Jump to content

Scotland's Uni Funding System Faces Legal Challenge


Blackpool Jags
 Share

Recommended Posts

That's basically how I see it.

 

Of course there's also been a basic misunderstanding of simple economics by the UK government in relation to tuition fees in England. The market will determine price so the £9k is an upper limit, but of course when demand outstrips supply, the price will increase, in this case, in most institutions, to the maximum.

 

What I find astonishing is that smart people like you seem to have misunderstood the way the tuition fee system actually works. The market determines the price, but because of the way the "loans" are paid back, it has negligible effect on the student whether they go on a course which charges £6k or £9k unless they earn more than about £35k when they graduate! After 30 years, the government writes off the "loan" no matter how much or how little you've paid, so for the lowest quartile of earning graduates, they're better off than with the old system and the most affluent of graduates contribute considerably more to the system.

 

People keep stylising the University changes down south as swinging cuts. The reverse is true. Because of the repayment scheme's mechanics, the government will actually spend marginally MORE on higher education, and the remainder is being picked up by the richest graduates instead of virtually all graduates. That's fairness.

 

Wow, only on this forum, it seems, can people find a reason for shooting a (devolved) Scottish Government for enacting a piece of policy which benefits its constituents: those resident in Scotland. While I admit ( :blush: ) to being a lifelong Labour Party member, I quite openly recognise why the Scottish electorate chose to bin them and instead elect a party which would act in its people's best interest.

 

It's protectionism. When a person from England moves to Scotland for University, guess what they become. That's right. A Scottish resident. It's simply preposterous that English students aren't entitled to the same level of support by the jurisdiction that covers their education. You're adopting the same rational that people use to argue (ridiculously) against an asylum seeker's right to work and to basic benefits. It's cynical electioneering instead of doing what's fair.

 

I repeat that bleatings from the Daily Wail and its rancid readership only serve to mask the jealousy or, more likely, the lack of acceptance that Scotland has got this matter spot on. To seek a judicial review of the facts is, in my opinion, nothing short of an outrage. As has been eloquently explained by some posters, Scotland is not a sovereign EU state; education is a devolved function of Holyrood; students from abroad cannot be treated differently from Scots. These are facts and no amount of ill-will from chancers like like Shiner alter that.

 

Methinks you've completely misunderstood the nature of this judicial review. They're not seeking to force the Scottish government to make domestic students pay. They're seeking English domiciles to be treated the same way as Scottish domicile and EU students are just now.

 

Onto the "we can't afford free higher education - oh yes we can" debate: free higher education isn't a relic of our our prehistory, it's something most over 30s are perfectly familiar with. Why is it that we could afford fee-free HE fairly soon after the war (WWII), and yet with the economy having grown exponentially since, say, the 1980s, it's a no no these days? I don't believe for a second that i) we can't afford to fund HE in the traditional way and ii) that Scotland's doing anything it shouldn't be doing.

 

The question isn't "can we afford it" (although we can't, see the £200million shortfall that Universities Scotland has declared exists in the funding of our universities) but WHO should afford it. There is NO SUCH THING as free higher education. It has never existed. The question is WHO pays and in what proportion. You want those who never get the chance to go to University to subsidise those who do. I think that's crass and immoral.

 

The "why could we afford it then but not now" argument also doesn't hold in a society where about 4 times the proportion of the population now go to Universities and an even higher proportion now go onto some sort of higher education institution instead of straight into work or an apprenticeship. We also have proportionally much higher financial obligations in primary and secondary education, which has raised standards, but has also had to cater for kids staying on longer instead of leaving at 14, 15, 16 in such vast numbers to go off and do something else. Now that's not a *bad* thing, but it has financial consequences. Harking back to days where people were much less economically mobile than they are today, to days when the mode of learning was completely different, to days when even the most developed of nations bore massive physical scars of one of if not the worst post industrialised war, gets us nowhere.

