Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Should teachers be banned from striking? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Should teachers be banned from striking?
    Yes
    65
    28.02%
    No
    167
    71.98%

    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dan.dont)
    Oh so half your family represent every teacher? WOW must have a big family there
    You might want to check up on strike procedure, given that this round of strikes, like most, is to do with pay, pensions, etc. and not to do with the actual education, the decision to strike should be based upon the pay, pensions, etc. I.e., they're striking because they're expected to do their job well now and feel their minimal pay rise, despite above average salary, is somehow unreasonable.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Of course, the best bit is, that most people don't seem to know how to actually strike to have a hope of getting what they want. What's more likely to work, 5 one day strikes spread out across the year causing minimal inconvenience, or a single week long strike that would cause substantial inconvenience?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    You might want to check up on strike procedure, given that this round of strikes, like most, is to do with pay, pensions, etc. and not to do with the actual education, the decision to strike should be based upon the pay, pensions, etc. I.e., they're striking because they're expected to do their job well now and feel their minimal pay rise, despite above average salary, is somehow unreasonable.
    What are you talking about? WHEN DID I SAY THEY HAD ANYTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION. I said if they are not "satisfied" and that comes under pay and pensions.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Do you and others on this thread realise the whole point of state monopolies like the NHS and state schools is to keep cost for society down, and that is done by suppressing wages by being the only major employer in the sector...?
    Do you realise that the point of state monopolies is to increase the welfare of people within the society? They're not seeking profit, only welfare. Making sure public sector workers have a comfortable standard of living is an acceptable cost to society. Raising teachers' wages will not bankrupt us or suddenly reduce the quality of service - in fact, it will probably improve it by attracting more highly skilled teachers. Such a rise in costs would be very welcome.

    If you're so worried about government expenditure, how about you support the elimination of massive government subsidies that throw literally billions of our hard earned British pounds into the hands of bankers, speculators, traders , pharmaceutical companies and the military, the last of which fund UK terrorist campaigns abroad? How about we stop being forced to pay for GCHQ to spy on us? There are loads of disagreeable government-sponsored projects whose abolition would save lives abroad and ensure a more equitable, happy society at home.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All-rounder)
    everyone is lashing out against the teachers for striking, saying they're greedy or should only do it in a profession where it wont affect people.
    Well, the reason they do it is because it affects people, that's how they get their demands heard. If it made no difference whether or not they were striking, then they'd get nowhere.
    As you should all know, ALL teachers are required to be part of a union, NUT is an example of just one. When their union decides they are going to strike, BY LAW, the teachers in that union have to as well whether they want to or not.
    Ummm, no they don't. By law, if it affects them, they must be included in the ballot to decide whether to strike or not, but there is no obligation for them to actually go on strike. If they were obliged to I would be surprised if ANY school was left open today since the majority of staff would have been sat at home.

    It's not a matter of greed or ignorance, most teachers have to take marking home so that they can finish it for the next day, not to mention planning lessons for upcoming exams which are constantly getting harder
    What's getting harder? The exams, or the planning? Neither are. Not to mention, that for the most part the same plans can be used from one year to the next with minor alterations, unless the syllabus is reworked.

    and then carry out those lessons whilst the pupils complain there's too much. They end up having to do more work than most professions and strikes allow them to get fairer pay/pensions for the work they do.
    Define "fairer" please.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Do you realise that the point of state monopolies is to increase the welfare of people within the society? They're not seeking profit, only welfare. Making sure public sector workers have a comfortable standard of living is an acceptable cost to society. Raising teachers' wages will not bankrupt us or suddenly reduce the quality of service - in fact, it will probably improve it by attracting more highly skilled teachers. Such a rise in costs would be very welcome.

