More students at Canterbury university to pay lower fees
20.05.12
Canterbury Christ Church University was postulated approval by the Office for Fair Access (OFFA) to offer a reduction in fees for a larger add up of prospective students.
Earlier this year, the university announced plans to spreading its fees to £8,500 a year following the controversial decision by the Government to stand for institutions to raise their charges to as much as £9,000 from 2012.
But in a last minute tweak to its bursary packages, the university sought imprimatur from OFFA to increase its fee-waivers – a reduction in fees – allowing more students to pay the condescend amount of £7,500 or less.
Universities were allowed to change their packages close to the deadline due to a overdue announcement of new expansion rules by the Government, where number controls for 2012-13 were revised.
OFFA said the 24 universities to scrape by eleventh hour changes, including Canterbury Christ Church, had done so in lodge to bid for a share of 20,000 extra university places made available by the Government, which were set aside for those charging an undistinguished fee of £7,500 or less, taking into account fee waivers.
Professor Sue Piotrowski, pro-vice chancellor (unrealistic) for the university, said: “Following the Government’s Higher Education Caucasian Paper, we have made some minor changes to our bursary packages.
“We have not changed or lowered our fees from our primeval announcement of £8,500.
“However, by slightly amending what we can offer in financial help via an increase in fee waivers, more anticipated students could be paying £7,500 or less to study at Canterbury Christ Church University.
“A fee stimulate is a reduction in fees, available to prospective students who fulfil the university’s criteria.
“During the next week we will be contacting all students who have already applied to enlighten them of any changes to their financial support package.”
But university union the NUS accused institutions of telling money from bursaries – where students see the money go into their pocket – to fee-waivers.
NUS president Liam Burns said: “Fee waivers are a con eccentricity that will only benefit graduates who are earning enough to pay off their student loans within 30 years.
“They help the Treasury, who have to lay out less on loans, but are of no benefit to students whatsoever.”
But a spokeswoman at Canterbury Christ Church University said fee-waivers and bursaries were two sundry things and the change would not impact bursaries.
Universities submitted plans for schooling fees, bursaries and fee-waivers in April, but new measures in the Higher Education Undefiled Paper – believed to have been sparked by the high number of institutions charging the crowning £9,000 –meant universities were able to seek last-minute changes.
Source: Kent News
Obama's Statement on the Consumer Protection Bureau
20.05.12
Now, to make safe fair play, one of the things that I talked about was the importance of making sure we bring about financial reform, Wall Street reform that was passed last year. And a key component of that was making established that we have a consumer watchdog in place who can police what mortgage brokers and payday lenders and other non-bank pecuniary entities are able to do when it comes to consumers.
This is a big deal. About one-in-five people use these kinds of mechanisms to holdings everything from buying a house to cashing their checks. And we passed a law last year that said we need this consumer watchdog in place to oblige sure that people aren’t taken advantage of.
Now, we have nominated celebrity -- Richard Cordray, former attorney general and treasurer of Ohio -- who everybody says is quite qualified. The majority of attorney generals, Republican and Democrat, from across the country have said this is big-timer who can do the job with integrity, who has a tradition of being a bipartisan individual who looks out for the public interest, and is ready to go. And he truly helped set up the Consumer Finance Protection Board.
This morning, Senate Republicans blocked his nomination, refusing to let the Senate even go hurry with an up or down vote on Mr. Cordray. This makes absolutely no sense.
Consumers across the country advised that part of the reason we got into the financial mess that we did was because regulators were not doing their jobs. People were not paying publicity to what was happening in the housing market; people weren’t paying attention to who was being entranced advantage of. There were folks who were making a lot of money taking advantage of American consumers.
This own's job is to make sure that individual consumers are protected -- everybody from seniors to unsophisticated people who are looking for student loans, to members of our Armed Services who are probably more vulnerable than even-handed about anybody when it comes to unscrupulous financial practices.
There is no reason why Mr. Cordray should not be nominated, and should not be confirmed by the Senate, and should not be doing his job set away in order to carry out his mandate and his mission.
So I just want to send a communiqu to the Senate: We are not giving up on this. We're going to keep on going at it. We are not going to allow politics as expected on Capitol Hill to stand in the way of American consumers being protected by unscrupulous pecuniary operators. And we're going to keep on pushing on this issue.
Now, the second thing I want to convert clear about is that, with respect to the payroll tax -- you guys have all seen our countdown clock behind us. This is about doing -- making persuaded that everybody is doing their fair share and that the middle class does not see their taxes go up by $1,000 in 23 days.
And we've heard recently some intimations from the Senate Preponderance Leader and from the Speaker of the House -- or the Senate Minority Leader and the Rabble-rouser of the House that they think we should do a payroll tax, but the question is what price will they extract from the President in decree to get it done.
And I just want to make clear: This is not about me. They shouldn’t extend the payroll tax cut for me. They shouldn’t stretch unemployment insurance for me. This is for 160 million people who, in 23 days, are universal to see their taxes go up if Congress doesn’t act. This is for 5 million individuals who are out there looking for a job and can't find a job off now in a tough economy who could end up not being able to pay their bills or keep their house if Congress doesn’t act.
