Goldsmiths announces new fees structure - 10 free places for Lewisham's best

Goldsmiths is planning to charge the maximum £9,000 annual tuition fees for new students. In a statement issued today, they also announced that 10 free places will be created for students from Lewisham:

Goldsmiths, University of London proposes to set a tuition fee of £9,000 for home/EU students on all undergraduate and PGCE courses and for all new entrants in 2012-13.

Goldsmiths is committed to attracting the most promising academic talent from a wide range of backgrounds, and to ensure we continue to build on this strong tradition we will introduce a raft of bursaries, waivers and awards worth more than £1.6million to help students.

Among those to benefit will be the brightest and best students from the borough of Lewisham, ten of whom will receive a complete fee-waiver to cover their entire undergraduate degree.

In addition to the fee waiver they will have the opportunity to become part of our pool of student ambassadors and be enrolled on our Gold Award, which helps students track and demonstrate their extra-curricular learning and skills development whilst at Goldsmiths. This is turn helps to improve their employment chances.

We will spend 30% of the fee income from all fees above £6,000 on additional measures to improve the student experience and encourage wider access to Goldsmiths. This substantial level of investment is consistent with our wish to maintain our ongoing success in attracting students to Goldsmiths regardless of their background.

We will also continue to work closely in partnership with local schools, colleges and universities to ensure aspirations are raised at an early age. That support extends to families and schools of students who are considering university, and will involve us supporting the application process too.

Pat Loughrey, Warden at Goldsmiths, said:

“We are committed to making Goldsmiths as socially inclusive as possible and this is reflected in our access agreement which is one of the most generous out there.

“We hope the £1.6million pledged towards fee waivers and bursaries will demonstrate the importance we place on ensuring Goldsmiths is open to those wishing to study with us, and firmly embeds Goldsmiths within the borough of Lewisham and South East London.”

Breakdown of support:

Full waivers for Lewisham’s brightest talent
We will give ten merit-based £9,000 fee-waivers (covering a full undergraduate degree) to the brightest and best students from Lewisham, our local borough. Those students will become part of our pool of student ambassadors and be enrolled on our Gold Award, which helps students track and demonstrate their extra-curricular learning and skills development through College.

Further £3,000 for each National Scholarship recipient
We will match our 2012-13 scholarship allocation, which is £195,000 and equates to 65 scholarships, with a further £3,000 for those scholars offered as either a fee-waiver or as a bursary, depending upon the scholar’s own choice.

Financial support for care-leavers
We will offer up to five awards of £4,000 value, as either a fee waiver, a bursary, or in-kind support (e.g. accommodation costs, computers, books) to students who are care-leavers.

Bursaries for those from non-traditional academic backgrounds
We will offer up to 10 bursaries of £3,000 for students over 25 who come from a non-traditional academic background but show great academic potential. These awards will be made on merit.

Awards for students with a disability
We will offer up to four awards of £4,500, as either a fee-waiver or a bursary, to students with a disability. These awards will be assessed on academic merit and on students need, to ensure that they are well-focussed.

Awards for students from our neighbouring boroughs
We will offer an award of £750 for students from Lewisham, Southwark, Greenwich, Lambeth, Tower Hamlets and Newham from homes with a combined income of less than £50,000. We will offer awards of £1,000 to students from homes with a combined income of less than £50,000 in neighbourhoods with a low university participation rate, offered as either a fee waiver or a cash bursary.

Waivers for students living outside of London from low income backgrounds
We will offer a fee waiver of £500 for all students in England, who do not live in the above boroughs and are eligible for a full maintenance grant to benefit students from lower income backgrounds outside London.

Strengthening our outreach links
We will be increasing the emphasis given to outreach work by academic departments, with increasing emphasis on departmental links with schools and colleges through progression compacts, and by strengthening the role of departmental leads. This will help to address subject specific widening access and retention issues which we know to have an impact in creative disciplines particularly.


Anonymous said...

I'm sure Brockley's many artisan children will have no problem coming up with the cash from this (via Daddy) following their gap year.

As for good honest students, they're screwed.

Tressilliana said...

What is a good honest student, please?

As I read that press release, the ten scholarship students only have to live in Lewisham, not necessarily come from low-income families. That seems a bit odd.

Wild Bill said...

Good Honest Student:


- noun

1. Student who's main aim for attending university is to learn, not to dick about

2. Student who funds themselves through part time work, not from their parents, thereby valuing their education accordingly

3. Student for whom education is treated as a privilage and opportunity, not as an automatic right of passage after sixth form / gap year.

