LuckyReds. So I asume you will condemn equally forcefully all the protesters who go to the Valley at 2.30 on saturday to complain that Roland has appointed a manager that they dont like, has bought in footballers they don't see as sufficiently good for their team, and to tell the guy who bought the club how much more of his money they want spent on ítems of their own choosing. The similarities are there. If you want to complain about rioting, setting light to cars and attacking people, you have my 100% backing that it is cowardly and counter productive, and is probably the work of individuals who just take pleasure in doing that sort of shitty stuff. If you are going to complain about state education and Dance and Drama degrees, you tie up neatly with my point above. A well educated population brings wealth into the country. You say that why should those who don't go to university fund those who do? Maybe they should have chosen to go? Maybe they could'nt afford to as the grants have gone? Maybe the wealth of the others will pay taxes taht will benefit the rest of the population. This whole anti student thing is crap. Typical 'race to the bottom' politics to bring everyone down to the lowest posible level. PS Yes I have a degree in Fine Art
Thing is Ken successive governments have caused this issue by stating that everyone should have the opportunity to go to University, as it ever was so and in my day if you were good enough you went, problem is they dumbed down the whole education system so people who wouldn't have stood a chance of getting a university place 25-30 years ago now do and so the country can't afford to pay for it. Unfortunately they are engaged in 3-4 years of meaningless study that leaves them neither employable or educated so they end up starting jobs that hitherto were occupied by 16 years olds with 3 O levels. It is absolutely the biggest lie of our times that you need a degree to do well, our plumber has a great business, earns a very good living having left school at 16, same for all the tradespeople we know. There has to be a stop to this idea that only university education counts we need skilled people to do the day to day work that is practical not another nerdy tit with a Media Studies degree.
With regards to this march just another excuse for the chancers to do a bit of looting and fight the police. This march has no substance, no point and has no backing from the sensible people in this country. And I don't believe it's anything to do with poor people, all those dicks had state of the art mobiles etc. personally if ever there was a case for water cannon this is it send home wet through I say
It's highly likely the burnt police car was the work of agents provocateurs.
Smash their skulls? Very empathetic. While I do not condone the nature of this protest, largely on grounds of taste and futility, I'm well aware of the fact that a lot of young people feel with some justification that the dice are stacked against them.
One such young person, 5 years ago, was my brother. He did in fact have his skull smashed by police, and hasn't been the same since. I'm not saying that his beating caused him to drop out of university and live like a recluse in his parents' attic since then, but I am saying that meeting real nonviolent grievances with excessive force is not the work of a civilised police force.
THIS protest sounds like it probably got out of hand, but I am not sure that skull-smashing is the way forward tbh, and it sounds like the police force have realised this given the lack of skull-smashing stories today.
As for student fees, we can start with a thorough review of where the money goes, and a rock-solid subsidy program for deprived students.
If you want to complain about rioting, setting light to cars and attacking people, you have my 100% backing that it is cowardly and counter productive, and is probably the work of individuals who just take pleasure in doing that sort of shitty stuff.
Fair point.
The following is where you start to make yourself look silly in my eyes:
You say that why should those who don't go to university fund those who do? Maybe they should have chosen to go? Maybe they could'nt afford to as the grants have gone? Maybe the wealth of the others will pay taxes taht will benefit the rest of the population. This whole anti student thing is crap. Typical 'race to the bottom' politics to bring everyone down to the lowest posible level.
Insanely poor point above.
Why on earth should those who choose to go out and work, (strengthening our economy) be penalised and have to pay for others to go to university?
Those going to uni will incur a debt that will very likely never have to be paid back in full.
Why should my tax pay for further education of those that can’t accept they are unable to afford further education at a particular time?
It also looks like what you are saying is those that are not as academically gifted or those who choose not to go to university or are required to start earning sooner due to personal circumstances are also less deserving of state help than those that want a continued education.
The more I re-read your comment the more I read it as you wish to penalise those in our nation that can’t afford to go to university and are not willing to take a out a loan to go (that they will likely never pay back in full).
