Abolish student loans

Student loans are a curse that gets students of all ages into debt, on the supposition that they will be able to get a job afterwords to repay the loan, which either may not exist, or may not pay half as much as they expected, and thus leave them in a serious long term debt problem.

The culture of personal debt, which benefits only the banks, who suck on the public like leeches, must end, except in the case of essential major purchases like a home and possibly a car.

Banks instead should be lending to (mainly in the form of credit agreements) to businesses, and not funding mass higher education, which except in the case of certan professional jobs like medicine (and I mean DOCTORS, not NURSES) nobody needs, to say nothing of the ridiculous number of ever high and mostly meaningless degrees like Masters and so on, which numerous people are now feeling obliged to take to distinguish themselves from the glut of people with first degree, should shouldn't actually have one in the first place because it neither represents any truly useful knowledge, nor does society need them toi have it.

What we need is people who can DO THEIR JOBS PROPERLY, regardless of whether they have a degree or not, and most jobs can be done by ON THE JOB TRAINING given to suitable candidates tested for aptitude and chosen at the discretion of the employer.

 

 

 

Why is this idea important?

Student loans are a curse that gets students of all ages into debt, on the supposition that they will be able to get a job afterwords to repay the loan, which either may not exist, or may not pay half as much as they expected, and thus leave them in a serious long term debt problem.

The culture of personal debt, which benefits only the banks, who suck on the public like leeches, must end, except in the case of essential major purchases like a home and possibly a car.

Banks instead should be lending to (mainly in the form of credit agreements) to businesses, and not funding mass higher education, which except in the case of certan professional jobs like medicine (and I mean DOCTORS, not NURSES) nobody needs, to say nothing of the ridiculous number of ever high and mostly meaningless degrees like Masters and so on, which numerous people are now feeling obliged to take to distinguish themselves from the glut of people with first degree, should shouldn't actually have one in the first place because it neither represents any truly useful knowledge, nor does society need them toi have it.

What we need is people who can DO THEIR JOBS PROPERLY, regardless of whether they have a degree or not, and most jobs can be done by ON THE JOB TRAINING given to suitable candidates tested for aptitude and chosen at the discretion of the employer.

 

 

 

Graduates to Pay Universities to Retain their Degrees

Upon graduation every graduate will pay an anual fee to the University that accepted him/her for the privilege of using that degree in employment.

The fee will be set by the University and adjusted annually.

Current graduates will be asked to pay each year.

Why is this idea important?

Upon graduation every graduate will pay an anual fee to the University that accepted him/her for the privilege of using that degree in employment.

The fee will be set by the University and adjusted annually.

Current graduates will be asked to pay each year.

ELQ policy should be reversed

The policy to remove support for HE students in England studying for Qualifications at Equivalent or Lower level than their highest current qualification needs reversing, especially for part-time students. The policy has been introduced gradually over the last few years and means that people who need to retrain, by obtaining an HE qualification in a new area, when they already have a degree in another, have to pay international student level fees, making it prohibitive for a great many to do so.

Why is this idea important?

The policy to remove support for HE students in England studying for Qualifications at Equivalent or Lower level than their highest current qualification needs reversing, especially for part-time students. The policy has been introduced gradually over the last few years and means that people who need to retrain, by obtaining an HE qualification in a new area, when they already have a degree in another, have to pay international student level fees, making it prohibitive for a great many to do so.

Tuition Fees

Scrap and at least permanently cap tuition fees and scrap the very idea of charging commercial interest rates. Introduce an equitable graduate tax as percentage of earnings, ringfenced for funding higher eductaion.

I put this suggestion in the section on civil liberties because every person should be enabled in a developed country to be educated to the highest standard they can achieve. A young person's suitability for higher education should be determined by their academic ability, talent and ambition, not by how much their parents earn.

Ringfencing higher education for the higest paid minority, such as children of financiers, has no place in the 21st century. It is oppressive, it harms social freedom, social mobility. It deprives the country of academic ambition and of the diverse talent and skills it needs in a modern world.

