Students

hatbeard

CXXC wrote:

is it like this at the morpeth on a friday night?!?!

but without the keyboards and emoticons :?:

not last week. there was just beer. lashings and lashings of beer. there was conversation as well but I struggle to remember about what exactly (I think it was bike related though).

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

the fees are done as a loan right? so if the kid.. I'll call her chardonay(sic). If Chardonay is smart enough as you say, chances are she'll get a good job and be able to repay the loans easily enough... might take a few years but then has the rest of her life with a fruitful career

how is that priced out?


and normality is resumed

Not really.

When I went to college there were some really talented and intelligent people who didn't want to go because they didn't want to get lumbered with the debt. This was back then. At £9000 a year plus any bank loans, overdraft, credit cards and sometimes you do need some of them I'm not seeing that as any more appealing. Of course of my friends whose parents could afford the tuition and accomodation, they went with or without loans - didn't really matter to them.

You're also not factoring the living costs as well. In fact when I think about it, my Student Loan paid my accomodation as it didn't and couldn't cover my tuition fees.

So no, no normality at all and yes, priced out.

lost_in_thought

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

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.

Pffft. People have been buying their way onto courses for years LiT, especially overseas (non-EU) students whose fees aren't subsidised. There were certainly a handful on my course, who weren't really up to it, yet somehow they still managed to scrape through years one and two (by year three, the fees had been collected, so they tended to be allowed to drop out then).

Oh really?

Maybe some of those people could tell my big boss how to do it. Despite being in the top 20 on Europe's rich list, he hasn't managed.

Not for want of trying.

I have to say, I certainly didn't know of anyone who managed to buy their way in. I know a fair few who tried, all failed.

waddlie

rjsterry wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

At the risk of over analysing a single photo, I don't think the student being pushed backwards is threatening to assault anyone. It was more of a general comment, but in that photo, there's only one person brandishing a weapon. It's just a personal observation, but policing of protests is frequently criticised for being heavy-handed. Rather too frequently for it to be an entirely unfair accusation.

In all fairness, it's not the coppers who are setting fire to stuff or breaking windows. There are people walking round wih gas masks on. The copper in the photo has limited PPE - no shield or helmet, possibly a stab vest at best. Can you tell me what's in the right hand of the guy in the photo? You quite sure only one person is brandishing a weapon?

Like I said, at the risk of over-analysing a single photo. It may well be a proportionate response to the situation. To rephrase the other more general point, there do seem to be a small number in the police service who don't hold back when perhaps they should.

Agree completely with the general point. What I take issue with is the inference that the copper "loves a good riot, and a protest provides him decent cover to do so" which went along with the original posting of the photo and subsequent responses.

Clever Pun

W1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I guess life is easier when all you have to worry about is whether Superman and Batman could beat Kahless in a Klingon bird of prey in a fight. With Sharktopus refereeing.

Respect. Destroyed.

Greg I saw this the other day...We have a sequel

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

Good god man, I have lived in Essex for 20 years.

Here's the Heinz.

soundninjauk

DonDaddyD wrote:

Fun though.

Yup

I suspect it will be.

When I went to college there were some really talented and intelligent people who didn't want to go because they didn't want to get lumbered with the debt. This was back then. At £9000 a year plus any bank loans, overdraft, credit cards and sometimes you do need some of them I'm not seeing that as any more appealing. Of course of my friends whose parents could afford the tuition and accomodation, they went with or without loans - didn't really matter to them.

I think a large part of this problem is the fact that we're trying to shoehorn more and more school/college leavers into uni. Obviously it costs more to send more people, but is lumbering everyone with massive debt the way forward? Sure an Oxbridge graduate will pay it off in a few years, but what about those Art/Media studies students who'll not necessarily head straight into that high paying graduate vacancy?

notsoblue

University fees were introduced in my final year (I think), and I didn't actually have to pay anything because of my family's financial background. I haven't been following this very closely, do the proposed changes to fees mean that they're no longer means tested?

hatbeard

Students... when will they learn eh?

DonDaddyD

soundninjauk wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Fun though.

Yup

I suspect it will be.

When I went to college there were some really talented and intelligent people who didn't want to go because they didn't want to get lumbered with the debt. This was back then. At £9000 a year plus any bank loans, overdraft, credit cards and sometimes you do need some of them I'm not seeing that as any more appealing. Of course of my friends whose parents could afford the tuition and accomodation, they went with or without loans - didn't really matter to them.

