26272
Post by: Lux_Lucis
Well here's the round up from BBC News:
Greater numbers of students in England are turning to prostitution to fund their education, the National Union of Students (NUS) claims.
The NUS also says students are turning to gambling and taking part in medical experiments to fund their studies.
It says increased living costs and fees, and cuts to the education maintenance allowance, play a part.
But the government says it offers students a "generous package" of financial support.
Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live's Breakfast programme, Estelle Hart, the NUS's national women's officer, said government cuts had put more pressure on students.
"Students are taking more dangerous measures," said Ms Hart.
"In an economic climate where there are very few jobs, where student support has been massively cut, people are taking more work in the informal economy, such as sex work.
"It's all dangerous unregulated work, simply so people can stay in education."
Helpline calls
The English Collective of Prostitutes, which runs a helpline from its base in London, said the number of calls it receives from students had at least doubled in the past year.
Sarah Walker from the organisation has seen a steady increase in calls from students over the last 10 years, but said her group had received an unprecedented number of calls since the government's announcement that universities in England could charge tuition fees of up to £9,000 a year from 2012.
"They [ministers] know that the cuts they're making are driving women into things like sex work. It's a survival strategy so we would hold the government responsible for that."
That's about half, the full link's here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-16157522
I see it as worrying personally, especially when even college students (16-18 year olds generally for the non-British of you) feel they have to resort to sex work to just get an education.
And, as a student myself, on the most you can get, I can assure you, the finance is not 'generous'.
18410
Post by: filbert
Meh, this story was doing the rounds 12 years ago when I went to uni...
26272
Post by: Lux_Lucis
It's more the huge increase in numbers recently. I assume that students have always been turning to such things, but there's been a sharp spike in the numbers recently.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Reality SHow?
514
Post by: Orlanth
Its the students fault not the government. This is not like higher education in the US. Every student is entitled to a loan for fees plus living expenses, that loan repayment is deferred entirely until you match a certain earning power. Yes the fees are up front but the debt is interest free and if you never match the earning threshold is never paid.
The system is in fact very fair, just try telling that to a student or left wing nincompoop. Now admittedly Scots get free education, but that is due to devolution and the extra funding mostly from central government that the rest of us cannot do anything about.
If an increased number of students are turning to prostitution is is because of lowered standards, higher prices and the general concern that most students don't know how to budget.
They can easily make do, most do, some just cannot get around the need to squander their adequate monies on beer and nightclubs.
46535
Post by: Brother-Captain Scotti
Orlanth said:
Its the students fault not the government. This is not like higher education in the US. Every student is entitled to a loan for fees plus living expenses, that loan repayment is deferred entirely until you match a certain earning power. Yes the fees are up front but the debt is interest free and if you never match the earning threshold is never paid.
The system is in fact very fair, just try telling that to a student or left wing nincompoop. Now admittedly Scots get free education, but that is due to devolution and the extra funding mostly from central government that the rest of us cannot do anything about.
If an increased number of students are turning to prostitution is is because of lowered standards, higher prices and the general concern that most students don't know how to budget.
They can easily make do, most do, some just cannot get around the need to squander their adequate monies on beer and nightclubs.
QFT.
My best buddy has gone to uni and while yes he is living at home, not that that matters cos you get less, he has saved a lot of money in an ISA so he can use it later. It's all about budgeting 
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:
The system is in fact very fair, just try telling that to a student or left wing nincompoop.
Please, tell m more.
Orlanth wrote:
They can easily make do, most do, some just cannot get around the need to squander their adequate monies on beer and nightclubs.
All US students are entitled to loans, as well.
514
Post by: Orlanth
dogma wrote:Orlanth wrote:
The system is in fact very fair, just try telling that to a student or left wing nincompoop.
Please, tell m more.
Orlanth wrote:
They can easily make do, most do, some just cannot get around the need to squander their adequate monies on beer and nightclubs.
All US students are entitled to loans, as well.
The principle difference is that students loans are guaranteed interest free and only repayable past a certain earning threshold, this is also not a veiled benefit made difficult to claim. It is however still a loan, not a handout (which is what the NUS regularly demands).
US education costs more and doesn't have quite the same funding safeguards. It has been said that education in the US is a privilege, most cannot afford it. Provision is available to the poor but it is not widely available and mostly linked to scholarships. Same is not true in the UK, even with the new heavily increased fess full funding is available, no matter what the Labour party would have you believe.
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
Orlanth wrote:The principle difference is that students loans are guaranteed interest free and only repayable past a certain earning threshold, this is also not a veiled benefit made difficult to claim. It is however still a loan, not a handout (which is what the NUS regularly demands).
They aren't interest free though, just lower interest than a standard bank loan. The interest begins from the first payment, so I had already accrued a bit by the time I left Uni, the interest has put about £2K on my loan IIRC.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Yeah cry me a river, clearly you can get through uni without sucking people off. It's another fething sob story.
How is reverting to the tax payer footing the bill for everything fair on tax payers?
I'm not wealthy, if tax payers have to foot all the bills even though it's primarily benefiting the student Im going to start doing handjobs for cash then see if the NUS want to do a story about me.
18024
Post by: Velour_Fog
mattyrm wrote: Yeah cry me a river, clearly you can get through uni without sucking people off. It's another fething sob story.
How is reverting to the tax payer footing the bill for everything fair on tax payers?
I'm not wealthy, if tax payers have to foot all the bills even though it's primarily benefiting the student Im going to start doing handjobs for cash then see if the NUS want to do a story about me.
matty... you're such a legend 
50512
Post by: Jihadin
He insist vehemently that they clean up afterwards with warm baby wipes to
22627
Post by: Grabzak Dirtyfighter
Orlanth wrote:dogma wrote:Orlanth wrote:
The system is in fact very fair, just try telling that to a student or left wing nincompoop.
Please, tell m more.
Orlanth wrote:
They can easily make do, most do, some just cannot get around the need to squander their adequate monies on beer and nightclubs.
All US students are entitled to loans, as well.
The principle difference is that students loans are guaranteed interest free and only repayable past a certain earning threshold, this is also not a veiled benefit made difficult to claim. It is however still a loan, not a handout (which is what the NUS regularly demands).
US education costs more and doesn't have quite the same funding safeguards. It has been said that education in the US is a privilege, most cannot afford it. Provision is available to the poor but it is not widely available and mostly linked to scholarships. Same is not true in the UK, even with the new heavily increased fess full funding is available, no matter what the Labour party would have you believe.
With a horrendous credit score and no job I still get approved for student loans here in the US. The financial aid department told me that changed were made recently in the system ( this was about a year and a half ago) that made educational loans available to everyone in the US except people who had previously defaulted on student loans
15594
Post by: Albatross
Anyone who says that it's hard to make ends meet as a student is talking sheer bollocks, I'm afraid. I'm a student, and my student finance works out at £500 per month - I only need earn about £400 (which I won't pay tax on) per month, working part time, to have a decent, if not amazing, level of income. If you can't live on £900 per month, then you need to stop going out on the lash as often, and perhaps move out of London.
Student support in the UK is generous.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
mattyrm wrote: Yeah cry me a river, clearly you can get through uni without sucking people off. It's another fething sob story.
How is reverting to the tax payer footing the bill for everything fair on tax payers?
I'm not wealthy, if tax payers have to foot all the bills even though it's primarily benefiting the student Im going to start doing handjobs for cash then see if the NUS want to do a story about me.
This will change your mind.
People who go to university tend to become less religious.
32928
Post by: obsidianaura
I agree, students should not be funded by the tax payer. They get there loan and when wealthy enough, pay it back. It seems perfectly fair.
The trouble is the student loan will count against them for a mortgage which is a little unfair
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Should parents pay for school age children's education?
7361
Post by: Howard A Treesong
mattyrm wrote: How is reverting to the tax payer footing the bill for everything fair on tax payers?
We are always being told that people who go to Uni will get better jobs, have training to do specialised work for the country, thus they will earn more and pour more back into the economy through tax. There's nothing wrong with the taxpayer funding education because these people will become taxpayers.