Brockley Nick said...

Hmm, Wild Bill, you seem to be arguing in favour of high fees on the basis that it makes people value their education, which I'm not sure was your intention.

And of course, it ought to go without saying that people of many different backgrounds fit that description.

I'm sure you know that.

Hugh said...

Nick, which yooni was u at, yah?

Brockley Nick said...

@Tressliana - the free places are aimed at supporting local excellence, so it makes sense that they shouldn't necessarily be restricted to people from low-income backgrounds. There are £750-1,000 'awards' for people from low-income families.

So the logic is fairly clear, I think.

Tim said...

As someone who went to uni and d@cked about, using student loans and parents cash, I think fees are an excellent idea. Students WILL value their educations more and work harder if they know the true cost, and will also put more consideration into the initial decision.

Non-artisan, good honest grad who likes the occasional olive. said...

...but will students from a poorer background be MORE concerned by the future debt? May not be the intention but if mum & dad have a few quid, £40k may be less intimidating either because you know they won't let you go bust or that you are accustomed to that level of spending. Higher education has always had an element of that thinking, will this make it worse?

I'm still undecided, but I know it would have made me pause to think.

Crofton Park Ranger said...

Relevant (but only for sh1ts and giggles):

Anonymous said...

That's how I imagine Brockley Nick to be

Brockley Nick said...

@Anon 1306 - the same laser-guided accuracy of social commentary we get with the "mung" gags.

If I didn't know any better, I'd think you had never been let out of the house to meet real people.

Wild Bill said...

I don't think it will make people value the education more. Due to the ever increasing wealth divide in this country it will just mean that lots of ordinary people won't go at all because they are scared off by the terrible debt. People that can afford it, well, can afford it, so their attitudes won't change.

That's how I see it in any case. Only time will tell. And hey, it's only the future generation's education that's being experimented with. No skin off my nose :)

I do think that Goldsmiths opting for the highest rate is surprising, considering their history of encouring inclusivity. I actually think that it could hurt their brand considerably if it does result in only rich kid art students going there. One of it's big draws is it's 'cutting edge' reputation, and I think it's fair to say that that is in part due to the diverse background of students it (currently) has.

Tressilliana said...

My son will be applying for university in the autumn and would, I assume, be eligible to apply for a Goldsmiths scholarship. I'm actually quite keen that he should go to university more than a mile from home and I think he is too, so I doubt he would be interested. However, if the scholarships are going to be given on academic merit and Lewisham residence alone, what struck me is that they will be highly likely to go to young people who who go to one of the following types of school:

1. Independent
2. Grammar school in outer London
3. One of the very few really high-performing comprehensive schools in Inner London, not necessarily in LBL

Most (not all) of these young people will also come from quite affluent homes. Is this really what Goldsmiths wants to spend its scholarship fund on? Independent schools don't - they are moving away from academic scholarships to bursaries for children from low-income families.

Brockley Nick said...

@Wild Bill

But you said, approvingly:

"Student who funds themselves through part time work, not from their parents, thereby valuing their education accordingly"


"Student for whom education is treated as a privilage and opportunity, not as an automatic right of passage after sixth form / gap year."

Which suggests you think university education ought not to be an automatic right and is more valued if one has to pay for it. That is either true for both "the middle classes" and "the working classes" or it is not true in either case.

The very wealthy don't need to worry about the cost of education in either scenario - but then, their futures are secure whether they go to university or not - it's one of the advantages (and possibly disadvantages of being very rich).

For 99% of the population (and 99.99% of Brockley), £27,000 fees + costs + opportunity cost of going to university when you could be doing something else IS a big issue. To pretend that there are large numbers of conservation area teenagers who won't think twice about these costs is to deny reality.

I personally think that encouraging people to pay some of the costs of their university education is a good thing, since it will make people think carefully before committing to university. It will make them think hard about their course, their college and their alternatives, in a way that some don't at present.

I'd suggest that people from poorer backgrounds probably already make these calculations. Middle Class kids sometimes don't. It will give some of those kids who don't think about why they are going to University pause for thought and make them more likely to value the education they receive.

So some increase in fees is probably a good thing, IMO. £9,000 per year is too much. I would have capped it at £6,000.

Although practically every university is trying to charge top whack, it will be interested to see how many of them find buyers for all their places.

Tressilliana said...

With no subsidy in future from the government for teaching, except to cover equipment etc for STEM subjects, universities can't afford not to charge top whack.

