Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by RayApparently)
    I do but why risk being wrong again.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Because instead we can say you've totally lost control and have no idea.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    Because instead we can say you've totally lost control and have no idea.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    On what basis would you say that?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I don't care when the cabinet is being released but please tell us your not doing something ridiculously beaurocratic like voting for every position.
    • Wiki Support Team
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I don't care when the cabinet is being released but please tell us your not doing something ridiculously beaurocratic like voting for every position.
    No, we are not

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Why on earth did the tories raise the tuition fees?! Can't Labour change it?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by geniequeen48)
    Why on earth did the tories raise the tuition fees?! Can't Labour change it?
    We'll certainly look into it, don't worry
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by geniequeen48)
    Why on earth did the tories raise the tuition fees?! Can't Labour change it?
    Because the state has better things to spend taxpayers money on than sending middle class people to university. There is now reason to reverse what is simply a progressive tax, taking from the rich and giving to those who struggle financially.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    Because the state has better things to spend taxpayers money on than sending middle class people to university. There is now reason to reverse what is simply a progressive tax, taking from the rich and giving to those who struggle financially.
    However, tuition fees penalise the poor who want to pursue an academic route, £30k debt is not something that can be ignored. They also penalise people who want to study things that interest them personally but aren't necessarily ideal for career paths. There's also the point that not that many people, especially from poorer backgrounds, will be able to pay their student loans back.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    However, tuition fees penalise the poor who want to pursue an academic route, £30k debt is not something that can be ignored. They also penalise people who want to study things that interest them personally but aren't necessarily ideal for career paths. There's also the point that not that many people, especially from poorer backgrounds, will be able to pay their student loans back.
    They however don't. There is no evidence that poor people are being put off uni by them as the number of people from these backgrounds are growing. I'd add if they're not ideal career paths then very little money will be earned, so very little if any money will be paid back. Yes they will, it doesn't matter on the background it is an additional tax they only pay it back if they earn enough but it won't neccesarily be those from poorer backgrounds who don't earn enough.

    The reality is only those who comfortably can will ever pay this back. I have no concern for a student from a poor background with this as he either becomes rich and pays it back or stays poor and doesn't.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    On what basis would you say that?
    The fact that it has been two weeks, no signs of progress, and Ray goes from "it will be here soon" to "no comment"

    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    However, tuition fees penalise the poor who want to pursue an academic route, £30k debt is not something that can be ignored. They also penalise people who want to study things that interest them personally but aren't necessarily ideal for career paths. There's also the point that not that many people, especially from poorer backgrounds, will be able to pay their student loans back.
    Which is the usual "I refuse to look at any statistics because they make me wrong"
    £30k debt is just that, debt, and not even a particularly important one given it has minimal bearing on your life. Compare the UK now with £9k to it with £3k, and you are clearly wrong, and then to Scotland with no fees and you're very wrong. I would ask you to tell us about social mobility and poorer people going to University in Scotland, but I expect I would get no real response.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by United1892)
    They however don't. There is no evidence that poor people are being put off uni by them as the number of people from these backgrounds are growing.
    Statistically yes, on the other hand it's not very hard to find someone who decided against going to uni because of the prospect of being in £30k debt. As well as this, a lot more people are studying things like accounting and stuff because the daunting nature of the debts put them off studying the arts. I am very much of the belief that the bin man is equal to the accountant and the accountant is equal to the writer so it doesn't bode well for the future if we'll have an excess of accountants and a lack of writers, artists, and musicians.

    I'd add if they're not ideal career paths then very little money will be earned, so very little if any money will be paid back. Yes they will, it doesn't matter on the background it is an additional tax they only pay it back if they earn enough but it won't neccesarily be those from poorer backgrounds who don't earn enough.
    That's not the point, education is not a commodity to be bought and sold, it's a right. If I wanted to learn about the works of Monet even though the career prospects are grim, there shouldn't be that niggling debt holding me back from my passions.

    The reality is only those who comfortably can will ever pay this back. I have no concern for a student from a poor background with this as he either becomes rich and pays it back or stays poor and doesn't.[/QUOTE]

    And what of the money that isn't paid back? It won't be long before we have a system in which paying it back becomes a must and the amount having to be paid back increases.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    The fact that it has been two weeks, no signs of progress, and Ray goes from "it will be here soon" to "no comment"
    Ray has offered you a response regarding that.


