Student protest?

[rubixcyoob.]

Indy and Laura, compared to some grades universities were wanting for my course, they were indeed medicore. I was on my phone and then LO called so I had to shorten all my points, sorry.

For Glasgow University I needed AAAAA for my subject. For Stirling University I needed AABB for the same course. For the University of the West of Scotland I needed BBCC. Don't people realise that the more popular universities are the ones who can riase the bar because they know people will still want to go to them, whereas the less popular ones need to lower the bar just to drive people in?
It is not the students where problems lie. It is the university admissions themselves. We complain that too many 'mediocre' students get in and mess around, but the fact is, many little universities open up which allows them to go. Why should every single student be forced to pay fees to attend to keep these people out? Why should we and future generation have to pay to recitfy the mistakes their generations did not partake in?

If we want to keep universities for the academics in our society we should scrap these little universities like the University of the West of Scotland who take in anyone. This would keep away those who won't gradute with good grades. Closing these institutes will stop governments having to pay for their finances and save money, which could keep fees at their current level, or if they need to increased maybe it won't be as drastic.

But the fact of the matter is right now, the tuition increase will not drive out the mediocre from the elite academically. It will push out the poor and only allow the rich, despite their grades. This is about wealth financially, not the wealth of knowledge just now. I feel that having too many rich people within a university who go because it is expected and daddy can pay for it, regardless of what these people do with their time. That is the problem right now. It doesn't matter about grades currently, but status and welath. Nothing else.

And again, the social structure of our country will completely crumble if only the rich, regardless of academia, can get into the highest professions. It will deepen the divide between the rich and poor. It will force nearly everyone into vocational subjects because they cannot pay those fees and the debts are too daunting. If the normal, working or lower middle classes get into university, they will be a stigma because they aren't the 'norm'. This is not a healthy climate either.
There needs to be a balance between academics from both ends of the university spectrum and welath from both ends of the social standing within our establishments to keep our country evened out.
If too little people go to university it will be detrimental. It too many go to university it is detrimental, but unfortunately people will be hindered due to the financial issues attatched to university right now.

University should be about academia, money should play no part. That is why people get angry.
There is also the other arguement I made, why do some people have to pay to achieve their ambitions yet others do not? If I were to become a qualified solicitor and do legal aid work, I could earn less than someone with a college level education. Yet if I were to start university next year or the year after I'd have to pay and they would not. You cannot say people should pay because they will earn more because there is no guarantee of that fact.

If education above high school is going to be personally financed it should be all education, not just a select part. It takes away disrcimination and it also makes it the norm to pay, not easier for people to avoid advanced education all together. Personally if everyone going into any education were to pay a flat, low rate it would probably raise more than trying to make university increases so high. Say it worked like this - every student going into any education outside high scho, be it university or college paid £1000 a year you could get 9 people educated for that cost instead of one person educated to university level at the current rates now.
All it means is people pay £5000 less for a university degree but since colleges are also paying, there is more finance there.
It would never really work though, wishful thinking.

But I digress. It is not the students that are mediocre, it is universities lowering standards. If those establishments were scrapped then university would once again be about academia. Education should never be for the rich and daunting for everyone else, it should be equal throughout it all.

 

[indy and lara]

Think we probably are thinking much the same thing. I do not agree with fees and think higher education should be open to all regardless of income or background. But I do think that there should be a high academic baseline for entry. As I said, not all degrees are equal.

My husband is tutoring again next term on a course at a Russel Group uni He was there today and they are seriously worried about the impact the fees will have on them. They have capacity for 130 1st years but only had 60 students this year. This is in a skills shortage area and the problem is only going to worsen and spread to other disciplines.

Incidently Edinburgh and Glasgow wanted 5As for law when I started uni in 1993 so there are places where the standards have not changed/dropped in almost 20 years!

