Top-Up Fees

[Kirk-Cocaine]

Are top up fees for university a good idea or bad idea? I think it's 50-50, because it could create a two tier system but then it could also allow more people to go to university.

[Taxman2A]

At 12/8/03 02:03 PM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote: Are top up fees for university a good idea or bad idea? I think it's 50-50, because it could create a two tier system but then it could also allow more people to go to university.

What's a "top-up fee"?

[Kirk-Cocaine]

It just means that universities could charge up to £3000 to students in tuition fees (This applies to the UK only).

[Taxman2A]

At 12/8/03 02:31 PM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote: It just means that universities could charge up to £3000 to students in tuition fees (This applies to the UK only).

And they are currently free?

If they are currently free (and therefore supported by taxpayer money) I think the "top- up" fee is a great idea, because this makes the individual take a vested interest in his or her education.
Here in America, we have state schools which receive government subsidies, and are therefore the cheapest schools in our country. The cost of a state school will vary, but usually ends up costing about $2,000 to $5,000 a semester. There are also private schools which usually run anywhere from $8,000 to $12,500 a semester on average.

Many kids that I went to college with partied their asses off their first semester and failed out. Because of this fact, I am very thankful that while I went to a state school, the majority of the financial burden falls on the student who screwed around for those 4 months, and NOT on the taxpayer.

Because of this fact, I think the "top- up" fee is a good idea. Without these top up fees, what is to stop a student from spending years longer than necessary to complete his degree at taxpayer expense? What is to stop those without a serious desire for knowledge from going to college just to party? Not that 18 year olds are interested in that sort of thing...

[Kirk-Cocaine]

Universities arent free at the moment, you have to take out student loans, and the £3000 is on top of the loans so....

[heyitsjohn]

At 12/8/03 02:42 PM, Taxman2A wrote:
Here in America, we have state schools which receive government subsidies, and are therefore the cheapest schools in our country. The cost of a state school will vary, but usually ends up costing about $2,000 to $5,000 a semester. There are also private schools which usually run anywhere from $8,000 to $12,500 a semester on average.

you make it sound cheaper than it is. 2-5000 is for a community college(the lowest tier), 8-12000 is for state college (these are generalizations, and state colleges arn't necessarily run by the state, semi-private is the best way i can describe it.) and private colleges can run upwards of 50 000 a year. on a side note, paying more than (about) 15000 for college is essentially a waste of time since you end up paying for the name of the college, not a better grade of education.

[Taxman2A]

At 12/8/03 03:07 PM, heyitsjohn wrote:

At 12/8/03 02:42 PM, Taxman2A wrote:

you make it sound cheaper than it is. 2-5000 is for a community college(the lowest tier),

I went to State College, it cost less than 5,000 a semester.

8-12000 is for state college (these are generalizations, and state colleges arn't necessarily run by the state, semi-private is the best way i can describe it.)

Actually , government subsidized is the best way to describe it, as I described it in the last post.

[Slizor]

They will create a two-tier system, denying the working class entry into higher education. Education is a right, not a privaledge and if someone has the ability to go on to higher education they should be allowed to do so. When are we going to start charging primary school kids?

The other point about top-up fees is that it makes higher education just something you do to get a better salary, instead of something you do for knowledge.

[TheShrike]

No, Taxman is right. State colleges are fairly cheap.

[bumcheekcity]

Personally, I think the exams should be a fuckload harder. Say, to get a B at GCSE you would have to work to a high A standard. I also think you should do a short extension paper (about 45 minuites long) to get your A*.

I'm doing 11 GCSE's and by the end of this year I will be at A* standard for 7 of them. True, i'm exceptionaqlly intelligent, but there are a good 5 or 6 students who are predictes 10+ GCSEs at A* standard. They just dont push very bright students hard enough.

This means that more people go into higher education, meaning a bigger drain on resources.

Please note that I think universities hould be cheaper, but the courses should be harder. You can apply for them, but you have to be fucking BRILLIANT at your subject to even be accepted, let alone pass it.

[jonthomson]

At 12/8/03 02:03 PM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote: Are top up fees for university a good idea or bad idea? I think it's 50-50, because it could create a two tier system but then it could also allow more people to go to university.

I hugely disagree - all top-up fees will do is discourage people from poorer backgrounds from going to uni and create a two-tier system (which is in effect already really - nobody takes a degree from an ex-poly seriously). Maybe if the government hadn't underfunded academic research hugely for the last 30 years there wouldn't be a problem.

I'm not against the current system of fees as it is though. Mainly because I didn't pay them, but the £1000+inflation or whatever it is now is fair.

