The middle-class whacked yet again...

What we need is for all students to pay for their education through a special tax on their income after graduation, with no parental contribution at all. This would mean that all levels of the population would start out with the same level of debt, for which they would be personally responsible.
This would make everyone equal, which is a cornerstone of Labour policy, so once Labour get elected, they will put this whole sorry mess to rights ....

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by spire</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Squaggles</i>

Would you prefer it if students from poor backgrounds weren't given any help ?

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The money is paid back after graduation.

Why should a newly qualified doctor from a poor family have less to pay back than a newly qualified doctor from an ordinary family, given their earning power is equal?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

They shouldn't. The only people who need to worry about debt after leaving university are those that have decided to study "waster" subjects with no intention of getting a good career afterwards.

In my day students used to work while at university, so not sure how they could get into œ30k debt anyway?

Maybe we shouldn't have so many people going to university?

Cyclist, public transport passenger, pedestrian, driver, motorcyclist.
I get on OK with myself, so why can't we all get on with each other?

Because it would encourage them to actually apply in the first place .

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by spire</i>

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Squaggles</i>

Would you prefer it if students from poor backgrounds weren't given any help ?

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

The money is paid back after graduation.

Why should a newly qualified doctor from a poor family have less to pay back than a newly qualified doctor from an ordinary family, given their earning power is equal?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx

Funny notion this waster degree thing.

What exactly is a waster degree?

Psychology anyone?

__________________________________________________________
<font size="1">What we need is a new, national <b>White Bicycle Plan</b></font id="size1">

And where does archaeology stand? Waste of time? Where do you draw the line on what careers are valuable? Suppose I do an archaeology degree, but go on to teach? Is it suddenly more valuable than if I become an archaeologist?

There was a time when you could be a perfectly good archaeologist without a degree, using natural skill, hard work and experience. Nowadays, to get above a certain level, it seems you have to have a degree apparently - although frankly a lot of well qualified graduates probably have less common sense, less experience, and possibly less innate skill than a good non-graduate digger. So the degree has become a 'requirement', although actually, a lot of what is required could be learnt on the job by anyone with a practical turn of mind. And what about the people who do the subject because it's interesting, and then go on to get some other job which demands 'a degree, any degree'.

I'm all for less people going to university, and for them not to go until after at least a year out, doing a real job or voluntary work, so as to weed out some of the ones who just go because it's like, what you do, innit?



If I had a baby elephant, it could help me clean the car. If I had a car.

<blockquote id="quote"><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial, Helvetica" id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"><i>Originally posted by Arch</i>

And where does archaeology stand? Waste of time? Where do you draw the line on what careers are valuable? Suppose I do an archaeology degree, but go on to teach? Is it suddenly more valuable than if I become an archaeologist?

There was a time when you could be a perfectly good archaeologist without a degree, using natural skill, hard work and experience. Nowadays, to get above a certain level, it seems you have to have a degree apparently <b>- although frankly a lot of well qualified graduates probably have less common sense, less experience, and possibly less innate skill than a good non-graduate digger.</b> So the degree has become a 'requirement', although actually, a lot of what is required could be learnt on the job by anyone with a practical turn of mind. And what about the people who do the subject because it's interesting, and then go on to get some other job which demands 'a degree, any degree'.

I'm all for less people going to university, and for them not to go until after at least a year out, doing a real job or voluntary work, so as to weed out some of the ones who just go because it's like, what you do, innit?

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote"></font id="quote">

Hear hear [:)]

---

Economic Growth; as dead as a Yangtze River dolphin....

---

The idea of a waster degree is misleading. There are plenty of waster degrees but it is not necessarily the subject that is the waster, it is the people who are the wasters in that it is the number of people doing them that is the issue. I have no problem at all some people doing Psychology, History, Sports Studies, Media Studies any course. I don't even have problems in large numbers of people doing them, it is when people in a year become 150, 200, 300 and that starts happening at most universities and growing maybe at 10, 20% every year nationally.

Well my degree may have been a waster degree, Communication Studies followed by a Publishing PGDip. However, I wouldn't have got near any editorial work without studying for it first (and doing unpaid work experience in publishing houses). Entry level jobs in publishing are paid very badly, my first job in the industry (which required applicants to have a degree) had a salary of 12 grand a year (in 2001).

The government's figures for an 'average graduate starting salary' are totally ridiculous, I don't know where they come from. Mr Morrisette was a trainee solicitor in the same period - national minimum trainee salary is 14 grand. We're (a little) better off now, but far from the 'raking it in, no problems paying off thousands in loans' picture.

Zoology isn't a waster subject as it's a science subject [:D]. What Maths departments closing (apart from Hull)?

Good for you for going back. See very few mature students.