Student protests

[Sir David Gray]

I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been a thread about this today.

The scenes that I saw were utterly disgraceful and I'm afraid the destruction caused and the acts of mindless thuggery committed completely detracted from any legitimate concerns that the genuine protesters had.

Do these people think that by causing this criminal damage, people watching it at home are going to be more sympathetic to the student cause? It's going to do more harm than good to the situation because who is going to be in favour of funding these people's education?

We are talking here about university students here who are, by definition, supposed to be intelligent people capable of making coherent arguments when putting forward their point of view. I thought it was therefore ironic that we saw footage of people spraying the words "F*** the pigs" onto a building. I would just love to see their dissertation, it must be a blast.

Yet again, it always seems to be the police that gets it in the neck. No matter what the demonstration happens to be about, those responsible always seem to target the police. There were reports of a female officer suffering from a blow to her head, which had caused bleeding and I saw other officers being directly targeted by these people.

I must have missed the point when the police made the decision to increase student fees. If anything, the police should have some of the biggest grievances in relation to budget cuts but they just seem to get on with things.

I actually do feel sorry for the people who genuinely wished to protest in peace this afternoon but these types of people just seem to turn up at these demonstrations time after time and spoil it for everyone else. They have no respect for property or for other people, they are just career anarchists who can't wait to wreak havoc whenever they can.

[Pete]

Good on the students.

The only reason there is a backlash from them is because they are a quantifiable, defined group.

If those who were getting their housing benefit cut and their council tax increased were to band together and protest there would be ten times the chaos.

The cuts have arrived and guess what...the poor are getting it in the neck. It's not national news but it's happening to families everywhere.

If there's a lack of police attending these things then so what. Labour had a policy where there would be more police on the streets. This government relies on the big society.

Where was the big society when the riots were happening?

China?

[khib70]

Good on the students.

The only reason there is a backlash from them is because they are a quantifiable, defined group.

If those who were getting their housing benefit cut and their council tax increased were to band together and protest there would be ten times the chaos.

The cuts have arrived and guess what...the poor are getting it in the neck. It's not national news but it's happening to families everywhere.

If there's a lack of police attending these things then so what. Labour had a policy where there would be more police on the streets. This government relies on the big society.

Where was the big society when the riots were happening?

China?

Which "students"? Good for them for what? Injuring dozens of people? Wanton vandalism? Unfocussed violence? Is that the "better way" the STUC has been pontificating about?

Indeed, good for the students peacefully exercising their democratic right to protest. But are you endorsing the nose-pierced crusty anarchists, the public schoolboys with masks over the faces, the whole shabby, ignorant, malignant stream of dross that acts as a foul parasite on legitimate protest? The cynical rentamob mentality of the unspeakable "Socialist" "Workers" party and the rest of the far Left?

You don't change government policy by acting like Brownshirts on Kristallnacht. Extremists at either end of the spectrum are all the same in the end.

[Antifa Hibs]

Mon teh students :cool2:

Direct action gets results, headlines, the cause noticed. Walking about with a ****y placard and writing on yer blog achieves hee-haw.

TBH I would've thought the polis would just give them a free reign after the cuts they have also recieved. :greengrin

[Ed De Gramo]

The rent-a-mobs turned up and ruined a peaceful protest...

Although the students that then backed the destruction should be caught and fined...throwing fire extinguishers off a roof could have resulted in serious injury...maybe even death....

[khib70]

Mon teh students :cool2:

Direct action gets results, headlines, the cause noticed. Walking about with a ****y placard and writing on yer blog achieves hee-haw.

TBH I would've thought the polis would just give them a free reign after the cuts they have also recieved. :greengrin
And mindless violence is the way forward is it?:rolleyes:

This sums it up for me, perfectly

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/britain-backs-middle-class-children-who-want-the-moon-on-a-stick-201011103243/

[Sergio sledge]

I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been a thread about this today.

The scenes that I saw were utterly disgraceful and I'm afraid the destruction caused and the acts of mindless thuggery committed completely detracted from any legitimate concerns that the genuine protesters had.

Do these people think that by causing this criminal damage, people watching it at home are going to be more sympathetic to the student cause? It's going to do more harm than good to the situation because who is going to be in favour of funding these people's education?

We are talking here about university students here who are, by definition, supposed to be intelligent people capable of making coherent arguments when putting forward their point of view. I thought it was therefore ironic that we saw footage of people spraying the words "F*** the pigs" onto a building. I would just love to see their dissertation, it must be a blast.

Yet again, it always seems to be the police that gets it in the neck. No matter what the demonstration happens to be about, those responsible always seem to target the police. There were reports of a female officer suffering from a blow to her head, which had caused bleeding and I saw other officers being directly targeted by these people.

I must have missed the point when the police made the decision to increase student fees. If anything, the police should have some of the biggest grievances in relation to budget cuts but they just seem to get on with things.

I actually do feel sorry for the people who genuinely wished to protest in peace this afternoon but these types of people just seem to turn up at these demonstrations time after time and spoil it for everyone else. They have no respect for property or for other people, they are just career anarchists who can't wait to wreak havoc whenever they can.

You are right that the people causing the damage and rioting were your usual "anarchist" trouble makers who turn out, face covered of course, at every protest going to try to stir up trouble because that is all they want. A chance to break a window and scrap with police with a likelyhood they won't get arrested.

They don't care about the causes that the protests are for one bit.

re: the bit in bold, just because someone is studying for a degree doesn't make them "intelligent people capable of making coherent arguments" I met many a student when I was at university who were just there for the "life experience" doing a degree which involved little or no effort, and the fact the got a qualification at the end was an added bonus.

Perhaps the increase in fees will make people think more seriously about whether they really want or need to go to university or not and cut down on the amount of people like the ones I have just described above.

[CropleyWasGod]

As ever, the media lead the general public down a road that has little relevance for most of us on this board.

The protests are by English students against decisions made by the UK Government on English Universities. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own arrangements.

Devolution is a messy business, but it doesn't help when lazy journalists ignore the details.

[bighairyfaeleith]

As ever, the media lead the general public down a road that has little relevance for most of us on this board.

The protests are by English students against decisions made by the UK Government on English Universities. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own arrangements.

Devolution is a messy business, but it doesn't help when lazy journalists ignore the details.

not sure it is irrelevant, if scottish folks want to study in England will they not have to pay?

If english folks want to study up here do they have to pay?

Will our universities now be overrun with applications, will this cause the devolved governments to bring in charges??

I don't know the answers, does anyone?

[Antifa Hibs]

And mindless violence is the way forward is it?:rolleyes:

This sums it up for me, perfectly

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/society/britain-backs-middle-class-children-who-want-the-moon-on-a-stick-201011103243/

Well, aye. Not that I agree with it, but its probably the only way to get noticed.

There was apparently 50,000 students walking from point a to point b, yesterday I didn't even know there was a protest, today its world news, thats a result of that violence.

[CropleyWasGod]

not sure it is irrelevant, if scottish folks want to study in England will they not have to pay?

If english folks want to study up here do they have to pay?

Will our universities now be overrun with applications, will this cause the devolved governments to bring in charges??

I don't know the answers, does anyone?

Didn't say it was irrelevant, just not relevant to most of us.

As for the answers, as far as I know. 1. yes 2. yes 3. probably.

[Green Mikey]

not sure it is irrelevant, if scottish folks want to study in England will they not have to pay?

If english folks want to study up here do they have to pay?

Will our universities now be overrun with applications, will this cause the devolved governments to bring in charges??

I don't know the answers, does anyone?

The answers are pretty easy to find on the web...

http://www.student-support-saas.gov.uk/faqs_fees.htm


I think that violent protest has a negative impact on any situation, the violence yesterday will only serve to entrench the opinion of the coalition.

[bighairyfaeleith]

The answers are pretty easy to find on the web...

http://www.student-support-saas.gov.uk/faqs_fees.htm


I think that violent protest has a negative impact on any situation, the violence yesterday will only serve to entrench the opinion of the coalition.

I think your right, violence doesn't help, however I don't believe the violence was by the students and the march was just hijacked.

Interestingly, reading the link you provided, scots studying abroad get the bulk of there fees paid currently, can't see that continuing now??

[WeAreHibs]

I was discussing this earlier today and my thoughts are -

Why should students not pay fees to further their own education?

Is it not perceived that, generally they will go onto better jobs, careers and earn more money? If I want my kids to have a better schooling, than the state provides, then I would send them to a private school. If I couldn't afford those fees then the child would perhaps get assistance if they had the academics. If someone decides they want to expand on the education that they are given at high school then they have the right to do so but why not pay for it. If they were means tested and unable to support themselves and had suitable pass marks then they should be given similar assistance.

Surely it should be the same as business. I have to spend money to make money. It's the same principle is it not? Yes, if I have a solid business plan I will be given help by funding or business loans but generally it has to be paid back, regardless if it works or not. Why should students be any different?

And don't get me started on gap years!!

[khib70]

Well, aye. Not that I agree with it, but its probably the only way to get noticed.

There was apparently 50,000 students walking from point a to point b, yesterday I didn't even know there was a protest, today its world news, thats a result of that violence.
Right, so if they'd actually killed some people, that would have made it even more noticeable, and therefore a more effective protest, no?

I'd put the shovel away if I were you

[bighairyfaeleith]

I was discussing this earlier today and my thoughts are -

Why should students not pay fees to further their own education?

Is it not perceived that, generally they will go onto better jobs, careers and earn more money? If I want my kids to have a better schooling, than the state provides, then I would send them to a private school. If I couldn't afford those fees then the child would perhaps get assistance if they had the academics. If someone decides they want to expand on the education that they are given at high school then they have the right to do so but why not pay for it. If they were means tested and unable to support themselves and had suitable pass marks then they should be given similar assistance.

Surely it should be the same as business. I have to spend money to make money. It's the same principle is it not? Yes, if I have a solid business plan I will be given help by funding or business loans but generally it has to be paid back, regardless if it works or not. Why should students be any different?

And don't get me started on gap years!!

Pretty much agree with you, the problem is that everyone is having to pay, far better to have people means tested and the poorer students not having to take on massive debt just to get into uni. Thats my take on it.

[libernian]

I was discussing this earlier today and my thoughts are -

Why should students not pay fees to further their own education?

Is it not perceived that, generally they will go onto better jobs, careers and earn more money? If I want my kids to have a better schooling, than the state provides, then I would send them to a private school. If I couldn't afford those fees then the child would perhaps get assistance if they had the academics. If someone decides they want to expand on the education that they are given at high school then they have the right to do so but why not pay for it. If they were means tested and unable to support themselves and had suitable pass marks then they should be given similar assistance.

Surely it should be the same as business. I have to spend money to make money. It's the same principle is it not? Yes, if I have a solid business plan I will be given help by funding or business loans but generally it has to be paid back, regardless if it works or not. Why should students be any different?

And don't get me started on gap years!!

yes students will go to be paid more in general, but as a result will also pay more tax and as a result are paying for their education through taxation anyway. as well as this, everyone will benefit from people being highly educated, not just the people who actually graduate.

uni's are hugely underfunded in the uk, and as a result the economic growth of the country will suffer as they do not have a highly skilled enough work force to make the country competitive internationally as a knowledge based economy. so they're gonna need funding, whether thats from government or students remains to be seen.

to be honest tho, i think i do support an increase in fees tho but not to that level. apparently some universities including LSE are considering going private like uni's in the USA. some of the fees in the USA are huge - think its like £20k a year or something. whilst this is a good thing as it provides adequate funds, it means that richer people will end up going to uni which is socially exclusive.

[Betty Boop]

As ever, the media lead the general public down a road that has little relevance for most of us on this board.

The protests are by English students against decisions made by the UK Government on English Universities. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own arrangements.

Devolution is a messy business, but it doesn't help when lazy journalists ignore the details.

It is relevant to some of us, as the protest was also about cuts to EMA. :grr:

[CropleyWasGod]

It is relevant to some of us, as the protest was also about cuts to EMA. :grr:

... which kind of backs up my point. I had no idea EMA was part of the protest, since the media have chosen to concentrate on the student stuff.

[Betty Boop]

... which kind of backs up my point. I had no idea EMA was part of the protest, since the media have chosen to concentrate on the student stuff.

I'll let you off then ! :greengrin

[Beefster]

Well, aye. Not that I agree with it, but its probably the only way to get noticed.

There was apparently 50,000 students walking from point a to point b, yesterday I didn't even know there was a protest, today its world news, thats a result of that violence.

If the fire extinguisher had hit and killed one of the police officers, they could have had a proper big news story.

http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2010/11/wanted3.jpg

[Beefster]

As ever, the media lead the general public down a road that has little relevance for most of us on this board.

The protests are by English students against decisions made by the UK Government on English Universities. Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have their own arrangements.

Devolution is a messy business, but it doesn't help when lazy journalists ignore the details.

Despite it not affecting them in the slightest, bus-loads of students left Edinburgh Uni yesterday for a day out in London. I'd wager that at least 10% of those protesting won't be affected by the changes.

[CropleyWasGod]

Despite it not affecting them in the slightest, bus-loads of students left Edinburgh Uni yesterday for a day out in London. I'd wager that at least 10% of those protesting won't be affected by the changes.

It's a day out, though, innit... :rolleyes:

To be fair, though, you can understand the mind-set that says "if it's happening down there, we'll be next"... hence some concern.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Despite it not affecting them in the slightest, bus-loads of students left Edinburgh Uni yesterday for a day out in London. I'd wager that at least 10% of those protesting won't be affected by the changes.

probably more than 10% that wont will be affected as they will likely be finished there degrees by the time it comes about, however not sure that means they shouldn't be protesting to help the future students. Sure a few fancied a day out as well ofcourse:greengrin

[Betty Boop]

probably more than 10% that wont will be affected as they will likely be finished there degrees by the time it comes about, however not sure that means they shouldn't be protesting to help the future students. Sure a few fancied a day out as well ofcourse:greengrin

Of course they will of course be showing solidarity with their fellow students, and will be part of the NUS. Strange how those on the right always have that 'I'm all right Jack' attitude. :greengrin

[Dashing Bob S]

What would any have to protest about this wonderful society we live in?

It makes perfect sense to go to university, get a postgraduate degree, then spend your life working retail, trying vainly to pay of the massive debts you've accrued for the privilege.

Everyone should try it at least once.

God, I'm glad I'm (relatively) rich.

[Bad Martini]

Simples this one.

If I don't like something the cooncil dae, can I fire up yon cooncil office and rattle a few half niddries thru the windae?

If I don't agree wi the government, can I fire doon yon Parliament and just chuck some fire extinguishers thru the building fabric, bicrhist it'd fall richt doon on their nappers given it's put together wi sticks and mud

So, if I canny dae that, as a taxpayer, cause I recognise that mair damage = mair money = less money to go roond, why should these apparent clever (stupid) *******s get away with it?

Naw. I say, DOUBLE their fees.............gie them aw a criminal record...........and tell them to piss off and work in the real world to pay for their damage and like it :grr:

Im aw for telling the government to ram their cuts, tax the uber rich and all that sheite but I dont agree wi the taxdodgers wreckin the place, putting UP the polis bill and the repair costs when there is nae money as it is. Erses.

ENDOF

[Ed De Gramo]

Simples this one.

If I don't like something the cooncil dae, can I fire up yon cooncil office and rattle a few half niddries thru the windae?

If I don't agree wi the government, can I fire doon yon Parliament and just chuck some fire extinguishers thru the building fabric, bicrhist it'd fall richt doon on their nappers given it's put together wi sticks and mud

So, if I canny dae that, as a taxpayer, cause I recognise that mair damage = mair money = less money to go roond, why should these apparent clever (stupid) *******s get away with it?

Naw. I say, DOUBLE their fees.............gie them aw a criminal record...........and tell them to piss off and work in the real world to pay for their damage and like it :grr:

Im aw for telling the government to ram their cuts, tax the uber rich and all that sheite but I dont agree wi the taxdodgers wreckin the place, putting UP the polis bill and the repair costs when there is nae money as it is. Erses.

ENDOF

:top marks:agree:

[LiverpoolHibs]

I'm a bit surprised that there hasn't been a thread about this today.

The scenes that I saw were utterly disgraceful and I'm afraid the destruction caused and the acts of mindless thuggery committed completely detracted from any legitimate concerns that the genuine protesters had.

Do these people think that by causing this criminal damage, people watching it at home are going to be more sympathetic to the student cause? It's going to do more harm than good to the situation because who is going to be in favour of funding these people's education?

We are talking here about university students here who are, by definition, supposed to be intelligent people capable of making coherent arguments when putting forward their point of view. I thought it was therefore ironic that we saw footage of people spraying the words "F*** the pigs" onto a building. I would just love to see their dissertation, it must be a blast.

Yet again, it always seems to be the police that gets it in the neck. No matter what the demonstration happens to be about, those responsible always seem to target the police. There were reports of a female officer suffering from a blow to her head, which had caused bleeding and I saw other officers being directly targeted by these people.

I must have missed the point when the police made the decision to increase student fees. If anything, the police should have some of the biggest grievances in relation to budget cuts but they just seem to get on with things.

I actually do feel sorry for the people who genuinely wished to protest in peace this afternoon but these types of people just seem to turn up at these demonstrations time after time and spoil it for everyone else. They have no respect for property or for other people, they are just career anarchists who can't wait to wreak havoc whenever they can.

Yours,

Disgusted of Tunbridge Wells.

P.S. This was about a lot more than student fees.

P.P.S. I sincerely hope the dullard who threw the fire-extinguisher gets caught.

[speedy_gonzales]

yes students will go to be paid more in general, but as a result will also pay more tax and as a result are paying for their education through taxation anyway. as well as this, everyone will benefit from people being highly educated, not just the people who actually graduate.

Mmmm, in general we pay taxes to fund everything, whether we use it or not, be it schools, hospitals, emergency services etc.
Earning more in the future doesn't mean your exempt for paying for higher/further education does it.
As it stands, we all get free education up to the age of 18(ish), if someone feels they could do with another few years then is it not right they pay for it?

As for earning more, tax etc, I chose work over going to uni and earn more than my wife who did choose uni. A degree doesn't seem to make you more employable or attract higher earnings these days?!?

[Speedy]

I have just finished uni and I am lucky because my tuition fees were paid by SAAS. However, the down side to that is that there are that many students(due to free tuition) that it is difficult to get a relevant job and it is difficult to stand out from the muppets who have sponged their way through their degree copying other people and doing pretty much no work.

I looked at doing a post-grad to stand out a bit more but I couldn't afford it and there isn't the opportunity to get it funded by student loan.

I would suggest that the way forward is to charge students (both undergrad and postgrad) tuition fees in a similar way to the student loans i.e. you pay it back as you earn x amount. This would result in high student debt but personally I think that's just tough and it would be beneficial because it may result in people going for the right reasons. Ultimately there would still be people going to piss about but it's the only way to do it while considering social exclusion.

I realise that this is currently how they do it in England and the protest was about the price of tuition rather than the way it is paid so my post is pretty irrelevant :greengrin

[hibsbollah]

A degree doesn't seem to make you more employable or attract higher earnings these days?!?

A degree on average adds 20% to your earnings. Leaving aside the pure enjoyment most people get out of learning something new, its almost always worth it, financially speaking.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Let's be honest, this wasn't Paris in 68. However, there is evidence that - even in Britain - violent action gets results where peaceful protest doesn't.

Compare the Poll Tax demos in Scotland and England. Non violent resistance didn't achieve anything up here, but when there was a riot in London changes were made.

[speedy_gonzales]

A degree on average adds 20% to your earnings. Leaving aside the pure enjoyment most people get out of learning something new, its almost always worth it, financially speaking.

Fair enough, taking that stat as fact then is it not fair that those who take on further education pay towards it? 20% more for say 35/40 years is a fair chunk of change.
However, a wee grudge I do have is the significant number of school leavers that are coerced into further education when perhaps an apprenticeship would be more suited. Not only does this swallow up the fees that are available at the moment, it may deprive someone from a place that may not have as many points but has the determination and ambition to study for the 3-5 years.
As for learning something new, we don't have to go to Uni to do that, there's plenty of books out there and night classes, and I don't disagree, learning is always worthwhile and shouldn't be shelved due to age or employment status!

[hibsbollah]

Fair enough, taking that stat as fact then is it not fair that those who take on further education pay towards it? 20% more for say 35/40 years is a fair chunk of change.
However, a wee grudge I do have is the significant number of school leavers that are coerced into further education when perhaps an apprenticeship would be more suited. Not only does this swallow up the fees that are available at the moment, it may deprive someone from a place that may not have as many points but has the determination and ambition to study for the 3-5 years.
As for learning something new, we don't have to go to Uni to do that, there's plenty of books out there and night classes, and I don't disagree, learning is always worthwhile and shouldn't be shelved due to age or employment status!

Assuming that universal free education is off the agenda (I wish it wasnt but it clearly is for the moment), I agree with you, graduates should pay more, either through income tax or via a separate tax.

[heretoday]

I can't help thinking there are too many universities and too many students.

It seems to me a lot of young folk now expect to get a uni place and the chance to be cool and socialise like mad for the next three years and hang the financial consequences.

The ideal would be if there were more opportunities for young people to learn trades as an alternative. Instead of this getting into massive debt.

Very often they will expect the Bank of Mum and Dad to bail them out. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about here!

I should be chucking fire extinguishers about - not them! :grr:

[bighairyfaeleith]

A lot of good sensible posts on this thread, I think we all agree that a degree has been devalued over the last ten or twenty years, that too many people go for degrees now and that some of the degree courses are just ridiculous.

However, I'm still not convinced that putting a massive price tag on a degree is the answer as that doesn't get the most intelligent doing degrees, it gets the ones that are less perturbed by the big overdraft at the end of it.

[heretoday]

A lot of good sensible posts on this thread, I think we all agree that a degree has been devalued over the last ten or twenty years, that too many people go for degrees now and that some of the degree courses are just ridiculous.

However, I'm still not convinced that putting a massive price tag on a degree is the answer as that doesn't get the most intelligent doing degrees, it gets the ones that are less perturbed by the big overdraft at the end of it.

i.e. the middle class kids with well off parents. So no change there.

When I went to Uni in the 70s it was free. You could study what you liked, wander about in a drunken haze and basically enjoy yourself on a grant, although the better off kids did have an advantage socially. In the hols you just signed on the brew.

The general idea was still that study was a good thing in itself. That has to be questioned now and I think that is the big change.

[steakbake]

In previous generations, higher education was something that people went in to in much smaller numbers. New labour wanted to get 50% of school leavers to go to uni. Under the current way HE is funded, there's no way on earth that the level of expansion of demand can be accommodated without someone footing the bill. I'm in favour of charging fees now because the alternative is unsustainable. The user should pay.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I can't help thinking there are too many universities and too many students.

It seems to me a lot of young folk now expect to get a uni place and the chance to be cool and socialise like mad for the next three years and hang the financial consequences.

The ideal would be if there were more opportunities for young people to learn trades as an alternative. Instead of this getting into massive debt.

