The Student Protests

[Nial]

The core point however is this... I could have done the degree course in 12 months full time, possible 18 months and 24 months at an absolute push. I genuinely believe that the average degree course can be done in less than 2 years and possibly 1 year full time working hard. How's that for slashing the cost of a degree course?

 

 

Do you not have to do law to be a solicitor?

 

In my first year (Engineering) we had a 40 hour week (9:00 am to 21:00 on Mondays), I don't think that could have been compressed much.

 

 

Nial

[Fisherman Mike]

the lib dems didn't win the election though so to an extent they can't carry out their election pledges. UK plc is bust we can't keep funding everything to the level we have been, yes these fees seem high but the grim reality is they reckon 50% at most will actually be repaid due to some people never earning enough to start repaying it

 

 

If that indeed is the case why mess about with it...if it aint broke dont fix it.

 

We are all told Uk Plc is bust but lets face it control of UK Fiscal policy has always been done with smoke and mirrors.

 

There are some in the Private sector financial institutions that believe we are in a better economic position than we are actually being told.

 

I dont know if this is true of course.....

[poontang]

Not so...each is means tested. NHS might pay the course fees but a Bursary is not guarranteed.

 

As long as you meet the residency conditions and aren't an assisted student it's pretty much a done deal.

[Nial]

It is probably painstakingly obvious that i would agree with the pricipal of the protests, people before us got cheap university places and i think it is a little bit hypocritical that some post graduates are have taken such a stong opposition to them.

 

 

It's not at all hypocrytical.

 

When I went through university (end of the 80s) it was only 10% of the year went to university and

the university cuts were starting, the country couldn't really afford it.

 

How can your generation expect the country to pay for 30% (or whatever it is) to be subsidised through now? If it was

back down to 10% there would be much more funding per head.

 

The NL figures on the lifetime return of getting a degree were calculated on the return

of someone who had gone through in the 50's/60's when the figures were even lower (5-7%).

The return was obviously _much_ bigger for these people so their logic of getting

50% through uni is completely skewed (to be polite).

 

 

Nial.

[ST3V3]

if I heard right on tthe news yesterday there was talk of students going on strike

 

no differnt to a normal day for the majority of the useless good for nothings that cant face the real world

Edited December 9, 2010 by ST3V3

[955i]

A very good point about working on it full time for a year, rather than stretch it out.

 

This may be possible on some of the lightweight (read useless) degrees like Fine Art , but when I was studying on both of my degrees (BSc in Zoology and MSc in Marine Environmental Protection) our lectures ran from 9am to 5pm five days a week.

 

There is no way that these could have been completed any faster given the amount of extra work we had to put in above and beyond the lecture time.

 

Degrees should be funded on a sliding scale according to their usefulness to society, it is fairly straightforward to work out what type of job you are likely to get (or at least aiming for) with your qualification and it can be extrapolated how much tax you are likely to pay in this profession.

 

If you are likely to end up on a good wage and paying a lot of tax then your course should be at least partially funded as you will be paying it back through higher taxes in employment.

 

If you want to study the Beatles or spend three years smearing your own faeces on a canvas hoping to be the next Tracy Emin then you should fund it yourself!!

Edited December 9, 2010 by 955i

[artschool]

This may be possible on some of the lightweight (read useless) degrees like Fine Art , but when I was studying on both of my degrees (BSc in Zoology and MSc in Marine Environmental Protection) our lectures ran from 9am to 5pm five days a week.

 

There is no way that these could have been completed any faster given the amount of extra work we had to put in above and beyond the lecture time.

 

Degrees should be funded on a sliding scale according to their usefulness to society, it is fairly straightforward to work out what type of job you are likely to get (or at least aiming for) with your qualification and it can be extrapolated how much tax you are likely to pay in this profession.

 

If you are likely to end up on a good wage and paying a lot of tax then your course should be at least partially funded as you will be paying it back through higher taxes in employment.

 

If you want to study the Beatles or spend three years smearing your own faeces on a canvas hoping to be the next Tracy Emin then you should fund it yourself!!

 

thats a slippery slope. who decides whats valuable to society?

[poontang]

This may be possible on some of the lightweight (read useless) degrees like Fine Art , but when I was studying on both of my degrees (BSc in Zoology and MSc in Marine Environmental Protection) our lectures ran from 9am to 5pm five days a week.

 

 

 

 

I totally agree that there are some courses which require lots of study.

As I said in my original post I think it's the 'lightweight' courses which will suffer as students realise History of Art and Media studies type courses are likely to leave them in huge debt with little chance of paying it off.

Maybe if universities resorted to places of learning rather than recreation it would focus a few minds?

[Mungler]

thats a slippery slope. who decides whats valuable to society?

 

There are some fairly obvious casualties, but hey, if you were planning on doing a in BSc (Hons) in "Surf Science and Technology" [Google it, I kid you not] then you can:

 

a. pay for it yourself

b. choose something else that may be better supported or funded.

