Students rally in York against university fees hike (From York Press)
Get in touch: send your photos, videos, news & views by texting YORK to 80360 or send an email»
Students rally in York against university fees hike
6:11pm Tuesday 30th November 2010 in News
Students make their point in Parliament Street, York
SIXTH-FORMERS and university students braved freezing temperatures and falling snow to protest against increased tuition fees and the proposed abolition of the education maintenance allowance (EMA).
More than 100 protesters gathered in Parliament Street yesterday, under the gaze of about 20 police officers, to support a national day of action by students across the UK.
As the night drew in, the crowd swelled as chanting sixth-form and university students from various educational establishments in the city, including the University of York, York College and York St John’s University, descended on the city centre to voice their anger.
Placards were thrust in the air and shouts of “no ifs, not buts, no education cuts” and “education is a right” echoed around the city streets.
Protester Lee Wilkes, branch secretary of the York Socialist Party, said: “A lot of the students in York saw what is happening around the country and across Europe and wanted to stage a protest of their own in the city.
“In my lifetime, I have never seen radical protests as we are having now. I think there is unrest and unhappiness among the students and they want to demonstrate that.”
Lewis Flanagan, 16, was part of a group of students from Archbishop Holgate’s sixth-form who attended the protest. He said: “I want to go to university, but one of the things that made me doubt going was the cost, and this has only been heightened by the rise in tuition fees.”
Fellow student Tim Atkinson, 17, said: “I am against the scrapping of the EMA which will affect travel, costs, trips and buying equipment.”
James Peircy, 17, of York College, said: “Tuition fees of up to £9,000 a year are ridiculous.
“There is no sense in it. I really wanted to go to university, but I am seriously considering not going now.”
Coun James Alexander joined the protest alongside fellow Labour councillor Tracey Simpson-Laing and Heslington ward Liberal Democrat councillor Ceredig Jamieson-Ball.
Coun Alexander said: “Labour supports this protest against rising tuition fees and the scrapping of the EMA.”
Coun Simpson-Laing said she was concerned about the effect the abolition of the EMA would have on students hoping to get the results they need to get to university.
She said: “Evidence shows that people who have to work through their sixth-form obtain lower grades.”
In London, several roads were closed and the protest took a new turn as marchers scattered through Westminster and the West End, forcing officers to abandon their prepared lines and follow them.
Lib Dem Keal opposes rise
LEADING Liberal Democrat Howard Keal is backing a petition opposing the planned rise in tuition fees.
The Ryedale councillor, who stood for the party in Thirsk and Malton at the General Election, is among more than 100 Parliamentary candidates behind the petition.
It calls on the party’s MPs to vote against the rise when the proposed change is debated in Parliament before Christmas, and has been sent to all the 57 Liberal Democrat MPs.
“Our wider party membership and policy opposes the planned increase and I have not moved a millimetre from that position – we should be abolishing fees not increasing them,” said Coun Keal.
Comments(95)
Garrowby Turnoff
says...
6:45pm Tue 30 Nov 10
ayork
says...
6:51pm Tue 30 Nov 10
But I hope you don't vote for the new voting system or we will have what you call an unelected government every election!
These students are bit stupid anyway, how can they say clegg went back on his word, he did not win the election, not even close, he is part of a coalition so he cant deliver on everything he said because he simply didn't win.
Indeed would students prefer to pay a bit more in fees which they might never have to pay back or pay less and have the winter fuel allowance for pensioners taken away from people who will actually suffer? I just think everyone need to look at the bigger picture.
molly bloom
says...
7:02pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Education is the most important thing we can give to our children and no one should be excluded, least of all because of money.
I'm proud that those marchers today haven't swallowed the ideology dressed up as necessity argument. Make no mistake this is an old school Tory agenda being propped up by the Lib Dems who have lied and u-turned so much they must be dizzy by now!
Be proud of yourselves today if you marched, you offer hope for England's future at a dark time.
anti-rant
says...
7:08pm Tue 30 Nov 10
yorkshirelad
says...
7:13pm Tue 30 Nov 10
And 'ayork' ... 'how can they say clegg went back on his word'.... Well maybe because he did ! His pledge was not conditional on being in government and was the basis for many student Lib Dem votes.
melted
says...
7:19pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Zetkin
says...
7:21pm Tue 30 Nov 10
`
1. Clegg pledged to vote against any increase in fees; as it stands he's committed to voting for such an increase. Therefore he's either a traitor or a liar.
`
2. To try and pit students against the elderly shows how close the Liberals and Tories have become. It's a cynical lie to pretend Britain is nearly broke and can't afford to properly provide for all its citizens. There's plenty of money to provide a decent education for all who want it, to provide decent healthcare for all who need it, and to provide a dignified retirement for all; it's simply that the ConDems are committed to a Thatcherite agenda of protecting the rich and powerful at the expense of the rest of us. As the kids on the street this evening were chanting: "Nick Clegg, shame on you - shame on you for turning blue".
`
The Press estimate of "more than 100" doesn't really do justice to the 500 (my estimate) who braved some nasty weather to vent their anger and make their point.
mongydazcityaggro
says...
7:26pm Tue 30 Nov 10
If you can't afford it you don't go simple as, all these nonesense degrees over the years have lead to this.
gjh
says...
