# Student riots in London over higher tuition fees....



## Dan (Nov 11, 2010)

I come from my standings here as a realist, not bias in any way because im a student or i deteste the Conservative party. That aside:


As some of you may have seen on TV or heard yesterday in central London a march took place to raise awareness against the *TREBLING* of student fees over the next 2 years. Students will face paying up to £9000 a year regardless of the 40% cut to the higher education budget. 

A group of students who knew a peaceful protest would essentially do nothing decided to break off from the majority of the crowd and head toward the Conservative party HQ, where they invaded the lobby and brought the matter (through guerilla tactics) to live bbc news.





​ 



​ 
Our country hasn't seen riots like this since the 1980's when the Conservative Government was last in power and they decided to utterly decimate the working class populations jobs up in the north of our country. A lot of people arn't realising that these same events are happening now in our society, with the Conservative party living under the motto: 'We are just cleaning up the Labour Party's mess'.

Students across the country understand that this massive hike in fees will create a domino effect right across our country, from the short term of mass unemployment to the long term where a lack of academics will hinder our development.

The problem i have with these events moreso than the violence which occured (though i fully agree with what happened in order to gain media attention) is the apparently 'impartial' media portrayal of yesterdays events. 

The BBC is supposed to be an impartial media service that takes no sides regardless of events. However on watching live broadcast i couldnt help but notice an increase in disrespect of the Labour party and their efforts to bring our country out of a major class divide after the Conservative Reign in the 1980's. It's true every party has their faults but it sounded extremely bias. Yes we are in a financial predicament at the moment, but its largely due to the Conservative government shutting down our mines and closing our shipyards 30 years ago. These 2 institutions were a major source of income for our country.

On top of that they kept twisting words of students that agreed to be interviewed. One such student, Clare Solomon, the president of the University of London Student Union, apparently said she had


> _"no problem with direct actions or occupation" and predicted a growing wave of similar protests in coming months._


In actual fact what she said live was that without the events of yesterday this issue would not have come to light, and there was a media blackout on certain aspects of the 'riot' that the media did not wish to show, including police brutality and provoking from the forces. 
_
Funnily enough that interview was cut short.....

_Going back to the issue they were trying to raise however, students realise that these hikes in fees will result in tens of thousands of bright students from poorer backgrounds not being able to fulfil their potential because they simply do not have the money to go to university. 

The govenment is saying that they will not have to pay the 9k a year in debts back till they earn over £21,000. This is all well and good, _but what about the cost of living for these students? What about materials costs for these students? What about having to buy food every week for these students?

_The rift between the upper classes and the working classes is widening again because only kids from a rich background will be able to go to university.I am struggling now as a student with debts of £3,000 a year so there would be no way whatsoever i could survive if that was three times higher. That coupled with a 40% cut in the education budget would make it a stupid idea when there isnt the funds to get the best teaching or resources.

In short what they are doing i feel is despicable, and though i agree with students having to pay some fees toward higher education, i do not believe education should be hindered by your parents income. Education is a right not a privellege for all, not just for the rich.

There are other factors i could go into, but id really like to hear what your thoughts are on the matter? Especially those who did not know about this or have only seen media flashbacks to the event. What do you feel should be done?


----------



## petereanima (Nov 11, 2010)

Man...3.000,- is already REALLY tough, but 9.000,-??? goddamn...

In Austria, there were endless protests because of a EUR 360,- fee per semester... (Then the fees were canceled, now its free, and the protests are because there is not enough room for al l students, because half of Europe is studying in Austria...)

I agree with you that it should be a right for everyone, not a privilege. On the other side - of course the universities NEED money, the more students the more money they need, and one has to understand that not the whole budget can be financed by the tax-payers (by tax-increases etc.)...its a very difficult topic, i kinda like some of the scandinavien versions, where you get financial support from the state throug the study-years, but its like a credit, and you have to pay it back as soon as you are done studying and have a job...i think Sweden is different and you dont have to pay back anything...but Sweden is in that case also out of money already, so there will be a change in the near future.

Its difficult...whatever will be done, there WILL be someone not benefiting from it.


----------



## Mr. Big Noodles (Nov 11, 2010)

Sounds like my country, except people are too insecure to do anything about it.

By the way, the kid with the leopard print vest reminds me of the Delacroix painting with Liberty's boob hanging out.


----------



## clouds (Nov 11, 2010)

I will be entering college next year and it's because of this crap that I am completely put off going to uni. As already stated, the money needs to come from SOMEWHERE but the fees at present are just insane and it's all the governments' fault. .


----------



## IDLE (Nov 11, 2010)

Just be glad they aren't over £9000...


----------



## troyguitar (Nov 11, 2010)

We pay up to $40000 here, want to trade?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 11, 2010)

If school is easily affordable, you face the potential problem of having too many qualified people competing for a limited number of jobs (Spain), and people need to strive for ever-higher degrees in order to remain competetive. In the US, having a BA now is pretty much as useful as a high school diploma was ten or fifteen years ago (and diplomas are practically useless nowadays). 

On the other hand, making it _too_ expensive will make it too difficult to obtain a higher education and a country could potentially face a lack of qualified for people to fill jobs that require advanced degrees.

Tricky business, this.


----------



## Dan (Nov 11, 2010)

^ true, but my idea is to have fees based on the course that you take, for example a media course would cost considerably less than a Law degree, as most graduates in the media industry will earn far less than a lawyer or a barrister.

I agree with students paying a sum toward their education, but i dont believe that such a high sum should have to be paid as they are outlining. being upwards of £30,000 in debt JUST after leaving uni is proposterous. 

They don't see that this will effect the future econonomy as well, New graduates will have to wait years, maybe decades before they can fisably afford to buy a house. The 40% cut in education will mean they are paying higher fees for worse teaching and materials. This government doesnt have the foggiest what the long term problems will be, they only see saving money so they can redistribute it into the private sector.

Yes, 30k isn't a ridiculous amount in the long run, but im paying £60 interest a month with my £9k debt after 3 years. If trends continue that will be £180 added on top every month, making it practically impossible for graduates to pay back even the interest if they are earning between 20-25k a year and wish to live comfortably after already being heavilly taxed.

Cut the interest, reduce the learning fee and re-think their strategy on payment for subjects. Thats my oppinion


----------



## signalgrey (Nov 11, 2010)

you should come to America where you basically go to Uni to come out of Uni $70,000+ in debt in a job market as cold as Siberia.

Whats worse is that a Degree means less and less these days yet we spend most of our early adult lives paying out the nose for it.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 11, 2010)

Plug said:


> ^ true, but my idea is to have fees based on the course that you take, for example a media course would cost considerably less than a Law degree, as most graduates in the media industry will earn far less than a lawyer or a barrister.


 

The drawback to that, of course, is that if there are some degrees that are significantly cheaper than others, those are the degrees more people are going to choose to pursue. Then you'll _really_ end up with a glut of qualified people fighting for the same jobs.

What I think would be a good idea, though I'm sure I'd meet with considerable resistence here, is linking significantly discounted tuition with military service (or some other form or government service for people who are physically incapable of military service for one reason or another). That could both help people who would otherwise have trouble paying for college _and_ ensure the military doesn't have as much trouble meeting enlistment quotas.

On the other hand, you might end up with a dispropotionate amount of people in the military who really don't want to be there, but enlisted anyway for the college discount. Then again, the US pretty much already has a similar system in place known as the Montgomery GI Bill, and I didn't notice any trouble caused by people who were only in it for the money when I was in the Navy.

Anyways, it's something I had running through my head.


----------



## leftyguitarjoe (Nov 11, 2010)

Vegeta, what does the tuition scouter say?


----------



## Dan (Nov 11, 2010)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> The drawback to that, of course, is that if there are some degrees that are significantly cheaper than others, those are the degrees more people are going to choose to pursue. Then you'll _really_ end up with a glut of qualified people fighting for the same jobs.
> 
> What I think would be a good idea, though I'm sure I'd meet with considerable resistence here, is linking significantly discounted tuition with military service (or some other form or government service for people who are physically incapable of military service for one reason or another). That could both help people who would otherwise have trouble paying for college _and_ ensure the military doesn't have as much trouble meeting enlistment quotas.
> 
> ...



But then again why be conned into joining the millitary simply to get an education? We should have better scholariship programs and funding for people who genuinely want to go to University but cannot fisably afford it.

I dont think that cheaper course fees would lead to a backlog of student applying for them. I believe that students are bright enough to understand that if they want to go for a degree in something they love then they should be willing to pay an acceptable price for it. It is all just theory but the vast majority of our students are fairly bright and would realise this concept.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 11, 2010)

Plug said:


> But then again why be conned into joining the millitary simply to get an education? We should have better scholariship programs and funding for people who genuinely want to go to University but cannot fisably afford it.
> 
> I dont think that cheaper course fees would lead to a backlog of student applying for them. I believe that students are bright enough to understand that if they want to go for a degree in something they love then they should be willing to pay an acceptable price for it. It is all just theory but the vast majority of our students are fairly bright and would realise this concept.


