Tuition Fees: Poorest students will get up to two years FREE tuition!

[Catzsy]

Private education has nothing to do with confidence. I will be applying to Cambridge to study Maths and I will be confident in myself. Why? Because I know I can get in. Do I have any private education at all? No. Do I have friends who do? Yes. Do they have any views that they're more likely to get into a top Uni simply because of their education? No. To be honest private education (as much as I'll probably send my children into that world...) just puts you into a group of rich kids who are mainly s**** and think they can buy their way through life.

If you don't have the self-esteem to apply to a top Uni why should you get in? They're looking for people with confidence and aspirations, not someone who may be clever but actually has no dreams.


Your 2nd paragraph doesn't make sense to me so i can't comment. But your 1st paragraph really isn't logical. If someone believes they can get into a University then they would apply. They wouldn't be bothered about if they fit in or whatever. I don't care whether I'll fit in or not at Cambridge (assuming I got in)..I just care that I get the best education possible.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with aspiring to go to Cambridge. I wish alll the best for it.

[JerseySafety]

Wow, whats so special about the Poorest students? Seriously, it should be even fees.

[Conservative,]

There is absolutely nothing wrong with aspiring to go to Cambridge. I wish alll the best for it.

I didn't say there was. But thank you. I am hoping to get decent enough grade(s) this year so I can carry on doing Maths, Physics & French at A level

Wow, whats so special about the Poorest students? Seriously, it should be even fees.

That's like saying why doesn't everyone pay a set rate of income tax. If they did the rich would be richer, the poor would be poorer. I think the people complaining and annoying and narrow minded but that doesn't mean I don't think the poor should get help..because they should.

[Inseriousity.]

I never said every poor student has no aspiration or dreams. That's just stupid. However, it's foolish to also suggest that private education has nothing to do with confidence. A private education opens up many more doors than a state education does.

I wish you all the best for your Oxbridge dream and I'm glad you look past the barriers but I think it's naive to think that there aren't any. The Sutton Trust is designed to widening participation and have to tackle these barriers everyday.

And I'll rephrase my second paragraph:

I do not think the labelling of universities would be beneficial for anyone. There is no parity of esteem at the minute anyway but to make that officially recognised would be detrimental to the not-so-good universities and the students that pass through their door. When fees are capped (even if they were all raised), it means that those in the poorer universities won't suffer from attempts at marketisating a system that doesn't work in the way that markets do.

Making universities pay different amounts wouldn't be beneficial to anyone. At the minute, there is no 'official' recognition of what universities are better. It's all done by the students rather than the government saying 'this one charges more, this university is better.' When fees are all the same for every university, it means that those in the "not-so-good" universities won't suffer due to a political party's ideological beliefs.

[Conservative,]

I never said every poor student has no aspiration or dreams. That's just stupid. However, it's foolish to also suggest that private education has nothing to do with confidence. A private education opens up many more doors than a state education does.

I wish you all the best for your Oxbridge dream and I'm glad you look past the barriers but I think it's naive to think that there aren't any.

Please elaborate on these "barriers" I see none that bar me from living my Oxbridge dream?

[Hecktix]

Please elaborate on these "barriers" I see none that bar me from living my Oxbridge dream?

Are you aware of the ratio of private to state schooled at Oxbridge?

[-:Undertaker:-]

I completely believe Labour would have raised tuition fees, to an affordable amount.

Yes, just like on how Labour were going to spend our way out of debt? Greece, Ireland, Spain, Belgium, Portutgal..

Of course you believe it, its a form of faith for you from which no reasonable argument/points can detatch you it.

Maybe you're getting me mixed up with someone else but I've always been politically neutral when it comes to voting for the parties although I am a 'leftie' as you call it so I naturally support left-wing policies etc. If that automatically means I become a labour supporter then so be it but unfortunately, I had no choice but to vote labour as I found out that you vote on a local level not a national level and the Labour MP was the best choice for my area. I know you've said it before but I am fully aware that all 3 parties are the exact same so I'm not particularly a fan of anyone.

All the three major parties have been following Fabianism (with exception of the Thatcher Ministry hence why she is so hated by the left) since the end of the war, if you are left wing then that's great - and you've done what I often challenge many to do, which is to admit that the Lib/Lab/Con are all the same and have been following a Fabian programme of government since the war.

I don't agree its been good for the country at all, but at least you've now stated they are all one.

Now that I've got that out the way, I am not someone who preaches 'the poor won't be able to afford it' as I know that people go to university to make their lives better (whether that's a false assumption to make is a different debate altogether). I'm against the marketisation of education, which falsely tries to bring in competition under the assumption that bad schools will close and good schools will thrive, which they do not. At the moment, all universities are capped at £3,300 or something and if the fees were to rise to £6,000 for every university then I wouldn't actually complain that much as I'm aware we're in some deep **** that we need to dig deep to get out of. Instead the top universities will be charging £9,000 while the rest will have to charge £6,000 which just brings in an apparent 'competition' and it's more than likely that those who are left in the £6,000 a year universities will be mostly the poor and disadvantaged, which I think is wrong.

That's my stance on the university tuition fees rises, wouldn't want people to get a false impression.

