that the violence is partially attributable to the police tactic of 'corralling' (the paper used a better word, to the same effect) the students to keep them away from important buildings in and around Whitehall, or something. Because of this, they were unable to leave for hours. I know that if I went to a lunchtime protest, and was stuck there until dinner, I'd be getting pissed off.

And Clegg has been sneaky from the get-go. The very fact he entered coalition with the Conservatives was a betrayal of his voting base, in my opinion.

Pete, don't forget to keep in mind the primary difference between the USA and the rest of the West: Social Democratic tendencies. That's why tuition is so cheap in Europe and elsewhere. In New Zealand, it's about NZ$4000 per year, and the government runs the student loan scheme, which gives permanently interest-free loans for the entire cost of tuition, an additional $1000 per year if you want it (laptops, books), a ~$150 weekly living allowance (to pay back, interest-free) if you want it, and which you can qualify for (without having to pay back) if your family income is below a certain threshold -- my girlfriend, who's father passed away several years ago, receives it.

Too bad they seem to be forgetting it in the on-going financial crisis. Really, reducing government expenditure and then expecting the economy to grow...

EDIT: NZD$1 = USD$0.75

[Sasquatch]

... (I get Uni for free, like I love to keep saying ) ...

You do not get it for free. Just because you don't pay for it up front does not mean that you get it for free. I don't know how many times I've had to explain this, and socialists just don't get it. If I hold a gun to a man's head (or, say, threaten him with jail time) and force him to give me some of the money he earned, then turn around and buy something for you with it, that "something" that I paid for is not "free".

Anyway. So British kids will actually have to pay for their education. How exactly is this a bad thing?

Privitizing anything makes it better. Competition drives performance. If a university gets money from the government for their student numbers, they are not held financially accountable for their service. If they have to attract students to pay with their own money, they'll have to compete with other schools to attract them. And students will actually have to work their way through college (or "university", depending on where you are), instead of considering it another few years of mandatory school before they join the work force.

Sure, sometimes in America, it costs a lot of money to go to college/university. That's usually because those universities carry a big name, and when you show up for an interview with a degree from those universities, you'll have a better chance of landing that high-paying career than somebody who went to a community college. It's a personal investment -- I spend money to make myself better, so I can make more money later.

College degrees used to mean something. That was before any old moron could get one.

[Jin]

Privitizing anything makes it better.

Privatization makes things more efficient, not necessarily better.

But hey, I hear you. Someone has to clean the toilets.

[Alpha]

The idea of government assistance for tertiary education is to ensure access, regardless of income. Sure, (fully) privatise universities, and tell my girlfriend that she can no longer attend, because her father is dead, and her mother is a superannuatant who could simply not afford to send her to one.

She could get a privatised loan to get around this, though it would be larger than her current one, and have interest. Thus, she would face a lifetime of debt that a rich person would not. Sounds fair.

Personally, I think it is more just to allow anyone to attend university, then those who are willing and able to work hard in an academic environment will go, rather than (just) those who can afford it ("it" referring to wholly market-set prices).

EDIT: smurphy has me here:

It is sort of ridiculous that the Tories are implementing these measures. Why? They are essentially pricing poorer students out of an education at the third level, which is a must to find a decent job in these times. So they are guaranteeing the age old adage "rich getting richer, poorer getting poorer".

[Sasquatch]

I still can't understand how "the rich" are somehow inherantly evil because they can choose to spend the money they earn in their children. It's simple -- if you work hard enough, long enough, or smart enough, you make more money. If you make more money, you can choose to pay for your child[ren]'s higher education, thus ensuring that they work smarter, not harder, to succeed. If you don't make more money -- or, if you are like my parents and decide not to spoil your children by paying for their college and instead let them learn what it's like to work for and earn something that will pay off in the long run -- your child[ren] will have to work to put themselves through college.

And the whole idea of "nobody will ever go to college unless their mommy and daddy pay for it" is just ridiculous. Millions of people have put themselves through college, without help from their parents, and without help from government handouts.

The rich get richer because they keep doing the things that made them rich. The poor get poorer because they keep doing the things that made them poor. Period. (If you're interested, actually do some research on what percentage of "the rich" actually inherited their money instead of worked for it. I know many people would be surprised -- though, many of those same people would probably deny it anyway.)

It's not school, school, school, adulthood, school, work. Sometimes, it's school, school, school, adulthood, work, school, work.

[I use "college" to refer to graduate education, the same thing as "university", because I'm American. I think I've heard that in Britain, "college" and "university" are two different things, but I'm not sure about their terms.]

[Jin]

Wait, who said rich people were evil?

[RagnaToad]

It's pretty irrelevant to compare what is happening in the UK with other educational systems in other countries.

You can't just implement 1 specific change into a completely different system as an example and say it wouldn't be a problem there. Well you can, but then you're just neglecting the fact that every country has its own educational system that works in its own way and is effected by more than education related measures.

The US and the UK are totally different countries, so I can see how the magnitude of these changes is hard to grasp if you live outside of Britain, especially outside of the EU.

As for my opinion, I think the raising itself is not that big of an issue. As previously mentioned, politicians lie all the time and fees will inevitably rise now and then. But the extent of this measure, and the numbers are just staggering.

I'm curious as to how much these measures will effect the actual fees colleges and universities in England and Wales ask for.

Anyone thinks this may cause a brain drain of young Irish people looking for an education from the North to the South?

[Aerif]

You do not get it for free. Just because you don't pay for it up front does not mean that you get it for free. I don't know how many times I've had to explain this, and socialists just don't get it. If I hold a gun to a man's head (or, say, threaten him with jail time) and force him to give me some of the money he earned, then turn around and buy something for you with it, that "something" that I paid for is not "free".

We 'don't understand' this because we're all idiots. Clearly. You do come off as really condescending sometimes. Although, it's rather sweet that you're buying me something in this hypothetical situation of yours

The money comes out of taxes. Wow. It's most definetly 'free' in comparison to England where money comes off taxes to pay for tuition fees on top of a student contribution.

Does that make the English Universites better? No. Many Scottish Institutions are considered to be of a higher standard, even if the English Unis have more money to spend. The University of St. Andrews is considered one of the best in the UK.

Privitizing anything makes it better. Competition drives performance. If a university gets money from the government for their student numbers, they are not held financially accountable for their service. If they have to attract students to pay with their own money, they'll have to compete with other schools to attract them. And students will actually have to work their way through college (or "university", depending on where you are), instead of considering it another few years of mandatory school before they join the work force.

Yes, Privitisation can have its perks, but don't forget that Cambridge and Oxford are state-run, and taking away their government funding and letting them fend for themselves wouldn't improve their quality.

Besides, Universities already compete. They don't get a base contribution, but rely heavily on the number of students they have.

College degrees used to mean something. That was before any old moron could get one.

They still do in some places. There is no easy-as-hell (relatively) SATS in the UK. In America it's not too difficult to get into a 'college', in the UK, unless you're applying for a very poor University, the entrance requirements do take a good bit of effort to achieve.

Oh, bugger. Please don't turn this into another one of your rich vs. poor discussions.

I'm curious as to how much these measures will effect the actual fees colleges and universities in England and Wales ask for.

Anyone thinks this may cause a brain drain of young Irish people looking for an education from the North to the South?

Competition already exists for exam-results in the UK, but this financial thing will obviously come into play.

I think that every Univesity will begin to charge top-band in order to compete and get the biggest bang for their buck. If that sounds silly, look at the current situation, you'll be hard-pressed to find an English University that doesn't charge the max rate at present (£3290 per year), and in Wales (£1200 - which makes me realise that the fees in Wales could multiply by 8).

Heck, even Scottish Unis charge the maximum rate for those who need to pay, the University of Glasgow charges £1820 per year for non-Scottish British students, and from £10700 - £24000 per year to international students.

If Scottish Unis want to charge £10,000 then how much of a leap is it to expect all English Unis to be charging £9000 in a few years.

Also Ragna, I doubt that there will be much brain-drain from Northern Ireland to Southern Ireland, since the recession has destroyed the Republic, and they're being bailed out by the UK. There are likely fewer graduate jobs in the Republic of Ireland than there are in Northern Ireland at this moment in time.

[Pete]

I'm actually in agreement with Sasquatch on this one.

You pay taxes, that money goes to fund your university. You're still having some money taken out of your paycheck to fund your education. It'd be equivalent of the roads. Sure you may not have to write a check out to the construction company who fixes the pothole in your road, but the city or state government does, and that money comes from the takes that you've had taken out from your check.

And, you can work your ass off to put yourself through college, as well. To afford about 15-17K a year for 4 years of college, I worked 3 jobs, took out about about 20K in loans, got Pell grants and yes, had mommy and daddy pay for what they told me they would.

And Aerif, most universities have an in-state/ out of state rate. I know the price was jacked up about 8 to 10K for students who didn't live in New York.

[Alpha]

We all realise it's not actually "free" in the literal sense of the word.

The point is that the fees are paid as a proportion of income; people who earn high incomes pay more in taxes (absolutely and proportionately) than do people who earn less. When taxes are used in lieu of individuals paying their own tuition fees, everyone, regardless of income, faces the same hurdles to get in to a university -- that is, the income barrier is irrelevant, as the government uses progressive taxation to dissolve it for the important institution that is education, supported by the voting public.

Because the income barrier is somewhat irrelevant, in this system, education is referred to as "free" (actually, the term is "public"). Everyone still contributes, but the proportions differ, so that access is equal.

[Aerif]

I'm actually in agreement with Sasquatch on this one.

You pay taxes, that money goes to fund your university. You're still having some money taken out of your paycheck to fund your education. It'd be equivalent of the roads. Sure you may not have to write a check out to the construction company who fixes the pothole in your road, but the city or state government does, and that money comes from the takes that you've had taken out from your check.

Yes. Like I just said, it's paid out of taxes. It's like when you call compulsory education and European healthcare free, it isn't in the literal sense, it's a figure of speech (that shouldn't have even sparked a debate about it).

And, you can work your ass off to put yourself through college, as well. To afford about 15-17K a year for 4 years of college, I worked 3 jobs, took out about about 20K in loans, got Pell grants and yes, had mommy and daddy pay for what they told me they would.

I understand that. I have expenses too that SAAS will not cover, such as transportation and books/video games (yes, I need to study them, and pay for the ones that can't be 'obtained' through less conventional ways).

The thing is, in the UK, the situation is different. I'd have a job if I was offered a job. But there aren't enough, and with that recent recession, things already weren't looking to hopeful for new students.

And Aerif, most universities have an in-state/ out of state rate. I know the price was jacked up about 8 to 10K for students who didn't live in New York.

'Kay, but I was using the International figures to explain how Unis charge the maximum they can in the UK even now. I'm not complaining about it, though I do see it as unjust.

Like Alpha has said, you should be able to get into University on the basis of your academic merit rather than the size of your wallet. That's the way it works in the UK, which is what makes tripling the fees such a big deal.

[Sasquatch]

We 'don't understand' this because we're all idiots. Clearly. You do come off as really condescending sometimes.

If somebody keeps doing something wrong (like referring to government-allocated money as "free") after they've been corrected, they must be either unable to learn or unwilling to accept.

Although, it's rather sweet that you're buying me something in this hypothetical situation of yours

Yes, I'm sure the idea of forcing somebody (or, rather, voting for people with the power to force others) to pay for your lifestyle is "rather sweet".

The money comes out of taxes. Wow. It's most definetly 'free' in comparison to England where money comes off taxes to pay for tuition fees on top of a student contribution.

It's not "free" at all. It's paid for by taxes taken by force or threat of force from those who are more financially successful than you. Not to say that you'll never be that successful, but if you do make it that far, you might not like having your money forcibly redistributed to those who have accomplished less.

Saying that something taxpayer-funded is "free" as opposed to something privately-funded is like saying that if you rent a hooker, you have to pay for sex, but if somebody mugs your wallet from you and rapes you, the sex is free.

Yes, Privitisation can have its perks, but don't forget that Cambridge and Oxford are state-run, and taking away their government funding and letting them fend for themselves wouldn't improve their quality.

They also get much more than most other universities, which is why the quality of their education is internationally respected. That's not to mention the many, many private contributions that they thrive from. There's a reason you used them as examples instead of the multitudes of other universities. If every university used that much money to provide education, they might have standards on an equal level, but the entire country would go broke.

Oh, bugger. Please don't turn this into another one of your rich vs. poor discussions.

Please stop thinking of things as "free" because somebody more successful than you has been forced to finance them, then complaining when those more successful people are finally given the opportunity to keep more of their own money instead of having a bunch of college kids mooch off them.

The point is that the fees are paid as a proportion of income; people who earn high incomes pay more in taxes (absolutely and proportionately) than do people who earn less.

Proportionately? Where exactly are taxes paid in proportion?

The thing is, in the UK, the situation is different. I'd have a job if I was offered a job. But there aren't enough, and with that recent recession, things already weren't looking to hopeful for new students.

With the recent recession, there isn't as high of a demand for employment of new college/university graduates, either. You might have just hit it at the wrong time. Or you might be under the impression that you deserve to be offered a job instead of having to go look for something to do to make money. Most college students don't really want to work dead-end jobs at fast-food places, they just do it because they need the money, even if they can't find anything related to their field of study.

Like Alpha has said, you should be able to get into University on the basis of your academic merit rather than the size of your wallet.

Academic merit is one thing -- another big thing they look at is how hard a student would work to graduate.

Quite a few employers -- most that I know, at least -- don't view a college/university degree as a piece of paper that says a person knows things. Sure, having it does mean that they probably know more on their subject than people who don't have it, but that's not the issue. The key point is that a college degree means that somebody has done the work required to graduate and has the ability to learn. Obviously, somebody who had to do more work than only their classes required (as in, work a job) to get through college will have done more work than somebody who has had their tuition and fees paid for, whether it be by their parents or by their government's redistribution. I personally would be more likely to give a job to a recent graduate that I know had to put him/herself through college than one that got their education paid for.