 
I don't see it is being "conned." If they don't want to join the military, they can pay the regular price. If they want cheaper college, the military is an option. That's how it is here in the states, and believe me there are _far_ more students who haven't served than those who have.

You have more confidence in people than I do. At the first college I went to, I was surrounded by people who were there to get a degree just to get one, becuase it's almost impossible to get a decent job without one anymore. They didn't care too much what it was, as long as it was a degree. I'm perfectly confident that if instead of courses costing the same across the board they had different prices, those people would have taken whatever was cheapest.

For what it's worth, the jobs that end up with higher pay _already do_ cost more to become qualified for. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc usually have to go on get their Masters and PHDs, as opposed to the jobs that you propose should cost less which would probably be fine with just a BA in most cases.


----------



## Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

Grand Moff Tim said:


> I don't see it is being "conned." If they don't want to join the military, they can pay the regular price. If they want cheaper college, the military is an option. That's how it is here in the states, and believe me there are _far_ more students who haven't served than those who have.



Well in a way they are, why have that lucrative deal of 'OOO JOIN THE MILITARY AND GET FREE STUFF'. That disgusts me. I'm not saying that in a hippy sort of my way, my brother is in the Air Force and i couldn't be more proud of him. I just don't believe for one second that people should have to join the millitary as a way of getting some of their fees cut. Should any large conflict break out they would be forced to go before others regardless of whether they want to or not simply because of their millitary training. 

Maybe you feel differently, but being trained to kill people doesnt seem like a fair way of getting a cheaper university fund (and before you argue on that fact, yes i do know the millitary does more than that..but they are taught that)




Grand Moff Tim said:


> You have more confidence in people than I do. At the first college I went to, I was surrounded by people who were there to get a degree just to get one, becuase it's almost impossible to get a decent job without one anymore. They didn't care too much what it was, as long as it was a degree. I'm perfectly confident that if instead of courses costing the same across the board they had different prices, those people would have taken whatever was cheapest.



Well then maybe it is a lot different over in the states. Over here id say i go to a pretty poor uni in the whole scheme of things, however my course is one of the best in the world as it used to be a seperate entity from the main body of the uni before it amalgamated. And even people on the worst of subjects i have spoken to are getting degrees to better their life based on the interests they have on the subject. They want to go into that field so they will get a degree in it to learn more about it, not just to 'get a degree'. Yes some would take a cheaper course, but a hell of a lot more would study something they like instead.





Grand Moff Tim said:


> For what it's worth, the jobs that end up with higher pay _already do_ cost more to become qualified for. Doctors, lawyers, engineers, etc usually have to go on get their Masters and PHDs, as opposed to the jobs that you propose should cost less which would probably be fine with just a BA in most cases.



Yes they do, but in the grand scheme of things their initial BA training costs exactly the same whilst their funding is much greater. My mother is a clinical lecturer and her medical students get tret in a far superior way to most other students (IE expensive dinners paid for, nights out paid for by the university, clinical supplies cost an obscene amount more). I have no problem with this as i know they will go on to do a very valuable job, but their costs an incredible amount more than someone say who is studying for a degree in English Literature.

My degree costs a silly amount as well, but i pay for it MYSELF, so far ive spent over £1,500 on CLAY alone this past 3 years. We pay a materials excess to cover the cost of these things, which i didnt know about when i started this course and it annoyed me that there was these hidden charges. Id rather there have been one SET fee i knew exactly what i way paying for.


----------



## maliciousteve (Nov 12, 2010)

The fees were already an obscene amount before the hikes. 

I enrolled in Uni to study how to build instruments (guitars, violins etc) but, I pulled out a month before I was due to start because I didn't want to be lumped with over £10,000 worth of debt in the first year. To get the experience and skills I needed I would of had to enrol in another course for a further 2 years which in total would of taken the debt to over £20,000. 

Quite frankly I thought it was a complete piss take. Charging a stupid amount of money for those who want to succeed and improve their quality of life and pump money into the economy and in the process create more jobs seems to be one of the most moronic things I've ever encountered. 

Every one with an ounce of sense knew that the conservatives would fuck us royally in the arse. Which is why I didn't vote because I knew people would vote lib dem or conservative just to get labour out. I know Labour weren't doing enough to get things moving again but I would of preferred an arse kicking from them than the snobby rich twats who only care to fill theirs and their friends pockets.


----------



## maliciousteve (Nov 12, 2010)

Oh and I condone the riots. It's about time something happened, quiet protests do not work. Look at what happened when people peacefully protested the Iraq war... no one gave a fuck.


----------



## petereanima (Nov 12, 2010)

maliciousteve said:


> Oh and I condone the riots. It's about time something happened, quiet protests do not work. Look at what happened when people peacefully protested the Iraq war... no one gave a fuck.



I would be interested: were there quiet protests/demonstration-walks/... in advance or something similar?

I just want to compar it to (for example) "our" situation, were meanwhile a Demonstration/Quiet protest IS useless, simply because its overdone as fuck. I mean - if there is a demonstration every Thursday, who will take notice after 3 weeks anymore?



IDLE said:


> Just be glad they aren't over £9000...



I see what you did there!


----------



## Customisbetter (Nov 12, 2010)

My sister is going to spend around $80,000 to go to MSU, and you guys are complaining over 9,000 pounds?

Sorry but I cannot sympathize with you guys.


----------



## Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

Customisbetter said:


> My sister is going to spend around $80,000 to go to MSU, and you guys are complaining over 9,000 pounds?
> 
> Sorry but I cannot sympathize with you guys.



Is that $80,000 for the full degree? Because many student over here are going to end up with debts of £50,000 for a full degree. Which works out pretty similar. 

MSU is an expensive Uni to go to anyway, were talking about people paying that much to go to an average run of the mill University.


----------



## Cheesebuiscut (Nov 12, 2010)

You end up paying 30-40,000$ a year here for the fancy stuff if not more.


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 12, 2010)

£9000 is just the course fee, don't forget maintenance which is another £9000 or more. Convert that into dollars and the gap starts to close. We don't want to be like America with universities, thats one great thing about Britain and that is that education is a lot more accessible than some other countries. You guys might have to pay more, but we don't want to end up like that. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of students that would get thrown out onto the streets instead of being able to get to do their ideal career, meaning unemployment would rise in an already unstable market. Its unfair on students and its the wrong thing to do politically.

No one would've payed attention to this subject if this hadn't hae happened, but here we are having a conversation about it. Clearly the protestors got what they wanted and power to them in my opinion.


----------



## Customisbetter (Nov 12, 2010)

So you guys don't have a student loans? Nobody pays off their education for decades over here...


----------



## vampiregenocide (Nov 12, 2010)

Customisbetter said:


> So you guys don't have a student loans? Nobody pays off their education for decades over here...


 
We do, but they still have to pay it off. And then it depends on your background as to how much you get.


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 12, 2010)

vampiregenocide said:


> We don't want to be like America with universities, thats one great thing about Britain and that is that education is a lot more accessible than some other countries. You guys might have to pay more, but we don't want to end up like that. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of students that would get thrown out onto the streets instead of being able to get to do their ideal career, meaning unemployment would rise in an already unstable market.


 
That's a problem more associated with making school more accessible. When anyone can easily go study what it is they want to study, too many people end up studying in "popular" degree programs and then you get an ocean of people applying for a small number of jobs. We'd be able to power cities by burning the art and music degrees that would litter the streets. 

Education is easily accessible in Spain, and that's pretty much exactly what happened (well, minus the powering cities on art degrees, lol). Most poeple take the courses in the more desireable fields, so there are far more qulaified people looking for jobs that simply don't exist. The number of unemployed young adults there is ridiculous, people are living at home longer and getting married later as a result, and Spain's population continues to age and their birth rate continues to drop. Now I'm not saying that kind of thing is automatically going to happen in every place education is made more accessible, I just wish people would stop to think about what might happen if it is. Especially the idiots in those protest pics with signs that say "Free Education for Everyone."

People who study obscure or less desireable things don't have the same problems, I imagine, but then you get stuff like Web Design, Marketing, Art, Music, etc. Being able to pursue one's dreams is a fun idea, but people really should have a bit more sense and long-term vision. Since they _don't_, wildy expensive university fees are one way to avoid some of those problems.

Of course, I have to admit that I haven't had to pay a dime for school so I could just be talking out of my ass, hahaha. Why? Military service.


----------



## Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

^ Why shouldnt people be allowed to study what they want to though? like i previously stated, Education is a right and not a privellege. High tuition fees would leave the rich to study what they wanted and be able to 'follow their dreams' whilst the poor have to take up jobs they dont like or dont want.

True a lot of people are going for art and music degrees, i myself am on an art degree, and i know if i wasnt going to be a teacher then my degree would probably be useless unless i wasnted to go into the glass industry or become a freelance artist. At the same time however i know extremely bright people on pharmacy degrees that wont be able to finish their course if this goes ahead because they simply dont have the money. Leaving them in a heap of debt without a degree.

There will always be a surplus in popular subjects, but going back to your point on people living at home longer that is happening already due to the fact that our tax and VAT is so fucking high, Over in america how much do you pay for gas per gallon? Because over here its nearly 10x that. Same goes for food/alcohol/housing/furniture/guitars!!!!!!