 

In the unlikely event that Shiner won the argument, there would be a serious question over the very basic issue of democracy: that is you can vote for a government of your choice, but there really isn't any point in anybody getting attached to the idea of a devolved government enacting its manifesto commitments as the courts will overrule anything they, or alleged human rights lawyers, feel covetous about.

 

Again, you don't seem to realise what a court would instruct the Scottish Government to do if this case was successful. It would strike down the Scottish attempts to charge the English domicile students fees. It then becomes a funding problem, not a question of the mandate for state-funded education being defeated. If anything, it would require the Scottish administration to consider either a tax rise, a moving of resources from another project, or, dare I say it, to re-assess a graduate contribution.

 

As for the Scottish system being, in effect, some form of pseudo/krypto/quasi racism - pulleeeeease!

 

It's not racist, but it is arbitrary and discriminatory.

 

That is just nonsense. Scottish students have to pay fees (I keep saying 'fees' although they aren't really, 'graduate tax', whatever) in England just now, as do English students in Scotland, and this has been the case for some time. Scottish students will have to pay back the increased tuition fees in England - why should Scottish students end up with £27,000 of debt after studying in England while English students could study here and end up with no debt? By your logic, the UK Coalition is cutting off the ability of all English students to go to university in England.

 

Again, it's not real debt. The cost of education follows the institution and not the student. That's the way it should be. If a funding system demands a contribution from one set of graduates but not another simply because of where they have lived in the last few years, that's discriminatory. This, by the way, is why I steadfastly oppose the current milking of international students with fees often more than double what the English domiciles are due to pay under the changes to the Scottish system.

 

Ehhh... if you're Scottish and go south to study then you have to pay the same as the English/Welsh. If you're from Scotland and study in Scotland then the Scottish Government pays your fees for you. Don't see anything backward in that. In fact that looks progressive compared to the policies of our southern friends who seem determined to "market force" England back to the days of soup kitchens, workhouses and leaving school at twelve to work in a sweatshop.

 

It's completely backwards. In England and Wales they don't discriminate against Scottish domiciled students. In Scotland they do. That's not progressive. The workhouses patter is a load of heafing shite and does you no favours as it's simply not rooted in fact at all.

 

Agree 100%. The problem with the English system is it makes higher education affordable only for those from a certain class of society.

 

How?

 

The Scottish system is pretty much perfect, those who can afford to pay their fees/gradute tax do so and those who can't do not.

 

:blink: - In Scotland fees are charged by your domicile, not on your ability to pay! The English system DOES ensure that those who cannot afford to make a contribution don't have to!

 

Imagine you are an English student looking to go to uni, you want to do so in your own country but realise it would be much cheaper to do it in Scotland. That doesn't change with the current system, it is still much cheaper for English students to go to uni in Scotland but Scotland have made moves to 1) plug a bit of the whole in the funding and 2) offset the risk of an influx of English students that would not be down to their desire to be educated in Scotland but down to the fact it is much cheaper. If English students really WANT to be educated in Scotland then they should not have an issue with paying for it, they'd be paying more in England anyway.

 

Why shouldn't the fact that it's much cheaper be allowed to be a consideration for foreign students? My decision not to apply for English Universities about 3 years ago was influenced by the knowledge that the cost of living would be higher and that I would have to make a graduate contribution through the loans system if I went down south. In life we make these decisions all the time; we make cost-benefit analyses in everything we do. It makes us think more carefully about what decision we make, because we then know that it matters.

 

@ Woody: English students taking the place of 'inferior' Scottish students is ok? Are you having a laugh? England has a much much bigger population, therefore the odds of them having a lot more 'deserving' students is quite high. Why then should we bend over backwards by changing our system when the one that is flawed is the English one as this will decrease the likelyhood of the 'undeserving' Scots improving their education, life opportunities and those of future Scots.

