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

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

Announcements
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Well currently the government pays a much larger amount into university funding by subsidizing the cost of education by more than 50%, thus leaving the government with a growing hole, and forcing universities to spend less per student each year as demand for places keeps increasing. Now you could argue that graduates pay it back in the form of tax etc, but graduate unemployment is only rising and there are many whose degree isn't worth the paper its written on who are struggling for jobs. The system is thus unsustainable and needs reform.
    (Original post by ish90an)
    If your degree isn't contributing to the economy (as your initial point was presuming), how are you the future of the economy?
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Because you need to go to university to be a dancer/musician/actor/artist. I mean, all those countries where they do not have a "Dance Studies" course are obviously less cultural, and Britain only got a culture when the Media Studies courses started popping up. If the only contribution your degree is making is something so vague as "cultural" (as you have presumed initially in this line of thought), then surely you are by definition not contributing to the economy, and hence not its future?
    So many bigoted disjointed views here not based in the slightest on reality that i see no point in responding. All i see is a collection of Daily Mail propagated myths.


    (Original post by ish90an)
    Except both Student 1 and Student 2 are both getting a basic loan as well, and will be penalized if they either refuse it by trying to pay upfront or make accelerated payments. The only extra burden Student 3 has is of any additional means based help he gets.
    Also, if the loan is linked to inflation, so is the threshold at which you need to start paying it back. And let us not compare "what it used to be", the whole point of reform is to move on from unsustainable systems like the one Labour created.
    How else can i explain it, i'm tempted to call troll on this one. I know you cant polish a turd but this is getting ridiculous.

    Simplest way i can say it is
    Student 1 can have/has his loan paid for + living costs or Means/Needs as you like to call it, by his parents. His education costs him personally nothing.

    Student 2 has to take a loan to pay for his education and living costs. He recieves a small government handout to ease his costs. His education costs him personally in the form of a large debt that he will need to pay off. The handout he recieves is as a result of his parental income.

    Student 3 will need to take a loan to pay for his education and living costs. He recieves no assistance from his parents and no assistance with paying his loan. His education costs him the most personally out of the three situations.

    Do you understand this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    A liitle quote from Zeitgeist addendum: "The monetary system perpetuates this materialism not only by its self preserving structures, but also through the countless number of people who have been conditioned into blindly and thoughtlessly u...pholding these structures, therefore becoming self-appointed guardians of the status quo. Sheep,... which no longer need a sheep dog to control them, for they control each other by ostracizing those who step out of the norm. "

    This is how I describe the trolls and nay-sayers, who ignorantly post on here, blindly sticking up for the system without really knowing why.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mimimimi)
    I'm merely making this thread to pass on an article written by David Cameron himself for the Evening Standard, outlining the 'truth' behind the funding cuts. I think he makes a few very valid points, and just wanted to put it out there because I couldn't find another thread on it (forgive me if there is one/it's within another thread)...

    Anyway, the article is here.

    I was just wondering who agreed with this article, and whether anyone else thinks fewer people would be protesting right now if they'd actually done their research. I for one do think lots of people are probably just 'going along for the ride' without really getting the facts straight.

    PS. I wrote about how I was merely making the thread to pass on the article to others. Please don't neg me. If you disagree with any of the opinions I give in my following posts, fair enough, but I'm not David Cameron, so there's no reason to neg this one...
    Mein Kempf also had some valid points too. Have you never heard of the expression the devil is in the detail? At the end of the day what the right-wing evening standard is doing is simply presenting issues placed under a specially prepared beam of light. Everything outside of this light is both ignored and deemed irrelevant because it makes the point even stronger. David Cameron and politicians are expert liars. If you agree with him you are simply saying you trust him, you trust the newspapers and you fully believe that after a 1000 years you have a politician who does not lie. Students you are in trouble if you can be decieved so easily and I predict bad times ahead. They do not have your interest at heart and will never do. How sad.


