Number One is entitled Stop basing applications for student finance on their parents' incomes, since parents are under no obligation to pay for their childrens' fees and the explanatory notes say
"At present, applications for student finance are based on a student's parents' income. This means that if a students parents' earn more than £40,000 a year the student can receive a maximum loan of £3000 a year, this does not even cover university accommodation fees. Many parents will not pay for their children to attend university as they are under no legal obligation to do so. This prevents not the poor from going to university but the middle class.
Ironically, if a student chooses to marry before university they are considered independent of their parents' income and are eligible for upto a total of £4750 a year in non-repayable grants!
Students are legally adults and their application for finance should be treated as such. It should not be based on their parents' income and all students should be entitled to the same financial help."
Wholehearted agreement from me here. I was fortunate that my mother's income was sufficiently low that she wasn't assessed as being meant to support me to the tune of more than a few quid. (If I remember rightly, in the first year she bought an undergraduate gown and in the second, a couple of pairs of pyjamas. I'm not sure about the third.) While she actually contributed more than that, I didn't feel dependent on her. I didn't need to be dependent on her. I was lucky in that respect. I know at least one current undergraduate who works (in a working-for-money sense) a lot of hours in term and during vac because he dislikes being dependent on his parents, but because their income is relatively high, his support level is relatively low. Not a good situation.
Number Two is entitled Scrap tuition fees for university subjects that mean something and the explanatory notes say
"I heard a rumour that the university tuition fees may soon be re-jigged whereby subjects that require special facilities, such as Chemistry, would be charged at a premium. I think this idea is absolute nonsense! Too many universities are offering pointless degree subjects such as Art and Sociology already, and a steady decline can be seen in the number of universities offering sciences and engineering qualifications.
I therefore suggest that the government re-jig its ideas so that "Mickey Mouse" subjects are charged at a premium to discourage lazy youngsters from taking the easy option, and also so that extra money can be used to offset the cost of sciences and engineering courses to bring our nation's academic ability back up to where it should be."
Wow, this petitioner is even more of an intellectual snob than me! I dislike the petition's opening "I heard a rumour" - a BBC article from 2003 talks about the damage such differential fees would cause, but I can find no more recent information about different fees being charged for different subjects. So I'm not quite sure there's any logical basis for the petition.
In general if differential fees were being charged for different subjects, it's very likely that the sciences would involve a higher fee. After all, charging differential fees implies some kind of consumer market, and the equipment for science degrees inherently costs lots. (I'd have thought there were some other degrees that might have high costs, too, though - I'm thinking of the equipment involved in high level music recording and stuff.) Which I agree could become a problem - though I'd expect to see a commensurate rise in company sponsorships and things. It would worry me, if I thought it was happening.
Number Three is entitled increase tuition fees for those who can afford to pay them, and use the money raised to reduce or eliminate fees for those who could not otherwise afford higher education and the explanatory notes say
"I believe that university tuition fees are completely justified. If this country is to have a world-class higher education system, it must be funded properly and, barring massive tax increases, the only way to do this is via tuition fees.
The current maximum of £3000 is ridiculous. Universities should be allowed to set higher maximum fees, but the Government should then subsidise those students who cannot afford to pay. (A sliding scale would be appropriate here.)"
I don't suppose any of you will be surprised to find me saying I don't agree with this. In my considered opinion the world-class higher education system that people like, say, Tony Blair benefited from managed without tuition fees, and this situation is surely therefore repeatable. I do not appreciate the "50% of young people in higher education" target, which I believe devalues both higher education (which in my opinion is only suited to a much smaller proportion of people) and alternative forms of training/education, which many people are far better suited to.
However, it must be said that if you combined Number Three with Number One, I'd have very little objection to Number Three. Of course, since most students have no money of their own it wouldn't fund very much. But it would at least be fair. I think.
No comments:
Post a Comment