You also seem to want to increase the taxes for the people who were not academically gifted enough to get the grades to go onto university...
I don’t care what degree you have. It probably doesn’t relate to your career and as such was probably a waste of time other than you got the ‘University experience’. If you have gone on to do something relevant then I applaud and congratulate you.
I think you mean counterproductive, couldn’t, that and possible (just in case you aren't aware).
Finally I ask a simple question. Are you aware career relevant learning comes not from the further educational system, but from the workplace itself?
LuckyRed hit the nail on the head with something along these lines:
In the real world we need a variety of types of worker, a lot of them are essential for the running of our society and they should not be forced to pay for others.
It is not necessary to only study subjects that you then make a career in, not really the point of university study to be directly vocational. Music graduates make good accountants I understand.
It is not necessary to only study subjects that you then make a career in, not really the point of university study to be directly vocational. Music graduates make good accountants I understand.
Fair point but misses the key argument for me, those who didn't go to uni should not have to pay for any others further education.
It is not necessary to only study subjects that you then make a career in, not really the point of university study to be directly vocational. Music graduates make good accountants I understand.
Fair point but misses the key argument for me, those who didn't go to uni should not have to pay for any others further education.
It is not necessary to only study subjects that you then make a career in, not really the point of university study to be directly vocational. Music graduates make good accountants I understand.
Fair point but misses the key argument for me, those who didn't go to uni should not have to pay for any others further education.
Graduates leaving this summer have debts if about £43,000 to pay back.
It is not necessary to only study subjects that you then make a career in, not really the point of university study to be directly vocational. Music graduates make good accountants I understand.
Fair point but misses the key argument for me, those who didn't go to uni should not have to pay for any others further education.
Graduates leaving this summer have debts if about £43,000 to pay back.
Yep and most won't pay those back because they'll be written off thus adding to government spend.
It is not necessary to only study subjects that you then make a career in, not really the point of university study to be directly vocational. Music graduates make good accountants I understand.
Fair point but misses the key argument for me, those who didn't go to uni should not have to pay for any others further education.
Graduates leaving this summer have debts if about £43,000 to pay back.
Yep and most won't pay those back because they'll be written off thus adding to government spend.
Why should they be written off?
Well you're seeing into the future pretty well. this summer was the first batch of graduates leaving after £9000 per year tuition fees, under the latest system. There isn't enough evidence to say that most (most?) won't pay the money back, and that the money will be written off. Do you have any links or anything about this?
Ken_Shabby said: Unfortunately they are engaged in 3-4 years of meaningless study that leaves them neither employable or educated so they end up starting jobs that hitherto were occupied by 16 years olds with 3 O levels. It is absolutely the biggest lie of our times that you need a degree to do well, our plumber has a great business, earns a very good living having left school at 16, same for all the tradespeople we know. There has to be a stop to this idea that only university education counts we need skilled people to do the day to day work that is practical not another nerdy tit with a Media Studies degree.
It is not necessary to only study subjects that you then make a career in, not really the point of university study to be directly vocational. Music graduates make good accountants I understand.
Fair point but misses the key argument for me, those who didn't go to uni should not have to pay for any others further education.
Graduates leaving this summer have debts if about £43,000 to pay back.
Yep and most won't pay those back because they'll be written off thus adding to government spend.
Why should they be written off?
Well you're seeing into the future pretty well. this summer was the first batch of graduates leaving after £9000 per year tuition fees, under the latest system. There isn't enough evidence to say that most (most?) won't pay the money back, and that the money will be written off. Do you have any links or anything about this?
current student debts are written off after 25 years if not paid back in full.
This is what my fiancee understands her situation is.
That is a lesser loan (she left 4/5 years ago) so it will only get worse if this still stands on the big loans.
I understood the threshold for when you start paying it back is £21,000, looking on the Gov.uk site it states that the student will pay back 9% on any amount over that figure. Therefore if you were earning £25,000 you would pay back £30 per month, £30,000 £67 per month. I fail to see if this is correct and students are leaving with £43,000 in debt how many students will ever repay the loan over the 30 year period until it gets written off.
