Tuition fee vote passed

softlad

MattC59 wrote:

So if, fo some reason, a graduate doesn't manage to elevate their earnings to above the threshold, with in the 30 years, they don't pay it back.

as a matter of interest - in situations like that, who will end up paying the bill..? The amount will be on a ledger somewhere, so will have to be accounted for sooner or later....

shouldbeinbed

Rick Chasey wrote:

The youth is nowhere near responsible for the recession, yet they're the ones who will bear the burden to sort it out , so why not give them a break?

I'm nowhere near responsible for this recession either yet am suffering pay cut & freeze reduced pension payout for which I'll have to work longer and have no idea if the reviews going on will let me keep my job in 6 months time and thats only the start. All with mortgage and children to consider and if I do lose my job I'll be going onto a much reduced benefits systm than my 20+ years of employment has funded for others. I'd love to have the campaign profile and be able to call upon rent a mob to be bussed about the place to protest but unfortunately I can't.

You want me to bear the already heavy burden I'm being saddled with through no fault of my or my loved ones own and pick up the burden of other people for their lifestyle and training CHOICE. I'd support such protests if it was against the loss of EMA that really is the difference between keeping £poor in education or forcing them out before uni even becomes a consideration. Education is a right, spot on, but university tuition has always been a choice and sadly one which this government has decided will have to pay its way with more pain and differently from now on, just like the rest of us.
Fair play to the students who have so little responsibility to their work and other people that they can swan off at a moments notice to a week long sit in or have someone pay to bus them up and down the country to wave placards and kick off but I think the ones everyone is getting so upset about probably aren't there, they're the ones with night jobs or families needing them there to financially support or provide care and too taken up with the rest of life to be running around the streets claiming to be in some way uniquely victimised in this financial assault we are all currently and going to continue to be enduring.
It is naive and the violent confrontatonal attitude is not going down well with those of us with a more pragmatic grasp on the realities of what this coalition is forcing onto all of us and what was already in the pipeline expecting a landslide win; Whether it is right or not or the best way of helping maximise the coffers is academic - no pun intended.

Jez mon

softlad wrote:

University is over-rated - always has been. Some of the most useless people I have ever worked with had very good degrees.....some of those degrees were even in a relevant subject...

Yep, whenever I fly I always feel that I'd be just as safe, if rather than using qualified engineers to do stress/fatigue/CFD etc the design had been put together by a load of people off the street, based on what felt right to them. Same as when I get ill, why get a doctor to diagnose my symptoms, I'll just read up on wikipedia...

University doesn't totally sort wheat from chaf, but calling it over rated because you know a small amount of people that went yet don't shine brilliantly is just silly.

MattC59

softlad wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

So if, fo some reason, a graduate doesn't manage to elevate their earnings to above the threshold, with in the 30 years, they don't pay it back.

as a matter of interest - in situations like that, who will end up paying the bill..? The amount will be on a ledger somewhere, so will have to be accounted for sooner or later....

The tax payer.

MattC59

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The youth is nowhere near responsible for the recession, yet they're the ones who will bear the burden to sort it out , so why not give them a break?

I'm nowhere near responsible for this recession either yet am suffering pay cut & freeze reduced pension payout for which I'll have to work longer and have no idea if the reviews going on will let me keep my job in 6 months time and thats only the start. All with mortgage and children to consider and if I do lose my job I'll be going onto a much reduced benefits systm than my 20+ years of employment has funded for others. I'd love to have the campaign profile and be able to call upon rent a mob to be bussed about the place to protest but unfortunately I can't.

