Universities' annual funding reduced by £533m

ThrowingStonesAtYou

zygurat789 wrote: »

Here we go again decrying the govnmt policy. I don't agree with it but am sympathetic to the aim. I am absolutely sick of the spongers who take there subsidised university education and refuse to give anything back. Such as those who emigrate when they qualify or immediately go into employments which are designed purely to feather their own nest ie private dentistry.
I would propose universities be made independent, say as a charity, and charge economic fees to the students. The government actually pays the fee as a loan to the student. Not that much change so far.
The government may require the loan to be repaid in full as now or may waive a significant % for work done in certain jobs ie teaching.
The cost to the government would, therefore, not change for a teacher but there would be a significant amount recouped from people emigrating, becoming private dentists or bankers.
This should enable the govtmnt to save considerable sums and give the universities a greater degree of autonomy

Until the baby boomers and government policy decide to desist their relentless persecution of young, intelligent + ambitious people then the stream of bright youngsters with good future prospects into our universities and then out of the country will only pick up pace.

If we continue down this path, I look forward to the day the baby boomers have all retired expecting 1,000,000% HPI and fat pensions promised by themselves to themselves to give them a luxury retirement at the expense of the young, only to realise the productive youngsters have moved to a country that has something to offer them, leaving the useless chavs behind breeding like rats and leaving the boomers to get their fat, lazy, pampered backsides back down the mines as no money is available to fund their retirement.

How I will laugh:rotfl:

zygurat789

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

Until the baby boomers and government policy decide to desist their relentless persecution of young, intelligent + ambitious people then the stream of bright youngsters with good future prospects into our universities and then out of the country will only pick up pace. I take it you will be leading them. I believe you have to pay for your own education in God's own capitalist country. I'm suggesting it is available to all.


If we continue down this path, I look forward to the day the baby boomers have all retired expecting 1,000,000% HPI and fat pensions promised by themselves to themselves to give them a luxury retirement at the expense of the young, only to realise the productive youngsters have moved to a country that has something to offer them, leaving the useless chavs behind breeding like rats and leaving the boomers to get their fat, lazy, pampered backsides back down the mines as no money is available to fund their retirement.

How I will laugh:rotfl:

Maggie started the process of closing all the mines 'cos she thought the miners had too much power and now they're almost all gone. You must be, at least, pre-boomer if you didn't know this.

CLAPTON

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

Until the baby boomers and government policy decide to desist their relentless persecution of young, intelligent + ambitious people then the stream of bright youngsters with good future prospects into our universities and then out of the country will only pick up pace.

If we continue down this path, I look forward to the day the baby boomers have all retired expecting 1,000,000% HPI and fat pensions promised by themselves to themselves to give them a luxury retirement at the expense of the young, only to realise the productive youngsters have moved to a country that has something to offer them, leaving the useless chavs behind breeding like rats and leaving the boomers to get their fat, lazy, pampered backsides back down the mines as no money is available to fund their retirement.

How I will laugh:rotfl:

Presumably baby boomers are your parents or grandparents... have you asked them why they are persecuting you?

ThrowingStonesAtYou

CLAPTON wrote: »

Presumably baby boomers are your parents or grandparents... have you asked them why they are persecuting you?

No, but I don't really need to, I already know it's because they're greedy

misskool

zygurat789 wrote: »

Here we go again decrying the govnmt policy. I don't agree with it but am sympathetic to the aim. I am absolutely sick of the spongers who take their subsidised university education and refuse to give anything back. Such as those who emigrate when they qualify or immediately go into employments which are designed purely to feather their own nest ie private dentistry.
I would propose universities be made independent, say as a charity, and charge economic fees to the students. The government actually pays the fee as a loan to the student. Not that much change so far.
The government may require the loan to be repaid in full as now or may waive a significant % for work done in certain jobs ie teaching.
The cost to the government would, therefore, not change for a teacher but there would be a significant amount recouped from people emigrating, becoming private dentists or bankers.
This should enable the govtmnt to save considerable sums and give the universities a greater degree of autonomy

this is what happens in America (there are cheaper state universities). The Ivy league universities charge all students the correct amount it costs to educate them. They then give out grants and loans to those who can't afford to study otherwise. The grants and loans come from alumni who donate to their alma mater.

This is slowly happening here too, I keep getting requests for bequests/donations from the universities I went to.

