And they charge you for yr student loan when you earn over 10k, not '15k' as Charles Clarke says in interviews, the lying cunt. As someone on about 11k, this is a concern of mine.

My tuition fees are, ostensiably, for tuition. That said if you feel pissed off write to your MP demanding that they pay what they got for free (and the grant please) after inflation into a hardship fund for people who will have problems.

Questions eem to me to ba
a) Does Higher Education need to be expanded
b) Who should pay for it, the people going or everyone
i) What won't hurt us in the polls too much = who will never vote tory = students.

without trying to start an argument here, who do you think should pay for it enrique?

also not every student is in their 20s innit, what is the current "mature" to 18-21 ratio at the mo, must be 30% upwards mature these days?

I'm unsure on point a), still undecided.

But 'who should pay' seems to me an economic question. If education *is* expanded, and all these graduates are earning much more as per the blurb, and presumably out GDP goes up because we're all so well-educated that our economy rocks bells, then surely we won't need to raise taxation (and this is taxation) since the tax yield will automatically be higher even at the current rate?

I didn't study economics.

But if my calculations are wrong, then surely business should pay? After all, what is happening is that the Exchequer is subsidizing business by training up the workforce. It's not me who benefits but my employer; essentially business won't put in for training, but yet it wants to hire and fire as easily as possible. Well, the quid pro quo is that it should pay for the training which it has outsourced to the state sector.

Point a) is the big question, though. I'd love everybody to have the experience of student life, whatever they study.

Whatever job you end up in, it's more than likely that you will be taking part in the great project of capitalism, ie making money for someone else. They need you to be trained for this task: this is why we have an education system in the first place. So why I should pay for this is beyond me. (Note to self if I read this in a few years: you are currently earning nish-all in a job you hate, x per cent of which is paying for your living costs of a few years ago.)

If you've started on a course under the old system, they cannot change it to the new system Cathy.

Yeah, because it's not like rich parents help out their kids with rent in their twenties, oh no! Certainly not! This will even things out, no mistakin'!

What next though, charging for A-Levels? Why not? They too have an unfair advantage in the jobs market.

Enrique:
anyone over 19 has to pay for a-levels anyway.

how about this for a solution:
anyone who privately educates their children up to age 18 has to pay the REAL ACTUAL FULL COST of university as though they were overseas...

Fuckin Nora, I had no idea. I *have* been a bit ageist on this thread, *even though* I am possibly going BACK into education. Still, the *vast majority* of A-Levellers are 16-18, so my question stands: why not charge them, on the same principle?

(xpost: thanks, Pete. was worrying there.)

I currently pay - my own money, not my parents', although they've said they'll help with Uni - for the courses I'm on. One's adult education, the other I could have got for free if I hadn't had too much pride to sign on (the woman in the finance office told me off for not being on the dole).

Scenario, so called "poor student" manages to get a well paid at 21/ 22 years of age of say 25K - whilst the other student say gets a lesser paid job at 16K, will have to cough up 3 years tuition fees. Who is the poorer person now?

so called Poor student assessed at 18, is no longer poor and waves good bye to tuition fees debt, and under Blair's scheme would also get paid a grant whilst studying.

It's the government playing with the class system - that is fatally flawed.

...a much better system would be what Lib Democrats have proposed tax the rich on 100K + income ..50p in the pound above this threashold.

another simplified system would be to have a graduate tax of 1p in the pound, therefore if you have benefited from university degree you contribute back into the system when you work, at 1p on top of basic rate.

But point two and higher taxes -- this would never happen. The Lib Dems would never seriously do that just to pay for university; the money would be wanted everywhere.

The point in any case is about expanding higher education, which is what the top-up fees are for. I dunno if I agree with the expansion or not, prolly I do, but see my point above about the economcis of it: surely a better-educated, better-paid workforce would be able to finance this out of current taxation, simply because of the higher yield.

I'm not for low tax-rates, but simply hitting the rich for a few quid isn't socialism, and it's not a strong enough argument for the Lib Dems to trot out.

This is the urgent and key question. If you believe the government line that it cannot afford free education (and I'm not sure I do), then surely there is a case for varying fees depending on the course. For example, the entire country needs doctors and nurses, should people doing medicine/nursing pay fees?

The bigger question surrounding this, to which I determines your stance on this issue, is "what are universities for?"

No, because doctors at least are well-paid and have and sometimes take the option of making money in private practice. And this whole 'multi-track' system opens up a can of worms. I don't smoke (since 2am Sunday) -- so can I not pay for smokers to be looked after on the NHS. Or: I don't drive, why should I pay for the roads? Or: I eat right, why should I pay for the obese?

All rhetorical!

But then I studied history. You might think me useless now, but JUST YOU WAIT FUXORS.

*I had the worst Saturday night out EVAH explains this pessimism.

My feeling is this: The reason degrees mean jack shit is because anyone and their dog can get one. Too many fucking former polytechnics out there that cater to braindead types who can suddenly get a 2.1 in Psychology simply by signing their name on a few pieces of paper for three years.

A degree should mean something. The former polys should go back to being technical colleges. Aiming to have 50% of the population with degrees is ridiculous. It just makes a degree redundant. There are no graduate jobs. Expecting people to pay for education is a disgrace. The answer is to have fewer universities and invest in those that have strong legacy of academic achievement.

Don't take it out on me if you're thick and can't get into a proper uni.

