Students

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

What was your point? That because of house price inflation you support violenc and vandalism?

The issue with students is nothing to do with the violence.

You get big crowds and there will inevitably be people who are not particularly responsible or law abiding - just like anywhere else in the world.

The issue is the politics that has caused the need to have the large protest in the first place.

There needs to be a discussion on this that goes beyond the interest of the individidual, but instead throw wider thought to the interest of society as a whole, and then consider what is ultimately the best compromise.

Universities are chronically short of money, and there isn't enough tax money right now to pay for it. Yet British universities are one of the UKs greatest assets.

Give over - you sound like some of the "cretins" here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11829102

who claim to have a right tocivil disobedience and that the riot is all the government's fault anyway. Which is, of course, crap - because it's perfectly possible to protest without being violent. And you have a better chance of support when people don't associate your movement with hooliganism.

You've said it yourself - there isn't enough money. So if people want degrees, they have tio pay for thm. But only once they've started earning.

You’ve got what I’ve said completely wrong.

I am saying the issue of student debt and the funding of students is a totally separate problem to said civil disobedience. I am saying that to lump the issues together, especially given that civil disobedience is not remotely exclusive to students, indeed it happens on a regular basis, such as at football matches, is disingenuous.
You have no idea how representative of students or not the people committing the violence are. I’d suggest, like in any situation, they are a very small minority who get excessive coverage.

I am not an apologist for violence – I am suggesting that the violence is not the issue.

Sadly it is now the issue - and having dubious "student bodies" and lecturers supporting it means that any legitimate protest is dorwned out by the short-sighted idiots.

It is the issue for you and others of your ilk, but you were never going to support them in the first place. It is simply a nice excuse for you to get all holier-than-though and indignant whilst ignoring the issue.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Sadly it is now the issue - and having dubious "student bodies" and lecturers supporting it means that any legitimate protest is dorwned out by the short-sighted idiots.

I disagree.

I think people who support the funding proposal want to make it the issue in order to somehow delegitimise the alternative views and opposition to the proposal.

People such as yourself.

Why suggest that just because there is a little violence by some people claiming to be students makes all arguments on their side not legitimate? You should take the arguments on their own merit - something which I believe you obtusely do not.

W1

Sewinman wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

What was your point? That because of house price inflation you support violenc and vandalism?

The issue with students is nothing to do with the violence.

You get big crowds and there will inevitably be people who are not particularly responsible or law abiding - just like anywhere else in the world.

The issue is the politics that has caused the need to have the large protest in the first place.

There needs to be a discussion on this that goes beyond the interest of the individidual, but instead throw wider thought to the interest of society as a whole, and then consider what is ultimately the best compromise.

Universities are chronically short of money, and there isn't enough tax money right now to pay for it. Yet British universities are one of the UKs greatest assets.

Give over - you sound like some of the "cretins" here:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11829102

who claim to have a right tocivil disobedience and that the riot is all the government's fault anyway. Which is, of course, crap - because it's perfectly possible to protest without being violent. And you have a better chance of support when people don't associate your movement with hooliganism.

You've said it yourself - there isn't enough money. So if people want degrees, they have tio pay for thm. But only once they've started earning.

You’ve got what I’ve said completely wrong.

I am saying the issue of student debt and the funding of students is a totally separate problem to said civil disobedience. I am saying that to lump the issues together, especially given that civil disobedience is not remotely exclusive to students, indeed it happens on a regular basis, such as at football matches, is disingenuous.
You have no idea how representative of students or not the people committing the violence are. I’d suggest, like in any situation, they are a very small minority who get excessive coverage.

I am not an apologist for violence – I am suggesting that the violence is not the issue.

Sadly it is now the issue - and having dubious "student bodies" and lecturers supporting it means that any legitimate protest is dorwned out by the short-sighted idiots.

It is the issue for you and others of your ilk, but you were never going to support them in the first place. It is simply a nice excuse for you to get all holier-than-though and indignant whilst ignoring the issue.

And it's the issue for you too of course - just from the other side of the coin. Because, afterall, you support the violence and vandalism, I don't. As someone who isn't violent nor a vandal it's hardly a bad thing to be "holier than thou" in this instance.

