Students

welcome to the harsh world we all live in

I applaud them. Never thought they'd have it in 'em.

F*cking teenagers, they're all lazy morons with nothing to do all day, moaning about the 3 hours of lectures they have to go to a week.

It is interesting to watch the Libs wrestle with their conscience on this one. Should they stay faithful to their manifesto (which didn't get them elected) or should they honour their commitments to the coalition which has enabled them to share power and, it has to be said, influence policy more to their liking that would otherwise be given a tory majority.

I also noticed that the labour party refused to "pair" with the climate minister Chris Hulne, who is now forced to fly back from mexico early to vote. I thought that this was a little bit childish and has cost the country unneccessary expense.

Eh?

Its like SRS never left

welcome to the harsh world we all live in

Explain.

Explain.

these are hard times...we are all in it together

fair play to Cleggy..telling the country how it is about this issue..

he is reminding people they come third.....they are in a position they dreamed of being, able in influence wider range of issues but HAVE to compromise..

standby for riots tomorrow..stand by for disgraceful vandalism by some...and standby for those complaining about the police getting involved..

It's also an opportunity for the government to shift the landscape on how we do things. I'd be happy with the current set up if they reduced it somewhat once we we're back on a level footing but we all know that won't happen.

There should be more business campuses set up by Uni's to harvest the talent and ideas into businesses and make money from that. I beleive Chilworth Business Park is along them lines.

That said, Uni is not the door to a better job, if you can't afford it then get out there and work towards it, most companies look to take on people with basic skills to train up and soon pick up on the worthwhile individuals.

Its like SRS never left

This - and they claimed they never got on/shared the same views - are they one person?

I shall be in London tomorrow. I know the vote will almost certainly go through, but I shall be there none the less standing up for what I believe in.

TBF i think students have had it bloody easy over the past few years and need to start towing the line next to everyone else out there. Yes they are the 'future' for the country however they will get paid for the effort they put in so why should each and everyone of us pay them for the privilage of advancing themselves ?

At the end of the day if all funding for students was removed then industry leaders will then gleam the pit of talent for the most potential and pay for them to be put through degrees anyways and thus filling the quota for the next engineers, doctors etc. Anyone that believes industry will just look around with their hands in their pockets wondering whats going on does not understand how business works.

As a country we have been bleeding money for years and in times like these we need to cut out pointless and wasteful spending which includes coming down hard on those precious students and also the benefit community. (obviously i fully support those most in need).

And before anyone says anything, i am a graduate.

Too many people go to university imo. Should only be around 20% and the money saved going into vocational / technical training.

I shall be in London tomorrow. I know the vote will almost certainly go through, but I shall be there none the less standing up for what I believe in.

fwiw they are welcome to my miniscule contribution to their education, i firmly believe that I (as a citizen) will be repaid with interest in due course.

and andy, don;t be swayed by those who choose alternative paths of following orders and conforming, if we all did that this world would be a sad place to live indeed imho. Stick it to 'em.

I shall be in London tomorrow. I know the vote will almost certainly go through, but I shall be there none the less standing up for what I believe in.

I presume you were there when Labour introduced fees and then top-up fees as well?

Too many people go to university imo. Should only be around 20% and the money saved going into vocational / technical training.

Absolutely right. Universities are being dumbed down in the same way as the education system has been. They should be for the academic elite. That is the point of them.

What is the alternative? Seriously what workable alternative has anyone who opposes this suggested?

these are hard times...we are all in it together

 

fair play to Cleggy..telling the country how it is about this issue..

he is reminding people they come third.....they are in a position they dreamed of being, able in influence wider range of issues but HAVE to compromise..

Politicians come up with **** slogans and you think to yourself "no ones going to be sucked in by that ****" and yet every now and again someone proves you wrong.

"We're all in it together"! ha, you really believe that? Cameron's generation are now going to saddle young people with £ks of debt for something that they've already enjoyed for free. Doesn't sound very fair to me. Maybe if weasels like Clegg volunteered to repay an equivalent amount in liueu of the university education they had enjoyed I might be more ameanable.

The cuts and tax rises fall disproportionately on the young, and the working and middle classes. The super-rich haven't been touched yet. There's been no move to close tax avoidance routes and no extra penny or two on top rate tax. Even the banks that went so far to cause this crisis are able to use their losses (which the taxpayer have under written) to reduce the tax they pay on future profits and will even soon benefit from lower corporation taxs. We all in it together - my arse.

What is the alternative? Seriously what workable alternative has anyone who opposes this suggested?

The "graduate tax" is one. It sounds like a manifestly more unfair option to me though.

