The Higher Education Thread | First University with £18k pa fees to open

It was utterly mental at Millbank. I don't know why the police allowed the march to go down that route at all, let alone be so ill prepared in terms of numbers. And armed police rushing in swarming the place was a bit of an over reaction. Not that I'm unhappy that the sit in got to take place.

The fires and the violence were stupid, but the storming of the building I agree with. The added publicity and show of anger might make one or two Lib Dems think twice when it comes to the vote, and if the NUS is to be believed, there's already 20 or so who are planning to vote against. It's only a shame Lib Dem HQ wasn't stormed as well.
 
I dont agree with the violence but those saying that it was stupid/detracts from the demo are totally WRONG!

I would guess that most of the country tonight is aware that students are very pissed off because they are finding it very difficult to endure the financial burdens of higher education.

Sure its an illegal and very unsavoury way to go about raising awareness, but the activities of these students this afternoon has pretty much put their opinions front of centre onto the government agenda. Its front page news, has caused a real stir and everybody is talking about it.
 
I dont agree with the violence, but those saying that it was stupid/detracts from the demo are totally WRONG!

I would guess that most of the country tonight is aware that students are very pissed off because they are finding it very difficult to ensure the financial burdens of higher education.

Sure its an illegal and very unsavoury way to go about raising awareness, but the activities of these students this afternoon has pretty much put their opinions front of centre onto the government agenda. Its front page news, has caused a real stir and everybody is talking about it.

Precisely. Can you imagine Nick Clegg turning on his TV from his office in Parliament to see 50,000 pissed off students, venting most of their anger not at the Tory PM, but at himself - the former hero of the students. The same goes for all Lib Dem MPs. If it were a Tory government doing what the coalition is doing there is zero doubt that nearly all Lib Dem MPs would have been supporting the march today. Many would have been taking part themselves. Watching the scenes on TV and around them (literally) couldn't have been comfortable viewing.

I think what is angering most people is the sheer undemocratic nature of what is happening. The lies and the deceit. Nobody voted for fee rises of this level, and many of the votes that allowed the Lib Dems to form a coalition were made on the basis that cuts would not be raised. There is absolutely no mandate, and not only that, as far as the Lib Dems are concerned, there is a strong mandate for them to do the opposite of what they are going. People have every right to wonder what the feck is going on and to express their anger.
 
The new politics: Student riot marks end of Coalition's era of consensus
Tory HQ wrecked in worst street violence since 1990 poll tax riots

By Andy McSmith, Richard Garner, Oliver Wright and Rebecca Gonsalves


Thursday, 11 November 2010

The new politics: Student riot marks end of Coalition's era of consensus - UK Politics, UK - The Independent


Student demonstrators brought violence to London's streets yesterday on a scale not seen since the poll tax riots of 20 years ago. The ferocity of the protest ended the high hopes of a new era of consensus politics, promised by David Cameron when he took office exactly six months ago.

It is expected to be the first of many angry demonstrations as the impact of the Government's cuts is felt. More than 50,000 people brought Westminster to a standstill with a peaceful march past Parliament to protest against the proposal to increase tuition fees to up to £9,000 a year.

But the demonstration turned nasty when a crowd smashed its way into the Conservative Party's headquarters in Millbank, cheered on by hundreds more outside. Terrified Tory staff barricaded themselves in their offices as demonstrators roamed the building. Those trapped inside included Baroness Warsi, the party's chairman, who kept in telephone contact with the police outside as furniture was thrown through windows, the interior was trashed and a ceiling was pulled down. A fire extinguisher was thrown off the roof at police in the crowded courtyard below.

Slogans such as "Tory scum", and others more obscene, were scrawled across walls in paint and marker pen. Lights were ripped down and placards were burnt. Water fire-extinguishers were also let off from the roof and eggs thrown. Eight people, including three police officers, were taken to hospital.