 

So what? If the English students are more intelligent, they deserve the place. For every place that's filled up here by a more deserving English student, a place in the English system is created. The English system isn't hugely flawed. People just don't understand it. There are very minor things that it could improve (I mentioned interest rates and repayment buffers earlier) but on the whole it's actually a really well designed system that's been horrifically poorly explained.

 

I don't care where people come from. Their life chances should be determined by their ability and their application; not by a geographical accident of birth.

 

As has been highlighted elsewhere on this thread, it remains the case that most under-grad students have grown up with the notion of going to uni because their parents had done so or are affluent enough to send their children to uni. As a result of the current system I will now be able to offer that chance to my kids so they dont need to wait until they are in their 30's to finally go for it. Look after our own first and foremost and I believe the current system does that.

 

And so would the English system! You as a parent would not have to pay a *single penny more* if we adopted the English system today. Your children and your children only would start to pay 9p in every pound over a salary of £21k after they graduate towards their eduction. If they don't earn that much? They pay nothing. If they lose their job? They stop paying anything. If they become a successful and stinking rich graduate? They'll pay quite a lot over 30 years. If they've not paid it back after 30 years? The government wipes the slate clean.

 

Edited to add: My use of the words inferior, deserving and undeserving are paraphrases of Woodys descriptions rather than words I would use.

 

Well if the English student has better grades and a better overall application, how are they anything other than superior and how isn't the Scottish applicant anything other than inferior!? Let's not tone troll and actually deal with the cold hard facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 166
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

:lol:

 

Congratulations, you win the Godwin's Law Trophy for services to Internet Sabotage.

 

Well, no, I was just setting the ground rules before another marathon session tonight. I thought it would help if there was a self imposed limit on all of this. Or maybe it should just keep going because this type of internet debate frequently changes people's inbuilt views and belief systems. Doesn't it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much focus on here and the media about it all being a Scotland v England thing.

 

I find the terminology confusing but from the following article my understanding is the Welsh Assembly is effectively doing the same thing as the Scottish Government AND assisting those students who study in other parts of the UK.

 

Wales

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Too much focus on here and the media about it all being a Scotland v England thing.

 

I find the terminology confusing but from the following article my understanding is the Welsh Assembly is effectively doing the same thing as the Scottish Government AND assisting those students who study in other parts of the UK.

 

Wales

 

The Welsh assembly pay any fees of a Welsh domicile over and above £3450 or so if my memory serves. They're at it too, but in a slightly different way. All UK students pay the same at Welsh Universities, but the Welsh have decided to underwrite any additional fees costs for their own students going away. Scotland doesn't do this, although there is a means-tested grant system for Scottish domiciled students studying elsewhere in the UK which is worth up to £2k or so a year to cover costs rather than completely through the loans system. Before the original top-up fees were introduced down south, that in practice covered tuition, hence the mistaken belief by some that SAAS pay the fees of Scottish students studying outside of Scotland.

Edited by Woodstock Jag
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the roles were reversed I'd be blaming the Scottish system for this. As far as Im aware, the change in Scottish policy was borne from the change in the English system, it was a reactionary thing to safegaurd our own students rights is it not?

 

 

 

 

I think it looks worse on England, that's the flawed system imo.

 

 

why is it flawed, they make them (all of them)pay there way :thumbsup2:

Edited by jaggybunnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Making stuff up :o I think you should try reading your posts again and I will accept your apology for that accusation :D.

 

I think your own political persuassions are influencing your posts, my opinions are simply that, my personal opinions (and understandings). Do they fall into political party policy? Maybe :P

 

 

no apology needed, i can accept you were wrong :thumbsup2:

 

as for my political persuasions influencing my posts, no a narrow minded policy by the snp did that

Edited by jaggybunnet
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the loans are to pay the Fees are they not?