They wont make things cheaper over here and this is just going to hinder the working classes chances of finding a well paid job and living comfortably even harder


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 12, 2010)

Plug said:


> ^ Why shouldnt people be allowed to study what they want to though? like i previously stated, Education is a right and not a privellege. High tuition fees would leave the rich to study what they wanted and be able to 'follow their dreams' whilst the poor have to take up jobs they dont like or dont want.
> 
> True a lot of people are going for art and music degrees, i myself am on an art degree, and i know if i wasnt going to be a teacher then my degree would probably be useless unless i wasnted to go into the glass industry or become a freelance artist. At the same time however i know extremely bright people on pharmacy degrees that wont be able to finish their course if this goes ahead because they simply dont have the money. Leaving them in a heap of debt without a degree.
> 
> ...


 
I ought to make it clear that I do think the sudden tremendous tuition hike over there is pretty extreme, and I certainly understand why people would be upset about it. I'm just of the mindset that college _should_ be pretty expensive, though the situation over there underlines the fact that there is a limit to how much overcharging people are willing to tolerate.

Regarding gas, I think there'd be a pretty big fuss over here if our prices rose to what yours are, but that's in large part because we're much more automobile-dependent over here because of poor city planning and laughable public transportation systems. On that note, though, I've been saying for years that we _should_ hike the price of gas over here so soccer (er... football, for you fellows...) moms will stop buying SUVs they don't need.

For curiosity's sake, what's minimum wage like over there?


----------



## Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

Minimum wage is £5.75 i think at the moment. Ill have to check


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 12, 2010)

So roundabout $9.25 an hour? That's actually not as much more than it is in my state as I expected it to be. It's $8.25 (£5.10) here for adults, $7.75 (£4.80) for minors, and $5 (£3.10) for people who also receive tips on the job.


----------



## Dan (Nov 12, 2010)

Do you guys get taxed from that or is that your minimum wage after taxing?


----------



## Grand Moff Tim (Nov 12, 2010)

Plug said:


> Do you guys get taxed from that or is that your minimum wage after taxing?


 
That's before taxes. I'll reiterate that those figures are for Illinois. Different states might pay more or less.


----------



## trenolds39 (Nov 13, 2010)

leftyguitarjoe said:


> Vegeta, what does the tuition scouter say?





Tuition here in Switzerland is very cheap, although the cost of living here evens that out. Back in the US I think I pay $3000 a semester or so for courses. It should probably cost $30,000 or so to get my bachelor's, which isn't unreasonable considering I would make around twice that my first year out of school. It sounds like a lot of money, but it's an investment and you have to consider the return on investment. I can't really comment on the European prices but I do know salaries here are much higher than in the US due to higher cost of living, so paying more for school makes sense.


----------



## C2Aye (Nov 13, 2010)

I really feel for English students facing a possible trebling of tuition fees. Bloody Tories and their Lib Dem lapdogs setting at work pissing off everyone.

My concern is how budget cuts might affect Scotland. At the moment, we have the cosy situation of having the government pay our tuition (which is normally around £1300, which is still much less than English unis). I've heard murmurs of a graduation fee being reintroduced.

As for Americans having to fork out tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition, us people living in the UK are used to the state paying for important stuff like healthcare, primary and secondary education etc so our complaining may seem weak when taken out of context.


----------



## xtrustisyoursx (Nov 13, 2010)

The idea that higher education is a right is completely ludicrous.


----------



## Dan (Nov 14, 2010)

xtrustisyoursx said:


> The idea that higher education is a right is completely ludicrous.



And why is that? If someone wants to better themselves by getting an education and has the abillity to do so why deny them that chance?


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 14, 2010)

Plug said:


> And why is that? If someone wants to better themselves by getting an education and has the abillity to do so why deny them that chance?



It's certainly not a right though. While I don't like higher tuition...universities are out to make money and if they can get away with charging more, then why not? Its wrong, but they'll do it anyways. It's also important to remember that not so long ago a university education was only for those privileged enough to be able to afford it.


----------



## Dan (Nov 14, 2010)

C2Aye said:


> I really feel for English students facing a possible trebling of tuition fees. Bloody Tories and their Lib Dem lapdogs setting at work pissing off everyone.
> 
> My concern is how budget cuts might affect Scotland. At the moment, we have the cosy situation of having the government pay our tuition (which is normally around £1300, which is still much less than English unis). I've heard murmurs of a graduation fee being reintroduced.
> 
> As for Americans having to fork out tens of thousands of dollars a year in tuition, us people living in the UK are used to the state paying for important stuff like healthcare, primary and secondary education etc so our complaining may seem weak when taken out of context.




I do feel for you on this as i have some Scottish friends who are worried about this too. If the Tories get their way then yeah, basically everything north of Nottingham will be drained of money to benefit the south 

As for Americans whinging take it with a pinch of salt. Our financing like you said is totally different, and they pay a hell of a lot less for things we get taxed out of our arses on. Not that i'm saying you don't have a say yanks , Just when the Government takes over 20% of your paycheck each month and VAT is 20% we are allowed to whinge about these things


----------



## Dan (Nov 14, 2010)

Stealthtastic said:


> It's certainly not a right though. While I don't like higher tuition...*universities are out to make money* and if they can get away with charging more, then why not? Its wrong, but they'll do it anyways. It's also important to remember that not so long ago a university education was only for those privileged enough to be able to afford it.



Thats the thing though, Universities SHOULDNT be out to make any more money than they need to to teach students and pay the bills. Like i said previously i'm fine with paying a certain amount to study. 

I still also don't understand why you dont think it should be a right? If someone has the abillity to do a course then they should damn well do it! Its added education which can better them and society in most cases. Look at how many breakthroughs we have had over the past century simply because more people have been able to get a better education. That simply would not be possible if some bright people who didnt have the money to pay for University maybe 60-70 years ago were denied the chance of a free or affordable education back then.


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 14, 2010)

Plug said:


> Thats the thing though, Universities SHOULDNT be out to make any more money than they need to to teach students and pay the bills. Like i said previously i'm fine with paying a certain amount to study.
> 
> I still also don't understand why you dont think it should be a right? If someone has the abillity to do a course then they should damn well do it! Its added education which can better them and society in most cases. Look at how many breakthroughs we have had over the past century simply because more people have been able to get a better education. That simply would not be possible if some bright people who didnt have the money to pay for University maybe 60-70 years ago were denied the chance of a free or affordable education back then.



When did I not say it should be a right? I'm just saying it how it is 

I totally agree with you, some nordic countries see university as a continuation of high school which I think is the right way of seeing things. I also wouldn't even say that education wasn't affordable 60-70 years ago. During the 80's it wasn't for everybody and their mother either.


----------



## Dan (Nov 14, 2010)

Stealthtastic said:


> I totally agree with you, some nordic countries see university as a continuation of high school which I think is the right way of seeing things. I also wouldn't even say that education wasn't affordable 60-70 years ago. During the 80's it wasn't for everybody and their mother either.



I do very much agree with you on this. If people want to continue they should let them IMO.

Also you are right University tuition wasnt accessible for everyone but it was far more accessible than before say the Second World War. Its no suprise that an increase in academics has lead to an increase in development in... well pretty much everything


----------



## Stealthdjentstic (Nov 14, 2010)

Plug said:


> I do very much agree with you on this. If people want to continue they should let them IMO.
> 
> Also you are right University tuition wasnt accessible for everyone but it was far more accessible than before say the Second World War. Its no suprise that an increase in academics has lead to an increase in development in... well pretty much everything



Yeah seriously, I'm hoping Canada will follow suit and make all higher learning to an extent free. Can't have everyone becoming permanent students


----------



## McKay (Nov 14, 2010)

Plug, it's hard to take you seriously when you make basic spelling errors.

Although I generally agree that university should be easy to access, I also think there are far too many people doing degrees. 

I find myself caught between my working class socialist roots and realism in our current political climate of cuts and social stratification. There are several elephants in the UK room that nobody seems to be addressing. Tuition is not one of the larger or more problematic of them.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 14, 2010)

> If school is easily affordable, you face the potential problem of having too many qualified people competing for a limited number of jobs



Debunking the myth: the main problem of an efficient and affordable school system is that people get educated, and therefore less prone to believe the right wing falsehoods. Therefore, all right wing governments try to destroy the public education whatever the country.
QED.


----------



## Dan (Nov 15, 2010)

McKay said:


> Plug, it's hard to take you seriously when you make basic spelling errors.
> 
> Although I generally agree that university should be easy to access, I also think there are far too many people doing degrees.
> 
> I find myself caught between my working class socialist roots and realism in our current political climate of cuts and social stratification. There are several elephants in the UK room that nobody seems to be addressing. Tuition is not one of the larger or more problematic of them.



Firstly, regardless of whether my spelling is correct or not isnt an issue, if you cant take me seriously based on the fact that i sometimes spell incorrectly then thats your problem. Spelling is hard for lots of people who are taught phonetics versus sight memorization, so enough with the cheap shots ok  

Secondly there will always be 'elephants in the room' regardless of which party is in power. Yes there are lots of people doing degrees, but there are also a VAST amount of people sitting on their backsides doing absolutely nothing whilst reaping the benefits of a corrup doll system. 