Still, it's a nice excuse for you and your ilk to act like yobs, isn't it.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

And it's the issue for you too of course - just from the other side of the coin. Because, afterall, you support the violence and vandalism, I don't. As someone who isn't violent nor a vandal it's hardly a bad thing to be "holier than thou" in this instance.

Still, it's a nice excuse for you and your ilk to act like yobs, isn't it.

*facepalm*

I've never said I support the violence. I have said that I don't - see my "I am not an apologist for violence" comment.

It is not the issue for me - that's what I've been saying in every response to you. That was indeed the entire point.

Either you're being very obtuse or deliberately myopic.

Me and my ilk? And what ilk is that?

rjsterry

Maybe just quote the previous post rather than the entire conversation? My scrolly mouse thing is wearing out.

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Sadly it is now the issue - and having dubious "student bodies" and lecturers supporting it means that any legitimate protest is dorwned out by the short-sighted idiots.

I disagree.

I think people who support the funding proposal want to make it the issue in order to somehow delegitimise the alternative views and opposition to the proposal.

People such as yourself.

Why suggest that just because there is a little violence by some people claiming to be students makes all arguments on their side not legitimate? You should take the arguments on their own merit - something which I believe you obtusely do not.

The students were the ones being violent - it is they who have diverted attention from the issue. I note your presumptions. Those who support the funding proposal couldn't have made the violence "the issue" without it happening in the first place. Or do you think the rioters were planted?

Unlike most of the people smashing up Millbank and injuring the police, I've actually read and understood the proposals (have you?). It's not ideal but presumably you have a better idea? To make my own presumptons about you, I presume it would be something to do with "the rich" adn "tax"?

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

And it's the issue for you too of course - just from the other side of the coin. Because, afterall, you support the violence and vandalism, I don't. As someone who isn't violent nor a vandal it's hardly a bad thing to be "holier than thou" in this instance.

Still, it's a nice excuse for you and your ilk to act like yobs, isn't it.

*facepalm*

I've never said I support the violence. I have said that I don't - see my "I am not an apologist for violence" comment.

It is not the issue for me - that's what I've been saying in every response to you. That was indeed the entire point.

Either you're being very obtuse or deliberately myopic.

Me and my ilk? And what ilk is that?

I wasn't talking to you chap.

[easy mistake to make...]

Gazzaputt

davmaggs wrote:

Just to throw in a different view (without opening up the issues of the protests).

A million people turn up to protest against a war and the countryside alliance get 200,000 or more out to protest and all get ignored as they stick to the rules. A few poll tax rioterscause mayhem in a few locations and refuse to deal with the courts and an entire tax gets dropped.

Is there a point at which making politicans very frightened is better than writing letters?

A few? A few thousand and it was it the only time I saw Millwall, Chelsea and Spurs join forces with swampie anarchists to teach the Police a lesson.

phearnde

I think if you need a degree to follow your chosen career, then you should be willing to pay for it.

The careers that definitely require a degree, e.g. Doctor, Lawyer, Solicitor, Accountant(?), Civil Servant, all pay a premium salary, so you should be able to afford to repay your debt, and not resent that debt.

Speaking personally, I left school at 16 (with 5 GCE's), went out to work, but continued my education at evening classes.

My Dad did the same, as did both of my brothers.

I've never felt disadvantaged by my lack of a degree - although I have noticed that graduates often prefer to recruit graduates. But I don't see that as anything different to the careers master advising me to stay at school for 'A' levels and then onto the uni .

Clever Pun

rjsterry wrote:

Maybe just quote the previous post rather than the entire conversation? My scrolly mouse thing is wearing out.

don't you oppress the right to free speech

rjsterry

phearnde wrote:

I think if you need a degree to follow your chosen career, then you should be willing to pay for it.

The careers that definitely require a degree, e.g. Doctor, Lawyer, Solicitor, Accountant(?), Civil Servant, all pay a premium salary, so you should be able to afford to repay your debt, and not resent that debt.

Speaking personally, I left school at 16 (with 5 GCE's), went out to work, but continued my education at evening classes.

My Dad did the same, as did both of my brothers.

I've never felt disadvantaged by my lack of a degree - although I have noticed that graduates often prefer to recruit graduates. But I don't see that as anything different to the careers master advising me to stay at school for 'A' levels and then onto the uni .

