Student Fees Protest

Tom BB

Some Lib Dem MP has just summed it up pretty well, by saying that little if any of the violoence is being caused by actual students.........probably the truest words a Lib Dem MP has spoken for many a month

Shame its turned nasty.....nowt better than a good student protest-the French have had something of a monopoly on that front of late

Le Commentateur

When I was a student 10 years ago there were a lot of people there who shouldn't have been there, not because they were thick but because they were only there as it was drummed into them that this is what they should do, when in fact they may have been more suited to going out to work, doing a college course or an apprenticeship.

The problem in Britain is that our obsession with class affects both higher education policies and people's career choices.

SBezza

jibberjim wrote:

Tom BB wrote:

Seriously though, unless you are privileged, then 40k of student debt is just ludicrous and imo unfair......someone compared a degree with a porche 911 earlier in the thread, I'm sure you'd agree that the desire to own a flash car is a materialistic one....is the same to be said of a desire for a university education?

There are three general reasons to want a degree - one is a vanity issue so you can lord it over your lesser friends who couldn't get the same as you, that is exactly like a porche 911. The more normal one is an investment in your career so you can earn more later in life, it's not clear why that investment should be funded by others. Or a third is because you simply enjoy learning and want to learn more, this is more similar to the first one, there is little benefit to the society at large until you're doing genuine research that is funded, the funding of that could be enough to repay your debts.

+1

Spot on Jim

If you need a degree for your career, you will generally be earning quite a lot. Why the hell should I pay for that. As mentioned above, you don't even have to start paying it back until you earn near the national average wage, and even then it is a pittance a month.

I had a friend who was earning 30k a year, with minimal outgoings, yet still griped because she had to pay back £50 per month for her student loan. If you want higher education expect to pay for it.

rick_chasey

jibberjim wrote:

Tom BB wrote:

Seriously though, unless you are privileged, then 40k of student debt is just ludicrous and imo unfair......someone compared a degree with a porche 911 earlier in the thread, I'm sure you'd agree that the desire to own a flash car is a materialistic one....is the same to be said of a desire for a university education?

There are three general reasons to want a degree - one is a vanity issue so you can lord it over your lesser friends who couldn't get the same as you, that is exactly like a porche 911. The more normal one is an investment in your career so you can earn more later in life, it's not clear why that investment should be funded by others. Or a third is because you simply enjoy learning and want to learn more, this is more similar to the first one, there is little benefit to the society at large until you're doing genuine research that is funded, the funding of that could be enough to repay your debts.

People with good degrees earn a significant more in their lifetime, and thus contribute significantly more in terms of tax, etc. That's very well established. It might even be that the average person with a dgree actually pays more tax in a liftime than the average person earns in a lifetime, so I don't buy all this "they only benefit" rubbish.

But there is more to life that the bloody economy anyway - people have to live a little. It'd be a grim and poorer society if there wasn't the opportunity to do things to a high level that aren't about making cash.

jibberjim

Rick Chasey wrote:

People with good degrees earn a significant more in their lifetime, and thus contribute significantly more in terms of tax, etc. That's very well established. It might even be that the average person with a dgree actually pays more tax in a liftime than the average person earns in a lifetime, so I don't buy all this "they only benefit" rubbish.

I didn't say it was rubbish - I said they get the majority of the benefit. Also people who earn the same as them but who weren't subsidised through university pay the same amount in tax without having cost the state anything, so in that case there would be an argument for those individuals paying less, or in other words, those who got a subsidised degree paying more - exactly what the current proposals do.

Rick Chasey wrote:

But there is more to life that the bloody economy anyway - people have to live a little. It'd be a grim and poorer society if there wasn't the opportunity to do things to a high level that aren't about making cash.

So now you want everyone to subsidise a group having fun? That's not a good argument. I absolutely agree there's a lot more to life than the economy, I certainly go nowhere near maximising my income - I never even bothered completing my degree because the teaching was so poor quality it wasn't enjoyable. But I do not expect to be subsidised by others for that choice.

Le Commentateur

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

Ironically, it was Labours misguided obsession with sending every Tom, Dick and Harry to university that is causing the current funding problems.

to be fair, it was the tories who changed all the polytechnics and swimming pools into universities.

Because both are scrabbling to win the core so-called middle class vote at election times.

