I was in the library toilets (womens, of course) today and written on the back of the door was something to the affect of "Liberal Democrats will abolish tuition fees. Come on!"
Ohhhhkay. That's nice. In a nice little world where universities don't need money, it would be nice to go to a university and not have to pay tuition fees.
BUT we don't live in that nice little fantasy world. Universities DO need money to run. And where do you think most of that money comes from? Do you think they're introducing top-up fees just because they want to torture us? DO YOU?
WAKE UP. I'll give you some numbers.
How much it costs to go to Harvard PER YEARUS$26,066 for tuition
(this doesn't include $4,706 for room)
That's roughly (at today's exchange rate) 13,758.34 GBP.
Let's put that in perspective. My flat in Edinburgh cost 90,000 GBP. To buy. One year at Oxford would cost me 15% of my flat.
Right now the Government are asking us to pay 1,150 GBP (if you're British). (That's less than 10% for a year at Harvard). If Lib Dems abolish tuition fees, that means 1,150 GBP will go out of public funding, into your university fees. What will they cut in order to fund YOUR education? There's always the hotly debated NHS or maybe
primary school education... any number of things really. And please note, that's 1,150GBP per student. Now I don't know how many students there are in the UK, but in my university alone there are 20,000 students. Obviously not all of them are British, but a significant majority of them are. And there's more than 100 universities in the UK. Hey, you know what? Let's spend ALL the budget on paying for YOUR education.
Ok so the government are introducing top-up fees. But how are our top universities going to cope without those top-up fees? Oxford and Cambridge threatened to privatise if the government
didn't introduce those top-up fees. They need more money to stay at the top of their game, to compete against other international universities (like Harvard). You want to go to a crap university for free? Be my guest. But personally, I want the best. I did three years of IB to get grades good enough to get into an internationally recognised university, and I've worked for the past 4 summers to be able to pay my tuition fees, my rent, my food, my bills. And yes, I take out a student loan. I use it because my work isn't enough, but that's what student loans are for. They're not supposed to pay for everything, they're supposed to help support you.
Now if fees
are topped-up, then some people won't even need student loans at all. They won't even have to pay those fees. Maybe people should read how the policy works before they go all haywire about how this would cut out university access to poorer people.
Copied and pasted from
this BBC website:The poorest students would be eligible for non-repayable support of up
to £3,000 year.
It works like this:
* annual tuition fees - currently a flat rate of £1,150 - would be varied from 2006, from nothing up to a maximum of £3,000
* families earning less than £30,000 would be eligible for a grant of up to £2,700 a year
* universities charging maximum fees will have to fund bursaries of at least £300 for the poorest students
* unlike now, students would no longer have to pay "up front" - while at university - unless they wanted to
* instead fees would be covered by a loan, repayable by graduates once their annual income passed £15,000
* repayments would then be a minimum of 9% of all earnings over that figure per year
I don't see what the hassle is about. People go to university without paying up front. Once they start earning money (perhaps big money from going to Uni), they can start paying their fees. Easy. Everybody's happy.
Why aren't you?