Why does this break down? Because the idea that a degree gives you a much better job and income is a fallacy. An untruth spread by the government to encourage ever more people to go to Uni. And one reason they did this was to disguise youth unemployment IMO, instead of being out of work for three years you take out a loan and pay for your own unemployment.
Also when a small number of people go to University, there is no great burden upon the state to fund them. But when a large number go, as the government aimed for 50% of school leavers, it is unsustainable, especially when as more people go, the reality becomes that they do not all get great jobs and pay for it all afterwards. So that's why the cost has to increasingly be burdened by students through loans rather than taxpayers. Because there's too many of them and the degree does not create an affluent person.
Universities have become bloated with courses catering to students who frankly don't need to go to university. There are degrees in things that don't them, things that would be better served by on the job training and apprenticeships, but there is an obsession with making things more academic rather than practical. The other problem is that there are also degrees that are seemingly low on real content, the so-called mickey mouse degrees. But the problem is that these degrees are cheap to run, whereas science and engineering degrees are expensive to run and the overheads from simple practical classes are significant. All students pay the same tuition fees, thus some courses are more profitable to run than others. Additionally the boom in numbers going to university is directed towards soft degrees, you don't see a boom in the numbers going into science, engineering, and other hard subjects. So universities start to favour the mickey mouse courses, they are cheaper and easier to fill, and science suffers. Look at the chemistry departments that have closed in recent years while media courses surge. And if you were to raise the costs of certain courses more than others to account for their different costs, you would drive people away from the sciences.
Simply I am a firm believer in the tax payer funding education. But universities simply need to take fewer people otherwise it's obviously unsustainable. By trying to take everyone, no one can have a grant. The government have created a false need to have degrees for certain jobs and pressurised people into seeing it as essential when it doesn't need to be at all.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
Kilkrazy wrote:Should parents pay for school age children's education?
Doesn't that happen already?
46535
Post by: Brother-Captain Scotti
Should parents pay for school age children's education?
Not really relevant, university is for those who want to further the necessary education provided. Everyone needs a basis to work off, a start line if you like where the playing field is fair (especially in a world driven like ours), but some people want to better themselves, if so, then there is a fee. simples.
10972
Post by: Ruglud
Sensaitionalist and lazy journalism here - says numbers have doubled on the helpline - so what 2 people called them this year as opposed to 1 last year?? Give us the facts, not headlines...
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Medium of Death wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:Should parents pay for school age children's education?
Doesn't that happen already?
All tax-payers fund state education, however not everyone whose children go to state schools pays taxes.
If the principle is accepted that individuals who benefit from education should pay for it, rather than society as a whole, then the children individually should be given loans to pay for school. Automatically Appended Next Post: Brother-Captain Scotti wrote:Should parents pay for school age children's education?
Not really relevant, university is for those who want to further the necessary education provided. Everyone needs a basis to work off, a start line if you like where the playing field is fair (especially in a world driven like ours), but some people want to better themselves, if so, then there is a fee. simples.
There are plenty of people who manage to get out of school without the education (reading, riting and rithmatic) needed to operate in modern society at a basic level.
Conversely, modern society also depends on very highly educated people such as doctors and engineers, whose further education is expensive.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
I would say society benefits from everyone having a basic literacy level and mathematical understanding.
Going to University doesn't stop you from becoming an 'underclass', a basic education does.
(Excluding all those people who went to school and still can't read or write... )
221
Post by: Frazzled
Orlanth wrote:Its the students fault not the government. This is not like higher education in the US. Every student is entitled to a loan for fees plus living expenses, that loan repayment is deferred entirely until you match a certain earning power. Yes the fees are up front but the debt is interest free and if you never match the earning threshold is never paid.
Really? More info please. Is this means tested? Academics required? Automatically Appended Next Post: dogma wrote:All US students are entitled to loans, as well.
Unless its changed, I am not sure thats true actually. I know when dinosaurs roamed that wasn't. it may have changed. Automatically Appended Next Post: With a horrendous credit score and no job I still get approved for student loans here in the US. The financial aid department told me that changed were made recently in the system ( this was about a year and a half ago) that made educational loans available to everyone in the US except people who had previously defaulted on student loans
That is a change. On the flip side, the cost of that university may be substantially different than in the UK.
46535
Post by: Brother-Captain Scotti
Kilkrazy wrote:
Brother-Captain Scotti wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Should parents pay for school age children's education?
Not really relevant, university is for those who want to further the necessary education provided. Everyone needs a basis to work off, a start line if you like where the playing field is fair (especially in a world driven like ours), but some people want to better themselves, if so, then there is a fee. simples.
There are plenty of people who manage to get out of school without the education (reading, riting and rithmatic) needed to operate in modern society at a basic level.
Conversely, modern society also depends on very highly educated people such as doctors and engineers, whose further education is expensive.
True they do manage to get out, but that's not what I meant. Each child/teenager is offered (actually it's enforced but UK the way it is more kids choose to be idiots than educated somewhat) the chance to have that basis of education to level the playing field up until HE, then it is a game you can play however you wish.
Yes because it is an expensive thing to teach as wages are high for the tutor and I can't begin to imagine how expensive some of the resourses and machinery involved are. And I'm sure the people who take medicine etc. will be hansomely paid some day so they shouldn't worry really.
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
Frazzled wrote:Orlanth wrote:Its the students fault not the government. This is not like higher education in the US. Every student is entitled to a loan for fees plus living expenses, that loan repayment is deferred entirely until you match a certain earning power. Yes the fees are up front but the debt is interest free and if you never match the earning threshold is never paid.
Really? More info please. Is this means tested? Academics required?
http://studentfinance-yourfuture.direct.gov.uk/?gclid=CNaNmqzPga0CFYuIfAodJT2aTQ
29408
Post by: Melissia
Brother-Captain Scotti wrote:Should parents pay for school age children's education?
Not really relevant, university is for those who want to further the necessary education provided.
If you think taht university is "further than necessary", then you apparently haven't tried to get a job which pays more than minimum wage in the past ten years.
18410
Post by: filbert
Melissia wrote:If you think taht university is "further than necessary", then you apparently haven't tried to get a job which pays more than minimum wage in the past ten years.
I guess the employment market must be different in the States than over here then because in practice, the reverse is true. Employers would much prefer someone with relevant work experience in their chosen field than someone fresh out of Uni with the ink still wet on their diploma. I should know - I left the army and went into the labour market competing against graduates (even though I don't have a degree myself). The job I got then and my progression up the company chain has everything to do with me being highly experienced in my field and very little to do with academic results. The people I have met in business and networked with all say the same thing; experience beats academia. Obviously, there becomes a bit of a vicious circle if you are the graduate trying to get a job so you can gain the relevant experience and gradually once that graduate gains the experience they then become much more of an attractive proposition to potential employers - it's that first hurdle that is the hardest.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Didn't we hve a some school system thats geared towards a carrer field starting like 5th grade recently?
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
I agree, students should not be funded by the tax payer
The idea of paying for education, in this day and age, is disgraceful. It proves that only those with money get to achieve; instead of deciding on the basis of intelligence.
ALL universities should be free.
46535
Post by: Brother-Captain Scotti
Melissa wrote:
Brother-Captain Scotti wrote:
Should parents pay for school age children's education?
Not really relevant, university is for those who want to further the necessary education provided.
If you think taht university is "further than necessary", then you apparently haven't tried to get a job which pays more than minimum wage in the past ten years.
When I say necessary I mean the compulsory education provided e.g. primary and secondary school for us in the UK. Not sure how the US works. I do appreciate the fact that HE is now necessary and all the more for it but it isn't compulsory. I know most people my age i.e. 20ish will quite happily not give a damn about being any further qualified which is a shame, there are some clever peeps out there, christ I nearly did the same until I fell into accountancy.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Ruglud wrote:Sensaitionalist and lazy journalism here - says numbers have doubled on the helpline - so what 2 people called them this year as opposed to 1 last year?? Give us the facts, not headlines...
Hit the nail on the head. It isnt even a story. I mean, really is it a story? That a very small percentage of women would be willing to bang a stranger for money?
Think about it, what percentage of students that obtain a degree at a British university go out and turn tricks for cash? Ill be generous and say 1%.