Once again, the point of universities isn't just to train the professions, or from the students' point of view, increase their future potential earnings.

wgwarburton

phearnde wrote:

I think if you need a degree to follow your chosen career, then you should be willing to pay for it.

The careers that definitely require a degree, e.g. Doctor, Lawyer, Solicitor, Accountant(?), Civil Servant, all pay a premium salary, so you should be able to afford to repay your debt, and not resent that debt.

Anyone earning a premium salary will already be paying more tax. Graduates already pay for education, why should they pay twice?

It depends quite a bit on your view of education- if you see education as an optional way that an individual may choose to improve their employability and earning prospects then treating it as a personal investment makes sense.

If you take the view that education is an investment by society in its collective future then universal access is attractive.

It doesn't seem to me that pricing people out of higher education is in Britain's best interests, either domestically or internationally.

Cheers,
W.

[Edit- Oh and +1 to rjsterry's comments on the wider role of universities and degree-level education.]

W1

WGWarburton wrote:

phearnde wrote:

I think if you need a degree to follow your chosen career, then you should be willing to pay for it.

The careers that definitely require a degree, e.g. Doctor, Lawyer, Solicitor, Accountant(?), Civil Servant, all pay a premium salary, so you should be able to afford to repay your debt, and not resent that debt.

Anyone earning a premium salary will already be paying more tax. Graduates already pay for education, why should they pay twice?

It depends quite a bit on your view of education- if you see education as an optional way that an individual may choose to improve their employability and earning prospects then treating it as a personal investment makes sense.

If you take the view that education is an investment by society in its collective future then universal access is attractive.

It doesn't seem to me that pricing people out of higher education is in Britain's best interests, either domestically or internationally.

Cheers,
W.

[Edit- Oh and +1 to rjsterry's comments on the wider role of universities and degree-level education.]

So why aren't MAs and PhD's funded? When should the "free" cut off be?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

The students were the ones being violent - it is they who have diverted attention from the issue. I note your presumptions. Those who support the funding proposal couldn't have made the violence "the issue" without it happening in the first place. Or do you think the rioters were planted?

Unlike most of the people smashing up Millbank and injuring the police, I've actually read and understood the proposals (have you?). It's not ideal but presumably you have a better idea? To make my own presumptons about you, I presume it would be something to do with "the rich" adn "tax"?

As I've said before, you are painting the vast majority of students with the brush of the violent minority. If you are a peaceful student, who I suggest the majority are, there's little you can do, right?

Anyway.

With regard to the proposal. The protests are ostensibly against the proposed increasing of the fee cap, to around £9,000. The other party in the coalition, are looking into the idea of a graduate tax. The former is in all likelihood going to put off those who balk at the amount of debt they will be saddled with - especially those from poorer backgrounds, where £30,000 a lot of cash. That debt is also of coursse subject to interest, which, though tied to a (generous) inflation rate, rather than a market rate, is still currently a lot higher than any savings interest rates. It ultimately makes higher education a luxury only some can afford. Education should not be considered a luxury. If there is a disagreement on that, it's an irresolveable ideological one.

The graduate tax would in theory solve the above problem but since the details haven't been released it's hard to say. There's obviously the issue of leaving to avoid the tax, but that happens anyway with the current and proposed debt system (if after 5 years you are out of the country your debt gets cancelled). There are issues about university drop-outs, and people who fail to complete their course, but in theory it seems more sensible.

There is also the differentiated fee, where some students pay nothing, and others pay a lot. Again, that seems a little tough on studetnts, who, for example, have well off parents who won't pay anything, and still disadvanages students financially before they know what their financial situation will be.

Of course, given the especially low levels of tax in the UK for higher earners, I would suggest that, in the medium to long term, there should be, British idiosyncrasies aside, some room for those who earn a bit more to pay for it. After all, it's a genuine backbone of the British economy, and is one of the few areas that genuinely give the UK international competitiveness.

They're some of the economic arguments. Obviously there are the 'value' arguments, about the value of degrees which don't necessarily lead grads to a well paid job. Ultimately, societiy requires and demands proper academics, and benefits from purist academic studies, and it would be foolish to limit such careers and jobs to just those who can afford it - effectivelty making academic persuit elitist once more. Something I see as fundamentally bad.

davmaggs

The degree industry has got various problems and issues.