I also understand the Conservative government are trying to 'Revamp' the benefits system. If you care to take a look at their program for that they wish to relocate people who cannot work in their area elsewhere (aka the north). All these little changes they are bringing in are part of a larger and very scary picture. Maybe your 'working class socialist roots' should do a little homework on the governments future plans.

There are bigger problems that need to be faced, including the NHS and the banking sector but if you haven't noticed they seem to have been kept out of the media recently because there are large reforms going on in those areas that they don't want people to know about. If it wasn't for the events of last week i doubt that the student strike would have made headlines for more than one day and people would have forgotten about it.

The reason i see our PM as worse than Thatcher is that she TOLD people what she was going to do and she went and bloody well did it. Cameron on the other hand is very sneaky in what he does and tries to pass things through government with as little media inclusion as possible. Though their 'this is the problem and this is how we are going to deal with it' on the surface sounds very good, on closer inspection their reform plans are bias, corrupt and certainly not what this country needs to prosper in coming years.

The problem with out 900 BILLION debt lies not in debts in our healthcare of education system; rather in corrupt buisness, our wilingness to give vast amounts of overseas aid and a lazy quantity of our population (both British born and Asylum seekers) who can easily fix the system to reap as much benefit as possible. Those are just some of the 'Elephants' that seem to be overlooked.


----------



## McKay (Nov 15, 2010)

Plug said:


> Firstly, regardless of whether my spelling is correct or not isnt an issue, if you cant take me seriously based on the fact that i sometimes spell incorrectly then thats your problem. Spelling is hard for lots of people who are taught phonetics versus sight memorization, so enough with the cheap shots ok



No. Spell and present yourself in a concise, tidy and clear manner and I will assume you have basic competency with the English language and an understanding of the issues involved in the discussion. Don't and people will assume the opposite. Spelling is hard. This doesn't excuse you of spelling correctly.

It isn't my problem, it's your problem and a problem that will dog you until you fix it.



> Secondly there will always be 'elephants in the room' regardless of which party is in power. Yes there are lots of people doing degrees, but there are also a VAST amount of people sitting on their backsides doing absolutely nothing whilst reaping the benefits of a corrup doll system.



I don't follow your point. If we understand 'elephant in the room' as 'major problem with our economy that we are overlooking' then it becomes something that needs to be addressed by everyone, regardless of party allegiance. Are you saying that because different parties cause different problems that are fixed by other parties? If so, what is the relevance of the statement? This is common knowledge.

You're taking a defiant stance despite reiterating mine - the main problems we face aren't students or tuition fees.



> I also understand the Conservative government are trying to 'Revamp' the benefits system. If you care to take a look at their program for that they wish to relocate people who cannot work in their area elsewhere (aka the north). All these little changes they are bringing in are part of a larger and very scary picture. Maybe your 'working class socialist roots' should do a little homework on the governments future plans.



I don't see the problem with economic migration. Do you? If there is no work in an area and surplus work in another, people should be compelled to move to the area where work is available. The only reason people don't is because they are supported financially by the state which _regardless of politics is no longer economically feasible._ The alternative is to leave these people to fend for themselves, in which case they would either leave under their own steam to find work or stay and live in true poverty.

I'd rather you didn't question the truth behind my professed background. It comes across as subtle ad hominem and weakens your position. You might point out my criticism of your grammar. The difference is that mine is a direct criticism and yours is implied.



> There are bigger problems that need to be faced, including the NHS and the banking sector but if you haven't noticed they seem to have been kept out of the media recently because there are large reforms going on in those areas that they don't want people to know about. If it wasn't for the events of last week i doubt that the student strike would have made headlines for more than one day and people would have forgotten about it.



This is what I was alluding to but you seem to be telling me as if it wasn't. The NHS, as part of our bloated public sector is extremely problematic.



> The reason i see our PM as worse than Thatcher is that she TOLD people what she was going to do and she went and bloody well did it. Cameron on the other hand is very sneaky in what he does and tries to pass things through government with as little media inclusion as possible. Though their 'this is the problem and this is how we are going to deal with it' on the surface sounds very good, on closer inspection their reform plans are bias, corrupt and certainly not what this country needs to prosper in coming years.



It seems to me that the government has been fairly clear about the problem. They told us the reality of the deficit, Labour didn't. They're trying to fix it, Labour didn't.

Labour didn't because it would lose votes and power (this is the party that admitted to introducing an open immigration policy to boost their base of support). If a party is underhanded here, it is Labour. The current government is making unpopular decisions because if they don't the future of our country will literally be at stake. It would make the 70s look pleasant in comparison.

There isn't much difference between the background and belief of the politicians of the big three now. Most went to private school and have been proven to methodically govern the country in self interest at the expense of the economy and social well being. Labour is just as guilty of it in the last 10 years as the Tories were in the 70s and 80s.



> The problem with out 900 BILLION debt lies not in debts in our healthcare of education system; rather in corrupt buisness, our wilingness to give vast amounts of overseas aid and a lazy quantity of our population (both British born and Asylum seekers) who can easily fix the system to reap as much benefit as possible. Those are just some of the 'Elephants' that seem to be overlooked.



Apart from the last point, which addresses one of the major problems, you are way off the mark.

Our true problems are twofold:

1) Our huge public sector, which inherently drains money from the economy. Our public sector is larger than our private sector. This is an enormous problem.

2) Our huge underclass. It is _far_ larger than you think and the abuse of the system is likewise far beyond most people understand it to be. What do you do with millions of people who are unskilled, structurally unemployable people? This ranges from the low IQ, foetal alcohol syndrome chav to the middle class girl studying psychology at university. We have a huge deficit in productivity that we continue to encourage. Our country simply cannot continue propping people up with tax money because we cannot afford it any more.


----------



## Dan (Nov 15, 2010)

McKay said:


> No. Spell and present yourself in a concise, tidy and clear manner and I will assume you have basic competency with the English language and an understanding of the issues involved in the discussion. Don't and people will assume the opposite. Spelling is hard. This doesn't excuse you of spelling correctly.
> 
> It isn't my problem, it's your problem and a problem that will dog you until you fix it.



I think some of the points i have been addressing have proven beyond reasonable doubt that i have _at least_ a basic understanding of the issues at hand here. We are typing on a forum and id rather post straight off with a few slight spelling and gramatical errors that sit and re-read everything i have done, i simply dont have time to do that. This anyway is besides the point of topic here, so if you have a problem with it like i previously stated overlook it. 




McKay said:


> I don't follow your point. If we understand 'elephant in the room' as 'major problem with our economy that we are overlooking' then it becomes something that needs to be addressed by everyone, regardless of party allegiance. Are you saying that because different parties cause different problems that are fixed by other parties? If so, what is the relevance of the statement? This is common knowledge.
> 
> You're taking a defiant stance despite reiterating mine - the main problems we face aren't students or tuition fees.



What i was trying to express is that different parties take different priorites when dealing with such problems. Whilst this current government is trying to 'fix' certain aspects of our society and our spending they are also choosing to ignore other things. I wasnt being defiant, i was simply trying to explain the previous statement.




McKay said:


> I don't see the problem with economic migration. Do you? If there is no work in an area and surplus work in another, people should be compelled to move to the area where work is available. The only reason people don't is because they are supported financially by the state which _regardless of politics is no longer economically feasible._ The alternative is to leave these people to fend for themselves, in which case they would either leave under their own steam to find work or stay and live in true poverty.



There is a massive difference between economic migration and moving lower class citizens to a different part of the country because of lower rent, which is essentially what they will try to do. There isnt any more surplus work north of say...Birmingham than there is south. The only difference being there seems to be a push to bring wealth and status back to the south of the UK whilst moving the 'riff raff' up north where the rent is cheap and they believe the standard of living is lower.



McKay said:


> I'd rather you didn't question the truth behind my professed background. It comes across as subtle ad hominem and weakens your position. You might point out my criticism of your grammar. The difference is that mine is a direct criticism and yours is implied.



I was implying that maybe the socialist in you should seek more factual information on this topic. It seems the 'realist' you are talking about has read what the media are letting you know about these 'reforms' whilst not looking any deeper at what is actually going on. Take for example the large amount of money that was going to be used to re-build schools and leisure facilities in the north east of England. This money has been taken away and relocated to the south east as it is 'needed more there'. This hasnt been publicised as they dont want people to know about it. But it HAS happened. I have family & friends in the south east and they are in agreement, why should money set aside to aid one part of the country be taken away to develop another when it certainly doesnt need it anymore that the north does?




McKay said:


> This is what I was alluding to but you seem to be telling me as if it wasn't. The NHS, as part of our bloated public sector is extremely problematic.