Very often they will expect the Bank of Mum and Dad to bail them out. Believe me, I know what I'm talking about here!

I should be chucking fire extinguishers about - not them! :grr:

The cleverer kids/families assess the labour market, identify the areas that have a skills gap, and learn to a job that will pay them well. Seems to me the majority of people still act like sheep, and lazily go in the direction that everyone else does.

When I was a cabbie, I would often talk to students about the course they were doing. It was a real eye opener to find out that many of them were completely clueless of their brief, inarticulate and devoid of any ability to think analytically or independently.


In previous generations, higher education was something that people went in to in much smaller numbers. New labour wanted to get 50% of school leavers to go to uni. Under the current way HE is funded, there's no way on earth that the level of expansion of demand can be accommodated without someone footing the bill. I'm in favour of charging fees now because the alternative is unsustainable. The user should pay.

Watching people graduate, on occasion, I have been amused at how many of them and their families behave like they have just won Willie Wonka's Golden Ticket. They seem to think that they have made it into the elite.

My question is how can 50%+ of the population form any sort of elite? I often think they should consider what Groucho Marx said about not joining any club that would have him as a member. Then again, these days we're all special people.

I think there are too many degrees, and too many universities. The universities are paid for bums on seats; they are assessed on how many people pass. They therefore have an incentive to admit as many people as possible, and then move hell and earth to get them through the degree.

One by product of this is that the graduates then find themselves in a saturated labour market. Of course, the universities have the perfect answer - do another degree!

[JennaFletcher]

I think that it is pretty poor that my generation is going to be affected by the older generation's mistakes. The economy/banking crisis was entirely outwith our control and yet we're being punished for it... the tuition fees thing is only one aspect to it. They're planning on cutting funds to degrees which aren't maths or science based. That is in my opinion - ridiculous.

That being said, I completely condone the violence/criminal damage that occurred at Millbank earlier on in the week. I can only imagine (out of thousands there) this was all started by a small minority of trouble makers. These people are idiots and unrepresentative of the wider student community.

I personally feel aggrieved by the political situation and in particular would like to tell Nick Clegg to F Himself for everything he's done, this has pretty much put me off voting Liberal Democrat in the future.

I'm frequently asked what I want to do after my degree and I tell people who ask this - I'm not sure. This is not because I have no ideas, this is because I want to see what options are avaliable to me. There is no point getting my hopes up in this economy of landing a particular job when times are tough and chances of getting employed are weak. It's more like being realistic than just being a blind sheep.

[steakbake]

I know the banking crisis appears to be the cause of all our ills, but in this case, it's not helping the student fee situation but it most certainly isnt the cause of it.

The cause of the funding crisis in HE is the rapid expansion of new students enrolling at Universities while the method of funding has remained the same. When a student applies to SAAS, technically they are applying for a quarter of their fees to be paid. The other three quarters are paid directly by the government but the purpose of applying is for an assessment for eligibility of support as well as a mechanism for determining additional financial support such as means-tested levels of student loan, DSA (Disabled Student Allowance) and other allowances.

The fees that a Scottish student currently applies for from SAAS, is quite literally the tip of the iceberg.

At most in the 60s, around 400,000 students were in Higher Education. By year 2000, it was around 2,000,000 students with one in three school leavers entering HE. By January 2010, Universities across the UK were taking in more than 20,000 more students than the government was willing or had budgeted to pay for.

So the basic problem is that of numbers, not of bankers. The more people enter HE, the more the government has to fund it - and as I've said, it's not 2500GBP a year - the true cost to the national finances for each year of a degree is something more in order of 10k. Perhaps one thing you can accuse the government of is not keeping an eye on the flow of students entering HE and planning their finances accordingly. However, the other side of the problem is that people want something very valuable - a University education - for nothing and that is simply unrealistic.

Blame Nick Clegg all you like and if it makes you feel better, blame the bankers. But the bottom line is that the country - the UK - is not equipped financially to be able to fully fund annual record numbers of new students entering the system. The sustainable future in HE has to involve some way of students paying a share of their education either before matriculation or after graduation or a combination of the two.

[Speedy]

I think that it is pretty poor that my generation is going to be affected by the older generation's mistakes. The economy/banking crisis was entirely outwith our control and yet we're being punished for it... the tuition fees thing is only one aspect to it. They're planning on cutting funds to degrees which aren't maths or science based. That is in my opinion - ridiculous.

That being said, I completely condone the violence/criminal damage that occurred at Millbank earlier on in the week. I can only imagine (out of thousands there) this was all started by a small minority of trouble makers. These people are idiots and unrepresentative of the wider student community.

I personally feel aggrieved by the political situation and in particular would like to tell Nick Clegg to F Himself for everything he's done, this has pretty much put me off voting Liberal Democrat in the future.

I'm frequently asked what I want to do after my degree and I tell people who ask this - I'm not sure. This is not because I have no ideas, this is because I want to see what options are avaliable to me. There is no point getting my hopes up in this economy of landing a particular job when times are tough and chances of getting employed are weak. It's more like being realistic than just being a blind sheep.

What do you think is ridiculous about it?

And I suspect an edit may be required for the second bit :wink:

[RyeSloan]

I think that it is pretty poor that my generation is going to be affected by the older generation's mistakes. The economy/banking crisis was entirely outwith our control and yet we're being punished for it... the tuition fees thing is only one aspect to it. They're planning on cutting funds to degrees which aren't maths or science based. That is in my opinion - ridiculous.

That being said, I completely condone the violence/criminal damage that occurred at Millbank earlier on in the week. I can only imagine (out of thousands there) this was all started by a small minority of trouble makers. These people are idiots and unrepresentative of the wider student community.

I personally feel aggrieved by the political situation and in particular would like to tell Nick Clegg to F Himself for everything he's done, this has pretty much put me off voting Liberal Democrat in the future.

I'm frequently asked what I want to do after my degree and I tell people who ask this - I'm not sure. This is not because I have no ideas, this is because I want to see what options are avaliable to me. There is no point getting my hopes up in this economy of landing a particular job when times are tough and chances of getting employed are weak. It's more like being realistic than just being a blind sheep.

Bankers causing higher Uni fees...that is so wide of the mark it makes you look daft.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I think that it is pretty poor that my generation is going to be affected by the older generation's mistakes. The economy/banking crisis was entirely outwith our control and yet we're being punished for it... the tuition fees thing is only one aspect to it. They're planning on cutting funds to degrees which aren't maths or science based. That is in my opinion - ridiculous.

That being said, I completely condone the violence/criminal damage that occurred at Millbank earlier on in the week. I can only imagine (out of thousands there) this was all started by a small minority of trouble makers. These people are idiots and unrepresentative of the wider student community.

I personally feel aggrieved by the political situation and in particular would like to tell Nick Clegg to F Himself for everything he's done, this has pretty much put me off voting Liberal Democrat in the future.

I'm frequently asked what I want to do after my degree and I tell people who ask this - I'm not sure. This is not because I have no ideas, this is because I want to see what options are avaliable to me. There is no point getting my hopes up in this economy of landing a particular job when times are tough and chances of getting employed are weak. It's more like being realistic than just being a blind sheep.

The younger generation are another of the older generation's mistakes. :greengrin

I sympathise with you being unsure what to do with your degree. I'm in the same boat, and it's in nursing. Lack of job opportunities here, mean that Australia or NZ are the most likely beneficiaries of Britain training up too many people when the job market was close to saturation.

I'd like to blame RBS, but for once I can see it has just been p*sspoor planning by me (to a certain extent, there were lots of vacancies a year ago); and more so, health boards and universities acting as if they have never met each other.

[JennaFletcher]

Bankers causing higher Uni fees...that is so wide of the mark it makes you look daft.

Cuts are having to happen because of the economic crisis... your post is so daft, it makes you look daft.

[JennaFletcher]

What do you think is ridiculous about it?

And I suspect an edit may be required for the second bit :wink:

It's ridiculous that they're prioritising certain types of degrees over others. Yeah I made a few typos in that piece I wrote, it was very late and I didn't read over it. :greengrin

[JennaFletcher]

The younger generation are another of the older generation's mistakes. :greengrin

I sympathise with you being unsure what to do with your degree. I'm in the same boat, and it's in nursing. Lack of job opportunities here, mean that Australia or NZ are the most likely beneficiaries of Britain training up too many people when the job market was close to saturation.

I'd like to blame RBS, but for once I can see it has just been p*sspoor planning by me (to a certain extent, there were lots of vacancies a year ago); and more so, health boards and universities acting as if they have never met each other.

Yeah, my point is that just because you're unsure of your future job, doesn't make your degree any less of a degree. There's been a few folk on here having a moan about students that are blindly just entering a degree. It's a lot of money to do a degree - do people not think that students actually consider their options before entering University?!

The fact there are no jobs is because of the economic crisis - hello bankers!

So... I return to my main point... why punish young people for the older generation's mistakes?

[Beefster]

Cuts are having to happen because of the economic crisis... your post is so daft, it makes you look daft.

The problems with university funding crisis are happening because of the explosion of the numbers attending university. I'm not sure if you remember but tuition fees were originally introduced when the economy was in great health.


It's ridiculous that they're prioritising certain types of degrees over others. Yeah I made a few typos in that piece I wrote, it was very late and I didn't read over it. :greengrin

If cuts are inevitable then it's fair enough to prioritise funding if they are prioritising the skills/knowledge that the nation needs to compete with the US, India, China etc. With the greatest will in the world, while a History of Art graduate may go on to create great wealth for the UK, it's unlikely to have been directly as a result of his degree. That's not the case for a mathematician, engineer, scientist etc.

[steakbake]

Yeah, my point is that just because you're unsure of your future job, doesn't make your degree any less of a degree. There's been a few folk on here having a moan about students that are blindly just entering a degree. It's a lot of money to do a degree - do people not think that students actually consider their options before entering University?!

The fact there are no jobs is because of the economic crisis - hello bankers!

So... I return to my main point... why punish young people for the older generation's mistakes?

Because in the normal run of things, we don't realise what mistakes have been made until several years down the line and they become clear.

Your (and I would say I'm included in your generation - just about) will invariably be passing things on to the next generation after us to sort out. It will be no fault of theirs, but we won't be in a position to retrospectively sort things out, unless some clever science graduate who had to pay for their degree invents a time machine.

[Lucius Apuleius]

I think that it is pretty poor that my generation is going to be affected by the older generation's mistakes. The economy/banking crisis was entirely outwith our control and yet we're being punished for it... the tuition fees thing is only one aspect to it. They're planning on cutting funds to degrees which aren't maths or science based. That is in my opinion - ridiculous.

That being said, I completely condone the violence/criminal damage that occurred at Millbank earlier on in the week. I can only imagine (out of thousands there) this was all started by a small minority of trouble makers. These people are idiots and unrepresentative of the wider student community.

I personally feel aggrieved by the political situation and in particular would like to tell Nick Clegg to F Himself for everything he's done, this has pretty much put me off voting Liberal Democrat in the future.

I'm frequently asked what I want to do after my degree and I tell people who ask this - I'm not sure. This is not because I have no ideas, this is because I want to see what options are available to me. There is no point getting my hopes up in this economy of landing a particular job when times are tough and chances of getting employed are weak. It's more like being realistic than just being a blind sheep.

Jenna, if it wasn't for the older generation you wouldn't be here. We don't owe you or anybody else a living. It is up to you to find your niche in life, not necessarily where you want to find it but where you need to find it to survive and grow. Only you can decide where that is and whether it involves the use of any degree you may or may not have achieved. Higher education is not the be all and end all. It is not even necessary to have a degree to have a fantastic career in other fields. I have been oft deriding of students on here in the past but one thing I don't like is generalizations and I appreciate there are a lot of students out there trying their damnedest to get a good degree to hopefully get them a good job. Personally I reckon for every one like the above there is ten who have not a clue what they want to do in life and Uni was as good a place as anywhere to go and spend a few more years in education being pampered to by those who pay taxes. I personally think it is correct that students should pay towards their higher education, how much of it I have not a clue. I do agree about Nick Clegg though. Having said that the way you worded it, it sounds like you voted Lib Dem before? If so then you reap what you sow. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

[RyeSloan]

Cuts are having to happen because of the economic crisis... your post is so daft, it makes you look daft.

Nope nothing daft from me.

You are totally incorrect to blame the ecomonic crisis for increasing tuiton fees and the review on HE. The way HE is funded in the UK has long been understood to be unsustainable, if anything the recession has brought this into sharper focus but it is certainly not the cause.

[RyeSloan]

Yeah, my point is that just because you're unsure of your future job, doesn't make your degree any less of a degree. There's been a few folk on here having a moan about students that are blindly just entering a degree. It's a lot of money to do a degree - do people not think that students actually consider their options before entering University?!

The fact there are no jobs is because of the economic crisis - hello bankers!

So... I return to my main point... why punish young people for the older generation's mistakes?

As someone who hires people on a frequent basis I can assure there is a substantial amount of students who do a range of degress with little thought as to how relevant they may be for their future career paths.

I'm not saying they shouldn't have done these degrees but it does raise the very pertinent question if the state should be subsidising such learning....which again has little to do with bankers.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Jenna, if it wasn't for the older generation you wouldn't be here. We don't owe you or anybody else a living. It is up to you to find your niche in life, not necessarily where you want to find it but where you need to find it to survive and grow. Only you can decide where that is and whether it involves the use of any degree you may or may not have achieved. Higher education is not the be all and end all. It is not even necessary to have a degree to have a fantastic career in other fields. I have been oft deriding of students on here in the past but one thing I don't like is generalizations and I appreciate there are a lot of students out there trying their damnedest to get a good degree to hopefully get them a good job. Personally I reckon for every one like the above there is ten who have not a clue what they want to do in life and Uni was as good a place as anywhere to go and spend a few more years in education being pampered to by those who pay taxes. I personally think it is correct that students should pay towards their higher education, how much of it I have not a clue. I do agree about Nick Clegg though. Having said that the way you worded it, it sounds like you voted Lib Dem before? If so then you reap what you sow. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

For someone who doesn't like generalisations you have done a fair bit of it there:wink:

[bighairyfaeleith]

I have to say that I agree that a degree is not something that is always needed to succeed, however in certain industries it is a must, i.e. accountancy.

I think the government is probably right to try and focus people in to certain academic areas that will best suit the country, however I fear they will completely cock it up, but it's a nice idea:greengrin

[steakbake]

I have to say that I agree that a degree is not something that is always needed to succeed, however in certain industries it is a must, i.e. accountancy.

I think the government is probably right to try and focus people in to certain academic areas that will best suit the country, however I fear they will completely cock it up, but it's a nice idea:greengrin

Well, financial incentives to study in areas in which we have a lack has been used in the past - the government used to give a "golden hello" to people wanting to do teaching courses and that generally worked.

I can't imagine that there's much need in the UK economy for more Media Studies graduates, but that time might come.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Well, financial incentives to study in areas in which we have a lack has been used in the past - the government used to give a "golden hello" to people wanting to do teaching courses and that generally worked.

I can't imagine that there's much need in the UK economy for more Media Studies graduates, but that time might come.

However, we now have a lot of unemployed teachers, the same with nurses. You'd think a nation wouldn't always be so reactive.

[Dashing Bob S]

I think that it is pretty poor that my generation is going to be affected by the older generation's mistakes. The economy/banking crisis was entirely outwith our control and yet we're being punished for it... the tuition fees thing is only one aspect to it. They're planning on cutting funds to degrees which aren't maths or science based. That is in my opinion - ridiculous.

That being said, I completely condone the violence/criminal damage that occurred at Millbank earlier on in the week. I can only imagine (out of thousands there) this was all started by a small minority of trouble makers. These people are idiots and unrepresentative of the wider student community.

I personally feel aggrieved by the political situation and in particular would like to tell Nick Clegg to F Himself for everything he's done, this has pretty much put me off voting Liberal Democrat in the future.

I'm frequently asked what I want to do after my degree and I tell people who ask this - I'm not sure. This is not because I have no ideas, this is because I want to see what options are avaliable to me. There is no point getting my hopes up in this economy of landing a particular job when times are tough and chances of getting employed are weak. It's more like being realistic than just being a blind sheep.

Yes it is, but if it's any consolation, the next generation will be probably saying exactly the same thing about your lot. The only generation that seem to be put on any pedestal for making sacrifices for the future generations were wartime ones, and they were only culled because of the greed/mistakes and weakness of the generation before them. Without being told what to do by the state, they'd have been as greedy, apathetic and selfish as all subsequent generations.

Sadly, capitalism is evil and central state control socialism probably worse. I don't know if they make us weak and selfish, or exist because we are.

I personally feel that the students who protested were the noblest expression of politics in Britain we've seen in a long time. It's far better than sitting around moaning on a keyboard.

[JennaFletcher]

Jenna, if it wasn't for the older generation you wouldn't be here. We don't owe you or anybody else a living. It is up to you to find your niche in life, not necessarily where you want to find it but where you need to find it to survive and grow. Only you can decide where that is and whether it involves the use of any degree you may or may not have achieved. Higher education is not the be all and end all. It is not even necessary to have a degree to have a fantastic career in other fields. I have been oft deriding of students on here in the past but one thing I don't like is generalizations and I appreciate there are a lot of students out there trying their damnedest to get a good degree to hopefully get them a good job. Personally I reckon for every one like the above there is ten who have not a clue what they want to do in life and Uni was as good a place as anywhere to go and spend a few more years in education being pampered to by those who pay taxes. I personally think it is correct that students should pay towards their higher education, how much of it I have not a clue. I do agree about Nick Clegg though. Having said that the way you worded it, it sounds like you voted Lib Dem before? If so then you reap what you sow. Good luck with whatever you decide to do.

In actual fact, if it wasn't for my parents - I wouldn't be here. The only other thing I owe to previous generations is equal rights for women. Because if it was earlier than the 1970s I probably wouldn't have been able to excel in an education system. And as for not liking generalisations, you make plenty yourself! For everyone one like the above there is ten who have not got a clue? There are 67 people in my degree at my stage. I know about 10-15 of them. All of them have an idea (not a cemented idea at this stage however) of where they'd like to go whether it's in business, media or on to further education like a PHD.

I don't believe in tuition fees - it just creates a system of unfairness. Nick Clegg was meant to vote against any increase in tuition fees - I voted Lib Dem because I thought they'd represent the student population. How wrong was I!

[JennaFletcher]

Yes it is, but if it's any consolation, the next generation will be probably saying exactly the same thing about your lot. The only generation that seem to be put on any pedestal for making sacrifices for the future generations were wartime ones, and they were only culled because of the greed/mistakes and weakness of the generation before them. Without being told what to do by the state, they'd have been as greedy, apathetic and selfish as all subsequent generations.

Sadly, capitalism is evil and central state control socialism probably worse. I don't know if they make us weak and selfish, or exist because we are.

I personally feel that the students who protested were the noblest expression of politics in Britain we've seen in a long time. It's far better than sitting around moaning on a keyboard.

Being a keyboard gangster is only one of my abilities. I have attended many a protest in my time, however, didn't make it down to London as saw it as a pointless excursion. Because of a) bus seat avaliability and b) shock horror! my course work deadlines. Now, there's a good student :wink:

[JennaFletcher]

I have to say that I agree that a degree is not something that is always needed to succeed, however in certain industries it is a must, i.e. accountancy.

I think the government is probably right to try and focus people in to certain academic areas that will best suit the country, however I fear they will completely cock it up, but it's a nice idea:greengrin

'Cause you'd really want someone whose expertise was in history and modern studies going into the mathsy world of accounting right enough? Now there's a good plan... let's all force our young historians into becoming accountants. :bitchy:

[bighairyfaeleith]

'Cause you'd really want someone whose expertise was in history and modern studies going into the mathsy world of accounting right enough? Now there's a good plan... let's all force our young historians into becoming accountants. :bitchy:

Thats not actually what I said, what I am talking about is guiding people on to courses that are more useful for the country, not after they have done the degree. However, how many graduates do you hear about leave uni with a degree in something like history and end up working in standard life??

For quite some time now a degree has just been a way of showing you are capable of learning as opposed to you having meaningful knowledge in a subject that is relevant to the job you are going for, and I think that should change.

[JennaFletcher]

Thats not actually what I said, what I am talking about is guiding people on to courses that are more useful for the country, not after they have done the degree. However, how many graduates do you hear about leave uni with a degree in something like history and end up working in standard life??

For quite some time now a degree has just been a way of showing you are capable of learning as opposed to you having meaningful knowledge in a subject that is relevant to the job you are going for, and I think that should change.

So, should everyone just study business then? Not everyone is business or mathematically minded. Just like how some people are not historically, geographically, socially or politically minded. You pick a degree to suit your ability as well as your future career intentions.

If you do geography, for instance, you're capable of learning but you also have a sound-grasp on geographical and ecological things... if you are studying politics, you are capable of learning but you're also specilising in political regimes and legislations.

Every degree is important. If it is what you want to do, why get pushed into something else because there is funding avaliable? Why should the government punish those that want to study something other than maths or science?!

If they're so bothered about areas like maths and science, then they should improve education from a younger level and make it a bit more interesting. They should also introduce initiatives to get teenagers interested in business and provide them with gateways into business careers.

[JennaFletcher]

Thats not actually what I said, what I am talking about is guiding people on to courses that are more useful for the country, not after they have done the degree. However, how many graduates do you hear about leave uni with a degree in something like history and end up working in standard life??

For quite some time now a degree has just been a way of showing you are capable of learning as opposed to you having meaningful knowledge in a subject that is relevant to the job you are going for, and I think that should change.

Also I feel you misunderstood me because I meant that they shouldn't push young historians (at a school level) into accounting at University.

[bighairyfaeleith]

So, should everyone just study business then? Not everyone is business or mathematically minded. Just like how some people are not historically, geographically, socially or politically minded. You pick a degree to suit your ability as well as your future career intentions.

If you do geography, for instance, you're capable of learning but you also have a sound-grasp on geographical and ecological things... if you are studying politics, you are capable of learning but you're also specilising in political regimes and legislations.

Every degree is important. If it is what you want to do, why get pushed into something else because there is funding avaliable? Why should the government punish those that want to study something other than maths or science?!

If they're so bothered about areas like maths and science, then they should improve education from a younger level and make it a bit more interesting. They should also introduce initiatives to get teenagers interested in business and provide them with gateways into business careers.

I'm not saying people shouldn't get to do the degrees they want to do, however I don't believe funds should be wasted on courses that will never lead to jobs, better to provide courses that will directly lead to industries with work. As I said earlier the government will probably make a royal hunt of this, but the basic principle I don't object to.

[Lucius Apuleius]

For someone who doesn't like generalizations you have done a fair bit of it there:wink:

Damn, see that is what not having a degree does to you. I thought I was being totally ungeneralizing and here I have not. Help me out though and show me where I have generalized so as I know in future:greengrin


In actual fact, if it wasn't for my parents - I wouldn't be here. The only other thing I owe to previous generations is equal rights for women. Because if it was earlier than the 1970s I probably wouldn't have been able to excel in an education system. And as for not liking generalizations, you make plenty yourself! For everyone one like the above there is ten who have not got a clue? There are 67 people in my degree at my stage. I know about 10-15 of them. All of them have an idea (not a cemented idea at this stage however) of where they'd like to go whether it's in business, media or on to further education like a PHD.

