This is a second page of your comments.
The following comments reflect the balance of opinion we have received so far:
With the proposed fees, can students soon expect a customer/ service provider relationship. If they are paying by the hour so to speak, they should expect a decent service from a lecturer and will actively complain if they get a poor service. Woe betide the habitually late lecturer as his paying customers will certainly not put up with that attitude!
Simon Mallett, Maidstone
Surely a better way to save money here is to reduce the vast number of meaningless degrees at former polytechnics. The students who go to mess around on a 'Mickey Mouse' course should pay for their frivolities. Hard working students studying for a degree in a 'classical' subject should be given distinction from the rest.
John, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK
I say NO to top-up fees. My boyfriend and I are just about to leave university. With student loans, we will already have �20,000 of debt between us - not counting overdrafts. If top-up fees are voted through, a "university couple" such as ourselves would have a debt of over �40,000 before we even buy a house or car. How are we supposed to live?
Susan Reilly, Liverpool, England
Britain's universities used to be the finest in the world. This is not necessarily true anymore. The reason - money. Universities need funding to prosper. This has been coming for some time.
Mike, Glasgow
Yes they are the best way to fund higher education. It will stop kids going away for a doss, as MANY of them do, hoping that with the minimum of effort they will come out after 3 or 4 years with a degree that isn't worth the paper it's written on, as everyone else has got one! I would have gone to uni if I had needed to, but studied my course on a franchise at my local tech. There are other ways!
Anthony, Basingstoke
If the Prime Minister does not win the argument we will condemn our universities to a downward spiral. Either the students who benefit from their education pay for it, or the taxpayer does.
Roger, Whitwick, England
Who would believe that the Labour party would be doing this? The government already get more taxes out of the higher educated because they tend to earn higher salaries and pay higher rate tax. Why should they fleeced as well? This plus the parlous state of pensions means that many middle class folk will not make the mistake of voting Labour again.
Tony Fuller, Malvern, Worcs Having just finished university after 4 very expensive years, and a total debt of over �18000 in loans, I find it totally unbelievable that the Government expects us to pay even more fees. My debt of �18000 (including interest) doesn't even cover the money my parents have had to pay out for fees, so unless parents are as rich as Tony Blair, I don't see how it would be viable to charge students as much.
Lucy Motley, Largs, Ayrshire
Why doesn't the Government just get the motorists to pay the tuition fees of students. After all we seem to be paying for everything else!
Bob Knox, Alnwick, Northumberland
I am currently paying off loans which I took for my university education. It takes longer than the government realises to pay that money back and is making it difficult for me to take on responsibilities for my own home and a family.
Andrew Bradbury, Ashby, Leicestershire
Suggestions to raise income tax for high incomes is ridiculous. They already pay 60%. Whys should they pay for somebody else's brats to be educated? Education is a right to all and if it should be paid, it should be paid by all.
Moo, London, UK
If Clarke and Blair get their way, then market forces will enter higher education, and students will choose their courses not on standards or academic ability, but on money, money, money. The HE Bill must be defeated, or we will be faced with a two tier education system that deters the poorest and most disadvantaged members of our society.
Jo Salmon, Cardiff, Wales The government should abandon its present plan for top-up fees and return to university admission being once again based on good 'A' level grades. There are too many universities and at present we have the farce of some 'universities' solving the problem of horrendous drop-out rates caused by the admission of students without the necessary qualifications and/or ability by declaring the first year of all courses a 'foundation' course which students cannot fail.
Tuition fees should remain at the present level with adequate financial support being provided for successful universities by the government. Graduates often pay much more tax over a lifetime but so too do many non-graduates so a graduate tax would not be unfair with some groups such as teachers and nurses employed in the public sector being exempt.
Marie, Worcester, UK
Here's an interesting little quote from page 20 of Labour's 2001 election manifesto: "We will not introduce 'top-up' fees".
How can we ever trust the Labour party again if they so blatantly break their manifesto promises?
Adam, London, UK
I think it is fair and correct to expect further education students to pay through top up fees for their degrees. Hopefully the fear of 'debt' will make young people think about the actual course they do and limit the number of applicants for 'Mickey Mouse' courses. I do think the government is wrong aiming to get 50% young people into university. The selection concerning who should go to university should be based on intellectual merit.
