As response to OP's first paragraph.
You go to school for an education that you use to get a better job. If there are less students going to college due to costs, then the standards for getting a job may drop, making it easier to get a job without needing a degree or having to be a college student. At the same time, colleges will have to figure out ways to become more efficient.
You admitted that the government is cutting tuition because they can't afford it, but because students suffer, you believe this is a bad idea. That is absolutely and utterly selfish. The government pays for tuition through tax dollars. If you wish for the government to continue paying for student tuition, then you must realize that taxes may go up as a result, increasing the cost of living even more for everyone.
The problem with expensive university costs is this: You cut off the flow of knowledge.
Knowledge can be acquired in a number of different ways. The best way to acquire knowledge is through experience. But before we get into all that, why should the government be responsible for supplying people with knowledge? That alone is not a reason for the government to pay. No, the reason why the government is responsible is because knowledge is required to get a well paying job.
To understand what I'm trying to say, let's assume that the only reason to go to college is to learn. If you go to college, it offers no advantage to getting a job directly. This means there are no degrees and there's no point in saying you went to the college on your resume. The only purpose of college here is to gain knowledge, knowledge you can use to give yourself an advantage over other people, or knowledge merely because you're a curious person. Now, if college offered no direct advantage to acquiring a job, would you still demand that college invests in a system that does not necessarily make it easier to get a job? Sure, maybe it would be a noble thing, but there's no way the government can profit in any way. You don't need it to get a job, and people will find other ways of gaining knowledge.
Now, for many jobs out there, you merely need experience to understand how to do that job. In the US, if you want to become a hair stylist, you need I believe 8 months of education to do so. However, there are many ways to learn how to become a hair stylist, such as becoming an apprentice for a while.
If you want to go into radio, help a radio station out. Not only is it cheaper, you're gaining knowledge without having to go to school. If you do go to school to work at a radio station, then you should gain some advantages when you apply for the job, but it should by no means be a requirement.
You can argue that people should work harder, but that argument holds no water when you are already working hard and yet can't seem to make the money you need to to further your education which could allow you to pull yourself out of debt.
It's hard to promote yourself when you need an education to do so. Rather than fighting for an education, you should fight for less restrictions when applying for jobs. You should fight to make it easier to promote yourself through work rather than fighting to make college cheaper.
There is only so far in debt you can go before you realize that you have to start paying that debt, and the only way that will happen is if you get some job, and drop out of school.
Yeah, the only way to get out debt is to stop spending! Oh, I'm talking about the government. Did you stop and ask yourself how the government makes the money to fund education? Taxes.
What the English government has done is wrong. To deny someone the right to education is to deny someone their right to live to their full potential.
You misused the word right. A right is protection from the government, not an entitlement to a goods or programs.
Regardless, the mistake the government made was that they started paying for student fees. This allowed colleges to become dependent on these fees being provided by the government. This means that as soon as the government starts to have financial problems, the colleges suffer. And if the colleges get less money from the government, the colleges must increase their prices. If these colleges were not so dependent on government aid from the start, then they would have had to find a way to become cheaper so students could afford an education. Education does not have to be expensive. If you have a lot of cheap colleges, then they start to compete with each other by providing better services and education that help the students. This means colleges are fighting each other to be as cheap as possible while maintaining the best quality as possible.
Currently the average tuition is $6000 dollars give or take. This doesn't include food, books, transportation and living quarters. Triple that and you have $18,000 not for a top of the line school, but for an average one. Think about it.
So instead of making the students pay, the tax payers should pay?
Hell I'm having trouble making enough money for a 6K tuition not to mention other expenses like residence. I couldn't imagine what I'd do if it tripled.
But why did they triple in the first place?
I enjoyed the pictures that were posted. If you need a job, join the police force!
The protesters are vandalizing and rioting because they want someone else to pay for their tuition. How could I ever back such mentality? Of course, to be fair, these students believe college is the only solution to living a good life and they feel it is being taken away. This could have been prevented if colleges weren't funded by the government in the first place. Not only would there be more demand for uneducated workers, but schools would be cheaper due to competition. It's a win win situation.