I don't believe in tuition fees - it just creates a system of unfairness. Nick Clegg was meant to vote against any increase in tuition fees - I voted Lib Dem because I thought they'd represent the student population. How wrong was I!

Jenna, so your parents are not part of the previous generation that caused all this? You cannot pick and choose. Your second question kinda sums up where Great Britain should just have changed its name to Britain. :wink:
The naivety of youth is brilliant. You believed something a politician said!!!!! Wonderful. :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

Damn, see that is what not having a degree does to you. I thought I was being totally ungeneralizing and here I have not. Help me out though and show me where I have generalized so as I know in future:greengrin


Are you sure this is right? :cool2::greengrin

[hibsbollah]

Personally I reckon for every one like the above there is ten who have not a clue what they want to do in life and Uni was as good a place as anywhere to go and spend a few more years in education being pampered to by those who pay taxes.

Just to help you out, here's the point where Mr. 'doesnt like generalisations' came a bit unstuck:greengrin

[easty]

So, should everyone just study business then? Not everyone is business or mathematically minded. Just like how some people are not historically, geographically, socially or politically minded. You pick a degree to suit your ability as well as your future career intentions.

If you do geography, for instance, you're capable of learning but you also have a sound-grasp on geographical and ecological things... if you are studying politics, you are capable of learning but you're also specilising in political regimes and legislations.

Every degree is important. If it is what you want to do, why get pushed into something else because there is funding avaliable? Why should the government punish those that want to study something other than maths or science?!

If they're so bothered about areas like maths and science, then they should improve education from a younger level and make it a bit more interesting. They should also introduce initiatives to get teenagers interested in business and provide them with gateways into business careers.

He clearly wasnt saying that everyone should do business though.

And in my opinion you're very wrong about the bit in bold.

[Lucius Apuleius]

Just to help you out, here's the point where Mr. 'doesnt like generalisations' came a bit unstuck:greengrin

But surely a generalization means you think everybody is the same? I am saying that ten out of 11 are like this so surely it is not a generalization? Damn I wish I had sat my O levels.

[Dashing Bob S]

Being a keyboard gangster is only one of my abilities. I have attended many a protest in my time, however, didn't make it down to London as saw it as a pointless excursion. Because of a) bus seat avaliability and b) shock horror! my course work deadlines. Now, there's a good student :wink:

Wasn't having a dig at you being a keyboard protester, more at myself, really, suffering one of my periodic bouts of self-loathing that I complain a lot but do nothing. I'm like millions of people my age I suppose, I moan constantly about the way things are but when it comes down to it are sadly unwilling to compromise their own comfortable life by actively protesting about it.

I have a niece who is a student in London, is very, very bright, and had excellent grades, on course for a first class honors degree. Then she suddenly got involved in protests/left-wing causes. Her course, which had motivated her almost completely, became an afterthought. I had a long talk with her recently and she was perfectly aware that she was jeapordising her future, but she felt she had to do this and I have absolute admiration and respect for her.

I think, sadly, she'll come to regret this, and i'd much rather for her sake she took your approach, but it's her choice and all power to her.

[hibsbollah]

But surely a generalization means you think everybody is the same? I am saying that ten out of 11 are like this so surely it is not a generalization? Damn I wish I had sat my O levels.

If you think 90% (or 91%? I failed my Maths O Level) of students go to Uni to get 'pampered by taxpayers', you are generalising. And also wrong.

[Lucius Apuleius]

If you think 90% (or 91%? I failed my Maths O Level) of students go to Uni to get 'pampered by taxpayers', you are generalizing. And also wrong.

OK, well I never even sat mine:greengrin But I think it is something like 90.9. Cool being wrong. Been wrong before and will be again. That however is my perception and I have always believed that perception is true in the eyes of the perceptor. :agree:

[Lucius Apuleius]

Just to help you out, here's the point where Mr. 'doesnt like generalisations' came a bit unstuck:greengrin

But surely a generalization means you think everybody is the same? I am saying that ten out of 11 are like this so surely it is not a generalization? Damn I wish I had sat my O levels.

[Betty Boop]

I'm sure I heard John Swinney say that EMA will be protected in Scotland ? Can anybody confirm ? Great news if true !

[bighairyfaeleith]

But surely a generalization means you think everybody is the same? I am saying that ten out of 11 are like this so surely it is not a generalization? Damn I wish I had sat my O levels.

Sorry but what are O levels :confused: :greengrin

[lapsedhibee]

But surely a generalization means you think everybody is the same? I am saying that ten out of 11 are like this so surely it is not a generalization? Damn I wish I had sat my O levels.

To save becoming discomfoozled with statistics, simplest to remember that All generalisations are bad. :greengrin

[Beefster]

'Cause you'd really want someone whose expertise was in history and modern studies going into the mathsy world of accounting right enough? Now there's a good plan... let's all force our young historians into becoming accountants. :bitchy:

How many history graduates actually become historians?

[bighairyfaeleith]

To save becoming discomfoozled with statistics, simplest to remember that All generalisations are bad. :greengrin

hold on there is one that hold water,

All hearts fans are :asshole:

[Leicester Fan]

I have to say that I agree that a degree is not something that is always needed to succeed, however in certain industries it is a must, i.e. accountancy.


Funny this should come up as my daughter will be starting sixth form college next year and we've been enquiring about this.

If you get 3 A levels (A & 2 Bs) you can go on a KPMG course. You are placed with an employer and you earn as you learn (£14k p.a). You still get a degree but it takes a bit longer.
The A levels can be in any subject as well.

[Lucius Apuleius]

You actually touch on something there Beefster. Surely if you want to know about history you just need to read books? I guess lots of them. I would think that if you read a book then go and sit in a classroom to listen to a teacher then all you will hear is there thoughts on a particular subject. Chances are (oh no, another generalization coming, I can feel it) if any of the teachers I speak to regularly who have done nothing except go to school since they were four years old are to be believed and are typical of the breed, totally peed off with the whole education system. This, to me, would lead to these said teachers, spouting about all that is wrong with society etc. The weak minded and easily led students present would take all this as the truth and then start revolting against it. Revolting against their own history and past generations of their own people and all because of a disillusioned teacher. Where this then becomes a bigger problem is when these students thus affected start breeding and all their hatred gets passed down to the offspring. Students are supposed to be intelligent. If they kept themselves to the intelligencying and left running the world to us it would be a much nicer place to be. :agree::wink:

[RyeSloan]

Funny this should come up as my daughter will be starting sixth form college next year and we've been enquiring about this.

If you get 3 A levels (A & 2 Bs) you can go on a KPMG course. You are placed with an employer and you earn as you learn (£14k p.a). You still get a degree but it takes a bit longer.
The A levels can be in any subject as well.

Which is an ever growing trend. Corporate Uni's are expanding fast, many are not the classic type of Uni but some are.

Frequently this type of learning is not funded by goverment and has largely came about due to the many high end complex operations these companies carry out.

It could be suggested that more should be done to encourage these as they are clearly an effective way of creating the 'right' type of graduates (i.e those that add value to the economy) at a vastly reduced cost to the state.

[Sir David Gray]

Further scenes of chaos in London today.

What I am seeing on the news today is absolutely disgraceful and, as usual, it's the police that is getting it from the anarchists.

These people have no interest in protesting about tuition fees, they are just animals and have no respect for anything.

The Police should just get the water cannons out as you cannot reason with people like that.

[Frazerbob]

Further scenes of chaos in London today.

What I am seeing on the news today is absolutely disgraceful and, as usual, it's the police that is getting it from the anarchists.

These people have no interest in protesting about tuition fees, they are just animals and have no respect for anything.

The Police should just get the water cannons out as you cannot reason with people like that.

They wouldn't show the restraint if it was football fans rioting in Whitehall (and quite rightly so).

[LancashireHibby]

They wouldn't show the restraint if it was football fans rioting in Whitehall (and quite rightly so).

Not wrong there.

[Betty Boop]

Unfortunate that there are scuffles breaking out once more, but never the less, well done to the Students in mobilising again. These protests are not only in London, there are marches and sit ins up and down the country, the majority are peaceful.

[Antifa Hibs]

'Mon the students :cool2:

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

Fair bit of trouble brewing around The Cenotaph, won't do their cause any good by kicking off there and causing damage.

[Sir David Gray]

As I said in my opening post a couple of weeks ago, I just find it incredible that these people actually want to encourage the wider public to support their cause and pay for them to go to university.

With the way these people are behaving at demonstrations like this, time and time again, it is only a matter of time before someone ends up dead.

[MountcastleHibs]

As I said in my opening post a couple of weeks ago, I just find it incredible that these people actually want to encourage the wider public to support their cause and pay for them to go to university.

With the way these people are behaving at demonstrations like this, time and time again, it is only a matter of time before someone ends up dead.

As a student myself, I sort of agree with what you're saying. Kicking off like this is doing nothing for the cause, and is frankly turning them into a bit of a joke? Who with any influence is going to support them after this.

Having said that, I think the trouble makers probably aren't students and are just anarchists with an excuse to cause trouble. Thankfully the protests in Edinburgh today have been peaceful and trouble free.

To the issue of tuition fees though. There are many, many students throughout Scotland anyway who wouldn't be at university now if their tuition fees weren't paid for. Myself being one of these. It gives people from families who otherwise couldn't afford it the chance to go onto further education. I'm first generation at uni, and if my fees weren't being paid for me I wouldn't be there. I'm not totally against some sort of graduate tax or graduate endowment that you contribute towards for a while once you've got a job earning over a certain amount.

What I do object to is what the government at Westminster is proposing. It WILL lead to a two tier university system, and lots of working class kids like myself won't be able to in to university. It's another move to discriminate against the working class and making the elites stronger. Which is wrong. If this policy is implemented in England, you can bet your bottom dollar on tuition fees coming back in Scotland.

Did any of the politicians proposing this tuition fee rise pay them? No they never.

[hibsbollah]

I just find it incredible that these people actually want to encourage the wider public to support their cause and pay for them to go to university.

.

I find it incredible that people such as yourself are surprised when there are protests when millions of intelligent young people are denied a good education because of the Government decimating student funding.

The Liberal Democrats actions since the election are a far bigger threat to democracy than a few violent protestors in London.

[easty]

I find it incredible that people such as yourself are surprised when there are protests when millions of intelligent young people are denied a good education because of the Government decimating student funding.

The Liberal Democrats actions since the election are a far bigger threat to democracy than a few violent protestors in London.

Yep...the "we didn't win the election so the promises we made, to get you to vote for us, now count for nothing" speil is a disgrace.

[MountcastleHibs]

Yep...the "we didn't win the election so the promises we made, to get you to vote for us, now count for nothing" speil is a disgrace.

And Nick Clegg's 'I've had to grow a thick skin' is nothing but downright insulting to those who voted for him. Thankfully, I've never liked the Lib Dems. Never trusted them, and looks like I've been justified. Pure sell outs.

[Saorsa]

Yep...the "we didn't win the election so the promises we made, to get you to vote for us, now count for nothing" speil is a disgrace.Hardly the 1st time the beige party have gone against the policies on which they were elected by. Anything tae grab a bit of power as it's the only way they will ever get any.

[hibeeleicester]

I was protesting today, and all we want is answers, got the the party headquaters and we were not allowed anywhere near and the place was all closed. People giving us abuse and shouting at us.

And we caused no trouble. Disgrace, we all just want answers.

[easty]

I was protesting today, and all we want is answers, got the the party headquaters and we were not allowed anywhere near and the place was all closed. People giving us abuse and shouting at us.

And we caused no trouble. Disgrace, we all just want answers.

What are your questions?

[Sir David Gray]

As a student myself, I sort of agree with what you're saying. Kicking off like this is doing nothing for the cause, and is frankly turning them into a bit of a joke? Who with any influence is going to support them after this.

Having said that, I think the trouble makers probably aren't students and are just anarchists with an excuse to cause trouble. Thankfully the protests in Edinburgh today have been peaceful and trouble free.

To the issue of tuition fees though. There are many, many students throughout Scotland anyway who wouldn't be at university now if their tuition fees weren't paid for. Myself being one of these. It gives people from families who otherwise couldn't afford it the chance to go onto further education. I'm first generation at uni, and if my fees weren't being paid for me I wouldn't be there. I'm not totally against some sort of graduate tax or graduate endowment that you contribute towards for a while once you've got a job earning over a certain amount.

What I do object to is what the government at Westminster is proposing. It WILL lead to a two tier university system, and lots of working class kids like myself won't be able to in to university. It's another move to discriminate against the working class and making the elites stronger. Which is wrong. If this policy is implemented in England, you can bet your bottom dollar on tuition fees coming back in Scotland.

Did any of the politicians proposing this tuition fee rise pay them? No they never.

I personally believe that there are too many people going to university nowadays and that some of the courses are a total joke. A couple of years ago, people were able to do a course at one university in "David Beckham studies". :bitchy: I was even speaking recently to someone at university who mentioned that there is a class in their degree that is absolutely packed, everyone wants to do it because there's no final exam. I find that shocking.

As far as I'm concerned, universities should be exclusively for the very brightest students. There are people going to university now that just use it as a way of avoiding the real world for a few years and they do courses that have no realistic job prospects at the end of it.

Obviously there are people who come from modest backgrounds who are very intelligent but can't afford the fees involved. I don't have a problem in helping them to do their studies but, in the main, I think there are lots of people who should be out looking for employment, instead of going to university.

The problems stem from the previous government as it was their policy to promote everyone going to university and it's just not feasible in my opinion.


I find it incredible that people such as yourself are surprised when there are protests when millions of intelligent young people are denied a good education because of the Government decimating student funding.

The Liberal Democrats actions since the election are a far bigger threat to democracy than a few violent protestors in London.

At no point in this thread have I expressed surprise at there being protests. What I am shocked and angry at is the utterly disgraceful scenes that we saw two weeks ago and then today with the absolute filth that has been sprayed over police vehicles and buildings, sickening violence that has been caused with injuries being caused to Police officers.

No matter what your point of view is on this matter, there can be absolutely no excuses for this type of illegal behaviour.

[hibeeleicester]

What are your questions?

Just what the ****.

IT makes NO sense to make cuts to education.

[PiemanP]

maybe if they spent more time studying rather than protesting they would be able to get a better job to pay for their fees?

maybe if uni's stop offering pish degrees at glorified colleges then we could give the genuine hard working students doing respectable degrees more dosh, and not paying for a bunch of spotty youths to get pished on tuesday nights...

why do they all wear rucksacks and hoods up, do they think they are radge?

If they cause any more trouble at protests, let the police go in hard on them, show them who's in charge.

[Betty Boop]

Richard Bacon is chairing Young Voters Question Time on BBC 3, the subject being discussed is tuition fees. Just started.

[Beefster]

As a student myself, I sort of agree with what you're saying. Kicking off like this is doing nothing for the cause, and is frankly turning them into a bit of a joke? Who with any influence is going to support them after this.

Having said that, I think the trouble makers probably aren't students and are just anarchists with an excuse to cause trouble. Thankfully the protests in Edinburgh today have been peaceful and trouble free.

To the issue of tuition fees though. There are many, many students throughout Scotland anyway who wouldn't be at university now if their tuition fees weren't paid for. Myself being one of these. It gives people from families who otherwise couldn't afford it the chance to go onto further education. I'm first generation at uni, and if my fees weren't being paid for me I wouldn't be there. I'm not totally against some sort of graduate tax or graduate endowment that you contribute towards for a while once you've got a job earning over a certain amount.

What I do object to is what the government at Westminster is proposing. It WILL lead to a two tier university system, and lots of working class kids like myself won't be able to in to university. It's another move to discriminate against the working class and making the elites stronger. Which is wrong. If this policy is implemented in England, you can bet your bottom dollar on tuition fees coming back in Scotland.

Did any of the politicians proposing this tuition fee rise pay them? No they never.

Couple of points about the proposals that you may already know but it's not obvious from your post:

- No fees are paid up front.

- The loans are only paid back when someone earns > £21,000 and even then, it's only 9% of the earnings above the limit. You have to be earning a shedload of money before you're paying a substantial amount back per month.

- The outstanding amounts are written off after 30 years.

What's the difference between a graduate tax and what's being proposed? You seem to be saying that you want tuition fees funded by the taxpayer but then would be willing to pay a graduate tax - if you pay a tax then fees won't be funded by the taxpayer.

The reason that MPs didn't pay tuition fees is because, with the numbers who went to university back in the day, funding from the state was feasible. It's not now and hasn't been for a good few years.

Do you think it's right that a young working family with kids get taxed more and more to send more and more teenagers to university so that the graduates can then go on to earn salaries that the young family funding their education can only dream of?

As someone who gets copied into all of the EUSA emails, I know the sort of stuff that are being rammed down students throats but they're not giving out any information beyond "cuts, cuts, cuts, fees, fees, fees". Listen to protesting students being questioned on TV or radio - a large number of them have no idea of what's being proposed beyond what the NUS is telling them.

[MountcastleHibs]

Couple of points about the proposals that you may already know but it's not obvious from your post:

- No fees are paid up front.

- The loans are only paid back when someone earns > £21,000 and even then, it's only 9% of the earnings above the limit. You have to be earning a shedload of money before you're paying a substantial amount back per month.

- The outstanding amounts are written off after 30 years.

What's the difference between a graduate tax and what's being proposed? You seem to be saying that you want tuition fees funded by the taxpayer but then would be willing to pay a graduate tax - if you pay a tax then fees won't be funded by the taxpayer.

The reason that MPs didn't pay tuition fees is because, with the numbers who went to university back in the day, funding from the state was feasible. It's not now and hasn't been for a good few years.

Do you think it's right that a young working family with kids get taxed more and more to send more and more teenagers to university so that the graduates can then go on to earn salaries that the young family funding their education can only dream of?

As someone who gets copied into all of the EUSA emails, I know the sort of stuff that are being rammed down students throats but they're not giving out any information beyond "cuts, cuts, cuts, fees, fees, fees". Listen to protesting students being questioned on TV or radio - a large number of them have no idea of what's being proposed beyond what the NUS is telling them.

This may seem quite strange, but I don't disagree with anything you've just said. My initial post was in response to FH. Now i've actually thought about it, here's what I think.

I've looked into the proposals in some depth and do see the points you have made as being advantageous to it. As I said earlier, i'm happy to accept that further education that the state can no longer afford to keep up. I would happily accept a graduation tax or the tuition fees in the form they are being proposed.

What my worry is is that it creates a two tier university system, which would be wrong. Hopefully I'm wrong on that one but I can't see any other way it will end up.

As for EUSA, i'm not a member, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. They're scaremongering, probably worse than the media. The amount of people we've had in lectures telling us to protest this week has been ridiculous. The way they tell you to get involved makes you feel unworthy if you don't. That is wrong. People should be allowed to form their own opinion, not have it preached to them how they should act .
I am undecided on this policy, much like I am with much of what is being proposed by the government. I even agree with some policies. We all have to accept some things will have to be cut.

I hate being a student. I'd love to have a full time job now, earning a living. But I know getting a Politics degree, is helping me learn in something I enjoy and want to learn more about, and will hopefully get me a decent job at the end of it. So anyone who tells me I'm a student just because i'm looking for an easy option is very ignorant. Most students I know work their ***** off to try and get good grades for a better degree. I work my backside off, often doing more than 40 hours of study a week, on top of a part time job. I'm not gonna moan though because ultimately that is my choice but how dare anyone tell me I don't work, only looking for an easy option and trying to escape the real world. That last bit isn't having a go at you btw Beefster. It's a dig at the people who have made ill thought out generalisations.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Couple of points about the proposals that you may already know but it's not obvious from your post:

- No fees are paid up front.

- The loans are only paid back when someone earns > £21,000 and even then, it's only 9% of the earnings above the limit. You have to be earning a shedload of money before you're paying a substantial amount back per month.

- The outstanding amounts are written off after 30 years.

What's the difference between a graduate tax and what's being proposed? You seem to be saying that you want tuition fees funded by the taxpayer but then would be willing to pay a graduate tax - if you pay a tax then fees won't be funded by the taxpayer.

The reason that MPs didn't pay tuition fees is because, with the numbers who went to university back in the day, funding from the state was feasible. It's not now and hasn't been for a good few years.

Do you think it's right that a young working family with kids get taxed more and more to send more and more teenagers to university so that the graduates can then go on to earn salaries that the young family funding their education can only dream of?

As someone who gets copied into all of the EUSA emails, I know the sort of stuff that are being rammed down students throats but they're not giving out any information beyond "cuts, cuts, cuts, fees, fees, fees". Listen to protesting students being questioned on TV or radio - a large number of them have no idea of what's being proposed beyond what the NUS is telling them.

Genuine question here, how does the government know how much money it will ever get back, and if it doesn't know how can it make proper projections on spending etc over the coming years.

Do they just assume they will have to spend 100% and anything less is a bonus?

Somebody earning 22k for the next 30 years would only pay back I think around £2700 of possibly a 30k loan.

My reason for asking all this is that, surely the government must think that this system will pay for say xx% of the costs of running the uni system, but how can they accurately predict this?:confused:

[Beefster]

This may seem quite strange, but I don't disagree with anything you've just said. My initial post was in response to FH. Now i've actually thought about it, here's what I think.

I've looked into the proposals in some depth and do see the points you have made as being advantageous to it. As I said earlier, i'm happy to accept that further education that the state can no longer afford to keep up. I would happily accept a graduation tax or the tuition fees in the form they are being proposed.

What my worry is is that it creates a two tier university system, which would be wrong. Hopefully I'm wrong on that one but I can't see any other way it will end up.

As for EUSA, i'm not a member, and I'm not ashamed to admit it. They're scaremongering, probably worse than the media. The amount of people we've had in lectures telling us to protest this week has been ridiculous. The way they tell you to get involved makes you feel unworthy if you don't. That is wrong. People should be allowed to form their own opinion, not have it preached to them how they should act .
I am undecided on this policy, much like I am with much of what is being proposed by the government. I even agree with some policies. We all have to accept some things will have to be cut.

I hate being a student. I'd love to have a full time job now, earning a living. But I know getting a Politics degree, is helping me learn in something I enjoy and want to learn more about, and will hopefully get me a decent job at the end of it. So anyone who tells me I'm a student just because i'm looking for an easy option is very ignorant. Most students I know work their ***** off to try and get good grades for a better degree. I work my backside off, often doing more than 40 hours of study a week, on top of a part time job. I'm not gonna moan though because ultimately that is my choice but how dare anyone tell me I don't work, only looking for an easy option and trying to escape the real world. That last bit isn't having a go at you btw Beefster. It's a dig at the people who have made ill thought out generalisations.

