Jump to content

What do we feel about the UK images?


Rose
 Share

Recommended Posts

Recent protests in France stirred considerable debate about the rights and wrongs of the protests... I was wondering what the feeling was for the protests now happening in the UK?  Are you horrifed?  Do you feel that a large number of protesters don't even understand the changes?

How many of them do you think would have read this and thought... mmm... maybe I'll not protest today?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/08/tuition-fees-student-support

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As in France, most are not real students, just sh*te and should be dealt with accordingly. Some may even be imported; the the police should go in very, very hard indeed. The real students are being used by a mad dog minority.

That being said, there is a real issue that should be examined and protested about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

An interesting piece: one side of the story of course, but argued rationally rather than emotionally.

I've said this before and I'll say it again. For me, further education should be free of charge for British citizens, regardless of income. There should be appropriate tuition fees for non-citizens. Upkeep of the student should be the responsibility of the student (in effect, the family). Courses should be rigorous in their entry requirements and appropriate to future employment, but the latter doesn't mean an end to so-called 'dumbed-down' degrees - many are better than face-value and old fashioned standards might suggest. In short, survival of the fittest in terms of courses offered.

What's happening now reminds me of the Poll Tax protests. There was much to be said for the concept: a local tax that reflected the cost of each individual's use of local services. As with the current debate, it got drowned in emotion and half-truths.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But do you think that any serious debate is now pointless?  I sometimes think when tempers get this frayed the one thing that fails is an open mind?  And the newspapers all looking for the best headline?

Greyman looks in on another forum (non-french) and they came up with a few suggestions for funding HE... some suggested that for 'needed' degress fees should be low or nil... if you drop out you have to repay all costs... (I think the drop out rate is about 25%) and everyone who previously benefited from a free degree should now pay additional tax to contribute to fees today.  How would folks here feel about paying a little more for the education they had a few years ago?

We have three children, one applying for her place at Uni for next year... and we hope the other two will follow suit... in time... We'll need a small fortune to assist all of them.

EDIT - Gardian, sorry we posted at the same time... so my questions aren't directed to you, even though it looks a bit like that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Rose"]But do you think that any serious debate is now pointless?  I sometimes think when tempers get this frayed the one thing that fails is an open mind?  And the newspapers all looking for the best headline? [/quote]

No (there absolutely should be serious debate), yes & yes


[quote user="Rose"]We have three children, one applying for her place at Uni for next year... and we hope the other two will follow suit... in time... We'll need a small fortune to assist all of them.[/quote]

We funded our elder son's university education 15 years ago and they were hard times - and that was just his maintenance! I really have a problem with how many low income families with bright youngsters who'll be put off the consideration of fe. The problem is not the reality of what grants or deferred payments may be on offer: it's the perception of it being completely unaffordable.  Like the Poll Tax, I'm afraid that the selling of this has been bungled.

[quote user="Rose"]EDIT - Gardian, sorry we posted at the same time... so my questions aren't directed to you, even though it looks a bit like that.
[/quote]

Understood.[:)]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe a lot of what is happening is about relatives sharing of the deficit problem; these sentiments will continue to rise as the cuts bite hard.

Should education bear the consequences of bank failures and poor government regulation.

There is a sense that those that got us into this mess are paying way below even a fair proportion, let alone the full amount of what they should be paying.

if the UK is to remain competitive, then it needs graduates with high levels of skills, but I also agree that in the last decades we have dumbed down with the creation of too many vocational type degrees courses.

The other problem of course is that the UK appears to be going to a US style of fees, but without recognising that the UK does not have the same level of private philanthropy. US fees are high, but few students pay the full list price.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What annoys me is that somebody has to pay 'up front' for these students and as the government has no money it's tax payers money they use. Why should a family on very low income who have no chance of funding and sending their child through university have to contribute to somebody else's and have no choice in the matter.

In 2010 (according to the BBC) only 1 in 10 students who finished their time at university got a job (in there chosen field of expertise, many ended up filling shelves in supermarkets). Out of those that did many went to work outside of the UK so the chances in reality of any of this money ever being paid back is zero.

