The General Election Thread

[Flyfisher]

It will be the American way.

That does seem to be the trend, although we've probably got some way to go yet. I've read about costs of around $100k (£63k) for a degree course in the top universities there.

It struck me the other day, whilst thinking about all the endowment funds and land ownership of the top universities, what a lost opportunity it was (or might have been, I've not looked into the numbers) for the government to have set up a sort of 'national endowment fund' for tertiary education back in the 1980s when a lot of our nationalised industries were being privatised and when we were also reaping the benefits of North Sea oil.

That could have been a wonderful legacy for the country and a reasonable exchange for all those assets.

Probably not a big vote-winner at the time though.

 

[Merlin]

One of the big conundrums I find with university fees, grants, loans etc is this magical line that supposedly constitutes being an adult.

If I am an adult and not reliant upon my parents for funding, then why should my parents income be a deciding factor on any grant / loan / fee? It is generally accepted that 18 is the point when you become an adult, thus no longer dependent on your parents. However for university, this rule moves and you are a dependant until you are 21 or 22?

However if you left school at 16, got a job and went to complete a professional training course, then you would have to pay for it yourself (or the company would.) You would not be dependent on you parents and you would be paying your taxes. At what age does education finish, adulthood take over and most importantly, responsibility for your actions make you independent?

Some of the actions I saw last night were not adults acting responsibly, and they do their cause no good whatsoever.

 

[Flyfisher]

That's an excellent point Merlin, and one I am acutely aware of as FF junior started university this year but his combined grants and loans are not sufficient to pay his hall fees and general living expenses. Where does the government expect the additional money to come from?

 

[Moo]

Have a coffee or meal in Norwich, get chatting to the young waiter/waitress, and ask them what they're studying. You'll find that the great majority are students (under- and post-graduate) at one of our local colleges.

ps
Sometimes you'll find some who aren't studying anything, but that's because they graduated a year or so ago.

 

[Flyfisher]

Yes, I know a lot of students have to work for some extra money, but I'm in two minds about this as I personally know of two students (physics and pharmacy) where this caused big problems.

The physics student, despite working behind a bar, ran out of money and was forced to postpone his third year to take a year off so he could work full-time. He then returned for his final year but found it very difficult to 're-engage' and gained a much lower degree than he had been previously forecast. However, he solved his debt problem by becoming a teacher under a scheme that writes off his student debts after (I think) five years as a teacher.

The pharmacy student had to work throughout her first two years but failed her second year dispensing module exams and has had to take a year out, actually to repeat that part of her second year, because, apparently, she cannot progress to her third year without it.

I accept that, in both these examples, the students may possibly have had problems anyway, but such circumstances are hardly helpful and such students who are not as fortunate to have 'the bank of mum and dad' behind them are bound to be at a disadvantage.

That's life, I suppose.

 

[biffvernon]

This is a comment from Chris, who produced the graph showing international comparisons, on the PowerSwitch forum:

The fees aren't even the main point.
The heart of the issue is the transformation of higher education from a public good into a private commodity. The fee increase is just the logical (and I'd argue pretty good) response to the terrible decision of cutting university funding by ~40%.

I never condone violance and destruction but let's not be too quick to criticise the kids who haven't yet been through university and learnt wisdom. They have the excuse of immaturity. The policeman who hit Alfie Meadows http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098 has no such excuse.

 

[Nigel Watts]

The graph is interesting. Germany, the strongest economy in Europe spends less than us. I wonder why this is?

Research funding is another factor in determining the quality of universities - has this been included? The UK is fortunate in having some very well funded private charities such as the Wellcome Trust and Cancer Research UK. The first of these spends over half a billion a year, largely in UK universities. Noone I think would argue that this form of private funding was not desirable.

UK's top universities top the European league and are the only ones which can seriously compete with the top US ones. The health of the UK economy is highly dependent on the success of these and increased private funding in the current environment gives them the best chance of doing so.

