The Debate Over Top-up Fees and Variable Tuition in U.K.

' The overarching premise is that students should be obliged(predicate) to contribute to the cost of an knowledge that is expected to benefit them flat that is, financially later in life (The Economist 60).

At first glance this idea seems to agree with the most equalitarian conceptions of social justice. Critics, however, are not convinced that variable knowledge fees get out benefit the underprivileged. On the contrary, it is feared that variable top-up fees entrust give rise a new economic market for higher education (Hughes 49). In this scenario, poorer students will be deterred from attending more pricy courses or universities; expensive programmes such as medicine or law will be earmarked for the wet, while more affordable programmes will be reserved for the poor. The relative fear of debt will inform and affect the choices made by the prospective student.

willing the poor student be deterred by this fear and overturn the more expensive course or university? Opponents of variable care fees argue in the affirmative. The expected result of such a scheme is a widening gulf mingled with the blue and poor, with higher paying professions effectively reserved for those wealthy sufficiency as students to afford the more expensive 'ticket' into the halls of higher learning. On this view, variable tuition fees will quash social mobility and trench the rich and the poor in their respective roles.

Opponents of the variable tuition scheme would argue that the supra is more than likely it is inevitable.

To begin, it is anticipated that the financial gulf between the richest and poorest universities will surely widen; this assertion, backed by citation analysts reporting for Standard and Poor's, highlights the fact that:

Additionally, critics of variable tuition fees take in that because universities can decide what percentage of the 3,000 pound fee to consecrate, so an open-market educational system will be created, favoring those students that come from wealthy backgrounds. In this, 'students from poorer backgrounds will be put off spillage to more expensive courses (Hughes).' Medical schools, for example, are likely to charge the full 3,000 pound top-up fee; the fear then becomes that the 'fear of debt' will mean that students from working class backgrounds 'will decide against studying medicine' (Hughes).

Blair, Tony. 'Full text edition: Blair's IPPR Speech.' The Guardian. Wednesday January 14, 2004. Retrieved from the World Wide electronic network March 10, 2004: www.guardian.co.uk.

Smithers, Rebecca. 'How the System go away Work: Study Now, Pay Later.' The Guardian. Friday, January 9, 2004. Retrieved from the World Wide Web March 10, 2004: www.guardian.co.uk.

Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.