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

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    You wasted your time, damaged property, injured people, disgusted the taxpayer - all for nothing. Zilch.

    The vote went through. Tuition fees have been raised.

    If anything, it's made the government's position stronger - as they now have the taxpayer on side, as most taxpayers have been disgusted by the violent acts.
    I'm glad the protesters did what they did, the Government will suffer in the long run, there will be less people going to University and less people getting into jobs and paying tax.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    ermmmmm no, how short sighted are you?

    Give it 20 years, see what happens then...

    Thatcher?!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by elifpaytak)
    I'm glad the protesters did what they did, the Government will suffer in the long run, there will be less people going to University and less people getting into jobs and paying tax.
    So you're glad thinking that unemployment will be high, and that the country will have less money to put into the education sector? A lot of people seem to be missing the point of the protests, it's not some tantrum against the government it is a means to an end.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    While I would agree with that, what you have said is also the problem.
    The coalition are not looking at things in the long term. They are looking at things in the very short term, with the aim of getting the out of its deficit by 2015, just in time for the next election. The way they are going about all the cuts and changes suggests that they do not care about the long term impacts, just as long as the deficit is gone in 2015 so they can use it as a election campaign point.
    Although it is true that some of the cuts will not be benificial long-term, most of them can, and probably will, be reversed once the economy has recovered at least partially. Looking at a certain deputy prime minister's actions, I highly doubt that they're thinking about the election that much yet! Perhaps the cuts are the short-term solution and the fees are long-term solution.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Atomik)
    Yes, I know this, but why did he/she refer to taxpayers instead of people in general? Is it because people who do not work/pay tax are less worthy of an opinion?
    I don't know - I'm not in their head.
    I would imagine that it is because taxpayers are the people who usually vote in elections etc so it's usually the taxpayers' opinions that count. Obviously there are exceptions to this - just speaking generally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMG89)
    actually you are wrong they have not made part time students the same as full time. You have to spend over 25% of your time in education or you do not get a loan. So 100,000 people have to pay their fees up front. Do you still not get it?
    Apologies, the "do you still not get it" referred to the statement of people not being able to afford university because of the fee rises which is BS. I wasn't actually too sure about the part time thing but I've picked up without looking into it in detail that they're extending loans to a large proportion of part-time students no?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by missygeorgia)
    We are the taxpayers.
    This.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Sorry but I disagree.
    What about people who go into research? Most do that because that is what their interests are. Whilst businesses do often benefit from research, there is also a lot of research going on that is very very interesting, but will probably yield no commercial benefit.

    Plus, in today's society, a lot of people are effectively forced to get a degree that they won't really use in the workplace, simply because employers are asking for a degree for jobs that simply don't need one.
    Studying and then doing research is using your knowledge, which is what i said, so i think we agree on that score. However, doing research for no reason is a waste of resources and should contribute to the improvment of society and life in general. Doing research that provides no benefit will not get funded either, which is also very important and closes the loop.

    Someone being forced in to doing a degree.....doing a degree is a choice and no one should feel pressured in to doing something thety dont want to. Name a job that doesnt require a level of higher education? I agree you dont necessarily need a degree to do many jobs, but what you learn in doing one isnt just about technical skills.

    If you think you need to do one to get a job, study something you are least interested in...or take a year out if you dont know what to do.

    Companies require people with degrees for a number of reasons and only one of them is for technical knowledge. The other reasons are to show that the person can learn at a high level, has the ability to use knowledge, has specific apptitudes, can organise themselves etc.

    Also, levels of education are actually improving believe it or not so the workplace is more competative in terms of access to skills, so you need more credentials to show your worth. Right or wrong, this is the reality. If you want to work in an organisation that requires higher education, then that is what you need.

    I dont use any of the theory i learnt in my degree in my work, but i use all the softer skills and the processes for doing work. It was an extremely valuable experience on so many levels.

    You cant have your cake and eat it....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JMG89)
    That is a very strange logic. That because something employs someone it is a business. Is the British Army a business because it employs soldiers?? Are the Police a business??

    Although i agree politics is the big problem.
    Is the logic so strange?

    My point isnt that it is a business because it emplys people. Far from it. Although the mission of the police or Army is not the same as a businesses that exist to make a profit, they share a common gola, which is to serve their customers in the most effective way they can. Meaning.....they need to be cost effective and financially viable.

    It is a hard truth but most governments take their lead from management consultants because the logic to running a country, NPO, etc is the same...in theory!