Police were clearly unprepared for the planned attack. Riot officers were outnumbered, with 30 desperately trying to hold their line and protect the Millbank building beneath a steady bombardment. Reinforcement attempts were made as darkness fell, but the officers were driven back by protesters.

Four hundred students crowded the building's entrance as the night set in. Police were met with a hail of poles – some of which had been set alight – and cries of "shame on you" and "scum". Others continued to protest inside the building behind a police cordon.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson admitted afterwards: "It's not acceptable. It's an embarrassment for London and for us."

The perpetrators were very young, surprisingly well-mannered and rather middle-class. Some of those hurling insults or wooden placard polls at riot police were 15 and 16-years-olds who had bunked off school and now stand a chance of getting a criminal record before they reach university. The early arrest count stood at 35 and rising.

Until yesterday, the British reaction to the proposed cuts has been remarkably mild compared with mass protests in France, Greece and other countries.

Some of the protesters blamed the confrontation on police. Oscar, 18, a sixth-form politics student, claimed: "It was disgusting, man. They got their batons out and were knocking people to the floor. A girl was hit on the head. It's just made people more angry."

The previously peaceful demonstration had earlier disrupted Prime Minister's Questions, with an estimated 52,000 protesters cramming into Whitehall. Their chanting rang around the Palace of Westminster as Nick Clegg tried to defend the Coalition's cuts.

With no suspicion of the violence that was soon to break out, Labour MPs lined up to taunt Mr Clegg about the pledge that all 57 Liberal Democrat MPs signed before the election, promising to oppose any increase in tuition fees. Harriet Harman, deputising for the Labour leader Ed Miliband, roused jeering laughter when she asked: "In April this year, the Deputy Prime Minister said that it was his aim to end university tuition fees. Can he update the House on how his plan is progressing?"

Mr Clegg replied: "I have been entirely open about the fact that we have not been able to deliver the policy that we held in opposition." The violence was condemned by the official organisers of yesterday's march. Aaron Porter, president of the National Union of Students, accused a "small minority" of having "hijacked" the event and described the violence as "despicable".

Students involved in the siege defended their action, claiming that a peaceful march would have been ignored. One very well-spoken 16-year-old from Worcestershire, named Alex, had been up on the roof and was wearing his scarf across his face in a rather feeble attempt to hide his identity. He thought the violence was justified "as long as no one gets hurt". "This is fecking amazing," he said. "You should go up on the roof. It's chaos up there: they've graffitied all over the walls." He added: "I want to study journalism when I finish school, if I can afford it. People are really pissed off."

Andrew Speake, a 23-year-old Chinese studies student in Manchester, described what he saw as "a necessary evil", although he added: "The best way is not violence, it's debate and argument." But Emily Shallcross, a sixth-form student in London, added: "The violence was frightening. It felt like it got out of hand and people didn't expect it to get that bad. But I think it has made a big impact – not that they won't put up fees, but now society is aware that we won't stand by and do nothing."

Simran Hans, a first-year English literature student from Manchester, said: "Education should be free: a rise in fees will deny people a universal right. I don't know if my family would be able to support me if the fees were more. Everyone who is in politics now benefited from free education."

The rioters, reputedly organised by a revolutionary group from Leeds, released a statement saying: "We are occupying the roof in opposition to the marketisation of education pushed through by the Coalition Government, and the system they are pushing through of helping the rich and attacking the poor. We call for direct action to oppose these cuts. This is only the beginning of the resistance."

Yesterday's demonstration was the biggest by students since the mid-1980s when they protested against an attempt to bring in tuition fees by Margaret Thatcher's government, but that protest ended peacefully. In the Thatcher years, there was an outbreak of inner-city rioting in 1981, but that was not linked to any organised political protest. There was political violence on the picket line during the miners' strike, and a protest against the poll tax in 1990 turned into a riot. But more recent demonstrations, such as against the Iraq war in 2003, passed off peacefully.