 

and sorry but tough, if you want an education to improve your chances of a better wage then pay for it,

 

if i want to do the courses for going off shore or to get my forklift instructors I have to pay for it not the tax payers and that how it should be

 

 

 

 

we should be pushing Scottish students to get higher marks at school not going, don't worry if you haven't got the marks , your are Scottish so will get in anyway. why Scotland is the way it is, mediocre and that goes for our football as well

 

Here's the post in question, complete with the bit you accuse me of making up in bold.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

why is it flawed, they make them (all of them)pay there way :thumbsup2:

 

 

:wall: Im NOT argueing against paying your way Im argueing against English based students coming here for their education when they otherwise wouldn't do if it were not for the ridiculous hikes in tuition fees down south. Scotland has handled the powers devolved to it very well thus far imo, so well in fact that the UK Parliament might have to actually try to take some of that power back in order to achieve some sort of resolution to this problem. The alternative of bringing partity with Scotland to England (rather than the reverse) will simply not happen under a Con-Dem coalition...probably wouldn't happen under a Labour government either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

try reading the whole quote in context and not just the bits you want :rolleyes:

 

The whole quote in context = you should work hard to get good grades (I agree) but even if you don't it won't matter (bit hypocrital in rel;ation to the first part) and that Scotland is mediocre as a result of...well what you saying? As a result of people not trying hard enough? As a result of them not getting the required grades yet still getting places at universities?

Edited by Steven H
Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wall: Im NOT argueing against paying your way Im argueing against English based students coming here for their education when they otherwise wouldn't do if it were not for the ridiculous hikes in tuition fees down south. Scotland has handled the powers devolved to it very well thus far imo, so well in fact that the UK Parliament might have to actually try to take some of that power back in order to achieve some sort of resolution to this problem. The alternative of bringing partity with Scotland to England (rather than the reverse) will simply not happen under a Con-Dem coalition...probably wouldn't happen under a Labour government either.

 

there is nothing ridiculous about the fees, its what they should be paying anyway, its only because they have been subsidized to the hilt in the past with grants.

 

 

so its only the english you want to pay then? :thumbsup2: Scotlands policy is wrong as we are paying for all these students.

 

questions

 

1. do you agree that ALL students should pay for there higher education.

 

2. is it fair that eu countries get it for free but uk countries have to pay.

 

3. do you agree that people should get place based on there ability no just because they live in that country.

 

feel free to answer with a simple yes or no

 

and no you are not arguing against students paying for there education, you just don't want it to happen :rolleyes:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The whole quote in context = you should work hard to get good grades (I agree) but even if you don't it won't matter (bit hypocrital in rel;ation to the first part) and that Scotland is mediocre as a result of...well what you saying? As a result of people not trying hard enough? As a result of them not getting the required grades yet still getting places at universities?

 

:confused1: yes that's what you said, even if they didn't get the grades they should still get a place before the english, welsh or NI.

 

i said no if they don't get good enough grades they shouldn't get in, it should come down to ability not where you come from.

 

at no time did i say marks at school don't matter(see below), in fact the opposite

 

 

You think marks at school don't matter? Of course they do, but any 'spare' places should be going to Scottish students

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is nothing ridiculous about the fees, its what they should be paying anyway, its only because they have been subsidized to the hilt in the past with grants.

 

 

so its only the english you want to pay then? :thumbsup2: Scotlands policy is wrong as we are paying for all these students.

 

questions

 

1. do you agree that ALL students should pay for there higher education - No, only those who go onto employment which offers enough of a salary, the current figure (£21k is it?) seems reasonable to me.

 

2. is it fair that eu countries get it for free but uk countries have to pay - It's not free for anyone...unless you never earn enough money to pay for it. Evidently that's the same in England anyway.

 

3. do you agree that people should get place based on there ability no just because they live in that country. - Yes, to a point. I don't expect kids who have not tried a leg at school to be given places, but I would rather those who have just fell short of the required grades to be offer the remaining places after the quotas discussed earlier have been reached (including non-Scots based students if there is a quota for X amount of them).