7:27pm Tue 30 Nov 10
ayork wrote:Well Clegg has gone back on what he signed up to which was “I pledge to vote against any increase in fees in the next parliament and to pressure the government to introduce a fairer alternative.” This has nothing to do with winning an election. He represents a part of Sheffield where there is a large student population and he saw a vote winning opportunity. I would feel very let down if I had voted for him. Well done to all students for opposing this rise.
well not totally unelected!
But I hope you don't vote for the new voting system or we will have what you call an unelected government every election!
These students are bit stupid anyway, how can they say clegg went back on his word, he did not win the election, not even close, he is part of a coalition so he cant deliver on everything he said because he simply didn't win.
Indeed would students prefer to pay a bit more in fees which they might never have to pay back or pay less and have the winter fuel allowance for pensioners taken away from people who will actually suffer? I just think everyone need to look at the bigger picture.
melted
says...
7:30pm Tue 30 Nov 10
ayork
says...
7:38pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Lib Dems 57
Clegg decided to join a coalition, both sides have to make concessions, the lib dems more as they are the much smaller party in the partnership.
Alternative, Clegg stands firm says he will not budge, the Tories go into a minority government and hike tuition fees even further.
Clegg has helped to stop the increase being even greater by entering the coalition, helping students. If he said no, students would have had to pay even more than the currant proposals!
melted
says...
7:46pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Maquis
says...
7:52pm Tue 30 Nov 10
University is a choice, and on average leads to better prospects in later life. It is a gamble biased massively in favour of the students. If they go, and dont do well enough to earn £21k, they pay nothing, they win, if they do well and get a well paid job, they pay for the further education that THEY benefit from. Where is the problem?
DropsOfJupiter
says...
7:53pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Pete the Brickie
says...
7:53pm Tue 30 Nov 10
welf_man
says...
7:58pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Well done to all those who protested today, especially current university students who won't even be affected by the changes.
Mr E 369
says...
8:03pm Tue 30 Nov 10
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=uFFwAxT_q
nA
welf_man
says...
8:18pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Maquis wrote:That's £21,000 in 2016 - equivalent to around £18,500 today. If a student owes £40,000, they will need to earn £41,000 just to repay the interest - so in very many cases the debt will actually increase over the 30 years it is outstanding. It will be interesting to see how mortgage companies assess people whose debt is over 100% of their income and continuing to rise - and fascinating to see what happens to the housing market!
No Student will pay a penny in fees, regardless as to how rich or poor their parents until they earn at least £21,000 per year. University is a choice, and on average leads to better prospects in later life. It is a gamble biased massively in favour of the students. If they go, and dont do well enough to earn £21k, they pay nothing, they win, if they do well and get a well paid job, they pay for the further education that THEY benefit from. Where is the problem?
Also, the Govt. will be lending more and more to students with no real expectation of it being repaid - how exactly does that aid the country's finances? Unless of course they think that the number of students will reduce and rich parents will help their children to repay their loans? Surely that couldn't be Conservative policy?!!
OwenC
says...
8:26pm Tue 30 Nov 10
There was a wonderful atmosphere - great solidarity amongst the young people of York. A great turnout as well - probably 350 people - which is darn good considering the weather.
Well done to all York students! Roll on Sunday!
SethArmstrong
says...
8:41pm Tue 30 Nov 10
As for the tuition fee increases - good! Maybe it'll make people think twice before spending 3 years doing a drama degree or any one of the number of other pointless degrees people do these days. University isn't a right, it's a lifestyle choice. If a career path you want to follow requires a degree and youre passionate enough about it then you'll still go. If you only wanted to go to get drunk for 3 years then maybe now you'll think twice. Sounds good to me.
Maquis
says...
8:44pm Tue 30 Nov 10
welf_man wrote:The figure of £21k is linked to inflation, so will be higher by then, and how do you know how inflation will go in the next five years?
Maquis wrote:That's £21,000 in 2016 - equivalent to around £18,500 today. If a student owes £40,000, they will need to earn £41,000 just to repay the interest - so in very many cases the debt will actually increase over the 30 years it is outstanding. It will be interesting to see how mortgage companies assess people whose debt is over 100% of their income and continuing to rise - and fascinating to see what happens to the housing market!
No Student will pay a penny in fees, regardless as to how rich or poor their parents until they earn at least £21,000 per year. University is a choice, and on average leads to better prospects in later life. It is a gamble biased massively in favour of the students. If they go, and dont do well enough to earn £21k, they pay nothing, they win, if they do well and get a well paid job, they pay for the further education that THEY benefit from. Where is the problem?
Also, the Govt. will be lending more and more to students with no real expectation of it being repaid - how exactly does that aid the country's finances? Unless of course they think that the number of students will reduce and rich parents will help their children to repay their loans? Surely that couldn't be Conservative policy?!!
They expect that most will be repaid as long as the courses doas they should and get them a better job. You are also taking the worst case scenario of the maximum fees, this would mean that it is the a course with high prospects, therefore should lead to a considerably higher than the £41k pay that you mention.
If prospective students are not expecting to earn enough, then why are they bothering to go to uni in the first place?
As for the parents paying it off, an extra fee for paying it off early is to be introduced, so that the richer pay more.
As for the numbers going to university, 50% doing courses, many of which have little or no relevance to the world of work, or even the world in general, whats the point, they are not earning and they are not paying into the system for a further three years at least, why should we pay for them.
Universtiy used to be a place where the brightest, not the richest used to go and further their education, which in turn benefited the country, then only 5-10% of students went and the country could afford to pay for them.
moneyforwhat
says...
