Students

lost_in_thought

DDD wrote:

Furthermore, I don't care about the past Government, vocational course blah blah bollocks. LiT stand to one side you got to go to Oxford or Cambridge, dare I say you and yours could afford the increases.

DDD, you of all people ought not to be prejudiced, with the amount you harp on about it.

I didn't 'get to go', I managed to get in by merit of interview and exam success. Furthermore, going to oxford does not mean you're wealthy. Most of the people I know from there come from what you'd call 'working class backgrounds'.

And just 'cause I've the brains to get into one of the country's top universities I don't get to have an opinion? Seems a bit backwards to me.

waddlie

rjsterry wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

W1 wrote:

Or more simply that some people love a good riot, and a protest provides them decent cover to do so?

Innit.

Indeed, some people on both sides by the look of that photo (and other recent protests).

Eh? Put yourself in the copper's situation and tell me how you would be holding the baton if you needed to keep people away or protect yourself from being assaulted.

cambs

I'm thinking west along the strand, trafalgar sq, the mall , buck pal rd and then hooking up with the kings road .
Traffic will be bad though near victoria ..

Sewinman

lost_in_thought wrote:

DDD wrote:

Furthermore, I don't care about the past Government, vocational course blah blah bollocks. LiT stand to one side you got to go to Oxford or Cambridge, dare I say you and yours could afford the increases.

DDD, you of all people ought not to be prejudiced, with the amount you harp on about it.

I didn't 'get to go', I managed to get in by merit of interview and exam success. Furthermore, going to oxford does not mean you're wealthy. Most of the people I know from there come from what you'd call 'working class backgrounds'.

And just 'cause I've the brains to get into one of the country's top universities I don't get to have an opinion? Seems a bit backwards to me.

How come you do not have a degree?

lost_in_thought

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DDD wrote:

Furthermore, I don't care about the past Government, vocational course blah blah bollocks. LiT stand to one side you got to go to Oxford or Cambridge, dare I say you and yours could afford the increases.

DDD, you of all people ought not to be prejudiced, with the amount you harp on about it.

I didn't 'get to go', I managed to get in by merit of interview and exam success. Furthermore, going to oxford does not mean you're wealthy. Most of the people I know from there come from what you'd call 'working class backgrounds'.

And just 'cause I've the brains to get into one of the country's top universities I don't get to have an opinion? Seems a bit backwards to me.

How come you do not have a degree?

Dropped out, innit.

W1

DonDaddyD wrote:

There is a difference between a protest and a riot. Should any group of people start rioting you'll know about it. I've never known a protest that hasn't been an inconvenience and that is what you are complaining about. It doesn't mean the students have a point or no right to protest.

Furthermore, I don't care about the past Government, vocational course blah blah bollocks. LiT stand to one side you got to go to Oxford or Cambridge, dare I say you and yours could afford the increases.

What I care about are those who are able, intelligent enough and want a job that a degree demands but are priced out of doing so.

What is left for those people are your beloved vocational course and a life imposed on them because the opportunity was taken away from them.

It is once again a mechanism to impose a class divide.

But I'm sure many will continue to advocate the vocational courses and jobs, which I suspect for many are OK for children as long as it isn't their kids.

What a crass load of presumptive ball-cocks.

The thing is, if you actually thought about what I said (rather than simply being reactive) you'd actually realise that I agree with you in many respects.

Where did I say there was no right to protest?

SimonAH

Rick Chasey wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I'm quite happy for fees to be increased, providing it's based upon how important the course is to the national economy:

Engineers - Free
Doctors - £3,000 per year
Physicist - £1,0000 er year

Media Studies - £10,000 per year
PPE - £50,000 per year

And so on....

I suggest you listen toStewart Lee's opinion. He's not far off the mark. Certainly closer than you are.

Seriously though, why should the national purse fund someone to study homeopathy for three years to the same level as someone to study Mechanical Engineering?
Why should Sports Science receive the same support as a medical degree? Surely some form of weighting is required?