The Conservatives were far from the only people who suffered the ire of angry students at yesterday's protests at the Millbank complex. The 30-floor tower on the north side of the Thames is also home to a number of government agencies, including the Environment Agency, the Audit Commission and the Parliamentary Ombudsman. Hundreds of workers had to be evacuated.

Conservative HQ moved to Millbank in 2007 from their more famous home at 32 Smith Square, via a short stint in airy offices on Victoria Street. The current Tory Party chairman Baroness Warsi also has an office there. As it is only a five-minute walk from the Palace of Westminster, past the TV studios of BBC, Sky and ITN, it is within the "division bell area" – MPs can make it back in time to vote when the division is called.

Ten years ago, the ground floor of the tower was where Alastair Campbell and Peter Mandelson created the New Labour spin machine so crucial to its electoral success. They, like previous occupants, including the United Nations, moved out shortly afterwards after complaining about the building's astronomical rents.

Interesting to see the diversity of the protesters, from north and south and those at university and those still with aspirations to attend. I think this is just the start of a long and painful episode ..... the coalition are infor tough times and Labour must beloving it.
 
Interesting to see the diversity of the protesters, from north and south and those at university and those still with aspirations to attend. I think this is just the start of a long and painful episode ..... the coalition are infor tough times and Labour must beloving it.

Though those protesters in that article are idiots - the 16 year old at a violent and criminal protest glorifying it who wants to study journalism? Good luck with that.

Labour are being populist on this - they cannot mock the Lib Dems for breaking an election promise on student finance because they did the exact same thing following the 2001 election when they categorically said they opposed raising fees in their manifesto but they doubled them anyway.

Some of these people are clueless - everybody will have a right to go to university, everybody will have a right to an upfront loan of 100% of costs, all universities will be capped in what they can charge, nobody will pay back unless they are in a position to afford it and only whilst they remain in such a position. Considering how bad this could have been I would take that.
 
Labour are being populist on this - they cannot mock the Lib Dems for breaking an election promise on student finance because they did the exact same thing following the 2001 election when they categorically said they opposed raising fees in their manifesto but they doubled them anyway.

Is true. But the Lib Dems' hubris on this matter is (or at the very least will be seen as by most) a tad greater. Labour in 2001 I think had a line in the manifesto about not raising "top-up fees" and later argued around the definition (also politics at its worst, by the way). The Lib Dem "pledge" was one of their gimmicks to secure a significant part of their votership. Your point about Labour is valid, but this'll hurt the Liberals far more than it did them, and they'll be looking to twist the knife in.
 
Is true. But the Lib Dems' hubris on this matter is (or at the very least will be seen as by most) a tad greater. Labour in 2001 I think had a line in the manifesto about not raising "top-up fees" and later argued around the definition (also politics at its worst, by the way). The Lib Dem "pledge" was one of their gimmicks to secure a significant part of their votership. Your point about Labour is valid, but this'll hurt the Liberals far more than it did them, and they'll be looking to twist the knife in.

It would all depend on what Britain looks like in 2015, if the statistics in the CSR come off as projected then the Liberal Democrats and Conservatives will reap dividends. If they don't then there are far too many variables to contemplate.

The government have done a very bad job of selling this, though public support will rise by default due to the violence yesterday against a plan many without a vested interest will see as a good deal considering the amount of benefits that are getting trimmed, entry thresholds being tightened or being eliminated whilst students will keep getting a universal, up front, extremely generous repayment scheme loan for 100% of tuition costs.
 
As was to be expected, Cameron has come out and denounced the disorder - all the news coverage is focusing primarily on the trouble, with the original issue of uni fees being moved out to the periphery.

Irrespective of whether the trouble emanated from an anarchistic, non-student element, the fact is that the protest and everything that it stood for has been delegitimised. If anything, this will strengthen the resolve of the coalition.

You only have to have a look at how Britain's most influential paper has covered it: Top cop: I (did not) predict a riot | The Sun |News

"Student demo thugs", "leftie yobs", etc etc. The average Joe will be picking up their copy of The Sun today thinking, "what a bunch of hooligans, feck them!"

