patiirc Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Just caught the news and let me get this straight the ConDems basically want to allow Universities to charge what they want? EDIT Just caught the headlines and its actually a review by some guy I have never heard of so I dont know if the ConDems would actually go through with it but I would love to see the Lib Dems (who lets face it would savage such a proposial if they were not in Government) suger coat this on QT if such a propsial went through. Lord Browne is an interesting one. Half Hungarian, Half English born in Germany and resignation from the company was caused through a scandal to protect his sexuality by misleading a court. He is famed for his cuts when was at BP (despite being ruthless, according to some they went too far and is not completely absolved from recent BP problems) So what that means for Unis where he has held tribunerals visits and correspodence with various groups As far as I can see it the changes in tuition fees are more like an American system of things. With Graduates likely to have to work during their degrees to work ( this was spelt out by the patronising American Lecturer I had at University, when I was flat broke and trying to hold down 2 jobs!) Either thant or for the student loans to be increased to get around these increases, reason being as the shortfall will see massive numbers not going, fleeing to Other Education Systems abroad or uber cramming the Uni's where fees are cheaper. The report says that there is some cap through a percentage of contributions that have to be given to the government. But you will see some universities get even more exclusive (Ivy League style) whilst the rest are oversubscribed The report itself was commissioned by Labour before the last election, Its either this or a graduate tax ( now favoured by Labour) and its going to be lose- lose whatever happens. In little more than a decade since Labour University Education has been utterly butt-fucked and abuse by loads of people. This started with the introduction of tuition fees and is now culminating in them rising or, a graduate tax, Unlike Scotland no one seems to want them scrapped out right anymore which is odd. I fear that with increased thresholds for paying loans back, you are just going to end up with more lending and little repayment. Earn 21k chance would be a fine thing and that's on the new style loans. On the old ones its c 30k before payback. There is quite a long winded analysis here Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted October 12, 2010 Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2010 I fear that with increased thresholds for paying loans back, you are just going to end up with more lending and little repayment. Earn 21k chance would be a fine thing and that's on the new style loans. On the old ones its c 30k before payback. There is quite a long winded analysis here No it's not.. According to the article it's 15k. I thought it was higher than that, but I definitely started paying back when I got my first proper job, which was well below 30k. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 I fear that with increased thresholds for paying loans back, you are just going to end up with more lending and little repayment. Earn 21k chance would be a fine thing and that's on the new style loans. On the old ones its c 30k before payback. There is quite a long winded analysis here No it's not.. According to the article it's 15k. I thought it was higher than that, but I definitely started paying back when I got my first proper job, which was well below 30k. Pre 1998 it is! I took that figure from my last deferment letter which states I have to earn 2,284 per month after tax to be eligible to make repayments. Not going to happen any time soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count Calibla Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 I enjoyed watching Newsnight yesterday. They closed with a piece about the impending cuts in public spending, and interviewed some people on a council estate. This one particular woman said "David Cameron doesn't know what it's like to be on benefits, his wife is a millionairess". What an incredibly stupid thing to say. What does she suggest? Government is led by people who collect Jobseekers Allowance? One of her smackhead mates becomes Home Secretary? Some people have such a problem with accepting that certain people are far more qualified to make decisions than they are. What's frustrating is that those moaning about tightening the benefits system are moaning because they will be exposed as either lazy or liars. The takeup of Incapacity Benefit has soared in some more deprived areas where a life in the welfare system is considered a career move. I know first-hand of girls who went to my school who didn't stay on for their A-Levels because they were going to have a baby, so didn't need them. I'm absolutely all for really tightening the benefits system, and getting rid of as many of the scrounging liars as possible. I'm also sad to see no sign of a proposal that those on JSA are forced to work as part of payment - perhaps 10/12 hours per week. If someone has been out of work for three years, and not done anything, how many employers are really going to want to employ them over someone who has been in work? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Count Calibla Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 RE: The university issue. Allowing universities to charge their own fees will only widen the gap between the best and worse institutions. Oxford & Cambridge's reputation - and, let's face it, the bulk of it's students will allow it to charge extortionate fees which will deter those from poor backgrounds, but also middle-income backgrounds. A couple who earns say Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moderators Chest Rockwell Posted October 12, 2010 Moderators Share Posted October 12, 2010 Pre 1998 it is! I took that figure from my last deferment letter which states I have to earn 2,284 per month after tax to be eligible to make repayments. Not going to happen any time soon. I thought Higher Education was still free pre-98..