University fee's

[Heilandee]

Now, i appreciate these changes don't directly affect us up here (yet) but am interested to hear others opinions regarding fees and university costs.With wee Heilan rapidly approaching an age where decisions will need to be made regarding further education.The main financial concern from my perspective are the living costs and accommodation, not fees for education, which i struggle to see an argument against folk who benefit, paying towards these, as and when they are financially stable.I also hear a high percentage of fellow parents who struggle financially so their kids can "go to uni" then find there are no vacancies for offspring who end up in jobs they could have started 3/4 years earlier and been well on their way up the career ladder, instead of being well qualified and in debt for useless academic qualifications which will never be used.

I've known lads and lasses who seemed to be at uni for years then struggle to find appropriate positions for their qualifications,so whats a'body's thoughts/experiences regarding this currently hot political potato?

[Tug]

clink

well if you ask me im with the government on this one, granted that the fees are expensive but the response from students has been totally out of proportion . to try to explain away throwing a fire extinguisher from the roof of a building at a crowd.sorry but no

more directl to your question though , i sometimes regret not going to uni, i feel i have missed out on some aspects of life and experiences but then when i look at where i am today i am glad. i could have spent up to 7 years in uni and be in the early stages of my career where as im 8 years into it now and slowly but surely working my way up, earning more than a lot of graduates who may be better qualified but unable to get work still leaves them struggling

clink

that was my 2 pence worth

[starchief]

The violence? Complete condemnation. Do I think the demo was hijacked by non-students? Yep. Do I think the police are completely innocent? Judging by previous demos, I sincerely doubt it. So, completely wrong but just a one-night sideshow to a long-term issue.

A couple graduate from uni to be ?80,000 in debt in fees and loans. They start paying it back at ?21k - so before they've even earned an average wage then. Just imagine your first mortgage at, say, ?80,000. Well, instead of that, you know have the equivalent of ?160,000 debt to pay. There's no way someone from a poor-to-average background can cope with that.

Despite the supposed safeguards, it's one in the eye for the man in the street to benefit the rich.

When I hear about how the taxpayer has to pay for fees, there seems little mention that the taxpayer includes graduates. They're already paying! Often at a higher rate - do they get a discount for paying twice? The whole country benefits from an educated society, especially these days, where we just aren't able to compete in terms of manufacturing or agriculture. Our brains are our future.

My solution? Although we need a more educated society, we don't need rakes of English Lit or History graduates. They do teach 'how to think' but a one-year course in Critical Thinking with an emphasis on literature, history, American studies etc would do that. You want longer? Then unless you're a genius, you pay for it.

But we just can't have enough scientists, engineers and IT professionals. Even a surplus is welcome (they'll be numerate, critical thinkers, so can easily go into financial management, project admin or similar careers). So cheap, or even free, degrees where the country needs your skills. You want to spend three years studying a hobby? Okay, pay for it yourself then, unless you're at the very top of your field (we still need eminent sociologists, so pay for the top quality - we just don't need so many that will never use their knowledge after leaving uni).

We also don't need many people to have the kind of degrees we have. Social workers for instance never used to need a degree. What they need is possibly a year of intense training, then substantial in-house training on top of that.

But of course, the big issue is: the Lib Dems pledged no increase in fees. I actually lean towards their policies (as well as being a senior lecturer at uni) but won't be voting for them next time round. One of their key features was the introduction of a new style of politics where people could start trusting MPs. Who would trust a Lib Dem now?

[Charles Bannerman]

I find myself in quite strong agreement with a number of points which Starchief has made here.

He hits a number of nails on the head but none more squarely than exposing the Government's complete non argument that graduates should pay for their education because they earn more. If they earn more then they do indeed pay more tax, most likely at 40% so why should they be hit TWICE for having a degree?

The Government's problem is that it is stuck with the policies of the last couple of decades or so of rapid expansion the university sector. However there have been two significant flaws in that policy.

Firstly, so many people are now going to university that these institutions are now recruiting from so far down the ability range that too many people coming in simply aren't of graduate calibre in any meaningful sense of the word. There is a limit to the nation's brain power and I think it has been exceeded by recent recruitment policies.

Or as the comedian said (with many a true word being spoken in jest): "I passed my old Primary School today... it's a Univerity now...."

The whole University sector seems to be carried away with rampant inflation. It's not all that long since a 2-1 was regarded as a very good degree and a First was a rarity. Nowadays if you don't get a 2-1 you're regarded as not quite having made it while they seem to dish out Firsts like sweeties. Or is this because what is nowadays coming in from the schools is suddenly of massively higher brainpower? Can't say I'd actually noticed much of a change there across the 30 plus years I've been in the classroom, but look at the kind of degrees they seem to be dishing out.

