NUS secretly pushed for drastic cuts in grants

leveller2911

vaporate wrote: »

Baited.

Working people pay high taxes no matter what the affair is.

Iraq war is one example.

You should see what the council spends your council tax money on...now that is a horror story. After working for one.

I'm on my 4th glass of wine so please don't enlighten me...:D

vaporate

leveller2911 wrote: »

vaporate wrote: »

Erm not really.

If one uni charges less, one might see it as less quality over another uni that charges more.

Is that not just snobbery though? I mean what would one base that arguement on?

I would have thought most students would research the universities and make an informed choice based on which would be best for them and nothing to do with the charges..

Well in 2012, I can see more students staying local, avoiding accommodation fees. That really will save alot.

vaporate

leveller2911 wrote: »

I'm on my 4th glass of wine so please don't enlighten me...:D

I was actually a little disgusted at the things they spent the money on. The word waste is a understatement.

Kohoutek

leveller2911 wrote: »

I would have thought most students would research the universities and make an informed choice based on which would be best for them and nothing to do with the charges..

To put it bluntly, if students made informed choices on their suitability for higher education, probably less than 50% of young people would be going to university...

In theory, these changes should be an opportunity for some of the lower ranked institutions to offer cheaper, shorter, more streamlined courses with more direct relevance to a specific type of business or career. I doubt it's going to happen though – academics wouldn't accept teaching on those terms. I could certainly see the private education sector grabbing this opportunity though. For example, there is a private university called BPP that already offers two year law degrees.

tomterm8

leveller2911 wrote: »

Your not Rochdale Pioneers socky are you?.......Or is Rochdale Pioneer your socky? . Headache ,time for a lay down.........

Your obviously an inteligent chap so !!!!!! stop being so political...

I'm not a labour party supporter, have never voted for them, and have on quite a few occasions said on specific policies I agreed with the conservatives.

But I will never believe either the Labour Party, Liberal Democrats, or Labour party are members of some happy team who are all in it together.

The entire political elite is a world apart from most normal people.

leveller2911 wrote: »

If you honestly believe that Nu-Labour would have done anything different you are sadly deluded.There are some Labour ministers,MP',s and ex prime ministers who should hold their heads in shame at the money they wasted over the last decade or so.You seem intent on blaming the Condems for all the cuts when the truth is the political elite are ALL to blame..............I refer you to Liam Byrnes note:"Theres no money left" ...

Wow. I think I've already said I simply think Liam Byrnes is wrong, and that this is the most !!!! poor excuse for a terrible policy I have ever heared in my life.

As for what Labour would have done... it is frankly irrelevant: they were chucked out of office because they f**ed up, and now it is the Tory turn. But the policies look pretty much identical to me. I don't see the massive differences I'm supposed to.

You'll also excuse me if I won't change who I am for you. I am political. If you disagree with what I think, that is fine, you don't have to listen.

Oh yes, and I've said several dozen times on this forum that YES, I would like the NHS to be cut. I believe the NHS dental service should be removed altogether. There are a lot of services that the NHS provides that I don't believe are necessary, and there are a lot of people in the NHS who are paid more than the prime minister and don't earn their wages.

dawyldthing

well when they first could charge upto £3200 I think it was they were all quick enough to charge the full amount, so I think they will be quick enough to start charging more again. I know if I went again I would look for the cheapest course in all honesty. I went back in 2005 as back then it was the last year that if you were from a low income then your fees were paid for you, now its just added onto the debt level. I know for a fact that if I stay on a similar amount that I am on now (not much better than minimum wage) I won't pay a penny of the £22,000 that I have borrowed. I do feel a bit guilty that it won't be paid back, but it will always technically be 'there' even if its not paid back. I do think it is silly keep 'raising' the tuition fees as money wise yes they are raising the tuition fees, but I don't earn £15,000 now and the new ones need to earn £21,000 to start paying it back, so its even less likely that it will be paid back as there really are very few people on that amount really, at a guess I would say probably 60% of the country are on less that amount, degree or no degree. So they are raising the fees, but will never be paid back. If it was me I think a minimum of £1000 should be paid back every year when your wages go to £15000 and then more being paid back at every £5000. If they did it this way in 20 years time or so the loans will then start and fund themselves.

