• The post you are reporting:
   
  I am not against the students,but the government has a fair point. As it was Tony Blairs goal to have 50% of school leaving youngsters go to university the fees problem should have been tackled when he made his ambitions clear.
  I do not know what the percentage of youngsters attending university is but guess it must be nearing the 50% mark. If it is that high then it does raise the question who should pay??
  
  It is all very well saying the government should pay, but one really has to stop and Analise just what exactly that means??
  
  Do the student have a right to money that has been earmarked for training schemes for the other youngsters who cannot, or do not choose to go to uni.?? should money earmarked for the N.H.S.
  be used to pay for them?? There is only a finite amount of money which has to be shared between all the different departments of government. I find myself asking the question, Should students fee come out of national tax?? and then I think if it did then why should that be?? what makes them a special case above all others?? and when I take a cool calm look I really cannot think of a justifiable cause. Okay I suppose the argument is that they cannot afford the debt, but hang on a minute nobody else can afford debt , especially debt to pay for students as most people have a problem paying for the neccessities of life just to stay above water.
  
  It is a well accepted fact that the majority of students make a head long rush to get into uni knowing full well that when the have got there degrees they can become part of the establishment, by association get good jobs far better then the jobs non uni youngsters can hope to achieve. And of course as with every thing else in life there is a price to pay. It is a very simple analogy if you want a degree and a good job then they must be prepared to make some sacrifices and that does not include expecting John Doe in the street to bail them out

Report Post

Your Name

Reason