So rather than tiresome to figure out what can they extract politically from me in order to get this thing done, what they need to do is be focused on what's good for the terseness, what's good for jobs and what's good for the American people.
And I made very clear I do not expect Congress to go abode unless the payroll tax cut is extended and unless unemployment insurance is extended. It would be unlawful for families, but it would also be wrong for the economy as a whole.
With that, I'm going to take a couple of questions. Ben.
Q Thank you, Mr. President. It's a very complicated time. If I may, I'd like to ask you about two other important issues in the news. Republican candidates have charmed aim at your approach to foreign policy, particularly the Middle East and Israel, and accused you of appeasement. I wanted to get your response to that. And also, I'm wondering if you personally intervened in any way in halting the sale of the "morning after" pill to those under 17, and whether you come up with politics trumps science in this case.
THE PRESIDENT: Ask Osama bin Laden and the 22-out-of-30 top al Qaeda leaders who've been infatuated off the field whether I engage in appeasement. Or whoever is left out there, ask them about that.
With respect to the Plan B, I did not get involved in the proceeding. This was a decision that was made by Kathleen Sebelius, the Secretary of HHS.
I will say this, as the father of two daughters. I think it is impressive for us to make sure that we apply some common sense to various rules when it comes to over-the-marker medicine. And as I understand it, the reason Kathleen made this decision was she could not be confident that a 10-year-old or an 11-year-old go into a drugstore, should be masterly -- alongside bubble gum or batteries -- be able to buy a medication that potentially, if not Euphemistic pre-owned properly, could end up having an adverse effect. And I think most parents would probably abide the same way.
So the expectation here is -- I think it's very important to understand that, for women, for those over 17, this continues to be something that you can go in and purchase from a drugstore. It has been deemed riskless by the FDA. Nobody is challenging that. When it comes to 12-year-olds or 13-year-olds, the assuredly question is can we have confidence that they would potentially use Plan B properly. And her judgment was that there was not enough evidence that this potentially could be toughened improperly in a way that had adverse health effects on those young people.
Q Do you fully column the decision?
THE PRESIDENT: I do.
Q Mr. President, is a recess appointment for Richard Cordray on the tabular, number one. And number two, the Italian Prime Minister, the new Prime Minister indicated today he may be coming to the Innocent House next month. Do you think he and other European leaders are stepping up in the way you've urged them to, to classify of clear up the debt crisis?
THE PRESIDENT: I will not take any options off the table when it comes to getting Richard Cordray in as foreman of the Consumer Finance Protection Board. And I want to repeat what I said earlier: This is a law that was passed by Congress that I signed into law that is designed solely to conserve American consumers.
I don't think there's any consumer out there -- I don't think there's any American out there -- who thinks that the argument we got into the big financial mess that we did was because of too much regulation of Wall Street or the financial services toil. I take it back. I'm sure there are some folks in the financial service industry who make that argument, although I'm not reliable that they make it with a straight face.
So let's just take a very specific example: All the families out there who have now irreparable their home, after having paid their mortgage over and over again, because they were told that they could afford this home; they didn’t view all the documentation that was involved -- this was peddled deliberately to them, even though a mortgage broker might have known that there was no way that they could keep up with these payments -- and now they're out on the byway someone's cup of tea because nobody was making sure that there's fair play and fair dealing in the mortgage activity on it. Now, why wouldn’t we want to have somebody just to make sure that people are being treated actually? Especially when not only is that family affected, but our whole economy is affected.
This is part of what I was talking about a couple of days ago. We have a Congress proper now, Republicans in Congress right now, who seem to have entirely forgotten how we got into this mess. And part of the reason was because we did not empower our regulators to procure sure that they were ensuring fair play. That’s what the Consumer Finance Guard Board is designed to do.
We had Holly Petraeus, wife of General Petraeus, who's been working to pull down sure that our Armed Services personnel aren’t taken advancement of. They get transferred to a base, and next thing they know they’re taking out loans that they think are a gentle deal, but it turns out that they’re paying 100-150-200 percent interest rates. Why wouldn’t we require somebody in place to make sure that doesn’t happen? It doesn’t along any sense.
So the bottom line is -- you asked about the recess appointment -- we’re usual to look at all our options. My hope and expectation is, is that the Republicans who blocked this nomination understandable to their senses. And I know that some of them have made an argument, well, we just want to sort of make some modifications in the law. Well, they’re unattached to introduce a bill and get that passed.
But part of what’s happened over on Capitol Hill -- not just on this egress, but on every issue -- is they will hold up nominations, well-qualified judges aren’t getting a elector -- I’ve got assistant secretaries to the Treasury who get held up for no reason, straight because they’re trying to see if they can use that to reverse some sort of law that’s already been passed. And that’s part of what gets the American people so frustrated -- because they don’t get like this thing is on the level.
Source: RealClearPolitics