James Lawson, London, UK
It would be interesting to know how many of those voting for top up fees had their University Careers fully funded by grants. As a single parent, just above the thresholds and with two other children, my daughter has left Uni after two terms of a primary teaching degree. I could no longer afford to support her living on campus with the additional expenses of travel to schools all over London as part of the course. No one is told about all the hidden extras, you just have to guess and hope you can accommodate them.
Hazel Rudd, DORSET, ENGLAND
 |  If it were not so easy to get to university this situation would not have arisen  |
If it were not so easy to get to university (it was a darn sight more difficult when I was doing A-levels), this situation would not have arisen. Nowadays, people think that they are entitled to a university education, whether or not they are good enough to be there. Let's see a return to more onerous exams than these pathetic "dumbed-down" excuses for A-levels and let's see how many students are REALLY good enough to earn places.
Liz, Lancs. How are you supposed to live in today's society when at 21 you leave uni with �15K worth of debt, by the time you are 25 you should start saving for your pension and then find a spare �150K to buy a one bed flat. The figures don't add up!
Stephen, Cambridge
Students need to be honest with themselves and admit that a lot of their expenditure is about having fun. Hands up who runs an expensive mobile phone or car. Hands up who makes sure their clothing is cotton. Red Brick College is as middle class as it ever was and funding has to be found from that sector to help working class kids go to the old polys and to invigorate that sector. There's enough in time to work as well as play at university and they know it!
Mark Ellis, UK
It is absolutely ridiculous what the government are proposing. I am going to do a vocational based degree in planning and hopefully make a worthwhile contribution to the economy. I will have to work part time anyway to support my self and even that won't be enough. Student education should be cheap and accessible for people doing worthwhile courses. Fellow students and prospective ones, use your power and vote at the next general election conservative or lib dem for all our sakes. We can make a difference.
Andrew, Devon, England
I went to university - had a great time - worked hard, now have a career in what I went to university for. A large number of my peers went to university because it was the "thing to do" subsequently they have dead end jobs with no hope of paying their loans back. I am looking towards paying off my student debt (�15000) within the next couple of years. My point is the increase in tuition fees may seem a lot but if it focuses individuals' minds upon what they are getting themselves into it may stop the time wasters who go to university for a "Three Year Party". The aim of 50% of people to go to university is unrealistic and will devalue the degree status.
Chris, (Graduate) IFA North West I think the Government should scrap tuition and fees and introduce a top rate tax of 50% on everyone holding a degree.
Jon, Nottingham
I don't agree with the current proposals and am not happy at Charles Clark's close out on options. Access and capability are key - neither will be served as proposed, despite his comments - particularly for middle class children with parents on average incomes. In addition, whatever happens, the Scottish MPs should remove themselves from this debate - they have decided how Scotland will deal with this and should have no part in how England deals with it.
George, Chelmsford
No one seems prepared to ask whether it need to cost as much as the Universities claim to deliver degree level education. The Open University developed pioneering techniques decades ago, and with the Internet and other technologies such approaches are even more viable - and far cheaper.
Nic, Derbyshire, UK
| The current government plans do not go far enough |
The current government plans do not go far enough. We need wholesale changes in the way that our universities are funded; not just fudging around the edges. The current plans are a step in the right direction but are too timid to be good for anyone. It will not do enough to raise desperately needed cash for our universities and will also deter access to the very groups of people that it is trying to broaden access to. Setting a reasonable level of fees for students from high income backgrounds (circa �6,000) and diverting most of this money back into universities and part of it into a large means tested scholarship fund based on academic merit seems to me to be the best solution of alleviating the funding problem and broadening access.
Geoffrey Tang, London
First, we should raise income tax for people earning in excess of 100K a year is the only fair way. Second, we should abandon the ridiculous target of 50% of young people going to university. Many university graduates go on to jobs for which their degree is totally unrelated and which do not, in reality, require them to be university educated. More people should be channelled into apprenticeships, skilled trades, etc instead of being encouraged to pursue higher education when the country cannot afford to support them in doing so.
Lindsay, London
| You may as well sit at home and claim benefits |
Are prisoners forced to pay back the fees for their incarceration once completed? Then why should students have to pay for wanting to make a positive contribution to society? This government once more shows that if you want to make a decent, honest, hard-working go of your life, then you're stuffed. You may as well sit at home and claim benefits.