I read the other day that you can actually take a degree in Lady Gaga FFS.

zanes

Waddlie wrote:

Eh? Put yourself in the copper's situation and tell me how you would be holding the baton if you needed to keep people away or protect yourself from being assaulted.

Indeed. Some pretty hardcore disorder on show in that scene. Guess a certain Mr Tomlinson was causing a similar issue.... :roll:
Whilst doubtless there are some less desirable elements present at these and other protests jumping on the "He's a police officer so he must know best/be doing right" model has repeatedly been, and will continue to be shown to be simplistic, stupid and wrong.

@Asprilla, if you think that model will ever be implemented Ive got some friendly Nigerian bankers here that have $3000million for you. The underlying funding structure may be similar (science etc getting more) but all students will be the charged the same (ie. as much as unis/government think they can get away with.

asprilla

Rick Chasey wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I'm quite happy for fees to be increased, providing it's based upon how important the course is to the national economy:

Engineers - Free
Doctors - £3,000 per year
Physicist - £1,0000 er year

Media Studies - £10,000 per year
PPE - £50,000 per year

And so on....

I suggest you listen toStewart Lee's opinion. He's not far off the mark. Certainly closer than you are.

You appear to be mistaking a flippant remark for a well thought out argument. However, I do believe that there is the possibility to rank courses according to some value. Part of the issue we have is that too many people are attending university that it becomes inherently unsustainable.

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

And just 'cause I've the brains to get into one of the country's top universities I don't get to have an opinion?

Don't be silly, dear.

You don't get to have an opinion because you're a burd, obviously!

Once you're married, you'll be able to have opinions. The ones your husband tells you to have.

See, like this

greg66_tri_v2.0

SimonAH wrote:

I read the other day that you can actually take a degree in Lady Gaga FFS.

What, like, completely inside her?

That sounds a bit cramped to me.

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And just 'cause I've the brains to get into one of the country's top universities I don't get to have an opinion?

Don't be silly, dear.

You don't get to have an opinion because you're a burd, obviously!

Once you're married, you'll be able to have opinions. The ones your husband tells you to have.

See, like this

Don't be silly, dear.

You don't get to have one either. You're married.

:P

SimonAH

Greg66 wrote:

SimonAH wrote:

I read the other day that you can actually take a degree in Lady Gaga FFS.

What, like, completely inside her?

That sounds a bit cramped to me.

"Man's best friend, outside of a dog, is a book"

"Inside a dog it's too dark to read"

Specialized Needs

Shame the building they are beseiging only contains the winding down Conservative Campaign HQ (1 floor of the building), and not the main HQ :roll:

So, great for the other inhabitants of the building - like Animal Defenders International, the Audit Commission, the Specialist Schools Trust and various Ombudsmen offices!

ketsbaia

Asprilla wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Asprilla wrote:

I'm quite happy for fees to be increased, providing it's based upon how important the course is to the national economy:

Engineers - Free
Doctors - £3,000 per year
Physicist - £1,0000 er year

Media Studies - £10,000 per year
PPE - £50,000 per year

And so on....

I suggest you listen toStewart Lee's opinion. He's not far off the mark. Certainly closer than you are.

You appear to be mistaking a flippant remark for a well thought out argument. However, I do believe that there is the possibility to rank courses according to some value. Part of the issue we have is that too many people are attending university that it becomes inherently unsustainable.

You might have a point about the last bit, but I'd suggest the way of ensuring fewer people go to university is by making the exams a bit harder again, not by squeezing the financial life out of those that do get to go. Doing the latter just means you get rich people's kids going.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

DDD wrote:

Furthermore, I don't care about the past Government, vocational course blah blah bollocks. LiT stand to one side you got to go to Oxford or Cambridge, dare I say you and yours could afford the increases.

DDD, you of all people ought not to be prejudiced, with the amount you harp on about it.

