Tuition fee protest

PasturesNew

silvercar wrote: »

Remember that it won't effect current students only new students starting degrees in 2013 or later. So these current students protesting are doing so because they think its wrong not because they have a vested interest.

Or because they don't understand because, like most things, a tiny bit of information is out there and nothing's explained in simple terms... allowing people to shoot off at the mouth for the wrong reasons.

I've just had a conversation with a Uni student who believes she will have to drop out as she won't be able to afford it, she's already started.

The facts are never actually made clear in anything any Govt ever do. It's all confusing, little dribs and drabs of half information, enabling everybody to grab wrong ends of any stick.

Cleaver

ILW wrote: »

I take no notice of any protests about how to spend public money, unless the protestors are actually paying tax and contributing.

What an odd stance to take.

tomterm8

ILW wrote: »

I take no notice of any protests about how to spend public money, unless the protestors are actually paying tax and contributing.

Almost all students these days pay tax, because almost all students have to work to be able to eat. Over their life time, graduates pay more tax than non-graduates. The most recent OECD survey claimed that on average university graduates provide a net benefit to society of £82,000 over their life time.

abaxas

tomterm8 wrote: »

Almost all students these days pay tax, because almost all students have to work to be able to eat. Over their life time, graduates pay more tax than non-graduates. The most recent OECD survey claimed that on average university graduates provide a net benefit to society of £82,000 over their life time.

But in reality that figure will decrease as more people go to university. It's only in the last 10-15 years have we seen the explosion of 'graduates'.

However in the job market, the single largest thing that contributes to future earning potential, is being '!!!!!d' to work.

Cleaver

abaxas wrote: »

How about we provide education, not send more people to university.

Controversial, but might work.

I agree. However, this approach would take innovative thought, a change in culture, hard work and careful planning. Can't really see the government going for this when the other option is a nice and simple raising of the fees.

Pete111

tomterm8 wrote: »

THIS IS NOT TRUE.

AND IT WILL NOT BE TRUE HOWEVER MUCH YOU SHOUT.

The truth is, this measure will save no money until around 4 years time, at which point according to the governments own forecast, THERE WILL BE NO DEFICIT.

This is not a measure reqired to tackle the deficit.

Sorry which bit is not true? I think you will find the post it note did exist...And where did I say this was a deficit reducing measure?

What this is is part of the national belt tightening and though it is nasty and unfair etc etc it's going to keep happening due to the reasons portrayed by Mr Byrne.

Get used to it.

Cleaver

abaxas wrote: »

But in reality that figure will decrease as more people go to university. It's only in the last 10-15 years have we seen the explosion of 'graduates'.

However in the job market, the single largest thing that contributes to future earning potential, is being '!!!!!d' to work.

In most job markets it's a complex mix of lots of things that gets you better and better jobs. Degrees, hard graft, other qualifications, communication skills, luck etc. etc.

I'd still rather have a degree than not have one.

tomterm8

Pete111 wrote: »

Sorry which bit is not true? I think you will find the post it note did exist...And where did I say this was a deficit reducing measure?

What this is is part of the national belt tightening and though it is nasty and unfair etc etc it's going to keep happening due to the reasons portrayed by Mr Byrne.

Get used to it.

Your claim that this measure is necessary because there is no money is a simple, dishonest, down right untrue, blatant lie.

This measure will have no significant effect on the public debt until the deficit problem has already resolved.

This measure is not required as part of the national belt tightning, and will only have any effect of public finances once that belt tightning has already worked.

Pete111

tomterm8 wrote: »

Your claim that this measure is necessary because there is no money is a simple, dishonest, down right untrue, blatant lie.

This measure will have no significant effect on the public debt until the deficit problem has already resolved.

This measure is not required as part of the national belt tightning, and will only have any effect of public finances once that belt tightning has already worked.

Hmmm so money saved by the reduced Govt spending on Universities is going to be wasted is it??Perhaps cashed out in £50's and used to light the cigars of fat cats? I think not...

Also, if you think the UK's fiscal problems will be solved in 4 years after 13 years of labours spend and borrow policies as well as a complete global finacial meltdown then you are in la la land..

ash28

StevieJ wrote: »

I thought the profession these days was mostly degree entry, other methods exist (AAT route) but they are likely to be looked down upon. I know my old boss started doing chartered at 16 and his father had to pay for him to enter articles.

Not for older studiers - both CIMA and ACCA have courses where you don't need a degree - they are part time - I know a number of people who studied CIMA in their 20s and 30s without a degree.