Higher fees for education, elderly health care, etc is incompatible with a low inflation economic policy, unless the motive is to have fewer highly qualified graduates and more people having to sell their homes to pay for immediate care (rather than to pass on to their children).

Tom BB

jibberjim wrote:

Or a third is because you simply enjoy learning and want to learn more, this is more similar to the first one, there is little benefit to the society at large until you're doing genuine research that is funded, the funding of that could be enough to repay your debts.

Disagree on this point Jim.......I think it does benefit society to have people studying degrees purely for the sake of a love of education. Its why I did my first degree. Its why I'm doing a postgrad (My research is genuine, but economically is pretty pointless )

Think of the benefits to culture etc from people having sound well rounded education.......todays events not withstanding!!!!

mroli

singlespeedexplosif wrote:

6 hours a week? Jebus, what did you study?
approx 50hrs per week when I was a lad, etc.

English AND History. God knows what it'd have been if I'd been doing a single honours degree.

50hrs? Jebus, what did YOU study??!! 50 hrs of tutor contact?

And for those people who are pointing out that a university education means that people will earn lots of money and therefore why should you subsidise their education - if they earn a lot of money, they will pay a LOT of tax and therefore be more likely to subsidise you. There is also a counter argument that we should not be FORCING people who have good educations to work in solely well paid professions - that actually there is a great benefit to society to have these people working in lower paid professions that aid society.

jibberjim

Tom BB wrote:

Disagree on this point Jim.......I think it does benefit society to have people studying degrees purely for the sake of a love of education. Its why I did my first degree. Its why I'm doing a postgrad (My research is genuine, but economically is pretty pointless )

The problem with the love of education as a justification, is those of us who love cycling would I'm sure get a benefit of having our cycling subsidised and I'm sure it would benefit culture greatly if I wasn't working but instead cycled every day.

Your PhD is being funded by someone, so someone must see the benefit of paying for it - the distinction is where is decided, is it at the PhD level, or is it at the degree level - or is it potentially even earlier.

finchy

SBezza wrote:

If you need a degree for your career, you will generally be earning quite a lot. Why the hell should I pay for that.

If you're earning more money as a graduate, you will pay more tax.

So, you'll pay for your degree once through tuition fees/loans, once again through paying higher tax, and again through the extra revenue (which will also be taxed) that your skills bring into the economy.

Before the cuts, the government universities budget (facilities, tuition, research, etc) was £11bn. This is miniscule compared to the revenues which would be lost without the high-tech knowledge industries in this country - medical research alone, for example, is worth more than the universities budget.

That said, I do think that government support for students should depend on students putting in a decent effort. I'd use a similar system to Open University - award certificates after 1st year studies, diplomas after 2nd year studies and then a degree after the 3rd. But I'd only allow them to go onto the next level if they achieve 60%. This way the taxpayer would be sure to get good value for money invested in education, and weed out the wasters who think that university is just a good place to get drunk for 3 years :x .

I'd also limit university to those who can get a "B" grade at A-level in their chosen subject, or a closely related one, allowing re-sits at the end of summer for those who have got a lower mark than they should.

Frank the tank

Uni education should be free for all, but, it should be limited purely to those with the accademic ability not ability to pay. This would of course mean fewer uni places but not everyone or even three quarters of the populous need a degree to get on.

Business should provide apprenticeships (government aided) for others.

When I started work the country was in recession (1977) and major companies cut back drastically on apprenticeships, this coupled with the deliberate run down of our manufacturing base lead to a dirth of "skilled manual workers" now. As the older hands are now retiring/dead. Hence that void is now having to be filled by foriegn labour. Yet again the tories are making the same mistake all over again.

It's not cheap to invest now but not doing will be even more costly.

Some of todays student are tomorrows doctors, scientists,engineers whatever, we all need them and talent should not have to worry about another financial burden. If it's good enough for George Osbourne, why not the next generation?

IronHorse100

Tom BB wrote:

jibberjim wrote:

Or a third is because you simply enjoy learning and want to learn more, this is more similar to the first one, there is little benefit to the society at large until you're doing genuine research that is funded, the funding of that could be enough to repay your debts.

Disagree on this point Jim.......I think it does benefit society to have people studying degrees purely for the sake of a love of education. Its why I did my first degree. Its why I'm doing a postgrad (My research is genuine, but economically is pretty pointless )

Think of the benefits to culture etc from people having sound well rounded education.......todays events not withstanding!!!!

