We must not be a bunch of selfish <---->

[TheAnimus]

So after reading over a recent thread:
http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...-students.html
I've decided that its time to take a stance, something must be done. It is very clear to me, that it is now my responsibility, and that of everyone aged say 22-30 to march on London, swing from the Cenotaph burn down the gift symbolising the human cost and grateful thanks for sacrifices made to protect our fellow man because you know, this is really important.

No, I'm not talking about the dwindling natural resources, think more important, and less selfishly!
Its not the growing threat of unrest in Nuclear nations, those are all silly places I won't miss anyway.
Its not those who are starving, I mean if they just ate each other they'd be fine.
Or those who are dieing for lack of clean drinking water, most of them can't even speak English, try and think totally selflessly.

Clear your mind of pre-conceptions, and look at the situation, I had to pay some money to go to uni. Now yes, yes, I know, I'm earning more than the average non uni grad, but then again I'm taxed more so it benefits you, you proles, so its about time you dug deep and paid me some of that money back. Or are you too selfish?

I mean just think how much all of us who have gone into highly profitable careers open to us thanks to the great fun that was university, are now contributing to the tax pool. More than you un-educated riff raffery, so you know, you owe us, you pricks.

And you know what, when your serving me a coffee, waiting on me at a bar, jiggling your tits at a strip club, scrubbing the toliet that I can't be bothered to do, how many times have you thanked me?

Not once, thats how many, you peasants are selfish dicks.

So the time has come, we must rise up, I figure a few of us city boys could march down after market close, we could also pay a few street urchins to help fill out our numbers, because how much tax does someone pay on a £150k bonus afterall! Why on earth should I ever have had to contribute to my degree.

That way all those who are scraping by on the Median wage can feel better about themselves knowing they've not been at all selfish because why should I start paying for a contribution towards my education just because i'm earning more than they are.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

[cptwhite_uk]

What part of not being able to afford to go to univeristy is unclear to you?

Say mummy and daddy earn £18k each, and have 2 children. This is likely to mean about £36k (6k per year per child, for 3 years) to put them both through university. Without doing the math that's probably around 1.5 years of pay (for the combinewd couple) just to cover the fees, out of a working lifetime of say 50 years. Or 3% of their equivalent life earnings. That's quite a lot.

I know all about the repayment structuring blah blah blah, but it's still money that will need to be paid back, and money that could've been put to a house deposit for a first time buyer etc.

Let's compare this situation with a an equivalent couple earning £50k each. £36k is maybe 7-8 months pay for each couple to put their kids through the same university. Apart from the fact it's only 1.5% of their equivalent lifelong earnings, the earn more so will be able to cushion the financial burden much more readily. As the cost of living is exactly the same (if they want it to be) and the lower paid mum and dad. Yes they probably have more outgoings, but that's purely of their own free will and choice. That's what money gives them

And to be honest that's a good example of the issue, they have a simple, no risk choice to try uni, if they flunk it it's no biggie, mum and dad can pick up the tab. If you're absolutely required to earn a decent wage afterwards to cover the debt, then that pressure is going to re-consider your options and restrict your choice of how to proceed when you reach university age.

I'm not sure I can make it any clearer.

However, the simple fact is too many people are going to university full stop. 50% is utterly pointless, studying pointless degrees. I hear the argument that university "broadens the mind" and people should go for these unquantifiable reasosn. But in my opinion learning a trade, and getting out there in the *real world* is the ultimate way of broadening the mind and learning how to be responsible and mature, running supplimentry classes to progress your knowledge would be a good alternative to full on education where you're isolated and eventually unprepared for real life at the end of 3 years.

[TheAnimus]

What part of not being able to afford to go to univeristy is unclear to you?

Say mummy and daddy earn £18k each, and have 2 children. This is likely to mean about £36k (6k per year per child, for 3 years) to put them both through university. Without doing the math that's probably around 1.5 years of pay (for the combinewd couple) just to cover the fees, out of a working lifetime of say 50 years. Or 3% of their equivalent life earnings. That's quite a lot.

I know all about the repayment structuring blah blah blah, but it's still money that will need to be paid back, and money that could've been put to a house deposit for a first time buyer etc.

