This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
£9000 per year?
If you want to get a better education, and earn more money, then you have to pay. Simples.
If you dont earn up to the threshold, and you dont start paying it back, then either
a) you did a sh1t course that did not lead to a well paid job, coz it was a pointless course with no commercial merit
b) youre sh1t, and no matter what you do, youll never amount to anything
c) you think the world owes you an education and a living
If you want to get a better education, and earn more money, then you have to pay. Simples.
If you dont earn up to the threshold, and you dont start paying it back, then either
a) you did a sh1t course that did not lead to a well paid job, coz it was a pointless course with no commercial merit
b) youre sh1t, and no matter what you do, youll never amount to anything
c) you think the world owes you an education and a living
In reply to NorthernRock:
You used the term 'simples', which somewhat negates the validity of your points.
You used the term 'simples', which somewhat negates the validity of your points.
In reply to NorthernRock:
I'm not sure someone with the username "Northern Rock" should be handing out financial advice...
I'm not sure someone with the username "Northern Rock" should be handing out financial advice...
In reply to Tall Clare:
No good qualifying the statement when I have already closed your argument!
You are now tarred with the same brush as me......
No good qualifying the statement when I have already closed your argument!
You are now tarred with the same brush as me......
In reply to NorthernRock:
Why start another thread? Is it because you're too stupid to follow the other one? Can you not make an argument that stands out in the other thread?
Why start another thread? Is it because you're too stupid to follow the other one? Can you not make an argument that stands out in the other thread?
In reply to NorthernRock:
Because we all know that *all* people who go through uni earn *a lot* more than *all* those who don't, right?
For those that don't, it makes them 'sh1't' then? What a stupid point.
> £9000 per year?
>
> If you want to get a better education, and earn more money, then you have to pay. Simples.
>
> If you dont earn up to the threshold, and you dont start paying it back, then either
>
> a) you did a sh1t course that did not lead to a well paid job, coz it was a pointless course with no commercial merit
>
> b) youre sh1t, and no matter what you do, youll never amount to anything
>
> c) you think the world owes you an education and a living
>
> If you want to get a better education, and earn more money, then you have to pay. Simples.
>
> If you dont earn up to the threshold, and you dont start paying it back, then either
>
> a) you did a sh1t course that did not lead to a well paid job, coz it was a pointless course with no commercial merit
>
> b) youre sh1t, and no matter what you do, youll never amount to anything
>
> c) you think the world owes you an education and a living
Because we all know that *all* people who go through uni earn *a lot* more than *all* those who don't, right?
For those that don't, it makes them 'sh1't' then? What a stupid point.
In reply to NorthernRock:
Out of interest, what if you don't earn up to the threshold but your job contributes directly to the creation of jobs and economic improvement of an area? That doesn't seem to be covered as an option in your list.
Out of interest, what if you don't earn up to the threshold but your job contributes directly to the creation of jobs and economic improvement of an area? That doesn't seem to be covered as an option in your list.
In reply to NorthernRock: "Whingeing" says it all really?
In reply to NorthernRock:
Are you suggesting that the only knowledge worth pursuing is that which leads to direct economic improvement?
> a) you did a sh1t course that did not lead to a well paid job, coz it was a pointless course with no commercial merit
Are you suggesting that the only knowledge worth pursuing is that which leads to direct economic improvement?
In reply to Tall Clare:
damn, one of the only flaws in my list!!!
> (In reply to NorthernRock)
>
> Out of interest, what if you don't earn up to the threshold but your job contributes directly to the creation of jobs and economic improvement of an area? That doesn't seem to be covered as an option in your list.
>
> Out of interest, what if you don't earn up to the threshold but your job contributes directly to the creation of jobs and economic improvement of an area? That doesn't seem to be covered as an option in your list.
damn, one of the only flaws in my list!!!
In reply to NorthernRock:
How about vets? 5 or 6 year course, full time, usually 35 contact hours/week + rotations (overnight on call) for 4th year on. Requirement for unpaid work out of term time (EMS). Average starting salary maybe £25-30k (possibly less). In return for working a 40 hour week plus on call. Long term prospects for earning money limited unless you can find the capital to buy in to a partnership, which generally involves a loan for £100k plus or money from parents. Difficult to get that loan if you're not clearing 45k of loan
Large animal practices under pressure from downturn in farming incomes and government cuts on TB testing etc. Salary pressure therefore downwards, not upwards.
It's definitely a career that requires a degree, and is vaguely useful, probably...
