This is a second page of your comments.
The following comments reflect the balance of views we have received:
The more time students spend worrying about money and future debts, the less mental effort they can put into studying. Making life financially harder for students will backfire when the future doctors/lawyers/teachers don't know their stuff. I studied at Cambridge, where the rules forbid students taking on part time work because, shock horror, the studies are full time.
Katherine, UK
I don't think the top-up fees will necessarily deter people from university. Moreover, they will probably think twice about what job their subject will qualify them for. The sad fact is that there aren't enough so-called 'graduate jobs' around. It is wrong to reinforce a belief that graduates will always earn relatively high wages.
Kelly, UK
I lecture in a university and can assure you that we're broke. The problem is that the state, quite rightly, always has higher priorities than us. It's deeply uncomfortable, but let's be clear: a vote for no tuition fees, however well-intentioned, is ultimately a vote for no tuition. And that's not fair on anybody.
Matthew, UK
Unless you are quite wealthy, the only subjects worth doing will law and medicine or dentistry. Why would you need to pay that sort of money to study history or English- borrowing and reading books will suffice? Many subjects will suffer along with the overall intellectual level of society.
Jack, UK
Why should the rest of us subsidise that lot of whiners. They will earn more than us lot and want us to pay for it. They simply want to have their pint of cider and black and drink it!
Tanner, England
 |  Just exactly who is subsidising who?  |
Why is there so much talk about graduates 'owing' something to society? An accountant earning �35,000 a year pays about three times as much income tax as a low skilled person earning �10,000. Just exactly who is subsidising who? And of course the person who is doing the higher paid job is not 'lucky', merely rewarded for the extra skills and input that their job demands.
Jeff, Castleford I'm rather happy that my doctor spent time at university and am more than willing to pay through tax for others like him to gain qualifications that will help them contribute to society. High earners pay more tax anyway, it should be noted. Income tax is fair.
Sam Thomas, UK
Surely it's about time that some courses of dubious value to the taxpayer (e.g. Media Studies) were paid for by those who wish to spend a few more years "being educated". However, the Government should put the money saved into sponsoring students to obtain skills that we desperately need (e.g. Science and Technologies) whether this be at University or Technical College.
Phil Woodward, UK
I am third year student, studying Modern languages at Oxford. I say, without a shadow of doubt in my mind that I would not have been able to go to university if top-up fees had existed. University is already an expensive experience, by the time I leave uni I expect my debt to be around 16000 pounds. This seems an incredible amount. Perhaps the government should save money by scrapping their ridiculous 50 percent higher education target, thus allowing the government to distribute their riches amongst students who deserve help - not for people going to university to study 'Mickey Mouse' courses. Paul
Paul Thomas, England
My question is whether this is "new" money for universities or simply a replacement for government funding?
Jonathan, UK
| If graduates use their education to increase their own salary, then income tax will pay it back; if we don't, we shouldn't be punished |
I'm a recent computing graduate, currently considering voluntary work in Africa to use my education to benefit the global community, not myself. Even at current fee levels, I'm only able to consider this because I have very generous parents; the government seems to be telling me that I'm wrong to even consider using my education for any other purpose than my own benefit. Come on Blair - just because you've used your taxpayer-funded education to get yourself a �163,000-a-year salary doesn't mean we're all so selfish! If graduates use their education to increase their own salary, then income tax will pay it back; if we don't, we shouldn't be punished.
Tim, UK What happens when these �30,000 debt-ridden students want to get on the property ladder? They are going to stand little chance of getting a mortgage, and if they do they'll have no disposable income to furnish it with. Universities however need more money otherwise they will go under. But do we really need 150 universities, I think not. 50% of the population are simply not clever enough; get rid of muppet degrees and muppet universities!
Marcus, UK
I already have one son in his first year at University. I have another 2 sons who wish to go to University in 4 and 5 years time. I am a firm supporter of Further Education. I currently receive minimal cash help from the Local Authority as I earn slightly above the threshold. If I had not financed my son after 2 months at University he would have already been in debt. What hope have my other two sons got of not getting in debt? Once again it is the Middle Earners just above the thresholds who most suffer.
Andrew Tomlin, England
I completed one year at uni studying BA in German and Spanish. I longed to be an interpreter but due to lack of funds I was forced to drop out. I now feel like a failure and that I am going to be stuck in a low paid job doing something I don't particularly want to do. I still have debt of �3000 after nearly 3 years. I only got help with a quarter of my tuition fees. So whilst I was training to do something worthwhile and knew exactly what profession I wanted to enter, there are so many people wasting money doing drama, art etc and have no idea what they want to do. People who are studying a subject that is beneficial to society should get priority over financial help.
Trista, England
All Science, Engineering and Teaching courses (science teaching) should be free, fees for other courses should be �3000, apart from Humanities courses which should have �6000 fees. Simple! Oh, and to reduce the numbers of students attending universities, all A-level results should be normalised (this is a mathematical process!) so that only 60% pass, only 5% get A grades etc..
