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

David Cameron - "Before protesting, students need to get the facts straight." Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Brevity)
    Of course; but the original point is that it isn't necessary to cut the deficit—which is an economically defensible position. Ireland is an example were budgetary prudence didn't save them from economic woe.
    The prudence came too late to save them, they are more like Iceland with their banking problems I think.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SamiFFXIII)
    Meh no one cares what your mum thinks, she's old! If you think more people are dropping out enough, then what about all the prospective universities students that won't go because of the hike in fees, or the school leavers that won't go to further education who are from poor backgrounds. Remember back in 1921 when your mum was in university there was not that high rent, most of the stuff was proportionate, not anymore.
    Are you completely barmy, my mum is only 49. Maybe you don't care that living standards are much better now than they were in the 70's. My mum didn't go to uni she got a job and did a part time degree much later. If less people go to university today, and the same number go that did in the 70's they wouldn't have to charge fees it would still be free.

    Why is your opinion the only one that matters.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mimimimi)
    I'm actually really glad to be out of the country whilst all this is happening. I can't imagine how irritating it must be to clamber through the throngs of students behaving like total yobs to reach a lecture. I really don't understand what they think it's going to achieve, especially when they bring in violence and disrespect for police. Gr.
    Whilst I don't condone the violence one bit, do you really think we would be hearing about funding as much as we are now?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TedleyBear)
    IE - in example, ie my opinion, which then i stated lazy

    again

    learn to read

    Did I use bed ridden by itself? no, again it was a figure of speech if u read it along with its accompanying words

    learn to be a smart arse better, intelligent people dont quote and try to correct people, thats just sour people who wish they were intelligent

    :slap:
    I.E. and E.G. are not synonymous. I.E. is an abbreviation of 'Id est' which means 'That is to say'. It does not mean 'In example'. You prick.

    I don't know how you can speak with such insolence when you're clearly as intelligent as a potato. I'm not sour, I just have an aversion towards idiocy.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kninja)
    If what DC says is true - and a few think tanks have said he's misunderstood the state of the economy and that the cuts are therefore too severe - how come he has £7bn to bail out Irish banks with? Most Politicians today are liars. Is he a liar? Well...
    Because we do more trade with Ireland than with China Russia and India combined. If their economy tanks we will lose far more than 7 billion
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    This issue will be voted on next Thursday. If this is such a great policy, why didn't the tories include it in their manifesto?
    Politicians = liars.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    I hate that they are proclaiming their proposal that more successful people should pay more for their degree as 'fair'. IT IS NOT FAIR.

    A degree is just like any other economic good - we should pay a fixed price for it. When someone goes to the shop to buy a computer they dont pay a different price on the same product depending on whether they intend to use it to browse facebook, or whether they plan to program complex algorithms.

    Students should pay a set price for a degree in the same subject, at the same university - what they make of it, and what career they pursue is up to them, not dependent on the degree. I dont think I should pay more than the slacker who couldnt be bothered to do the coursework, because I end up getting a better qualification than him, and end up with a better job. The current scheme punishes success!
    Absolutely agree, it seems to me that Cameron is using this as a way to get more money than is fair.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Some are there 'just for the ride'...

    ...most do know what's going on though and even if they don't, they do have an interest in what is happening...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Blondshavemorefun)
    Are you completely barmy, my mum is only 49. Maybe you don't care that living standards are much better now than they were in the 70's. My mum didn't go to uni she got a job and did a part time degree much later. If less people go to university today, and the same number go that did in the 70's they wouldn't have to charge fees it would still be free.

    Why is your opinion the only one that matters.
    Because you're mum is old! Lol, calm down i was only joking. I to be frank don't care about this, its inevitable, like the government are gonna back down.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    Because we do more trade with Ireland than with China Russia and India combined. If their economy tanks we will lose far more than 7 billion
    yep. All of c. 5% of ALL foreign trade.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Horse****.

    For one, every single graduate medical student from 2012 (as it stands) will have to pay £9,000 up front for the first year of their course, and potentially up to £36,000 if they are studying on the 5 year course! :O

    Due to the amount of money needed for training, the quality of research and teaching needed to meet the General Medical Council's requirements for a med school license it's almost certain that all schools will hit the 9k limit.