You want me to bear the already heavy burden I'm being saddled with through no fault of my or my loved ones own and pick up the burden of other people for their lifestyle and training CHOICE. I'd support such protests if it was against the loss of EMA that really is the difference between keeping £poor in education or forcing them out before uni even becomes a consideration. Education is a right, spot on, but university tuition has always been a choice and sadly one which this government has decided will have to pay its way with more pain and differently from now on, just like the rest of us.
Fair play to the students who have so little responsibility to their work and other people that they can swan off at a moments notice to a week long sit in or have someone pay to bus them up and down the country to wave placards and kick off but I think the ones everyone is getting so upset about probably aren't there, they're the ones with night jobs or families needing them there to financially support or provide care and too taken up with the rest of life to be running around the streets claiming to be in some way uniquely victimised in this financial assault we are all currently and going to continue to be enduring.
It is naive and the violent confrontatonal attitude is not going down well with those of us with a more pragmatic grasp on the realities of what this coalition is forcing onto all of us and what was already in the pipeline expecting a landslide win; Whether it is right or not or the best way of helping maximise the coffers is academic - no pun intended.

Extremely well put ! Bravo !!

Anonymous

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The youth is nowhere near responsible for the recession, yet they're the ones who will bear the burden to sort it out , so why not give them a break?

I'm nowhere near responsible for this recession either yet am suffering pay cut & freeze reduced pension payout for which I'll have to work longer and have no idea if the reviews going on will let me keep my job in 6 months time and thats only the start. All with mortgage and children to consider and if I do lose my job I'll be going onto a much reduced benefits systm than my 20+ years of employment has funded for others. I'd love to have the campaign profile and be able to call upon rent a mob to be bussed about the place to protest but unfortunately I can't.

You want me to bear the already heavy burden I'm being saddled with through no fault of my or my loved ones own and pick up the burden of other people for their lifestyle and training CHOICE. I'd support such protests if it was against the loss of EMA that really is the difference between keeping £poor in education or forcing them out before uni even becomes a consideration. Education is a right, spot on, but university tuition has always been a choice and sadly one which this government has decided will have to pay its way with more pain and differently from now on, just like the rest of us.
Fair play to the students who have so little responsibility to their work and other people that they can swan off at a moments notice to a week long sit in or have someone pay to bus them up and down the country to wave placards and kick off but I think the ones everyone is getting so upset about probably aren't there, they're the ones with night jobs or families needing them there to financially support or provide care and too taken up with the rest of life to be running around the streets claiming to be in some way uniquely victimised in this financial assault we are all currently and going to continue to be enduring.
It is naive and the violent confrontatonal attitude is not going down well with those of us with a more pragmatic grasp on the realities of what this coalition is forcing onto all of us and what was already in the pipeline expecting a landslide win; Whether it is right or not or the best way of helping maximise the coffers is academic - no pun intended.

Can I pretend I just wrote this please?

rick_chasey

Should be in bed - you're taking what I said out of context.

It makes more sense if you take it with the context. Where the burden should be.

My response to you is the following - I am framing this in generational terms.

You may not personally be responsible, but your generation is.

Your generation will also not bear the full brunt of the burden. The generation who will be affected by the fees will.

Surely you want the future, which will ultimately look after you, to have the best chance possible? Rather than letting the guys I headhunt continue about with only minor inconveniences about deferring their 6 or 7 figure salaries.

As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?

MattC59

Rick Chasey wrote:

As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?

What a crock of sh*t !!!!!! You've put together some reasonable argument so far, but did you honestly think before you wrote that ?!?!?! :roll: You've let yourelf down with that one.........

rick_chasey

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?

What a crock of sh*t !!!!!! Did you honestly think before you wrote that ?!?!?! :roll:

It's not incorrect is it?

It's not what people want to hear.


He very well may keep the job, in which case it's fine, and indeed good! - but having mortgage payments is not a conducive argument to "i am already burdened" since that was the issue in the first place.

MattC59

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?

What a crock of sh*t !!!!!! Did you honestly think before you wrote that ?!?!?! :roll:

It's not incorrect is it?

It's not what people want to hear.


He very well may keep the job, in which case it's fine, and indeed good! - but having mortgage payments is not a conducive argument to "i am already burdened" since that was the issue in the first place.

:roll:
Let yourself down with that one too............

finchy

I only hold people responsible for the mortgage fiasco if they thought about the value of their house while giving themself a handjob.

simonaspinall

johnfinch wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

I don't see what they have to complain about. As stated in some of the posts above it will not bar anyone from going to university no matter how poor they are.

