I feel like I'm doing something wrong by responding before the pertinent posters do so.
Anyway.
"We need to keep up this momentum because eventually we'll get through to them and we can start negotiations,'' said Shayan Moghedam, 17, from Woodhouse College in north London. "This is not something that can just be ignored and the fact that students keep coming out week after week proves that.''
First, it is odd that a 17 year old was quoted as an authority figure. It saddens me that even NPR follows the one sentence paragraph format.
I have mixed feelings on this outside of my disappointment that this movement is gaining consistent international coverage.
Maybe I think they are tossers, maybe spankers, maybe people that understand something important. In all likelihood I consider them to be all of that, and more.
...Again, not that I think they should be pursuing international fething coverage.
Wrexasaur wrote:I feel like I'm doing something wrong by responding before the pertinent posters do so.
Anyway.
"We need to keep up this momentum because eventually we'll get through to them and we can start negotiations,'' said Shayan Moghedam, 17, from Woodhouse College in north London. "This is not something that can just be ignored and the fact that students keep coming out week after week proves that.''
First, it is odd that a 17 year old was quoted as an authority figure. It saddens me that even NPR follows the one sentence paragraph format.
I have mixed feelings on this outside of my disappointment that this movement is gaining consistent international coverage.
Maybe I think they are tossers, maybe spankers, maybe people that understand something important. In all likelihood I consider them to be all of that, and more.
...Again, not that I think they should be pursuing international fething coverage.
I understand that mentaility completely, coverage doesn't equal people agreeing with them.
Most of the trouble at the rallies are not from genuine students but rather from a small minority who enjoy using such gatherings as a cover and an excuse to create mischief. Witness the graffiti daubed onto Nelson's column last night; they couldn't even spell 'revolution' properly.
I would agree with KK. Luckily I managed to get through University just before they hiked the fees up to £3,000 a year (I think mine were £1,200 a year).
It then didn't help that I graduated just as the whole world realised the banks had shafted everyone, so now I am in a crappy low paid job that isn't even paying me enough that I get money taken off my wages to pay back my student loan, which is continuing to grow (at an alarming rate I might add).
Even if I had to pay the £3,000 a year tuition fees (on top of roughly £3,000 in money for housing I already paid), I'm not sure whether I would have been able to go to university.
Raising it even further? Really don't think that is going to help with anything.
A move to American style "We charge what we want" system would only work here if it was established the change in fee structure would come in when someone born this year (for example) would enter university, giving people enough time to open "funds" etc to help pay for their children's education at birth.
However, I would still think that educating the workforce can only ever benefit the state, so the state should shoulder some (or indeed most) of the burden of educating people.
So let me see if I'm getting the right. British students are rioting/protesting because they have to pay the same college fees that we already pay in the US? Well that is our average costs. We have some schools that charge as much as $35,000 a year.
I don't know of this is controversial or not, but I think here there shouldn't be a need for academic degrees for so many.
The ones that really require degrees will only take the top % anyway, while other jobs aren't really helped by an academic degree where a practical or vocational course with some transferable skills and basic financial education would be much more beneficial to them (and the country as a whole).
That, and I find most students (or at least the public face of them) just want to mess around anyway.
djones520 wrote:So let me see if I'm getting the right. British students are rioting/protesting because they have to pay the same college fees that we already pay in the US? Well that is our average costs. We have some schools that charge as much as $35,000 a year.
No, they are protesting because the government keeps on increasing the fees universities are allowed to charge students without much warning or time for people to prepare for the fees, and because people feel the fees are unreasonably high (you have to remember that we pay much higher taxes, as much more of our infrastructure is funded by the government, including education at lower and higher level).
For example, when I went to university (about 7 years ago when I started) I had to pay £1,200 a year in tuition fees. A few years after that it was raised to £3,000 a year. Now they are talking of costs of over £7,000 a year. They are also suggesting that they will allow universities to charge, to an uncapped amount, over and above the actual cost of educating someone (universities such as Oxford, because of their reputation would be able to charge a fortune).
djones520 wrote:So let me see if I'm getting the right. British students are rioting/protesting because they have to pay the same college fees that we already pay in the US? Well that is our average costs. We have some schools that charge as much as $35,000 a year.
No, they are protesting because the government keeps on increasing the fees universities are allowed to charge students without much warning or time for people to prepare for the fees, and because people feel the fees are unreasonably high (you have to remember that we pay much higher taxes, as much more of our infrastructure is funded by the government, including education at lower and higher level).
For example, when I went to university (about 7 years ago when I started) I had to pay £1,200 a year in tuition fees. A few years after that it was raised to £3,000 a year. Now they are talking of costs of over £7,000 a year. They are also suggesting that they will allow universities to charge, to an uncapped amount, over and above the actual cost of educating someone (universities such as Oxford, because of their reputation would be able to charge a fortune).
Are your universities private institutions? Because if so, then I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to. Nothing wrong with making a profit with the services you have to offer.
But then, I'm a dirty capitalist pig, so take what I think with a grain of salt.
djones520 wrote:Are your universities private institutions? Because if so, then I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to. Nothing wrong with making a profit with the services you have to offer.
But then, I'm a dirty capitalist pig, so take what I think with a grain of salt.
See, this is the difference between the US and the UK - we are far more socalist. Education, to my mind, should be provided by the state as much as possible, for, in the end, it benefits the state to have a pool of highly trained/educated people.
Although I also agree with daba - many people who are going to university probably should not be. Vocational courses etc would be far more applicable to most people.
djones520 wrote:Are your universities private institutions? Because if so, then I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to. Nothing wrong with making a profit with the services you have to offer.
But then, I'm a dirty capitalist pig, so take what I think with a grain of salt.
See, this is the difference between the US and the UK - we are far more socalist. Education, to my mind, should be provided by the state as much as possible, for, in the end, it benefits the state to have a pool of highly trained/educated people.
Although I also agree with daba - many people who are going to university probably should not be. Vocational courses etc would be far more applicable to most people.
Flooding the work force with "over-qualified" people isn't doing anything but making sure the government wastes money. There are only so many jobs that require higher education. We still need mechanics, janitors, etc...
By having the government dish out all this money, your getting people who end up going to school for no real reason, because they'll be unlikely to find work when they get out.
The US system makes education available for anyone who really wishes to strive for it. Scholarships, grants, tax breaks, etc... You work for it, you put yourself out there to get it, and you will. For those who won't, they'll take the other jobs. And now the government hasn't dished out all that money for people who were looking for an excuse to spend 4 years getting drunk on the government dime.
The vast majority of United Kingdom universities are government financed, with only one private university (the University of Buckingham) where the government does not subsidise the tuition fees. As universities in the United Kingdom have been publicly funded institutions, there is less corporate influence, with United Kingdom universities receiving much smaller financial endowments in comparison to what many of the larger universities in the United States of America receive. Similarly, whilst certain United Kingdom universities retain ancient traditions, none are directly funded by religious organisations.
Daba wrote:I don't know of this is controversial or not, but I think here there shouldn't be a need for academic degrees for so many.
The ones that really require degrees will only take the top % anyway, while other jobs aren't really helped by an academic degree where a practical or vocational course with some transferable skills and basic financial education would be much more beneficial to them (and the country as a whole).
That, and I find most students (or at least the public face of them) just want to mess around anyway.
I agree.
The rapid expansion of university education coupled with the Blairite principle of getting 50% of the population educated to degree level was partly achieved by creating a lot of courses such as Golf Management, and Hairdressing, cobbled up from odd bits of modules to justify them being called degrees.
