University educated people on average will pay more tax over their life times than non-university educated people (because they earn more money). So it is not just the 'working class' who are burdened by paying for their education, and by paying more tax they are directly benefiting society. And of course, university educated people are capable of performing essential services (eg medical, legal, financial) that are also a direct benefit to society.

I couldn't disagree more strongly with the notion that less able students who can afford full fees should be able to enter university. Even ignoring the arguments that education should be equal and available to everyone and there not be advantages to having rich parents, such a situation puts pressure on universities to lower expectations and pass students who are paying full fees, and therefore cheapen the value of everyone's education. As if, when you have a student who is paying full fees and did not have to fulfill merit-based criterion for entry, the university would only want to collect their fees for first year and then throw them out because they failed.

I am with everything you say Aelia,but in addition I also support the notion of the current HECS system that places more of the burden on the student that has managed to obtain a higher income by going to Uni. I was in the first intake year that paid full HECS and it seemed darned inequitous to me that people who started 2 years ealrier than me were paying half the debt that I was accruing [img]smile.gif[/img] . While the HECS annoyed me back then, I could still see the sense in it, and felt that in paying it I had put my bit back in for the fine education I received (whoops - had to edit the i before e except after c thing there ;) ).

When I was in Edinburgh in 1999 I got into an argument with one of the locals who wanted me to sign his petition to maintain free education in th UK in protest at a HECS system. He was most upset that I couldn't be convinced to see things from only his point of view. He followed me from the train station into a shoe store on the opposite side of Princess Street complaining all the while that I had the most totally closed mind that he had ever met :D .

I actually agree with what you say Aelia, but how do we fund this? Society isn’t ready for higher levels taxation, or massive cuts to spending, so the evil of compromise may have to be looked at. What I suggest is the lesser of those two evils. It at least allows the talented to have the education they deserve and not be burdened at the start of their lives by the crushing weight of student loans. The burden of these loans must have some overall detrimental effect on the progression of society by forcing the best students into high paying jobs rather the freedom of research and expression.

A limit of 10% of a class opened up to fee paying students would not overtly influence the class dynamics and if they fail the class? tough!
Of course I or anyone in my family have never been to University (you guessed ;) ) but I cannot see how a low level of fee-paying students would affect standards

Yes, but as I said, it would not just be 'tough!' if the universities NEED the money that their full fee paying students generate. Someone who didn't get good enough results to do the course they want and simply isn't capable of doing the work should fail, but if the universities aren't getting the funding they need and rely on full fee paying students it would be silly for them to throw the student out. So they either have to have different standards for full fee paying students, which would rightly not be tolerated by other students (and hopefully society - I don't really want to have my pet operated on by a veterinary graduate who 'passed' because their parents were wealthy, for instance), or relax standards for everyone to accomodate people who are only there because they're rich. If it is not in the university's best interests to fail even one of these students, so they do not, then that will automatically affect standards.

And I do agree, Davros, as we've discussed before, that university shouldn't be free, however it should be subsidised. LOL, as you know, I was equally irritated when they raised HECS again when I entered and I was paying double what my brother paid ;)

I don't see what's so hard to understand about my "grenade" post. Because Uni carries real economic benefit it should not be free. Making it free will further segregate society -- those who are smart enough get an economic benefit borne on the backs of all taxpayers. That's not fair -- rather than split society into "rich/poor" it only serves to segregate into "smart/dumb."

As for allowing smart poor students to attend schools -- that's what the student loans are for. Also, grants, like our Pell grant, can help ease the burden -- while still requiring some payment/indebtedness for gaining the HUGE benefits of education.

Were our tuitions not so high in the US, just like 25-40% lower, I would claim the system is better overall.

There are other issues to consider. No-one from a poor background would choose to study English Literature or Philosophy if they are going to wind up with $40,000 loan to pay off at the end - so you will see a gradual detorioration in collective knowledge as non-money making degrees take second place to law, accountancy etc. etc.

There is no reason why a graduate tax can not be instigated in place of loans. In fact, being a tax, the system would be more flexible and could lead to raising an even greater amount of cash for the education system than the loan based system, especially as this would mean paying taxes over the working life-time of the person involved.

And of course, it solves the issue of those who recieve the beneifts of a degree paying for that degree, while not discouraging those from poorer backgrounds partaking in a system that should be a right, rather than a priviledge.

I am generally against the idea of treating an education like a commodity - it has a lot of side effects aside from the general problem of putting people from poor backgrounds off. If the education is viewed as simply a commodity purchased to ensure higher earnings then who the hell is going to come out of university and work in a low paid job? Not a problem? It will be for the public sector. The civil service of tomorrow is going to be undermanned, underpaid, and most probably underqualified.

Also these plans are going to create sink universities, much like the sink schools we seem to have now. People who can't afford the red bricks will be forced to go for a second class qualification at a university where they can't afford decent resources and good teachers.

Generally this isn't a good idea. IMO anyway.

The big vote is tonight - it's on a knife edge!!

Intresting idea Skunk! It seems to have merit. I'm guessing that it involves adding a couple of percent to their tax bill for a few years, is this right?
If so it certainly seems to be a great idea. Allowing the finest to continue into research and the arts if they wish without the burdens. A win win situation :D

The problem with the Graduate tax is that it either taxes some people who can't pay - e.g. those who have an expensive degree but take on low paid work like public sector work, or the system becomes exactly the same as a normal progressive tax but leaving some people out for some reason. The only difference between the graduate tax and a progressive tax is that of dessert, in other words making the people who used the product pay for the product. But this of course makes no sense when you consider that the people who have degrees who are benefitting the whole of society (like doctors etc) would be harmed much more by this than someone who has taken their degree and used it only for their personal gain (like a company director on a huge salary). So a better system would be to just tax the rich straight out - you get all the people who've actually benefitted from the degree to pay for it and those who've used it to help society as a whole aren't punished for having done so.