Jerry, UK
| What about mature students? |
What about mature students? Most adult education courses are aimed at the unemployed and are free to them, but what is there for WORKING people? Hubby and I are both stuck in dull admin jobs, would love to change but can't afford even part-time degrees, let alone giving up work. His employer won't pay for any training, and mine won't pay for anything outside my area (even though there are other, more attractive posts elsewhere in the organisation that I could train for). We earn 'too much' (about �25K between us) to get help, and are struggling with debts from a forced house move and a mortgage we never intended to end up with. There are thousands of bright adults stuck in dead-end jobs because they made the wrong choices as teenagers - when will the government give us a second chance?
Sarah C, UK I work in an UK University and have seen different higher education systems in different countries. Higher education is expensive and universities cannot rely on Government funding alone if we want so many young people going into higher education. Either the number of students has to be reduced or they have to be asked to pay a fee. The university education of all my siblings and myself were financed with a combination of parents' support and student loans. We see no problem with that bearing in mind that my parents were not particularly rich and my dad had gone unemployed for quite a while. In this country, due to the lack of university funding, I can see an extremely low morale among my colleagues. If a university researcher's starting salary is lower than a primary or secondary school teacher, how can you retain researchers or lecturers with high academic calibre?
Anon, Singapore, UK
This government has got it wrong, so we're all going to pay for their mistakes. I don't have a degree but I earn well into 6 figures because I worked darned hard to get where I am today. I put up with deprivation and hard work, and major debt at times, to achieve it. Today's students and tomorrow's are going to have to do the same. It's only the few who are born with a silver spoon in their mouth, the rest of us have to work for it. Quit whingeing and get to work.
Brian, UK
This is a survival of the fittest ethic gone wrong. Instead, it's survival of the wealthiest. It's out of touch to expect students to pay this, earn a decent amount when they graduate, get on the property ladder. Big universities are already struggling, what hope is for the smaller ones. A better approach to this is needed.
Frank, Halifax, UK
There is free education for all up until the age of 18 years old - this is not unreasonable! Higher education is an investment - places are subsidized and it is the responsibility of the student or their family to provide the rest through loans, saving, and dare I suggest, going without the foreign vacations etc. Britain, sort out your priorities!
Rachel, USA (ex UK)
Since some parents already pay much more than �3,000 per year for their child to go to a fee paying school, then they should continue such payments through University. Children from non fee paying schools should get to University for free.
Craig B, UK
I went to University in 1991, graduating in 1994 during which time government grants paid your fees as well as other costs. Even then I had to rely on my parents every month to pay rent etc and prevent me having outrageous debts. Going to University would not have been an option if I had to pay all the fees myself. My daughter was born only two weeks ago ... I guess I'd better start saving for her education now :|
John, UK
Top up fees are a departure from Labour's traditional support for the principle of higher education being available on merit. What's more the Labour Party manifesto for the last General Election specifically contained a pledge NOT to impose top up fees. The government asks where is the money coming from? My answer would be to stop wasting money on the occupation of Iraq - then again that wasn't in Labour's manifesto either!
Richard Cotton, London, UK
| Everyone thought loans would deter students, yet in fact they haven't |
Everyone thought loans would deter students, yet in fact they haven't. Most young people accept that investing in their education will produce a return in the form of higher wages in future. It's no different to taking on a mortgage. No one is deterred for applying to get on the property ladder by the thought of going into debt.
David Smith, UK If a young person is feckless and chooses to waste their time at school, can't get a job and spends a lifetime on the dole, the taxpayer pays up to support him or her without demanding that the investment is repaid if they eventually find work. Why can't the same principle apply to university education, which is a far more productive investment than the dole? Do away with tuition fees.
Tony Cater, UK
I'm not sure what else we can do to be honest. The country could afford to pay when the only the top 5% academically went on to University, but not 50% - it's just not economically viable. Maybe we just say that the top 5% academically receive full scholarships, and the rest pay. A bit of extra incentive to hit the books...
Jan, UK
As a University Finalist, I feel the government overestimate the earning potential of graduates. They plan to get 50% of students into University, but the distribution of employment isn't anywhere near 50% careers with high enough income to make the debt worthwhile. The graduate job market is already saturated. What bothers me most is the implications for those who wish to take up an academic career or who want to work in lower paid fields such as teaching, the NHS or social work.
Rachel, UK
Why is everybody calling them "Top-Up Fees" when a) You won't have to pay anything up front and b) You won't have to pay anything back at all until your income exceeds �15,000? For that matter, the rate of interest on the loan is effectively 0%, since it only covers inflation. Is this really such a bad deal? Sounds like a "graduate tax" to me, not a fee. Maybe the government should be selling it as such.
Oliver de Peyer, England
They would certainly have deterred me. I couldn't possibly have afforded the levels of debt that current students have to cope with.
Chris Lowdon LLB, Barrister, UK
| If the universities need more investment then increase income tax |
I am afraid they may: I support the government's objectives but I do believe the methodology for achieving them is simply wrong. In a progressive tax system higher earners pay more (of course we should); but graduates shouldn't pay twice! Access to further education should be based on ability alone, if the universities need more investment then increase income tax.
Tony, UK I think that Education is a gift from society to the next (or present) generation of students. It should be based on academic ability not financial ability. We don't need 50% of the population to have a degree as most people would probably want to pursue vocational courses that can be sponsored by companies. Universities are for those with high academic skills while vocational courses are for those with equally important technical skills.
Daniel, UK
Top up fees are likely to deter the so called middle income bracket. As the fees are retrospective and based on income earned by the graduate, I do not understand why the family income is relevant.