It's hardly the same as racking up £43,000 in credit card debt. Calling it "debt", whilst technically correct, brings all sorts of incorrect connotations.
If you're unable to work through disability, it's written off - quite correctly too. If you don't earn enough, you don't have to pay it back until your earnings meet the threshold - quite correctly too. If it's not paid back in 30 years, it's written off.
The payments are taken off as deductions so you've got no chance of bouncing payments or the like, it's completely transparent to you as a borrower. It may even be worth looking at a salary calculator and seeing how these payments work out. These payments are calculated incredibly fairly, and are easily affordable for the associated salaries.
The whole situation seems pretty fair on the borrower in my opinion, especially if this loan is to enable them to increase their earning potential for their adult life. (even if this isn't actually the case.) Yet this mechanism also reduces state spending whilst ensuring there's a solid financial stream for the universities; everyone is taken care of.
The hilarious aspect of this situation is that you could essentially claim that those who were "protesting" about the fees on Wednesday were demanding that the taxpayer pays for their education for them to increase their earning potential.. i.e increasing their ability to pay it back.
Ultimately, I feel this comes down to my generation (and those a couple of years younger) having a large element who have a sense of entitlement that's incredibly selfish - whilst being unable to see how lucky we have. Utterly spoilt.
I understood the threshold for when you start paying it back is £21,000, looking on the Gov.uk site it states that the student will pay back 9% on any amount over that figure. Therefore if you were earning £25,000 you would pay back £30 per month, £30,000 £67 per month. I fail to see if this is correct and students are leaving with £43,000 in debt how many students will ever repay the loan over the 30 year period until it gets written off.
At £67 per month it would take 53 years six months to pay back this interest free 'loan'.
After 30 years, £24,120 would be paid off leaving £18,880 to be picked up by the 'taxpayer'.
Kick the shit out of the lot of the scum bags and give the old bill a night off, police our own streets on nights like this they won't want to do it again with a busted skull
Could not agree more. The Victoria Station upgrade employs somewhere near 1000 people. 3/4 of which could not work last night because of these cunts (station works closed).
The problem is that whilst a truly equal society is impossible and should be as merit is important. The balance between the haves and have nots is ridiculous. Hard working people are seen as a commodity and exploited and there is a lack of awareness that if this inequality continues, a tipping point will be reached. Like the banking crisis, I don't think our capitalist system has the ability to realise how far people can be pushed and will push them continuously until a big change happens. Whether that be 5 years, 10 years or 20 years, there will be a change. What we are seeing around us are the seeds of change - whether we agree with what we see or not.
From my experience degrees are now seen by employers as essential, not just an added extra, even in normal admin jobs.
You have limited experience then.
I've employed at least a dozen surveyors in the past four years of which about 30% have had a degree in Building Surveying. The vast majority of graduates I've interviewed, I wouldn't employ to cut my lawn. None of the best five of those have had a degree.
You'd be amazed how many graduate's applications are absolutely atrocious. Spelling, grammar and not understanding the requirements of the role. And at interviews, the vast majority seem to think they've got the job already and they're doing you a favour.
Give me a sensible, keen 18 year old, who has desire, passion and willingness to learn and succeed over a 21 year old graduate in meeja studies.
It is not necessary to only study subjects that you then make a career in, not really the point of university study to be directly vocational. Music graduates make good accountants I understand.
Fair point but misses the key argument for me, those who didn't go to uni should not have to pay for any others further education.
I think it's all about living in a society, we all pay, as a collective, and all benefit as a result. 30 odd years ago I learnt a trade because I wasn't bright enough to go to university, a few years ago my son turned down a place at a London university because he didn't want to incur a 30k+ debt. Who knows what he may have become. Paying for an education will once again make universities elitist(maybe not a bad thing) and the reserve of the rich (definitely a bad thing). And today it's been proposed to allow English universities to raise their fees once again. It was the thin end of the wedge to allow charging and in the future I wouldn't be surprised to see this practice extended downward too A level students.