Wild Bill said...

Nick - But people already had to pay a not insubstantial amount for it, and as such people for whom the existing amount of debt was an issue took a different approach than those for whom it was an irrelevance. I just think that with the amount being charged now those people will be put off going altogether.

I'm not against people having to fund their education, but (like you) I feel the amount they are being charged is too much. I also take the view that as a tax payer who has benefited from subsidised education I'd rather my taxes went towards helping other people up the ladder (instead of being spent on wars / paying off debts, yada yada yada), than students being forced to make such tough financial decissions.

Ho hum.

Paddyom said...

The fees are a lot of money and will hit everyone very hard. But I can understand the need for it to a certain extent.

I think they will hit those doing arts and humanity degrees a lot harder than those doing say, medical, business, IT degrees etc... as the earning power after qualifying is typically much higher in these fields. Its probably not a bad thing if it reduces those Unis offering 'celebrity studies' etc... in order to get government funding though.

I think people get free primary and secondary education which is pretty impressive already, and personally believe University should be an optional choice, which if you take up, you pay for.

working class olive muncher said...

Yes paddydom but do you think there is a collective responsibility to help those on lower incomes to develop themselves? Equality of opertunity. I don't object that a proportion of my taxes should be used for a little boost, call it social engineering if you like. I call it increasing opportunity and maximising peoples potential. I don't think that universities should essentially be private self funding institutions, some state support is appropriate.

Paddyom said...

WCOM - yeah I agree with you. Lower income kids should be given tangible financial help. However I think also middle income kids should get some help too. Middle-income people are so often deemed 'rich' when they are anything but. Especially when faced with a £9k fee for each child in Uni. Let the super rich sod off and pay for themselves.

I don't think taxpayers should feel guilty for demanding value-for-money for our hard earned buck. If these fees put off some of the kids that were going to do Lady Gaga studies at the taxpayers expense just to then sign on the dole afterwards, then I'll be happy. If kids have these big loans to pay back after Uni, it will encourage them to do courses which are meaningful, actually lead to employment afterwards and ultimately benefit the economy for all.

Lou Baker said...

No one has to pay a penny upfront.

The upfront cost is zero. Nothing. Nil.

Anyone can afford it.

Instead, graduates are being asked to pay back their course fees after they graduate.

If they don't earn above £20k they pay back zero. Nothing. Nil.

Anyone can afford that.

If they never earn above £20k they never pay anything back. Zero. Nothing. Nil.

Anyone can afford that.

After 30 years if the fees haven't been paid back the debt is written off. To zero. Nothing. Nil.

Anyone can afford it.

Should students understand that their education is valuable? Yes.

Is it right that all taxpayers - including those who don't benefit from university - should pay for those who do? No. Absolutely not.

Despite the whines from students the government has got this policy spot on.

And, Tressiliana, don't let your son go to uni near home. That's a dire mistake. Let him spread his wings.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Yes Lou, everyone gets that. Will £30 or 40k be more of a deterrent to those who come from less well off backgrounds? Is there a place for the state in funding at least a proportion of higher education from general taxation or do you advocate a totally private HE sector?

I think it's right and proper that the state takes a lead in trying to smooth out some of the extremes and encourage those on lower incomes to reach the potential.

That's all, call it an investment it that makes you sleep better. Bit like public transport, we don't expect just the users to fund the system. We seem to accept that a system that is affordable benefits the country as a whole even if you never set foot on a train.

Mb said...

Moving away from home is bound to be a less attractive option now. In my day ( you are allowed to say that when you're post 40) you could claim housing benefit if renting, moving away from home was at least as valuable as the degree. For courses like engineering that have almost a full 8hr day plus study it would leave little time for a job other than a little bar work. Or stripping.

Henry's Cat said...

Lou, your argument fails to take into account that children from wealthy families will not have to pay anything back ever, irrespective of what they earn, because their parents will be in a position to fund their education. Others from less fortunate backgrounds will be paying off considerable debts from their enormous £20k+ salaries while their rich contemporaries will not. And thus the playing field will be even bumpier than before.

Lou Baker said...


Your argument fails to take into account that not all kids from wealthy families are bankrolled by their parents.

As much as it's not a child's fault if their parents are poor, it's not their fault if their parents are rich either.

And how do you define rich anyway?

The system proposed is fair. No one has to pay upfront. No one has to pay until THEY (not their parents) earn a certain amount. No one has to pay for ever. The highest earners pay the most.