Duncan, England, UK
Education is a right. It should not be made into a privilege for the wealthiest.
Dr. Anna Simandiraki, UK/Greece
I work at a University. Everyone I know (including senior managers) think that the top-up fees are a terrible idea that will deter people seeking a place in higher education. Unfortunately the public view of the university is to support the top-up fees. I wonder if this duality of opinion exists at government and cabinet levels too?
Anon, England
Over the past two years I have helped a local school to conduct mock interviews to help prepare sixth formers for University or work. This year I never came across a single child who wanted to go to University, largely because of the fear of personal debt and because they did not want to impose debt on their parents. The shame is that most of the children were bright and came from areas with recognised deprivation problems. I am sure the story is the same in similar areas and it just shows the negative affect of this policy.
Martin Curtis, England, Home of Rugby
| An additional �12k in top up fees would probably force myself along with many others into bankruptcy |
Of course they will deter students, I am currently studying engineering and faced with �20k in student loans (which I'm paying �40 a month interest on), an overdraft that can't be extended any further (as student loan gives me �20 a week to live on after rent), and trying to get a job for next year in a market already filled with more graduates than jobs things are not looking at all good. An additional �12k in top up fees would probably force myself along with many others into bankruptcy or being unable to complete university. The solution seams simple, less students, less costs.
Gary, UK I'm at university, I don't drink, or go out, I haven't touched my overdraft, but I will still be leaving with a �12,000 debt. My parents can't help me out, and I almost decided not to come. I wonder what my younger siblings will do, who won't be coming to uni till 2006 at the earliest, if they have to pay top-up fees. They will each face around �21,000 in debt at least. I think the Scots have the right idea. At least they pay only when they are getting the benefit of their degree, and they know the money is going to help students, whose circumstances they will sympathise with.
Jam, UK
I think the Government proposals are not that bad. After all it is not unfair to ask people to contribute to an expensive education they are likely to benefit from. And there are a number of facilities like loans and bursaries for students who cannot afford to pay this upfront. However, I find �3000 a year quite a lot, and I also think that the amount should be the same for each university. But what I am most disappointed with is that the Government breaks a clear election promise by introducing this system. Again and again they seem to be keen on showing us how little they can be trusted.
John, UK
I strongly disapprove of these additional fees. We have had two children at University at the same time, can you imagine finding 6,000 for tuition fees alone, plus accommodation and living costs. We are not high earners - a joint income of 35,000 per year. We end up paying the same amount as those who earn far more, Tony Blair can certainly afford a lot more than we can, but we are paying the same fees for tuition fees. Once again its those who are in the middle who get stung.
Janet, England
| What's the point in racking up �30-40,000 worth of debt when you can make over �25,000 a year anyway? |
Having just graduated myself, I know that a sharp increase in fees will of course deter prospective students. With such a productive modern apprenticeship scheme in operation, what's the point in racking up �30-40,000 worth of debt when you can make over �25,000 a year anyway? The government know how unpopular the proposals are and as for the universities, their desire to extract as much money as possible is, for supposed centres of educational excellence, frankly disgraceful.
Jamie, London, UK Anyone with any understanding of working class culture will tell you that it is not the fear of debt that puts people off (in fact, many working class families are heavily in debt), but the attitude of the parents, in that they push their children into a job as soon as they are old enough to leave school. Anyway, we don't need a university expansion, as there are enough graduates; we just need more people doing degrees that are of use to society e.g. medicine, teaching, engineering etc.
Graeme Phillips, Germany, normally UK
Many schools now have had to become specialist schools, surely, universities could do likewise and then as specialist universities, they could seek sponsorship from businesses. It should not be down to the students or their families to pay more as these future tax payers will pay well in taxes in the future. Universities should not depend on handouts...go out and earn their money!
Lynda Muir, England
Much is being said of charging �3000 for tuition fees, but nobody has mentioned that most Universities already charge overseas students and even many British children whose parents have been working overseas over �6000 and for some courses over �9000 a year, so they are receiving more than is being made out. Also these students can often get in to universities with lower qualifications because they pay the higher fees, so are they being ripped off if the correct level of fees is �3000?
Jack Elton, Surrey UK
I should be the next generation of voters in 2005 does Tony Blair really think that many 18 year olds who have not made up their minds politically are going to vote for a party who wants to put us heavily in debt? Meaning we can't have a gap year without being seriously in debt and will indefinitely put many of our friends in debt? Hmmm I'm thinking not.
Lorna, UK
I understand the UK is the 4th largest economy in the world. I don't know where it stands in the league table of waste of public money or unnecessary expenditure, but I do know that one has to prioritise and governments will never recognise this. If we did educating our young people would be regarded as an investment for the near future.
Of course top up fees will deter many people. Governments will not say, but nevertheless will recognise that all societies need an underclass to make the country work.
Norman West, England
What about medical students? If top up fees are introduced, our debts could approach �50,000? We are undergoing a gruelling course which will eventually allow us to benefit society. We are already short of doctors, why do we therefore penalise the students that we all really can't do without?
Medical Student, Nottingham/ Wales My children will hit 18 as I approach retirement (government permitting). Do I saddle them with debt, or saddle them with poverty-stricken parents? Looks like full-time jobs straight out of school - and the OU - for them!