*puzzles own self out*

*coughs and feels room spin slightly*

LSE has around 40ish% of non-EU students who pay over 10k per yr. Other unis are surely going to follow the LSE way, even with the increase to 3k (which is just not enough).

Calum, don't do this. Trust me!

After graduating law school this spring, I will be in the hole for about $94,000, or approximately 55,000 pounds. I'll be paying back my educational expenses for at least 10-15 years, probably more.

US students seem to pay more, but the two countries aren't really comparable in their politics/economy. I'll be paying back for that period, but less money. I won't be able to afford to pay it back sooner since I won't be on a US lawyer's salary unless this screenplay idea works out (hahaha).

I'd've loved to've seen that Suzy.

I'm all for politicians and the meejar colluding to make politics more sexy for youf, but this is too far.

Which Oxford college were you at again, Enrique?

Anyone notice the massive, broad grin on Paxman's face when the guy from the NUS whopped out a load of statistics taking Blair by surprise?

he said:

Scenario, so called "poor student" manages to get a well paid at 21/ 22 years of age of say 25K - whilst the other student say gets a lesser paid job at 16K, will have to cough up 3 years tuition fees. Who is the poorer person now?

but the person on 16K will be paying back less than a tenner a month ((16k-15k)*0.09)/12, barely even a round (possibly less than a pint come 2010 when they'll actually start paying it)...

i know it's not perfect, and perhaps a graduate tax would be better (it'd earn a hell of a lot more money in the long run i'd reckon), but there are other bits of education as badly, if not worse, off than HE...

It is also true that HE is not that much worse off than other branches of education (or health, or social security, or defense, or law enforcement...). But we do pay quite a lot in taxes already; and surely if GDP does ramp up as a result of us all being such bright graduates, then we won't need to increase them further asthe yield will be higher. Or is this voodoo economics?

They should disarm unilaterally and use the savings to pay for universities. And get rid of the civil list.

The view from inside Universities is we are pretty poorly funded.

Most importantly though I strongly believe that people who did get grants and free tuition should also be paying this back if everyone else has to. Grad tax fairest way to do that.

Not really, Pete. I worked in the public sector on a vastly inflated salary that I didn't deserve, just for having gone to uni (history). I got 20k there for doing less than I do now. Now I'm in publishing, which I'm better qualified for, and I get Jack Shit. These grossly inflated salaries are a bit of a myth, you ask me.

*excuse me I'm in a v bad temper this morning

It makes degrees worthless if 50% of us have one. Higher education should be based on an entry deemed due to academic merit, and those who can cut that should get in, those who can't should not. Simple. Less polys, more proper unis, more funding.

You're probably right that smoking pot/talking shit is a bad idea for all three years -- but I hope you got the gist, you know, d00d. Ie I smoked pot/talked shit AND did a bit of work, sometimes.

Education doesn't only help the employers, but they are ultimately the ones who gain. If society was set up differently, I would have another angle on this.

Also, their is going to be a severe cut in qualified manual labour if everyone wants to spend three years at uni.

We will all sit in nice air-conditioned offices bossing these people around on the internet, not dwelling too much on the nonvocational* elements of our degrees visiting Bluewater in our Mondeos while listeneing to Dido. That's the Blair millenium.

*=vocation for the good society, people

How about this - make all degrees part-time and have all students doing part-time jobs whilst they're studying.

one thing a guy said on pax&bla, last night, was that basic levels of education should be being improved upon since many graduates can't even string a sentence together. I assume that includes not knowing the diff between 'less' and 'fewer' and making good 'there'/'their'/'they're' mistakes.

Not really - what is more likely to happen is that variable fees will lead to an even more market-based system among universities, both among students and employers. I don't really believe that having to pay extra money in fees will discourage a truly exceptional working class kid from taking up a place at Cambridge in favour of a cheaper course at Luton - the benefits of the former surely outweigh the disadvantages.

What is more likely to happen is that the value of certain universities will continue to rise amongst employers, said universities will then charge more because the benefits of being at that institution are percieved as being greater. Others will see their stock fall, especially as they become underfunded in relative terms because they have to keep fees low, with less prospect of improving themselves. You'll end up with even less of a level playing field than we have now, with some universities permanently stuck in lower divisions - just breaking even becomes paramount at the expense of rising up the ladder. Just like football.

So to say ALL degrees will become worthless because 50% of young people are going to university is nonsense. Some universities, and some students, will always benefit from this or any other system because not all degrees are equal.

Oxford I know from someone who works there actually puts as much effort as possible into getting state schools to send people here: they will go as far as they can without lowering the bar -- and tutors *definitely* take the quality of your education into account at interview.

This is u&k and is what Oxford's central admin is very much concerned with. They in turn have to win the battles with the colleges (whole 'nother world) to take this culture-clash into account. Which as Pete says isn't exactly the smoothest process in the world.

I don't understand either (well I do) why students who go to states school should get in on lower grades. My parents saved up so that they could send me and my sister to a good school. Unfortunately, due to the state of the education in this country, this meant sending me to a public school (not a posh one mind). The governments wants us to learn to save and plan for our future, so why can't they encourage people to invest in their children's future and get good education? Or just improve the state system I suppose, but that's unlikely to happen.

In a perfect world education should be free, and up till a few years ago, the universities of this country showed the world how it should be. I definately don't want universities here to end up like an Ivy league type thing. Ultimately I don't think 50% of 18 year olds should go to university. There just aren't the jobs to sustain such an output from universities. The bookstores round here are full of people with degrees, and when you first start your degree, I don't think anyone would want to end up working in a shop.