For me, there are a few key issues here:

1) We've been devaluing higher education in this country for far too long. If you look abroad, they pay far more for their university education. The fact that we've priced our universities so low has meant that you've had every other Tom, Dick and Sally applying to do degrees, many of which are a waste of time.

2) As Alastair rightly pointed out, if students were sensible enough to go out and work a couple of shifts a week, they'd earn enough money over the course of the year to pay for their fees. The fact is that £3000, or whatever it is, is a price that many of us are prepared to pay to have a jolly-up for the year. It certainly was for me! When I had to pay over twice that amount for my Masters, I was far more motivated to stop pissing around and get some work done.
 
Pretty much agree with most of this. I'm pretty lucky as my employer is ok pay for a part time job and provides me enough to pay my share of the bills but little else, was much better off working Full Time, right now my degree is looking pretty pointless witht he way the cut backs are going. Fair play to those that protested peacefully, regardless of the fact that you don't pay it back at a huge amount, for some degrees your looking at getting around £20-£25k of debt, which for many is going to take possibly 20 years to repay back, if they even manage it.

4-year engineering degree at £9k a year, plus (if you're stingy) £3k a year living costs. That's £48k in debt. Students are likely to take the cheap option of a college course and a lower skilled job, and over time our reputation for high-quality, precision engineering is eroded and contracts are lost.
 
1) We've been devaluing higher education in this country for far too long. If you look abroad, they pay far more for their university education. The fact that we've priced our universities so low has meant that you've had every other Tom, Dick and Sally applying to do degrees, many of which are a waste of time.

2) As Alastair rightly pointed out, if students were sensible enough to go out and work a couple of shifts a week, they'd earn enough money over the course of the year to pay for their fees. The fact is that £3000, or whatever it is, is a price that many of us are prepared to pay to have a jolly-up for the year. It certainly was for me! When I had to pay over twice that amount for my Masters, I was far more motivated to stop pissing around and get some work done.

1) You could also say that the government is devaluing higher education by arguing that they should make less effort to subsidise it. A highly educated workforce can help to boost the economy, and encouraging those from all walks of life to get to University helps them to work themselves out of poverty.

2) Sensible enough to work a couple of shifts a week? I wish that when I was at Uni I could have got "a couple of shifts a week" that I could fit around a demanding schedule of lectures, seminars and project meetings that changed every few weeks. Employees like that just aren't very attractive to employers. The best I could do was working in a pub for a while, but the 2am finishes were impacting on my concentration in 9am lectures, so I had to give it up.
 
1) You could also say that the government is devaluing higher education by arguing that they should make less effort to subsidise it. A highly educated workforce can help to boost the economy, and encouraging those from all walks of life to get to University helps them to work themselves out of poverty.

The fact that is getting lost amongst all the hullaballoo is that the fees would operate on a sliding scale principle. Not all universities and courses are going to start at £9000. I see no problem in the prestigious universities and courses charging a higher price.

In addition, whilst a hike in fees isn't ideal, it would still work on the same principle of paying it off in affordable monthly instalments once you start earning over a thresh hold amount. There is no way that higher fees automatically preclude poorer students from entering higher education, because they are no compelled to pay it up front themselves.


2) Sensible enough to work a couple of shifts a week? I wish that when I was at Uni I could have got "a couple of shifts a week" that I could fit around a demanding schedule of lectures, seminars and project meetings that changed every few weeks. Employees like that just aren't very attractive to employers. The best I could do was working in a pub for a while, but the 2am finishes were impacting on my concentration in 9am lectures, so I had to give it up.

Re your second point - I'd hazard a guess that you were in a minority. A hell of a lot of students have minimal contact time - maybe up to 10 hours lectures a week. Those students have more than an ample amount of spare time to pick up a job and earn some money. Working also saves you money a couple of nights a week, as you're not out, pissing it all up the wall.
 