The NHS currently has little money to spend on resources to develop and evolve as medicine does. My mother is a clinical lecturer, and over the past god knows how many years she has worked in the NHS she saw how Labour plowed money into our health service only to have it taken away these past few years as privite sector healthcare boomed. A MASSIVE amount of money was spent preparing for the bird flu (media speculation again) epidemic that never happened. If anything more money should be put back into healthcare. I don;t simply see the NHS as part of our public sector, it should be its own entity as its a vital part of our nation.



McKay said:


> It seems to me that the government has been fairly clear about the problem. They told us the reality of the deficit, Labour didn't. They're trying to fix it, Labour didn't.
> 
> Labour didn't because it would lose votes and power (this is the party that admitted to introducing an open immigration policy to boost their base of support). If a party is underhanded here, it is Labour. The current government is making unpopular decisions because if they don't the future of our country will literally be at stake. It would make the 70s look pleasant in comparison.



From what i have heard in the news they have been clear about having to 'Clean up Labours mess'. Now i will fully admit Labour were no angels, far from it. But perhaps we wouldnt have such massive unemployment if the Conservative party hadnt destroyed out mining and shipbuilding industries in the 80's?

It is true the government are making unpopular decisions. They are also making uneducated decisions too. I'm currently unsure as to how they see their work as a 'long term plan' when 40% cuts in jobs are going to occur and millions may be left jobless. If people are cutting spending that means they cannot take on new works and have to slice their workfoce. Leaving more people jobless on the Doll. Create new jobs do not cut them and the economy will flourish as a result. Its elementary thinking.




McKay said:


> There isn't much difference between the background and belief of the politicians of the big three now. Most went to private school and have been proven to methodically govern the country in self interest at the expense of the economy and social well being. Labour is just as guilty of it in the last 10 years as the Tories were in the 70s and 80s.



While this is true all three parties hold true to a set of beliefs that hardcore members will want to stand by. Cameron (though i do not believe it) may be a 'new age Tory', but there will always be old school members who see things a little differently. These backroom party members do as much damage as the PM does.




McKay said:


> Apart from the last point, which addresses one of the major problems, you are way off the mark.
> 
> Our true problems are twofold:
> 
> 1) Our huge public sector, which inherently drains money from the economy. Our public sector is larger than our private sector. This is an enormous problem.



The recession would not have hit so hard if public sector spending had not crashed to due media speculation on our banks based around what was at the time pure fiction. Public sector funding for buisness is extremely hard to obtain, meaning the opportunity to create jobs is hindered and entrepreneurs looking to create jobs in many cases simply cannot obtain the funding to boost our economy. It is true our public sector drains money, but that is purely because the money is not distributed in an intellectual way.

Our private sector is simply not taxed enough. They are allowed to keep their money in offshore accounts and benefit from loopholes in the law which restrict the government from obtaining much needed money from them.



McKay said:


> 2) Our huge underclass. It is _far_ larger than you think and the abuse of the system is likewise far beyond most people understand it to be. What do you do with millions of people who are unskilled, structurally unemployable people? This ranges from the low IQ, foetal alcohol syndrome chav to the middle class girl studying psychology at university. We have a huge deficit in productivity that we continue to encourage. Our country simply cannot continue propping people up with tax money because we cannot afford it any more.



Firstly do not try to speculate that i don't know how large our underclass is, and im also fully aware of how they manipulate the system. There are ways to educate and employ the millions of apparently 'unemployable'. One such idea funnily enough is to attempt to _educate_ them. Courses the jobcenter runs currently do not give you any worthwhile qualifications. And people who have recently come onto benefits but wish to begin training for a new skill have to wait over 6 months before they can even APPLY to get on such a course. Currently the vast majority of these 'courses' that are being run do nothing to aid the person looking for work. This should be rectified.

Many of these foetal alcohol syndrome louts are this way because they know they can cheat the system. They need discipline, and whilst im against the idea of joining the forces for a cheaper ticket into university i feel basic millitary training (eg survival skills, chain of command etc) would give a lot of these people the kick up the backside they need to become worthwhile citizens. You may have seen the program bad lads army on the TV in recent years? Look at the results from that and how they affected those people. Its a model i believe could hold positive results.


----------



## McKay (Nov 15, 2010)

I don't have time to reply properly right now but I thought I'd mention that I'm from the north and so are my family, taxing the private sector any more is economic suicide and that educating the underclass is extremely difficult. Foetal Alcohol Syndrome, the effects of drugs upon the foetus, the heritability of IQ and the fact that you would literally have to force a culture change all stand against that.


----------



## Dan (Nov 15, 2010)

Well i look forward to a reply anyway , also id like to say i'm from the south as well so i'm in the same boat


----------



## HighGain510 (Nov 15, 2010)

HIGHER education is a privilege, not a right.  Your parents are taxed to pay for public education that should provide you with a decent level of education if you take advantage of it, but the government shouldn't be responsible for whether or not you choose to go to a university for higher education. While it sucks that your government is making it way more difficult for people with lower incomes to get into college, they don't have any alternatives similar to a community college or something?  Also, no scholarships available? I'm only 27 and I have all my college loans paid off 100% due to the fact that I worked my ass off to get academic scholarships that helped me not have to pay as much out of pocket via loans, if I had not I'd be in the same boat as you guys paying off those loans for the next 5+ years.

I find it hard to believe that the government forces your country to only have a handful of schools and they all have the same tuition rates without any lower-cost alternatives. In the states there are REALLY expensive schools (comparable or more expensive to the cost you are facing) and then there are state schools and community colleges if you are not looking to pay quite so much. I'd be extremely surprised if there were not lower-cost alternatives in the UK for higher education.

P.S. Not a jab at you personally man but the other gent made a good point earlier, your spelling and lack of punctuation in your posts (regarding education.... oh, the irony! ) are a tad detrimental to your argument.  Apostrophes are necessary, sir!


----------



## Dan (Nov 15, 2010)

HighGain510 said:


> P.S. Not a jab at you personally man but the other gent made a good point earlier, your spelling and lack of punctuation in your posts (regarding education.... oh, the irony! ) are a tad detrimental to your argument.  Apostrophes are necessary, sir!



OHH SHUSH , you should know by now that my spelling is atrocious. But you should love me anyway . Anywhoo my degree isnt based on spelling, its about all about the MOLTEN GLASS! 




There are alternatives, however you don't recieve as high a level of education and in most cases the awards you recieve mean nothing to potential employers.


----------



## Demiurge (Nov 15, 2010)

HighGain510 said:


> *HIGHER education is a privilege, not a right.*  Your parents are taxed to pay for public education that should provide you with a decent level of education if you take advantage of it, but the government shouldn't be responsible for whether or not you choose to go to a university for higher education. While it sucks that your government is making it way more difficult for people with lower incomes to get into college, they don't have any alternatives similar to a community college or something?  Also, no scholarships available? I'm only 27 and I have all my college loans paid off 100% due to the fact that I worked my ass off to get academic scholarships that helped me not have to pay as much out of pocket via loans, if I had not I'd be in the same boat as you guys paying off those loans for the next 5+ years.



Exactly.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 15, 2010)

You guys are awfully fast to discount the environment responsibility in child upbringing and resulting school success or lack thereof.
Because you succeeded doesn't mean you are better, it means you had a more friendly learning environment. Pretty sure it will hurt some egos, but your onw "personal worth" and "merit" are the smallest part of what actually leads someone to a brilliant academic career. Which is why elites self perpetuate, having the best environment and access to education.


----------



## anthonyferguson (Nov 16, 2010)

troyguitar said:


> We pay up to $40000 here, want to trade?



£9000 per year, for a minimum of three years. Then you have to pay for everything else-a house, food, car, all the bills that come with this stuff. It's not unusual for students to come out £60,000 in the red as things stand now. Add another £6000 per year, and shit really hits the fan. Imagine how long it's going to take people to pay off £72,000 of debt...
At the moment, debt is wiped clean if you still don't earn over £21,000 a year and can't afford to repay it after 30 years, but I wouldn't be surprised to see that change, making the rift between classes even more pronounced. 

We weren't all as lucky as you Mr. Cameron.


----------



## anthonyferguson (Nov 16, 2010)

HighGain510 said:


> HIGHER education is a privilege, not a right.  Your parents are taxed to pay for public education that should provide you with a decent level of education if you take advantage of it, but the government shouldn't be responsible for whether or not you choose to go to a university for higher education. While it sucks that your government is making it way more difficult for people with lower incomes to get into college, they don't have any alternatives similar to a community college or something?  Also, no scholarships available? I'm only 27 and I have all my college loans paid off 100% due to the fact that I worked my ass off to get academic scholarships that helped me not have to pay as much out of pocket via loans, if I had not I'd be in the same boat as you guys paying off those loans for the next 5+ years.
> 
> I find it hard to believe that the government forces your country to only have a handful of schools and they all have the same tuition rates without any lower-cost alternatives. In the states there are REALLY expensive schools (comparable or more expensive to the cost you are facing) and then there are state schools and community colleges if you are not looking to pay quite so much. I'd be extremely surprised if there were not lower-cost alternatives in the UK for higher education.
> !