I think a large part of this problem is the fact that we're trying to shoehorn more and more school/college leavers into uni. Obviously it costs more to send more people, but is lumbering everyone with massive debt the way forward? Sure an Oxbridge graduate will pay it off in a few years, but what about those Art/Media studies students who'll not necessarily head straight into that high paying graduate vacancy?

Or those who want to become teachers, have the additional cost of a post graduate and then only earn £25,000 - £30,000 a year for a large portion of their careers.

Clever Pun

UndercoverElephant wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

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.

the fees are done as a loan right? so if the kid.. I'll call her chardonay(sic). If Chardonay is smart enough as you say, chances are she'll get a good job and be able to repay the loans easily enough... might take a few years but then has the rest of her life with a fruitful career

how is that priced out?


and normality is resumed

Except to Chardonnay and her Mum, £12,000 a year is an insane amount of money. Her perception of that may change after her degree, but getting that degree becomes an incredible obstacle.

I spelt Chardonay incorrectly on purpose don't mess with her name it's very disrespectful. If she's smart I hope she would have talked to teachers about it and they would have explained the bigger picture. That or the merest research into her chosen career would detail starting salaries of 20-30k for example

If you can't work that out.. maybe you don't deserve to go?

lost_in_thought

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

the fees are done as a loan right? so if the kid.. I'll call her chardonay(sic). If Chardonay is smart enough as you say, chances are she'll get a good job and be able to repay the loans easily enough... might take a few years but then has the rest of her life with a fruitful career

how is that priced out?


and normality is resumed

Not really.

When I went to college there were some really talented and intelligent people who didn't want to go because they didn't want to get lumbered with the debt. This was back then. At £9000 a year plus any bank loans, overdraft, credit cards and sometimes you do need some of them I'm not seeing that as any more appealing. Of course of my friends whose parents could afford the tuition and accomodation, they went with or without loans - didn't really matter to them.

You're also not factoring the living costs as well. In fact when I think about it, my Student Loan paid my accomodation as it didn't and couldn't cover my tuition fees.

So no, no normality at all and yes, priced out.

The BBC wrote:

What does the plan mean for students?

Students doing three-year courses charged at £6,000 will leave university with about £30,000 of debt - if courses go up to £9,000, debts will be closer to £38,000.

The government says the lowest-earning 25% of graduates will pay less than they currently do. Half of all graduates will not have paid the full amount off by the time the debt is wiped out after 30 years.

Students coming from households earning less than £25,000 will be about £700 a year better while studying, off according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

According to the government's analysis, the highest earning 60% of graduates will pay more under their plan than they would have under Lord Browne's proposals.

W1

Clever Pun wrote:

W1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I guess life is easier when all you have to worry about is whether Superman and Batman could beat Kahless in a Klingon bird of prey in a fight. With Sharktopus refereeing.

Respect. Destroyed.

Greg I saw this the other day...We have a sequel

W

T

F

will3

isn't the whole argument rather academic? You either pay for this education through loans after you graduate or through taxes after you graduate. There is no such thing as free education.

PS there;s no point in university any more anyway, it's all on wikipedia.

ketsbaia

Waddlie wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

Waddlie wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

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.

At the risk of over analysing a single photo, I don't think the student being pushed backwards is threatening to assault anyone. It was more of a general comment, but in that photo, there's only one person brandishing a weapon. It's just a personal observation, but policing of protests is frequently criticised for being heavy-handed. Rather too frequently for it to be an entirely unfair accusation.

In all fairness, it's not the coppers who are setting fire to stuff or breaking windows. There are people walking round wih gas masks on. The copper in the photo has limited PPE - no shield or helmet, possibly a stab vest at best. Can you tell me what's in the right hand of the guy in the photo? You quite sure only one person is brandishing a weapon?

Like I said, at the risk of over-analysing a single photo. It may well be a proportionate response to the situation. To rephrase the other more general point, there do seem to be a small number in the police service who don't hold back when perhaps they should.

Agree completely with the general point. What I take issue with is the inference that the copper "loves a good riot, and a protest provides him decent cover to do so" which went along with the original posting of the photo and subsequent responses.

Hey, I was being flippant to make that general point you seem to agree with.