The main problem I see with the American model is that tertiary education really is for the elite. You really have to be able to afford it, there is nothing open access about their education. I don't quite agree with it, generating income from selling education shouldn't be the driving force for a university.

I dunno, I can see pros and cons from both sides. I've confused myself now

zygurat789

misskool wrote: »

this is what happens in America (there are cheaper state universities). The Ivy league universities charge all students the correct amount it costs to educate them. They then give out grants and loans to those who can't afford to study otherwise. The grants and loans come from alumni who donate to their alma mater.

This is slowly happening here too, I keep getting requests for bequests/donations from the universities I went to.

The main problem I see with the American model is that tertiary education really is for the elite. You really have to be able to afford it, there is nothing open access about their education. I don't quite agree with it, generating income from selling education shouldn't be the driving force for a university.

I dunno, I can see pros and cons from both sides. I've confused myself now

But the giovernment pays and only requires payment in certain cases. Does this not answer your concerns?

ukcarper

ThrowingStonesAtYou wrote: »

Until the baby boomers and government policy decide to desist their relentless persecution of young, intelligent + ambitious people then the stream of bright youngsters with good future prospects into our universities and then out of the country will only pick up pace.

If we continue down this path, I look forward to the day the baby boomers have all retired expecting 1,000,000% HPI and fat pensions promised by themselves to themselves to give them a luxury retirement at the expense of the young, only to realise the productive youngsters have moved to a country that has something to offer them, leaving the useless chavs behind breeding like rats and leaving the boomers to get their fat, lazy, pampered backsides back down the mines as no money is available to fund their retirement.

How I will laugh:rotfl:

I think most of the baby boomers on this site will be glad to see the back of you and just because your parents are greedy it doesn’t mean all other baby boomers are.

ThrowingStonesAtYou

ukcarper wrote: »

I think most of the baby boomers on this site will be glad to see the back of you and just because your parents are greedy it doesn’t mean all other baby boomers are.

I'm sure they would... until they want to retire and realise nobody is left to pay for it.

And yes not every boomer has explicitly raved about HPI and fat pensions, however it is very rare to see one who will recognise the generational theft that is clearly occuring, any mention of it gets met with a torrent of drivel about 'youngsters want everything these days, you bought an ipod thats why you can't afford a £200k house blah blah blah etc etc.' As a generation they have condoned and encouraged the theft to continue, the attitude of the media makes it only too clear.

dopester

misskool wrote: »

this is what happens in America (there are cheaper state universities). The Ivy league universities charge all students the correct amount it costs to educate them. They then give out grants and loans to those who can't afford to study otherwise. The grants and loans come from alumni who donate to their alma mater.

Now your explanation is way more honest than Blanchflower's (imo), with the subsidy coming from donations or other fund raising activities (sponsorship).

To me Blanchflower is calling it a 'market rate' for one group - but that market rate happens to be manipulated and unnatural in his world. The slippery creature.

Maybe we should bring in the Blanchflower 'market rate' for other things like utility bills, and petrol, and food. The rich have to pay a higher tier rate, like double, to subsidise it for people who find the bills tougher going. 'Make the rich pay the market price'.

Guardian: Call for universities to charge well-off students £30,000 a year
Former member of the Bank of England's monetary policy committee says poor

Blanchflower said. "Universities are strapped for cash and need more money. So you make the rich pay the market price and use that money to fund the poor."

Not that all richer families would happily pay-up a massive load more under this system. I'd imagine (know) there are 'richer' parents who are still careful with their money, and don't want to overpay for their own children, just to subsidise other kids.

I'd let the market deal with it. Even your elite universities where you 'really have to be able to afford it' are going to meet changes in market circumstances, and competition. And bring on the telepresence in universities. Real-time, high-quality imagery and sound to syndicate the best lecuturers nationwide and internationally. Literally "on stage" anywhere telepresence systems can be plugged in. Cut costs. Dispense with many costly tenured posts. Many full time professors do little teaching anyway. Universities need a good kicking to get costs down and standards up (sorry misskool.. know you're in education and all).

Masomnia

As I see it, the problem with Blanchflower's argument is that rich kids parents don't often pay the tuition fees, the student's get loans themselves. They'll pay back the loans when they work, same as everyone else.

So they get the same degrees, and pay back the same amount. Why should rich kids suffer 3x as much debt as everyone else for the same degree? Their background doesn't necessarilly dictate how much they'll earn in future, so it shouldn't dictate how much they pay to get the job in the first place.