I didn't 'get to go', I managed to get in by merit of interview and exam success. Furthermore, going to oxford does not mean you're wealthy. Most of the people I know from there come from what you'd call 'working class backgrounds'.

And just 'cause I've the brains to get into one of the country's top universities I don't get to have an opinion? Seems a bit backwards to me.

You got to go because you and yours could afford it.

It is unfair that a low income family, who have lost or had their benefits reduced, have an extremely bright child who could go to University and is now priced out of doing so.

You are right, however, you are entitled to your opinion. It's weight I feel is somewhat light when talking about people and the lives of people who as a demographic can be identified as low income earners.

In truth I think its too easy 'to harp on' and say

"yeah the University fees should be increased. Students and would-be students have nothing to complain about, dossers".

I question whether some who are saying that are truly affected by this.

PBo

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And just 'cause I've the brains to get into one of the country's top universities I don't get to have an opinion?

Don't be silly, dear.

You don't get to have an opinion because you're a burd, obviously!

Once you're married, you'll be able to have opinions. The ones your husband tells you to have.

See, like this

from the context - don't even need to follow the link. it's chomondley-warner, isn't it - "women - know your limits"?

Am I right?

waddlie

DonDaddyD wrote:

You got to go because you and yours could afford it.

It is unfair that a low income family, who have lost or had their benefits reduced, have an extremely bright child who could go to University and is now priced out of doing so.

You are right you are entitled to your opinion. It's weight I feel is somewhat light however when talking about people and the lives of people who as a demographic can be identified as low income earners.

Dude, seriously.

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

DDD wrote:

Furthermore, I don't care about the past Government, vocational course blah blah bollocks. LiT stand to one side you got to go to Oxford or Cambridge, dare I say you and yours could afford the increases.

DDD, you of all people ought not to be prejudiced, with the amount you harp on about it.

I didn't 'get to go', I managed to get in by merit of interview and exam success. Furthermore, going to oxford does not mean you're wealthy. Most of the people I know from there come from what you'd call 'working class backgrounds'.

And just 'cause I've the brains to get into one of the country's top universities I don't get to have an opinion? Seems a bit backwards to me.

You got to go because you and yours could afford it.

It is unfair that a low income family, who have lost or had their benefits reduced, have an extremely bright child who could go to University and is now priced out of doing so.

You are right, however, you are entitled to your opinion. It's weight I feel is somewhat light when talking about people and the lives of people who as a demographic can be identified as low income earners.

In truth I think its too easy 'to harp on' and say

"yeah the University fees should be increased. Students and would-be students have nothing to complain about, dossers".

I question whether some who are saying that are truly affected by this.

No.

I got in because I was clever enough to pass the exams. All the money in all the world can't get you in to Oxford if you're not clever enough.

Some salt and vinegar?

lost_in_thought

Waddlie wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

You got to go because you and yours could afford it.

It is unfair that a low income family, who have lost or had their benefits reduced, have an extremely bright child who could go to University and is now priced out of doing so.

You are right you are entitled to your opinion. It's weight I feel is somewhat light however when talking about people and the lives of people who as a demographic can be identified as low income earners.

Dude, seriously.

Beat me to it

DonDaddyD

W1 wrote:

What a crass load of presumptive ball-cocks.

The thing is, if you actually thought about what I said (rather than simply being reactive) you'd actually realise that I agree with you in many respects.

Where did I say there was no right to protest?

Let me make this one absolutely clear for you.

I don't think the increases to University tuition fees are fair or right.

I think it will further disadvantage the poorer people who want to aspire.

I think that a protest on this is the right thing to do.

soundninjauk

DonDaddyD wrote:

You got to go because you and yours could afford it.

Brilliant.

I didn't go to Oxford or Cambridge, but my brother's there right now. So yes I could afford university, but I didn't magically end up at Oxbridge. Could it be that's because going there requires you to be something other than capable of acquiring a student loan?