How about vets? 5 or 6 year course, full time, usually 35 contact hours/week + rotations (overnight on call) for 4th year on. Requirement for unpaid work out of term time (EMS). Average starting salary maybe £25-30k (possibly less). In return for working a 40 hour week plus on call. Long term prospects for earning money limited unless you can find the capital to buy in to a partnership, which generally involves a loan for £100k plus or money from parents. Difficult to get that loan if you're not clearing 45k of loan
Large animal practices under pressure from downturn in farming incomes and government cuts on TB testing etc. Salary pressure therefore downwards, not upwards.
It's definitely a career that requires a degree, and is vaguely useful, probably...
In reply to NorthernRock: Shouldn't there be a 'you dropped out and went climbing' option?
In reply to randomsabreur: I am sorry, but I don't feel sorry for vets. A starting salary of £25 - £30k is pretty good and I know from experience that it goes up pretty rapidly from there. Perhaps farming is struggling but we must not forget that there are 30 million pets in this country.
In reply to NorthernRock:
University places should be allocated on academic merit, not based on how much money you are prepared to spend. It is also not a 'right' for everyone to go to university.
a) Massively slash the number of universities and places, to make a smaller tax-funded pool of top-notch Universites
b) Put some proper academic entrance requirements in place - not two A-level Es..
c) If you're smart enough to get a place, the place should be free in terms of tuition fees
The tax payer makes an investment in educating its work force. Value for money is to be had by upping quality at the expense of quantity. Not the other way around.
Simples
University places should be allocated on academic merit, not based on how much money you are prepared to spend. It is also not a 'right' for everyone to go to university.
a) Massively slash the number of universities and places, to make a smaller tax-funded pool of top-notch Universites
b) Put some proper academic entrance requirements in place - not two A-level Es..
c) If you're smart enough to get a place, the place should be free in terms of tuition fees
The tax payer makes an investment in educating its work force. Value for money is to be had by upping quality at the expense of quantity. Not the other way around.
Simples
In reply to Stefan Kruger:
Pretty much how it used to be.
I'd like to see a study done of how many graduates the country really needs and then adjust the number of places accordingly.
Pretty much how it used to be.
I'd like to see a study done of how many graduates the country really needs and then adjust the number of places accordingly.
In reply to NorthernRock: Shut up. Do you actually realise what you're talking about? I'm going to be the first year that this comes into place and personally i'm now considering not going to do Physics at university because it means i will have £30000+ of debt! More and more students who don't have rich as f**k parents will not go to uni because they can't afford it. Plus, all courses at university have commertial merit,just some more than others. Some one has to do fine art appreciation. So, unless you're going to be paying the extra £6000 a year right wing pricks like you should just be quiet and stop getting involved in something that doesn't involve you!
In reply to CosmicHobo:
right wing pricks like you should just be quiet and stop getting involved in something that doesn't involve you!
So do you want him to pay for you or not??
right wing pricks like you should just be quiet and stop getting involved in something that doesn't involve you!
So do you want him to pay for you or not??
In reply to CosmicHobo:
Someone *has* to do fine art appreciation.
Really?
I'm personally pleased to live in a society where it is an option; but it's hardly a necessity.
The 'right wing pricks' have just as much of a right to an opinion as the left-wing pricks.
Someone *has* to do fine art appreciation.
Really?
I'm personally pleased to live in a society where it is an option; but it's hardly a necessity.
The 'right wing pricks' have just as much of a right to an opinion as the left-wing pricks.
In reply to CosmicHobo:
I can't make up my mind whether this suggests a univ education would be totally wasted on you or if it shows you really would benefit from having your mind opened up a bit. Still, as you are still too young to go to univ yet maybe you've time to learn to argue a bit more lucidly.
Oh, BTW, just in case it comes up in your A levels, there's no 't' in commercial.
> (In reply to NorthernRock) Shut up. right wing pricks like you should just be quiet
I can't make up my mind whether this suggests a univ education would be totally wasted on you or if it shows you really would benefit from having your mind opened up a bit. Still, as you are still too young to go to univ yet maybe you've time to learn to argue a bit more lucidly.
Oh, BTW, just in case it comes up in your A levels, there's no 't' in commercial.
In reply to CosmicHobo:
Ah, the smell of 'no clue' :O)
Question for you - who should pay for a school leaver with two Es to go study media appreciation at Bumfluff Uni, pissing the three years away on cheap cider and destined for the dole?
The choices are - universal system available to all and sundry, but student pays, or a scaled back quality-not-quantity system, tax-payer funds.
Take your pick. The universal access, tax-funded option isn't affordable, sadly.
Ah, the smell of 'no clue' :O)
Question for you - who should pay for a school leaver with two Es to go study media appreciation at Bumfluff Uni, pissing the three years away on cheap cider and destined for the dole?
