Customer Discussions > Education forum

Why should students have to pay tuition fees?


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-13 of 13 posts in this discussion
Initial post: Nov 12, 2010 6:55:57 PM PST
M. Steane says:
Britain is currently undergoing a series of student demos over the level of student fees, an event that happens in most developed countries from time to time.
In my opinion, they are dealing with the wrong issue. Students do not voluntarily take tuition, it is a requirement for assessment for a degree that they enroll with the same body that awards the qualifications as a student. This is a very obvious conflict of interests.
Now degree-awarding bodies have a distorted market, they can, and it appears that they do, fix exorbitant fees for their training services because unless students pay for these services they will not be assessed for a degree.
The answer is simple: those who assess for qualifications must not be allowed to be involved with the training of those they assess. With this separation of services, only those students who need help with reading their course will be obliged to pay for tuition and those who do will be paying a fair market price.
Michael Steane, author of Revenge of the Crippled Children available on Amazon Kindle

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2010 11:34:27 AM PST
Lisareads says:
"Michael Steane, author of Revenge of the Crippled Children available on Amazon Kindle "
============
The simple fact that resources are limited and many qualified children never get to go to school shows life is not fair. Unless parents are prepared to afford children and give them the opportunities they should not have children in the first place. Children can blame their parents not society for their plight.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2010 11:58:05 AM PST
Joel Kolstad says:
At least in the U.S., it's a very uncommon case where an academically-qualified kid is not able to go to college through the use of various grants and loans. From an investment perspective, going to college is still a very good deal: Over their lives, college-educated employees will, *on average* earns hundreds to thousands of times more money than the cost of tuition.

Just something to think about. I do believe the way colleges work is a bit messed up and these days often is more about "getting your ticket" than necessarily learning all that much, but even if the system is somewhat broken, it's clearly still a "win" to play the game.

Posted on Nov 13, 2010 1:31:56 PM PST
M. Steane says:
My essential question is why should the right to be assessed for a qualification be bundled with the obligation to pay for training from the same body that performs the assessment.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2010 1:41:59 PM PST
Lisareads says:
"My essential question is why should the right to be assessed for a qualification be bundled with the obligation to pay for training from the same body that performs the assessment."
============
Unless someone is an apprentice and adds value to a master the master has a right to do anything he is paying for. Education is not cheap and someone has to pay. It should be those benefiting from it. That would also give them the right to refuse training from a unfair Institution. The problem being that there is more demand than supply. We live in a world of surplus humans and limited resources.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2010 5:12:03 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2010 5:14:31 PM PST
M. Steane says:
There is more demand than supply for qualifications. The training is compulsory. Some people might not need to buy it from a college, but is still obliged to in order to get the qualification.
If I want a qualification but have to go through unnecessary training to get it, I am not benefiting from that training. I got a degree and was obliged to spend 3 years doing it. But, like many others, I could have done all the work in 4 months.
Michael Steane, Author of Why You Can't Do Math and What to Do About It available on
Amazon Kindle

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2010 5:50:13 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 13, 2010 5:51:53 PM PST
Lisareads says:
"If I want a qualification but have to go through unnecessary training to get it, I am not benefiting from that training."
===========
The basic education teachers you to read write and do math. With those skills you can teach yourself. Corporations are responsible for developing their work force not the Government. At one time we had apprenticeships, union training with skill levels attached to pay, and internships. The lobbyist has passed that cost to the public and Government. It is not the University's purpose to train for jobs and make a profit doing it. The university education is to make people aware of a higher level of understanding of life and the responsibilities that go along with being an intelligent knowledgeable person. The reason industry has different levels of vocations is to recognize when people have potential also make the leaders familiar with what the low level people experience. Without that knowledge with have corruption.

I had no problem with math as I did not learn it under the convoluted new math methodology. We were required to know how to solve problems not with pen and paper or computers. Most problems were word problems of practical applications. Later I did use a slide rule when studying engineering. When working with computers I could recognize computer model errors due to mental calculations in my head to get into the ball park. Today's problems are due to teachers not knowing the practical and having to follow guidelines to teaching to pass tests, which many are multiple choice. Not my kind of math. Many qualification certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 13, 2010 7:36:35 PM PST
M. Steane says:
Yes Lisa,
I agree with all you say, but so far no one has answered the question of why the right to be assessed for a qualification has to be tied to the obligation to buy training from the awarding body. It is simply an abuse of monopoly.

Posted on Nov 14, 2010 6:58:10 AM PST
Mary Over says:
Because university studies imply a lot of costs. Overseas students already pay £20 000 or more per year in order to have access to this education. Unfortunately people must pay in order to value what they are having. Until now, UK students had not realised the huge lucky they were, in comparison with other countries where even learning how to write and read is already a luxury.
So stop of going to the pub every week end :-) and taking gap years to exotic places, it would be better you look for a part time job and keep going saving.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2010 7:10:38 AM PST
Lisareads says:
" It is simply an abuse of monopoly"
===========
The Government has not enforced antitrust or anti monopoly laws since Reagan. The drum pounding on efficiency leaves only monopolies as competition is not efficient. The bottom line is monopolies can not survive without customers. People vote with their dollars for these criminal organizations. Change starts with individuals starting their own businesses and not honoring monopoly organizations. " Many qualification certificates are not worth the paper they are printed on." If Government honors them stop using Government services.

Posted on Nov 14, 2010 7:35:13 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 14, 2010 7:37:24 AM PST
Lisareads says:
"A group of San Francisco Unified School District administrators, including an associate superintendent, engaged in a long-running scheme to funnel district money into their personal bank accounts via nonprofit community organizations, according to internal documents."

You can not have organizations so big that they avoid public oversight. Many public private partnerships avoid transparency and citizen input and control. It is the Taxpayer that is responsible on how Government conducts business.

Posted on Nov 14, 2010 11:13:04 AM PST
M. Steane says:
Still no one has answered the question. Why should someone who needs a qualification and can train him/herself or already has the necessary skills/knowledge be required to pay for tuition he/she does not want or require?
It's a simple question. The problem is not whether the fees are too high or whether the "government" should pay them (different question) it is why they should be paid at all.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 14, 2010 1:58:28 PM PST
Lisareads says:
"it is why they should be paid at all. "
===========
No, the question is why require qualification at all.
It is a corrupt concept the government was lobbied to do. Example is Wallace Stevens never graduated Harvard but he worked as a journalist. Then he worked for a lawyer then attended law school. He got his job in insurance through connections. All the time he was really a poet. He worked insurance to his death.
‹ Previous 1 Next ›
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 



Thank you for your support of Amazon Discussion Forums. Due to the changing needs of Amazon Forums, we have decided to stop supporting the ‘Active discussions in related forums’ feature in order to focus on providing the most value for our customers.  
   
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Education forum
Participants:  4
Total posts:  13
Initial post:  Nov 12, 2010
Latest post:  Nov 14, 2010

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 1 customer

Search Customer Discussions