General Chat

An interesting article that may clarify a few things for those who are confused about what all the fuss is about.

http://falseeconomy.org.uk/blog/the-retired-the-disabled-and-the-dead-the-real-winners-from-cleggs-fair-fee

It concludes -

Of course, all this talk of ‘fair fees’ ignores the true definition of what is fair and unfair. For a generation of university and school students, it is profoundly unfair that they are being asked to foot the bill for an economic crisis they did not create. It is profoundly unfair that a party that pledged to abolish fees and vote against any increase just seven months ago now sees fit to treble them. It is profoundly unfair that the cost of higher education is undoubtedly going to rise for the overwhelming majority of graduates without any improvement in the education they will receive.

No amount of statistical conjuring can make that unfairness fair.

IN ANSWER TO JANEYS COMMENT

And JoyBoroAngel's attack on academics ... well, it ain't the first time the real undercurrent has been seen on this board.

Again, it's that reverse snobbery. Poor is good, successful is bad.

And people with university educations have no common sense, and don't know any more than anybody else, and most especially aren't any better than anybody else. (Not that any of us with university educations would say we are, but we seem to get constantly reminded that we aren't, anyway.)


That's the real reverse snobbery I see, fueled quite obviously by jealousy.

Snobbery against people who aren't born rich, but manage to become successful.

Jealousy not of people who are born rich, but of people who manage to become successful.

MY FAMILY ARE VERY COMFORTABLE THANK YOU
VERY MUCH and very much self made

Okaydokay xx

I agree with Gwynne. Leave the thread, it would be a shame to delete a good discussion.

Leave it, please, Mildred, I don't contribute to the boards much and this is the most interesting thread in ages.

Gwynne

If anyone wants me to remove this thread as it continues to get personal, I will do if I'm around & look in.
.
Or I'm happy for anyone to RR the thread if I'm not around if they feel enough is enough. x

Janey.
This is what I read
______________________________________________________
JaneyCanuck Request Review One Hour Ago

Rita: "William is it important for all children to go to University or attend Eton or Harrow or Rugby schools.?"

How 'bout you ask the people with the answers: the rich ones, who send their children to those schools and to university.

Surely it isn't important to do that.

And yet they all do ...

I guess they must just have more money than brains, those rich people!
________________________________________________________--

There are no inverted comas in the last 4 sentences, I presumed they were your words.(it wasn't clear that they weren't)

"surely it's not important to send your child to Uni.'" was an abbreviation rather than a C&P.

My sincere apologies to adresssing my comments to you as they weren't yours

..as you pointed out, and my reply should have been to the writer of those,

I hope they are looking in or read this later as it's now late and I'm about to close down and go to bed.

Regards
Sandie.

**$parkling $andie** -- I was editing my post to clarify it for you in case that was necessary.

I don't really care what you're happy or not happy about.

But you can stop, right this minute, pretending I said something I didn't.

You have now said this:

----------------------
......surely it's not important to send your child to Uni.'
----------------------

as if it was something I said.

I did not say it, and why you would even imagine that I would say such an utterly moronic thing, or think you could get away with pretending I did, is so far beyond me my head is spinning.


edit to respond to edit -- um, yeah.

We all know what governments promise and fail to deliver Sue,and I am not at all happy with their decision on the fees,gutted in fact.

I don't get into political arguements or any if I can avoid it,
however I was not happy with Janey's remarks about....

......surely it's not important to send your child to Uni.'

I think if they want to I would do all I could to get them there, hence my post.

Sandie.

Edit. 1.10am..Seems as if that was a remark made humerously !!

**$parkling $andie**, I have not the faintest idea what you are going on about.

I was responding to something said by Rita.

You may wish to read the thread, and read what I say as written, not as you wish it had been written.

You might also want to stop pretending not to recognize sarcasm used for humorous effect when it's in front of your nose.


By the way, I have two university degrees and a bit, which I paid for by scholarship, grant, loan and part-time work.


Just to be perfectly *honest*, **$parkling $andie**, we'll reproduce the ENTIRE post of mine you're referring to:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Rita: "William is it important for all children to go to University or attend Eton or Harrow or Rugby schools.?"
[This means: Rita said: ...]

How 'bout you ask the people with the answers: the rich ones, who send their children to those schools and to university.

Surely it isn't important to do that.

And yet they all do ...

I guess they must just have more money than brains, those rich people!

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

See? Rita suggested it wasn't important to go to particular schools, or to universities.

