Printable View
Then why not allow independent concerns to fund the establishment of engineering schools. With the prospective clients (Businesses; large, small and in-between) having a say, along with engineering organizations and interested parties working together to devise the standards, ciriculum, and grading for possible students.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
After leaving school I did the first year of an accountancy vocational training course. After I got the qualification I changed my mind about vocational training straight from school and went on to do A levels the following year. I later went on to to an Accountancy and Finance degree at a red brick university. Due my parents separation some years earlier and me living with my mother I was considered 'poor' enough to go to univsersity for free even though my dad was a doctor.
I graduated from my accountancy degree, training contract with an accountancy firm 6 weeks later and qualified as a chartered accountant 3 years later. Even though I did a degree in the area that I later went on to work in I would still consider my degree to have been about 98% worthless when it came to do my later training and professional exams. This is not to say that I think my time at university was 98% useless. In terms of the life experience and the person I became because of university I think my decision to scrap vocational training after one year was the probably the best decision I have ever made in my life. I really do not think that I would have got to the professional position that I am today if I hadn't decided to go to university. I suppose that sounds easy for me to say because I went to university for free but I am pretty sure I would say the same thing if I had paid £9k per year.
There is a trainee at work who reminds me of the person I probably would have been if I hadn't have gone to university. She is extremely shy, she doesn't really want to interact with client's or us for that matter and she has previously refused to go out to a client premises if she hasn't had time for her mum to go on a reconnaissance drive there before hand with her. In less than a year she could be a qualified accountant on a salary of around £30k but be 'too expensive' in terms of charge out rates to do the job's she feel's comfortable with. If I was the boss I would be wanting to sack her the moment she gets her exam results. That sounds harsh and cruel but in reality she is a dead weight to the firm. I think the university experience is one that could have either made her or unfortunately broken her.
Personally, I think university made me but hey what do I know. I'm just a boring accountant. :p
Spelling mistakes in a thread about higher education have to be sanctioned, especially when the poster who makes the mistakes is against free higher education.Quote:
Originally Posted by driveace
There is also the irony of British people with such a poor grasp of English having the gall to comment on a matter such as the UK's higher education system in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by ioan
It's Germans like you who really get their goat! Fritz is bloody coming over here telling us how to speak our (pronounced arr incidently) language! Well I've had enough! :pQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Ahh so if it is Mail or Telegraph it has to be wrong, how utterly unbiasedQuote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
It's a worthless degree course, am sure it could be covered in 1 year at the local college of knowledge.
Standard practice when they haven't a decent / worthwhile replyQuote:
Originally Posted by driveace
If in doubt / floundering - then spell check
NoQuote:
Originally Posted by Dylan H
The students don't have to pay anything until they have finished and are earning so whether their mummy and daddy earn £1m a month or £25k it makes no difference to what they will have to pay AFTER qualifying.
As I've said it is in fact a fairer system than the existing one and that is why anybody that has read and understood it is for it, the only ones against it are those who hear and believe the headlines.
To be honest I wouldn't wipe my arse with the Daily Mail because it's already covered in ****. What a sorry excuse for a newspaper, predominantly read by bigoted moronic excuses for members of society.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
It's that bad that it makes me feel so strongly. It's not bias if it's reporting is that bad.
The Telegraph is more acceptable in my view.
p.s. What are you doing up at this time of night BM? My excuse is that I'm a student :p :
I think that is more just this one girl, after all what Uni did the likes of Bernie Ecclestone or Alan Sugar go to? And they aren't exactly shy retiring types are they?Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
I remember something my Grandfather said to me after I qualified 'well done you'll never be rich now' which at the time I thought was a bit of a kick in the teeth; but in hindsight he was spot on, professional people are rarely ubber rich, comfortable yes but there's not many professional millionaires.
Sounds like she needs to invest in a Tom Tom.