I know just how hard students (particularly in the later years) have to work. Most folk who think that they breeze through haven't a clue!

The government and universities need to step up to ensure that working class kids with the ability to go onto higher education are not put off when their proposals becomes reality. No-one likes to have to pay more but I genuinely think that, assuming that they get good information and assistance, most students will be able to see that current finances shouldn't be a barrier to going to university. I don't think that the media are doing a great job of getting the real policies over either.

EUSA are, in general, a waste of time and run by people whose only real concern is about themselves and how they can progress their agendas. When they spend more time trying to get the Daily Mail banned from campus than they do in assisting students with real problems, you know something's wrong.


Genuine question here, how does the government know how much money it will ever get back, and if it doesn't know how can it make proper projections on spending etc over the coming years.

Do they just assume they will have to spend 100% and anything less is a bonus?

Somebody earning 22k for the next 30 years would only pay back I think around £2700 of possibly a 30k loan.

My reason for asking all this is that, surely the government must think that this system will pay for say xx% of the costs of running the uni system, but how can they accurately predict this?:confused:

I don't know for sure but presumably they'll have done projections based on average graduate earnings and such like. They will be an element of the unknown in what they get back in loan repayments but the tax system in general is like that.

[Bad Martini]

Couldnae be arsed reading all the it's OK's versus it's no OK.

The facts are this:

1) Folk are entitled to protest as they see fit
2) If the break the law, the polis are entitled to lift them, just like the would any one of us at the fitba and probably far more tolerant wi the students given the press exposure

Where is the complimication in this issue? Brek the law, take the consequences?

I disagree wi it anaw on principle. I also disagree with ****ing whopping great road tax when the roads are in such a state. Can I just wallop a brick thru the Department of Transport windae? Is that OK?

Nah. Ye canny dae that. Otherwise we have anarchy.

It's a bit like this big crowd of fannies who went mental cause somebody switched off their telly just affore the fitba was aboot ti start :devil: ... and did the polis no hunt them doon?

Laws the law. Whether ye like it or no, and a lot of it, I dinnae like ye CANNOT have one set of rules for some "just" causes and others who just get lifted, no questions asked.

Tax dodging getts :devil: :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Just what the ****.

IT makes NO sense to make cuts to education.

Your argument would seem rather simplistic.

Are you stating the nation should just have an open cheque book and pay what it takes to over educate it's population in the wrong areas?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Your argument would seem rather simplistic.

Are you stating the nation should just have an open cheque book and pay what it takes to over educate it's population in the wrong areas?

Whats the wrong areas, council estates:devil:

[Bad Martini]

Whats the wrong areas :devil:

Ah say, Morningside. :greengrin

[Speedy]

Couple of points about the proposals that you may already know but it's not obvious from your post:

- No fees are paid up front.

- The loans are only paid back when someone earns > £21,000 and even then, it's only 9% of the earnings above the limit. You have to be earning a shedload of money before you're paying a substantial amount back per month.

- The outstanding amounts are written off after 30 years.

What's the difference between a graduate tax and what's being proposed? You seem to be saying that you want tuition fees funded by the taxpayer but then would be willing to pay a graduate tax - if you pay a tax then fees won't be funded by the taxpayer.

The reason that MPs didn't pay tuition fees is because, with the numbers who went to university back in the day, funding from the state was feasible. It's not now and hasn't been for a good few years.

Do you think it's right that a young working family with kids get taxed more and more to send more and more teenagers to university so that the graduates can then go on to earn salaries that the young family funding their education can only dream of?

As someone who gets copied into all of the EUSA emails, I know the sort of stuff that are being rammed down students throats but they're not giving out any information beyond "cuts, cuts, cuts, fees, fees, fees". Listen to protesting students being questioned on TV or radio - a large number of them have no idea of what's being proposed beyond what the NUS is telling them.

Exactly, you're not going to miss it. Although I think it is >£15k a year.

I've spent the last 4 years living on about £9k a year(made up of students loans, which I have to pay back as you described, and working part time) and I was able to live comfortably. When it gets to the point where I have to pay back my loan I'm going to be earning a lot more than I'm used to so I'm not going to miss £50-£100 a month or whatever it is. Therefore, I don't really see the argument that having to pay for tuition fees in the same way will prevent people from 'poorer' backgrounds going to uni.

p.s. I paid for my own rent, bills etc. Thought I'd get that in before someone suggests that 'Mummy and Daddy' pay for everything and I spend my £9k a year on cheap booze :greengrin

[RyeSloan]

Whats the wrong areas, council estates:devil:

:greengrin

To confirm I meant the area of education not living locale.

[Phil D. Rolls]

I was protesting today, and all we want is answers, got the the party headquaters and we were not allowed anywhere near and the place was all closed. People giving us abuse and shouting at us.

And we caused no trouble. Disgrace, we all just want answers.

You a big fan of 60s cult show "The Prisoner"?

[steve75]

Though I'd chip in.

Personally I've not been involved in any of these protests, i've just been getting my head down and working :wink:

I understand the anger as it's a lot of debt to have hanging over your head when just entering the 'real world' even if a large chuck of it may never be have to be paid back. I'm lucky that I get my tuition paid and a decent sized grant along with my loan, if I got no help, there is no way I would be at uni right now despite having most entry requirements twice over.

I also agree that there is too many courses that are not needed and too many people that don't deserve to be at uni. The problem is knowing which courses are just there for the sake of it. I am currently doing Computer Games Technology at Abertay, I get alot of light hearted pish of people who think im 'not at a real uni' and just play games all day. This isn't the case at all, im not going to go into detail but it is very intensive.

However the problem for me is that this course also exists at Caledonian and UWS(Paisley) where there are much lower entry requirements (and also in england where there do play games and just do market research etc and expect the same accreditation) yet they get the same funding per seat from the government? I agree that uni should be for the best, and not anyone, I didn't work my ass of in school to be stuck in a class full of people who haven't progressed since their first year who are only their because the uni can't afford to get rid of them.

Anyway I don't really know where I'm going. Pretty much, courses need streamlined to the best in each area and funding distributed better between, if there's less to fund there's more money to spread around.

[Beefster]

Though I'd chip in.

Personally I've not been involved in any of these protests, i've just been getting my head down and working :wink:

I understand the anger as it's a lot of debt to have hanging over your head when just entering the 'real world' even if a large chuck of it may never be have to be paid back. I'm lucky that I get my tuition paid and a decent sized grant along with my loan, if I got no help, there is no way I would be at uni right now despite having most entry requirements twice over.

I also agree that there is too many courses that are not needed and too many people that don't deserve to be at uni. The problem is knowing which courses are just there for the sake of it. I am currently doing Computer Games Technology at Abertay, I get alot of light hearted pish of people who think im 'not at a real uni' and just play games all day. This isn't the case at all, im not going to go into detail but it is very intensive.

However the problem for me is that this course also exists at Caledonian and UWS(Paisley) where there are much lower entry requirements (and also in england where there do play games and just do market research etc and expect the same accreditation) yet they get the same funding per seat from the government? I agree that uni should be for the best, and not anyone, I didn't work my ass of in school to be stuck in a class full of people who haven't progressed since their first year who are only their because the uni can't afford to get rid of them.

Anyway I don't really know where I'm going. Pretty much, courses need streamlined to the best in each area and funding distributed better between, if there's less to fund there's more money to spread around.

While I agree with your points, you have the benefit that Abertay is widely recognized as being the best university in the UK for game development-related degrees. It's a bit like Cambridge and Bolton both offering Computer Science but everyone knowing that, in most cases, Cambridge is going to be putting out more capable computer scientists.

Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending on your view on fees), Abertay will be able to charge higher fees or attract more in business investment than the other unis you mention because their reputation and quality of their education precedes them.

[discman]

Couple of points about the proposals that you may already know but it's not obvious from your post:

- No fees are paid up front.

- The loans are only paid back when someone earns > £21,000 and even then, it's only 9% of the earnings above the limit. You have to be earning a shedload of money before you're paying a substantial amount back per month.

- The outstanding amounts are written off after 30 years.

What's the difference between a graduate tax and what's being proposed? You seem to be saying that you want tuition fees funded by the taxpayer but then would be willing to pay a graduate tax - if you pay a tax then fees won't be funded by the taxpayer.

The reason that MPs didn't pay tuition fees is because, with the numbers who went to university back in the day, funding from the state was feasible. It's not now and hasn't been for a good few years.

Do you think it's right that a young working family with kids get taxed more and more to send more and more teenagers to university so that the graduates can then go on to earn salaries that the young family funding their education can only dream of?

As someone who gets copied into all of the EUSA emails, I know the sort of stuff that are being rammed down students throats but they're not giving out any information beyond "cuts, cuts, cuts, fees, fees, fees". Listen to protesting students being questioned on TV or radio - a large number of them have no idea of what's being proposed beyond what the NUS is telling them.


big assumption ie that there will be jobs available in the foreseeable future, currently Ithink the figures are 60 graduates for every vacancy, so that figure will change with more graduates and less jobs!

So Iagree with you tuition fees will be reintroduced, the figure you can earn before you pay back will be lowered, I can hear the arguments now,

" due to the mess the last labour government left us ,we have no option.its with reluctance blah blah"

That way numbers will drop,courses cut and equilibrium (sp) will be restored!

But what to do with all these schemies with ideas above their station? :greengrin

[Beefster]

Exactly, you're not going to miss it. Although I think it is >£15k a year.

That's the situation now. One of the new proposals is to increase the limit to £21k.


big assumption ie that there will be jobs available in the foreseeable future, currently Ithink the figures are 60 graduates for every vacancy, so that figure will change with more graduates and less jobs!

So Iagree with you tuition fees will be reintroduced, the figure you can earn before you pay back will be lowered, I can hear the arguments now,

" due to the mess the last labour government left us ,we have no option.its with reluctance blah blah"

That way numbers will drop,courses cut and equilibrium (sp) will be restored!

But what to do with all these schemies with ideas above their station? :greengrin

Considering the government is substantially raising the limit put in place by Labour, I'd be surprised if they reduced them back to £15k any time soon.

Labour promised that they would not implement tuition fees and then went ahead and did it a couple of years later so you never know though.

[discman]

That's the situation now. One of the new proposals is to increase the limit to £21k.



Considering the government is substantially raising the limit put in place by Labour, I'd be surprised if they reduced them back to £15k any time soon.

Labour promised that they would not implement tuition fees and then went ahead and did it a couple of years later so you never know though.

Maybe its my cynicism,they wont do it as you say any time soon,and if/when they do it will be back down to £16k so they will appear to hold the moral high ground,"not as low as Labour had it etc.

Personally I would let anyone go on to further education,provide they satisfied certain criteria eg they showed a commitment to what they were studying,by turning up on time,by completing whatever course work was put in front of them and by showing a level of improvement over a designated time period.

So if people wanted to acquire a traditional trade fine,if they wanted to go down the degree route fine,the whole notion that educations single aim is to acquire a good job ie one that pays lots of money,is a small part of the type of society we have become ie consumer orientated. The jobs are not going to be there paying big bucks,maybe people can study something which may be a rewarding life experince, it was for me and I am happy to pay for /cotribute to my daughters having the same oppertunity that my parents gave me.

My parents made loads of sacrifices to enable me to do that the least I can do is the same,it kinda comes with territory when you have kids. imo :greengrin

[Betty Boop]

Maybe its my cynicism,they wont do it as you say any time soon,and if/when they do it will be back down to £16k so they will appear to hold the moral high ground,"not as low as Labour had it etc.

Personally I would let anyone go on to further education,provide they satisfied certain criteria eg they showed a commitment to what they were studying,by turning up on time,by completing whatever course work was put in front of them and by showing a level of improvement over a designated time period.

So if people wanted to acquire a traditional trade fine,if they wanted to go down the degree route fine,the whole notion that educations single aim is to acquire a good job ie one that pays lots of money,is a small part of the type of society we have become ie consumer orientated. The jobs are not going to be there paying big bucks,maybe people can study something which may be a rewarding life experince, it was for me and I am happy to pay for /cotribute to my daughters having the same oppertunity that my parents gave me.

My parents made loads of sacrifices to enable me to do that the least I can do is the same,it kinda comes with territory when you have kids. imo :greengrin

:top marks

[hibsdaft]

Clegg got massive support in the election from students based on what are now known to be lies - they had already decided that their election position would be binned immediately upon reaching government. Who else remembers hundreds of students locked out of voting in his own constituency?

They voted for Clegg, they did their democracy bit, by the book and exactly how society asks them to. Then within weeks he's hitting them with a £40K debt.

Anyone who's surprised at a few windows getting panned wants a reality check right now. And no its not productive or helpful but you can hardly play the morality card on them.

Clegg and co. deserve everything coming to them.

Next protests are on Tuesday:
http://anticuts.org.uk/?page_id=1258

Those lies in full:
http://nickclegg.me.uk/

[Betty Boop]

Latest protests started in Whitehall, and around the country.

[RyeSloan]

Latest protests started in Whitehall, and around the country.

Who is organising these protests? I assume their main target is the proposed increase in fees..I'm interested in seeing their alternatives, where would be the best place to see a coherent alternative vision from one of the main protest organisers?

[Beefster]

Who is organising these protests? I assume their main target is the proposed increase in fees..I'm interested in seeing their alternatives, where would be the best place to see a coherent alternative vision from one of the main protest organisers?

The National Campaign Against Fees And Cuts (crazy name, crazy guys) are for:


Free education for all.

No cuts in education spending.

No cuts in EMA.

The right to protest however they please with no retribution.


So rather than acknowledging the funding issue and debating it, they've decided that they want higher education to become even more expensive for the taxpayer. Seems reasonable.......

http://anticuts.com/category/docs/

[RyeSloan]

The National Campaign Against Fees And Cuts (crazy name, crazy guys) are for:


Free education for all.

No cuts in education spending.

No cuts in EMA.

The right to protest however they please with no retribution.


So rather than acknowledging the funding issue and debating it, they've decided that they want higher education to become even more expensive for the taxpayer. Seems reasonable.......

http://anticuts.com/category/docs/

Thanks for the link....sadly I can't actually find any alternative proposals on their site although they do seem to be loving their 'direct action'.

[bighairyfaeleith]

I do think the government is being a bit hasty with pushing these changes through so quickly. Given that they will not recoup any of these fees for many years to come would it not be better to have a proper study done into this first?

[Beefster]

I do think the government is being a bit hasty with pushing these changes through so quickly. Given that they will not recoup any of these fees for many years to come would it not be better to have a proper study done into this first?

Lord Browne already has done a proper study.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Lord Browne already has done a proper study.

Not that many people saying it was a "proper" study though. It certainly does not seem that this report is generally accepted as being sound in the way it was done and it's findings are confusing.

I just think a new review that actually involved all the affected parties, that was more open to public scrutiny might be ab better way to go and I am surprised that the condems have missed this opportunity given that they did not commission the study in the first place.

[Betty Boop]

Vince Cable willing to abstain from voting on his own policy, for the sake of 'party unity'. :rolleyes:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/nov/30/vince-cable-abstain-tuition-fees-vote

[Beefster]

Not that many people saying it was a "proper" study though. It certainly does not seem that this report is generally accepted as being sound in the way it was done and it's findings are confusing.

I just think a new review that actually involved all the affected parties, that was more open to public scrutiny might be ab better way to go and I am surprised that the condems have missed this opportunity given that they did not commission the study in the first place.

So what are your concerns about the way that the review was done?

[bighairyfaeleith]

So what are your concerns about the way that the review was done?

I don't personally have concerns with the study as I'm not a student, not a teacher and never plan to have any involvement direct or indirect with universities in my work, however lots of people seem to, so it would seem to me that it would be wise to have another independent review that involved all the people concerned.

For me it just doesn't quite add up that the government wants to push this particular policy through so quickly, when they could have easily had another review given the first was setup by labour, and that this policy will save no money at all for many years to come (if at all) seems to negate the benefit of a quick implementation. Surely better to get as many people on side as possible, especially as there is going top be many bigger changes ahead in the coming years.

[GhostofBolivar]

"Let's give every child a chance". Michael Gove on our plans to turnaround failing schools: http://bit.ly/eLYEol

Unless, of course, they want to go to University.

[Beefster]

I don't personally have concerns with the study as I'm not a student, not a teacher and never plan to have any involvement direct or indirect with universities in my work, however lots of people seem to, so it would seem to me that it would be wise to have another independent review that involved all the people concerned.

For me it just doesn't quite add up that the government wants to push this particular policy through so quickly, when they could have easily had another review given the first was setup by labour, and that this policy will save no money at all for many years to come (if at all) seems to negate the benefit of a quick implementation. Surely better to get as many people on side as possible, especially as there is going top be many bigger changes ahead in the coming years.

Presumably, you're a taxpayer who will have to pay for any state funding so you're as much a stakeholder as a student. It's no surprise that students are questioning everything about the review considering most of them seem to think they should get everything for free.

The review wasn't a political process so the fact that Labour commissioned it is completely irrelevant. Unless someone (who can be proven to be unbiased) comes up with serious flaws in the way the review was carried out, it's completely irresponsible to disregard it and spend time and money doing another review when it will likely come out with broadly similar proposals.

I didn't like the Hutton Inquiry but that's because it didn't reflect my views/beliefs. That's the way it goes sometimes. Perhaps if students actually looked at the proposals, rather than the headlines, and understood them they would be taken more seriously.

[Beefster]

Unless, of course, they want to go to University.

It will continue to be free, at the point of education, and cheaper than now, per annum during the working life, to go to university.

How will that be a barrier to a university education?

[bighairyfaeleith]

Presumably, you're a taxpayer who will have to pay for any state funding so you're as much a stakeholder as a student. It's no surprise that students are questioning everything about the review considering most of them seem to think they should get everything for free.

The review wasn't a political process so the fact that Labour commissioned it is completely irrelevant. Unless someone (who can be proven to be unbiased) comes up with serious flaws in the way the review was carried out, it's completely irresponsible to disregard it and spend time and money doing another review when it will likely come out with broadly similar proposals.

I didn't like the Hutton Inquiry but that's because it didn't reflect my views/beliefs. That's the way it goes sometimes. Perhaps if students actually looked at the proposals, rather than the headlines, and understood them they would be taken more seriously.

I think the argument many people have though is that it was a political process, it was not open to public scrutiny and it did not seek properly the advice of people who mattered. Now I'm not an expert on this but as I said I think it better to get as many people on side as possible with a change like this rather than just forcing a change through. The end result may well be the same, however at least you then have a chance of people believing the result.

I am a taxpayer, but I don't have a problem with paying for young people to go to university providing the system is setup properly, for example the sort of courses being offered should be reviewed and cut down to get rid of some of the more useless courses you hear about. If the agreed policy though is for everyone to pay then fair enough I'll go along with that as well.

I agree that many of the students are not helping with there arguments, but when you interview members of a mob, whether it be strikers or demonstrators, when have they ever sounded like they know what they are talking about? Very rarely, but it doesn't mean there opinion doesn't matter.

The government has a problem here and rather than running round FIFA HQ with Becks, perhaps David Cameron should actually be doing something constructive to change peoples minds on this one, just a thought.

[bighairyfaeleith]

It will continue to be free, at the point of education, and cheaper than now, per annum during the working life, to go to university.

How will that be a barrier to a university education?

The one issue I do have with the plans is that we are all being encouraged to get out of debt, debt is now a bad thing. Taking on debt has caused all the problems of the world apparently, so why then is it ok for us to stick a debt on the head of every young person that goes through university that many of them will never be free of in there working life?

I know they payments will be low etc etc, but do you not see how this is at odds with everything we are being told elsewhere by the government etc?

[Beefster]

I think the argument many people have though is that it was a political process, it was not open to public scrutiny and it did not seek properly the advice of people who mattered. Now I'm not an expert on this but as I said I think it better to get as many people on side as possible with a change like this rather than just forcing a change through. The end result may well be the same, however at least you then have a chance of people believing the result.

I am a taxpayer, but I don't have a problem with paying for young people to go to university providing the system is setup properly, for example the sort of courses being offered should be reviewed and cut down to get rid of some of the more useless courses you hear about. If the agreed policy though is for everyone to pay then fair enough I'll go along with that as well.

I agree that many of the students are not helping with there arguments, but when you interview members of a mob, whether it be strikers or demonstrators, when have they ever sounded like they know what they are talking about? Very rarely, but it doesn't mean there opinion doesn't matter.

The government has a problem here and rather than running round FIFA HQ with Becks, perhaps David Cameron should actually be doing something constructive to change peoples minds on this one, just a thought.

If the government was proposing cutting the number of funded courses, students would still be up in arms. To be honest though, I'd have science, maths, engineering and vocational degrees funded more by the state as these are the skills we need.

I suspect many people, like me, disregard someone's opinion if they know that they don't even have a basic grasp of the facts/reality. Some of the students on TV and radio don't have a clue about the proposals beyond "fees will rise".

If Cameron wasn't at FIFA this week, he'd be getting criticised too. I don't agree with him schmoozing those corrupt tossers but I can see the benefits to England getting the WC.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The National Campaign Against Fees And Cuts (crazy name, crazy guys) are for:


Free education for all.

No cuts in education spending.

No cuts in EMA.

The right to protest however they please with no retribution.


So rather than acknowledging the funding issue and debating it, they've decided that they want higher education to become even more expensive for the taxpayer. Seems reasonable.......

http://anticuts.com/category/docs/

Had to laugh at some of the quotes from the people who marched on the Scottish Parliament yesterday (WTF :confused:). They all had names like Polly and Pippa, one was doing a degree in silversmithing.

You'd get the impression that Edinburgh is full of nice but dim students from the South East of England, reading a story like that.

[hibsdaft]

Had to laugh at some of the quotes from the people who marched on the Scottish Parliament yesterday (WTF :confused:). They all had names like Polly and Pippa, one was doing a degree in silversmithing.

You'd get the impression that Edinburgh is full of nice but dim students from the South East of England, reading a story like that.

They're still right though.

They were at SP because Clegg was meant to be there with Michael Moore for unveiling the Scotland thingy Bill.

For folk droning on about realism, what exactly is realistic about this:


An analysis by the Chartered Institute for Taxation indicates that most graduates will be paying this debt of for the rest of their lives, and incurring a 45% tax rate into the bargain. This is because of the way in which the debt will increase by RPI inflation plus 3% over the years that the graduates pay it back. A teacher, say, starting on £21,000 and seeing his or her salary increase by 5% a year, will end up paying £64,239 over 30 years, and still have an unpaid debt of £26,406.

So that's more national debt. This fees policy, and the disinenuos payback rate (does anyone in the UK trust them to keep to these fairytale figures of £7 a week?) is about burdening future generations with debt (both students and the state). So lets knock this realism talk on the head as the ones putting their heads in the sand here are the lying Liberals and their Tory pals.

Here's how to pay for further education:

Society requires graduates. So tax folk who make big bucks more, whether graduates or not - and most will be graduates.

Big business requires graduates. Some only employ graduates. So tax the biggest businesses more.

