Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

One for the youngsters.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 12:42 (twenty-two years ago)

One for the grown-ups to. I sort of pay for my Masters.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 19 January 2004 13:11 (twenty-two years ago)

I pay half of my professional qualification. (accounting)

― Pinkpanther (Pinkpanther), Monday, 19 January 2004 13:12 (twenty-two years ago)

Pleased I (just) missed out, quite frankly.

― the icebox (nordicskilla), Monday, 19 January 2004 13:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I say 'tuition' fees, but in fact the money is not for 'tuition' but for the expansion of higher education. However you feel about this, why it should be financed by people in their twenties exclusively is a mystery to me.

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.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 13:19 (twenty-two years ago)

Its 15k is the cut in point for the new graduate tax, replacing student loan repayments. The idea of course is that because people won't ask for x-amount of money it won't feel like a loan repayment and will happily slide out of their tax.

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.

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 19 January 2004 13:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Charlie's only talking about the future, ie when they bung it up to 3K in 2006. those of you on 1K fees have to pay after 10 grand income.

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?

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 19 January 2004 13:33 (twenty-two years ago)

a) Does Higher Education need to be expanded
b) Who should pay for it, the people going or everyone

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.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 13:40 (twenty-two years ago)

I do. Or to be more precise, my parents do. I started a five year course this year, so I suppose I'll be paying top-up fees for a couple of years. And I have a student loan as well. And I do a poncey arts degree with no clear route to a job afterwards. But I can't help thinking it's sort of fair enough that I should be paying more, seeing as I'll be entering the workforce a whole seven years after the majority of the population, and I'm not training to be a doctor or a nurse or anything that could be said to benefit society.

― Cathy (Cathy), Monday, 19 January 2004 13:53 (twenty-two years ago)

I thought that when I was at uni (I did History, *real* useful). But then I thought, what kind of a society exists solely to educate its young in how to add up and keeps its elderly alive?

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.)

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:00 (twenty-two years ago)

One of the reasons for changine the tuitioin fees into a gradiuate tax is that your parents don't pay - YOU PAY. Trying to remove the supportive middle class parents from the equation has the effect of equalising opportunity. Unfortuantely next to impossible to remove any parent who wants to help the kid out with living expenses (hence this nebulous grant thing).

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

― Pete (Pete), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:01 (twenty-two years ago)

Trying to remove the supportive middle class parents from the equation has the effect of equalising opportunity.

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 (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Ahem, I'll hopefully be paying 197 quid in September to do an A-Level, Enrique.

― Sarah (starry), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Cathy:
this also means you'll be able to point and laugh at freshers in two years time as fourth year students on old school grants did to me on my new fangled student (maintenance) loan...

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...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

I will strt paying my loans back in april.

― Ed (dali), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:09 (twenty-two years ago)

Ahem, I'll hopefully be paying 197 quid in September to do an A-Level, Enrique.

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?

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:11 (twenty-two years ago)

As far as I can remember, they won't be able to charge top-up fees on those who started out paying non-topped-up fees. I hope that's true - I'm going to have enough trouble financing all the travel I'll need to do for my course without paying an extra 2k p.a. on top of it.

(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).

― cis (cis), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:12 (twenty-two years ago)

I finish paying for the Master's I did in 1995-1996 in 11 months time. I am very excited. It will be like getting a payrise.

― Dave B (daveb), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:17 (twenty-two years ago)

but then you get the daft scenario, a so called "poor student" assessed at 18 - will be exempt from future tuition fees. Whilst a student from a moderate family where the household income means they are not deemed poor - will be assessed at 18 to pay back tuition fees after graduation.

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.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Agree with Martian's first point re: means test. This is jive, plenty of loopholes too (as I recall, anyone with divorced parents didn't pay fees).

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.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:26 (twenty-two years ago)

The Lib Dems spokesperson last week said so, Enrique re: 100K incomes. They have costed it out it would raise X billion - and have proposed that money would pay for University funding, amongst other projects.

― DJ Martian (djmartian), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:30 (twenty-two years ago)

Yeah, but the Dems say that about every issue under the sun: 'raise top rate of tax'. So they say it about this, but you know that the next time round they will too. 'Not enough money for the prison service' -- put up taxes. Rather than introducing workers' control, for example < /Sixties New Left>.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:33 (twenty-two years ago)

a) Does Higher Education need to be expanded

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?"