Why is this idea important?

Scrap and at least permanently cap tuition fees and scrap the very idea of charging commercial interest rates. Introduce an equitable graduate tax as percentage of earnings, ringfenced for funding higher eductaion.

I put this suggestion in the section on civil liberties because every person should be enabled in a developed country to be educated to the highest standard they can achieve. A young person's suitability for higher education should be determined by their academic ability, talent and ambition, not by how much their parents earn.

Ringfencing higher education for the higest paid minority, such as children of financiers, has no place in the 21st century. It is oppressive, it harms social freedom, social mobility. It deprives the country of academic ambition and of the diverse talent and skills it needs in a modern world.

Prescriptions & Education

Standardising prescriptions nationwide so the nation pays a reduced prescription charge. What I mean by this is forcing Wales to charge for prescriptions. I don't see why the British Tax payers should subsidise something that they themselves are unable to benefit from.

Standardising University Education nationwide. What I mean by this is forcing Scotland to charge for University fees. I don't see why the British Tax payers should subsidise something that they themselves are unable to benefit from and we already have a huge defeatist in university education.

Create a rating system for university courses. Someone who qualifies as a doctor earns over their professional life, much more than someone who has qualified in say a teacher. So why should a teacher pay the same fees as a doctor? Surely it is more financially viable to stagger the rate of fees dependant on what course you are doing and where you go? America rate their universities, and Ivy League universities are allowed to charge more. Ivy League don't exclude poorer students, who can apply for grants to plug their financial gap. This is subsidised by higher fees to those that can afford it.

Why is this idea important?

Standardising prescriptions nationwide so the nation pays a reduced prescription charge. What I mean by this is forcing Wales to charge for prescriptions. I don't see why the British Tax payers should subsidise something that they themselves are unable to benefit from.

Standardising University Education nationwide. What I mean by this is forcing Scotland to charge for University fees. I don't see why the British Tax payers should subsidise something that they themselves are unable to benefit from and we already have a huge defeatist in university education.

Create a rating system for university courses. Someone who qualifies as a doctor earns over their professional life, much more than someone who has qualified in say a teacher. So why should a teacher pay the same fees as a doctor? Surely it is more financially viable to stagger the rate of fees dependant on what course you are doing and where you go? America rate their universities, and Ivy League universities are allowed to charge more. Ivy League don't exclude poorer students, who can apply for grants to plug their financial gap. This is subsidised by higher fees to those that can afford it.

University Funds

At this moment in time, I attend Blackburn College and I am looking at planning for University next year. I find it outragous that on my course I am given £4,000 !!! I think that is a waste of money thinking about how many people apply on this course. How much monewy is being wasted? I think we should change this because we can spend this money on something more relevant. Yes, education is important! My family are not the richest, but I have a part time job and pay for everything myself. My course is paid by the NHS and I am paid as a health care assistant nurse so I will be able to afford the costs of University. I feel you should only give the money to people that really need it. Don't offer this to everyone. You should go through and apply to get a sum of money to help with your funds at University.
 

Why is this idea important?

At this moment in time, I attend Blackburn College and I am looking at planning for University next year. I find it outragous that on my course I am given £4,000 !!! I think that is a waste of money thinking about how many people apply on this course. How much monewy is being wasted? I think we should change this because we can spend this money on something more relevant. Yes, education is important! My family are not the richest, but I have a part time job and pay for everything myself. My course is paid by the NHS and I am paid as a health care assistant nurse so I will be able to afford the costs of University. I feel you should only give the money to people that really need it. Don't offer this to everyone. You should go through and apply to get a sum of money to help with your funds at University.
 

University tuition fees

Bearing in mind the ridiculous amount of money that students pay for their higher education, and the amount of money that universities are earning in total, I think that tuition fees should be re-analysed! Tuition fees, instead of being fixed, should reflect the amount of lecturer-led tuition and marking time.

