More student protests

[Steve]

Fair.

Given the lack of aspiration I see in a lot of grads I wonder why they bother amassing all that debt anyway.

[nibbler]

Well, I'm just repeating what everybody at my university has said, irrespective of personal opinion.

It's very easy to look and say "Oh Maths is complicated, there's lots of difficult things to understand. History on the other hand, you just write a few lumps of meaningless prose and wander out with a 2:1" I agree that Maths is, at first appearances, a very difficult subject to grasp and understand. But that's not what we're talking about. We're talking about the most difficult degree to take and to succeed in.

It's just your initial opinion ultimately - there are so many more factors to it. For instance, how hard is it to progress from a 2:1 to a first? How much work do you have to do overall?

Believe what you like, but it's not as clear-cut as you think.

Agreed - To be honest, the people who really choose to do maths at uni are proper maths geniuses probably. I get over 90% in almost all maths tests and I got 100% the other day but there's no way I could do maths at uni - i'd struggle to pass. I read a news paper article recently saying that a local boy ahd got into Glasgow Uni to read maths and physics "despite" having asberger's syndrome - the paper completely ignored the fact that it was probably because of his asberger's that he was so good at maths.

My personal philosophy is stick to what you know - and by know I mean enjoy. I have many friends applying to read medicine who have no real interest in the wellbeing or health, they just see that GPs get payed £150k and that's the UCAS form sent off. I'm applying to read natural sciences (biological) not because I want to become a Professor of Biology but because I love biology. That's the best reason to apply for a course. I have a friend who was at oxford with my dad who recently retired from investment banking. He said he hated interviewing hundreds of incredibly gifted scientists who wanted to ignore theire physics degrees and make £200k instead.

[Steve]

I agree with nibbler, but with a few caveats.

Some jobs require you to have a degree, without much care for what the degree is. That's because it's about demonstrating your ability to research, learn and formulate arguments or analysis, regardless of subject matter. So in those cases, a job that in no way matches your degree is fine. And it seems science/engineering students make good candidates for the financial sector, but I make that assertion with no idea what the intake into the sector's like when it comes to arts degrees.

But in general I would prefer it if people did a degree because they enjoyed the subject, and then went on to do something that was directly related to their degree. Trouble is, in the years between 17 and graduation, one's goals and interests can change dramatically.

[Moby-Dick]

I agree with nibbler, but with a few caveats.

Some jobs require you to have a degree, without much care for what the degree is. That's because it's about demonstrating your ability to research, learn and formulate arguments or analysis, regardless of subject matter. So in those cases, a job that in no way matches your degree is fine. And it seems science/engineering students make good candidates for the financial sector, but I make that assertion with no idea what the intake into the sector's like when it comes to arts degrees.

But in general I would prefer it if people did a degree because they enjoyed the subject, and then went on to do something that was directly related to their degree. Trouble is, in the years between 17 and graduation, one's goals and interests can change dramatically.

I agree - I did Materials Engineering at Swansea ( 15 years ago now ) because it sounded like the bits of physics etc that I enjoyed - I also got the chance to spend a year at university in canada , which was a great experience. When it came to the real world I did work in a degree related job for just over a year before I went back to Plan B , which was IT.

[nibbler]

I agree with nibbler, but with a few caveats.

Some jobs require you to have a degree, without much care for what the degree is. That's because it's about demonstrating your ability to research, learn and formulate arguments or analysis, regardless of subject matter. So in those cases, a job that in no way matches your degree is fine. And it seems science/engineering students make good candidates for the financial sector, but I make that assertion with no idea what the intake into the sector's like when it comes to arts degrees.

But in general I would prefer it if people did a degree because they enjoyed the subject, and then went on to do something that was directly related to their degree. Trouble is, in the years between 17 and graduation, one's goals and interests can change dramatically.

Even if you're just getting a degree for the sake of doing a job you want to really do, there must be something you enjoy to do! And it's kind of ok if it's for a job that you really want to do I guess, doing it's still doing something you love.

[TooNice]

I'm applying to read natural sciences (biological) not because I want to become a Professor of Biology but because I love biology. That's the best reason to apply for a course. I have a friend who was at oxford with my dad who recently retired from investment banking. He said he hated interviewing hundreds of incredibly gifted scientists who wanted to ignore theire physics degrees and make £200k instead.

On the face value it's fair enough. However people's views can change, I thought that computing (especially AI) was all I would ever want to do, yet after my degree, I came to the conclusion that it wasn't for me. I have much respect and some envy for people who manage to do find something they love, but loving something doesn't necessarily mean that it'll be something you will excel at (I am sure there are plenty of people who would like to be a professional athlete, not just for the fame and fortune but for the love of the sports yet can't compete with the elite), or bring food on the table. It does seem to make sense to 'sell' your skill to the highest bidder in the absence of having one can be really passionate about. I should also note that some people find their dream job sometime after their degrees/first job (I am referring to my skydiving instructors - some started with very, very different background before putting it all behind and living, breathing skydiving).

Give it a couple of decades or so & when those with solid degrees are working in their respective industries and pumping money into the economy, then we'll see where the subsidies are going!

Not only that, they say/said the average student earns £150,000 more in their lifetime, that's plenty of money being pumped back into the economy to cover the initial costs. Keep in mind its a student loan as well, most students will end up paying off a fair chunk/all of the initial loan/costs...it is after with them for 25 years!

Students are an investment, like all investments there is a long term commitment....but one that WILL pay off in the end!

Surely that figure will fluctuate according to supply/demand for higher education graduates?

[nibbler]

Fair enough, I find that on the whole you do excel at what you love, obviously there are exceptions though.

[Saracen]

It's not the student's fault that the country is in trouble though is it? I think that's part of the reason why there is so much agitation. The financial sector caused the trouble, yet they continue on after a huge bailout from the taxpayers purse. They still get huge bonus payouts.

And it's the normal people that suffer for it.

Should they just keep a stiff upper lip and keep quiet about this injustice?

No, it's not their fault. But that matters because .... ????

The simple truth is that regardless of whose fault it is, we are in the situation we are in, and blaming people for causing it won't do a damned thing to get us out of it. That's not to say we shouldn't take pragmatic action against those that cause it, if we can identify them and do it without cutting off our noses to spite our faces in the process. It's simply pointing out that we have a colossal debt, regardless of who caused it, and that as a result, money is tight.

I didn't cause it either. There's a lot of people out there that didn't cause it, and are still suffering. Some are losing their jobs (and expect more of that to come, before the country comes out of this), and worse yet, some are losing their homes (and more of that, too).

What really frosts my conkers is the apparent astounding naivety of the protesters. They seem to be labouring under the same misapprehension implied by your statement, that because they didn't cause the problem, they're exempt from the consequences. Not, it's not fair. It's not fair that the world has changed. It's not fair on those that have lost their jobs, or businesses, or homes, either.

Whoever said the world was fair? That's the naivety.

Of the list of people that have grounds for complaint, students moaning that they might have to pay back some of the cost of their education come pretty far down the list for me, and as we increasingly see other services cut, and more and more pain for so many people in so many ways, public sympathy for their whining is likely to get less and less.

The simple reality is .... money is limited, and can't fund everything. Virtually everything is taking a hit, or rather, is going to as the "austerity" bites. And given the size of the debt, and that it's going to continue rising for some years yet, even with the austerity measures, it is a simply a fact of life that things that used to get funded will no longer get funded at the same level, or at all. They cannot be. Fair or not, and regardless of the apportioning of blame, it's simply the new status quo - there ain't no money left.

[Lucio]

You know, the thought occured to me the other day that we were the only European country grown up enough not to have the general work force protesting against the budget cuts and how great the British spirit was.

Then it hit me, these bunch of students are playing the same stupid game that the French and Portugese are...

What are things going to be like in the future once this generation gets to where we are and things go wrong again?

[TheAnimus]

Give it a couple of decades or so & when those with solid degrees are working in their respective industries and pumping money into the economy, then we'll see where the subsidies are going!

Ok, what about this then.

Someone does History, they get a job, earn a £45k per year.

Someone does Maths/Physics, they get a job, earn £100k per year.

Should the maths or physics graddie support the other person unduely?

Having a loan which considering the £150k stat, represents something like a quarter of the 'extra' money they will earn. That seems fair. If you did a more worthwhile degree than history, something a little harder (the sort that demanded As in Maths, C in Further Maths, not just a couple of As in any easy subject) then you are insentivised to work harder and earn more. Its incredibly fair.

Having a graduate tax (which is the other progressive option) isn't really fair, as what about the person who with their physics phd goes into say a hedge fund and works a the 75 hours a week, and even then probably only gets £300k per year. Why should they be taxed for their education more than the History graduate that is now a branch manager at waitrose working a heck of a lot less, and earning say only £45k (which is still above the median average).

No income tax has already taken that money quite heavily. Adding on a never ending tax of 15% would be enough to make more people jump ship and go to a less taxed nation.

[Bugbait]

Who are you to decide what people are entitled to?

I don’t decide, the government does. The government has said students should pay X for university. Students are protesting saying that they should only pay Y, where Y is less than X. Some people are arguing that students are entitled to “affordable” tertiary education. I’m arguing that they are not entitled because the government sets the fees. If students still think they’re entitled to it then I argue that it’s false given the above, hence a false sense of entitlement.

No, the government isn’t always right. However, a tertiary education is optional in many aspects of life. An optional, subsidised cost to all taxpayers should be treated as a privilege and not a right. Subsidised “luxuries” from the government such as tertiary education can and should be brought in line with the current economic conditions.