The hugely increased cost of university is now to be paid off by charging would be doctors, scientists, linguists and engineers massive fees and graduate taxes. Many of these professions are not high earning, and will further discourage people from entering them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
djones520 wrote:So let me see if I'm getting the right. British students are rioting/protesting because they have to pay the same college fees that we already pay in the US? Well that is our average costs. We have some schools that charge as much as $35,000 a year.
No, they are protesting because the government keeps on increasing the fees universities are allowed to charge students without much warning or time for people to prepare for the fees, and because people feel the fees are unreasonably high (you have to remember that we pay much higher taxes, as much more of our infrastructure is funded by the government, including education at lower and higher level).
For example, when I went to university (about 7 years ago when I started) I had to pay £1,200 a year in tuition fees. A few years after that it was raised to £3,000 a year. Now they are talking of costs of over £7,000 a year. They are also suggesting that they will allow universities to charge, to an uncapped amount, over and above the actual cost of educating someone (universities such as Oxford, because of their reputation would be able to charge a fortune).
Are your universities private institutions? Because if so, then I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to. Nothing wrong with making a profit with the services you have to offer.
But then, I'm a dirty capitalist pig, so take what I think with a grain of salt.
There are almost no private universities in the UK.
Also, we pay much higher taxes here, partly to run our public universities.
You can see why we would be put out by being asked to pay twice.
I don't know if anybody here saw the farce that was 'Student Question Time' on BBC3 a few weeks ago.
It's pretty much a rage situation. Although I don't think that it's all bad, paying off your course when you have a job that is earning over X amount. You can't really expect people on low incomes to foot the bill to boost people to a level where they earn more than themselves. Although I do agree to funding essential degrees Doctors etc, I think we need to cut away some degrees and put them into colleges or vocational education systems. There needs to be a happy medium.
For example Nurses are educated at University, although they used to be trained within a hospital. They are thinking of dropping the pass-mark to 35% for Anatomy&Physiology in some universities. Now I don't know about you but getting anything less than 50% to me is not a pass within a subject that is clearly important to the profession. People go into Nursing now simply to get a degree, this should not be the case. Nurses do not need a degree, they got on fine for several years without having to go to university. I'm sure this applies to other degree's aswell.
gakker on a Van wrote:I'm a gakker that is just using this as an excuse to be a gakker! gakker power!
These people annoy me, they need a large hose used on them. They are only there to to cause trouble, and flaunt violent behaviour knowning that the Police can't give them a deserved thump!
Society as a whole benefits from people being well educated.
People who get good degrees and get high paying jobs off the back of it pay higher taxes.
Britain needs scientists, engineers and linguists (for example) so we can build a world class economy which earns the money to pay for everyone else.
At the moment people are discouraged from these professions because they are harder to do than meeja studies, and pay less well. Is it really a good idea to add higher course fees, and a special graduate tax on top?
We also risk reducing the talent pool to people whose daddies are rich.
Kilkrazy wrote:Society as a whole benefits from people being well educated.
People who get good degrees and get high paying jobs off the back of it pay higher taxes.
Britain needs scientists, engineers and linguists (for example) so we can build a world class economy which earns the money to pay for everyone else.
At the moment people are discouraged from these professions because they are harder to do than meeja studies, and pay less well. Is it really a good idea to add higher course fees, and a special graduate tax on top?
We also risk reducing the talent pool to people whose daddies are rich.
Obviously there are benefits to having doctors, scientists and engineers. However these essential degrees are suffering due to the sheer number of courses available. I suppose the real question is how do you replace these 'chaff' degrees, and what with? Some universities probably need to go back to being college/vocation based, or be closed entirely.
Many of the courses seem to charge more than they are worth in terms of quality. I'm not sure if there is an independant body to set tution fee's depending on the resources provided/needed?
There should definitely be a body that picks the best and brightest pupils, regardless of background and pay for their education if they can't afford it. I guess I'm just against paying for a degree that need not exist.
I suspect education is to blame, I can't believe that exam pass rates go up yet literacy levels seem to fall. These factors do not seem to correlate, leading to the conclusion that exams are easier. Perhaps indicating some people should not be in University.
Medium of Death wrote:For example Nurses are educated at University, although they used to be trained within a hospital.
Nurses still train at hospitals. They get basic informational input via university and a more hands on training in hospital placement. I used to walk past the nursing and midwifery building every day when I walked into university and, working at a hospital now, I see large numbers of student nurses (even know a couple of student nurses and a recently qualified nurse).
... Nurses do not need a degree, they got on fine for several years without having to go to university.
Nursing has moved on a lot since the old days, and so has the training. In order to be able to cope with the job, you need a higher level (or perhaps different type) of training than used to be provided. A degree-level program is appropriate for nursing staff.
I'm not disagreeing that there are some courses and degrees which probably should not exist, or should exist at a non-degree level, however, I disagree with your choice of targeting nursing as one such course.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm not sure if there is an independent body to set tuition fee's depending on the resources provided/needed?
Nope, it is, currently, entirely at the whim of the universities themselves. there is some talk, after all the outcry, that the Govt. may set up a body to do so or might have set a maximum amount.
The officially off record briefings being given to universities is quite open about how the govt. expects and, to an extent I hasten to add, actually wants some institutions to fold or be forced to close. The idea being that remaining ones will take up those who would have gone elsewhere or we might even see new ones opening up if the demand is there. The latter being a slight cause for concern with regards to "quality control" and the like.
Kilkrazy wrote:Society as a whole benefits from people being well educated.
People who get good degrees and get high paying jobs off the back of it pay higher taxes.
Britain needs scientists, engineers and linguists (for example) so we can build a world class economy which earns the money to pay for everyone else.
At the moment people are discouraged from these professions because they are harder to do than meeja studies, and pay less well. Is it really a good idea to add higher course fees, and a special graduate tax on top?
We also risk reducing the talent pool to people whose daddies are rich.
Obviously there are benefits to having doctors, scientists and engineers. However these essential degrees are suffering due to the sheer number of courses available. I suppose the real question is how do you replace these 'chaff' degrees, and what with? Some universities probably need to go back to being college/vocation based, or be closed entirely.
Many of the courses seem to charge more than they are worth in terms of quality. I'm not sure if there is an independant body to set tution fee's depending on the resources provided/needed?
There should definitely be a body that picks the best and brightest pupils, regardless of background and pay for their education if they can't afford it. I guess I'm just against paying for a degree that need not exist.
I suspect education is to blame, I can't believe that exam pass rates go up yet literacy levels seem to fall. These factors do not seem to correlate, leading to the conclusion that exams are easier. Perhaps indicating some people should not be in University.
I agree with those points.
The massive expansion of university education over the past 20 years was enabled by creating gak courses at new universities whose standards were sometimes "uneven".
We employers weren't fooled, and we select preferentially from the elite universities and colleges such as Imperial and UCL.
Meanwhile a bunch of students were pushed through unsuitable pseudo-academic courses, who would have been much better off with good quality apprenticeships or polytechnic education like we used to have. This was done partly because the funding follows the students, so as an administrator you have to get as many students into your university as you can.
At the same time, core science courses like Chemistry were being shut.
Medium of Death wrote:For example Nurses are educated at University, although they used to be trained within a hospital.
Nurses still train at hospitals. They get basic informational input via university and a more hands on training in hospital placement. I used to walk past the nursing and midwifery building every day when I walked into university and, working at a hospital now, I see large numbers of student nurses (even know a couple of student nurses and a recently qualified nurse).