 

"We're all in it together"! ha, you really believe that? Cameron's generation are now going to saddle young people with £ks of debt for something that they've already enjoyed for free. Doesn't sound very fair to me. Maybe if weasels like Clegg volunteered to repay an equivalent amount in liueu of the university education they had enjoyed I might be more ameanable.

 

I've heard this point a few times and it is so obvioulsy retarded it takes me aback each time.

On the same logic presumably students want to be able to sign on to the dole over the summer, women will campaign for disenfranchisement, Africans will chain themselves up and India will clamour for the reinstitution of the Empire?

Tbf i'm much more p!ssed off about the EMA scheme being scrapped than the fees being put up. People rely on that scheme, it's a lifesaver for most in higher education.

TBF i think students have had it bloody easy over the past few years and need to start towing the line next to everyone else out there. Yes they are the 'future' for the country however they will get paid for the effort they put in so why should each and everyone of us pay them for the privilage of advancing themselves ?

 

At the end of the day if all funding for students was removed then industry leaders will then gleam the pit of talent for the most potential and pay for them to be put through degrees anyways and thus filling the quota for the next engineers, doctors etc. Anyone that believes industry will just look around with their hands in their pockets wondering whats going on does not understand how business works.

 

As a country we have been bleeding money for years and in times like these we need to cut out pointless and wasteful spending which includes coming down hard on those precious students and also the benefit community. (obviously i fully support those most in need).

 

And before anyone says anything, i am a graduate.

Presumably you will happily volunteer to pay back for the full cost of the univeristy education that you received - after all why should we pay for you to advance yourself?

The solution is simple. Increase top rate taxation by a couple of percentage points so that anyone who does benefit financially from unversity does pay extra. At the same time reduce the numbers of unversity places for Arts degrees, give financial incentives to universities to enrol disadvantaged youngsters and make vocational training more attractive,

Tbf i'm much more p!ssed off about the EMA scheme being scrapped than the fees being put up. People rely on that scheme, it's a lifesaver for most in higher education.

What utter rubbish.

Presumably you will happily volunteer to pay back for the full cost of the univeristy education that you received - after all why should we pay for you to advance yourself?

 

The solution is simple. Increase top rate taxation by a couple of percentage points so that anyone who does benefit financially from unversity does pay extra. At the same time reduce the numbers of unversity places for Arts degrees, give financial incentives to universities to enrol disadvantaged youngsters and make vocational training more attractive,

That just penalises those that do well. The proposed system is much fairer where everyone pays the same unless they are earning a pittance.

I've heard this point a few times and it is so obvioulsy retarded it takes me aback each time.

 

On the same logic presumably students want to be able to sign on to the dole over the summer, women will campaign for disenfranchisement, Africans will chain themselves up and India will clamour for the reinstitution of the Empire?

I don't think you understand logic. Cleggnut and Cameron are denying something favourable to others that they've already enjoyed. I don't think women see losing the vote as favourable, I don't think Africans think slavery is favourable, and I don't think India view being a colony is favourable. Pathetic analogy.

Tbf i'm much more p!ssed off about the EMA scheme being scrapped than the fees being put up. People rely on that scheme, it's a lifesaver for most in higher education.

It was £10 a week I didn't need

I don't think you understand logic. Cleggnut and Cameron are denying something favourable to others that they've already enjoyed. I don't think women see losing the vote as favourable, I don't think Africans think slavery is favourable, and I don't think India view being a colony is favourable. Pathetic analogy.

So anything that was ever enjoyed by anyone should be freely available to all and sundry from then on in as a matter of principle?

Ok, ignore the polemical bits; do you think students should be able to sign on the dole over the summer?

anything that encourages or makes it easier for people to take an educational path has to be a good thing surely?

One of my personal gripes with older syatems is that they are elitist and class ridden. Everyone deserves a chance to better themselves and by definition their community imo.

Sure some will take advantage but i would guess they are a small minority.

I would like to see cures for diseases, technological advances, creativity and advances in general sooner rather than later. Who knows one of these tiresome oiks might one day put something back into society repaying the 'debt' many-fold. One things for sure, they won't if 'we' don't at the very least invest in them at the point in their lives when they have that zest and hunger for learning.

Too many people go to university imo. Should only be around 20% and the money saved going into vocational / technical training.

^this

I presume you were there when Labour introduced fees and then top-up fees as well?

You won't get an answer to that one. Well, not a plausible one anyway.

This protest (and others) is simply an ideological 'class war' attack against the 'nasty' Tories.

As you rightly allude to, there was no such protests when Labour introduced what was a far more unfair and penalistic fee system in the first place.

Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good old march eh...It beats actually learning stuff in a classroom all day...

What utter rubbish.

It was £10 a week I didn't need

You may not have needed the £10 Nexstar, but I knew at least a dozen people at college who depended on it to get to college. Travelling is bloody expensive nowadays, it cost £4 a day for me to get to college and back on the train, that adds up when you have to do it every day. A lot of people rely on the EMA, people who are being unfairly shafted by this cut.

anything that encourages or makes it easier for people to take an educational path has to be a good thing surely?

 

One of my personal gripes with older syatems is that they are elitist and class ridden. Everyone deserves a chance to better themselves and by definition their community imo.

 

Sure some will take advantage but i would guess they are a small minority.

 

I would like to see cures for diseases, technological advances, creativity and advances in general sooner rather than later. Who knows one of these tiresome oiks might one day put something back into society repaying the 'debt' many-fold. One things for sure, they won't if 'we' don't at the very least invest in them at the point in their lives when they have that zest and hunger for learning.

Half the people at uni will never put it to any good use as you suggest.

There are people with a clutch of distinctly average A-Levels studying something like Law at former polytechnics. FFS, they are never going to get a job at a good law firm. The top firms are massively oversubscribed when it comes to graduate recruitment. There are plenty of similar scenarios.

Access to university should be available for the brightest, regardless of economic means; it should not be for the masses.

Tbf i'm much more p!ssed off about the EMA scheme being scrapped than the fees being put up. People rely on that scheme, it's a lifesaver for most in higher education.

I hated that scheme when I was at school. I wasn't elligible for it (you needed a household income of less than £50k a year I think) and the kids that were spent it on fags and running a car, which I just couldn't afford. We were told the whole point was to provide money for school supplies and to persuade people to stay in education as opposed to going to work at 16. Both were ******. I doubt I spent £10 a year on supplies at school. A couple of pens and a rubber... pretty much it. If you do want to leave and get a job £300 odd a year from EMA isn't going to persuade you otherwise.

Bullsh*t scheme, waste of money. Glad it's gone.

P.S. Can someone please explain to me how this scheme is in any way elitist? As I understand it, you pay feck all up front and don't pay anything back until you're earning over £21k a year.

You may not have needed the £10 Nexstar, but I knew at least a dozen people at college who depended on it to get to college. Travelling is bloody expensive nowadays, it cost £4 a day for me to get to college and back on the train, that adds up when you have to do it every day. A lot of people rely on the EMA, people who are being unfairly shafted by this cut.

Utter rubbish. It's two hour's work. Get a ****ing job, or if you have one, work two more hours. Alternatively spend ten pounds less on other things. Most people at college are still supported by their parent. The notion that the majority need that hand-out is completely disingenuous. The EMA was a pitiful thing introduced by Labour for no good reason.

I hated that scheme when I was at school. I wasn't elligible for it (you needed a household income of less than £50k a year I think) and the kids that were spent it on fags and running a car, which I just couldn't afford. We were told the whole point was to provide money for school supplies and to persuade people to stay in education as opposed to going to work at 16. Both were ******. I doubt I spent £10 a year on supplies at school. A couple of pens and a rubber... pretty much it. If you do want to leave and get a job £300 odd a year from EMA isn't going to persuade you otherwise.

 

Bullsh*t scheme, waste of money. Glad it's gone.

 

P.S. Can someone please explain to me how this scheme is in any way elitist? As I understand it, you pay feck all up front and don't pay anything back until you're earning over £21k a year.

Exactly.

You won't get an answer to that one. Well, not a plausible one anyway.

 

This protest (and others) is simply an ideological 'class war' attack against the 'nasty' Tories.

 

As you rightly allude to, there was no such protests when Labour introduced what was a far more unfair and penalistic fee system in the first place.

 

Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good old march eh...It beats actually learning stuff in a classroom all day...

The NUS are a massive bunch of ****s whose agenda is not the good of higher education but rather the political success of the Labour party.

The "graduate tax" is one. It sounds like a manifestly more unfair option to me though.

Precisely. Students are so retarded.

I hated that scheme when I was at school. I wasn't elligible for it (you needed a household income of less than £50k a year I think) and the kids that were spent it on fags and running a car, which I just couldn't afford. We were told the whole point was to provide money for school supplies and to persuade people to stay in education as opposed to going to work at 16. Both were ******. I doubt I spent £10 a year on supplies at school. A couple of pens and a rubber... pretty much it. If you do want to leave and get a job £300 odd a year from EMA isn't going to persuade you otherwise.