Is she pretty? Might be able to help her - kill her or cure her LoL
Got up late today, v late, so day/night all back to frontQuote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
insomnia etc
Telegraph is that rarest of thing an honest newspaper, things like the Guardian and Independent are more biased than The Sun, Mail just in opposite direction. But a lot of folk are too dim/blinkered to see/understand that.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
Where ever possible I refuse to even look at the Express as they showed Bandini dead slumped in his Ferrari - before my time but I remember my dad saying that was why he cancelled it and switched to the Mail.
Yes Prime Minister summed up the papers nicely
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGscoaUWW2M
I see your point. You can get a more balanced view of affairs by combining reading the guardian, independent, telegraph. But as soon as you try and do the same with the Mail it serves only to infuriate, scandalise and wind people up.
I would read the telegraph more often if it wasn't such a stupid, awkward size. I don't care if convention says a broadsheet is more prestigious - it isn't and it's about time they made it more ergonomical!
But I digress, back to tuition fees (or the policing side of it)...
This gem of a quote by a Mail reporter: "This politically correct police training needs to change. It is no good always saying how officers should be non-confrontational. Criminals need to be confronted if they are to be defeated."
This is the same newspaper that at claims to support civil liberites so strongly. Despite the police doing things like this.
Not directly linked but not far off. I don't think you should be telling the police to be more confrontational!
I find the Guardian website the most infuriating site about - esp the job section - 80k for worthless non jobs makes my piss boil.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
Good example, somewhere between the BBC and the Mail lies the truth.
If this girl really wanted to keep away from the violence then she could have done quite easily, if she thought it was going to be peaceful then she's an idiot who shouldn't be going to Uni, shovelling chips at Maccy Ds seems more her level.
She should think herself lucky it wasn't abroad with water cannons.
Not at all, but do you believe that the Telegraph's headline ("David Beckham Degree at Staffordshire") accurately reflected the title, or the content, of the degree they were discussing in their report?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
In general:
Students make excellent protesters because they are enthusiastic, strong and stupid. They do not yet have enough real life experience in the fine art of self support to appreciate the flaws in the Utopian philosophies they were taught in school.
Every time a protest gets out of hand, it is blamed on a "small group of outside agitators". Bullcrap. I never see protesters trying to restrain these agitators and I don't see the protesters stopping their protest and going home once the agitators have started. They feed on each other.
Nobody cares about your protest. When you cause damage to public and private property and interfere with everyday comings and goings you lose the sympathy of the common citizen. The politician doesn't care as long as he gets re-elected to office.
Get used to it. This is merely the tip of the iceberg. Governments can no longer sustain all the social expenditures and riots of this kind will be happening everywhere. While these budget cuts are a start, in truth, massive chunks of government need to be done away with.
You've got to hand it to the Brits. When they show up to a protest they always have very nice, uniform, professionally done signs mounted on new, clean sticks.
In Specific:
I see no reason why someone who stands to benefit the most from an advanced degree shouldn't be expected to contribute more towards obtaining that degree. I don't know too many people that expect to get a Ferrari for the same price as a Ford even though in general use they serve the same purpose.
Jacking the royals was a really bad idea.
As usual, the "students" have done themselves no favors.
They always have: if you get a high-paid job after graduation you by default pay more tax than a low-earner. Chances are you spend more too, and therefore pay more VAT. The trouble with this massive rise in fees is that the government now want two bites of the cherry.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
The fundemental fact is that if you don't go to Uni and are a high earner, you pay exactly the same and if you are a low earner who has not been to University, you still contribute to the fees that benefit a high earning graduate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Isn't it fairer to say that if you are a high earning graduate then you contribute a fair amount for the benefit but if you are a low earning graduate, you don't?
I have not heard a single, logical, fairer alternative that what is being proposed other than it's not fair on people that receive a financial benefit from a degree to be expected to pay it back and instead non-graduates on low incomes should subsidise them.
If you ask me, the principal you are defending Dave seems about as right wing and anti-socialist as you could hope to get.