Andy, UK
The number of university places should match, or be slightly larger than, the number of jobs that require graduates. At the moment there are more graduates, many with the wrong subjects, than jobs requiring them.
Carol, England
It is bizarre to me that on the one hand people are disgusted with the tax burden placed on them, and then on the other they have their hands out expecting the government to pay for everything! You can't have it both ways. There seems to be an expectation for others to make an investment that the direct recipient is not willing to make in him/herself!
Rachel, USA (ex UK)
Question: When 50% of your peers have the same qualification as you, where is the value in your so-called "higher level" qualification?
Obvious answer: There is none. Future graduates from British universities will be at a distinct disadvantage from those of other nations. The government's proposals are just another way in which Britain is ensuring that jobs in the UK will be outsourced overseas.
Edwin Thornber, UK
| Calling it debt like a bank loan just brings in all the wrong connotations |
Does anyone realise how misinformed some people are about student debt? This student debt we are all referring to is only a time dependent graduate tax. If you don't earn over �10k after graduating, at the moment, you never pay any of it back, so it hardly is making me quake at the thought? If I can't find a job I won't pay it back, and if I do then I only pay a small proportion of everything I earn over �10k to pay it back for a given time after I graduate. It is not the same as people who are trying to avoid having their house repossessed. Calling it debt like a bank loan just brings in all the wrong connotations.
Bill, Oxford As a student I say stay with fixed fees. If this happens it will cost me �10,575 to attend uni. If variable fees are introduced it will cost me �16,200 and more. What's the point.
Emma Hewer, Bristol
If all students were given a big enough loan to live on and to pay (reasonable) tuition fees there would be no problem. Students could decide for themselves whether university was worth the cost without worrying about their parents ability or willingness to pay.
William Allen, London, UK
| Why shouldn't people pay part of the cost of their further education? |
Why shouldn't people pay part of the cost of their further education? The proposal is after all if you don't achieve you don't pay! I was turned down for a grant so I studied part-time, with 3 part-time jobs. Now I'm paying high rate taxes, contributing towards the cost of other peoples education!
Nigel, Oxford, UK The best way would be to put a blanket fee down and occasional scholarships for the poor. Let's face it, public services are dead and its about time we cut back and cut taxes. Why should people who's families have worked hard be punished? So that the poor can get for free what we pay for? You shouldn't be able to get for free what others pay for.
James Clarke, UK
I'm in favour of universities charging tuition fees. But where will the money be spent? Universities will use the 'new' income to fund their crumbling infrastructure, and the government will continue to waste hundreds of millions on politically-correct initiatives and assessment exercises. The benefit to the student will be zero. I also agree with most of the comments on this board which condemn the government's wish to have 50% of 18 yr olds go to university. There ARE far too many students wasting time and money on worthless degrees, which have been dumbed down to meet this target.
Bob, Bristol
In my opinion there are three fundamental services a government owes to its people;
1) Security from invaders and the powers of greed
2) The best health care possible for each of us
3) The highest quality education possible.
Government services are funded primarily through taxation, which is the way it should be, as all of us should sacrifice and contribute to the common good. Top-up fees are unfair and a sign that the government (and indirectly the people - we who fund government) is shirking one of its most fundamental duties.
Victor Wood, Oxford, UK
I have no problems with top up fees. Why not? They have to be paid for and why not by the people who will benefit from them? In any event borrowing for education is so cheap that it is laughable - and paying it back not onerous - so where really is the problem?
Barbara Underwood, England, London
| If top-up fees are introduced it will force potential students to consider undertaking courses that have a real chance of a job in the end |
Perhaps if top-up fees are introduced it will force potential students to consider undertaking courses that have a real chance of a job in the end. Hopefully this will in turn force universities to change intake numbers and courses to reflect job market shortfalls. This is why so many graduates are forced to work in call centres - a degree that is useless in industry.
Jon, Warrington The government shot itself in the foot by cheapening the institution of higher education by wanting too many people to go into it. The really talented people, often from poorer backgrounds, are being denied the grants they deserve because we are trying to fund everybody else who is average. The system now is working against itself and is a mockery of the days when a degree actually had real meaning.
Mike Hall, Worksop
I think that the main problem lies with the Government's idea that 50% of school leavers should go into higher education. I believe that this idea means that students have to pay back funding for study, whereas they would not have to pay back unemployment pay if they were out of work for three years. This idea is to make the government money and I think that the government should be honest about this.