[bumcheekcity]

How much is it to go to University today? You know, Oxbridge-Style Unis. The good ones.

[Pudduh]

At 12/8/03 02:31 PM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote: It just means that universities could charge up to £3000 to students in tuition fees (This applies to the UK only).

Actually it applies only to English Universities. The Scottish Parliament legislated a couple of years ago to abolish University fees in place of a graduate tax which graduates have to pay afterwards.

The Welsh Assembly has negotiated a settlement including the abolition of University fees and the same system as Scotland.

Currently then this is the general situation with Higher Education in the UK.

Firstly English students have to pay tuition fees. This is means tested so depending on how much your parents earn your County Council might pay all of your Tuition fees or pay 50% or 25% of the tuition fees.

Also ALL UK students have to take out student loans. This again is subject to means testing.

Thus if your family earns above $48,000 (the UK Means testing is far simpler than frankly absurd american system..."how many servants do I have"?! Who wrote that? The Confederate States of America?!) your parents will have to pay part of the tuition fees and most likely will have to make a 50% parental contribution with the other 50% made up with student loans. This is however open to abuse. My Mum and Dad earn over that figure but thanks to a good Family Accountant I've got both the FULL loan and ALL my tuition fees.

Student loans can ONLY be given by one Government run agency (named rather cunningly The Student Loans Company or SLC). They are interest free and you can only start paying them back when you start earning $20,000.

All education up to that point is free. (English system for example goes Primary School -> Secondary School -> Sixth Form College -> University).

Now what the Government wants to do is as well as tuition fees, they want to put in place a system where English Universities have he choice of having a maximum of £3000 ($4800) of top up fees.

This is like Student loans. You only start paying this after you graduate.

This will mean basically that Students will be straddled with over £20,000 ($32,000) worth of debt.

My opinion on this is the same as Slizor. It is a plot by the Oxbridge Universities (Oxford and Cambridge) to shut the working classes out of quality education (much like how the Ivy League shuts out the working classes).

Regardless of how 'cheap' it is, Education should be a right not a payable priviledge. All this will do is deter poorer students from Higher Education because the costs involved will simply be too great.

The UK has for over half a century now enjoyed a long tradition of free education. The beleif that to have a modern, vibrant and successful economy you must equip the workforce with knowledge.

The individual already has a vested interest in University education already regardless of how much he/she had to pay because he/she knows that if he can get a good degree, he can take that degree anywhere in the world and have a leg up in the labour market.

"nobody takes a degree from an ex-poly seriously"

Haha yeah, like nobody over here takes a degree from an American University seriously.

In the end, for the ex-polys (and even red bricks) to compete with Oxbridge, they need parity, an equal playing field, they need government investment. Top up fees which simply skew the playing field even more does not help the newer Universities.

[Kirk-Cocaine]

I only said UK so loads of people from the US woulndn't post, Mt. Smarty-Pants

[Slizor]

Personally, I think the exams should be a fuckload harder. Say, to get a B at GCSE you would have to work to a high A standard. I also think you should do a short extension paper (about 45 minuites long) to get your A*.

That just means people have to work harder to get better grades. Grades should not reflect how hard you work, they should reflect how clever you are. I think for subjects like History you should be locked in a room with a computer and a essay question for like 4 hours.

I'm doing 11 GCSE's and by the end of this year I will be at A* standard for 7 of them.

You work far too hard. All you really need to do is get 5 or 6 Cs and you're set. You don't even need to revise for GCSEs.....but you probably should, just to get into the habit of it.
True, i'm exceptionaqlly intelligent, but there are a good 5 or 6 students who are predictes 10+ GCSEs at A* standard. They just dont push very bright students hard enough.

This means that more people go into higher education, meaning a bigger drain on resources.

Dude, you're proposing a plan put forward by Conservatives, let less people go to Uni. We need people to be educated, our post-industrial economy requires a far higher level of education than an industrial society.

Please note that I think universities hould be cheaper, but the courses should be harder. You can apply for them, but you have to be fucking BRILLIANT at your subject to even be accepted, let alone pass it.

Pfft, this would require like, hard work. You'd spoil education by making it something you have to work hard at.

[bumcheekcity]

At 12/9/03 04:09 PM, Slizor wrote: That just means people have to work harder to get better grades. Grades should not reflect how hard you work, they should reflect how clever you are. I think for subjects like History you should be locked in a room with a computer and a essay question for like 4 hours.

Uhuh. Your IQ reflects on how clever you are, your grades should be a mix of intelligence and work.

I'm doing 11 GCSE's and by the end of this year I will be at A* standard for 7 of them.