The choices are - universal system available to all and sundry, but student pays, or a scaled back quality-not-quantity system, tax-payer funds.
Take your pick. The universal access, tax-funded option isn't affordable, sadly.
In reply to NorthernRock:
I reckon the scheme could be extended to primary school kids. I mean, just because they're in short pants why should they get free tuition?
£9000 a year seems fair, let's face it, they get more tuition time than the average uni student. If they don't make nothing of it it's because they're shit and no matter what they do they'll never amount to anything.
I reckon the scheme could be extended to primary school kids. I mean, just because they're in short pants why should they get free tuition?
£9000 a year seems fair, let's face it, they get more tuition time than the average uni student. If they don't make nothing of it it's because they're shit and no matter what they do they'll never amount to anything.
In reply to Removed Userysingo:
Because they're too young to make decisions for themselves about their own schooling. Or hadn't you noticed?
> I reckon the scheme could be extended to primary school kids. I mean, just because
> they're in short pants why should they get free tuition?
> they're in short pants why should they get free tuition?
Because they're too young to make decisions for themselves about their own schooling. Or hadn't you noticed?
In reply to NorthernRock: There was nothing about my course that made it worth 9 grand and nothing about this country now that would want to keep me here.
In reply to Gaz lord: Cheerio then.
In reply to andy: sorry sunshine, I already left
In reply to Coel Hellier:
As long as they're old enough to sign the consumer credit agreement it should be ok. It's only 45 grand for God's sake! Crayons extra.
As long as they're old enough to sign the consumer credit agreement it should be ok. It's only 45 grand for God's sake! Crayons extra.
In reply to NorthernRock: I agree with a few things the OP has posted. It would be pretty daft to pick a degree if it isn't going to land you a decent well paying job at the end of it in the current state the education system is in.
There also does seem to be a lot of people getting onto uni course and just dossing about and ending up either dropping out or finishing with a crap mark. There certainly was while
I did my degree, and I'm sure most people who have done degrees will know people on their course like that.
It is unfortunate that students are going to have to end up paying back more than students a few years ago (and I'm sure I'll get a ton of abuse for this) but 27-30k isnt the end of the world. Most of my mates i studied with ended up anywhere between 70-110k in debit by the time they'd finished. Yes a few of the lucky ones had well-heeled parents to stump up the bill but most didnt and had to find the money themselves through student loans and professional development loans from banks.
In the end all it means is that if you want to study a subject or profession that doesn't pay that well you are going to end up paying to study what your really interested in.
There also does seem to be a lot of people getting onto uni course and just dossing about and ending up either dropping out or finishing with a crap mark. There certainly was while
I did my degree, and I'm sure most people who have done degrees will know people on their course like that.
It is unfortunate that students are going to have to end up paying back more than students a few years ago (and I'm sure I'll get a ton of abuse for this) but 27-30k isnt the end of the world. Most of my mates i studied with ended up anywhere between 70-110k in debit by the time they'd finished. Yes a few of the lucky ones had well-heeled parents to stump up the bill but most didnt and had to find the money themselves through student loans and professional development loans from banks.
In the end all it means is that if you want to study a subject or profession that doesn't pay that well you are going to end up paying to study what your really interested in.
In reply to Stefan Kruger:
but what about those students who choose not use their degree ? i remember only 4 from a year of 24 graduate engineers going into the industry, many opted for accountancy, computing etc, companies which had their own in house training and paid well. should the tax payer have paid for their degrees ?
> (In reply to NorthernRock)
>
> University places should be allocated on academic merit, not based on how much money you are prepared to spend. It is also not a 'right' for everyone to go to university.
>
> a) Massively slash the number of universities and places, to make a smaller tax-funded pool of top-notch Universites
> b) Put some proper academic entrance requirements in place - not two A-level Es..
> c) If you're smart enough to get a place, the place should be free in terms of tuition fees
>
>>
> University places should be allocated on academic merit, not based on how much money you are prepared to spend. It is also not a 'right' for everyone to go to university.
>
> a) Massively slash the number of universities and places, to make a smaller tax-funded pool of top-notch Universites
> b) Put some proper academic entrance requirements in place - not two A-level Es..
> c) If you're smart enough to get a place, the place should be free in terms of tuition fees
>
but what about those students who choose not use their degree ? i remember only 4 from a year of 24 graduate engineers going into the industry, many opted for accountancy, computing etc, companies which had their own in house training and paid well. should the tax payer have paid for their degrees ?
In reply to yelloman:
>It would be pretty daft to pick a degree if it isn't going to land you a decent well paying job at the end of it in the current state the education system is in.