I know quite a few people who went or are going to uni and quite frankly more than a few are a bit on the thick side. Aiming to get 50% of school levers to go on to university and often waste their time (how many drop out?) is ridiculous when we are having to bring in immigrants because we do not have enough trades people of out own. College and a course in plumbing or hairdressing would do many of them more good.

You make it sound like there are only two options - charge higher tuition fees or carry on at the current level.

What about the suggestion of fewer people going to university and convert all of the new ones back to polytechnics teaching useful skills - go back to a pre-1980s arrangement? That's what I'm in favour of.

+ another 1

Politicians and the Browne review completely missed the point.

People are going to uni because they are afraid not to go - there is no credible alternative.

So many previously non-uni subjects have been converted into uni degrees which should not be there so where else can they go?

Uni should be about going to study an academic subject which requires guidance and mentoring from an academic expert in the subject with lectures and tutorials.

What needs to be made 'normal' is the idea that not going to uni doesn't make you a failure, less intelligent or less employable. Creating an 11+ style system at 16 would be far superior to the current system. At 16 you should go onto to do A-levels in academic subjects then university or the beginnings of apprenticeship at the local technical college, then at 18 you can continue to learn for another 3 years to become a 'master apprentice' or 'trades person'. Like an advanced city and guilds qualification. These would include vocational subjects such as cooking, hairdressing, electrical engineering and accountantcy as well as more contemporary trades such as computer-graphic design, computer programming, web design, motor mechanics etc. Why you would need to do a degree in these is beyond me? It's not that they are in way easy or less demanding. Can you imagine the quality of tradesmen if they have been attending courses in their industry for 5 years? Start off with the basic skills then continue to advanced practice, backed up with in the field experience and then business skills such as how to manage accounts, tax, employer/employee rights and legal stuff.

The outcome would be a skilled job market in respected, trade-worthy skills and experience, which would command similar wages to academic graduates - in fact the advanced 3 year period could include sponsorship from a company to increase the contribution from businesses and a business would have a ready stream of decent young workers.

This would address the route cause of the inflated student population, the funding crisis, the skills gap in the job market, the demand from the tax payer and social mobility across class divides.

I'm pretty shocked the government did raise the fees. There are so many measures they could've put in place but of course being Tories they went for the money option. Disappointing, short-sighted and the worst of individualism.

nolf

Rick Chasey wrote:

RichN95 wrote:

A few days ago, in a group meeting at work (all science/engineering graduates), someone asked if anyone knew anyone personally who had an 'arts' degree who had a high paying job (50k+ as some in the room were earning).

No-one did, except me (one went to Eton and Oxford (1st class), possibly MI6, and the other worked his way up from the cold call phone room)

I can name plenty.

Annecdotal evidence means sh!t.

Hell, I earn more than all my friends, arts and science/engineering grads and I graduated within the last 3 years with a History degree.

+1.
I know a fair few consultants, lawyers, senior managers, a CFO, FD and a CEO who started as History grads.
Therefore all of the best graduates are history graduates. Right?

danny_d

Personally I think it disgraceful that these ‘students’ should even contemplate objecting to the rise in tuition fees, why should their education be subsidised by us taxpayers? After all its not as if society as a whole would benefit from having a well educated, skilled and adaptable workforce and I am sure that Japan, South Korea and now China would all have experienced the same level of development over the last few decades even if they hadn’t spent up to 30% of government spending on education. Just as I’m sure that places like the Czech Republic would still have attracted foreign investment even if their workers were unskilled. And as for all that research by Prof Mark Blaug – well, statistics can prove anything, can’t they? And even if that stuff was true and not just propaganda, why would we need to worry about UK’s future wealth? After all we have all paid enough into our pension plans not to need to rely on the younger generation to create enough wealth in the future to support us as well as themselves. Haven’t we?
Anyway they won’t have to start repaying until later and although the interest debt will be building at a rate currently three times the charge on my mortgage many of them will live long enough to pay it off. In any case they have a choice. No one is going to force them to accept relatively low paid jobs like teaching, social work or the health services. This country desperately needs more bankers and management consultants if we are to compete in the world market. Or they could simply emigrate.
And as for these appalling demonstrations. These rioters act as if the media has presented a one sided case. I can personally vouch for the BBC in its unflinching efforts to justify the case for an increase in fees. Why on earth would anyone feel they are unable to present their viewpoint without taking the sort of action that would cause these awful headlines I keep reading? Our police have done a fantastic job in handling these yobbos. I personally look forward to seeing another group of children imprisoned for several hours in a human stockade. Serves them right!