There's shit all you can do between 6th form (2 years of education before university) and going into higher education that will actually provide a big enough financial buffer to help in any way, unless you wash dishes for 10 years, or have sufficient business acumen to afford it, in which case there's not really much point in higher education as it's unnecessary. I'm a complete ignoramus, but I'm pretty sure that by the look of the prices of university fees in the US, it's a much more commercial business seeking higher education, and scholarships etc. are presumably in place to take the cost down for the student temporarily. I'd probably reckon that our universities and healthcare are somewhat comparable to yours, in that ours is (mostly) government funded and yours.... er... isn't. So much.

Derp.


----------



## McKay (Nov 16, 2010)

Andromalia said:


> You guys are awfully fast to discount the environment responsibility in child upbringing and resulting school success or lack thereof.
> Because you succeeded doesn't mean you are better, it means you had a more friendly learning environment. Pretty sure it will hurt some egos, but your onw "personal worth" and "merit" are the smallest part of what actually leads someone to a brilliant academic career. Which is why elites self perpetuate, having the best environment and access to education.



As I said, the only way to mitigate it is to _force_ a culture change.

A few things need to be accepted by society. One of them is that IQ and talent are largely inherited. The implications of this on our social model, core beliefs and wider culture are enormous.

The fact that average IQ generally correlates with high development, GDP and life expectancy has serious ramifications on the choices we make in regards to our economy. We can choose to ignore the evidence because it's unpleasant but that seems illogical, doesn't it?







We should be encouraging intelligent, creative, hard working people to reproduce at the expense of the unintelligent, uncreative lazy people. Ultimately, this should be the case regardless of the recent re-realisation that genes are the deciding factor in governing human ability. Even if ability was entirely cultural, we should be encouraging those who hold and foster that culture to reproduce and encouraging those that don't, not to.

*Our current system has been doing the opposite of this for decades.*

I say mitigate earlier in the post, because all things considered, that is what you will do - lessen the problem rather than rectify it.


----------



## anthonyferguson (Nov 16, 2010)

McKay said:


> As I said, the only way to mitigate it is to _force_ a culture change.
> 
> A few things need to be accepted by society. One of them is that IQ and talent are largely inherited. The implications of this on our social model, core beliefs and wider culture are enormous.
> 
> ...



Interesting post. I agree. Forcing a cultural change seems a very difficult and daunting task that has no straight forward answer. What would you propose to be a good method out of interest?

Continuing further OT-The world would be a much better place to live if it was as sparsely populated as it was a few centuries ago; admittedly this is both stating the obvious and a pretty ridiculous thing to say, as doing such a thing would require a huge human cull, that no-one (including myself I hasten to add) or perhaps a ridiculously tiny minority, would choose to support.

Back OT, even though I've already pretty much given my 2 units of currency ITT already, I'm of the opinion that it's sad that a degree counts for so much these days, and bright young people should be given opportunities outside formal education. It might encourage employers that someone coming to you with a piece of paper and a complete anal prolapse of a bank account doesn't make them more employable than someone that's learnt by a more hands-on approach. (This I think is true mostly for more practical subjects involving moving digits places perhaps other than a computer keyboard) Sorry for flooding this thread...


----------



## Dan (Nov 17, 2010)

BBC News - National university access scheme under threat



> "At the same time as trebling fees the government is set to end the national programme to help working-class young people get to university. This decision needs to be publicly debated and discussed."


 
Just thought id post this in here to aid the topic. Isn't this a little funny that this is going ahead but no-one has heard about it?  The only reason i found out about it was because i clicked on 'other topics' in the education section of bbc news.

It's secretive acts like this that are going ahead without peoples knowledge that i disagree with. Out of media attention, easier to process without knowledge.


----------



## McKay (Nov 17, 2010)

Plug said:


> BBC News - National university access scheme under threat
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I was hoping to use one of these schemes to get my degree. I plan to study the sciences at college next year and coming from a single parent, low income household, this would help immensely.

No luck now though.


----------



## Andromalia (Nov 20, 2010)

McKay said:


> As I said, the only way to mitigate it is to _force_ a culture change.
> 
> A few things need to be accepted by society. One of them is that IQ and talent are largely inherited. [...]



I agree with that statement but I strongly disagree with the line of thought you follow afterwards. IQ and talent are certainly inherited, but are by no means the most _important _factors in "being sucessful".

What conclusion do I draw from the map you are showing ? Not that the african people are less intelligent, _but that they have no schools_.
The metaphor I usually use in this case is, it's no good being the world's best potential piano player if you're a pygmy who doesn't know what a piano is. IQ (remember that the validity of IQ as a measurement is strongly disputed, too. All it can validly measure is how you responded to the test, in fact, not much else), talent, all that comes after and is less important that having access to a school, or not.

Call me a cynic, but helping Africa doesn't involve sending them food, but financing their schools. Which is likely why occidental countries do the exact reverse, to keep them in a state of dependance, so their natural resources can keep being plundered.
We're giving fishes to starving people instead of teaching them how to fish.

Talent can't blossom in thin air. Mozart could play violin at 5 beause 1) he was given one 2) He was a genius. 2) whithout 1) would have given...nothing.

Edit: hope I didn't make any blundering in what I want to express, those kind of conversations are pretty difficult for non native english speakers.


----------



## McKay (Nov 21, 2010)

Andromalia said:


> I agree with that statement but I strongly disagree with the line of thought you follow afterwards. IQ and talent are certainly inherited, but are by no means the most _important _factors in "being sucessful".
> 
> What conclusion do I draw from the map you are showing ? Not that the african people are less intelligent, _but that they have no schools_.
> The metaphor I usually use in this case is, it's no good being the world's best potential piano player if you're a pygmy who doesn't know what a piano is. IQ (remember that the validity of IQ as a measurement is strongly disputed, too. All it can validly measure is how you responded to the test, in fact, not much else), talent, all that comes after and is less important that having access to a school, or not.
> ...



I think that anyone able to think critically would agree that environment and culture play a very large role in governing the blossoming of talent. However I disagree with the notion that talent (by which we mean inherited ability, in all it's forms, including intelligence) is _not_ the most important factor.

To use your Pygmy analogy, if you put a Pygmy in a race with a 6ft tall Kenyan, he will lose. Genetically, there is no difference in operation between the genes that govern leg length and musical ability or mathematical ability or other cerebral abilities. I suppose the only difference is that the cerebral talents are likely to be dependent on a complex series of interdependent genes where those that govern physical ability are more directly responsible for the properties they control.

Essentially, it relates to the incidence of genes in groups. A group of people that is generally taller than another means that they have a higher rate of the relevant genes for tallness.*

We know that cognitive ability, musical ability, mathematical ability and such are primarily governed (and realised through education) by genetic makeup so it stands to reason that like the genes that govern height, skin colour, hair colour or foot length, the genes that govern these have higher rates of incidence in and are spread unevenly between different populations. Some genes are totally endemic to different populations.

This can be at times an unpleasant line of thought but that doesn't render it irrational, illogical or assign it any place on the moral compass.

*For example you have two groups of 50 people. Group A has 19 people over 6ft, group B has 13. I am using this argument in a wider concept but the same principle observably applies.


----------



## timbaline (Nov 21, 2010)

My sister has to pay $60,000 a year for her tuition at MIT.
The public universities (UC's since I'm in California, I don't know about other states) here are about $30,000 a year.
Stop complaining, it's a lot more than &#8364;9000 here.


----------



## McKay (Nov 21, 2010)

timbaline said:


> My sister has to pay $60,000 a year for her tuition at MIT.
> The public universities (UC's since I'm in California, I don't know about other states) here are about $30,000 a year.
> Stop complaining, it's a lot more than 9000 here.



You also pay considerably less tax than we do, generally earn more and the cost of living is generally lower.


----------



## wannabguitarist (Nov 21, 2010)

timbaline said:


> The public universities (UC's since I'm in California, I don't know about other states) here are about $30,000 a year.



This caught my eye before I've read the rest of the thread, but $30,000? You're kidding right? I'm paying around $10,000-12,000 a year for tuition at a UC right now. That's a lot less than $30,000


----------



## timbaline (Nov 22, 2010)

wannabguitarist said:


> This caught my eye before I've read the rest of the thread, but $30,000? You're kidding right? I'm paying around $10,000-12,000 a year for tuition at a UC right now. That's a lot less than $30,000



It's roughly between 27k-29k all costs included (tuition, room and board, books etc.)
University of California - What does UC cost?


----------



## Herb Dorklift (Nov 30, 2010)

I don't understand what the hubbub is. Someone has to pay all the teachers and stuff right?

*shrug*


----------



## Herb Dorklift (Nov 30, 2010)

timbaline said:


> It's roughly between 27k-29k all costs included (tuition, room and board, books etc.)
> University of California - What does UC cost?


 
So, £9k (What, about $15k?) plus housing (VERY expensive) and books...


----------



## Dan (Nov 30, 2010)

Herb Dorklift said:


> I don't understand what the hubbub is. Someone has to pay all the teachers and stuff right?
> 
> *shrug*




I have a lecturer who is on £109,000 a year for marking my dissertation. Is that fair?