8:48pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Ben Guela
says...
9:11pm Tue 30 Nov 10
humpty numpty wrote:If, and it is a big IF, the youngsters really want a good education, they have to pay for it. Education is not a RIGHT it is a previlage, and it needs to be paid for. Too many people, young and old, want, want, want. They want benefits from the cradle to the grave, and do not want to pay. Time to become real.
big well done to all the students that attended. young peoples, you are our future and deserve better from our (unelected) government.
YSTClinguist
says...
9:16pm Tue 30 Nov 10
You have to admit those roles give back to the community! But they aren't paid that well, compared to corporate jobs (banking!)
Let's talk numbers. Currently traditional undergraduate students at York St John end up about £20,000-24,000 in debt by the end and the figures touted by the uni, suggesting a £7,000 a year topup fee, will leave students approximately £34,000 in debt.
The government tells you on average university students earn an extra £100,000 over their lifetime, so maybe it is an investment worth taking?
Now let's take the presentation that Aaron Porter, current president of the NUS, gave to me and a group of Students Union council officers and sabbaticals about a year ago. He showed that a student of our university, taking a BA in a subject like English Language and Linguistics (pathway to teaching, speech therapy, journalism) would earn £24,000 over their lifetime more than an A level leaver.
That means current students will earn nothing extra in their lifetimes for bothering to get highly educated and then go back and put back into the community. And it doesn't take a maths genius to figure out that they will effectively earn less under the new system.
Anybody slating students worth, the cost of education and the debt that will be hanging over their heads for the next 30 years of their working life, think about that data that was presented by the NUS. Think about the service our students do to the community, and a large proportion of our students are Yorkshire born and stay in Yorkshire.
Have you changed your minds about us yet?
bencopeland
says...
9:22pm Tue 30 Nov 10
i was in the protest today....
frankly, nobody should have to be in £27,000 of debt when leaving university. i got this figure by saying £9000 per year for an average 3 year course. this is horrendous. David Cameron should abolish these fees completely and give us the free education at a higher level JUST LIKE HE GOT!!!!!
"no if's, no but's no education cuts!!!!"
By the way are we marching again in bigger numbers?? if so when and where?
PackOfCardsMullet
says...
9:26pm Tue 30 Nov 10
bencopeland wrote:Instead of protesting and tossing about why don't you get a job and pay for your own education instead of sponging off the state.
Right guys..... i was in the protest today.... frankly, nobody should have to be in £27,000 of debt when leaving university. i got this figure by saying £9000 per year for an average 3 year course. this is horrendous. David Cameron should abolish these fees completely and give us the free education at a higher level JUST LIKE HE GOT!!!!! "no if's, no but's no education cuts!!!!" By the way are we marching again in bigger numbers?? if so when and where?
yorkshirelad
says...
9:33pm Tue 30 Nov 10
DrCharrrrlllliiiiiiieeeee
says...
9:38pm Tue 30 Nov 10
bencopeland
says...
9:39pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Students DO have jobs, students DO earn money. And students CANNOT afford £9000 a year for university fees SIMPLE AS. We have the right to get our opinion out there and known by local governments. Education should be a right, not a privelage that we have to pay for. They wonder why unemployment is high.....NOBODY CAN AFFORD A BLOODY EDUCATION THATS WHY!!!!
bencopeland
says...
9:42pm Tue 30 Nov 10
iiiiieeeeeeee
haha
cloud8
says...
9:51pm Tue 30 Nov 10
PackOfCardsMullet wrote:I am a part-time student. We make up 43% of the student population. We pay our own fees. We do not recieve loans or government subsidies. I was unable to attend the protest as I work full time. When the fee increases are implemented I will have to stop studying and my dream job will be less attainable. I already pay £200 per month in fees alone and an extra £100 travel and accommodation costs each month in order to study, on top of my mortgage and work mileage. I'm assuming that as you are not a student and you also work full time, you would put this amount of money towards a nice holiday or some other treat. Good for you, I can't afford that. If my education leads to a higher paid job I will be happy to pay more in tax, but I need the education first.
bencopeland wrote:Instead of protesting and tossing about why don't you get a job and pay for your own education instead of sponging off the state.
Right guys..... i was in the protest today.... frankly, nobody should have to be in £27,000 of debt when leaving university. i got this figure by saying £9000 per year for an average 3 year course. this is horrendous. David Cameron should abolish these fees completely and give us the free education at a higher level JUST LIKE HE GOT!!!!! "no if's, no but's no education cuts!!!!" By the way are we marching again in bigger numbers?? if so when and where?
Maquis
says...
9:57pm Tue 30 Nov 10
bencopeland wrote:Students DO NOT pay the fees, Graduates DO, and only once they earn a reasonable amount.
PackOfCardsMullet, Sowerby Road Estate, Acomb......
Students DO have jobs, students DO earn money. And students CANNOT afford £9000 a year for university fees SIMPLE AS. We have the right to get our opinion out there and known by local governments. Education should be a right, not a privelage that we have to pay for. They wonder why unemployment is high.....NOBODY CAN AFFORD A BLOODY EDUCATION THATS WHY!!!!
Education is a right, up to the age of 18. Further education is not a right, it is a privelage.
Unemployment is high because hundreds of thousands of students graduate with pointless degrees, and would rather be unemployed than take a job which they think it "beneath them"
bencopeland
says...
