rileyuk.co.uk

I was glad that Student Fees have finally had an effect on university numbers. 36,000 spare places for full time courses in universities.

Go Labour! for their 50% higher education target, you are bang on, like you are with other major targets. Like, for example, climate change.

Next year I want to see 66,000 spare places for full time courses. The quality of education will stay the same and for a couple of years the tutors will have loads of free time (until the obvious and totally expected job losses which are an unfortunate side effect ).

What may be obvious to us seems to pass New Labour by completely. Perhaps wearing Stetsons that are too tight addles the brain...

Incidentally, on a completely unrelated subject, but still with New Labour, I calculated that if there was road pricing at ?1.34 per mile then my company would have to pay ?60,000 per year for me to do the same job that I do now. No doubt New Labour would think that's pretty much OK.

What amuses me is that politicians are genuinely shocked that students are unwilling to pay an extra chunk of cash to be taught to the same standard, by the same lecturers, using the same resources as the students who started 12 months ago!

Apparently applications to Welsh unis are up...mainly because they aren't charging top-up fees.

i think a lot of this mess has to do with the fact someone somewhere in the student fee supporters club wanted an american form of education support, where parents save up a fund for their children from an early age to help out when the ivy league calls.

plus, i think now a lot of people are realising the pointlessness of doing 'soft' degrees like mine, where you study for the love of the subject rather than its work prospects, and are now shying away from the debts and presumably opting to go straight into work - the country's workforce has grown this year to its highest level...while at the same time unemployment has grown as well. it sounds like double dutch, but surely it has something to do with the influx of college leavers staying away from university.

The 50% target was probably stupid anyways, and would only make sense if half the jobs available require degrees, which I'm sure they don't.

It does kind of disturb my socialist leanings that we appear to be moving away from a more "spread the cost between everyone" system to a shitty "pay at point of use" option, in more areas than just student fees. On the plus side, it may put people off doing degrees just for the sake of going to uni, but it seems a bit cheeky to penalise the people charged with bringing exciting high-tech jobs to the country with their uber degrees.

Firstly, who says 50% of the population should go to Uni? Why make it like a failing if you don't go to University? There are plenty of other options, and a degree isn't the right choice for evryone. Lots of students will drop out - at Westminster, some of our departments saw 30% of students drop out after their first year. That's ?3,000 they'll now have spent to find out it's not what they actually want to do but what they've been pressured into doing.

Secondly, I just don't think alot of students understand the system of paying back their fees after graduation, when they're earning enough. The ones I used to talk to had no idea of how much they would be paying back roughly each month, or how long it would take. ?25k of debt (including living costs and student loans) is massively intimidating.

Rant, and relax.

Kirstypie wrote:Firstly, who says 50% of the population should go to Uni?

Government target. Is totally stupid, many entrepenures do not go to university, can be totally pointless. . . . :D

I can rant all day about this subject - being hideously in debt myself (25k unfortunatly). Personally on one hand I have gained a lot from moving away from home and meeting lots of different people! On the other hand is anything worth the worry of that much debt?

50% of people into education unfortunatly doesn't mean 50% of people doing useful degrees - they are now thinking of removing physics from the senior school timetable as they can't get the teachers - also last time I did a university tour (to earn extra cash whilst studying) I met a lovely group of people studying embroidery, general studies and various other subjects I would question have any validity to them.

Furthermore I have worked in a school to uni day (extra cash) and talked to a boy who wanted to be a elecy like his dad and his teacher butted in to poo-poo the idea and say he should go to uni instead (I did stick up for him and say he would earn more money as elecy).

Surely uni should be for the academic, training courses should be for the practical and a wider set of choices should be available and more importantly encouraged?

Whats the incentive to be educated and hard working if the government tries to take all our earnings from us - student debt, tax, new milage tax and stealth taxes?

Anyone for the dole and being a single mum?

liz brown wrote:Anyone for the dole...?

being on the dole for any length of time is humiliating, degrading and robs any self-respect that might have survived beyond the realisation you are surplus to requirments as far as the rest of society is concerned. without the dole some people would never have any money, with the dole they may never have any hope of getting something better. either way ends in misery

That's why they're trying to shift people off incapacity benefit: people who are on it for more than a year tend to stay on it. There are also some perverse situations where people are actually worse off going into full-time work. Not too good a situation, methinks.

Did anyone catch that program about benefits and single mums? It looked like it wasn't making it out to be a bundle of fun, but I haven't seen it yet. May do some good for the "motherhood as career option" teenagers.

liz brown wrote:student debt

I always think it is misleading to call it a student debt. It is actually a student Tax. . . . it is the government that is 'lending' us the money. . . .

Isn't it the Student Loans Company that is lending us the money - which probably means at some point the interest rates will rise and we will all be buggered... and the government will dutifully blaim the third party?

It is called the Students Loan's Company, which is a government funded body. . . . In my mind it is just a good way of them getting (eventually) commercial rates for student loans. We will be paying the market rate eventually there is no doubt about it.

Incidentally, are they still charging soding 3.2% interest? I'm sure it's index-linked, and according to the bank of England, rate of inflation is 2.4%. Which rates are they using!?

Edit: Possibly retail price index. If so, I think that's maybe a bit cheeky, but I'm no economist.

Whatever rates they fancy....