1) We've been devaluing higher education in this country for far too long. If you look abroad, they pay far more for their university education. The fact that we've priced our universities so low has meant that you've had every other Tom, Dick and Sally applying to do degrees, many of which are a waste of time.

:confused: The UK fees were already amongst the highest in Europe. I think I'm right in saying that typically they pay much less to attend university across the continent than in the UK.
 
:confused: The UK fees were already amongst the highest in Europe. I think I'm right in saying that typically they pay much less to attend university across the continent than in the UK.

Really? £3000 is amongst the highest? I was under the impression that our degrees were very competitively priced. Looking at the US, their students pay an absolute fortune...
 
Really? £3000 is amongst the highest? I was under the impression that our degrees were very competitively priced. Looking at the US, their students pay an absolute fortune...

It's typically ranges between free and a few hundred Euros a year for tuition I think. Significantly less than the UK anyway.
 
The fact that is getting lost amongst all the hullaballoo is that the fees would operate on a sliding scale principle. Not all universities and courses are going to start at £9000. I see no problem in the prestigious universities and courses charging a higher price.

In addition, whilst a hike in fees isn't ideal, it would still work on the same principle of paying it off in affordable monthly instalments once you start earning over a thresh hold amount. There is no way that higher fees automatically preclude poorer students from entering higher education, because they are no compelled to pay it up front themselves.

There was supposed to be a sliding scale when they upped the cap before. Instead, all the Universities just went up to the max. Why wouldn't they do that this time? Any tax on fees over 6k will just be passed on to the student. I predict at least half will go to the limit immediately, and the rest will follow within a couple of years.

Regarding your second point, it ignores the fact that many people in this country are unhappy taking on massive debt of any kind. If your University debts are as much as your parents earn in 4 years, that's a significant psychological barrier.

Re your second point - I'd hazard a guess that you were in a minority. A hell of a lot of students have minimal contact time - maybe up to 10 hours lectures a week. Those students have more than an ample amount of spare time to pick up a job and earn some money. Working also saves you money a couple of nights a week, as you're not out, pissing it all up the wall.

Not really the minority. I did engineering, but most of the maths and sciences students I knew did more hours than I did. Technical subjects take a lot of contact time. Also, the law, history and politics students I knew, while they had ~10 hours of contact time with academics, spent long hours reading and in student seminars.

The only people that were able to keep up a job during term time were some of the sociology students who were happy scraping through their exams.

The best time for students to make up the money they spent during term was to get a job during the holidays, but students going home to deprived areas often find there just aren't any jobs available, especially not when you're going to piss off again in a matter of weeks.
 
It's typically ranges between free and a few hundred Euros a year for tuition I think. Significantly less than the UK anyway.

I met some Dutch guys a couple of years ago who were amazed how much we paid to go to Uni. I think they were paying a couple of hundred Euro a year for a degree in medicine.
 
There was supposed to be a sliding scale when they upped the cap before. Instead, all the Universities just went up to the max. Why wouldn't they do that this time? Any tax on fees over 6k will just be passed on to the student. I predict at least half will go to the limit immediately, and the rest will follow within a couple of years.

Regarding your second point, it ignores the fact that many people in this country are unhappy taking on massive debt of any kind. If your University debts are as much as your parents earn in 4 years, that's a significant psychological barrier.

I think that's because the cap was still deemed to be a a 'reasonable' level. Many Universities won't be able to fill the places if they take the mickey and bring the fees up to the £9000 level. Of course, there's nothing to stop them from doing that, but the lesser lights just won't be able to attract enough numbers if they don't price sensibly.


Not really the minority. I did engineering, but most of the maths and sciences students I knew did more hours than I did. Technical subjects take a lot of contact time. Also, the law, history and politics students I knew, while they had ~10 hours of contact time with academics, spent long hours reading and in student seminars.

The only people that were able to keep up a job during term time were some of the sociology students who were happy scraping through their exams.