    Which is the usual "I refuse to look at any statistics because they make me wrong"
    £30k debt is just that, debt, and not even a particularly important one given it has minimal bearing on your life. Compare the UK now with £9k to it with £3k, and you are clearly wrong, and then to Scotland with no fees and you're very wrong. I would ask you to tell us about social mobility and poorer people going to University in Scotland, but I expect I would get no real response.
    I know what the statistics say. However, it's an absurdity to suggest that £30k of debt isn't enough to make someone think twice about going to uni. And I have said my thoughts on this, it means that less people will be studying the things that genuinely interest them and they instead will be studying things that they feel will make them money. Which, ideologically I know, is why I am against them. I'd rather a dozen playwrights and and dozen accountants than 2 dozen accountants.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Ray has offered you a response regarding that.


    I know what the statistics say. However, it's an absurdity to suggest that £30k of debt isn't enough to make someone think twice about going to uni. And I have said my thoughts on this, it means that less people will be studying the things that genuinely interest them and they instead will be studying things that they feel will make them money. Which, ideologically I know, is why I am against them. I'd rather a dozen playwrights and and dozen accountants than 2 dozen accountants.
    If the debt makes you think twice about going to university you probably shouldn't be going to university anyway.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Jammy Duel)
    If the debt makes you think twice about going to university you probably shouldn't be going to university anyway.
    If that's your view then fine. I will ask you this though, what happens when 50% of the people who have student loans have been unable to pay them back? We're already seeing fees rise once again, how long before they're at US levels? How long before uni is genuinely limited to the rich?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    Statistically yes, on the other hand it's not very hard to find someone who decided against going to uni because of the prospect of being in £30k debt. As well as this, a lot more people are studying things like accounting and stuff because the daunting nature of the debts put them off studying the arts. I am very much of the belief that the bin man is equal to the accountant and the accountant is equal to the writer so it doesn't bode well for the future if we'll have an excess of accountants and a lack of writers, artists, and musicians.
    Source for this claim. I'd also point out that is highly stupid as the people who have to pay it back will be the higher earners.

    That's not the point, education is not a commodity to be bought and sold, it's a right. If I wanted to learn about the works of Monet even though the career prospects are grim, there shouldn't be that niggling debt holding me back from my passions.
    Up to a certain point I agree but you don't need to go to university. Going to university is not a right but a privilidge for those inteligent (academically) to earn it. I see no reason why a steel worker should pay for someone to go to uni.

    And what of the money that isn't paid back? It won't be long before we have a system in which paying it back becomes a must and the amount having to be paid back increases.
    it costs sizeably less than using free tuition for all. The second point is not a valid argument but a conclusion you have come to and use to try and avoid the fact that only the RICH will have to pay it back. Dealing with unlikely hypotheticals is not an argument.
    • Political Ambassador
    Online

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by James Milibanter)
    If that's your view then fine. I will ask you this though, what happens when 50% of the people who have student loans have been unable to pay them back? We're already seeing fees rise once again, how long before they're at US levels? How long before uni is genuinely limited to the rich?
    Before it is genuinely limited to the rich? You mean when fees are cut to nil or SFE ceases to exist?
    But even then, let's look at the US, pretty sure there are poor people going to uni there.

    And another lecture that people need, paying back the loan is not the figure that is relevant, what is relevant is the average ratio between the amount borrowed and the amount paid back.
    And are we seeing fees rise again, or are the slightly above inflation modifiers being put back in place again?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Are you satisfied with Ken Livingstone's apology?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Are you satisfied with Ken Livingstone's apology?
    Personally I don't think he should have apologised

    (I as well as Kevan have had psychiatric help before have have been much less offended after being called much worse)
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Are you satisfied with Ken Livingstone's apology?
    No. He made the excuse that he didn't know the man in question he was referring to had mental health difficulties, completely failing to recognise that it was grossly offensive either way and simply inappropriate. That being said, I don't think it was appropriate for Kevan Jones to openly question the competance of a colleague either, and it saddens me that both are insistent on acting like such muppets when we should be pushing a more civilised and united politics.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by barnetlad)
    Are you satisfied with Ken Livingstone's apology?
    Yes.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: February 17, 2018
Poll
Who is your favourite TV detective?

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

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