This discussion is now closed.
Check out other Related discussions
- Studying and difficulty
- New spiritual insights, karma
- When I think about talking to people, can real life them know the conversations I am
- Intrusive thoughts.
- Universal laws, spiritual insights, karma, loa
- New spiritual insights, karma, Loa
- Muslim and horny
- TW: Eating disorder thoughts getting worse
- History Paper 2 America: A nation divided 2023
- OCR GREEK LANGUAGE GCSE exam - 19th May
- I need help
- Warwick CS satisfaction rate... what the hell
- Excessive washing of everything near me after masterbation
- Intrusive thoughts affecting my school life
- adult 18/contracts
- Strange emotions/thoughts relating to people and relationships
- Drama in Schools is a Waste of Time and Money
- Am I silly for not wanting my boyfriend to watch love island
- Movie stars of our generation
- The dumbest thing I ever did
Thoughts?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4204753.stm
Does anyone have a problem with this, out of interest?
Does anyone have a problem with this, out of interest?
Scroll to see replies
Sounds fair enough. Everything in this country comes down to money these days, so should they be any different?
Nima
Only people who live in England should be allowed to apply to Oxford or Cambridge. (Or any other England uni).
Why is that then?
Nima
Because these are English universities, so people from England should only be allowed to go there - They weren't built to cater for students from other countries, with their own universities. There are also various other problems, such as different language, culuture, requirements etc. that doesn't make the idea of international students filling up the 2 top universities in the country, ideal. When you apply to high school - -Getting a place has a lot to do with where you live. If you don't live closeby, it's deemed that it's stupid for you to go there when there are closer schools nearby that are for that community, really.
Perhaps people from oxfordshire should only be able to apply to oxford and you should only goto leeds. international students add to a university. and considering you can apply to harvard, or wherever, then it seems fair that internationals should be able to go for oxford.
fishpaste
Perhaps people from oxfordshire should only be able to apply to oxford and you should only goto leeds. international students add to a university. and considering you can apply to harvard, or wherever, then it seems fair that internationals should be able to go for oxford.
Also, if we didn't have international students, the financial situation would be even worse. Given that this article's about decreasing undergraduate numbers to keep Oxford financially viable, Nima's point doesn't really stand...
Nima
Because these are English universities, so people from England should only be allowed to go there - They weren't built to cater for students from other countries, with their own universities. There are also various other problems, such as different language, culuture, requirements etc. that doesn't make the idea of international students filling up the 2 top universities in the country, ideal.
Cos I'm so totally from a different culture
. And you may have problems with the accent but I assure you I do speak the same language!the difference between high school and university is that 18 and 19 year olds want to move out ofthe house and have some fun while 12 year olds living in student accomodation etcterea isnt possibly the cleverest idea.
people from abroad can add to a university, especially on some courses like history and politics etcetera. and also if its only going to be an english university perhaps we should get rid of all the top lecturers who might not be english
many developing countries do not have any universities and so for them to develop they are going to need to send people abroad to university to develop their nation. the iraqi biolological warfare programme gives a classic example, if admittedly not one with beneficial causes, of a country whose top scientirsts were only able to develop their skills from researching abroad. and also even with developed nations about 4 of the supreme court of america i believe have had some sort of education in oxbridge. that transfer ofknowledge is tremendously beneficial
international students can also bring in a lot of money both to the university and the local economy, surely you would rather go to a well funded oxbridge with foreigners than a less well fuinded one with none. though even without the economic benefits i would still want international students to be admitted.
your statement it perilously close to a statement that the bnp might well make. perhaps we should stop foreigners taking jobs not designed for them.
