Printable View
Just wanted to congratulate them on achieving sweet FA, no change exactly as you were - well apart from a huge bill for the taxpayer to repair all the damage they did and the policing bill.
Some of the placards were incorrectly spelt FFS
Must be Media Students or similar to be so witless and ineffective.
Glad common sense and the coalition won through though, is a far fairer system than the one Labour introduced.
It's also the day the Liberal Democrats died.
I have been pleased to see that present and future students are not so apathetic about politics and their future that they sit back and do nothing.
This issue is clearly something that angered many and they have every right to protest and make their feelings known to the politicians who come up with these ideas. In a democracy people have the right to protest when they object to something, and for too long politics has seemed irrelevant to too many.
Having said that I certainly don't condone the actions of the minority. As is often the case there are those who have little or no interest in the cause itself and unfortunately, as a result, the issue gets lost among the headlines. Just look at the Daily Mail today - "baying tuition fees mob" attack the royals, "anarchists", "young thugs" are the three headlines about yesterday's events. To the Mail's credit (did I really say that :eek: ) their comment page does give their view of the issues...if anyone cares to read that far.
I was very fortunate not to be saddled with thousands of pounds of debt when I left university, but I have sympathy with those who are and will be in the future and support their right to protest.
I bet the Tories are laughing this morning, they've screwed over future generations and all the headlines are about riots instead.
It was two years into Margaret Thatcher's goverment before people took their opposition to the streets. This government have beaten that achievement by some considerable margin.
Whether the student tuition fee increase is correct or not, there is no excuse for the level of animosity and violence handed out by the students towards police, buildings and unbelievably Prince Charles and Camilla! Since when are they anything to do with this situation - why attack them? Their can be only two reasons for this:
1) The students protesting are so stupid to attack Prince Charles that aren't clever enough to go university anyway, so they may as well save all their money completely.
2) A vast majority of the protestors having nothing better to do and are simply causing uproar for the sake of it, having a convenient excuse to act like yobs and idiots. Are they all even students? Surely they should be in lectures and seminars during the week?
I went to university and really enjoyed it, three good years of my life 2003-2006 and set me up for life.
I agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bezza
The protest was hijacked by people who simply wanted to riot.
I was annoyed last night when our Sky+ box reset itself, I was wanting to see some heads getting cracked :(
I'm annoyed by the media coverage actually, getting its quick fix of riots and outrage. Just this moment when searching for an article about the actual vote I had to dig on the BBC News website just to find it.
Too much of the protests were hijacked by people probably too stupid to make it into university in the first place. Of course they probably knew they were going to lose the battle against the coalition, so most likely just 'rioted' for the hell of it.
It's a shame really, as it just feels like the government is shifting national debt to the younger generation by cutting funding to unis and rising the fees. It doesn't directly affect me, but that doesn't take away the strength of feeling amongst me and many others in the university.
It's exactly what they are doing. Instead of education being funded by the state for the good of the country as a whole, they are making those who receive it pay. I thought as much would happen when tuition fees were brought in, in the first place.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
The next thing will be asking for a contribution towards A-Levels...
In my opinion, too many people think they HAVE to go to University to be successful in life, which isn't true.
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.
So far even the well behaved student protesters have shown themselves to be generally selfish, small minded individuals from what I've seen (and I watched News 24 solidly for about 4 hours yesterday to avoid Corrie and afternoon TV).
They claim higher education is their right. It isn't, only everything up to it is. They claim the police bullied them, but they were all told repeatedly not to be there in the first place but to stick to the planned route. They claimed a small minority did damage and that's what annoyed me most ....
.... what the hell is a "small" minority? If you stand behind thugs, the thugs get worse. If you don't try to stop them it's encouraging them to continue. From what I saw the minority was a good 20% of the crowd at the edges of the square ..... with very few in the area's centre.
In pub fights people try and stop others carrying on, and it works well over half the time. I know, I was a barmaid for 18 years. In demo's ditto. I know, I've been on plenty over the years (including the largest ever, a Fox Hunting one).
So why were these so-called educated people cheering and egging on the thug element? Hardly in a minority, either.
The way those police horses were attacked (after the crowd had been repeatedly warned horses would be used in that way) made me sick. I'm no fan of the police at all, but they were damned brave on the whole, especially the mounted officers.
I hope every one of those students, both quiet and thuggish, realise they will never be allowed to moan about their tax payments or pensions in the future now. They've made taxpayers and pensioners pay for their education and damage caused for quite long enough.
And I bet in the future they'll expect pay at a quid a year under the repayment cap, plus a backhander to make it up .......
Ahh yes what a huge contrast between the two protests - one peaceful and non violent with decent folk taking to the streets vs. Labour's clueless lazy feckless rentamob.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Exactly, well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by skc
Mickey Mouse degrees serve no purpose whatsoever other than keeping tards off the unemployment figures.Quote:
Originally Posted by schmenke
skc, who is to say which occupations should be valued more highly and so receive concessions when it comes to paying for an education?