... Nurses do not need a degree, they got on fine for several years without having to go to university.
Nursing has moved on a lot since the old days, and so has the training. In order to be able to cope with the job, you need a higher level (or perhaps different type) of training than used to be provided. A degree-level program is appropriate for nursing staff.
I'm not disagreeing that there are some courses and degrees which probably should not exist, or should exist at a non-degree level, however, I disagree with your choice of targeting nursing as one such course.
I do understand that Nurses have more tasks to do, usually uptaking some elements that junior doctors used to handle. Writting essays does not make you a good carer. I have experienced poor treatment of the elderly throughout a multitude of hospitals. Nurses now seem to think themselves above certain duties. I'm not saying this is the case for all nurses, but it is worrying that this is the case across a wide amount of hospitals. This attitude seems to have been more prevalent after the move from vocational to academic.
Medium of Death wrote:I do understand that Nurses have more tasks to do, usually uptaking some elements that junior doctors used to handle. Writting essays does not make you a good carer. I have experienced poor treatment of the elderly throughout a multitude of hospitals. Nurses now seem to think themselves above certain duties. I'm not saying this is the case for all nurses, but it is worrying that this is the case across a wide amount of hospitals. This attitude seems to have been more prevelant after the move from vocational to academic.
I understand what you are saying, however, as I said, nursing has moved on and a lot of the tasks that were previously undertaken by nurses is now done by, I believe, "care support workers".
If you have concerns about any aspect of care received by yourself or a relative/etc, contact the hospital PALS (Patient Advice and Liaison Service). Some are better than others, but you can at least get something on record.
Medium of Death wrote:I do understand that Nurses have more tasks to do, usually uptaking some elements that junior doctors used to handle. Writting essays does not make you a good carer. I have experienced poor treatment of the elderly throughout a multitude of hospitals. Nurses now seem to think themselves above certain duties. I'm not saying this is the case for all nurses, but it is worrying that this is the case across a wide amount of hospitals. This attitude seems to have been more prevelant after the move from vocational to academic.
I understand what you are saying, however, as I said, nursing has moved on and a lot of the tasks that were previously undertaken by nurses is now done by, I believe, "care support workers".
If you have concerns about any aspect of care received by yourself or a relative/etc, contact the hospital PALS (Patient Advice and Liaison Service). Some are better than others, but you can at least get something on record.
I'll just leave it at that good sir, were getting Off topic. We'll agree to disagree.
Medium of Death wrote:I'll just leave it at that good sir, were getting Off topic. We'll agree to disagree.
I was thinking of adding something along those lines to the end of my post
To get back more onto topic, should there be some "protected" degrees which are exempt from charges (such as medicine, dentistry, perhaps the sciences and engineering?) and some "charged" degrees, where you as a student are required to pay some or all of your course fees?
What about humanities such as English and History? Such subjects have, arguably, limited practical application but graduates with English and History degrees are still required to be teachers etc, and there are cross over skills to a number of vocations (to more or less degrees).
There's lots of talk about medical, law, and engineering degrees. . . but what about art degrees? I'm assuming you guys (blokes?) have them at your universities, but I'm no expert on the university system over on your side of the Atlantic. Do you guys have art schools? What do they cost?
I'm just curious because I'm looking at attending art school over here in the states, and many art schools over here are private and tuition is just exhorbitant. Tuition for SCAD (Savanahh College of Art and Design) is $29,570, or somehwere thereabouts. Ringling College of Art and Design is in the $29,000+ range as well. There are also state colleges with superp art/design programs, but they are still in the $10,000+ range.
rubiksnoob wrote:Just a question for the UK dakkaites here. . .
There's lots of talk about medical, law, and engineering degrees. . . but what about art degrees? I'm assuming you guys (blokes?) have them at your universities, but I'm no expert on the university system over on your side of the Atlantic. Do you guys have art schools? What do they cost?
I'm just curious because I'm looking at attending art school over here in the states, and many art schools over here are private and tuition is just exhorbitant. Tuition for SCAD (Savanahh College of Art and Design) is $29,570, or somehwere thereabouts. Ringling College of Art and Design is in the $29,000+ range as well. There are also state colleges with superp art/design programs, but they are still in the $10,000+ range.
What's it like in the UK?
Just trying to get some more "direct" comments. Feel free to opine.
Beware that much higher fees are charged to foreign students.
While I keep banging on about science and stuff I do also value arts and humanities, and I recognise they make a contribution to the common weal in a different way to science.
Beware that much higher fees are charged to foreign students.
While I keep banging on about science and stuff I do also value arts and humanities, and I recognise they make a contribution to the common weal in a different way to science.
hmm, from just a cursory glance those both look like fantastic schools, and the low costs for "Home" students would be unheard of here in the states. For foreign students however, it is much higher as you said. With the exchange rate and then travel expenses and all that it would work out to being far more expensive than studying at even some of the most prestigious schools here in the US.
Thanks for the info though, it's interesting and I think I'll look into it a bit more in depth when I have a chance, even if it is a completely unrealistic possibility for me
And OP, sorry for any temporary derailment of the topic my comment may have caused.
I was so angry about the protests that I left the NUS. Membership should be an 'opt-in' for this very reason. Membership of a union should not be mandatory.
What is occurring is an absolute disgrace, and symptomatic of the outrageous sense of entitlement endemic in the young people of the UK. 'Free' education is not free - someone has to pay for it. Might as well be the people who benefit most from it. There's a lot of talk about how it benefits the country to have a large number of graduates - fair enough, but a person with a degree can in many cases expect to earn double or treble what they would have otherwise earned. Who benefits most from the transaction, the individual student, or the nation? The aggregate benefit of having a large population of graduates is undoubtedly considerable, but ONE person having a degree will not double the nation's GDP. Clearly the student is the greater beneficiary, on a one-to-one basis.
I was also troubled by the large Socialist Worker's Party presence at the protests - is it really just a co-incidence that trouble flared at the protests in London? The NUS is making a huge mistake in aligning itself with communist thugs, and I for one do not want them representing me. I'm not the only one on my campus that feels this way.
hoodlums causing a fracas or not I don't understand how you can expect people to pay so much for education.
Albatross wrote:I was so angry about the protests that I left the NUS. Membership should be an 'opt-in' for this very reason. Membership of a union should not be mandatory
It never was when I was at University. I remember signing up for the nus on my first day there. When did that change?
I don't know much about your university's entrance qualifications. Is over-crowding becoming a burden at your universities? Are they having to expand with more classrooms, teachers and other resources and that's adding to the problem? When I was in school 12 years ago, there were a handful of kids that certainly didn't belong in the engineering department or taking calculus...ever. The Chemical Engineering freshman class of about 150 was down to 35 when I graduated. The Freshman and Sophomore classes were always packed, but things eventually "thinned out", so to speak.
I'm alarmed with SilverMK2's post that the fees went from 1200 to 3000 to potentially 7000 in about 7 years. That's a huge mark up in such a short amount of time. 1200 in tuition a year is dead cheap. I can empathize your frustration when you've been used to that forever and then suddenly the costs skyrocket. (I don't support the dickheads causing problems throughout London, though. NO call for that.)
Also, what are your student loans like? In the states, many student loans are subsidized, which keeps the interest rates lower than your typical credit card or other interest rates.
whatwhat wrote:It never was when I was at University. I remember signing up for the nus on my first day there. When did that change?
I think it differs from university to university. Mine was done for me on registration at the university (my university card was my NUS card). My wife on the other hand had to sign up and pay for membership at her university.