Might not 1% of the general population of UK women be willing to shag a man for money? And university be damned?
Case Closed. The story should have gone like this....
Great numbers of women in the UK are willing to have sex with a stranger for money, new research claims.
The research also says some women are willing to take part in medical experiments for money.
It says increased living costs and fees, and a desire to own Ipod's and loads of bling and also go out to them dead nice cocktail bars 4 days a week play a part.
Speaking to BBC Radio 5 Live's Breakfast programme, Estelle Hart, a woman, said..
"Modern women are more confident and sexually liberated than their parents and grandparents, and as a result a small percentage of them, perhaps 1%, are willing to get gorilla fethed by perfect strangers with cold dead eyes, as long as it allows them to party 5 days a week and shop at Waitrose"
I should work for the BBC! 
Mr Hyena wrote:I agree, students should not be funded by the tax payer
The idea of paying for education, in this day and age, is disgraceful. It proves that only those with money get to achieve; instead of deciding on the basis of intelligence.
ALL universities should be free.
A noble sentiment brother, but where do you suggest we get the billions from pray tell?
How about the current system? The primary beneficiary of going to university (the student) pays the majority, the other beneficiary (the country) help out a little bit?
Sensible yes?
299
Post by: Kilkrazy
I have to say, when you consider the following factors
University fees tripled
General recession
Inflation running at 5%
Record unemployment among young people
it does seem very unlikely that students would have any real problem with finance.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Mr Hyena wrote:
The idea of paying for education, in this day and age, is disgraceful. ...
ALL universities should be free.
All education that is necessary to be a productive member of society should be free. A degree in 15th century literature does not qualify as such. Grade school/High school education should be provided by the public. Beyond that, I don't believe that the public should be forced to pay someone to study interpretive dance.
OT: Prostitution is legal in the UK, right? I don't really see the problem with college students taking legal employment to pay their college bills. Especially if they're hot. 
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
I know where I'm going this summer... Automatically Appended Next Post: Kilkrazy wrote:I have to say, when you consider the following factors
University fees tripled
General recession
Inflation running at 5%
Record unemployment among young people
it does seem very unlikely that students would have any real problem with finance.
Sounds like the best time to enlist!
15594
Post by: Albatross
Mr Hyena wrote:I agree, students should not be funded by the tax payer
The idea of paying for education, in this day and age, is disgraceful. It proves that only those with money get to achieve; instead of deciding on the basis of intelligence.
It is decided on the basis of intelligence, or rather, academic skill. That's the only real barrier to entry that prospective students face, as the state picks up a large percentage of the cost of educating university students - the other portion being paid for by the principal beneficiary of that education, the student. These costs are met via means of a combination of student loans and grants, depending on financial circumstances. This means that the less wealthy face no financial barriers to entry, and seems the fairest all-round solution.
The idea that the state should pick up the entire tab for specialised further education is completely risible. It would mean that far less young people would have access to further education, for one.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
I can honestly say that High School has taught me nothing valuable besides a few classes. The root of our problem lies partially in the hands of High Schools, who teach almost nothing that assists the student in life.
Statistics and basic algebra is what people use. Even a four year class of that would help students.
Budgeting would REALLY help a lot of people. I take accounting, but it doesn't really help much with budgeting and finance.
Oops. Out of time. I'll edit this later.I think we should teach more practical skills that people can use. Cooking, wood-shop, fundamentals of electrical wiring, things like. There are plenty of people to teach these things.
18602
Post by: Horst
I turned to prostitution in college.
Ahhh, yes, I blew quite a bit of money on prostitutes.
Wait, thats what this is about, right?
514
Post by: Orlanth
Kilkrazy wrote:mattyrm wrote: Yeah cry me a river, clearly you can get through uni without sucking people off. It's another fething sob story.
How is reverting to the tax payer footing the bill for everything fair on tax payers?
I'm not wealthy, if tax payers have to foot all the bills even though it's primarily benefiting the student Im going to start doing handjobs for cash then see if the NUS want to do a story about me.
This will change your mind.
People who go to university tend to become less religious.
Perhaps because going on the game conflicts with their old Sunday school teaching, something has to give and it wont be beer money.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Orlanth wrote:Kilkrazy wrote:mattyrm wrote: Yeah cry me a river, clearly you can get through uni without sucking people off. It's another fething sob story.
How is reverting to the tax payer footing the bill for everything fair on tax payers?
I'm not wealthy, if tax payers have to foot all the bills even though it's primarily benefiting the student Im going to start doing handjobs for cash then see if the NUS want to do a story about me.
This will change your mind.
People who go to university tend to become less religious.
Perhaps because going on the game conflicts with their old Sunday school teaching, something has to give and it wont be beer money.
I don't care about British Religious people on the same level because they just don't wield the same power that their American chums do.. well.. except maybe on the Euthanasia issue, that still kinda boils my blood, but I can live with it. We don't have dry counties for example! 
But shooting people over Abortions and Creationism sneaking into Science books is hugely an American problem, and most of my rage is on behalf of the missus. As I said, If everyone in the States acted more like the vast majority of Church of England Christians I speak to, then I wouldn't have anything to complain about. We just dont have the same issue over here, because unlike America, 40% of British citizens don't greatly disturb me.
26272
Post by: Lux_Lucis
Kilkrazy wrote:I have to say, when you consider the following factors
University fees tripled
General recession
Inflation running at 5%
Record unemployment among young people
it does seem very unlikely that students would have any real problem with finance.
This.
From my point of view it isn't particularly easy to find jobs that will fit around uni, especially since I live in a relatively small town that supports two universities and a several colleges. Finding work that fits uni timetables in such a competitive environment is a serious problem. Add in that I live right down south (with the higher cost of living) and I can see why people struggle.
I'd also like to point out that the economy benefits from having a highly educated workforce, especially now the Government wants to move towards high-tech manufacturing to end our reliance on the financial sector.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Redbeard wrote:All education that is necessary to be a productive member of society should be free. A degree in 15th century literature does not qualify as such. Grade school/High school education should be provided by the public. Beyond that, I don't believe that the public should be forced to pay someone to study interpretive dance.
What about, say, chemistry, or finance, or other more functional academics beyond high school? Those certainly aren't equivalent to "interpretive dance". High school doesn't teach enough to get a job worth a damn; barring some extremely lucky entrepreneurship, you need SOME form of education afterwards unless you want to be stuck earning minimum rage the rest of your life. ANd even amongst entrepreneurs, the education (especially in finances and business) really helps.
38279
Post by: Mr Hyena
A noble sentiment brother, but where do you suggest we get the billions from pray tell?
How about the current system? The primary beneficiary of going to university (the student) pays the majority, the other beneficiary (the country) help out a little bit?
Sensible yes?
And if you can't afford to pay your part of the deal, but you have the intelligence to pass well, what then? Then what do you do with debt and all the problems those cause from the loans? I'm just glad that Im in my final year without having accepted a single loan. I like the way my country is doing it. Its the proper way. No tuition fees, apart from some of the very high demand courses like Medicine, Dentistry etc. Concerns about budgeting is correct though; we'd need to alter the way universities make money.
As for duff courses? well, we could make those pay to generate revenue for people who still really want those courses. Or we could scrap them.
Part of the problem of society in the current era is the lack of a drive for many people to educate themselves. Making proper education easier will improve society and therefore everyone.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
mattyrm wrote:except maybe on the Euthanasia issue... but I can live with it.
The irony
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Melissia wrote:
High school doesn't teach enough to get a job worth a damn, barring some extremely lucky entrepreneurship, you need SOME form of education afterwards unless you want to be stuck earning minimum rage the rest of your life. And even amongst entrepreneurs, the education (especially in finances and business) really helps.
Melissa, that simply isn't true, and its also extremely elitist and offensive to anyone who hasn't been to university.
Firemen join stright out of high school, as do paramedics, or what about soldiers, sailors, joiners, tailors, bus drivers, cabbies, cooks, cleaners, plasterers, painters, gardeners and bakers, they have jobs not "worth a damn" 
What about the enormous amount of people who leave high school and get an apprenticeship? Or do you count that as "some form of education"?
