Liverpool FC Forum

by **Kharhaz** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 3:29 am

redhayesy wrote:that is where we will have to agree to dis-agree, uni isn't a luxury!- no fecking way,no way! you reep what you sow in life- that's a fact! if you work fecking hard in life,at college-get the grades you deserve, then you deserve to go to uni- you earn the right to go to uni!

Through smarts and hard work you gain respect. Not through smarts alone. You disagree, thats fine, but for people like me and my parents, and so on, university is a luxury.

Before tuition fees, it was a place for rich parents to send the kids, who later became politicians, who later abused the system.
And all the while it is the respectful hardworking people of britain, who keeps us going.

I agree with your "you reap what you sow" attitude. My attitude is the same. In my case, if you have a talent, it will always be there, its how you apply it that is the challenge.

by **Ring-of-Fire** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:44 pm

I think the increase in fees is a good thing as there are too many people taking the micky out of the system. It used to be that people went to Uni when the job they wanted needed a degree. Now, it's just a way for the loafers to extend their student life for a few years instead of getting a job. How many people actually use the degree they get? (Apart from as an indication of their learning capacity, which is bull pat when you think about it, as the ability to do social studies for 3 years won't make a blind bit of difference to the ability to type orders into a computer, etc.)
Sorry about the rant, but it bugs me when all these precious mummy's boys and girls keep bleating about having their 3 year :censored:

-up ruined.

by **dawson99** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 7:46 pm

No excuse for the idiots running around smashing windows and all that. My family didnt have much money, so i spent 10 years after uni paying it off, its that simple. And then when one of them gets hit on the head by a policeman he cries and sues.. well thats what happens in aprotest when you;re kicking the sh!t out of things...

by **Ring-of-Fire** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:01 pm

Gerrard30391 wrote:
Red-er-Dare wrote:
Benny The Noon wrote:Education is free to all - further education has to be paid for in some way - if the students don't pay for their fees who does in the end ?

Correct, further education should be paid for, but made available to everyone.

So, do you actually think tripling the tuition fees is going to make it accessible to all?

And Benny it will end up going back to the rich and the poor. The rich will be able to afford it and the poor will have it paid, leaving the middle class with feck all.

P.S. apologies for double post, i fecked up the quoting

Nothing will be paid until the graduate earns £21k or above, so yes - it IS accessible to all. I'd have thought that was obvious.

by **Ring-of-Fire** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:34 pm

Gerrard30391 wrote:Not that we see any of it. Ok there's porters, gardeners, cleaners etc. but we don't get any books, printing or any of the likes. I reckon you could go on all day fighting over a few quid, but if the government could've met a compromise somewhere between, the majority of students would've been happy.

The irony of this is, myself, and all of those cretins that were protesting aren't going to be affected as they are already into their course

I think there are a few issues you are missing. You're forgetting about rent of the buildings/campus, council tax, insurance, maintainance, text books, gas, electricity, licenses, constant lecturer training, transport, subsidised accomodation, advertising, printing/paper costs, technology/computers, equipment, health and safety and the courses that aren't blessed with 36 members. And that's just off the top of my head.
None of the people in the course will pay anything back for at least 3 years and even then will only be paying £90 out of every £1000 they earn over £21k. (For instance: Under the new system, someone on £30k per year would pay back £810 per year, or £67.50 per month. The current system would see them paying £1,350 pa/£112.50 pcm.)

The main point I feel you've missed, though, is the part which clearly states that they are planning on funding at least 1 year of university for anyone eligible for school dinners. (2 for the uni's charging £6k or more per annum.) This will open things up massively for the working classes. The middle classes will have to pay their loans back at the rate above, and the upper class don't know what loans are. (Unless they own the bank... :eyebrow

)

I wouldn't worry about the fee changes. It just means that they'kk pay a lower rate per month for longer. It's not the end of the world these idiot protestors are wrapping it up to be.

by **Ring-of-Fire** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:37 pm

metalhead wrote:
Benny The Noon wrote:
Gerrard30391 wrote:Not that we see any of it. Ok there's porters, gardeners, cleaners etc. but we don't get any books, printing or any of the likes. I reckon you could go on all day fighting over a few quid, but if the government could've met a compromise somewhere between, the majority of students would've been happy.

The irony of this is, myself, and all of those cretins that were protesting aren't going to be affected as they are already into their course

The country is in recession , thousands have lost their jobs , even more has had pay cuts , tax increases etc etc the people working are suffering and paying for financial mistakes and I'm afraid students wanting to go to uni will also have to take a hit - I know its harsh and it's not fair but its life . Nothing is free or given away anymore - this may well be the best plan for the future - who knows .

capitalism at its best...

What is the alternative, though? Labour's answer to everything was to make it free. Someone, somewhere always has to pay for it. You can't have everything on the drip and never get into debt.

by **Ring-of-Fire** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:42 pm

Gerrard30391 wrote:Well I can only see it going to how it used to be with just the rich and all that.

I think i mentioned earlier the fact uni's take on students who don't make the entry requirements, meaning the subsidises don't cover the students any more. A slight issue there perhaps?

I would think the reason why they have to take on the 'unworthy' students is because the fees they get at the minute aren't sufficient to cover their expenses. If they had £7k pers student instead of £3.5k, they would only need half the numbers and thus be able to turn down those that fail to make the grade.

by **Ring-of-Fire** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 8:55 pm

redhayesy wrote:i will support my son through colleuge,uni-whatever mate. thats the bottom line,if it means i as well as him find in years to come it results in so called debt- do your worst you fecking torry tw@ts! or fecking co-ollision d1cks,i don't care!- cause the one thing i do know for a fact is that my son is a real talent,passionate about reaching his goal in life-that means going to uni,getting an official document to prove his talent etc,if that means he has to pay a stupid amount of money to do so-that will make it all worth while for me.

people in this country go on about students taking the p1ss & living a p1ss take lifestyle. -fine but don't tar every student with the same brush! cause it just isn't the case!

it's like saying that every person on benefits doesn't deserve the financial help they deserve!

if someone has talent & is motivated to want to suceed in life,why the feck should they have to pay a stupid amount of money in the first place to de-motivate them,it just doesn't make sence to me & never will.

It seems to me that you're allowing your hatred of the tory's to colour your view of something that will possibly benefit your son, not hinder him.

by **Ring-of-Fire** » Sun Dec 12, 2010 9:00 pm

My work here is done!

Liverpool FC Forum

Tuition fee's - ...and david cameron

Who is online