As for attacking the royals car, well what do they think that will achieve, it's not as if they have a say in government policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Richardbk"] There is a sense that those that got us into this mess are paying way below even a fair proportion, let alone the full amount of what they should be paying. [/quote]

Playing devil's advocate to this I also think there is a failure of the population in general to take their share of the blame for the situation e.g. my bank failed because I took out a 125% mortgage based on an inflated self-certification application or I couldn't afford to pay off my credit card after I spent £2000 on Christmas presents or I bought 3 buy-to-let peoperties because I heard on TV that prices would always go up or I used all my savings buying a second home in France.

It's easy to blame faceless bankers but the fact is we have all been living beyond our means for years with no thought for how our children will pay for this. Now the bill has landed on the mat it is of course someone elses fault. I include myself in this by the way but it is time to listen to our parents and rein in the conspicuous consumption.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As a taxpayer students want me to pay for their education. As a taxpayer if I want to do any further education - i.e. attend French evening classes then I have to pay a handsome fee for that, where is the fairness to me the taxpayer.

Is it also a case that for some students doing courses is better than getting a job so they take course after course.

In addition, in a radio programme it was stated that 2 out of 3 students now go to university. Whether this is a correct figure or not the numbers going to university is increasing - so are taxes put up to fund this or is some other method needed? Could the student having to eventually pay for their course likely to lead to only those who will see it through starting the course.

Plus, to me, some of the degrees being offered are absurd and will benefit the country in no way at all - so why should the taxpayer fund these?

And comparisons with the Poll Tax riots - I could see nothing wrong with the Poll Tax - paying a tax based on number of occupants (and therefore users of services) seems a lot fairer than the current system where a house containing 7 adults pays the same as a house containing 2.

Yes, some of the protests will include others that are just intent on mayhem - but surely an number of those actually causing mayhem must be students.

Also why are parents not being prosecuted due to their school child playing truant to attend protests.

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Quillon wrote : In 2010 (according to the BBC) only 1 in 10 students who finished their time at university got a job (in there chosen field of expertise, many ended up filling shelves in supermarkets).

 My cousins daughter went to Uni to study doing  "Stage makeup "  wasted years at no doubt  huge cost  ...She has been working in her local supermarket  2 years now ... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="greyman"]

It's easy to blame faceless bankers but the fact is we have all been living beyond our means for years with no thought for how our children will pay for this.

[/quote]

Whoa!.......... steady on there.

Bold generalisation there. I for one have always lived within my means and attempted to provide for my future only to see my income plan completely shot to pieces. Will I receive any handouts? Not on your nelly as I've got tooo much worthless (?) capital. If someone can tell me the day I'm going to die then I'll set about spending it.

Should I be paying for drop outs and those with stupid degrees? Again, not on your nelly.    [:D]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe we need to question the basic premise . Why does the governement have no money ? , because as the "financial director" of UK Plc it messed up big time.

I have always found the Uk to be rather short sighted ,lacking macro economic management. An educated work force is a vital asset for the country as a whole - even for those that were not educated to the same level.

In addition graduate will in any case pay higher taxes later in life through higher earnings. The problem here is not black or white. I beleive the state should pay, but perhaps there needs to be more focus on the courses that employers and the country needs.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Benjamin says ... I for one have always lived within my means

When I say all I mean society as a group, not each and every individual. As a society (I'm talking UK here as I don't have a lot of knowledge of the economies beyond) we have for a long time relied on unsustainable credit. It's quite possible your 'income plan' is invested in the banks so indirectly you (or other pension fund members) are the banks who caused the problems. We all (group again, not every individual) elected the politicians who oversaw this mess and as a society were happy to spend the ever inflating credit that resulted. Do you think a politician who stood up in the late 90s and said 'this bubble is going to burst one day, let's pull back now' would have been elected. Maybe you were the perfect individual who saved up a 30% deposit on their house, never took out a loan for a holiday and bought stuff on credit card. If so you are in the minority but you still stand side by side with the rest when it comes to carrying the burden.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So as not take this thread off topic my final comment is that until I get a seat on the FSA, the MPC and get to sit in on every fiscal policy meeting held by the (any) Government, I accept no responsibility either as an individual or as a member of Society as a whole.  [:P]

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="PaulT"]

 Plus, to me, some of the degrees being offered are absurd and will benefit the country in no way at all - so why should the taxpayer fund these?

