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

[Aerif]

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.

Who's to say that your definition of the word is correct? I accept that it's paid by taxes, I've said that. But if I want to use the word 'free', then I can, because nowadays almost nothing is free, and the term has evolved to accomodate government-funded projects.

Try coming to the UK, and asking a citizen there to talk about their 'free-education' or their 'free healthcare'. Do you think that there will be a string of people forcibly correcting you?

It's an accepted use of the word in the UK, and most Western countries. It's similar to jumping on people for using the word 'gay' in the non-happy way.

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".

From my point of view, it's certainely the nicest thing I've ever heard you say.

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.

Do you want a society without taxes, by any chance? Don't forget the less-well-off have to pay for the 'free' services that richer people use.

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.

I used Oxbridge because I was certain that you'd know it. And on that note, did you know that undergraduate students at Oxford aren't allowed to have jobs?

Now other than the Etonian aristrocrats and children of oil-tycoons, how do you propose that these students pay for their education? Loans? They'll be in debt for a long time since as I said before you can't pay them off early.

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.

These rich people tend to have a degree already. These rich people had the entirity of their tuition fees paid for by the government assuming they went to Uni before 2006.

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.

This is exactly the reason why these changes could not of come at a worse time. There are no dead-end McJobs. If there were, there would be less people rioting, myself included.

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.

As would I, but like I said, these changes are coming at a terrible time, hence the riots.

And on a side-note, I don't intend to be hurtful with this question... But I always assumed you were a Christian, and yet you don't want to help the poor. How does that work?

[Sasquatch]

Who's to say that your definition of the word is correct?

My point is that what's "free" for you costs somebody else -- and since they're paying their fair share AND yours, your mooching from them is kind of a raw deal.

Try coming to the UK, and asking a citizen there to talk about their 'free-education' or their 'free healthcare'. Do you think that there will be a string of people forcibly correcting you?

Not unless they're the ones that pay for it.

Do you want a society without taxes, by any chance?

Of course not -- there are some things for which taxes are required, such as defense and general welfare. Most, however, would be better provided by private industry.

Don't forget the less-well-off have to pay for the 'free' services that richer people use.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. Everybody -- well-off or not -- would have to pay for their own services. That's exactly the point.

I used Oxbridge because I was certain that you'd know it. And on that note, did you know that undergraduate students at Oxford aren't allowed to have jobs?

No, I certainly did not. If that's true, that's very interesting -- I suppose slots in those schools are based completely on merit from previous education and potential.

Now other than the Etonian aristrocrats and children of oil-tycoons, how do you propose that these students pay for their education? Loans? They'll be in debt for a long time since as I said before you can't pay them off early.

Loans, grants, scholarships. Let them get jobs and work their way through college like everybody else does.

These rich people tend to have a degree already. These rich people had the entirity of their tuition fees paid for by the government assuming they went to Uni before 2006.

So did everybody else there, rich or not, which makes the richer people no different from anybody else. Next?

And on a side-note, I don't intend to be hurtful with this question... But I always assumed you were a Christian, and yet you don't want to help the poor. How does that work?

Who says I don't want to help the poor? I'm all about helping the poor. I just hate being forced to -- especially in today's world when many of the poor have learned that it's easier to be poor and have successful people forced to support you than it is to work to support yourself. The welfare system started as a safety net, but has now become a hammock. This, of course, only applies to first-world nations, not like everybody in third-world nations is lazy.

[Aerif]

Of course not -- there are some things for which taxes are required, such as defense and general welfare. Most, however, would be better provided by private industry.

See, this is where it gets complicated. I know you'd say that only essential things should be covered by taxes, but it depends on your definition of 'essential'. I don't think that tertiary education is essential, but it's an added incentive to those who live in Scotland. Likewise I'd say that keeping people alive is essential through free healthcare, but that's a different topic entirely.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say, here. Everybody -- well-off or not -- would have to pay for their own services. That's exactly the point.

No, I certainly did not. If that's true, that's very interesting -- I suppose slots in those schools are based completely on merit from previous education and potential.

I've already mentioned that (almost) every University in the UK requires academic merit as its sole requirement, I've watched a lot of American programmes where the characters do a load of extra work and extra-curricular activities, but in the UK, its all based on grades, with these extra things only being taken into consideration when two candidates are seen as 'equal'.

Loans, grants, scholarships. Let them get jobs and work their way through college like everybody else does.