Clever Pun

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

the fees are done as a loan right? so if the kid.. I'll call her chardonay(sic). If Chardonay is smart enough as you say, chances are she'll get a good job and be able to repay the loans easily enough... might take a few years but then has the rest of her life with a fruitful career

how is that priced out?


and normality is resumed

Not really.

When I went to college there were some really talented and intelligent people who didn't want to go because they didn't want to get lumbered with the debt. This was back then. At £9000 a year plus any bank loans, overdraft, credit cards and sometimes you do need some of them I'm not seeing that as any more appealing. Of course of my friends whose parents could afford the tuition and accomodation, they went with or without loans - didn't really matter to them.

You're also not factoring the living costs as well. In fact when I think about it, my Student Loan paid my accomodation as it didn't and couldn't cover my tuition fees.

So no, no normality at all and yes, priced out.

University is a damn sight cheaper oop north you know. If people can't see the bigger picture it's their own damned fault... don't fight the stupid fight DDD

El Diego

lost_in_thought wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

That people are so willing to become destructive and violent makes you wonder about the failings of the Government to improve the society and public it serves.

Or more simply that some people love a good riot, and a protest provides them decent cover to do so? It's the same explanation for football hooliganism.

I don't think that paying more for a degree represents a fair justification for violence and vandalism.

I have a lot of sympathy for your bro. A chap on the BBC basically said it was unfair for university to have been so widely encouraged, and then the fees increased. It was always madness to try to get 50% of people to university - much better to encourage vocational qualifications and send those who would really benefit to university at low-ish cost. That's not possible now simply due to the numbers of people who feel they "need" a degree when in fact they would be better off without one.

Again, spot on there W1.

I don't have a degree - doesn't seem to have held me back.

I do have a degree in Computing and can honestly say it hasn't benefitted me yet.

Clever Pun

W1 wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

W1 wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

I guess life is easier when all you have to worry about is whether Superman and Batman could beat Kahless in a Klingon bird of prey in a fight. With Sharktopus refereeing.

Respect. Destroyed.

Greg I saw this the other day...We have a sequel

W

T

F

Unicron Vs Flippersaur

PBo

Greg66 wrote:

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.

I don't know much about the gold standard.

But kittens are so cute and cuddly.....

rjsterry

lost_in_thought wrote:

rjsterry wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

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.

Pffft. People have been buying their way onto courses for years LiT, especially overseas (non-EU) students whose fees aren't subsidised. There were certainly a handful on my course, who weren't really up to it, yet somehow they still managed to scrape through years one and two (by year three, the fees had been collected, so they tended to be allowed to drop out then).

Oh really?

Maybe some of those people could tell my big boss how to do it. Despite being in the top 20 on Europe's rich list, he hasn't managed.

Not for want of trying.

I have to say, I certainly didn't know of anyone who managed to buy their way in. I know a fair few who tried, all failed.

Interesting, perhaps they've tightened everything up now. It was a while back that I was at Uni. I've no way of proving it, but I was under the distinct impression that some students were being helped to pass so that the University would receive their fees the following year. Also, one can certainly buy one's way into private schooling and tuition to gain an advantage when siting an entry exam.

@Waddlie: Fair point - I was probably being over-flippant with the initial comment.

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

the fees are done as a loan right? so if the kid.. I'll call her chardonay(sic). If Chardonay is smart enough as you say, chances are she'll get a good job and be able to repay the loans easily enough... might take a few years but then has the rest of her life with a fruitful career

how is that priced out?


and normality is resumed

Not really.

When I went to college there were some really talented and intelligent people who didn't want to go because they didn't want to get lumbered with the debt. This was back then. At £9000 a year plus any bank loans, overdraft, credit cards and sometimes you do need some of them I'm not seeing that as any more appealing. Of course of my friends whose parents could afford the tuition and accomodation, they went with or without loans - didn't really matter to them.

You're also not factoring the living costs as well. In fact when I think about it, my Student Loan paid my accomodation as it didn't and couldn't cover my tuition fees.

So no, no normality at all and yes, priced out.

University is a damn sight cheaper oop north you know. If people can't see the bigger picture it's their own damned fault... don't fight the stupid fight DDD

I went to Uni in the Midlands. Interesting people.

Still my accomodation was paid by my student loan, which I'm still paying back now £200 per month. My tuition fees were paid seperately as my loan wouldn't cover it. I worked at H.Samuel and Ernest Jones for the duration of Uni to pay my living costs.