The government should think more about the jobs that this country needs, there aren't enough plumbers and builders. These jobs are highly paid (they probably earn more than most gradutates do) and definately don't need a university degree to learn the skills.

Anyway rant over

I don't understand either (well I do) why students who go to states school should get in on lower grades. My parents saved up so that they could send me and my sister to a good school. Unfortunately, due to the state of the education in this country, this meant sending me to a public school (not a posh one mind).

Well, the second part of what you said applies to me -- but I think that fee-receiving schools ought to be closed down in favour of a single state system.

As has been repeated ad infinitum GRADES ARE NOT THE ONLY QUALIFICATION!!! If you're bright, went to state school and you have BBB, for example, yes you DO deserve to jump ahead of overtrained gits like me (though I was at state sixth) EVEN if we get AAA.

genuine question, not sure where you were coming from...

this doesn't surprise me - Cornwall has the lowest proportion of its 18 year olds going into HE and somebody has obviously decided that Something Must Be Done About This.

FEAR!

Jill, (hello, how are you?) if middle-class parents all believed and invested in the state school system it would be a lot better (yes, it's sweeping generalisation day chez carsmile), rather than running away to private...

sorry enrique, are you saying that if the quality of your education appear to be poor (school title has word "comprehensive" in it, to give a crass example), they'll be more lenient? or the opposite, that they want you to have had a good quality education before you even get there...

Yeah, the former!!!! Sheesh.

I left cos a) my parents finances were for shit and b) I fucking hated it at fee-receiving school and wanted to meet GURLS.

Of course if our parents held us to better account for what they pay out on us rather than falling into the trap of thinking it is their duty then we might have a better system of pensions and plenty of the middle class supposed freeloader wondrin' if the advantage is an advantage after all. (Your parents paid for you to go to University, right tne, be grateful and pay 'em back in their old age).

The only thing I really disagree with in the new legislation is the variable fees thing, and I'm coming round slowly to that.

I and mine made this pragmatic decision when I was 14 (ie a few years b4 sixth form). It was the best two years of my life and I immediately regretted the last x-years at private school (not that it's been a bag of laughs at the time).

Pension system deserves another thread. All I'm going to say is greedy, coke-snorting, short-termist wankers and leave y'all to catch my drift.

I think our attitude between pensions and education are vitally related by the way.

Academically I was fine but never really been able to shut my mouth. After all why give a busary to a troublemaker when you can give it to a more deserving, quiet, student.

HRSFC FOOTBALL RULES

I think the Gov should at least meet the students half-way on tuition fees but it's idealistic and hard for me to really support the idea as i am lacking in knowledge of taxation and economics.

Yes, I really think that. If higher, non-compulsory education has to be paid for then why not sixth form. As Steve said way up, you have to pay to do A-Levels if you are over 18, why not under eighteen. Only compulsory education should be free.

Well, that's the point, higher, non-compulsory education DOESN'T have to be paid for; it's just that a Decision Has Been Made that it will be. Brings me back to the thin end of the wedge stuff I mentioned yesterday -- you don't get what you pay for with taxation; otherwise non-drivers like me could opt out of paying for the roads.

And anyway, as Ed said, the whole country needs trained people! And not just Doctors. To think of these as benefits for the individual rather than the society at large is quite a right-wing view, isn't it?

And there are not enough graduate jobs - correct. None of my friends who I went through uni with have graduated into anything approaching a good and well paid job, my self included. I graduated three years ago and my degree seems to count for shit, as does my subsequent masters.

Fewer universities is the answer.

we should, though. should the government fund people to do phds which are of no use to anyone, except possibly as a qualification to teach in a university (although should this be a necessary qualification anyway?). should we care about having top-class research universities, or just concentrate on teaching and save a lot of money that way; after all, good researchers are often rubbish lecturers.

Also, repeating myself a lot, but it is business that benefits ultimately: if they won't train people (and they don't) it's left to the state to educate people. This feels like a free ride to me.

C-Man -- who's deciding what's dumb-ass? I don't think poly courses are useless by any means, the whole point is that THERE ISN'T A FINITE AMOUNT OF MONEY OUT THERE, AND IF WE'RE ALL SUPER-BRIGHT GRADS THEN WE'LL ALL EARN MORE. Is it stupid? Haven't the foggiest. Should have done economics.

Why go to university? I wasted four years of my life for a piece of paper that has not given me one step up in the job ladder at all, and I'm pretty pissed off at that. The fact is that if you want a degree to mean something then you need to give it some form of elitism and former polys let anyone in.

Yes, Toby we should. Part of the problem is judging the usefulness of a research degree (after all plenty of things which may look useful are complete dead ends). As it stands at the moment there is not much arts funding anyway, the lions share is in science. But there is a fit between teaching and research, but it is a very poor one. I would like undergraduates to have some sort of access to the great thinkers of our time, much like you would have access to the great paintings. But should they be teaching them directly?

Pete's post above re: Sports Management is very sensible. New universities are more vocational in general - it's not all David Beckham and Knitwear Studies.

Also, closing lots of univerisities would have a heavy knock-on effect on many local economies. Students have lots of disposable income even if they pretend they don't.

Fucking - how long has this guy been a graduate for?