Abolish fees, reintroduce grants and have a review of university education and the benefit of all courses. Refuse to subsidise courses with no social or economic benefit, and limit numbers of those with merely cultural benefit. They can privatise/ scrap the rest. **** em.

And lets be clear social sciences are important - as most of the last 20 Prime Ministers of the UK would presumably testify, being graduates on them.

[Phil D. Rolls]

On Question Time last night the debate took an ugly turn, with the West Lothian Question being raised. Words like apartheid to describe the treatment of English students are not helpful. At the end of the day, as John Sargeant pointed out, it is for the English to ask why other places can do it, rather than call them names.

As for Scottish MPs voting on strictly English matters, IIRC the Tories went as far as to put English MPs on Scottish committees.

[Betty Boop]

On Question Time last night the debate took an ugly turn, with the West Lothian Question being raised. Words like apartheid to describe the treatment of English students are not helpful. At the end of the day, as John Sargeant pointed out, it is for the English to ask why other places can do it, rather than call them names.

As for Scottish MPs voting on strictly English matters, IIRC the Tories went as far as to put English MPs on Scottish committees.

John Sargeant was excellent, he referred to the fact that Scotland and to an extent Wales were 'more sensible' in funding higher education. Nadine Dorris and Danny Alexander, the least said the better.

[hibsdaft]

On Question Time last night the debate took an ugly turn, with the West Lothian Question being raised. Words like apartheid to describe the treatment of English students are not helpful.

Agreed, that was pathetic and served as a means of throwing the debate off-course.

[Jones28]

I was discussing this earlier today and my thoughts are -

Why should students not pay fees to further their own education?

Is it not perceived that, generally they will go onto better jobs, careers and earn more money? If I want my kids to have a better schooling, than the state provides, then I would send them to a private school. If I couldn't afford those fees then the child would perhaps get assistance if they had the academics. If someone decides they want to expand on the education that they are given at high school then they have the right to do so but why not pay for it. If they were means tested and unable to support themselves and had suitable pass marks then they should be given similar assistance.

Surely it should be the same as business. I have to spend money to make money. It's the same principle is it not? Yes, if I have a solid business plan I will be given help by funding or business loans but generally it has to be paid back, regardless if it works or not. Why should students be any different?

And don't get me started on gap years!!

Thats a fair point, but the protest (in Edinburgh anyway as I was on it) was focussed at the Liberal Democrats back-tracking on a previously made promise, attracting thousands of votes from students and younger people only to turn around and say "Oh yeah, by the way, you know we're anti-uni cuts and thats the main reason you voted for us? Yeah, we're doing it anyway"

[Phil D. Rolls]

Thats a fair point, but the protest (in Edinburgh anyway as I was on it) was focussed at the Liberal Democrats back-tracking on a previously made promise, attracting thousands of votes from students and younger people only to turn around and say "Oh yeah, by the way, you know we're anti-uni cuts and thats the main reason you voted for us? Yeah, we're doing it anyway"

How many more votes did the Scottish Lib Dems secure on the back of this promise? If it was a significant amount I can see cause for anger up here. If voting at the last general election was roughly the same in Scotland, I don't see what it has to do with us.

For me, this is an English matter, and it is for the English people to protest over. From where I am sitting, this looked like a pitiful copycat effort, trying to replicate what happened in London, without any real evidence of joined up thinking.

If nothing else, the confusion over what the event was about amongst the general population suggests that - whatever the message was - it failed to make an impact.

[Betty Boop]

How many more votes did the Scottish Lib Dems secure on the back of this promise? If it was a significant amount I can see cause for anger up here. If voting at the last general election was roughly the same in Scotland, I don't see what it has to do with us.

For me, this is an English matter, and it is for the English people to protest over. From where I am sitting, this looked like a pitiful copycat effort, trying to replicate what happened in London, without any real evidence of joined up thinking.

If nothing else, the confusion over what the event was about amongst the general population suggests that - whatever the message was - it failed to make an impact.

Why only an English matter ? Educational Maintenance Allowance is a big help for students from poorer backgrounds, who stay on in full time education.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Why only an English matter ? Educational Maintenance Allowance is a big help for students from poorer backgrounds, who stay on in full time education.

I can't say I was aware of that, is it a devolved or reserved matter though?

[marinello59]

Why only an English matter ? Educational Maintenance Allowance is a big help for students from poorer backgrounds, who stay on in full time education.
:agree:
And the fees increase down South will put major pressure on the Scottish Universities in terms of keeping up with the better funded English Universities. Something would have to give up here as well.

[hibsbollah]

John Sargeant was excellent, he referred to the fact that Scotland and to an extent Wales were 'more sensible' in funding higher education. Nadine Dorris and Danny Alexander, the least said the better.

:agree:They were both awful. Nadine Dorris is so dense. She's the Tories' Sarah Palin. Danny Alexander is sounding more and more a Tory with every day that passes, Beaker is clearly loving the coalition.

[Phil D. Rolls]

:agree:They were both awful. Nadine Dorris is so dense. She's the Tories' Sarah Palin. Danny Alexander is sounding more and more a Tory with every day that passes, Beaker is clearly loving the coalition.

Glad you said this, the way she walked into the "apartheid trap" showed she was someone who really didn't have a grasp of the facts. Can't wait till she's on again, as it is rare to get such a Gorblmey politician these days.

[bighairyfaeleith]

:agree:They were both awful. Nadine Dorris is so dense. She's the Tories' Sarah Palin. Danny Alexander is sounding more and more a Tory with every day that passes, Beaker is clearly loving the coalition.

you know as much as I really dislike harriet harman, her ginger rodent comment was not that far from the mark, the guy is a complete fud, and not just because he is ginger:wink:

[Phil D. Rolls]

you know as much as I really dislike harriet harman, her ginger rodent comment was not that far from the mark, the guy is a complete fud, and not just because he is ginger:wink:

No.......but it does give him a bit of a flying start. :duck:

[Betty Boop]

No.......but it does give him a bit of a flying start. :duck:

Gingerist ! :greengrin

[Phil D. Rolls]

you know as much as I really dislike harriet harman, her ginger rodent comment was not that far from the mark, the guy is a complete fud, and not just because he is ginger:wink:

Thinking about his QT performance more. Did he actually sit back whilst other panellists went on about England being the economic powerhouse of the UK? I'm sure I imagined it, as a Scottish MP would not stand for his constituents being labelled scroungers. Would they?

[duncs]

As a comedian pointed out last week: if the number of students who feel they have been let down by the Lib Dems actually voted Lib Dem, then they'd be a majority government on their own!

[Betty Boop]

With the Lib-Dems split four ways, Norman Baker is set to resign over the issue of tuition fees.

[Sylar]

Vote passed by a 21 majority.

No wonder the students are going ****ing mental outside - some of their actions aren't justified, but the vilification of students by the BBC is ludicrous!

Twice as many protestors injured as police, with scenes of police horses charging at protestors and heavy handed policing.

Here endeth the Lib Dem party - do political parties do mergers?

[bighairyfaeleith]

I have to say some of the shots showed the polis giving some students a right good kicking. Reckon there will be more to come out of this story over the coming days

[Betty Boop]

Prince Charles and Camilla's car splattered with paint and the window pranged in Oxford Street.

[bigstu]

Vote passed by a 21 majority.

No wonder the students are going ****ing mental outside - some of their actions aren't justified, but the vilification of students by the BBC is ludicrous!

Twice as many protestors injured as police, with scenes of police horses charging at protestors and heavy handed policing.

Here endeth the Lib Dem party - do political parties do mergers?

Do you expect the police just to leave them to ruin London??? The actions of the protesters is a disgrace & i tell you what i wouldn't have liked to be in the police today, it was scary stuff!

[Gatecrasher]

i love how they show videos of folk smashing windows, assulting the police, the royal family and rioting then saying the police were heavy handed. :bye:

[Sylar]

Do you expect the police just to leave them to ruin London??? The actions of the protesters is a disgrace & i tell you what i wouldn't have liked to be in the police today, it was scary stuff!

Of course not, but there are ways and means of dealing with it - charging at a group of people on horse-back and smashing the seven shades out of anyone who moves is hardly conducive to good policing - indeed, during the clashes, it must have been a bit scarier than a normal day on the job, but when you kettle so many people with high emotions into a small space and lash out at the slightest sign of unrest, you get what ended up happening.

I repeat, more protesters injured than police tells it's own story.


i love how they show videos of folk smashing windows, assulting the police, the royal family and rioting then saying the police were heavy handed. :bye:

But they were heavy handed - I'm not for one second defending the actions of the "students" (I don't for one second believe that all involved WERE students, more likely folks turning up for a rammy), but the police penned the protesters into a small area and were overly aggressive in their controlling tactics. Did you see the windows being smashed on the court? One policeman actually held another back, as he stepped forth to prevent it happening, then once the window had been smashed, they stepped in and dealt with it - it appeared as if the police were trying to ensure some damage was forthcoming, so they had vindication for their actions.

All of the above is completely by the way though, and both the government and media have achieved in deflecting away from the real story today, which is the tripling of tuition fees for students in England. I sincerely hope the Scottish government do something quickly in response, as otherwise, English students can come up to Scotland and only pay reduced fees, thus limiting places for Scottish students.

The Tory's and their lap-dogs have completely and utterly destroyed the higher education system in this country, despite Lib Dem promises not to back such measures.

I find it absolutely staggering that it's now cheaper (especially factoring in exchange rates) for an English student to complete a degree at one of the top US Universities than it is to attend one of the top UK Universities.

[Darth Hibbie]

Of course not, but there are ways and means of dealing with it - charging at a group of people on horse-back and smashing the seven shades out of anyone who moves is hardly conducive to good policing

I think the horses were probably a last resort. You will probably find other tactics had been tried and failed. - i

ndeed, during the clashes, it must have been a bit scarier than a normal day on the job, but when you kettle so many people with high emotions into a small space and lash out at the slightest sign of unrest, you get what ended up happening.

Slightest unrest? Looked a bit more than that to me :bitchy:

I repeat, more protesters injured than police tells it's own story.

That any police, wearing full riot gear, were injured tells its own story

But they were heavy handed -

Disagree. The hours of police trying too calm the situation before hand just do not make good TV. As above the police had to escalate things because lighter tactics were not working

I'm not for one second defending the actions of the "students" (I don't for one second believe that all involved WERE students, more likely folks turning up for a rammy)

Agreed. More likely professional protesters and neds looking for a fight with the police

, but the police penned the protesters into a small area and were overly aggressive in their controlling tactics. Did you see the windows being smashed on the court? One policeman actually held another back, as he stepped forth to prevent it happening, then once the window had been smashed, they stepped in and dealt with it - it appeared as if the police were trying to ensure some damage was forthcoming, so they had vindication for their actions.

Hard to tell but I very much doubt that it was a case of let them do it the we can kick the crap out of them for it.

All of the above is completely by the way though, and both the government and media have achieved in deflecting away from the real story today, which is the tripling of tuition fees for students in England. I sincerely hope the Scottish government do something quickly in response, as otherwise, English students can come up to Scotland and only pay reduced fees, thus limiting places for Scottish students.

Its not by the by though. The only people deflecting from the real issue is those who were intent in causing as much chaos as possible

The Tory's and their lap-dogs have completely and utterly destroyed the higher education system in this country, despite Lib Dem promises not to back such measures.

Agreed

I find it absolutely staggering that it's now cheaper (especially factoring in exchange rates) for an English student to complete a degree at one of the top US Universities than it is to attend one of the top UK Universities.

I don't expect with you to agree with much of what I have said but for what its worth - there was an agreed march route and protest area for a peaceful protest. A number (large number by all accounts) went against the wishes of the protest organisers and went a different route and went on their violent, destructive rampage. Surly anybody who followed them must have known that it was going to end up in violent confrontation with the police? The old phrase you fly with the crows you get shot with the crows springs to mind.

All IMO of course :greengrin

[Gatecrasher]

Of course not, but there are ways and means of dealing with it - charging at a group of people on horse-back and smashing the seven shades out of anyone who moves is hardly conducive to good policing - indeed, during the clashes, it must have been a bit scarier than a normal day on the job, but when you kettle so many people with high emotions into a small space and lash out at the slightest sign of unrest, you get what ended up happening.

I repeat, more protesters injured than police tells it's own story.



But they were heavy handed - I'm not for one second defending the actions of the "students" (I don't for one second believe that all involved WERE students, more likely folks turning up for a rammy), but the police penned the protesters into a small area and were overly aggressive in their controlling tactics. Did you see the windows being smashed on the court? One policeman actually held another back, as he stepped forth to prevent it happening, then once the window had been smashed, they stepped in and dealt with it - it appeared as if the police were trying to ensure some damage was forthcoming, so they had vindication for their actions.

All of the above is completely by the way though, and both the government and media have achieved in deflecting away from the real story today, which is the tripling of tuition fees for students in England. I sincerely hope the Scottish government do something quickly in response, as otherwise, English students can come up to Scotland and only pay reduced fees, thus limiting places for Scottish students.

The Tory's and their lap-dogs have completely and utterly destroyed the higher education system in this country, despite Lib Dem promises not to back such measures.

I find it absolutely staggering that it's now cheaper (especially factoring in exchange rates) for an English student to complete a degree at one of the top US Universities than it is to attend one of the top UK Universities.

i dont believe they were students either, its probably the same folk that turn up at every oher protest looking for a bit of a scrap with the police.

Saying that however, there must be only a small number of ways to deal with a situation like that, and to "Contain" them in an area while the police vet them sounds like the most popular way.

Whether or not you agree with the students fee's going up , yesterday's actions by the so called protesters was unacceptable.

If it were me in charge :cool2:, i would make the ones found guilty pay for all the damage done to the properties :agree:

[GlesgaeHibby]

I am getting fed up of the protestors chanting "Education is a right!".

It is a right at primary and secondary level, but at tertiary level it is a privilege.

What the government have done now is make that a privilege for those that can afford it, rather than those with the best grades.

They government also said it was the only alternative without cutting university places. Why wasn't cutting places considered? Far too many go to university anyway. Aiming to get 50% to university is madness considering the fact that >50% of jobs in this country do not need require graduates.

Cut mickey mouse universities and courses, cut numbers going to university to regain the value of a degree, so we can send the brightest students to university regardless of their ability to pay.

[Beefster]

Of course not, but there are ways and means of dealing with it - charging at a group of people on horse-back and smashing the seven shades out of anyone who moves is hardly conducive to good policing - indeed, during the clashes, it must have been a bit scarier than a normal day on the job, but when you kettle so many people with high emotions into a small space and lash out at the slightest sign of unrest, you get what ended up happening.

I repeat, more protesters injured than police tells it's own story.



But they were heavy handed - I'm not for one second defending the actions of the "students" (I don't for one second believe that all involved WERE students, more likely folks turning up for a rammy), but the police penned the protesters into a small area and were overly aggressive in their controlling tactics. Did you see the windows being smashed on the court? One policeman actually held another back, as he stepped forth to prevent it happening, then once the window had been smashed, they stepped in and dealt with it - it appeared as if the police were trying to ensure some damage was forthcoming, so they had vindication for their actions.

All of the above is completely by the way though, and both the government and media have achieved in deflecting away from the real story today, which is the tripling of tuition fees for students in England. I sincerely hope the Scottish government do something quickly in response, as otherwise, English students can come up to Scotland and only pay reduced fees, thus limiting places for Scottish students.

The Tory's and their lap-dogs have completely and utterly destroyed the higher education system in this country, despite Lib Dem promises not to back such measures.

I find it absolutely staggering that it's now cheaper (especially factoring in exchange rates) for an English student to complete a degree at one of the top US Universities than it is to attend one of the top UK Universities.

That's not strictly true though, is it? The limit has been increased from over £3000 to somewhere between £6000 and £9000. It's incredible how many folk don't, can't or won't understand what is actually changing.

Do you agree that the full proposals will make life much easier for lower-paid graduates?

PS I remember the 'Higher education is being annihilated' arguments at the introduction of tuition fees. It didn't quite work out that way.

[bighairyfaeleith]

That's not strictly true though, is it? The limit has been increased from over £3000 to somewhere between £6000 and £9000. It's incredible how many folk don't, can't or won't understand what is actually changing.

Do you agree that the full proposals will make life much easier for lower-paid graduates?

PS I remember the 'Higher education is being annihilated' arguments at the introduction of tuition fees. It didn't quite work out that way.

Ok so it is being somewhere between doubled and tripled then. Is that better?:rolleyes:

I agree with Glesgaehibby, far better that the actual system was properly reformed rather than just the prices being played with, just like the child tax credits etc the government is taking the fast route rather than the right route, and all apparently in the name of saving money (still don't buy that argument though)

[Hibbyradge]

Won't these successful graduates pay more tax when they get their highly paid jobs anyway?

Fundamentally, charging for education is a hugely backward step.

The right wing must be having a great time just now and they'll be salivating at the prospect of increasing the fees every time we have a budget.

[GlesgaeHibby]

So, should everyone just study business then? Not everyone is business or mathematically minded. Just like how some people are not historically, geographically, socially or politically minded. You pick a degree to suit your ability as well as your future career intentions.

If you do geography, for instance, you're capable of learning but you also have a sound-grasp on geographical and ecological things... if you are studying politics, you are capable of learning but you're also specilising in political regimes and legislations.

Every degree is important. If it is what you want to do, why get pushed into something else because there is funding avaliable? Why should the government punish those that want to study something other than maths or science?!

If they're so bothered about areas like maths and science, then they should improve education from a younger level and make it a bit more interesting. They should also introduce initiatives to get teenagers interested in business and provide them with gateways into business careers.

Maths/Engineering/Science degrees should be funded because they are important to our economy. We also need to be encouraging more people to study these subjects, but people avoid them because they are challenging. People would rather take an easier option and study a 'trendy' subject like business.

Scientists and Engineers build/make things. They focus on innovation. If we create new innovative goods, we can trade these goods with other countries and grow our economy. We need to build up a manufacturing industry again.

A strong focus on Science and Engineering is why Germany is in such a strong economic position.

Finance and Bankers do not create wealth. They shuffle money. To grow as an economy we need to be making and selling goods that people want. That requires skilled scientists and engineers. It therefore logically follows that we should invest heavily in these degrees.

If people want to do business/history/media studies/etc etc then that is fine, but they shouldn't expect them to be funded to the same extent as science/engineering as they provide less of a return to the country.

Funding should be for priority degrees: Medicine, Law, Science, Engineering.

[Sylar]

That's not strictly true though, is it? The limit has been increased from over £3000 to somewhere between £6000 and £9000. It's incredible how many folk don't, can't or won't understand what is actually changing.

Do you agree that the full proposals will make life much easier for lower-paid graduates?

PS I remember the 'Higher education is being annihilated' arguments at the introduction of tuition fees. It didn't quite work out that way.

Well, it is and it isn't - it will allow some Universities to extend their tuition fees to £9000 based on resource requirements/teaching and demand of specific courses. It will also allow specific Universities which are more popular (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, Leeds, York, Warwick, Bristol...) to start charging this amount anyway - there is nothing in place to stop ALL Universities charging this amount, so long as they can justify it. There will be more students who will pay double (still hardly a positive step) than the current amount at the £6k cap.

I don't believe it will make it easier, no. People from low-income families looking to go to University in England now face a situation where they will have to take out loans to cover their fees and living expenses, with the requirement to pay that back once they earn over a threshold (as it is just now). With this increase though, students are facing somewhere in the region of between £25-35k, which is ludicrous and will quite rightly put people off going.

This might not be a wholly bad thing, as a degree has become so undervalued these days because the sheer amount of people who have them - it may serve in reinstating it as a worthwhile qualification again.

If I'm reading GlesgaeHibby's point above correctly, the right to higher education should be reserved on a purely grade-based approach, not financial affordability. Sadly though, the people who have the best grades, aren't always the most financially well to do, and with these new raises in fees, University will go from being a possibility to a pipe-dream for some.

[GlesgaeHibby]

Well, it is and it isn't - it will allow some Universities to extend their tuition fees to £9000 based on resource requirements/teaching and demand of specific courses. It will also allow specific Universities which are more popular (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, Leeds, York, Warwick, Bristol...) to start charging this amount anyway - there is nothing in place to stop ALL Universities charging this amount, so long as they can justify it. There will be more students who will pay double (still hardly a positive step) than the current amount at the £6k cap.

I don't believe it will make it easier, no. People from low-income families looking to go to University in England now face a situation where they will have to take out loans to cover their fees and living expenses, with the requirement to pay that back once they earn over a threshold (as it is just now). With this increase though, students are facing somewhere in the region of between £25-35k, which is ludicrous and will quite rightly put people off going.

This might not be a wholly bad thing, as a degree has become so undervalued these days because the sheer amount of people who have them - it may serve in reinstating it as a worthwhile qualification again.

If I'm reading GlasgowHibby's point above correctly, the right to higher education should be reserved on a purely grade-based approach, not financial affordability. Sadly though, the people who have the best grades, aren't always the most financially well to do, and with these new raises in fees, University will go from being a possibility to a pipe-dream for some.

:agree: Let's move to sending the top 10-15% to University based purely on grades attained. Cut numbers studying, don't increase fees.

[Hibbyradge]

Maths/Engineering/Science degrees should be funded because they are important to our economy. We also need to be encouraging more people to study these subjects, but people avoid them because they are challenging. People would rather take an easier option and study a 'trendy' subject like business.

Scientists and Engineers build/make things. They focus on innovation. If we create new innovative goods, we can trade these goods with other countries and grow our economy. We need to build up a manufacturing industry again.

A strong focus on Science and Engineering is why Germany is in such a strong economic position.

Finance and Bankers do not create wealth. They shuffle money. To grow as an economy we need to be making and selling goods that people want. That requires skilled scientists and engineers. It therefore logically follows that we should invest heavily in these degrees.

If people want to do business/history/media studies/etc etc then that is fine, but they shouldn't expect them to be funded to the same extent as science/engineering as they provide less of a return to the country.

Funding should be for priority degrees: Medicine, Law, Science, Engineering.

I couldn't disagree more.

Got to go now, but I'll be back later to expand although I'm sure others will have made most, if not all, of my points by then, and probably more eruditely.

[GlesgaeHibby]

I couldn't disagree more.

Got to go now, but I'll be back later to expand although I'm sure others will have made most, if not all, of my points by then, and probably more eruditely.

Really??

Science and Engineering has given us so much over the 20th Century:

-Aviation: the world is now smaller. Aviation industry employs millions worldwide. Requires skilled scientists and engineers.
-Energy: The energy sector is massive in the UK and worldwide. It is vital for everything we do, and has helped us improve our living standards by making heating, lighting and home entertainment more affordable. Our economy relies heavily on Energy for transport, NHS, office buildings etc etc.
-Innovation The TV, the telephone, the computer, the internet. Four things we all rely on and take for granted.
-Research Scientific research may not seem relevant to many in the UK but research into Particle and Nuclear physics has had many spin offs, including in the field of medical physics which benefits patients in treatment and diagnosis of things like tumours. I spent a year working on a project in an optics research groups, and they were adapting some of their technology to help us gain a better understanding of DNA.