 

Bullsh*t scheme, waste of money. Glad it's gone.

 

P.S. Can someone please explain to me how this scheme is in any way elitist? As I understand it, you pay feck all up front and don't pay anything back until you're earning over £21k a year.

I hope they get rid of the pathetic scheme where if you have dyslexia you get a free top of the range laptop, books and money every other term. That really is taking the p*ss.

That just penalises those that do well. The proposed system is much fairer where everyone pays the same unless they are earning a pittance.

It seems widely accepted across the political spectrum that those who are richer pay a higher rate of tax. The young and those below top rate tax have been penalised disproportionately by recession and spending cuts, it is only fair that the rich share some of the pain. If you want to argue that 'people who do well' shouldn't pay higher rates of tax then that is a much different debate.

So anything that was ever enjoyed by anyone should be freely available to all and sundry from then on in as a matter of principle?

I think that if people have enjoyed a free university education and then decide to pull the ladder up behind them for others then they should be really careful when talking about fairness and how "we're all in it together".

Ok, ignore the polemical bits; do you think students should be able to sign on the dole over the summer?

I think education should be free, it has been free and I think it should remain free. I don't think students should ever have been able to draw the dole, therefore I'm comfortable that it hasn't been a possibility for a number of years.

It seems widely accepted across the political spectrum that those who are richer pay a higher rate of tax. The young and those below top rate tax have been penalised disproportionately by recession and spending cuts, it is only fair that the rich share some of the pain. If you want to argue that 'people who do well' shouldn't pay higher rates of tax then that is a much different debate.

 

This isn't about tax, it's about university funding. If Charles goes to Durham university to read economics, works hard and gets a good job earning loads he should not be required to pay any more for the cost of his degree than Edward who went to Durham university to read economics, couldn't be arsed and got a ****e job earning poop whilst receiving exactly the same education.

 

 

 

I think that if people have enjoyed a free university education and then decide to pull the ladder up behind them for others then they should be really careful when talking about fairness and how "we're all in it together".

 

I would be more concerned if they let self-serving selective claptrap influence the way they form policy.

 

I think education should be free, it has been free and I think it should remain free. I don't think students should ever have been able to draw the dole, therefore I'm comfortable that it hasn't been a possibility for a number of years.

 

So, presumably you think the death-knell was sounded when Labour introduced fees into higher education. Didn't you lose the argument, in practical terms at least, then? What's the sudden fuss about now?

 

Comments above, sir. I am going to bed now and will not be on here for several days, so with this I bid you good night and all the best.

Utter rubbish. It's two hour's work. Get a ****ing job, or if you have one, work two more hours. Alternatively spend ten pounds less on other things. Most people at college are still supported by their parent. The notion that the majority need that hand-out is completely disingenuous. The EMA was a pitiful thing introduced by Labour for no good reason.

It took me two years to get a Saturday job (well, it was Sunday really), they're pretty scarce at the moment. I didn't even get it first time round either, somebody else got the job I was interviewed for but I was called back a few weeks after my interview because somebody had quit due to ill health. Anyone that says "get a job" should actually TRY and be a 16 year old male with limited work experience applying for a job, it's pretty bloody difficult.

Having been a college student last year, I would argue that my opinion about people 'needing' the EMA is more valid (even though it makes me sound like a reet *****). I went to college in Farnborough, middle-England, middle-class, and you would expect people to be pretty sorted for money. There were obviously your rich kids dressed head-to-toe in Jack Wills and Abercrombie, but there were also a lot of kids who could barely afford to get the train. One of my closest friends had to get a meal card issued to him so he could eat at college, because he had no money left to eat after the travel fees. He also had a job at a newsagents working obscene hours at £5p/h so he could get driving lessons, which were £25p/h. Also, it's a fantastic way of ensuring people actually turn up to lessons, as you can only collect your EMA if you have a 100% attendance record (or some official way of explaining any absence)

You won't get an answer to that one. Well, not a plausible one anyway.

 

This protest (and others) is simply an ideological 'class war' attack against the 'nasty' Tories.

 

As you rightly allude to, there was no such protests when Labour introduced what was a far more unfair and penalistic fee system in the first place.

 

Still, let's not let the facts get in the way of a good old march eh...It beats actually learning stuff in a classroom all day...

Why should you get an answer to that question? The current protesters were likely around 6 years old when Labour introduced tuition fees anyway so you can't hold them responsible if you think the response in 1997 was underwhelming. What does it matter anyway? You can justify pretty much anything with "whatabout....". "class war" seems a little over the top, you probably couldn't get a more middle class protest than the current student protests.

