[Atomic Tundra]

How much did you pay for you education at cambridge in relation to the charges reviewed in your report?

[Bagration]

Yes this is clearly a very important issue. We all need to know Lord Browne's personal finances to make assessment on his political objective.

[Lord Browne]

Things were very different back then, I was fortunate enough to grow up in an era where very few people received an education for free. Now there are lots more students who rightly want to benefit from a degree, and in order to pay for that, graduates who get private benefits from their higher education should contribute to the cost.

Over the last 10 years I have started to give something back to Cambridge University by sponsoring students from disadvantaged backgrounds through their undergraduate degrees.

[Rubgish]

(Original post by Lord Browne)
Things were very different back then, I was fortunate enough to grow up in an era where very few people received an education for free. Now there are lots more students who rightly want to benefit from a degree, and in order to pay for that, graduates who get private benefits from their higher education should contribute to the cost.

Over the last 10 years I have started to give something back to Cambridge University by sponsoring students from disadvantaged backgrounds through their undergraduate degrees.

Freudian slip much?

[RK]

(Original post by Rubgish)
Freudian slip much?

Or maybe it means a time when education was free and few people actually went to university?

[Drogue]

(Original post by Lord Browne)
Things were very different back then, I was fortunate enough to grow up in an era where very few people received an education for free. Now there are lots more students who rightly want to benefit from a degree, and in order to pay for that, graduates who get private benefits from their higher education should contribute to the cost.

Over the last 10 years I have started to give something back to Cambridge University by sponsoring students from disadvantaged backgrounds through their undergraduate degrees.

But these are the same graduates who's university education provides the greatest social benefits as well, through both higher taxes and having the skills that employers in our knowledge economy require.

[youngy89]

its all very well you donating money to the more disadvantaged folk. But its slightly different for you, since you have bundles of money in your back pocket to give

[Indievertigo]

(Original post by RK)
Or maybe it means a time when education was free and few people actually went to university?

Indeed, and now, thanks to Labour's ridiculous 50% target we are light years away from that sort of logical system.

[Rubgish]

(Original post by RK)
Or maybe it means a time when education was free and few people actually went to university?

Yes I am aware that that was what it was most likely to meant to be, but it is still an amusing typo.

[Doughnuts!!]

(Original post by RK)
Or maybe it means a time when education was free and few people actually went to university?

Nope, I don't think so. Would have been worded differently.

Now...I think that Lord Brone deserves some serious neg rep!

[Atomic Tundra]

(Original post by Lord Browne)
Over the last 10 years I have started to give something back to Cambridge University by sponsoring students from disadvantaged backgrounds through their undergraduate degrees.

By getting rid of the cap on fees? Lets be honest the upper limited should be around the mid £5 mark.

[Tinky Winky]

Alternatively, you could always look up the relevant history of HE funding for the period Lord Browne was at University, instead of jumping to conclusions about what he might or might not have meant!

For the record, both interpretations are to some extent true: a much smaller proportion of young people went into HE, and assistance was in the form of means-tested grants. Hence, those from low-income families received a fairly generous full grant and paid no tuition fees, whilst those from the highest income families received a tiny Minimum Grant, and also had to pay their own tuition fees until the system was altered in 1977.

[Oxbridge Animae]

Lord Brown is cute

[Cicerao]

(Original post by Rubgish)
Freudian slip much?

lmao

[Mann18]

(Original post by Lord Browne)
Things were very different back then, I was fortunate enough to grow up in an era where very few people received an education for free. Now there are lots more students who rightly want to benefit from a degree, and in order to pay for that, graduates who get private benefits from their higher education should contribute to the cost.

Over the last 10 years I have started to give something back to Cambridge University by sponsoring students from disadvantaged backgrounds through their undergraduate degrees.

Well that's good.

Again, well played.

[Teveth]

(Original post by Lord Browne)
Things were very different back then, I was fortunate enough to grow up in an era where very few people received an education for free. Now there are lots more students who rightly want to benefit from a degree, and in order to pay for that, graduates who get private benefits from their higher education should contribute to the cost.

Over the last 10 years I have started to give something back to Cambridge University by sponsoring students from disadvantaged backgrounds through their undergraduate degrees.

This is bloody outrageous!

[MagicNMedicine]

He's given a fair answer. I would expect that he has paid a hefty chunk of tax over the years. If you asked the question "how much has the state given you and how much have you given the state" I wouldn't be surprised if he has made a bigger net contribution than 99% of the public.

[ish90an]

(Original post by Teveth)


This is bloody outrageous!

More outrageous than deliberately misquoting Einstein? I doubt.

He has a sensible point, when less people went to university there were other routes into the workplace, resources from universities were not over-stretched and a degree in itself actually had value. Unlike now when going to university is just a social expectation, universities do not have enough money to cater to the higher numbers and with just a degree you are as likely to be flipping burgers in McDs as those who failed their A-levels.

[littleshambles]

(Original post by Rubgish)
Yes I am aware that that was what it was most likely to meant to be, but it is still an amusing typo.

i don't think it was a typo. he benefited from that state of affairs by being able to go to university for free (or for however much he paid for it). there is no typographical error, there is just someone who wants to be angry and offended by the most obvious and uncontroversial things out of a wrongheaded opposition to a relatively benign reform.

[Rubgish]

(Original post by littleshambles)
i don't think it was a typo. he benefited from that state of affairs by being able to go to university for free (or for however much he paid for it). there is no typographical error, there is just someone who wants to be angry and offended by the most obvious and uncontroversial things out of a wrongheaded opposition to a relatively benign reform.

It is clearly a typo, the statement makes no sense otherwise. How can he be fortunate to grow up in a period where very few people received an education for free?

Negating the statement makes it clearer. "I was unfortunate enough to grow up in an era where nearly everyone received an education for free" That is double negated, and thus the same as his statement. Can you see why it is a typo now?

What was meant to be said, was that he was fortunate enough to grow up in era where very few people had to pay for an education. Or possibly that very few people went to university, but it was free. Either way if the meaning is the same as what he actually said, then it suggests that idealistically he wouldn't want a free education system, which just seems idiotic.

Although of course, you could be correct with your assumptions about me, however it seems extremely likely you are just incapable of understanding what i've said.