[neonplanet40]

If you did a more worthwhile degree than history, something a little harder (the sort that demanded As in Maths, C in Further Maths, not just a couple of As in any easy subject) then you are insentivised to work harder and earn more.

Here we go again. Why is History not worthwhile? Does the entire country revolve around Maths? Could we as a society survice on sciences and nothing else?

Maybe we should just take subjects like History and English completely off the curriculum? Surely if they are as easy as you say then they really must provide little benefit? Im sure a country without culture would prosper. Oh but wait. Then what would happen? I know, everyone would be doing Maths and 75% of them wouldn't get a job.

Sorry to pick on this comment in particular TheAnimus but I think people actually need to study these subjects in a degree course before they can say they aren't a "worthwhile" or hard degree. It gets somewhat irritating after you have studyed Arts subjects only for people to constantly moan that they are easy compared to Maths. I don't agree. Give a Maths student Shakespeare and they will stare at you blankly. Likewise for an English student in a maths degree exam.

I'll go back to a previous arguement. If people like myself who have studyed English with History and are going on to do teaching didnt exist then who would teach the new kids how to speak

Back on topic, I feel the students have the right to moan, since their fee's are going up by 2/3 's its only fair they give off to a government that promised them the sun and gave them a lightbulb. Nothing will change it though and they will have to get over it but they are allowed their right to a peaceful protest.

However the scenes we have been seeing of damaged property etc is stupid and will achieve nothing. But I think these are more to do with anarchists rather than students.

[Phage]

Here we go again. Why is History not worthwhile? Does the entire country revolve around Maths? Could we as a society survice on sciences and nothing else?

Maybe we should just take subjects like History and English completely off the curriculum? Surely if they are as easy as you say then they really must provide little benefit? Im sure a country without culture would prosper. Oh but wait. Then what would happen? I know, everyone would be doing Maths and 75% of them wouldn't get a job.

Sorry to pick on this comment in particular TheAnimus but I think people actually need to study these subjects in a degree course before they can say they aren't a "worthwhile" or hard degree. It gets somewhat irritating after you have studyed Arts subjects only for people to constantly moan that they are easy compared to Maths. I don't agree. Give a Maths student Shakespeare and they will stare at you blankly. Likewise for an English student in a maths degree exam.

I'll go back to a previous arguement. If people like myself who have studyed English with History and are going on to do teaching didnt exist then who would teach the new kids how to speak

Back on topic, I feel the students have the right to moan, since their fee's are going up by 2/3 's its only fair they give off to a government that promised them the sun and gave them a lightbulb. Nothing will change it though and they will have to get over it but they are allowed their right to a peaceful protest.

However the scenes we have been seeing of damaged property etc is stupid and will achieve nothing. But I think these are more to do with anarchists rather than students.

I don't think anyone's saying that a serious Arts degree is easier per se, but yes, we do indeed survive by dint of the Sciences alone.
It just wouldn't be any fun without the Arts.

[redddraggon]

Give a Maths student Shakespeare and they will stare at you blankly. Likewise for an English student in a maths degree exam.

Those examples don't work. Maths student can read Shakespeare and know it's a load of boring old rubbish, English student probably wouldn't be able to answer any of the questions on a Maths Paper.

[neonplanet40]

If just being able to read it was enough then I wouldnt be sitting here saying its not as easy as people think lol. Maybe when your 16 this is all you need to do. read it. But at University its a little more complicated. Also you would be surprised by just how little of a part that Shakespeare plays in the degree. I think we done it for one module out of 18.

Boring old rubbish to some I guess. Its all down to what you like. I've never liked maths. But English is used to teach the masses how to speak and communicate clearly.

[format]

The simple reality is .... money is limited, and can't fund everything. Virtually everything is taking a hit, or rather, is going to as the "austerity" bites. And given the size of the debt, and that it's going to continue rising for some years yet, even with the austerity measures, it is a simply a fact of life that things that used to get funded will no longer get funded at the same level, or at all. They cannot be. Fair or not, and regardless of the apportioning of blame, it's simply the new status quo - there ain't no money left.

Doesn't seem to be a problem for the government to magic £7bn out of thin air. Or perhaps consider the Robin Hood tax?
How about we get some of that £750bn bailout money back off the banks who (IIRC) are due to paying out billions in 'performance' bonuses at the end of the year.

Of the list of people that have grounds for complaint, students moaning that they might have to pay back some of the cost of their education come pretty far down the list for me, and as we increasingly see other services cut, and more and more pain for so many people in so many ways, public sympathy for their whining is likely to get less and less.

It's not just about that. I think the case is actually that most current students wouldn't be effected by this because their fees are paid under the current systems.
From my experiences on campus, students are angry because these proposals are likely to turn higher education into a system where only the rich and a tiny percentage of the academically gifted can actually study for a degree.