students dilemma

[Hartley Hare]

Trouble is, YR, that "stupid woman on breakfast" is the public voice and face of your protest movement, whether you like it or not.

[Leeds Ram]

I know but i think most of the public believed this was wrong before the violence to eb quite frank. But now that such violence ahs happened public support ahs waned.

[derbydan]

this absolute Tw4t is the son od david gilmore from pink floyd apparently he didn't know what it was......................... He's studying History at cambridge ffs

8..us/img8/4224/pink6821181684a

[MrsRam]

Really? I thought it was female. :redface:

[Alex W]

Let us hope that a police officer gave him a good hit with his baton for good measure afterward.

[ladyram]

So does mine. Think you missed the point of the post.

Ooops, so I did, having read the post correctly.... soz readers :redface:

[ladyram]

Bit tough having to take a pay cut though ladyram -

Thanks mrs - it's not ideal but hey, I'm just glad I have a job to hang onto.

I had an email from the head honcho this morning and they are hoping the 2% will return in Autumn next year so that softened the blow a bit.

[Obi1Kenobi0]

What I want to know is have the students protesting actually read the proposals in detail and looked at the effect of them. If they had they would know

1) The poorest 25% of students will pay back less than they do now

Lets be clear on this. Their overall debt will be larger. They will just be required to make a smaller repayment proportionally on what they earn compared to the current system

2) They start paying back at £21k, which means for a lot of graduates they will never pay them back

(Indeed, the Browne report predicts 40% of all loans will eventually have to be written off. Which begs the question who wins? Well not the taxpayer because they haven't got their money back and certainly not the graduate who never perhaps achieved the earnings they were expecting

3) They will be paying back 10% of earnings over £21k - when I was paying mine back I paid £90 a month on my loan whilst earning £21500 a year, under this new system I would be paying £50 a year. Yes it would take me longer to pay it off but in the amount paid per month would have little effect on my take home pay.

Exactly the debts will be so high they will never be paid off until they are written off after 30 years. 30 years of your working life makes this effectively a graduate tax IMO

4) There are proposals for children who have had free school meals to get their first 2 years fees paid by the government so would only have 1 year loan to pay back.

Sounds good on the face of it. Although there are documented concerns that with the reduction in state funding universities will lose money and the IFS said it would hit universities that take a high proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds, if they wanted to charge more than £6,000 a year - which acts as a disincentive for elite universities to take such students.

5) Nothing is paid up front, as now, so university students will not have any money taken out of their pockets.

Correct but this point is often missed by potential students from underprivileged backgrounds when discussing potential debt from their degree course

6) £9000 will not be charged by every university, and those that choose to have to justify it and provide extra Bursaries and finiancial assistnace to the poorer students.

See above

7) There are variable interest rates charged on the loans, with those earning more paying higher interest.

Agreed that under the new system well off graduates will pay back more and poor students will pay back less.

The people that will lose out are

1) Those receiving EMA

Thereby affecting progression to HE of the very students politicians claim they are trying to help with their "progressive measures"

2) Those whose family income is greater than 40,000 per annum as they no longer qualify for the higher grant or loan

In short this is more progressive than a graduate tax as those that go on to earn more pay more, and those that come from "disadvantaged" backgrounds pay less.

(As I argued before though 40% of students will be paying it back for 30 years. For them it is a graduate tax in all but name)

I ask again as I did on another thread, Why should Students not have to take some of the burden of the austerity measures like the rest of society? Tuition fees haven't risen for years despite the cost of education rises - Lecturer's salaries have risen, cost of heating and lighting has risen, inflation has put prices up in general. Isn't it about time that the fees charged for education rise too?

Tuition fees have risen. They rose in 2004 to £3000 and have then risen to £3290 by this year. So have university costs risen by over 100% in the past few years as that is what they are being asked to pay back?

Going back to what I have said earlier on this thread the problem has been the flawed widenening participation agenda. I wouldn't be so against tuition fee rises if the money was going to be ploughed back into the system. Ergo we get better quality teaching, uni's can build their worldwide reputation and compete internationally and students are getting something for their money. Lets be very clear. This isn't about raising standards. This isn't entirely progressive for less well off students. Only the Russell group uni's wanted this.

Let me ask you this. How is raising the threshhold that students pay back the loan and increasing the debt to a level that 40% will never pay back going to help our current economic situation given the government have to make provision for unpaid student loans in the year the loans are taken out not when they haven't been paid back. This then goes towards the deficit. That's something they don't tell you.....

I think you will find the students have read the proposals, hence the reaction now. Don't be fooled by the minority of louts with two brain cells. The other 99% see these measures for what they are....

[Perky1106]

People are moaning about the police being violent.

IMO, if you don't want to get burnt then don't play with fire.

People are using the tuition fees thing as an excuse to attack the Conservative party, the royal family, the Police and Topman.

[Kris Marina]

sociology isn't a token degree at all, the fact is we will become less educated as a society because of this, is this good?

If you want to find out about society, find out about it rather than sit in a classroom reading about it. Because, let's face it, most of the published views on society are complete ******** anyway

[Kris Marina]

It's easy for you to dismiss these "token" degrees, but in certain cities these students are keeping the economy churning over. Coventry, for example, has a population that reduces by 25% in the summer. Student cities need students more at the moment than ever before. They have to offer these degrees otherwise students would go elsewhere. These decisions are alot harder to make than alot of people realise.

Or they could create jobs within the sectors that 'token' degrees were creted for and keep the economy flowing that way, not only that we also have extra taxpayers.

