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.
I feel like I'm doing something wrong by responding before the pertinent posters do so.
Anyway.
"We need to keep up this momentum because eventually we'll get through to them and we can start negotiations,'' said Shayan Moghedam, 17, from Woodhouse College in north London. "This is not something that can just be ignored and the fact that students keep coming out week after week proves that.''
First, it is odd that a 17 year old was quoted as an authority figure. It saddens me that even NPR follows the one sentence paragraph format.
I have mixed feelings on this outside of my disappointment that this movement is gaining consistent international coverage.
Maybe I think they are tossers, maybe spankers, maybe people that understand something important. In all likelihood I consider them to be all of that, and more.
...Again, not that I think they should be pursuing international fething coverage.
Wrexasaur wrote:I feel like I'm doing something wrong by responding before the pertinent posters do so.
Anyway.
"We need to keep up this momentum because eventually we'll get through to them and we can start negotiations,'' said Shayan Moghedam, 17, from Woodhouse College in north London. "This is not something that can just be ignored and the fact that students keep coming out week after week proves that.''
First, it is odd that a 17 year old was quoted as an authority figure. It saddens me that even NPR follows the one sentence paragraph format.
I have mixed feelings on this outside of my disappointment that this movement is gaining consistent international coverage.
Maybe I think they are tossers, maybe spankers, maybe people that understand something important. In all likelihood I consider them to be all of that, and more.
...Again, not that I think they should be pursuing international fething coverage.
I understand that mentaility completely, coverage doesn't equal people agreeing with them.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
There are probably no people on this Earth with less useful things to say than student political groups.
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Most of the trouble at the rallies are not from genuine students but rather from a small minority who enjoy using such gatherings as a cover and an excuse to create mischief. Witness the graffiti daubed onto Nelson's column last night; they couldn't even spell 'revolution' properly.
I would agree with KK. Luckily I managed to get through University just before they hiked the fees up to £3,000 a year (I think mine were £1,200 a year).
It then didn't help that I graduated just as the whole world realised the banks had shafted everyone, so now I am in a crappy low paid job that isn't even paying me enough that I get money taken off my wages to pay back my student loan, which is continuing to grow (at an alarming rate I might add).
Even if I had to pay the £3,000 a year tuition fees (on top of roughly £3,000 in money for housing I already paid), I'm not sure whether I would have been able to go to university.
Raising it even further? Really don't think that is going to help with anything.
A move to American style "We charge what we want" system would only work here if it was established the change in fee structure would come in when someone born this year (for example) would enter university, giving people enough time to open "funds" etc to help pay for their children's education at birth.
However, I would still think that educating the workforce can only ever benefit the state, so the state should shoulder some (or indeed most) of the burden of educating people.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/01 09:00:46
So let me see if I'm getting the right. British students are rioting/protesting because they have to pay the same college fees that we already pay in the US? Well that is our average costs. We have some schools that charge as much as $35,000 a year.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/01 09:10:54
I don't know of this is controversial or not, but I think here there shouldn't be a need for academic degrees for so many.
The ones that really require degrees will only take the top % anyway, while other jobs aren't really helped by an academic degree where a practical or vocational course with some transferable skills and basic financial education would be much more beneficial to them (and the country as a whole).
That, and I find most students (or at least the public face of them) just want to mess around anyway.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/01 09:17:48
djones520 wrote:So let me see if I'm getting the right. British students are rioting/protesting because they have to pay the same college fees that we already pay in the US? Well that is our average costs. We have some schools that charge as much as $35,000 a year.
No, they are protesting because the government keeps on increasing the fees universities are allowed to charge students without much warning or time for people to prepare for the fees, and because people feel the fees are unreasonably high (you have to remember that we pay much higher taxes, as much more of our infrastructure is funded by the government, including education at lower and higher level).
For example, when I went to university (about 7 years ago when I started) I had to pay £1,200 a year in tuition fees. A few years after that it was raised to £3,000 a year. Now they are talking of costs of over £7,000 a year. They are also suggesting that they will allow universities to charge, to an uncapped amount, over and above the actual cost of educating someone (universities such as Oxford, because of their reputation would be able to charge a fortune).
djones520 wrote:So let me see if I'm getting the right. British students are rioting/protesting because they have to pay the same college fees that we already pay in the US? Well that is our average costs. We have some schools that charge as much as $35,000 a year.