The best time for students to make up the money they spent during term was to get a job during the holidays, but students going home to deprived areas often find there just aren't any jobs available, especially not when you're going to piss off again in a matter of weeks.

We have obviously had very different experiences of university then mate. I went to a good university - Cardiff Uni - and had a mixture of friends from a host of different courses. Even the students on those courses with a lot of contact time found the time to go on the razz a few times a week. Sorry, but it depends what your priorities are. Many students do have the time to get a job in between university, but choose not to because it impinges upon their social life. I'm not judging them as that's their prerogative.

Totally agreed that the best tactic is to pick up a job in the holidays. My experience as a student is that if you look hard enough, you'll find work - it may not be great, but beggars can't be choosers.
 
I met some Dutch guys a couple of years ago who were amazed how much we paid to go to Uni. I think they were paying a couple of hundred Euro a year for a degree in medicine.

Time will tell. What are they doing on the continent in light of all the economic troubles? Are fee rises on the agenda in Europe?
 
As was to be expected, Cameron has come out and denounced the disorder - all the news coverage is focusing primarily on the trouble, with the original issue of uni fees being moved out to the periphery.

Irrespective of whether the trouble emanated from an anarchistic, non-student element, the fact is that the protest and everything that it stood for has been delegitimised. If anything, this will strengthen the resolve of the coalition.

You only have to have a look at how Britain's most influential paper has covered it: Top cop: I (did not) predict a riot | The Sun |News

"Student demo thugs", "leftie yobs", etc etc. The average Joe will be picking up their copy of The Sun today thinking, "what a bunch of hooligans, feck them!"


For me, there are a few key issues here:

1) We've been devaluing higher education in this country for far too long. If you look abroad, they pay far more for their university education. The fact that we've priced our universities so low has meant that you've had every other Tom, Dick and Sally applying to do degrees, many of which are a waste of time.

2) As Alastair rightly pointed out, if students were sensible enough to go out and work a couple of shifts a week, they'd earn enough money over the course of the year to pay for their fees. The fact is that £3000, or whatever it is, is a price that many of us are prepared to pay to have a jolly-up for the year. It certainly was for me! When I had to pay over twice that amount for my Masters, I was far more motivated to stop pissing around and get some work done.

Exactly. As usual rent-a-mob spoil a legit demonstration. :boring:
 
We have obviously had very different experiences of university then mate. I went to a good university - Cardiff Uni - and had a mixture of friends from a host of different courses. Even the students on those courses with a lot of contact time found the time to go on the razz a few times a week. Sorry, but it depends what your priorities are. Many students do have the time to get a job in between university, but choose not to because it impinges upon their social life. I'm not judging them as that's their prerogative.

Totally agreed that the best tactic is to pick up a job in the holidays. My experience as a student is that if you look hard enough, you'll find work - it may not be great, but beggars can't be choosers.

Wow, you went to two Universities???

(I'm joking, obviously)

There's a difference between managing to go out drinking once or twice a week and getting a job where you're expected to do set hours, no matter your current workload. I went out drinking when I got the chance, but I couldn't turn up at the bar I worked at and say "Hey, my 9 o'clock lecture's been cancelled, can I have a shift now?".

The whole "if you look hard enough, you'll find work" argument just isn't true for many. Guys I knew from ex-mining villages and other places with huge unemployment were struggling to get pub work or cleaning jobs when they went home because 1) There were plenty of people looking for any job and 2) They were going to be leaving again in a few weeks so it wasn't worth the employer's time to take them on.
 
Wow, you went to two Universities???

(I'm joking, obviously)

There's a difference between managing to go out drinking once or twice a week and getting a job where you're expected to do set hours, no matter your current workload. I went out drinking when I got the chance, but I couldn't turn up at the bar I worked at and say "Hey, my 9 o'clock lecture's been cancelled, can I have a shift now?".