I also think interest shouldn't be charged as then the actual amount could be paid back as I know at the moment it is at inflation, but its no good being at inflation if its never being paid back.

leveller2911

tomterm8 wrote: »

Wow. I think I've already said I simply think Liam Byrnes is wrong, and that this is the most !!!! poor excuse for a terrible policy I have ever heared in my life

As for what Labour would have done... it is frankly irrelevant: they were chucked out of office because they f**ed up, and now it is the Tory turn. But the policies look pretty much identical to me. I don't see the massive differences I'm supposed to.

Oh yes, and I've said several dozen times on this forum that YES, I would like the NHS to be cut. I believe the NHS dental service should be removed altogether. There are a lot of services that the NHS provides that I don't believe are necessary, and there are a lot of people in the NHS who are paid more than the prime minister and don't earn their wages.

The fact remains the national debt is absolutely huge, the interest payments are enormous ,if you consider what the interest money we pay on the debt would build..

I agree with your post about the NHS waste, we can but hope the Condems do start cut some of the waste from the NHS ,I have always said we expect far to much from the NHS.I would not like to see front line service cuts, Cancer treatments and ambulance stations cut.

A good friend of mine works for East Sussex Fire & Rescue and apparently there is a big drive for the Ambulance service to be run by the Fire service similar to the States.......IMO this is a big mistake.We already have firemen filling in for Ambulance men/wmen in our area and the fact is they have very basic training and the ambulance service are far too thin on the ground.

tomterm8

leveller2911 wrote: »

The fact remains the national debt is absolutely huge, the interest payments are enormous ,if you consider what the interest money we pay on the debt would build..

I agree with your post about the NHS waste, we can but hope the Condems do start cut some of the waste from the NHS ,I have always said we expect far to much from the NHS.I would not like to see front line service cuts, Cancer treatments and ambulance stations cut.

A good friend of mine works for East Sussex Fire & Rescue and apparently there is a big drive for the Ambulance service to be run by the Fire service similar to the States.......IMO this is a big mistake.We already have firemen filling in for Ambulance men/wmen in our area and the fact is they have very basic training and the ambulance service are far too thin on the ground.

Personally, I think the NHS should provide emergency care, chronic care, and care through terminal illnesses. I believe the private sector should provide routine care, and this should be funded by some form of regulated private insurance.

Frankly, my scheme is more radical than any scheme that is every likely to go through.

The reason I am so against these changes... the change to University funding, to library funding, and to research funding is this...

With a decent education and access to a library I can learn any skill I need to learn.

However bad my life turns out, I have access to the information that gives me a chance to improve it.

And I always have a real chance to improve my life.

I am dyslexic. It's taken me years of effort to become literate(even with the spelling mistakes) , much more than 90% of the people on this forum, and I will go to war before I let any political party damage the opportunity for my kids if I ever have them to get the same chance for an education.

With literacy, education and a library any kid has the chance, however bad their start, to work their way up and have a full, successful life.


If me harping on about this is irritating... well, prepare to be irritated.:D

As for the national debt... at the end of the parliament the government plans to spend more money each year than at the start. In real terms. It spends money on some trully awful stuff, which isn't necessary. I find it hard to understand why there is no money for education, when there is money for completly irrelevant stuff - such as the common european foreign office, the common agricultural policy, international aid, MPs expenses, glossy council magazines, microsoft word when there is free software available, and irrelevant layers of civil servants that do nothing which really doesn't improve this country at all.

ILW

I fail to see why degrees take 3 years. I have a friend who did an OU degree in 4 years of just a couple of hours a day study. If some unis offered a two years course it would tend to attract the better students who were fast learners and save a lot in fees.

Kohoutek

ILW wrote: »

I fail to see why degrees take 3 years. I have a friend who did an OU degree in 4 years of just a couple of hours a day study. If some unis offered a two years course it would tend to attract the better students who were fast learners and save a lot in fees.

Most undergraduate degrees could certainly theoretically be completed within two years with more intensive learning.

However, two year degrees are very unlikely to ever become the mainstream, certainly not at universities with a good reputation. One reason is that a two year degree is simply is not as transferable and reputable as a three or four year degree, especially internationally. Most countries have at least three year undergraduate courses, if not four (e.g. US, China).

Academics would argue that it would make undergraduate study entirely exam orientated like A-Levels (and they would hate teaching like this) and they would probably be right. If you want to teach people how to think for themselves and how to learn independently rather than simply how to cram for exams, two year degrees are probably not a good idea. For those "degrees" that weren't degrees ten or fifteen years ago, it would probably be a good idea though.