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

    17
    ReputationRep:
    I don't see why some people who are no longer students are using this board for students but whatever. I must say that tuition fees should probably be much lower and ideally non-existent although that is unrealistic. While some people do take rather stupid degrees, there are also really useful degrees that people may be dissuaded from doing if they are from a low income family. Now I am determined to get into a good uni for maths, oxbridge if possible, but the prospect of having £10000s of debt hanging over my head is kinda depressing.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by black1blade)
    I don't see why some people who are no longer students are using this board for students but whatever.
    It makes for interesting conversation with far less spam and trolls than other similar sized boards
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by samesea)
    Isn't it just charming that a generation who benefited from free further education were the ones to take it away from the rest of us?
    While specific politicians who benefited from that have been responsible for denying it to your generation, theirs (Cameron's, Osbourne's) was a generation in which it wasn't unusual to leave school at 15 and within which only 15% of young people enjoyed a higher education. "Oh the 6th form is it? The 6th form?! I see we shall have to call you 'the professor'..."

    The expansion of the sector, both in the number of providers and the ever increasing intakes at the provider institutions, has led to a situation in which there are today more students just at Russell Group universities than there were students in higher education when Cameron matriculated.

    I don't know that that generation had it better, then. Or anyway not in this sense.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    While specific politicians who benefited from that have been responsible for denying it to your generation, theirs (Cameron's, Osbourne's) was a generation in which it wasn't unusual to leave school at 15 and within which only 15% of young people enjoyed a higher education. "Oh the 6th form is it? The 6th form?! I see we shall have to call you 'the professor'..."

    The expansion of the sector, both in the number of providers and the ever increasing intakes at the provider institutions, has led to a situation in which there are today more students just at Russell Group universities than there were students in higher education when Cameron matriculated.

    I don't know that that generation had it better, then. Or anyway not in this sense.
    Your posts are always on point. I hate the reactionary nonsense that people come out with before taking a second to appreciate how stark the changes in higher education have been over the past couple decades.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Who cares who you think of that its personal preference on what he finds attractive


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    yeah because excluding a complete race when you have yet to see every variant of that race is TOTALLY ok. TOTALLY not racist

    edl ********
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    yeah because excluding a complete race when you have yet to see every variant of that race is TOTALLY ok. TOTALLY not racist

    edl ********
    Is it ok to exclude all short people?

    Fat people?
    Skinny people?
    Red hair people?
    Tall people?
    All people of a certain sex?

    You haven't seen them all...... Lol

    What an idiot you are


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paul514)
    Is it ok to exclude all short people?

    Fat people?
    Skinny people?
    Red hair people?
    Tall people?
    All people of a certain sex?

    You haven't seen them all...... Lol

    What an idiot you are


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    i dont know how many times i have to tell these children on tsr that preference =/= racial exclusion. if you like (or prefer black) people least, fair enough, but if you dont like black people at all, you're almost certainly racist.

    Race is a different thing to the things you mentioned above. issues of white supremacy, hypergamy and the intertwining issues of race and class make it a unique problem. discriminating potential partners on weight may seem like a similar comparison, but it does not amount to centuries of oppression on the grounds of beauty black people have faced

    stop being a racist mate
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    i dont know how many times i have to tell these children on tsr that preference =/= racial exclusion. if you like (or prefer black) people least, fair enough, but if you dont like black people at all, you're almost certainly racist.

    Race is a different thing to the things you mentioned above. issues of white supremacy, hypergamy and the intertwining issues of race and class make it a unique problem. discriminating potential partners on weight may seem like a similar comparison, but it does not amount to centuries of oppression on the grounds of beauty black people have faced

    stop being a racist mate
    My ex of 5 years is black it also wasn't me who said they didn't find black people sexually attractive, my preference is Indian women.

    But all that is besides the point what you find sexually attractive between adults is fine, end of story.

    It's not racist, sexist, body shaming or whatever else SJW's say


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    yeah because excluding a complete race when you have yet to see every variant of that race is TOTALLY ok. TOTALLY not racist
    You have yet to see every variant of llama, are you sure you do not want to have sexual relations with a llama?

    People tend to know what they like, fam. If you're going to take a thread totally off topic please make sense.

    (Original post by cambio wechsel)
    While specific politicians who benefited from that have been responsible for denying it to your generation, theirs (Cameron's, Osbourne's) was a generation in which it wasn't unusual to leave school at 15 and within which only 15% of young people enjoyed a higher education. "Oh the 6th form is it? The 6th form?! I see we shall have to call you 'the professor'..."

    The expansion of the sector, both in the number of providers and the ever increasing intakes at the provider institutions, has led to a situation in which there are today more students just at Russell Group universities than there were students in higher education when Cameron matriculated.

    I don't know that that generation had it better, then. Or anyway not in this sense.
    What was the cost of going to higher education in those days? Any idea?
    Online

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    i dont know how many times i have to tell these children on tsr that preference =/= racial exclusion. if you like (or prefer black) people least, fair enough, but if you dont like black people at all, you're almost certainly racist.