    If you're so worried about government expenditure, how about you support the elimination of massive government subsidies that throw literally billions of our hard earned British pounds into the hands of bankers, speculators, traders , pharmaceutical companies and the military, the last of which fund UK terrorist campaigns abroad? How about we stop being forced to pay for GCHQ to spy on us? There are loads of disagreeable government-sponsored projects whose abolition would save lives abroad and ensure a more equitable, happy society at home.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    When you say 'comfortable standard' you mean ' further above the UK average wage'. Which is laudable, and all, but the transfer of wealth from the majority, who earn less than teachers seems somewhat at odds with increasing the welfare of people in society,

    I'm not that fussed about cutting Government expenditure. Just not rising it more quickly than tax revenue growth.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I choose to not strike but I support those that do. Teachers have to have a voice, and striking is one way to be heard.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    The point is to cause disruption. You realise that right?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by All-rounder)
    everyone is lashing out against the teachers for striking, saying they're greedy or should only do it in a profession where it wont affect people.
    Well, the reason they do it is because it affects people, that's how they get their demands heard. If it made no difference whether or not they were striking, then they'd get nowhere.
    As you should all know, ALL teachers are required to be part of a union, NUT is an example of just one. When their union decides they are going to strike, BY LAW, the teachers in that union have to as well whether they want to or not. It's not a matter of greed or ignorance, most teachers have to take marking home so that they can finish it for the next day, not to mention planning lessons for upcoming exams which are constantly getting harder and then carry out those lessons whilst the pupils complain there's too much. They end up having to do more work than most professions and strikes allow them to get fairer pay/pensions for the work they do.
    Sorry, say wut?

    Gotta source?

    Inform Target Jobs, they seem to think its optional...
    http://targetjobs.co.uk/career-secto...-as-a-graduate
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    Do you realise that the point of state monopolies is to increase the welfare of people within the society? They're not seeking profit, only welfare. Making sure public sector workers have a comfortable standard of living is an acceptable cost to society. Raising teachers' wages will not bankrupt us or suddenly reduce the quality of service - in fact, it will probably improve it by attracting more highly skilled teachers. Such a rise in costs would be very welcome.
    When you work through all the figures, a small pay increase actually translates into a lot of money, and the plan is generally to reduce a deficit when you have one, not to increase it. I doubt it would improve the quality either, it would be impossible to substantially enough increase the wages to make it attractive to enough of the more able without having to make HUGE compromises elsewhere, the profession would still be dominated by the less competent.

    If you're so worried about government expenditure, how about you support the elimination of massive government subsidies that throw literally billions of our hard earned British pounds into the hands of bankers,
    Are you meaning the bankers that are working at banks the Government now own, or all the other bankers, many paying hundreds of thousands in income tax every year?
    speculators, traders
    Who are you even referring to here?
    , pharmaceutical companies
    You mean those people who are making the life saving medical breakthroughs this country and the world "need", the companies who bring huge amounts of trade to the country through those breakthroughs, or would you prefer it if next time you're ill the doctors just rub some herbs on you?
    and the military, the last of which fund UK terrorist campaigns abroad?
    You mean the people who, should we by some course of events go to war, are there to protect us? And terrorism is subjective.
    How about we stop being forced to pay for GCHQ to spy on us?
    I'm sure that if we got rid of GCHQ we wouldn't suddenly become a massive target for terrorist organisations given our only defence against them comes from the intelligence agencies of other countries.*start: sarcasm* I'm sure if we got rid of GCHQ nobody would have bombed us in the last 9 years *end: sarcasm*
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    The right to strike is a fundamental part of our democracy, so when it happens stop making such a huge fuss over it.
    Besides if that was your money on the line that was agreed, you would be on their side as well.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    When you say 'comfortable standard' you mean ' further above the UK average wage'. Which is laudable, and all, but the transfer of wealth from the majority, who earn less than teachers seems somewhat at odds with increasing the welfare of people in society,

    I'm not that fussed about cutting Government expenditure. Just not rising it more quickly than tax revenue growth.
    I wouldn't say so. People pay a fixed percentage of their income and get to educate their children, get good quality healthcare, pensions in the future, and have a safety net if they lose their job. For every pound the average UK worker makes, the amount that goes directly to teachers' pay is miniscule, as there are a lot more non-teachers than teachers too. It's also worth noting that more can be spent on public services by simply redistributing spending in the ways I mentioned earlier; higher taxation isn't necessary.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    I apologise if I repeat something someone else has said, I only read the first two pages of the thread.