Well i'm not sure on charges and so forth, personally I would allow fees to go up in an ideal world (but bare in mind that people would be much better off under a true capitalist system as the poor would have money in their wallets, rather than having it taxed away from them - which is the current system we have). The lower the taxes, the bigger the wealth-creating sector is - more jobs and industry are about, more employment = less universities needed which would mean a cull in poor universities and would again return degrees to the previous standard they had (being worthwhile).

While university numbers need cutting, I know why people feel the need to go to university "because to get a decent job I need a degree" which in part is true, because the private sector is rapidly shrinking and its turned into a race to the remaining jobs in them sectors. A transformation in the economy is needed, Thatcher never went far enough and i'll cite an example; the privatisation of the buses swapped a government monopoly for a private monopoly (which did sort out big economic problems), the real way to go about this is to end the monopolies meaning that if my Dad wanted to go out and buy a bus, run a route - he would be able to do so.

If the above happened, can you imagine the mass of jobs created? from ice cream men, to bus drivers and so forth - it would also end monopolies which go straight into the shareholders pockets of large companies such as Arriva. But the fact i've now gone onto economics/jobs just shows how much of a big problem this is, and the state remains at the heart of the problem like always.

Did you actually read the thread? It says only 18,000 of the students would get it.

And the introduction of tuition fees I expect affected all students.

Approximately 450,000 students go to University every year. This has nothing to do with Party Political Politics as you always try to say. If Labour had bought out this level I would also have disagreed. This is 9k a year just for tuition fees. This doesn't include books, accommodation, living expenses or anything else. Of the 18,000 the first year will be paid by the government and the second year by the university. What university is going to do that realistically.

Yes it does, I see all the Labour supporters on here now complaining about having to pay more - despite the fact it was the Labour Party which greatly expanded the state sector, it was Labour who have been giving away hundreds of billions each year to insitutions such as the European Union, foreign aid, the IMF, the United Nations.. and I post this constantly - yes you've personally been sympathetic to the EU point (which is more than can be said for others) but to complain about having to pay more to the state is pure hypocrisy when taxes have been going through the roof over the past decade.

It will just bring back elitism within education and drag us back to the 1960's. I do not think even Margaret Thatcher would have agreed with this, seriously.

I was hoping somebody would bring this up, elitism of education - the education system has never been more elitist and I shall explain why; during the 1960s the grammar schools system was trashed by all major parties and replaced by the comprehensive system which has greatly decreased social mobility for the poorest and most disadvantaged despite the fact it intended to do the opposite. The grammar schools system ensured that the cleverest of the poorest were mixed with the cleverest of the richer students.

Now we have an education system where in order to get a good education you can either pay for a private school (meaning you have to be wealthy) or you can buy into a catchment area of a good school (meaning, again, that you have to have wealthy parents in order to do this) - and who's left out in all this? the poorest kids. The grammar schools system eliminates this and ensures the poorer kids are placed with those who are academically more able. In Eastern Germany when the Berlin Wall came down, one of the first things they brought back was the flexible German-style grammer schools system they had before the socialists abolished them.

The estimate for tax evasion in the UK is at present estimated at 70billion. What are they doing about that? Diddly squat!

And what did Labour do? diddly squat!

So why vote for either of them I ask you? I mean we could go on into the night on the subject of wasted money; the European Union which costs hundreds of billions over a number of years, foreign aid, a vast state sector, the Climate change act which costs nearly £20bn a year.. it's endless.

All Political parties lie. Conversatives in 1979 - we will not raise VAT and then doubled it within the next month, 1997 - Labour we will not bring in Tuition fees however I don't think they travelled around the country signing pledges at Universities to that effect. All those students that voted for the Liberals on the strength of those pledges have been badly let down.

Indeed they do, so don't vote for them - vote for another party, and if they turn out to be liars then at least you can say to yourself "well I truly didn't expect that, i've been made a fool of and it certainly won't happen again" and you simply don't vote for them again. But when you keep voting in the same bunch of liars in everytime then it gets both tiring and hypocritical.

Are you aware of the ratio of private to state schooled at Oxbridge?

Which is another result of the ending of the grammar schools, kids without wealthy parents are condemned to state schools which are below their standard - bring back the grammar schools and you'll be on your way to solving this problem of social mobility.

See Douglas Murray on the subject of higher education;

[Dean]

I'm not interested in university anymore after the fees increase and wasn't really that bothered before the fees increase anyway, but I'd sure like to know what poor is classed as? If so, sure, I'll have two years of free university please. Thanks. Saying that though, the whole fees increase thing is a joke anyway.

[Conservative,]

I'm not interested in university anymore after the fees increase and wasn't really that bothered before the fees increase anyway, but I'd sure like to know what poor is classed as? If so, sure, I'll have two years of free university please. Thanks. Saying that though, the whole fees increase thing is a joke anyway.

People entitled to free school meals...

the income thresh hold is: £16,190 or less per house hold.

[Hecktix]

People entitled to free school meals...

the income thresh hold is: £16,190 or less per house hold.

Which is ridiculous, as that's below the average wage therefore doesn't even touch the average british family lol, don't get me wrong the least disadvantaged should get more help but should everyone else, tuitions fees should be affordable for all - rich, middle class poor whatever and there should be a staggered assistance programme like there is at the moment which starts at a household income of £39,000.

This policy will affect barely any students and just furthers our argument of discrimination.