10:01pm Tue 30 Nov 10
cloud8
says...
10:06pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Maquis wrote:Did you not read what I have just written? 43% of students pay their fees while they study. Incidently, when my husband graduated he had difficulty finding a 'graduate' post and so worked as a road sweeper and as a car-park attendant to pay the rent.
bencopeland wrote:Students DO NOT pay the fees, Graduates DO, and only once they earn a reasonable amount.
PackOfCardsMullet, Sowerby Road Estate, Acomb......
Students DO have jobs, students DO earn money. And students CANNOT afford £9000 a year for university fees SIMPLE AS. We have the right to get our opinion out there and known by local governments. Education should be a right, not a privelage that we have to pay for. They wonder why unemployment is high.....NOBODY CAN AFFORD A BLOODY EDUCATION THATS WHY!!!!
Education is a right, up to the age of 18. Further education is not a right, it is a privelage.
Unemployment is high because hundreds of thousands of students graduate with pointless degrees, and would rather be unemployed than take a job which they think it "beneath them"
bencopeland
says...
10:08pm Tue 30 Nov 10
JC42
says...
10:12pm Tue 30 Nov 10
melted wrote:Nicely put melted i agree .......
keep the red flag flying here! never surrender! The Labour movement has nothing to be ashamed of and neither has the party!!
JC42
says...
10:16pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Silver
says...
10:18pm Tue 30 Nov 10
bencopeland
says...
10:22pm Tue 30 Nov 10
bencopeland
says...
10:23pm Tue 30 Nov 10
humpty numpty
says...
10:28pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Ben Guela wrote:ok ben , back to your padded cell there's a good lad. just shows that "care in the community" is a wondrous success that you are able to look after yourself. education IS a right for everybody otherwise we slip back into a country where wealth will determine if an individual can attend university. time you looked at the tory "big society" picture in which the rich retain education and ultimately power, it seems to me that you may be one of these pampered few. ha ha security is near-pain, would that be you in the r's?
humpty numpty wrote:If, and it is a big IF, the youngsters really want a good education, they have to pay for it. Education is not a RIGHT it is a previlage, and it needs to be paid for. Too many people, young and old, want, want, want. They want benefits from the cradle to the grave, and do not want to pay. Time to become real.
big well done to all the students that attended. young peoples, you are our future and deserve better from our (unelected) government.
Maquis
says...
10:31pm Tue 30 Nov 10
cloud8 wrote:As I wrote my post, yours was not yet up. The new plans do incorporate help for part time students, although I don't know what they are at the moment.
Maquis wrote:Did you not read what I have just written? 43% of students pay their fees while they study. Incidently, when my husband graduated he had difficulty finding a 'graduate' post and so worked as a road sweeper and as a car-park attendant to pay the rent.
bencopeland wrote:Students DO NOT pay the fees, Graduates DO, and only once they earn a reasonable amount.
PackOfCardsMullet, Sowerby Road Estate, Acomb......
Students DO have jobs, students DO earn money. And students CANNOT afford £9000 a year for university fees SIMPLE AS. We have the right to get our opinion out there and known by local governments. Education should be a right, not a privelage that we have to pay for. They wonder why unemployment is high.....NOBODY CAN AFFORD A BLOODY EDUCATION THATS WHY!!!!
Education is a right, up to the age of 18. Further education is not a right, it is a privelage.
Unemployment is high because hundreds of thousands of students graduate with pointless degrees, and would rather be unemployed than take a job which they think it "beneath them"
As you stated above, the costs are difficult to stump up front, this is why the fees are not to be paid until later in life (certainly for full time, but I'm not sure about part time)
Most people who do part time courses do them near home, you decided to do one where you have to pay for accommodation, and £50 per week is not massive money when it is working towards Your dream job. Why should someone else pay for it.
Fees to be paid upon graduation are in effect a tax paid in later life. The difference is that they are easier and cheaper to administer, and have a cut off point when the debt is repaid.
Credit to your husband, and I'm sure there are many people who do something similar, I did shop work when I graduated, but the point is in reply to the above point that unemployment is due to the tuition fees, and is true in many cases.
TooRelaxed
says...
11:10pm Tue 30 Nov 10
Do you think, having spent the day "doing lesson plans" with layabout builders while every other Honest John braves the snow like Prince Charming through the briars and brambles, do you think there are lazy snowed-off teachers reading this and feeling ever so slightly guilty?
Cos despite their 24/7 commitment we got to nearly 50 posts here and no-one could spell privilege.
Right then, best get the big scissors out, we're obviously throwing too much money at this education lark...
gjh
says...
11:27pm Tue 30 Nov 10
OwenC
says...
12:36am Wed 1 Dec 10
Yes, education is a right, not a commodity. Your right-wing, racist analysis of our economy is laughable at best.
Thank goodness that students and young people generally have woken up to what this attack on society means - the ConDems are trying to turn us into an American style practically society almost overnight. As someone who spent some time in California recently, that is really a route we do not want to go down...seriously.
Maquis
says...
12:46am Wed 1 Dec 10
The American unis put out some of the best graduates in the world, and because they have to work either for the fees or a scholarship, they appreciate their position more and put more effort into their degree.
I deal with a lot of students and many (not all) have little or no respect for what they have, doing the minimum just to stay on their course so they can enjoy the lifestyle for another year.
Is this what we should be paying for?