Secondly, there are far too many "junk" university courses. For instance do we need the rakes of sports scientists which we are producing in order to keep leisure centres stocked with attendants? Do we need all these Sociologists or graduates in Jewellery Design? Apart from the "junk" degrees there are also areas which have been unnecessarily academicised which formerly and quite rightly were the province of good old fashioned Tecky Colleges.

If they would cut out worthless courses, restrict entry to those capable of what can meaningfully be called a University Degree and concentrate the money they have on what is left then they mightn't have the problems they're having now.

And Danny "I signed the pledge" Alexander mightn't have the re-election headache he appears to be rapidly acquiring in his Inverness constituency.

[The Mantis]

What CB said, added to what SC said. I started teaching in 1981 and I still have the old exam papers from that year onwards. The difference in standard between then and now is embarrassing.

In my subject they simply miss out the difficult bits so more people can pass, then they claim standards are rising. Absolute shoite.

Also the young people have been weaned on a culture of 'is this in the test? Then why are we doing it?' And also 'I couldn't do that question. You never taught us that. It must be your fault'.

I started to have my suspicions a few years ago when I gave some first years a test. After they got their marks back they asked 'when are we doing the test again?' I was baffled at first, then I realised they had been brought up in a primary system where they did a National Test repeatedly until they scraped a pass. So I get a bunch of S1 kids who have passed at level D but are no more able to understand level D work than fly in the air. But try telling their parents that.

Back in the good old days they had the Scottish Examination Board, a respectable institution. Then in the mid 80s along came Scotvec, a sort of privatised vocational body which was very fond of internal assessment so the responsibility was thrown back on to the teaching staff. Now we have the SQA, which is simply the bastard offspring of the two and seems to be all about making money.

[Oz647]

Whilst I have every sympathy for the students having to pay a fortune back once they have reached a certain level of employment, I cannot help thinking that most of the idiots that I saw on the news throwing bricks, fences, etc won't have to worry about it. They will probably not even last the first year as they will more than likely be involved in some anti establishment "protest" and be booted out.

I sat watching the riots and make no mistake that's what it was, a riot not a protest. I was screaming at the screen for the police to grab the "big" man with the iron bar, drag him through their lines and give him a good kicking. Now some will say that's wrong but so is what the thugs are doing to the police. They should not have to take the ***** they do off these pondlife. I realise that a lot of the offenders are not students, merely cretins that hi-jacked the protest but there were plenty of students happy enough to get involved.

Protest peacefully to your heart's content but rioting is not and should never be condoned. The police should use the same measures that are used with footy hooligans. I'm sure if the water canons were turned on the thugs, they would soon get cold and go home.

Anyway, that's just my opinion. No doubt there will be some that agree and some that don't but hey, that's what's great about this place. You can have a difference of opinion without the need for bricks and metal bars.

[Heilandee]

I agree the vast majority of the violence was orchestrated and carried out by a small group of baheids who couldn't spell edukation and a few unfortunate, and i feel slightly naive students, got caught up in the crossfire. Interesting to read "the establishments" take on things but would be good to get the views of those in the system and their perception of whether charges are just or not.I personally feel a graduate tax would be the fairest way to collect revenue long term to fund higher education say 1% on lower rate and 2% on higher rate earning ex grads?, they could even charge it retrospectively it on all ex Grads who missed contributing towards their time at University and undoubtedly feel guilty for freeloading off the taxpayer for years

Edited December 10, 2010 by Heilandee

[Johnboy]

I'm a wee bit concerned by this statement from the Metropolitan Police Commissioner which the Beeb has been broadcasting all day :

Sir Paul refused to be drawn on whether they were authorised to shoot at the protesters, but insisted officers had shown "enormous restraint and great judgement" in deciding how to react last night.

What on earth did he mean by "enormous restraint" that was shown by his armed officers?

.

Edited December 10, 2010 by Johnboy

[Caley Stan]

Whilst I have every sympathy for the students having to pay a fortune back once they have reached a certain level of employment, I cannot help thinking that most of the idiots that I saw on the news throwing bricks, fences, etc won't have to worry about it. They will probably not even last the first year as they will more than likely be involved in some anti establishment "protest" and be booted out.

I sat watching the riots and make no mistake that's what it was, a riot not a protest. I was screaming at the screen for the police to grab the "big" man with the iron bar, drag him through their lines and give him a good kicking. Now some will say that's wrong but so is what the thugs are doing to the police. They should not have to take the ***** they do off these pondlife. I realise that a lot of the offenders are not students, merely cretins that hi-jacked the protest but there were plenty of students happy enough to get involved.