That's society: sometimes we contribute to things that don't directly benefit us but are good for the population as a whole. Some of my tax goes on services I'll never use, but I recognise the overall benefit.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
That already happens, the low-earning graduate won't pay as much tax as the high-earning one. Which seems perfectly fair.Quote:
Isn't it fairer to say that if you are a high earning graduate then you contribute a fair amount for the benefit but if you are a low earning graduate, you don't?
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the debate then.Quote:
I have not heard a single, logical, fairer alternative that what is being proposed other than it's not fair on people that receive a financial benefit from a degree to be expected to pay it back and instead non-graduates on low incomes should subsidise them.
I think you've fundamentally misunderstood the debate then.Quote:
If you ask me, the principal you are defending Dave seems about as right wing and anti-socialist as you could hope to get.
I thought the idea of education for 'free' was that those who were better educated earned more and then thus paid more tax and made a greater contribution to the economy.
:up:Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
That's my whole point about "society". All taxpayers fund universities, whether they attend or not, on the basis that it benefits the country as a whole.
If I wanted to be dismissive then I would claim you misunderstand the debate ;) but I will answer with my opinion if it helps.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
Every child in this country is entitled to a level of education. That level allows them to complete GCSE's, A-Levels and vocational courses.
Society benefits from having an educated workforce and it is open to everyone.
If you make the CHOICE of attending University, you are entitled to do so and under these proposals, can do so for FREE. You do not have to pay any money whatsoever which means that anyone that wants to progress themselves from any walk of life can do.
After leaving Uni, IF you earn over a particular amount, you will be expected to pay back a proportion of what your University Education costs. Not more than you can afford and after a set time, any outstanding balance is WRITTEN OFF.
It is not a God given right to a University education and I do not see why people that have chosen not to follow an academic career should be penalised. It smacks of the intellectually able taking advantage of the "have nots" to pay for their advanced education.
Quite frankly, I find it distasteful and offensive that the elite of our society should seek to use those that are least able to represent themselves to pay for their privilidged education.
If it highlighted the nonsensical degrees being dished out then it was justified yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Shame they didn't spell check them all thoughQuote:
Originally Posted by Hondo
Britain's future - god help us
These folk should be at their local college not at Uni
If they are paying more income tax then they are not educated.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark
What is this "Society" you go on about? I know what my society is but didn't realise there was some utopian society that benefits me at an ethereal level, only accessed through University?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
It's worrying that you consider it necessary to attend University in order to benefit society. If you do a degree in Marketing, the arts or politics, are you really contributing more to society than someone servicing my car, cleaning my street or fixing my boiler.
Do you know that University comes from a definition of "The Whole" yet it seems that the only thing the academic elite want from the original meeing is for "The Whole", i.e. US, to pay for their privilidge.
Politicians argued that fiddeling their claims at the taxpayers expense was justified to ensure the best people (them) could afford to benefit your society. Hmmmm, how many of them came from a non-academic background? I think I'm starting to understand what benefit this University Education offers ;)
My question wasn't whether the headline was justified or not. My question was "do you believe that the Telegraph's headline accurately reflected the title, or the content, of the degree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
I take it from your response that you think it is acceptable for "an honest newspaper" to print a misleading and inaccurate headline.
Which has always happened, through general taxation. Now students are being asked to pay back their tuition fees on top of the income tax, NI, and VAT they already pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
You're right of course, but it is generally accepted that a well-educated population is good for society (I'll explain later) and the economy as a whole.Quote:
It is not a God given right to a University education ....
Becuase in any civilised society those able to pay make a contribution to the whole. If they're low earners they'll pay low tax, if they're high earners they'll pay high tax (assuming they don't snaffle it offshore). The genuine "have nots" are still protected by the benefits system so wouldn't be expected to make a contribution.Quote:
...and I do not see why people that have chosen not to follow an academic career should be penalised. It smacks of the intellectually able taking advantage of the "have nots" to pay for their advanced education.
