Students
Comments
-
School reforms white paper: - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11822208
The whole school uniform, tie and traditional school houses lept out at me as pompous and out of touch.
Why are these people in power, why were they voted in. Nothing they do considers diversity or minority groups. Everything they propose appears to marginalise, overlook and outcasts those unable to fit within a system. I am really getting tired of this whole one-size fits all (Tory-One nation) approach.
I'm struggling to decide which Tory/Lib Dem I hate the most...
I miss Tony Blair, Country was such a nice place. Future promising, streets safer...Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
@gtvlusso
Did you just quote yourself, quoting yourself, quoting yourself :shock:
Yes it does tie in. I've also come across many a graduate that has no clue what they are doing, even came across a DBA once who didn't know how to write SQL :shock: at least he knew he was blaggin it, which is more than can be said for the multitude of graduates I see that believe their degree means they already know everything.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
DonDaddyD wrote:School reforms white paper: - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11822208
The whole school uniform, tie and traditional school houses lept out at me as pompous and out of touch.
My brother went to one of 'those' schools and hated it. Went to a more free thinking school and excelled.
Why are these people in power, why were they voted in. Fecking hell. Nothing they do considers diversity or minority groups. I am really getting tired of this whole one-size fits all (Tory-One nation) approach.
Uniform promotes equality - both financially and ethnically
A house promotes loyalty and support
Personally - I quite like the idea of the Steiner schools. Might be where I send junior, if I can afford it.....!0 -
DDD,
I'm pretty sure schools these day's want school uniforms because they do not wish children to be wearing too much bling and therefore avoiding they've got more money than me comparisons.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:School reforms white paper: - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11822208
The whole school uniform, tie and traditional school houses lept out at me as pompous and out of touch.
My brother went to one of 'those' schools and hated it. Went to a more free thinking school and excelled.
Why are these people in power, why were they voted in. Fecking hell. Nothing they do considers diversity or minority groups. I am really getting tired of this whole one-size fits all (Tory-One nation) approach.
DDD - I think you need to re-examine 'One nation' Conservatism. It is actually fairly inclusive and tends to be much 'nicer' than Thatcherism or the right of the Tory party.
They tend to be the type of Tories I don't mind - 'wets' such as Heath, Heseltine, Kenneth Clark etc.0 -
A graduate tax is clearly nonsense and was dropped because it is difficult to enforce and silly. I'm surprised at how many posters have proposed this.
If fees are going up then I say drop the special pleading and the nonsense about being progressive (as that will get dropped in a few years once this gets through), and let people decide for themselves. No special allowances for being 'poor' or any other reason that loads even higher fees on other people.
'Poor' people can quite legally sign credit agreements to buy cars or homes so why are suddenly considered stupid when it comes to signing up to an offer at a good Uni when the odds of earning more improve.
Instead make Universities offer a lot more transparent information (like other financial agreements) so that bad univerities offering poor course can't carry on misleading students.0 -
Sewinman wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:School reforms white paper: - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11822208
The whole school uniform, tie and traditional school houses lept out at me as pompous and out of touch.
My brother went to one of 'those' schools and hated it. Went to a more free thinking school and excelled.
Why are these people in power, why were they voted in. Fecking hell. Nothing they do considers diversity or minority groups. I am really getting tired of this whole one-size fits all (Tory-One nation) approach.
DDD - I think you need to re-examine 'One nation' Conservatism. It is actually fairly inclusive and tends to be much 'nicer' than Thatcherism or the right of the Tory party.
They tend to be the type of Tories I don't mind - 'wets' such as Heath, Heseltine, Kenneth Clark etc.
Yes yes, left side of the Tories. But the Tories approach towards socities minority groups was to clump in all together and not identify them as seperate entities but as collectively a minority group (irrespective of what type of minority).
Thatcher's approach, as is my understanding, was to almost deny the notion of any diversity groups what-so-ever.
It isn't so much Thatcher that installed an zealous loyalty to voting labour within my Grandparents. They were subjected to all that faux left sided Tory One Nation balls - which was still very right wing. By the time Thatcher came round the damage was done and the hatred deep into the marrow.
But you are right and I will read more on this.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
davmaggs wrote:A graduate tax is clearly nonsense and was dropped because it is difficult to enforce and silly. I'm surprised at how many posters have proposed this.
If fees are going up then I say drop the special pleading and the nonsense about being progressive (as that will get dropped in a few years once this gets through), and let people decide for themselves. No special allowances for being 'poor' or any other reason that loads even higher fees on other people.
'Poor' people can quite legally sign credit agreements to buy cars or homes so why are suddenly considered stupid when it comes to signing up to an offer at a good Uni when the odds of earning more improve.