So come on then, come up with something fairer. Or is your definition of fairer that someone other than you pays for everything.

That's a pinko favourite.

Bakerloo said...

"a pinko favourite" once again the kernel of a sensible argument derailed by a childish bit of rhetoric. You do realise that it makes you sound as ridiculous as the wickham road anarchists who bang on about capitalist hegemony? It does, get someone to proof read your posts.

Silly boy.

Coney said...

9k a year for u/g course at Goldsmiths?

When this policy was announced by Willetts the HE minister, 6k was supposed to be the average with 9k in exceptional circumstances for exceptional institutions, now look what we have...I wonder what Southbank & UEL are charging.

Anonymous said...

Southbank - up to £8450 I believe.

Coney said...

So Southbank is charging a full £550 less than the "exceptional circumstances" amount cited by Willets.

The latest from Willets' dept is that students clamouring for places at oversubscribed institutions will be able to get in by paying the unsubsidised fee, that amount paid by international students, some 12k for arts and 18k for science subjects.
So what we're likely to see is parents of rich kids directly Oxbridge places. Whilst publicly subsidised (though not by much) kids have to join the hustle.

Or if you're a student that is prepared to be beholden to a firm you can go onto tailored courses, which will be funded & most likely designed by your employer- an accountancy firm. Thus rendering universities not so much places of higher learning as places of higher (and expensive) training.

The story is here ->

Brockley Nick said...


There are lots of technical or vocational degrees. Often, given the pace of technical or technological change, the stuff taught to students is hopelessly out of date, leaving them poorly-prepared for their preferred industry. I know one leading animation company that despairs of the quality of animators churned out by a leading animation degree course...

Do you agree that in such circumstances, it is better for those courses to be co-designed by companies actually working at the sharp end?

Anonymous said...

From what I've seen the fees being set don't reflect the cost or quality of the course.

It would appear some universities are not making efficiencies but instead are 'topping up' their income.

Most the moaning about fees is from well nourished fashion aware middle class oiks making out they are from a deprived background.

If students can afford a gap year then I think they can afford the fees.

lewisham resident said...

Tressilliana said...
My son will be applying for university in the autumn and would, I assume, be eligible to apply for a Goldsmiths scholarship. I'm actually quite keen that he should go to university more than a mile from home and I think he is too, so I doubt he would be interested. However, if the scholarships are going to be given on academic merit and Lewisham residence alone, what struck me is that they will be highly likely to go to young people who who go to one of the following types of school:

1. Independent
2. Grammar school in outer London
3. One of the very few really high-performing comprehensive schools in Inner London, not necessarily in LBL


Firstly, Isn't this going to add confusion to the UCAS system?

Secondly, From this listing you would get the impression that the children who attend the LBL schools would not fit the criteria for the scholarships?

Anonymous said...

Coney haven't universities and their students eagerly been doing research/development funded by companies for years?

When I was in Cambridge there were a suprising number of software and high tech companies in the vicinity of the university.

Anonymous said...

Going to Goldmiths certainly improved Beatrice's dress sense.

Anonymous said...

University education should be compulsary for all as it would reduce unemployment.

Coney said...

You don't need to go to university for 3 years to learn accountancy designed by your future employer, that's just in-house training done on the outside.

Sandwiches course and things like that have been going on for years, that to the real benefit of the student to make the well rounded. I don't that this is.

Coney said...

Meant to write: I don't think that this is for the real benefit of students. Sandwiches courses etc allowed students to become well rounded, properly educated and experienced rather than just trained.

Brockley Nick said...

All education is in some way training for the world of work (even if recipients never go on to do a day's work) - one of the UK's biggest economic challenges is that we don't produce a workforce with the best in the world, meaning that we attract too few high quality, high pay jobs.

We can take the moral high-ground and say that education is not about preparing people for work but to teach them to be free thinkers (not sure how many of those universities produce either, btw), I suppose, but employers are free to move their offices to Norway or Singapore.

Or, we can recognise that many people want university to prepare them for work and this is a good thing for both the individual and the economy and therefore try to design the best courses on that basis.

There are plenty of degrees that are poor preparation for the world of work, for those who want them. If there are enough individuals who think like you, those courses will prosper. If it turns out that people don't want what you want them to want then a few of those courses will close.

Coney said...

Education at school is to train people for work in general, in the core skills; comprehension, verbal and written literacy and numeracy. Training is for the job, in particular.