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Yeah it's not changed, but with the opening of the UWS there is room for people with lesser grades to come through, get a lesser degree at a higher level and take jobs.
University should be about academina, not money, not fees, not stauts, nothing bar adacemics.
It's ashame that this has been lost along the way and all together now.

 

[SKATERBUN]

The loan doesnt go on your credit file, so you would still be eligible for a mortgage..

Just clearing that up as someone on this thread queried how students will buy a house once they graduate e.t.c

I disagree with the rioting, but it was hardly going to be a peaceful protest.

I, on the other hand am not too bothered about the increase, dare I be contraversial! Im sure the 9000 fees are only for Oxford and Cambridge. All other unis are up to 6000.

You dont pay anything back till your earning over £21k and even then it wont be a huge amount. If students want to take other loans on top, then unfortunately you have to pay it back thats life.....

You go to uni, and see plenty of students dressed up in designer clothes with fancy cars.There was a time, when students lived to their means to ensure they left uni with minimal debt? But now students want it all, no one wants to wait for anything. My fiance went and had a look at the student accomodation at his university. They do luxury accomodation, that look like penthouses with Plasma Screen TV's in the rooms. £900 a month!! Hello! They have got to be frickin kiddin me?!!!!

I think a lot of students are wasting their bloody time at uni. They dont really want to be there, picked a course they *liked* with no sight into the future, or simply went to a uni to please parents. I think this will deter students from going to university for the sake of getting a degree, then getting a job at tescos afterwards. You dont need a degree for tescos, you dont need a degree for call cantre work!!

HOWEVER, how they can determine what is a useful degree is as opposed to a non-useful degree I dont know. Its all subjective.

I know what you mean about this point, I'm not a student so I'm by no means generalising, I know some students really strive hard to make on theie own and also when they have a lo like rubixcoob, but where I am in Brighton I know lots of students claim poverty and join these protests out of solidarity, but on the other hand they are all in Topshop/Hollister/Jack Wills buying the latest kit, sorry but thats just a few I know, they go to Uni to get away from their parents and spend their parents money mainly! lol

 

[blinkybaby]

^^ I go to Brighton uni too and I know exactly what you mean!

 

[rubixcyoob.]

I should have went there, I live in Primark clothes! So do most the students I know ... lol.

 

[SKATERBUN]

Yes anyone who wants to invest in their future and doesnt have a rich mummy and daddy to help them out usually does Rubix, its common sense, i do feel for the students who really want to be there. I worry about the ones that leave Uni basically drifting along who then expect something handed to them on a plate. Everyones in the same boat at the end of the day fighting for the next job

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Yeah I know what you're saying, its ashame on the majority.
But all I meant was, take me to a place where students can afford such luxuries! I want in on it lol. I lived in a room planned from a prison jail cell (no joke) last year, I'm more than ready for an all topshop wardrobe!

 

[SKATERBUN]

it would be interesting to know which percentage of students rioting are on the breadline so to speak - there defo needs to be more help for those that need it and those that are going to benefit society when they leave, doctors, etc there needs to be incentives for these students

 

[cherryglitter]

Wasn't there someone rioting who was like a multi-millionaire?! (Well his parents were!)
I can't remember his naaaameee.. going to annoy me now!

 

[smokey]

Do you mean Charlie Gilmour, hes the son of pink floyds guitarist and was seemed to pop up alot climbing war mamorials, ripping down flags, trying to burn flags and was one of the ones in the charles and camilla incident.

I think his name has come up alot purely for who he is but I also think he was more showing off for who he is as well.

 

[KrisKitten]

I don't see why it is wrong for further education to be commonly taken and viewed as a right just because it wasn't always that way.

The fact is it is becoming that way and that is how people progress and change. In the 19 century it would of been ludicrous to think of so many people going to college whereas now dropping out of school at 16 is often looked down on as a 6th form/collee education is seen as standard.
As a populace we are much more educated and intelligant than we once were and that should be being embraced not frowned on.
When school leaving age was upped to 16 and then college was made pretty standard many people disagreed, saw it as a waste of time and waste of government money. History now looks at those people as socially backward and ignorant to the benefits of education.
Just something to think about imo x

 

[PeanutBean]

Man I wish I'd had time for news and debates sooner than today! Long post ahead...

