| 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. |
| azzuri |
Nats pledge to write off student debtsee - http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1091452006Nats pledge to write off student debt SCOTTISH Nationalists today promised to write off the student loan debts of 300,000 graduates. SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon made the pledge as she outlined her party's plans to return to the principle of free education. She said the Nationalists would scrap the graduate endowment if elected next May, abolish the loans system, with debts written off, and bring back student grants. Student loan debt in Scotland totals around £1.5 billion and the SNP says it would spread the cost of the write-off over a period of 30 or 40 years. It is likely the proposals would only apply to students at Scottish universities. Ms Sturgeon said: "The SNP is committed to the principle of free education for all and in government we will turn our principles into action. "We will abolish the graduate endowment - in effect, a backdoor tuition fee - and replace student loans with grants." She said these policies would benefit current and future generations of students and help the Scottish economy to flourish. She continued: "The SNP believes in equality of opportunity for all our citizens. We believe in independence for Scotland and for everyone who chooses to live here. We want to create a culture of independence in Scotland that is aspirational, forward looking and strives for success.". |
||||||||||||||
| Morph |
This does sound good. But where would the money from such a scheme come from. Also is this not just the sounds of a party trying to gain a majority of the student vote?
Many governments and political parties have started campaigns with Education, just look at Labour in 1997, but how many have actually came through with the promise. Although i support the SNP i am very sceptical of any political parties educational promises |
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
So in other words, they intend to land every following executive for the next 40 years with a massive debt to be paid off? That's nice of them.
It's hardly freeing students if they have a huge financial incentive to study only in Scotland and might well do more to prevent our finest students studying at the two or three finest universities in the UK - which lie outside of Scotland - when they come from poorer backgrounds. Not to mention it's a load of socialistic s***e, but that's a debate for another day. |
||||||||||||||
| Morph |
while i dont agree that it will be implimented i dont believe that it was cause Scottish students to stay here, what it would do was ensure that children from poorer backgrounds and even middle backgrounds the chance at higher education without the 16K weight of debt or the sneaky 2K end 'tax' I would allow Scotland to produce a highly educated workforce which would hopefully alow the economy of Scotland to grow due to a outside buisnesses and also Scottish buisnesses relilising they can benifit from a highly educated workforce. | ||||||||||||||
| Economist |
It seems like a policy for higher education that has a bit more meaning than just ploughing more money into higher education that usually gets eaten up by bureaucrats and public servants and wage rises for administrators (there's true "beer and sandwiches" socialism for you Aventinian) without (a) doing anything to improve front line services or (b) making the necessary investment for the future health of the economy.
Whether it will work or not, or whether the SNP will put into place is something we'll never know until they get a shot at being the government (preferably in an independent Scotland of course  ).
Having said that I'm still really in favour of the "Scottish Ivy League" that was mentioned before, taking the 4 ancient universities out of state control and allowing them to generate their own income, allowing the state to put more money into the universities directly under their control. |
||||||||||||||
| Avatar |
Another problem might be that although it may encourage students to stay and study in Scotland - it doesnt necessarily mean they'll stay there after they have graduated and so wont add anything to the economy so the Executive will just end up with a huge debt for nothing. | ||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I don't see how why not. You're going to be sorely tempted to take second (or indeed 5th ) best if you're being given a multi-thousand pound bribe by the state for doing it. Even the third world sees the benefits of sending its finest and brightest to the best universities in the world. If the SNP can't see that, then they're probably as stupid as they look.
Well for one, I doubt the skills learned at universities are particularly relevant to creating a skilled and educated workforce which can attract outside investment. If someone was havering between going to uni and not on the basis of a £12,000 average debt then, to be frank, they probably weren't cut out for it in the first place and might well be the sorts that are filling up the lecture halls for the fine selection of diddy courses that our institutions offer at the taxpayer's expense. I believe we have already done enough to equalise opportunity. I'm all for educating people for nothing, but university is effectively vocational training or, if done simply for education's sake, a luxury which most people cannot afford in terms of time anyway.
I don't see how this proposal could do either of these things.
Indeed. Plus writing off the debt of past students does absolutely nothing for higher education or the economy. The money will be raised anyway - the only difference being that the sum total of the debts shall be spread amongst the general population (the vast majority of whom, I remind you, did not attend university) as opposed to the graduates who are actually benefitting. |
||||||||||||||
| George |
It may persuade some to stay however those students who already have the financial means to attend the more venerated universities will still do so. Also remember that many of these more affluent students are not necessarily the finest and brightest , wealth and privilege not being directly proportional to intrinsic mental ability.
I.T., Engineering...............Incidently what is your academic background.
Surely in the interest of consistency (See your first quote) you should call it a multi-thousand pound debt.
Will those people who are employed to administer the student loans/debt be required?