Soothsayer17
says...
1:24am Wed 1 Dec 10
Garrowby Turnoff wrote:We're screwing OUR future into the ground. Those that have (so cravenly) turned have at least contributed massively to the endless seduction of politics but must also now (quite fairly) brace 'gainst coming hurricane (a bit drunk).
We're screwing our young people's future into the ground.
Metaltype
says...
1:26am Wed 1 Dec 10
Bo Jolly
says...
8:58am Wed 1 Dec 10
-
Well done to you protestors! Ignore the trolls (particularly the ones who seem to try to shoehorn immigration into any debate. Almost as if they had an agenda to push.)
Bo Jolly
says...
9:13am Wed 1 Dec 10
-
Is that an incitement to violence? It sounds like it to me. Is that really ok on this forum?
OwenC
says...
9:26am Wed 1 Dec 10
Bo Jolly wrote:You are exactly right. Given that yesterday's protest included a large number of schoolchildren, this is particularly worrying.
Civil War II wrote: "blah, blah, blah immigrant workers. It's time the common man rose to the occasion, don't let the police have all the fun"
-
Is that an incitement to violence? It sounds like it to me. Is that really ok on this forum?
Civil War II regularly puts up posts which are either implicit or explicit incitements to violence - he (I presume) did so against members of York Stop the Cuts a few weeks ago after the Vodaphone protest.
I'd recommend people reading this to report Civil War II and ask for him to be barred from posting, since he repeatedly uses his posts to call for violence against peaceful protesters.
hifive
says...
9:40am Wed 1 Dec 10
Bcb_zx10r
says...
9:47am Wed 1 Dec 10
Mr John
says...
9:59am Wed 1 Dec 10
I worry for the student from ordinary backgrounds who has managed to get to university after attending schools in the state education system. This type of student is likely to be stuck with a debt that will be a huge burden.
The ordinary working class/lower middle class student is also likely to discover that even in modern times there is still a huge class barrier in the workplace. Those who get the highest paid jobs are almost always from the wealthier families, whilst those of us from ordinary backgrounds continue to struggle regardless of how skilled and intelligent we might be.
It is sad but true - even today there are still very few doctors, lawyers etc who had an ordinary working class/lower middle class upbringing.
go-dj
says...
11:34am Wed 1 Dec 10
ometcalf
says...
11:48am Wed 1 Dec 10
Its not fair to expect someone in 40k debt to opt for a 22k job in a charity (which are absolutely vital in the so-called Big Society). More merchant bankers anyone??
as to whether further education is a right or not, well of course its not a right for everyon to have a degree, but it is a right that its decided by intelligence and aptitude, not the wealth of your parents.
the latest studies already show that these changes will have a negative effect on social mobility.
Maquis
says...
1:26pm Wed 1 Dec 10
ometcalf wrote:This is the situation that we are in.
The biggest problem as far as i see it with the new fees, is that it encourages people to take all the positions the tories value in society, high earning private sector jobs, as opposed to those low-earning but most valuable in society, charity work, teaching nursing etc.
Its not fair to expect someone in 40k debt to opt for a 22k job in a charity (which are absolutely vital in the so-called Big Society). More merchant bankers anyone??
as to whether further education is a right or not, well of course its not a right for everyon to have a degree, but it is a right that its decided by intelligence and aptitude, not the wealth of your parents.
the latest studies already show that these changes will have a negative effect on social mobility.
It should be that any position where a degree is necessary, should be higher paid, however a huge percentage of degrees have no clear career path upon graduation.
The studies take the position of whoever makes them.
How can it negatively affect those from poorer backgrounds when the fees are not payable until a decent wage is being earned?
hifive
says...
2:02pm Wed 1 Dec 10
Note to future students - if you think the loans are bad, wait until you look into post grad courses! They truly are a vocation in that you can't do one without working long hours alongside it. Unless you have rich family, in which case good for them! They earned it, they get to spend it.
Get-a-grip
says...
4:42pm Wed 1 Dec 10
Civil War II said: 'It appears anyone thinks they have the right to do a degree no matter how irrelevant and useless which is why we have high unemployment, a benefit culture, no manufacturing and immigrant workers.
Inconvenient though it may be for some he could be correct, and he's a right to say it.
The truth is that the students are caught in a double whammy.
First New Labour screwed up higher education with the ridiculous idea that 50% of school leavers are capable of being educated to degree standard. In reality only 46% can be considered literate and numerate to a reasonable standard. Employers are fully aware of this, and how A level and degree standards have been so dumbed down that degree certificates are meaningless pieces of paper.
Someone has to pay for all this worthless education, and it's falling on students themselves, and aggravated by the way in which New Labour screwed up the economy.
There's little public sympathy, and the demonstrations are not helping.
sarahgraves
says...
9:02pm Wed 1 Dec 10
To be completely honest, one of the main reasons I have protested, and I think many others have, is that I believe it is the wrong thing to do and it will be our generation that has to deal with the long term effects of this, for example, you need a degree to work as a nurse but the richer people who can afford to go to uni to get the degree will not want to work for the small wage nurses on the NHS receive and we will be left with a shortage of nurses and healthcare for those that cannot afford private treatment. Situations like these will arise whilst our generation is in power in this country and it will be up to us who will have to sort this mess out.
OwenC
says...
9:58pm Wed 1 Dec 10
Get-a-grip
says...
