Students already pay for their degrees through taxation when they go into work and start earning higher salaries by being placed in a higher tax bracket. Never mind the fact that they've worked unpaid for three or more years for their degree, where they could have taken a job after A-level and earned a big bag of cash and a ton of work experience.Originally Posted by Saracen
One of the unhealthy bi-products of this argument, which I find a little insulting is that it suggests that it is THE DEGREE that makes a person employable at a higher wage rate, rather than the qualities that person has (albeit in part due to their degree). If jobs (and hence, salaries) were merely based upon what degree you had and at what level, why do we bother with job interviews?
Yes, fine, employers advertise for "graduates" ...but what would happen if all the non-vocational course students suddenly decided they wouldn't go to university? A three month course in research qualities and they're just as employable, to the open minded business person. It's hardly the blame of students in general if graduate recruitment is so short sighted, is it?
I feel it is slightly unfair to place whatever percentage of funding universities do not receive from the government on students when to me it seems we are already paying, and we will pay more in the future, especially when noticing the similarities between the amount of money universities "need" and the amount of money spent on the war in Iraq, but that's another issue.
This isn't entirely true, students currently graduating have no fear of top-up fees being added to their debts. The only students who will pay top-up fees (I think) will be those starting degree courses from 2006 onwards (if the bill gets through)Originally Posted by Enverex