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:56 (twenty-two years ago)

To which I suspect determines your stance on this issue, is what I should've said. Ignore me, I am an illiterate English graduate.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 19 January 2004 14:57 (twenty-two years ago)

For example, the entire country needs doctors and nurses, should people doing medicine/nursing pay fees?

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.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 15:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I think you are correct in the first para, Enrique. I'm sure there are many people who'd agree with that stance though - agressive individualism etc.

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Monday, 19 January 2004 15:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I was the last year of full grants, and I'm still paying my bloody loans off.

― Matt (Matt), Monday, 19 January 2004 16:28 (twenty-two years ago)

I only paid tuition fees when I was in Bologna, and it turned out that there was no accountability - anyone could walk into any lecture - so it was all a waste of money.

― Markelby (Mark C), Monday, 19 January 2004 16:33 (twenty-two years ago)

i only started paying mine off last april having finished my course in 1995!

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Monday, 19 January 2004 16:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I could quite easily have gone to lectures without paying, but university is all about the talking shit/smoking pot thing. Everyone deserves that, IMO; but it seems to me that pre-inflation (ie pre-1973) it was a little easier to have fun on little money in your early twenties. I might be way off the mark, also, but I think 'we're' a much more materialistic generation*.

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

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 16:45 (twenty-two years ago)

I find myself in the awkward position of wanting to take an even more extreme view than the Tories on this one. As a graduate since 2000 who has had a bitch of a time finding full time employment in what he wants to do (and who has seen everyone of his mates experience the same leading us all to throwing our hands in the air and thinking, "well what was the fucking point of that then?") I think it's safe to conclude that degrees now mean fuck all. I went on to my Masters and that seems to have not done one iota of good either.

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.

― C-Man (C-Man), Monday, 19 January 2004 17:18 (twenty-two years ago)

Fuck's sake, check yo'self. : The reason degrees mean jack shit is because anyone and their dog can get one. And that excludes you how? I think everyone shd go to uni and learn completely non-vocational stuff, and that it should be paid for by industry, who will benefit from the beautiful aesthetes who will later grace their water-coolers.

― Enrique (Enrique), Monday, 19 January 2004 17:22 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm paying for half of my current masters, and I paid for all of my first masters. But, they weren't really that expensive all told.

― jel -- (jel), Monday, 19 January 2004 17:24 (twenty-two years ago)

Sorry mate, it excludes me because I went to a decent university, was expected to work and did well. That's why. However, when I graduated from high school I unwittingly wanted to go as far away from home as possible and ended up spending a few months at a former poly at the other side of the UK and, well, the difference was astronomical. You could pass a course simply by doodling some shit in handwriting on A4 paper and no one turned up to the lectures. It was a fucking shock to go from there to a proper uni, closer to home, and actually do something valuable.

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

― C-Man (C-Man), Monday, 19 January 2004 17:31 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm currently going to school to earn my second bachelor's, and I'm paying my way through school (versus with my first, where I was taking out loans whenever/wherever the scholarship wouldn't or couldn't apply). My parents paid my way through fourteen years of Catholic school, though, so it all evens out. (Fourteen years = pre-k and kinder, plus 1st grade - 12th grade.)

― As Sweet As Melody (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 19 January 2004 19:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Um, "so it all evens out"? Where was I going with this?

*puzzles own self out*

*coughs and feels room spin slightly*

― As Sweet As Melody (Dee the Lurker), Monday, 19 January 2004 19:09 (twenty-two years ago)

US students to thread, as we pay far more for our education over here. 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.

― webcrack (music=crack), Monday, 19 January 2004 19:54 (twenty-two years ago)

I feel really sorry for the international students at my uni. Most are supported by their middle class parents back home who want their kids to have decent prospects, but who are having to pay astronomical fees to effectively subsidise the home students.

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).

― Lydia, Monday, 19 January 2004 20:07 (twenty-two years ago)

i'll be paying back student loans for a long time.

― Ian Johnson (orion), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 03:46 (twenty-two years ago)

how true is it that all degrees are regarded equally by employers, anyway? i really doubt this is true.

― toby (tsg20), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 08:40 (twenty-two years ago)

So who saw the med student completely ream Blair on Newsnight?