 

If we are heading down the route of free market forces on degrees and higher education then borrowing to pay for a 2 year legal, business management or accountancy qualification from a decent University is a no brainer. Indeed, that is what anyone who wants to do an MBA has to do.

[death from below]

The Govn should just base their education plans on the business models ran by most schools in Hackney - then there would be no need whatsoever for Uni's in a few years time - fortune saved - SEEMPLES.

Edited December 9, 2010 by death from below

[955i]

thats a slippery slope. who decides whats valuable to society?

 

Me

[shaun4860]

I saw in the papers t'other day, they asked a student what his remedy would be for the cost of further education.

 

"raise taxes and cut the defence budget"

 

If i read it right, you dont start paying it back until you are earning over 21k then its £7 per week/month? and goes up pro rata with your earnings.

 

so thats lets say £15k loan at a very low interst....alright for some!!

 

Im in the pay your own fee's camp im afraid.

 

Even those with essential degrees will more than likely ****** off abroad so why cant they pay!.... :yp:

 

*dont think the tin helmet will do for this*

Edited December 9, 2010 by shaun4860

[kdubya]

 

 

Im in the pay your own fee's camp im afraid.

 

 

 

*dont think the tin helmet will do for this*

 

No problem from ne if you go to school till 16 then decide YOU want higher education to help you get a bit above the norm and hopefully a better standard later on in life,then you or yours should pay, you dont go in a betting shop and say this is a sure winner give me the dosh to back it, but if I lose you dont get your money back nor do I want to give it back if I win?

KW

[al4x]

if you earn higher wages you pay more tax so in theory you do give it back in this case if you win

[kdubya]

if you earn higher wages you pay more tax so in theory you do give it back in this case if you win

 

is that right? how many are on the "additional" tax bracket of the over £100k earners compared to the hoardes on above £37k? wonder how many "students" are working in macdounuts after getting a degree in media studies and paying sod all?

 

KW

[al4x]

I'd suggest most people in the legal, medical, etc etc many of whom will be in that bracket will have had fees paid and grants, the fundamental is they can still do media studies and go to work in mcdonalds and they still won't pay anything so the situation really hasn't changed. Its purely those that do go onto get a half decent job who will pay

[Billy.]

Nursing degrees are one thing. Medicine degrees etc are another.

 

I recall it's about 5-7 years of uni to become a pharmacist. So you're going to take a long time paying back £63,000.

[al4x]

depends what you do with it billy, I know a couple who are on well over that a year

[paddywack12]

My take on all this university lark is that unless you are doing a "proper" degree for a proper proffesion (legal medical etc)you are there just for a jolly up and 3 years wasted.

 

The trouble is that schools brainwash kids into thinking they must go to university, my son is in last year of doing A levels in the 6th form and the pressure put on him by teachers to go to uni is unbelievable, "even if you dont know what you want to do you must go to enjoy the uni experience" or take a year out and then go !!!

 

I went to the university of life and the school of hard knocks did not cost anything and I am doing ok.

[poontang]

Nursing degrees are one thing. Medicine degrees etc are another.

 

I recall it's about 5-7 years of uni to become a pharmacist. So you're going to take a long time paying back £63,000.

 

I'm not sure about pharmacists but your average GP earns over £100k a year. Over £3m in a working lifetime. £63k to get into that sort of career has got to be money well spent?

The thing is, if you want a specific career it doesn't take much to work out whether university is worth it in the long run.

[Billy.]

I'm not sure about pharmacists but your average GP earns over £100k a year. Over £3m in a working lifetime. £63k to get into that sort of career has got to be money well spent?

The thing is, if you want a specific career it doesn't take much to work out whether university is worth it in the long run.

 

Whilst that is true, someone as sensible as a doctor would see beyond the fact that they earn enough to pay it off and that the difference in what they would have paid might go towards something nice.

[al4x]

sort of but if you look at other professions where you pay your way its just seen as the way to do it, my cousin borrowed heavily to get his commercial pilots license AFAIK you can't get grants for it. Now he is on a substantial salary but he did pay a figure similar to that to get there, wasn't a bad investment either

[Nial]

Alex had said..

"if you earn higher wages you pay more tax so in theory you do give it back in this case if you win"

 

is that right?

 

Yes of course it is.

 

Forgetting the bands, tax rates are a % and not a fixed amount, the more you earn the more you pay.

 

 

Nial.

[kdubya]

Alex had said..

"if you earn higher wages you pay more tax so in theory you do give it back in this case if you win"

 

 

 

Yes of course it is.

 

Forgetting the bands, tax rates are a % and not a fixed amount, the more you earn the more you pay.

 

 

Nial.

yes but mr average IS in the 40% bracket, wonder how many non ex students are in that lot? and paying more as a percentage than those who are not earning that amount but through no choice of mine I supported in higher education?

 

KW

[Nial]

yes but mr average IS in the 40% bracket, wonder how many non ex students are in that lot? and paying more as a percentage than those who I not through choice supported in higher education?

KW

 

 

Was that directly translated from the Chinese?

 

 

Nial.