Rich to buy University Places

CiB

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

rhext

CiB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

(how long will it take to pay back £27,000 and how much are the instalments - not taking into any consderation student overdrafts, credit cards or other loans the students or parents may need to take out....)

I do wish people would understand - or at least not misrepresent - the concept of student fees. It's not like a loan to buy a sports car that you otherwise couldn't afford; it's an advance from the govt to pay the fees on your behalf; when you eventually earn a salary above around £22k (IIRC) you then pay a slightly higher rate of tax.

+1. Love it or hate it, the government have put forward a scheme where repayments are from future earnings, are only necessary when the £22K threshold is passed, and are proportional to earnings above that threshold. IMHO the only 'barrier' that this creates for the poor is when people who don't understand the scheme tell them how difficult it's going to be. But then I could argue that if they can't work that out for themselves, then maybe University isn't the place for them....!

lost_in_thought

rhext wrote:

CiB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

(how long will it take to pay back £27,000 and how much are the instalments - not taking into any consderation student overdrafts, credit cards or other loans the students or parents may need to take out....)

I do wish people would understand - or at least not misrepresent - the concept of student fees. It's not like a loan to buy a sports car that you otherwise couldn't afford; it's an advance from the govt to pay the fees on your behalf; when you eventually earn a salary above around £22k (IIRC) you then pay a slightly higher rate of tax.

+1. Love it or hate it, the government have put forward a scheme where repayments are from future earnings, are only necessary when the £22K threshold is passed, and are proportional to earnings above that threshold. IMHO the only 'barrier' that this creates for the poor is when people who don't understand the scheme tell them how difficult it's going to be. But then I could argue that if they can't work that out for themselves, then maybe University isn't the place for them....!

+1 to all the above.

davmaggs

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

Good point, why on earth is anyone spending time thinking through finances, regulation or altering the entry system or worrying about others. They are wasting their time. Everyone stop posting, a grammatical error has been made

CiB

davmaggs wrote:

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

Good point, why on earth is anyone spending time thinking through finances, regulation or altering the entry system or worrying about others. They are wasting their time. Everyone stop posting, a grammatical error has been made

Tw@t.

lost_in_thought

CiB wrote:

davmaggs wrote:

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

Good point, why on earth is anyone spending time thinking through finances, regulation or altering the entry system or worrying about others. They are wasting their time. Everyone stop posting, a grammatical error has been made

Tw@t.

Considering @ = at, was the t at the end of that really necessary?

:P

PBo

CiB wrote:

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) *yes it is.

go on then explain this please.....

rick_chasey

The problem is, the free market is a poor decider when it comes to what is beneficial to society, and what education is beneficial.

By making students pay for education, however it is structured, you are allowing the free market to decide what is good and what isn't < that's a problem.

CiB

Plus which the plan has been dropped. David Willets announced at lunchtime that the proposals would only apply to students being sponsored by an employer or a charity.

Rich toff parents won't be allowed to dip into their top hats to extract the 15 grand a year to pay for Rupert's school fees after all. Hurrah. At least life will carry on being fair again then, for which we can only be thankful as fairness is all that matters these days.

Back on your heads lads. The show's over. Nothing more to argue about.

DonDaddyD

CIB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

You are absolutely right.

I don't think these people should go either.

:roll:

CIB wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

:
(how long will it take to pay back £27,000 and how much are the instalments - not taking into any consderation student overdrafts, credit cards or other loans the students or parents may need to take out....)

I do wish people would understand - or at least not misrepresent - the concept of student fees. It's not like a loan to buy a sports car that you otherwise couldn't afford; it's an advance from the govt to pay the fees on your behalf; when you eventually earn a salary above around £22k (IIRC) you then pay a slightly higher rate of tax.

Student Loan is a debt. At £9K a year it will be £27,000 (assuming the student doesn't apply for a hardship fund) you have to pay back with interest. Money is taken out of your salary each month. It does have an impact. When you earn more you have to pay back more.

So assuming the graduate earns £30k how long will it take to pay back and how much will the instalments be? The question stands.

PBo

CiB wrote:

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) *yes it is.

go on then explain this please.....

kieranb

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

That is quite funny. Maybe people are just rapidly firing off postings without checking there grammar as they're not too bothered?

CiB

PBo wrote:

CiB wrote:

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) *yes it is.

go on then explain this please.....

Oh. Ok, for the hard-of-understanding, let's parse this phrase.

Say what you like about grammar nazis - The term Grammar Nazi is a popular term of abuse on the web, used by the semi-literate to defend themselves when their weak spelling, punctuation and or grammar is highlighted.

( I are one*) - I'm proud to be a grammar nazi, even though I rarely flag basic or comedic attempts at spelling, punctuation and or grammar as it's just not worth it most of the time. It was in this context due to the subject under discussion.

*yes it is. - The asterisk is a common mechanism used in written English to draw the reader's eye to a footnote or explanatory comment further down the page. I used it here to make it clear that the phrase "I are one" was an ironic reference to being an apparent illiterate grammar nazi, which clearly isn't the case.

There. Wasn't too difficult was it?

