View Full Version : Johann Lamont: 'Free' university education in Scotland is holding back youngsters
Link 1 (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9261125/Johann-Lamont-Free-university-education-in-Scotland-is-holding-back-youngsters.html) and Link 2 (http://www.newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/4949-scottish-labour-to-join-tories-in-seeking-end-to-free-education) about this story.
Scottish Labour to join Tories in seeking end to free education.
Bring back tuition fees? Sounds like a sure way of winning votes. What could possibly go wrong? Basically Vote Labour get Tories. Also Johann Lamont doesn't seem to understand how the current system works SAAS pays the students' fees to universities, the universities don't simply give it away.
i sometimes wonder what on earth I am watching unfold. Despite the local elections supposed to be about local issues not party politics we saw Ruth Davidson state in her party's Political Broadcast that a vote for the conservatives was a vote for the union... when she had said that was what the nationalists were doing.... they werent but she most definitely was. We had the conservative party phoning around for candidates to stand specifically to influence the vote with no desire or intention of working as a councillor. We then had Labour/conservative Coalitions with a disregard for what the people of the town voted for and what is best for the areas concerned. Their only aim in having this coalition is to keep the SNP out of power despite them polling the most votes. It will be interesting to see what Stirling Council does in 2014 with the 700th Anniversary of Bannockburn. This is potentially a massive tourist attraction and there has been much work done already to start to create events to commemorate this. Are the labour/tory controlled council going to capitalise on this or will they play party politics with this too? I have never seen council elections so much influenced by party politics in forever.
And now we have this - not only can we hardly tell Ed Milliband from Cameron and Clegg now we have the Scottish Labour Tories. Johan Lamont is makes me roll my eyes as soon as she opens her mouth. I despair despair despair... sigh
i sometimes wonder what on earth I am watching unfold. Despite the local elections supposed to be about local issues not party politics we saw Ruth Davidson state in her party's Political Broadcast that a vote for the conservatives was a vote for the union... when she had said that was what the nationalists were doing.... they werent but she most definitely was. We had the conservative party phoning around for candidates to stand specifically to influence the vote with no desire or intention of working as a councillor. We then had Labour/conservative Coalitions with a disregard for what the people of the town voted for and what is best for the areas concerned. Their only aim in having this coalition is to keep the SNP out of power despite them polling the most votes. It will be interesting to see what Stirling Council does in 2014 with the 700th Anniversary of Bannockburn. This is potentially a massive tourist attraction and there has been much work done already to start to create events to commemorate this. Are the labour/tory controlled council going to capitalise on this or will they play party politics with this too? I have never seen council elections so much influenced by party politics in forever.
And now we have this - not only can we hardly tell Ed Milliband from Cameron and Clegg now we have the Scottish Labour Tories. Johan Lamont is makes me roll my eyes as soon as she opens her mouth. I despair despair despair... sigh
Err.... what's your opinion of the thread?
Oh! Mine? Why should I pay the fees of students who will a) drop out or b) ultimately earn more than me? (and probably be a banker! :mad:)
Aha Ducati lol = stupid iphone edited the middle bit out. here it is - well expanded and tarted up a bit lol
And now we have this - Labour changing their position on Free education. Education should be a right not a priviledge. As a mum of a clever 17 year old who is hoping to get five As in his highers just now ( keep your fingers crossed please ) and who has been working really hard. The sheer amount of debt is already concerning him ( he wants to study medicine). I dont think that students should get "grants" to spend on beer and partying so am at ease with the student loan system but fees of 9k a year will put students from poorer backgrounds off. Remember that as well as tuition fees they have to live, halls cost around £500 a month without food! As parents we are not in a position to pay tuition fees for him. His dad isnt in a position to fork out for tuition fees so that means that he will have to pay. What happens is that if you are rich enough then your family or you will pay your tuition fees but if you are poorer you will have a massive debt. How is that fair?