Clive, UK
If graduates really earn more then make the rich pay through the tax system. There's no need to cripple youngsters with debt in the expectation that they will earn more.
Mark
I am a graduate and I happen to believe that those people who do best out of higher education should contribute the most back to society. We have a system that already does this. It's called "Income Tax", "VAT", etc.
Peter, UK
| Those from the poorest backgrounds will get the greatest financial support |
Top-up fees will not deter students from working class backgrounds. I am from a council estate and that hasn't stopped me from getting a BA, MA and doing a Phd. I know more than most that those from the poorest backgrounds will get the greatest financial support which can only be a good thing as it will increase the social mix of students at universities, which are too often clogged up with students from the middle classes. Please don't the moaning of the middle classes put you off.
Wendy, UK My view is quite simple. If the state pays for my education I feel that I owe something back and work in Britain despite the low wage (I'm reading Engineering). If I pay for my education I will go abroad to where the pay (and weather) are better. The government may want to consider where the next generation of key professionals (engineers, doctors, academics, teachers, etc.) will come from before they turn the university system into a free market.
Paddy, UK
The governments says it has s shortage of doctors and teachers but people wanting to go into these areas of work are put off by the cost of going to university.
A. Hoyle, UK
UK universities say they want to charge top up fees so they can compete with the research done by US universities. So they will spend the extra money on research programmes not undergraduate degrees. If the UK is going to charge so much, why not study in the US. Your job prospects will be better and property prices are much lower. Maybe a mass exodus of UK graduates will change the government's mind.
Andrew, UK
| I fear that Blair's proposals will hit the lower middle class hardest |
In theory, introducing top-up fees for students with high-income parents would make the present system more egalitarian. But I fear that Blair's proposals will hit the lower middle class hardest. I am presently studying at Cambridge, and will leave with a minimum of �12k in debt. Surely this is enough of a burden? It's not that I disagree with the policy as such, but surely only those on incomes of more than �50k should have to pay such high fees? Otherwise, the policy will only serve to deepen inequality. I can categorically state that if Cambridge was charging fees of �3k a year, I simply wouldn't be able to afford to being here.
Anna Keyes, UK Not all students go out every week and waste their money. With the cost of accommodation, tuition fees and text books it doesn't leave much left for the extra-curricular activities sought after by employers. Instead of increasing the fees decrease the numbers attending universities to do degrees that won't actually enhance their job prospects.
Melanie, UK
As a medical student in London I am facing a huge amount of debt, probably over �40k by the time I graduate. Whilst no student will be particularly excited about their financial burden increasing, I fundamentally agree with the government's plans and the way they are implementing them as quite frankly the universities need the money. With the easy ways of paying the debt back, and a good degree in hand I have no worries about the accumulated debt and feel confident that any future earnings will make this issue insignificant.
Francis Wong, London
The most deplorable thing about the Blair government continuing to land students with more and more debt is that Blair and his cronies got their education for free. They'll do fine for pensions, they have little debt and have made a fortune in property by buying it when they were our age. What will our generation get? 10 years of paying off debts, a laughable pension that'll be worth less than we pay in and the prospect of paying extortionate rents to the very generation who lucked out big time. We are the jilted generation and one day we'll all realise it and do something about it.
Ben Morgan, London, UK
I am a supporter of the top-up fees for English universities, with the catch that all pre-1990 graduates pay some form of reparation for their free university educations. I'm sure most of the cabinet's student years in Oxbridge were funded by the taxpayer of the day.
Lewis, Boston, USA
I am at Lancaster University doing a postgraduate course. The problem with funding lies in the fact that there are too many students doing pointless subjects. Does "Football Studies", "Kite Flying" and "Theatre Studies" really need funding? It's time the Government got rid of the Mickey Mouse subjects and then there wouldn't be a funding problem.
John Harding, Lancaster, UK I firmly disagree with the introduction of top-up fees for students. My fees are already over �1000 a year just for tuition. Will those from poorer families still get assistance and some of their fees paid, because if so, it is only the slightly better off families that will suffer.
Emma Lindsay, England
This new bill will not only deter but sill stop anyone but the richest in society getting into university. I thought the days to total elitism for the upper classes was supposed to be over, I also thought that we had a labour government in and not a Tory one.
Sue, UK
Why is it only working class that get a mention? I suspect that I'm middle class, but have three children coming up towards University age - how on earth am I going to fund that? New Labour should realise that by investing in students at the start, that they will benefit through income tax, national insurance and all the other taxes later on.
Dave, UK
The concept of getting 50% of young people into university is completely farcical when you consider that only fractionally more than this get 5 GCSEs at grades C and above. Makes you wonder what is the point of working hard for A levels....
Andrew, UK
Tuition fees should be increased. Think about the discriminatory fee universities imposing to non-EU students. They are paying somewhere in the region of 10,000 pounds per annum. As far as I know, no other advanced country - the US, Japan, Europe - adopts such double standard.
Hide, UK
| Nobody should start their working life burdened by debt |
This is a crazy idea at the best of times. Nobody should start their working life burdened by debt. However, let's imagine a worst case scenario where the Tories win an election and we return to the devastating unemployment of the 1980s. Many students will finish their studies with no prospect of working. Unemployment is bad enough without being hopelessly in debt as well. Don't forget, the people responsible for this policy got their education free when the country was poorer.