----------



## Meshugger (Nov 30, 2010)

Man, you guys are rich. I have a Master's Degree in engineering and have been working for more than 2 years at a larger, multinational engineering company as a solutions specialist. My wage is now 30 000/year (i started with 27 000/year). A project Manager earns between 37 000-45 000/year. A department/area manager about 50-70 000/year. As far as i can tell, only our CEO gets about 175 000/year. This isn't strange at all, this is pretty much an industry-standard where i live. 

The point is, with tuition-fees of 30 000-40 000/year, i do not think that anyone would be able to afford a higher education other than the upper management (CEO, CFO and so) without being in debt for the rest of their lives. In theory, either our wages would have to rapidly go higher, or our taxes pretty much go down to zero for that to work.


----------



## Customisbetter (Nov 30, 2010)

Andromalia said:


> Debunking the myth: the main problem of an efficient and affordable school system is that people get educated, and therefore less prone to believe the right wing falsehoods. Therefore, all right wing governments try to destroy the public education whatever the country.
> QED.



The problem with easy to afford schooling is when tuition rates go up, all knowledge that was previously garnered goes out the window and people turn into savage idiots rioting in the streets.


----------



## maliciousteve (Dec 9, 2010)

Looks like tuition fees will be going up now. The protests (riots) have been mental today and I expect more in the next week or so but it will then slip off.

Lib Dem's can forget being voted for in the next general election. Conservatives, who knows, but I wouldn't be surprised if they're out in 5 years time.


----------



## Dan (Dec 9, 2010)

as my former sixth form tutor said it:



David Riddle said:


> *Nick Clegg, you absolute total and utter disgrace. A total betrayal of the future of this country. Socially divisive Tory scum...*


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Dec 9, 2010)

I'm willing to bet that most of them are angry about most things and are relishing having something to 'fight the man' about, these idiots protest, get violent, then get upset when they get hurt back because they think they have some god-given right to protest about half-baked political ideas they sometimes have. 

They played a clip of one protester on Radio One and the guy was horrifically angry about something it sounded like he didn't fully understand. Utter wastes of space - hypocritical pseudo-hippies.

A girl on my facebook claimed she was 'furious' that young people were being trampled by police horses. What the fuck do violent protesters expect, a warm welcome and a goodie bag?

As for Clegg, I don't buy into the hate-mongering as he is responsible for keeping a stable Government and the Lib Dems know that's what's necessary right now. Why create animosity in parliament when the two parties have to actually work TOGETHER to make real change. If the Lib Dems were doing as The Sun and The Mirror claim they should be doing and sticking firmly to what they said in the first place, we would have a divided Government that would deteriorate very quickly, nothing would get done and they'd be moaning about how atrocious that was instead.

PLEASE PEOPLE - do not let The Sun/The Mirror/The Daily Mail tell you how to feel on these subjects, think about them for yourselves. The media are the scum of the Western world - they are fickle liars and only serve themselves - much like the MPs they so often trash.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Dec 9, 2010)

Plug said:


> I have a lecturer who is on £109,000 a year for marking my dissertation. Is that fair?



The bosses of BBC are paid £330k+ a year AND boast about it. The Royal Mail bosses treat themselves to bonuses that are 4 times their salary. Premier League footballers are often paid £80k a WEEK to FUCKING TRAIN.

_That's_ what's not fair.


----------



## ShadyDavey (Dec 9, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> The bosses of BBC are paid £330k+ a year AND boast about it. The Royal Mail bosses treat themselves to bonuses that are 4 times their salary. Premier League footballers are often paid £80k a WEEK to FUCKING TRAIN.
> 
> _That's_ what's not fair.





There's a lot of inequities in the UK....it's absolutely sickening.


----------



## Dan (Dec 9, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> I'm willing to bet that most of them are angry about most things and are relishing having something to 'fight the man' about, these idiots protest, get violent, then get upset when they get hurt back because they think they have some god-given right to protest about half-baked political ideas they sometimes have.
> 
> They played a clip of one protester on Radio One and the guy was horrifically angry about something it sounded like he didn't fully understand. Utter wastes of space - hypocritical pseudo-hippies.



I do agree with this, but at the same time a lot of them arn't old enough to understand exactly whats going on. It DOES affect them, and yes the way they are going about it tonight is totally wrong, but in a few years they face up to £50k of debt, which is proposterous for anyone let alone a 21 year old graduate with no stable job simply for a BA.



Scar Symmetry said:


> A girl on my facebook claimed she was 'furious' that young people were being trampled by police horses. What the fuck do violent protesters expect, a warm welcome and a goodie bag?



No, but at the same time they shouldn't expect to be trampled by horses. Remember that the vast majority of these groups are young adults and can be easily led. There are other means to break a riot other than running horses through them. 



Scar Symmetry said:


> As for Clegg, I don't buy into the hate-mongering as he is responsible for keeping a stable Government and the Lib Dems know that's what's necessary right now. Why create animosity in parliament when the two parties have to actually work TOGETHER to make real change. If the Lib Dems were doing as The Sun and The Mirror claim they should be doing and sticking firmly to what they said in the first place, we would have a divided Government that would deteriorate very quickly, nothing would get done and they'd be moaning about how atrocious that was instead.



The whole point of the joined government is to fight for what the PEOPLE want. A government is essentially nothing without its people, and tbh so far theyre doing a piss poor job of thinking for a) the long term b) the peoples best interests and c) keeping the people happy

What Clegg is doing IS wrong. People voted him in to make sure the conservative government didn't do what they are doing now and hes just letting them use the Liberal Democrats as a lapdog. 

Ive read the apparent 'deficit' and to be perfectly honest yeah this will bring income over the next few years; but what happens in 10 years time when we have a lack of educated people in specialized fields due to the fact that a lot of normal kids can't afford to get to uni because their mummy isnt a smackhead or a lawyer? 

OR people who have graduated wont be able to to afford to get a mortgage and have to save every penny to pay off debt rather than helping to aid the economy? Theres a backlash they dont seem to understand will happen when they raise these fees.



Scar Symmetry said:


> PLEASE PEOPLE - do not let The Sun/The Mirror/The Daily Mail tell you how to feel on these subjects, think about them for yourselves. The media are the scum of the Western world - they are fickle liars and only serve themselves - much like the MPs they so often trash.



I think anyone who posts on this thread has more brains than to just read the papers and believe the hype. To be perfectly honest however a lot of the facts they bring to the table are pretty factual. Theyre just publicised in the wrong way




Scar Symmetry said:


> The bosses of BBC are paid £330k+ a year AND boast about it. The Royal Mail bosses treat themselves to bonuses that are 4 times their salary. Premier League footballers are often paid £80k a WEEK to FUCKING TRAIN.
> 
> _That's_ what's not fair.



No that isnt fair at all, ill agree with that. However, MANY people get paid FAR too much in all areas of life, politicans included. The past few months have solidified the idea that they are hypocrites who want to change too much too fast. They try to hide reforms from the public so people dont find out about it till its too late, and when they do get caught out the line 'we're fixing Labours mess' comes out.


----------



## Customisbetter (Dec 9, 2010)

............S

Holy shit we have censors now? Fuuuuuuuuuuck that. 
Students attack Prince Charles' car after fee hike - Yahoo! News


----------



## JamesM (Dec 9, 2010)

Censors? 

Fuck. Ass. Cock. Shit. 

I'm good. 

I read somewhere that it is calculate that schools costs go up by 7% every year.
I just see it as a fact of life, and I deal with it. 
I know I'm in a different country and all, but running a college is expensive.


----------



## maliciousteve (Dec 9, 2010)

Everytime I see a Tory on TV answering a question it usually ends with 'we inherited this deficit' or 'we're fixing labours mess'.

How about a decent answer than isn't just a play on words from the truth that all they care about is cutting where ever they can get away with. Something needs to be done with the deficit, absolutely, but this is not the way to do it and it will continue to fuck things up for years to come and it just creates more uncertainty for every one.

I also can't help but want to sucker punch George Osbourne in that full of shit grin of his every time I come across something about him.


----------



## Dan (Dec 9, 2010)

The Armada said:


> Censors?
> 
> Fuck. Ass. Cock. Shit.
> 
> ...



ok.. thats 7%.... we're talking 300%, bit of a difference


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Dec 9, 2010)

Plug said:


> I do agree with this, but at the same time a lot of them arn't old enough to understand exactly whats going on. It DOES affect them, and yes the way they are going about it tonight is totally wrong, but in a few years they face up to £50k of debt, which is proposterous for anyone let alone a 21 year old graduate with no stable job simply for a BA.



*So basically, you agree but you agree? *



Plug said:


> No, but at the same time they shouldn't expect to be trampled by horses. Remember that the vast majority of these groups are young adults and can be easily led. There are other means to break a riot other than running horses through them.



*Yes, adults! It's one thing to be easily lead and another to instigate violence against riot police. These adults know exactly what they're doing and that they're poking the hornet's nest.*



Plug said:


> The whole point of the joined government is to fight for what the PEOPLE want. A government is essentially nothing without its people, and tbh so far theyre doing a piss poor job of thinking for a) the long term b) the peoples best interests and c) keeping the people happy.