Just as an add on ducati... would you feel the same way about paying the fees of the Doctor that saves your life? or the lawyer that represents you superbly or the teacher that changes the lives of young people? Yes some students drop out and many earn more than you possibly and definitely more than me, but I havent been to university and studied for four years. Remember we arent paying for their bawdy shenanigans - we are giving the right of an education to the best of his or her ability to every child and and that is surely the right thing to do. More right than allowing tax avoidance yadda yadda yadda. :)
Aha Ducati lol = stupid iphone edited the middle bit out. here it is - well expanded and tarted up a bit lol
And now we have this - Labour changing their position on Free education. Education should be a right not a priviledge. As a mum of a clever 17 year old who is hoping to get five As in his highers just now ( keep your fingers crossed please ) and who has been working really hard. The sheer amount of debt is already concerning him ( he wants to study medicine). I dont think that students should get "grants" to spend on beer and partying so am at ease with the student loan system but fees of 9k a year will put students from poorer backgrounds off. Remember that as well as tuition fees they have to live, halls cost around £500 a month without food! As parents we are not in a position to pay tuition fees for him. His dad isnt in a position to fork out for tuition fees so that means that he will have to pay. What happens is that if you are rich enough then your family or you will pay your tuition fees but if you are poorer you will have a massive debt. How is that fair?
Just as an add on ducati... would you feel the same way about paying the fees of the Doctor that saves your life? or the lawyer that represents you superbly or the teacher that changes the lives of young people? Yes some students drop out and many earn more than you possibly and definitely more than me, but I havent been to university and studied for four years. Remember we arent paying for their bawdy shenanigans - we are giving the right of an education to the best of his or her ability to every child and and that is surely the right thing to do. More right than allowing tax avoidance yadda yadda yadda. :)
Absolutely! Particularly Lawyers. They can pay themselves from their fabulous salaries. Those that don't end up earning mega bucks don't pay. It seems perfectly reasonable to me.
Err.... what's your opinion of the thread?
Oh! Mine? Why should I pay the fees of students who will a) drop out or b) ultimately earn more than me? (and probably be a banker! :mad:)
I can see myself possibly being okay with that, if I could have my money back for never using other services tax goes to. Taking another example, why should my tax money go towards old people who voted in politicians that wasted their meagre tax contributions and then expect current generations to bail them out. Oh they all talk about paying tax all their lives, but it wasn't enough because they voted for people that didn't spend or invest it well.
I can see myself possibly being okay with that, if I could have my money back for never using other services tax goes to. Taking another example, why should my tax money go towards old people who voted in politicians that wasted their meagre tax contributions and then expect current generations to bail them out. Oh they all talk about paying tax all their lives, but it wasn't enough because they voted for people that didn't spend or invest it well.
Yes I can see that. I never wanted any wars so why should I pay for defense? On the second point, I take it you aren't planning on getting old?
And... The people in society of great worth (value to society) strive and struggle (remember Robert the Bruce) to atain their goals, they do not require it handed to them on a plate. The rest are also rans.
By providing free university education you are not handing anything on a plate. Students still need to study and pass exams to get a good degree. Once again this is not about giving them money for playing out. By paying fees you provide equality of opportunity .... Rich or poor you have access to higher education. You are not priced out of higher education because its too expensive. My mum is 77. The only regret she has is that she couldnt go to university at 18. Clever enough to win a scolarship to fee paying Manchester High School for Girls in 1946, her parents could not afford for her to go to university. She did a secretarial course instead and had a good life but at 77 she still wishes she could have had a degree. Surely we dont want that again.
We should be PROUD of offering free university courses. I dont understand why people begrudge paying university fees. Im not clever enough to be a doctor. I am smart about some stuff but not smart enough to be a lot of things. I think if you are smart enough you should not have to choose a secretarial course because its cheaper than a medicine degree.
yes if its free sensible degrees that will lead to employment where its needed!
Not a degree in something made up for the sake of it!....that wont be useful in the job sector!