    Race is a different thing to the things you mentioned above. issues of white supremacy, hypergamy and the intertwining issues of race and class make it a unique problem. discriminating potential partners on weight may seem like a similar comparison, but it does not amount to centuries of oppression on the grounds of beauty black people have faced

    stop being a racist mate
    I think that this is mostly fair, if people are literally saying that. If they're saying that they would not under any circumstances date someone of a given race, then they're probably racist. (Giving the simple definition of racism as discriminating based on race, though, seems a bit too narrow where nuance should be highly valued.)

    I think, looking back through this thread, that there's a misunderstanding based on language, and people have used hyperbole more and more on both sides of that misunderstanding to emphasise their point. The result is that people appear to be defending viewpoints in principle which they probably don't actually hold.

    To assume that not being attracted to something means that you can't be attracted to someone with that thing misundertands what is being said. An attractive attribute is a positive thing in someone's favour as a potential mate. Not being attracted by that attribute does not, then, equate to a negative. To not find a trait attractive is not to find it repulsive.

    I'm not attracted to blondes. That's not the same as either being repulsed by blondes, or stating that I do not have the ability to find a blonde attractive. (Again, if they are truly saying that they would not under any circumstances date someone of a given race, yes, they're probably racist. But while I think a lot of people have been defending that hypothetical viewpoint, I don't think anybody has actually said that they hold it.)

    If someone were to tell me that they found a given race repulsive, or any set of traits unique to that race repulsive, I'd quite definitely consider them at best a closet racist. But to simply not be attracted to a single trait of a given race equating to racism, that's a harsh and unfair accusation.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)

    What was the cost of going to higher education in those days? Any idea?
    the cost 'of going' was free, as mentioned. The cost of provision I cannot guess at but was manageable under a 15:85 split, such that the 85% paying without going didn't complain at it. At 50:50 that isn't sustainable.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The gains kinggg)
    Tuition fees are the fairest way.

    Why should i have to subsidise someone else's ****ty liberal arts degree from some unknown polytechnic?

    And why do students feel as thought they are soo entitled?

    Blah blah blah give me some free **** that other people have to pay for.
    that why i didn't go i am saving for the career relevant course that cost £100,000 a year in america
    and to be honest millennials for the most part as lazy good for nothings who will be useless without the internet
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by black1blade)
    I don't see why some people who are no longer students are using this board for students but whatever.
    Education is one of the pillars of modern society. It has only contributed to developing society in the past but will continue to do so in the future. Major flaws exist in the current system of education; not only in the U.K. but also around the globe. It is entirely relevant for people who pay taxes and contribute to society in other meaningful ways to share their opinion on education as well.

    (Original post by black1blade)
    I must say that tuition fees should probably be much lower and ideally non-existent although that is unrealistic. While some people do take rather stupid degrees, there are also really useful degrees that people may be dissuaded from doing if they are from a low income family. Now I am determined to get into a good uni for maths, oxbridge if possible, but the prospect of having £10000s of debt hanging over my head is kinda depressing.
    Perhaps, but the 'true' value of a degree needs to be determined and therefore imposed. Unfortunately, no 'real' study has been done to calculate said value.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by RK)
    Having people successfully complete degree generally has a positive impact on the whole of society and is not just for the benefit of the individual completing the degree. There will always be exceptions where this is not the case, but for the majority of people it benefits society as whole and is especially beneficial in many career focuses degrees (medicine, nursing, social work, engineering, teaching) and very academic/science degrees (physics, chemistry, mathematics, biology etc).

    It therefore makes sense that a contribution to fund degrees comes from general taxation as the benefit is not just to the individual.
    I don't buy this at all, Mr Roger Kirk (if that is your real name, which it isn't, too spooky).

    My degree has only really benefitted me insofar as I got a graduate job (and career) that pays well. Doctors, lawyers, bankers, etc, are all paid well. And, indeed, I think I could have done my job straight out of school, but the degree gives the official right of passage when put on a CV. I essentially paid for a massive library, a few hours of contact with tutors (who provided information I could have read about online), exams, and a final certificate. I don't think it made me any smarter or gave me useful knowledge.

    I don't think my career is any more important than a lowly paid farmer, truck-driver, cleaner, etc, who do important jobs, but don't get paid well in the labour market because they are non-degree holders and are more common resource. Society will always need these jobs.

    Completely free education privileges those who are born luckily intelligent (as opposed to luckily "male", or "straight" or "white" - the stereotypical categories we, incorrectly, use when discussing "privilege"). It is a slap in the face to those who are, unfortunately, born with learning disabilities, or who are unintelligent, or whose career paths will be different - factory workers, electricians, retail assistants, etc. Whether you're born smart or dumb is just as arbitrary as whether you're born rich or poor. Both can be changed through hard work, but people, in both cases, start from different positions in the scale.