You seem to have this image of Oxbridge toffs sneering at the working classes as they wend their way to uni in daddy's Rolls! What I'm talking about is the ability of the "average" person to benefit from good further education without being asked to pay for it twice, which will enable them to make a more useful contribution to society.Quote:
Quite frankly, I find it distasteful and offensive that the elite of our society should seek to use those that are least able to represent themselves to pay for their privilidged education.
How is it inaccurate if Beckham's latest hair cut, pumps, tattoo etc was part of the degree.
I'll agree that all papers sensationalise to some extent or another, The Guardian do it all the time, focus in on what the nasty Tories are doing whether they are or not doesn't seem to matter as long as they can scare the lentil munching yoghurt knitters into a hissy fit about it all then job done.
Well, when you've found a degree at Staffordshire University that studies those aspects (search here) then we can say it was accurate.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Until then it's simply the Telegraph focusing in on what the "liberal" Unis are doing whether they are or not doesn't seem to matter as long as they can scare the caviar munching bond traders into a hissy fit about it all then job done.
:p :
So do you think no aspect of the course focussed on Beckham?
Hardly essential learning is it? 1 year OND course would easily suffice.
Politicians have always fiddled expenses from the tax payer. The rich have always squirrelled money offshore. Is it right? Of course not and should be stopped.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave B
Students are asking for a benefit and expecting everyone else in society to pay for it. That is just not right.
There is not a limitless pool of money and if you want a the tax payer to provide an advanced education that will benefit you financially throughout your life, it seems fair to contribute towards it, doesn't it?
Agree. We need an well educated population that is fair, equitable and sustainable. We also need a responsible society that doesn't just take but that contributes fairly if it receives an educational and economic benefit.Quote:
You're right of course, but it is generally accepted that a well-educated population is good for society (I'll explain later) and the economy as a whole.
And if you receive a benefit that allows you to have a much greater earning potential, it's only fair to pay back a small proportion so others can do the same and not empty the pot for future generations.Quote:
Becuase in any civilised society those able to pay make a contribution to the whole. If they're low earners they'll pay low tax, if they're high earners they'll pay high tax (assuming they don't snaffle it offshore). The genuine "have nots" are still protected by the benefits system so wouldn't be expected to make a contribution.
Have I ever intimated anything like this or are you being slightly unfair?Quote:
You seem to have this image of Oxbridge toffs sneering at the working classes as they wend their way to uni in daddy's Rolls!
I am only asking them to pay once if they earn a sufficient amount that allows them to contribute. Those that receive a good further education but are not able to contribute will be paid for by everyone, including those that don't receive this benefit.Quote:
What I'm talking about is the ability of the "average" person to benefit from good further education without being asked to pay for it twice, which will enable them to make a more useful contribution to society.
I really cannot understand why this is so objectional. I believe in paying my way and contributing towards a society that benefit all including those that cannot support themselves (who, incidentially, I also expect to do their bit).
Shouldn't that be what we should all do?
I don't understand this statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
How do you consider those who wish to enroll in higher education "elite of our society"? Eligibility for enrollement in universities is based on academic qualifications, not social position.
Who are these that are "least able to represent themselves"? :confused: Any registered voter has equal representation.
Society as a whole benefits from those who have a higher education. I will always support my tax dollars funding higher education, and will continue to support this notion long after my kids have graduated and I am a pensioner for it is then that I will likely be required to increasingly call upon the services towards which higher education has directly contributed (I can only imagine that higher education has somewhat contributed to the development of an artificial hip or hearing aid :mark: ).
I can't see how you equate the fraudulent and (in some cases) criminal fiddling of expenses with what students are asking for :sQuote:
Originally Posted by skc
In any case, students aren't asking for "everyone else" to pay for their education. They're expecting to be taxpayers themselves one day, hopefully high earners. They aspire to making a contribution to the pot.