Sewinman

CiB wrote:

I do wish people would understand - or at least not misrepresent - the concept of student fees. It's not like a loan to buy a sports car that you otherwise couldn't afford; it's an advance from the govt to pay the fees on your behalf; when you eventually earn a salary above around £22k (IIRC) you then pay a slightly higher rate of tax.

I would not call it an 'advance' when they charge interest at RPI plus 3%.Of course, such interest would not apply if Daddy pays up front.

rhext

DonDaddyD wrote:

So assuming the graduate earns £30k how long will it take to pay back and how much will the instalments be? The question stands.

This handy web site will help you with the answer to that question:

www.google.co.uk

PBo

CiB wrote:

PBo wrote:

CiB wrote:

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) *yes it is.

go on then explain this please.....

Oh. Ok, for the hard-of-understanding, let's parse this phrase.

Say what you like about grammar nazis - The term Grammar Nazi is a popular term of abuse on the web, used by the semi-literate to defend themselves when their weak spelling, punctuation and or grammar is highlighted.

( I are one*) - I'm proud to be a grammar nazi, even though I rarely flag basic or comedic attempts at spelling, punctuation and or grammar as it's just not worth it most of the time. It was in this context due to the subject under discussion.

*yes it is. - The asterisk is a common mechanism used in written English to draw the reader's eye to a footnote or explanatory comment further down the page. I used it here to make it clear that the phrase "I are one" was an ironic reference to being an apparent illiterate grammar nazi, which clearly isn't the case.

There. Wasn't too difficult was it?

To be fair, a wink after "(I are one)" would have been much more effective as your asterisk to (yes it is) in fact reads as some smug uber grammer Nazi knowledge about some arcane special case of using "are" with "I".

Only thing smugger was your patronising response. Oh, actually, no - that falls far short of the smugness needed to proclaim that perfect grammar - on the interwebs no less - is a prerequisite to further education.....

DonDaddyD

I pay around £200 a month to pay back my tuition fees, 'Government advance'*, loan, lending or helping a brother out....

It's still debt that I owe.

The amount I pay back is a percentage of the outstanding amount with said percentage determined by my salary.

What I don't think has ever been acknowledged is whether you can borrow upto £9k from the student loans company. Because they raised tuition fees to £9k. No one said the Student Loans company (and by extension) the Government were lending students £9k. - I'm reposting this.

And before the po'faces try to shoot me down.

My Student Loan paid for my accommodation because it didn't cover my tuition fees. I have had to pay back £15k (hardship loans included).

My parents paid my actual tuition fees. Something that many poorer people wouldn't be able to do.

I had a £1.8k overdraft and student credit cards.

My experience and perspective on this I think is valid.




*"Government advance" that's hilarious....

davmaggs

Sewinman wrote:

CiB wrote:

I do wish people would understand - or at least not misrepresent - the concept of student fees. It's not like a loan to buy a sports car that you otherwise couldn't afford; it's an advance from the govt to pay the fees on your behalf; when you eventually earn a salary above around £22k (IIRC) you then pay a slightly higher rate of tax.

I would not call it an 'advance' when they charge interest at RPI plus 3%.Of course, such interest would not apply if Daddy pays up front.

The business case seems to be built on the concept of it not being paid off in a lump or early. Again, this aspect hasn't been thought through and is really woolly as shown by the hurried statements about charging exit fees if people tried to leave early.

It is in short a tax by another name. If it were a loan you could pay if off early or borrow elsewhere.

PS part that really really annoys me is that commentators repeat the line about not paying it back until you earn over X amount, but never mention the compound interest.

DonDaddyD

What I don't think has ever been acknowledged

Can you borrow upto £9k from the student loans company. They [the Government i.e. 'The Man'] raised tuition fees to £9k. No one said the Student Loans company (and by extension) the Government were lending students £9k.

People just assume that you can borrow £9k a year to go to Uni and that'll cover the costs of tuition. That's not the case.

In my case the money I was allowed to borrow didn't cover the costs of my tuition fees.

For many reasons £9k a year isn't appealing to most. And now rich people can just buy a place I think the 'great unwashed' are being put at a huge disadvantage.

rhext wrote:

This handy web site will help you with the answer to that question:

www.google.co.uk

Thank you, but how is this helpful to the conversation?

bails87

Paying back £200 a month? D(D(D))'s doing alright for himself

sketchley

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

Considering that no part of my degree course included grammar you sir are talking b0ll0cks.

sketchley

rhext wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

So assuming the graduate earns £30k how long will it take to pay back and how much will the instalments be? The question stands.

This handy web site will help you with the answer to that question:

www.google.co.uk

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=student+loan+repayments+uk

CiB

Sketchley wrote:

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

Considering that no part of my degree course included grammar you sir are talking b0ll0cks.

I wasn't bothering with this thread any more as it's veered off into whether student fees are valid or not, but this one requires a response.