    So long as education is free at the point of use to allow everyone to access education who needs it, and some of your future earnings are used to slowly pay back some of the debt, then I'm happy. And that is the present system. By making it completely free you're giving intelligent people an extra privilege that they would have gotten anyway if they'd chosen to do a lucrative (and therefore socially value-adding) degree to get them into a good job.

    I find the idea of non-university goers paying their hard-earned taxes on privileged people quite wrong, both morally and economically. It creates an inefficient education sector, people making worse choices knowing they won't suffer financially from it, and it disadvantages, typically, people in working class professions. And it adds to the deficit.

    I completely accept the caveat that you never said that education should be completely free tho.

    Furthermore, by accepting more people into sixth form, university, etc, we've completely redefined education - extended the number of years that people are kept in classrooms, devalued the courses studied at sixth form, and I don't know whether that is a good thing. It's the sort of system designed by people for whom that method of education helped.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Retired_Messiah)
    You have yet to see every variant of llama, are you sure you do not want to have sexual relations with a llama?
    Not even remotely comparable.

    why dont you like black skin? There are black people who can have features you desire but have a different skin colour to what you want. with this fact in mind, why exclude a whole race if you're not racist?
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DIN-NARYU-FARORE)
    why dont you like black skin? There are black people who can have features you desire but have a different skin colour to what you want. with this fact in mind, why exclude a whole race if you're not racist?
    lmao you're confusing me with somebody that actually stated they didn't wanna be with black people. I did not.
    Online

    10
    ReputationRep:
    Thank god there is someone with brains on this forum.

    I started running my own business (rather than go to uni and get into 30k of debt). Why should I pay for a bunch of drunk kids studying media thinking their all going into TV.

    When I started by business I couldn't get "free money" or a loan I don't have too pay back if it doesn't work out. If I take out a loan and don't pay it back, I will have people knocking on my door. Instead I had to work my socks off and do it off my own back, after travel I only earned £40 per week in my first job! These so called "students" need too wake up and see they have a very good deal!

    Look.. being serious I have no problem sending intelligent people to uni who want to become doctors or do a STEM subject. The system before Blair ruined it worked fine.

    (Original post by The gains kinggg)
    Tuition fees are the fairest way.

    Why should i have to subsidise someone else's ****ty liberal arts degree from some unknown polytechnic?

    And why do students feel as thought they are soo entitled?

    Blah blah blah give me some free **** that other people have to pay for.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ben.anderson)
    Thank god there is someone with brains on this forum.

    I started running my own business (rather than go to uni and get into 30k of debt). Why should I pay for a bunch of drunk kids studying media thinking their all going into TV.

    When I started by business I couldn't get "free money" or a loan I don't have too pay back if it doesn't work out. If I take out a loan and don't pay it back, I will have people knocking on my door. Instead I had to work my socks off and do it off my own back, after travel I only earned £40 per week in my first job! These so called "students" need too wake up and see they have a very good deal!

    Look.. being serious I have no problem sending intelligent people to uni who want to become doctors or do a STEM subject. The system before Blair ruined it worked fine.
    So in other words you aren't pro fees you just want places limited like pretty much everyone on here


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by The gains kinggg)
    Tuition fees are the fairest way.

    Why should i have to subsidise someone else's ****ty liberal arts degree from some unknown polytechnic?

    And why do students feel as thought they are soo entitled?

    Blah blah blah give me some free **** that other people have to pay for.
    I've never seen a more ****ing moronic post.
    • TSR Support Team
    • Clearing and Applications Advisor
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    Clearing and Applications Advisor
    (Original post by Melancholy)
    Completely free education privileges those who are born luckily intelligent (as opposed to luckily "male", or "straight" or "white" - the stereotypical categories we, incorrectly, use when discussing "privilege". It is a slap in the face to those who are, unfortunately, born with learning disabilities, or who are unintelligent, or whose career paths will be different - factory workers, electricians, retail assistants, etc. Whether you're born smart or dumb is just as arbitrary as whether you're born rich or poor. Both can be changed through hard work, but people, in both cases, start from different positions in the scale.

    So long as education is free at the point of use to allow everyone to access education who needs it, and some of your future earnings are used to slowly pay back some of the debt, then I'm happy. And that is the present system. By making it completely free you're giving intelligent people an extra privilege that they would have gotten anyway if they'd chosen to do a lucrative (and therefore socially value-adding) degree to get them into a good job.

    I find the idea of non-university goers paying their hard-earned taxes on privileged people quite wrong, both morally and economically. It creates an inefficient education sector, people making worse choices knowing they won't suffer financially from it, and it disadvantages, typically, people in working class professions. And it adds to the deficit.
    Where is the evidence that free education privileges intelligent people and nobody else? I've never heard that argument before and I can't find any research to back it up, sounds like you made it up tbh. One only has to look to Europe to see how well free higher education systems can work.

    There are countless tax-funded schemes, initiatives, programmes, benefits etc which are paid for by general taxation but only benefit a select number of people, that is the nature of taxation. Why should education be treated differently to child tax credits?
 
 
 
  • 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
    Brussels sprouts
    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.