* Should the rich be able to pay for university places?

Should the rich be able to pay for university place

  • Yes

    Votes: 19 30.2%
  • No

    Votes: 44 69.8%

  • Total voters
    63
I'm going to answer yes, with a twist.

Anyone whose parents or on an income of over a certain amount should be allowed to waltz in to any University they like in the UK, with a few provisos.

1 - They must meet the entrance requirement for the course.

2 - They must pay the full £27k up front.

3 - If they refuse to pay the higher amount they will not be allowed into the university at all, irrespective of qualifications.

4 - Universities must prove to an external independent body that all of these 'sold' places are extra places, so they do not deprive poorer pupils of a place.

5 - 90% of the money raised above what is needed to provide the education (in other words minus the cost of educating a 'normal' student) is to be spent by the University making everyone else's education cheaper.

We have a term for this. It's called redistribution of wealth. Frankly, the hyper-rich can and will pay for their kids to go to Harvard or Yale if they don't get in to Oxbridge, and as far as I'm concerned I'd rather have their money stay in the UK helping the worse off.

Sometimes you have to forget about your principles and do the right thing.

Steve W
 
3 - If they refuse to pay the higher amount they will not be allowed into the university at all, irrespective of qualifications.

I was following you up to here. So because someone comes from a rich background they are going to be forced to pay £27K up front regardless of how well qualified they are to sit the course? not one of the fairest things Ive ever heard lol
 
What relevance does this have, the point of going to University (primarily) is to achieve a particular qualification in a particular field, what a student does outside this parameter is purely incidental.

What really annoys me about this is that it is another attempt to widen the gap between the "haves" and the "have nots"

How long will it be before places at University are bought up as soon as a wealthy family find out they are pregnant, resulting in fewer and fewer places for talented or exceptional individuals who come form poorer backgrounds ?

How long will it be before those from poorer backgrounds are more or less eliminated from the university application process because their families simply can't afford to pay ?

This is yet another step back toward the Dickensian ideologies of the 19th century. It started with the introduction of tuition fees, and it show's no signs of letting up...!

It started when the numbers of people expected to go to university began to climb dramatically. The amount of people competing for a pool of resources that did not increase very much in size started the process off.

Trying to make things "fair" is not helping. In the past, a smaller number of students received free higher education irrespective of their background be it stately pile on back to back terrace- truely egalitarian. Those who might have struggled to live whilst attending even got a grant. Now, in trying to make it "fair", once again money will out. This will continue until the system is small enough to function purely on merit again.
 
I was following you up to here. So because someone comes from a rich background they are going to be forced to pay £27K up front regardless of how well qualified they are to sit the course? not one of the fairest things Ive ever heard lol

You'll have to try very hard to get me to feel sorry for the raw deal the hyper-rich are getting.

What's the difference between this and higher earners paying more tax?

You earn a little, you pay £9k a year. You earn a lot you pay £20k.

It's no less fair than the rich paying for their child's secondary education at a public school in class sizes in single figures. This automatically gives the rich a leg up over an identically-abled state school pupil. Do you think that's fair?

If a child from a rich family falls behind their parents can pay for extra tuition which a poorer child's parents cannot afford. Is that fair?

It's all unfair. It's just a matter of trying to even things up a little as and when you get chance.

Steve W
 
Last edited:
The problem is that the Universities minister Willetts was so inept in the Commons he allowed haters to dominate the discussion rather than get across what the proposal is

- Currently universities can set a number of "off-quota" places to non-EU students
- The proposal is that would be extended to domestic students who can raise sponsorship from businesses or charities but not wealthy individuals
- The same academic entry criterion would apply

Having dissected it so, it is a separate point as to whether or not such a proposal does indeed favour those who grew up in a privileged background; the inference being lower numbers of "normal" teenagers would have the opportunity or connections to incentivise a business or charity to sponsor their higher education

Unfortunately for Mr Willetts most people will not bother to do some reading and just take away the headline, so this proposal is now dead in the water

That might be the case because the one thing that is not being said is that less academically able students would get in. Should the proposal go ahead the same entry criteria would apply. What is at the heart of this discussion is whether or not in allowing universities to create "extra" places (and for those in such a position to take advantage of), whether it is also limiting social mobility because it benefits mostly those of a better background

What he said :) I haven't voted as the poll as presented is not representative of the actual proposal.

