Student Demonstrations

[staggerlee]

unreal.... (and yes i know it's on the daily mail site )

disrespectful much?

edit: cba joining in the discussion at this time of night, but will write some bits up tomorrow. the above picture well and truely pisses me off though...

Edited December 10, 2010 by staggerlee

[eFestivals]

Well, given that it provides people with the content of their study, I'd say it does have a say in it. The government can't tell people what they should be taught and why they should be taught it. This only applies to higher education of course.

Yet it doesn't apply to higher education, even tho it should.

The govt ARE telling people what they should be taught and why they should be taught it.

It's from them doing that that they are no longer funding humanities degrees.

[funkymp]

They probably photoshopped that mate.

[RABun]

erm no

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8194089/Tuition-fee-protests-Charlie-Gilmour-son-of-Pink-Floyd-guitarist-David-Gilmour-apologises-for-climbing-Cenotaph.html

it was actually david gilmours son doing it

Edited December 10, 2010 by RABun

[worm]

Yet it doesn't apply to higher education, even tho it should.

The govt ARE telling people what they should be taught and why they should be taught it.

It's from them doing that that they are no longer funding humanities degrees.

[eFestivals]

Rubbish. They have no jurisdiction over the content of any study and the individual can choose whatever course they like.

The problem with the state is simply how the individual is funded.

While they might have "no jurisdiction over the content of any study and the individual can choose whatever course they like", such things are dependent on there being the necessary funding.

You can no longer choose to do any degree course without also choosing to be liable for the cost of it.

That simple fact places a financial necessity on that education's existence. Few are going to choose to study (say) ancient history unless there's also a way of that study covering the financial liability - and that financial liability can then only be covered if the course is adapted from being 'pure' study of the subject into something which has a financial outcome to match the liability.

That means in reality that the govt are controlling the content of that study, or (if the focus isn't switched to match the financial reality) which individuals are able to do that study.

[strike4A]

erm no

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8194089/Tuition-fee-protests-Charlie-Gilmour-son-of-Pink-Floyd-guitarist-David-Gilmour-apologises-for-climbing-Cenotaph.html

it was actually david gilmours son doing it

[pink_triangle]

Its amazing that the coallition say that the whole education system will collapse without these extortionate fees, yet scotland and wales are finding a way to cope without them. Maybe its a reward for these 2 countries rejecting the tory party at the last election!

[worm]

While they might have "no jurisdiction over the content of any study and the individual can choose whatever course they like", such things are dependent on there being the necessary funding.

[staggerlee]

erm no

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8194089/Tuition-fee-protests-Charlie-Gilmour-son-of-Pink-Floyd-guitarist-David-Gilmour-apologises-for-climbing-Cenotaph.html

it was actually david gilmours son doing it

[strike4A]

i wonder if charlie gilmour got his savile row suit in the end?

http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/fashion/article7065600.ece

[eFestivals]

Which is dependent upon the amount of people wanting to attend a type of study.

Funding is important, but we shouldn't allow the government's ideology to dictate how we perceive university.

I agree, but no matter how much you and me might say that, the reality is that it is and does and will continue to, until such time as education is again free.

All the while that education is charged for, people will always consider it on a financial basis.

[diddly-dee]

No it isn't. It isn't even remotely true. It is a scandalous sham that I have given the figures on here before. Someone who goes to a shit university to do a shit degree will almost certainly NEVER achieve the same earnings (when you take into consideration debts incurred and years of earnings lost by going to university)over a lifetime as someone who leaves school at 18 and starts a career. The idea that a crap degree has a long term financial value greater than not having a crap degree is absolute nonsense.

The only way that the graduate v non-graduate earning stats work is by counting those who go on to earn substantial salaries and skewing the figure.

[llcoolphil]

As a parent theres no way that i could accept my child having that kind of debt

[llcoolphil]

if anyone ever thought a degree was a guarantee to more money, then they're more than a little deluded

[llcoolphil]

I don't think it's the main reason kids go to university. I'd guess the main one is that it's what happens after secondary education...

[diddly-dee]

I think parents will feel less reluctance for their children to take out a mortgage than spend 40K+ on a degree education is that, with a property, they will at least have 'some' sort of asset (although admittedly, with negative equity, house price deflation etc. owning a property isn't the nice little nest egg it used to be) whereas with a degree, unless it's in a particular subject from a particular institution, all you've got is a piece of paper that has little or no commercial value. Of course, the value of a degree is (or in an indeal world should be) about much more than financial value - but as the size of student debt is what this thread appears to be about then i'll stick to the financial dimension and, as such, a degree these days (unless, as i've said, it's in a narrow band of subjects from a narrow band of institutions) is an expensive 3 or 4 year inroduction to adulthood that is very unlikely to be ever financially viable.

[lost]

so what is a rubbish degree and a rubbish university? which courses would people like to see axed and which universities shut down if they are pointless?

[pink_triangle]

I have a friend who did drama in an old polytecnic and only one person who graduated in her class is doing anything drama related. To me this is a wastefull degree which taxpayers shouldn be subsidising.

[bunique]

I have a friend who did drama in an old polytecnic and only one person who graduated in her class is doing anything drama related. To me this is a wastefull degree which taxpayers shouldn be subsidising.

[grumpyhack]

Why? I did an English degree and my job has nothing to do with English Literature. Unless you're doing a vocational course it's unlikely your job will relate directly to the subject of your degree, surely?

[bunique]

Looking for the positives - you did an English degree but your job has nothing to do with English Lit - so what did you get out of your time at Uni other than just a big overdraft/debt?

[pink_triangle]

there are a lot of things in life very connected to drama

should music be taught in secondary schools? art..?. sport..?

where do you draw the line?

[diddly-dee]

Should drama, music, sport be taught in school absolutely, I also dont have a problem with them being available at degree level. I however understand there is only a limitted amount of money in the pot. As somebody who wants higher education more funded by taxpayers, I understand that there isnt enough to pay for everyone. I am personally think its more important to subsidise those doing teaching, medical or engineering degrees than things like drama and music. If people want to study a subject purely for the love of the subject without any natural career progression then I dont have a proble but feel they should contribue a little more, certainly not £9000 though. In an ideal world I would like everyone to get a free 3 year degree but I think the country has moved too far away from that, for it to ever happen. Students are easy targets for politicians as the proportion of them who vote is very small. Note how little rich pensioners have been effected by the austerity measures.

[llcoolphil]

I think parents will feel less reluctance for their children to take out a mortgage than spend 40K+ on a degree education is that, with a property, they will at least have 'some' sort of asset (although admittedly, with negative equity, house price deflation etc. owning a property isn't the nice little nest egg it used to be)