Yay to that. What about the other benefits to society, that cannot be directly measured in cold hard cash, from having the largest possible percentage of the population educated to the highest possible level? How many graduates go on to do "genuine research"' in any event?

Tom BB

jibberjim wrote:

[
Your PhD is being funded by someone, so someone must see the benefit of paying for it - the distinction is where is decided, is it at the PhD level, or is it at the degree level - or is it potentially even earlier.

Masters.....not clever enough for a PhD You're right, it is being funded by someone.....me-go figure, I loves it so much I pay to do it!

shockedsoshocked

finchy

Oh, and another thing.

Make sure that research funding is proportionate to the subject being researched.

Does this piece of research (Title: Spaces of television, production site and style), for example, really need £714k funding in the middle of a recession?

http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundedResearch/Pa ... ?id=146954

You could fund pay the tuition fees of quite a few students for the whole 3 years with that amount of money.

Actually that website is quite a boon if you want to make a Daily Mail reader so angry that his or her head would explode. :idea:

brin

Frank the tank wrote:

Some of todays student are tomorrows doctors, scientists,engineers whatever

Yeah thats exactly what i was thinking as i watched them smashing windows, throwing missiles, lighting fires.................etc

Cleat Eastwood

johnfinch wrote:

Oh, and another thing.

Make sure that research funding is proportionate to the subject being researched.

Does this piece of research (Title: Spaces of television, production site and style), for example, really need £714k funding in the middle of a recession?

http://www.ahrc.ac.uk/FundedResearch/Pa ... ?id=146954

You could fund pay the tuition fees of quite a few students for the whole 3 years with that amount of money.

Actually that website is quite a boon if you want to make a Daily Mail reader so angry that his or her head would explode. :idea:

to quote from the proposal

" Fictional space will be understood as a component of mise-en-scene, where the material space of production impacts on modes of performance, styles of camera work, and the significance of sound environments and visual design. Material spaces of production will be understood as a component of the economic, institutional and political histories of British television, where the availability of production space, its architectural design and resourcing, technologies of camera and sound, and the cultural meanings of these conditions of production changed over time and were negotiated among professional personnel in the television industry."

I'd say its well worth it, especially if you'e interested in the arts. And if you read on you'll see the money will be used to fund phd students (plural), i went for a funded phd interview not long ago and the university had been handed, from the government, 10million pound toward new media disciplines, phd student intake....10. daily mail head exploding indeed.

Stewie Griffin

ShockedSoShocked wrote:

604, Toxteth O'Grady, USA.

EKIMIKE

shm_uk wrote:

If I so wish, I have the right to go out and buy a Porsche 911 Turbo.

No you don't. Someone (a bank) has the right to lend you some money to buy one. Whether they do that is their decision. Maybe 4 years ago someone would but reality is now firmly upon us and no-one would do it. Unfortunately, many of my peers (i'm a first year student) still think they have 'right' to trivial things like a flash car.

Indeed they think they have the right to go to Uni and get a degree. Correct. They do... if they satisfy a few practical conditions first:

a) The degree is worthy in a social and/or economic context.
b) They have attained a level of study which qualifies them to study in a higher education setting.
c)They actually want to master their subject throughout their study.

Problem is, there's a lot of students who don't fit the above criteria. Equally there are a lot of courses offered which a) aren't (imo) socially or economically worthy and b) have such loose/low entry requirements that poor students end up at university.

Surely tuition fee's can be kept at a reasonable cost if these courses are scrapped and these students don't go to Uni. The govt. budget would have to cover less ground so to speak.

Yes that means job losses in the short term, but Uni lecturers are clever people who are highly employable. What about all those students who then wouldn't go to Uni? Well maybe we wouldn't need such a large immigrant workforce in certain parts of the country if more people of my generation were being employed in skilled manual jobs, factory work, non-skilled manual jobs e.t.c. Note i'm thinking long term here. In the short terms it'd be messy - lots of people my age unemployed. But at least they wouldn't be getting into massive debt as they currently are at Uni.

And to those who say this would lead to a generation of less skilled people - would you be able to give any idea's on how to employ 30,000 Fashion Design (sub in many other pretty useless degree's offered by many Uni's today) students? What's more they've each got around £15,000 of personal debt (which becomes very significant when the can find work).

I don't really have a great argument for this stuff. I don't know enough about it all to tell you the truth. What i do know, however, is that there is alot wrong with our education system as it stands.