A massive expansion in numbers was useful for keeping unemployment down in past downturns. Then you have the fact that many students have indirectly been lied to in that they go on courses or to institutions that are second rate and they are convinced that somehow they are on a parr with the Russell league and that their degree will offer the same opportunities. Many firms have lists of Uni's that they will only acccept applications from, and the students that don't do their research are falsely buying into a myth that they will earn X more over a life time.

The concern with fees when they first came in was that they were just the start and that they would only go up, and that's been proven since. My objection is that the increased fees will actually be completely wasted and that fees will just cause massive inflation in the sector.

If you look at America or public schools in the UK then higher fees go into bigger salaries for senior staff or an arms race on infrastructure to justify more higher fees, thus creating a spiral. Also the fee spiral worsens when you go for the veneer of appearing to be "fair" by giving a free ride to really poor people. This is done by raising the fees on others just above the threshold or on those that can't claim that their parents are split up.

Universities could be honest and shrink courses to two years or make them truely modular so people could take them part-time over 5 years and work. Also publish very clear stats on earnings and prospects for every course in the brochures.

Finally I really wish the media would quash any politican that says that you won't pay back anything until your earn £21,000 when the interest will carry on piling up.

rjsterry

W1 wrote:

WGWarburton wrote:

phearnde wrote:

I think if you need a degree to follow your chosen career, then you should be willing to pay for it.

The careers that definitely require a degree, e.g. Doctor, Lawyer, Solicitor, Accountant(?), Civil Servant, all pay a premium salary, so you should be able to afford to repay your debt, and not resent that debt.

Anyone earning a premium salary will already be paying more tax. Graduates already pay for education, why should they pay twice?

It depends quite a bit on your view of education- if you see education as an optional way that an individual may choose to improve their employability and earning prospects then treating it as a personal investment makes sense.

If you take the view that education is an investment by society in its collective future then universal access is attractive.

It doesn't seem to me that pricing people out of higher education is in Britain's best interests, either domestically or internationally.

Cheers,
W.

[Edit- Oh and +1 to rjsterry's comments on the wider role of universities and degree-level education.]

So why aren't MAs and PhD's funded? When should the "free" cut off be?

Many of them are funded in a similar way to research by various bodies, both private and public.

soundninjauk

rjsterry wrote:

W1 wrote:

So why aren't MAs and PhD's funded? When should the "free" cut off be?

Many of them are funded in a similar way to research by various bodies, both private and public.

I have a friend who's doing a PhD, and his is funded by the Arts Council. He was actually in town these past couple of days, going to a big seminar run by people like the BBC and the South Bank Centre, to explain to people doing creative/creative research PhDs what kind of prospects were there for them, and how they could transition from academia to the 'real world'. Apparently the mood was general unease and defensiveness, as many of the people there felt like their PhD meant nothing, and in some cases could even work against them when trying to get a 'real' job.

davmaggs

could it be that their PhD does mean nothing (to employers)?

Full Merckx

Feel free to give them your house/TV/wages if you feel that strongly about it......[/quote]

I will and as may you as they are going to be our children that have to pay these fees in the future, and how will I support them ? By selling my house and downsizing, why because their my children and my responsibility. I am fortunate enough that i should have enough equity to help with their debts, but not alll will be so lucky.

Baby boomers - they had it all !

whyamihere

Full Merckx wrote:

Feel free to give them your house/TV/wages if you feel that strongly about it......

I will and as may you as they are going to be our children that have to pay these fees in the future, and how will I support them ? By selling my house and downsizing, why because their my children and my responsibility. I am fortunate enough that i should have enough equity to help with their debts, but not alll will be so lucky.

Baby boomers - they had it all !

What gives you the idea that you're going to have to pay off your children's debts for them? If they want the degree, get them to pay for it...

notsoblue

davmaggs wrote:

could it be that their PhD does mean nothing (to employers)?

Depends what sector you're in, and what level you're aiming at. When I worked science R&D a masters appeared to be the benchmark.

wgwarburton

Hi,
Depends on the employer... if you want to go into research and pursue a career in academia then a PhD is pretty important.

If you are aiming to churn out code at a bank then it's probably not going to improve your prospects.