I don't think the student loan will cover the increased tuition fees.

Clever Pun

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Clever Pun wrote:

the fees are done as a loan right? so if the kid.. I'll call her chardonay(sic). If Chardonay is smart enough as you say, chances are she'll get a good job and be able to repay the loans easily enough... might take a few years but then has the rest of her life with a fruitful career

how is that priced out?


and normality is resumed

Not really.

When I went to college there were some really talented and intelligent people who didn't want to go because they didn't want to get lumbered with the debt. This was back then. At £9000 a year plus any bank loans, overdraft, credit cards and sometimes you do need some of them I'm not seeing that as any more appealing. Of course of my friends whose parents could afford the tuition and accomodation, they went with or without loans - didn't really matter to them.

You're also not factoring the living costs as well. In fact when I think about it, my Student Loan paid my accomodation as it didn't and couldn't cover my tuition fees.

So no, no normality at all and yes, priced out.

University is a damn sight cheaper oop north you know. If people can't see the bigger picture it's their own damned fault... don't fight the stupid fight DDD

I went to Uni in the Midlands. Interesting people.

Still my accomodation was paid by my student loan, which I'm still paying back now £200 per month. My tuition fees were paid seperately as my loan wouldn't cover it. I worked at H.Samuel and Ernest Jones for the duration of Uni to pay my living costs.

I don't think the student loan will cover the increased tuition fees.

it's a separate loan from what I can gather. I had to work through uni too, paid off my loan a few years back..

shouldbeinbed

I'm with will 3 I was under the impression it is future earning potential that is at stake so the child from my school (chair of govs and putting hours unpaid every week to help) which is on a council estate in one of the 10 poorest (£) political wards in the country (and in the bottom 10% in all of europe) with the brains to make something of their education has the same opportunity to get to university that DDD's jaundiced vew would have them miss.

It's heartbreking to see some exceedingly bright kids with their heads screwed on right coming out of hideous home lives and thoroughly unsupported by family that failed/were failed by their shot at education and are absolutely closed minded and spouting the same sort of guff that DDD is that privilege is the only thing that gets you on in life.

I think the thing it will do is focus degrees to 2 ends of the spectrum, the mega bucks lawyers and medical ones that are going to earn hugely over the years and make the debt investment (IYKWIM) worth it and the utterly ridiculous aromatherapy and Klingon language ones that will never garner a £20K salary to trigger the repayments.

its the middle ranking degrees that will propel you to an average salary of £25K or so that will suffer as the loan repayments will be a far bigger chunk of income than would be for a GP or lawyer type.

I'm more in favour of the graduate tax than a debt burden up front so those that have enjoyed the benefits of the university experience leave the ladder dangling for those yet to come. I strongly believe though that the money towards 'free' education should be pointed at the compulsory sector to make learning from 5 upwards a viable and worthwhile experience and allow children and their parents from whatever walk of life to see the value and life changing nature of a good school and education and appreciate the privilege of being able to go on and choose to study past 18 but that the privilege of freedom to learn and better yourself is a price that needs paying for.

I don't get the argument that we all benefit from a Dr's degree so we should all pay for free higher education for some. if we got free private treatment or BUPA et al paid back the entire state funding of their staff that move to the private income generating sector then maybe, but how do we as a society universally benefit from the lawyer in private practice or an engineer working on a 6* Dubai hotel? where is the altruism in return? The argument is quid pro quo: degree holders benefit from 'uneducated' plumbers when their bogs back up, they benefit from Cops with or without degrees when their houses/cars get screwed etc. should blue collar artisans have a graduate price and a plebian price for their work to redress the balance of assisting paying for someone elses financial and social mobility?

lost_in_thought

*Ahem

lost_in_thought wrote:

The BBC wrote:

What does the plan mean for students?

Students doing three-year courses charged at £6,000 will leave university with about £30,000 of debt - if courses go up to £9,000, debts will be closer to £38,000.

The government says the lowest-earning 25% of graduates will pay less than they currently do. Half of all graduates will not have paid the full amount off by the time the debt is wiped out after 30 years.

Students coming from households earning less than £25,000 will be about £700 a year better while studying, off according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

According to the government's analysis, the highest earning 60% of graduates will pay more under their plan than they would have under Lord Browne's proposals.

EDIT: not applicable to SBIB's post. Which makes a lot of valid points.