Good article by Charles Moore here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...-the-real-problem-facing-todays-students.html

 

[Flyfisher]

The fees aren't even the main point.
The heart of the issue is the transformation of higher education from a public good into a private commodity. The fee increase is just the logical (and I'd argue pretty good) response to the terrible decision of cutting university funding by ~40%.

I'd hazard a guess that very few people would argue that free (well, state-funded) education, to whatever level people aspire, is not a good thing. And I'm sure we could usefully spend more money on the health service as well. And on our transport infrastructure. And on lowering the retirement age. All those things, and probably many more, would improve our standard of living, woudln't they?

But isn't the simple reality that the country is living beyond it's means, so things have to change? It's always easy to argue against any cutback in expenditure in isolation but the real world is rather more complex than a series of single issues. Unfortunately, our political system seems to deal with a single-issue at a time so there rarely seems to be any proper perspective on things.

I never condone violance and destruction but let's not be too quick to criticise the kids who haven't yet been through university and learnt wisdom. They have the excuse of immaturity. The policeman who hit Alfie Meadows http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098 has no such excuse.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's acceptable, or understandable, for those without the benefit of a university education, and therefore lacking in the wisdom, to engage in violence and destruction, yet an adult policeman, who may not have been to university, cannot be afforded the same acceptance and understanding?

I was rather under the impression that the unacceptability of violence and destruction was dealt with at primary school level, so why not be quick to criticise it whoever is dishing it out?

 

[biffvernon]

I never condone violance and destruction but let's not be too quick to criticise the kids who haven't yet been through university and learnt wisdom. They have the excuse of immaturity. The policeman who hit Alfie Meadows http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11967098 has no such excuse.

Are you seriously suggesting that it's acceptable, or understandable...

Acceptable or understandable? There is a deal of difference between the two. Violence is never acceptable, but it is, in the case of the youngsters, understandable.

 

[skier-hughes]

I'm sorry I spend a lot of my time working with young people and violence is never understandable, there is no place for it in our society.
I'd be more happy to support the policeman who has a hard enough job trying to protect me, as a non violent member of society without having to do so from thugs like these, be they teenagers in 6th form, early twenties at uni or in the 40's and protesting miners.

 

[Flyfisher]

Acceptable or understandable? There is a deal of difference between the two. Violence is never acceptable, but it is, in the case of the youngsters, understandable.

Understandable in 'youngsters' of nursery school age, while they are developing their social skills, and, being generous, possibly even for 'youngsters' of primary school age. But 'youngsters' of around the age of 18-21? I don't think so.

 

[biffvernon]

Ok, so it looks like you guys cannot distinguish between acceptable and understandable.

You may not understand the violence but that does not make in not understandable. I do understand it. That's not saying it's acceptable, not condoning it, but I do see why it happens, what provokes it.

I also have some ideas about why the police behave badly and how they are supported in their bad behaviour by the careless thinking of many people.

 

[Flyfisher]

Well we can all see why it happens and what provokes it. What I don't understand is why supposedly grown adults are not able to control themselves - isn't that what defines us as 'civilised'? Hence, I don't understand it and I don't think it's acceptable. No confusion at all.

Besides, as a strategy to gain sympathy for their cause, it's a poorly thought-out one - assuming they've applied much thought to it at all. They are in danger of alienating the majority of taxpayers who don't benefit from all the advantages of a university education themselves, yet are being asked to subsidise the very students that are wreaking havoc on the streets. I suspect the majority public reaction might well be to ask why they should be subsidising this bad-behaving elite at all.

 

[Pford75]

Was the daubing of obscene graffiti on Churchills statue understandable? Was the assault of shoppers in Regent Street understandable? Was throwing a fire extinguisher from a building understandable?

I can distinguish between acceptable and understandable, but simply cannot find either of the above events either of the two. I could understand the desire to protest vociferously, I could understand a level of frustration at being 'kettled', I could even (at a stretch) understand some of the responses to aggressive policing incidents. But I will never be able to understand the mentality of someone who risks killing an innocent person to make a political point.