FWIW i'm a student of Law from a family with very average income at a Uni which isn't so prestigious but does have a good reputation for turning their graduates into good employee's. Hit me up.

unixnerd

6 hours a week? Jebus, what did you study?
approx 50hrs per week when I was a lad, etc.

In the first year of my engineering degree we did 30+ hours of lectures, labs and tutorials. Even by third year it wasn't down much from that. We also did 11 week terms, most other subjects were 10.

I graduated in 1989, my parents were retired and not well off. I had maximum grant which was about 650 a term. My halls of residence in Aberdeen were 35 quid a week which included breakfast and supper. That left just under 30 quid a week to live off and buy books, which was enough with a small parental top-up. Pure luxury by modern standards! I graduated with no debt. I wrote computer games for the games market as a hobby and that let me run a car, but I didn't need a job.

I think we need to differentiate between hard degrees (medicine, most sciences, maths, law) and other subjects which are possibly less difficult. When funding degrees we need to give preference to those which will benefit society and the economy more. Even in my day I was shocked by how few hours a week some folk actually had to be in classes.

Education is a right, not a privilege. As someone from a background with very little money I'm not sure I'd have gone to uni today. I'd likely have stayed in my home town (which hadn't got a university) and done an HND instead. This would have given me far fewer options as most jobs in my field require a degree for the work I do.

I think we need to send fewer folk to uni, some folk would be better on apprenticeships or vocational courses. I think we need to reduce the number of non-essential degree courses. I think we need to do more to find students affordable housing and give them better funding. Most students I know didn't need a part time job. I'd rather be treated by a doctor who spent his time at uni studying and not serving pizzas at night.

Kids today are being cr*pped on and I think today's riot is totally justified.

My god-daughter had to leave uni. Her parents are broke and unemployed. The agency who handle funding / loans / grants / whatever made such a mess of her payments that she was told she could no longer attend lectures. This is in Scotland, where such things are meant to be easier. She fell almost a whole term behind and had no money to live on. She now has a full time job in a casino and is studying with the Open University. Not at all what I had in mind for her or what she deserves.

simonaspinall

How about for all those grumpy middle aged tory-voting daily mail readers who are in favour of this rise - those who were graduates before tuition fees came in, they should have to pay back a similar amount as today's students + their grant! Those who are earning above the proposed £21K threshold and who are a pre-97 graduate are making a contribution to the state for their education to earn that level.

Then let's see how f*cking loud they shout!

daveydave43

unixnerd wrote:

6 hours a week? Jebus, what did you study?
approx 50hrs per week when I was a lad, etc.

Even in my day I was shocked by how few hours a week some folk actually had to be in classes.

Im a first year studying English - on my timetable i have 3 50 minute lectures, and 6 hours of seminars a week. So thats just under nine hours of contact time, but that doesnt mean im out riding my bike the rest of the time. Some courses, such as mine, require a huge amount of independent study and background reading in order to keep up and pass. For example, my flatmate is doing Eng combined with Drama: he reads at least 2 plays a week.
In contrast, another flatmate does aero engineering: he spends nearly all his timetable on campus, in the theatre or the lab.

Time taught does not equal workload

finchy

daveydave43 wrote:

Im a first year studying English - on my timetable i have 3 50 minute lectures, and 6 hours of seminars a week. So thats just under nine hours of contact time, but that doesnt mean im out riding my bike the rest of the time. Some courses, such as mine, require a huge amount of independent study and background reading in order to keep up and pass

Where do you study? I went to Southampton, so a very good university, and my friend was an English Lit student. She did virtually no reading whatsoever and still came out with a 2.1.

The trick she learnt (er, from me :oops: -but I didn't do this as I actually enjoyed my subject) was to just read the abstract of journal articles and the intros of chapters in text books and the conclusions of the articles and chapters. These sum up all of the arguments nicely, and in exams you only have to give author and date - e.g "Penisface (1998) argued that the post-structuralist deconstruction of post-colonial literature is totally gay. On the other hand....."

You only have to show that you're familiar with the arguments and say whether you agree or disagree with them and why.

I'm not advocating this approach BTW, you'll get far more out of your studies by putting in the work.