    Some ask for the payments in instalments, which is a con seeing as you have to have proof of the ability to fund the totality of the first year before they let you start. (Side note, I hear Oxbridge make everyone do that, is it true? Does a loan letter count?)

    My personal fears are they years 2-4 will only be part funded by the NHS too, due to the cuts in funding to it (Don't believe the Tory lies, it only looks like they're getting more funds because they've lumped health and social care together for the first time, so in reality it's being hit hard) so if they don't relax the rules about tuition loans I'll potentially have to find another £15,000+ (estimated, could be as much as 20)

    A lot of people have shown their true colours over this. I'm really getting tired of of people who base their own opinions on things that only directly affect themselves. Make no mistake, this is going to be as divisive for social mobility as anything Brown did. Not only that, but they're opening up the market capitlisation of knowledge and I really don't see anyone except for Labour (yeah right) rolling back on it.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    That article is enlightening. Well said mr Cameron
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheCount.)
    I.E. and E.G. are not synonymous. I.E. is an abbreviation of 'Id est' which means 'That is to say'. It does not mean 'In example'. You prick.

    I don't know how you can speak with such insolence when you're clearly as intelligent as a potato. I'm not sour, I just have an aversion towards idiocy.
    Erm did you write my sentences? no

    it is clear i dont care thus why I WRITE not speak ( you tit ) with such insolence

    if im a potato then you must be a rock dude, cos you aint came with **** against my argument after I replied. An* Intelligent person who isnt stupid wouldnt of cared about grammar, they would of put another reply and ignored it because overall THEY KNOW THEY ARE BETTER, but it is clear you are not

    it is clear I am not using spellchecker or caring about my grammar, as stated in other posts. Which im positive youve read so you could have a chance to correct me for, after all, that* is what people like you do

    and it is also clear about what im meaning, your just a smartarse who doesnt agree yet has **** all to say except " oohhhhh, get your sentences right " I think the arrogant and insolant one is you ma dude if thats all you have to come with

    Peace n :slap:

    (Original post by Matthew_Lowson)
    Note we're going to be entering the generation of 18 years being the Education Leaving age - so incentives or not there will be a requirement on students to go.
    Yer but then look at America m8, we are becoming just as commercial as they are and tooo many students drop out before they reach theyre 18th year or year 13 or whatever

    From when I was in school until 16, hardlys anyone dropped out, actually no one. People will want to leave if they have to stay until 18, especially for the fact theyre older brothers, sisters and peers didnt have to.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    This is a prime example of what alot of these people protesting are like. Despite the fact that you only start paying back when you can afford it at 21k per year people just see 3x the fee = RIOT and then they see nothing else but that.

    But in my opinion Cameron is right about most things he has said. There are alot of misconceptions flying around and these sort of fee increases and cuts are unavoidable.

    As for EMA I agree it should be removed as the system is so flawed it's unbelievable. But another system has to replace it as poorer students cannot be left out completely but it has to be means tested to a very high degree as the majority of people in my school who get EMA should not as they only spend it on booze anyway.
    When people have to start paying their loans back, it will be uprated by inflation, so if someone owes 45K in 2014 and there has been 3% inflation a year he/she will owe at least about 50K. On top of that there will be an amount of interest over and above inflation of up to 3% a year.

    What makes this unfair is that not that long ago, many of the MP's in the House of Commons benefited from a higher education system that not only charged no fees at all, but also gave students grants of about £5000 a year plus extras like travelling expenses.
    Also don't forget that we are currently in a period of very low inflation compared with previous times.
    How will you feel if inflation increases to 10 or 15% after you have started paying back your load and there is severe wage restraint, as has happened in the past? There is a long loan payback time, and many people will be saddled with crippling loan repayments that will make it difficult or impossible to do things like buying a house or even getting a loan for a car.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Onyx.)
    I think you're reading into this a little too much. It seems you're disagreeing with an opinion I never gave.
    If you actually read the last part of my post, I didn't say that was necessarily your opinion, just an opinion that a lot of people seem to have.