    Take the NHS - the government fund it in almost totality, so that British citizens (actually referred to as subjects!) get free health care. This is great and we should all be proud of it. But on the ground, how is this money spent, budgeted, divided etc? It is done by running hospitals, care homes, clinics etc as businesses, allocating scarce resources where they are required, managing costs, investing etc. It must be done this way otherwise you get waste....which as you can see from any example of the public sector....is rife!

    This is the same for all aspects of government. The people are the customers, taxpayers and all alike. It may sound contraversial but it is the reality! This is another reason why Privatisation has a very strong argument over publicly run. Publicly run A) has no competition in most instances, which affects price, and quality, and B) since they dont have to make a profit, they are very inefficient and breed a fat-cat culture....something to think about.

    BTW, i am very much enjoying this debate with you
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by profoflife)
    What good is knowledge if you dont use it? Surely there needs to be a point for the state to pay for a whim or a wish for knowledge...thats the most selfish thing ive heard and contradicts the argument for it being paid for. By all means study for the sake of it, but dont expect me to pay for it.
    Because we use knowledge to further and better society, not money. Many infamous writers are in no way rich, but things that they deduce, consider and present better our society infinitely more than any fiscal impetus.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Glenbot3000)
    Because we use knowledge to further and better society, not money. Many infamous writers are in no way rich, but things that they deduce, consider and present better our society infinitely more than any fiscal impetus.
    Hence, using their knowledge.......case and point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Margaret Thatcher)
    You wasted your time, damaged property, injured people, disgusted the taxpayer - all for nothing. Zilch.

    The vote went through. Tuition fees have been raised.

    If anything, it's made the government's position stronger - as they now have the taxpayer on side, as most taxpayers have been disgusted by the violent acts.
    Funny that 'Maggie' decrees a protest as having failed
    Short term memory?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by profoflife)
    Hence, using their knowledge.......case and point.
    But you were initially replying to a post about people going to uni to better themselves rather than their enjoyability.
    As was said, I doubt any writer has gone to uni to make themselves more attractive to any employers, they would have gone to better themselves - in effect education just for educations sake (which you said is selfish).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    But you were initially replying to a post about people going to uni to better themselves rather than their enjoyability.
    As was said, I doubt any writer has gone to uni to make themselves more attractive to any employers, they would have gone to better themselves - in effect education just for educations sake (which you said is selfish).
    Your not quite getting my point.

    example: going to uni and studying rocket science...then moving to peru to grow coke...i.e.not using it = selfish if we (taxpayers) have to pay for it. Not selfish if they pay for it.

    Going to uni to study english lit, and the becoming a writer or teacher is using their knowledge.

    Hope its clearer now.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Singh993)
    calling me brainless? a tad ironic/foolish...and i dont need to prove ive got a brain.

    there a numerous number of ways in which i can prove im not "brainless sheep"...but i dont need to do this - plenty available on TSR if you look hard enough


    she was the brainless cow - similar to you i'd expect, if you appreciate her reign of stupidity
    She won 3 elections in a row and got into Oxford,
    have you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I hope the idiot that was swinging off the war memorial gets kicked out of Cambridge for his actions. Disgusting vile tramp of a person. A History student as well? I hope they make an example of him, and make him apologise to war veterans' faces. See if he has the balls to do it then. I doubt that.
    • Offline

      2
      http://www.nme.com/news/pink-floyd/54240

      read this
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Norfolkadam)
      The 9k will be paid on an interest-free loan that you don't have to pay back until you're earning £21k. Even then it's only about £10 a month. That's as cheap as the cheapest phone contracts out there. If you have to weigh up if you'd rather have 300 minutes and 200 texts or a degree then you probably shouldn't be doing a degree anyway.

      Its not £10 a month, that would be £120 a year and then times 30 years would be £3600, what a ridiculous figure you just pulled out. It would be more along the lines of £80-200 depending on how much you earn.
      Offline

      0
      ReputationRep:
      (Original post by Norfolkadam)
      You're quite right, I knew that too. It is a very favourable rate though.





      I dislike using anecdotal evidence but I'm from a poor background as are my friends and my family and, I know, for a fact, that this will not put anyone off going to University who's got their heart set on it.



      Why would poorer kids end up struggling more?
      Its really just taking into account inflation.
      • Offline

        15
        (Original post by jaggedspike)
        Its not £10 a month, that would be £120 a year and then times 30 years would be £3600, what a ridiculous figure you just pulled out. It would be more along the lines of £80-200 depending on how much you earn.
        It's all dependent on your pay. The person earning the lowest amount within the threshold pays back somewhere around the £10-20 per month figure. The old way of working it out is here, the new way, I can't be bothered to find but it's similar.

        Do your research before you start ****ging people off.
       
       
       
    • 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
      Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
      Useful resources

      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.