Err, the point is without uni they wouldn't have money to save for a deposit surely? Otherwise why bother, as you say 50% is probably too many.

Or should they have their cake and eat it too, by having the proles pay for them to be saving for a house even thou many never manage that at 25 themselves.

If someone is going to think, going to university isn't worth it to me, because if I earn over 21k, I might have to pay back a fraction of the cost of my whole degree very slowly with only inflationary interest. Then well that is their choice to make!

[mcmiller]

What a boring, uninspired, I've read it someone else and it sounded good so I'm going repeat it argument. Are you really trying to tell the whole hexus you aren't selfish and that its only students who are? According to Wikipedia (cant bothered with anything more) the Government pump £1 billion into London underground every year, the city is one of richest place in the countries why are they are receiving public funding? Err selfish

[SiM]

According to Wikipedia the Government pump £1 billion into London underground every year, the city is one of richest place in the countries why are they are receiving public funding? Err selfish

What's your point? London/South East are major net contributors to public finances.



I know this is only one time point, but if you can be bothered find the last 20 years or so and see for yourself.

Edit: dig around here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_...nu-by-year.htm... If you can find contradicting evidence I would be happy to be proven wrong.

[format]

So after reading over a recent thread:
http://forums.hexus.net/general-disc...-students.html
I've decided that its time to take a stance, something must be done. It is very clear to me, that it is now my responsibility, and that of everyone aged say 22-30 to march on London, swing from the Cenotaph burn down the gift symbolising the human cost and grateful thanks for sacrifices made to protect our fellow man because you know, this is really important.

Way to judge a movement of thousands of people by the actions of a few.

No, I'm not talking about the dwindling natural resources, think more important, and less selfishly!
Its not the growing threat of unrest in Nuclear nations, those are all silly places I won't miss anyway.
Its not those who are starving, I mean if they just ate each other they'd be fine.
Or those who are dieing for lack of clean drinking water, most of them can't even speak English, try and think totally selflessly.

These are exactly the sort of things that people study in university. I'd suggest that preventing people from studying could lead to a further lack of understanding in how to solve these problems.

Clear your mind of pre-conceptions, and look at the situation, I had to pay some money to go to uni. Now yes, yes, I know, I'm earning more than the average non uni grad, but then again I'm taxed more so it benefits you, you proles, so its about time you dug deep and paid me some of that money back. Or are you too selfish?

You want poor people to pay back some of the tax that you pay to them? Sounds fair. I'm sure some single mothers can go without child benefit for a couple of months, no big deal. It's just selfish of them not to, right?

I mean just think how much all of us who have gone into highly profitable careers open to us thanks to the great fun that was university, are now contributing to the tax pool. More than you un-educated riff raffery, so you know, you owe us, you pricks.

There are plenty of ways to contribute to society that don't involve earning high salaries (and therefore paying high tax)

And you know what, when your serving me a coffee, waiting on me at a bar, jiggling your tits at a strip club, scrubbing the toliet that I can't be bothered to do, how many times have you thanked me?

Not once, thats how many, you peasants are selfish dicks.

So the time has come, we must rise up, I figure a few of us city boys could march down after market close, we could also pay a few street urchins to help fill out our numbers, because how much tax does someone pay on a £150k bonus afterall! Why on earth should I ever have had to contribute to my degree.

That way all those who are scraping by on the Median wage can feel better about themselves knowing they've not been at all selfish because why should I start paying for a contribution towards my education just because i'm earning more than they are.

I would absolutely love to see the 'city boys' try and protest about their conditions in this country. You wouldn't know what would hit you. The rage among 'the proles' would be devastating.


Very disappointed in this thread tbh, I thought more of you.

[TheAnimus]

I would absolutely love to see the 'city boys' try and protest about their conditions in this country. You wouldn't know what would hit you. The rage among 'the proles' would be devastating.


Very disappointed in this thread tbh, I thought more of you.

So you were following the sarcasm right up until the last bit? I'm confused!

[mcmiller]

What's your point? London/South East are major net contributors to public finances.



I know this is only one time point, but if you can be bothered find the last 20 years or so and see for yourself.