[/quote]

And what is the purpose of a university education? It is NOT to provide a trained workforce. Training is the proper responsibility of the employer - no-one else.

The purpose of a university education is to develop high level intellectual skills. Skills such as analysis, synthesis and evauation; presentation, persuasion and influencing; the ability to recognise false and inappropriate argument; the ability to research effectively; the ability to think. These skills are not essential for entry level employment - most graduate entry jobs can be done by almost anyone - but they are essential for the sort of employment graduates will be looking for as their careers develop. For the most part the subject studied by the student is of only minor impotance - the subject is simply the context within which high level skills are developed.

How does reading a few books by 19th and 20th century authors benefit the country? Or studying long-dead Mediterranean languages? Or finding out what happened in times gone by? But English, Classics and History are highly "valued" as academic subjects. But if their study does not encourage skill development rather than just knowledge then they are as worthless as the "absurd" degrees lampooned in the redtops and bluetops. Why should the taxpayer fund them?

A further question to be asked of traditional subjects is why they lack any numeracy content - and yet the effective management of numerical information is at the heart of any managerial activity.

When it comes to evaluating the role and nature of higher education I think that there is much muddled thinking. And this is true of the present (and alternative) government's approach to HE: they seem to be obsessed with the price of everything while not knowing the value of anything.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="Benjamin"]So as not take this thread off topic my final comment is that until I get a seat on the FSA, the MPC and get to sit in on every fiscal policy meeting held by the (any) Government, I accept no responsibility either as an individual or as a member of Society as a whole.  [:P][/quote]

Well you're not alone. Not taking resonsibility for anything is the standard response these days.

Getting back on topic and segueing nicely .... did anyone see the news reaction to the attack on the Royal car. Apparantly it was the fault of the police and their security men. The thugs who did it take no resonsibility at all. If the car hadn't been there I wouldn't have attacked it would I guv !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And what about Theresa May, the Home Secretary, repeating just 2 sentences in a 3- minute interview?  Peaceful protest is acceptable, violence and criminal damage is not.

She repeated these 2 statements (yes, we know self-evident truths, so tell us something we don't know), I think about 4 times despite the interviewer trying her best to get her to talk about responsibility for the shambles, security, etc.  Talk about a broken down record....

In the days when cabinet ministers took responsibility for what happened in their departments, she'd have offered her resignation! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I'm sure I shall make myself extremely unpopular again and awake the ativistic instincts of the forum liberal bleeding-heart hunting pack, but I enjoy thick skin!

Having earlier served as a County Council Co-opted secondary school govenor during the introduction and implementation of LMS (Local Management of Schools) and later, as an External Examiner, Moderator and ad hoc lecturer to one university business school over two faculties, Cambridge and Essex: and thereafter with a London university's technology transfer unit and general outreach to the real world of business, via Bridge-Building, I believe I have a microcosm of knowledge in this area.

In the 1980s and to try and "Solve" the youth unemployment problem, Margaret Thatcher hit on the cunning wheeze of changing the status of technical colleges et al to Polytech Universities.

The teachers from and of those colleges were suddenly escalated in personal status to "lecturers".

The net result being a rash of "Degrees" appeared, over time, in zany subjects in order to accommodate students who were basically academicaly and intellectually unfit for real university courses.

A sort of competition commenced where all these eratz "universities" tried to outdo each other in nonensical topics!

To suggest that access to HFE (Higher and Further Education) is the "Right" of all is not only prototypical egalatarian polemic, it is arrant nonsense!

One might as well state that the right to become a doctor most be rolled out to all: even those who throw up, spectacularly and repetitively when dissecting human corpses.

My experience as a secondary school gov was a salutory and sobering time: in order to satisfactorily address the demands of the 11+ syllabus, pupils need to enjoy as a minimum circa 11+ level in reading, writing, comprehension and arithmetic: roughly 90% of the 11+ year (First) intake hovered around 5+.