I'm sure your not a fan of Aaron Porter then. That overconfident gakker is nothing if not the personification of entitlement. He always seems on the border of a hissy fit when he's talking. Can't stand the chap!
kronk wrote:Also, what are your student loans like? In the states, many student loans are subsidized, which keeps the interest rates lower than your typical credit card or other interest rates.
The same. They decide how much loan your allowed based on savings and income. Plus if you were from a working class family like I was you get grants depending on your families income. I don't know how that will be effected.
SilverMK2 wrote:
whatwhat wrote:It never was when I was at University. I remember signing up for the nus on my first day there. When did that change?
I think it differs from university to university. Mine was done for me on registration at the university (my university card was my NUS card). My wife on the other hand had to sign up and pay for membership at her university.
Yeh you're probably right. I had two seperate cards. The union membership was a five quid one off fee if I remember corectly. I soon made it back of club entry though.
whatwhat wrote:hoodlums causing a fracas or not I don't understand how you can expect people to pay so much for education.
Albatross wrote:I was so angry about the protests that I left the NUS. Membership should be an 'opt-in' for this very reason. Membership of a union should not be mandatory
It never was when I was at University. I remember signing up for the nus on my first day there. When did that change?
Where I am you're automatically a member upon enrollment. You have to sign up (and pay) for your NUS extra card, but you're still a member without it. I actually assumed it was this way everywhere? Perhaps it is - many students I spoke to about this issue (I'm a staff-student council rep) didn't even realise they were members and assumed that it was as you said, that you had to sign up for your card to become a member. There was considerable anger about that, actually. I've been encouraging people to leave the union in protest.
whatwhat wrote:hoodlums causing a fracas or not I don't understand how you can expect people to pay so much for education.
Albatross wrote:I was so angry about the protests that I left the NUS. Membership should be an 'opt-in' for this very reason. Membership of a union should not be mandatory
It never was when I was at University. I remember signing up for the nus on my first day there. When did that change?
Where I am you're automatically a member upon enrollment. You have to sign up (and pay) for your NUS extra card, but you're still a member without it. I actually assumed it was this way everywhere? Perhaps it is - many students I spoke to about this issue (I'm a staff-student council rep) didn't even realise they were members and assumed that it was as you said, that you had to sign up for your card to become a member. There was considerable anger about that, actually. I've been encouraging people to leave the union in protest.
I highly doubt you joined up without signing something somwhere along the lines, probably in some small print somwhere.
I specifically remember singing up for the Students Union, certainly wasn't just the card and I got made a member automatically. So yeh it must be different per university.
whatwhat wrote:hoodlums causing a fracas or not I don't understand how you can expect people to pay so much for education.
Albatross wrote:I was so angry about the protests that I left the NUS. Membership should be an 'opt-in' for this very reason. Membership of a union should not be mandatory
It never was when I was at University. I remember signing up for the nus on my first day there. When did that change?
Where I am you're automatically a member upon enrollment. You have to sign up (and pay) for your NUS extra card, but you're still a member without it. I actually assumed it was this way everywhere? Perhaps it is - many students I spoke to about this issue (I'm a staff-student council rep) didn't even realise they were members and assumed that it was as you said, that you had to sign up for your card to become a member. There was considerable anger about that, actually. I've been encouraging people to leave the union in protest.
I highly doubt you joined up without signing something somwhere along the lines, probably in some small print somwhere.
It must have been buried deep in the smallest of small print, for so many students at my uni to be unaware that they have joined a union. I certainly never signed anything that explicitly stated that I had joined. Come to think of it, I'm sure I recall the Admin at my school telling students that they were automatically enrolled in the union, but that they would have to pay for their NUS Extra card.
IIRC it used to be automatic, but this was changed under the last Con. govt. .... might even have been under Thatcher even ? There was a big song and dance about it in the early 90s when I went to Uni. Marches, leaflet campaigns etc etc etc. I think a lot of places still kind of sign you up by default when you arrive, there used to be a box on..err... some form or other... you had to tick to NOT be joined.
I'd imagine this would indeed vary from place to place depending upon what has been decided upon at the respective Unis.
It's not like you've been consigned to death or anything. Student Unions are more of a Student Club. Just because some muppets are waging war in london doesn't mean they reflect the views of everyone in the nus.
No people are more likely to tag that on you on the basis of you being a student alone, nus or not.
USSU wrote:...AGM stands for Annual General Meeting. It’s a meeting held by the Students’ Union which is open to all students. Every one of you is automatically a member of the Students’ Union, so you’re all entitled to attend.
Although the Conservative government under John Major attempted to severely reduce the influence of students' unions in Britain, the NUS and individual students' unions managed to successfully lobby against the moves to restrict their political activities. The then Education Secretary, John Patten aimed to end the 'closed shop' and ensure students would have to join their union (opt-in) rather than automatically becoming a member. As many unions receive funding based upon membership levels this threatened their ability to achieve their core business.
whatwhat wrote:It's not like you've been consigned to death or anything. Student Unions are more of a Student Club. Just because some muppets are waging war in london doesn't mean they reflect the views of everyone in the nus.
No people are more likely to tag that on you on the basis of you being a student alone, nus or not.
It's not about that - the NUS claims to represent the views of it's members. They do not represent my views.
I am also annoyed that they would inflate their membership numbers by making people automatic members, as it makes it appear that more people support their official position than actually do. There is a massive left-wing bias on my campus, and as a result there is no alternative form of representation for non-socialist leaning students. There is a Socialist Society, a Labour club... no Conservative Student club. I'm basically going it alone as an independent rep.
whatwhat wrote:It's not like you've been consigned to death or anything. Student Unions are more of a Student Club. Just because some muppets are waging war in london doesn't mean they reflect the views of everyone in the nus.
No people are more likely to tag that on you on the basis of you being a student alone, nus or not.
It's not about that - the NUS claims to represent the views of it's members. They do not represent my views.
I am also annoyed that they would inflate their membership numbers by making people automatic members, as it makes it appear that more people support their official position than actually do. There is a massive left-wing bias on my campus, and as a result there is no alternative form of representation for non-socialist leaning students. There is a Socialist Society, a Labour club... no Conservative Student club. I'm basically going it alone as an independent rep.
It's a democratic body just like the government. Any argument of 'this isn't fairly represented' can easily be responded with: "set it up yourself" "run for a board position" etc. The 'Socialist Society' and 'Labour Club' in your union will be set up in much the same way.
Albatross wrote:
I am also annoyed that they would inflate their membership numbers by making people automatic members, as it makes it appear that more people support their official position than actually do. There is a massive left-wing bias on my campus,
That's the same for most Unis.
There is a Socialist Society, a Labour club... no Conservative Student club.
That isn't though.
..hmm.... do they still give out grants towards society start up costs ? Back in the day you only needed something like 12-20 people signing up and you were eligible for a grant. Draw up the society constitution and voila !
The initial meetings of the "Let's drink beer and talk about whales" and the "Sheep appreciation society" were lively affairs, if, alas, not exactly memorable. Bless subsidised bars.
whatwhat wrote:It's not like you've been consigned to death or anything. Student Unions are more of a Student Club. Just because some muppets are waging war in london doesn't mean they reflect the views of everyone in the nus.
No people are more likely to tag that on you on the basis of you being a student alone, nus or not.
It's not about that - the NUS claims to represent the views of it's members. They do not represent my views.