I've heard this point a few times and it is so obvioulsy retarded it takes me aback each time.

 

On the same logic presumably students want to be able to sign on to the dole over the summer, women will campaign for disenfranchisement, Africans will chain themselves up and India will clamour for the reinstitution of the Empire?

whats that all about?!!

Why not saddle any current graduate with a debt now and make Cleggy and the rest pay back "the much smaller than a current student loan" Would be fair enough

Comments above, sir. I am going to bed now and will not be on here for several days, so with this I bid you good night and all the best.

coward! Im just getting stated

these are hard times...we are all in it together

fair play to Cleggy..telling the country how it is about this issue..

he is reminding people they come third.....they are in a position they dreamed of being, able in influence wider range of issues but HAVE to compromise..

Its alright for you with your public sector job and 2 houses eh?

For me there are 2 separate issues.

1) How much is it fair for somebody to pay?

2) What is the fairest mechanism for them to do so?

1) £9k does seem very high to me (speaking as somebody who didn't pay anything), however its important to be aware that although this is the headline figure which everybody has assumed will be paid by all it is actually a cap. I would say it should be lower.

2) The proposed system seems by FAR the fairest way to pay whatever amount you come out with in question 1.

Pay nothing up front, fair enough.

Only start paying even a small amount if you are earning over 21k, fair enough.

If you haven't repaid the full amount after 30 years (as I suspect that many nurses etc won't have done), write off the balance, fair enough.

Many people, even if the nominal fees they have to pay are £9k a year will actually end up paying nowhere near this amount.

In an ideal world uni would be free.

Unfortunately it isn't and currently fees are required.

The mechanism for paying is progressive and IS fair and is far better than the current mechanism.

The nominal maximum fees are higher than I would want to go, however many will not pay the nominal amount.

Tony's plan to get 50% of people to go to uni was always stupid.

Presumably you will happily volunteer to pay back for the full cost of the univeristy education that you received - after all why should we pay for you to advance yourself?

 

The solution is simple. Increase top rate taxation by a couple of percentage points so that anyone who does benefit financially from unversity does pay extra. At the same time reduce the numbers of unversity places for Arts degrees, give financial incentives to universities to enrol disadvantaged youngsters and make vocational training more attractive,

Lol

Well ok the difference was the company i work for paid the Uni directly to make a course to suit my job and so i got an electrical engineering degree paid for whilst also drawing a salary.

And that is the way which i think it should be done, why should further education be free just because it is now ? Why should it be so readily available ? I would assume around 80% of those that go to uni do some sort of micky mouse degree and probably 50% of the 20% that actually do something worthwhile will never gain a job that has anything to do with their qualification.

My god, some people think this world owes them a living, no wonder the country is in so much sh*t

It took me two years to get a Saturday job (well, it was Sunday really), they're pretty scarce at the moment. I didn't even get it first time round either, somebody else got the job I was interviewed for but I was called back a few weeks after my interview because somebody had quit due to ill health. Anyone that says "get a job" should actually TRY and be a 16 year old male with limited work experience applying for a job, it's pretty bloody difficult.

 

Having been a college student last year, I would argue that my opinion about people 'needing' the EMA is more valid (even though it makes me sound like a reet *****). I went to college in Farnborough, middle-England, middle-class, and you would expect people to be pretty sorted for money. There were obviously your rich kids dressed head-to-toe in Jack Wills and Abercrombie, but there were also a lot of kids who could barely afford to get the train. One of my closest friends had to get a meal card issued to him so he could eat at college, because he had no money left to eat after the travel fees. He also had a job at a newsagents working obscene hours at £5p/h so he could get driving lessons, which were £25p/h. Also, it's a fantastic way of ensuring people actually turn up to lessons, as you can only collect your EMA if you have a 100% attendance record (or some official way of explaining any absence)

You've blown your own argument out of the water with that statement. Driving lessons are a luxury item, which you should not be paying for if you are struggling to afford food. I don't want to sound all "woe is me" but when I was in sixth form I had to cycle 10km each way to get to school. There's me with my typical middle class, moddest upbring cycling through rain, snow and hail to get to lessons, whilst the poor, underpriviledged kids were overtaking me in a 1.1 Fiat Punto, paid for in part by the tax payer. And apparently education favours the wealthy.

I presume you were there when Labour introduced fees and then top-up fees as well?

Considering I was 11... no. Many people within the movement would also argue £3000 is acceptable.

But as I was 11 when that was passed, I was not old enough to give any input. However, this time, I will have attended 2 protests, written 3 letters, and attended 1 conference asking 1 question as well as generally contributing to debate. I have done all I can possibly do.