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

F-Red

Full Member
Joined
Nov 15, 2008
Messages
10,963
Location
Cheshire
The police using such tactics, especially when the protesters are being peaceful is only asking for trouble.
Sorry but get in the real world. People that are kicking off & they're classed as 'peaceful'?

The ones that got the aggressive tactics were the splinter groups who decided not to protest, but get violent and destroy public/private property. They deserve kettling & everything they get.

The only time Kettling is justified is when protesters are harming civilians.
and damaging public/private property.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
Sorry but get in the real world. People that are kicking off & they're classed as 'peaceful'?

The ones that got the aggressive tactics were the splinter groups who decided not to protest, but get violent and destroy public/private property. They deserve kettling & everything they get.
I was talking about the protests at the G20. And as far as the ones on the march last month go - There was only one anarchist (well, they say they're anarchist, but the want people to pay more tax (idiots)) group which was being violent, I don't think anyone minds Kettling them because they were there with one thing and one thing only in mind - violence. UK Uncut however, who were staging a sit in in fortnum and mason, a sit in which the people who were shopping there as well as the staff said wasn't violent nor agressive, there were even compliments for the music they were playing, (and these are people who had been trapped in the shop, meaning they had every right to complain) were Kettled and arrested by the police, despite offers who were at the sit in telling UK Uncut that they weren't in trouble.

and damaging public/private property.
No, that isn't grounds for Kettling, arrest and charge/fine them for criminal activity - fine, but the police has no right to Kettle people for a bit of graffiti.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
A Bangerang inflicted by a sammsky. You see, Bangerang is such a wonderfully malleable and transgressive word (and I've no idea if transgressive is even a word, let alone an appropriate one, unlike Bangerang, which is always appropriate) that it can be retro-fitted and suffixed to almost any word in any situation, to give the desired affect with significantly more gusto....and guile (I just like the word guile)

For example, my phone just rang. Phonerang!

Transgressive may mean: Transgressive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Transgressive art, a name given art forms that violate perceived boundaries.
Transgressive fiction, a modern style in literature.
Transgressive Records, a United Kingdom-based independent record label.
Transgressive (morphology), a form of verb in some languages.
Transgressive phenotype, a phenotype that is more extreme than the phenotypes displayed by either of the parents.
Transgressive segregation
Cinema of Transgression, film movement using shock value and humour



Reading a post from mockney a day helps you work rest and play.


No such luck with Phonerang though :(
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,511
Location
Manchester
No, that isn't grounds for Kettling, arrest and charge/fine them for criminal activity - fine, but the police has no right to Kettle people for a bit of graffiti.
Sorry but they do, and will continue to do so.

Serious damage to public and/or private property is quite a no no and is quite high up on the list of things cops must protect.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
Sorry but they do, and will continue to do so.

Serious damage to public and/or private property is quite a no no and is quite high up on the list of things cops must protect.
If you saw a kid people doing it while on patrol what would the first thing you do be? Would you call backup so you can surround them for hours on end before arresting them? No, you would arrest them straight away and if they run, give intelligence so they might be caught later. That's what should happen at protests, if the police can't stop graffiti/vandalism then use intelligence to prosecute them later. Not to round them up like animals and cause injuries/death.
 

TheReligion

Abusive
Joined
Nov 22, 2006
Messages
51,511
Location
Manchester
If you saw a kid people doing it while on patrol what would the first thing you do be? Would you call backup so you can surround them for hours on end before arresting them? No, you would arrest them straight away and if they run, give intelligence so they might be caught later. That's what should happen at protests, if the police can't stop graffiti/vandalism then use intelligence to prosecute them later. Not to round them up like animals and cause injuries/death.
We are talking about people causing serious damage in near riot situations. Not a kid spraying graffiti.

You seem a decent enough chap but sometimes it is like talking to a brick wall when having a conversation with you.

Using sensationalism to make your opinion sound more valid is not really the foundation for a decent debate on a topic.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
We are talking about people causing serious damage in near riot situations. Not a kid spraying graffiti.

You seem a decent enough chap but sometimes it is like talking to a brick wall when having a conversation with you.

Using sensationalism to make your opinion sound more valid is not really the foundation for a decent debate on a topic.
Sorry I do tend to be a bit dramatic at times, can't help it. Its just a shame this is what you disagree with me on, I just don't care about property being damaged. For me the line has and always be human casualties. So long as the protesters aren't hurting anyone I say just let them carry on. If they break something, they can buy it. I think that'd be a much better way to deal with protests.

If a windows have to be broken, so be it, at least there won't be any sustained injuries. Unless of course these 'anarchist' try to head but the shards.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
Maybe just maybe, protesters should be listened too? Maybe just maybe, fleabags like Clegg should keep their promises. if that happened, then protests would not happen.

This kind of conversation reminds of what my late father always used to tell me was the death of this country. Nowadays, complaining too loudly, boisterously or even using some kind of verbal abuse is considered worse than the reason for the complaint itself.