Quite, however a genuine question here. What compels graduates to stay at present? If the answer is nothing and many do stay then why would they leave given a debt free scenario? |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Obviously for the policy to work properly there would need to be some residency requirement, otherwise it would be a waste of resources. I'd seriously doubt the SNP would be stupid enough to put into place this policy without their being caveats attached to it.
Well, I didn't say it would. Although in restropect the second part will. A highly skilled economy needs highly skilled workers. By abolishing the graduate endowment and reintroducing grants, that will certainly encourage more individuals to go to university - especially ones put off by the associated high costs of it. Scotland prides itself on having one of the best educated workforces in the world, but we're beginning to slip in comparison to many other countries. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
Obviously for the policy to work properly there would need to be some residency requirement, otherwise it would be a waste of resources. I'd seriously doubt the SNP would be stupid enough to put into place this policy without their being caveats attached to it.
Well, I didn't say it would. Although in restropect the second part will. A highly skilled economy needs highly skilled workers. By abolishing the graduate endowment and reintroducing grants, that will certainly encourage more individuals to go to university - especially ones put off by the associated high costs of it. Scotland prides itself on having one of the best educated workforces in the world, but we're beginning to slip in comparison to many other countries. Less heavily indebted graduates gives them greater spending power, which can only benefit the economy. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I didn't mean to double post honest 
|
||||||||||||||
| Aventinian |
I don't really care which social class the people who are influenced by the Nat-geld to not go to our country's finest institutions are. So what if the rich ones can still get there - surely removing inequality in education is the argument for getting rid of tuition fees in the first place? In this case we simply create different inequalities.
Yes, there are obviously a few. But still, I imagine perhaps even the majority of courses do not have the effects on improving the workforce that you suggest. In many occasions degrees are being used much in the same way as a general high school diploma in the US - ie, to prove that you attended, rather than you gained any specific skills. My background... well, I attended a university in Scotland and did a course which was tailored to the job I hoped to gain. I also realise that it will pay me huge dividends over the course of my life.
Fair point, but I imagine they're a minor concern. They will still need probably the vast majority of them to continue performing grant and assessments and such.
I don't think there will be any increase overall, but perhaps the numbers going to Scottish Unis (thus benefitting) but who were intending to leave for pastures greener would increase because of the aforementioned bribery.
I still think there are far better ways of getting an educated workforce than giving everyone a degree. University degrees should be a mark of excellence - not something everyone should be intellectually able to agree. What value does a degree in of itself have today? Very little. If we want better educated citizens we should improve the number of people with basic skills and then bring back the polytechnics. Either way, the market will sort this out: as the workforce becomes more skilled, more people will want and need a better education with more appropriate qualifications. The cost is a minor matter. The failure of the present system is pretty obvious when we have Ph.Ds serving you in sandwich shops. |
||||||||||||||
| Economist |
I agree with some of that. A degree does not prove anything, it's purely a way to screen individuals rather than prove their worth. In terms of educational spend, its been shown that investing in pre school and early years education has the biggest effect on determining whether you have a well educated population or not. But the presence of institutions such as universities with big research bases does bring jobs and it certainly attracts corporations to set up in areas where there is a strong tradition of this. Singapore is very good example of this. Even Dundee with its biological/medical research sector provides high skilled jobs clustering around about the universities in the city. High skilled jobs have a high value added. Research and Development industries are a big growth area in the Scottish Economy, but in order for that to happen we need to compete and countries like Singapore and New Zealand are our competitors and they are steaming ahead of Scotland. |
||||||||||||||
| IF Convenor |
Without knowing the details, or being bothered to look it up, I imagine the present endowment system applies to all students from Scotland regardless of whether or not they study in Scotland, and I imagine the proposed new system would be the same. In other words, it would not prevent Scottish students from studying outwith Scotland if they chose to. | ||||||||||||||
| SLG |
[quote="Aventinian"]I don't really care which social class the people who are influenced by the Nat-geld to not go to our country's finest institutions are. So what if the rich ones can still get there - surely removing inequality in education is the argument for getting rid of tuition fees in the first place? In this case we simply create different inequalities.
There are better universities in the world than oxbridge. Should we pay for our students to attend them as well? The countries that pay for large numbers of students to study abroad usually have a significantly lesser quality of higher education in their own country. We don't have that problem. I can understand how our university sector could limits people's research opportunities in academia, but at undergraduate level, I think if someone is capable, then they will succeed just as well with a degree from Edinburgh as Oxbridge.
What bribery? These are Scottish universities, we pay for them to provide higher education for Scottish students. The more effectively they are used, the better value the tax payer gets. You would have to give me a very good reason for us to pay for our students to attend foreign universities that would see their fees leaving the country as well as potentially the individuals themselves. |
||||||||||||||