If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
LOOK: Latest studentsville news
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
"Students can expect to leave university with debts of around £15,000, as universities will be allowed to treble their fees to £3,000 a year under long-awaited higher education finance reforms published today. "
Guardian - more here
MORI/ Unite poll on student living includes findings like:
"The UNITE Student Living Report 2003 shows that despite Government efforts there is little evidence of success in widening participation at universities."
"Students also admit to relying heavily on their parents whether it’s for household chores, food, accommodation or bailing them out when short of money."
I even went to the Unite forum yesterday - it's all interesting stuff if you fancy a read...
here it is
"Opposition leaders rounded on the government today, accusing them of betraying students and breaking its manifesto pledge by introducing top-up fees"
Government has betrayed students
So what are your thoughts?
Susie
Guardian - more here
MORI/ Unite poll on student living includes findings like:
"The UNITE Student Living Report 2003 shows that despite Government efforts there is little evidence of success in widening participation at universities."
"Students also admit to relying heavily on their parents whether it’s for household chores, food, accommodation or bailing them out when short of money."
I even went to the Unite forum yesterday - it's all interesting stuff if you fancy a read...
here it is
"Opposition leaders rounded on the government today, accusing them of betraying students and breaking its manifesto pledge by introducing top-up fees"
Government has betrayed students
So what are your thoughts?
Susie
Post edited by JustV on
0
Comments
Something that agrees with what I've been saying for months apparantly!
How on Earth the govt. thought charging money for uni would ENCOURAGE people to go is beyond me - we're just heading back to the bad old days - only rich aristocrats will be able to go to university.
Oh i forgot - there'l also be the tokenistic addition of some 'less fortunates' who won't have to pay and will feel all alienated - I wouldn't want to be in their position I have to say!
The whole system REALLY irritates me
grants are back, but only for those with a household income of less than £10k per year - frankly a small proportion of the population, and even then they will only get £1000 (when fees will be £3000 and living costs are another £3000).
the ministers in power now all went to university on a great grant-based system, and they just cannot appreciate what we are going through now.
theyre driving people away from higher education, not towards it as was supposedly the plan.
students have demonstrated in vain in order to get their voices heard. obviously the Government wasnt listening.
Use your vote wisely in the next election.
The Government are fools. What they should do, is to make higher education free.
But, there's a catch to that. I want to see a select group of universities, let's start with the Russell Group. I want them to limit their entrants to the absolute best and the brightest. I would see the numbers of these courses roughly similar to what they are now, and that all the best teaching and research talent in the UK be applied to these 19. And then, I want the students who are accepted to these universities to have no fees, and for minimal costs. I want the government to fund these institutions to parallel the funding from the American Ivy League unis.
Then I want to address the other "universities".
Good. I want to see it reduced, not widened.
Why?
Inevitably, when a government applies a political logic to try and see 50% of students in university by the next parliament, we will see a rise in university places and courses which make a mockery of what a degree actually is. And incidentally, they devalue a degree for people who have had to work for them. If everyone in the UK had a degree, what good would that be? How could one differentiate?
So let's revert these places to polytechnics, rebrand them if you like, I don't mind, and give them a qualification that's *not* a degree. That will revalue proper degrees, and furthermore reduce this student debt nonsense. How many people actually go to university for the social life? Take a look in a university prospectus, or ask a student what's the best thing about their uni: I would wager that low proportions will mention academic reasons.
To my mind, too many people lose sight of the academic reasons for university. Yes, it's about a "life" experience; but you don't *have* to go to university to do that. You could, for example, go and teach in Nepal for six months if you want to learn about life. That will be far cheaper than a three year BA in Moron studies from the University of West Moronsville, teach you more about life, and probably be a hell of a lot more attractive to employers.
Employers don't know what degrees are. They don't know what the quality is, nor whether History is better than Politics than Maths than Physics than Media Studies. There are some vocational degree courses, but other than that, they're much of a muchnes to employers, and consequently, "a degree" is a common differentiator for interviews or admissions or anything. Pointless, really. In the office where my Dad works, they screened candidates for degrees in order to get an office junior, who does filing, tea making etc. What's the point of that? What's the point of getting an education in order to make tea? Hell, I could make tea when I was eight. I didn't even need to go to school for that..... :rolleyes:
In summary, the education system in this country is wrong. It is run by political, not academic/employment motives. Do employers actually want graduates in, let's say Turf Management? I think not.