nolf

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?

What a crock of sh*t !!!!!! You've put together some reasonable argument so far, but did you honestly think before you wrote that ?!?!?! :roll: You've let yourelf down with that one.........

Rick's right....
The financial crisis derived from homeowners buying houses at 100%+ mortgages.
When house prices fell this left them with negative equity, and if you then lost a job, or had income reductions, you went insolvent, often followed by bankruptcy.

Banks placed a bet that house prices were stable/would rise, and that left them vulnerable to drops in house prices. A lot of UK homeowners have used property as a form of speculative investment, basing their spending (re-mortgages, equity releases etc), on the assumption that house prices will rise forever.
Thats what caused the financial crash.

morstar

simonaspinall wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Smokin Joe wrote:

I don't see what they have to complain about. As stated in some of the posts above it will not bar anyone from going to university no matter how poor they are.

I know quite a few people who went or are going to uni and quite frankly more than a few are a bit on the thick side. Aiming to get 50% of school levers to go on to university and often waste their time (how many drop out?) is ridiculous when we are having to bring in immigrants because we do not have enough trades people of out own. College and a course in plumbing or hairdressing would do many of them more good.

You make it sound like there are only two options - charge higher tuition fees or carry on at the current level.

What about the suggestion of fewer people going to university and convert all of the new ones back to polytechnics teaching useful skills - go back to a pre-1980s arrangement? That's what I'm in favour of.

+ another 1

Politicians and the Browne review completely missed the point.

People are going to uni because they are afraid not to go - there is no credible alternative.

So many previously non-uni subjects have been converted into uni degrees which should not be there so where else can they go?

Uni should be about going to study an academic subject which requires guidance and mentoring from an academic expert in the subject with lectures and tutorials.

What needs to be made 'normal' is the idea that not going to uni doesn't make you a failure, less intelligent or less employable. Creating an 11+ style system at 16 would be far superior to the current system. At 16 you should go onto to do A-levels in academic subjects then university or the beginnings of apprenticeship at the local technical college, then at 18 you can continue to learn for another 3 years to become a 'master apprentice' or 'trades person'. Like an advanced city and guilds qualification. These would include vocational subjects such as cooking, hairdressing, electrical engineering and accountantcy as well as more contemporary trades such as computer-graphic design, computer programming, web design, motor mechanics etc. Why you would need to do a degree in these is beyond me? It's not that they are in way easy or less demanding. Can you imagine the quality of tradesmen if they have been attending courses in their industry for 5 years? Start off with the basic skills then continue to advanced practice, backed up with in the field experience and then business skills such as how to manage accounts, tax, employer/employee rights and legal stuff.

The outcome would be a skilled job market in respected, trade-worthy skills and experience, which would command similar wages to academic graduates - in fact the advanced 3 year period could include sponsorship from a company to increase the contribution from businesses and a business would have a ready stream of decent young workers.

This would address the route cause of the inflated student population, the funding crisis, the skills gap in the job market, the demand from the tax payer and social mobility across class divides.

I'm pretty shocked the government did raise the fees. There are so many measures they could've put in place but of course being Tories they went for the money option. Disappointing, short-sighted and the worst of individualism.

+ 1. Well put, thank you.

Danny_D. do I detect the merest hint of sarcasm???