Instead make Universities offer a lot more transparent information (like other financial agreements) so that bad univerities offering poor course can't carry on misleading students.
You could have just written - 'Let them eat cake'.0 -
feltkuota wrote:Sketchley,
What you have just suggested, if I'm reading this correctly, is for the employer to effectively pay for it's employees degree then, once the degree is acheived, the employee is free to take their employer paid for experience and degree elsewhere. That seems less than ideal for the employer.
Yes, but there is no difference between this and employing someone for two years and then loosing them to someone else. It's down to the employer to ensure the staff they want stay on, if they feel the need to contract a tie in the so be it. My current contract of employment says that training fees are repayable if I leave within a certain time, but this doesn't stop me leaving, my working environment and the salary I recieve does that.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sewinman wrote:
You could have just written - 'Let them eat cake'.
I think that you've got a little confused. Is a person from a poor background who is of university calibre somehow too stupid to do the sums for themselves if given the right information or is there a particular segment of IQ hindered by your parents income?0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:W1 wrote:Everyone does have the opportunity - and if the fees are at the £6k level that is likely to be average (rather than the £9k max) that's not so different to now. It's just that uni isn't right for everyone, and to encourage such numbers of people to go to do mickey mouse degrees merely (a) increases the costs and (b) increase the debt burden, for very little benefit. Or maybe they should make degrees only two years rather than three?
We don't like each other, so its almost compulsory that we disagree and then go all keyboard warrior on each other.
BUT I can dig a couple of things written here.
Making it only two years - the first year doesn't count, its like a tester to see if you like it.
£6k is still double what it costs, but making it 2years long - maybe even shorter holidays would soften maybe even sweeten the blow.
I don't agree with encouraging everyone to go but I think everyone should no that it is a viable and afforable option. The way it is being presented now is that it isn't, consider that when I was going I had a friend who said he wouldn't because of the cost (didn't want to get hit with £20,000-£30,000 debt and I don't enjoy the £200 - £300 pound they take from me each month).
Seriously chap, I'm not 12 - I don't like your verbose attention wh*ring but I don't dislike you personally.
Anyway, to you latter point - if people aren't prepared to invest in themselves then I'm not sure why the state should have to. I can appreciate the thought of the debt being bad enough to put some people off, but hopefully the idea is that you either have increased earnings (in which case you are better off, even taking into account the debt) or you don't earn enough to start paying it back - in which case it's cost you nothing. If, even on this basis, people are disuaded then that's up to them, but they can't compain that the opportunity wasn't there or wasn't realisitc for them.
The enduring and consistent theme in this thread is that trying to send everyone to uni is simply impossible and pointless. Maybe if these higher fees do reduce the numbers at university then employers will learn not to bin allcandidates who don't have degrees, regardfless of ability, which I accept happens now. Whether the current mindset can be reversed as quickly as it began I don't know.0 -
davmaggs wrote:Sewinman wrote:
You could have just written - 'Let them eat cake'.
I think that you've got a little confused. Is a person from a poor background who is of university calibre somehow too stupid to do the sums for themselves if given the right information or is there a particular segment of IQ hindered by your parents income?
I was 17 when I was applying for Uni - cost benefit analysis of my position in a decade or more was not a strong point at the time.0 -
W1 wrote:
Maybe if these higher fees do reduce the numbers at university then employers will learn not to bin all candidates who don't have degrees, regardless of ability, which I accept happens now. Whether the current mindset can be reversed as quickly as it began I don't know.
^^^^ this ^^^^^--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sewinman wrote:davmaggs wrote:Sewinman wrote:
You could have just written - 'Let them eat cake'.
I think that you've got a little confused. Is a person from a poor background who is of university calibre somehow too stupid to do the sums for themselves if given the right information or is there a particular segment of IQ hindered by your parents income?
I was 17 when I was applying for Uni - cost benefit analysis of my position in a decade or more was not a strong point at the time.
If you were 17 now looking at going to university with £9k fees would you now cosider the cost benefit in 10 years?--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
Sketchley wrote:W1 wrote:
Maybe if these higher fees do reduce the numbers at university then employers will learn not to bin all candidates who don't have degrees, regardless of ability, which I accept happens now. Whether the current mindset can be reversed as quickly as it began I don't know.
^^^^ this ^^^^^
Nope I just think the top jobs will be reserved for those with degrees and the people who can afford them.
Even now in some industries this is the case - Albeit this is often MA's.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
And at 17 you could have been in the forces a year or in some other full time job. You'd only be a year off legally being allowed to sign up to all sorts or legal agreements (with big financial consequences), or being allowed to vote or go to fight in Afghanistan.
I don't say that 17/18 year olds don't need guidance or help, or that their decision making will be right. However they are not children at 18 and if they can legally sign-up to serious contracts or dangerous occupations then they can read the figures for a university loan.
In America families know what University costs and there's a wealth of information about it from the day a child is born. It's just we in the UK are used to kids just signing up without thinking and we don't yet have decent information from Universities
PS: I don't support the rise in fees0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Sketchley wrote:W1 wrote:
Maybe if these higher fees do reduce the numbers at university then employers will learn not to bin all candidates who don't have degrees, regardless of ability, which I accept happens now. Whether the current mindset can be reversed as quickly as it began I don't know.
^^^^ this ^^^^^
Nope I just think the top jobs will be reserved for those with degrees and the people who can afford them.
Even now in some industries this is the case - Albeit this is often MA's.
How many people take top jobs without being confident in their own ability and willing to take a risk?
As I said above - this issue of "affordability" is somewhat of a smokescreen - either you earn enough to be able to afford to pay it back, or you don't have to.
Don't forget it's not free (or even cheap!) now.0 -
SerAlun, you're fired!DonDaddyD wrote:Sketchley wrote:W1 wrote:
Maybe if these higher fees do reduce the numbers at university then employers will learn not to bin all candidates who don't have degrees, regardless of ability, which I accept happens now. Whether the current mindset can be reversed as quickly as it began I don't know.
^^^^ this ^^^^^
Nope I just think the top jobs will be reserved for those with degrees and the people who can afford them.
Even now in some industries this is the case - Albeit this is often MA's.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:
Nope I just think the top jobs will be reserved for those with degrees and the people who can afford them.
Even now in some industries this is the case - Albeit this is often MA's.
Define "Top Jobs" please then we may agree.--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
davmaggs wrote:And at 17 you could have been in the forces a year or in some other full time job. You'd only be a year off legally being allowed to sign up to all sorts or legal agreements (with big financial consequences), or being allowed to vote or go to fight in Afghanistan.
I don't say that 17/18 year olds don't need guidance or help, or that their decision making will be right. However they are not children at 18
Depends on the individual.
I went when I was 20. At £6-£9k I would have been saying that was too much. Especially considering my parents paid my tuition fees and I paid my accomodation.
You see my loan couldn't cover the tuition costs. Without my parents I wouldn't have been able to go. At todays proposed costs (I suspect) they wouldn't have been able to afford to send me.
Though we shall see, my brother is 16-17 (I can firmly say that he isn't ready to measure the cost benefits in a decade or more).Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Sketchley wrote:Sewinman wrote:davmaggs wrote:Sewinman wrote:
You could have just written - 'Let them eat cake'.
I think that you've got a little confused. Is a person from a poor background who is of university calibre somehow too stupid to do the sums for themselves if given the right information or is there a particular segment of IQ hindered by your parents income?
I was 17 when I was applying for Uni - cost benefit analysis of my position in a decade or more was not a strong point at the time.
If you were 17 now looking at going to university with £9k fees would you now cosider the cost benefit in 10 years?
I was doing that earlier in the thread - given the 7.5% interest I would be paying now and 9% of my salary per month, it is a moot point whether I would still have gone down the academic path I did....and that is in hindsight. I probably would - I could not do the job I do without being Masters educated - everyone has one in my field.
I am from a pretty fortunate background and in all likelyhood my olds would have stumped up a lot of the cash, as they did for my MA (although I did get a bursary for half the fees). Those less fortunate than me would be in a mountain of debt - it does not seem fair to me when it was largely free in my day.0 -
Sketchley wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Nope I just think the top jobs will be reserved for those with degrees and the people who can afford them.
Even now in some industries this is the case - Albeit this is often MA's.
Define "Top Jobs" please then we may agree.
Director as in on the Board of Directors, 'The Council of Jedi'
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912573164
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912570711
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912578487
Obviously this is just one industry, there are others.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Sketchley wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Nope I just think the top jobs will be reserved for those with degrees and the people who can afford them.
Even now in some industries this is the case - Albeit this is often MA's.
Define "Top Jobs" please then we may agree.
Director as in on the Board of Directors, 'The Council of Jedi'
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912573164
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912570711
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912578487
Obviously this is just one industry, there are others.
Methinks if your salary is £90K you can probably afford the repayments on your degree-related debt...Rules are for fools.0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Sketchley wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Nope I just think the top jobs will be reserved for those with degrees and the people who can afford them.
Even now in some industries this is the case - Albeit this is often MA's.
Define "Top Jobs" please then we may agree.
Director as in on the Board of Directors, 'The Council of Jedi'
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912573164
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912570711
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912578487
Obviously this is just one industry, there are others.