By providing free university education you are not handing anything on a plate. Students still need to study and pass exams to get a good degree. Once again this is not about giving them money for playing out. By paying fees you provide equality of opportunity .... Rich or poor you have access to higher education. You are not priced out of higher education because its too expensive. My mum is 77. The only regret she has is that she couldnt go to university at 18. Clever enough to win a scolarship to fee paying Manchester High School for Girls in 1946, her parents could not afford for her to go to university. She did a secretarial course instead and had a good life but at 77 she still wishes she could have had a degree. Surely we dont want that again.
We should be PROUD of offering free university courses. I dont understand why people begrudge paying university fees. Im not clever enough to be a doctor. I am smart about some stuff but not smart enough to be a lot of things. I think if you are smart enough you should not have to choose a secretarial course because its cheaper than a medicine degree.
Why does everyone miss the point that you pay after you have graduated and are earning enough to re-pay. If students don't think it is worthwhile to invest in their future, why should the taxpayer? It has nothing to do with how much or little money you have prior to going to University.
If having graduated, you still insist on being poor, it is free. :roll:
No, not missing the point... The point is that only students who need a LOAN to fund their studies will be left with a massive debt to pay. If you are well off you wont. Its about choices and if you are not wealthy enough then you have no choice, you HAVE to take on a huge debt. Free higher education allows fair access to all.
Yes I can see that. I never wanted any wars so why should I pay for defense? On the second point, I take it you aren't planning on getting old?
And... The people in society of great worth (value to society) strive and struggle (remember Robert the Bruce) to atain their goals, they do not require it handed to them on a plate. The rest are also rans.
That was my point, I have no such granular control over where my tax money goes. The government will pick a programme and talk about eliminating it and provided it doesn't directly affect a person they'll usually be in favour. I was basically trying to obliquely reference the Public Goods Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods_game) from economics and game theory.
I suppose the argument for providing for yourself, your own retirement applies to old people also, obviously I was being a bit facetious with it to draw a parallel. A more realistic example would be paying tax that goes towards the child benefit of people making more money than me.
I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but I used to have a decidedly more libertarian or conservative attitude to my politics. If the theories espoused by the right worked like they're supposed to then I probably still would have that attitude, but the fact is they don't. Sometimes it doesn't matter how good you are, how smart you are or how hard you work. We don't have free market capitalism, we have some ised version of corporatism that incorporates aspects of nepotism and cronyism.
Bruce who was from a privileged background is perhaps not the best example. One aspect of those old times where struggle was important was a particularly charismatic leader gaining retainers, forming a warbard and basically taking what they want. Once these people got power though they didn't want to lose it so they put in place things to prevent others doing what they did. The same applies now.
Getting a bit back on topic, one point that really got me was the hypocrisy of the Labour party on this issue. Sometimes I swear they just like to be contrary and refuse to come out in favour of anything the SNP likes.
EDIT: I just noticed the word b-a-s-t-a-r-dised was replaced/censored in this post by the word ised. I don't see why, perfectly legitimate word. Are we going to censor words like analysed next?
Getting a bit back on topic, one point that really got me was the hypocrisy of the Labour party on this issue. Sometimes I swear they just like to be contrary and refuse to come out in favour of anything the SNP likes.
Thats called Democracy.
Thats called Democracy.
I thought it was called.........Jealousy !!!
C3......;):roll:
Thats called Democracy.
Ah so that's what abstaining on policies you like but don't want to support because another party is leading the charge is called.
Guess it's democracy also to completely ignore your pre-election pledge not to introduce tuition fees. Despite making it a cornerstone of the campaign and creating a lot of marketing material about it.
Ah so that's what abstaining on policies you like but don't want to support because another party is leading the charge is called.
Guess it's democracy also to completely ignore your pre-election pledge not to introduce tuition fees. Despite making it a cornerstone of the campaign and creating a lot of marketing material about it.
I can understand the frustration, but when you fail to vote in one party with the requisite majority, all bets are off. New coalition, new agenda.
That was my point, I have no such granular control over where my tax money goes. The government will pick a programme and talk about eliminating it and provided it doesn't directly affect a person they'll usually be in favour. I was basically trying to obliquely reference the Public Goods Game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_goods_game) from economics and game theory.