Pross

Anyone else watch BBC Breakfast this morning? The woman from UCL is the reason I have very little sympathy for the student's cause. She had a perfect opportunity to condemn the minority responsible for the violence and vandalism but instead criticised the media for "failing to report the important part of the story and concentrate on the violence". Surely if the students had protested peacefully then the media would have had to report on the vote and issues as their main story? She then went on to blame the police for the violence - I suspect that the police would have been quite happy to have supervised a peaceful demonstration but when they are getting attacked, pulled from horses and bombarded with missiles how are they supposed to react? I also felt the royal protection officers showed remarkable restrain - they could have very easily treated the attack on Charlie's car as a real threat and drawn weapons, I don't think the idiots involved appreciated the risk they were running. Can you imagine how the Secret Service would have reacted if that had been a President's car?

Fortunately there was a bit more sense shown later in a debate with the Vice President of the NUS and a student on each side of the argument which showed that at least some students are capable of reasoned debate and recognising right from wrong. They even seemed to appreciate that the changes have made allowance to help the poorest and that no fees are payable up front (as they are at present).

We are all having to make sacrifices and it's time that some of these people started to realise that they are adults now and also have to contribute to their futures. Although I suspect that the woman from UCL will be a life long student and "activist".

redddraggon

Tuition Fee vote passed, oh well.

All that would have meant if I was 6 or 7 years younger was I would have gone to a Welsh University.

finchy

Pross wrote:

Anyone else watch BBC Breakfast this morning? The woman from UCL is the reason I have very little sympathy for the student's cause.

There are hundreds of thousands of students in this country. They can't all be condemned because of yesterday's violence or one woman on TV.

StillGoing

shouldbeinbed wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

The youth is nowhere near responsible for the recession, yet they're the ones who will bear the burden to sort it out , so why not give them a break?

I'm nowhere near responsible for this recession either yet am suffering pay cut & freeze reduced pension payout for which I'll have to work longer and have no idea if the reviews going on will let me keep my job in 6 months time and thats only the start. All with mortgage and children to consider and if I do lose my job I'll be going onto a much reduced benefits systm than my 20+ years of employment has funded for others. I'd love to have the campaign profile and be able to call upon rent a mob to be bussed about the place to protest but unfortunately I can't.

You want me to bear the already heavy burden I'm being saddled with through no fault of my or my loved ones own and pick up the burden of other people for their lifestyle and training CHOICE. I'd support such protests if it was against the loss of EMA that really is the difference between keeping £poor in education or forcing them out before uni even becomes a consideration. Education is a right, spot on, but university tuition has always been a choice and sadly one which this government has decided will have to pay its way with more pain and differently from now on, just like the rest of us.
Fair play to the students who have so little responsibility to their work and other people that they can swan off at a moments notice to a week long sit in or have someone pay to bus them up and down the country to wave placards and kick off but I think the ones everyone is getting so upset about probably aren't there, they're the ones with night jobs or families needing them there to financially support or provide care and too taken up with the rest of life to be running around the streets claiming to be in some way uniquely victimised in this financial assault we are all currently and going to continue to be enduring.
It is naive and the violent confrontatonal attitude is not going down well with those of us with a more pragmatic grasp on the realities of what this coalition is forcing onto all of us and what was already in the pipeline expecting a landslide win; Whether it is right or not or the best way of helping maximise the coffers is academic - no pun intended.

How very true. IF anyone thinks it would be better under a further Labour government or Lib Dem one, seriously, think again.

EKIMIKE

I think Rick has touched on a very valid point in so much as secondary schools advise with complete and utter conviction you must go to university if you are to be in any way successful in life. With regard to yesterdays decision, there surely has to be a policy change for secondary schools.

As for the younger generation getting a bad deal - that may be true but i think many of my generation need a kick in the teeth in order to change their attitude. The attitude i'm referring to is the 'me', 'i', self righteous, individualist consumer view on life that's been passed down from the previous generation of greedy parents obsessed with property, salaries, material wealth and bettering everyone else.