Students benefit from earning degrees. Why? Because employers advertise the "best" positions as being suitable only for candidates with degrees. Quite rightly, many - but not all - employers believe that a candidate who has demonstrated the dedication, intellect and application to complete a degree course is often the most-suitable candidate for long-term employment. In short, the employer benefits from employing staff with degrees. Equally, the country benefits from having well-educated, British job candidates.
British people receiving an excellent education benefit British employers - whether in the public or private sector. In my view, the cost of university education should be met by the state.
But, if the decision is made that the public sector pushes the cost of education onto those that directly benefit from it. So, in my view it should be shared equally between those that gain degrees and those that employ them. The £45k should be split, 50/50, reducing the cost to the student and making the employer pay for the added value in recruiting the "best".
Comments
LuckyReds. So I asume you will condemn equally forcefully all the protesters who go to the Valley at 2.30 on saturday to complain that Roland has appointed a manager that they dont like, has bought in footballers they don't see as sufficiently good for their team, and to tell the guy who bought the club how much more of his money they want spent on ítems of their own choosing. The similarities are there.
If you want to complain about rioting, setting light to cars and attacking people, you have my 100% backing that it is cowardly and counter productive, and is probably the work of individuals who just take pleasure in doing that sort of shitty stuff. If you are going to complain about state education and Dance and Drama degrees, you tie up neatly with my point above. A well educated population brings wealth into the country. You say that why should those who don't go to university fund those who do? Maybe they should have chosen to go? Maybe they could'nt afford to as the grants have gone? Maybe the wealth of the others will pay taxes taht will benefit the rest of the population. This whole anti student thing is crap. Typical 'race to the bottom' politics to bring everyone down to the lowest posible level.
PS Yes I have a degree in Fine Art
Thing is Ken successive governments have caused this issue by stating that everyone should have the opportunity to go to University, as it ever was so and in my day if you were good enough you went, problem is they dumbed down the whole education system so people who wouldn't have stood a chance of getting a university place 25-30 years ago now do and so the country can't afford to pay for it. Unfortunately they are engaged in 3-4 years of meaningless study that leaves them neither employable or educated so they end up starting jobs that hitherto were occupied by 16 years olds with 3 O levels. It is absolutely the biggest lie of our times that you need a degree to do well, our plumber has a great business, earns a very good living having left school at 16, same for all the tradespeople we know. There has to be a stop to this idea that only university education counts we need skilled people to do the day to day work that is practical not another nerdy tit with a Media Studies degree.
With regards to this march just another excuse for the chancers to do a bit of looting and fight the police. This march has no substance, no point and has no backing from the sensible people in this country. And I don't believe it's anything to do with poor people, all those dicks had state of the art mobiles etc. personally if ever there was a case for water cannon this is it send home wet through I say
Smash their skulls? Very empathetic. While I do not condone the nature of this protest, largely on grounds of taste and futility, I'm well aware of the fact that a lot of young people feel with some justification that the dice are stacked against them.
One such young person, 5 years ago, was my brother. He did in fact have his skull smashed by police, and hasn't been the same since. I'm not saying that his beating caused him to drop out of university and live like a recluse in his parents' attic since then, but I am saying that meeting real nonviolent grievances with excessive force is not the work of a civilised police force.
THIS protest sounds like it probably got out of hand, but I am not sure that skull-smashing is the way forward tbh, and it sounds like the police force have realised this given the lack of skull-smashing stories today.
As for student fees, we can start with a thorough review of where the money goes, and a rock-solid subsidy program for deprived students.
The following is where you start to make yourself look silly in my eyes: Insanely poor point above.
Why on earth should those who choose to go out and work, (strengthening our economy) be penalised and have to pay for others to go to university?
Those going to uni will incur a debt that will very likely never have to be paid back in full.
Why should my tax pay for further education of those that can’t accept they are unable to afford further education at a particular time?