Protest peacefully to your heart's content but rioting is not and should never be condoned. The police should use the same measures that are used with footy hooligans. I'm sure if the water canons were turned on the thugs, they would soon get cold and go home.

I have gone along to number of protests feeling calm and peaceful until i was confronted with the kind of police tactics described in this article.

As for the cause, i think it is just. We have a system of progressive taxation in this country and that binds us as a society. By attempting to reduce everything to a service which involves payment on an individual basis, the government undermines that society. The argument that "not everyone uses university so why should everyone pay for it" just doesn't work. Aside from the obvious fact the country as a whole requires people to be educated to certain level in order to function, there are also range of different things we contribute to on a collective basis that not all of us use. We don't exist as individuals cut off from the rest of the world and we wouldn't survive as a species if we did.

[Oz647]

Whilst I have every sympathy for the students having to pay a fortune back once they have reached a certain level of employment, I cannot help thinking that most of the idiots that I saw on the news throwing bricks, fences, etc won't have to worry about it. They will probably not even last the first year as they will more than likely be involved in some anti establishment "protest" and be booted out.

I sat watching the riots and make no mistake that's what it was, a riot not a protest. I was screaming at the screen for the police to grab the "big" man with the iron bar, drag him through their lines and give him a good kicking. Now some will say that's wrong but so is what the thugs are doing to the police. They should not have to take the ***** they do off these pondlife. I realise that a lot of the offenders are not students, merely cretins that hi-jacked the protest but there were plenty of students happy enough to get involved.

Protest peacefully to your heart's content but rioting is not and should never be condoned. The police should use the same measures that are used with footy hooligans. I'm sure if the water canons were turned on the thugs, they would soon get cold and go home.

I have gone along to number of protests feeling calm and peaceful until i was confronted with the kind of police tactics described in this article.

As for the cause, i think it is just. We have a system of progressive taxation in this country and that binds us as a society. By attempting to reduce everything to a service which involves payment on an individual basis, the government undermines that society. The argument that "not everyone uses university so why should everyone pay for it" just doesn't work. Aside from the obvious fact the country as a whole requires people to be educated to certain level in order to function, there are also range of different things we contribute to on a collective basis that not all of us use. We don't exist as individuals cut off from the rest of the world and we wouldn't survive as a species if we did.

Stan,So it's all down to the police being heavy handed? Well silly me, I could have sworn it was a "student" who threw the extinguisher off the roof. I suppose the guy hitting the police with an iron bar had every right to act like this. What do you suggest the police do? Let the pondlife run riot smashing up shops and government buildings. Causing millions of pounds of damage should send the right message to the country. By all means protest but do it sensibly.

As for the comment about everybody paying for Uni, why should I pay for some layabout to go to Uni? Will they pay for my road tax? When they are highly paid professionals will they repay me? No they won't. You get nothing for nothing and I had to work for what I have so why shouldn't they? While we are discussing this, what is your take on the "students" attacking the car of Prince Charles and his good lady? I suppose that was the police's fault as well. They were nothing to do with the "protest" and should not have been attacked like that.

[Caley Stan]

Stan,So it's all down to the police being heavy handed?

Where did i say that? My point is simply that aggressive policing can exacerbate the situation. It was a response to your suggestion of water canons and "a good kicking" as potential solutions to the problem. The article that i linked gives an idea of how angry aggressive policing can make peaceful protesters.

As for the comment about everybody paying for Uni, why should I pay for some layabout to go to Uni? Will they pay for my road tax? When they are highly paid professionals will they repay me? No they won't.

Surely you accept that society benefits from having trained doctors, nurses, engineers and teachers? I would take it further and say that we all benefit from having artists, historians, theologians and sociologists - educated people in general. Grudgingly, i even accept the need for lawyers, economists and accountants. If these people end up earning significantly more than you then they will subsidise the roads you drive on under our system of progressive taxation.

No man is an island and we have to pool money together in order to improve the lot of the population at large. I don't benefit from some stranger undergoing heart surgery on the NHS and i may never need to use that service myself but i certainly don't object to my taxes being used for that purpose.

While we are discussing this, what is your take on the "students" attacking the car of Prince Charles and his good lady? I suppose that was the police's fault as well. They were nothing to do with the "protest" and should not have been attacked like that.

I applaud them for their efforts and lament that they didn't go far enough! The fact that the royal couple were out in central London in the middle of a large student protest is a testament to the stupidity of that pointless, inbred family. I was at the Laphroaig distillery recently and was informed that the Duke of Rothesay has a standing order for 6 bottles of 18 year-old every month at a cost of ?300 to the British taxpayer. If you want to get your knickers in a twist about wasting money than i suggest that he is a more suitable target for your ire than the students.