    Teachers have been striking loads this year, have they not? Or that's what it's seemed like to me. I remember they had a strike during the build up to exams, which was actually detrimental to my education, as it meant essays weren't marked and I didn't get as much teaching time to fill the gaps in my knowledge as I should have had, so I was less confident in the exam.

    I think teachers do deserve more money- they work long hours and are an integral part of society. However, I'm not sure striking is the right way to go about it, as nowadays it just annoys people and loses them sympathy.

    The problem is, there doesn't seem to be much passion in a lot of teachers nowadays, which I believe is essential if they want to do the job well. Don't get me wrong, I've had some wonderful teachers over the years, but I've also had some god awful ones, and it generally seems to be the bad teachers on strike in my experience. I've always found that the teachers who really care about their students are the ones that don't go on strike- for example, despite being head of the union at our school or in the area or however it works, our history teacher didn't go on one of the earlier strikes because she had a lesson with us and our AS Level exam was coming up.

    As someone mentioned before, I really do think we need to look at Finland as an example to try and get the pride back into the profession. Teachers have masters degrees and small classes and it's one of the most respected professions, as it should be.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    I wouldn't say so. People pay a fixed percentage of their income and get to educate their children, get good quality healthcare, pensions in the future, and have a safety net if they lose their job. For every pound the average UK worker makes, the amount that goes directly to teachers' pay is miniscule, as there are a lot more non-teachers than teachers too. It's also worth noting that more can be spent on public services by simply redistributing spending in the ways I mentioned earlier; higher taxation isn't necessary.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Changing the distribution spending would still redistribute wealth from the relatively (to the teachers) poor to the relatively rich. You don't need higher taxes to do that.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    Changing the distribution spending would still redistribute wealth from the relatively (to the teachers) poor to the relatively rich. You don't need higher taxes to do that.
    The fact of life is that wealth is disproportionately spread out, but half the job of the government in such a socialist country is to forcibly take money from the wealthy to provide services which are, in turn, used disproportionately by the poor.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by rmlgud)
    I apologise if I repeat something someone else has said, I only read the first two pages of the thread.

    Teachers have been striking loads this year, have they not? Or that's what it's seemed like to me. I remember they had a strike during the build up to exams, which was actually detrimental to my education, as it meant essays weren't marked and I didn't get as much teaching time to fill the gaps in my knowledge as I should have had, so I was less confident in the exam.

    I think teachers do deserve more money- they work long hours and are an integral part of society. However, I'm not sure striking is the right way to go about it, as nowadays it just annoys people and loses them sympathy.

    The problem is, there doesn't seem to be much passion in a lot of teachers nowadays, which I believe is essential if they want to do the job well. Don't get me wrong, I've had some wonderful teachers over the years, but I've also had some god awful ones, and it generally seems to be the bad teachers on strike in my experience. I've always found that the teachers who really care about their students are the ones that don't go on strike- for example, despite being head of the union at our school or in the area or however it works, our history teacher didn't go on one of the earlier strikes because she had a lesson with us and our AS Level exam was coming up.

    As someone mentioned before, I really do think we need to look at Finland as an example to try and get the pride back into the profession. Teachers have masters degrees and small classes and it's one of the most respected professions, as it should be.
    I wonder, is that down to there being a trend between competence and intelligence, i.e., could it be that, generally, the better teachers are the smarter ones with more common sense (in my experience, yes). Consequently, the better teachers know that striking will serve no real purpose wasting their time (and more importantly to them, money) and the students time also. I think the irony is that part of the complaint is that they're "only" getting a 1% pay rise, yet all they have to do is go on strike for 4 days over it to negate it, and I wouldn't at all put it past the unions. Obviously, they wouldn't be sensible enough to put it as 4 day solid, instead put it as 4 ineffective spread out days.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Of course they shouldn't. Striking is and always has been a vital part of industrial action and is the best way to get your voice heard by the state. There are a lot of problems with unions nowadays though. NASUWT are in negotiations with the government yet the NUT are out striking again. A lack of communication between the two unions allows the government to exploit the division as well as to manipulate the opinion of the public.