I suppose the argument for providing for yourself, your own retirement applies to old people also, obviously I was being a bit facetious with it to draw a parallel. A more realistic example would be paying tax that goes towards the child benefit of people making more money than me.
I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but I used to have a decidedly more libertarian or conservative attitude to my politics. If the theories espoused by the right worked like they're supposed to then I probably still would have that attitude, but the fact is they don't. Sometimes it doesn't matter how good you are, how smart you are or how hard you work. We don't have free market capitalism, we have some ised version of corporatism that incorporates aspects of nepotism and cronyism.
Bruce who was from a privileged background is perhaps not the best example. One aspect of those old times where struggle was important was a particularly charismatic leader gaining retainers, forming a warbard and basically taking what they want. Once these people got power though they didn't want to lose it so they put in place things to prevent others doing what they did. The same applies now.
Getting a bit back on topic, one point that really got me was the hypocrisy of the Labour party on this issue. Sometimes I swear they just like to be contrary and refuse to come out in favour of anything the SNP likes.
Good post. I suspect Labour having never taken the SNP seriously is now just waiting for them to go away and being uncooperative in the meantime.
secrets in symmetry
16-May-12, 23:21
I can understand the frustration, but when you fail to vote in one party with the requisite majority, all bets are off. New coalition, new agenda.
Good post. I suspect Labour having never taken the SNP seriously is now just waiting for them to go away and being uncooperative in the meantime.
I think I should stop mentioning Tories in my posts. That's two successive posts of yours that I concur with! That's scary!
I'm no Tory but I'm closer to your economics than are most others on here. Before you get too excited - that says more about them than it does about me. :cool:
Actually, I would be closer to RecQuery if he wasn't a supporter of that ugly wee fat barstool Eck and his fellow fish - bleuurrrghhhhh....
Why does everyone assume that university education is free to everyone in scotland?, its not. the universitys have so many places available in each course but only a small number of those are free for scottish students, the rest are set aside for fee paying students as obviously the university needs to get money from somewhere, so on a course of 250 available places maybe only 30 are available to scottish students so i see it as an unfare to scottish students trying to get a place, its just a lucky dip
No, not missing the point... The point is that only students who need a LOAN to fund their studies will be left with a massive debt to pay. If you are well off you wont. Its about choices and if you are not wealthy enough then you have no choice, you HAVE to take on a huge debt. Free higher education allows fair access to all.
Hang on. That is like saying if you have the cash to buy a house you don't need a mortgage so it is unfair. It is I suppose, but that is why people work hard.
No Ducati, its not the same. I cant afford to buy a house. I dont dance up and down about it. I live in rented property and I'm happy about that. Affording education is not like buying a car or a stereo, its not like the choice between renting and buying. Affording to buy a house outright is not a right.
Education, in a progressive, civilised democracy should be a right and something we should be ensuring that every child and young person has access to. That right should continue to higher education. Huge debt is a disincentive and it disincentivises students from poorer families more than it disincentivises students from wealthier families. Thats it - thats an unfairness which would be built in to the education system in our country. Not an unfairness like.... I cant afford to go our tonight, or I cant afford that AudiTT I would like. As a society we should be striving to minimise social disadvantage. Everyone should have opportunity and where they go from there is up to them. By introducing tuition fees you immediately build in an unfairness to the Education system. We should avoid that at all costs.
This is interesting as the wording of the tilte about holding people back sprang a different train of thought for me. Whilst I do think education should be free, I also feel that far too many young people go to university that are not suited to that career path and require a more vocational route. I'd like to see the guarantee of a modern apprenticeship available to all our young people as another means to a career. Now I have read somewhere that last year there was 25,000 MA's in Scotland, however I'd be interested to know where they are and in what sectors. For instance, as an example can you do an MA in Administration in Caithness, not by going to college but with an employer, how many MA's do the local authority have on a yearly basis. From what I can see everythign here is geared towards engineering.
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.