    (Original post by ish90an)
    In the long term though, it saves the government itself having to spend into the system without getting anything out of it. Its not about saving money as much as it is about making the system more sustainable.



    Given the current economic crisis and the fact that cuts are having to be made across the board, subjects that offer no economic benefit whatsoever are simply a drain on the system and thus need to be axed. Want to do something for the sake of it? Fine, just don't expect the state to pay you for it at the expense of cutting jobs or healthcare funding. As for Britain suffering culturally (which is a ridiculously broad term and doesn't necessarily have a correlation to university funding), anything to back this up?



    But student 3 is being given (at least) the same money as the other 2 in the form of a loan. You are missing the fact that everyone, regardless of background, IS getting a basic loan. Any additional help, based on need, is just that.



    The issue of exam boards comes because of the options people have, but at the same time giving students that choice means brighter students can pursue certain systems they feel are more in line with their ability than others. I wouldn't say its a matter of privatization per se, its more to do with the choice that can (and usually does) arise with it.



    Heres something for you to read:
    A liitle quote from Zeitgeist addendum: "The monetary system perpetuates this materialism not only by its self preserving structures, but also through the countless number of people who have been conditioned into blindly and thoughtlessly u...pholding these structures, therefore becoming self-appointed guardians of the status quo. Sheep,... which no longer need a sheep dog to control them, for they control each other by ostracizing those who step out of the norm. "

    quote from somebody who has had enough of the bull -

    This is how I describe the trolls and nay-sayers, who ignorantly post on here, blindly sticking up for the system without really knowing why.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by hollyone)
    A liitle quote from Zeitgeist addendum: "The monetary system perpetuates this materialism not only by its self preserving structures, but also through the countless number of people who have been conditioned into blindly and thoughtlessly u...pholding these structures, therefore becoming self-appointed guardians of the status quo. Sheep,... which no longer need a sheep dog to control them, for they control each other by ostracizing those who step out of the norm. "

    This is how I describe the trolls and nay-sayers, who ignorantly post on here, blindly sticking up for the system without really knowing why.
    Wow, what a well thought, factual and reasoned argument. I bow to your superior logic.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burpleronnie)
    So many bigoted disjointed views here not based in the slightest on reality that i see no point in responding. All i see is a collection of Daily Mail propagated myths.




    How else can i explain it, i'm tempted to call troll on this one. I know you cant polish a turd but this is getting ridiculous.

    Simplest way i can say it is
    Student 1 can have/has his loan paid for + living costs or Means/Needs as you like to call it, by his parents. His education costs him personally nothing.

    Student 2 has to take a loan to pay for his education and living costs. He recieves a small government handout to ease his costs. His education costs him personally in the form of a large debt that he will need to pay off. The handout he recieves is as a result of his parental income.

    Student 3 will need to take a loan to pay for his education and living costs. He recieves no assistance from his parents and no assistance with paying his loan. His education costs him the most personally out of the three situations.

    Do you understand this?
    First off, cut out the ad-hom.
    Second, what you describe exists right now, in primary education, inheritance, house mortgages, healthcare provision. Parents continue to provide for their kids whenever they can at all ages, the key thing is that systems exist so that those whose parents cannot provide are not left on the side. The current proposals make sure that the increase in fees do not mean poorer people cannot go to university, which is really the best any system can and should do (unless you are proposing the government start telling parents how much they are allowed to spend on their kids).
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    protest against the protest anyone?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    First off, cut out the ad-hom.
    Second, what you describe exists right now, in primary education, inheritance, house mortgages, healthcare provision. Parents continue to provide for their kids whenever they can at all ages, the key thing is that systems exist so that those whose parents cannot provide are not left on the side. The current proposals make sure that the increase in fees do not mean poorer people cannot go to university, which is really the best any system can and should do (unless you are proposing the government start telling parents how much they are allowed to spend on their kids).
    You are deliberately avoiding answering my question.