MATT - fucking LISTEN to what I'm saying. It's gaining in employment in what I want to do. As one postee said, what's the purpose of four years at uni if you come out and, say, work in a shop (not that I have, although I did when I first graduated...)

The purpose of going to university and coming out and working in a shop is that you might have a hugely enriching knowledge of English Literature/Theology/Biology/Trout Angling.

http://education.guardian.co.uk/further/story/0,5500,1126514,00.html

particularly the bit about part-time undergrads...

Also, why are med students paying fees at all, why not just tie em to the NHS for 10 years after they graduate, which they pretty much are anyway. We need doctors so why charge them to study, same for nurses.

My point is that I know BsC and BA grads, all went to uni with me, all have a hard time as a graduate. Coming out and working in a shop is because degrees are too readily available.

Don't teachers get their student loans and fees written off under the current system? Should that be extended to other key workers (nurses being a particularly good example)?

Why on earth Calum should you get a job doing what you want to do? Do you really think everyone else is doing what they want to do? The the current participation in HE number for 18-30 year olds is 43% - read the very interesting article Steve linked to. Part time is where number can and should be made up, but the gov seems disinterested in it to continue the tradional line of education. Life long learning is the key (also part of the solution I think to Toby's research question. Reasearch in the arts isn't and should not be seen to be a full time job).

Then what? This is half-finished. Please try a little harder.

?! what do you mean, pete?

(my experience of MS department is they wanted student mainly for the money)

What is good news is that there have been two long distance correspondence courses set up (by unis that also offer the course full time), to allow people to gain a diploma/masters while they work. So long as plenty of Archives give their employees support, be it monetary, study leave, tailoring the employees work to aspects of the course if possible, taking on someone on a course before they've qualified, etc., then the future is looking slightly healthier for the profession.

Once you've got more money from central gov.

x-post c-man.

early 90s - late 90s: maintenance loans only, paid back over 4 years once you earn more than 70% (i think) of the national average (mine's about £50 a month)

late 90s - now: maintenance and small tuition, taken direct from pay packet as 9% over £10,000 (ie you earn 11,000, they take 9% of £1000)

2006 onwards: maintenance and large tuition, ditto but 9% over 15K

10 grand! Woo-hoo, feeling the benefit of my degree on that.

If a degree is not to be a passport to a job the it should be free...

I can't believe I'm responding to this, but I believe a degree should ONLY be FREE if it IS a passport to a job or training for an actual career. Otherwise, it's vanity study and you should only be allowed to persue it if you have the money to pay for it, or the raw talent in your chosen vanity field to persuade someone else to pay for it.

(sorry, but it doesn't seem that anyone is listening)

(aren't they going to write these new ones off after 25 years anyway?)

Pink, with the loan it's 10k from the April after you graduate. It isn't much money, but then I live on beans. With the grad tax it'll be 15k.

A TENNER A MONTH TILL YOU DIE!!! THINK ABOUT IT!!!! THEY DON'T JUST LET YOU OFF THE HOOK YOU KNOW!!!!!!!!! I BOUGHT *3* CDS IN 2002! COULD HAVE BEEN LIKE 15!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And not until you die. Until you've paid off the loan. Which admittedly at yer current wage... If the funding came from certral taxation and they put a penny on income tax it would be more than a penny a month.

How on earth is letting the money trickle in like this supposed to help plug the HE funding gap then? This I really don't understand.

Carsmile and Ed -- yes it's only a tenner a month you pay back or whatever but over 25 years that's a lot of money. And there's interest on it. I mean seriously, a tenner is a lot of money to me, or was until I got 3 friggin credit cards which i'll never pay off.

Hopefully there'll be a war or something and all the records will be wiped.

Pete -- cos that's just not boho. I'm probably not qualified for it anyway. Basically if anyone meets me they'd know the bitter truth of this.

Yeah, unless you earned £1 a month, in which case -- kudos. They should socialize the land and nationalize industry, then it'd work, probably. I'm not an economist of course. But I'm DEADLY serious about the poetry idea.

Pash -- do you live in the North or something?

Dept of Education, presumably. 10k. Plucked it out of Charles Clarke's arse.

Careful Enrique, this thread is turning into a bit of a poor me case. There are plenty of people on ILE who were in similar situations who are now heads of multimational corporations so there is always hope.

Matt, i think what they do is sell the debt on to get the money now.

i think the 10K was plucked out of david blunkett's arse actually

Maybe not heads of corporations but I run a multimational business.

If there were some fresh arguments, I doubt I'd be as riled.

it is, i imagine, seabrook crisps that starbar is after, nothing else...

Ed I dare you to start that thread, I just dare youse.

"If you take the amount of money that - on paper - you would raise from top-rate taxpayers, the myth is that this is the amount you would raise," he said with rare candour about Labour's cherished belief in income-related taxation.

"But every single piece of analysis that has ever been done indicates that what would actually happen is that large numbers of those taxpayers - probably the wealthiest - would simply hire a whole lot of new accountants to do this and that. And actually your tax take would be a lot less."

Guardian, 21/01/04

Isn't that genius? Well, we would go after these murderers, but you know, they're pretty bright guys and the police would be better employed picking up wrongly parked cars. I can't believe this guy is even in the Labour party.

Phil Collins leaving lowers the GDP, but that's only of interest if you're in receipt of the GDP, ie of the super-rich already. It would be a useless government which let businesses close just because those who profit from them/own them leave. Production for use and all that.