9:34am Thu 2 Dec 10
Well said, Sarah.
Not well said at all, it proves my point about literacy levels. It's appalling English. An English language O level used to be a mandatory qualification for university entrance, before the great dumbing down of the education system.
sarahgraves
says...
9:44am Thu 2 Dec 10
Get-a-grip
says...
10:54am Thu 2 Dec 10
sarahgraves, says...
9:44am Thu 2 Dec 10
before critisising others on their english, you might like to check your own Get-a-grip. Yours isn't perfect.
How on earth would you know?
It's "criticising" by the way, sentences start with a capital letter, as does the name of the language you are attempting to use!
OwenC
says...
11:11am Thu 2 Dec 10
I'm doing a PHD in English Lit and can tell you that I've seen far worse English than that!
There are a lot of sad, bitter trolls on this forum who (as on many others) just like to vent their spleen on anyone and everyone who dares suggest that the world could be improved in even the smallest ways - and, even worse, on anyone who actually dares to do anything about it!
sarahgraves
says...
11:59am Thu 2 Dec 10
Get-a-grip
says...
12:50pm Thu 2 Dec 10
I'm doing a PHD in English Lit and can tell you that I've seen far worse English than that!
I hope you haven't seen them in a university environment, but I fear you have. All you are doing is provide further evidence as to how academic standards have fallen.
I feel sorry for the students of today who have been the victims of New Labour social engineering, and are now having to pay the price. If A levels and degrees were once again worth having, there would be fewer students and hopefully proper grants would be affordable for all.
hifive
says...
1:16pm Thu 2 Dec 10
sarahgraves wrote:I don't understand why you won't get the opportunity to go to uni? You don't pay the loan back until you're earning enough to do so! It's got nothing to do with rich versus poor - the loan is yours and has nothing to do with your background and what your parents earn! So why can only rich people afford to go to uni? I went and I'm not rich? My fees may have been a bit lower but I earn over £15000 so am already paying it back despite things being a bit tight. Your argument is completely flawed and it sounds like the time you spent protesting would have been better spent studying.
I am 16 years old and i was in the protest last night. ever since the age of 11 i have wanted to become a solicitor, however if the tuitions fees increase then i may not have the opportunity of going to university, even with my predicted A* results. Fair enough, i get what people are saying about we should have to pay for uni, which is why I am only against an increase and not for abolishment of fees altogether. I work every weekendto save up money and spend at least 5 hours a week volunteering and helping in the community. However with all my money going towards being saved for university I am going to have no money left to even think of putting a deposit on a house, and will not be able to get a mortgage for one because of the already humungus amount of debt I would be in. To be completely honest, one of the main reasons I have protested, and I think many others have, is that I believe it is the wrong thing to do and it will be our generation that has to deal with the long term effects of this, for example, you need a degree to work as a nurse but the richer people who can afford to go to uni to get the degree will not want to work for the small wage nurses on the NHS receive and we will be left with a shortage of nurses and healthcare for those that cannot afford private treatment. Situations like these will arise whilst our generation is in power in this country and it will be up to us who will have to sort this mess out.
hifive
says...
1:26pm Thu 2 Dec 10
OwenC wrote:A difference in opinion doth not a sad, bitter troll make.
Don't let them bother you, Sarah. I'm doing a PHD in English Lit and can tell you that I've seen far worse English than that! There are a lot of sad, bitter trolls on this forum who (as on many others) just like to vent their spleen on anyone and everyone who dares suggest that the world could be improved in even the smallest ways - and, even worse, on anyone who actually dares to do anything about it!
Big Bad Wolf
says...
2:22pm Thu 2 Dec 10
hifive wrote:Here here Hifive.I would suggest that to keep costs down...stay out of the pubs and bars.
Sorry to throw fuel on the roaring fire but I can't help noticing an abundance of students at pubs, clubs and eateries. Wish I could afford to fund that standard of social life.......
I do feel sorry for genuine students who work to pay for their upkeep while at Uni, but the work shy drunken idiots who go to uni to do a worthless degree to avoid getting a job give you a bad name.
OwenC
says...
3:25pm Thu 2 Dec 10
PinzaC55
says...
4:05pm Thu 2 Dec 10
I hope they are reflecting on that now.
Plus call me cynical but I have a feeling that those same students who were protesting will , in 20 years time, be voting Tory themselves.
PinzaC55
says...
4:06pm Thu 2 Dec 10
I hope they are reflecting on that now.
Plus call me cynical but I have a feeling that those same students who were protesting will , in 20 years time, be voting Tory themselves.
Get-a-grip
says...
4:47pm Thu 2 Dec 10
OwenC, York says...
3:25pm Thu 2 Dec 10
No, but ignoring the issue and picking on someone's grammar does.
Literacy and the dumbing down of education was a major part of my original post.
First New Labour screwed up higher education with the ridiculous idea that 50% of school leavers are capable of being educated to degree standard. In reality only 46% can be considered literate and numerate to a reasonable standard. Employers are fully aware of this, and how A level and degree standards have been so dumbed down that degree certificates are meaningless pieces of paper.
Someone has to pay for all this worthless education, and it's falling on students themselves, and aggravated by the way in which New Labour screwed up the economy.
There's little public sympathy, and the demonstrations are not helping.
Then poor Sarah walked straight into it.
OwenC
says...
5:43pm Thu 2 Dec 10
Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that general literacy could not be better (it certainly could be), but education moves on when societies (and their priorities) change.