[Perky1106]

There was a special report on Newsnight with these four kids saying they were from the slums of London, and saying that if Uni and EMA is cut what will keep them from dealing drugs?

Absolute *****. Just summarises what's wrong with New Labour's Britain, making as if there's some sort of legitimate excuse for kids to be in gangs dealing drugs. :mad::mad:

[uttoxram75]

Make em work. Get em to work 40 hours a week, pay them properly and they may just turn out to be decent citizens.

Its worth a try!

[Ambitious]

There is nothing like a good rant about students who have behaved badly but you can't say these deserve it, for someone to get a PhD it takes around 7 maybe 8 years by which time they will be in 72,000 grands worth of debt.

equally they can quit, and the number of unskilled workers doubles, along with the amount of people on the dole because there isn't any jobs for unskilled workers.

I genuinely believe this is a fact of 'who can we takes thousands of pounds off so that the general public won't get upset'. I don't think they really thought of the future, because like I've previously said this could directly relate to more people claiming benefits through jobseekers, double the amount in unskilled workers and further education to get rapidly worse, with more people going over-seas getting their education over there and becoming a useful investment to a different country. If I ever get to the point of doing a degree/PhD then I would look towards aus or america, I genuinely believe this is a poor decision for the future.

but from the point of view of the government, where can we get 'x amount' of money from without pissing the general public off and potentially creating huge masses of protest, the decision makers weren't stupid they knew how the students were going to act and they knew the general public would vote against them rather than with them...

but people are being hypocrites, there would be protests of 100,000 times that level if they had raised taxes to 40% for below 100,000 per annum and 60% for above 100,000 per annum.

I know I would, and basically from students are looking at triple the amount of debt they would of got before, don't think anyone can blame them for being upset.

[Alex W]

I don't think there would have been as much upset if Nick Clegg hadn't blatantly lied about things. If he hadn't gone back on a promise then there wouldn't have been as much hatred about these plans.

And the trouble this time, which I am not condoning, may have come from what happened last time. I put up the video of the unprovoked cavalry charge, well some people were out for blood from what i've heard. There were people there who had nothing to do with student fees protesting, but they'd seen clips on the news and youtube and had gone out to fight.

[Dangerous]

Bit rich coming from a postman, no?

You lot would do anything for a strike and disruption.

Plus you don't post in the snow, don't post if you have a dog, don't post if you like the look of the package, don't post if the union says so, don't post AND shut the feckin gate, don't post anything good......

Sweeping statements, ya got to love em.

ive never read such rubbish.We dont like going on strike,as we dont get paid when we are off,and we dont enjoy the disruption it causes.

We do post in the snow,last week the deliveries were suspended because of ridiculous health and safety rules implemented by the management,not the postmen.We wanted to deliver.

We dont post if the dog is in the garden,and with good reason.I have been bitten three times by dogs that"wont hurt you,he only wants to play".To accuse us of theft is quite damning and pathetic.As for the gate,if its closed when I get there I will close it after,if its open it stays open.Dont post if the union says so? that doesnt make sense.Dont post anything good?? thats my fault is it?

When we have issues with our employers we do things the correct way,strikes are the last resort.We dont go on numerous protests in the capital,smashing anything made of glass,urinating on statues of historical greats and swinging off the cenotaph.We dont involve the socialist worker and we dont run a huge bill up for the taxpayer to pay.

[trigger]

to be fair to you dangerous you didnt deserve that!

ive gotta say from what ive seen over here id like to be let loose with that pr1ck on the war statue for 5 mins!

he would not be able to climb or hold anything for a long long time

total scum!

[dcfcdavecov]

ive never read such rubbish.We dont like going on strike,as we dont get paid when we are off,and we dont enjoy the disruption it causes.

We do post in the snow,last week the deliveries were suspended because of ridiculous health and safety rules implemented by the management,not the postmen.We wanted to deliver.

We dont post if the dog is in the garden,and with good reason.I have been bitten three times by dogs that"wont hurt you,he only wants to play".To accuse us of theft is quite damning and pathetic.As for the gate,if its closed when I get there I will close it after,if its open it stays open.Dont post if the union says so? that doesnt make sense.Dont post anything good?? thats my fault is it?

When we have issues with our employers we do things the correct way,strikes are the last resort.We dont go on numerous protests in the capital,smashing anything made of glass,urinating on statues of historical greats and swinging off the cenotaph.We dont involve the socialist worker and we dont run a huge bill up for the taxpayer to pay.

Christ! The point of my post was to point out the fact you were making sweeping statements against ALL students. So i made one against postman......and ya didnt feckin like it did ya?

[uttoxram75]

Christ! The point of my post was to point out the fact you were making sweeping statements against ALL students. So i made one against postman......and ya didnt feckin like it did ya?

Don't forget the prostitute killing lorry drivers......

Its what we all do nowadays, tar whole groups of people with the same brush.

ALL the unemployed are idle work shy scroungers,

EVERYONE on disability benefit is faking,

ALL students climb the cenotaph....

It suits the government to have us moaning at each other instead of at the ones who COULD change society.

[Dangerous]

Christ! The point of my post was to point out the fact you were making sweeping statements against ALL students. So i made one against postman......and ya didnt feckin like it did ya?

I didnt make my statement against all students.

If there are any protests that should be had,it should be against rising petrol prices,and rising energy bills.Truly criminal,and affect a damn sight more people than tuition fees for the privilaged.

But the working public are too busy working to do anything about it.

The students have lost the vote and now should get on with what they are supposed to be doing....studying,but no,they are going to "protest again".For gods sake.

The police should now get a water cannon,instead of the kettling.They should have a complete no nonsense approach.