Student Fees Protest

nolf

johnfinch wrote:

nolf wrote:

You don't do a degree in "analytical thinking applicable to business strategy/marketing/operations/supply chain management/ etc", and yet there are quite a few jobs around for this kind of thing.

You don't need a degree to do jobs like these. They used to be done by non-graduates who got experience in the field and worked their way up.

But it helps, both you and the business:

Graduates are really cheap for the work they do, with the pre-existing skills, youth and ambition.
No pre-existing ideas, so they can apply their own independent thinking to what they learn and can apply some fresh insight.
Training takes weeks, and can be done as work is completed.

While giving you flexibility- Loads of people change careers these days, university provides a generic skills template that can be applied to most careers.

finchy

nolf wrote:

Graduates are really cheap for the work they do, with the pre-existing skills, youth and ambition.
No pre-existing ideas, so they can apply their own independent thinking to what they learn and can apply some fresh insight.

University education is no guarantee of ambition, independent thinking or fresh insight. I would that these qualities are just as prevalent amongst non-graduates as graduates.

When I went to my seminars, I was more often than not the only one who had actually bothered to do the required reading. Can you imagine doing a seminar on democratisation in C./E. Europe and nobody else knowing who Lech Walesa and Vaclav Havel were? :roll:

nolf wrote:

Training takes weeks, and can be done as work is completed.

Weeks of training does not equal years of experience.

nolf wrote:

While giving you flexibility- Loads of people change careers these days, university provides a generic skills template that can be applied to most careers.

Again, that statement is only true if people put a lot of effort into their studies. And these skills can also be picked up outside of university.

I'm not trying to knock students here, it's just the mentality of believing that a degree should allow people to jump straight into a management position that I don't like. If you want to work in management, do the job for a year or so first, then go for promotions, training schemes etc and good luck.

Cleat Eastwood

you can get degrees on the interweb now for 50 squid. simples.

rick_chasey

Johnfinch:

I'd suggest it all depends on what university you go to.

If somone's coming out of Oxbridge with a 1st or 2:1, I'd suggest that person can probably work bloody hard and is indeed driven.

You could probably extend that to most of the top 10 universities.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Johnfinch:

I'd suggest it all depends on what university you go to.

If somone's coming out of Oxbridge with a 1st or 2:1, I'd suggest that person can probably work bloody hard and is indeed driven.

You could probably extend that to most of the top 10 universities.

I went to Southampton, which was at that time a top 10 university (Times has it at number 12 and Guardian at 18 these days).

I'm just speaking from my personal experience - I know that many students do work hard, but it is possible to go to a top university without putting in too much of an effort and still come out with a 2.1 - although a 1st is probably out of reach to slackers. You must surely have met people like that when you were at university. You'd have to live permanently in the library to avoid them.

Dancing Bear

Now I may be old and old fashioned, but when I went to university there was no such thing as a student loan at a preferential rate - it was the parents who coughed up and my weekend jobs that paid for my attendance - i was also very grateful for the privilege of a place as they were far less common-place than they are now -= it seems the abundance of university places and the dumbing down of exams to a point where nearly everybody gets a pass grade for spelling their name right on the page makes it too easy to become a dossing student and the place at University less treasured.

So ion this basis saving money seems better spent on funding less university placements and bringing back national service to instill some respect and social regard for what is right and wrong - there is no place for this kind of mindless violence, whatever the cause..

as as for the University tutors who endorsed it, well they would be out of their cosy highly paid and low stressed jobs on Monday morning if it were up to me - sounds like a dose of the real world is overdue

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Johnfinch:

I'd suggest it all depends on what university you go to.

If somone's coming out of Oxbridge with a 1st or 2:1, I'd suggest that person can probably work bloody hard and is indeed driven.

You could probably extend that to most of the top 10 universities.

I went to Southampton, which was at that time a top 10 university (Times has it at number 12 and Guardian at 18 these days).

I'm just speaking from my personal experience - I know that many students do work hard, but it is possible to go to a top university without putting in too much of an effort and still come out with a 2.1 - although a 1st is probably out of reach to slackers. You must surely have met people like that when you were at university. You'd have to live permanently in the library to avoid them.

Only those people who just were very smart could get away with not donig work and coming out OK.

Also, I'd suggest that the current generation are particularly adept at working efficiently towards the results - if said seminar isn't going to count towards your final mark, most students will probably put it very low on the priority list. It's a hangover of the A-level process - I know at my school we probably spent 40% of our time on exam technique, and that focus does transfer over into University. You may not see them prepared for your seminar - but they'll be mighty prepared for the final exam.

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

Only those people who just were very smart could get away with not donig work and coming out OK.

Also, I'd suggest that the current generation are particularly adept at working efficiently towards the results - if said seminar isn't going to count towards your final mark, most students will probably put it very low on the priority list. It's a hangover of the A-level process - I know at my school we probably spent 40% of our time on exam technique, and that focus does transfer over into University. You may not see them prepared for your seminar - but they'll be mighty prepared for the final exam.

In an ideal world that should be true. In my subject (Politics and International Relations) the standards were quite high so you would have to put in the work for exams and essays. On the other hand, I used to read my English Lit friend's essays for her, just to give her critical feedback. She never seemed to do anything but uncritically regurgitate what she had read, but she still did OK. She just seemed to take the author's word as gospel.