Tom, UK Top up fees are no bad thing if there is going to be a marked improvement in the standards of tuition / quality of degree. As the vague outline of the plan stands though, this appears to be a way to plug holes in finances rather than develop world class education
Craig, Leeds, UK
By charging higher fees, the government will not meet its target of getting more people into uni. It will, however, succeed in only allowing people with rich parents to get degrees.
Rhea, Plymouth, England
I am currently studying at Oxford, but I would quite possibly not be here had there been the prospect of top-up fees.
Dominic Elliott Smith, UK
I was unable to go to University because I knew I would be unable to support myself whilst I was there or after I had left. For young people without any parental support this extra fee will stop even those optimistic enough to think that they'll cope after their study. I have friends who are �12,000+ in debt and struggling, how can any one be expected to cope with a �30,000 debt?
Ria
| University is an opportunity cost |
University is an opportunity cost. When you actually stop and take stock of how much university costs in terms of lost earnings during the three or so years you study, top up fees don't seem that much extra after all. In the 'real world' either yourself or an employer may pay a hefty sum to obtain a particular qualification. Why should a degree be any different?
David Cameron, UK It's just ridiculous! I've just graduated from Loughborough uni with over �12k in debts that's bad enough let alone some �30k!
Mike, UK
This bill will mean all students will leave university at least �9000 in debt. Add to this accommodation and other expenses the debt level could easily be �20,000. How can anyone cope with this amount of debt? It will take years, if not decades to pay off. All this bill will succeed in doing is providing universities with money the government should be investing in our children's education. What happens when less people begin going to university due to the cost? Will the tuition cost increase, to �5000 or �10000 per annum?
Aaron, UK
It will prevent people going to uni on the grounds of parents' wealth, which is a farce. The problem is that too many people go to uni but this is surely due to a lack of alternatives and lack of differentiating people due to lowered standards in schools. If everyone goes to uni, the degree will become pointless but entry should be on merit, not parents wallet size!
Chris, UK
If the LibDems ever have their way I will be unable to afford my own son's university education because all my spare money will have been taxed away to pay for some poorer kid. As always the middle classes (those who are neither poor nor particularly wealthy) suffer.
Brian, UK
| No one will want to go to university if it means they are going to be paying off a huge debt |
Are they insane? You name me one student is going to want to be �30,000 in debt. Its bad enough that this government has taken away our grants and make us pay tuition fees let alone pay top up fees. No one will want to go to university if it means they are going to be paying off a huge debt. People should be going to university because they can be successful at university, NOT because they can afford to.
John Livingston, England The Scottish Parliament has been told by a University Principal (Abertay Uni in Dundee) not to adopt top-up fees but to raise a �2billion bond on the money markets instead. The bond would be drawn down over ten years and fund expansion of Scottish H.E sector. One advantage would be that Scotland could then recruit the best English Students on to its free degree courses!
Nicholas Ball, England, UK
It is untrue for the government to state that people with a degree have a higher earnings probability. This is only true in a few fields, business, medicine for instance. Teachers, for instance, do not earn any more than other teachers, yet they have a degree in teaching. If the former polytechnics had never been given university status this so-called funding crisis may never have come about. This is privatisation of education by the back door.
Malcolm Tremain, UK
I don't think this problem resides with the students, more so with the Universities who lower their admission standards - the vice chancellors are eager for more student numbers, since they know they can then claim more money from the Government.
Christopher Teague, Wales
Isn't it slightly contradictory that they are trying to increase the proportion of students from state schools compared with private schools at university, while increasing the fees to attend university?!
Georgia Burford, England
| Where is the mandate for this change? |
Where is the mandate for this change? It does not come from the opinion polls. 80% of the population are against introducing top up fees. It does not come from the Labour Party election manifesto which states on page 20..."we will not introduce 'top-up' fees and have legislated against them." All of society benefits from a well educated population and therefore all of society should pay for courses through direct taxation, otherwise this becomes an unfair penalty on middle income parents.
Al, UK The onus is on those that object to top-up fees to come up with something better. The current university funding situation is untenable.
Jo, UK
Dare I say it but the Government is throwing money at Basic Skills courses - which are free. Great in theory, but in my experience very few of the people who enrol in these classes attend for more than a couple of sessions. Yet buildings still have to be maintained and teachers and admin staff paid.
Gill, UK
Not all students will ever re-pay their fees because some graduates never earn as much as the �15,000 starting salary. For example girls who have babies soon after finish university. People studying medicine should never have to pay fees.
Mags, England
You can still have a good social life and not get deeply into debit - I did by economising on other items, for example buying second hand books, going out when there was a beer/spirit promotion on...
Carolyn, England
I agree that too many people are taking degrees now, and that more people need to be encouraged to take up skills and trades. The fee should reflect the demand for and the practicality of a course, so "soft option" humanities courses would cost more than engineering, electronics & computing etc.
Tony Flaherty, UK
Let me get this straight: the government wants to increase access to higher education, so they are going to put the prices up. Huh? How about starting by providing free courses in GCSE economics for government ministers?
Adam, UK
| What is the Government trying to achieve, a society laden with debt or just a two tiered society? |
The student have to pay back this huge debt when they are earning �15,000. Who are we kidding? These same people need to saving for a pension and attempting to get on the property ladder which will become ever more impossible? What is the Government trying to achieve, a society laden with debt or just a two tiered society?
Nigel Yes, it will deter students, but only students who will doubt the possibility of a decent job after their degree. Why shouldn't universities be returned to what they once were? The prestigious learning environments for the 'best', the academic elite. If anyone can get a degree, the British economy will collapse, this move can only help.
Lisa Hatfield, England
"Why shouldn't universities be returned to what they once were? The prestigious learning environments for the 'best', the academic elite." Yes but what if you inherited brains and not money? education for the rich
Ste
Yes. Makes students pay for Higher Education. In my profession it is vital for me to keep up to date with latest technologies. I do this by attending training courses and seminars. Does the state fund me further my career. I think not.
Mike, England
Too many young people are going to University at the moment. What's the point of attaining a useless degree from a low-rate University which will not help your career in anyway? University should not be a shunt for all post-18s who would otherwise be cluttering the government's unemployed statistics. It should not be biased towards the rich, but should be free for academically gifted students who go on to use their degrees to further their careers and the economy of the nation.
Clare, UK
| If you're going for a party, don't complain when you're in debt at the end of the three years! |
If more students want to go to uni, the money to support them has to come from somewhere. In the days when you only went to uni if you were really clever, the state could afford to give a grant. If we continue with the trend that sees pupils being told that uni is the only choice, fees will continue to rise in order to maintain infrastructure and sustain development. If you are going to uni to learn and study, don't panic, but if you're going for a party, don't complain when you're in debt at the end of the three years!
Sandy, UK Why do so many here consider Medicine a 'proper' degree and Media Studies a 'Mickey Mouse' one? Both subjects are necessary to the functioning of society as a whole and, from experience the Media Studies students work a lot harder. It's obvious very few people here have any understanding of how the media works, or you'd realise how successive governments been able to use the media to manipulate your knee jerk values and pig-ignorance to their own ends.
Paul, Scotland
�30,000 debt over three years? Take away the (maximum) �9000 in fees that leaves �21,000. Any single person who needs �7000 a year to survive at a northern university is too stupid to be there (or a drunk). If they choose to live in London then that's their choice and they'll have to live with it.
Colin, UK
To Colin... not everybody does a three year degree, Medicine, Dentistry and Vet Sci are all five year courses. Other courses are now beocming longer e.g. the M.Chem. is a four year course. So for those doing five years... 5 x �3k = �15k fees, that leaves �3k per year to live on... so four or five years of poverty to be faced with a mountain of debt at the end... does that sound a bit more daunting now?
Michael, Finland
It's important to remember that these proposals allow for fees "up to" �3,000. I doubt many universities will be asking for the maximum amount from students and risk losing out to "cheaper" ones. I can see universities possibly finding this money from other sources, such as university accommodation rent.
Chris, England
The reasons graduates left uni with huge debts were because of their social life, it has nothing to do with their degree, if they stop going out five times a week and get a part-time job then they will leave uni with 0 debt like me. Please note it costs at least �30k for foreign students to study a three yrs degree course here.
Iris, UK
| I think this will see only the richer students going to university |
I am a student and this is terrible news. It was a tough enough decision for me to go to University knowing I will be �10,000 in debt when I finish, let alone three times that amount. I think this will see only the richer students going to university as people will not want to take the high debt risk.
Darren Ware, Kent Unless the country does not want to maintain their higher education quality, the top-up fee must be charged. It has been commonly agreed that UK universities are far behind their rivals in USA. One of major reasons is MONEY.
Kirl Chan, UK
For complete equity, shouldn't we also charge those who receive free vocational training in trades such as plumbing? Many tradesmen are earning vast amounts of money (often undeclared cash in hand) after a few years in the job. Indeed, the anecdotal evidence I've had is that plumbers, electricians etc. earn far, far more than me despite the fact I've a University degree.
Ken, UK
All this talk of which people in which class ought to pay which fees and which courses deserve more support than others is utter nonsense. No-one and no course should be judged. Why is it that the government of the fourth richest country in the World believes that it cannot afford to educate its population? This is a national disgrace just like many of our public services that are under-funded.
Stuart Woodward, UK
Of course tuition fees will deter students. I was lucky enough to be in the last batch of students to qualify for full-rate loans, but if I hadn't I simply wouldn't have been able to go to college. My parents worked hard to raise their standard of living but there is no way they could have afforded to support me during my time at college. Now, even with a degree and in a well-paid job, I can't afford to buy a place of my own, and this would be made worse by having to pay off enormous student debts.
Sue, UK
| This will deter many students and their families supporting |
This will deter many students and their families supporting them to a point where only the rich can afford it. This could lead to elitism and would deter many talented youngsters from seeking higher education. If this is the case then we will find Universities closing down due to lack of funding and falling student numbers.
Robert Jennens, UK Education should be free for students. The government should subsidise. Top up fees mean education for the well-off
Bob, Azerbaijan
I agree that students shouldn't have to pay top up fees but the government has to get better value for money. Limit the number of places on degrees where there are less jobs at the end of it, get rid of so called Mickey Mouse degrees and higher the entry levels.
Jimmy, UK
I can't see it doing anything but deterring students from university! Where next after �3,000?