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The King Of Swing Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Speaking as a working person I find it utterly patronising whenever an MP says "we are all in this together" or "we all have to feel the pinch" so I can see where even some council estate rat is coming from when it comes to the Cameron's. Most MP's never mind the PM are not in the same position as someone like myself who is earning less then 16k a year nor is my wage proped up by a vast expenses and allowance system. So like fuck are we in this together and we never will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members JNLister Posted October 12, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2010 Pre 1998 it is! I took that figure from my last deferment letter which states I have to earn 2,284 per month after tax to be eligible to make repayments. Not going to happen any time soon. I thought Higher Education was still free pre-98..? The course was free, but the loans were for living costs and gradually replaced grants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
patiirc Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Pre 1998 it is! I took that figure from my last deferment letter which states I have to earn 2,284 per month after tax to be eligible to make repayments. Not going to happen any time soon. I thought Higher Education was still free pre-98..? It 'was' ish, there was a means tested grant, to cover living expenses but you could still get a student loan to cover your living expenses as well.mine were taken from 97 to 01 through the Student Loans Company. I didnt get a grant after my first year due to my parents who then proceeded to leave me high and dry anyway, way to go mum and dad. So it was student loans, jobs and still then destitution. Was living on literally 5 pounds a week to cover everything inc shopping. went cap in hand to the hardship fund several times So no it wasnt really 'free' The grant would just about cover accomodation costs and then you had had to live off the rest (Student Loan was about 2 grand, less in your final year/s) so was what, sub 5-6k living for nearly 4 years So I owe SLC about 10k roughly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Loki Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 Debt is a funny old thing, I sometimes think that our society has been redesigned to run on debt, whereas when I was a boy I was taught to save. Case in point - the worst thing to do when if you lose your job is to have significant savings. You'll get fuck all financial support from the state. Much better to subsume your savings within a large mortgage, as you'll get help with that through the SMI system. So if your job is at risk, turn savings into assets or debts. It just seems ass about face to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 12, 2010 Author Share Posted October 12, 2010 Speaking as a working person I find it utterly patronising whenever an MP says "we are all in this together" or "we all have to feel the pinch" so I can see where even some council estate rat is coming from when it comes to the Cameron's. Most MP's never mind the PM are not in the same position as someone like myself who is earning less then 16k a year nor is my wage proped up by a vast expenses and allowance system. So like fuck are we in this together and we never will be. Indeed. The Government has been referred to as the "coalition of millionaires", with 23 of the 29 members of the cabinet being millionaires; THE CABINET RICH LIST 1. Lord Strathclyde Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paid Members SpursRiot2012 Posted October 12, 2010 Paid Members Share Posted October 12, 2010 Wish I was a millionaire member of the Cabinet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Posted October 12, 2010 Author Share Posted October 12, 2010 Wish I was a millionaire member of the Cabinet. If you were, you may have even been invited to the exclusive party they had before they announced the benefit cuts. They were living it up with bottles of wine costing Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fog Dude Posted October 12, 2010 Share Posted October 12, 2010 THE CABINET RICH LIST 15. Oliver Letwin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gary v1 Posted October 13, 2010 Share Posted October 13, 2010 So what? They're rich! Good for them - it doesn't really matter. They should be judged by the decisions they make rather than their bank balances and if affluent colleagues wish to treat them all to a nice party then so be it. There's no way I'd want to do the job and the should enjoy the odd perk here and there - particularly as it's not taxpayer's money. On the Universities issue I don't see them implementing the unlimited fees cap but I'd be very dissapointed if they did. It's just not fair to put the best Universities out of reach of the intelligent but less wealthy families. It's just utterly wrong in fact. I'd actually like to see far less University places available but have the ones that are fully funded with grants etc included. There's just too many people going to Uni. If there's jobs available for all these graduates then great but far too many people go and then in no way use their defree in a meaningful way. Often because it's pointless. Degrees like history of art, art, psychology, sports science, marketting should be vastly cut back upon. (Especially psychology - what a waste of time). We need to encourage more engineering, chemistry, physics, maths, computer science etc. Things that will actually benefit people in our modern and hi tech economy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts