Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

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'.

Meh, this story was doing the rounds 12 years ago when I went to uni...

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.

Reality SHow?

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

He insist vehemently that they clean up afterwards with warm baby wipes to

^ That's hilarious and also going to be my new sig. if you don't mind

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

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.

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.

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

Should parents pay for school age children's education?

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:Should parents pay for school age children's education?

Doesn't that happen already?

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.

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...

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.

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... )

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

Didn't we hve a some school system thats geared towards a carrer field starting like 5th grade recently?