I've not got time to expand just now but to think that science and engineering aren't, and haven't been vital to our economy is crazy IMO.

[Beefster]

Won't these successful graduates pay more tax when they get their highly paid jobs anyway?

Fundamentally, charging for education is a hugely backward step.

The right wing must be having a great time just now and they'll be salivating at the prospect of increasing the fees every time we have a budget.

Which right-wing party introduced the fees and then increased them substantially in 2004? I'm fairly sure the Tories weren't in power then but I could be wrong.


Well, it is and it isn't - it will allow some Universities to extend their tuition fees to £9000 based on resource requirements/teaching and demand of specific courses. It will also allow specific Universities which are more popular (Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, Leeds, York, Warwick, Bristol...) to start charging this amount anyway - there is nothing in place to stop ALL Universities charging this amount, so long as they can justify it. There will be more students who will pay double (still hardly a positive step) than the current amount at the £6k cap.

I don't believe it will make it easier, no. People from low-income families looking to go to University in England now face a situation where they will have to take out loans to cover their fees and living expenses, with the requirement to pay that back once they earn over a threshold (as it is just now). With this increase though, students are facing somewhere in the region of between £25-35k, which is ludicrous and will quite rightly put people off going.

This might not be a wholly bad thing, as a degree has become so undervalued these days because the sheer amount of people who have them - it may serve in reinstating it as a worthwhile qualification again.

If I'm reading GlesgaeHibby's point above correctly, the right to higher education should be reserved on a purely grade-based approach, not financial affordability. Sadly though, the people who have the best grades, aren't always the most financially well to do, and with these new raises in fees, University will go from being a possibility to a pipe-dream for some.

There are no up-front costs, part-time students don't pay up front (for the first time), the cap on repayment has been raised meaning that every graduate's monthly payment is less and any outstanding amount is written off after 30 years (unlike a graduate tax, which is a lifetime commitment). But it won't make life easier for students/graduates?

No-one seems able to articulate a reason why someone should be put off going to university, irrespective of background. "It's a scary number" doesn't really mean anything. A graduate earning £25k, irrespective of background, will pay back £30 a month. I grew up in a council house but that doesn't seem to onerous to me. Especially compared to the £75 a month I'd be paying under the current regime.

[easty]

Which right-wing party introduced the fees and then increased them substantially in 2004? I'm fairly sure the Tories weren't in power then but I could be wrong.



There are no up-front costs, part-time students don't pay up front (for the first time), the cap on repayment has been raised meaning that every graduate's monthly payment is less and any outstanding amount is written off after 30 years (unlike a graduate tax, which is a lifetime commitment). But it won't make life easier for students/graduates?

No-one seems able to articulate a reason why someone should be put off going to university, irrespective of background. "It's a scary number" doesn't really mean anything. A graduate earning £25k, irrespective of background, will pay back £30 a month. I grew up in a council house but that doesn't seem to onerous to me. Especially compared to the £75 a month I'd be paying under the current regime.

So am I wrong in saying that under this new fees system a graduate could leave uni owing £25000? (that's a retorical question by the way)...

That simple fact is what will put off a number of people from low income families/backgrounds going to uni.


Won't these successful graduates pay more tax when they get their highly paid jobs anyway?



Exactly!

[--------]

Really??

Science and Engineering has given us so much over the 20th Century:

-Aviation: the world is now smaller. Aviation industry employs millions worldwide. Requires skilled scientists and engineers.
-Energy: The energy sector is massive in the UK and worldwide. It is vital for everything we do, and has helped us improve our living standards by making heating, lighting and home entertainment more affordable. Our economy relies heavily on Energy for transport, NHS, office buildings etc etc.
-Innovation The TV, the telephone, the computer, the internet. Four things we all rely on and take for granted.
-Research Scientific research may not seem relevant to many in the UK but research into Particle and Nuclear physics has had many spin offs, including in the field of medical physics which benefits patients in treatment and diagnosis of things like tumours. I spent a year working on a project in an optics research groups, and they were adapting some of their technology to help us gain a better understanding of DNA.

I've not got time to expand just now but to think that science and engineering aren't, and haven't been vital to our economy is crazy IMO.


Aviation in the 20th century provided a range of wonderful delivery-systems for conventional, nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry, for all of which we should also thank the scientists and engineers.

Energy - unless I'm missing something, our use of energy is now highly problematic. Carbon emissions and their effects on the environment? Nuclear waste, accumulation and storage? I'm aware that science and technology are looking for answers, but they're answers to a set of problems science and technology - or should I say scientists and technologists? - have created. And it's arguable that one of the very biggest offenders in the area of carbon emissions and environmental erosion is air transport. The world IS indeed smaller - but sometimes I wonder if the price we pay for this is worth it.

Innovation - a world-wide internet that allows the unrestricted and uncontrollable dissemination of pornography? That poses an insuperable problem for police attempting to control the abuse of women and children for sexual purposes? TV - the greatest purveyor of utter rubbish ever known - until the internet came along? The telephone - vital, yes, but I'm getting kinda sick of incomprehensible calls from Mumbai trying to persuade me to buy double-glazing so I can win the holiday of my dreams.

And then there's the military and political applications of technological innovation. All manner of labour-saving machinery, from poison gas to machine-guns to H-bombs to torture gear to death-camps. Surveillance and tracking equipment that allows government to know ever so much about every single citizen under their control. Lovely!

Research - OK, vital. We need to learn more about the world we live in, and how we can operate in that world for the betterment of all. But there's a catch...

Science and technology, as the late Michael Crichton pointed out, is about WHETHER we can do something, HOW we do it, and how much money it costs and how much money we can make out of it. It doesn't ask whether we SHOULD do it, or even whether it would be wrong to do it.

One of my wife's friends and colleagues once remarked to me that the greatest gift we can give our children is the gift of a conscience. Conscience asks hard questions that science and technology don't. Of course science and technology are vital to our living and working in the world - I don't think Hibbyradge was suggesting otherwise. But if we only educate our young people in how to do things, without educating them in asking the questions that need to be asked about the right or wrong of doing those things, all we'll end up with is a technological nightmare.

To tell the truth, the 20th century really demonstrated clearly the double-edged nature of science and technology - potentially hugely beneficial, potentially hugely destructive. And it was the worst possible advertisement for the concept of the Responsible Scientist.

[hibsbollah]

Maths/Engineering/Science degrees should be funded because they are important to our economy. We also need to be encouraging more people to study these subjects, but people avoid them because they are challenging. People would rather take an easier option and study a 'trendy' subject like business.

Scientists and Engineers build/make things. They focus on innovation. If we create new innovative goods, we can trade these goods with other countries and grow our economy. We need to build up a manufacturing industry again.

A strong focus on Science and Engineering is why Germany is in such a strong economic position.

Finance and Bankers do not create wealth. They shuffle money. To grow as an economy we need to be making and selling goods that people want. That requires skilled scientists and engineers. It therefore logically follows that we should invest heavily in these degrees.

If people want to do business/history/media studies/etc etc then that is fine, but they shouldn't expect them to be funded to the same extent as science/engineering as they provide less of a return to the country.

Funding should be for priority degrees: Medicine, Law, Science, Engineering.

What a spectacularly wrong-headed position.

You are aware, aren't you, of the massive contribution great (and not so great)literature makes to the British economy? or the importance of an understanding and appreciation of the English language in the world of business, when English is the global language of business? or the proportion that tourism revenue makes to our domestic reserves? Or the economic importance of the social care sectors, or the increase in earning potential you get from learning a foreign language? All these and many other industry sectors that depend on arts graduates would be threatened on a narrow focus on 'priority' :confused: degrees as you define them above.

This is all assuming that the only measurement of a degree should be the economic power or earnings potential of them, which I dont think it should be. What kind of society would we live in without an understanding of history, for example?

[Bad Martini]

Maths/Engineering/Science degrees should be funded because they are important to our economy. We also need to be encouraging more people to study these subjects, but people avoid them because they are challenging.

What do you think people will "do" with a maths degree? I'd wager a lot of them will go into the business world you think is rather worthless to the economy...


People would rather take an easier option and study a 'trendy' subject like business.

Do you really think that? You do realise the study of "business" covers everything from business law, statistics, accountancy, economics, marketing and communication to name but a few...this, to arm the "individual" to START/RUN/MANAGE/WORK FOR a business....this is not "trendy"... this is what makes the world go round.

If you need inspiration as to the study of business and making one work, look at Sir Tom Farmer...


Scientists and Engineers build/make things. They focus on innovation. If we create new innovative goods, we can trade these goods with other countries and grow our economy. We need to build up a manufacturing industry again.

True...SOME of them do.


A strong focus on Science and Engineering is why Germany is in such a strong economic position.

There is no doubt this is true too, indeed, the Germans are fine engineers...agreed.


Finance and Bankers do not create wealth. They shuffle money. To grow as an economy we need to be making and selling goods that people want. That requires skilled scientists and engineers. It therefore logically follows that we should invest heavily in these degrees.

You really think the Scottish/UK economy did not benefit when companies like the RBS were "doing good"? Do you realise how large a company the RBS is, globally? Finance and "business" - look at Edinburgh's insurance industry for a start...massive Scottish companies, they don't benefit the economy? Do you realise how many people Scottish financial sector companies employ? Directly and indirectly...and how much funding they use and invest in other (non-financial companies)?


If people want to do business/history/media studies/etc etc then that is fine, but they shouldn't expect them to be funded to the same extent as science/engineering as they provide less of a return to the country.

See the above. There is no doubt SOME bankers and those working in the financial services world were unscrupulous, greedy and downright cants. NOT, them all and lets not fall for the sheite the goverment will pedal to hide their expenses and lies scandals. The FACTS are, companies like the RBS brought in BILLIONS to the UK economy, precisely because of their activities across the world and the exchequeor ****ing loved it....FACT.

Repeat x most large financial institutions. I am not defending them en-mass - some were bassas as I say BUT, remember the inability and unwillingness to legislate against these people was down to the tossers running the country...also, a fact.


Funding should be for priority degrees: Medicine, Law, Science, Engineering.

Disagree. Funding should be provided for ANYTHING that gives the taxpayer a return financially. This much I do agree with. If there is no return for the taxpayer, by all means you can study it but, you pay for it yourself.

IMHO...:agree:

[khib70]

Aviation in the 20th century provided a range of wonderful delivery-systems for conventional, nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry, for all of which we should also thank the scientists and engineers.

Energy - unless I'm missing something, our use of energy is now highly problematic. Carbon emissions and their effects on the environment? Nuclear waste, accumulation and storage? I'm aware that science and technology are looking for answers, but they're answers to a set of problems science and technology - or should I say scientists and technologists? - have created. And it's arguable that one of the very biggest offenders in the area of carbon emissions and environmental erosion is air transport. The world IS indeed smaller - but sometimes I wonder if the price we pay for this is worth it.

Innovation - a world-wide internet that allows the unrestricted and uncontrollable dissemination of pornography? That poses an insuperable problem for police attempting to control the abuse of women and children for sexual purposes? TV - the greatest purveyor of utter rubbish ever known - until the internet came along? The telephone - vital, yes, but I'm getting kinda sick of incomprehensible calls from Mumbai trying to persuade me to buy double-glazing so I can win the holiday of my dreams.

And then there's the military and political applications of technological innovation. All manner of labour-saving machinery, from poison gas to machine-guns to H-bombs to torture gear to death-camps. Surveillance and tracking equipment that allows government to know ever so much about every single citizen under their control. Lovely!

Research - OK, vital. We need to learn more about the world we live in, and how we can operate in that world for the betterment of all. But there's a catch...

Science and technology, as the late Michael Crichton pointed out, is about WHETHER we can do something, HOW we do it, and how much money it costs and how much money we can make out of it. It doesn't ask whether we SHOULD do it, or even whether it would be wrong to do it.

One of my wife's friends and colleagues once remarked to me that the greatest gift we can give our children is the gift of a conscience. Conscience asks hard questions that science and technology don't. Of course science and technology are vital to our living and working in the world - I don't think Hibbyradge was suggesting otherwise. But if we only educate our young people in how to do things, without educating them in asking the questions that need to be asked about the right or wrong of doing those things, all we'll end up with is a technological nightmare.

To tell the truth, the 20th century really demonstrated clearly the double-edged nature of science and technology - potentially hugely beneficial, potentially hugely destructive. And it was the worst possible advertisement for the concept of the Responsible Scientist.
You're not wrong about any of this in a way. But surely it's the application of science and technology, or the misuse of it, or its hijacking for ideological purposes, not the study of it that are causing the problems.

And I'm sorry, but I can't resist it.:devil: Couldn't much the same or similar be said about the effects of religion throughout history?

[magpie1892]

Aviation in the 20th century provided a range of wonderful delivery-systems for conventional, nuclear, chemical and biological weaponry, for all of which we should also thank the scientists and engineers.

Energy - unless I'm missing something, our use of energy is now highly problematic. Carbon emissions and their effects on the environment? Nuclear waste, accumulation and storage? I'm aware that science and technology are looking for answers, but they're answers to a set of problems science and technology - or should I say scientists and technologists? - have created. And it's arguable that one of the very biggest offenders in the area of carbon emissions and environmental erosion is air transport. The world IS indeed smaller - but sometimes I wonder if the price we pay for this is worth it.

Innovation - a world-wide internet that allows the unrestricted and uncontrollable dissemination of pornography? That poses an insuperable problem for police attempting to control the abuse of women and children for sexual purposes? TV - the greatest purveyor of utter rubbish ever known - until the internet came along? The telephone - vital, yes, but I'm getting kinda sick of incomprehensible calls from Mumbai trying to persuade me to buy double-glazing so I can win the holiday of my dreams.

And then there's the military and political applications of technological innovation. All manner of labour-saving machinery, from poison gas to machine-guns to H-bombs to torture gear to death-camps. Surveillance and tracking equipment that allows government to know ever so much about every single citizen under their control. Lovely!

Research - OK, vital. We need to learn more about the world we live in, and how we can operate in that world for the betterment of all. But there's a catch...

Science and technology, as the late Michael Crichton pointed out, is about WHETHER we can do something, HOW we do it, and how much money it costs and how much money we can make out of it. It doesn't ask whether we SHOULD do it, or even whether it would be wrong to do it.

One of my wife's friends and colleagues once remarked to me that the greatest gift we can give our children is the gift of a conscience. Conscience asks hard questions that science and technology don't. Of course science and technology are vital to our living and working in the world - I don't think Hibbyradge was suggesting otherwise. But if we only educate our young people in how to do things, without educating them in asking the questions that need to be asked about the right or wrong of doing those things, all we'll end up with is a technological nightmare.

To tell the truth, the 20th century really demonstrated clearly the double-edged nature of science and technology - potentially hugely beneficial, potentially hugely destructive. And it was the worst possible advertisement for the concept of the Responsible Scientist.

Too right. We should all go and live in a hemp yurt and knit hummus.

[Leicester Fan]

So am I wrong in saying that under this new fees system a graduate could leave uni owing £25000? (that's a retorical question by the way)...



Yes but you would only have to pay it back when you are earning £21k at a rate you can afford until it is paid back.Under Labours plan of a graduate tax you would have to pay a percentage of your earnings , whatever they may be, for the rest of your life.




That simple fact is what will put off a number of people from low income families/backgrounds going to uni.


No, the lies and blatant scaremongering will do that.

[--------]

You're not wrong about any of this in a way. But surely it's the application of science and technology, or the misuse of it, or its hijacking for ideological purposes, not the study of it that are causing the problems.

And I'm sorry, but I can't resist it.:devil: Couldn't much the same or similar be said about the effects of religion throughout history?


Misuse of technology? Technology itself is neutral - it's the human being and the badness of him/her/it that inevitably misuses technology.

I was reading an account of the Manhattan Project - apparently when they reached the point of detonating the first bomb (Trinity?) they genuinely didn't know what was going to happen. There was in the minds of many of the scientists involved a real possibility of the explosion setting off a chain reaction that would destroy the planet. The end of history and the destruction of all known life, in other words.

The OH **** moment to end all OH **** moments.

But they set the thing off regardless.

Now I think that those people would perhaps have been the better for having been educated a little more deeply than they were in the area of ethics and morality? As in, what right do we have to endanger the whole planet for our own ends?

I disagree with GlesgaeHibby on one thing only - the idea that only science and technology have a practical use in our world and that the 'humanities' - philosophy, history, theology, language, literature and art and so on - are somehow frivolous and of secondary importance.

Leave science and technology to their own devices, divorced from the restraints of ethics and morality and isolated from the wider context of what makes human beings human, and you have a recipe for hell on earth.

And I take your point about religion - I'm not into religion, myself. Religion in the wrong hands is terrifying - the fancier the robes and the more magnificent the titles and the greater the claims to infallibility the wider a distance I keep from them.

My problem is living my life in faith, trust and obedience to the one person whose morality and ethics I can't fault. Knowing Christ and seeking to live in obedience to his commandments, and trusting him for everything necessary in my life is one thing. Religion is something else. Religion is RULES and REGULATIONS and DUTIES and THOU SHALT DO THIS and THOU SHALT NOT DO THAT....

Religion is where I start telling YOU you have to do what I tell you because I'M RIGHT, SEE? I know I'm an arrogant, crabbit, auld scunner, but I DO know I'm not God. :devil:

I have no problems with technology as such - I love my laptop, and I intend when I'm done this afternoon to settle down and watch a DVD on my flat-screen telly, warmed by my modern heating system and comfy in my big recliner.

I just reckon that education is more than science and technology - we need to teach the humanities as well, and that's not a Christian perspective, it's been the view of liberal intellectuals of all creeds ever since the renaissance.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Don't know if anyone saw "Loose Women" today (I know, I know, it was on at work, honest). Anyway they are shocked that a peaceful protest has been hijacked by trouble makers again.

Apparently, they felt it would detract from the message. Does anyone really believe the students would have been talked about as much today if they had just had a quiet march - particularly on such a low brow show?

Sometimes, violent action is what is needed to get the authorities to listen. I find desecrating the war dead despicable, and burning a Xmas tree given by our friends in Norway disgusting.

Attacking Brian and Camilla was dead brave though, and as for ruining Churchill's statue - it's what he would have wanted, it's awful anyway.

I hope we are seeing the young of this country engaging in politics at last. Although, tbh, it could have as much to do with the case that they can't have a pagger at the football anymore.

Stuart Hall (not the one off telly) wrote in the 70s that far from being a nuisance to society, football hooliganism was a much safer way for young men to let off steam. His argument was that it kept them away from politics and was conducted in a controlled environment.

Since football hooliganism at grounds has been curbed, we have seen a shift of the violence into areas where innocent people find themselves being dragged into it.

[Beefster]

So am I wrong in saying that under this new fees system a graduate could leave uni owing £25000? (that's a retorical question by the way)...

That simple fact is what will put off a number of people from low income families/backgrounds going to uni.

So the argument is still "it's a scary number" rather than any real reason which will stop anyone going?

Graduates will be better off per month/annum/decade than they are currently.

[Andy74]

So am I wrong in saying that under this new fees system a graduate could leave uni owing £25000? (that's a retorical question by the way)...

That simple fact is what will put off a number of people from low income families/backgrounds going to uni.



Exactly!

Why would it put off people from low income families exactly?

They pay nothing up front and then only pay back on a scale when they reach a certain income. If and when they reach that income they will be able to pay it back so how poor their family are at the outset isn't really an issue.

I was from a low income family, first of my family to go to Uni, ended up with a lot of student debt to pay off but was able over the course of the my first few years of working to pay it back. Job done.

[easty]

Why would it put off people from low income families exactly?

They pay nothing up front and then only pay back on a scale when they reach a certain income. If and when they reach that income they will be able to pay it back so how poor their family are at the outset isn't really an issue.

I was from a low income family, first of my family to go to Uni, ended up with a lot of student debt to pay off but was able over the course of the my first few years of working to pay it back. Job done.

Did you have £25000 (it will probably be much higher figure though) of debts to pay back for course fees alone? Other debts not included.

I think its irrelevant that it's paid off over 30 years, or paid off only when you hit a certain amount of salary, or that it "may" not all have to be repaid if you don't earn enough. To pay £25000 to further your education by 4 years is, in my opinion, shocking. It's this that would put people off.

[easty]

Yes but you would only have to pay it back when you are earning £21k at a rate you can afford until it is paid back.Under Labours plan of a graduate tax you would have to pay a percentage of your earnings , whatever they may be, for the rest of your life.



Why does it always come back to this level? Why, when a Tory policy is criticised, does it constantly have to go back to "but Labours policy is worse"?

It's starting to get on my nerves that you can't seem talk about the Con-Lib government without Labours faults being brought up anywhere just now. This isn't a dig at you particularly, just in general, at society I suppose. Can't I disagree with both the Tories and Labour?

When did I say I was in favour of the Labour graduate tax?

[Andy74]

Did you have £25000 (it will probably be much higher figure though) of debts to pay back for course fees alone? Other debts not included.

I think its irrelevant that it's paid off over 30 years, or paid off only when you hit a certain amount of salary, or that it "may" not all have to be repaid if you don't earn enough. To pay £25000 to further your education by 4 years is, in my opinion, shocking. It's this that would put people off.

Like everyone else they will have to weigh up whether taking on this debt is 'commercially viable'.

Will it increase their chances of having higher earnings in the future?

That's what University is about as well as a life experience.

If people are put off by the headline debt figure then fine but they aren't really looking at the bigger picture. Debt is just a number, what it comes down to with debt is when it needs to be paid back and then how much of your income it is going to take to pay it back. It is absolutely of the utmost relevance what the pay back terms are.

Should I be put off buying a house because in theory I'm going to be in £300,000 or whatever it is, of debt? You consider it, what you can afford to pay back and what return you think you might get out of it, as well as the value of use of the thing whilst you are living there.

I just don't get the low income argument when you don't pay it back until your circumstances allow you to pay it back comfortably.

[easty]

Like everyone else they will have to weigh up whether taking on this debt is 'commercially viable'.

Will it increase their chances of having higher earnings in the future?

That's what University is about as well as a life experience.

If people are put off by the headline debt figure then fine but they aren't really looking at the bigger picture. Debt is just a number, what it comes down to with debt is when it needs to be paid back and then how much of your income it is going to take to pay it back. It is absolutely of the utmost relevance what the pay back terms are.

Should I be put off buying a house because in theory I'm going to be in £300,000 or whatever it is, of debt? You consider it, what you can afford to pay back and what return you think you might get out of it, as well as the value of use of the thing whilst you are living there.

I just don't get the low income argument when you don't pay it back until your circumstances allow you to pay it back comfortably.

Again, paying it back comfortably isn't my point. My point is that it's going to be so expensive.

To use your example of buying a house, if you were told that buying a house was going to become 3 x more expensive I think that you would indeed be put off buying a house. No?

