Merged: The Students are Revolting/turning violent threads

#2
#3
Or at least they're making a horrible noise outside my window, distracting me from work.

BBC News - Students threaten to unseat MPs over tuition fees

What do ARRSErs think about this? Is paying £27,000 (plus interest) for a degree, plus rent and living expenses fair?

Or are all those students a waste of space?
The interest is only linked to inflation so in real terms it would still be £27k. Also not all unis will increase their fees to the max I don't think as IIRC it costs ~£7k to educate a uni student a year, so I think it more likely fees will rise to that.

And it's their education, they're adults why should we pay for it? They are protesting over the fact that other people won't be paying for the education that they're going to benefit from.
 
#5
My view, as a graduate of a good university, is that university is not for everyone.

Labour increased uni places, but the calibre of students had not suddenly grown. This meant we found sub standard students and sb standard universities doing mickey mouse courses. Consequently the "graduate schemes" were flooded, and the overall value of a degree was diluted.

If we closed some of the worse universities, their funding could be diverted elsewhere, meaning the costs wouldn't have to go up so much. Thousands of young people need vocational training that will give them a trade, not a joke degree from a second rate institute and the false dream of walking into an amazing graduate job. Get people in apprenticeships etc......there is no shame in it.
 
#6
It doesn't help the fact that almost 50% of school leavers think they have right of passage to Uni, therefore watering down the value of a degree.
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#7
It's one hell of a lot of money - but it's also one hell of an investment too. They're (mostly) too young to have bad credit ratings, which means the money can be borrowed, and if they keep their heads down and work hard, the sky is the limit in terms of earning potential when they actually get their degrees. £27,000 now plus interest could well turn into a return of £50,000 per annum or £500,000 per annum income on the back of their qualifications in time. Even teachers get over £30k per annum and they don't even work a full day, let alone the same number of days per annum that everyone else has to.

Another good thing is that it incentivises the feckless to actually get that degree, rather than fill their faces full of booze and drugs before dropping out - the uni bill will still need paying.
 
#8
They are protesting over the fact that other people won't be paying for the education that they're going to benefit from.
That depends on whether you see it as a private benefit to the individual or a public benefit for the country.

msr
 

Biped

LE
Book Reviewer
#9
That depends on whether you see it as a private benefit to the individual or a public benefit for the country.

msr
Everyone with a job is a public benefit to the country, but the state isn't paying me to work.
 
#10
I'm a random desk jobber in MB, not wearing uniform today. I'm not coming at this from any political POV, and the BBC article just happened to be the first one I picked up. I know that readers of this forum have diverse, interesting and often amusing responses to random current affairs issues, and just wondered what people's reactions were to what's happening outside.

I would add a 'shrug' smiley, but can't find one.
 
#11
I am a student and frankly this whole revolt thing pisses me off, out of those 20,000 students who are marching, how many voted? Probably feck all, if they had voted in the first place then maybe they wouldn't have this problem. We live in a generation where people think its acceptable just to be handed loans for their education, I have two jobs while studying, one being the TA and I cope fine, im richer now then I have ever been, I think the soap dodgers who complain they cant afford it should actually get a job while they study and start paying it off ASAP rather then moaning, Rant over.
 
#13
Once again Uni will become the peserve of the rich and titled, just how the Tories have wanted for decades. The LibDems should commit Seppuku for being a part of this nonsense.
 

jarrod248

LE
Gallery Guru
#14
Or at least they're making a horrible noise outside my window, distracting me from work.

BBC News - Students threaten to unseat MPs over tuition fees

What do ARRSErs think about this? Is paying £27,000 (plus interest) for a degree, plus rent and living expenses fair?

Or are all those students a waste of space?
Buy a massive bag of lentils and throw them through the window, they'll run after them like the flying rats, they'll quieten for a while.
 
#15
My view, as a graduate of a good university, is that university is not for everyone.

Labour increased uni places, but the calibre of students had not suddenly grown. This meant we found sub standard students and sb standard universities doing mickey mouse courses. Consequently the "graduate schemes" were flooded, and the overall value of a degree was diluted.