Front page of Torygraph: 'Stude debt = 8k -- before top-up fees!!!' Where were those headlines in 1997, when the decision was made? It's really old news.

I missed the tuition fees deadline thankfully, but if I had paid 10 plus grand and was three years later without a job, and all this debt, I'd be depressed as hell. I don't want anyone else to be this pissed off and that's part of the reason I'm against this.

Congrats to Enrique who lives in a world where none of this happens and a bit of debt is not so bad.

It's bullshit. I'm glad I didn't pay but feel really sorry for those who did. If I could punch Tony Blair in the face I'd be very tempted. How dare he charge people and expect new graduates to come out in debt when there are no graduate jobs.

Graduate jobs are any job a graduate does. Perhpas they should have told you when you applied that there ain't that many journalism jobs out there, but I would have thought that was obvious. There are loads of people with your degree wanting to do what you want to do and can't get into it, there ain't that many jobs to go round. Pity you have alienated some of the people who are working in that very field who might have been able to help you.

I also am well aware of the competition for staff jobs. At the end of the day, my point is that I'm really concerned. I'm not making any money and after 3 years as a graduate the only thing that seems open to me is a clerical asst for £14,000 a year. I'm really, really fed up with it.

If I was offered a relevant job in Kuala Lumper however, I'd move there. Job first, then move. Sadly, the opportunities are not there.

The point is - if Blair expects you pay big money for an education, and his arguement is that graduates earn lotsa cash, then he'd better fucking wake up. It's been shit for myself and my fellow graduates from the day we left university. And, as usual, speaking to someone from London shows that those from the capital really have no grasp on the rest of the country.

Too many undergraduates pick a course with no real idea of what they will do with it afterwards which I think is a much bigger problem - at least when it comes to reasons they can't get a job after graduating.

Aye, but it's a bitch to have to choose what you're gonna do aged *17*. It's hard enough in your twenties.

It's a shit predicament, especially since I have done everything right during and after graudation - including experience. I've nothing against living in London if I got a job there (alright, I do - I hate the place) but it really is a bitch. I can't say the media is the only hard industry to get into though - lots of my buddies have had problems with science related degrees too.

yeh i know but the lack of ambition and direction around my peers at school and even at college always annoyed me - it's not even as if i am the most driven person (my ludicrous ambitiousness os marred by chronic laziness). i'm not saying everyone has to be career-minded and super-focussed, just that there should be more energy devoted to helping teenagers figure out what jobs they COULD do well and would enjoy enough. of course this does already happen but i don't think it is taken seriously enough. maybe there should be a Simon Cowell type who can review all applications for media-related courses and say 'sorry i don't see you as a Grad Idol' - there's never going to be Media crisis like there is often an IT crisis in certain skills sectors after all. it's already been pointed out that there are too many media-related courses with too many applicants anyway.

I can fully understand making degrees which help you to earn a living and/or help society by helping promote needed professions, (techincal degrees, for example) being free.

To me, a Luxury Degree is a degree which either *you* have to provide the money to support it, *OR* provide evidence of the raw talent or ability or whatever to persuade someone else to pay for it. (Before you start accusing me of classism or whatever.)

I don't believe that one automatically has a "right" to a job in their "chosen profession" - you have to earn/deserve it, and be ready to compete for both the job, AND THE TRAINING REQUIRED.

There's a lot of Thatcherism going on here actually ("you only get what you deserve if you are prepared to work hard for it" bollox) and it's quite surprising from a forum that I always thought was overwhelmingly liberal...

i can't think of any political theory that would be against this (except possibly anarchism)

I believe in Cuba if you train as a doctor you are guaranteed a job as a doctor at the end of your term...

but is it not also true that as a Cuban doctor you only earn about the same as the roadsweeper?

Look at those working behind shop tills all their lives. Are you trying to tell me they don't service society or spend long, hard hours working their ass of in pure monotony for basic wages? I'd say that they are more valuable than Paris Hilton or David Beckham, personally...

i call it conservative because of the elitist connotations of this statement, the sense of entitlement and privilege it implies. theoretically i agree with it but the world is not really like that, it is merely a social construct.

A bit like the UK, you mean? How many unemployed doctors have you ever met?

wtf? this is Cuba! and all other socialist paradises!

you're thinking in theory rather than in reality whereas i'm thinking the opposite

Sure a lot of people get jobs of mummy and daddy, but YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT THAT BUT BITCH AND MOAN. Equally there are plenty of people in those profession who have worked their nuts (Knutz) off to get there and also have the talent to spare. There are a lot of people who work very hard and get nowhere, that's luck, that's life. But there are plenty of people who do make it too. If its about who you know, make an effort to get to know some of them. You can't make luck, but you can certainly put yourself in a position where luck is more likely to strike.

That's not an academic degree, that's an apprenticeship.

I'd be happy to work in what I want to do providing I knew I'd be safe to have a house/ proper health care/ food for when I'm old. Whether I earned the same as the person that empties my bins would not bother me here nor there. I'm not materialistic for a start and I'm a working class fella you know? I'm not interested in having wealth. I'm more interested in the idea that everyone thought like this we'd have a far more moral society.

P.S. Pete you're talking shit. When you got this great opportunity were you living within travelling distance of it? Amazing how the only people who think the capitalist system works are those who had a stroke of luck and got into it. I call it luck mate because I'd bet you're no more or less talented or hard working than myself and many others.

