Printable View
It depends what you want to do. If you want to go into business, make a bit of money, then no it's not required. It highlights why labour's target of 50% in university was ridiculous and misguided.Quote:
Originally Posted by IronRooster92
If you want to work in the environmental sector, potentially consultancy in later life or if you want to be a lawyer, a doctor, an engineer, then you do need to go to university.
I hope a lot of people protesting fall into the latter category.
The new system is fairer than Labour's. But some dim folk clearly haven't actually read that far into it, they just let their anti Tory feelings run riot and think that some government heavy will turn up on their door step the day they graduate demanding 40k be paid there and then.
And why wasn't there anywhere near as much protest/unrest when Labour introduced fees in the first place?
Nope a complete loss for the students they have proved themselves useless and the coalition has won a major battle and can only grow stronger from this victory.
Because Labour wasted all the money there just isn't the fund available for the state/taxpayers to carry on paying for all these morons to do Media Studies instead of getting a job in a factory putting pompoms on slippers. And talking of factory workers, why do these imbeciles feel that the factory workers should pay for them to doss around for 3 years?
Judging by their appearance, inability to string a coherent sentence together I very much doubt it - they are Mickey Mouse degree types, exactly the types that bring little if no real benefit to the country - so let them pay for their pointless degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
Our local CBC news aired footage of the riots last night on the telly, and I was intrigued that the common university student attire seemed to consist of balakavas these days :dozey:
The students should go on tour and riot across the country. Plymouth is a hole and really could do with a bit of a riot or a third world war.
Mark. It seems you disagree with Students paying for the privilidge of a University Education.
Can I ask why?
Rentamob standard attire
pretty much every organiser / activist in all of this is a card carrying member of the Labour party. Aaron Porter, NUS president, is even at the top of Labour's list of prospective parliamentary candidates, watching him on QT lastnight he has a face one would never tire of punching, he's a shoe in then.
skc, a higher education is not a privelage, but a necessity for an educated society. I'm 100% in favour of the taxpayer funding higher education as it results in a more productive society from which everyone benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
I can only extrapolate that the sales of balakava's would diminish with an educated society :dozey: .
(apologies Mark, the question was directed at you...).
An economy needs to be balanced between manual labour/industry/manufacturing jobs and the higher service jobs that need a degree.
Labour blurred the distinctions too much and people without enough intelligence thought they could spend taxpayers money getting a degree and go off into a cushty world of work with their newfound honours. It's right that it needs to change - on a side note, in my view a polytechnic should remain just that - there's no need to call it a "new university".
That said, too many people's political views just follow in the lines of their parents and they don't think about their own values.
To illustrate one of my points perhaps a case study will help.
Chap A, at 18 years old, decides not to go to university and works as a manager in a respectable medium-size business. He earns £18,000 a year and by the time he is 25 has earned £126,000 (before tax).
Chap B decides to go to university to study engineering and enrolls on a 4 year degree at a top ten university. He doesn't earn any significant money until he is 22, at which point he is £52,000 in debt due to the cost of his education and associated living costs. He then lands a graduate job with an engineering consultancy and starts at £24,000. He has to begin to pay off his loan and is initially only making £6k more than his non-uni counterpart, who of course may even have moved up the ladder. 9% of all his earnings will go into paying back his loan, so he'll only be edging closer to the earnings point of Chap A at a rate of roughly £5400 a year.
Also "above £41,000, graduates will repay at the maximum, rate of RPI plus 3%."
But who's the one paying off the national debt the most?! And, crucially, is it fair or will it just put people off pursuing these jobs through university experience?
Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
A secondary education is a right and a necessity that benefits all children so is paid for by the taxpayer.
Further education is a choice that should be detirmined by a chosen career path.
If you want to be a Doctor, Solicitor, Scientist etc, go to university and pay back some of the cost of your education from the increased salary you receive from your education.
If you want to do teaching, nursing, social work etc, go to University and if you don't earn enough, us tax payers will pay for your education if you earn a couple of grand below the national average wage and if you earn more, pay back an amount that is affordable for a period and the rest is written off.
It's cheaper than the Labour scheme, it protects the lower paid, essential roles and recovers money from people benefitting from higher salaries. What's more, you don't pay a penny up front meaning it's open to every student that wants to go to University regardless of background while making more provision for people from poorer backgrounds.
The only people that will lose out is people that go on silly courses (what used to be a drinking degree) who will not be funded by the Tax payer and people like me with 3 Children that will cost me a bloody fortune at Uni. I personally want them to consider carefully whether they need to go rather than do it to avoid work for 3 years.