    With my mum and a few other members of my family being teachers I can entirely empathise with the unions on their desire to strike. They're bombarded with more work than they have ever been before. My mother has work to do throughout the holidays nearly all the time now and has put it in extraordinary amounts of work outside of the classroom, far more than I ever remember her doing when I was younger. Her colleague is working an extra three months a year outside the classroom, all of it completely unpaid of course.

    To suggest that teachers are not passionate about what they do is irritating. Teachers join the profession because they want to teach. It is almost a tradition in my family at this point. The issue stems from the fact that teaching is no longer about teaching. It is no longer about enriching the life of your pupils with knowledge. Far from it, as a matter of fact. On top of this the lack of a rise in wages for the past 7 (?) years is effectively akin to a pay-cut due to the effects of inflation. Coupled with the attacks on their pensions, I don't think it is merely their right to strike, I think it is a necessity.
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    When you work through all the figures, a small pay increase actually translates into a lot of money, and the plan is generally to reduce a deficit when you have one, not to increase it. I doubt it would improve the quality either, it would be impossible to substantially enough increase the wages to make it attractive to enough of the more able without having to make HUGE compromises elsewhere, the profession would still be dominated by the less competent.


    Are you meaning the bankers that are working at banks the Government now own, or all the other bankers, many paying hundreds of thousands in income tax every year?

    Who are you even referring to here?

    You mean those people who are making the life saving medical breakthroughs this country and the world "need", the companies who bring huge amounts of trade to the country through those breakthroughs, or would you prefer it if next time you're ill the doctors just rub some herbs on you?

    You mean the people who, should we by some course of events go to war, are there to protect us? And terrorism is subjective.

    I'm sure that if we got rid of GCHQ we wouldn't suddenly become a massive target for terrorist organisations given our only defence against them comes from the intelligence agencies of other countries.*start: sarcasm* I'm sure if we got rid of GCHQ nobody would have bombed us in the last 9 years *end: sarcasm*
    I don't know the figures, but I don't think that raising teachers' pay above inflation will affect the deficit very much in percentage terms, only absolute terms. And why should those who depend on public services suffer because of the deficit anyway? The deficit was largely contributed to by the irresponsibility of financial institutions. Austerity is nothing more than a war on the working and middle classes waged by our political and economic elite. If we want to patch up government budget books, the parasites at the top of the income ladder are the ones to come after, not teachers.

    You're saying that every banker pays hundreds of thousands of pounds in income tax? And even if that were true, I am sure that whatever they pay is a small fraction of their income. I do think the bailout of the banks was justified, but not the fact that the top bankers have walked away with millions in bonuses and we've been throwing more money at them ever since. The Bank of England periodically pumps tens of billions of pounds into the financial sector, and it serves little more than to fuel speculation and trading activities in markets, boosting the 'fake economy'. This is what we call QE.

    Pharmaceutical companies do not spend all of their money on medical research. They take state-funded medical research, commercialise it, and make exorbitant profits. State-funded research in universities generates the vast majority of medical breakthroughs, so giving massive financial support to drug companies is entirely unjustified. Also, have you ever heard of the 90-10 rule? It's a statistical finding that states that a miserable 10% of global medical research funding (headed commercially by big Western firms like GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and AstraZeneca) goes into diseases afflicting the bottom 90% of the population. Yet pharmaceuticals con the US and UK government into giving more subsidies by promising next time they'll cure cancer. So you might want to rethink your adamant position that heavy state support for unaccountable, private medical corporations are beneficial nationally and globally.