It seems to come back to this travelling distance thing, this hatred of London where the streets are paved with gold and everyone can get a job. That is how you make your own luck. It took me two and a half years after that job to get another one, perhaps I had used up my luck and worn it out. So it was shitty tempting jobs, then shitty clerical jobs, and finally a job which I can't say i had ever thought of doing but suits me and my skills fine. Was I lucky? I made a lot of my own luck.

P.S. Pete a lot of us can't afford to move down to London. A lot of people I know are not as far as myself when it comes to writing. Did I make my own luck? Perhaps. But that does not make me any better than them mate. Your attitude is elitist, conservative nonsense but just put that X next to New Labour and keep telling yourself how great you are and how those that sleep homeless probably deserve it anyway because opportunities are everywhere eh? Tosser.

We won't get rid of capitalism as long as idealistic, head in the sand types like Pete exist. Ever been North of Watford Pete?

See Matt DC re getting rid of capitalism. Its not on the cards, and to be fair the alternatives are not particularly attractive. Oddly on the tuition fees argument way above, I was quite happy to pay more tax - I advocated a graduate tax that I too would pay rather than the current or proposed set up. I do think education is a responsibility of society, and surely in your lines about there being too many people at University you are merely agreeing with the current Tory proposals. I don't agree ith that, and I don't agree much with the New Labour policy except that it is better than the current situation.

Of course top-up fees aren't an issue in Scotland. Lucky them.

XPOST OBVIOUSLY

have you considered breast implants? oh wait, of COURSE you have

P.S. How are my fucking TRUE stories sexist ya fecking moron?

There are many other reasons why people might not want to employ me regardless of my experience. I might be too intense, or confrontational, or immature, or prone to random bouts of abuse to work in a sensible adult environment.

You would employ the probably quite capable girl with the nice breasts Calum, I don't believe you would do anything else. You are a walking contradiction, which is why no one takes you seriously. Probably in the real world as well.

Most successful people say you make your own luck. And these people are not all capitalist bastards; my friend who says exactly this most is a British artist who shows worldwide yada yada but her mum works at Asda and her dad is a scaffolder. Her work got spotted at a degree show and less than five years after that she had a show at the Tate. She works her ass off. If you asked her about tuition fees, she'd say that the current Parliament is a mob of assholes who all went to uni on the free tuition and full maintenance grant system, so even if they want to widen the opportunity to 50 per cent of students, it's hardly the same kind of opportunity as they had to advance themselves. She teaches BA candidates and is annoyed that someone from her background is going to have to work THAT MUCH HARDER just to be equal to the rich kids on her course. (Runitoff to thread!)

I loved how on the Newsnight debate Paxo asked Blair this straight off: Blair's answer suggested nobody had ever dared raise this issue before, otherwise he'd have worked out a better 'answer'.

Matt - 50% is simply not enough and, besides, and no one has answered this - why ahve a degree if one in two have one? Surely a degree is therefore worthless? Common sense right? If one in every two people have a limo I don't think they'd be quite so appealing. Matt, you're a knob end.

And most unsuccessful people don't. Funny that.

oh! i was with you up to that point! you don't actually need this, kids! you just need a pen, and a reason to use it. yeah!

Anyhoo I'm abiding by Matt DC and Pete's rules here, it's fair nuff *sometimes* to act within the possible.

xpost/Ricardo otm

No, just means that UK moves further from manual to non-manual labour. Marx was pro-globalization.

Calum, the joke is I did very little journalism during university. I got my break on NME because I wrote a paper saying how crap Thatcher was, and that was my writing sample. Also if that's how you respond to advice/anecdotes from people who are more professionally advanced than you are in your chosen fields, it's no wonder you're hitting the glass ceiling at five inches.

Also this whole sexism in the media thing IN FAVOUR OF WOMEN? Hahahahaha. The girl will get that job, maybe, but will be called Glenda Slagg for the rest of her life by male colleagues and rivals. If you want to see institutionalised sexism writ large but very badly I 'recommend' the world's worst autobiog, Cider With Roadies by Stuart Maconie.

I've done loads of features for broadsheets and mags that don't return *your* calls, for over a decade, am a section editor on a good magazine, and have written and edited stories and books. I'm going back to writing music stuff; last week the editor of this mag met me and after giving me a feature, said that he'd been beseiged by every music writer ever in search of work and I was the only person he'd said yes to out of all these people. That made my day.

One thing: when you do meet someone who might be able to employ you, LISTEN to them. Find out about their background, be interested in it. Find common ground. If there's a good spark from that, it improves your chances. It's also simple manners.

And, by the way, I a) Know my shit and b) Am not an asshole about it. And, yes, I've had to prove myself within 5 seconds too. The difference is I don't post on here as elitist because of this. I think you sound as if you've done well for yourself and will continue to do so - and for managing that in a tough profession you have my respect. But, yes, I've been proactive and tell others to do the same thing but, all said, I still think that getting a 9 to 5 job in the media is nigh on impossible, I know my degree did not me one iota of good and I am also aware that just because I (personally) made some breaks for myself and I no more or less "better" than anyone else out there struggling to be a journalist.

If you want to believe you are then fine, but I don't go with that. EVERYONE should have equal opportunity.