    Does one of the three types of stuent pay more for his education than the others?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infernalcradle)
    protest against the protest anyone?
    Heard some rumours on another forum that the EDL are planning on show up to the next one to support the police
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilovemykitten)
    A lot of people are getting this all wrong!

    The rising of fees is necessary - dont be angry at the fees, but at the Lib Dems for pledging to scrap them, when now it is clear that even if they miraculously got a full majority, they would be unable to do it!

    Scrapping of EMA - EMA is a means for students to buy travel, stationary, meals. It is being replaced by more direct means of help, vouchers from what I've heard. However, what the Govt is missing out is that EMA is usually passed on to parents to help them buy food for the family, otherwise the student would have to work to help provide for the family.

    The UNFAIRNESS of the new scheme - they are proposing that two people, having graduated with the same degree, from the same university, should pay different amounts for their degrees, depending on how successful they are!!! This is the part which REALLY makes me angry! It is absolutely unjust, and only appeases stupid people! Degrees should be treated as independent goods! The coalition is trying to use them as a way to tax rich people more, because they are too afraid of increasing direct taxation. Typical cowardly behaviour from the Lib Dems - no wonder it was Vince's idea. See my earlier post for details on why the scheme is unfair.

    Next time - VOTE LABOUR
    exactly why would you vote labour when the reason the cuts are present is because there has been such a massive credit crunch followed by a recession because of the labour government? and so what is labours policy on student fees?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burpleronnie)
    You are deliberately avoiding answering my question.

    Does one of the three types of stuent pay more for his education than the others?
    And you are deliberately oversimplifying the question and going off on a topic that has nothing to do with tuition fees themselves, but is part of a bigger issue (i.e parents spending on kids).
    In the same way as Student 1 has had to pay less for better healthcare, better schooling and living costs, Student 1 and 2 have to themselves repay less(or none) of their loan. Does this mean Student 3 can somehow no longer go to university? No, because as you have time and again missed, they are getting a loan they only have to repay when they can.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    Wow, what a well thought, factual and reasoned argument. I bow to your superior logic.
    Superior logic indeed. Nay tis too common and simple to be so not to mention wholly true in every pore of expression.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    story of this policy is that of an outrageos public misconception.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    And you are deliberately oversimplifying the question and going off on a topic that has nothing to do with tuition fees themselves, but is part of a bigger issue (i.e parents spending on kids).
    In the same way as Student 1 has had to pay less for better healthcare, better schooling and living costs, Student 1 and 2 have to themselves repay less(or none) of their loan. Does this mean Student 3 can somehow no longer go to university? No, because as you have time and again missed, they are getting a loan they only have to repay when they can.
    This is not a tangent, as you will see if you actually answer the question.

    Will student three pay more personally for his education?

    Yes or No

    Judging by the first part of you're response you already know the answer.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burpleronnie)
    This is not a tangent, as you will see if you actually answer the question.

    Will student three pay more personally for his education?

    Yes or No

    Judging by the first part of you're response you already know the answer.
    I am not sure what part of
    In the same way as Student 1 has had to pay less for better healthcare, better schooling and living costs, Student 1 and 2 have to themselves repay less(or none) of their loan. Does this mean Student 3 can somehow no longer go to university? No, because as you have time and again missed, they are getting a loan they only have to repay when they can.
    does not answer your (irrelevant to the topic) question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    I am not sure what part of

    does not answer your (irrelevant to the topic) question.
    Student 1 has all of his Education paid for He pays nothing £0

    Student 2 has to pay for his Education with a reduction (i think will work out as less than 1/3) + living costs, (36000-1/3(12000))+25000 = £49000

    Student 3 has to pay all of his loan, 36000 + 25000 = £61000

    The Figures are based on estimates on the maximum cost of university applying. I personally worked out my costs at £55000 for my education.
    Now which number is bigger. 0, 49000 or 61000?


    Whether the student payes it back over a longer period of time or not, whether he ends up paying all of it back or not, he still has to pay something.