Edit: dig around here: http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/stats/income_...nu-by-year.htm... If you can find contradicting evidence I would be happy to be proven wrong.

Whats your point? so are graduates...

[format]

So you were following the sarcasm right up until the last bit? I'm confused!

I must confess I never realised the sarcasm. I just assumed you were in a pissy mood. Probably shouldn't have read it in such a hurry! It's hard to tell where it starts and where it ends.

[MaddAussie]

Sarcasm is dead long live literalism.

Power to the people and all that

[this_is_gav]

What's your point? London/South East are major net contributors to public finances.

But only because you moved all the public sector office jobs up north, where the labour is cheaper.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Long Live Moose!!

Wait a second.....I get a divide by zero error!!

[TheAnimus]

What a boring, uninspired, I've read it someone else and it sounded good so I'm going repeat it argument. Are you really trying to tell the whole hexus you aren't selfish and that its only students who are? According to Wikipedia (cant bothered with anything more) the Government pump £1 billion into London underground every year, the city is one of richest place in the countries why are they are receiving public funding? Err selfish

Actually this is a good example. Apparently the subsidy is 25%.

So my travel card of £1,700 is subsidised by 25%, but I pay the rest.

Yeh it should be fully subsidised!

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The London Underground needs subsidies from the government with current ticket prices?? WTF??

[cptwhite_uk]

Err, the point is without uni they wouldn't have money to save for a deposit surely? Otherwise why bother, as you say 50% is probably too many.

Or should they have their cake and eat it too, by having the proles pay for them to be saving for a house even thou many never manage that at 25 themselves.

If someone is going to think, going to university isn't worth it to me, because if I earn over 21k, I might have to pay back a fraction of the cost of my whole degree very slowly with only inflationary interest. Then well that is their choice to make!

Animus, if you want an intellectual debate, state your argument clearly and without sarcasm, becuase it only gets lost in written form and your views are misunderstood in the process. Now given how I've interpreted what you've wrote:

I assume your first sentence is sarcastic, as you can clearly have a very profitable and successful career without a university education. Case in point I have a friend who didn't go to uni and at 28 was earning 30k+. In fact I know a guy who didn't go to uni and now earn in excess of 100k + bonuses annually. He works hard, is intelligent and is good at what he does, and he's about 31. He's not a toff, and had parents with lower middle class incomes.

The proles "paying for them" as you say - it's the proles (as you refer too them) that we're talking abuout getting the chance to go to university. My citeria would be anyone should be able to go to uni given they prove themselves academically and want to study in a meaningful field (i.e. not 90% of people doing David Beckham studies or Media studies, though there should be niche quantities of places, but they should be regulated and limited).

If you don't think that extra debt on a poorer family is going to have more influence on whether the kids go to university, as compared to an equivalent richer family, you clearly aren't living in the real world. Obviously it will. Nothing is forced on anyone, but the inclination/result will be poor families having to re-consider - LIMITING CHOICE for poor familes. Which was obviously my original point, and why blanket high fees isn't a fair deal.

I've not even touched on the fact better performing or highly sought after universities will charge more, effectively widening the social trend of rich people > good universities, poor people > lower quantiy (cheaper) universities.

*Generally* speaking of course going to university raises your prospect for higher earnings, but it's NOT prerequisite, hence my examples.

Taking this to the extreme - why make education free at all? Why not charge for schools from the age of 11, it can be on a loan basis and the kids can pay back when they're earning, so there's no reason to be moaning about it is there? (note: sarcasm)

For the sake of the argument I will assume you are in favour of free education until the age of 16, so why do you suddenly change opinion for university age? Obviously we can't afford to educate every till the age of 21/22 and for the vast majority it would be a futile exercise anyway, but there are a limited number of positions that will be able to actively make use of people which further education and we should be ensuring the BEST people, irrespective of background or financial circumstance are taking these positions, and are not not winning them partially due to the fact they have more freedom of choice than poorer people.

I realise everyone has a choice, but on avergae, a sample of poorer students are now more likely to be put off going to uni than an equivalent sample of richer students.

That my friend is the reason this new system sucks...and also why the need to attain 50% going to university is rediculous - it's not practical, or financial viable.