'That's not the way to do it!'

It will mean today's 15-year-olds, who chose to pursue education to degree level, could be saddled with thousands of pounds worth of debt before they reach their early 20s.

Education reporter CLARE COOK spoke to parents about their concerns -- and worries about the government's attitude to post-18 education. . .

EIGHTEEN-year-old Jenny Hepworth is off to read Philosophy, Politics and Economics at Oxford University.

Ironically, she will probably end up studying in depth tonight's Second Reading of the Government's Higher Education Bill.

For if rebel MPs win, it will be only the fourth time in more than a century that a Prime Minister has lost such a vote.

Under the present system, Jenny will be asked to contribute £1,100-a-year towards her course and will rely on parental funding or loans to cover her living costs over the three-year course.

But had she been packing her bags for university after 2006, under the Government's plans those fees would have all but tripled to £3,000 a year.

And despite a new system of grants, university bursaries and living cost awards, as a middle earning family, she and her family would probably bear the brunt of the costs.

Mum Lynn, of Padiham Road, Burnley, said she was passionate about education for all but said this was not the way to go about it.

She added: "The notion of top-up fees is wrong and is not the way to generate the much needed funding for our universities. This system will lead to more, rather than fewer barriers to higher education, which is inherently wrong.

"The whole higher education sector has been neglected for too long.

"The government's target of 50 per cent of students going to University is flawed and fuels the false denigration of vocational skills, which should carry the same importance.

"We need more funding in vocation and craftsman training and by default, both those high earners should pay for the education system by paying more tax, not by strangling one group with debt.

"This country has always had a tradition of undervaluing non-prestigious posts. Many people come out of university as a square pin in a round hole with a degree that is all but irrelevant to them and society's needs.

"Middle earners will definitely get squeezed when they just miss the criteria for grants but don't get the help they need."

Jenny added: "I think people will be put off going but university is a really important life experience as well as an academic learning curve."

Jane Shipley, of Church Lane, Great Harwood has daughters Helen, 16, and Amy, 14, at Westhome School.

She said: "I don't agree with it and am very concerned there will be a generation of students who are going to begin their lives at a time of trying to fund their first car or house with huge debts.

"I think the top-up fees are a way to a two-tier system which will not encourage people to go to university.

"In theory, the financial responsibility is being taken away from parents but a fairytale picture is being painted about post university employment, which simply is not true.

"A degree is not always a passport to a high income.

"Taxation on the high earners is the only way to provide a fair source of funding."

Denise Sanderson, of Clayton-le-Woods, is expecting to be stung with the "full whack" of top-up fees for her two boys William, 15, and Edward, 11.

She is most concerned about the lack of information and said the decision by MPs was a "vote of ignorance".

She added: "No-one really knows until it comes to the point of making the applications, what it will mean in real terms but we are expecting to be delaying our retirement.

"As a teacher and an architect, we were given the support by our parents so feel we must do the same for our children. But the onus now is whether or not a degree is actually necessary.

"William aspires to be a chemical engineer for which the qualification is necessary but subjects which are not linked to a profession will seem rather less attractive."