Fortunately the school then had the services of a wonderful and extremely skilled remedial teacher: within six months of four hours per week of intensive teaching work, she was able to take 90% of the 90% to levels exceeding 12+. brilliant talented and very personable lady who earned my absolute respect.

After perhaps one year, the Area Education Office cancelled her funding since "It was not necessary!" These experts also denied Dyslexia existed! (Circa 1989/90).

Before wasting vast sums of taxpayer's money on charades - which is all "University" education has become, in far too many circumstances, government firstly needs to address the matter of primary and junior education: since clearly this has failed.

IMO one of the root causes of most of Britain's current problems in education has been the interference of left-wing ideologues, intent on rolling out their utopian egalatarian dream of equal opportunity for all. Which is fine if it works. As one cannot force a horse to drink one equally cannot force kids (And more critically their parents!) to optimise latent opportunity.

Comprehensive education has simply driven down standards to the lower level, rather than elevate average kids to the same level as the more academically disposed.

And the new wave of "Universities", has simply dumbed down and degraded the value of most degrees and university education itself.

For me, this is a prime example of assinine "Degrees"!

See Here:

Perhaps this is even better.........

"a degree in Waste Management with Dance?  Sound like a strange combination?  Apparently not that strange.  The course is available at Northampton University."

The reason kids cannot find jobs or take menial jobs, is simply because their education has not fitted them for what is required: plus, there are too few real jobs created in meaningful areas of activity. Accountants, banks and the like simply harvest the cream of the crop: their graduate recruitment drives, each year are basically a filter to enable them to select the best.

One of my closest friends daughters is a current typical example: extremely bright and I have known her since she was about ten or so. Excellent first degree in chemistry from a real university: went into banking for a few years and didn't really like it. Managed to join the largest global accountants in London and now in one year, qualifies as a Chartered Accountant.

What chemistry has to do with accountancy I know not.

Going to "Uni" has, I fear become a sort of right of passage between school, growing up and working: it's almost like the competitive passion to pass the driving test as soon as kids are 17.

The "GAP" year is the other "must have" accessory.

Rather than do what most working stiffs expect: work and building one's life and career.

Personally, I believe one partial solution would be to bring back the concept of Sandwich Courses: since these expose the young to the ethic of work and the real world.

Those fortunate enough to have parents dripping with wealth, of course, could study arcane topics of no real use: however, to expect the state to fund this charade further is unrealistic, unreasonable and plain dumb!

I suggest Britain (And indeed Europe) should be focused on the sobering reality that China, India and even Pakistan (With all its turmoils and troubles) are churning out science, computer science, maths and physics graduates and doctors by the hundreds of thousands each year.

Britain's socio-economy has now inherited the root problems, seeded in Thatcher's expedient political "Solution" of driving down youth unemployment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Irrespective of what Students think they're entitled to, this is not the way to get it in my view, (I've employed a few graduates, and I have to say there are quite a few unimpressive graduates out there who wouldn't have a clue what Clark Kent was so rightly saying) fortunately I'm sure the intelligent ones will rise above it and make their way whether through Uni or life. As for UK image, pretty much an own goal as summed up here.    telegraph. -attack-on-charles-and-camilla-is-a-richly-deserved-pr-disaster-for- protestors/
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If business wants graduates then perhaps they should be able to donate and sponsor universities like in some countries. In the US the prestigious and most expensive universities (Yale and Harvard) get a lot of money from business and ex students who have made it 'big time' and donate. This means that any student that enters is guaranteed to finish because it is paid for out of those 'gifts'. There are very big tax advantages if you do donate. A lot of people and business's do donate as they see it as 'paying back' to society for what they have gained out of it. Perhaps the UK should think along those lines. It also has the benefit, as no doubt the businesses that do donate sponsor individual courses, that those leaving will actually have the skills required by businesses. I believe Microsoft in the US is a very big sponsor or Cal-Tech as are other 'hi tech' companies.