If we closed some of the worse universities, their funding could be diverted elsewhere, meaning the costs wouldn't have to go up so much. Thousands of young people need vocational training that will give them a trade, not a joke degree from a second rate institute and the false dream of walking into an amazing graduate job. Get people in apprenticeships etc......there is no shame in it.
I agree. When I did my degree, only 5% of people were graduates.NuLab totally devalued the currency by setting a ludicrous target of 50% of school leavers going to university and we ended up with a shortage of skilled trades but with loads of graduates who couldn't even wire a plug.
Funding wise , I think important degrees ( medicine , engineering , physics, mathematics ,etc) should attract either a grant or a scholarship from a potential employer conditional on the graduate putting in x number of years for the sponsor , in the same way as bursaries and cadetships work.
We should also consider funding places for veterans , in the same way as the States.The danger is you can attract recruits who are a ) too clever for their proposed trade/ role and b) Have joined for the wrong reason.That said , you'd have plenty to choose from , so hopefully the recruitment process would filter out the unsuitable candidates.
Given the appetite for cuts at the moment , I am surprised the suggestion of closing some of the worst universities has not even been considered . Probably because it will reflect in jobless figures.
 
#16
That depends on whether you see it as a private benefit to the individual or a public benefit for the country.

msr
If the degree is a benefit to the country .... Doctor, nurse, teacher etc and the student signs up to work for the public purse instead of private for a set number of years, then yes we the public are benefitting from our initial investment in their education.

Also something I personally find funny and is not often mentioned, is that many of these MP's that are justifying the change in student fee's terms etc, actually received a free university education with a student grant to live on to boot, and could claim unemployment benefit in their university breaks.

J.
 

Joker62

ADC
Book Reviewer
#17
I'm watching this via a roof mounted camera overlooking Traf Sq and Whitehall, shame the camera isn't linked to a couple of .50s :)
 
#18
It's one hell of a lot of money - but it's also one hell of an investment too. They're (mostly) too young to have bad credit ratings, which means the money can be borrowed, and if they keep their heads down and work hard, the sky is the limit in terms of earning potential when they actually get their degrees. £27,000 now plus interest could well turn into a return of £50,000 per annum or £500,000 per annum income on the back of their qualifications in time. Even teachers get over £30k per annum and they don't even work a full day, let alone the same number of days per annum that everyone else has to.

Another good thing is that it incentivises the feckless to actually get that degree, rather than fill their faces full of booze and drugs before dropping out - the uni bill will still need paying.
I've got 2 issues with your post above....the majority of graduates won't earn £50,000, they'll be lucky to earn £20,000 when they start and then your looking at a logn time before you hit anything like serious money. seriously high grade engineers will be lucky to hit £50,000 and that would be with 15 or 20 years experience and a shed load of luck. My wife will never get over £30,000 (her Chief exec earns that) but requires a degree to do her job.

Secondly - if they don't earn enough they will never have to pay it back...so the feckless scum who do a degree in pot smoking and then spend the rest of thier lives on the dole or asking 'if you want fries with that?' will never have to pay back the cash. but the graduate actually doing a sensible job needing a degree will be hit with 9% additional tax (over the threshold) for potentially their whole working life.

I don't agree with the idiots who are protesting, I also earnt my way through Uni (less than £2,000 in debt by the end) but if people think this is anything but a tax raising exercise then they should think again.

S_R
 
#19
Once again Uni will become the peserve of the rich and titled, just how the Tories have wanted for decades. The LibDems should commit Seppuku for being a part of this nonsense.
Utter, utter drivel.

If Labour hadn't devalued the degree system and encouraged 50% to go, there would be a lot more money to provide to poorer students in the form of scholarships/bursaries/grants.
 

BuggerAll

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
#20
This issue was discussed on BBC Breakfast this morning. They also discussed the the savings being made on the Olympics. One stadium is not getting a £7 million wrap designed to decorate it. If the whining students want to know why we can't afford to pay for their education they may consider the vast sums of money wasted by a government that authorised £7 million worth of bling on a sports stadium.

One of the participants in this mornings show said that it is unfair to saddle young people with huge debts. I'd like her to explain why it's fair to saddle me, and other taxpayer, with huge amounts of debt so that some people can get a better education and earn more money.

I take MSR's point about education being the nation's investment in it's future generations but I think the nation has already invested (and in far too many cases wasted) enough on them by the time they finish secondary education. Its time for them to start investing in their own futures.
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top