You work far too hard. All you really need to do is get 5 or 6 Cs and you're set. You don't even need to revise for GCSEs.....but you probably should, just to get into the habit of it.

Slizor, I dont work. The exams are too easy. I dont do any homework, and I get 90+% on tests. I've done mock exams and got A*'s. These things dont challenge bright students at all.

True, i'm exceptionaqlly intelligent, but there are a good 5 or 6 students who are predictes 10+ GCSEs at A* standard. They just dont push very bright students hard enough.

This means that more people go into higher education, meaning a bigger drain on resources.

Dude, you're proposing a plan put forward by Conservatives, let less people go to Uni. We need people to be educated, our post-industrial economy requires a far higher level of education than an industrial society.

No, we should let everyone go to Uni, as long as they've got the grades. I just think it should be a bit harder to get the grades.

Please note that I think universities hould be cheaper, but the courses should be harder. You can apply for them, but you have to be fucking BRILLIANT at your subject to even be accepted, let alone pass it.

Pfft, this would require like, hard work. You'd spoil education by making it something you have to work hard at.

I know you're only joking, but do you know how boring my school life is? I dont have to do any work in lessons, I can just sit back and sleep, and I get 90% on tests. To get A* i think is somewhere around 80-90%, which is piss easy. School is boring for clever students.

[Pudduh]

Sorry to ruin the dream of easy education in the UK Bumcheek but you'll be in for a rude shock when you get to Uni.

It is *exceedingly* hard. Basically GCSE's at the momment don't prepare you for University. A-levels get you into the rythm of writing exams and methodically going over everything but it still isn't enough.

The hybrid A-levels are still very hard.

[Slizor]

Uhuh. Your IQ reflects on how clever you are, your grades should be a mix of intelligence and work.

Your IQ does not reflect how clever you are, it's based on stupid, culturally biased tests. Seriously, there are ways you can improve your IQ just by being prepared for the test.

For example (this is an actual example):
Where does a stamp go?
A) Garage B) Cat C) Album D) Test tube.

I mean, wtf is that about? Not everyone thinks of stamp collecting.

You work far too hard. All you really need to do is get 5 or 6 Cs and you're set. You don't even need to revise for GCSEs.....but you probably should, just to get into the habit of it.

Slizor, I dont work. The exams are too easy. I dont do any homework

Pfft, getting up to go to school is hard work, you go, therefore you work far too hard.

No, we should let everyone go to Uni, as long as they've got the grades. I just think it should be a bit harder to get the grades.

You do know that you still have to do A-levels.....right?

I know you're only joking, but do you know how boring my school life is? I dont have to do any work in lessons, I can just sit back and sleep, and I get 90% on tests.

How is that boring? Just spend your lessons annoying your friends and the teacher.

[jonthomson]

At 12/10/03 12:20 PM, Pudduh wrote: Sorry to ruin the dream of easy education in the UK Bumcheek but you'll be in for a rude shock when you get to Uni.

It is *exceedingly* hard.

Yeah, the main difference is that you won't have anyone badgering you to do work. You've got to be motivated to do the course you're doing or you will fuck it up. It's a whole different ballgame, university and A-levels.

[bumcheekcity]

At 12/10/03 12:20 PM, Pudduh wrote: Sorry to ruin the dream of easy education in the UK Bumcheek but you'll be in for a rude shock when you get to Uni.

I heard the rude shock was when you got to A-Levels. And it isn't my dream. I WANT to have to work for my GCSE's. I dont. If I took them all tomorrow then I wouldn't get anything less than an A. They are quite possibly the most boring an monotous things I have done. I can't talk about A-Levels, seeing as I haven't done them, but I believe I have so far only been talking about GCSE's.

The hybrid A-levels are still very hard.

What do you mean, hybrid? YOu mean the AS/A2 thing?

[bumcheekcity]

At 12/10/03 02:31 PM, Slizor wrote: Your IQ does not reflect how clever you are, it's based on stupid, culturally biased tests. Seriously, there are ways you can improve your IQ just by being prepared for the test.

My fault. Your IQ represents your ability to process data. Now we do it in the 7 forms of intelligence that were set out by someone whos name I can't remember.

For example (this is an actual example):
Where does a stamp go?
A) Garage B) Cat C) Album D) Test tube.

I mean, wtf is that about? Not everyone thinks of stamp collecting.

Process of elimination. It COULD be a garage, but it isn't very likely. It isn't going to be a cat, is it? Album is a yes, and when was the last time you saw a stamp on a test tube?