There are no end of jobs requiring degrees where the pay is shit but it is still a vocation or necessary for societies well being. Who is going to want to pick up the burden of a load of debt as awell as the burden of some of these very challenging degree qualified jobs. I don't know the answers but that is one aspect that does concern me.
>It would be pretty daft to pick a degree if it isn't going to land you a decent well paying job at the end of it in the current state the education system is in.
There are no end of jobs requiring degrees where the pay is shit but it is still a vocation or necessary for societies well being. Who is going to want to pick up the burden of a load of debt as awell as the burden of some of these very challenging degree qualified jobs. I don't know the answers but that is one aspect that does concern me.
In reply to NorthernRock:
I would like to know who actually uses their "university" education in their line of work?
I suspect that it's not many
I would like to know who actually uses their "university" education in their line of work?
I suspect that it's not many
In reply to Removed User: I agree with what you say, and I also haven't got the answer. I guess as someone earlier posted, those employers and sectors with jobs that don't pay well are going to have to try and find away to make them more appealing. Perhaps with increase wages or incentives, something to out weigh the large amount of student debt.
In reply to Removed User:
I am dismayed by how readily people have accepted how different it 'has' to be now.
How long til we start charging for secondary education? The same flawed justifications could easily be applied.
>
> Pretty much how it used to be.
> Pretty much how it used to be.
I am dismayed by how readily people have accepted how different it 'has' to be now.
How long til we start charging for secondary education? The same flawed justifications could easily be applied.
In reply to yelloman:
I assume you're not a UK resident. Was this in the US?
> Most of my mates i studied with ended up anywhere between 70-110k in debit by the time they'd finished. Yes a few of the lucky ones had well-heeled parents to stump up the bill but most didnt and had to find the money themselves through student loans and professional development loans from banks.
I assume you're not a UK resident. Was this in the US?
In reply to NorthernRock: No I'm a uk resident, all but one off the people I used as an example are uk residents too, the unfortunate person who was 110k in debt was a Canadian studying here.
In reply to CosmicHobo:
So if I am a right wing prick, you would still accept my money, so that you didn't have to get in debt?
Doesn't involve me? How naieve!!! Is that spelled right???
> (In reply to NorthernRock) Shut up. Do you actually realise what you're talking about? I'm going to be the first year that this comes into place and personally i'm now considering not going to do Physics at university because it means i will have £30000+ of debt! More and more students who don't have rich as f**k parents will not go to uni because they can't afford it. Plus, all courses at university have commertial merit,just some more than others. Some one has to do fine art appreciation. So, unless you're going to be paying the extra £6000 a year right wing pricks like you should just be quiet and stop getting involved in something that doesn't involve you!
So if I am a right wing prick, you would still accept my money, so that you didn't have to get in debt?
Doesn't involve me? How naieve!!! Is that spelled right???
In reply to CosmicHobo:
Sorry it took me so long to reply to you, I was doing some work to pay off my student debt. It's absolute shite earning 75k a year, and having to pay for the education that gave me the ability to earn it.
Sorry it took me so long to reply to you, I was doing some work to pay off my student debt. It's absolute shite earning 75k a year, and having to pay for the education that gave me the ability to earn it.
In reply to yelloman:
If a UK student studying in the UK has managed to run up a £70k debt then that's there own fault.
Personally, I'm in the "make it more selective academically and make it free" crowd.
If a UK student studying in the UK has managed to run up a £70k debt then that's there own fault.
Personally, I'm in the "make it more selective academically and make it free" crowd.
In reply to NorthernRock: Can't agree more with this post. Hopefully will be off to university next year, that's if resources haven't been taken from the academic subjects I have applied for to cater for 'media studies' and 'dance'!!!
> Doesn't involve me? How naieve!!! Is that spelled right???
It is not.
In reply to ChrisHolloway1:
Damn, should have done a "Masters in English spelling while using an iPhone, while winding people up" Im sure funding would be available, especially if I claim to be mixed race.....dad a yorkshireman, mother a Geordie.....
>
> [...]
>
> It is not.
> [...]
>
> It is not.
Damn, should have done a "Masters in English spelling while using an iPhone, while winding people up" Im sure funding would be available, especially if I claim to be mixed race.....dad a yorkshireman, mother a Geordie.....
In reply to galpinos:
Amen to that. If that's ok with the atheists.
>
> Personally, I'm in the "make it more selective academically and make it free" crowd.
> Personally, I'm in the "make it more selective academically and make it free" crowd.
Amen to that. If that's ok with the atheists.
In reply to galpinos:
Yup.