I think the problem is that the 2.1 classification is too wide and all-encompassing. My friend, as mentioned, would consistently get about 61% for her essays and exams without putting in much of an effort or even much thought, but for somebody to get a mark above about 66% is, I would say, a reflection of hard work and intellectual capacity.

BarryBonds

Ive been away but nothings changed..............

finchy

BarryBonds wrote:

Ive been away but nothings changed..............

Nothing ever changes. You just get old, saying and doing the same old things and then you die.

Le Commentateur

This was an interesting read.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/co ... 31652.html

StillGoing

Frank the tank wrote:

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?

And a lot more will be propping up the dole queue judging by the "speeling" on their placards and their logic in justifying burglary, theft and assalts of varying degrees as a form of peaceful protest. :roll:

Anonymous

This thread is hilarious.

Students ( read Adults) rioting about having to pay for a service that will benefit themselves in a financial, vocational and intellectual way. Not very bright, big or clever is it ? Or am I missing the point ?

I agree with grants for some degree subjects, but I also agree with payng your way and if you have the opportunity to re-pay a loan at a reduced rate after you begin to earn a certain amount that would be great.

I think going for further education after you are 18 is an informed choice and you can't go and get all huffy about paying for it once you make that choice. If you don't want the burden of debt, then don't go, you are an adult make a choice.
I pay higher rate tax now and will lose my child benefit soon as a result, having 3 kids means this will hamper our lifestyle a little, but we all have to take a hit to try and correct the recession, not happy with it, but I'm not off down the high street to smash up Argos either.

finchy

dmclite wrote:

This thread is hilarious.

Students ( read Adults) rioting about having to pay for a service that will benefit themselves in a financial, vocational and intellectual way. Not very bright, big or clever is it ? Or am I missing the point ?

I agree with grants for some degree subjects, but I also agree with payng your way and if you have the opportunity to re-pay a loan at a reduced rate after you begin to earn a certain amount that would be great.

I think going for further education after you are 18 is an informed choice and you can't go and get all huffy about paying for it once you make that choice. If you don't want the burden of debt, then don't go, you are an adult make a choice.
I pay higher rate tax now and will lose my child benefit soon as a result, having 3 kids means this will hamper our lifestyle a little, but we all have to take a hit to try and correct the recession, not happy with it, but I'm not off down the high street to smash up Argos either.

£9k a year tuition fees - as someone who isn't going to be affected by this change, I really can't see how this is justifiable.

Jez mon

johnfinch wrote:

dmclite wrote:

This thread is hilarious.

Students ( read Adults) rioting about having to pay for a service that will benefit themselves in a financial, vocational and intellectual way. Not very bright, big or clever is it ? Or am I missing the point ?

I agree with grants for some degree subjects, but I also agree with payng your way and if you have the opportunity to re-pay a loan at a reduced rate after you begin to earn a certain amount that would be great.

I think going for further education after you are 18 is an informed choice and you can't go and get all huffy about paying for it once you make that choice. If you don't want the burden of debt, then don't go, you are an adult make a choice.
I pay higher rate tax now and will lose my child benefit soon as a result, having 3 kids means this will hamper our lifestyle a little, but we all have to take a hit to try and correct the recession, not happy with it, but I'm not off down the high street to smash up Argos either.

£9k a year tuition fees - as someone who isn't going to be affected by this change, I really can't see how this is justifiable.

Universities cost lots of money to run. A students education needs paying for, the government does not have enough money to pay for this, where would you suggest the answer lies?

To be honest, I don't think the answer lies in £9k a year tuition fees. It's quite frankly, a lazy answer to a massive problem, but that's politics for you. OTOH, hopefully what the raise will do, is automatically correct the problems which have been identified in this thread, i.e. the prevalence of so called non-subjects from the universities which used to be swimming pools.

finchy

Jez mon wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

dmclite wrote:

This thread is hilarious.

Students ( read Adults) rioting about having to pay for a service that will benefit themselves in a financial, vocational and intellectual way. Not very bright, big or clever is it ? Or am I missing the point ?

I agree with grants for some degree subjects, but I also agree with payng your way and if you have the opportunity to re-pay a loan at a reduced rate after you begin to earn a certain amount that would be great.

I think going for further education after you are 18 is an informed choice and you can't go and get all huffy about paying for it once you make that choice. If you don't want the burden of debt, then don't go, you are an adult make a choice.
I pay higher rate tax now and will lose my child benefit soon as a result, having 3 kids means this will hamper our lifestyle a little, but we all have to take a hit to try and correct the recession, not happy with it, but I'm not off down the high street to smash up Argos either.

£9k a year tuition fees - as someone who isn't going to be affected by this change, I really can't see how this is justifiable.

Universities cost lots of money to run. A students education needs paying for, the government does not have enough money to pay for this, where would you suggest the answer lies?

To be honest, I don't think the answer lies in £9k a year tuition fees. It's quite frankly, a lazy answer to a massive problem, but that's politics for you. OTOH, hopefully what the raise will do, is automatically correct the problems which have been identified in this thread, i.e. the prevalence of so called non-subjects from the universities which used to be swimming pools.

That's my answer - as I've mentioned a couple of times in the thread, expand vocational education, cut back on the number of joke universities offering joke subjects.

Properly fund the vital subjects. Kick out anyone who isn't making the grade, or make them pay their own fees - no more 3 years of Alcohol Studies. Entry to university dependent on good A-level results.

Sorry, can't debate this any further - I'm off to Cornwall in half an hour. 8)