Students Rioting in London.

[nomadking]

High student fees/loans are not that much of a problem in the US(and elsewhere).
Link

It's a price tag of more than $200,000 - about £132,000 - for a four-year undergraduate course at one of the leading universities in the United States.

And that is just the course fees, ie not including living costs.

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

The government has gone back on there word

And why is that?

Bankrupt much springs to mind...

[Ignitionnet]

Wish I could find the picture of a home made banner expressing disgust at 'tuition fee's' - note the apostrophe.

BBC news report.

Where the person who wrote that sign needs to go to remedy their English, primary school, doesn't charge tuition fees.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Arthurgray50@blu

When you think some of these students will go on to be Doctors and Lawyers, but they will bein debt for the rest of there lives, due to to the increase in fee's.

The government has gone back on there word, and this happened with the poll tax, another Tory tax that brought the worst riots l ghave ever seen in London in my lieftime.

The students rallied to protest against fees that they will have to pay - what happened was a riot in London, which was totally wrong.

Well, I think the Doctors & Lawyers will be able to afford it

Plus, of course, as mentioned earlier, the salary threshold for loan repayment is being increased (above the pathetic level Labour set it at), so although the fees will be higher than at the moment, graduates will also have to be earning a fair bit more than they have to earn now before they start re-paying the loans.

The Government never gave its word not to increase fees. It also was not responsible for commissioning the Browne Report into higher education funding, which actually recommended unlimited fees - the previous Government commissioned it.

If Labour had won the GE in May, the Browne report would still have come back saying "We think fees should be unlimited", and the Labour Government would still have had the same tough decisions to make that the Tory/LibDem Coalition Government has had to make: Where do we get the money from...

---------- Post added at 01:37 ---------- Previous post was at 00:57 ----------

Originally Posted by nomadking

High student fees/loans are not that much of a problem in the US(and elsewhere).
Link

Did you not read the rest of that link?

Originally Posted by BBC

It's a price tag of more than $200,000 - about £132,000 - for a four-year undergraduate course at one of the leading universities in the United States.

It means that as well as student loans there are also parent loans - with huge sums of money borrowed by people who might have been planning for their retirement.

And it's the middle-income families who are facing the toughest squeeze.

(snip)

The rich can afford the cost (about a third of students get no support at all) - and the poorest will get the maximum support from scholarships and state aid.

But for the majority in the middle, who might already have been saving for college, it means a major stretch on cash and borrowing.

In terms of the toughest pressure point, where the support fades away and the big bills arrive, she says it is for families with a combined income of around $130,000 (£86,000).

Changing jobs market

What makes it even tougher for families is the feeling of being caught in a double whammy.

(snip)

And at the other end of the scale, community colleges offer a route into higher education for those with less cash or those working and wanting to improve their qualifications.

(snip)

Among the biggest providers of publicly-funded higher education across the United States is the network of state universities.

Boston has one of five campuses of the University of Massachusetts. It's an airy, modern building on the waterfront, a few subway stops away from the city centre.

Students from Massachusetts receive a discount here, paying about $12,000 (£7,820) per year in tuition and fees - half of what out-of-state students are charged and much less than other local universities such as MIT or Harvard.

Unfair advantage

Students here are keenly aware of both the cost of their courses - and their relative worth in the academic pecking order.

Psychology student, Kristen Smith, says she expects to be in her forties before she pays off her university debts, which are already at $80,000 (£53,000) and rising.

And she says unambiguously that students are choosing universities based on cost.

It's a big sacrifice for herself and her family, she says, but worth the investment. Not going "was never an option".

But despite the scale of the cost to all students, she fears students from the more expensive universities will have an unfair advantage in the jobs market. (snip)

etc.

[Sparkle]

Consider that if the student demo had gone entirely peacefully, it barely even would have made the news.
I was at the very peaceful student demo in London in Nov. '07 and we brought the city to a standstill. We were protesting the introduction of tuition fees by the newly elected Labour gov. It did get a clip on the evening news however, about 3 seconds. We were all packed in the UCL union, and were very surprised with the lack of media coverage.

What happened after 1 million peaceful protestor took to the streets and protested the illegal Iraq war invasion? Nothing.

Nomadking, what is this nonsense about the tuition fees being no problem in America? I spent some years growing up over there, for your information it IS a problem over there, its a complete rip off and everyone knows it. Basically if you come from a poor background, good luck affording education.

However for those that can partly afford it, the cost is at least somewhat offset by the fact that the overall tax rate in the US is a tiny fraction of what it is here. In the US, its all about me me me, screw everyone else. Just take a gander at how the healthcare bill has been recieved by the wider US public, nuff said.