 

feel free to answer with a simple yes or no - Did you really think I was gona leave it at Yes or No? :P

 

and no you are not arguing against students paying for there education, you just don't want it to happen :rolleyes: - Wrong, and I think I've made that clear much earlier in this thread :thumbsup2:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is nothing ridiculous about the fees, its what they should be paying anyway, its only because they have been subsidized to the hilt in the past with grants.

 

 

so its only the english you want to pay then? :thumbsup2: Scotlands policy is wrong as we are paying for all these students.

 

questions

 

1. do you agree that ALL students should pay for there higher education - No, only those who go onto employment which offers enough of a salary, the current figure (£21k is it?) seems reasonable to me.

 

so you do agree with the english system then and agree that scotland should charge everyone then?

 

2. is it fair that eu countries get it for free but uk countries have to pay - It's not free for anyone...unless you never earn enough money to pay for it. Evidently that's the same in England anyway.

 

yes it is scottish and eu dont pay in scotland

 

3. do you agree that people should get place based on there ability no just because they live in that country. - Yes, to a point. I don't expect kids who have not tried a leg at school to be given places, but I would rather those who have just fell short of the required grades to be offer the remaining places after the quotas discussed earlier have been reached (including non-Scots based students if there is a quota for X amount of them).

back to my point abut pushing kids to do better and mediocre students at the end with a scraped pass.

 

feel free to answer with a simple yes or no - Did you really think I was gona leave it at Yes or No? :P

 

No :lol:

 

and no you are not arguing against students paying for there education, you just don't want it to happen :rolleyes: - Wrong, and I think I've made that clear much earlier in this thread :thumbsup2:

Not very you are arguing that the rest of uk should pay but not scotland and :blink: the rest of the eu

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:confused1: yes that's what you said, even if they didn't get the grades they should still get a place before the english, welsh or NI.

 

i said no if they don't get good enough grades they shouldn't get in, it should come down to ability not where you come from.

 

at no time did i say marks at school don't matter(see below), in fact the opposite

 

This part of the discussion is beginning to sound like 2 bald guys argueing over a comb. I took what you said to mean 'grades don't matter as you'll get a place anyway, therefore making our country mediocre'. I still haven't budged from that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Scotland does pay, I will pay and so will everyone else who make over a certain amount (well I actually won't because of the Pathway part of my course, but that's the exception rather than the rule). Everyone pays. The figure you pay back in real term is less in Scotland because I think it's about £1700 per year to study here and up to £9000 per year to study in England. Now I think Non-Scots based UK students (English based if you prefer) are charged somewhere in the region of £4200 per year to study in Scotland. So Non-Scots based UK students can either pay up to £9000 by studying at home, or they can pay what Scotland are asking them to, like has been said on this thread, challenge the English tuition fees, not the system of a country that appears to be doing it right. There should be a quota of Non-Scots based UK students and once that has been reached the surplus should go to Scots based students. My arguement, right there, in a nutshell. The End.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

:wall: Im NOT argueing against paying your way Im argueing against English based students coming here for their education when they otherwise wouldn't do if it were not for the ridiculous hikes in tuition fees down south.

 

Why are the hikes ridiculous? Could you please explain this?

 

The fee level doesn't mean anything! It's the repayment plan that matters. The repayment plan in England is now fairer than it used to be! The poorest graduates will now be able to get an education for LESS money than they did before in England!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There should be a quota of Non-Scots based UK students and once that has been reached the surplus should go to Scots based students. My arguement, right there, in a nutshell. The End.

 

Why should there be a quota and why should Scottish students get priority over the "surplus"? Surely we just want the best applicants getting the places, regardless of where they come from?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why are the hikes ridiculous? Could you please explain this?

 

The fee level doesn't mean anything! It's the repayment plan that matters. The repayment plan in England is now fairer than it used to be! The poorest graduates will now be able to get an education for LESS money than they did before in England!