Anyway....buying a house isn't a comparable situation. Owning a house isn't a right it's a privilage, education (in a country such as the UK) is, or at least should be, a right and pushing up the prices of it like this is a disgrace.

My opinion can't be changed on that I'm afraid. Even then, that's my opinion on the situation without even taking into account the Lib Dems role in this debacle.

[Phil D. Rolls]

Again, paying it back comfortably isn't my point. My point is that it's going to be so expensive.

To use your example of buying a house, if you were told that buying a house was going to become 3 x more expensive I think that you would indeed be put off buying a house. No?

Anyway....buying a house isn't a comparable situation. Owning a house isn't a right it's a privilage, education (in a country such as the UK) is, or at least should be, a right and pushing up the prices of it like this is a disgrace.

My opinion can't be changed on that I'm afraid. Even then, that's my opinion on the situation without even taking into account the Lib Dems role in this debacle.

In a hierachy of what is important I'd say it's the other way round.

[easty]

In a hierachy of what is important I'd say it's the other way round.

An education is a neccesity, the same most certainly can't be said about owning a house.

[Phil D. Rolls]

An education is a neccesity, the same most certainly can't be said about owning a house.

The need for shelter surely comes before the need to learn new things. Granted home ownership might not be necessary.

Unless you can argue that education is needed for survival. I could accept that to a point, but tertiary education is maybe stretching it a bit far.

Depends how you interperet this I suppose: Maslow's Hierachy of Needs (http://www.businessballs.com/maslow.htm).

The fact is people have been surviving for centuries without university education, but less so without shelter. At best the need to own a home and the need to have tertiary education are about equal in our society. I'd argue that with limited access to rented accomodation a private house is close to a necessity.

However, lots of people survive without ever going to Uni.

[easty]

The need for shelter surely comes before the need to learn new things. Granted home ownership might not be necessary.

Unless you can argue that education is needed for survival. I could accept that to a point, but tertiary education is maybe stretching it a bit far.

Depends how you interperet this I suppose: Maslow's Hierachy of Needs (http://www.businessballs.com/maslow.htm).

The fact is people have been surviving for centuries without university education, but less so without shelter. At best the need to own a home and the need to have tertiary education are about equal in our society. I'd argue that with limited access to rented accomodation a private house is close to a necessity.

However, lots of people survive without ever going to Uni.

The need for shelter and owing a house are very different things though. I've never lived in a house that wasn't rented, you can get through life without owning a house.

It's going off on a tangent anyway....my point is that the fees are unreasonable. The house debate only came about as a, what I believe to be poor, point of comparison.

[Phil D. Rolls]

The need for shelter and owing a house are very different things though. I've never lived in a house that wasn't rented, you can get through life without owning a house.

It's going off on a tangent anyway....my point is that the fees are unreasonable. The house debate only came about as a, what I believe to be poor, point of comparison.

Fair dos, can't say whether I think the fees are reasonable or not. I do think the return on investment for university education isn't that good either for society or the student.

I can't see an army of free thinking graduates, and I can't see an army of well paid graduates either. I do see an army of well paid lecturers though.

I guess I'm saying university is a swindle at the moment. So, as usual, I have contradicted myself in the space of four, er, three paragraphs. The fees are totally unreasonable.

[easty]

Fair dos, can't say whether I think the fees are reasonable or not. I do think the return on investment for university education isn't that good either for society or the student.

I can't see an army of free thinking graduates, and I can't see an army of well paid graduates either. I do see an army of well paid lecturers though.

I guess I'm saying university is a swindle at the moment. So, as usual, I have contradicted myself in the space of four, er, three paragraphs. The fees are totally unreasonable.

So we're agreed then....good.:greengrin

[lyonhibs]

An education is a neccesity, the same most certainly can't be said about owning a house.

A UNIVERSITY-level education is neither a right nor an absolute necessity.

[Andy74]

A UNIVERSITY-level education is neither a right nor an absolute necessity.

Exactly.

If you want the education and will benefit from it financially for the rest of your days then I don't see anything wrong with paying for it.

Easty, you are continuing to ignore the key thing about any debt, when repayment is required and how affordable it is at that time.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Exactly.

If you want the education and will benefit from it financially for the rest of your days then I don't see anything wrong with paying for it.

Easty, you are continuing to ignore the key thing about any debt, when repayment is required and how affordable it is at that time.

I agree people should have to pay for education if they can and where it's right, however the uni system is a mess and just putting up the prices is hardly the answer. Are we not capable of actually dealing with the issues one by one rather than rushing through a one size fits all policy?

[easty]

Exactly.

If you want the education and will benefit from it financially for the rest of your days then I don't see anything wrong with paying for it.

Easty, you are continuing to ignore the key thing about any debt, when repayment is required and how affordable it is at that time.

I don't think I am. If you can afford to pay back your £25k+ course fees debt and so do end up paying it back, then is that a fair amount to have paid because you can "afford it"?

It's far too expensive.

[lapsedhibee]

I don't think I am. If you can afford to pay back your £25k+ course fees debt and so do end up paying it back, then is that a fair amount to have paid because you can "afford it"?

It's far too expensive.

So's going to the fitba. High time it was subsidised by those taxpayers who can afford it. That Philip Green's Mrs for a start. Petrie!

[Betty Boop]

Don't know if anyone saw "Loose Women" today (I know, I know, it was on at work, honest). Anyway they are shocked that a peaceful protest has been hijacked by trouble makers again.

Apparently, they felt it would detract from the message. Does anyone really believe the students would have been talked about as much today if they had just had a quiet march - particularly on such a low brow show?

Sometimes, violent action is what is needed to get the authorities to listen. I find desecrating the war dead despicable, and burning a Xmas tree given by our friends in Norway disgusting.

Attacking Brian and Camilla was dead brave though, and as for ruining Churchill's statue - it's what he would have wanted, it's awful anyway.

I hope we are seeing the young of this country engaging in politics at last. Although, tbh, it could have as much to do with the case that they can't have a pagger at the football anymore.

Stuart Hall (not the one off telly) wrote in the 70s that far from being a nuisance to society, football hooliganism was a much safer way for young men to let off steam. His argument was that it kept them away from politics and was conducted in a controlled environment.

Since football hooliganism at grounds has been curbed, we have seen a shift of the violence into areas where innocent people find themselves being dragged into it.

Direct action in some cases is the only way to get your message across. A million people marched against the war in Iraq, CND campaigned peacefully for years with no results.Whereas the Poll Tax , Brixton and Toxteth helped change policy. Of course the kettling tactics used by police encourages violence and frustration.

[Beefster]

Direct action in some cases is the only way to get your message across. A million people marched against the war in Iraq, CND campaigned peacefully for years with no results.Whereas the Poll Tax , Brixton and Toxteth helped change policy. Of course the kettling tactics used by police encourages violence and frustration.

Apart from 'direct action' just being a euphemism for violence/vandalism, if they didn't get violent in the first place then there would be no need for kettling. If it's acceptable to throw snooker balls, fencing, fire extinguishers and bricks at police, it's acceptable for the police to use whatever lawful tactics it takes to control and apprehend the offenders.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Apart from 'direct action' just being a euphemism for violence/vandalism, if they didn't get violent in the first place then there would be no need for kettling. If it's acceptable to throw snooker balls, fencing, fire extinguishers and bricks at police, it's acceptable for the police to use whatever lawful tactics it takes to control and apprehend the offenders.

The offenders yes, not just anyone that fits the profile however.

[Sir David Gray]

Vote passed by a 21 majority.

No wonder the students are going ****ing mental outside - some of their actions aren't justified, but the vilification of students by the BBC is ludicrous!

Twice as many protestors injured as police, with scenes of police horses charging at protestors and heavy handed policing.

Here endeth the Lib Dem party - do political parties do mergers?


Of course not, but there are ways and means of dealing with it - charging at a group of people on horse-back and smashing the seven shades out of anyone who moves is hardly conducive to good policing - indeed, during the clashes, it must have been a bit scarier than a normal day on the job, but when you kettle so many people with high emotions into a small space and lash out at the slightest sign of unrest, you get what ended up happening.

I repeat, more protesters injured than police tells it's own story.



But they were heavy handed - I'm not for one second defending the actions of the "students" (I don't for one second believe that all involved WERE students, more likely folks turning up for a rammy), but the police penned the protesters into a small area and were overly aggressive in their controlling tactics. Did you see the windows being smashed on the court? One policeman actually held another back, as he stepped forth to prevent it happening, then once the window had been smashed, they stepped in and dealt with it - it appeared as if the police were trying to ensure some damage was forthcoming, so they had vindication for their actions.

All of the above is completely by the way though, and both the government and media have achieved in deflecting away from the real story today, which is the tripling of tuition fees for students in England. I sincerely hope the Scottish government do something quickly in response, as otherwise, English students can come up to Scotland and only pay reduced fees, thus limiting places for Scottish students.

The Tory's and their lap-dogs have completely and utterly destroyed the higher education system in this country, despite Lib Dem promises not to back such measures.

I find it absolutely staggering that it's now cheaper (especially factoring in exchange rates) for an English student to complete a degree at one of the top US Universities than it is to attend one of the top UK Universities.

Oh please...:bitchy:

Go to Iran or China and you'll see police brutality and heavy handed policing. Our police are absolutely petrified of doing anything out of line nowadays because they know that any wrong move will likely be filmed and posted up on YouTube within a few hours and a complaint will be on its way to the IPCC.

These people were allowed to protest without too much of an overbearing police presence the first time and it ended up with the Conservative HQ being smashed to bits, vile slogans being sprayed on public property and just a generally unacceptable amount of anti-social behaviour by people who just don't have any respect for anyone, or anything, else.

In subsequent protests, the attacks on the police and their vehicles have been absolutely despicable and completely unjustifiable. The image of that injured officer having to get dragged away by his fellow colleagues the other day was awful. In an earlier demonstration, we saw protesters trying to force the door of a police car open, with an officer inside trying to keep it closed. I can't begin to imagine what might have happened had these lunatics managed to get inside. Thankfully one of the more sensible protesters got involved and managed to avoid any further problems.

What are the police supposed to do when they are faced with hundreds of people confronting them and trying to goad them? I'm quite willing to accept that there were large numbers of students down there, who had no intention of starting any violence but I refuse to believe that those who were involved in the violence were part of a "small minority". In fact, some of the protest organisers that I heard getting interviewed on the news were practically condoning the violence because they were saying that peaceful protests in the past hadn't worked and that this was the only way to make headlines.

As for the clowns who attacked Prince Charles' car the other night, they are extremely lucky that they weren't shot dead by the Royal Family security team, I'm actually amazed that they weren't to be perfectly honest. After what's just happened in Stockholm today, they are fortunate that didn't happen last week because any perceived threat against a member of the Royal Family would have been dealt with in an even more serious manner by their security, after a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda in another country. I think their firearms would have been used almost instantly, had that been the case.

[hibsdaft]

I just don't get the low income argument when you don't pay it back until your circumstances allow you to pay it back comfortably.


An analysis by the Chartered Institute for Taxation indicates that most graduates will be paying this debt of for the rest of their lives, and incurring a 45% tax rate into the bargain. This is because of the way in which the debt will increase by RPI inflation plus 3% over the years that the graduates pay it back. A teacher, say, starting on £21,000 and seeing his or her salary increase by 5% a year, will end up paying £64,239 over 30 years, and still have an unpaid debt of £26,406.

Not so good for the national debt afterall.

After what's happened do you really expect these kids to believe that the Government will stick to these pay back rates?

[Sylar]

Oh please...:bitchy:

Go to Iran or China and you'll see police brutality and heavy handed policing. Our police are absolutely petrified of doing anything out of line nowadays because they know that any wrong move will likely be filmed and posted up on YouTube within a few hours and a complaint will be on its way to the IPCC.

These people were allowed to protest without too much of an overbearing police presence the first time and it ended up with the Conservative HQ being smashed to bits, vile slogans being sprayed on public property and just a generally unacceptable amount of anti-social behaviour by people who just don't have any respect for anyone, or anything, else.

In subsequent protests, the attacks on the police and their vehicles have been absolutely despicable and completely unjustifiable. The image of that injured officer having to get dragged away by his fellow colleagues the other day was awful. In an earlier demonstration, we saw protesters trying to force the door of a police car open, with an officer inside trying to keep it closed. I can't begin to imagine what might have happened had these lunatics managed to get inside. Thankfully one of the more sensible protesters got involved and managed to avoid any further problems.

What are the police supposed to do when they are faced with hundreds of people confronting them and trying to goad them? I'm quite willing to accept that there were large numbers of students down there, who had no intention of starting any violence but I refuse to believe that those who were involved in the violence were part of a "small minority". In fact, some of the protest organisers that I heard getting interviewed on the news were practically condoning the violence because they were saying that peaceful protests in the past hadn't worked and that this was the only way to make headlines.

As for the clowns who attacked Prince Charles' car the other night, they are extremely lucky that they weren't shot dead by the Royal Family security team, I'm actually amazed that they weren't to be perfectly honest. After what's just happened in Stockholm today, they are fortunate that didn't happen last week because any perceived threat against a member of the Royal Family would have been dealt with in an even more serious manner by their security, after a terrorist attack by al-Qaeda in another country. I think their firearms would have been used almost instantly, had that been the case.

:rotflmao:- that is one hell of an extreme comparative moral compass you're using there!

[Beefster]

:rotflmao:- that is one hell of an extreme comparative moral compass you're using there!

But no response to the remainder of his post?

[Sylar]

But no response to the remainder of his post?

I've made all my relevant comments in the longer post he quoted - he seems to have used my words "heavy handed" as a vehicle to launch his soapbox.

As a result, no, I see no reason to respond to the rest of his post.

[Sylar]

Police have released CCTV images of those people responsible for initiating much of the violence:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11977634

I don't buy into stereotypes or indeed believe that students have a certain "look" (as you see some amount of weird people around campuses), but I'd be surprised if all 6 photographed are students - they look like professional criminals :greengrin

In fact top left and bottom left looks like Robert de Niro and Neil Lennon respectively :agree:

[hibsdaft]

The image of that injured officer having to get dragged away by his fellow colleagues the other day was awful.

Are you talking about the Policeman who fell off his horse whilst carrying out a charge attack on demonstrators?

[hibsdaft]

Gove on increased fees:


Some people will, apparently, be put off applying to our elite institutions by the prospect of taking on a debt of this size. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is all to the good.

[Beefster]

Gove on increased fees:

I'm not trying to score points so - from 2003, and in context:

The Government is about to introduce a new test for those considering a university career. The central question will be punishingly direct. Do you want to run up a debt of £21,000 in order to go to the best British universities? Some people will, apparently, be put off applying to our elite institutions by the prospect of taking on a debt of this size. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is all to the good.
The first point that needs to be made about the so-called deterrent effect of a £21,000 loan is that anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university in the first place. Incurring such a relatively small debt to pay for the huge economic benefit conferred by proper higher education is a fantastic deal. Over a lifetime, the direct financial benefit in higher earnings is around £400,000. Those who attend our best universities can expect to earn even more. Borrowing £21,000, at preferential rates, to secure twenty times that sum, is an offer you’d have to be a fool to turn down. And if you’re such a fool that you don’t want to accept that deal, then you’re too big a fool to benefit from the university education I’m currently subsidising for you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article1070161.ece

[Bad Martini]

This problem is easily solved, I feel, with a rational, mature and responsible solution;

...Let us put the torries, the lib dems, the students (and the baddies/those big laddies who cause the trouble) and the polis in a big field, with a big fence roond it. Shut the gate, and let the Almighty decide :devil::devil::devil:

Be like a good auld fashioned Royal Rumble, as per the WWF of the early 90's...sorted.

ENDOF :thumbsup:

[bighairyfaeleith]

This problem is easily solved, I feel, with a rational, mature and responsible solution;

...Let us put the torries, the lib dems, the students (and the baddies/those big laddies who cause the trouble) and the polis in a big field, with a big fence roond it. Shut the gate, and let the Almighty decide :devil::devil::devil:

Be like a good auld fashioned Royal Rumble, as per the WWF of the early 90's...sorted.

ENDOF :thumbsup:

I's go for that, I'd sign up for 30k worth of debt to get 10 minutes with osbourne:greengrin

[hibsdaft]

I'm not trying to score points so - from 2003, and in context:

The Government is about to introduce a new test for those considering a university career. The central question will be punishingly direct. Do you want to run up a debt of £21,000 in order to go to the best British universities? Some people will, apparently, be put off applying to our elite institutions by the prospect of taking on a debt of this size. Which, as far as I’m concerned, is all to the good.
The first point that needs to be made about the so-called deterrent effect of a £21,000 loan is that anyone put off from attending a good university by fear of that debt doesn’t deserve to be at any university in the first place. Incurring such a relatively small debt to pay for the huge economic benefit conferred by proper higher education is a fantastic deal. Over a lifetime, the direct financial benefit in higher earnings is around £400,000. Those who attend our best universities can expect to earn even more. Borrowing £21,000, at preferential rates, to secure twenty times that sum, is an offer you’d have to be a fool to turn down. And if you’re such a fool that you don’t want to accept that deal, then you’re too big a fool to benefit from the university education I’m currently subsidising for you.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_gove/article1070161.ece

you think that helps his case?

he wants the debt to put people off going to uni. who is it going to put off? not people from where he's coming from anyway.

and I'll say it again, do you really expect these kids to believe that the Government will stick to these pay back rates?

[Leicester Fan]

you think that helps his case?

he wants the debt to put people off going to uni. who is it going to put off? not people from where he's coming from anyway.

and I'll say it again, do you really expect these kids to believe that the Government will stick to these pay back rates?

I'd imagine that there would be some sort of credit agreement so that the rates couldn't change.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Your right it would be difficult to amend the rates of existing agreement. However gradually increasing the cost of courses will be much easier will it not???

[Leicester Fan]

Your right it would be difficult to amend the rates of existing agreement. However gradually increasing the cost of courses will be much easier will it not???

Possibly but that wasn't the question that was asked.

We've found out today that my daughter when she starts sixth form college next year won't now get EMA, and we'd have almost certainly qualified for the full £30.00. Obviously we're disappointed, £30 a week would have made a huge difference but we've had to accept it. She'll still go and we won't moan about it. We're all in it together.

[hibsdaft]

I'd imagine that there would be some sort of credit agreement so that the rates couldn't change.

why would you imagine that? there's been no word of it, no law, no commitment. not that it would be worth the paper its written on anyway.

[hibsdaft]

this is pretty ****ed up, and the line of questioning from a journalist i used to respect is pretty sick too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJ3MZ-AUo&feature=youtu.be

[Mibbes Aye]

Possibly but that wasn't the question that was asked.

We've found out today that my daughter when she starts sixth form college next year won't now get EMA, and we'd have almost certainly qualified for the full £30.00. Obviously we're disappointed, £30 a week would have made a huge difference but we've had to accept it. She'll still go and we won't moan about it. We're all in it together.

Yeah.

That's why councils in Liverpool, Manchester and Tyneside are having their funding cut by 9%.

And yet councils like Buckinghamshire, or Windsor and Maidenhead, are facing cuts of one per cent or less.

There's a lot, lot, lot more poorer people in the first group than there are the second.

And once again, the Tories are hitting them hardest. Nine times harder.

Child protection. Help to get up, get dressed, get toileted for the elderly. Day care for disabled people. All the critical services councils provide. But if you're in a poorer council, you get hit nine times harder. And you say we're all in this together???

That's before we even consider the Tories scrapping the Independent Living Fund. A relatively small spend that supports disabled people to live independently, instead of consigning them to care homes at a greater expense to the state.

Still, the small amount saved can go towards keeping inheritance tax down I suppose. Or go towards the tax cut bribes that will be flung at you in 2014 should the Tories last that long.

Just a shame that the craven greed of others may be satisfied by trampling all over the poor and defenceless.

[Mibbes Aye]

I'd imagine that there would be some sort of credit agreement so that the rates couldn't change.

Maybe Nick Clegg could sign it on behalf of the government :agree:

[hibsdaft]

We've found out today that my daughter when she starts sixth form college next year won't now get EMA, and we'd have almost certainly qualified for the full £30.00. Obviously we're disappointed, £30 a week would have made a huge difference but we've had to accept it. She'll still go and we won't moan about it. We're all in it together.

this has been totally ignored by the media but many of those protesting were kids complaining about EMA abolition. the students also made this one of the things they were protesting about too, it was all over their posters.

[heretoday]

This fees furore has every chance of bringing down the coalition IMO.

They are alienating their voters - the English middle class.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Possibly but that wasn't the question that was asked.

We've found out today that my daughter when she starts sixth form college next year won't now get EMA, and we'd have almost certainly qualified for the full £30.00. Obviously we're disappointed, £30 a week would have made a huge difference but we've had to accept it. She'll still go and we won't moan about it. We're all in it together.

It wasn't the question, but as I was thinking about it, it did occur to me that this could be the problem that arises over the coming years.

Glad to see you are living up to the british stereotype, we won't moan about it, it's just not british:greengrin:wink:

[Beefster]

you think that helps his case?

he wants the debt to put people off going to uni. who is it going to put off? not people from where he's coming from anyway.

and I'll say it again, do you really expect these kids to believe that the Government will stick to these pay back rates?

Yip.

Michael Gove was adopted and raised by a Labour-supporting family, went to state school before winning a scholarship and supported Labour himself earlier in life, according to Wikipedia. Where's he coming from exactly?

I've dealt with the 'putting students off' argument already on this thread and still haven't received a real response beyond "It's a scary number". If someone can come up with a real reason why kids should be put off with the new proposals, I'll respond to it.

As for the 'why should the students trust the government' question, considering the record of Labour, Lib Dems and Tories in saying one thing and doing another, they probably should expect fees to rise in the ten years - irrespective of who is in charge. Let's not pretend that it's Tory ideology though.

[easty]

Yip.

Michael Gove was adopted and raised by a Labour-supporting family, went to state school before winning a scholarship and supported Labour himself earlier in life, according to Wikipedia. Where's he coming from exactly?

I've dealt with the 'putting students off' argument already on this thread and still haven't received a real response beyond "It's a scary number". If someone can come up with a real reason why kids should be put off with the new proposals, I'll respond to it.

As for the 'why should the students trust the government' question, considering the record of Labour, Lib Dems and Tories in saying one thing and doing another, they probably should expect fees to rise in the ten years - irrespective of who is in charge. Let's not pretend that it's Tory ideology though.

You say it like it's not a serious argument...

I suppose though... it is only £25k, pocket money really. And it is only three times what it was before.....who'd even notice they were paying so much.:rolleyes:

[easty]

this is pretty ****ed up, and the line of questioning from a journalist i used to respect is pretty sick too:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJ3MZ-AUo&feature=youtu.be

Obviously without knowing all the facts its hard to make comment about the actual incident shown in the video, but I'd be surprised if the guy wasn't warned numerous times by the police not to be where he was/to stop doing what he was doing. The lad claims it was the second time it had happened, so he obviously knew there was a chance it would happen again. Wouldn't even surprise me if it was his mate videoing it after they'd planned to get the police doing it on camera.