    Protect us? Protect us from who? Oh, you mean those jihadists which apparently spend all day plotting to destroy the Westerners who rampaged into their country and tore it apart, in the name of 'democracy'. No country is going to attack Britain (we're in the top 5 global military spenders), and our imperialism abroad is wholly unjustified. Read Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis; you'll be enlightened. Your laughter will come to an end. The UK is a terrorist state. I do not say our military should be eliminated, only reduced and its foreign activities severely curbed.

    Where did I say we should abolish GCHQ? I said we should abolish their surveillance of the UK population - or would you rather wait until we become a police state? GCHQ approached the NSA and asked them to keep data about UK citizens. Do you know the closest thing to a terrorist-attack plan the NSA found? Someone sent $8500 to Somalia. Yep, millions upon millions spied on, all to no avail. The intelligence agencies knew this and yet continued their surveillance program like the deranged people they are.



    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abstraction)
    I don't know the figures, but I don't think that raising teachers' pay above inflation will affect the deficit very much in percentage terms, only absolute terms.
    But it isn't just the teachers, when you look at the whole public sector that turns into a huge amount of money, as as the budget deficit shrinks that percentage becomes greater, and the fact of the matter is that teachers are already paid enough that a pay rise isn't NECESSARY when you have a budget deficit to deal with. When we're back on a budget surplus (unless labour come back to **** it all up again first), or when the pay is severely slumping in real terms because its been so long, then they can have their pay rise.

    And why should those who depend on public services suffer because of the deficit anyway?
    Because they aren't, or at least not due to factors relating to those services.

    The deficit largely contributed to by the irresponsibility of financial institutions.
    And every government this country has had for the last 3 decades.

    Austerity is nothing more than a war on the working and middle classes waged by our political and economic elite.
    Except, almost every single member of that political elite will be a member of the middle class, it's a war on the working class more than the middle class, and it's a necessary war.

    If we want to patch up government budget books, the parasites at the top of the income ladder are the ones to come after, not teachers.
    Wrong again, you don't look at one aspect or another, you look at all aspects. Look at them individually and as a whole and determine where the best place to attack is, part of this attack is at the top.

    You're saying that every banker pays hundreds of thousands of pounds in income tax?
    You might want to look up the difference between "many" and "every" as they are not synonymous, as you seem to think.

    And even if that were true, I am sure that whatever they pay is a small fraction of their income.
    For a large number of them it will be getting on for half their income. For the rest, they're either at the bottom of the pecking order and so on a lower income, or they're at the top of the pecking order and actually know the tax loopholes, the tax loopholes which it is the governments responsibility to patch up. They are trying to patch it up. Stop crying over it.

    I do think the bailout of the banks was justified, but not the fact that the top bankers have walked away with millions in bonuses and we've been throwing more money at them ever since. The Bank of England periodically pumps tens of billions of pounds into the financial sector, and it serves little more than to fuel speculation and trading activities in markets, boosting the 'fake economy'. This is what we call QE.
    Suppose the board of directors made a set of decisions, their decision resulted in a, say £10bn loss, had they made a different set of decisions the bank would have gone under. In these circumstances a profit is near impossible to achieve. They get a bonus, not for causing a loss, but for stopping the bank going under. People seem to work on the assumption that if a company, whether it be a corner shop or a bank, isn't turning a profit it is failing. This simply is not the case. At least you have the sense to see that the bailouts were necessary.

    Pharmaceutical companies do not spend all of their money on medical research. They take state-funded medical research, commercialise it, and make exorbitant profits. State-funded research in universities generates the vast majority of medical breakthroughs, so giving massive financial support to drug companies is entirely unjustified.
    Please, tell me more about how Universities are capable of mass producing the drugs they develop, and tell me more about how so much more work is being done in universities than the labs at the pharmaceutical companies. Source for data please.