W1

Clever Pun wrote:

Unicron Vs Flippersaur

Cheers, that's much clearer now.....

DonDaddyD

Clever Pun wrote:

Unicron Vs Flippersaur

HEY! Don't mess with the classics.
Unicron will always be this planet eating Transformers god from theTransformers animated movie.





You got the touch! You got the pooowwwweeeerrrr!

Now Unicron vs Galactus that would be a fight. Both of the toy versions are on my chrimbo list.

Clever Pun

lost_in_thought wrote:

*Ahem

lost_in_thought wrote:

stuff about kittens

EDIT: not applicable to SBIB's post. Which makes a lot of valid points.

that's nice but read this

The BBC wrote:

What does the plan mean for students?

Students doing three-year courses charged at £6,000 will leave university with about £30,000 of debt - if courses go up to £9,000, debts will be closer to £38,000.

The government says the lowest-earning 25% of graduates will pay less than they currently do. Half of all graduates will not have paid the full amount off by the time the debt is wiped out after 30 years.

Students coming from households earning less than £25,000 will be about £700 a year better while studying, off according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

According to the government's analysis, the highest earning 60% of graduates will pay more under their plan than they would have under Lord Browne's proposals.

notsoblue

lost_in_thought wrote:

W1 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

That people are so willing to become destructive and violent makes you wonder about the failings of the Government to improve the society and public it serves.

Or more simply that some people love a good riot, and a protest provides them decent cover to do so? It's the same explanation for football hooliganism.

I don't think that paying more for a degree represents a fair justification for violence and vandalism.

I have a lot of sympathy for your bro. A chap on the BBC basically said it was unfair for university to have been so widely encouraged, and then the fees increased. It was always madness to try to get 50% of people to university - much better to encourage vocational qualifications and send those who would really benefit to university at low-ish cost. That's not possible now simply due to the numbers of people who feel they "need" a degree when in fact they would be better off without one.

Again, spot on there W1.

+1 I entirely agree.

With regards to the rioting, I can't stand it when a legitimate protest gets hijacked by anarchists. It often totally devalues the original point. The only way that the changes the protesters are against will be prevented is by changing/galvanising public opinion. And seeing young people smashing windows isn't going to convince many people that they deserve free education. Its the same as the G8 protests, the take home message there is that being anti-capitalist means that you enjoy rioting and anarchy. Its a terrible association. Protest organisers really need to keep the anarchists out if they want to get their point across...

whyamihere

DonDaddyD wrote:

I went to Uni in the Midlands. Interesting people.

Still my accomodation was paid by my student loan, which I'm still paying back now £200 per month. My tuition fees were paid seperately as my loan wouldn't cover it. I worked at H.Samuel and Ernest Jones for the duration of Uni to pay my living costs.

I don't think the student loan will cover the increased tuition fees.

I'm at uni now.

The amount of loan received is dependent on the income of the parents, but everyone is able to get the basic level of loan. This entirely covers tuition fees and gives another loan for living expenses. For people coming from poorer households, a bigger living expenses loan is available, with some of this loan substituted for a grant. The grant means that the loan received by students from poorer households is actually smaller than the minimal loan available to everybody, even though they get more money.

I'm currently living off my loan/grant, with no significant financial aid from my parents. They may slip me £20 every so often, but I pay my rent, food, utility bills, etc. The loan covers this easily.

When the new fees come in, the amount of loan for the tuition fees will rise by the same amount that the fees rise by. Students will not have to find £20,000 up front to go to university. The system will be the same as it is now, just with bigger numbers.

lost_in_thought

Clever Pun wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

*Ahem

lost_in_thought wrote:

stuff about kittens

EDIT: not applicable to SBIB's post. Which makes a lot of valid points.

that's nice but read this

The BBC wrote:

What does the plan mean for students?

Students doing three-year courses charged at £6,000 will leave university with about £30,000 of debt - if courses go up to £9,000, debts will be closer to £38,000.

The government says the lowest-earning 25% of graduates will pay less than they currently do. Half of all graduates will not have paid the full amount off by the time the debt is wiped out after 30 years.

Students coming from households earning less than £25,000 will be about £700 a year better while studying, off according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies.

According to the government's analysis, the highest earning 60% of graduates will pay more under their plan than they would have under Lord Browne's proposals.

Ooooh kittens.