as for they werent designed for international students well oxbridge wasnt designed for a lot of things that go on today. perhaps they should go back to only allowing a few people in to study theology and other similar subjects
in short dont be stupid
people from abroad can add to a university, especially on some courses like history and politics etcetera. and also if its only going to be an english university perhaps we should get rid of all the top lecturers who might not be english
many developing countries do not have any universities and so for them to develop they are going to need to send people abroad to university to develop their nation. the iraqi biolological warfare programme gives a classic example, if admittedly not one with beneficial causes, of a country whose top scientirsts were only able to develop their skills from researching abroad. and also even with developed nations about 4 of the supreme court of america i believe have had some sort of education in oxbridge. that transfer ofknowledge is tremendously beneficial
international students can also bring in a lot of money both to the university and the local economy, surely you would rather go to a well funded oxbridge with foreigners than a less well fuinded one with none. though even without the economic benefits i would still want international students to be admitted.
your statement it perilously close to a statement that the bnp might well make. perhaps we should stop foreigners taking jobs not designed for them.
as for they werent designed for international students well oxbridge wasnt designed for a lot of things that go on today. perhaps they should go back to only allowing a few people in to study theology and other similar subjects
in short dont be stupid
BBC News article
Critics have accused it of seeking to cut UK student numbers in favour of those from overseas to boost revenue.
I don't see why they're complaining...a boosted revenue is hardly a bad thing for a university. Having more foreign students also increases Oxford's connections abroad which, again, is not a bad thing. And the UK students who don't go to Oxford as a result of this would always be able to go to other British universities...there's no need for them to be obsessed with Oxbridge.
Firstly, I don't agree with Oxford being "chronically underfunded". It is hardly poor - St John's alone has £22m, and I don't care if that's tied up in art or land or whatever, it still makes them rich.
Also, I personally can't see a problem with private school students paying alot more fees - they're happy with the principle of paying for education anyway, so why not just knock it up a level?
Also, I hardly think funding X hundred students a year to study Classics or whatever should ever be anywhere near the top of the education departments agenda - I'm afraid that, although in an ideal world Oxford would be drowning in wealth (although it has come pretty damn close quite a few times!), there are simply bigger fish to fry. Fair enough there's an arguement to be had that perhaps medical students' funding or whatever should be given a extra help, but the archaeology dept? (And I say this as a prospective arts student myself!)
And as for the point about not letting in foreigners, if Oxford wants even to pretend that it's anything like the best in the world, it's going to have to take the best in the world, and despite what the BNP or whatever might think, that won't necessarily be British. There are quotas in place to stop Chinese (or whatever) students anihilating domestic ones in the admissions process (although Chinese schoolchildren perform way better on average than british do in their A-Level equiv. (I believe - I remember that from the series of articles in the G2 a few months ago, i think!)).
That's saying nothing of the fact that international astudents make a university much more interesting and exotic, nor the financial benefits, nor the fact that the above post is downright xenophobic.
well thats my little outburst over...
Also, I personally can't see a problem with private school students paying alot more fees - they're happy with the principle of paying for education anyway, so why not just knock it up a level?
Also, I hardly think funding X hundred students a year to study Classics or whatever should ever be anywhere near the top of the education departments agenda - I'm afraid that, although in an ideal world Oxford would be drowning in wealth (although it has come pretty damn close quite a few times!), there are simply bigger fish to fry. Fair enough there's an arguement to be had that perhaps medical students' funding or whatever should be given a extra help, but the archaeology dept? (And I say this as a prospective arts student myself!)
And as for the point about not letting in foreigners, if Oxford wants even to pretend that it's anything like the best in the world, it's going to have to take the best in the world, and despite what the BNP or whatever might think, that won't necessarily be British. There are quotas in place to stop Chinese (or whatever) students anihilating domestic ones in the admissions process (although Chinese schoolchildren perform way better on average than british do in their A-Level equiv. (I believe - I remember that from the series of articles in the G2 a few months ago, i think!)).
That's saying nothing of the fact that international astudents make a university much more interesting and exotic, nor the financial benefits, nor the fact that the above post is downright xenophobic.
well thats my little outburst over...