I am also annoyed that they would inflate their membership numbers by making people automatic members, as it makes it appear that more people support their official position than actually do. There is a massive left-wing bias on my campus, and as a result there is no alternative form of representation for non-socialist leaning students. There is a Socialist Society, a Labour club... no Conservative Student club. I'm basically going it alone as an independent rep.
It's a democratic body just like the government.
...because mandatory membership is completely democratic?
Any argument of 'this isn't fairly represented' can easily be responded with: "set it up yourself" "run for a board position" etc.
Can't be bothered, and I don't need to be union-affiliated to be a rep so what's the point in setting up a rival organisation?
I was automatically signed up when I became a student. I've never spoken to a representative however. If some chap ever claimed to be representing me, I'd laugh in his face.
whatwhat wrote:It's not like you've been consigned to death or anything. Student Unions are more of a Student Club. Just because some muppets are waging war in london doesn't mean they reflect the views of everyone in the nus.
No people are more likely to tag that on you on the basis of you being a student alone, nus or not.
It's not about that - the NUS claims to represent the views of it's members. They do not represent my views.
I am also annoyed that they would inflate their membership numbers by making people automatic members, as it makes it appear that more people support their official position than actually do. There is a massive left-wing bias on my campus, and as a result there is no alternative form of representation for non-socialist leaning students. There is a Socialist Society, a Labour club... no Conservative Student club. I'm basically going it alone as an independent rep.
It's a democratic body just like the government.
...because mandatory membership is completely democratic?
If you've managed to opt out it's not mandotary membership is it, even if they did automatically put you in for it. The union board in most student unions is democratically elected, I've never heard of any that are not.
+ I'm a mandotary citizen of the United Kingdom simply by being born here. Does that mean I don't live in a democracy?
Albatross wrote:
Any argument of 'this isn't fairly represented' can easily be responded with: "set it up yourself" "run for a board position" etc.
Can't be bothered,
Then you can't really complain that there is no society for you.
whatwhat wrote:It's not like you've been consigned to death or anything. Student Unions are more of a Student Club. Just because some muppets are waging war in london doesn't mean they reflect the views of everyone in the nus.
No people are more likely to tag that on you on the basis of you being a student alone, nus or not.
It's not about that - the NUS claims to represent the views of it's members. They do not represent my views.
I am also annoyed that they would inflate their membership numbers by making people automatic members, as it makes it appear that more people support their official position than actually do. There is a massive left-wing bias on my campus, and as a result there is no alternative form of representation for non-socialist leaning students. There is a Socialist Society, a Labour club... no Conservative Student club. I'm basically going it alone as an independent rep.
It's a democratic body just like the government.
...because mandatory membership is completely democratic?
If you've managed to opt out it's not mandotary membership is it, even if they did automatically put you in for it. The union board in most student unions is democratically elected, I've never heard of any that are not.
Joining is mandatory. Leaving is difficult. Amounts to the same thing, in my eyes.
Albatross wrote:
Any argument of 'this isn't fairly represented' can easily be responded with: "set it up yourself" "run for a board position" etc.
Can't be bothered,
Then you can't really complain that there is no society for you.
Why are you so keen to start an argument with me? I already explained that the union didn't represent my views, so I left. I was just raising the point that there's no alternative to being independent in this case. Especially when you consider that you have to be in the union to set up a society.
whatwhat wrote:It's not like you've been consigned to death or anything. Student Unions are more of a Student Club. Just because some muppets are waging war in london doesn't mean they reflect the views of everyone in the nus.
No people are more likely to tag that on you on the basis of you being a student alone, nus or not.
It's not about that - the NUS claims to represent the views of it's members. They do not represent my views.
I am also annoyed that they would inflate their membership numbers by making people automatic members, as it makes it appear that more people support their official position than actually do. There is a massive left-wing bias on my campus, and as a result there is no alternative form of representation for non-socialist leaning students. There is a Socialist Society, a Labour club... no Conservative Student club. I'm basically going it alone as an independent rep.
30 years ago there was a massive right wing bias on my campus. What comes around goes around.
I was a lot more right wing in those days.
Anyway, student politics always has been a bit stupid.
I don't think it answers to say that having a degree is much more beneficial to the individual student than to society as a whole, and therefore they should pay for it. So is all of education, if you look at it from one angle.
What if no-one in the UK had a degree? What if the few people who could afford to pay for a degree fethed off to France or America and stayed there? We would basically be Albania or something. That is why we have so many foreign nurses in the NHS. Our own nurses have buggered off to Australia and the US, where they get paid a lot more, and we have to import nurses from the Philipines and Uganda to make up the difference.
My point is that the UK needs to harness the best selection of national talent and get them educated and working in high value industries and we can't do that with the conditions we have.
In theory at least, wouldn't cutting welfare to increase funding for education be perfectly feasible since more education equates to more people with higher paying jobs, reducing the percentage of the population reliant upon welfare?
Or does that just reveal my terrible understanding of economics?
Kilkrazy wrote:A couple of days ago it was announced that the housing benefit cap will not be introduced for current claimants until April 2012.
The mood in the country is supportive of these housing benefit cuts. The government should take the tide at its flood, IMO.
Shame. I think the entirety of the north of England laughed its collective ass of when they heard the cap was £400 a week. I've never paid that much for a month!
Do we really need to support more students getting poor third class degrees in 'media studies' or 'creative writing?'
Take out the majority of pointless degree courses and you would end up saving a heck of a lot more money.
I'm all for empowering the citizenry, but, a degree regarding the agnostic principles of prousts life and works is just as unlikely to put food on your plate as being an uneducated buffoon!
Do we really need to support more students getting poor third class degrees in 'media studies' or 'creative writing?'
Take out the majority of pointless degree courses and you would end up saving a heck of a lot more money.
The problem is because they had the aim of 50% going through university they couldn't support them all. When my dad went to university they introduced grants, it allowed him to leave a working class background and enter a middle class education and profession. Otherwise he couldn't have gone. But now they want everyone to go, and it means they can pay for no one. Which now means people have to pay again, and ultimately it's the poorest that lose out. This is a backwards step, money should not be a bar to education if you can the ability. Remember, people who get high education get better jobs and thus pay more tax and bring money into the country, so it all goes around in circles.
Or at least that was true. They spin out this line that graduates all earn more money so should expect to pay through a loan. Maybe that was true when 5-10% of people went to Uni and all were going into the best professions, but it doesn't when 50% go, a lot of graduates simply end up in poor jobs unrelated to their degree, they have a debt to pay off and are three years behind on experience compared to those that simply left education at 18. The other thing is that the government hide unemployment behind education. Lots of young people have struggled to find work for years, so they are encouraged to stay in education. In higher education, you get a state loan and pay for your own unemployment for three years instead of the state giving you money. Unless the degree creates genuine prospects for yourself, you've been hoodwinked into paying for your own unemployment.
The surge in people going to university has resulted in a boom in the so called "mickey mouse degrees", but lets call them soft subjects. Medicine, science, engineering and the like have not grown with the surge in numbers going to university, it's all going into easier cheaper courses where they cram the students in and make money off them. It's so bad now that these courses like media studies and theatre are so popular that universities favour them over scientific subjects which is why chemistry departments and the like have been closing down. It's a disaster, created by the drive to push more people into university with false promises of highly paid jobs and the increasing commercial nature of universities looking to make money from high student numbers. You see this reflected the resistance of universities to throw out people who cheat on exams and the like. It's money that overrides everything.