No, they are protesting because the government keeps on increasing the fees universities are allowed to charge students without much warning or time for people to prepare for the fees, and because people feel the fees are unreasonably high (you have to remember that we pay much higher taxes, as much more of our infrastructure is funded by the government, including education at lower and higher level).
For example, when I went to university (about 7 years ago when I started) I had to pay £1,200 a year in tuition fees. A few years after that it was raised to £3,000 a year. Now they are talking of costs of over £7,000 a year. They are also suggesting that they will allow universities to charge, to an uncapped amount, over and above the actual cost of educating someone (universities such as Oxford, because of their reputation would be able to charge a fortune).
Are your universities private institutions? Because if so, then I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to. Nothing wrong with making a profit with the services you have to offer.
But then, I'm a dirty capitalist pig, so take what I think with a grain of salt.
djones520 wrote:Are your universities private institutions? Because if so, then I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to. Nothing wrong with making a profit with the services you have to offer.
But then, I'm a dirty capitalist pig, so take what I think with a grain of salt.
See, this is the difference between the US and the UK - we are far more socalist. Education, to my mind, should be provided by the state as much as possible, for, in the end, it benefits the state to have a pool of highly trained/educated people.
Although I also agree with daba - many people who are going to university probably should not be. Vocational courses etc would be far more applicable to most people.
djones520 wrote:Are your universities private institutions? Because if so, then I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to. Nothing wrong with making a profit with the services you have to offer.
But then, I'm a dirty capitalist pig, so take what I think with a grain of salt.
See, this is the difference between the US and the UK - we are far more socalist. Education, to my mind, should be provided by the state as much as possible, for, in the end, it benefits the state to have a pool of highly trained/educated people.
Although I also agree with daba - many people who are going to university probably should not be. Vocational courses etc would be far more applicable to most people.
Flooding the work force with "over-qualified" people isn't doing anything but making sure the government wastes money. There are only so many jobs that require higher education. We still need mechanics, janitors, etc...
By having the government dish out all this money, your getting people who end up going to school for no real reason, because they'll be unlikely to find work when they get out.
The US system makes education available for anyone who really wishes to strive for it. Scholarships, grants, tax breaks, etc... You work for it, you put yourself out there to get it, and you will. For those who won't, they'll take the other jobs. And now the government hasn't dished out all that money for people who were looking for an excuse to spend 4 years getting drunk on the government dime.
The vast majority of United Kingdom universities are government financed, with only one private university (the University of Buckingham) where the government does not subsidise the tuition fees. As universities in the United Kingdom have been publicly funded institutions, there is less corporate influence, with United Kingdom universities receiving much smaller financial endowments in comparison to what many of the larger universities in the United States of America receive. Similarly, whilst certain United Kingdom universities retain ancient traditions, none are directly funded by religious organisations.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Daba wrote:I don't know of this is controversial or not, but I think here there shouldn't be a need for academic degrees for so many.
The ones that really require degrees will only take the top % anyway, while other jobs aren't really helped by an academic degree where a practical or vocational course with some transferable skills and basic financial education would be much more beneficial to them (and the country as a whole).
That, and I find most students (or at least the public face of them) just want to mess around anyway.
I agree.
The rapid expansion of university education coupled with the Blairite principle of getting 50% of the population educated to degree level was partly achieved by creating a lot of courses such as Golf Management, and Hairdressing, cobbled up from odd bits of modules to justify them being called degrees.
The hugely increased cost of university is now to be paid off by charging would be doctors, scientists, linguists and engineers massive fees and graduate taxes. Many of these professions are not high earning, and will further discourage people from entering them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
djones520 wrote:
SilverMK2 wrote:
djones520 wrote:So let me see if I'm getting the right. British students are rioting/protesting because they have to pay the same college fees that we already pay in the US? Well that is our average costs. We have some schools that charge as much as $35,000 a year.
No, they are protesting because the government keeps on increasing the fees universities are allowed to charge students without much warning or time for people to prepare for the fees, and because people feel the fees are unreasonably high (you have to remember that we pay much higher taxes, as much more of our infrastructure is funded by the government, including education at lower and higher level).
For example, when I went to university (about 7 years ago when I started) I had to pay £1,200 a year in tuition fees. A few years after that it was raised to £3,000 a year. Now they are talking of costs of over £7,000 a year. They are also suggesting that they will allow universities to charge, to an uncapped amount, over and above the actual cost of educating someone (universities such as Oxford, because of their reputation would be able to charge a fortune).
Are your universities private institutions? Because if so, then I see no reason at all why they shouldn't be allowed to. Nothing wrong with making a profit with the services you have to offer.