@ nheather, you realise apart from myself no-one will read your post and respond only on the thread title (the wording which I personally object to as it is opinion, rather than a statement of fact)

I read it :thumbsup:

I total disagree with being able to pay for a place that could deny someone else from a poorer background (but just as bright) a place on the course.

Me too :thumbsup:
 
I was following you up to here. So because someone comes from a rich background they are going to be forced to pay £27K up front regardless of how well qualified they are to sit the course? not one of the fairest things Ive ever heard lol

I am assuming Pecker is suggesting that it would be means tested.

If my assumption is correct it doesn't sound very fair to me. Don't see why rich folk should be forced to pay a higher University fee just because of their wealth.
 
I am assuming Pecker is suggesting that it would be means tested.

If my assumption is correct it doesn't sound very fair to me. Don't see why rich folk should be forced to pay a higher University fee just because of their wealth.

I assumed he was talking about the specific situation being described in this thread, and not ALL rich people seeking to go to university.
 
If my assumption is correct it doesn't sound very fair to me. Don't see why rich folk should be forced to pay a higher University fee just because of their wealth.

I do. Because their wealth has helped them get the 'A' Level grades they have.

I'll tell you what, I'll offer an opt out.

The hyper rich can still go along for £9k as long as they weren't sent to public school.

If you don't believe in money buying you an education, go to a state school.

If you go to public school, then you clearly believe money should buy you a better education.

The parent chooses whether they want a fair system, or one where they have to pay for a leg up. I have no time for those who insist on the right to buying their children an advantage ages 5-18, but then refuse to pay later on and bleat about equality.

Steve W
 
I do. Because their wealth has helped them get the 'A' Level grades they have.

I'll tell you what, I'll offer an opt out.

The hyper rich can still go along for £9k as long as they weren't sent to public school.

If you don't believe in money buying you an education, go to a state school.

If you go to public school, then you clearly believe money should buy you a better education.

The parent chooses whether they want a fair system, or one where they have to pay for a leg up. I have no time for those who insist on the right to buying their children an advantage ages 5-18, but then refuse to pay later on and bleat about equality.

Steve W

Why dont we make the 'hyper rich' pay more for everything, if you earn under £15K a year you get a 20% discount on everything but if you earn more than £20K you pay an extra 5%, if you earn more than £150K you pay 100% more.

I agree that yes, the rich can afford expensive things but I dont think that its unfair that they can buy things I cant. They or their family have worked either in the present day or at some point in history to get themselves into the position they are in, what right does the public have to start taking their money away just because they have worked for it?
 
I'm going to answer yes, with a twist.

Anyone whose parents or on an income of over a certain amount should be allowed to waltz in to any University they like in the UK, with a few provisos.
This is not about wealthy parents being able to send their children to university contrary to the sensationalist headlines now posted all over the media

This is about creating extra university places through sponsorship from businesses or charities. Sponsorship by individuals is not included. Whether or not that in itself benefits more those from a privileged background over disadvantaged is the only relevant question
 
This is not about wealthy parents being able to send their children to university contrary to the sensationalist headlines now posted all over the media

This is about creating extra university places through sponsorship from businesses or charities. Sponsorship by individuals is not included. Whether or not that in itself benefits more those from a privileged background over disadvantaged is the only relevant question

I know that the real news story is different from the sensationalist headlines, I was just responding to the thread title "Should the rich be able to pay for university places?"

Steve W
 
Why dont we make the 'hyper rich' pay more for everything, if you earn under £15K a year you get a 20% discount on everything but if you earn more than £20K you pay an extra 5%, if you earn more than £150K you pay 100% more.

I agree that yes, the rich can afford expensive things but I dont think that its unfair that they can buy things I cant. They or their family have worked either in the present day or at some point in history to get themselves into the position they are in, what right does the public have to start taking their money away just because they have worked for it?

I'm not suggesting they should pay more for everything.

BTW, how sure are you that all rich people are rich because they've worked harder than everyone else?

Just as an example, we were talking about Harvard University - an education there will, on average, bring you more wealth. Were you aware that 75% of succesful applicants for Harvard are first born? How much effort did they put into that? Are all people born as a second or third child just lazy?

Steve W
 
I do. Because their wealth has helped them get the 'A' Level grades they have.