Nima
Because these are English universities, so people from England should only be allowed to go there - They weren't built to cater for students from other countries, with their own universities. There are also various other problems, such as different language, culuture, requirements etc. that doesn't make the idea of international students filling up the 2 top universities in the country, ideal. When you apply to high school - -Getting a place has a lot to do with where you live. If you don't live closeby, it's deemed that it's stupid for you to go there when there are closer schools nearby that are for that community, really.
Sure, as long as you willing to stop English students going to scotland or Dublin, or USA or Europe.
And as long as you refuse to acknowledge the moral duty we have to educate 3rd world countries.
And as long as you deny our 'commonwealth / empire' heritage.
And forgetting the enrichment at Oxbridge that overseas student bring.
And ignoring the massive funding Oxbridge gets - of DIRECT student benefit - from e.g. Rhodes (South African to Oxford) and Gates (American to Cambridge) and Soros (Eastern European) and Fulbright (American). How quickly we take the dosh and then forget where it came from, eh?
p.s. Applying to secondary school isn't a legitimate comparison. The law requires attendance from its citizens in its schools; but you're free to emmigrate if you want to, if you insist on an analogy [and btw there is a net outflow from the UK to countries USA, OZ and Europe].
p.p.s. Oxbridge WAS built to cater for students from other countries, but it wasn't built to cater for 'ordinary' folk. How would that suit you, Nima?
WhatFreshHell?
Firstly, I don't agree with Oxford being "chronically underfunded". It is hardly poor - St John's alone has £22m, and I don't care if that's tied up in art or land or whatever, it still makes them rich.
Also, I personally can't see a problem with private school students paying alot more fees - they're happy with the principle of paying for education anyway, so why not just knock it up a level?
Also, I hardly think funding X hundred students a year to study Classics or whatever should ever be anywhere near the top of the education departments agenda - I'm afraid that, although in an ideal world Oxford would be drowning in wealth (although it has come pretty damn close quite a few times!), there are simply bigger fish to fry. Fair enough there's an arguement to be had that perhaps medical students' funding or whatever should be given a extra help, but the archaeology dept? (And I say this as a prospective arts student myself!)
And as for the point about not letting in foreigners, if Oxford wants even to pretend that it's anything like the best in the world, it's going to have to take the best in the world, and despite what the BNP or whatever might think, that won't necessarily be British. There are quotas in place to stop Chinese (or whatever) students anihilating domestic ones in the admissions process (although Chinese schoolchildren perform way better on average than british do in their A-Level equiv. (I believe - I remember that from the series of articles in the G2 a few months ago, i think!)).
That's saying nothing of the fact that international astudents make a university much more interesting and exotic, nor the financial benefits, nor the fact that the above post is downright xenophobic.
well thats my little outburst over...
Also, I personally can't see a problem with private school students paying alot more fees - they're happy with the principle of paying for education anyway, so why not just knock it up a level?
Also, I hardly think funding X hundred students a year to study Classics or whatever should ever be anywhere near the top of the education departments agenda - I'm afraid that, although in an ideal world Oxford would be drowning in wealth (although it has come pretty damn close quite a few times!), there are simply bigger fish to fry. Fair enough there's an arguement to be had that perhaps medical students' funding or whatever should be given a extra help, but the archaeology dept? (And I say this as a prospective arts student myself!)
And as for the point about not letting in foreigners, if Oxford wants even to pretend that it's anything like the best in the world, it's going to have to take the best in the world, and despite what the BNP or whatever might think, that won't necessarily be British. There are quotas in place to stop Chinese (or whatever) students anihilating domestic ones in the admissions process (although Chinese schoolchildren perform way better on average than british do in their A-Level equiv. (I believe - I remember that from the series of articles in the G2 a few months ago, i think!)).
That's saying nothing of the fact that international astudents make a university much more interesting and exotic, nor the financial benefits, nor the fact that the above post is downright xenophobic.
well thats my little outburst over...
Agree, mostly, but ...
State school students pay for their schooling too. [Income tax].