But then, I'm a dirty capitalist pig, so take what I think with a grain of salt.
There are almost no private universities in the UK.
Also, we pay much higher taxes here, partly to run our public universities.
You can see why we would be put out by being asked to pay twice.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/01 09:44:33
I don't know if anybody here saw the farce that was 'Student Question Time' on BBC3 a few weeks ago.
It's pretty much a rage situation. Although I don't think that it's all bad, paying off your course when you have a job that is earning over X amount. You can't really expect people on low incomes to foot the bill to boost people to a level where they earn more than themselves. Although I do agree to funding essential degrees Doctors etc, I think we need to cut away some degrees and put them into colleges or vocational education systems. There needs to be a happy medium.
For example Nurses are educated at University, although they used to be trained within a hospital. They are thinking of dropping the pass-mark to 35% for Anatomy&Physiology in some universities. Now I don't know about you but getting anything less than 50% to me is not a pass within a subject that is clearly important to the profession. People go into Nursing now simply to get a degree, this should not be the case. Nurses do not need a degree, they got on fine for several years without having to go to university. I'm sure this applies to other degree's aswell.
gakker on a Van wrote:I'm a gakker that is just using this as an excuse to be a gakker! gakker power!
These people annoy me, they need a large hose used on them. They are only there to to cause trouble, and flaunt violent behaviour knowning that the Police can't give them a deserved thump!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2010/12/01 11:37:45
Society as a whole benefits from people being well educated.
People who get good degrees and get high paying jobs off the back of it pay higher taxes.
Britain needs scientists, engineers and linguists (for example) so we can build a world class economy which earns the money to pay for everyone else.
At the moment people are discouraged from these professions because they are harder to do than meeja studies, and pay less well. Is it really a good idea to add higher course fees, and a special graduate tax on top?
We also risk reducing the talent pool to people whose daddies are rich.
Kilkrazy wrote:Society as a whole benefits from people being well educated.
People who get good degrees and get high paying jobs off the back of it pay higher taxes.
Britain needs scientists, engineers and linguists (for example) so we can build a world class economy which earns the money to pay for everyone else.
At the moment people are discouraged from these professions because they are harder to do than meeja studies, and pay less well. Is it really a good idea to add higher course fees, and a special graduate tax on top?
We also risk reducing the talent pool to people whose daddies are rich.
Obviously there are benefits to having doctors, scientists and engineers. However these essential degrees are suffering due to the sheer number of courses available. I suppose the real question is how do you replace these 'chaff' degrees, and what with? Some universities probably need to go back to being college/vocation based, or be closed entirely.
Many of the courses seem to charge more than they are worth in terms of quality. I'm not sure if there is an independant body to set tution fee's depending on the resources provided/needed?
There should definitely be a body that picks the best and brightest pupils, regardless of background and pay for their education if they can't afford it. I guess I'm just against paying for a degree that need not exist.
I suspect education is to blame, I can't believe that exam pass rates go up yet literacy levels seem to fall. These factors do not seem to correlate, leading to the conclusion that exams are easier. Perhaps indicating some people should not be in University.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2010/12/01 12:20:19
Medium of Death wrote:For example Nurses are educated at University, although they used to be trained within a hospital.
Nurses still train at hospitals. They get basic informational input via university and a more hands on training in hospital placement. I used to walk past the nursing and midwifery building every day when I walked into university and, working at a hospital now, I see large numbers of student nurses (even know a couple of student nurses and a recently qualified nurse).
... Nurses do not need a degree, they got on fine for several years without having to go to university.
Nursing has moved on a lot since the old days, and so has the training. In order to be able to cope with the job, you need a higher level (or perhaps different type) of training than used to be provided. A degree-level program is appropriate for nursing staff.
I'm not disagreeing that there are some courses and degrees which probably should not exist, or should exist at a non-degree level, however, I disagree with your choice of targeting nursing as one such course.
Medium of Death wrote: I'm not sure if there is an independent body to set tuition fee's depending on the resources provided/needed?
Nope, it is, currently, entirely at the whim of the universities themselves. there is some talk, after all the outcry, that the Govt. may set up a body to do so or might have set a maximum amount.
The officially off record briefings being given to universities is quite open about how the govt. expects and, to an extent I hasten to add, actually wants some institutions to fold or be forced to close. The idea being that remaining ones will take up those who would have gone elsewhere or we might even see new ones opening up if the demand is there. The latter being a slight cause for concern with regards to "quality control" and the like.