But what we're increasingly finding are reports that this is not being done at school. Schools are not putting out the finished article. So universities then have* to do this work and put on remedial classes intopics such as grammar, which should have been mastered in the previous 12 years of schooling.
* (the ones that care about the type of graduates they put out, that is).

Higher education, is and should be for the fine polishing of skills that gives the people who benefit from it, confidence to create new products and develop ideas to advance our society.

If Maths was being sponsored or economics, or even languages by these firms but accountancy? That's for evening classes not university.

My position is not about taking the 'moral high ground', it's about trying to establish the best way to utilise finite resources. I think I have stated on this blog that i'm in favour of strong state subsidy for skills focussed evening classes for anyone who is committed to complete the course to combat the mass redundancies that the austerity programme will bring. The country needs to skill up. Whether it's in sewing, gardening, brick laying, plumbing, computer repair. That isn't the job or remit for a university.

Tamsin said...

@Coney (a bit earlier) - don't correct it. I like the idea of a sandwich course producing well-rounded individuals.

And a bit earlier still. I don't think we need worry about the super rich being able to buy their way into Oxbridge by paying international rates. The Oxbridge colleges are so twitchy about being accused of being elitist this would never happen. Getting in there is purely on academic merit, confidence and being already fairly well-rounded (with or without sandwiches). All things which are easier for the averagely well off than those from deprived backgrounds. But this is not the fault of the universities concerned.

Lou Baker said...


It's also not the fault of the averagely well off.

The problem here is not financial poverty. It is poverty of aspiration.

There are NO financial barriers to stop those from the poorest backgrounds going to university. They do not have to pay upfront. They pay in arrears - if, and only if, they earn enough to be able to afford to. And then they only pay back a suitable amount in relation to what they earn. So, financially, there are no barriers.

The barrier is one of perception - not one of reality, and that needs to change.

There are those who, mistakenly, believe the world revolves around money. You can only get on if your parents are rich. It's rubbish. We've all seen examples of super-rich kids who fail and super poor ones who achieve.

If you love your kids, if you give them good advice, if you help them to be the best that they can be - then you are a good parent. If you don't, you aren't. The size of your bank balance doesn't come in to it.

Brockley Nick said...

@Coney - so in fact, your criticism is of the school system and nothing to do with your original point about business and universities, which you are now saying is just a symptom of poor schooling. Thanks for clearing that up.

bakerloo said...

Lou, we can all reel off examples of rich kids that fail and poor kids that shine. Are you saying that there is no linkage between the poverty or your environment while you grow up and where you end up? none at all? zero? The world dosent revolve around money but it's the means of exchange, it's how we buy goods and services. Money matters, it's not the only factor but please lets not suggest that it's of no relevence.

Anonymous said...

Lou, did you go to the Chicago School in 1975? Maybe you should reread your posts here and give your argument a little more thought.

Lou Baker said...


I didn't say money doesn't matter. I said the new fees impose NO financial barriers on anyone going to university. The problem is perception, not cash.

You do not have to have money to be a good parent and that's the key thing here. Good parents nurture their kids and encourage them to achieve all they can.

People bang on about money all the time. Money will solve this, money will solve that. No it won't. But if you really think otherwise go out there and earn lots of it - see for yourself.*

*don't forget you'll start paying 40% tax at a very modest income, to help subsidise pinko policies.

Coney said...

Nick the points I made are there for people to read, they don't inaccurate summarisation by you. But thanks!

Brockley Nick said...

@Coney - it's that you start by making one point and end by trying to make a completely different and unrelated point, whilst maintaining that you're being entirely consistent. Just trying to understand what you;re attempting to say.

Coney said...

Nick you're going a bit OTT, this is just an online conversation. I can make different points if I like, or is this a breach of the "acceptable comment policy"???

Bakerloo said...

I don't altogether disagree with you but having money, not millions but enough, can make parenting easier. If you have kids and are in cramped, damp accommodation and perhaps can't send your kids on fairly normal school trips, that has an impact. If kid A can afford a lap top and kid B can't, it makes a difference. Love can't search the interweb.

The level of income is debatable but there are loving families out there who are trying to bring up kids on very little, even in work, and already pay little tax.

Of course there is the myth that benefits = fecklessness. It's a convenient balm for peoples concsience.

Brockley Nick said...

No, just like clear debate and now I don't understand what you're saying about the KPMG funding (which seems to relate to post-grad courses currently anyway), which was what you started talking about.

Is it OK or not, do you think?

Coney said...

Good to hear that Willetts has backed down from the 'you can buy a private place at an oversubscribed university' policy.