The Royals
You've to ask yourself how it came about that a breakaway group of protestors went directly to the route the royals were taking; how there were press photographers there already; and why Camilla's window was left open enabling her to be prodded with a stick. If you don't smell a tabloid set up in this then I'd be very surprised.

The universal benefit of University
Gaining a degree has huge benefits for the economy as well as the individual. I agree with Marley about transferable skills. I agree with Tattiesmum about the lack of graduates in certain subjects. Coming from the science sector myself it is a huge concern that we are not getting enough grads and that they are leaving for other countries where the work pays better. The future of the UK economy depends on the science and engineering sector. Completely.

Did I pay fees?
No, I took a year out after getting offered a place which made me the last year to get fees paid and grants whilst most of my classmates were paying fees. My parent paid a contribution to the grant scheme, I got grants, I paid no fees, I got a loan of about £1.75k every year. I worked my year out and saved; I worked full time every holiday; I worked part time throughout my final year in a bar (yes it negatively affected my studies); I rarely went out and didn't particularly drink nor buy a car nor spend my money on clothes or expensive mobile phones or any luxuries other than rent, bills and food; I worked bloody hard and left uni with a first class science degree. I left uni with about £3k debt that I only paid off through capital gained from my first house sale - something that will be unachievable for students facing these fees because they won't be able to afford a house.

I still haven't paid of any of my student loan (10 years and counting) because I don't earn enough. Once I start it'll be about £100 per month. Bearing in mind we will then be with a family of two children and paying £12k per year in childcare with no tax credits to help because of the lowering of the boundary for eligibility, yes I will very much notice my student loan payment once it starts coming out. Give MY situation having had my fees paid and leaving uni with what these days seems a small amount of debt the thought of leaving with £27k and having 30 years to pay it, paying interest all along is terrifying. Plus those who earn the highest will pay off their loans quickly and pay little debt, those who earn the lowest will never pay it off and will spend 30 years paying into an education that has not in the slightest financially benefited them. Those in the middle will take about 30 years to pay it off which will about double the initial cost of the fees because of the interest. So in short the richest will pay the least. Those who benefit the most financially will suffer the least.

Protest violence
Well, apart from hurting people (which is mostly what the police do and push to happen with their stategies like charging and kettling) I find I don't mind too much if protestors trash some stuff. Why? I marched with a million people against the Gulf War. We were pretty peaceful and got ignored. If I wasn't pregnant and with toddler I'd be at as many protests as I could get to. As a side note there is no reason why only those on the breadline should be protesting, just because people can afford high fees doesn't mean they shouldn't protest to support those who can't. I have much more wealth than many people in the country but I vote Labour and sign petitions and write to my MP about things that have no effect on me because I want what is best for society not just myself.

Student wasters
There were quite a few wasters at my uni. I went to a red brick uni so there were lots of posh people. They were the wasters. I don't feel a lesson in frugality for a few should be paid by a generation who will never achieve their potential.

ALL the universities will soon be charging £9k. Rest assured.

The deficit
Whatever you might think about how it was caused or how it should be fixed, please don't anyone be deceived into thinking this move has anything whatsoever to do with the deficit. It is entirely ideological. The evidence is that in the long run this system will cost the state more not less and it certainly won't be bringing in more money at the start when higher amounts will be given out in the loans.