I'll tell you what, I'll offer an opt out.

The hyper rich can still go along for £9k as long as they weren't sent to public school.

If you don't believe in money buying you an education, go to a state school.

If you go to public school, then you clearly believe money should buy you a better education.

So what do you define as hyper rich? Clearly you must have a benchmark for this proposition?
 
"Should the rich be able to pay for university places?"

Sorry for double post.

I was about to go to bed when I made this post and I obtained the title from the ridiculously left wing education section of the Guardian. I was far too tired to offer the title any further scrutiny in terms of its impartiality.
 
Sorry for double post.

I was about to go to bed when I made this post and I obtained the title from the ridiculously left wing education section of the Guardian. I was far too tired to offer the title any further scrutiny in terms of its impartiality.

You were reading The Guardian, I doubt they can spell impartiality.
 
You were reading The Guardian, I doubt they can spell impartiality.

I know I am giving up with it. It's just full of left wing nonsense, always crying about society and it's inequalities amongst other things; it is just nauseating. Their online offering seems to be significantly worse than their actual paper, the latter seems to be more balanced.

I think I will stick to Reuters from now on and only utilise the Guardian for their excellent sport section.
 
I know I am giving up with it. It's just full of left wing nonsense, always crying about society and it's inequalities amongst other things; it is just nauseating. Their online offering seems to be significantly worse than their actual paper, the latter seems to be more balanced.

I think I will stick to Reuters from now on.

The online section of any of the papers is a bit terrifying. I fear meeting any of those people in public. You can't go wrong with Reuters though- their iPhone Ap is top notch.
 
Why dont we make the 'hyper rich' pay more for everything, if you earn under £15K a year you get a 20% discount on everything but if you earn more than £20K you pay an extra 5%, if you earn more than £150K you pay 100% more.

I agree that yes, the rich can afford expensive things but I dont think that its unfair that they can buy things I cant. They or their family have worked either in the present day or at some point in history to get themselves into the position they are in, what right does the public have to start taking their money away just because they have worked for it?

...and I'm sure nobody would argue otherwise. If a multi-millionaire goes out and buys 10 Aston Martins, then that's a reasonable statement, most people from a poorer background could only dream of doing such, however if a multi-millionaire buys his/her child a place into University which could inevitably end up at the expense of a far brighter and more intelligent child from a poorer background would that be fair ?

Now, I know it's not like this at the moment, but what's to stop it happening in the future !?!?
 
This thread is rapidly turning into a "If the moon were made of cheese, should we go there and mine it ?" thread. But don't let me stop you... :smashin:
 
If the moon were made of cheese, should we go there and mine it ?
No, we can make better use of the money on techno trousers for the elderly
 
So what do you define as hyper rich? Clearly you must have a benchmark for this proposition?

Clearly I don't, as I haven't offered one.

:D

Okay, I'll try two general ideas as a starting point.

Firstly, I'd maybe charge this amount to 'people so rich that they won't notice it'. Dunno how rich that is - you tell me.

...or...

How about charging it to everyone who went to public school (well, everyone who paid to go).

With the latter, the parent gets true choice. If they want both their children and poorer children to be treated equally and fairly, they can send them to a state comp. Let's face it, they'll still be able to afford a house in the catchment area of the best school in the authority, so they still have an advantage.

However, if they feel that education is something that can be bought and sold, with privilege going to the rich, then they can opt for that, too.

Surely, to preach that education is a commodity to be purchased when your child is aged 5-18, but then to cry 'equality' when your child goes to university, is rank hypocrisy.

Steve W
 
How about changing the premier league so that the richest clubs start with a points advantage based on how much money they have. So City can pay £100m and they start the season with 20 points. United pay £80m and they get 15 points and so on. The money that the rich clubs pay is then given to the smaller clubs and the and the fans get cheaper tickets. Sound good?

Well it sorts of happens. They buy their way to the top. (Also smaller clubs love getting Cup ties with big clubs.)
 
These will be charged at the same fee (say £27K for a 3 year course), but the requirement is that the fee is paid at once and up front - so £27K up front rather than £9K per year - and not going through the loan system.

A bargain really. 3 years at uni for the price of one year at Eton.
 

The latest video from AVForums

TV Buying Guide - Which TV Is Best For You?
Subscribe to our YouTube channel
Back
Top Bottom