Also, who decides which are "silly" courses and which are not?
Should students have the choice to study their strengths and interests as developed through their secondary education?
It was precisely the thought of people such as yourself, unable to attend university through lack of academic intelligence, having to pay for my higher education that got me out of bed and down the lecture theatre of a morning. It created a warm glow, you know.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Because educated people are not automatically civil; perhaps also because there is a widespread dislike of the police on the part of the more educated sections of society. And anger tends to boil over in such situations. The violence has undoubtedly been very counter-productive, but would the issue have achieved anywhere near the prominence it has done (or did until a car with two members of the Royal Family in it was set upon, which is apparently of greater importance than anything) had the demonstrations been boringly peaceful?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
Why 'for quite long enough'? Why the resentment about funding the education of others? I am proud to do so.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hazell B
The root of the whole problem is, surely, secondary education rather than higher education. In my experience, academic standards (a factor almost entirely ignored by the politicians espousing an increase in fees, who seem to believe that 'social mobility' is the most important thing about going to university) in the traditional subjects at the traditional universities are just as high as they were when I was studying 10 years ago. Outside that, I have my doubts, yet it's precisely the traditional courses that are going to suffer most from funding cuts.Quote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
But there are far too many people entering the university system for it to be able to cope, and the reason is the lessening in standards of A-levels. Are the record A-level pass rates a result of A-level students becoming more intelligent? Surely not. This has had the dual effect of diminishing the achievements of the very many extremely intelligent people who do well at A-levels and overburdening the university system. Yet no politician seems to want to address this, for fear, no doubt, of offending public opinion and putting off potential voters. As long as this is not tackled, there will be a huge problem with higher education in the UK, because student numbers are just not sustainable.
Okay how about theseQuote:
Originally Posted by ArrowsFA1
Hairdressing-salon management — University of Derby
Fashion-and-lifestyle products — Southampton Solent University
Watersports science and development — University of Portsmouth
Sports-surfaces management — Glyndwr University
Contemporary circus and physical performance — Bath Spa University
Equestrian psychology — Glyndwr University
Cruise management — University of Plymouth
Surf science and technology — University of Plymouth
Pop-music performance — University of East London
Sexual-health studies — University of Central Lancashire
They can choose what to study yes, just as long as they don't expect the taxpayer to pick up the tab for their 3 years drinking.
A far from stupid course, surely, given that sexual health is an important field of academic medical research?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Can you back up those courses with number of students enrolled on each course Bolton Midnight?
Also, not one of those courses is from a reputable university. Lets not forget that the issue of tuition fee rising will affect those too.
That would make sense were it not for the small fact that I went to Uni and achieved a good vocational science/medical degree with zero unemployment.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Your bad (as seems to be the norm - feel free to insult me now as you usually do).
No just did a random search to find some Mickey Mouse degrees.Quote:
Originally Posted by AndySpeed
It is the rise in worthless courses which are bringing down the worthwhile courses. Only the cream should be going to Uni not all and sundry.
Would you, given your comment above stating that you went to university, call yourself 'the cream'?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Under Labour who of course promised Education Education EducationQuote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
15 year old kids worldwide have been assessed for reading, maths and science skills
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/07/oecd_survey/
In 2000, we ranked 4th in science, 7th in reading and 8th in maths.
In 2010, we ranked 16th in science, 25th in reading and 28th in maths.
That is abysmal. We're failing the next generation. With skills becoming increasingly mobile, and people from around the world being able to do each other's jobs, we need our children to be able to compete with the best.
social mobility actually decreased under Labour, of course A level passes increased as they make the exams easier and easier every year to show education is safe in their hands.
A* GCSE pupils now would struggle to get c grade at O Level.
Your use of the phrase 'your bad', which is not English, doesn't require me to add anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
But of course, I went to a top public school and am a fully qualified medical professional rather than somebody who stomps about on a motor sport forum as if he owned the place and has some kind of chip on his shoulder.Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Why is that?
Were you bullied at school, parents disliked you, bed wetter, bit of a failure in relationships, crap at sports or all of the above?
The world just doesn't need a million more media students. Get shut of the wasters and then the doctors, nurses, soldiers etc that do contribute to society wouldn't have to pay as much.
This dreadful concept of social mobility has nothing to do with it. Intelligence, academic ability, knowledge and learning are the important attributes relating to getting in to university, one's motivation for studying and the quality of the course(s).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
By the way, I am under no illusions that the A-levels I took in 1997 were easier than they would have been a decade earlier, but the regular comparisons that get made between exam papers of today and those of 50 or so years earlier miss the point completely, because there has to be a degree of adaptation to move with the times. And let's not think that everybody who ever got into university, especially the truly elite ones, in the past was deserving of their place in academic terms. Stephen Fry said that some of the most stupid people he's ever met were at Cambridge.
It was actually ironic, are you American?Quote:
Originally Posted by BDunnell
Which 'top public school' did you go to?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
Ironic? I thought it was merely your level.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bolton Midnight
You are a medical professional? Wtf?