Jonathan Wright, Romford, Essex, UK
How much does this system cost to administrate? How much of the money raised actually goes to the universities after these costs have been deducted?
Caron, England
| If university's important enough for them, they'll take part-time jobs and work their way through college |
This is incredible. It's the student not the parent going to university - so why on earth are so many of you parents worrying about paying for your adult children? They're over 18. Let them pay for themselves and stop worrying. If university's important enough for them, they'll take part-time jobs and work their way through college like thousands of others have through the years.
Tony H., Stafford, UK Education is for the benefit of society or the economy before the individual. Therefore, state funding should be available for engineering, medicine, humanities type courses etc. However, where a student wants to do "Pokemon Studies" or study the work of Robbie Williams, then the parents should fund it, regardless of income. Simple rule, if society or the economy will not benefit from your education, then it's a three year holiday which should not be sponsored by my taxes.
Peter, Northants, UK
How can the government justify charging graduates on the basis that they earn more whilst also saying that they want 50% of people to go to university? How can 50% of the population end up earning considerably more than average? Whenever the government is challenged over the 50% target, it bleats about elitism. This elitism shouldn't be social, but it should be intellectual. There are countless socio-economic factors which mean that some bright children start life with no hope of staying on at school past GCSE. A sort of cosmetic inverted snobbery which simply says, meaninglessly, that university is for everyone doesn't address that.
Maria, Cambridge, UK
Why should students pay for their education when the tax payer pays for treatment for lung cancer caused by smoking? Surely the taxpayer should pay for universities as well?
Mark, UK
| Taxing university students for wasting three years of their life seems a very good idea indeed |
University fees should be made really high for everyone. That way, people like me would wake up and get a job instead. University is little more than three years off. In those three years I could have earned enough to get a mortgage rather than have �15000 debt. I would have three years work experience and training rather than a dumbed-down first class honours. Taxing university students for wasting three years of their life seems a very good idea indeed.
Lance, UK Encouraging students to go into debt will have a major impact on society's psyche as we are encouraged to be long term debtors. What a disaster! Government needs to trim its spending to match its pocket.
Philip Stevens, Woking, UK
Time this government stopped paying people to be out of work and fund better, and free university places. Once they have to pay the %40 tax the money is soon recovered.
Steve, UK
It's just so incredibly unfair to everyone whose parents earn in excess of �18,000 per annum. In London, �18,000 pa is pretty much on the bread line.
Msmo, London UK
New Labour are ruining University Education with these measures. As always, it's the MIDDLE CLASSES that will suffer. The rich can afford it easily, the poor will get grants (paid for by the middle classes) and the middle classes who are deemed to be 'able' to pay will have to struggle. In no way is this system fair. The solution is easy. Call the former Polys Polytechnics again, abolish the 'Mickey Mouse' courses, and pay for the sciences and serious arts subjects by CUTTING GOVERNMENT WASTE. Or to put it simply, vote Tory at the next election.
Matthew, Macclesfield, England
It makes no sense that top-up fees are means tested on the parental income since it is the student, not the parents, who is responsible for repayment.
Gordon Hickley, Ilford, UK
Labour keeps saying that the people fortunate enough to go to university and earn larger salaries should be willing to pay for the privilege. Well they do, it's called 40% higher rate income tax! Which seems to go towards subsidising the lives of people who couldn't be bothered to make an effort at school and can't be bothered to work now.
Parth, Wembley
Far too many people expect go to university today. The majority should be in industry funded vocational schemes. If we are to have top-up fees, perhaps they should be graduated on the merit of the course - full funding for the sciences, none for hairdressing and media studies.
Bob, London, England.
University funding should be by central Government using normal taxation resources from the treasury. The education of the nation is for the benefit everyone. Imagine the country without universities (objectively) and think how the nation's World-Standing would be affected.
Chris Hayes, London
The whole point of further education...so I was led to believe is to earn more money. If you earn more money you pay more taxes, surely you pay back your education that way?
Mgas, Oxford UK
| The problem here is students expect something for nothing |
Yes of course the government should stand firm over tuition fees. When I went on to further education to get a ONC and HNC in electronics, I paid my own fees. The problem here is students expect something for nothing. But that only reflects today's attitudes to life in general.