― suzy (suzy), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 08:41 (twenty-two years ago)

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

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.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 09:13 (twenty-two years ago)

So who saw the med student completely ream Blair on Newsnight?

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

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 09:38 (twenty-two years ago)

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

Which Oxford college were you at again, Enrique?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 09:47 (twenty-two years ago)

Same as Captain Darling, Lord Rochester, and Cecil Day-Lewis, as it goes. Calum was my tutor -- he's only joshing.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 09:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Blair did appallingly on Newsnight last night - I'd always thought he was a good speaker even when I disagreed when him but last night he just squirmed and repeated the same line over and over again. The "why should dustment subsidise doctors" is such a slimily disingenuous argument its offensive.

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?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 09:51 (twenty-two years ago)

The dustman/doctors thing is insane, especially in the context of Labour's history since like the fucking 1890s! Jesus. You'd hope the son of a dustman would be able to become a doctor, but no, apparently not.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 09:58 (twenty-two years ago)

sorry to go back to Martian's point a long way above, but i only worked out on the bus this morning what's wrong with it:

he said:

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...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 10:00 (twenty-two years ago)

The other question that no one asked (or at least I don't think they did) was if this is going to be so great for the universities, when are they actually going to start seeing this extra funding? The scheme doesn't come into force until 2006. The students in question won't graduate until 2009-2010 or later. Then the money will only be paid back gradually - its a painfully slow way of actually getting the funding into universities, isn't it?

― Matt DC (Matt DC), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 10:05 (twenty-two years ago)

I dunno how much I pay out because my employer's payslip system is for shit. Something like 6 quid a month (I earn less than 15k). It's the principle, though -- and anyway, even if it's only a tenner a month, you still have to pay off the vig *eventually*. It just lasts longer into your thirties or forties (or fifties, conceivably).

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.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 20 January 2004 10:07 (twenty-two years ago)

Skipping 299 messages at this point... Click here if you want to load them all.

I mean, choose other targets, please!

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 22 January 2004 16:42 (twenty-two years ago)

Because quite obviously the medium through which the population of the worlds knowledge about the people, politics and societies of the rest of that world and the theories with which these ideas are disseminated is too trivial to be studied at a University.

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 22 January 2004 16:43 (twenty-two years ago)

One thing that the government is enabling with their 50% target is to allow many more people the opportunity to have this experience. I'm not saying that everone takes the chance, but university gives more life experience, and arguably provides more maturity in a shorter time frame than leaving school at 16/18 and getting a job in your home town, still living at home with parents.

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

― Vicky (Vicky), Thursday, 22 January 2004 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

jellybean, what are you talking about? why is the study of any given subject wrong to degree level? taking media as a good example surely it's as important/relevant/"useful" to living in the 21st century as classics or art or history even, in terms of how you perceive the world around you, which is kind of what it's about isn't it?

or is this just scientist sour-grapes?

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Thursday, 22 January 2004 16:44 (twenty-two years ago)

It's not a scientist type thing, but it goes back to my opinion that you should study something useful at university, to further your career, and help improve society etc. Languages and arts subjects are useful, and politics is useful, but personally I think media studies is too narrow a degree.
Isn't it the reason our media is as crap and introspective as it is? For example if you studies politics, and you wanted to go into the media as a political commentator, that's ok, because you have specialist knowledge of politics, more than your readers/viewers/listeners would know.
But what does media studies actually teach, apart from obvious things about reporting (that you can learn on a 1 yr journalism course), or talking on camera whatever (that you can learn on the job).

― jellybean (jellybean), Thursday, 22 January 2004 16:50 (twenty-two years ago)

Ah, so you shouldn't study particle physics, transfinite number theory, anglo-saxon history, philosophy or fine art either?

― Ricardo (RickyT), Thursday, 22 January 2004 16:52 (twenty-two years ago)

Media studies is so useless it's not even funny.

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.

― C-Man (C-Man), Thursday, 22 January 2004 16:55 (twenty-two years ago)

media studies too narrow??