> (In reply to yelloman)
>
> If a UK student studying in the UK has managed to run up a £70k debt then that's there own fault.
>
> Personally, I'm in the "make it more selective academically and make it free" crowd.
>
> If a UK student studying in the UK has managed to run up a £70k debt then that's there own fault.
>
> Personally, I'm in the "make it more selective academically and make it free" crowd.
Yup.
In reply to galpinos: It is their fault and they knew what their education would cost them from the outset and are happy paying it off over the next 5-10 years maybe more.
"make it more selective academically and make it free" Nice statement, I couldn't agree more but it isn't free and isn't likely to ever be free again so theres little point complaining about it.
"make it more selective academically and make it free" Nice statement, I couldn't agree more but it isn't free and isn't likely to ever be free again so theres little point complaining about it.
In reply to WillRawlinson:
Just out of interest, what academic subjects have you applied for and what makes you think they're any more worthwhile of funding than dance?
I find the distinction often rolled out that academia = worthwhile, arts = pointless rather too black and white.
Admittedly my arts degree was largely pointless (although this is arguable since I'm now employed in the sector), but then I'm sure there are plenty of academic degrees whose merits, if we were to judge by the same criteria, would seem largely pointless too.
Just out of interest, what academic subjects have you applied for and what makes you think they're any more worthwhile of funding than dance?
I find the distinction often rolled out that academia = worthwhile, arts = pointless rather too black and white.
Admittedly my arts degree was largely pointless (although this is arguable since I'm now employed in the sector), but then I'm sure there are plenty of academic degrees whose merits, if we were to judge by the same criteria, would seem largely pointless too.
In reply to NorthernRock: Just as you have passed judgement on others, I will pass judgement on you: "youre sh1t, and no matter what you do, youll never amount to anything." I think that just about sums up someone who
supports the new fees.
supports the new fees.
In reply to NorthernRock:
Questions to those who advocate "more academically selective and free".
First, presumably you would not object to private universities, where those who had missed the academic cut could pay themselves to get a degree?
If you're ok with that, would you object to the state running a loan-and-pay-back scheme to encourage them?
If you're ok with that, then, are you very different from the current proposals, but with generous state scholarships for the academically most able?
Note that on any "academically selective" cut the public-school kids are likely to do very well -- such schools have a track record of producing in droves kids who can jump whichever academic hurdle you erect, and will fine-tune their provision to do so.
So, on your academic-selective-but-free model, are you ok with the fact that much (perhaps half?) of your sizeable state spending on this would be going to families who can afford public schools?
If that's not ideal, how about the system I advocate, which is much like the system currently being proposed, but with the addition of generous state scholarships to pay tuition for kids who are the brightest in their cohort (say the top 15%?), and who come from lower-income families (threshold I'm not sure), and who want to study subjects the country needs (so more scholarships for engineering, etc, and none for "media studies" or theology). Such a scheme to be tweaked to keep overall public subsidy at a sensible amount (about 1% to 1.2% of GDP is about median for rich countries).
Questions to those who advocate "more academically selective and free".
First, presumably you would not object to private universities, where those who had missed the academic cut could pay themselves to get a degree?
If you're ok with that, would you object to the state running a loan-and-pay-back scheme to encourage them?
If you're ok with that, then, are you very different from the current proposals, but with generous state scholarships for the academically most able?
Note that on any "academically selective" cut the public-school kids are likely to do very well -- such schools have a track record of producing in droves kids who can jump whichever academic hurdle you erect, and will fine-tune their provision to do so.
So, on your academic-selective-but-free model, are you ok with the fact that much (perhaps half?) of your sizeable state spending on this would be going to families who can afford public schools?
If that's not ideal, how about the system I advocate, which is much like the system currently being proposed, but with the addition of generous state scholarships to pay tuition for kids who are the brightest in their cohort (say the top 15%?), and who come from lower-income families (threshold I'm not sure), and who want to study subjects the country needs (so more scholarships for engineering, etc, and none for "media studies" or theology). Such a scheme to be tweaked to keep overall public subsidy at a sensible amount (about 1% to 1.2% of GDP is about median for rich countries).
In reply to NorthernRock:
That's not a lot when you consider that within a year or two of finishing most graduates should be earning a 6 figure salary
That's not a lot when you consider that within a year or two of finishing most graduates should be earning a 6 figure salary
In reply to Coel Hellier: In a perfect world/country eduaction to what ever level you wished to take it would be free. As it isn't I think your proposal is pretty much the most sensible and rational idea put forward, you got my vote.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
"generous state scholarships for the academically most able"
Could you provide a link for that please? I am with you if that is the case, but I have not been able to find anything stating that. The only reports I can find refer to means-tested bursaries, which are emphatically not the same thing.
