Paying for university

[neonplanet40]

Im sorry but Ill say it again. I'm lucky as Ive already finished University (Well as lucky as anyone can be who gets a 2:1 degree, £21,000 debt and unable to get a job).

But when I studied my degree in English and History we got 7 &1/2 hours teaching a week(All arts students get this even in their final year where they actually get a little less). Now how is it fair that people now have to pay £9000 a year for this? When say, Science students get 24+ hours teaching a week?

In my mind its still unequal and still a joke. Working that out when you take out school holidays and exam periods this works out about approx £410 PER WEEK or £58 PER HOUR!!

Now if your a science student it works out at approx £17 per hour. Which is much more reasonable when you multiplay it by about 90 people, as thats how many is in each class.

Its not equal and it is unfair, im sorry. I know they they dont want to charge science students etc more but in my mind they have too. They are getting more one to one teaching etc so its only fair they pay more.

There should be a lot more scrutiny put on about how the university spends its money. But there isnt. They get to do what they want with it which is unfair.

[redddraggon]

But when I studied my degree in English and History we got 7 &1/2 hours teaching a week(All arts students get this even in their final year where they actually get a little less). Now how is it fair that people now have to pay £9000 a year for this? When say, Science students get 24+ hours teaching a week?

Science is subsidised for sure, it has better economic consequences on the whole afterall, I know my department had loads of money pumped into it from tech/science companies (like Rolls-Royce) for research, and this money goes toward top class researchers who also teach the undergraduates. These companies also recruit heavily from the graduates. The university also wants top quality graduates to become Phd students, which will in turn also bring in research money

It was your choice to do English and History afterall, there was nothing stopping you doing Science or Engineering. It's totally fair.

Now if your a science student it works out at approx £17 per hour. Which is much more reasonable when you multiplay it by about 90 people, as thats how many is in each class.

There wasn't that many people in my year, and there was far less by my 4th year - less than 10 people in each of my final year modules, each taught by some one internationally renowned in their field.

Remember Science, Engineering and Business departments will likely bring in external funding, while "wishy-washy humanities" subjects probably won't

[Nerval]

er -when was anything ever fair?
why should it be fair?
can you ever get anything fair?

life isn't fair.

[neonplanet40]

But then technically thats saying the arts department gets taxed mroe to pay for other facultys?

I know I choose English, never liked science too much but my girlfriend does biomedical science. I always laughed in my first year when she told me the tests they had to do. They would have tests where they were allowed their files to check before they answered (?Lol) or multiple choice questions? Lol they even still get that in their second year. And its not like the University is crap. The University of Ulster is ranked high up for Biomedical science. In comparison my "wichy washy subject" never had anything like that. All exams and coursework was hard and required a lot of work

If you put a science student into and english exam in uni they wouldnt have a clue - likewise english students in science exam. That's why I always laugh when they say humanities is easy

But really my point was, faculties should only have the money from their particular faculty. The money they get from us shouldn't be paying for science or indeed any other faculty. Which is why I think we need tighter control over uni's. They spend a LOT of money.

Hardly matters though, Universities are a law onto their own. I hope this uprise in fee's hits them though and less people go. Although the fact that you are no longer guaranteed a job etc etc anymore due to so many graduates means that indeed people may already be thinking twice about going. Maybe this will be the final nail. Who know's

I see it as similar to the banks though, they were bailed out by the tax payer. They cut university funding but charge us to recoup the costs. Again we are being hit But thats what happens in this country I guess.

[redddraggon]

Remember universities are quasi-autonomous, they often have profit making "departments" (ie start up IT companies, Campus food outlets etc).

Universities would probably to charge more science students, but firstly they have no control the government sets the fees for UK/EU students, and secondly science is not as popular as it should be so institutions don't want to make it even harder to fill science courses.

If a few less UK students go to UK universities, I don't think it'll bother universities that much, in my department this year there were less UK students offered places, but loads more overseas students - and they pay loads more than UK students (even if you factor in the price rises in 2012).

Overseas students are where the money is - offer them university for the entirety of their degree (£5000/yr), and then charge them tens of thousands pounds of fees, easy money.

[Clingy]

All I'll say on the subject is that after 36 years of voting Liberal/LibDem etc I shall never, ever vote for them again. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this policy (which I find obscene), their betrayal of my trust is staggering.

I long email is winging (or whinging ) its way to them so they at least know the feelings of a life long (ex) supporter.

[Spud1]

All I'll say on the subject is that after 36 years of voting Liberal/LibDem etc I shall never, ever vote for them again. Whatever the rights and wrongs of this policy (which I find obscene), their betrayal of my trust is staggering.

I long email is winging (or whinging ) its way to them so they at least know the feelings of a life long (ex) supporter.

This reply is OT I know, but has to be said.

You do realise that we didn't win the election, right? That they are not actually supporting a rise in tuition fees, and have yet again succeeded in watering down the original Tory proposals.