We don't teach Rhetoric as they did in Ancient Greece. I suppose this would be considered 'dumbing' down by Gorgias the Sophist....
Get-a-grip
says...
5:57pm Thu 2 Dec 10
A TEACHER'S school report sent to her parents looks more likely written by a child with a poor grasp of English and spelling.
The brief note, containing 16 grammatical errors and spelling mistakes, was sent by email to the parents of a pupil in a government school, summarising the girl’s performance over the previous year.
Her mother said that all the report really did was raise questions about the teacher's own ability.
Alongside simple spelling mistakes such as "requriements" and "occaisions", were misplaced apostrophes, missing letters and embarrassing typos such as "ativities" and "everning".
The unnamed teacher at 800-pupil Gleed Girls’ Technology College, in Spalding, Lincolnshire, England, committed her first two errors in the email’s subject heading, before the note even began.
"What concerns me most is that this teacher is supposed to be responsible for raising my daughter’s educational standards," the pupil's mother said.
"If her standards are that low, how can she expect my daughter’s to be high?
"By the time I got to the third paragraph I’d noted five mistakes. I would always check an email before I clicked send.
"I am very happy with the school in all other aspects of their dealings with my daughter. But I just received this email and was shocked at how poorly written it was."
The all-girls school’s website says it is a "trailblazing" institution which has an "excellent reputation locally and nationally". It is rated "satisfactory" by UK school inspectors Ofsted.
sarahgraves
says...
6:10pm Thu 2 Dec 10
OwenC
says...
6:25pm Thu 2 Dec 10
On a lighter note, the top of my English Lit M.A certificate read: 'Two whom it may concern'
Surprisingly enough, that year the students demanded another version be printed!
sarahgraves
says...
6:42pm Thu 2 Dec 10
Get-a-grip
says...
9:14pm Thu 2 Dec 10
equiptment
educacion
Oh deary deary me, use a spell-checker.
Surprisingly enough, that year the students demanded another version be printed!
The most surprising thing is that they spotted it.
sarahgraves
says...
11:20pm Thu 2 Dec 10
OwenC
says...
11:52pm Thu 2 Dec 10
Get-a-grip
says...
8:53am Fri 3 Dec 10
At the end of the day it's much more important to be a nice person and get on with people than to be able to type a few letters correctly on a keyboard.
Stick with that delusion if it makes you happy.
York Fox
says...
1:15pm Fri 3 Dec 10
Things can't carry on as they have been since Blair. Too much expenditure, not enough income as far as university costs are concerned. This is why the universities agree with the fees rise - they cannot survive without it, or at least some other equal sum of money being found somewhere. Where would this somewhere be? The tax payer? The person earning £6p/h paying an extra penny in the pound in income tax? Imagine the protests that will bring out!
Charging for education worries me, but until the gap in funding can be filled in another way which does not cost the poor I have to say it seems the best way.
Does ANYONE have any solutions, come on Labour student protesters?
Maquis
says...
1:31pm Fri 3 Dec 10
York Fox wrote:Careful foxy, you are not allowed to talk sense here, dont forget everyone is born being owed everything and having to work for nothing.
Interesting that after 84 comments not a single person has suggested a viable and acceptable plan for replacing the fees increase. Simple facts:- Too many people go to university for the state to afford now (Tony B fault); Fees were introduced by Labour, going against their own manifesto pledge; New NEW Labour have no plan with how to solve this problem (which even they see as a massive problem). Their only solution (which none of them really agree on)was a graduate tax, which is basically the same thing, but you can never, ever pay off your debt and so could end up "repaying" £50k, £100k, or £300k for your degree under Labour.
Things can't carry on as they have been since Blair. Too much expenditure, not enough income as far as university costs are concerned. This is why the universities agree with the fees rise - they cannot survive without it, or at least some other equal sum of money being found somewhere. Where would this somewhere be? The tax payer? The person earning £6p/h paying an extra penny in the pound in income tax? Imagine the protests that will bring out!
Charging for education worries me, but until the gap in funding can be filled in another way which does not cost the poor I have to say it seems the best way.
Does ANYONE have any solutions, come on Labour student protesters?
Big Bad Wolf
says...
2:20pm Fri 3 Dec 10
The country is in a very poor financial position and cannot afford to send the child of every tax payer to university free of charge.
I suspect that even with the loss of EMA the bars and clubs of the city will still be full of drunken students.
OwenC
says...
3:08pm Fri 3 Dec 10
We propose a business education tax levied on the top 4% of UK companies. This would generate enough annually to abolish tuition fees and take public investment in higher education up to the average in comparable countries.
We are the only party proposing investment in job creation instead of public service cuts as the best route out of recession and towards long-term economic stability. Funding this by savings from scrapping Trident, ID cards and road building, plus higher taxes on the highest incomes.
Before the General Election, all current Lib Dem MPs, including Nick Clegg, signed the NUS pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees.
Maquis
says...
1:42am Sat 4 Dec 10
OwenC wrote:Its always the smaller parties who offer what they cannot give in the real world.
The Greens are now the only Westminster political party that support free education for all.
We propose a business education tax levied on the top 4% of UK companies. This would generate enough annually to abolish tuition fees and take public investment in higher education up to the average in comparable countries.
We are the only party proposing investment in job creation instead of public service cuts as the best route out of recession and towards long-term economic stability. Funding this by savings from scrapping Trident, ID cards and road building, plus higher taxes on the highest incomes.