They will contribute towards it, though, through the taxes they themselves will pay. This is fundamental: you don't always pay for services at the time you use them, otherwise retired people wouldn't have access to the NHS for example. Every taxpayer contributes to a pot which benefits the whole, even if they themselves don't necessarily use each and every service which they fund.Quote:
There is not a limitless pool of money and if you want a the tax payer to provide an advanced education that will benefit you financially throughout your life, it seems fair to contribute towards it, doesn't it?
Our local council has just part-funded a skate park which I'll never use. However, I see the benefit of kids having access to leisure facilities.
When you use phrases like "elite of our society" and "privilidged [sic] education" you do rather conjure up images of a class divide, so I don't think I'm being unfair.Quote:
Have I ever intimated anything like this or are you being slightly unfair?
Seriously, why are you so bothered about David Beckham featuring in a degree course at a not so reputable university. I have good degree from a red brick university and I still consider it to be 98% worthless after taking profesisonal exams. Hell, if I'd taken a job in a different profession it would be 100% useless regardless and I still didn't have the benefit of swooning over David Beckham.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
My word, you really are amazing, aren't you? Your command of English is dreadful, yet you feel able to make statements like that...Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Pray tell us why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Elite from an educational point of view. It's also true that elite reflects social standing, earning potential and career. More people from the "elite" have degrees than those in working class positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
I thought this was a given otherwise why would people strive to go to Uni? Honestly, I can accept people having different views but do we have to go so "Janet and John"?
100% agree and that is why these proposals are so fair. It allows anyone, regardless of social position, to compete based on academic achievement. When has that ever happened before?Quote:
Eligibility for enrollement in universities is based on academic qualifications, not social position.
People from an academic background tend to occupy positions where they define policy such as politicians. Why should people with working calss jobs, people that tend to not have the privilidge and trappings of society, why should they have to pay for the elite.Quote:
Who are these that are "least able to represent themselves"? :confused: Any registered voter has equal representation.
Society as a whole benefit from everyone that contributes. Doctors and street sweepers or are you saying just because you don't have a degree means you contribute less to society?Quote:
Society as a whole benefits from those who have a higher education.
We all support higher education. All I suggest (quite uncomprehensibly it seems) is that those that get a financial benefit from a university degree should pay a small proportion of that benefit to ensure the system remains viable.Quote:
I will always support my tax dollars funding higher education, and will continue to support this notion long after my kids have graduated and I am a pensioner for it is then that I will likely be required to increasingly call upon the services towards which higher education has directly contributed (I can only imagine that higher education has somewhat contributed to the development of an artificial hip or hearing aid :mark: ).
Just one of many worthless degrees that kids that would have been considered too thick to attend Uni a few years ago are now wasting their time and my money studying.Quote:
Originally Posted by GridGirl
Did Hitchcock do a Media Studies degree at his local Poly, or Ford Coppola?
I don't understand the extent to which it doesn't happen now. From the view that you and indeed the Government are putting forward about universities having 'failed' people up to now, you'd think that everyone in higher education was exclusively from the upper classes, as was the case a century or so ago. It's a complete fallacy.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
As I have stated before in this thread, it seems as though the Government is trying to even out all the inequalities in education when people reach 18, rather than improving education prior to that to a standard at which such measures aren't required. Universities are not primarily about 'social mobility', but about education and learning. Or is this an old-fashioned view?
Where on earth does this notion that a university education conveys upon a person 'privilege' and 'trappings' stem from? Again, maybe it did 100 years ago, but no more. This hasn't been the case for literally generations.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
The system will never be viable unless fewer people go into it.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
I still don't understand the point you are trying to make here. I attended a good university, got a good degree classification as a result and later good job but I still consider 98% of my degree to be a waste of time after taking professional exams. In effect there is no difference between my degree and your so called worthless degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
In theory shouldn't the increase in student fee's reduce the number of so called 'worthless degrees' that university's are going to offer anyway? £27,000's worth of fees is definately going to make any potential university applicant think longer and harder about what courses they are going to apply for. If universities are struggling for cash, the first thing they should look at is the student uptake of courses and how much they cost to run. If a course really isn't viable they should remove it.