He worked extremely hard to get in there, and I know he's working extremely hard while he is there. So feel free to mock those doing Media Studies at a former Polytechnic if you must, but I wouldn't try Oxbridge students if I were you. Chances they'll mock you back in a much more witty and intelligent manner.

Coach H

rjsterry wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

W1 wrote:

Or more simply that some people love a good riot, and a protest provides them decent cover to do so?

Innit.

Indeed, some people on both sides by the look of that photo (and other recent protests).

Looks like the copper is pushing the student away with his baton in a ready position. What are you seeing?
Send the Para's or Marines in to sort it out, they will be baying to bring back raised batons then.

soundninjauk

Coach H wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

ketsbaia wrote:

W1 wrote:

Or more simply that some people love a good riot, and a protest provides them decent cover to do so?

Innit.

Indeed, some people on both sides by the look of that photo (and other recent protests).

Looks like the copper is pushing the student away with his baton in a ready position. What are you seeing? Send the Para's or Marines in to sort it out, they will be baying for raised batons then.

Nuke the students from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

zanes

Specialized Needs wrote:

Shame the building they are beseiging only contains the winding down Conservative Campaign HQ (1 floor of the building), and not the main HQ :roll:

So, great for the other inhabitants of the building - like Animal Defenders International, the Audit Commission, the Specialist Schools Trust and various Ombudsmen offices!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conservati ... adquarters ?

Sewinman

If I understand DDD correctly - I don't think he is saying you can buy your place at Oxbridge, but that those from a poorer background (but clever enough to get in) may be excluded by the higher fees that will be in place in future. Seems pretty spot on to me.

greg66_tri_v2.0

PBo wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

And just 'cause I've the brains to get into one of the country's top universities I don't get to have an opinion?

Don't be silly, dear.

You don't get to have an opinion because you're a burd, obviously!

Once you're married, you'll be able to have opinions. The ones your husband tells you to have.

See, like this

from the context - don't even need to follow the link. it's chomondley-warner, isn't it - "women - know your limits"?

Am I right?

Oh yes. The dinner party conversation about the gold standard. Classic example of how a dinner party should be run.

lost_in_thought

Sewinman wrote:

If I understand DDD correctly - I don't think he is saying you can buy your place at Oxbridge, but that those from a poorer background (but clever enough to get in) may be excluded by the higher fees that will be in place in future. Seems pretty spot on to me.

How did you get that from 'You got to go because you and yours could afford it.'?

W1

Sewinman wrote:

If I understand DDD correctly - I don't think he is saying you can buy your place at Oxbridge, but that those from a poorer background (but clever enough to get in) may be excluded by the higher fees that will be in place in future. Seems pretty spot on to me.

The poor don't have to pay. It's the middle classes - those who can afford it - who will take the hit. I'm surprised DDD isn't jumping up and down with glee at the thought of it.

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

No.

I got in because I was clever enough to pass the exams. All the money in all the world can't get you in to Oxford if you're not clever enough.

Some salt and vinegar?

If that salt and vinegar comes with a curry goat you may be onto to something.

Now, look LiT, Olivia, I'll afford you this. You are an extremely clever and intelligent girl. I've said that to you in person in a drunken slur and you said you don't find black men attractive, I still think you were lying but we bonded. I can't fault you. You know this.

However, Ms Kerry Stacey living at flat 25 of a high rise block of flats, with the lift that doesn't work and the stair case that smells of pee. I'm not seeing you relating to or identifying with her, her life and constraints on her life all that well. She has a kid as intelligent as you. For that kid to get out of the social decay that is the Chatsworth Estate a degree may be the only outlet. But she is priced out of it, that's what I take issue with. There are other examples that one a little extreme.

You might be able to relate to Kerry, you may know some chavs, stranger things in the Universe are certainly possible. And if that is the case I'll hold my hands up reach for the ketchup and eat my chip.