Andrew, England, UK
I can't believe that the people proposing top-up fees are saying they are trying to get more students from poorer backgrounds into higher education! How on earth can they achieve that by charging them more to get in? This is a ridiculous law that should be rejected by the House of Lords and should have been rejected by the Queen! It already costs about �4000 in accommodation per year to live at university and with this extra charge we're easily getting a lot closer to the �10,000 figure!
Victoria, Burton upon Trent, England
Instead of charging top up fees, let all students go to university free but charge a fine to students and lecturers who don't turn up for lectures, are late, drunk, hung over, don't hand work in on time etc. I had a friend who never seemed to go to lectures at university, spent most of his time getting drunk and still ended up with a degree.
Helen, UK
| Graduates will earn more in the long run, so they should by extra now |
I'd like to say I agree totally with these extra fees. I never went to university, and have to say wonder why, I should have the burden of paying for them, when they could end up being paid three times more than I, when they graduate. If that's what they have chosen to do with their lives, then they should pay for what they have chosen. I URGE the Government NOT to give up on this idea, graduates will earn more in the long run, so they should by extra now.
Dave W, UK I think tuition fees are a good thing. They prevent work-shy youths from clinging onto the education system for as long as possible, as a healthy alternative to going out into the real world and doing a good days work to earn their keep.
Dave, UK
We wouldn't need to even consider fees of this level if the Government wasn't so insistent on turning every form of vocational training into a three-year full-time degree. It is time for the both the Government and NUS to stop thinking of vocational courses as second-rate qualifications and realise that for many people, these cheaper courses will suit them much better than a traditional degree.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England
It will turn us into a nation of debtors. We should be investing in the future of our country not lining ourselves up for a major financial crisis
Neil, UK
This is an excellent idea with some obvious pitfalls that most current or soon to be students have latched onto. Of course, what they don't realise is that very soon, they will no longer be students and when the majority of them go into well paid jobs they will have to pay vast amounts of tax (for free University education of a global standard would cost a fortune). Can they seriously want to make it far more than it already is? This is simply a case of their lack of worldly experience and objective thinking.
Neil, UK
So students won't have to pay back �9,000 of debt back, plus debts from three years living expenses until they earn �15,000? Isn't the whole justification for students paying for their own courses that they will earn grater than average wages for the rest of their life? Where did �15,000 come from? Isn't the average salary in Britain closer to �20.000? Surely students should not have to pay until they have passed this figure - that will prove whether it really is true that they will earn that much.
Sally Jepson, UK
| What they probably will do is make students think twice about studying less vocational subjects |
Top-up fees may not necessarily deter students from going to university, but what they probably will do is make students think twice about studying less vocational subjects which are not guaranteed to lead to a well-paid, 'graduate' job, such as art or literature, if they are from less well-off backgrounds. Perhaps the government considers that there is no longer any need for education to cover such abstract, thought-provoking, academic areas.
Beth, UK Why do people think getting a degree gets one a well-paid job? Maybe for the elite who go to Oxbridge. Many students end up with jobs in routine low-paid clerical posts in the civil service, local government etc. These days it is hard to get such jobs without a degree.
Neil Rogall, UK
Can somebody explain why, if top up fees are only to be repaid when a graduate attains a certain income level, that there are exemptions from and reductions (for low family income) of these charges? Logically, if they are to be repaid after graduation, their levels should be nothing to do with the former student's family circumstances?
john, UK
I am working as a temp at the moment before going to uni in September. If the proposal for top up fees was introduced and did affect me i would have to drop out of my course as there is no way i would be able to afford the extra fees. The money may be needed to avert a financial crisis in Unis but how can they expect us some of the poorest members of the country to pay right at the time we are going to be getting seriously into debt anyway with no regular income.
Simon Curtis, UK
Some of the lectures at my university are poor quality. On occasions, the lecturers don't even turn up! I think the universities ought to get their house in order before they pass the begging-bowl around.
Anon, UK
The introduction of "top up" fees will hurt society. Rather than having the best and brightest going on to higher education, it will be the students whose parents can afford to fork out large amounts of money. With a smaller pool of students to choose from, standards can only fall, and "trust fund" rich students tend not to go for subjects that benefit society, like medicine, teaching or IT/engineering.
Franchesca, Northern Ireland
| This is a scandal, and the most damaging policy in terms of social equality for years |
Whilst pushing this policy bill through, the government will doggedly stick to the line that "This will not deter students from going to university." This is not the point, which is that by having differential pricing working and middle class students will face the dilemma of going to a top university or a cheap university. This is a scandal, and the most damaging policy in terms of social equality for years.
Ben, UK In my youth, which is not that long ago, people got a full grant to go to university. When you left you got a good job with a secure pension. When you got sick, you got a bed in a hospital without waiting. Can someone explain where all the money that we are saving by not having such free services in 2003 is going? How does it benefit us to charge for such things - I can't see it.
Mike, UK
People should realize that a university degree is not for everyone. I do agree with giving financial help to people that do some degrees (medicine, nursing, midwifery). It always makes me laugh when I hear students complaining about debt. Here's a little head up for you lot: don't go out as much, and get a part time job. I personally was too lazy to do the latter, so was forced onto a semi monk like life.
A Garcia, Spain (now in the UK)
It should be that people doing degrees such as science, maths, engineering etc should receive grants and not pay as their skills will benefit society. People who do degrees to benefit themselves should pay.