This is the real world where its not as black and white as many people think. I'm appalled by the number of fellow lib Dem voters, and in some cases fellow party members who seem to think that the way to move forward is to stick to the letter of everything that was in the party manifesto, regardless of the real world situation. Doing so would do more damage to the country than labour did - and that's really saying something.

The party did well to gain some control over the country and will continue for the next 4 years, constantly moderating the tory policy to keep it as close to the lib dem manifesto as our influence allows. Sadly due to the fact that most people read the headlines and no further means we are unlikely to do so again for another 50 years

[Blitzen]

The party did well to gain some control over the country and will continue for the next 4 years

How exactly did they 'do well'?
They did NOTHING at all, they just got lucky!

In the last election, if you voted for a Liberal, your vote was worth 5 times that of a labour vote. That is not doing well....that is being a pawn in the Tory game.

[Spud1]

How exactly did they 'do well'?
They did NOTHING at all, they just got lucky!

In the last election, if you voted for a Liberal, your vote was worth 5 times that of a labour vote. That is not doing well....that is being a pawn in the Tory game.

Not at all - its doing 2 positive things

1) Keeping Labour out of power - that's a good thing for everyone and a positive step to moving the UK into the 21st century.
2) Moderating/watering down many of the crazy Tory policies that would have otherwise done almost as much harm as keeping the previous government in power.

[jim]

However you dress it up, a stab in the back is exactly what it is.

[TheAnimus]

However you dress it up, a stab in the back is exactly what it is.

How is it a stab in the back?

I think some people really don't understand how our voting system works.

Its seats not votes for a start. There is also nothing forcing the lib dems to align themselves. The problem is that the lib dems made a bunch of manefesto promises they thought they'd never have to keep (after all its not happened for 70 years!).

When you consider that labour have twice lied to the electorate on the subject, its not out of the ordinary for them to have to 'realise the grim reality' or whatever spin.

I think it comes down to two options, charge more for uni (by direct or indirect taxation) or have fewer people go.

Neither seam like 'lib dem' polecies. But then again it strikes me that the Grouniad reader is going to have a dose of be careful what you wish for.

[jim]

A party makes policies, you vote for them based on those policies, and then they ignore them. We can talk about the reality of the situation, how our voting system works, all the rest of it, but at the most basic level it's hypocritical behaviour.

Why the fact that they're a political party should bail them out, I don't understand.

[Terbinator]

From this then, we can discern that the LibDems are a political party with the traits of a pressure group

[Spud1]

A party makes policies, you vote for them based on those policies, and then they ignore them. We can talk about the reality of the situation, how our voting system works, all the rest of it, but at the most basic level it's hypocritical behaviour.

Why the fact that they're a political party should bail them out, I don't understand.

Couple of points:

1) Every single political party who has been elected has ignored their own policies to some degree once they get into government. This is nothing new or unique. Labour were guilty of it on so many occasions (eg promising "we'll never put in top up fees" and then "oops well we're gonna do it anyway"), and the tories before them. Thats the way our twisted system works and we, the people, are silly enough to believe them every time without looking at whats actually reasonable and whats just never going to work.

2) I'll repeat that the Lib Dems didn't get into power. We didn't win the election, and as such cannot be bound by every aspect of the Manifesto. There is a responsibility to follow it as far as possible whilst in the coalition, but even more than that is a responsibility to keep the government, and therefore the country, running. This means compromise on many issues, key or otherwise.

If the Liberals had actually won power and /then/ decided to introduce higher student fees, /then/ you would all have a point and I would be complaining too regardless of the fact that I think they are a good idea. We didn't win, compromise is a must and rather refreshing in modern politics.

As TheAnimus points out this also forces the party to start aligning policy, as previously there have been many differing opinions that split the party in two - Nuclear Power and Student Fees being two of the biggest things to cause arguments when i've been at various conferences.

[Saracen]

A party makes policies, you vote for them based on those policies, and then they ignore them. We can talk about the reality of the situation, how our voting system works, all the rest of it, but at the most basic level it's hypocritical behaviour.

Why the fact that they're a political party should bail them out, I don't understand.

Referring to the bit in bold, and struggling to exclude the expletive self-evidently called for this this context ...... Of course it's <deleted> hypocritical - these are politicians trying to get elected we're talking about. You didn't actually expect them to mean what they said, did you?

If so, I'd refer you to the venerable Wikipedia ....

An election promise is a promise made to the public by a politician who is trying to win an election. They have long been a central element of elections and remain so today. Election promises are also notable for often being broken once a politician is in office.

I'd go so far as to say they're often made with the intention, or at least the full knowledge, that they are undeliverable. The whole point of a political promise is not to inform the electorate of what you believe in, the point is to get elected. After all, we don't need politicians to open their mouths for us to know what they believe in - they believe in winning elections.

Mind you, from that election court decision a couple of days ago, it appears that Mr Woolas believes in it a bit more enthusiastically than most.

[HSK]

Hmm it's all over-boiled now. Plenty of student protesters have now stormed & occupied the Tory headquarters.