Socialism = from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Nothing more, nothing less. You talk about all you have to offer, but what on Earth can you possibly *give back*?

xpost re. NME, I grew up in a town where all there was to do was to become obsessive about music, something I'd discovered at a time when I'd a) been befriended by punk rock girls who read all the British mags and b) had chosen the normality of having friends for once over the offer of a book deal. So by chance I was hanging out in very crucial scenes (Minneapolis and NYC) as a very young person, almost the mascot at first, and I learned from my smart new friends, the record store guys, etc. By the time I arrived in London I had a good balance of knowledge (more than the boys: danger!) and plenty of I-was-there to add to writing experience. I honestly don't know if it's possible now to break in the same way that I did - media seems so much more exploitative of entrants these days, further skewing things in favour of the rich or well-connected (in most cases, these categories are one and the same).

And I am not a feminist. No man can be. I believe it to be totally arrogant to claim to be a feminist. However, as someone brought up solely by women, I find in my real life that I emphasise with women a lot more than men.

And how am I in a capital city? I don't live in a capital city at all!!!

Why should I convince you about my writing talent? I have editors to convince and that is all. I have a book in the works as well, I've done a lot in my short time as a graduate, but I repeat: getting a nine to five, well paid job in what I want to do is difficult and it has been difficult for my friends too. You were lucky. Good on you. Therefore everyone can get lucky - right? That's the view of the rich man, who forgets that he is where he is because he got a break and yet is unwilling to do the same for the thousands that knock at his door. What about them? Doesn't matter. I made it. Wa-hey. Pass me my new versace dress so I can fund them multinationals some more and let's just ignore that homeless person on the way to the Met Bar shall we?

You can shit talent and not get breaks. I know enough (and have promoted enough) indie filmmakers to know this. I'm about to call one in a second in fact. So, believe me, talent does not always equal success.

"Socialism = from each according to their ability, to each according to their need. Nothing more, nothing less. You talk about all you have to offer, but what on Earth can you possibly *give back*?"

Hmmm, that's a very short summation of socialism, but I believe - deep down - everyone has something to offer, as long as they are happy. I believe in the Marxist way of thinking that is someone's labour is only truely successful when they are not being bought for it. I would be a good writer regardless of being paid. Money is irrelevant. I have lost money before just trying to get a good story. Does not matter to me, the work is what is important.

All the same, I'm interested in your comments.

I give about as many breaks as I get; whether in terms of covering someone I think is doing interesting work, commissioning photographers and writers and artists etc, advising people junior to me (sse threads passim: Ronan and Anna will vouch for me for a start). Part of my good reputation has to do with who I notice and when.

You still haven't really said what you've got to offer. Just what you think you deserve.

This is the only answer I think you deserve on this endlessly stupidly repeated point from a self-proclaimed windup merchant:

In your role as not being a 'real' person here you have consistently attacked, mocked, made fun of and otherwise annoyed the fuck out of many people I consider to be friends.

Ergo, I have no desire to meet you and never well.

P.S. If you have no desire to get lippy to my face then please do not post on my threads and hide behind your PC like a child. When you feel grown up enough to talk crap to my face you may resume.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is from the same person who can't bother to come to FAPs in his own country or even city, but who on an American trip sent me a desperate little e-mail wanting to meet up with me in order to 'prove' that you weren't a bad guy?

Thanks, just wanted that cleared up.

Ned, believe me, considering the work I was doing and the circles I was in, meeting with you was a very, very low priority. You should really have been honoured, but alas I presume you think that my time in your neck of the woods was spent doing nothing but walking the streets begging for mates - HA! You're a dick Ned.

P.S. Steve, sorry about the typos on the email but at least I did politely drop you an email. Did you respond?

And why, given what I said above, would I ever have wanted to?

"There be a dawg in the garden Ned, get the shotgun"

"Aw ma, I can't. Sister needs her butt waxed".

Yes, of course.

Lawks I've seen everything now.

Still, I did manage to rack up ~$10,000 in debt my first year of college when I attended an out-of-state school, but I don't regret it since it was a sort've high prestige place and I'm hoping it looks good on graduate applications despite the fact that I left it. 0_o

Calum, how about you actually READ the thread and take in some of people's points rather than whining and posturing and pontificating endlessly. As I've said upthread:

To say ALL degrees will become worthless because 50% of young people are going to university is nonsense. Some universities, and some students, will always benefit from this or any other system because not all degrees are equal.

DO you REALLY think that the value of an Oxford, Warwick, Cambridge, Bristol or wherever degree will plummet because of the number of people going to university? REALLY?

if he had any clue he would've turned round and said "we're voting against the government because we think we might beat them and it would be funny" rather than falling into some black hole of incredibly dubious figures and humming and hawing about what they would do.

am i right in believing that keith joseph was the first to suggest UK (england?) tuition fees and this is why he got the elbow?

That's not hard luck speaking either, I was accepted to do my Masters at Bristol but, quite frankly, could not bear the thought of coming out with that sort of debt and instead plunked down for a cheaper masters course at a far inferior university. It cost me next to nothing but taught me next to nothing as well...

I don't want to see education go this way, but unless you put more money into the better unis by closing down the shitty, former poly types I don't see things getting much better.

i thought kosher was not a good word for you...

the problem with your view c-man is that would've prevented the likes of me from going to university even more than the government are currently doing. i would've had to get a boring clerical job and would never have got what i did out of student press, promoting events and DJs as i have done or learnt what i learnt on the course itself, not met the interesting people i have met and just generally had the experiences i've had. the only reason i deserve to be where i am now though is down to my raw talent i suppose, it makes sense for me to what i am doing - but without going to university (and it could be argued that i didnt deserve to go because i totally ballsed up my A-Levels through a mixture of laziness, disinterest and depression) i may not have got there - tough call.

anyway, libdem spokesperkin on newsnight tonight, hopefully do better than yeo, but i doubt it...

