Ed Milliband isn't much cope at these PMQ's is he. His content may be good, but I'm not listening. I'm just focusing on his uncomfortable delivery.
University fees Page 18
Quote: bigfella @ December 8 2010, 7:44 PM GMTHis content may be good, but I'm not listening. I'm just focusing on his uncomfortable delivery.
Fella have you been watching him on the toilet....again?
Quote: sootyj @ December 8 2010, 6:57 PM GMTAnd the many many people who can't verbally communicate in a meaningful verbal manner
theres millions of people without the linguistiv skills to gain from conventional talking therapies
But come on though seriously. Is there a University Degree in this? Surely not. There can't be that many places in the country - can there?
Quote: sootyj @ December 8 2010, 6:57 PM GMTAnd the many many people who can't verbally communicate in a meaningful verbal manner
theres millions of people without the linguistiv skills to gain from conventional talking therapies
Have you been on the cooking sherry again?
Nah I need a good dramatherapist and a phone with a bigger keypad
Quote: Chappers @ December 8 2010, 9:01 PM GMTBut come on though seriously. Is there a University Degree in this? Surely not. There can't be that many places in the country - can there?
Masters degree usually.
Dave stop wallowing in your ignorance.
The bottom line is that the money to pay for university courses has to come from somewhere and we are not a country in the position to afford to fund the current numbers of students wanting to pursue a university education. That is, not without the money coming from regional or general taxation. If you want to subsidise in this way then you're either going to have to a) increase taxation, or b) change the proportion of the budget which is spent on higher education (with the obvious consequence of budget reductions in other area which are equally - if not more - deserving).
There is no way of getting around this as far as I can see. Money is a finite resource. The previous Labour government mooted a graduate tax as a method of finding this money, the current government is proposing effectively the same thing but calling it a low interest loan.
One may spout ideological arguments about education being a right, but that won't ever change the ideological realities. One has a right to an education up the age of 18. Beyond that, further education - either in an institutionalised setting or as hobby - is a personal choice, not a right. You should have a right to pursue knowledge freely, but that doesn't translate to a right that someone else must have to pay for you to do so. Some may indeed wish to study for the benefit of society as a whole. Some may wish to study purely due to a particular passion for knowledge in a subject. However, ultimately, formalised higher education is primarily for the benefit of the individual - both in terms of personal development and with a view to employment/economic prospects.
The notion that the proposed changed will regressively target those from very poor backgrounds doesn't appear to be backed up by the evidence contained within the proposals. Yes, the very rich will always be able to afford advantages which are luxuries to the poor. Tax the very rich more if you feel this is unfair or disadvantageous to others. The tax one raises, however, will not produce a pot of money to provide free higher education for all. It will always be a relative pittance. Personally (perhaps naively) I believe that those truly gifted and passionate about pursuing knowledge and qualifications in their chosen subject tend to always find a way of achieving their goals, often with the help of not just families and friends, but from bursaries and financial/other help from altruistic strangers. I don't equate this with certain students bleating on about their right to a taxpayer-subsidised higher education just because they feel they're worth it. The vast majority of students I'm sure are perfectly hard-working and reasonable people, but they suffer/benefit (as we all do at that age) of being young, idealistic and naive. I admire them for protesting against the increase in tuition fees, for holding the government to account, but in a decade or so they may see the bigger, more complicated, picture.
Now excuse me whilst I calculate how much it's going to cost me to help fund my twin daughters to go to university (if they decide to) in 6 years... 
(For the record, I qualified from medical school around £26,000 in debt, which was paid off in the first 7 years of working. I fully appreciate that I was very lucky to have been trained in a profession which provided me with a well-paid job as soon as I graduated. The jobs-at-the-end-of-university part of the tuition fees issue is one that needs to be discussed more, I think...)
Quote: Tim Walker @ December 9 2010, 12:11 AM GMTThe bottom line is that the money to pay for university courses has to come from somewhere and we are not a country in the position to afford to fund the current numbers of students wanting to pursue a university education. .
100% agree.
Hi Griff! You type well for a drinker
I say fund uni study but make grants something you have to earn
Through, brightness hardwork and entgusiasm
Universalism was New Labs biggest failure
Quote: Griff @ December 9 2010, 1:45 AM GMTI've been reading Francis Wheen's excellent How Mumbo-Jumbo Conquered The World recently and I would recommend it to anyone who considers "education" to be a waste of time.
A great book. However, the book contains numerous examples of the terrible thinking which can result from bad education - it's not just the lack of education, but a lack of good, rational education - which results in some of the crazy thinking (as examined in Wheen's book). University courses scrutinised to be in keeping with Enlightenment thinking? Great idea. Trouble is there's too many anti-Enlightenment courses and a lot of bad thinking is also found in our universities. Of course, education should be open to new ideas and ways of thinking, but there do seem to be too many courses which neither accomplish the goals of a) preparing people with essential skills, b) benefiting society in a more abstract and holistic way, or c) benefit the individual beyond attributing to them an arbitrary qualification.
Education is a good thing, one of the best things there is in a free society. However, going to university does by no means guarantee producing a person with an intelligent and rational mind.
Oh, and hi Griff. 
Irrationak minds are not inherently bad
Quote: sootyj @ December 9 2010, 2:22 AM GMTIrrational minds are not inherently bad
(I see that Sarah Palin has attacked the Wikileaks and Julian Assange as being "un-American"... She really is a moron, that woman. *shakes head in despair*)
I did an online course it ewas surprisingly good.
I mean the technology for online courses has improved immeasurably.
Nowthat's mean.
I hope you get date raped by a perverted cabal of deans who prey on geeks working in Oxford.
Quote: Griff @ December 9 2010, 1:45 AM GMTI am posting while slightly drunk which is always a bad idea.
It seems crazy to me that 50% of the population should be going to university. When I think of the random sample of kids that made up my school year, there is no way 50% of them had such a passion for learning that it required three years of university to ensure their academic talents didn't go to waste.
Bang on. Fewer university courses and perhaps universities and more work based learning. You shouldn't need to go to university to study IT or indeed teaching. I spent 4 years doing a B.Ed and I have used none of the stuff I was taught in those four years in my job. However the things I learnt on teaching practice were invaluable.
Children in the UK spend about 13,000 hours at school.
Apart from reading, writing and basic arithmetic, what do they learn that they wouldn't learn in a school-less society?
It wouldn't take me many minutes to write down all I remember from those 13,000 (and more!) hours.
Likewise with university education, most of it is a waste of time and money for all concerned.