 

Students see £9000 per year, against say £1700 per year here. Why the difference? What were fees before the Con-Dem coalition? Big jump? Ridiculously big jump?

 

 

Why should there be a quota and why should Scottish students get priority over the "surplus"? Surely we just want the best applicants getting the places, regardless of where they come from?

 

Because without a quota there would be short odds offered on the number of Scots based students gaining higher qualifications being greatly reduced, as will the 'ripple effect' in this country in terms of educational attainment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Students see £9000 per year, against say £1700 per year here. Why the difference? What were fees before the Con-Dem coalition? Big jump? Ridiculously big jump?

 

Then students are stupid. They should look at the detail and realise that actually they don't MEAN ANYTHING. They are simply a way for the government to allocate up-front funding on a "per-student" basis to the Universities. The students then pay the government back when they have graduated and are earning money. That's a FAIR system!

 

Meanwhile in Scotland the government gives more money separately from the number of students that actually go to a University, then give £1850 or so depending on how many student you teach. If it's your first degree the government doesn't ask you to pay anything back and they don't ask you to pay back the rest of the huge expense associated with educating you. That means that the general taxpayer has to foot the bill. Now ask yourself, who is the general taxpayer? The general taxpayer includes the shipbuilder on the few remaining docks at Rosyth and on the Clyde. The general taxpayer includes the minimum wage cleaner on the NHS ward. The general taxpayer includes the guy who leaves school at 16 with no qualifications, starts up a business and ends up employing hundreds of people in his local area. None of these people got the chance to go to University, and Scotland essentially asks them to pay for others to get that chance. Now who do those others include? They include the children of millionaires.

 

I ask you again: HOW IS THAT FAIR?

 

Before the changes down south come into play, the fees limit was £3450 or so. But again that figure DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. People were made to make a graduate contribution on earnings much lower than they will in the future, and the poorest quarter of graduates are paying more now than they will be in a few years time. What the English system has decided to do is reduce the amount that the general taxpayer contributes to University education (directly at least) and put more of the burden on the richest graduates.

 

I cannot emphasise this enough: the tuition fee level quoted MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the student. No one bar the children of billionaires actually pays those fees. All that matters is what people are expected to pay as a graduate. In England they are expected to pay nothing if they don't earn over £21k, and they are then expected to pay 9% of earnings over that towards their education. In Scotland, they just don't ask for a contribution back (or a completely nominal contribution if it's not a first degree covered by SAAS).

 

The result of this is actually that whilst English Universities continue to be pretty well funded (since whatever direct government funding they've lost they've got back in higher fees), Scottish Universities are losing money all the time and are having to close whole departments left right and centre just to try to stop the boat from sinking. University Scotland say that there is an annual £200 million shortfall in University budgets. The University of Glasgow project that if they don't make £8-10 million of savings every year for the next 5 years they will run an annual deficit of something like £50 million.

 

Spending lots of money on education is great. If someone's actually paying the bills. Scotland want people who don't get a University education to help pay the bills. England want people who get a University education to pay the bill. Who is being fairer?

 

 

Because without a quota there would be short odds offered on the number of Scots based students gaining higher qualifications being greatly reduced, as will the 'ripple effect' in this country in terms of educational attainment.

 

So what? People should get into Universities on merit. If other people are better applicants, irrespective of where they come from, they deserve the place. "Cause I'm Scottish" simply doesn't wash. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that fewer Scottish students will achieve higher qualifications if more English students take places at Scottish Universities. Has it not occurred to you that if these Scottish students that "lose out" were really so deserving of a University place that they could compete for English places or try going further afield? After all, if it all goes belly up in England and they end up with very little by way of an income when they graduate, they won't pay a penny. Just like they wouldn't have paid a penny in Scotland.

