| Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites. |
| Reluctant Hero |
Graduate Endowment Votehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7268101.stmGraduate endowment to be scrapped MSPs are to vote later on government plans to scrap the graduate endowment for higher education students. Ministers said that scrapping the £2,289 charge would help relieve financial pressures facing graduates. Labour and the Conservatives have opposed the move in the past, arguing the £17m cost could be better spent. It is thought parliament will approve the plans but Labour and the Tories hope to win backing for an independent commission on university funding. The SNP's election promise to scrap the graduate endowment won the support of the Liberal Democrats. Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop previously said the average student today left university with debts of £11,000. Access to university should be based on ability to learn, not ability to pay Fiona Hyslop Education Secretary She said fear of large debts was stopping some from pursuing higher education. She told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme: "We live in a country that values its teachers, doctors and those who contribute to public life. "Access to university should be based on ability to learn, not ability to pay. I want people from all backgrounds to go forward. "Debt and fear of debt prevents those from working class backgrounds, in particular, accessing universities." Richard Baker, Labour spokesman for higher education, told the programme: "It's going to cost £17m to scrap the graduate endowment. "If we invested in more generous bursaries, that could mean, particularly for poor students, about £1,000 a year extra while they study. "That could mean the difference between a student progressing through university, succeeding in their education, or them actually dropping out if they don't have that money." Review call Liberal Democrat education spokesman Jeremy Purvis said: "Students will not forgive the Conservative and Labour parties if they vote against scrapping the graduate endowment. "Liberal Democrats have worked constructively in parliament to secure key concessions, such as the statutory guarantee that there would be no reduction in the amount of money available to poorer students for grants." Conservative lifelong learning spokesman Murdo Fraser said: "We need a fully independent review with the freedom and the courage to ask the tough questions and find these long-term solutions. "Merely abolishing the graduate endowment in isolation is not enough. This will not solve the problems." Gurjit Singh, president of Strathclyde University's Student Association, said: "Today's vote will be an important milestone in making sure Scotland has an education system that is accessible to all. "Students are facing spiralling levels of debt and immense hardship, and the graduate endowment only adds to this burden." |
||||||
| October1974 |
the Government wins the vote
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7268101.stm MSPs vote to scrap endowment fee MSPs have voted to scrap the endowment charge currently paid by Scottish students after they graduate. They voted to abolish the charge by 67 votes to 61. The decision means that current students and those who graduated last year will not now have to pay the one-off charge, which is set at £2,289. The fee was introduced in 2001 after the abolition of upfront tuition fees. Demands for a review into university funding were defeated. The move to scrap the charge was supported by the SNP, the Liberal Democrats, the Greens, Margo Macdonald and one Labour MSP, Elaine Smith. All the other Labour MSPs and the Conservatives voted against abolition, arguing that the £17m cost could be better spent. They had called for an independent review of university funding but it was defeated in a vote. Ministers said that scrapping the charge would help relieve financial pressures facing graduates. Education Secretary Fiona Hyslop previously said the average student today left university with debts of £11,000. Access to university should be based on ability to learn, not ability to pay She said fear of large debts was stopping some from pursuing higher education. She told the BBC's Good Morning Scotland programme: "We live in a country that values its teachers, doctors and those who contribute to public life. "Access to university should be based on ability to learn, not ability to pay. I want people from all backgrounds to go forward. "Debt and fear of debt prevents those from working class backgrounds, in particular, accessing universities." Richard Baker, Labour spokesman for higher education, told the programme: "It's going to cost £17m to scrap the graduate endowment. "If we invested in more generous bursaries, that could mean, particularly for poor students, about £1,000 a year extra while they study. "That could mean the difference between a student progressing through university, succeeding in their education, or them actually dropping out if they don't have that money." Liberal Democrat education spokesman Jeremy Purvis said: "Students will not forgive the Conservative and Labour parties if they vote against scrapping the graduate endowment. "Liberal Democrats have worked constructively in parliament to secure key concessions, such as the statutory guarantee that there would be no reduction in the amount of money available to poorer students for grants." Conservative lifelong learning spokesman Murdo Fraser said: "We need a fully independent review with the freedom and the courage to ask the tough questions and find these long-term solutions. "Merely abolishing the graduate endowment in isolation is not enough. This will not solve the problems." Gurjit Singh, president of Strathclyde University's Student Association, said: "Students are facing spiralling levels of debt and immense hardship, and the graduate endowment only adds to this burden." |
||||||
| Reluctant Hero |
Whatever I have said against my local MSP Elaine Smith in the past, I take it all back!! She has seen sense, unless she hit the wrong button, and voted for a sensible policy.
It is ludicrous that anyone should be ladened with £11,000 of debt at the start of their adult life. Although it will interesting to see how the SNP are going to pay for all these policies, scrapping student fees, scrapping prescription fees, scrapping bridge tolls, but I think it is the right decision. Murdo Frasers comments puzzle me though.
What? No it will not solve all the problems, but it will go a long way to doing so. So why did he vote against it? |
||||||
| Morph |
this is another good move by the government. I just wish it had been a little earlier! 
|
||||||
| Anthropos |
Debt is a fact of life, people get into debt to buy televisions, if a higher education is considered worthwhile then surely it is worthy investing in? However, if fees are not to be then the government really have to find some other realistic way of funding the higher education sector. Remember that while the Scottish government and its opposition are dithering on this issue our competitors are not. Sitting around patting themselves on the back that something else is now 'free' is merely a sign of how divorced from reality they still are.