Steve, Reading, UK I am currently a student at Sheffield, and probably fairly unique in that I support the new measures. I don't agree that we should slash places at universities, and clearly there are bigger priorities for our tax money. Somebody has to pay, and I think this is the fairest way of organising things to prevent a decline in standards of education.
Kobs Wentworth, Bristol, UK
I'm in my third year of university with exams and a dissertation to concentrate on but I'm too busy because I have two part time jobs to pay for the rent and bills and to help catch up on the debt I've accumulated at University. If it's been this hard for me under the old system I worry about the effects the new system of up to �3,000 fees will have on students. It definitely will not encourage them into higher education.
Caroline, London
Abolish the term fees! In Sweden we have managed without them for several years, and we can still keep up the same quality of education.
Fredrik, Sweden
Students pursuing a degree in medicine should not have to pay any tuition fees. This is to attract more students into medicine to compensate for the limited doctors we have in Britain and to avoid bringing foreign national doctors to compensate for the shortage. It should adopt the techniques of student nurses who do not pay any tuition fees due to the shortage in the number of nurses in Britain.
Tanzil Awal, Birmingham
University should be funded through taxation and should be free to all. I never had the opportunity to attend a University, but I believe anyone who has the ability should be allowed to do so. The country as a whole would benefit therefore the country as a whole should pay.
Edward Conway, Northumberland I think the Government will stand firm over the issue of top-up fees and I think they will lose the next election because of it. I graduated in 2000 and escaped tuition fees, it seems totally unfair that just because I was born a few years earlier I didn't have to pay anything towards tuition.
The government forgets that as well as tuition fees there are living costs, and it is utter nonsense that a degree means you will get a better job. None of my friends managed to get better jobs than anyone without a degree, and the best I could achieve was an office junior, and that was with a 2:1 from a good university.
Tom Brown, London, UK
The attitudes of some disgust me. If we do not pay students' education, why should we pay unemployment benefit? At least students use their time trying to develop a career. There are many people who sit at home doing nothing, but get a lot more government support than students, who actually contribute something to society when their courses are completed. Stop paying for one, stop paying for all. And for the moany old people out there, perhaps we should stop public pensions too - that'd save a couple of quid.
Nick, Nottingham, UK
| You can't fund wars and educate people for free |
You can't fund wars and educate people for free. Ask not why should we pay, but why is there a need for us to do so? If the government could afford grants 20 years ago, then why can't it now? It's all relative financially, so what do they need the money for now, that they didn't then?
Simon, Reigate, UK Yes, the fees are fair. Students should pay if they want to study at that level... Most will earn it back whereas I feel it unfair to expect low paid people to fund it.
Paul, UK
Don't students have evening or weekend jobs any longer? This is also a good way to mix with the rest of the population. Paid lets say 5 pound per hour for a job in a restaurant or cafe, it will only take 4 or 5 hours per week to pay for the tuition fees .
Sebastian Kalwij, London
Currently with at best 40,000 to 50,000 graduate entry jobs being chased by 200,000+ "graduates", many are already finding that second rate University Degrees are not worth the paper they're written on let alone worth being 10K to 15K in debt for. Trying to make 50% of 18 year olds take higher education will just be swelling the 2007 dole queues with disillusioned and indebted media study and psychology graduates.
Nick, London
The Tory angle on this one is interesting - They are against top-up fees and also against higher taxes! Where is the money coming from?
Andrew M, Walsall, UK
At the university level, the government should not be expect to pay for education. The attitude of entitlement has resulted in many university grads who are waiting tables or not working at all. While there is a shortage of tradesmen in the UK, people are harping on about college fees. Anyone see the problem here? Too many people going to university and not enough choosing a trade occupation instead. Who ever said that everyone was either entitled to or needed a university degree?
Sarah Wimbley, London, UK Perhaps education should only be free as long as it is compulsory? Education past 16 is not mandatory and is a privilege. There are those studying for A-Levels only to avoid having to work for a living. They should be made to pay.
Iain Nicholson, UK
Given the amount of grief a student gets (the economic, not just the academic grief), I am not surprised that we have to import doctors and nurses, among other professionals. Education is a right, not a privilege!
Raul Pinto, High Wycombe, England
One-Minute World News 
News services
E-mail this to a friend 
Printable version 