I take issue with the indiscriminate way that people get money for doing undergraduate degrees, you get LEA support for fees and a loan virtually no questions asked. You can do anything, regardless of how daft or of the possibilities of serious employment afterwards. But a postgraduate degree, say a Masters, you are stuffed. You can show them you're a proven student with high marks, but it doesn't matter. You can't have LEA help with fees and you can't get a student loan, you either have to hope for "Career Development Loan", which is much less favourable and comes from a standard bank and which is typically only available to those doing high income law and medicine subjects (not other sciences and seemingly socially worthy subjects), or you have to hope to secure funding from an independent body (highly competitive as there's little going around) or you have to fund it yourself. And paying for fees and living costs to do a full time degree is something you can either afford or not. My parents gave me money from their savings to do my masters because otherwise I couldn't do it.
With so many people having degrees there's no way to stand out, apart from doing a postgraduate degree, and there's the ceiling. They are happy for people to get free money and loans to do undergrad degrees, but take a proven student who wants to go on in a subject like science and they simply tell you that either you cough up or go away. What's the bloody point in that? It's not productive or efficient. But if I'm right about the way they treat undergrad degrees as a way to keep young people out of trouble and unemployment with a loan they have to pay back then it makes sense. They don't care if only a minority have access to postgraduate education and can get those super jobs, because those jobs are in the minority anyway. The idea largely promoted by New Labour that degrees give people better jobs is a fiction that has lured millions into pointless debt, bloated universities, killed essential departments that are not the easy profit spinners and rendered the 'value' of a degree nearly meaningless.
My personal problem with this increase in fees is not so much that it is an increase, which I could understand and appreciate (after all, there's debts to be paid and, let's face it, money doesn't grow on trees) but that for many good universities it is effectively tripling overnight. This is a huge increase, and were I not safe from the fees (by a year), I would not be able to afford to go to university - to do History, incidentally. I'm aware that times are hard, but this is extreme, even given that.
Perhaps I'm being naive here, but then whatever, I'm one of these "Know-Nothing" students people seem to patronise so much.
Good debate gentlemen, it's definitely a tough situation as these students have been planning on lower fees and tuition, but that is the risk you take when the Government has this much power over something like Tuition.
For me, I kind of have become disenfranchised with the concept of "a college degree instantly equals success", yes it helps exapnd opportunities, but it's no guarantor of success.
I find it pretty crappy that these miscreants desecrated Nelson's Column (of course they probably dont even know who he was or why he was important).
My personal problem with this increase in fees is not so much that it is an increase, which I could understand and appreciate (after all, there's debts to be paid and, let's face it, money doesn't grow on trees) but that for many good universities it is effectively tripling overnight. This is a huge increase, and were I not safe from the fees (by a year), I would not be able to afford to go to university...
Why? You don't have to pay the fees up front. Perhaps you're just not that committed to reading history?
djones520 wrote:The US system makes education available for anyone who really wishes to strive for it. Scholarships, grants, tax breaks, etc... You work for it, you put yourself out there to get it, and you will. For those who won't, they'll take the other jobs. And now the government hasn't dished out all that money for people who were looking for an excuse to spend 4 years getting drunk on the government dime.
Umm, you still have to work to qualify for acceptance into public university. The only difference is that a portion of your population that might be talented enough, will be unable to attend because of the high cost of tuition.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:At the moment people are discouraged from these professions because they are harder to do than meeja studies, and pay less well. Is it really a good idea to add higher course fees, and a special graduate tax on top?
We also risk reducing the talent pool to people whose daddies are rich.
Except that you don't start paying it back until you start earning money. And once a doctor or lawyer starts earning loads of money on the back of his publically provided education, shouldn't he repay some of it?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
rubiksnoob wrote:In theory at least, wouldn't cutting welfare to increase funding for education be perfectly feasible since more education equates to more people with higher paying jobs, reducing the percentage of the population reliant upon welfare?
Or does that just reveal my terrible understanding of economics?
It would, but there's a time lag involved. Students wouldn't be out getting those high paying jobs until three or four years down the track.
There's also a problem assuming that having a skilled person means there'll be a skilled job for them to do.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mr. Burning wrote:More money to education?
Do we really need to support more students getting poor third class degrees in 'media studies' or 'creative writing?'
Take out the majority of pointless degree courses and you would end up saving a heck of a lot more money.
I'm all for empowering the citizenry, but, a degree regarding the agnostic principles of prousts life and works is just as unlikely to put food on your plate as being an uneducated buffoon!
Higher education is not just a means to getting a higher paying job. Studying literature or politics or something similar is unlikely to get you a high paying job, but still matters to society.
That's not to be confused with media studies and the like, which are just junk degrees, that don't produce jobs, and don't produce academic work of any value.
djones520 wrote:The US system makes education available for anyone who really wishes to strive for it. Scholarships, grants, tax breaks, etc... You work for it, you put yourself out there to get it, and you will. For those who won't, they'll take the other jobs. And now the government hasn't dished out all that money for people who were looking for an excuse to spend 4 years getting drunk on the government dime.
Umm, you still have to work to qualify for acceptance into public university. The only difference is that a portion of your population that might be talented enough, will be unable to attend because of the high cost of tuition.
Student Loans? FAFSA? There's a copious amount of ways to get money for school.
Howard A Treesong wrote:The problem is because they had the aim of 50% going through university they couldn't support them all. When my dad went to university they introduced grants, it allowed him to leave a working class background and enter a middle class education and profession. Otherwise he couldn't have gone. But now they want everyone to go, and it means they can pay for no one. Which now means people have to pay again, and ultimately it's the poorest that lose out. This is a backwards step, money should not be a bar to education if you can the ability. Remember, people who get high education get better jobs and thus pay more tax and bring money into the country, so it all goes around in circles.
Well said, though I'd just like to correct you on a couple of things. This plan wasn't a particularly New Labour or even a particularly English thing, the idea that you can build a high paying economy by producing loads of highly skilled people, then figuring the high skilled jobs would just appear was pretty much a worldwide mistake. Most developed countries piled money into expanding tertiary education for this reason.
The second part is that you assume some kind of Machiavellian intent behind it all. Having worked in government, and now working at a university, I can tell you that there is no cynical motive. It's really just the combination of different groups all working from their own points of view, producing an overall system that made no sense. Politicians wanted economic growth, and thought the best way to do this would be to increase the number of people with degrees. The universities simply want to educate, so they'll always accept more funding to teach more students. Business (or any other faculty) is looking to fight the constantly raising cost of academic salaries, so it fights to take as much of that money as it can... but it looks at the quality of the new kids and their academic records, and there's no way they'd get through an Finance or Economics degree. So it offers a major in Administration or Marketing or something else that's completely softball.
The result is a lot of money and time getting spent, with no real benefit to anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:Student Loans? FAFSA? There's a copious amount of ways to get money for school.
Do you think, looking purely at the financials of the situation, that it is as easy for a kid whose parents are on minimum wage to gain a tertiary education as it is for a kid coming from a middle class background?
Howard A Treesong wrote:The problem is because they had the aim of 50% going through university they couldn't support them all. When my dad went to university they introduced grants, it allowed him to leave a working class background and enter a middle class education and profession. Otherwise he couldn't have gone. But now they want everyone to go, and it means they can pay for no one. Which now means people have to pay again, and ultimately it's the poorest that lose out. This is a backwards step, money should not be a bar to education if you can the ability. Remember, people who get high education get better jobs and thus pay more tax and bring money into the country, so it all goes around in circles.