If in the UK we get screwed by our government, then in the US they are most certainly screwing each other. The US model is not, and has never been a template for us to model our own society around.

It is insane that students in the UK should be expected to pay the ridiculous tax rates we have here, and yet also have to pay for their own education to boot.

Everyone benefits from education. The primary underlying difference between the 21st century society and that of neolithic stone age society is education.
Everyone benefits from it, everyone should pay for it.

Well done students, you made your point but still a long way to go.

Originally Posted by Sirius

Amazing how quickly people forget isn't it

This is the Tory and Lib Dems plan, not Labour's.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by Matt D

Well, I think the Doctors & Lawyers will be able to afford it

Plus, of course, as mentioned earlier, the salary threshold for loan repayment is being increased (above the pathetic level Labour set it at), so although the fees will be higher than at the moment, graduates will also have to be earning a fair bit more than they have to earn now before they start re-paying the loans.

The Government never gave its word not to increase fees. It also was not responsible for commissioning the Browne Report into higher education funding, which actually recommended unlimited fees - the previous Government commissioned it.

If Labour had won the GE in May, the Browne report would still have come back saying "We think fees should be unlimited", and the Labour Government would still have had the same tough decisions to make that the Tory/LibDem Coalition Government has had to make: Where do we get the money from...

Agree. Tough as it may seem (and our eldest will probably be affected) the decision is realistic and would likely have been made whoever won the election as the current system is not sustainable.

Of course none of that will wash with those who blindly oppose whatever savings are made and seem to want to carry on spending money we don't have and our children will have to pay back. That's probably because they're still in denial about the size of the mess the previous government got us into. They're often big on rhetoric when it comes to denouncing whatever the current government does but seem to go very quiet when confronted about what the other lot would have done or how they'd suggest HMG deals with the problems we face.

Anyway, hopefully this might better focus the minds of our students as to which courses are really worth doing and indeed whether university is the right option for them as opposed to almost a default choice. I'm sure I heard on the radio that universities are going to have to publish performance figures and, if so, all this should help students make better judgements on what and where to study. I think that in recent years too many universities have sprung up that aren't offering value for money and I think if students are going to be left in so much debt they ought at least to be assured that they're getting the quality of education they're paying for and have some redress if they don't get it.

Originally Posted by Osem

Of course none of that will wash with those who blindly oppose whatever savings are made and seem to want to carry on spending money we don't have and our children will have to pay back. That's probably because they're still in denial about the size of the mess the previous government got us into. They're often big on rhetoric when it comes to denouncing whatever the current government does but seem to go very quiet when confronted about what the other lot would have done or how they'd suggest HMG deals with the problems we face.

Others may say that some are blindly accepting whichever cuts planned by HMG. Not everyone agrees with the narrative that the previous government brought the country to the brink of collapse and that the current government are doing all they can to save it while Labour and their supports snipe from the sidelines.

I think there is a genuine reason to believe that the government are using the excuse of the cuts to cut back the size of the state and drastically reduce spending, which ideologically appeals to them.

The previous government was in favour of a graduate tax. I am too. Rather than this massive increase in students fees, and they want to charge increased interest on these massive loans. This seriously screws over people that go on to pass the £21,000 threshold but not exceed £35,000 in their careers. They end up paying more than people who go on to earn £100k + as they will pay it back in no time and pay less interest.

[Derek]

Originally Posted by Sparkle

Everyone benefits from it, everyone should pay for it.
Well done students, you made your point but still a long way to go.

So if things aren't going your way you should throw a tantrum and smash up a few things?

If you think students should be handed the moon on a stick to continue a ridiculous degree of no use to anyone then fine but I'm a realist and know if you are studying for a relevant degree likely to get you a good job then investing in your future isn't really that bad an idea.

Aside from that I hope the Guardian are happy with the policing of demos after G20.

[punky]

Anyone see the NUS president and that horrible woman on BBC breakfast? There's a clip on BBC news. Says our all really.

The NUS was actually quite nice for a union leader (although I'm not sure it counts as a union in the traditional sense?). But the woman was horrid, saying "it's out a few windows of the Tory party headquarters and the banks blah blah blah..."

Any sympathy will soon evaporate.

[peanut]

I don't know where I stand on this to be honest. On one point I don't think a peaceful protest wouldn't matter to this government one bit, if actions speak louder than words then I have to say fair enough.

Some look at the way the French strike, riot or whatever to get their point across and then I often hear that this country when pushed just end up making a cup of tea and take it up the you know what. Sometimes a point has to be made, regrettably some take it way too far, but again if it was peaceful it probably would be all forgotten by now that it ever happened.