If it isn't important, why do people do it? How can those schools charge as much as they do for children to attend, if it isn't important?

Rich people send their children to expensive schools. But it isn't important ... so rich people must have more money than brains! Hahahaha, get it????



As for what you said in your post that you seem to think was relevant but wasn't:

"I think more parents should look ahead and do or have done that if you care for them and ensure they to run into as least debt as possible ."

I don't.

I think children and young people should not be dependent on their parents' good fortune or good planning or goodwill, to get an education.

I didn't get a dime from my parents. Well, a little pocket money occasionally, when I first went away to school. I was barely 17, and there weren't a lot of part-time jobs around in the late 60s. My parents had problems of their own, and I had no desire to be a burden on their bank account.


Education, all education, should be funded by taxes. Those who increase their earning power by getting post-secondary educations will pay it back in taxes over their lifetimes, if tax rates are appropriate for high earners.

Without a well-educated population, a society will decline and decay. A society needs people with university degrees, and lots of them, to progress in all ways imaginable.

Opportunities for everyone to achieve what they are capable of are good for a society. It's really pretty obvious.

Surely the point isn't whether you or I personally had a university education, or whether or not we personally saved for our children to do likewise.

The point is, to my mind, that a government which makes it harder for its citizens to be educated - particularly when they themselves have had the very best on offer - isn't acting responsibly.

Responsibility isn't all about saving a bit of cash here, another bit of cash there. It's about achieving a sensible balance between what you get in and what you pay out. To which the answer isn't always "pay out less", but "get in more".

Sue x

Janey C
I don't get into arguements but am not happy with your remarks----

Quote---
'How 'bout you ask the people with the answers: the rich ones, who send their children to those schools and to university.
Surely it isn't important to do that.
And yet they all do ...
I guess they must just have more money than brains, those rich people!,'

You may wish to read my earlier post.

My husband and I are educated to uni standards, we consequently in our era had modestly well paid jobs ( not rich) and invested money for our childrens future, what's wrong with that ?
I wanted my children ,who did excellent at state school to further their education......what caring parent wouldn't.

We paid for our childrens tuition fees for Uni,so they wouldn't have the debt. But it would be a more difficult if the fees were the rate they are now intended to be.
They do have student loans, for living expenses which they have to repay.

I do not have more money than brains ..I wish..!

Goodnight.

Rita: "I dont moan about someone born with money it isnt their fault.but you seem to think it is not fair."

Nope.

But you do moan about people who want to improve their lot in life and not end up in lifelong debt for doing it.

Why, all these students who are facing that prospect, they should be happy with poverty and lots o' love, just like you were!

Talk about reverse snobbery.

It's okay for the born-rich to stay rich, but let anybody from a council estate want to do better, they must be smacked down and reminded of their place, is how it sounds to me.


And JoyBoroAngel's attack on academics ... well, it ain't the first time the real undercurrent has been seen on this board.

Again, it's that reverse snobbery. Poor is good, successful is bad.

And people with university educations have no common sense, and don't know any more than anybody else, and most especially aren't any better than anybody else. (Not that any of us with university educations would say we are, but we seem to get constantly reminded that we aren't, anyway.)


That's the real reverse snobbery I see, fueled quite obviously by jealousy.

Snobbery against people who aren't born rich, but manage to become successful.

Jealousy not of people who are born rich, but of people who manage to become successful.

Rita: "William is it important for all children to go to University or attend Eton or Harrow or Rugby schools.?"

How 'bout you ask the people with the answers: the rich ones, who send their children to those schools and to university.

Surely it isn't important to do that.

And yet they all do ...

I guess they must just have more money than brains, those rich people!

chrisofwessex: "This is our country , we live here, pay taxes and have the right to express our thoughts and feelings about our own country. It is not for others who do not live here to lay down the law and tell us all how wrong we are."

Oh, take your tired xenophobia and bigotry somewhere else. Or just your hatred of me, which you bizarrely choose to express in a form that makes you look like a xenophobe and bigot.

You will note that in this thread I have, more than once, denounced the actions of the Canadian authorities in similar situations. You feel free to do the same, now.

And do tell madamecholet how wrong she is to be criticizing other people's countries, while you're at it ... and be sure to write letters to the editors of all your local papers whenever they criticize someone else's country in their editorials.

Noticed at all that this is the WORLDWIDE web we're on?

And that we are all members of the HUMAN species, and residents of planet earth?

I'll have to read the responses now, but honest to @#$% this is such nonsense ...

madamecholet: "behaviour such as we have witnessed on Thursday would have meant you would have disappeared for years, maybe ever"

And is that not the entire bleeding POINT????