If that's the case, how broad is your brush? Does joining the Royal Marines and doing 32 weeks at boot count as "some form of education"? (It shouldn't by the way.. ) and most people do "some" form of training or education, it doesn't have to be a degree. gak, I bet the bloke's who work in Subway do "some form of education" to learn how to make the awesome sarnies with meatballs in them.
I know about 6 guys who did apprenticeships straight out of high school, and they are now electrical and mechanical engineers.
My brother works for a billionaire, he started out at one of his stores, went onto store manager, went onto manager of three stores, went onto manage 15 stores, sits on the board, makes $200,000 a year.
He did a 12 month college course and got into pub management, but the money sucked and a few years later he started looking for something else, got a job offer to work for his current company. He could (and many of his equally ranked colleagues) did, do it straight out of high school.
I know that some of you high flying college chicks look down on the salt of the earth, the uneducated pugs that drive your buses and lay your bricks and work in the stores you by your tofu from, but they get outta bed 5 or 6 days a week and they feed their kids and they live their lives. I think you are doing an immense disservice to them with your hauty tauty "Im going to actually matter to the world" attitude, and I also doubt that most of them wind up "stuck on minimum wage all of their lives" because funny thing, even if you only graduate high school, if you work hard and you try hard, and you turn up on time and your dressed how your supposed to be, people notice and you can go places.
Please note, I have since left the Royal Marines, I earn far above the minimum wage, and I am (here's hoping!) not even close to the end of my life. Automatically Appended Next Post: Mr Hyena wrote:
And if you can't afford to pay your part of the deal, but you have the intelligence to pass well, what then?
Then you get a loan as Albatross has, and you pay it back when you earn a decent amount of money.
And if you cant get a really good job, you don't pay it back!  Automatically Appended Next Post: SilverMK2 wrote:mattyrm wrote:except maybe on the Euthanasia issue... but I can live with it.
The irony
Well I can, because I have an iron will, and If I get terminally ill I don't need to worry about assistance from the doctor, because im dressing up as Ronald McDonald and running into Islam4UK's headquarters with 50lbs of explosive wired onto my back and my excessively large clown shoes and pockets filled with rat poison.
Just to see how they like it for a change.
50512
Post by: Jihadin
Well I can, because I have an iron will, and If I get terminally ill I don't need to worry about assistance from the doctor, because im dressing up as Ronald McDonald and running into Islam4UK's headquarters with 50lbs of explosive wired onto my back and my excessively large clown shoes and pockets filled with rat poison. Holding a bible in one hand with a pot belly pig on a leash in the other
Just to see how they like it for a change.
Fixed
29408
Post by: Melissia
mattyrm wrote: Firemen join stright out of high school, as do paramedics, or what about soldiers, sailors, joiners, tailors, bus drivers, cabbies, cooks, cleaners, plasterers, painters, gardeners and bakers, they have jobs not "worth a damn"
Lulz. Paramedics generally don't join straight out of high school here in the US-- eight or so months of eduction is the shortest I've seen. You need education after (eight months at a trade school was the minimum I saw) high school to qualify. Firemen do, but firemen are also not paid very much and are suffering huge amounts of pay cuts and budgetary cutbacks because of the current economy, as are policemen and other public servants. Similarly, soldiers, sailors, and the like DO get their education paid for by the state, both their training AND post-military, so your mentioning them just makes me laugh (I mean really, imagine if the US government made its soldiers pay for their own boot camp and other training out of pocket?). Cooks need to go to college if they want a job that's better than fast food, and bakers aren't that much better-- and for either of them, if you want to be an entrepreneur in that industry then good luck actually staying in business for more than five years. It's a highly competitive industry which is not easy to start up in when you're facing competition from so many major food chains, both fast food and otherwise. Again, as I said (in case you didn't read past the first sentence), education in business and finances usually separates the winners from the losers here. I've been a gardener (or more accurately, a groundskeeper, of which gardening is part of one's duties) and it sucks and barely pays over minimum wage. Plasterers, painters, cleaners, bus drivers, and other unskilled laborers also often get paid very little as well. Here, there's no demand for bus drivers, but rather truck drivers instead, and that's a hard life where the companies are constantly trying to screw you out of your hours, your overtime, and your time in general, as my brother in law has found out. It wasn't exactly easy on his marriage, especially given their two kids (my nephews). So again, without either luck or a college education of some kind (or at least trade school), you're really suck with unskilled, low paying jobs. I have nothing against people who have gotten lucky and managed to succeed despite not having an education (and screw you for suggesting that I do), but not everyone is so lucky.
27872
Post by: Samus_aran115
Well, honestly, you get a lot of priority in the military if you have degrees relating to your military profession. I've heard of car mechanics joining the navy and fixing up helicopters until they hit chief, and now they have a lump sum to go to college with, plus benefits and maybe even a pension. If someone just out of high school went in and did the same job with less prior hands-on training than the car mechanic, it might take a lot longer to make rank...
I still think trade schools are a great idea. Especially for prior military. You can take your MOS or rating and learn how it relates to a civilian job, and potentially make a living off it.
35006
Post by: Medium of Death
mattyrm wrote:f you work hard and you try hard, and you turn up on time and your dressed how your supposed to be, people notice and you can go places.
Just to contrast that for something a bit more downbeat.
It's about three things; (over)confidence, who you know and how much arse you're willing to sip.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Melissia wrote: I have nothing against people who have gotten lucky and managed to succeed despite not having an education (and screw you for suggesting that I do)
Sure you don't.
That you felt the urge to desperately try and backpeddle by naming each individual job and then go through the relevant hoops you need to jump through to do them.. 
Just admit you are shallow and self important (or wrong) or shall we continue this merry dance all night, with me naming the literally hundreds of jobs you can do right out of highschool and you attempting to say how difficult it is to do them? As I said, you can shift your statement endlessly if that's your game.
Subway staff that make sandwiches for a living have to go on a "course"
But then, you probably have more important things to be getting on with.. with all your important friends. Dont forget to demand that the filthy bus driver kneels for you when you enter the vehicle, and if he fails to show you your due courtesy as a highborn maiden, I suggest that you have the insolent peasant whipped.
7075
Post by: chaos0xomega
Well I've certainly enjoyed some videos of fine British lasses in the past few months that were in need of extra money ;P
Orlanth wrote:Its the students fault not the government. This is not like higher education in the US. Every student is entitled to a loan for fees plus living expenses, that loan repayment is deferred entirely until you match a certain earning power. Yes the fees are up front but the debt is interest free and if you never match the earning threshold is never paid.
The system is in fact very fair, just try telling that to a student or left wing nincompoop. Now admittedly Scots get free education, but that is due to devolution and the extra funding mostly from central government that the rest of us cannot do anything about.
I'd say so, I wish I had that deal going. I'm graduating in a week, still no job, 60k USD in debt, and I have 6 months to find a job and start making payments. Thats plenty of time, yes, but I still worry.
514
Post by: Orlanth
chaos0xomega wrote:
I'd say so, I wish I had that deal going. I'm graduating in a week, still no job, 60k USD in debt, and I have 6 months to find a job and start making payments. Thats plenty of time, yes, but I still worry.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/StudentFinance/RepayingStudentLoansCoursesStartingFrom1998/DG_10034866
This is the current legislation for the UK. Not completely interest free as first claimed but near enough. For the most part loans increment for inflation (so the loan giver is not losing out), the extra 3% during study is an incentive to complete the study process in the event that someone masquerades as a student and can raise no higher than 3% plus inflation rate. The repayment rates are very generous also.
465
Post by: Redbeard
Melissia wrote:
Firemen do, but firemen are also not paid very much
I think that firefighters make a reasonable middle-class living. My wife's cousin's husband is a firefighter, she doesn't work, and they've got three kids and are doing okay.
Are they upper-class? No. But they're not lower class either. Of course, the squeezing of the middle class is a larger problem, and one that exists, but being middle-class does not revolve around a college degree. Union jobs are largely not dependent upon college. Most go through a trade-school, which is covered by the apprenticeship program for the union. The public doesn't bear these costs. I know electricians and plumbers who are also making a comfortable middle class living and never had student loans or a college education. They served as apprentices.
A lot of college costs for those degrees that lead to higher wages (engineering, medicine, finance) don't need public financing, because the fields that they lead into pay quite well. I'm an engineer. Why should Joe Plumber pay for me to go to college when the result is that I'll make more than him? Why should the check-out person at the local supermarket pay for my education, that I'm gaining the benefit from?
The people who are screwed are those who are paying for a college degree that doesn't yield a good job. Seriously, how many English majors does the world need? How many people with degrees in interior design, or art history, can the world benefit from? What's worse, go to an expensive private university for one of these degrees, and the return on your investment is horrendous. Maybe if more people thought about what they were going to study before going to college, we wouldn't have these issues. But in High School, the emphasis seems to be on getting people to college for something, and not about what happens after.
My wife returned to school in 2005. Before she did, we discussed, what was she doing, and why. What were the career opportunities for the degree she pursued (Human Nutrition). We live in one of the largest cities in the US, and there are at least ten colleges and universities that she could have attended while still living at home. We looked at the costs for each of them, compared with the benefits, and she attended the public state school, at a reasonable price that we could afford, rather than one of the private ones that would have required loans. She graduated, passed her national licencing exam, and was hired in her field within three months. We're already seeing the return on the financial investment of her going to school.
This is the sort of thing that everyone planning to go to college should do. Just because you're in the drama club in high school doesn't make spending $30k/year on a theater degree a good idea. And, if the degree you're pursuing doesn't lead to an increased wage, perhaps you're making the wrong choice, either in terms of major, or where you're planning to go.
BTW: this is not to say there is no value in art history, or similar things. The humanities are part of what make us human. I happen to like art history. I go to museums, and read books on it. That doesn't mean that you should spend $120,000 to do the same. If you like drama, you can be part of a local community theater without paying tuition.
26272
Post by: Lux_Lucis
Orlanth wrote:chaos0xomega wrote:
I'd say so, I wish I had that deal going. I'm graduating in a week, still no job, 60k USD in debt, and I have 6 months to find a job and start making payments. Thats plenty of time, yes, but I still worry.
http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/EducationAndLearning/UniversityAndHigherEducation/StudentFinance/RepayingStudentLoansCoursesStartingFrom1998/DG_10034866
This is the current legislation for the UK. Not completely interest free as first claimed but near enough. For the most part loans increment for inflation (so the loan giver is not losing out), the extra 3% during study is an incentive to complete the study process in the event that someone masquerades as a student and can raise no higher than 3% plus inflation rate. The repayment rates are very generous also.
As a student I have no problem with the tuition loan, nor even the idea of the £9,000 one, although it will put potential students off if they take it at face value. I do have a problem with the way the fee rise has been spun to mask the fact that there will be a cut in the university budget, as the government moves the cost of university to the student but doesn't allow the university to charge enough to cover the cost of the amount the government is actually cutting (hopefully that makes sense).
I would however like to see a better cost of living loan, and since it is a loan the 'taxpayer' can have their money back, with interest. It would just make life much easier, and mean I wouldn't have to decide between food or textbooks.
16175
Post by: Stormfather
 I don't feel sorry for, or shocked by, anyone who claims to have to go into prostitution to pay for a $14k tuition bill. Give me a  break. It'd be like if I started selling weed in Washington Square Park, and afterwards claimed to have done 'to pay for my warhammers!' Nobody forces them to go to college, and nobody forces them to not get a real job while they're in school / on summer vacation. Nobody forces them to not take a year or three off to work, to fund future schooling. It's a choice they're making, not something that the UK government is forcing upon them. I grew up poor, and my education was largely funded by scholarships, my own contributions, and loans, and I find it insulting that this article is correlating poor university students with prostitution and crime without providing any information backing these claims up. What's the sample size we're looking at? 2? And nobody has to go to college. Among my friends from high school, many didn't go to college, and became (after an apprenticeship, on the job training, or certification): construction worker, member of the US Armed Forces, auto mechanic, elevator mechanic, and electrician. And, FWIW, the elevator mechanic made more money per year than I did during the three years that I was a teacher. Two other friends got associates degrees at a part-time community college program, and became, after attending a training program offered through the institutions in which they are employed, a professional firefighter and a corrections officer. All of them are living comfortably, some have started their families already. All of them have been successful, without ever 'going off to college.' to Redbeard and Mattrym for standing up for the blue collars out there. I did go to college. A lot of college. During undergrad, I worked everything from McDonalds to a Rat Farm. After undergrad, I took three years off to teach in an inner city high school to save money for more education. And you know what? It was worth it (to me). A master's degree later, I was broke, and finally turned to... not prostitution... not distribution... but student loans. I've had some really tight months, and I've eaten more than my fair share of store brand food in my day. I've fixed cars and tutored suspended kids, proctored tests and postdated rent checks. But I've never had to compromise my integrity or resort to illegal activity to pay my rent and tuition. This article is acting as though people are being forced to do so, to cover tuition and cost of living. I call BS. They're doing it so they can live comfortably while they're students. They're doing it so they don't have to work 10 hours on a Saturday tutoring kids on superintendent's suspension. They're doing it so they don't have to eat Goya brand rice that one week when the paycheck didn't get mailed. They're doing it so they can have a car, rather than take the bus, and so they can live in a decent apartment near school, rather than a studio in a seedy neighborhood in a different borough. None of these things are necessities, they're luxuries. And give me a break. £9000 a year? That's $14k American. I wish schools here in America cost $14k a year. My BS cost me ~$10k a year, for four years. My MS cost me $32k a year, for one and a half years. My DDS costs me $69k a year, for four years (in progress). Thats about $400,000 (£260,000) for nine and half years of education. $14k a year would be a godsend. TLDR? You don't need to go to college to be successful. If you do go to college, you don't need to whore yourself out to pay for it. £9000 a year is not an unreasonable price for college. And sorry if this ticks anyone off, but this article sort of struck a nerve with me.
26272
Post by: Lux_Lucis
Stormfather wrote:
I don't feel sorry for, or shocked by, anyone who claims to have to go into prostitution to pay for a $14k tuition bill. Give me a break. It'd be like if I started selling weed in Washington Square Park, and afterwards claimed to have done 'to pay for my warhammers!' Nobody forces them to go to college, and nobody forces them to not get a real job while they're in school / on summer vacation. Nobody forces them to not take a year or three off to work, to fund future schooling. It's a choice they're making, not something that the UK government is forcing upon them. I grew up poor, and my education was largely funded by scholarships, my own contributions, and loans, and I find it insulting that this article is correlating poor university students with prostitution and crime without providing any information backing these claims up. What's the sample size we're looking at? 2? And nobody has to go to college. Among my friends from high school, many didn't go to college, and became (after an apprenticeship, on the job training, or certification): construction worker, member of the US Armed Forces, auto mechanic, elevator mechanic, and electrician. And, FWIW, the elevator mechanic made more money per year than I did during the three years that I was a teacher. Two other friends got associates degrees at a part-time community college program, and became, after attending a training program offered through the institutions in which they are employed, a professional firefighter and a corrections officer. All of them are living comfortably, some have started their families already. All of them have been successful, without ever 'going off to college.' to Redbeard and Mattrym for standing up for the blue collars out there.
I did go to college. A lot of college. During undergrad, I worked everything from McDonalds to a Rat Farm. After undergrad, I took three years off to teach in an inner city high school to save money for more education. And you know what? It was worth it (to me). A master's degree later, I was broke, and finally turned to... not prostitution... not distribution... but student loans. I've had some really tight months, and I've eaten more than my fair share of store brand food in my day. I've fixed cars and tutored suspended kids, proctored tests and postdated rent checks. But I've never had to compromise my integrity or resort to illegal activity to pay my rent and tuition. This article is acting as though people are being forced to do so, to cover tuition and cost of living. I call BS. They're doing it so they can live comfortably while they're students. They're doing it so they don't have to work 10 hours on a Saturday tutoring kids on superintendent's suspension. They're doing it so they don't have to eat Goya brand rice that one week when the paycheck didn't get mailed. They're doing it so they can have a car, rather than take the bus, and so they can live in a decent apartment near school, rather than a studio in a seedy neighborhood in a different borough. None of these things are necessities, they're luxuries.