The whole "if you look hard enough, you'll find work" argument just isn't true for many. Guys I knew from ex-mining villages and other places with huge unemployment were struggling to get pub work or cleaning jobs when they went home because 1) There were plenty of people looking for any job and 2) They were going to be leaving again in a few weeks so it wasn't worth the employer's time to take them on.

That's obviously a very fair point. People who hail from less affluent areas may find it difficult. The solution would be to stay in your university town/city during the holidays and find work there. Obviously, it's not ideal in terms of being away from family constantly, but needs must.
 
That's obviously a very fair point. People who hail from less affluent areas may find it difficult. The solution would be to stay in your university town/city during the holidays and find work there. Obviously, it's not ideal in terms of being away from family constantly, but needs must.

As long as you can stay in your accommodation. If you're in Uni halls they generally chuck you out in the holidays to rent them out to conferences. Also, lots of students like to see their families once in a while, the selfish bastards.

You see, it's only "needs must" because the government don't want to contribute to everyone in this country being able to get to the top.
 
Are you lot really forgetting what university is meant to be about? For example, Oxford University strongly discourages students from working in term time, and its rules prohibit students taking more than 6 hours a week of work.

You're meant to be at university for the learning, the research, making a contribution to human knowledge, the community, the activism... not to trying to fit all that around working part-time. University should be free for all, or at worst a nominal level of fees.
 
As long as you can stay in your accommodation. If you're in Uni halls they generally chuck you out in the holidays to rent them out to conferences. Also, lots of students like to see their families once in a while, the selfish bastards.

You see, it's only "needs must" because the government don't want to contribute to everyone in this country being able to get to the top.

I'm not disagreeing with you lynchie. I'm just putting it out there that there are options if you need to get a job at university.

The other thing is that a lot of universities have job shops where you can go in and register and pick up a lot of ad hoc work.
 
Are you lot really forgetting what university is meant to be about? For example, Oxford University strongly discourages students from working in term time, and its rules prohibit students taking more than 6 hours a week of work.

You're meant to be at university for the learning, the research, making a contribution to human knowledge, the community, the activism... not to trying to fit all that around working part-time. University should be free for all, or at worst a nominal level of fees.


University is not for that at all, it's just romantic rubbish. You're there to get a degree, nothing more, nothing less. It's not about community or activism, that's just for a select few who want to do it. Oxford are wrong with this - they should allow all of their students to do as much work as they can possibly do whilst doing enough to do their degree adequately. It's a joke to suggest otherwise.
 
I'm not disagreeing with you lynchie. I'm just putting it out there that there are options if you need to get a job at university.

The other thing is that a lot of universities have job shops where you can go in and register and pick up a lot of ad hoc work.


This is a great point. Anyone can get a job at their union if you want it. It's not hard, and basically just laziness if you don't do it.
 
Are you lot really forgetting what university is meant to be about? For example, Oxford University strongly discourages students from working in term time, and its rules prohibit students taking more than 6 hours a week of work.

You're meant to be at university for the learning, the research, making a contribution to human knowledge, the community, the activism... not to trying to fit all that around working part-time. University should be free for all, or at worst a nominal level of fees.

You're being very naive if you think that that the vast majority of students don't have the time to get a part time job because they're too busy with university work. If that were the case, why are so many of them constantly out on the town?

Sorry, but I'm getting tired of these arguments. My Dad is a blue collar, working class bloke. He's a bus driver who works all the hours under the sun because he has a family to support and a mortgage and bills to pay. He is also going to college twice a week to get himself into a better trade. Tell him about not having enough time to do everything.
 
University is not for that at all, it's just romantic rubbish. You're there to get a degree, nothing more, nothing less.

You're a tool. Do you have any idea how important the research that goes on at university is? It's about far more than students getting degrees.
 
Research at university is important. Not for the undergraduates though?

Exactly which is why our university league tables are nonsensical for placing so much emphasis on faculty research output when the vast amount of time students will be doing work outside of the classroom rather than in it.
 
Research at university is important. Not for the undergraduates though?