 

Scottish students have no inherent right to places at Scottish Universities. That idea is preposterous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then students are stupid. They should look at the detail and realise that actually they don't MEAN ANYTHING. They are simply a way for the government to allocate up-front funding on a "per-student" basis to the Universities. The students then pay the government back when they have graduated and are earning money. That's a FAIR system!

 

Meanwhile in Scotland the government gives more money separately from the number of students that actually go to a University, then give £1850 or so depending on how many student you teach. If it's your first degree the government doesn't ask you to pay anything back and they don't ask you to pay back the rest of the huge expense associated with educating you. That means that the general taxpayer has to foot the bill. Now ask yourself, who is the general taxpayer? The general taxpayer includes the shipbuilder on the few remaining docks at Rosyth and on the Clyde. The general taxpayer includes the minimum wage cleaner on the NHS ward. The general taxpayer includes the guy who leaves school at 16 with no qualifications, starts up a business and ends up employing hundreds of people in his local area. None of these people got the chance to go to University, and Scotland essentially asks them to pay for others to get that chance. Now who do those others include? They include the children of millionaires.

 

I ask you again: HOW IS THAT FAIR?

 

Before the changes down south come into play, the fees limit was £3450 or so. But again that figure DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING. People were made to make a graduate contribution on earnings much lower than they will in the future, and the poorest quarter of graduates are paying more now than they will be in a few years time. What the English system has decided to do is reduce the amount that the general taxpayer contributes to University education (directly at least) and put more of the burden on the richest graduates.

 

I cannot emphasise this enough: the tuition fee level quoted MEANS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to the student. No one bar the children of billionaires actually pays those fees. All that matters is what people are expected to pay as a graduate. In England they are expected to pay nothing if they don't earn over £21k, and they are then expected to pay 9% of earnings over that towards their education. In Scotland, they just don't ask for a contribution back (or a completely nominal contribution if it's not a first degree covered by SAAS).

 

The result of this is actually that whilst English Universities continue to be pretty well funded (since whatever direct government funding they've lost they've got back in higher fees), Scottish Universities are losing money all the time and are having to close whole departments left right and centre just to try to stop the boat from sinking. University Scotland say that there is an annual £200 million shortfall in University budgets. The University of Glasgow project that if they don't make £8-10 million of savings every year for the next 5 years they will run an annual deficit of something like £50 million.

 

Spending lots of money on education is great. If someone's actually paying the bills. Scotland want people who don't get a University education to help pay the bills. England want people who get a University education to pay the bill. Who is being fairer?

 

 

 

 

So what? People should get into Universities on merit. If other people are better applicants, irrespective of where they come from, they deserve the place. "Cause I'm Scottish" simply doesn't wash. There's absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that fewer Scottish students will achieve higher qualifications if more English students take places at Scottish Universities. Has it not occurred to you that if these Scottish students that "lose out" were really so deserving of a University place that they could compete for English places or try going further afield? After all, if it all goes belly up in England and they end up with very little by way of an income when they graduate, they won't pay a penny. Just like they wouldn't have paid a penny in Scotland.

 

Scottish students have no inherent right to places at Scottish Universities. That idea is preposterous.

 

You have never asked me that before and Ive never said it was fair.

 

As for the last part of your post, where is the line drawn? If you aint good enough we'll wash our hands of you for others from outwith is really the arguement you're making here? Not for me, take those you deem not good enough and show them they are or make them good enough is the way to go as far as Im concerned. You any idea the number of young people Ive encouraged to go to uni only to hear them say "ach am no good enough to do that."? Who says they're not good enough, some pompous git who hasn't faced hardship, who has no clue of the difficulties faced by children in this country which prevent them from achieving good levels of educational attainment? Smacks of elitist crap. Building a better society takes more than labelling people 'good enough' or 'not good enough' and getting rid of the 'weak', it takes supporting the 'weak' and making them stronger. I doubt we will come close to agreeing on this one tho

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...