I don't know exactly what Fraser's position on this is, but he is right about it not being enough, at the moment it is a case of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic. |
||||||
| Morph |
A realistic way of funding higher education would be to use the money currently earmarked to to replace trident to fund further scottish education | ||||||
| parkhead_rfb |
looks like i will be one of the few years left to pay it, lucky old me.
agree it should be scrapped but it should have been done for everyone! |
||||||
| doodells |
I sympathise with you parkhead. I graduated last year which is pretty jammy considering my sister who finished 2 years ago will still need to pay it. I think the cost of clearing it for everyone would have been worth it to the Government in the long run. Still, its better than nothing. | ||||||
| Aventinian |
To be frank, I'd rather have people get into debt in order to actually receive something worthwhile than the Socialist alternative, which is to believe we are all massively indebted to the state just by the very action of being born. |
||||||
| Rinty |
It is a proven fact that Gradautes will earn, in general, more money in life.
Student funding should come from general taxation as there is a benefit to society as a whole. Those who benefit from free education will, in general, pay more tax throughout their life and therefore WILL contribute towards the benefit they gained, and pay for the next generation. We succesfully, in the past, paid for universities from general taxation and had no problem competing with the rest of the world, only the failed policies of succesive governments has brought us to here. When the politicians who voted in tuition fees, endowments, student loans etc were at Uni they could get full grants, travel expenses, housing benefit and income support during the summer break. |
||||||
| Dave Coull |
Rinty wrote “When the politicians who voted in tuition fees, endowments, student loans etc were at Uni they could get full grants, travel expenses, housing benefit and income support during the summer break”.
Exactly. I went to university towards the end of my working life. When Tony Blair, Gordon Broon, etc, etc, etc, were at university, I was working as a bricklayer, and paying tax on my earnings in order to maintain THEM at university. I considered it a damn cheek that they should pull away the support which THEY had enjoyed. When I took part in student protests about funding, I always made the point that I had paid for the education of those we were protesting against. |
||||||
| Aventinian |
There is a benefit to society as a whole from a hell of a lot of things: religion, for example - should the state fund churches? In fact, how about the state simply pays everyone who is economically active out of general taxation? Oh yes, that'd be Communism, wouldn't it? Anyway, I'd argue that not everyone who goes to university benefits society in a meaningful way - someone who gets sent down after two and a half years studying media at Glasgow Caledonian is benefiting no-one. Why bother with a ridiculous, statist muddle when it's quite clear that student can afford to pay back their debts personally, and give back an amount tailored to the benefit they received?
I think that's untrue. British universities, and Scottish ones specifically, are falling behind. The United States, which we dare to mock as ignorant, spends double the percentage of its GDP on education compared to Britain.
And most of our politicians had the privilege of being able to lawfully rape their wives before they did away with that. I don't see how that's much of an argument. |
||||||
| Rinty |
"I think that's untrue. British universities, and Scottish ones specifically, are falling behind. The United States, which we dare to mock as ignorant, spends double the percentage of its GDP on education compared to Britain. "
Yes, they have been falling behind since the time we cahnged the system. Before we withdrew student support we were competing. "And most of our politicians had the privilege of being able to lawfully rape their wives before they did away with that. I don't see how that's much of an argument." No, that is a totally obtuse analogy tothe case in point. The point is that the ledears of country camm ethrough the university systemt that supported students fully throughout their studies. If this was such a problem how did we manage to produce these politicians? This generation of politicians decide to privatise education and reduce the invetment from general taxation. They choose to chanel much-needed funds through endless chains of consultants, they chose expensive foreign policies, yet cannot do what the previous governments did, fund universities that can compete and produce world leaders in science the arts politics etc. |
||||||
| Holebender |
A large part of the problem must be this push to have half the population attend universities. There's no way the rest of us can afford to fund that and, frankly, a degree that 50% of the population is capable of achieving is hardly worth having. | ||||||
| Anthropos |
That is the same argument used for the introduction of fees in the first place. If they earn more why shouldn’t they pay more? I am not entirely enthusiastic about the universities being subjugated to the nations economic needs, nevertheless that is a large part of the role they are expected to play. Although would that not also be an argument for only funding courses that can in some way be ascertained as having economic value?
In the past, but this is the present. In the past student numbers were much lower and students had to possess a certain level of intelligence to be admitted and this in turn meant that they would indeed generally earn more than non graduates. No such restrictions of access apply these days. I think Holebender has pretty much hit the nail on the head in the previous post, the increased levels of participation mean that it is no longer realistic to expect general taxation to meet the costs and some other source of revenue will have to be found if our institutions are to avoid declining into mediocrity. Scottish universities will have to compete with English and American institutions which will have the sort of money to spend that ours will not, that is the reality like it or not. |
||||||
| Avatar |
Like it or not I guess thats the reality we live in. Seems like a plan to me. |
||||||
| Morph |
Not communism Aventinian but liberal. Lets not argue over the terminology lets just state to point with university fees teh government has created a can and cannot two tier society based on income. People who have money will send their children on to futher educaton whilst working class families have too much to worry about with rising costs of fuel and food to be able to afford this also. Some people cannot afford to come out ito lives of debt stretching to the national average of aroung 12 thousand pounds. I would rather see, as Rinty said, free further education which will be paid for with a slightly high rate of tax paid when these graduates are earning high or substantial salaries |
||||||