"generous state scholarships for the academically most able"
Could you provide a link for that please? I am with you if that is the case, but I have not been able to find anything stating that. The only reports I can find refer to means-tested bursaries, which are emphatically not the same thing.
In reply to Trangia:
I know, Im a failure, but I went to a Polytechnic!!
> (In reply to NorthernRock)
>
> That's not a lot when you consider that within a year or two of finishing most graduates should be earning a 6 figure salary
>
> That's not a lot when you consider that within a year or two of finishing most graduates should be earning a 6 figure salary
I know, Im a failure, but I went to a Polytechnic!!
In reply to Trangia: The average graduate salary is 25k with only 10% paying more than 40k
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8504999.stm
http://www.salarytrack.co.uk/average-graduate-salary.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8504999.stm
http://www.salarytrack.co.uk/average-graduate-salary.html
In reply to NorthernRock:
I'm sure Lord Sugar won't hold that against you!
> (In reply to Trangia)
> [...]
>
> I know, Im a failure, but I went to a Polytechnic!!
> [...]
>
> I know, Im a failure, but I went to a Polytechnic!!
I'm sure Lord Sugar won't hold that against you!
In reply to Coel Hellier:
You no doubt well know that the number of public school pupils is a tiny percentage of the whole. It's a red herring.
I see no reason why people should be prevented from going to university without the minimum entrance qualifications if they are prepared to pay for it themselves.
Whatever, I'm glad you agree that the current proposal is not a good one.
I'm expecting if it does go through competition for places in Scottish and welsh universities will increase considerably.
You no doubt well know that the number of public school pupils is a tiny percentage of the whole. It's a red herring.
I see no reason why people should be prevented from going to university without the minimum entrance qualifications if they are prepared to pay for it themselves.
Whatever, I'm glad you agree that the current proposal is not a good one.
I'm expecting if it does go through competition for places in Scottish and welsh universities will increase considerably.
In reply to jonny taylor:
Sorry, that is not the current proposals. It is an addition to current proposals that I am advocating should be made. (Feel free to write to your MP advocating it!)
> "generous state scholarships for the academically most able" Could you provide a link for that
> please? I am with you if that is the case, but I have not been able to find anything stating that.
> please? I am with you if that is the case, but I have not been able to find anything stating that.
Sorry, that is not the current proposals. It is an addition to current proposals that I am advocating should be made. (Feel free to write to your MP advocating it!)
In reply to Coel Hellier:
How do you define lower-income? I would just have scholarships for the most able. I am not convinved about the utility argument either. It is probably more advantagous to have graduates of any discipline who were fully motivated by it than forcing people to study things they are not that keen on.
> If that's not ideal, how about the system I advocate, which is much like the system currently being proposed, but with the addition of generous state scholarships to pay tuition for kids who are the brightest in their cohort (say the top 15%?), and who come from lower-income families
How do you define lower-income? I would just have scholarships for the most able. I am not convinved about the utility argument either. It is probably more advantagous to have graduates of any discipline who were fully motivated by it than forcing people to study things they are not that keen on.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
You'd do well to heed what he has to say and appreciate that as someone who's going to be a casualty of this proposal he's getting a bit emotional. That's understandable, especial when you consider that the OP was extremely provocative in the wording of his original post. On the evidence of the tone of his post the OP could be accused of behaving like a right prick, even though I'm sure he's a moderately civil person in real life who would never talk like that in front of real people.
> (In reply to CosmicHobo)
> [...]
>
> I can't make up my mind whether this suggests a univ education would be totally wasted on you or if it shows you really would benefit from having your mind opened up a bit. Still, as you are still too young to go to univ yet maybe you've time to learn to argue a bit more lucidly.
> [...]
>
> I can't make up my mind whether this suggests a univ education would be totally wasted on you or if it shows you really would benefit from having your mind opened up a bit. Still, as you are still too young to go to univ yet maybe you've time to learn to argue a bit more lucidly.
You'd do well to heed what he has to say and appreciate that as someone who's going to be a casualty of this proposal he's getting a bit emotional. That's understandable, especial when you consider that the OP was extremely provocative in the wording of his original post. On the evidence of the tone of his post the OP could be accused of behaving like a right prick, even though I'm sure he's a moderately civil person in real life who would never talk like that in front of real people.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Well they've already paid for but not received a state school education (assuming you mean families who sent their children to public school rather than those who could afford to) - surely the two roughly cancel each other out?
>
> So, on your academic-selective-but-free model, are you ok with the fact that much (perhaps half?) of your sizeable state spending on this would be going to families who can afford public schools?