Kev, UK
In reply to Kev from the UK's theory that only those studying subjects that 'benefit society' should be given funding. As a recent graduate of an arts degree I find his views quite insulting. For one thing surely everyone should have the freedom to study what they like, in a equal and fair system that doesn't favour any particular subject or group of subjects over another.
Does Kev also believe that society as a whole would survive if everyone that went to university studied so-called beneficial subjects? What subjects does he believe politicians, novelists, historians, linguists etc studied? Surely society would be a far less interesting and unsuccessful entity if it were not for this diversity of interests and studies.
James, Swansea, Wales
| Why should the public purse pay for more students of media studies? |
I totally agree with the last comment by Kev, the country should identify which disciplines are needed and subsidise these. Why should the public purse pay for more students of media studies?
Christian Tiburtius, UK I am outraged at the plans to increase fees and student debt. I am a student, in the third year of a four year course, and it's a struggle to raise the money to pay fees at the moment as it is. When I graduate in 2005 I will be around �12,000 in debt and that is a daunting prospect, especially as it means saving for a house or car or future will be hampered by paying off the debt. To graduate with up to �30,000 debt would just be ridiculous and most people probably have no hope in paying it off in their lifetime.
The government say they want to open higher education up to more people but putting up fees is just going to deter people from going because of fear of escalating debts they will end up with they graduate.
Amy, England
Who would have thought that a labour government would bring in a system that so obviously discriminates against the less well off in our society, what angers me is that many of the people supporting this bill had their education FREE.
John Davey, Hinckley, England
It's not the working class who'll be alienated by top-up fees, but the middle classes - not rich enough to afford �30,000 in fees themselves, not poor enough to have the government pay. They're not only a deterrent, they're downright immoral.
Catherine, UK
A comparison with the way US universities charge their students is completely unjust. While over here families have had around 5 years experience of paying for tuition fees, it's been a standard practise in the States for far longer. The result of which is that parents in the US are given the opportunity to save for their child's university education from an early age. We weren't given the luxury of such foresight, and now have these extra costs sprung on us in a country where a free education was something we were quite accustomed to.
Ben Hindmarch, UK
I'm a student and I would welcome these rises. Students may be poor, but we're not that badly off! Most own a PC, many own a car. And thousands squander all their money on drink anyway - how pointless!
Jen
| Why don't we have a ratings system for degrees? |
Why don't we have a ratings system for degrees? If you want to study medicine or anything that can be considered vital to the society we live in, you should get financial help. If you want to study Sociology or History of Dance, then you are on your own financially.
G Williams, England G Williams suggests that those who wish to do arts courses should pay their own fees - how ignorant. He clearly fails to understand that a true society requires not just scientists and doctors, but artists too. Why should they be discriminated against?
James McEnaney, Scotland
It is not ignorant to say that dance and art degrees are not as valuable to society as medicine etc, it's true. Anyway, you have to be gifted to be an artist, you don't become one just because you got a degree. Grow up and stop whining! How many artists make a living at it? Most are on the dole- I rest my case.
Hayley, England
Yes, it will but not all. This is all based on the fact that after graduation, they secure a well paying job. Where are these jobs exactly?
Frances, UK
Call me an old cynic, but aren't the fees INTENDED to deter every Tom, Ricki and 'Arry from Uni? The intention is to push these kids onto 'vocational' courses and solve the problem of 'Mickey Mouse' Uni courses, whilst ensuring that that rich kids get to study 'proper' Uni subjects again.
Su Martin, UK
Top up fees are symptomatic of a far greater problem... too many are going to university. There simply isn't the calibre throughout the large proportion that are going to university. Therefore dumbed down courses such as media studies are introduced, to mop up the excessive numbers. These types of course fool hardly anybody, it has arrived at the point where graduates from certain disciplines are regarded as second rate regardless of the level of their pass. We're chasing the wrong fox, reduce the numbers going to university to only those of appropriate calibre to do so and any requirement for top up fees disappears.
Grant Hole MSc BSc(Hons), UK
It is not proper that way, please the government should do something about it, it is also happening in Nigeria which has kept a lot of student at home.
Tochukwu Collins Uzomba, Nigeria
Why does everybody think that education should be a free-ride? All these educational establishments have to provide buildings, staff, utilities and infrastructure. It all costs a lot of money. I'd be all in favour of supporting our country in encouraging the VERY brightest students, but these days there are far too many "non-event" subjects being studied simply to gain fairly pointless degrees.
Keith, UK
| The escalating costs of attending university is slowly pushing the 'working class' away |
The escalating costs of attending university is slowly pushing the 'working class' away. The top up fees are just going to add to that push. Nobody want to be in debt, least of all students who have no current income. What do you think they're training themselves for? If it goes ahead only the rich will get the education and the poor will go without. Welcome to the Middle Ages all over again.
Sian, UK Imagidle Ages all over again.
Sian, UK
Imagine a teenager having 24 points at A-Level, the pick of courses, but not even having enough money to GET to university. It happened to me and there was no help from this government. Top up fees will deter those of us from the "Middle Classes". But we're shafted on every other policy, so why not further education?
Jen, UK
How can being asked to get even further into debt NOT deter students? I know I am reconsidering the entire thing as the costs spiral out of control.
Katrina, UK
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