This is NOT what happens in our societies.

People HAVE THE RIGHT to voice their opinions in public.

People EVERYWHERE have that right, because it is a fundamental human right, but in some places it is violated.

It is a violation of a person's FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN RIGHTS to hit them over the head when they are NOT DOING ANYTHING ILLEGAL (and even if they are, for cripes' sake).

So what is disgraceful is when protestors IN A LIBERAL DEMOCRACY are assaulted by police when they are exercising a fundamental human right and doing nothing illegal.

It is just as disgraceful in England or Canada as it is in Tibet or Burma or anywhere else.


"presumably no-one cares a fig in our over protected over indulged young people for any of these issues?!"

Presumably you're totally ignorant of the world around you.

Students have historically been the segment of our societies that DOES voice opinions in public about such things. I know I did, when I was a student. Remember Vietnam at all? Noticed Iraq lately?

Not everyone shares your pet projects in this regard, of course. You get out there on the streets and protest about what you care about, and everybody else will do the same.

Rose is right - the whole idea of further education is to enable you to " study at the level required, do your research, put it on paper in a coherent and cohesive manner" - in other words, to think intelligently.

Whether you use the tools of the history of the British Middle Ages, life in Elizabethan England, the collected works of Dr Samuel Johnson, the atrocities of the first world war, or - indeed - the collected works of Blackadder, the point is still the same ....

Tuition charges are, in my opinion, missing the point. I'd much rather education was free at the point of delivery, but having to pay back fees when you earn enough to do so - although an administrative cost to achieve the same result, other than prolonging the evil day for the Treasury - doesn't strike as so very terrible.

What is much more serious is that the cuts in University funding will mean that they are able to give much less resource to actual teaching, and more resource to attracting foreign students to balance their books.

Much better, in my view, to just increase taxes, and keep public services at a sensible level.

And, just to be clear, I'm a tax payer, and I'd personally have no problem at all with a significant rise in the basic rate.

Sue x

Whilst I DON'T agree with the increase in the tuition fees,and really feel for those who are now caught up in this crazy situation.

As parents we saved in advance and invested for our children's future, education and weddings.

We both worked full time for a modest wage and are by no means 'rolling in money'.

I think more parents should look ahead and do or have done that if you care for them and ensure they to run into as least debt as possible .

We paid for both our children's tuition fees at Uni upfront by DD monthly, they now have no debt on that score.

Yes.. they both had Student loans, a debt which they have to repay, as I don't believe in giving them everything on a plate.
Dau is repaying her loan now, the figure of her earnings she had to achieve to start repayments when she took out her loan was a lot lower than £21K per annum .

My sister and I went to Uni when there were grants available, but means tested , but cos my dad who also saved for our education, had to pay more than half of the fees.
My BIL fortunately (or unfortunately whichever way you look at it ) had a full grant,cos his mum was on a very low wage, but was supplemented weekly by my hubby (17 and in his first job ) and his mum on fooding costs.

I think too that the lecturers salary is over the top, one of the reasons for the rise in the fees imo

Down off my shouting stool....Hindsight is a wonderful thing.!!

It's not a degree,its a module in a BA degree in Education Studies ( I was intrigued as I love Harry Potter lol)

"Students are being given the chance to sign up to what is thought to be the UK's first course focusing on the world of Harry Potter.

The Durham University module uses the works of JK Rowling to examine prejudice, citizenship and bullying in modern society.

So far about 80 undergraduates have signed up for the optional module, part of a BA degree in Education Studies.

Harry Potter and the Age of Illusion will open to students later this year.

A university spokesman said: "This module places the Harry Potter novels in their wider social and cultural context.

"A number of themes will be explored, including the world of rituals, prejudice and intolerance in the classroom, bullying, friendship and solidarity and the ideals of and good citizenship."

The module was created by Dr Martin Richardson, head of the Department of Education at Durham University.

He said the idea for the new module had been conceived in response to growing demand from the student body.

He said: "It seeks to place the series in its wider social and cultural context and will explore some fundamental issues such as the moral universe of the school.

"You just need to read the academic writing which started to emerge four or five years ago to see that Harry Potter is worthy of serious study."

As such, exploring the themes contained within the book it is no less valid than exploring those same things in a "serious" work?

well i also think the
science of harry potters also a useless degree
star trek and golf management to
and surfing studies may go down a bomb in Australia
but here its a no no

lets get real