Grants and scholarships are pretty much non-existant in the UK (probably since up until now the fees have been manageable).

A typical English degree is 3 years long, that's £27,000 , based on the loan system that's implemented just now (and is showing no indication of changing) it would take about 13 years (assuming the studen'ts salary is above £21k) to pay off that debt. Remember there are no early payements and no repayment until earning that £21k (it used to be £17k, but they've adjusted the number).

Like I've said, right now there are very few jobs, which makes the timing of the increases all the more frustrating, don't forget the greatly multplied living costs of the UK compared to the US.

So did everybody else there, rich or not, which makes the richer people no different from anybody else. Next?

When I mentioned the 'rich', I was referring to the 'Conservatives'. The point is that it seems hypocritical to me that they recieved fully-funded education despite their fortunes and the students of tomorrow will need to pay fees that have never been higher.

Who says I don't want to help the poor? I'm all about helping the poor. I just hate being forced to -- especially in today's world when many of the poor have learned that it's easier to be poor and have successful people forced to support you than it is to work to support yourself. The welfare system started as a safety net, but has now become a hammock. This, of course, only applies to first-world nations, not like everybody in third-world nations is lazy.

Welfare systems are indeed corrupt in almost every country that they exist in. This might be another cultural difference, but as I keep saying only fairly 'clever' people get into University, and these people aren't the ones who live on all different types of state benefits.

It's a shame that you see certain types of taxation as forced alms-giving, but only a small percentage of people classed as 'poor' are in the situation because they are lazy. A lot of tax money goes to people who are in genuine need of it.

[Robbo]

mhmm is it just me or has anyone else noticed how this thread has kind of turned into an ID-styled thread and its fine but it kind of makes it less accessible i think and i want more than a few opinions, so sorry guys but could you try to shorten your posts a bit please.

[Sean]

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.

Just to put some numbers on this statement, here in Missouri (St. Louis area) I looked at 2 universities to get an idea of how much my debt would grow if I went for a bachelors.

In-state at Webster University (The college that accepts the most of my transfer credits around) is ~ 8K/year

In-state at Southern Illinois University, Edwardsville is ~ 8K a year, 16K for out-of-state (for me it would be)

If I were to go SIUE, the fiancee and I were going to move to her mom's house, switch me all over to that address (in Illinois) and wait 6 months, then apply for SIUE. However, she goes to SIUE, lives here, but is still registered under her mom's address to get the in-state rate.

Who says I don't want to help the poor? I'm all about helping the poor. I just hate being forced to -- especially in today's world when many of the poor have learned that it's easier to be poor and have successful people forced to support you than it is to work to support yourself. The welfare system started as a safety net, but has now become a hammock. This, of course, only applies to first-world nations, not like everybody in third-world nations is lazy.

^ This. Nothing else to even describe how much I agree with this statement.

[Alpha]

Those prices you list are absolutely ridiculous.

It would cost me NZ$5000 per year (US$3784.50) to attend the law school of my city's university -- a law school which contends with and often surpasses the likes of Harvard and Yale.

A Victoria University Law School Moot team has come third in the international Willem C. Vis Moot competition held in Vienna, Austria recently.

The total number of teams competing was 204 from 53 countries and Victoria beat universities such as Harvard, Columbia, NYU, Monash and NSW.

(http://www.victoria.ac.nz/law/about_.../news2008.aspx)
(http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/victo...tition/5/12654)

If I desired to go to this law school, regardless of my parent's income, the government would pay half of the fees for attending, and then I could take advantage of its comprehensive, indefinitely interest free student loan scheme.

That's access to education, and social mobility in action, while demonstrating that it doesn't result in low-quality education; rather, the opposite.

EDIT: And it would take four years to get an LLB; five if taking a second undergraduate degree).

[Jin]

I find it odd that we only have this discussion about post-secondary/tertiary education, not primary and secondary education. Public schools are a mess (in Canada and the US at least), but I've heard no one demand that they be completely privatized to make them "better" or refer to those taking advantage of it (not that they have a choice) as "moochers". It's not as if university degree aren't important for someone's livelihood. They're probably about as important as a high school degree was 50 years ago, so it's not as if we can say that post-secondary education is not essential whereas primary/secondary education is. Is it the age of the potential students that matters? Is it the difference in cost of upkeep? It's got to be something.

[Chez Daja]

Uni's not even worth it over here anymore. How many people do you know that went to uni and are now doing what they studied as a job?

Only three of my friends that went to uni actually seem to have a chance.

[Pete]

Uni's not even worth it over here anymore. How many people do you know that went to uni and are now doing what they studied as a job?

Only three of my friends that went to uni actually seem to have a chance.

Just because you go to a university doesn't automatically mean you have job opportunities. If you want a chance of making something of yourself, then that's exactly what you have to do, and make yourself. Just because you're not working in the same field as your degree doesn't necessarily mean that your degree was useless, but that skills you've gained in one field can be valuable in others.

I know several kids who are CPA's, going to law school or working on successful professions, and they've all busted their asses and sacrificed a lot to get where they are.

[Jin]

I know several kids who are CPA's, going to law school or working on successful professions, and they've all busted their asses and sacrificed a lot to get where they are.

What is the purpose of this statement? You're not the only one to make it. Hard work is being fetishized a lot in this thread. But isn't it the very antithesis of any given government action's intended purpose, at least theoretically? Isn't government policy supposed to make life easier for people? What's the use of all this "I know X number of people that worked their asses off to pay their way through college, therefore everyone should have to" bull crap? Be on whatever side of that debate you want, but that particular reasoning is asinine. I respect a woman who works her ass off and rises up to break the glass ceiling, but that doesn't mean it's a good idea for the government to stop supporting sexual equality initiatives. I could understand arguing that the publicization of universities makes them inferior or that it makes less economical sense or that paying for university isn't actually that hard (not saying I agree, but I understand where these arguments would be coming from), but making some meaningless statement about how you know such and such that struggled and made it is just useless.

[Pete]

It has all the validity of Chez's statement of how only three of her friends who went to university seem to have a chance.

Now, sure, that statement can say numerous things based on how deeply you wish to analyze it.

Maybe Chez's friends aren't all that bright. I'm sure it's possible, but I'd rather give her the benefit of the doubt.

Maybe my friends are a bunch of privileged try-hards. Well, some of them have a little bit of money, but that's also because their parents worked their asses off to get to where they are. And I suppose you would have to try pretty hard to get into grad school.

Maybe I just don't get it. Maybe it's wholly possible that this entire thing is just so beyond me, and that I can't possibly grasp why people are upset that they'll actually have to pay for an education like so many others do.

Hell, maybe Chez only has three friends. Then that stat looks pretty damn good!


I really don't see how there's a fetish for hard work; it's an admirable quality, and used to be something that was expected out of everyone. Nowadays it's all about results with nobody really questioning how anyone got to them. It's really an continuing problem with the world. I think you're confusing hard work with having difficulties making ends meet.

The government is really only supposed to support the people who truly need it. Unfortunately, a high school education is considered "good enough" to be able to enter the workforce. For those who wish to receive a higher education, there are plenty of means available, both through the government and through whichever university or college program one wishes to attend. There are student loans, grants, even need based scholarships from some of the more prestigious universities, who have the bankroll and alumni donors to provide for smart students who simply wouldn't be able to afford the university.

As for the government initiatives for equal pay, I believe in equal pay for an equal days work, and that the best person should get the job, regardless of any discriminating factor. If I'm working a desk job at the same time as a woman, working in the same company, I'd expect us to get the same starting pay, provided we're doing the same exact job. Now, if one of us is clearly that much better or efficient, then I can see performance bonuses or promotions.

Now take a job where performance equates to life or death, like a firefighter. If 10 people take the test, (7 white males, 1 white female and two black males) and there are only 6 positions to be filled, and the white males score the highest on the test, how would you feel if they only hired four of the top six highest scorers, because the department had to fill a quota so as to not appear racist? Would you not want the best of the best running into your burning house to save your family, or would you be ok with having some of the lesser scorers run in just because they HAD to be hired?

I know I'm getting off topic, but just entertain that thought government.

[Jin]

I really don't see how there's a fetish for hard work; it's an admirable quality, and used to be something that was expected out of everyone. Nowadays it's all about results with nobody really questioning how anyone got to them. It's really an continuing problem with the world. I think you're confusing hard work with having difficulties making ends meet.

I think perhaps you're confusing what this thread is about (or perhaps I am?) Unless I'm mistaken, this isn't a question of philosophy, moral character or ethics. We're not asking whether or not hard work is beneficial or degrading to one's personality/character/soul. We're discussing government policy which, if we're to believe our supposedly democratic principles, is meant to provide as much utility to the people as possible - to make life safer, easier, more enjoyable and all around better (one can debate this in another thread). Taking a stance that's against the complaints of the original poster and his ilk, you could very legitimately argue that capping tuition below its market value does not achieve the best possible utility configuration - that would be in perfect sync with the argument at hand. But simply stating that person X was able to complete something challenging and, therefore, person Y's objection to the necessity of its difficulty is invalid is to say nothing at all. How can someone argue with that? It's dribble.

As I said, it wasn't just you making comments like this. Others did as well. You were just the last person to post one.

You're right, the rest of your post is off topic, so I'll ignore it.

[Pete]

You're talking about the utilities provided by government. If you want to do that, end it at high school, since that's what's essentially mandated. Generally, once you're out of high school, you should be right around 18 and an adult. You have what the government deems enough of a right to determine what is good for yourself. If you want to go to a university, that's up to you. The government gave you up until high school to educate yourself properly. What I'm trying to say is that government shouldn't have to PROVIDE a college education to anyone. It already PROVIDED a primary and secondary education.

Yes government should be responsible for some things, but not all. Asking people to pay a comparable rate for a college education is not the slap in the face that everyone's making it out to be. Public safety, sanitation, and general quality of life should be provided, as well as the necessary infrastructure and a quality education. The government shouldn't have to make sure everyone is as smart as their neighbor, or that everyone mows their lawn or any other such nonsense.

Higher education is a commodity. The schools that charge 40K a year do so because they can. They have prestige and world renowned facilities and professors that draw people en masse. Harvard can charge what it does because the demand to go there is so high, and yet you need to be brilliant to get accepted. Queensborough Community College can't charge that. Why? It's essentially high school part two. The professors aren't great, the students are there either because they don't have the money for a better school, or because thats what they were told they "should" do.

But really, you don't go to college for the now, you go for the later, and you largely get what you put into it. The entire process is based off of hard work, so they really are linked. Why should any university just allow people to go there without showing any real merit or worthiness?

[Jin]

...I'll try to make this as clear as I can.

You're talking about the utilities provided by government. If you want to do that, end it at high school, since that's what's essentially mandated. Generally, once you're out of high school, you should be right around 18 and an adult. You have what the government deems enough of a right to determine what is good for yourself. If you want to go to a university, that's up to you. The government gave you up until high school to educate yourself properly. What I'm trying to say is that government shouldn't have to PROVIDE a college education to anyone. It already PROVIDED a primary and secondary education.

Yes government should be responsible for some things, but not all. Asking people to pay a comparable rate for a college education is not the slap in the face that everyone's making it out to be. Public safety, sanitation, and general quality of life should be provided, as well as the necessary infrastructure and a quality education. The government shouldn't have to make sure everyone is as smart as their neighbor, or that everyone mows their lawn or any other such nonsense.

Higher education is a commodity. The schools that charge 40K a year do so because they can. They have prestige and world renowned facilities and professors that draw people en masse. Harvard can charge what it does because the demand to go there is so high, and yet you need to be brilliant to get accepted. Queensborough Community College can't charge that. Why? It's essentially high school part two. The professors aren't great, the students are there either because they don't have the money for a better school, or because thats what they were told they "should" do.

But really, you don't go to college for the now, you go for the later, and you largely get what you put into it. The entire process is based off of hard work, so they really are linked. Why should any university just allow people to go there without showing any real merit or worthiness?

I was not arguing against this. Well, I was on some points, but not in the post that started this exchange. What I was arguing, and the ONLY thing I was arguing, was that putting forward a scenario that involves hard work and difficulty as a solution to a problem is an extremely useless endeavor when the opposing side is basically saying that one shouldn't have to face that hard work at all.

Forgive the lackluster and forced analogy, but let's say we were discussing the best way to get a penny from a fountain and one side says they should avoid getting wet while the other says there's no way to avoid it. It's a waste of everyone's time for the latter side to tell a story to the former of some guy they knew who got wet getting the penny and did just fine. The former side has already determined that it does not want to get wet, so putting forth getting wet as a solution will not help your side in the least. You have to show them why they're wrong in thinking they can possibly get it without getting wet, not tell them that someone got wet and was fine as they're trying to argue that one shouldn't HAVE to get wet, not that one can't succeed by doing so.

In other words, I'm not arguing against your content, I'm arguing against your methodology.

[Pete]

I understand that, but I was just trying to point out that the entire basis for my one line, no matter how useless it may be to the whole conversation was really in spite of Chez's line about how only three of her friends are going to make anything of themselves. I understand that it has no relevance to the topic of the tuition hikes, but I wanted to use it to make a point to her that just because you don't work in whatever field you major in, you can still find success. It was meant to be completely tangential and not have any bearing on the original topic at hand.

It would be fantastic if we could get back to the original topic at hand though.

[Jin]

If that's the case then you were simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. Others certainly were making that argument. So thank you for taking one for the team.

Let the topic continue, as you say.

[Sasquatch]

What I was arguing, and the ONLY thing I was arguing, was that putting forward a scenario that involves hard work and difficulty as a solution to a problem is an extremely useless endeavor when the opposing side is basically saying that one shouldn't have to face that hard work at all.

Bullshit. You were saying that putting forward a scenario that involves hard work and difficulty is a useless endeavor, because you support somebody else going through hard work and difficulty, then having their money forcibly taken from them to support others who are just moving out of mommy and daddy's house and need to learn how to fend for themselves.

Forgive the lackluster and forced analogy, but let's say we were discussing the best way to get a penny from a fountain and one side says they should avoid getting wet while the other says there's no way to avoid it. It's a waste of everyone's time for the latter side to tell a story to the former of some guy they knew who got wet getting the penny and did just fine. The former side has already determined that it does not want to get wet, so putting forth getting wet as a solution will not help your side in the least. You have to show them why they're wrong in thinking they can possibly get it without getting wet, not tell them that someone got wet and was fine as they're trying to argue that one shouldn't HAVE to get wet, not that one can't succeed by doing so.

But when the only way to get the penny is to get wet, the only way to get the penny is to get wet. One side can talk about how they had to get wet to get a penny, how they've had friends get wet to get their pennies, how people have been getting wet to get pennies since pennies and fountains were invented ... but you're bitching about that, instead of those on the other side complaing that they don't want to get wet to get their pennies, so they should vote to force others to get wet for them.

[che]

Thought you left zzz.

[Alpha]

But when the only way to get the penny is to get wet, the only way to get the penny is to get wet.

How about a magnet on a string?

As much as I think Jin may have misrepresented "my side's" argument, I'm going to put this simply. Both arguments have validity. No one is right. Please stop pretending that you must be.

I'm not sure where this concept of hard work came into this debate. University is hard work, with insecure gains. I went into my first year of Uni with a $4000 scholarship and the mistaken idea that it could be extended for another two years. I was wrong, but I worked my ass off in my first year of Uni, and again this year. I'm going into my third year next year with an invitation to take Honours, and an 8.5+ GPA. I worked hard, and will always work hard.

Regardless of how much Uni (or any form of education) costs, to get gains, it requires hard work. You do have to get wet to get the penny. But how wet? And why do some people have very shallow fountains (i.e. they do not get as wet) while others very deep ones, when they are after the same penny?

It's obviously a tired debate.

For the record, as a Social Democrat, I see it as the Government's duty and position to try and make the wells of equal depth, and, if possible, reduce the depth for everyone. It's not taking away the intrinsic hard work of university, but rather recognising the importance of education, and access to it.

Thus, reducing Government funding of education, in any country, at any level of education, is making the wells increasingly of unequal and inequitable depth. This is why I do not support the recent advancements in UK education policy. It's not removing the well. It's not avoiding getting wet. Those are necessary to come out with a bit of paper that tells of your endeavours in getting the penny; in getting a degree or diploma or what have you. But the Government can, and in my opinion should, make it a little bit easier, a little bit fairer, to get to the prize.

[Robbo]

Well its over Tuition fees have been raised Government won narrowly with 323 and 302 but protests are continuing and i will again be a part of them.

[Jin]

Bullshit. You were saying that putting forward a scenario that involves hard work and difficulty is a useless endeavor, because you support somebody else going through hard work and difficulty, then having their money forcibly taken from them to support others who are just moving out of mommy and daddy's house and need to learn how to fend for themselves.

LOL. That is all.

As much as I think Jin may have misrepresented "my side's" argument,

I wasn't aware I was representing "your side's" argument at all.

Both arguments have validity. No one is right. Please stop pretending that you must be.

And followed by the smartest sentence in this thread. Too bad few will believe it.

Edit: Why are you people continuing with that penny analogy? It was set up only to be relevant to methodology, not the actual debate of this thread.