Going to university is not just about the bit of paper, it's taking the first steps into independent adult life, and those that sit on their arse and just get a bit of paper at the end are not going to be on a level playing field than someone who's been to an 'inferior' place but who got lots of life and work experience out of their time there.

But then the government doesn't really fund all that stuff so maybe its irrelevant.

Oh Christ on a bike! WHY shouldn't Media Studies be a university course?

I'm getting a bit off topic though, you're right.

or is this just scientist sour-grapes?

Anyway, I'm going round in circles, but I've stated my point and my belief and you're not going to change it, so I agree to disagree... keep thickos out of university.

Cheers.

I'm not saying things like languages & history, geography etc are meaningless degrees, they all contribute something to society, and to a greater understanding of our world. It's just that I don't see what Media studies and film studies can teach as a university course that they can't offer as a 1 or 2 year further education course.

As Vicky says above your degree is not the be all and end all. I know students who study Chinese who know more about plotics than politics gradutes, because that is what interests them in their spare time and is what they are involved. They are also much more likely to get a politics related job because of it.

Education for education's, sake, betterment and human advancement or am I being idealistic?

I think, at the end of the day, there is a truth in what c-man says, there are too many people going to university. Or rather, there aren't the number of graduate jobs at the end to justify the expense of going. I think there has been a drive to shovel as many people into university as possible, without really considering what they are all going to do at the end of it.

The quality of the degrees is actually a red herring in all this, even if they were all of a very high quality, there still aren't enough jobs for that number of qualified people. I think at the moment, university is almost being sold on false pretences, and thats before you even get to the cost associated. Yes, you will make contacts, yes doors will open, for some, but there aren't enough doors to go round, and i'm not sure thats clear to people before they go. And 3 years plus cash is a high price to pay to end up standing in the same place you would have been without going. Which for a significant number of graduates is going to be the case.

So i can understand c-mans anger, i think i'd feel upset in his position too. Though media can often be a different kettle of fish again, even harder to break into, thats why its good to use every possible contact and means at your disposal. And, as noted upthread, theres quite a few people in a position to help on ilx, although sadly some of them are people you have been having a go at, still, that doesnt necessarily mean you have burnt any bridges, they still may want to help out, you never know

the vast majority of the expansion in HE is coming through foundation degrees (two year courses effectively replacing the old HND/HNC route) and part-time students and huge swathes of this isn't being offered anywhere near universities but in Further Education Colleges, and, certainly in the case of part-timers, these are being paid for up front, so take that and stick it up your ivory tower.

There is a Quality Audit Agency for Higher Education whose job it is to monitor degree standards after all (I know I've dealt with the buggers and they are pretty thorough). http://www.qaa.ac.uk/ for more info.

Is education for education sake a good thing?
Should degrees be concentrating on providing vocational skills or the quality of education?
Are vocational transferable skills, and high quality subject based degree learning mutually exclusive?

After all the target of 50% of people 18-30 having been in HE does not suggest what happens when this stat is reached. If the gov does a great ad job telling everyone they should go, not just for job prospects but because it will better their lives (and there is more to life that money after all) surely even more people might want to go. A 100% HE'd society would surely also be a good one, there is no contradiction between being in HE and then being a plumber, labourer etc etc (the cleaning and labouring sectors are currently sewn up by quasi-legal immigration as it is).

[gets stepladder out, and climbs onto very high horse]

i mean in oxford you've got the university Continuing Education dept, loads of courses at OxFE and funded by the LEA, not to mention Ruskin, and the same applies pretty much anywhere in the country...

By the way, my prediction for todays vote. The gov will win with a margin of eight.

The smart choice may well be to work and do a part time degree. If a part time BA/BSc at Birkbeck only takes four years then for a one year difference you are avoiding an awful lot of debt.

Today's vote: I think Pete's probably right: the backbenchers have no-one to replace Blair if they take him down.

this just in: Nick Brown is a pussy...

i think we can probably expect several more to fall by the wayside during the day, i'll go for a 20 majority.

they are covering the vote live on BBC1 (at 7pm) tonight!!!!

the interweb is great:

THE WHOLE EFFING BILL!!
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200304/cmbills/035/04035.i-v.html

Still laughing at C-Man's idea of the University; first we had Newman's, then Humboldts, and now C-Man's: A place where awkward geeky studious types go where there are no bullies and everyone likes the Smiths.

I agree you should vote on the issues at hand, but it's a mark down for democracy if you let the whips win this one.

the argument that (some of?) the rebels are using, that this wasn't a manifesto commitment, therefore you can't make it three-line-whippable, makes perfect sense to me, much as i think this is the least worst way to sort out the current mess, it's something they've stumbled into without (really) consulting the party as a whole, which for such a contentious issue isn't that surprising is unfortunate.

Wow! I'd send that to a national newspaper: you'll have their news desk on the run by mid-morning.

Internet numbnutz predicts blair fees vote right shockah!

i am a socialist

You know, it's a good thing that you were born working class. Because you can bang on about socialism to your hearts content and blame "Thatcherites" for your problems and never have to face the sad realisation that maybe you don't get the things that you want out of life BECAUSE YOU ARE AN ASSHOLE.

MODE NOTE: This thread has been locked due to name-calling.