>>>...
>>>>It is not unusual for 4 years of college to run close to 100,000.00 and in some cases, double or triple that. There used to be more grants (free tuition) available when Jimmy Carter was President. I had a grant which I lost when Reagan became President in 1980.
>>>
>>>And the students in England are kicking off cos the govt's introduced £3,000 pa tuition and for the first time in years the no. of students signing on has fallen. When I was at college in the 80s we got free tuition, a maintenance grant (to live on) - means tested on parents' income, social security during the vac's, help with the cost of housing and travelling expenses. If you'd worked for at least 3 years (as I had) you got a full "mature student" grant which was not means tested. I never had to flip burgers to supplement my lifestyle and even ran a car.
>>>
>>>The grants were whittled away by Thatcher and Major after my time (for which I severely resented them), by freezing, then it ALL went with Blair.
>>>
>>>I really feel that I was part of the never-had-it-so-good generation.
>>
>>From a personal POV, sure. But England had to adapt to financial reality. With a tax rate that high it was impossible to remain competitive in a global market. Some of the Scandinavian countries still haven't quite figured that out, and become more and more marginalized in the world economy.
>
>Sure. Who am I to argue financial realities with men skilled at it? On the other hand, it does mean that higher education seems now weighted towards the middle and upper clases, who have financial parental backing. Like in the US, your Harvards and Princtowns are inhabited by those who even without a good education would do alright from their inheritance (they all seem to end up as just more lawyers anyway!) :-)

Terry;

I noticed that you can have a C average if you are from Yale, and be President of the United States. That speaks highly of our educational system. Imagine what our A students are capable of! :)

Tom