> So, on your academic-selective-but-free model, are you ok with the fact that much (perhaps half?) of your sizeable state spending on this would be going to families who can afford public schools?
Well they've already paid for but not received a state school education (assuming you mean families who sent their children to public school rather than those who could afford to) - surely the two roughly cancel each other out?
In reply to Removed User:
Yes. All sorts of potential effects in that regard...
> I'm expecting if it does go through competition for places in Scottish and welsh universities will increase considerably.
Yes. All sorts of potential effects in that regard...
In reply to Removed User:
No it isn't! The public schools educate about 15% of sixth-formers and produce about HALF of the students getting 3 grade As at A-level. The good public schools excel at taking kids of middling-ish ability and coaching them to get A-level grade As. That's why parents pay through the nose for it. And that's why any scheme that is academically selective would hugely favour richer families.
Put it this way, Oxbridge is highly academically selective, and public-school kids win about half of those places -- even though the admissions tutors try to be somewhat biased towards state-school pupils.
> You no doubt well know that the number of public school pupils is a tiny percentage of the whole. It's a red herring.
No it isn't! The public schools educate about 15% of sixth-formers and produce about HALF of the students getting 3 grade As at A-level. The good public schools excel at taking kids of middling-ish ability and coaching them to get A-level grade As. That's why parents pay through the nose for it. And that's why any scheme that is academically selective would hugely favour richer families.
Put it this way, Oxbridge is highly academically selective, and public-school kids win about half of those places -- even though the admissions tutors try to be somewhat biased towards state-school pupils.
In reply to NorthernRock: no mater what happens, and no matter how much fees are you want have to pay it back with loads of interest and straight away. there are jobs that pay it off for you such as teaching. its no different to houses. if u cant afford one but want a nice big one you get a mortgage and pay in instalments.
9 grand is not a lot for a top education, if you wanted to you could pay it off within five years or less on a 12 grand a year average salary which hopefully you will get as you have a degree in something useful.
9 grand is not a lot for a top education, if you wanted to you could pay it off within five years or less on a 12 grand a year average salary which hopefully you will get as you have a degree in something useful.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
>> "generous state scholarships for the academically most able" Could you provide a link for that
>> please? I am with you if that is the case, but I have not been able to find anything stating that.
Ah, I see.
Actually on further thought my own new world order probably wouldn't have this, but rather the government needs to bump up salaries for teachers, researchers etc to offset the increased cost. My high-achieving friends now earning well into six figures do not need any help now they and their employers are reaping the financial benefits of their quality education.
I don't know how much difference it would make to the sums, and that would almost certainly depend on how high you set the bar, but of my own friends from back (all of whom would probably have been eligible for one of your scholarships) my system would probably have excluded half of them (rightly, in my view).
>> "generous state scholarships for the academically most able" Could you provide a link for that
>> please? I am with you if that is the case, but I have not been able to find anything stating that.
> Sorry, that is not the current proposals. It is an addition to current proposals that I am advocating should be made
Ah, I see.
Actually on further thought my own new world order probably wouldn't have this, but rather the government needs to bump up salaries for teachers, researchers etc to offset the increased cost. My high-achieving friends now earning well into six figures do not need any help now they and their employers are reaping the financial benefits of their quality education.
I don't know how much difference it would make to the sums, and that would almost certainly depend on how high you set the bar, but of my own friends from back (all of whom would probably have been eligible for one of your scholarships) my system would probably have excluded half of them (rightly, in my view).
In reply to jc545staffy: That's 9 grand per year, which would work out at 36 grand. That doesn't even include living expenses. Students on intensive courses don't have enough time to work unfortunately. It does add up to a lot of debt if you think about it sensibly.
In reply to NorthernRock:
You don't think society should invest in its future by contributing towards the education of the next generation?
****** tories
> £9000 per year?
>
> If you want to get a better education, and earn more money, then you have to pay. Simples.
>
>
> If you want to get a better education, and earn more money, then you have to pay. Simples.
>
You don't think society should invest in its future by contributing towards the education of the next generation?
****** tories
In reply to furiouspaul: Yes they do, I had 34-36 contact hours a week and managed two part time jobs. It can be done.
In reply to furiouspaul: where did you get that number from??? 3 years is the basic for a degree and thats 27 grand. and yeah as a student myself yes its quite a lot of debt but you get a maintenance loan as well to help with living costs and bursaries that everyone is entitled to. in the end of the day like my old corporal said to me dont feel sorry or bad for someone who had the choice. (regards to being in the army and having shit to deal with, we are all volunteers and no one makes you do anything. same goes to those at uni, you can get a perfectly good job better in some cases without a degree or above so its your choice)
In reply to NorthernRock:
That would probably be any modern UK course based on what the UN think of our development status and the fall in our position being based largely on educational factors.