The poor man really has a stake in the country. The rich man hasn't; he can go away to New Guinea in a yacht. The poor have sometimes objected to being governed badly; the rich have always objected to being governed at all
We love our superheroes because they refuse to give up on us. We can analyze them out of existence, kill them, ban them, mock them, and still they return, patiently reminding us of who we are and what we wish we could be.
"the play's the thing wherein I'll catch the conscience of the king,
Kilkrazy wrote:Society as a whole benefits from people being well educated.
People who get good degrees and get high paying jobs off the back of it pay higher taxes.
Britain needs scientists, engineers and linguists (for example) so we can build a world class economy which earns the money to pay for everyone else.
At the moment people are discouraged from these professions because they are harder to do than meeja studies, and pay less well. Is it really a good idea to add higher course fees, and a special graduate tax on top?
We also risk reducing the talent pool to people whose daddies are rich.
Obviously there are benefits to having doctors, scientists and engineers. However these essential degrees are suffering due to the sheer number of courses available. I suppose the real question is how do you replace these 'chaff' degrees, and what with? Some universities probably need to go back to being college/vocation based, or be closed entirely.
Many of the courses seem to charge more than they are worth in terms of quality. I'm not sure if there is an independant body to set tution fee's depending on the resources provided/needed?
There should definitely be a body that picks the best and brightest pupils, regardless of background and pay for their education if they can't afford it. I guess I'm just against paying for a degree that need not exist.
I suspect education is to blame, I can't believe that exam pass rates go up yet literacy levels seem to fall. These factors do not seem to correlate, leading to the conclusion that exams are easier. Perhaps indicating some people should not be in University.
I agree with those points.
The massive expansion of university education over the past 20 years was enabled by creating gak courses at new universities whose standards were sometimes "uneven".
We employers weren't fooled, and we select preferentially from the elite universities and colleges such as Imperial and UCL.
Meanwhile a bunch of students were pushed through unsuitable pseudo-academic courses, who would have been much better off with good quality apprenticeships or polytechnic education like we used to have. This was done partly because the funding follows the students, so as an administrator you have to get as many students into your university as you can.
At the same time, core science courses like Chemistry were being shut.
Medium of Death wrote:For example Nurses are educated at University, although they used to be trained within a hospital.
Nurses still train at hospitals. They get basic informational input via university and a more hands on training in hospital placement. I used to walk past the nursing and midwifery building every day when I walked into university and, working at a hospital now, I see large numbers of student nurses (even know a couple of student nurses and a recently qualified nurse).
... Nurses do not need a degree, they got on fine for several years without having to go to university.
Nursing has moved on a lot since the old days, and so has the training. In order to be able to cope with the job, you need a higher level (or perhaps different type) of training than used to be provided. A degree-level program is appropriate for nursing staff.
I'm not disagreeing that there are some courses and degrees which probably should not exist, or should exist at a non-degree level, however, I disagree with your choice of targeting nursing as one such course.
I do understand that Nurses have more tasks to do, usually uptaking some elements that junior doctors used to handle. Writting essays does not make you a good carer. I have experienced poor treatment of the elderly throughout a multitude of hospitals. Nurses now seem to think themselves above certain duties. I'm not saying this is the case for all nurses, but it is worrying that this is the case across a wide amount of hospitals. This attitude seems to have been more prevalent after the move from vocational to academic.
Medium of Death wrote:I do understand that Nurses have more tasks to do, usually uptaking some elements that junior doctors used to handle. Writting essays does not make you a good carer. I have experienced poor treatment of the elderly throughout a multitude of hospitals. Nurses now seem to think themselves above certain duties. I'm not saying this is the case for all nurses, but it is worrying that this is the case across a wide amount of hospitals. This attitude seems to have been more prevelant after the move from vocational to academic.
I understand what you are saying, however, as I said, nursing has moved on and a lot of the tasks that were previously undertaken by nurses is now done by, I believe, "care support workers".
If you have concerns about any aspect of care received by yourself or a relative/etc, contact the hospital PALS (Patient Advice and Liaison Service). Some are better than others, but you can at least get something on record.
Medium of Death wrote:I do understand that Nurses have more tasks to do, usually uptaking some elements that junior doctors used to handle. Writting essays does not make you a good carer. I have experienced poor treatment of the elderly throughout a multitude of hospitals. Nurses now seem to think themselves above certain duties. I'm not saying this is the case for all nurses, but it is worrying that this is the case across a wide amount of hospitals. This attitude seems to have been more prevelant after the move from vocational to academic.