    You understand this right? Yes or no?

    Reguardless of whether he has a student loan he still has to pay it back.


    I will further my point when you respond to this simple observation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burpleronnie)
    Student 1 has all of his Education paid for He pays nothing £0

    Student 2 has to pay for his Education with a reduction (i think will work out as less than 1/3) + living costs, (36000-1/3(12000))+25000 = £49000

    Student 3 has to pay all of his loan, 36000 + 25000 = £61000

    The Figures are based on estimates on the maximum cost of university applying. I personally worked out my costs at £55000 for my education.
    Now which number is bigger. 0, 49000 or 61000?


    Whether the student payes it back over a longer period of time or not, whether he ends up paying all of it back or not, he still has to pay something.

    You understand this right? Yes or no?

    Reguardless of whether he has a student loan he still has to pay it back.


    I will further my point when you respond to this simple observation.
    What is this 1/3rd contribution coming from, what makes you think parents are contributing 1/3rd, not 1/5th? Cost of degree is 27k at most(or max 9k an year) not 36k. Also where have you arrived at this living cost figure of 25k from? Your figures seem dubious at best.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    sorry guys how can 1 make/create thread.
    thanks
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ish90an)
    What is this 1/3rd contribution coming from, what makes you think parents are contributing 1/3rd, not 1/5th? Cost of degree is 27k at most(or max 9k an year) not 36k. Also where have you arrived at this living cost figure of 25k from? Your figures seem dubious at best.
    1/3 comes from governmental assistance to people from low income familys. first year free + housing/living assistance. Not an exact estimate but in the gist of it.

    Just found some figures on living costs. 10K~ per year from what i gather.
    http://www.reading.ac.uk/life/life-a...ion-costs.aspx


    3*9000 = 27000
    4*9000 = 36000

    6000-7000 is expected to be the average price from what i gather.

    3*6000 = 18000
    4*6000 = 24000

    I guess it works out that my figures were a bit squiffy, it actually costs more.
    Can anyone doing a degree at the moment varify?


    Reguardless whether it costs you 38k or 66k it is a hell of a lot more than nothing. Now do you see what i am getting at with the parental lottery thing?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by burpleronnie)
    1/3 comes from governmental assistance to people from low income familys. first year free + housing/living assistance. Not an exact estimate but in the gist of it.

    Just found some figures on living costs. 10K~ per year from what i gather.
    http://www.reading.ac.uk/life/life-a...ion-costs.aspx


    3*9000 = 27000
    4*9000 = 36000

    6000-7000 is expected to be the average price from what i gather.

    3*6000 = 18000
    4*6000 = 24000

    I guess it works out that my figures were a bit squiffy, it actually costs more.
    Can anyone doing a degree at the moment varify?


    Reguardless whether it costs you 38k or 66k it is a hell of a lot more than nothing. Now do you see what i am getting at with the parental lottery thing?
    Per week costs are b/w 171 and 281 on that link, i.e over a 40 week term it is going to be 7-11k. The higher end is being generous, it is the cost for those who live in the most expensive accommodation and spend heavily on entertainment etc. 10k is far from what living costs should be for an average student outside London, and in Scotland its going to be much lower.
    A parental lottery would imply that somehow the degree cost is relevant to your parents, and if you don't have parents who can pay for it you won't get university education. Both are false, there simply is no correlation between the topic of whether tuition fees should increase and whether . Like I said before, even with no tuition fees, some parents would pay more for their kids (in the form of living costs), they may help them buy a house, get private education, better healthcare etc. Parents do influence their children's lives, degree cost, whether it is 0, 1k or 9k, has nothing to do with this concept.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    In my opinion, any students rioting clearly are not very bright and are plain criminals so they will never end up with a job over 21k anyway.

    I think i'll stay being a good boy and laugh at all the scrotes licking their wounds at what a mess they've made of their lives.
 
 
 
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
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    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.