And give me a break. £9000 a year? That's $14k American. I wish schools here in America cost $14k a year.
My BS cost me ~$10k a year, for four years.
My MS cost me $32k a year, for one and a half years.
My DDS costs me $69k a year, for four years (in progress).
Thats about $400,000 (£260,000) for nine and half years of education. Tuition only, room and board, expenses, etc. are on top of that. $14k a year would be a godsend.
TLDR?
You don't need to go to college to be successful. If you do go to college, you don't need to whore yourself out to pay for it. £9000 a year is not an unreasonable price for college.
And sorry if this ticks anyone off, but this article sort of struck a nerve with me.
I can understand why you'd be peed off. One of the worries of the NUS is that this signals a move towards a more US style of funding. First it was free (that's a bugbear, a lot of the people in government went to uni completely on grants), then they introduced fees, now they're increasing those fees. Etc.
Then again you said that you paid $10,000 a year for your BS, while the new British fees are $14,000 a year (using your figures, haven't checked myself). Government assistance for anything higher than a Bachelor's is much harder to get than it is for a Bachelor's itself, and I think the provision for living is less, although post-grads are paid by the uni for teaching (I think that's a pretty universal practice anyway).
Half the problem is that there is a generation who HAVE been told that they need to go to uni to be successful.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Lux_Lucis wrote:Half the problem is that there is a generation who HAVE been told that they need to go to uni to be successful.
And part of the problem combining with larger numbers of graduates, especially in a potential employee rich time that we are currently "enjoying", is that the requirements for many jobs have shifted upwards - jobs that you used to be able to walk in to out of high school are now requiring degrees, or significant numbers of years of experience working in that area.
29408
Post by: Melissia
mattyrm wrote: Sure you don't [and other pointless crap]
Believe whatever you want about my beliefs, even if you have to lie to yourself to do so. Which you are.
26272
Post by: Lux_Lucis
SilverMK2 wrote:Lux_Lucis wrote:Half the problem is that there is a generation who HAVE been told that they need to go to uni to be successful.
And part of the problem combining with larger numbers of graduates, especially in a potential employee rich time that we are currently "enjoying", is that the requirements for many jobs have shifted upwards - jobs that you used to be able to walk in to out of high school are now requiring degrees, or significant numbers of years of experience working in that area.
Exactly. There's qualification inflation.
I know the government are giving preferable treatment to apprenticeships and vocational courses these days, but there's also going to have to be a cultural shift as well. Plus, compared to say thirty years ago, even manufacturing jobs require more technical expertise than they have before.
It's going to take a long time for everything to shift.
17349
Post by: SilverMK2
Lux_Lucis wrote:It's going to take a long time for everything to shift.
Indeed, and I think this also ties in to something that I don't think our American friend above appreciates; the speed at which the "price" of attending our institutions of higher education has risen.
In the US, you can reasonably expect to pay, what, $50k for a university education? There is a vast network of savings accounts, scholarship programs, etc available to anyone who wishes to attend, or for their child to attend university.
In the UK, the fees were introduced and upped quite rapidly, over the course of a decade or so.
I went to university in 2004, when tuition fees had been risen to about £1200 a year - someone coming into university 2 years later would have been paying over £3000 a year, and only a handful of years later, £9000 a year. There was no real time for anyone already within 5-10 years from university to be able to get the funding in place to pay themselves through university without a huge debt dragging around their necks for a significant period of their lives. The rapid rise in fees was also not exactly expected either and came in fits and spurts and were more or less just thrust onto people.
Even now, I've not exactly seen a rush of US style "collage fund" savings accounts being advertised so that the poor bastards going into university in 10-18 years time can come with only owing a single arm and leg, and possibly a few internal organs... The number of scholarships and bursaries are also woeful.
26272
Post by: Lux_Lucis
SilverMK2 wrote:Lux_Lucis wrote:It's going to take a long time for everything to shift.
Indeed, and I think this also ties in to something that I don't think our American friend above appreciates; the speed at which the "price" of attending our institutions of higher education has risen.
In the US, you can reasonably expect to pay, what, $50k for a university education? There is a vast network of savings accounts, scholarship programs, etc available to anyone who wishes to attend, or for their child to attend university.
In the UK, the fees were introduced and upped quite rapidly, over the course of a decade or so.
I went to university in 2004, when tuition fees had been risen to about £1200 a year - someone coming into university 2 years later would have been paying over £3000 a year, and only a handful of years later, £9000 a year. There was no real time for anyone already within 5-10 years from university to be able to get the funding in place to pay themselves through university without a huge debt dragging around their necks for a significant period of their lives. The rapid rise in fees was also not exactly expected either and came in fits and spurts and were more or less just thrust onto people.
Even now, I've not exactly seen a rush of US style "collage fund" savings accounts being advertised so that the poor bastards going into university in 10-18 years time can come with only owing a single arm and leg, and possibly a few internal organs... The number of scholarships and bursaries are also woeful.
I did mention that kind of thing earlier, didn't realise that it was only around £1200 in 2004 though!
I know my university's Union has really struggled to get its view in before the university budget was sent to the government, just because of the speed with which everything happened. Which has now meant that new students won't be getting the deal they should in regards to bursaries etc. next year.
The other thing is that it reinforces the idea of the student as customer, which I don't think is brilliant, and the variable fees introduce a market to the system which shouldn't exist. Students should be able to base their choices on where's best academically, not financially.
5534
Post by: dogma
Orlanth wrote:
. Provision is available to the poor but it is not widely available and mostly linked to scholarships.
That isn't true at all. The federal government provides subsidized, and unsubsidized, loans to all (or very nearly all) graduate and undergraduate students in the United States. The only reason a student would not receive federal funds in the course of his education is the absence of need.
By comparison, scholarships are almost immaterial.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Unless its changed, I am not sure thats true actually. I know when dinosaurs roamed that wasn't. it may have changed.
Even with both parents working, and earning a combined salary in excess of 250k per anum I, as an only child, qualified for subsidized Stafford loans. Automatically Appended Next Post: Redbeard wrote:
BTW: this is not to say there is no value in art history, or similar things. The humanities are part of what make us human. I happen to like art history. I go to museums, and read books on it. That doesn't mean that you should spend $120,000 to do the same. If you like drama, you can be part of a local community theater without paying tuition.
I'm not sure where I heard it, but perhaps the best advice I've encountered regarding the humanities and higher education is that, ultimately, you're paying for a network. This is fantastic if you're from, say Maine, where engaging with other artists is problematic, but not critical for someone from an NYC, LA, or Chicago. Automatically Appended Next Post: Redbeard wrote: Why should Joe Plumber pay for me to go to college when the result is that I'll make more than him?
Because, statistically, Joe Plumber is less likely to vote, or contribute to a political campaign. Social status comes with a whole ton of perks that are extracted from the less fortunate.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Melissia wrote:mattyrm wrote: Sure you don't [and other pointless crap]
Believe whatever you want about my beliefs, even if you have to lie to yourself to do so. Which you are.
Pointing out that you were backpeddling and clearly wrong doesn't strike me as crap.. but YMMV eh?
29408
Post by: Melissia
mattyrm wrote:Melissia wrote:mattyrm wrote: Sure you don't [and other pointless crap]
Believe whatever you want about my beliefs, even if you have to lie to yourself to do so. Which you are.
Pointing out that you were backpeddling and clearly wrong doesn't strike me as crap.. but YMMV eh?
I didn't backpedal at all. You're just so pathetically desperate for an easy victory that you attacked a strawman instead of my argument.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Melissia wrote:mattyrm wrote:Melissia wrote:mattyrm wrote: Sure you don't [and other pointless crap]
Believe whatever you want about my beliefs, even if you have to lie to yourself to do so. Which you are.
Pointing out that you were backpeddling and clearly wrong doesn't strike me as crap.. but YMMV eh?
I didn't backpedal at all. You're just so pathetically desperate for an easy victory that you attacked a strawman instead of my argument.