Is education only about what's useful, like medicine. An arid utilitarian philosophy surely ... and dangerous in that the govt (i.e. the main funding agency) could control what we learn. Subjects like Classics train people to think, which i can understand is dangerous and why the minister doesn't like it. What about Maths? Would you stop students learning certain branches?
WhatFreshHell?
Also, I personally can't see a problem with private school students paying alot more fees - they're happy with the principle of paying for education anyway, so why not just knock it up a level?
Also, I personally can't see a problem with private school students paying alot more fees - they're happy with the principle of paying for education anyway, so why not just knock it up a level?
So, just because I go to a private school, I should pay more for going to the same university as state school pupils. Should I therefore pay for the NHS, or not have unemployment benefit if I'm ever out of work?
My parents, through their taxes, and, in effect, having paid for my education twice, have at least paid for these 'alot more fees' that you're talking about.
WhatFreshHell?
Also, I hardly think funding X hundred students a year to study Classics or whatever should ever be anywhere near the top of the education departments agenda - I'm afraid that, although in an ideal world Oxford would be drowning in wealth (although it has come pretty damn close quite a few times!), there are simply bigger fish to fry. Fair enough there's an arguement to be had that perhaps medical students' funding or whatever should be given a extra help, but the archaeology dept? (And I say this as a prospective arts student myself!)
Also, I hardly think funding X hundred students a year to study Classics or whatever should ever be anywhere near the top of the education departments agenda - I'm afraid that, although in an ideal world Oxford would be drowning in wealth (although it has come pretty damn close quite a few times!), there are simply bigger fish to fry. Fair enough there's an arguement to be had that perhaps medical students' funding or whatever should be given a extra help, but the archaeology dept? (And I say this as a prospective arts student myself!)
I've got a place for Classics. What makes you think that any one department is more important than the other? Your level of arrogance is beyond belief. 'There are bigger fish to fry' - I've never heard such a load of cr*p in all my life.
snak3uk
So, just because I go to a private school, I should pay more for going to the same university as state school pupils. Should I therefore pay for the NHS, or not have unemployment benefit if I'm ever out of work?
My parents, through their taxes, and, in effect, having paid for my education twice, have at least paid for these 'alot more fees' that you're talking about.
My parents, through their taxes, and, in effect, having paid for my education twice, have at least paid for these 'alot more fees' that you're talking about.
I'm just saying you're obviously happy to pay for your education, so what's the problem? And you can, because you've being doing it for years (unless, of course, you're on a scholarship)
snak3uk
I've got a place for Classics. What makes you think that any one department is more important than the other? Your level of arrogance is beyond belief. 'There are bigger fish to fry' - I've never heard such a load of cr*p in all my life.
I've got a place for Classics. What makes you think that any one department is more important than the other? Your level of arrogance is beyond belief. 'There are bigger fish to fry' - I've never heard such a load of cr*p in all my life.
I'm just saying it's my opinion, and you obviously think I'm misguided, that in this less than perfect society the government should make priorities, and should, I believe, be more ready to devote resources to security in inner-city schools and teaching poor kids basic maths than funding 500 people to study, say, roman & greek pottery at Oxford (I'm obviously no classicist!).
I'm not saying that studying classics or philosophy is somehow wrong, or any less worth studying than many other subjects, just that study of such things have less right to be subsidized than others, and people should recognise that and not get so uppity when they don't get the windfall they might hope for.
Although I'm personally nuts about greek vases...
WhatFreshHell?
Firstly, I don't agree with Oxford being "chronically underfunded". It is hardly poor - St John's alone has £22m, and I don't care if that's tied up in art or land or whatever, it still makes them rich.
but look at the income of the colleges versus running costs & for most they perhaps break even.. & certainly aren't running at profit, surely?
there's a difference between owning land & goods etc. than having lots merely sat in the bank. I'm no economics student, but if the colleges raise funds by selling their assets is surely a very limited short term solution?