Furthermore, in the business sector…I think that businesses who want to employ university graduates should pay a proportion of the graduate's tuition fees….as the business benefits from the graduate's skills gained through higher education.

Why is this idea important?

Bearing in mind the ridiculous amount of money that students pay for their higher education, and the amount of money that universities are earning in total, I think that tuition fees should be re-analysed! Tuition fees, instead of being fixed, should reflect the amount of lecturer-led tuition and marking time.

Furthermore, in the business sector…I think that businesses who want to employ university graduates should pay a proportion of the graduate's tuition fees….as the business benefits from the graduate's skills gained through higher education.

Review of university fees – make the system fairer

 

The system needs updating. The way that the university fees are calculated simply does not work. I was at uni a couple of years ago and found a wide range of situations:

– rich parents who would not help their kids as they wanted them to learn to fend for themselves

– rich parents who paid for everything and the kids simply took out student loans so they could invest the money as it worked out better for them (and they have earned money without needing a job)

– poor parents who would/could not help with living expenses (kids did not pay fees)

– poor parents who helped out with living expenses and fees were not charged so effectively these kids had lots of money

The other situation that I think is rarely considered is the number of children a family has – is it right to charge the parents of triplets high fees for uni if they earn above a threshold when they have realistically less money to spend than a family on the same income with one child?

The current system removes money your parents pay into a pension from their total earnings, but not money they are paying to a mortgage. My mother moved house during my time at university and as she was 50 when she took out a £90k mortgage she was charged a lot each month. This was money that was not available to her so she had to reduce the amount she was paying into her pension, which subsequently slashed the amount I was able to get from my grant, even though she had less money in her pocket each month and I had not received any financial support from her (I never asked).

With many more people taking gap years these days, when students do start uni they are often much more mature and more independent and therefore less financially reliant on their parents, so why should their parents income have any bearing on their university fees?

I appreciate that fees cannot be scrapped completely but an overhaul is needed. It should be less heavily based on a parents income and maybe more closely linked to estimated earnings after a degree is completed (medicine costs more to teach and with F1s earning £30k should they not pay more in fees than someone who studies Biomedical Science which costs less to teach and has an estimated starting salary around £10k less? Law, whilst not necessarily costing more to teach, will net the student a higher salary, and therefore could be a good income earner helping to reduce fees for things like nurses, social workers etc)

Why is this idea important?

 

The system needs updating. The way that the university fees are calculated simply does not work. I was at uni a couple of years ago and found a wide range of situations:

– rich parents who would not help their kids as they wanted them to learn to fend for themselves

– rich parents who paid for everything and the kids simply took out student loans so they could invest the money as it worked out better for them (and they have earned money without needing a job)

– poor parents who would/could not help with living expenses (kids did not pay fees)

– poor parents who helped out with living expenses and fees were not charged so effectively these kids had lots of money

The other situation that I think is rarely considered is the number of children a family has – is it right to charge the parents of triplets high fees for uni if they earn above a threshold when they have realistically less money to spend than a family on the same income with one child?

The current system removes money your parents pay into a pension from their total earnings, but not money they are paying to a mortgage. My mother moved house during my time at university and as she was 50 when she took out a £90k mortgage she was charged a lot each month. This was money that was not available to her so she had to reduce the amount she was paying into her pension, which subsequently slashed the amount I was able to get from my grant, even though she had less money in her pocket each month and I had not received any financial support from her (I never asked).

With many more people taking gap years these days, when students do start uni they are often much more mature and more independent and therefore less financially reliant on their parents, so why should their parents income have any bearing on their university fees?