Nick: Durham University is going to have bespoke courses for u/grad students

"The accountancy firm KPMG has unveiled a plan to pay fees for students at universities including Durham, in a training programme leading to an honours degree in accounting."

I don't think its a good idea for the reasons I've prev. stated.

Here is the source ->

Hopefully that has clarified things for you, ok?

Lou Baker said...

It's great for companies to be paying fees.

We need much more of that please.

Coney said...

"It's great for companies to be paying fees."

Personally I'd prefer it, if they paid fees by minimising the levels of tax avoidance.

Did someone mention KPMG???

Lou Baker said...


There's nothing wrong with tax avoidance. I'm sure you don't pay any more tax than you have to. Why should anyone else?

The grim reaper said...

Larger companies can afford the complex tax structures to pay less tax than small some small companies. I'm all for a level playing field, some big multi nationals can dictate their tax rate. Jo blogs the corner shop cannot, nor can I.

Coney said...

Wake up, dozy.

The amount involved is not back of the sofa change. The estimated total of loss tax revenues (by Professor Sikka of Essex University) £100 BILLION.

The funding deficit to universities which has led to Goldsmiths and the rest announcing the policies they have is £4bn. You do the maths.

"Did someone mention KPMG?"

Yes! well they ran "...a VAT avoidance scheme KPMG developed for a company operating 127 amusement arcades in the UK.

"The company employed 600 staff, but under KPMG 's scheme a complex corporate structure was created to show that it was controlled from the Channel Islands, and claim that, despite trading here, the business was not really established in the UK."

This is costing YOU, ME and everyone else much needed money.


Coney said...

Ah Grim Reaper you got in before me, thank you for making a more succinct and (polite) point.

Lou Baker said...

Do you have any source other than the Guardian? Thought not. Try something else sometime. You'll realise the world is not so black and white. I mean red.

Tax avoidance is perfectly legal. That's the process whereby you seek advice to pay the minimum amount of tax you legally have to. It is not businesses fault that HMG makes the tax rules so complicated. It is these ridiculously - and unnecessarily - complicated rules which make tax avoidance possible. I think the entire tax code would be too long if it took up 11 pages. It actually takes up 11,000 pages. What nonsense.

But then you're the one in favour of big government which tries to run and regulate everything.

patrick1971 said...

Re KPMG paying students' fees: this is nothing new. My brother received a scholarship from one of KPMG's peers whilst he was at university (studying accounting & economics) with the proviso that he worked for them for a certain period afterwards. This was back in 1992. Hardly revolutionary.

Brockley Nick said...

The British Army also does it, so it's not confined to the private sector.

Tamsin said...

What's a bit of a pig, though, is that the army with the cut-backs have stopped doing gap year commissions. These were a wonderful way of broadening your horizons and earning signficant money in safety (you wouldn't be sent to a combat zone) but alas they were stopped the year before my daughter was hoping to apply. So she ducked out of the gap year thing altogether and went straight to college.

Brockley Nick said...

@Tamsin - maybe they think body armor for troops is a bigger priority?

Tamsin said...

Absolutely - and did I sound really angry about it? Just mild annoyance that my daughter missed out on the opportunity for what would have been a beneficial and enjoyable experience (and also a chance for the family to claw back some of the taxes paid over the decades) by the matter of one year.

But, as you can imagine, competition was pretty steep and she might not have made the grade.

Coney said...

Lou we know tax avoidance is legal or within the bounds of legality, just, in some cases. The issue is not about legality but ethics and something called corporate social responsibility.

Yes over the years the UK tax system has become complex as it has tried to take account of different policy objectives. There's a strong argument for simplifying it.

There's an old saying, which you seem to subscribe to you by your comments which goes "Tax evasion is legal, tax avoidance is common sense"
BUT there is NOTHING common about the levels and type of avoidance that we're seeing, such as setting up inordinately complex business structures, that straddle different countries specifically to avoid paying VAT. There is increasing intolerance and clampdowns for individuals that do this, such as non-doms etc. This same level of rigour needs to be applied to businesses, that unethically dodge their societal dues.

Just to repeat: The issue with KPMG & Durham is not that they are paying fees, effectively sponsoring students, it is that they are using the University as an outsource training centre.
I think that unhelpfully muddying the waters of what undergraduate higher education is about. It not about corporate training.

ucas said...

I actually enjoyed reading through this posting.Many thanks...

goldsmiths university

Brockley Central Label Cloud