*Woah, woah, woah. Are you seriously implying that politicians of this caliber are in this for us? Wake up man! The system that is in place now has been in place for thousands of years and it's not going to change any time soon. *


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Dec 9, 2010)

Plug said:


> What Clegg is doing IS wrong. People voted him in to make sure the conservative government didn't do what they are doing now and hes just letting them use the Liberal Democrats as a lapdog.



*I'm sorry man but I just don't see how you can call that. You may think it's wrong, but to say it just 'IS' - is another thing entirely. People voted for him yes, but the fact remains that if HE hadn't formed a coalition deal with the Tories he wouldn't be in power at all. I am obviously aware that our votes enabled him to strike said deal but voting polls are a joke at best, so I wouldn't put much faith in the power of the vote. He's doing what he can, which may not be a lot, but put yourself in his shoes. I believe that Clegg is a good guy, he just has his hands tied.*



Plug said:


> Ive read the apparent 'deficit' and to be perfectly honest yeah this will bring income over the next few years; but what happens in 10 years time when we have a lack of educated people in specialized fields due to the fact that a lot of normal kids can't afford to get to uni because their mummy isnt a smackhead or a lawyer?
> 
> OR people who have graduated wont be able to to afford to get a mortgage and have to save every penny to pay off debt rather than helping to aid the economy? Theres a backlash they dont seem to understand will happen when they raise these fees.



*You're no economic specialist though right? Neither am I. However, if you've read Osborne's Budget you'd know that smackhead mummies are being left out to dry. Your opinion seems to be highly in line with that of the mainstream media dude, ill-informed and sensationalist. Read between the lines, man!*



Plug said:


> I think anyone who posts on this thread has more brains than to just read the papers and believe the hype. To be perfectly honest however a lot of the facts they bring to the table are pretty factual. Theyre just publicised in the wrong way.



*I'd like to think so too... however, I'm am VERY worried that you think that the mainstream press bring you anything but self-serving sensationalist nonsense. They spin factual things to make them sound however they want to SELL PAPERS. Nothing more. *



Plug said:


> No that isnt fair at all, ill agree with that. However, MANY people get paid FAR too much in all areas of life, politicans included. The past few months have solidified the idea that they are hypocrites who want to change too much too fast. They try to hide reforms from the public so people dont find out about it till its too late, and when they do get caught out the line 'we're fixing Labours mess' comes out.



*They are fixing Labour's mess though.  Don't get me wrong, this lot are scoundrels, but they kick the living shit out of the Labour Government that the country shit out earlier this year. This lot are gold compared to what we've been living under. *


----------



## vampiregenocide (Dec 9, 2010)

The Tories ae cunts, end of. They're pro-rich, anti-poor and whenever they're asked about how they're dealing with ptoblems they just respond with 'oh well its labour's fault'. Shut up. You're in power, you deal with these issues. The problems and results are now the Conservatives' and they need to start taking the blame.

As for this student thing, to be expected. Its very unnecessary as the funding for universities could easily be supplimented from elsewhere (e.g. defence) if it was in question.

Cuts needed to be made, but not like this.


----------



## Dan (Dec 9, 2010)

Scar Symmetry said:


> *I'm sorry man but I just don't see how you can call that. You may think it's wrong, but to say it just 'IS' - is another thing entirely. People voted for him yes, but the fact remains that if HE hadn't formed a coalition deal with the Tories he wouldn't be in power at all. I am obviously aware that our votes enabled him to strike said deal but voting polls are a joke at best, so I wouldn't put much faith in the power of the vote. He's doing what he can, which may not be a lot, but put yourself in his shoes. I believe that Clegg is a good guy, he just has his hands tied.*



I think Clegg isn't doing whats best for his party, which is why so many have left and there is constant uproar about the decisions he is making. I think he is doing what he feels is best for him, not his party.

The problem i have with Clegg is he went back on his promises. Contrary to much oppinion he had every opportunity to look at the countrys finances when Labour were in power. So for him to 'go back' on his oppinions are a total joke. If his party has a problem with the way the Tories are doing something he should bloody well say so, thats the whole point of him in his position. I feel he just likes where he is at in power at the moment. 




Scar Symmetry said:


> *You're no economic specialist though right? Neither am I. However, if you've read Osborne's Budget you'd know that smackhead mummies are being left out to dry. Your opinion seems to be highly in line with that of the mainstream media dude, ill-informed and sensationalist. Read between the lines, man!*



No i am not any economic specialist, but i have common sense. I have also read Osbournes budget (the Looong version ) and as much as the shortened version says its leaving smackhead parents 'out to dry', it is no-where near as bad as the average working class family are being swindled. Not just the parents either, childrens futures are being ruined because they feel tightening the belt in the short hand will sort everything out, when in actual fact it will make it a hell of a lot worse. 

I hate to say it, but the mainstream, ill informed and sensationalist viewpoint is totally correct, but for all wrong reasons. I dont need to read between the lines when i can read the actual reports and see the blatently obvious problems with their idea of 'fixing' the country. Education is just one small problem.




Scar Symmetry said:


> *I'd like to think so too... however, I'm am VERY worried that you think that the mainstream press bring you anything but self-serving sensationalist nonsense. They spin factual things to make them sound however they want to SELL PAPERS. Nothing more. *



Now i don't believe EVERYTHING in the media but there is fact in there. Maybe not in the major sensationalist headlines but small sentences and articles hidden away do tell people things. I read the times, i should know.. theres lots of words in there . You can't brandish all media as sensationalist, there is a lot of it that isnt at all. Take the BBC for example, they are pro Tory, they cant say it but their reporting shows anything un conservative as bad. HOWEVER there are some reports that go above and give 100% factual information. Everything needs a bit of give and take.




Scar Symmetry said:


> *They are fixing Labour's mess though.  Don't get me wrong, this lot are scoundrels, but they kick the living shit out of the Labour Government that the country shit out earlier this year. This lot are gold compared to what we've been living under. *



They 'believe' they are fixing labours mess, and i do think they are MUCH better than the government we had last time. I do believe however that a Lab-Lib coalition would have done the right thing, as opposed to the ill informed must make changes oppinion.


----------



## Origin (Dec 9, 2010)

Tuition is increasing at a rate completely nonsensical as compared to even inflation and the cost of living, and not only in the UK. 

It's just fucking stupid to me. Why drain the financial life out of people that have no goddamn capacity to afford it? Then you can spend years paying it off, IF you land a really nice job within a reasonable length of time. 

The incentives to go to school become shitty at best. I'm really damn lucky I go to a community college that has some decent programs, I can afford it and rent on pseudo-full time work at least. That being said, pretty sure Canadians aren't getting as shafted by this as others..>_>


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Dec 9, 2010)

So much I disagree with. I fold.


----------



## Dan (Dec 9, 2010)

ohh Dave 

See, the 7string.org community is a lovely dimocracy


----------



## McKay (Dec 10, 2010)

They should cut off the worst 10% of benefit dependants - the ones that could work but know how to play the system.

If 1.4 million people have never worked, then surely that means we have something either fundamentally wrong with the physical and mental health of the country or we are being fleeced by scroungers.

Without wanting to resort to the anecdotal, friends and relatives in the mental health profession profess is to be the latter.

I support a general rise in student fees (as someone hoping to study next year!) IF it represents a necessary step towards fixing our problems. I support free tuition but you can't do that if the country is broke. The real problem, as I said previously is 1) The public sector being larger than the private sector and 2) The HUGE cost of welfare. 

Welfare good, system BAD.


----------



## ralphy1976 (Dec 10, 2010)

Prince Charles car was "attacked"..do not stop here guys, i think you have seen the light, we saw it in 1789!!!


----------



## Daggorath (Dec 10, 2010)

McKay said:


> They should cut off the worst 10% of benefit dependants - the ones that could work but know how to play the system.
> 
> If 1.4 million people have never worked, then surely that means we have something either fundamentally wrong with the physical and mental health of the country or we are being fleeced by scroungers.
> 
> ...



The cost of reforming welfare, extra screening for every person on it will cost a lot of money. Education is at the route of it all. There is more to education than training people for jobs, which the government fail to realise. Cutting humanities may save money, but would have an adverse affect on the culture, discourse etc. of the nation. I'd much rather live in a country where people are informed, and will make the right decisions on their own. Educated people tend to have a little more ambition to do more than claim welfare every other week. An informed society is great for many things, including the economy, politics, reduction of crime, increase in invention or development of new products.


----------



## Scar Symmetry (Dec 12, 2010)

I think it may have been deleted now but earlier today there was a facebook group called:

"The day Nick Clegg dies because his would-be doctor couldn't afford to go to uni."

WHAT. THE. FUCK. I am so angry that people bandwagon and hate on people they have no background knowledge on over something they don't understand. 

They're complaining that he's not looking after the general public?

If this is what they think is an appropriate way to act, fuck the general public.


----------



## Dan (Dec 13, 2010)

^ agreed, that facebook group is more of a waste of space than normal. 

You still have to take into account though most of these people who are protesting and doing these things fall in the 16-19 category, and tbh who DIDN'T act like that at their age?


----------