Before the General Election, all current Lib Dem MPs, including Nick Clegg, signed the NUS pledge to vote against any increase in tuition fees.
Look at the way the American economy has gone, trillions in investment and a 10% unemployment rate. Is this what you propose?
Tax more of the top companies and they set up elsewhere. These companies are not evil and in need of taxing into submission, they provide the jobs. Taxing them takes money away that could be used to pay the workers, or pay shareholders who in the case of most of the big companies are our pension holders. Taxing them is an ideological move which will do no good to anyone.
Scrapping trident would bring in nothing for years to come, ID cards have already been scrapped, and roads are essential for the country to function. Taxing those on higher income is another ideological move, there are not enough rich people to make much of a difference, and if you push them too far it is not worth them staying in the country and we loose the 45-50% that we already get off them.
powerwatt
says...
12:46pm Sat 4 Dec 10
The Greens will support the free education, possibly the monster raving loony party. This is because they do not have the power to control the purse strings, if they ever got there I could foresee a backtrack, such as the Lib Dems.
OwenC
says...
1:57pm Sat 4 Dec 10
I would prefer to take more away from those who have too much in order to help those who don't have enough - all in the Christmas Spirit, you might say.
powerwatt
says...
2:28pm Sat 4 Dec 10
OwenC wrote:How would you plan to take the top percentile of earners and take more money off them?
Of course it is ideological - all the parties make political choices as to what are their priorities. Makes something of a mockery of the idea that there is no alternative to cuts, though, doesn't it?
I would prefer to take more away from those who have too much in order to help those who don't have enough - all in the Christmas Spirit, you might say.
The problem is the Top 1% already pay 19% of the countries income, and the top 10% pay more than half. If they were to be taxed even more, they would shut down their businesses and move operations abroad.
However most people will strike off any stats that don't meet their requirements, that is how economists work.
OwenC
says...
6:58pm Mon 6 Dec 10
Also, what about this idea from Professor Greg Phil:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Pmmf-cLnu
q0&feature=related
Powerwatt- you say that businesses would leave the country if we raise taxes. This is yet another example of how our democratic politics are held hostage by fear of The City - we can never have a serious debate in this country without someone holding up this spectre to frighten us all. The news is filled with scare stories about how The City might react to a particular government policy - it is childish and undemocratic to live in fear of the very financial speculators who created the crash in the first place.
The UK is one of the richest countires in the world, are you seriously suggesting that if we put up income tax by 5% that McDonalds would shut down all its shops? What utter twaddle.
Maquis
says...
8:31pm Mon 6 Dec 10
OwenC wrote:How incredibly naive.
I'd take it off them by raising income tax and by taxing large financial transactions on stocks and shares - the so-called 'Robin Hood Tax'.
Also, what about this idea from Professor Greg Phil:
http://www.youtube.c
om/watch?v=Pmmf-cLnu
q0&feature=relat
ed
Powerwatt- you say that businesses would leave the country if we raise taxes. This is yet another example of how our democratic politics are held hostage by fear of The City - we can never have a serious debate in this country without someone holding up this spectre to frighten us all. The news is filled with scare stories about how The City might react to a particular government policy - it is childish and undemocratic to live in fear of the very financial speculators who created the crash in the first place.
The UK is one of the richest countires in the world, are you seriously suggesting that if we put up income tax by 5% that McDonalds would shut down all its shops? What utter twaddle.
Who do you think make these transactions, its not only the billionaires, but the pensions companies who use the share market to invest the money of the millions of hard working people in this country who are saving for their retirement. Any "Robin Hood Tax" will hit them.
As for the fear of the city, yes they did have a lot to do with the crash, but they are also the main tax payers of the country, they pay huge proportions of the tax for our NHS, police, highways and defence. Much of the crash was caused due to people who borrowed money for the things in life that they all were led to feel that they deserved, such as the 42" TV, the house that was beyond their means and the expensive holidays that they could not afford. The crash was tripped by the sub prime market, i.e. loaning to people who would struggle to repay them.
It was not only the rich who caused this problem.
The McDonalds reference shows your lack of understanding on the matter, it is not the individual outlets that are at risk, but the head offices of such companies. (McDonalds is in the USA already anyway) It is a relatively simple operation to move a HQ abroad for the sake of 5% of the corporation's profit, and by doing so they would deprive the treasury of billions in tax revenue and take plenty of jobs with them.
meme
says...
11:51am Tue 7 Dec 10
Perhaps if they were not spending loads on money on booze they would be a bit better off and be able to afford the fees or at least not get in as much debt
I am not against drink or fun but it does annoy me that university towns tend to have serious alchohol related issues much of which is due to supposed poverty stricken students.
My kids worked thro University and although they were subsidised by their parents they did not end up in debt as they worked in the very bars and clubs that students spent their time spending their money in
More News stories
- Under-pressure teacher set himself alight
- UPDATED: Man dies in North Yorks crash
- Selby rejuvenation team unveiled
- Private school wins court battle
- Man, 71, viciously attacked in York
- Lorry driver flown to hospital after bridge crash on A64
- Neighbour saves man from flats block blaze
- Shrove Tuesday celebrated with pancake races in York
- Opening date set for new chocolate attraction
- £4.2m bid for better bus services in York
humpty numpty says...
6:35pm Tue 30 Nov 10