Sadly out of the top 20 Universities in the world the UK only has four.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/education/worlds-best-universities/2010/09/21/worlds-best-universities-top-400-.html

I agree with Greyman and Gluestick (although he makes my normally long posts pale in to insignificance).

I also agree with the comments about banks and money. I am sure everyone remembers all those adverts on the telly trying to get people to borrow money to 'consolidate their finances' taking very little notice of if they could actually afford to pay the money back. I even remember there were companies willing to lend money to those who had been refused by others and had judgments against them. No, not everyone borrowed money but a fair few did and the percentage of those that did could not afford the loan was proved to be quite high.

The other thing is about the state paying, the 'state' has no money to pay anything with, what it does is rob the people in the form of tax's to pay for things that many don't won't or just simply waste it. State money is the tax payers money which is why it is important now, more than ever, that the tax payer has more say in how it's spend. If I lived in the UK and paid tax there I wouldn't want anymore money spent on universities that turn out people who have no jobs to go to. As the old saying goes, supply has greatly outstripped demand and by a huge amount. Some might say 'well we will need these skills when things pick up' well excuse me things have not picked up and they haven't for the last 25 years so unless somebody can draw a line in the sand stating exactly when 'when' will be I think we should knock most of this on the head now because the UK, mainly the tax payer, simply can't afford it.

By the way if somebody could lend me £32k to £40k and let me pay it back over the next 35 years at something like 1.5% fixed interest rate and then only if I work in the UK and earn over £20k per year I would be very happy to take it as no financial institution in it's right mind would offer that sort of deal.

But it's not just students. In the UK press the other day they were talking about hospitals not being able to cope because of the 'cold snap'. Well excuse me, the UK health service receive more funding that any other health service in any other country, it employs more staff than any world wide corporate company (only outdone by the Chinese army I read somewhere) so with all this money and staff why is their a problem?

The people should have more say in where and how their money is spent and I think on average they are better equipped to do so than any Chancellor past and present.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gluestick wrote

One of my closest friends daughters is a current typical example: extremely bright and I have known her since she was about ten or so. Excellent first degree in chemistry from a real university: went into banking for a few years and didn't really like it. Managed to join the largest global accountants in London and now in one year, qualifies as a Chartered Accountant.

What chemistry has to do with accountancy I know not.

end quote

As usual Gluestick, a knowledgable response well presented, however, as another trained Chemist who is no longer involved in Chemistry, I have to take issue with you on the above point.

As someone lese pointed out, university training is more about learning to apply the mind, than about the specific subject in many - indeed most - areas. (Doctors, dentists and vetinarians might be the more obvious exceptions).

In my day companies like ICI (remember them) Coutaulds (remeber them) Shell, BP and others would recruit 100 or more engineering, physics and chemistry graduates each year - and with 5 years 2/3rd would no longer be doing their base trained subject. They would be managing and not necessarily managing people in their field of expertise.

So even the stalwarts of British industry expected their science graduates to stay in a lab all of their lives.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

[quote user="andyh4"]

 I have to take issue with you on the above point.

As someone lese pointed out, university training is more about learning to apply the mind, than about the specific subject in many - indeed most - areas. [/quote]

I agree generally, Andy: or perhaps more accurately, I would have done.

I worked, briefly in the mid 1960s for Ford Europe and they then as with so many engaged on what we called "Grab a Graduate" periods.

One particular chum of mine then was a graduate in Ceramics: engaged in data analysis: which in those far off days, meant physically scanning reams of fanfold print out from the IBM mainframe and doing the job manually!

One of the reasons for this, then, was the almost total lack of trained IT specialists: as an example, our team leader (Systems Analyst) was in fact an ex rep. actor whose hobby was knitting radio sets together. He became involved in computers when his wife became pregnant.

Having worked as an operator for Ilford Films (Loading Phosphor Bronze Memory Drums using a forklift truck: I kid you not!) he then joined North Thames Gas Board as an embryo programmer: and graduated to Ford as a Systems Analyst.

Things be different today.

However, times change: and now business demands specialism.

Top managers tend to enjoy an MBA from such as Harvard or Stanford.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...