We should not be afraid to be elitist; it only means separating the best. We should encourage the very best to get degrees, people who are not academically suited, nor able, shouldn't feel that they should go to university and have a good three years, and oh, by the way, get a degree. Just.
We want an education system like Top Gun: only the best of the best need apply. And then they get it free. Time-wasters need not apply.
*claps*
I agree that the academic bits are the ones that matter but why should we deny the oppurtunity for increasing someones knowledge because they are not the 'best of the best' in intelligence terms?
The quote about widening participation is I believe concerned with issues of income band and ethnicity not intelligence, these are the isssues with which the debate on elitism is concernec not meritocratic ones as you seem to think.
You talk in scornful terms of 'Turf management' but I could equally highlight English literature, Philosophy and other traditional academic subjects that are for the most part entirely useless career wise and so what, I don't think that line of argument is at alol relevant.
What is relevant in this context is the rigoursness of the testing and the subsequent degree class awarded.
For example, if a student was to get a grant of £1000, what if they wanted to do a popular course costing £3000, they're gonna end up paying more money than they would now anyway aren't they?! And, only 30% of the population would get those grants anyway!
It has to be said, the government has surpassed themselves on this one!:banghead:
I disagree. Fundamentally, we're not talking about education, we're talking about Higher/Further Education. That isn't a right at all, it has to be earned by merit. I would not disagree that a basic education, even to A-level, I would argue, is a right for all, which is far more than the legally binding compulsory education. But further education is qualitatively different.
This is part of the problem. No matter how able or not students are, they demand their 'right' to go to university, and that's not on. There are a goodly number of people at universities across the country who simply are not academically suited. And they are complaining about fees for a course that they shouldn't be on. Somewhat odd, don't you think?
I'm not denying people that opportunity. I'm arguing that they should not get a degree. They should have some other form, BTEC, National Diploma, IB, EB, I don't mind. But unless you are academically able, why should you get a degree?
No, I don't actually care about those issues.
Academic institutions select on the basis of academic merit. That is all. That is how it should be.
We should not go out of our way to ensure that limbless, goatless little girls from Tibet, just because they're a minority, may go to university.
I am far more simplistic. If you are good enough, you go. I don't care where you come from. If I end up with 19 universities full of public school children, because in that year, they were the best then I don't care. If I end up, as I would suspect, with a more normative distribution with a mixture of state and public, then that's okay too.
No, my point was that it should not be a degree. Fine, if you want to qualify in it, do so. If you want to get a job in it, and are happy, then good luck to you. But don't expect to put that on a par with a degree course where students write essays and come under pressure, because you can't compare the two. You either elevate Turf Management beyond all recognition by allowing it degree status, or demean the academic achievement of a better degree. I'd rather not see that.
Besides, I'm not talking specifically about vocationalism for careers. No, a lot of subjects, including my own Geography, cannot be argued to be precisely relevant to any particular career.
My point is that if you have everyone doing a degree, then employers ask for degrees. And not many employers will look at the class of degree, or where it's from. They will see "BA". And that's it.
You know yourself that some subjects do more work than others. Some subjects have harder assignments, more hours in libraries than others. Think of a stereotype that you know well; for us, it's historians, who do no work. And yet, they can come out with a similar degree to you, no matter how much you put in.
Not really.
Because universities differ. Their syllabuses differ. Their method, nature, and even timing of exams differ. Modular or Finals based? Semesters or terms? How can you compare?
I would argue that anyone doing a modular degree has it far easier than I do. Yes, they have to be on their toes and work most of the year, but hell, your degree isn't decided in 14 exams in 6 days like mine. Two years work in 14 exams. You try it.
You can't compare degrees unless you standardise syllabii. And you won't do that, because universities teach to their research interests and specialisms. So what does rigour matter?
But the key issue is one of attitude. Since when has it been your right to go on to Higher Education? Show me the legislation where that right is given. Show me the policy that says so.
