Student Loan 2015 Discussion

The_One_Who

2sides2everystory wrote: »

Why would I willingly do that? I didn't vote for it and it stinks - and incidentally you don't like it either but you are for accepting it because ... ? Are you for example issuing a veiled threat on behalf of whoever generally persecutes the nay sayers when shocking decisions are made on behalf of national governments? Comply or else ? Should I expect a knock on my door before the summer is out ?

I'm sorry, what?

I would have preferred something else, but there's little point in moaning about it. Learn to live with it and move on. You have the choice of accept the fees and go to university, or don't and don't go. I do think that students should pay something towards their education, but what that price should be could be debated until the end of time.

Derivative

The_One_Who wrote: »

I do think that students should pay something towards their education, but what that price should be could be debated until the end of time.

Indeed.
These sort of debates rarely achieve anything.

It's just a sliding scale between two extremes.

Camp 1 wants free education for all.
Camp 2 wants the beneficiaries of said education to contribute towards it wholly.

Trying to convince someone that your viewpoint is superior will never work.

At the end of the day, whatever the politicians decide is. Don't like it - run for Parliament. I'm sure you'd have a hard time pleasing everyone as well.

melancholly

EdgEy wrote: »

Indeed.
These sort of debates rarely achieve anything.

It's just a sliding scale between two extremes.

Camp 1 wants free education for all.
Camp 2 wants the beneficiaries of said education to contribute towards it wholly.

i want free education for all. but the government was never going to give us that. what i want is people to understand the loan system in terms of totals and repayments and what a degree can give you and what it can't.

my main objection is to those trying to suggest that with the new costs, anyone would be mad to go. now this is nowhere near the system i wanted, but i don't see how having a hissy fit and refusing to play with the system that we have achieves anything (other than potentially cutting off someone's nose to spite their own face!). (and i'm trivialising their point of view but it makes the point more clearly!)

campaigning for changes to HE funding is one thing - discussing the current system and what it means is another

Derivative

melancholly wrote: »

i want free education for all. but the government was never going to give us that.

I would also be in favour of free education for all, but what I oppose is people squandering the opportunity, allowed in part by institutions popping up to claim government funding while not really providing a good education. 40% university attendance is not sustainable in my opinion, without redefining what a university life means.

my main objection is to those trying to suggest that with the new costs, anyone would be mad to go. now this is nowhere near the system i wanted, but i don't see how having a hissy fit and refusing to play with the system that we have achieves anything

Indeed. I tend to think the current funding situation is rather backward - £9000 fees make sense for scientific subjects that require expensive equipment, not so much for the humanities.

Unfortunately the Government has decided, in its' infinite wisdom, that University funding should be aimed at increasing GDP, and they seem to think that funding the sciences is the way forward on that front - subsidising the sciences at the expense of other subjects. Whether that's correct or not remains to be seen.

My stake is that of course, I'd prefer to be the only Physics student in the UK so that employers clamber over each other to have me. Fat chance. :P

melancholly

EdgEy wrote: »

Unfortunately the Government has decided, in its' infinite wisdom, that University funding should be aimed at increasing GDP, and they seem to think that funding the sciences is the way forward on that front - subsidising the sciences at the expense of other subjects. Whether that's correct or not remains to be seen.

i don't think anyone in the HE sector thinks that these changes in fees will do anything other than damage science courses! i fully expect many departments to go under. even with the higher fees, the full cost of a science degree isn't covered. humanities courses have always subsidised science courses, but with the staggering drop in teaching funding, there will be less money coming into unis to allow that to happen! science is far from protected.

The_One_Who

melancholly wrote: »

i don't think anyone in the HE sector thinks that these changes in fees will do anything other than damage science courses! i fully expect many departments to go under. even with the higher fees, the full cost of a science degree isn't covered. humanities courses have always subsidised science courses, but with the staggering drop in teaching funding, there will be less money coming into unis to allow that to happen! science is far from protected.

Yep. It wasn't that long ago when there was the mass closure of university chemistry departments. Then the government and universities tried to bribe people into doing sciences (especially physics) by offering bursaries and scholarships, but that didn't work either. In my view because people lose interest in these at school-level, and so the pool of people who could do these courses at such a level dwindles with each year through school.

English Literature and History are two of the most over-subscribed courses, yet the funding (teaching and research) has been decimated.

Like I've said, if we are to keep the level of students (if only because dismantling swathes of universities would do more harm than good) then students should be expected to contribute to the cost, in my view. Especially since they seem to be expecting more and more out of universities with each passing year. In an ideal world I'd like to see fewer students, and so there would be a bigger pot of money available to fund them.

2sides2everystory

melancholly wrote: »

... science is far from protected.

Nothing is protected from where the overall economic plan will lead very shortly.

Meanwhile, living off six or seven grand a year will be good practice and aiming to become a physics graduate a laudible aim, EdgEy, but there are an awful lot of us about and soon hoards of us whether once earning £6K or 65K per household will all be in the same bread queue if we don't start getting the big things right and resisting the creeping (and burgeoning) "austerity measures" which are intended to cow us into confused, fearful submission for a generation or two

Derivative

2sides2everystory wrote: »

there are an awful lot of us about and soon hoards of us whether once earning £6K or 65K per household will all be in the same bread queue

If you're earning 65k gross household income you're in a position to retire within about 10-20 years depending on what you want your retirement income to be.

Bread queue? Fat chance, excluding hyperinflation, are you predicting that?

2sides2everystory

EdgEy wrote: »

If you're earning 65k gross household income you're in a position to retire within about 10-20 years depending on what you want your retirement income to be.

Well the 65Kpa was never mine, but nevertheless I'd rather hoped retirement would be sooner than the 10-20 you have mapped for me !

Bread queue? Fat chance, excluding hyperinflation, are you predicting that?

There are those who'd quite enjoy seeing it happen. Who will stop it if the idea gathers any momentum? We can't just keep devaluing the pound ad infinitum - and if we do, our farmers are rather accustomed to commanding the best global prices for their cereals. One imagines that the Chinese with their almost completely respectable renminbi might be willing customers at those prices and our friends in the city will handle all the necessary FOREX for them without bothering us plebs. What's the average wage in China today ? USD2,000? Is that fair? They might soon be hoping for a little more rebalancing bearing in mind they do all the world's manufacturing. A GBP:CNY parity ought to be enough to see bread queues in UK. Have you opened your RNB account yet ? How will your £65K pa and your Higgs boson help you then - unless that is you are confident that you are to transcend all the boundaries and become a global player?

melancholly

The_One_Who wrote: »

Like I've said, if we are to keep the level of students (if only because dismantling swathes of universities would do more harm than good) then students should be expected to contribute to the cost, in my view. Especially since they seem to be expecting more and more out of universities with each passing year. In an ideal world I'd like to see fewer students, and so there would be a bigger pot of money available to fund them.

if i thought that the government would save money with the new loans system, then i might agree that this has some merit, even if i don't hold the same view about paying for education. as it is, the savings are minimal if they even exist (which is one of the most scandalous parts imo!). cutting student numbers is one thing, but other training would be needed and that would cost money too - the pot would just get split differently for vocational training and apprenticeships etc (which should be better funded).

cutting student numbers would have to mean cutting some unis, or adopting the Welsh forced-merger approach. i'm not sure i like their way of doing things, they've been very confrontational, but at least it's tackling the problem head on rather than trying to get increased fees to indirectly cause unis to close down! (and i think the secretary of state does have the power to close unis which don't have a royal charter? i'm not really sure how that all works, but the power is there to make difficult decisions, even if the will/desire isn't!)