Is it any co-incidence that the student protest i witnessed last week was made up of signs and placards which on the whole began with 'I' or the ones which first addressed the status of the placard holder before asserting any message of activism - e.g. and i quote " PHD student says no to cuts, no to fee's". As if it serves as anything more than a status 'grab' to identify yourself as a PHD student on a protest placard. Self-obsessed twats.

As for this: "You want me to bear the already heavy burden I'm being saddled with through no fault of my or my loved ones own and pick up the burden of other people for their lifestyle and training CHOICE"

If you're of such an age to have a house and kids then you are, no-doubt, of the generation who could have gone to university for free. Bear that in mind. Now consider the contrast of £40k of debt before you even have to opportunity to have kids or get a mortgage. How about that for a burden. How about your lifestyle choices. Kids, Mortgage. Was all this based on the thesis of 100% job security, steady economic growth and stable economic conditions? The wonderful prosperity of the early 2000's? Then the reality hits and it simply isn't fair.

Forgive me, i'm not having a go (i just want to illustrate my point) but it's almost identical to the situation that faces many young people who will go to university in the next few years. Why should they be penalised with £27k tuition fee's when all they've done is work within the confines of an education system that is 100% focussed on seeing as many students as possible go into university education. You talk about lifestyle CHOICE. How about your choice as an educated, employed man of decent age to get a burdensome mortgage compared to the choice of a 16 year old to choose a career path. I think it's pretty obvious which person should take the burden.

All i'm saying is let's not bring in some mass penal tuition fee system just because it's easy to do so. As i said of your situation - it simply isn't fair.

StillGoing

Rick Chasey wrote:

As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?

I have never read such twaddle. We obtain mortgages within our means and because we lose our jobs and pensions as a result of a Labour government policy of selling the gold reserves and not getting a grip of the banks earlier, it's our fault and we're living beyond our means? I sense the smell of Trotskyism. What's mine is your's comrade and what's your's you keep. You get my hard earned income and I get from you exactly what?

How about universitis get paid on results. You pass your worthwhile subject they get paid. You fail and they haven't highlighted the fact that you aren't runing up for lectures, never submit work on time, stink and always falling asleep in class, they don't get paid. There should be a cut off for them to turn around and tell you you aren't pulling your weight so off you go to MacDonalds. And you pick up the bill for what it has cost so far.

Tom Butcher

One thing some forget is that for many people 25 years ago university was not a choice they could make - because back then it was far harder to actually get into university. There are some potential students now who are faced with building up a debt to get what some in the past got for free - there are others who wouldn't have had a sniff of going to university back then so their situation is no worse in that respect - and possibly a little better as at least they now have an option.

THe thing that comes out of all these debates is that however it is funded - the current situation of sending huge numbers of young people off to study whatever course they want almost irrespective of their actual interest or ability (up to a point) doesn't serve the country or those individuals well.

Thick Tester

Lets face it. The reason we're in this mess and students who are facing the increase of this magintutde is because the Physics graduates who designed the mathematical forumulae for packaging CDO's and other securitised products got it wrong and passed them on to other irresponsible graduates.

EKIMIKE

Tom Butcher wrote:

THe thing that comes out of all these debates is that however it is funded - the current situation of sending huge numbers of young people off to study whatever course they want almost irrespective of their actual interest or ability (up to a point) doesn't serve the country or those individuals well.

Amen to that.

Education should serve a purpose, have an end result. A skilled workforce. A vibrant society. An able academic community (teachers). Our education systems has this, but with a massive off-cutting of debt and unskilled people.

Pross

johnfinch wrote:

Pross wrote:

Anyone else watch BBC Breakfast this morning? The woman from UCL is the reason I have very little sympathy for the student's cause.

There are hundreds of thousands of students in this country. They can't all be condemned because of yesterday's violence or one woman on TV.

I believe that she was the NUS President for UCL or some such title. As such she has been elected by thousands of students and is presumably mandated to speak on her behalf. Therefore if she does not represent the views of her "constituents" they should offer a vote of no confidence in her.

MattC59

nolf wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?

What a crock of sh*t !!!!!! You've put together some reasonable argument so far, but did you honestly think before you wrote that ?!?!?! :roll: You've let yourelf down with that one.........