It's not.
No one has the right to university education. You have to earn it, and work for it. What is wrong with rewarding those who work hard with a qualification that makes them stand out, and makes them more employable?
I want to be a professional footballer. I go to Manchester United, and demand that I be given a contract like Ryan Giggs, or David Beckham.
Predictably, they ask me to show them if I'm good enough.
I refuse.
It doesn't matter. Being a footballer is a right, you see, and I demand that you let me. And then pay me.
So they ask whether I've trained with anyone; coaching classes, schools, anything like that.
Nope, not at all. Just popped in from the park, thought I'd have a go.
I would be laughed out of Old Trafford.
But that's what you're expecting. That Manchester United fund me to be a professional footballer just because I think I have that right, despite me not being able to kick a ball, or have any fitness or awareness, or anything.
There is no difference between that, and university education.
Everyone wants to be a footballer.
Everyone wants a university education.
Some people just aren't good enough to make the Premiership.
And that's life.
I'm glad you agree that selection should be on the basis of merit, I think everyone agrees with you. It is this ideal that has caused the debate on elitism because some have suggested that the current system does not select on the basis of merit.
I don't see what your objective criteria are for what a degree is. Why should English literature be a degree and not turf management
There was a survey recently that suggested that a high portion of employers do look at the degree class and where it is from, haven't got time to look for it now but I may in the future (you can trust me!:) )
When I mentioned rigourness of testing and degree class I was more thinking of comparisons between degrees rather then unis. That seems to tie in with what you are saying about differential workloads in different degrees.......
It's disguisting it really is. Students have enough trouble at the moment as it is, we're the future generation. It's not fair isolating people who can't afford to go to university in my opinion we're going backwards not forwards in helping educate people.
And there was me thinking that Toadborg and I were the only ones posting here...
It is a fact that children who go to non state schools get better (overall) exam results. And to go to these schools, in the majority of cases, you have to pay. Well I certainly couldn't afford that.
I got good A level results, but 70% of the people on my course did better, and I attend one of these older universities (Durham). If it wasn't for my excellent personal statement and the fact that I am willing to learn and work very hard, I wouldn't be there at all. Is this fair?
Yes.
guardian: "Anger over student debt burden"
bbc: unimpressed
NUS: funding the future
Keep talking then :yes:
I agree with DJP though, I'm at uni and some of the people aren't there to work, they just doss about and it pisses me off that some of these don't have to pay fees because it should be people that both want to be at uni,and have the ability to do well, who are there.
I like your thinking DJ sweetie - the Ivy League system is a well-oiled successful idea, and seen as the Government follow America on pretty much everything else I don't see why they shouldn't follow suit now!
By the way, has any one seen the news about Alevels/ GCSEs being scrapped? Did anyone else TOTALLY see that coming when they introduced the horror that is AS Levels?!
I think this governement is making such a mess of everything, but still people refuse to support the conservatives (probably because Iain duncan smith is bald and has a funny voice).
Right, DJP, you are obviously too far up your own arse to see the good work that is going on transforming the old polytechnics into Universities to rival even the red brick Universities. Take my University for example, Northumbria. Our Law course is the only law course in the country that combines the LPC/BVC with the LLB - the only one! It's been rated as excellent for it's teaching standards, so please, don't label all the former polytechnics in one boat.
I agree, let's encourage the best to go to University, but really, where do you draw the line? I seem to recall having this argument before. I also agree, let's get rid of the irrelevant course such as, say, Sports studies, history, english language, even Geography, these course have no relevance to every day liufe, let's not give them a degree, how about we give them a big "I've been to University" badge, seems a better idea to me. No wonder Universities have no money if they're gonna fund pointless courses such as these.
Saying that however, I think the government are walking on very dangerous grounds if the do try to change the system, as it was suggested, it could well be labour's poll tax, the government seems to forget that students will be the next generation of voters and if they treat them like crap, they'll get what they deserve, a good ass kicking in the elections, Everyone vote Lib Dem!! lol
Whoever you are, log out and back in under yourself. Ta
It's all those geordies making me do it, I swear..