Landlords' Lament, the end of Section 21

chucknorris

Arklight wrote: »

According to who? Have you asked all taxpayers?

I find it interesting that (if i recall correctly) you are a university lecturer who doesn't seem to see any point in the majority of people going to university.

It's not rocket science, I posted it, so obviously according to me, it is my opinion.

I don't see the point in vast numbers going to university, I see at first hand many students who have not had value. Also it creates difficulty in lecturing, I try my best, but it is difficult to lecture to a large class with a wide range of ability. It is a delicate balance to keep the lectures challenging for the most capable students, without leaving the less able students behind. Up until now I have attempted to handle this by offering addition tutorial time (in my own time) to the weaker students.

EDIT: The poster below, Zagubov who is more or less saying the same as me is also a university lecturer.

zagubov

chucknorris wrote: »

My preferred system would be to have less students with either free or heavily subsidised fees. What I thought was particularly unfair, was to increase the fees in one year, they could have easily phased the high fees in over a number of years. Imagine how the students in the first year of higher fees felt.

We shouldn't have converted the polys and HE colleges into universities, or tried to force 40% of the country to do degrees in the first place.

Instead we should have expanded the OU, and expanded HE provision in the college sector so HNCs and HNDs and DipHEs.

There shouldn't be a Minister for Education; they bring in the most useless changes and cause far too much chaos.

chucknorris

zagubov wrote: »

We shouldn't have converted the polls and HE colleges into universities, or tried to force 40% of the country to do degrees in the first place.

Instead we should have expanded the OU, and expanded HE provision in the college sector so HNCs and HNDs and DipHEs.

Yes I totally agree!

Arklight

zagubov wrote: »

We shouldn't have converted the polys and HE colleges into universities, or tried to force 40% of the country to do degrees in the first place.

Instead we should have expanded the OU, and expanded HE provision in the college sector so HNCs and HNDs and DipHEs.

There shouldn't be a Minister for Education; they bring in the most useless changes and cause far too much chaos.

People go to uni for employment. The problem with that I think is either that employers know nothing about HE and just want to see some kind of degree certificate from somewhere, which lowers quality, or think they know too well. Which means that someone who has a good degree classification in a solid subject from a mid or low tier university will find their application goes straight in the bin for some employers, because as far as they are concerned they haven't really been to university.

This is unfair not least of all because low end universities spend a lot of money on convincing good students that they are just as good as higher end ones, and they do convince some who work hard and get good grades (often against the odds).

Ideally the miserable half way house we have between the state and the market would end, and the government would just fund only "proper" degree courses that there was an educational imperative for.

It makes no sense to me that someone can be charged £9250 a year to do a BA in Computer Gaming from a low ranking minnow and there be an accreditatory framework saying that this is of the same worth as someone who has got a BA in History from Durham. It's really sad when you think that the student is on the sharp end of this confidence trick.

Newnoel

chucknorris wrote: »

It's not rocket science, I posted it, so obviously according to me, it is my opinion.

I don't see the point in vast numbers going to university, I see at first hand many students who have not had value. Also it creates difficulty in lecturing, I try my best, but it is difficult to lecture to a large class with a wide range of ability. It is a delicate balance to keep the lectures challenging for the most capable students, without leaving the less able students behind. Up until now I have attempted to handle this by offering addition tutorial time (in my own time) to the weaker students.

EDIT: The poster below, Zagubov who is more or less saying the same as me is also a university lecturer.

Very true. The American multi-national I work for is now very selective in terms of the types of universities that they consider. Given that so many come out with a first class degree these days, degree class is no longer a valid selection criteria.



I have done a bit of voluntary lecturing and coaching at a local so called university, and the truth is that many of these students would be better off going straight into the world of work, rather than spending tens of thousands of pounds in a fairly pointless BA in Bread and Circuses or suchlike.

Newnoel

Arklight wrote: »

It makes no sense to me that someone can be charged £9250 a year to do a BA in Computer Gaming from a low ranking minnow and there be an accreditatory framework saying that this is of the same worth as someone who has got a BA in History from Durham. It's really sad when you think that the student is on the sharp end of this confidence trick.

This is the real issue



I would only consider the Durham candidate. I don't have time or interest to figure out the quality of a degree from the University of West Albion.

Herzlos

AG47 wrote: »

All the permanent prob bulls who say there will be not enough rental properties for all the renters in the future, the question remains where will all the properties go?

Will they remain empty rather than lowering the rents?

chucknorris wrote: »

You are just repeating what I previously said about students now paying the full amount. As I said IMO the system was much better when fewer students went to university, but it was free. But it wouldn't be fair to the tax payer to provide free education for the current high numbers of university students.

But they essentially do already, just with more administration overhead. Those who are paying reasonable tax will pay off the loan in short order, whilst those who never pay have it written off at the taxpayers expense. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just make it free at point of education on the basis that degrees should generate higher salaries and more tax?

By all means increase the entry standards as a way to keep numbers down.

phillw

Herzlos wrote: »

Wouldn't it be cheaper to just make it free at point of education on the basis that degrees should generate higher salaries and more tax?

There is a brain drain coming & student loans are repayable even if you pay tax in another country.

AG47

Herzlos wrote: »

But they essentially do already, just with more administration overhead. Those who are paying reasonable tax will pay off the loan in short order, whilst those who never pay have it written off at the taxpayers expense. Wouldn't it be cheaper to just make it free at point of education on the basis that degrees should generate higher salaries and more tax?

By all means increase the entry standards as a way to keep numbers down.

There is an excess of properties and an excess of tenants but a shortage of people wanting to be landlords.

phillw

AG47 wrote: »

There is an excess of properties and an excess of tenants but a shortage of people wanting to be landlords.

The number of landlords may be decreasing, but apparently you can be a land lord to more than one property.