    Also, have you ever heard of the 90-10 rule? It's a statistical finding that states that a miserable 10% of global medical research funding (headed commercially by big Western firms like GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis and AstraZeneca) go into diseases afflicting the bottom 90% of the population. Yet pharmaceuticals con the US and UK government into giving more subsidies by promising next time they'll cure cancer. So you might want to rethink your adamant position that heavy state support for unaccountable, private medical corporations are beneficial nationally and globally.
    Can I have a source for this 90-10 rule; also, considering that disease is indiscriminate and in the western world there aren't many diseases that near exclusively affect the poorest in society while still being on a large enough scale to be worth putting large amount of money into I'm rather skeptical from the off about this "rule". And just because one set of research doesn't generate a cure for cancer, but instead spawns leads for a cure to another disease, does not mean that it was spent on that other disease. How long have we been looking for a cure to cancer? How many TRILLIONS have been pored into it? How many minds have searched for the answer? Biochemists have even turned physicists and mathematicians for potential leads, it's not an easy case to crack. You also have to remember there is that thing called tax.

    Protect us? Protect us from who? Oh, you mean those jihadists which apparently spend all day plotting to destroy the Westerners who rampaged into their country and tore it apart, in the name of 'democracy'.
    Just because we aren't at war now doesn't mean that we won't be, you seem to assume that there is a huge amount of stability in international politics. Also, you say nobody will attack us on the basis of spending so we should reduce spending, there are two flaws with this argument, I shall start with the smaller of the two.

    Spending on its own says nothing, you have to consider efficiency and also large numbers vs better trained. Suppose (and I know you find it difficult) for a second that you have two armies, the first spends 1m and the second spends 2m. Now, by your logic the second would win hands down, it spends twice as much so it must be better. However, if the first has double the efficiency in that spending, say because they have access to the same equipment and training for half the price because they provided it to both armies, they are suddenly equal.

    Secondly, your suggestion that we would reduce spending would lead to dropping through the tables, and doing so fast. You won't be able to use the "top spender" argument anymore a d would potentially hit the point where, like small countries, you become dependent upon your allies to protect you. Decreased spending could lead to leaving NATO, at that point there is no guarantee that we would get significant aid if needed.

    In general on the matter, all I have to say is this:
    Si vis pacem, para bellum.

    No country is going to attack Britain (we're in the top 5 global military spenders), and our imperialism abroad is wholly unjustified. Read Web of Deceit by Mark Curtis; you'll be enlightened. Your laughter will come to an end. The UK is a terrorist state.
    Actually, we're sixth, seventh if you do it as a percentage of GDP. Given terrorism is wholly subjective, and is ultimately based upon who you empathise with, nobody can really say "this group is a terrorist group". Given that I don't really empathise with any state or group, everybody and nobody is a terrorist state. In my books, the closest you get to a terrorist state is Israel.

    Where did I say we should abolish GCHQ? I said we should abolish their surveillance of the UK population - or would you rather wait until we become a police state? GCHQ approached the NSA and asked them to keep data about UK citizens. Do you know the closest thing to a terrorist attack plan the NSA found? Someone sent $8500 to Somalia. Yep, millions upon millions spied on, all to no avail. The intelligence agencies knew this and yet continued their surveillance program like the deranged people they are.
    Please provide a source for this statement, if GCHQ and the NSA are incapable of finding the home grown terrorist cells then either they aren't allocating their resources correctly or they don't have enough. To find terrorist sleeper cells and home grown cells requires you to observe your own population, or do you think you have another way?
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSA)
    Of course it's an issue of greed. If you are being paid more than minimum wage it's more than enough money to buy the necessities and live.

    Where do you draw the line one day of strikes okay? Two? One week? One month? There is no need to cause unnecessary disruption due to greed.
    The minimum wage is not a living wage, a living wage is higher than it. Besides that, it's not just an issue of wages, that formed part of the strikes, but it's also cuts to funding to their services and the changes being made to the education system.

    I don't get the "disrupting education" line as well. It's the end of term tomorrow, admittedly I finished school 7 years ago, but back then the last week was a doddle, it consisted of watching films - and from what my little sister has told me, that's not changed much (except the films are now at least connected to the subject in someway) - what benefit education wise would they have got from going in today?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.