Why on earth am I "pathetically desperate" for an internet keyboard based victory over a stranger?
I feel better winning a game of pool, I just find it amusing that you cant just admit your mouth worked faster than your brain for a sentence and admit you were a bit hasty.
Here, ill make it easier for you by typing it for you, and then you can just quote me and then delete the mattyrm/ at the start.
"Yes, I think that saying the only possible way you can get a job that doesn't pay minimum wage for your entire life is by going to university or being really really lucky was a bit rash, and you can indeed go on to earn a good salary if you are willing to work hard when you gain an entry level position after high school"
There you go. Now we can be friends again.
221
Post by: Frazzled
I think we need to define: 1) good money; and 2) are you including other forms of education and mentorship or are you just saying university / not university?
I'd challenge most strongly that you can make good money coming out of high school (legally) over your lifetime without some sort of further education, mentorship, training program, or vocational tutilage (sorry the correct name escapes me - old school trades rising to a master level via on the job apprenticeship).
I've know a lot of very skilled guys who didn't go to college. Good men. But none of them graduated from high school and did nothing else and made beaucoup bucks.
21853
Post by: mattyrm
Frazzled wrote:I think we need to define: 1) good money; and 2) are you including other forms of education and mentorship or are you just saying university / not university?
I'd challenge most strongly that you can make good money coming out of high school (legally) over your lifetime without some sort of further education, mentorship, training program, or vocational tutilage (sorry the correct name escapes me - old school trades rising to a master level via on the job apprenticeship).
I've know a lot of very skilled guys who didn't go to college. Good men. But none of them graduated from high school and did nothing else and made beaucoup bucks.
Hey so would I!
But Mel made it quite clear that we were talking about University here. She might have backtracked and went further into the "training of some kind when you get a job" sketch, but we were talking about University and she clearly meant getting a university education or getting lucky.
All my point was is that if you get a job, do really well, impress people with your ethic and your competence, you will go up the ladder. In almost any job. Out of the millions of people who get into work after high school.. very very few will ve stuck on minimum wage until they are 50. Thats just not how gak works. If you are a great, hard working employee and after a few years at a company you need more training to climb the ladder, then of course they will provide you with it because they value your employment, that isnt what we were talking about.
As I said, you can water it down to the level that she didnt speak at all if you take that attitude, Macdonalds staff get sent on a two week course when they operate the frier, does that count as "mentorship" or vocational tutelage? Dont we ALL get trained to some degree? Even a garbage man gets shown how to work the..er.. gak crusher.
Anyway, Im just ragging on her, and we can leave it there and just say that I mistook what she meant to say, Im not the type to get into epic arguments online unless your username is Allahakbar123. I dont even fight with Orlanth anymore!
All I will say is that I took her comment as somewhat offensive, because I didn't go to University and I don't feel that makes me any less of an important person than her. I also earn far more than minimum wage, and I'm not terrible lucky.
Well, unless you count living through all them wars.. but you make your own luck! 
221
Post by: Frazzled
Gotcha, I thought thats what you were saying. Very true. There are lots of occupations that make excellent money, and without wracking your family with debt India untouchable style to do it.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Wait, some college girls actually get paid for putting out!
What is this world coming too?
11029
Post by: Ketara
This article is absolute rubbish. Being still in the system, even though I'm at a postgraduate level, I can personally attest to that.
The grants given to you by the government are sufficient to live in. They are sufficient to pay your rent, and buy you food. It's not really enough to get you much more than the odd pint in terms of leisure, but is it really so unfair to be expected to have to get a part time job to account for your own leisure outgoings? The state is, after all, covering the upfront cost of your education, that you will probably never pay back, and your basic living expenses. Why on earth should they pay for your triple vodka shots on top of that?
This is of course, not even considering the mass availability of interest free student overdrafts, usually up to the value of several thousand pounds if you have two or three accounts.
No, this is an extension of the concept of feeling entitled to the money to go out on a Friday night. Sorry, but it is. Students are adequately provided for financially, and there is always the possibility of going out and getting a part time job to supplement that income. I personally have had part time jobs since I was 16, and whilst sometimes I've had to live on noodles to make ends meet and still be able to go out on a weekend, I've kept my debt to a bare minimum.
Although matty, the contempt you seem to hold the concept of state funded education in does disturb me somewhat. I come from an extremely poor lower class background, and the state has allowed me to reach my potential in academia. Without its help, I'd be flipping burgers in Mcdonalds in an attempt to help my parents keep a roof over my younger brothers head. Is it really so bad that people like me get a helping hand to rise through society, and gain the ability to provide well for ourselves, and our future families? My father cannot earn any money over christmas, and so he's trying to get a few weeks dole money out of the state to try and pay the rent. Is that so bad, considering he paid in two thousand pounds to the system this year?
I truly bless the socialist principles that have helped to make this country what was, that are now being eroded away through the crass commercialisation and capitalism that exploits the likes of my family. Sure, there may be leechers off the system, but I look at mine and my own families background, and think that despite that, there is much merit in man providing for his felllow man. When I eventually attain my doctorate, and a good wage level, I shall not begrudge a single penny of my tax that is spent upon those less fortunate.
48860
Post by: Joey
University is a collosal waste of time unless you're doing a "proper" subject, in which case you'll be middle class enough to sustain yourself anyway.
Getting a job at 16 is far better than trying to get one at 21/22, with the added benefit of not having a shed load of debt.
16689
Post by: notprop
Students whine as badly now as they did more than a decade ago when I went to Uni. So no change there.
I applaud the girls (and boys?) who take such steps to pay their way through Uni. I got £500 of my Dad to cover the first few months of Halls of Residence and then worked my way through Uni in London. I still had a fair whack of debt and had to move credit card and overdraft balances about a fair amount to make sure the rent was paid but it was easily done.
3 jobs Barman, Doorman and Warehouse saw to this and all went on my CV when I left and stepped right into a job since I was pretty much work ready.
Now as an employer I despair at some of the grads that come to us looking for work (and I include the ones that we have sponsored through uni). Allot of them haven't done any work outside of school. In this regard the students that have a poorer backgrounds are better suited candidates, they have done jobs and adapt better than the better of who have not had that experience.
When I see some of the students bemoaning the lack of work for them on the news I do chuckle. Why would you give some of these wet behind the ears Media Study type tossers a decent job when they have never worked! (you would think that a tosser might be well suited to sex work?)
Re Mattyrms' ascertain while I was at Uni allot of my mates went straight from school into jobs in the city (of London). Tea and Post boys at big banks and various traders. I do alright for myself but all of them are minted now (tossers ) on the job trained right into some pretty good jobs. Qualifications aren't everything.
So anyway well done Student Prozzies (and lap dancers lets not forget them) for working your way through uni, better that than imagining UK plc owes you an education.
Hmmm......entitlement based complaining now what does that remind me of?
10920
Post by: Goliath
notprop wrote:Students whine as badly now as they did more than a decade ago when I went to Uni. So no change there.
I applaud the girls (and boys?) who take such steps to pay their way through Uni. I got £500 of my Dad to cover the first few months of Halls of Residence and then worked my way through Uni in London. I still had a fair whack of debt and had to move credit card and overdraft balances about a fair amount to make sure the rent was paid but it was easily done.
3 jobs Barman, Doorman and Warehouse saw to this and all went on my CV when I left and stepped right into a job since I was pretty much work ready.
Now as an employer I despair at some of the grads that come to us looking for work (and I include the ones that we have sponsored through uni). Allot of them haven't done any work outside of school. In this regard the students that have a poorer backgrounds are better suited candidates, they have done jobs and adapt better than the better of who have not had that experience.
When I see some of the students bemoaning the lack of work for them on the news I do chuckle. Why would you give some of these wet behind the ears Media Study type tossers a decent job when they have never worked! (you would think that a tosser might be well suited to sex work?)
Re Mattyrms' ascertain while I was at Uni allot of my mates went straight from school into jobs in the city (of London). Tea and Post boys at big banks and various traders. I do alright for myself but all of them are minted now (tossers ) on the job trained right into some pretty good jobs. Qualifications aren't everything.