I think it's a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't. I'm sure those in power now will say their protest cause is now lost because of the violence etc, they'll use it against them, but if it was a peaceful protest they'd do nothing anyway. When it's all died down a bit at least their point has now got across. So I'd have to say I'm 'for' action, as long as it's done well.

Originally Posted by punky

Anyone see the NUS president and that horrible woman on BBC breakfast? There's a clip on BBC news. Says our all really.

The NUS was actually quite nice for a union leader (although I'm not sure it counts as a union in the traditional sense?). But the woman was horrid, saying "it's out a few windows of the Tory party headquarters and the banks blah blah blah..."

Any sympathy will soon evaporate.

I think the NUS conducted themselves appropriately throughout this entire protest. They worked well the the police, they deplored the violence in strong terms, and the actual march they organised was peaceful and well managed.

There is a good video of some students outside the Tory HQ chanting against those who were throwing things from the roof.

The reporting of the protest this morning has been keen to differentiate between the students and those who attached themselves in the march in order to cause disruption. A former senior member of the flying squad said the same on the radio this morning, that the NUS would never have been the problem but rather a professional group of troublemakers who use all marches to cause trouble.

As such I don't think sympathy will evaporate. As I mentioned previously a lot of people will either have been a student or be closely related to someone who was/is/will be a student. It's too big a demographic to effectively tar them all with the same brush, that really only works when people have had little exposure to the group in question.

I agree with Damien.

[Osem]

Another topic really so before we get slapped by another mod I'll just reply..

Originally Posted by Damien

Others may say that some are blindly accepting whichever cuts planned by HMG. Not everyone agrees with the narrative that the previous government brought the country to the brink of collapse and that the current government are doing all they can to save it while Labour and their supports snipe from the sidelines.

Oh right so the party in power during the entire period when all this was being allowed to happen aren't responsible for it? That's a novel definition of political accountability.....

Of course not everyone agrees with that and many of them will be the people I referred to. However thankfully enough people did feel they were to blame to ensure they were booted out of power.

Originally Posted by Damien

I think there is a genuine reason to believe that the government are using the excuse of the cuts to cut back the size of the state and drastically reduce spending, which ideologically appeals to them.

Well there's genuine reason to believe that the last government was idealogically fixated with the public sector and that's why it mushroomed on their watch. The reality is that the public sector is paid for by the private sector and has got to the point where it cannot be afforded. Whilst simply borrowing money to write out cheques to keep the public sector where it is may be popular with the voters it isn't sustainable and taking the substantial political flak by facing up to that harsh truth is to be commended. Perhaps if Brown had done it he'd still be in power.

Originally Posted by Damien

The previous government was in favour of a graduate tax. I am too. Rather than this massive increase in students fees, and they want to charge increased interest on these massive loans. This seriously screws over people that go on to pass the £21,000 threshold but not exceed £35,000 in their careers. They end up paying more than people who go on to earn £100k + as they will pay it back in no time and pay less interest.

You talk as if the £9k figure is cast in stone. I very much doubt all universities will go that far although the very best ones probably will. I'm sure I heard on the radio that universities are going to have to publish performance data. If so, this should allow students them to assess whether what's being offered represents value for money. I think if they're going to be landed with as much debt as they currently are, it's only fair that they have such information at the outset and I'd like to think they'd have some redress if they don't get what they paid for too.

Hopefully all this might better focus the attention of students on where to go and what to study as opposed to seeing university as just the default option after 'A' levels and without considering what happens after uni. The fact is that we don't have suitable jobs for anywhere near all the graduates we produce and if a higher proportion of school leavers can be attracted into viable alternatives then at least the graduates we do produce will have a better chance of being able to put into practice what they've worked so hard to achieve.

Finally, I think it was a very small minority of 'usual suspects' who caused all the trouble yesterday. I just hope that when they plan future protests, however, the NUS will think harder about when/where/how and do as much as they can to prevent this minority hijacking their cause. It wouldn't have done their image any harm if the majority had visibly let their feelings be known to the troublemakers.

[Pierre]

Nice to see the "pride of Britain" yesterday.

Shambolic.

The bottom line is that anyone that goes to university will not have pay anything back until they are earning enough to.

So they'll have a debt when they leave university, welcome to the world you get nothing for nothing and the sooner you realise that the better.

There are students doing courses that only have 7-10hrs a week of lectures, which leaves plenty of time to get a job.

I had a friend that did a BSc, MSc and then went on to do a medical degree - full time. She self financed herself by working several part-time jobs throughout her study, bought a house and paid a mortgage whilst studying. (whilst I accept that is an exceptional case I am using it as an example of what is achievable if you put your mind to it)