Well said, though I'd just like to correct you on a couple of things. This plan wasn't a particularly New Labour or even a particularly English thing, the idea that you can build a high paying economy by producing loads of highly skilled people, then figuring the high skilled jobs would just appear was pretty much a worldwide mistake. Most developed countries piled money into expanding tertiary education for this reason.
The second part is that you assume some kind of Machiavellian intent behind it all. Having worked in government, and now working at a university, I can tell you that there is no cynical motive. It's really just the combination of different groups all working from their own points of view, producing an overall system that made no sense. Politicians wanted economic growth, and thought the best way to do this would be to increase the number of people with degrees. The universities simply want to educate, so they'll always accept more funding to teach more students. Business (or any other faculty) is looking to fight the constantly raising cost of academic salaries, so it fights to take as much of that money as it can... but it looks at the quality of the new kids and their academic records, and there's no way they'd get through an Finance or Economics degree. So it offers a major in Administration or Marketing or something else that's completely softball.
The result is a lot of money and time getting spent, with no real benefit to anyone.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:Student Loans? FAFSA? There's a copious amount of ways to get money for school.
Do you think, looking purely at the financials of the situation, that it is as easy for a kid whose parents are on minimum wage to gain a tertiary education as it is for a kid coming from a middle class background?
In the US, if you are: poor, a minority (ethnic, religious, sexual, etc.) or disabled it is really easy to get scholarships as long as your grades meet the standards of said scholarships (which are usually always lower just so the school can feather their cap by having a diverse student body).
My personal problem with this increase in fees is not so much that it is an increase, which I could understand and appreciate (after all, there's debts to be paid and, let's face it, money doesn't grow on trees) but that for many good universities it is effectively tripling overnight. This is a huge increase, and were I not safe from the fees (by a year), I would not be able to afford to go to university...
Why? You don't have to pay the fees up front. Perhaps you're just not that committed to reading history?
Maybe so, but I still have to pay them. As you would quite rightly point out, that money's got to be paid back, and despite all the commitment in the world I cannot pay back £36,000 back (not including living and accomodation costs) if it is not within my budget to do so. The new legislation seems to assume that I, University Student A, will immediately go into a high-paying job at the end of my degree, which is of course simply not the case; even the courses considered to be vital don't lead to a great job instantly.
Besides, my plan was to say "sod it" and get an OU degree if I didn't get into a university this year. I did have a backup plan, you know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:Student Loans? FAFSA? There's a copious amount of ways to get money for school.
Do you think, looking purely at the financials of the situation, that it is as easy for a kid whose parents are on minimum wage to gain a tertiary education as it is for a kid coming from a middle class background?
Stormrider wrote:In the US, if you are: poor, a minority (ethnic, religious, sexual, etc.) or disabled it is really easy to get scholarships as long as your grades meet the standards of said scholarships (which are usually always lower just so the school can feather their cap by having a diverse student body).
Ah, but this is not the US, is it? Things are a little different here. Scholarships are bloomin' hard to come by unless you're going into very specific careers.
Stormrider wrote:In the US, if you are: poor, a minority (ethnic, religious, sexual, etc.) or disabled it is really easy to get scholarships as long as your grades meet the standards of said scholarships (which are usually always lower just so the school can feather their cap by having a diverse student body).
Scholarships do minimise the problem to some degree, but your claim that people from an economically disadvantaged can 'easily' access scholarships is extremely unlikely to be true. If it were, we'd see students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds attending tertiary education in more or less the same numbers as they are in countries where tuition is heavily subsidised or built around 'pay once you're earning scheme'. They aren't.
Stormrider wrote:In the US, if you are: poor, a minority (ethnic, religious, sexual, etc.) or disabled it is really easy to get scholarships as long as your grades meet the standards of said scholarships (which are usually always lower just so the school can feather their cap by having a diverse student body).
Scholarships do minimise the problem to some degree, but your claim that people from an economically disadvantaged can 'easily' access scholarships is extremely unlikely to be true. If it were, we'd see students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds attending tertiary education in more or less the same numbers as they are in countries where tuition is heavily subsidised or built around 'pay once you're earning scheme'. They aren't.
It's called one word: desire. Most of these potential students you speak of couldn't be bothered with trying to help themselves. There's so many opportunities to get to college, but you have to want it.
As for subsidy, there's lots of state funded Community Colleges and many larger Universities get some kind of state money. There's no excuses if someone can't get in. The education below it is all government funded too.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Albatross wrote:
Gorskar.da.Lost wrote:
Ahtman wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:^^ This, this, all of this (x2).
x3
X4.
My personal problem with this increase in fees is not so much that it is an increase, which I could understand and appreciate (after all, there's debts to be paid and, let's face it, money doesn't grow on trees) but that for many good universities it is effectively tripling overnight. This is a huge increase, and were I not safe from the fees (by a year), I would not be able to afford to go to university...
Why? You don't have to pay the fees up front. Perhaps you're just not that committed to reading history?
Maybe so, but I still have to pay them. As you would quite rightly point out, that money's got to be paid back, and despite all the commitment in the world I cannot pay back £36,000 back (not including living and accomodation costs) if it is not within my budget to do so. The new legislation seems to assume that I, University Student A, will immediately go into a high-paying job at the end of my degree, which is of course simply not the case; even the courses considered to be vital don't lead to a great job instantly.
Besides, my plan was to say "sod it" and get an OU degree if I didn't get into a university this year. I did have a backup plan, you know.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Stormrider wrote:Student Loans? FAFSA? There's a copious amount of ways to get money for school.
Do you think, looking purely at the financials of the situation, that it is as easy for a kid whose parents are on minimum wage to gain a tertiary education as it is for a kid coming from a middle class background?
Stormrider wrote:In the US, if you are: poor, a minority (ethnic, religious, sexual, etc.) or disabled it is really easy to get scholarships as long as your grades meet the standards of said scholarships (which are usually always lower just so the school can feather their cap by having a diverse student body).
Ah, but this is not the US, is it? Things are a little different here. Scholarships are bloomin' hard to come by unless you're going into very specific careers.
Which sucks out loud. That helps contract on people's ability to pick a more career condusive to their skill set.
So you're saying that poor and working class people in other countries in the world are somehow more desirous than in the US? Honestly?
As for subsidy, there's lots of state funded Community Colleges and many larger Universities get some kind of state money.
Yes, but do any of them offer a program where you can attend, accrue tuition fees, and only start paying those tuition fees back when you've graduated and moved into a high paying position? Because when you're talented but come from a disadvantaged background, that's a big deal.
The problem actually comes more when you are in the middle ground - too well off to qualify for much in the way of aid, yet not well off enough to be able to pay your own way comfortably, if at all.
My personal problem with this increase in fees is not so much that it is an increase, which I could understand and appreciate (after all, there's debts to be paid and, let's face it, money doesn't grow on trees) but that for many good universities it is effectively tripling overnight. This is a huge increase, and were I not safe from the fees (by a year), I would not be able to afford to go to university...
Why? You don't have to pay the fees up front. Perhaps you're just not that committed to reading history?
Maybe so, but I still have to pay them. As you would quite rightly point out, that money's got to be paid back, and despite all the commitment in the world I cannot pay back £36,000 back (not including living and accomodation costs) if it is not within my budget to do so. The new legislation seems to assume that I, University Student A, will immediately go into a high-paying job at the end of my degree, which is of course simply not the case; even the courses considered to be vital don't lead to a great job instantly.
Which is why you don't start repaying your loans until you meet the earnings threshold, which has just been increased to £21K. My missus has just started repaying hers - she pays about £100 a month, which is well within the means of someone earning £21K or above.