I agree, that question is crap. However, my IQ test didn't actually have any words in the questions, just pictures and maths basically. I'll try to dig out those 7 types of intelligence, and give you some of the example questions for them.

How is that boring? Just spend your lessons annoying your friends and the teacher.

Oh, it was brilliant Last Year in Term 2. After about 10 months of continually doing Jack Shit, you start to want to do maths. It's a weird phenomenon.

[Pudduh]

What do you mean, hybrid? YOu mean the AS/A2 thing?

Yeah its a hybrid of Vocational qualifications like NVQs and the traditional A-levels.

You have A-level Computing and AVCE IT (which is an A-level basically but with vocational elements) for example.

[D2Kvirus]

At 12/8/03 02:03 PM, Kirk_Cocaine wrote: Are top up fees for university a good idea or bad idea? I think it's 50-50, because it could create a two tier system but then it could also allow more people to go to university.

Let me see if Herr Moderator allows me to post...

[D2Kvirus]

OK, that wasn't supposed to happen. See you in two weeks...

Anyway, I've frothed at the mouth at this one already in my Dark Side of Tony Blair thread (as well as at the TV, and anyone within earshot), at just how ridiculous the idea is. I should know, I've been a student under Blair, and had to pay in the £1,500 p/a for three years (which was spent on the canteen on a campus I never used, but Engineering students did - NOT A JOKE), as well as the shadow of Student Loan Rapayments for when I earn more than £15,000 p/a...which will take a wee while. But, potentially, an extra £3,000 after that just for Graduating is an insult. Not as bad as Oxbridge offering a £4,000 "Golden Hello" to incoming students, and taking £3,000 of it back (they will be charging full whack, for canoe maintainence etc.), but why should people be charged for having the intellect to go to Uni, Graduate, and notice the hole burnt in their pockets getting wider?

As I've stated elsewhere, a third of his own party want nothing to do with Top Up Fees, to the extent Blair has put his job on the line over it (and why am I the only one thinking Gordon Brown supports him in public, but encourages further dissent behind closed doors?), in the midst of this Big Conversation insult to the intelligence of, ooh, 63m Britons.

However, could Blair be trying to pull a fast one? It's fine for the Upper and Middle Classes, who can afford to send their kids to Uni, an they are rightly the morally indignated members of society over this whole affair, but what of the Working Classes (aka, the lot that Traditional Labour spoke for)? Is Blair putting hope into the notion all of them will think "Toffs - I won't be sending my kid to University anyway, so they can bloody well pay." A dangerous game...mostly as there's plenty of ignorant little shits in this country who could do with a little educating. It isn't like you get it between the ages of 4-18. Now, about lowering the voting age to 16 - how stupid is that?

Have I just blathered past the question again? Hey, an opinion counts, y'know...

[Slizor]

My fault. Your IQ represents your ability to process data. Now we do it in the 7 forms of intelligence that were set out by someone whos name I can't remember.

No test can measure the 7 forms of intelligence and why would they want to? Why would schools give a shit about someone's "emotional intelligence"?

AS is piss easy, although it requires a small amount of work. In A2 you get more work, but it's not that hard. I've had like 2 essays on the go continually. Although that could be down to me doing essays at the last possible minute.

[bumcheekcity]

At 12/11/03 01:26 PM, Slizor wrote: No test can measure the 7 forms of intelligence and why would they want to? Why would schools give a shit about someone's "emotional intelligence"?

Who said anything about emotional intelligence? The intelligences are:

Bodiily Kinestic - How well you relate to your body and movement.
Logical - How good your sense of Logic is.
Intra Personal - How well you relate to and understand yourself.
Interpersonal - How well you can understand other people and their thoughts.
Mathematic - The speed at which you can process data.
Spatial Awareness - Your ability to judge distances.
Also, one more that I forgot.

[D2Kvirus]

At 12/11/03 01:26 PM, Slizor wrote:

My fault. Your IQ represents your ability to process data. Now we do it in the 7 forms of intelligence that were set out by someone whos name I can't remember.

Processing date: For 12 years of your Educational life (4-16), you aren't required to use it. handy when you want to lower the voting age to that level. If my neighbour's daughter thought Bush arrived a week after he did, thought there was a riot, and that there's no point in politics, as it doesn't matter (nor can we change anything), that needs to quick turnaround. After all, she stood in a School Elcetion representing the Tories. Why? "I want to be the side that wins." Hello? 1997 (and a landslide victory) just called!!!

If she goes to Uni, methinks it'll be either Greenwich or Sunderland...

No test can measure the 7 forms of intelligence and why would they want to? Why would schools give a shit about someone's "emotional intelligence"?