So anyway well done Student Prozzies (and lap dancers lets not forget them) for working your way through uni, better that than imagining UK plc owes you an education.
Hmmm......entitlement based complaining now what does that remind me of?
Soooo, what you're saying is that you don't want to give any students their first job, because they've never had a job.
Can you see the teensy tiny problem with the logic of that statement?
29408
Post by: Melissia
Frazzled wrote:I'd challenge most strongly that you can make good money coming out of high school (legally) over your lifetime without some sort of further education, mentorship, training program, or vocational tutilage (sorry the correct name escapes me - old school trades rising to a master level via on the job apprenticeship).
I was referring to all continuing education, including trade school, mentorship, etc. Just graduating high school and sending out a ton of applications isn't anywhere NEAR likely to get you a good job (you have to be prodigiously lucky or well-connected for that), and you aren't really gonna be that well prepared for entrepreneurship either without any training or education in finances and business.
48860
Post by: Joey
Goliath wrote:
Soooo, what you're saying is that you don't want to give any students their first job, because they've never had a job.
Can you see the teensy tiny problem with the logic of that statement?
I started looking for my first job when I was 21 because I went to university and it's nigh-on impossible.
Even the most basic, simple things like bartending.
"Got any experience?"
"No..."
"Well we're not going to spend half an hour training you so get out"
I was eventually given a temperory job at a supermarket by the jobcentre, so I at least have *something* but it's still achingly frustratingly difficult to even get a reply from a job application, let alone an interview.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Joey wrote:Goliath wrote:
Soooo, what you're saying is that you don't want to give any students their first job, because they've never had a job.
Can you see the teensy tiny problem with the logic of that statement?
I started looking for my first job when I was 21 because I went to university and it's nigh-on impossible.
Even the most basic, simple things like bartending.
"Got any experience?"
"No..."
"Well we're not going to spend half an hour training you so get out"
I was eventually given a temperory job at a supermarket by the jobcentre, so I at least have *something* but it's still achingly frustratingly difficult to even get a reply from a job application, let alone an interview.
I've had part time jobs since I was 14 of my own volition, and I've actually never once applied to a job and NOT got an interview at least. And I went to university as well. Still here in fact, just got a new part time job three weeks ago working at the library here whilst I study for my postgrad.
I'm not meaning to rub anything in here, I'm simply trying to indicate that oing to university or not is almost irrelevant, its the fact that you waited until 21 before deciding you wanted any kind of gainful employment that shoots you in the foot.
48860
Post by: Joey
Ketara wrote:
I've had part time jobs since I was 14 of my own volition, and I've actually never once applied to a job and NOT got an interview at least. And I went to university as well. Still here in fact, just got a new part time job three weeks ago working at the library here whilst I study for my postgrad.
I'm not meaning to rub anything in here, I'm simply trying to indicate that oing to university or not is almost irrelevant, its the fact that you waited until 21 before deciding you wanted any kind of gainful employment that shoots you in the foot.
I don't hold anything against you at all, I have friends who've worked since they were 15/16 and they almost seem to fall into employment.
Problem is at school, the teachers basically tell you to go to university, especially if you're bright (which, for my sins, I was).
Same with parents. It's "You will go to university and be a doctor/lawyer bla bla bla", without for a moment considering that bright does not equal academic.
There are plenty of people in the same boat as me, who were told at school that they'd get a degree then a well-paid academic job, but are floundering around looking for work.
1206
Post by: Easy E
Yeah, the expectations were set-up, but never delivered on. that's the real problem here, and it leads to political unrest.
It's not really entitlement, but it is unmet expectation.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:I'm not meaning to rub anything in here, I'm simply trying to indicate that oing to university or not is almost irrelevant, its the fact that you waited until 21 before deciding you wanted any kind of gainful employment that shoots you in the foot.
I've had part time jobs since I was sixteen trying to pay for college, but last four years I've been unable to find gainful employment. Nobody wants to hire a college student, even one with relevant experience and a two-year degree (or better). Either I'm over or under qualified for whatever I apply for.
5534
Post by: dogma
Ketara wrote:
I'm not meaning to rub anything in here, I'm simply trying to indicate that oing to university or not is almost irrelevant, its the fact that you waited until 21 before deciding you wanted any kind of gainful employment that shoots you in the foot.
Yep.
In the modern world "entry level" means "3-5 years industry experience". Automatically Appended Next Post: Melissia wrote:
Nobody wants to hire a college student, even one with relevant experience and a two-year degree (or better). Either I'm over or under qualified for whatever I apply for.
Yeah, unfortunately there's a nice little gap in the 22-25 age range wherein it becomes very difficult to find work.
11029
Post by: Ketara
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:I'm not meaning to rub anything in here, I'm simply trying to indicate that oing to university or not is almost irrelevant, its the fact that you waited until 21 before deciding you wanted any kind of gainful employment that shoots you in the foot.
I've had part time jobs since I was sixteen trying to pay for college, but last four years I've been unable to find gainful employment.
Nobody wants to hire a college student, even one with relevant experience and a two-year degree (or better). Either I'm over or under qualified for whatever I apply for.
By that, I was referring more to menial jobs, like bar work and security, no industry positions.
39868
Post by: iproxtaco
Come to Scotland, it's free! Studying Chemical Engineering next year, living with my family still. I could stay at home providing I got a part-time job and payed for all my own stuff.
29408
Post by: Melissia
Ketara wrote:By that, I was referring more to menial jobs, like bar work and security, no industry positions.
So was I... It takes a lot of effort even to just get a fast food job, because I'm "overqualified" and they have plenty of people to choose from.
15594
Post by: Albatross
iproxtaco wrote:Come to Scotland, it's free! Studying Chemical Engineering next year, living with my family still. I could stay at home providing I got a part-time job and payed for all my own stuff.
...Apart from your education, of course.
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
mattyrm wrote: Im going to start doing handjobs for cash
Start?
21853
Post by: mattyrm
CT GAMER wrote:mattyrm wrote: Im going to start doing handjobs for cash
Start?
I saw a video of you wacking your Grandpa off on redtube.com and it was such a sexually liberating experience I figured, hey why not!
14152
Post by: CT GAMER
mattyrm wrote:CT GAMER wrote:mattyrm wrote: Im going to start doing handjobs for cash
Start?
I saw a video of you wacking your Grandpa off on redtube.com and it was such a sexually liberating experience I figured, hey why not! :
Zing!!!
221
Post by: Frazzled
Melissia wrote:Ketara wrote:By that, I was referring more to menial jobs, like bar work and security, no industry positions.
So was I...
It takes a lot of effort even to just get a fast food job, because I'm "overqualified" and they have plenty of people to choose from.
Adjust your resume. I did.
10920
Post by: Goliath
iproxtaco wrote:Come to Scotland, it's free! Studying Chemical Engineering next year, living with my family still. I could stay at home providing I got a part-time job and payed for all my own stuff.
No. It's free for scottish citizens, however I'm from england, and so would have to pay english fees, even though other people on the same course wouldn't be paying a thing.
50243
Post by: Castiel
Goliath wrote:iproxtaco wrote:Come to Scotland, it's free! Studying Chemical Engineering next year, living with my family still. I could stay at home providing I got a part-time job and payed for all my own stuff.
No. It's free for scottish citizens, however I'm from england, and so would have to pay english fees, even though other people on the same course wouldn't be paying a thing.
Yup. Sucks if you aren't Scottish, you get slapped with a huge fee.
872
Post by: Sgt_Scruffy
mattyrm wrote: Yeah cry me a river, clearly you can get through uni without sucking people off. It's another fething sob story.
How is reverting to the tax payer footing the bill for everything fair on tax payers?
I'm not wealthy, if tax payers have to foot all the bills even though it's primarily benefiting the student Im going to start doing handjobs for cash then see if the NUS want to do a story about me.
Tell me about it. I spent four years in Iraq to pay for my education. Get a job, save up, or feth, join the military.
Speaking of which, do the Royal Marines, Air Force, Navy, or Army provide education benefits?
46059
Post by: rockerbikie
This article somewhate disturbs me.
15594
Post by: Albatross
Not to worry, it's mostly bollocks.
|
|