Mr_Cellophane

How many people have degrees in one subject and then go on to work in a totally different career ?
I used to know someone who had a physics degree from Oxford and another with a degree in Russian. Both worked in the accounts department for a public utility.

daveydave43

@John
I'm at Loughborough University; the assessments are nearly all coursework essay based throughout the year. Modules like critical studies, poetry, linguistics and short story have a lot of reading, not just of the primary sources but the criticism and commentaries to go with them.

Don't get me wrong, I really love it. Which makes me think that it's worth spending 6 or possibly 9 thousand a year for it. Plus, fees don't just got to pay lecturers. It's diverted to the Union, which at Lufbra is one of the best in the UK, the sports facilities (ditto), the resources in the library etc.

Jez mon

daveydave43 wrote:

@John
I'm at Loughborough University; the assessments are nearly all coursework essay based throughout the year. Modules like critical studies, poetry, linguistics and short story have a lot of reading, not just of the primary sources but the criticism and commentaries to go with them.

Don't get me wrong, I really love it. Which makes me think that it's worth spending 6 or possibly 9 thousand a year for it. Plus, fees don't just got to pay lecturers. It's diverted to the Union, which at Lufbra is one of the best in the UK, the sports facilities (ditto), the resources in the library etc.

Really, you'd pay 9k a year for such little contact time? The union is good, but in general the lufbra nightlife is pretty poor and monotonous. Lufbra library? You;re in the first year so you won't have seen what it's like at exam and key coursework time, busy and so hot that people were passing out, last year I saw someone wheeled out to an ambulance!!

Sports facilities, no argument they are great!

Plus as the years go on, you'll get even less contact time and the shine of the union will possibly wear off. I know I would happily pay x amount of money to do my fresher year again. My second year was horrible for a lot of the time, and I'm really glad to be on placement now!!

alomac

daveydave43 wrote:

Im a first year studying English - on my timetable i have 3 50 minute lectures, and 6 hours of seminars a week. So thats just under nine hours of contact time, but that doesnt mean im out riding my bike the rest of the time. Some courses, such as mine, require a huge amount of independent study and background reading in order to keep up and pass...

Time taught does not equal workload

+1. I'm just finishing Political Science and History (in Australia, though) and the independent work requirement is huge. Nor is it possible to get by on just reading the abstracts, for most of that reading is for essays - in which you must demostrate a deep analytical understanding of the topic at hand.

beatsystem

To those more economically knowledgeable than me, how do you suggest we continue paying for everything?

PUT INCOME TAX UP and start at the top. Raise tax threshold for the bottom few.

It seems everyone wants everything but dont want to pay for it! Tax Petrol and Diesel not cars , those who drive biggest most often pay most, those that dont pay least. Exempt commercial lorries!

SBezza

johnfinch wrote:

SBezza wrote:

If you need a degree for your career, you will generally be earning quite a lot. Why the hell should I pay for that.

If you're earning more money as a graduate, you will pay more tax.

What about if you earn more than some graduates (without having had the tax payer pay for a degree), again why should I pay for someone to earn decent money, or even worse ham it up for a few years, then take a low paid job. Either work your way up, or pay for the higher education.

There are probably plenty of people that have got stupid degrees, that will never pay their student loans back, because they took degrees which are useless to society, and they can't get a job that pays high enough to have to start paying back the loan.

Nobody is stopped from doing a degree with the changes, they will just have to think about whether they can justify the costs, just like alot of us do everyday with other things in life.

rick_chasey

SBezza wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

SBezza wrote:

If you need a degree for your career, you will generally be earning quite a lot. Why the hell should I pay for that.

If you're earning more money as a graduate, you will pay more tax.

What about if you earn more than some graduates (without having had the tax payer pay for a degree), again why should I pay for someone to earn decent money, or even worse ham it up for a few years, then take a low paid job. Either work your way up, or pay for the higher education.

There are probably plenty of people that have got stupid degrees, that will never pay their student loans back, because they took degrees which are useless to society, and they can't get a job that pays high enough to have to start paying back the loan.

Nobody is stopped from doing a degree with the changes, they will just have to think about whether they can justify the costs, just like alot of us do everyday with other things in life.

From the studies I've read, the changes certainly will affect some people's opportunity to go to University; as ever, they will affect those who probably need the support the most.

Equal opportunities cost, but it's a cost people should be willing to bear for a more equal society. If they don't, then they're ultimately just being selfish, looking after #1.

If, in the example, where someone earns a lot without university education - then they can probably afford to cough up a bit more cash. If they're still being stingy about that, than that's a damn shame on them.