If anything, schools come down on emotion - it doesn't fit in. It's the old "sit down and shut up" method of teaching - so don't ask questions that aren't on the curriculum, formulate ideas of your own, or anything that actually requires an IQ. It's sickening, in hindsight, although I had the "bonus" of being deemed dyslexic for my handwriting and attention span. Not that I might be a future doctor, who realised it was all bullshit...

AS is piss easy, although it requires a small amount of work. In A2 you get more work, but it's not that hard. I've had like 2 essays on the go continually. Although that could be down to me doing essays at the last possible minute.

Greetings from MA Dissertationville. May I call you an asshole? 18,000 words, and I'm 8,000 short. I can't comment on AS/A2, though - when I was at College, we had a proper education system of Lower 6th, Upper 6th, and less stress all 'round. Or less Blairing, which is soon to be a verb upon his untimely death when he drinks a cup of Nescafe or something...

[Pudduh]

Greetings from MA Dissertationville. May I call you an asshole? 18,000 words, and I'm 8,000 short. I can't comment on AS/A2, though - when I was at College, we had a proper education system of Lower 6th, Upper 6th, and less stress all 'round. Or less Blairing, which is soon to be a verb upon his untimely death when he drinks a cup of Nescafe or something...

The A-level system in the UK is also a proper education system (after all if its also used in places like Hong Kong and Singapore, they can't be wrong!).

Also it can be very, very hard. Basically in the core subjects like English or Economics or Government and Politics, the whole two years are lectures towards getting you to pass the two or three, 3 hour long exams.

For example here was a government and politics exam question.

Margaret Thatcher's government of 1979 marked a change from traditional conservatism. Discuss.

Fromt that you had to basically construct a three and a half to four page essay. Good luck.

In College here in the UK, you don't have this "Sit down and shut up" attitude which you describe. The lectures are usually in a room with students in a horseshoe like formation of tables around the Lecturer and are very discussion based.

The idea is that to write a decent essay, you have to structure your own arguments and think for yourself. Thus discussions in lectures are encouraged. For example we had regular and long discussions on what exactly was New Labour (we never got a straight answer and thus put it down to spin...later after the exams, our lecturer said she was a member of the Labour party).

The thing you have to get around is that British Colleges are *not* the same as American Colleges. 6th Form colleges are there for the general public as well as kids studying to get into University.

The main problem with A and AS levels is through constant government bickering and fiddling and the existance of many, many, many exam boards. In England we have several exam boards which makes exams and marks them.

So in England these are Edexcel, OCR, MEG, London Examinations (probabbly gone now) and a couple more smaller ones. Scotland has one exam board called SCR.

Basically the problem is that all of these groups in England all set differnet exams under the A-level banner and have varying quality. Edexcel (who does exams to many other nations as well as the UK) have deliberatly marked down students to keep pass rates low, 'lost' student's work and even leaked exams before the actual exam date!

If England had one exam board and perhaps set a fixed date for reviewing A-levels (perhaps once per decade) then we really wouldn't have as much problems as we do now.

[Slizor]

BCC: Interpersonal is essentially emotional.

For example here was a government and politics exam question.

Margaret Thatcher's government of 1979 marked a change from traditional conservatism. Discuss.

Fromt that you had to basically construct a three and a half to four page essay. Good luck.

I think they're going a bit easy on you. There's loads to talk about there! Out of interest, what board & unit is that?

[Pudduh]

I think they're going a bit easy on you. There's loads to talk about there! Out of interest, what board & unit is that?

I don't think you quite understand. You could talk about alot of things there (the New Right and Traditional conservatism, Disreali, Heath and Thatcher, Milton Freidman and Neo Liberalism mixed with traditional firm victorian values and strong defence and of course the dismantling of the post war settlement) but..unless you know how to plan and structure the essay properly then you'll get a very low mark, even if you put all the information that you needed to get an A on there! Its much like knowing the answer to a 4 mark maths question but only getting 1 mark because you didn't put the working down to support your answer.

It was Government and Politics A-level paper by Edexcel...look for their paper in 2002. The questions in the full A-level paper hard, asking you to construct full and valued arguments over Marxism, Liberalism and feminism. And you were only given 3 hours to do it!

Basically to be frank, its a bit much to say that they were 'going easy on us'. We had to work hard for the marks we got and to have people on the TV day in day out saying "Oh they're dumbing down the exams these days" is just a slap in the face in those students who worked bloody hard for their grades.

What worried us most was that Edexcel right up until a week before the exam were *convinced* that instead of doing the Ideologies and the British system exam, we were really doing the American politics and International affairs papers (which we didn't do ANY lectures for!).