― toby (tsg20), Thursday, 22 January 2004 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

What I mean is that there are far too many degrees out there, which can be taught in a year or 2, and shouldn't really be degrees. I agree with widening higher education for all, but I don't think forcing everyone to go to university is the solution. The government should encourage people to study in other formats too, like on the job training. It would actually be far more interesting too, especially for a degree like mine (engineering) to be able to see how you can actually apply what you learn in a lecture hall to what you would need in a job.

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.

― jellybean (jellybean), Thursday, 22 January 2004 16:59 (twenty-two years ago)

A good media based degree will be a lot more theoretical than that, hopefully pointing out the inter-relatedness between media and their content (hoary old McLuhanisms notwithstanding, medium and essage cross polinate hugely). One can look at the history and development of various media, the history and development of various content, production values, core values, censorship without even getting anywhere near the literaturesque appreciation of individual works within that media. It strikes me that your ignorance of what makes up a media based degree contrasts nicelyw ith you ignorance of the scope of a degree in politics, which is often just recent history with an equally wishy washy grasp on its own subject matter (how important would it be, should it be to study Marxist theory these days in a polotics degree, yet everyone does).

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.

― Pete (Pete), Thursday, 22 January 2004 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)

The problem is that uni becomes redundant if anyone can get a degree.

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

― Ed (dali), Thursday, 22 January 2004 19:51 (twenty-two years ago)

I think idealistic to an extent, sadly. As in yes, you should be able to do those courses, but would you? I did my degree in Politics, but if i was at school now, i wouldnt go to university, or, if i did, i would do a vocational course.

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

― Stringent (Stringent), Friday, 23 January 2004 00:09 (twenty-two years ago)

ALSO

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.

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Friday, 23 January 2004 09:39 (twenty-two years ago)

Steve has a very good point about the majority of expansion in HE. Efter all the HND/HNC is counted (colrrectly) as Higher Ed, and as such is the kind of vocational stuff that is being argued for above being delivered in polys or anythign to keep our pure sounding Universities untainted so our own degrees look good.Studying a part-time degree at the moment it strikes me that it is the area that really should get more funding and more publicity behind it for regional centres of excellence (rather then the trad Uni view that a part time degree = half the course a year over twice as long).

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).

― Pete (Pete), Friday, 23 January 2004 10:21 (twenty-two years ago)

i wonder if a time will come when the rate is so high for people going into university, that it might be an advantage not to go, to get the 3 year head start, debt free option down. a foot in the door, part time/freelance somewhere at 16 or 17 while still at school, could mean you have almost 7 years more work done than someone who comes out with a degree and a masters. start off menial, work up, thats a big head start youve got yourself there?

― Stringent Stepper (Stringent), Monday, 26 January 2004 19:35 (twenty-two years ago)

It's a bit of a utilitarian view of the world isn't it? There's no positive vision in there of the good life, the worthwhile life: I suppose that's what bothers me. There *is* a massive case to be made for 'lifelong learning,' but at present this is generally an add-on to 'proper work,' and grimly vocational.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 09:30 (twenty-two years ago)

lifelong learning doesn't have to be grimly vocational!!!

[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...

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 09:46 (twenty-two years ago)

(for those of you who don't know i work in adult further education, and used to live in oxford, hence the knowledge, but hey, y'know, GO AND DO A COURSE innit ;))

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 09:52 (twenty-two years ago)

There's nothing grimly vocational about my part time higher learning.

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.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:25 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm considering just that. I don't think *all* lifelong learning is vocational: but its incorporation into the management ideology of, say, the NHS, is entirely vocational. I'm thinking of doing some kind of TV history course, or maybe history, but I certainly can't afford a full-time MA.

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

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:29 (twenty-two years ago)

Blair won't get taken down over this. If he loses all that'll happen is a vote of no-confidence which he will then comfortably win.

― Ricardo (RickyT), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:57 (twenty-two years ago)

http://politics.guardian.co.uk/publicservices/story/0,11032,1132158,00.html

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!!!!

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:58 (twenty-two years ago)

But this time next year he won't be here. His heart won't hold with all them beta blockers.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 10:59 (twenty-two years ago)

woah...

the interweb is great:

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

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:06 (twenty-two years ago)

Nah - even if he lost, he wouldn't quit; Hattersley was OTM about this in yesterday's Graun.

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.