An interesting point would be: Can the government/loan provider sell your debt on? Potentially increasing the interest rate, if it is set higher by the new owner. Or is it set regardless of who owns it?
Kilkrazy wrote:It came about because people came to view mortgages as an investment, when actually they are a way of getting a roof over your head.
Isn't securing a roof over your head for the long-term a good investment for the future? Or have I been taking fething crazy pills again?
No alb your about right, KK is just a guardian reader and as such its very diffcult to agree with him on much regarding politics.
I think SuperDave has performed admirably thus far. I hope he doesnt bend an inch and cave in to all these lefty whingers.
I just wish he had the bottle to unleash a few thousand soldiers on these smelly students.They should give the Taliban a week off and put them all in the hurt locker.
I for one would have taken great satisfaction in firing my baton rounds into the back of some pinko who is driving his boot into the windshield of a meatwagon.
Medium of Death wrote:An interesting point would be: Can the government/loan provider sell your debt on? Potentially increasing the interest rate, if it is set higher by the new owner. Or is it set regardless of who owns it?
Seeing your Union Jack under your name, I should preface this with "In America," as I don't know about your financial stuffs.
If you have a fixed interest loan, then it is set regardless of who owns it.
If you have a variable interest loan:
1. Don't do that.
2. There are terms and conditions of that loan that the new owner of your debt still has to adhere to, which is generally some interest rate standard metrix +x%.
We paid my wife's loan off slowly because the interest rates were lower than our home loan. So, it was better to spend extra on the house's principle than her loan.
Kilkrazy wrote:It came about because people came to view mortgages as an investment, when actually they are a way of getting a roof over your head.
Isn't securing a roof over your head for the long-term a good investment for the future? Or have I been taking fething crazy pills again?
A mortgage doesn't secure your home since if you default you will get kicked out with the debt still owing.
A long term lease or rental is an alternative way of having a secure home. The payments are fixed so there is no danger of an interest rate rise overwhelming your ability to meet the payments.
The attraction of mortgages is that we expect the value of the house to climb rapidly and exceed the value of the mortgage after only a few years, thus yielding a tidy profit on eventual sale. Note that you can only realise this profit by liquidating the asset, which leaves you without a home.
What people hope to do is climb the mortgage ladder until they have a family, get the kids through university, then sell up and retire to a smaller and cheaper property on the coast.
This has worked quite nicely for some people, but it has gone badly wrong for others.
SilverMK2 wrote:The problem actually comes more when you are in the middle ground - too well off to qualify for much in the way of aid, yet not well off enough to be able to pay your own way comfortably, if at all.
Which is kind of what happened to me, they make enough money to disallow me to recieve any money intended for the poor, my grades were more than good enough to get all kinds of scholarships, if I was a minority. Luckily my parents used a tax exempt fund approved by the State of Missouri to build up tuition.
Kilkrazy wrote:It came about because people came to view mortgages as an investment, when actually they are a way of getting a roof over your head.
Isn't securing a roof over your head for the long-term a good investment for the future? Or have I been taking fething crazy pills again?
A mortgage doesn't secure your home since if you default you will get kicked out with the debt still owing.
A long term lease or rental is an alternative way of having a secure home. The payments are fixed so there is no danger of an interest rate rise overwhelming your ability to meet the payments.
The attraction of mortgages is that we expect the value of the house to climb rapidly and exceed the value of the mortgage after only a few years, thus yielding a tidy profit on eventual sale. Note that you can only realise this profit by liquidating the asset, which leaves you without a home.
What people hope to do is climb the mortgage ladder until they have a family, get the kids through university, then sell up and retire to a smaller and cheaper property on the coast.
This has worked quite nicely for some people, but it has gone badly wrong for others.
Got a better idea?
I mean, you say all this as if I haven't considered any of it before.
Medium of Death wrote:An interesting point would be: Can the government/loan provider sell your debt on? Potentially increasing the interest rate, if it is set higher by the new owner. Or is it set regardless of who owns it?
Seeing your Union Jack under your name, I should preface this with "In America," as I don't know about your financial stuffs.
If you have a fixed interest loan, then it is set regardless of who owns it.
If you have a variable interest loan:
1. Don't do that. 2. There are terms and conditions of that loan that the new owner of your debt still has to adhere to, which is generally some interest rate standard metrix +x%.
We paid my wife's loan off slowly because the interest rates were lower than our home loan. So, it was better to spend extra on the house's principle than her loan.
Currently the interest on student loans tracks the base rate of interest (set by the Bank of England) by -0.5%. The base rate is currently 0.5%, so students pay no interest on their loans. However there was some talk of applying a real rate of interest to student loans, of 3-4% above the base rate. Also having such a low rate in interest is a little bit anomolous and it wont remain that way for ever, so in a few years we can realistically expect students to be paying 5-6% interest on their loans, which will be around £30k+.
Unlike normal loan markets there will be no choice in which products to get, because even the most stupidly blind drunk banker is not going to give a student, with no means of income, £30,000 on the off chance that in 3 years they will earn enough to pay it back. So the situation become one where the rich can just afford the tuition fees straight away, and the middle and working classes will send fewer of their children to university.
This will result in a reduction of highly skilled professionals in the future, because it could be expected that the drop in student numbers will be from all degrees equally, rather than those you which everyone seems to have a distaste for, which will ultimately mean that there will be fewer nurses, teachers, engineers, and scientists, because these professions earn less money that your lawyers, bankers and doctors, and these professions will be filled with people from predominantly rich back grounds, thus reducing social mobility.
I also find it amusing that everyone is having a dig at media studies, when the media is the most powerful tool for social control that has ever existed. Think about how many times you have bought a product after seeing an advert for it, or how many times these has been a legislation change introduced on the back of a public outcry proliferated by the media. Honestly it is a doss course, but one that is very useful in todays society.
My personal problem with this increase in fees is not so much that it is an increase, which I could understand and appreciate (after all, there's debts to be paid and, let's face it, money doesn't grow on trees) but that for many good universities it is effectively tripling overnight. This is a huge increase, and were I not safe from the fees (by a year), I would not be able to afford to go to university...
Why? You don't have to pay the fees up front. Perhaps you're just not that committed to reading history?
Maybe so, but I still have to pay them. As you would quite rightly point out, that money's got to be paid back, and despite all the commitment in the world I cannot pay back £36,000 back (not including living and accomodation costs) if it is not within my budget to do so. The new legislation seems to assume that I, University Student A, will immediately go into a high-paying job at the end of my degree, which is of course simply not the case; even the courses considered to be vital don't lead to a great job instantly.
Which is why you don't start repaying your loans until you meet the earnings threshold, which has just been increased to £21K. My missus has just started repaying hers - she pays about £100 a month, which is well within the means of someone earning £21K or above.
True enough, but my dad earns that (just about) and he's a Network Rail signalman. Again, he's unlikely to be able to bear that kind of debt on top of all the other stuff he pays for per month. Admittedly, I don't intend to be saddled with kids myself quite so soon, so perhaps it's not quite the same financial situation, but even so, £39,000 of debt is a lot to consider. My mam, who went to university to study accountancy, ended up with £10,000 debt at the age of 18 in student fees and she's only just paid it off now, in her late thirties. It stands to reason that a larger debt will accordingly take a larger time to pay off, interest and the like being factored in.
NOTE that this is mostly personal anecdotes, so take 'em with a pinch of salt, as they may not be typical.