It's all become very counter productive, many people who initially supported the students have now been turned away. Besides, what's wrong with getting a job? I speak as someone who received not a penny of grant or parental support throughout my entire time at university. I worked in B&Q, McDonalds, selling double glazing, cleaning offices and during my MSc started my own business. Instead of complaining about how unfair the world is, they could try to fund themselves.

And I still got a 1st

 

[biffvernon]

As I said, just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not understandable. It is sometimes difficult to put yourself in another's position and to have the imagination to understand.

And here's how the police treat a 12 year old doing nothing unlawful:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/10/schoolboy-quizzed-cameron-office-picket

We are slipping to a dangerous place.

 

[JoceAndChris]

We are indeed, because many young people are infused with violence from a young age unfortunately. I think many of them have a very warped perception of what acceptable behaviour is. Whether you'd like to be nice and see it from a psychoanalytical point of view doesn't make it any more desirable in any society.

I'm not sure I agree with higher education for so many people anyway, it seems a bit indulgent and impractical to me.

 

[Flyfisher]

As I said, just because you don't understand it does not mean it is not understandable. It is sometimes difficult to put yourself in another's position and to have the imagination to understand.

Indeed. Perhaps some imagination should be applied to understanding how many of those involved managed to control themselves in the face of any provocation and resisted any urge to commit violence and destruction.

And here's how the police treat a 12 year old doing nothing unlawful:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/10/schoolboy-quizzed-cameron-office-picket

"On Tuesday 7 December, our schools officer for west Oxfordshire attended the school in Eynsham and spoke to a 12-year-old boy in the company of the pupil's head of year, about a planned protest. This was not with the intention of dissuading him from organising it, but to obtain information regarding the protest to ensure his and others' safety. As with any demonstration, we always aim to facilitate a peaceful protest."

Can we assume that you're not in favour of anyone advising a 12-year old of the potential consequences of his actions then? Especially when organising such an event over the internet and not being in control of who might become involved.

 

[Pford75]

Biff - I'd love to hear the explanation behind how hurling a fire extinguisher from the roof is understandable......

Wonder how you would feel if it was your daughters shop which was smashed to pieces?

Some were genuine protesters...sadly, many were just ignorant thugs.

I'm with Joce - universal tertiary education is neither practical or desirable.

And you didn't answer my question as to why they don't get jobs.....many uni degrees involve less than 25 hours of lectures and tuition per week...plenty of time to earn some money.

 

[JoceAndChris]

I just can't imagine how some of these little thugs could get a job at all, never mind keep it though.

Not that I'm in a position to throw stones there .... but some time ago, when I was considering what I might do for part- time work, I took myself down to Grantham College, and was shocked to the core at what I found there. Two year, or three year diplomas and different confusingly titled qualifications in a practical array of subjects, such as bricklaying, hairdressing, surveying, all costing 2-3k. Is this really progress that we've done this to practical jobs? What's the point? Surely you can just learn on the job, as our grandfathers did?

I left the College having realised that although I have a fancy, academic degree if I were to apply to be a part time receptionist I'd be competing against someone with NVQ in Customer Service - I'd be unlikely to get the job.

We live in a very over-complicated world.

 

[Nigel Watts]

Human beings, and especially young men, are pretty violent creatures. Civilization is best served not by seeking to repress all violence but by providing alternative less damaging outlets for it. More team sports, boxing and hunting are what we need.

Many of the protesters were clearly driven by some kind of crowd hysteria which has nothing to do with the original issue of student fees as few of the protesters will be much affected by the increases. Young Mr Gilmour swinging from a flag on the Cenotaph will be one of the enduring images: hugely rich, on the point of graduating (and therefore doubly protected from fee increases) and apparently unaware of the significance of that monument despite studying History at Oxford.

If anyone should be protesting it is responsible middle class parents whose children will not be eligible for means tested relief and who, not wishing to see their children in debt, will delay their retirement or sacrifice part of their pension savings to help them out. But because they are responsible, and understand the mess the country is in, they are prepared to take it on the chin like proper Englishmen.