To be clear, we're now in the position that someone is entitled to call themselves 'Educated to Degree Level' yet not have been taught the basics of our language? I think this speaks volumes. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

NGale

I went to a state school for which my parents struggled to even pay for the uniform for (my mother had to take out an account with the school outfitters and pay so much per week over the course of the year) So when it came to university, they and I really struggled to even find the £300 tution fees they were means tested on and told to pay. So now, even with working full time I know that I will not be able to afford to take the second degree I wanted to since the University of Plymouth announced they would be charging full fees. As for a masters, that is totally out.

PBo

CiB wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

Considering that no part of my degree course included grammar you sir are talking b0ll0cks.

I wasn't bothering with this thread any more as it's veered off into whether student fees are valid or not, but this one requires a response.

To be clear, we're now in the position that someone is entitled to call themselves 'Educated to Degree Level' yet not have been taught the basics of our language? I think this speaks volumes. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

He didn't say that at all....he really didn't.

no point in us using good grammar if the meaning is still beyond you....

Are you educated to degree level? but unable to understand a single sentence?

see my previous post re: smugness

dhope

CiB wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

Considering that no part of my degree course included grammar you sir are talking b0ll0cks.

I wasn't bothering with this thread any more as it's veered off into whether student fees are valid or not, but this one requires a response.

To be clear, we're now in the position that someone is entitled to call themselves 'Educated to Degree Level' yet not have been taught the basics of our language? I think this speaks volumes. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

Says far more about schooling below degree level, and possibly parenting, or peer pressure. A number of things actually, but don't think it says anything about the quality of any one degree course.

sketchley

CiB wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

Considering that no part of my degree course included grammar you sir are talking b0ll0cks.

I wasn't bothering with this thread any more as it's veered off into whether student fees are valid or not, but this one requires a response.

To be clear, we're now in the position that someone is entitled to call themselves 'Educated to Degree Level' yet not have been taught the basics of our language? I think this speaks volumes. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

My degree was in pure mathematics and computing, I signed up to be taught pure mathematics and computing. I did not go to university to learn about English grammar neither was it taught. Therefore to judge the quality of my university course, or anyone else's based on quality of grammar on an internet forum, as you indicated in your original post that you do, is b0ll0cks. GCSE grade C or above was an entry requirement, I passed that on forth attempt despite battling severe dyslexia, should I have been denied a place to study a mathematics and computing degree because my grammar and spelling was poor?

DonDaddyD

CiB wrote:

I wasn't bothering with this thread any more as it's veered off into whether student fees are valid or not, but this one requires a response.

I'm trying to avoid personal attacks and won't be dragged into a debate as to whether someone should have gone to Uni or not.

Personally I think £9k is too much.

I also think allowing the rich to buy places is largely unfair.

UndercoverElephant

CiB wrote:

Sketchley wrote:

CiB wrote:

I have to say that the number of people on here who purport to have been through uni but then make basic grammar errors (did I read mums & dad's somewhere? Come on - one or the other; you can't just guess), mixing fewer with less and so on, these examples really do nothing but support my argument that university might not be for everyone, and that some may not have the potential to make a university education worth a £27000 debt. Just saying like.

Say what you like about grammar nazis ( I are one*) but when spouting the benefits of further education, at least make it look as though you had one.

*yes it is.

Considering that no part of my degree course included grammar you sir are talking b0ll0cks.

I wasn't bothering with this thread any more as it's veered off into whether student fees are valid or not, but this one requires a response.

To be clear, we're now in the position that someone is entitled to call themselves 'Educated to Degree Level' yet not have been taught the basics of our language? I think this speaks volumes. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

In actual fact, grammar wasn't even taught above a very basic level when I went to school; If you went to school in the 80s or 90s, the chances are that it wasn't. The telephone had so revolutionised the way we communicated that the written word was no longer seen as being required for most, certainly if you went to state school.

It has come full-circle now, of course. We spend so much time posting tripe on internet fora, and communicate so much via email, that a high level of proficiency in the written word is again required to express intelligence. Hence we get people like you, who, through either good timing or fortunate schooling, feel that they are superior to those who can't correctly place a comma.

I realise the irony that my post is better punctuated than yours.

rick_chasey

The problem with the argument is that, by virtue of the cost, people straight-jacket degrees into their pure economic and monetary value. I find myself doing the same.

The issue is really whether the free market is the best way to decide the value of a degree.

From my experience, the value many degrees add are often intangible and not necessarily recognised by the market.

There's a lot of guff about courses that are irrelevant to everything, but the large proportion of students do pick courses that are proper courses - after all, they're all people like you once were. There's an assumption that somehow young people are all there to screw the system, which I think is exagerated to a particularly ludicrous level.

The issue of equality is one that is fundamental to education. If we assume that education is a right and not a priviledge, which I think is universally accepted, then we must re-consider the way universities make it easier for those who have money than those who do not.

As I said above, it's interesting how people don't apply the logic they give to universities to sixth form or secondary schooling - and you wonder how much of that is due to incorrect perceptions/scaremongering of young adults.

I don't think it's a coincidence that the UK has a culture which is anti-youth (the youth are always trouble, they don't know anything, they're all a bunch of p!ssheads) relative to other European nations, and has the most expensive university fees.