> £9000 per year?
>
> ... course with no commercial merit ...
>
> ... course with no commercial merit ...
That would probably be any modern UK course based on what the UN think of our development status and the fall in our position being based largely on educational factors.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Sounds about right. That squares with what I observed when I was at school: that my fellow pupils who were thick but rich disappeared at 11 only to re-appear at 25 in good jobs where they would excel because they didn't have the imagination to come up with ideas that would rock the boat.
Wonderful for ambitious parents with thick kids but it does not produce the kind of world that most people want to live in.
> (In reply to Eric9Points)
> [...]
> ... The good public schools excel at taking kids of middling-ish ability and coaching them to get A-level grade As. That's why parents pay through the nose for it.
> [...]
> ... The good public schools excel at taking kids of middling-ish ability and coaching them to get A-level grade As. That's why parents pay through the nose for it.
Sounds about right. That squares with what I observed when I was at school: that my fellow pupils who were thick but rich disappeared at 11 only to re-appear at 25 in good jobs where they would excel because they didn't have the imagination to come up with ideas that would rock the boat.
Wonderful for ambitious parents with thick kids but it does not produce the kind of world that most people want to live in.
In reply to jc545staffy: Apologies. I was thinking of a 4 year masters degree, which in engineering is fairly essential to become a chartered engineer. Maintenance loans are only just enough to cover living costs. If we think about the current situation with regards to student finace. Thousands of students aren't getting their loans on time because the system can't cope with the amount of students. What would the situation be if the government had to fork out 9000 quid per year per student rather than 3000? Or would the government even provide maintenance loans of that size?
In reply to galpinos:
>
If a UK student studying in the UK has managed to run up a £70k debt then that's there own fault.
We are not all 18years old with no kids studying a 3 year degree course.
Regards
D
>
If a UK student studying in the UK has managed to run up a £70k debt then that's there own fault.
We are not all 18years old with no kids studying a 3 year degree course.
Regards
D
In reply to Jim Fraser:
>Wonderful for ambitious parents with thick kids but it does not produce the kind of world that most people want to live in.
Might not be the world you want to live in but looking around it's certainly the one we've got.
Regards
D
>Wonderful for ambitious parents with thick kids but it does not produce the kind of world that most people want to live in.
Might not be the world you want to live in but looking around it's certainly the one we've got.
Regards
D
In reply to Dauphin: Lots of fascinating arguments here, but I have two clever teenage sons (yes, they take after their mum...). My parents didn't go to university, I did, and now my children ... well, I can't blame them if they decide not to;in fact they might be wiser not to. My former partner and I set aside money, wisely, all our child benefit in fact, for many years to provide a funding pot for university. We realised most of that would be gobbled up by the £3,000-a-year fees, but that was OK, it was still within reach. But now I am unlilkely to be able to be much help to them with potentially £20,000 worth of fees, plus living. The plain fact is that the proposed level of fees will put university/tertiary education beyond the reach of lots of ordinary, intelligent young people. That's not a good thing if we want a fairer society.
In reply to Richard Baynes:
Given a chance to repeat the experience I'n not be at all bothered with going to university until my late 20's / early 30's. All the bollocks about 'learning about life' at university - well in the sense that I read most of what wasn't on the reading list and drank my own body weight in alcohol weekly - I'm sure what I learned was if I wanted to be successful in life migrate to the capital ASAP.
Go travelling, join the foreign legion, jump a ship to Singapore, work with lepers, learn to play an instrument, be a roof thatcher in Ireland. Don't fret about whether you can afford a 3 year drinking spree in second rate provincial British city because your 17 year old fellows believe it's a birthright.
Regards
D
Given a chance to repeat the experience I'n not be at all bothered with going to university until my late 20's / early 30's. All the bollocks about 'learning about life' at university - well in the sense that I read most of what wasn't on the reading list and drank my own body weight in alcohol weekly - I'm sure what I learned was if I wanted to be successful in life migrate to the capital ASAP.
Go travelling, join the foreign legion, jump a ship to Singapore, work with lepers, learn to play an instrument, be a roof thatcher in Ireland. Don't fret about whether you can afford a 3 year drinking spree in second rate provincial British city because your 17 year old fellows believe it's a birthright.
Regards
D
In reply to Dauphin: My experience was similar to yours; but my kids won't be able to afford it any better when they're 25, which i think would be the right age...
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...