egafd.com

justincyder wrote:

> Folks,
>
> can you please xplain how you would go about funding
> Universities with the none existent cash that is currently in
> abundance. University numbers have been going up year on year.
> Someone has to pay for them.
>
> A more mature answer than 'make the bansk pay' would be
> appreciated.
>
> Also do you not think this artificial modernist culture of
> 'send everyone to university' that has been sold to us has been
> done in a way that makes us think it is a good thing without
> actually taking account of the consequences.
>
> I don't dispute that everyone should have the right to go, nor
> do I favour a system that only rewards those who are already
> favoured. BUT encouraging youngsters to think that the only
> way forward in life is to go and get a degree is wrong. I know
> sooooo many people with utterly useless degrees sitting in call
> centres. Whoopdeedoo we have the highest call centre educated
> employees in Europe. Fabulous. Lucky us.
>
> I would like to see it getting back to me more merit based. I
> know that would mean alot of work to ensure that the system
> feeding the uni's becomes fairer but ultimatley the goal of
> having everyone walking around with a degree is ridiculous.
>
> Look at nursing, now nursing requires a degree. Funny how they
> managed fine without for the past 100 years or so. Its just a
> whimsical fashion so politicians can boast oh look at our
> nurses they're degree trained don'tcha know, but when speaking
> to actual ward sisters who are banging their heads off walls
> because these students havn't got a clue when it comes to the
> actual practical application and can't change a dressing or
> refuse to wash someone becasue that wasn't mentioned in the
> finer details of the degree.


Actually I agree regarding the huge numbers of people doing degrees, mainly in useless subjects (Golf Course Management???). The problem, as I see it, given the current and proposed methods of funding, is that fewer and fewer students will go for 4 year degrees (bio-chemistry, engineering, languages etc) and instead do shorter 2 and 3 year degrees in Leisure Marketing & Nail Technology because of the annual costs involved. Eventually we'll end up with a population made up entirely of university graduates... they may not all have jobs , but by goodness we'll have the best qualified layabouts in the world!

The old system of Universities, Polytechnics, specialist colleges and apprenticeships seemed to be fine and didn't need changing. In my area, Kingston Technical College then became Kingston Poly and is now Kingston University. The number of students has risen from around 2000 when it was a Technical College to almost 23,000 nowadays! It is crazy.

Part of the reason for this "growth" is down to a succession of governments giving more funding to universities than other seats of learning, so any half decent Poly (like Kingston) tried to become a university in the 70s and 80s. Before the further education reforms of 1992 when EVERY poly did become a university, Kingston Poly was expected to become a university anyway.

As for funding, let's go back to the old system of means-tested grants and parental funding. Reduce the number of university students by about 75% and there'll be more than enough money to subsidise those doing worthy degrees in medicine, engineering, etc. Let's see a return of the traditional Poly and technical college where most students did sandwich courses, getting an academic/vocational qualification whilst working.

Sam
Where the fuck are you!!??

Agreed.

My original post was not about university funding so much as complete and utter deceit. One week you are pledging to vote/campaign against fee increases and in fact, arguing that fees should be abolished; the next, once in power, you are arguing the opposite.

Having said that there needs to be a debate about how/which courses are funded. Given that many university chancellors are saying they would probably have to charge ?8000 a year to keep still based on proposed state cuts, I dont see where all the graduate teachers, for example are going to come from, willing to incur a debt of ?40K+ (with interest) with potentially no grants except for less well-off families in a profession where most teachers aren't really well paid as far as I am aware

Cheers
D

Hi,

Fresh from his "Red" Vince speech at the Lib Dem conference where he attacked those bankers who acted like spivs etc etc without doing anything whatsoever to affect them, Cable was quoted today talking about the pledge made in April by the Lib Dems to oppose rises in student fees

"Let me just finally confront this issue of the pledge, the promise, which I and my colleagues undertook to implement. Under current economic circumstances we cannot implement that."

The issue that "Red" Vince didn't confront was how the economic situation clearly looked just as bad in April as it does now in October.

Yup, dishonest tosser of the year could end up being a closely run thing!

Cheers
D

Given that politics is about the game of compromise we shouldnt be surpised


Anyone who believes a promise made by a politician on the campaign trail leading up to the election is a self deluded fool

All sides do it

The thing is,its easy to take the high ground when your not in power

When your in power the economic reality bites everytime
If it doesnt the lobby groups will be there to help persuade you



You want sell out politician of the decade...take midnight oils lead singer
Peter Garrett...railed against nuclear everything for decades

As a lawyer he managed to get into politics and became the minister for the enviroment...he then changed his views about nuclear & the US/Australia alliance because hes become a TEAM PLAYER




Politics is a dirty unethical business so how else can you get support for things you want to get through if you dont compromise?

Never trust a politician. Just look at how paly Cameron and Clegg now are, yet Cameron described the Lib Dems as 'a joke' during the election campaign. Clegg just wants to be in office, it is all about ego.

"Given that politics is about the game of compromise we shouldnt be surpised. Anyone who believes a promise made by a politician on the campaign trail leading up to the election is a self deluded fool. All sides do it. The thing is,its easy to take the high ground when your not in power."

It is true that economic circumstances can change from the time a manifesto is issued to a particular time when a party is in power. And in the wake of those changes, policies may need to change.
THis is not the case with the Lib Dem manifesto. The economic position is exactly the same now as it was in April. To say that anyone who believes a politician is a self-deluded fool, suggests that there is no point having an election where people vote based on policies outlined in the campaign. By your argument we may as well have a dictatorship and not vote at all.

In a democracy, politicians who get our vote based on their values and policies, need to be held to account. And it is good to see that some Lib Dem MPs look as if they will vote against their back-stabbing colleagues on the issue of student fees.

Cheers
D

D & Bob

Yes my apologies for side-tracking from the original point on which I agree as it happens.

Side-tracking again just to continue the debate , whilst initial reading of the proposed bill certainly sounds horrendous, as you indicate who the hell wants to get in 40k debt, it has to be said in counternance that the levels of repayment expected are entirely manageable.

For example the threshold where you being to pay back the loan has been increased from 15k to 23k I believe, and it was explained that someone on say 25k a year would only be paying back ?30 a month with payments naturally rising incrememently accoring to salary etc.

Ok so owing 40k is never a fabulous thing but essentially if you don't 'make it' having done your degree then the government/tax-payer is the one to lose out. Its certainly no worse a system than is already in place.

And perhaps the psychological pressure placed on those under-taking useless degrees to delay their entry properly into the adult world might see a decline in the numbers of these pointless courses with the funds then being diverted into more useful areas ie science/engineering which has seen a dramatic fall off from UK students applying although maintains a steady if not gowing number of overseas students.

ps Bobs quote

~As for funding, let's go back to the old system of means-tested grants and parental funding. Reduce the number of university students by about 75% and there'll be more than enough money to subsidise those doing worthy degrees in medicine, engineering, etc. Let's see a return of the traditional Poly and technical college where most students did sandwich courses, getting an academic/vocational qualification whilst working.~

Absolutely in agreeance!

"Sam
Where the fuck are you!!??"

I seem to recall that Sam who was a very fervent supporter of Cleggie on this forum appeared to lose interest in politics as far as this forum is concerned, roundabout the time of the emergency budget six weeks into the Lib Dem Con coalition.

He does come out now and again to comment on criticisms of Cleggie, usually by issuing a volley of abuse but never discusses the issues raised.

I wonder why?

Cheers
D