The Lib Dem Con
I didn't vote Lib (any of you who've been in political debate with me will know I'm firmly red) but the Lib's popularity has vastly increased almost excusively due to the student vote. Take Clegg. He won his seat in Sheffield Hallam with a vote of about 15k. There are 10k students in that constituency. Even assuming not all vote and not all vote Lib it is not a wild conclusion to draw that his promises of free HE carried the way. I have loads of friends who voted Lib (more fool them for they are mourning it now) ALL of whom based it significantly on the free HE (even though they are out of uni now anyway) and the ideology associated with free HE. We all expected this of the Tories but the Lib voters have been sorely let down by the coalition. Don't forget also that free HE was one of Clegg's red line policies that he wouldn't let go in the coalition negotiations. Labour of course brought in the fees in the first place - very sad - and they commissioned the Browne report (don't get me started on Browne) however there is no knowing what would have happened with the report were Labour in power now. Ed M is backing a graduate tax.

To summarise I entirely agree with Rubixcyoob and KrisKitten and neglected Redpoppy.

Blinkybaby:
I agree that the 50% target from Labour was not right. But to think that uni was for the academic elite is wrong. It was for the wealthy. Uni is still fairly well for those that do well at school, it is competitive after all and courses have an entrance level appropriate to the course. But to assume that those who do less well at school should have no right to have post-18 education is very sad. If all were equal in school then that would be fine but every pupil does what they can in the environment they are in. Those in difficult schools in deprived areas will do less well than those at public and independent schools, is it fair their whole life prospects should be ruined because of where they were born and what money their parents had? We currently have little to no state investment in FE, adult and part time learning. The Tories long ago scrapped apprenticeships which never recovered despite Labour's efforts. Because of this there are very few alternative routes to improve oneself through education. These fees close another door to many. I agree, the whole thing does need a rethink.

 

[blinkybaby]

Peanutbean - that's what I mean when I say that the focus should be on getting gifted students from ALL backgrounds into uni - I believe it should not be about money at all (which I agree, is how it was in the past) but about getting people with ambition, drive, ability and the will to succeed into university. I know it's probably very ideological of me and I'm imagining a utopia that will never happen, but I want tuition fees abolished, and for there to be no barrier on the most talented students getting in, despite where they went to school and despite how much money their parents have. I probably phrased my original post a bit wrong when I said uni for the academic elite was how it was in the past, what I meant was that in my opinion this is how it should be in the future, and only if the government can make it work so that everyone from every school has as fair a shot at it than any one else (I imagine this will never happen).

My main point was that there has to be some sort of scaling down if fees are ever to be abolished, because there's just not enough money to fund every one that wants to go.

And I agree with Kriskitten that as society progresses, viewpoints in this sort of thing will change and progress, but if it is commonly viewed by people that further university education should be a right that we are all entitled to, then people shouldn't quibble at the possibility that people are going to have to pay for it somehow. The government just can't magic money out of thin air, and it has to be paid for somehow.

 

[PeanutBean]

lol Sorry if I came across as picking on your post, yours was just recent to mine so worth replying to properly! I see what you mean and I think our opinions tie. I don't think it's possible to pay entirely for all the students going to uni which of course is a much higher number than in even the recent past. Can't remember if I said in my post here or in the other fees thread but I think there should be diversification of educational opportunities to suit the different fields of study, interests and careers. Ideally all free! Or I'm not actually averse to input from the private sector, especially where vocational qualifications are concerned.

An educated society is a more successful one so the more people that can benefit from additional education one way or another the better. There are still plenty of gaps in provision at primary and secondary level which is a crying shame!

 

[blinkybaby]

Agreed

No you didn't come across as picking on my post, I just realised when I read yours that I kind of didn't articulate properly what I meant!

xx

 

[rubixcyoob.]

Well said PeanutBean!
I actually wanted to go to the march in London, I doubt I would have trashed stuff and poked the royals with sticks but they were the minority.
However, I had LO and couldn't go. A bus load from my university went and they said the amount of people who actually 'rioted' was so small in comparisson to what the media said it was.

 

[PeanutBean]

Remember the press is almost universally right wing these days and a good proportion of it controlled by Murdoch who is as much in bed with the Tories as Clegg is. Of course they only focus on the violence, they want to mask the issues, but nonetheless the protestors should do whatever it takes to be heard IMO.