There were plenty protestors who weren't assaulted that day. If he wants to go out and protest like everyone else then he should expect to be treated the same as everyone else.....in fact I'm positive he'd want to be treated the same.

[Beefster]

You say it like it's not a serious argument...

I suppose though... it is only £25k, pocket money really. And it is only three times what it was before.....who'd even notice they were paying so much.:rolleyes:

Paying so much? Someone on £21k pays nothing, £25k pays £30 a month and £30k pays £67 a month. As I've repeated about 10 times on this thread alone, it's cheaper per month/year/decade than the current situation.

So, bearing in mind that the new proposals are more affordable than now, why should students be put off?

[easty]

Paying so much? Someone on £21k pays nothing, £25k pays £30 a month and £30k pays £67 a month. As I've repeated about 10 times on this thread alone, it's cheaper per month/year/decade than the current situation.

So, bearing in mind that the new proposals are more affordable than now, why should students be put off?

If you were able to buy a new car for three times as much but were paying it off over a much longer period of time, would that be a good deal? Because as far as I'm concerned that'd be more or less the same thing.

You pay less per month......but you pay three times as much in full. Unless of course you want to stagnate at around £21k for the rest of your life. In that case you're "lucky" and won't have to pay it all off.

[khib70]

Paying so much? Someone on £21k pays nothing, £25k pays £30 a month and £30k pays £67 a month. As I've repeated about 10 times on this thread alone, it's cheaper per month/year/decade than the current situation.

So, bearing in mind that the new proposals are more affordable than now, why should students be put off?
What you say is absolutely true, and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary. As someone who works for a University ( and earns less than £21000), I'd love the "free higher education is a right" lobby to explain how Universities are supposed to fund themselves in the future.

My employment prospects and those of many others are kind of dependent on this. I'd also love the SNP to tell me how their continuing "no fees" policy for Scottish students is going to work in this respect.

It seems that the anti-fees lobby are the ones who are ideologically driven here and the coalition is merely trying to come up with a pragmatic and fair solution to the problem of producing the graduates of the future, while managing to keep open the establishments which produce them. If tuition fees aren't raised, and some kind of graduate payback system maintained, then research funding for Universities will plummet, with disastrous consequences for the UK economy.

I suspect though., that this smillie :brickwall...has never been more appropriate.

[Beefster]

If you were able to buy a new car for three times as much but were paying it off over a much longer period of time, would that be a good deal? Because as far as I'm concerned that'd be more or less the same thing.

You pay less per month......but you pay three times as much in full. Unless of course you want to stagnate at around £21k for the rest of your life. In that case you're "lucky" and won't have to pay it all off.

The government have increased the limit for paying the fees from 25 years to 30 years while increasing the actual payment limit from £15k to £21k. Seems fair to me - you don't pay while you're not earning a good wage but when you are earning a good wage, you pay for longer.

I thought that the higher-paid paying more was considered 'progressive', no?


What you say is absolutely true, and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary. As someone who works for a University ( and earns less than £21000), I'd love the "free higher education is a right" lobby to explain how Universities are supposed to fund themselves in the future.

My employment prospects and those of many others are kind of dependent on this. I'd also love the SNP to tell me how their continuing "no fees" policy for Scottish students is going to work in this respect.

It seems that the anti-fees lobby are the ones who are ideologically driven here and the coalition is merely trying to come up with a pragmatic and fair solution to the problem of producing the graduates of the future, while managing to keep open the establishments which produce them. If tuition fees aren't raised, and some kind of graduate payback system maintained, then research funding for Universities will plummet, with disastrous consequences for the UK economy.

I suspect though., that this smillie :brickwall...has never been more appropriate.

The alternative would be a graduate tax where graduates would likely pay earlier and for their entire working life. Although I did hear a student say that the banks should pay for their education because it's all the banks' fault that university funding is unsustainable. I don't think he was around during the 'boom years' when tuition fees were introduced or increased in the late 90's / early 00's.

Folk with entirely no grasp of reality want it to be entirely free for those benefitting and for Mr & Mrs Smith, who live in a council house, have a family and have worked since they were 16 to pay for it.

[easty]

What you say is absolutely true, and no one has produced any evidence to the contrary. As someone who works for a University ( and earns less than £21000), I'd love the "free higher education is a right" lobby to explain how Universities are supposed to fund themselves in the future.

My employment prospects and those of many others are kind of dependent on this. I'd also love the SNP to tell me how their continuing "no fees" policy for Scottish students is going to work in this respect.

It seems that the anti-fees lobby are the ones who are ideologically driven here and the coalition is merely trying to come up with a pragmatic and fair solution to the problem of producing the graduates of the future, while managing to keep open the establishments which produce them. If tuition fees aren't raised, and some kind of graduate payback system maintained, then research funding for Universities will plummet, with disastrous consequences for the UK economy.

I suspect though., that this smillie :brickwall...has never been more appropriate.

I also work for a University, earn less than £21000 and am currently paying the Open Uni to do my own degree, for which I've requested no financial help (I don't know if I'm eligible for help or not).

I'm not anti-fees. I am, though, anti-putting them up 3 fold.

[Mibbes Aye]

Paying so much? Someone on £21k pays nothing, £25k pays £30 a month and £30k pays £67 a month. As I've repeated about 10 times on this thread alone, it's cheaper per month/year/decade than the current situation.

So, bearing in mind that the new proposals are more affordable than now, why should students be put off?

Because it's three times higher than it was before. As well you know :greengrin

I don't disagree with a lot of your points but it seems entirely reasonable to say that tripling the cost of it will put people off, regardless of threshholds and time limits.

It wouldn't have put Cameron or Osborne off though, or any of the rest of the 'Cabinet of millionaires' :greengrin

[easty]

The government have increased the limit for paying the fees from 25 years to 30 years while increasing the actual payment limit from £15k to £21k. Seems fair to me - you don't pay while you're not earning a good wage but when you are earning a good wage, you pay for longer.

I thought that the higher-paid paying more was considered 'progressive', no?


The alternative would be a graduate tax where graduates would likely pay earlier and for their entire working life. Although I did hear a student say that the banks should pay for their education because it's all the banks' fault that university funding is unsustainable. I don't think he was around during the 'boom years' when tuition fees were introduced or increased in the late 90's / early 00's.

Folk with entirely no grasp of reality want it to be entirely free for those benefitting and for Mr & Mrs Smith, who live in a council house, have a family and have worked since they were 16 to pay for it.

We seem to be going back and forth at each other with the same basic point....and clearly neither of us will budge! But I'll say it again anyway. The prospect of £25-£30k of fees debt, up 300%, is unfair and will put people off going to uni from low income backgrounds. I suppose we'll just have to wait to see if I'm right or not though.

I don't want, or expect, that it'll stay free in Scotland, though I'd hope we come up with something a lot cheaper than they're getting down south.

.......... and the Mr & Mrs Smith could easily describe my parents (except the surname obviously).

[RyeSloan]

The government have increased the limit for paying the fees from 25 years to 30 years while increasing the actual payment limit from £15k to £21k. Seems fair to me - you don't pay while you're not earning a good wage but when you are earning a good wage, you pay for longer.

I thought that the higher-paid paying more was considered 'progressive', no?



The alternative would be a graduate tax where graduates would likely pay earlier and for their entire working life. Although I did hear a student say that the banks should pay for their education because it's all the banks' fault that university funding is unsustainable. I don't think he was around during the 'boom years' when tuition fees were introduced or increased in the late 90's / early 00's.

Folk with entirely no grasp of reality want it to be entirely free for those benefitting and for Mr & Mrs Smith, who live in a council house, have a family and have worked since they were 16 to pay for it.

Is that the alternative being proposed? I've still not seen too much detail on the plausable alternatives.

Universities themsleves are broadly supportive of these changes are they not? Britiain as a nation cannot afford to put everyone through FE at the cost of the tax payer alone so some kind of charging must be levied, the argurment therefore should be concentrating on the 'fairest way'...or how to cut the cost of FE education overall

[lyonhibs]

Because it's three times higher than it was before. As well you know :greengrin

I don't disagree with a lot of your points but it seems entirely reasonable to say that tripling the cost of it will put people off, regardless of threshholds and time limits.

It wouldn't have put Cameron or Osborne off though, or any of the rest of the 'Cabinet of millionaires' :greengrin

To be honest, if people can't work out the relatively self-explanatory system of thresholds, time limits and why - if you're motivated to go to Uni for the right reasons, and not just a 4 year bender - paying £30 a month on a £25k annual salary (which they probably wouldn't be on without their degree) is worth it, then they probably shouldn't be going to Uni in the first place.

It's very simple - money doesn't grow on trees, and for education to be worth two flying figs, it has to be high quality. High quality costs ££. It only seems fair that those benefiting - in ££ terms - from having a degree pay their fair share of the ££ it cost to provide them with the education/resources that enabled them to get that degree.

I must admit, I was firmly in the "Anti-fee rise" camp before I started looking at the numbers. The Government is proposing raising the repay time period by 20%, and raising the income threshold after which you start paying by 40%.

If THOSE numbers were reversed, there'd be a real problem.

[Beefster]

Is that the alternative being proposed? I've still not seen too much detail on the plausable alternatives.

Universities themsleves are broadly supportive of these changes are they not? Britiain as a nation cannot afford to put everyone through FE at the cost of the tax payer alone so some kind of charging must be levied, the argurment therefore should be concentrating on the 'fairest way'...or how to cut the cost of FE education overall

I haven't seen any serious, properly analysed proposals. I'm just going on the basis of a graduate tax in its purest form. Anything else is tuition fees by another name.

Personally, I think that student/graduate numbers need to come down but it'll be a brave government of whatever persuasion that suggests that.

[Pretty Boy]

I haven't seen any serious, properly analysed proposals. I'm just going on the basis of a graduate tax in its purest form. Anything else is tuition fees by another name.

Personally, I think that student/graduate numbers need to come down but it'll be a brave government of whatever persuasion that suggests that.

The problem with the part in bold is that far too many employers have made a degree level education a neccesity for positions that don't really require it.

I'm lucky in that i have a degree and a job that i enjoy. Did my employer state that i had to have a degree? Yes. Do i really need a degree for the job i'm doing? Did my degree have any relevance to the job i am now doing? Not at all. I'm not the only one in such a situation, there are 5 or 6 people in my office who are to all intents and purposes data entry clerks, all of them had to be degree educated to get the job. The job they do is important and they are valued staff memebers but there is absolutely no reason why they require degrees to do such a job.

Don't get me wrong i understand there are thousands of jobs that do require a degree level education and plenty degrees that lead onto following a mapped out vocational path. However i would argue that if employers were willing to remove the ridiculous stipulation that a degree level education is required for certain jobs that frankly don't require it then we may see more young people willing to bypass a university education and move into the world of work earlier.

[lyonhibs]

The problem with the part in bold is that far too many employers have made a degree level education a neccesity for positions that don't really require it.

I'm lucky in that i have a degree and a job that i enjoy. Did my employer state that i had to have a degree? Yes. Do i really need a degree for the job i'm doing? Did my degree have any relevance to the job i am now doing? Not at all. I'm not the only one in such a situation, there are 5 or 6 people in my office who are to all intents and purposes data entry clerks, all of them had to be degree educated to get the job. The job they do is important and they are valued staff memebers but there is absolutely no reason why they require degrees to do such a job.

Don't get me wrong i understand there are thousands of jobs that do require a degree level education and plenty degrees that lead onto following a mapped out vocational path. However i would argue that if employers were willing to remove the ridiculous stipulation that a degree level education is required for certain jobs that frankly don't require it then we may see more young people willing to bypass a university education and move into the world of work earlier.

:agree: :agree:

Couldn't agree more. If Uni is to attract people who are only motivated to careers/professions who really, REALLY need the knowledge that the right degree will give them, then every two-bob employer (not having a go at your employer, or mine for that matter, although I needed - and use - a second language in this job) needs to stop slapping the "must hold a 2:1 degree" on every single role in the company.

I guess they use it as an easy - and purely numerical - filter measure, to stop non-University educated people applying for jobs, even if said people may be well suited to the job.

If more jobs were open to all people, would the HR Department of companies not have to work a lot harder to get numbers manageable for the actual "interview" stage of the application process.

Maybe they think that - due to the rigours (and a decent degree will really test you in the later years) of a degree - degree-qualified candidates will be better team-workers/communicators/better at meeting deadlines (or whatever)

Thinking about it more, I don't agree with the fact that companies do apply this "must have a degree" criteria in such a "machine-gun" approach, but I can understand - from their perspective - why they do it.

[haagsehibby]

Obviously without knowing all the facts its hard to make comment about the actual incident shown in the video, but I'd be surprised if the guy wasn't warned numerous times by the police not to be where he was/to stop doing what he was doing. The lad claims it was the second time it had happened, so he obviously knew there was a chance it would happen again. Wouldn't even surprise me if it was his mate videoing it after they'd planned to get the police doing it on camera.

There were plenty protestors who weren't assaulted that day. If he wants to go out and protest like everyone else then he should expect to be treated the same as everyone else.....in fact I'm positive he'd want to be treated the same.

As dear old Oscar said "The truth is rarely pure and never simple"

Have a look at poor old Jody's blogs, to see his experiences of the protests.

http://jodymcintyre.wordpress.com/

Especially -
“The Tory Party HQ!”

The energy was rising. We were walking, jogging, running. We were ready. And then we saw it.

To the right, a huge courtyard was packed with thousands of students, with thousands more still pouring in. In front of us, a huge glass building towered; it was the Conservative Party’s Headquarters, and it was under attack. The crowd was so tightly packed that even with the wheelchair, it was a huge effort to force our way through. Around half way we gave up. The crowd was swaying. “They’re smashing the windows…”

Me and Finlay looked at each other. We knew that we had to make it to the front. Kareem started pushing the wheelchair again, and Finlay cleared a path in front of us.

Two rows from the front of the crowd, I saw a close friend, Jonte. He grabbed my arm. “This is so tight, we are going to break the police line any moment now.” Me and Finlay went for one last push, and forced our way to the front. Five riot police stood in front of me, and they looked terrified. Their under-staffing is something that I now see as seriously suspicious. Perhaps the Metropolitan Police are keen to avoid the cuts the rest of us will suffer. “You want to go through?” one policeman asked me. “I want everyone to go through,” I replied. Red smoke billowed from flares, and shattered glass hung from what remained of the windows. The noise from the crowd was deafening. I could see that some students were already inside the headquarters."

And then, lo and behold, he managed to walk up nine floors to the top of Millbank tower while his friends carried his wheelchair.

[RyeSloan]

I haven't seen any serious, properly analysed proposals. I'm just going on the basis of a graduate tax in its purest form. Anything else is tuition fees by another name.

Personally, I think that student/graduate numbers need to come down but it'll be a brave government of whatever persuasion that suggests that.

Strange given the furore surrounding this. I would have thought there was plenty of alternative analysis being done.

[hibsdaft]

Where's he coming from exactly?

A background of world class free education.


I've dealt with the 'putting students off' argument already on this thread and still haven't received a real response beyond "It's a scary number". If someone can come up with a real reason why kids should be put off with the new proposals, I'll respond to it.

You honestly, seriously don't understand the problem with £30-40K of debt? :confused::confused: (And the news last week was that almost all uni's would go for £9K fees - "the race to the top").


As for the 'why should the students trust the government' question, considering the record of Labour, Lib Dems and Tories in saying one thing and doing another, they probably should expect fees to rise in the ten years - irrespective of who is in charge. Let's not pretend that it's Tory ideology though.

Never has a party spent a decade plus targetting a section of society around one issue and then u-turned on it within a month of power like this. And "oh they're in a coalition they don't have control" is no argument, those pledges were signed within weeks of the election when Clegg was openly discussing joining the Tories in coalition.

Its like the BNP reaching power and saying, actually **** it, lets have free borders.

How can anyone take the figures presented seriously? They don't work, they leave a massive shortfall (which will result in further national debt).

[hibsdaft]

plausable alternatives

graduate tax.
scottish set-up
welsh set-up
tax top 300 FTSE busineses 1% of profits (green policy i think)

[speedy_gonzales]

You honestly, seriously don't understand the problem with £30-40K of debt?
I've obviously taken my eye off the ball on this subject but I thought this wasn't being classed as debt and wouldn't affect credit scores for loans/mortgages? At the end of the day, if the graduate doesn't meet the criteria then no fees will ever be paid back?!?

[bighairyfaeleith]

I've obviously taken my eye off the ball on this subject but I thought this wasn't being classed as debt and wouldn't affect credit scores for loans/mortgages? At the end of the day, if the graduate doesn't meet the criteria then no fees will ever be paid back?!?

Imagine the first decision you make when leaving school is to decide on a direction that will give you a debt you will probably never pay off, despite paying it for twenty plus years. That would scare me at sixteen.

However if it doesn't scare kids and in fact teaches them that debt is normal, well thats even scarier.

[speedy_gonzales]

Imagine the first decision you make when leaving school is to decide on a direction that will give you a debt you will probably never pay off, despite paying it for twenty plus years. That would scare me at sixteen.

However if it doesn't scare kids and in fact teaches them that debt is normal, well thats even scarier.
hmmm, so are we saying we shouldn't spend what we haven't got, maybe save up for further education?
Personally, if the cost of further education(service) has to be met by the student(user), then the proposals so far don't seem that bad? At worst(or best) the user will earn enough to pay back the service, at best(or worst) the user won't earn the required sums and the fees are written off.
Then again, my not so joined up thinking is all based on the premise that the student is responsible for the fees as opposed to a free further education for all scenario.

[bighairyfaeleith]

hmmm, so are we saying we shouldn't spend what we haven't got, maybe save up for further education?
Personally, if the cost of further education(service) has to be met by the student(user), then the proposals so far don't seem that bad? At worst(or best) the user will earn enough to pay back the service, at best(or worst) the user won't earn the required sums and the fees are written off.
Then again, my not so joined up thinking is all based on the premise that the student is responsible for the fees as opposed to a free further education for all scenario.

My thinking on it is that we need to come up with a policy that overhauls the whole system rather than just putting the prices up. So perhaps streamline some of the courses offered and get rid of the ridiculous ones, lets change the requirement for everyone to have a degree so lots of jobs are available without going to uni.

Then lets look at the cost and decide if we can't still afford to offer it for a subsidised cost to the student.

I'm all for changing the system, however the current policy smacks of a rushed through policy much like many we have seen so far from the condems. Whats the rush, this money is not going to be coming back to us for a long time so how about thinking it through properly, involving everyone who can actually give an informed opinion like universities, lecturers and students and see what we come up with? Or would that be too close to "we are all in this together"

[Beefster]

Imagine the first decision you make when leaving school is to decide on a direction that will give you a debt you will probably never pay off, despite paying it for twenty plus years. That would scare me at sixteen.

However if it doesn't scare kids and in fact teaches them that debt is normal, well thats even scarier.

Debt is normal. It's practically impossible to go through life without it, unless you're mega-rich or don't want to own anything substantial.

It's pointless or unaffordable debt that is the problem. Apart from the fact that tuition fees aren't 'debt' in the same way as credit cards, loans etc, I don't think that anyone could claim that paying for your education and potentially changing your life chances is pointless.

[bighairyfaeleith]

Debt is normal. It's practically impossible to go through life without it, unless you're mega-rich or don't want to own anything substantial.

It's pointless or unaffordable debt that is the problem. Apart from the fact that tuition fees aren't 'debt' in the same way as credit cards, loans etc, I don't think that anyone could claim that paying for your education and potentially changing your life chances is pointless.

Debt at 16/17 is not normal and should not be normal. Real debt should come along when you buy your first house, not the minute you leave school. It is real debt, otherwise you could just stop paying it. Can you just stop paying it?

No one is claiming it is pointless however the claim that this is the only way, that the cost is crippling the country is ridiculous and has very little to do with fiscal prudence by the government.

[Beefster]

Debt at 16/17 is not normal and should not be normal. Real debt should come along when you buy your first house, not the minute you leave school. It is real debt, otherwise you could just stop paying it. Can you just stop paying it?

No one is claiming it is pointless however the claim that this is the only way, that the cost is crippling the country is ridiculous and has very little to do with fiscal prudence by the government.

We're going round in circles.

If the IFS can say that the new system will be more progressive and the best that critics can come up with is about debt or ideology (rather than looking at it as an investment and accepting that it's progressive), I don't think the government have much to worry about.

[Bad Martini]

There's an element of going round in circles here.

How about a more radical idea where, we please everyone and dont charge for education across the UK, just as it is here in Scotland.

How do we do this? Why not start by not wasting money elsewhere that we dont NEED to waste....for example, renewing an utterly pointless nuclear "deterent" that we're unlikely to ever want or need to use. And if we DO use it, we're all ****ed anyway. So, lets no have it.

**** it. Lets take the chance all out nuclear war WONT happen..........we'll use THAT money for starters. With the change, we'll invest in mair schools, doctors, nurses, hospitals, dentists and all the other **** we DO actually need and ARE likely to want going forward?

Thats 1 ****ty waste of money...if someone, who had the time, could sit down and go through EVERY piece of Government expenditure from the moat cleaning expenses to the entire defence/attack/every other budget...we'd save a ****ing fortune.

Only pre-requisite for the job...job holder must possess a brain, common sense and be a-political, impartial and only looking at what we NEED.........

Far too ****ing radical tho.:grr:

[easty]

There's an element of going round in circles here.

How about a more radical idea where, we please everyone and dont charge for education across the UK, just as it is here in Scotland.

How do we do this? Why not start by not wasting money elsewhere that we dont NEED to waste....for example, renewing an utterly pointless nuclear "deterent" that we're unlikely to ever want or need to use. And if we DO use it, we're all ****ed anyway. So, lets no have it.

**** it. Lets take the chance all out nuclear war WONT happen..........we'll use THAT money for starters. With the change, we'll invest in mair schools, doctors, nurses, hospitals, dentists and all the other **** we DO actually need and ARE likely to want going forward?

Thats 1 ****ty waste of money...if someone, who had the time, could sit down and go through EVERY piece of Government expenditure from the moat cleaning expenses to the entire defence/attack/every other budget...we'd save a ****ing fortune.

Only pre-requisite for the job...job holder must possess a brain, common sense and be a-political, impartial and only looking at what we NEED.........

Far too ****ing radical tho.:grr:

When people argue in favour of Trident I can see thier point, but personally I would do away with it.

I don't think that Uni should be free for all, I don't think it should be free in Scotland. My problem is the size of the fees being introduced just now, not fees generally.

[speedy_gonzales]

It is real debt, otherwise you could just stop paying it. Can you just stop paying it?


Give up any means of employment that pays over the trigger threshold?!?

Can't see this being a realistic 'get out' but it wouldn't be the first time a student remains in education in perpetuity. I went to school with a chap who left high school in '92, he started uni that summer and is still there, he has (IIRC) 3 degrees and a couple of doctorates/PHD's, very clever guy but probably wouldn't want, nor could he hold down, a meaningful well paid job.