oafc0000 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I'm happy to go a-Googlin' - and have done on many occasions - but, as you would expect, there are contradictory opinions on every single topic of conversation. Kinda hard to sort the truth from the propaganda; and therein lies the problem. It's easy to align yourself to a particular party and buy into what they purport to stand for. Whether or not it's true or bull:censored: remains to be seen. Its actually very easy to separate the propaganda from the facts if you dissect articles... Then you can make your own mind up... If you want to just say, "well yeah, they should pay" without giving it much thought and direction that could lead to. Then you might be cutting off your nose to spite your face. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Big Socitety aka you bloody well sort it out yourself and if it fails, meh, your loss. Works well in places where people have money and want something to do with there spare time to give back (as long as its not tax). Not so well in inner cities. The Big Society... Considering most of society are self serving :censored: then you can see were this is going to be going Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Then you might be cutting off your nose to spite your face. There isn't an implement big enough. Anyway, we all feel what we feel (admittedly you're informed and I'm not) so there's not much point ranting on for hours and hours. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 (edited) Don't forget the rumoured FIVE BILLION POUNDS they wrote off in owed tax from Vodafone! (Some claim it's £1.7bn - likely to be somewhere between the two) Edit: forgot to source: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/20...aves-sour-taste Another point on this... Benefit fraud cost this country around £900 million... Vodafone alone stole £5 BILLION from this country all by themselves.... Yet benefit fraud is all over the national papers... yet this story was barely reported other than on-line in left leaning media... The theft by the top out ways the theft from the bottom... but its the poor who get battered when the claim JSA etc.... I wonder who the Tories are mates with Edited January 31, 2011 by oafc0000 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I still don't have any of the accounts I need on the network for my new job - I have nothing better to do... that's the only reason I came back here last week! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oafc0000 Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 There isn't an implement big enough. Anyway, we all feel what we feel (admittedly you're informed and I'm not) so there's not much point ranting on for hours and hours. Waiting for my fences to dry so I can install them Just really bored Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 You know as well as I do that I haven't a bleeding clue what I'm talking about. Fees aren't paid up front. Grants and bursaries are available, as are part-time jobs. Use the degree you gain to get a good, well-paid job. Pay off the cost of your education. Sorted. Well - except quite a few universities (especially the Russell Group ones - the ones that'll be charging the higher fees) insist that you don't get a part-time job while you're a full-time student, mainly so that they can organise lectures etc. to suit the tutors. Grants and bursaries - enough for everyone academically gifted enough to go to university but who can't really afford to rack up £45,000 of debt before their working lives begin? Don't think so. It's a fantasy - but sometimes you buy something and it turns out to be bull:censored:. Let's say someone miraculously graduates and gets a job at the average national wage. They won't be able to think about raising a family or buying a house and pay off their loans. People are being asked to make an impossible choice. They also might not get a job paying the average wage, in which case they'll be even more restricted. We'll see how it goes. Maybe the Tories and Liberal scum are right and next January, we'll learn that more than ever people have applied to go to university because the new fee deal represents value for money in today's knowledge economy. If that happens, I'll give you a blow job. Basically, what you'll get is a load of thickos with well-off parents in our universities, because the real talent will decline Cable's fantastically fair offer. That means that more thickos with well-off parents will get the better jobs on offer too. If you like that, you've taken to life in South Croydon a little too readily for my tastes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Excellent point 24hrs - not only do I still owe the loan I took as a student, but as I'm only earning a below-national-average wage I can't afford to save up to pay both that, the other debt I have and then look to save to buy a home. It's a vicious cycle I will probably not break for another 5 years or more. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 What's the answer, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ackey Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Personally I think it needs to start with a vast overhaul of the examination process so that it's the genuine talent which is going to university. This also means that you have to look to improve schools from the gound up. It's not a simple process, there is no easy answer. But this process we're entering right now will - as 24hrs points out - see the dumb elite ruling the intelligent lower classes based on their ability to go to University. It's a monumental step backwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 What's the answer, then? If I knew that, I'd be in politics. The answer for now is that £9,000 a year fees (let's not forget that you borrow your living expenses on top of that) are discriminatory and elitist in the worst possible way. I don't think the Tories and Liberal scum are necessarily doing this out of malice - they just don't understand the equation for ordinary people. They don't know what it is to live off average income or the worry that borrowing massive amounts of money causes. Even if Labour are all mostly well off poshos of this school and that, at least they get the pounds shillings and pence of the issue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 What about tuition fees on a sliding scale based on your household income? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 What about tuition fees on a sliding scale based on your household income? Not bad. Or a grant system based on household income. Something like that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Not bad. Or a grant system based on household income. Something like that. Isn't that effectively what is proposed, and to be paid retrospectively at that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Isn't that effectively what is proposed, and to be paid retrospectively at that? No. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Not bad. Or a grant system based on household income. Something like that. Bit discriminatory though innit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Bit discriminatory though innit. It means if your folks have got money, you can pay the money back later. If your folks don't have money, you get grant and fees all paid for. It's not totally ideal - but if you want social mobility more than other things, that might be the answer. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Personally I think it needs to start with a vast overhaul of the examination process so that it's the genuine talent which is going to university. This also means that you have to look to improve schools from the gound up. It's not a simple process, there is no easy answer. But this process we're entering right now will - as 24hrs points out - see the dumb elite ruling the intelligent lower classes based on their ability to go to University. It's a monumental step backwards. Bingo. One of my friends who went to a public school got offered 3Bs to study medicine (the standard offer at the time was somewhere between 3As and 2As and 1B). He didn't get that so ended up doing a biomed degree instead, but knew in his first year that provided he got a 2:1 he had a place to do medicine. Which quite frankly was utter bollox. Some of my very posh mates at uni were quite thick but obviously had their hand held enough to ge through A-levels with good enough grades, some ended up dropping out of uni because without someone helping them they struggled. However, quite a few of my mates at med school, were very disadvantaged, one even came from one of the poorest wards in the whole country (South Bank- Middlesbrough), he got offered 3Bs (or possibly less) to get in, but that was like me getting the 2As and a B I needed. Unfortunately, despite being very good at the people skills bit of medicine he wasn't good enough at the science/knowledge bit, so ended up failing. However, I don't know what other courses have a similar rating system for those from seriously disadvantaged backgrounds.. There are far too many scholarships from the posh schools for universities, but not enough is done about those who are from disadvantaged areas to enable them to have the opportunity of a university degree. This will only get worse thanks to the increase in fees. I think a graduate tax collected properly (so those who leave the country still have to pay) is probably the right way forward but £9k/year is far too much. My own personal suggestion was to have an amount related to how much it cost you to go to school. So Etonians etc. are paying £27k/year (provided they aren't on a scholarship- some very posh schools take in a lot of poor students from the poorer boroughs of London) and those from the likes of Oldham Hulme are paying more than those from a state school who are paying about £4k per academic year back once they are making around £30k a year (the threshold for paying back the money is too low). Obviously this is related to how long they were at the school (so just because Tarquin transferred to a local independent school from Eton in his final year doesn't mean he pays independent school's rate). If the person wants they can opt to pay back the money they owe quicker to enable them to become free from debt earlier. University provides more benefit to the person going than to society as a whole but that doesn't mean society doesn't benefit. However, this new system doesn't reflect that- I'm pro university fees but not at the level the government want. Especially as in such professions like medicine I feel that if a doctor's background is similar to their patients they are a better doctor, but these new fees rises will mean less people from a less posh background going into medicine etc. Yet very little is being done to reflect this in the governments new policy- however, very little was done in Labour's policy either and by making students pay their fees up front made the situation worse than it needed to be. I will say this though, if Labour hadn't introduced tuition fees, then topped them up to £3k/year, and had cut down on some of the spurious degrees knocking around, perhaps the Tories wouldn't have been able to get away with their increases. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 No. I meant Zorro's proposal? It's not too dissimilar to taking full repayments but only as and when they can be afforded. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I think a graduate tax collected properly (so those who leave the country still have to pay) is probably the right way forward but £9k/year is far too much. The £9k will prove a red herring. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zorrro Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It means if your folks have got money, you can pay the money back later. If your folks don't have money, you get grant and fees all paid for. It's not totally ideal - but if you want social mobility more than other things, that might be the answer. Or everyone could pay up to £9k plus loans (or however much it is) once they've graduated and got a job that pays well enough. It might encourage people to do a worthwhile degree, rather than learning about The Beatles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
24hoursfromtulsehill Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 The £9k will prove a red herring. I see what you mean about Zorrro's idea, but the grant one is better. I'll bet you a £1 that at least 5 universities charge £9,000 in the first year that they're allowed to. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rudemedic Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 I see what you mean about Zorrro's idea, but the grant one is better. I'll bet you a £1 that at least 5 universities charge £9,000 in the first year that they're allowed to. It will be far more than 5, all of the Russell Group will do it for a start. I did hear that one of the worse universities in the country (according to the sunday times) is planning to charge £9k- the reason because £9k is the bench mark of a good uni, so all the universities who want to be seen to be good (i.e. virtually all of them) will charge £9k. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ritchie Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 Cameron and co never paid for their university education and they got grants to live off. Lice Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stitch_KTF Posted January 31, 2011 Share Posted January 31, 2011 It will be far more than 5, all of the Russell Group will do it for a start. I did hear that one of the worse universities in the country (according to the sunday times) is planning to charge £9k- the reason because £9k is the bench mark of a good uni, so all the universities who want to be seen to be good (i.e. virtually all of them) will charge £9k. At a risk of siding with Tulsehill, the reason these kind of universities will probably charge full whack is to exploit their already good names rather than to gain them. They will confident of cashing in via demand from those with the readies to pay premiums to attend institutions with kudos. Life's a :censored:ter. I'll have a pound though, perhaps some will have the decency to hike up the cost over two or three years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.