[Johnboy]

Nice one, Stan....

Although I do think you are a wee bit extreme with the :

Aggressive policing suggestion

[Oz647]

Stan,So it's all down to the police being heavy handed?

Where did i say that? My point is simply that aggressive policing can exacerbate the situation. It was a response to your suggestion of water canons and "a good kicking" as potential solutions to the problem. The article that i linked gives an idea of how angry aggressive policing can make peaceful protesters.

As for the comment about everybody paying for Uni, why should I pay for some layabout to go to Uni? Will they pay for my road tax? When they are highly paid professionals will they repay me? No they won't.

Surely you accept that society benefits from having trained doctors, nurses, engineers and teachers? I would take it further and say that we all benefit from having artists, historians, theologians and sociologists - educated people in general. Grudgingly, i even accept the need for lawyers, economists and accountants. If these people end up earning significantly more than you then they will subsidise the roads you drive on under our system of progressive taxation.

No man is an island and we have to pool money together in order to improve the lot of the population at large. I don't benefit from some stranger undergoing heart surgery on the NHS and i may never need to use that service myself but i certainly don't object to my taxes being used for that purpose.

While we are discussing this, what is your take on the "students" attacking the car of Prince Charles and his good lady? I suppose that was the police's fault as well. They were nothing to do with the "protest" and should not have been attacked like that.

I applaud them for their efforts and lament that they didn't go far enough! The fact that the royal couple were out in central London in the middle of a large student protest is a testament to the stupidity of that pointless, inbred family. I was at the Laphroaig distillery recently and was informed that the Duke of Rothesay has a standing order for 6 bottles of 18 year-old every month at a cost of ?300 to the British taxpayer. If you want to get your knickers in a twist about wasting money than i suggest that he is a more suitable target for your ire than the students.

You applaude them for their efforts and lament that they didn't go far enough? So you condone attacking a pair of old people (the fact they are royals is irrellevent) that are on a night out and that happened to get caught up in the middle of it? Well I hope you're proud of yourself. How far should they have gone to further their cause? Assaulted them? Murdered them?

"Where do I say that?" Your first statement implies it. As you state you were at a peaceful protest that changed due to police tactics.

Why do they have to adopt these tactics? Because the pondlife that are attacking them have given them no choice. What would you have the police do? How should they have handled it? Should they have stood there and let thugs throw bricks, fences, extinguishers at them and not batted an eyelid?

[dougiedanger]

Stan,So it's all down to the police being heavy handed?

Where did i say that? My point is simply that aggressive policing can exacerbate the situation. It was a response to your suggestion of water canons and "a good kicking" as potential solutions to the problem. The article that i linked gives an idea of how angry aggressive policing can make peaceful protesters.

As for the comment about everybody paying for Uni, why should I pay for some layabout to go to Uni? Will they pay for my road tax? When they are highly paid professionals will they repay me? No they won't.

Surely you accept that society benefits from having trained doctors, nurses, engineers and teachers? I would take it further and say that we all benefit from having artists, historians, theologians and sociologists - educated people in general. Grudgingly, i even accept the need for lawyers, economists and accountants. If these people end up earning significantly more than you then they will subsidise the roads you drive on under our system of progressive taxation.

No man is an island and we have to pool money together in order to improve the lot of the population at large. I don't benefit from some stranger undergoing heart surgery on the NHS and i may never need to use that service myself but i certainly don't object to my taxes being used for that purpose.

While we are discussing this, what is your take on the "students" attacking the car of Prince Charles and his good lady? I suppose that was the police's fault as well. They were nothing to do with the "protest" and should not have been attacked like that.

I applaud them for their efforts and lament that they didn't go far enough! The fact that the royal couple were out in central London in the middle of a large student protest is a testament to the stupidity of that pointless, inbred family. I was at the Laphroaig distillery recently and was informed that the Duke of Rothesay has a standing order for 6 bottles of 18 year-old every month at a cost of ?300 to the British taxpayer. If you want to get your knickers in a twist about wasting money than i suggest that he is a more suitable target for your ire than the students.

spot feckin on.

[starchief]

As for the comment about everybody paying for Uni, why should I pay for some layabout to go to Uni? Will they pay for my road tax? When they are highly paid professionals will they repay me? No they won't. You get nothing for nothing and I had to work for what I have so why shouldn't they?

Weren't you a soldier? Who paid for your training? Taxpayer by any chance?