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 11:08 (twenty-two years ago)

Nick Brown is fucking outrageous. The whole thing sticks, though I suppose it lays bare exactly how corrupt party politics is.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:28 (twenty-two years ago)

Wot my boss thinks: http://education.guardian.co.uk/egweekly/story/0,5500,1131383,00.html

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:33 (twenty-two years ago)

sounds like a d00d.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:41 (twenty-two years ago)

There comes a time in any rebel's rebellion when he must down swords and accept the concessions offered; if he didn't, next time he wishes to rebel, no concessions will be offered, as the Govt. will calculate that it is pointless trying to appease x MP as x MP doesn't change his mind, so fuck him or her. It's not nice, it's not pretty, but such is the reality of parliamentary government.

― Dave B (daveb), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:49 (twenty-two years ago)

Indeed. Voting against this bill JUST to give the gov a bloody nose over Iraqi is equally contemptible.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:53 (twenty-two years ago)

What meaningful concessions have there been, though? Seriously -- a five year cap? This is minor in perspective.

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.

― Enrique (Enrique), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:56 (twenty-two years ago)

Well of course the whips is a much bigger problem.

― Pete (Pete), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 12:58 (twenty-two years ago)

sounds like a "jolly good chap" (that's a good thing, i think).

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.

― CarsmileSteve (CarsmileSteve), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 13:02 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm going for a labour win by 5 or less

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:03 (twenty-two years ago)

They've been rolling out the we're going to loose if you all vote with michael howard line this morning. I expect quite a few mercenaries son the labour benches have their price.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 14:05 (twenty-two years ago)

Aye : 316
No : 311

― C J (C J), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 19:22 (twenty-two years ago)

Another ringing vote of confidence!

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 19:23 (twenty-two years ago)

I am the greatest political pundit of our generation.

― Ed (dali), Tuesday, 27 January 2004 22:12 (twenty-two years ago)

im in a phd program (economics) at uf, and i have yet to pay one penny for any of my education. if you do good in school, the government already pays for your education in the US.

― jkfgh, Tuesday, 27 January 2004 22:36 (twenty-two years ago)

uh, not in my experience. I've seen plenty of schools and private organizations give out scholarships and financial aid (mostly partial) but I have yet to hear of anyone receiving anything from the government but a loan.

― sgs (sgs), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 09:17 (twenty-two years ago)

I'm going for a labour win by 5 or less
-- Ed (dal...), January 27th, 2004.

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

― Enrique (Enrique), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 09:45 (twenty-two years ago)

Internet numbnutz predicts blair fees vote right shockah!

― Ed (dali), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 10:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Chortle.

― suzy (suzy), Wednesday, 28 January 2004 15:49 (twenty-two years ago)

three months pass...

have things improved any on this front calum? i noticed you were venting again a little on some of the threads today

― gareth (gareth), Thursday, 29 April 2004 14:16 (twenty-two years ago)

The arsehole who came out with the Thatcherist horseshit of "you make your own opportunities, I did, I'm great, therefore everyone should" irritated me a lot. I fucking hate Thatcherism and it's still lingering after taste in the UK, and I gave up on this thread when ILX showed its true colours and the thread disintegrated into Thacherist claptrap.

― CRW (CRW), Thursday, 29 April 2004 16:01 (twenty-two years ago)

i'm sorry to hear things haven't got any better for you, but i am sure they will, in time

i am a socialist

― gareth (gareth), Thursday, 29 April 2004 17:13 (twenty-two years ago)

That last comment doesn't mean things haven't gotten better. I will always stick to my socialist principles regardless, and I didn't post here to recieve your sarcasm.

― CRW (CRW), Thursday, 29 April 2004 17:23 (twenty-two years ago)

apologies calum, i didn't intend sarcasm, i genuinely am a socialist (as perusal of posts will hopefully show)

― gareth (gareth), Thursday, 29 April 2004 17:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Let me guess, C-man. You're a socialist because... only GIRLS LIKE MONEY!!!

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.

― Super-Kate (kate), Thursday, 29 April 2004 18:33 (twenty-two years ago)

Ha ha. Londoner are we fatty? Ha ha, typical.

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

― CRW (CRW), Thursday, 29 April 2004 19:21 (twenty-two years ago)

This thread has been locked by an administrator

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.

Who in this bitch pays tuition fees?

Internet numbnutz predicts blair fees vote right shockah!