I understand what you are saying, however, as I said, nursing has moved on and a lot of the tasks that were previously undertaken by nurses is now done by, I believe, "care support workers".
If you have concerns about any aspect of care received by yourself or a relative/etc, contact the hospital PALS (Patient Advice and Liaison Service). Some are better than others, but you can at least get something on record.
I'll just leave it at that good sir, were getting Off topic. We'll agree to disagree.
Medium of Death wrote:I'll just leave it at that good sir, were getting Off topic. We'll agree to disagree.
I was thinking of adding something along those lines to the end of my post
To get back more onto topic, should there be some "protected" degrees which are exempt from charges (such as medicine, dentistry, perhaps the sciences and engineering?) and some "charged" degrees, where you as a student are required to pay some or all of your course fees?
What about humanities such as English and History? Such subjects have, arguably, limited practical application but graduates with English and History degrees are still required to be teachers etc, and there are cross over skills to a number of vocations (to more or less degrees).
There's lots of talk about medical, law, and engineering degrees. . . but what about art degrees? I'm assuming you guys (blokes?) have them at your universities, but I'm no expert on the university system over on your side of the Atlantic. Do you guys have art schools? What do they cost?
I'm just curious because I'm looking at attending art school over here in the states, and many art schools over here are private and tuition is just exhorbitant. Tuition for SCAD (Savanahh College of Art and Design) is $29,570, or somehwere thereabouts. Ringling College of Art and Design is in the $29,000+ range as well. There are also state colleges with superp art/design programs, but they are still in the $10,000+ range.
rubiksnoob wrote:Just a question for the UK dakkaites here. . .
There's lots of talk about medical, law, and engineering degrees. . . but what about art degrees? I'm assuming you guys (blokes?) have them at your universities, but I'm no expert on the university system over on your side of the Atlantic. Do you guys have art schools? What do they cost?
I'm just curious because I'm looking at attending art school over here in the states, and many art schools over here are private and tuition is just exhorbitant. Tuition for SCAD (Savanahh College of Art and Design) is $29,570, or somehwere thereabouts. Ringling College of Art and Design is in the $29,000+ range as well. There are also state colleges with superp art/design programs, but they are still in the $10,000+ range.
What's it like in the UK?
Just trying to get some more "direct" comments. Feel free to opine.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" - Put Away
1943-1944 Era 1250 point Großdeutchland Force - Bolt Action
"The best medicine for Wraithlords? Multilasers. The best way to kill an Avatar? Lasguns."
"Time to pour out some liquor for the pinkmisted Harlequins"
Beware that much higher fees are charged to foreign students.
While I keep banging on about science and stuff I do also value arts and humanities, and I recognise they make a contribution to the common weal in a different way to science.
Beware that much higher fees are charged to foreign students.
While I keep banging on about science and stuff I do also value arts and humanities, and I recognise they make a contribution to the common weal in a different way to science.
hmm, from just a cursory glance those both look like fantastic schools, and the low costs for "Home" students would be unheard of here in the states. For foreign students however, it is much higher as you said. With the exchange rate and then travel expenses and all that it would work out to being far more expensive than studying at even some of the most prestigious schools here in the US.
Thanks for the info though, it's interesting and I think I'll look into it a bit more in depth when I have a chance, even if it is a completely unrealistic possibility for me
And OP, sorry for any temporary derailment of the topic my comment may have caused.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2010/12/01 15:15:12
I was so angry about the protests that I left the NUS. Membership should be an 'opt-in' for this very reason. Membership of a union should not be mandatory.
What is occurring is an absolute disgrace, and symptomatic of the outrageous sense of entitlement endemic in the young people of the UK. 'Free' education is not free - someone has to pay for it. Might as well be the people who benefit most from it. There's a lot of talk about how it benefits the country to have a large number of graduates - fair enough, but a person with a degree can in many cases expect to earn double or treble what they would have otherwise earned. Who benefits most from the transaction, the individual student, or the nation? The aggregate benefit of having a large population of graduates is undoubtedly considerable, but ONE person having a degree will not double the nation's GDP. Clearly the student is the greater beneficiary, on a one-to-one basis.
I was also troubled by the large Socialist Worker's Party presence at the protests - is it really just a co-incidence that trouble flared at the protests in London? The NUS is making a huge mistake in aligning itself with communist thugs, and I for one do not want them representing me. I'm not the only one on my campus that feels this way.
Catachan LIX "Lords Of Destruction" 