    Just to make it clear, my point was that you said "You have to wonder whether they have actually done their research or if they're just jumping on the 'Tory scum, we want our EMA' bandwagon." Personally, I wouldn't immediately jump to wondering that. That was all I was trying to say- it seems as though you misunderstood me a little bit.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wacky9873)
    Absolutely agree, it seems to me that Cameron is using this as a way to get more money than is fair.
    How is Cameron "getting money" from it? Currently the government sponsors you more than they will. They're not taking your money away, it will go to the universities. You will pay them directly (although the government will still lend you all the money to do it).

    Yeh, there does seem to be a lot of misinformation about.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    The actual tuition fee is irrelvant. It could be £6000 or £60,000, it makes no difference. All it is is an excuse for the government to increase taxes for graduates. The fee is only relevant if after you have paid sufficient taxes to cover the fees, the tax stops but it does not. So a high earner could pay several times the cost of his degree while a low earner may never pay a penny.

    Its dishonest.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bj_945)
    How is Cameron "getting money" from it? Currently the government sponsors you more than they will. They're not taking your money away, it will go to the universities. You will pay them directly (although the government will still lend you all the money to do it).

    Yeh, there does seem to be a lot of misinformation about.
    :facepalm: Um well when you pay back the government for the money you borrowed from them, you're going to have to pay back more than if you paid the uni upfront without taking a loan. You pay interest on the loan, that's how they're making money from it.

    You could have two people from the same uni and same course, one is a hard worker and contributes to society so earns more, but has to pay more than the other person for the same degree who might have been lazier and not worked as hard.

    The system essentially means that society is charging the people who are contributing more than those who are contributing less.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wacky9873)
    :facepalm: Um well when you pay back the government for the money you borrowed from them, you're going to have to pay back more than if you paid the uni upfront without taking a loan. You pay interest on the loan, that's how they're making money from it.

    You could have two people from the same uni and same course, one is a hard worker and contributes to society so earns more, but has to pay more than the other person for the same degree who might have been lazier and not worked as hard.

    The system essentially means that society is charging the people who are contributing more than those who are contributing less.
    I agree with your issue, but I see no way around it. A graduate tax would have the same problem; indeed, the problem is true now, just to a much lesser extent. Either you force people to pay money they don't have, reduce the payments so that they're practically worthless, or you get the situation where people who do better pay more. I think this option is the best one, personally.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    I hate that they are proclaiming their proposal that more successful people should pay more for their degree as 'fair'. IT IS NOT FAIR.

    A degree is just like any other economic good - we should pay a fixed price for it. When someone goes to the shop to buy a computer they dont pay a different price on the same product depending on whether they intend to use it to browse facebook, or whether they plan to program complex algorithms.

    Students should pay a set price for a degree in the same subject, at the same university - what they make of it, and what career they pursue is up to them, not dependent on the degree. I dont think I should pay more than the slacker who couldnt be bothered to do the coursework, because I end up getting a better qualification than him, and end up with a better job. The current scheme punishes success!
    I've not yet read all of the thread so don't yet know if this has been addressed but while I somewhat agree with the comparison, I don't quite agree with your conclusion.

    If you develop an algorithm for x amount of money for someone who then goes on to make 1000x money based on your work, while at the same time you create a different algorithm for the same x amount of money but it flops eventually causing the buyer to lose money then it is evident that there are different values attached to each creation. As the seller (buyer?) of these algorithms, it is arguably beneficial to postpone payments until you can judge exactly how successful (or not) they are as opposed to supply (buy?) something for a flat fee in the hope that it will work.

    Similarly, while taxpayers could loan a flat 3000 to every student at university [in the form of student finance] in the hope that in the grand scheme of things we'll end up profiting from their later contributions to society (via taxes/skills/loan repayments etc), it would be much more beneficial to taxpayers (ultimately it is taxpayers who are putting forward the funds to make this possible) to operate on what could be compared to a commission-style system of "look I'll loan you 6-9k now and later when you earn more than 21k per year repay to us 9% of your earnings above this until you payback what we've loaned to you plus interest or 30years have gone by". IMO this is more of a win-win situation than "here's 3k, pay me back exactly what i gave you while you earn 15k or more".

    This way, the very successful produce high ROI (moreso than the old system) while the less successful students produce the same limited ROI via limited repayments or via supply of skills.



    disclaimer: its 4am and I've limited proofreading skills at this time of night so be nice pls =P
 
 
 
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: December 18, 2010
  • 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.