It also looks like what you are saying is those that are not as academically gifted or those who choose not to go to university or are required to start earning sooner due to personal circumstances are also less deserving of state help than those that want a continued education.
The more I re-read your comment the more I read it as you wish to penalise those in our nation that can’t afford to go to university and are not willing to take a out a loan to go (that they will likely never pay back in full).
You also seem to want to increase the taxes for the people who were not academically gifted enough to get the grades to go onto university...
Absolute drivel. I don’t care what degree you have. It probably doesn’t relate to your career and as such was probably a waste of time other than you got the ‘University experience’.
If you have gone on to do something relevant then I applaud and congratulate you. I think you mean counterproductive, couldn’t, that and possible (just in case you aren't aware).
Finally I ask a simple question. Are you aware career relevant learning comes not from the further educational system, but from the workplace itself?
LuckyRed hit the nail on the head with something along these lines:
In the real world we need a variety of types of worker, a lot of them are essential for the running of our society and they should not be forced to pay for others.
Why should they be written off?
Do you have any links or anything about this?
This is what my fiancee understands her situation is.
That is a lesser loan (she left 4/5 years ago) so it will only get worse if this still stands on the big loans.
http://www.slc.co.uk/services/loan-repayment/loan-cancellation.aspx
I fail to see if this is correct and students are leaving with £43,000 in debt how many students will ever repay the loan over the 30 year period until it gets written off.
If you're unable to work through disability, it's written off - quite correctly too. If you don't earn enough, you don't have to pay it back until your earnings meet the threshold - quite correctly too. If it's not paid back in 30 years, it's written off.
The payments are taken off as deductions so you've got no chance of bouncing payments or the like, it's completely transparent to you as a borrower. It may even be worth looking at a salary calculator and seeing how these payments work out. These payments are calculated incredibly fairly, and are easily affordable for the associated salaries.
The whole situation seems pretty fair on the borrower in my opinion, especially if this loan is to enable them to increase their earning potential for their adult life. (even if this isn't actually the case.) Yet this mechanism also reduces state spending whilst ensuring there's a solid financial stream for the universities; everyone is taken care of.
The hilarious aspect of this situation is that you could essentially claim that those who were "protesting" about the fees on Wednesday were demanding that the taxpayer pays for their education for them to increase their earning potential.. i.e increasing their ability to pay it back.
Ultimately, I feel this comes down to my generation (and those a couple of years younger) having a large element who have a sense of entitlement that's incredibly selfish - whilst being unable to see how lucky we have. Utterly spoilt.
Want it can't afford it don't have it
Simple really
These protesters are scum bags that's all no good work shy lazy bstds
Who want it all but cam afford it or daddy won't buy it
After 30 years, £24,120 would be paid off leaving £18,880 to be picked up by the 'taxpayer'.
I've employed at least a dozen surveyors in the past four years of which about 30% have had a degree in Building Surveying. The vast majority of graduates I've interviewed, I wouldn't employ to cut my lawn. None of the best five of those have had a degree.
You'd be amazed how many graduate's applications are absolutely atrocious. Spelling, grammar and not understanding the requirements of the role. And at interviews, the vast majority seem to think they've got the job already and they're doing you a favour.
Give me a sensible, keen 18 year old, who has desire, passion and willingness to learn and succeed over a 21 year old graduate in meeja studies.
Paying for an education will once again make universities elitist(maybe not a bad thing) and the reserve of the rich (definitely a bad thing).
And today it's been proposed to allow English universities to raise their fees once again. It was the thin end of the wedge to allow charging and in the future I wouldn't be surprised to see this practice extended downward too A level students.
British people receiving an excellent education benefit British employers - whether in the public or private sector. In my view, the cost of university education should be met by the state.
But, if the decision is made that the public sector pushes the cost of education onto those that directly benefit from it. So, in my view it should be shared equally between those that gain degrees and those that employ them. The £45k should be split, 50/50, reducing the cost to the student and making the employer pay for the added value in recruiting the "best".
Who'd have thunk it.