I appreciate that fees cannot be scrapped completely but an overhaul is needed. It should be less heavily based on a parents income and maybe more closely linked to estimated earnings after a degree is completed (medicine costs more to teach and with F1s earning £30k should they not pay more in fees than someone who studies Biomedical Science which costs less to teach and has an estimated starting salary around £10k less? Law, whilst not necessarily costing more to teach, will net the student a higher salary, and therefore could be a good income earner helping to reduce fees for things like nurses, social workers etc)

The 3 Year Rule

My issue is in the ruling passed many years ago, before we had a transient population whereby a student returning to finish their education is forced to be resident in the UK for 3 yrs before thay are allowed be treated as a 'Home' student, and yet any EU member can arrive here, having paid no UK taxes and be treated as a 'Home' student, see below a letter that i have sent to many MPs and still have not got any sort of a reasonable response, the answer always hides behind the 3 year rule!

I have recently discovered a major problem with reference to my sons Higher Education. I will keep this email brief and look forward to either a call from my local Member of Parliament or indeed a response from the Minister

 

My son was born in the UK, holds a UK Passport, I live in the UK and pay my taxes here. However due to the fact that approx 9 years ago, his mother married and moved to the United States he is no longer entitled to move back to the UK and be treated as a UK national, instead will be treated as an International student and attract International Fees due to the 3 year rule

 

After exhaustive research through the Internet I see that we are not alone in our plight and refer you to the link below to a No.10 epetition in Dec 2008.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17708

 

He has not become a US Citizen and has always held an aspiration to return, study and live here in the UK.

 

Student England say that as the '3 year rule' applies, they are not prepared to help and have advised that he approaches the US Government, they do not want to know as he is not a US Citizen., therefore we will attract tuition costs of approx £8k per annum,+ living costs etc……….., I understand that an average UK student leaves Uni with approx £23k debt, and think the Student Loan system of payments being paid once earning above £15k etc to be a good deal 

 

But why should my son, a UK person who through no fault of HIS own be penalised in that he/I will have to find in excess of £8 per annum and associated costs with NO help from Government, and go into major debt as a result of this 3 yr ruling

 

The No 10 response that I have found basically says that Government have washed their hands of the problem in that they have passed it to the individual Uni's, who then in turn use the rule to hide behind saying that it is a Government directive!!!

 

I would call this a vicious circle

Why is this idea important?

My issue is in the ruling passed many years ago, before we had a transient population whereby a student returning to finish their education is forced to be resident in the UK for 3 yrs before thay are allowed be treated as a 'Home' student, and yet any EU member can arrive here, having paid no UK taxes and be treated as a 'Home' student, see below a letter that i have sent to many MPs and still have not got any sort of a reasonable response, the answer always hides behind the 3 year rule!

I have recently discovered a major problem with reference to my sons Higher Education. I will keep this email brief and look forward to either a call from my local Member of Parliament or indeed a response from the Minister

 

My son was born in the UK, holds a UK Passport, I live in the UK and pay my taxes here. However due to the fact that approx 9 years ago, his mother married and moved to the United States he is no longer entitled to move back to the UK and be treated as a UK national, instead will be treated as an International student and attract International Fees due to the 3 year rule

 

After exhaustive research through the Internet I see that we are not alone in our plight and refer you to the link below to a No.10 epetition in Dec 2008.

http://www.number10.gov.uk/Page17708

 

He has not become a US Citizen and has always held an aspiration to return, study and live here in the UK.

 

Student England say that as the '3 year rule' applies, they are not prepared to help and have advised that he approaches the US Government, they do not want to know as he is not a US Citizen., therefore we will attract tuition costs of approx £8k per annum,+ living costs etc……….., I understand that an average UK student leaves Uni with approx £23k debt, and think the Student Loan system of payments being paid once earning above £15k etc to be a good deal 

 

But why should my son, a UK person who through no fault of HIS own be penalised in that he/I will have to find in excess of £8 per annum and associated costs with NO help from Government, and go into major debt as a result of this 3 yr ruling

 

The No 10 response that I have found basically says that Government have washed their hands of the problem in that they have passed it to the individual Uni's, who then in turn use the rule to hide behind saying that it is a Government directive!!!

 

I would call this a vicious circle