Also, I personally can't see a problem with private school students paying alot more fees - they're happy with the principle of paying for education anyway, so why not just knock it up a level?
reality check here - because someone's attended a private school during their life does not make them 'rich' by any means & there may be all sorts of factors influencing the decision of their parents to educate them privately. so, would you directly bill the parents? or are the students responsible? i can't see that's very fair.
perhaps more means testing is the way to go instead..?
Fair enough there's an arguement to be had that perhaps medical students' funding or whatever should be given a extra help, but the archaeology dept? (And I say this as a prospective arts student myself!)
tricky issue here in that medical funding cannot be made up by overseas students due to the government imposed quota of (as i recollect) 7 overseas medical students permitted per year in the school. & even then i'm not sure that they pay 'full' fees as i've seen figures like £150,000 quoted for the medical degree tuition total cost.
Nima
Because these are English universities, so people from England should only be allowed to go there - They weren't built to cater for students from other countries, with their own universities. There are also various other problems, such as different language, culuture, requirements etc. that doesn't make the idea of international students filling up the 2 top universities in the country, ideal. When you apply to high school - -Getting a place has a lot to do with where you live. If you don't live closeby, it's deemed that it's stupid for you to go there when there are closer schools nearby that are for that community, really.
Don't get me wrong, I think you're a sound guy - but I think you're talking total ****. Nigh on xenophobic ****, too.
i don't think it's that big a deal; i doubt the "balance of power" will change to any great degree. above someone mentioned the success of chinese students at a-level - which is true - but then it's also true that a fair proportion come from very driven families, and once the parental pressure is gone (eg. university) some tend to sink in fairly dramatic fashion. it's not something to worry abour in my opinion; if you're good enough now chances are you'll still be good enough in five years time.
An article in today's Times (on this issue) intimated that the tuition system is economically unsustainable - and that Oxford is currently being bailed out by the earnings of Oxford University Press. However, whilst Oxford is losing money hand over fist, its competitors ("Harvard, Princeton and Berkeley") are accumulating massive surpluses.
The Times article is better IMO.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,591-1455535,00.html
The Times article is better IMO.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,591-1455535,00.html
fishpaste
do you think supervisions/tuitions will be a thing of the past then? what a shame if they were.
I don't know anything about the fate of Oxford's tutorial system or financial situation, save for the things which I've read in today's Times. So I don't really know - I'd be interested to hear other people's views on the issue though.
The strategy paper acknowledged that frustration at Oxford over constraints imposed by government had led to calls for privatisation of the university so that it could set its own fees. “What Oxford needs is not to forgo income from public sources but to increase its private income substantially.”
^ Sounds like a pretty no-bullshit statement of intent.
Related discussions
- Studying and difficulty
- New spiritual insights, karma
- When I think about talking to people, can real life them know the conversations I am
- Intrusive thoughts.
- Universal laws, spiritual insights, karma, loa
- New spiritual insights, karma, Loa
- Muslim and horny
- TW: Eating disorder thoughts getting worse
- History Paper 2 America: A nation divided 2023
- OCR GREEK LANGUAGE GCSE exam - 19th May
- I need help
- Warwick CS satisfaction rate... what the hell
- Excessive washing of everything near me after masterbation
- Intrusive thoughts affecting my school life
- adult 18/contracts
- Strange emotions/thoughts relating to people and relationships
- Drama in Schools is a Waste of Time and Money
- Am I silly for not wanting my boyfriend to watch love island
- Movie stars of our generation
- The dumbest thing I ever did
Latest
Trending
Last reply 17 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 2 days ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?Trending
Last reply 17 hours ago
Weidenfeld Hoffmann Trust (WHT) Scholarship Notification (2024-2025)Last reply 2 days ago
Oxbridge applicants for modern languages - 2025 entry (applying in 2024)Last reply 1 week ago
Will I get into Oxford with my GCSE results? - EngineeringLast reply 3 weeks ago
will 5 a levels give me a better chance at getting into oxford?