Rick's right....
The financial crisis derived from homeowners buying houses at 100%+ mortgages.
When house prices fell this left them with negative equity, and if you then lost a job, or had income reductions, you went insolvent, often followed by bankruptcy.

Banks placed a bet that house prices were stable/would rise, and that left them vulnerable to drops in house prices. A lot of UK homeowners have used property as a form of speculative investment, basing their spending (re-mortgages, equity releases etc), on the assumption that house prices will rise forever.
Thats what caused the financial crash.

Wrong.
The issue was with Sub-primes. ie lending to someone who can't afford to make the repayments. A 100% mortgage doesn't constitute a risk*, as long as the individual can make the repayments. (*All mortgages constitute risk, just at different levels)
Someone with a job, who can afford re-payments, but is then made redundant is not a sub prime. If that was the case, everyone who ever had a mortgage would be considered sub-prime.
The problem is down to poor decision making. ie deciding to lend to someone who clearly can't make repayments.

finchy

philthy3 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As for your mortage - wasn't that part of the whole credit crisis anyway? People who took on mortgages they ended up not being able to pay back? If you lose your job you'll be a sub-primer if you're not able to pay it back. Having a mortage you may not pay back? Isn't that living beyond your means..?

I have never read such twaddle. We obtain mortgages within our means and because we lose our jobs and pensions as a result of a Labour government policy of selling the gold reserves and not getting a grip of the banks earlier, it's our fault and we're living beyond our means? I sense the smell of Trotskyism. What's mine is your's comrade and what's your's you keep. You get my hard earned income and I get from you exactly what?

Troskyism? Communists believe that the workers should own the fruits of their own labour, what's Trotsky got to do with this?

philthy3 wrote:

How about universitis get paid on results. You pass your worthwhile subject they get paid. You fail and they haven't highlighted the fact that you aren't runing up for lectures, never submit work on time, stink and always falling asleep in class, they don't get paid. There should be a cut off for them to turn around and tell you you aren't pulling your weight so off you go to MacDonalds. And you pick up the bill for what it has cost so far.

To pass your degree you need to get 40%. Even the laziest of students should be able to manage that, but I agree with you in principle.

finchy

Pross wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Pross wrote:

Anyone else watch BBC Breakfast this morning? The woman from UCL is the reason I have very little sympathy for the student's cause.

There are hundreds of thousands of students in this country. They can't all be condemned because of yesterday's violence or one woman on TV.

I believe that she was the NUS President for UCL or some such title. As such she has been elected by thousands of students and is presumably mandated to speak on her behalf. Therefore if she does not represent the views of her "constituents" they should offer a vote of no confidence in her.

I would bet that most of the students at UCL don't even know she's been on TV. And being at a traditional university, they probably have other things to do with their time other than arranging votes of no confidence.

andyrm

EKIMIKE wrote:

Amen to that.

Education should serve a purpose, have an end result. A skilled workforce. A vibrant society. An able academic community (teachers). Our education systems has this, but with a massive off-cutting of debt and unskilled people.

Exactly. University is meant to be about making a conscious (some would say first proper adult step) decision to embark on a path of self improvement. Improving one's situation requires work and investment.

So a £21-25k nominal debt (that has been confirmed will NOT be included in assessments for the likes of mortgage applications etc) to generate a £100k average lifetime salary increase is actually a bl**dy good deal. I don't know many deals in any walk of life where you can get a 400-500% ROI.

A university education shouldn't just be an excuse to take advantage of 3 easy years, cheap beer and "learning to survive" - it should be a serious undertaking to improve your life.

I worked all the way through uni to pay my own way, both my sisters did as well and guess what? The work ethic instilled in us by our parents and the understanding that the world owes us nothing and that we have no rights other than food, water and shelter have stood us all in good stead, with a company director, a private physio and a CERN research physicist the outcomes. These students (and the firebrands lying to them about what they should "expect" as their "rights") really need to get a grip and come to terms with the fact nothing comes for free.