I am a "Head of" and I don't have a degree - I am almost on a six figure salary if that gives you a better definition?! I think all of my team have degrees....although I am not sure how some of them earned their degree!
My dad - "A retired director of" - no degree and no "A" levels.
My dads mate, Mike, "A retired director of" at a top bank - no degree.
Unfortunately there are some companies that like to say that all their employees are "degree educated"....like PWC. However, it does not state what the degree must be in!
And the HR crowd just add it to job specs without thinking.....0 -
Waddlie wrote:Methinks if your salary is £90K you can probably afford the repayments on your degree-related debt...
You wouldn't know that you were going to be earning that money at the time of studying. This is why I said the very top jobs would (but I want to change the wording to 'may') still be reserved for those who could initially afford the degree and or post-grad qualification.
You don't become the Director and then do the qualifications....Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
gtvlusso wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Sketchley wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Nope I just think the top jobs will be reserved for those with degrees and the people who can afford them.
Even now in some industries this is the case - Albeit this is often MA's.
Define "Top Jobs" please then we may agree.
Director as in on the Board of Directors, 'The Council of Jedi'
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912573164
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912570711
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912578487
Obviously this is just one industry, there are others.
I am a "Head of" and I don't have a degree - I am almost on a six figure salary if that gives you a better definition?! I think all of my team have degrees....although I am not sure how some of them earned their degree!
My dad - "A retired director of" - no degree and no "A" levels.
My dads mate, Mike, "A retired director of" at a top bank - no degree.
Unfortunately there are some companies that like to say that all their employees are "degree educated"....like PWC. However, it does not state what the degree must be in!
And the HR crowd just add it to job specs without thinking.....
How old are you and when did you get your first 'Head of' position?
Absolutely agree with you but has been the case, if everyone your competeing against has the degree and MA then what sets you apart? These are the constraints I find many of my friends and generation (and younger) are up against.
Not to go all ageist which the post appears to be... isn't meant to be.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:Waddlie wrote:Methinks if your salary is £90K you can probably afford the repayments on your degree-related debt...
You wouldn't know that you were going to be earning that money at the time of studying. This is why I said the very top jobs would (but I want to change the wording to 'may') still be reserved for those who could initially afford the degree and or post-grad qualification.
You don't become the Director and then do the qualifications....
...and neither do you pay for the degree and then do the studying. You don't seem to be getting your head around the fact that you don't need to "initially afford the degree".Rules are for fools.0 -
I'm tired. i haven't even made one thread today that's bad for me.Waddlie wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Waddlie wrote:Methinks if your salary is £90K you can probably afford the repayments on your degree-related debt...
You wouldn't know that you were going to be earning that money at the time of studying. This is why I said the very top jobs would (but I want to change the wording to 'may') still be reserved for those who could initially afford the degree and or post-grad qualification.
You don't become the Director and then do the qualifications....
...and neither do you pay for the degree and then do the studying. You don't seem to be getting your head around the fact that you don't need to "initially afford the degree".
Yes I get that.
But equally you do not know that you are going to get the £90K or the £30K job to pay back the degree.
What you are faced with is £6K-£9K tuition costs, not including any living costs (which are often equal too in the grand scheme of things) and an uncertain future that might turn out alright.
What I'm saying is that at the point where you have climbed the professional ladder to apply for said director jobs you are faced with people who did get the degree and most likely post grad.
And the chances are at the time of choosing whether you go or can afford Uni, you probably don't even think 'I could be a Managing Director of...'Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
DonDaddyD wrote:gtvlusso wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:Sketchley wrote:DonDaddyD wrote:
Nope I just think the top jobs will be reserved for those with degrees and the people who can afford them.
Even now in some industries this is the case - Albeit this is often MA's.
Define "Top Jobs" please then we may agree.
Director as in on the Board of Directors, 'The Council of Jedi'
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912573164
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912570711
http://www.jobs.nhs.uk/cgi-bin/vacdetai ... =912578487
Obviously this is just one industry, there are others.
I am a "Head of" and I don't have a degree - I am almost on a six figure salary if that gives you a better definition?! I think all of my team have degrees....although I am not sure how some of them earned their degree!
My dad - "A retired director of" - no degree and no "A" levels.
My dads mate, Mike, "A retired director of" at a top bank - no degree.
Unfortunately there are some companies that like to say that all their employees are "degree educated"....like PWC. However, it does not state what the degree must be in!
And the HR crowd just add it to job specs without thinking.....
How old are you and when did you get your first 'Head of' position?
Absolutely agree with you but has been the case, if everyone your competeing against has the degree and MA then what sets you apart? These are the constraints I find many of my friends and generation (and younger) are up against.
Not to go all ageist which the post appears to be... isn't meant to be.
I am 35. My first head of was at 32.....0