The whole point is that the research informs the learning and feeds into the teaching of the undergraduates, some of which will then go on to further this research in the future.

On another point, so many of our charities, NGO's and political socieities have their roots on campuses. Universities are much much more than learning factories or glorified schools.
 
The whole point is that the research informs the learning and feeds into the teaching of the undergraduates, some of which will then go on to further this research in the future.

It really doesn't, not at undergraduate level where you will have perhaps 60 minutes of lectures per week per module and then be expected to spend hours upon hours of your own time researching to compliment that.
 
It really doesn't, not at undergraduate level where you will have perhaps 60 minutes of lectures per week per module and then be expected to spend hours upon hours of your own time researching to compliment that.

Try googling something like 'research feeds teaching university' and see what you find.

On another note, as a social science student yourself (one of the so-called 'soft' subjects), how do you feel about all the negativity surrounding them? It seems ludicrous to me. There seems to be this fallacy that all 'proper' science students walk into an abundance of great jobs, which just isn't true. I know several top physics graduates who have struggled to find a good job since graduating a few years ago.
 
Try googling something like 'research feeds teaching university' and see what you find.

On another note, as a social science student yourself (one of the so-called 'soft' subjects), how do you feel about all the negativity surrounding them? It seems ludicrous to me. There seems to be this fallacy that all 'proper' science students walk into an abundance of great jobs, which just isn't true. I know several top physics graduates who have struggled to find a good job since graduating a few years ago.

Of course there is a wide range of courses that fall under 'social sciences' for which I cannot speak for but it completely frustrates me when somebody tries to claim political science is soft. Again it depends on the nature of the course involved but mine as an international politics degree was effectively a course about the running of the world, about geopolitical centres of gravity, about what individuals have power and how they maintain it, about why certain innovations and ideas are taken on and why others are not. Someone who masters such a subject is ought to be more grounded into the workings of modern life and how people believe and feel and also understand what their limitations are which isn't something most university courses do.

If politics students (the strong ones obviously) don't understand the world outside of university then nobody will. I would like someone who thinks it is a soft subject to come and have a conversation with me about it.
 
It really doesn't, not at undergraduate level where you will have perhaps 60 minutes of lectures per week per module and then be expected to spend hours upon hours of your own time researching to compliment that.

Research doesn't feed in to teaching? Well that's just wrong.
 
University is not for that at all, it's just romantic rubbish. You're there to get a degree, nothing more, nothing less. It's not about community or activism, that's just for a select few who want to do it. Oxford are wrong with this - they should allow all of their students to do as much work as they can possibly do whilst doing enough to do their degree adequately. It's a joke to suggest otherwise.

Students who go to University to "get a degree, nothing more, nothing less" will struggle to be employed after University. The opportunities available to University students are vast, and if someone ignores all those opportunities to just go to their lectures and do nothing more, they've wasted a chance.

University life, outside of my degree, gave me the opportunity to run an organisation, administrate a budget of tens of thousands of pounds, organise huge events, learn new skills, learn a new language and take part in cutting edge research among many other things. These are things that are easily as valuable to me today as the technical knowledge I learnt in lectures.
 
Students who go to University to "get a degree, nothing more, nothing less" will struggle to be employed after University. The opportunities available to University students are vast, and if someone ignores all those opportunities to just go to their lectures and do nothing more, they've wasted a chance.

University life, outside of my degree, gave me the opportunity to run an organisation, administrate a budget of tens of thousands of pounds, organise huge events, learn new skills, learn a new language and take part in cutting edge research among many other things. These are things that are easily as valuable to me today as the technical knowledge I learnt in lectures.


As far as I'm concerned, university does provide an opportunity to do new things. But they shouldn't be financed by the university, in my view. Your institution should be there to get you a degree, and given you will have loads of free time, you should spend the rest of your time doing different things which could help you later in life. University should be an academic institution, nothing more. It's not up to them to help you with other things too.
 
nickcleggtuitionfeesple.jpg