Higher education has many roles and one of the benefits of studying for a first degree is that it gives you an opportunity to understand them better and work out whether any of them meet your needs and whether you meet theirs.

Cheers,
W.

Full Merckx

whyamihere wrote:

Full Merckx wrote:

Feel free to give them your house/TV/wages if you feel that strongly about it......

I will and as may you as they are going to be our children that have to pay these fees in the future, and how will I support them ? By selling my house and downsizing, why because their my children and my responsibility. I am fortunate enough that i should have enough equity to help with their debts, but not alll will be so lucky.

Baby boomers - they had it all !

What gives you the idea that you're going to have to pay off your children's debts for them? If they want the degree, get them to pay for it...

Because they are my children. Who would want their kids saddled with thousands of pounds of debt ?

davmaggs

Kind of proves my point in my longer post earlier. It's not to say that learning for learnings sake is bad, but don't expect it to help you job wise. Some trades don't need PhDs and some do, so check before you start.

People convince themselves that getting a qualification will better them, and yet they don't do even a few minutes research before signing up for years of study or massive cost. I've had many conversations with friends who've signed to professional courses without checking job adverts or speaking to people in the trade. They just take the word of the provider or make an assumption.

whyamihere

Full Merckx wrote:

whyamihere wrote:

Full Merckx wrote:

Feel free to give them your house/TV/wages if you feel that strongly about it......

I will and as may you as they are going to be our children that have to pay these fees in the future, and how will I support them ? By selling my house and downsizing, why because their my children and my responsibility. I am fortunate enough that i should have enough equity to help with their debts, but not alll will be so lucky.

Baby boomers - they had it all !

What gives you the idea that you're going to have to pay off your children's debts for them? If they want the degree, get them to pay for it...

Because they are my children. Who would want their kids saddled with thousands of pounds of debt ?

I don't understand this at all.

As I said earlier in the thread, I'm currently a student, and I'm expecting a debt of around £30000 to the student loans company when I graduate. I'm not expecting any help with this debt from my parents, nor will I be asking for help. The way that this debt is repaid means that I'm really, really not concerned about the repayments. It'll be going out of my pay when I start working at exactly the same time as tax does, and it's not exactly going to bankrupt me.

If it was a £30,000 credit card debt, then I could see the reason for concern, but this is something entirely different. This is a fairly safe debt, with little to no chance of negatively affecting credit records etc.

Clever Pun

from what Whyamihere is saying

I bought a house with no help and I feel much better for it than having to go cap in hand to my parents.. yep I'm up to my eyeballs in mortgage debt but that was my choice.

Paulie W

W1 wrote:

I've never really understood the "student movement" - the least experience people who happen to have the most free time appear to think they have a right to be listened to because they shout the loudest, even if most of what they say is ball-cocks.

OK, cant let this pass. The student movement has had a major role to play in political change in the past, less so in the UK than elsewhere but in France, Eastern Europe, US, Iran and elsewhere students have been instrumental in meaningful, sometimes dramatic political shifts, even revolutions.

There are obvious reasons for this: university education encourages critical thinking in a way school education doesnt - it teaches you to question the status quo; it also can explicitly politicise you through the activities of the Students' Union (or at least it used to); and most students are young and therefore idealistic and think things can be changed through protest . And guess what history (althouh less so in the UK) proves them right!

Sewinman

W1 wrote:

And it's the issue for you too of course - just from the other side of the coin. Because, afterall, you support the violence and vandalism, I don't. As someone who isn't violent nor a vandal it's hardly a bad thing to be "holier than thou" in this instance.

Still, it's a nice excuse for you and your ilk to act like yobs, isn't it.

No, I think it is a minor side show to the main issue. Hence the fact it does not bother me.

Flyingbogey

Gazzaputt wrote:

Water cannon would soon disperse them on a cold day like today.

I have been water cannoned and trust me it doesn't need to be cold. I was washed along the road at great speed, would have been fun if it hadn't felt like an iron bar across the body.

rick_chasey

Clever Pun wrote:

from what Whyamihere is saying

I bought a house with no help and I feel much better for it than having to go cap in hand to my parents.. yep I'm up to my eyeballs in mortgage debt but that was my choice.

It's only a choice if you can afford to have said debt in the first place.