How many times have banks, hotels, public services companies,mobile phone companies, restaurants etc completely messed up with their promises and then when you phone them, they dont give a shit and then you have to raise your voice or even scream and perhaps even swear just to be heard .... and all of a sudden its you who have been abusive, are the guilty party, its you who are in the wrong.

Its bonkers and a totally messed up value system. Clegg, Cameron and their cronies can make any number of endless promises and then completel disregard them once in power. Its not on.

Yet when the voices of protesters are just not listened to, drastic action needs to happen for that listening to take place. How many marched in the anti Iraq demonstration? Did anybody care? And then Blair has the gall to claim that 7/7 had no relation whatsoever with his decision to enter into an illegal war.

When will politicians learn that its their actions that cause reactions?

And in the same breathe, they encourage public disorder in other countrie to overthrow regimes they happen not to like because its in their economic
interest not to do so.

People are taking back control over their lives all over the world. The days of unaccountability in public office is over. Brian talks with his bluster about how great this country is with its civility and traditions. Brain, you don't have a clue. Globalisation means its global. People in the UK are just fed up with being lied to.

Time to wizen up Brian, your a generation too late as your views belong to a previous era. Thatcher has gone if you hadn't noticed, we dont do telex's and 'ballot box' politics anymore, Twitter and its ilk are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to social mobility - the politics of the 21st century will be profoundly different from that of the 20th. People who do not understand that need to quickly get out of the firing line, or they will be shot, sometimes literally.
 

Team Brian GB

Baby Cameron loves X-Factor
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
16,249
Supports
Chelsea
People are taking back control over their lives all over the world. The days of unaccountability in public office is over. Brian talks with his bluster about how great this country is with its civility and traditions. Brain, you don't have a clue. Globalisation means its global. People in the UK are just fed up with being lied to.

About what exactly? Is this a reference to the student fees pledge? People have to learn that is what happens when coalition governments are formed, especially so as a large swathe of the population is going to vote for AV that will make coalition governments far more likely and will make politics more bland and vague as MPs would be required to take other parties voters as well as their own.

On top of which it will make it far more difficult to vote out an unpopular government - take the last government, if we had AV a Lab-Lib pact would likely be in office. How is that being accountable?

What is global exactly?

And this Government believes in giving power back, that is why it is decentralising more power in one go from Whitehall to local councils, and onto the population that has ever occurred in this country's history, via the Localism Bill.
 

Team Brian GB

Baby Cameron loves X-Factor
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
16,249
Supports
Chelsea
Yet when the voices of protesters are just not listened to, drastic action needs to happen for that listening to take place. How many marched in the anti Iraq demonstration? Did anybody care? And then Blair has the gall to claim that 7/7 had no relation whatsoever with his decision to enter into an illegal war.
Right or wrong, what you are saying is, Government's should always listen to protesters? What kind of nonsense is that? What is in a person's interests doesn't mean it is in the national interest. There were 100,000 strong demonstration in London in 1942 to launch an invasion of Europe that year to relieve the Soviet Union? Was that in our interests? No, because we were not capable of it. Should we have put pressure on the Johnson Adminstration due to protests that swept London about Vietnam? No, because it was at a high point of the Cold War, a split in NATO would have been terribly dangerous. Should Callaghan have given in during the Winter of Discontent? No. because we needed to contain inflation and keep the economy from being derailed, we had already once had an IMF package in the previous five years.

People at the time don't necessarily take the best view of what is in our interests at the time, Harry Truman was hated in real time during the Korean War as it was so incredibly unpopular in the United States, but now he is seen as one of the most revered of the twentieth century for setting a precedent against the Soviet Union and Mao's China.

WIth regard to the specific claim, that is just an excuse and I agree completely with Blair on this, and I don't agree with him very often. Whether we went to war in Iraq or not had no bearing on the threat to our national security posed by terrorists. There were over a dozen serious threats against the UK between 9/11 and the Iraq War beginning - what was the reason for those? As he put following 9/11, those attacks were not attacks purely on the United States, they were attacks on western values, they were a declaration of war on western values and we were at threat, whatever we did, from that moment on.
 

sammsky1

Pochettino's #1 fan
Joined
Feb 10, 2008
Messages
32,841
Location
London
Brian - your quite young if I remember correctly. Just completed or are doing your degree in politics I think? Is that right?

Please don't take this the wrong way and it's not meant to be patronising, and as SAF teaches us, if you are good enough you are old enough; and it's obvious that you have intellect and potential and if honed in the right way, I think you will be very successful at what ever you choose to do.

What I want to say is that managing a society through politics is not a theoretical and academic exercise. It involves affecting genuine issues for real people. It's affects other human beings lives. You talk of concepts like 'national interest' and 'western values' as though they are iPad apps that can just be downloaded from the app store.

The entire people of a nation decide what their national interest is, not a minute select group of people who by the way were voted in to represent the peoples views who voted them. That's why Labours former glamour girl Oona King was voted out of Londons Tower Hamlets seat ( which had been labour since Adam and ever voted) because she voted for the Iraq war despite the fact that over 90% of her constituents were passionately against it. That decision alone gave the quirky Galloway his route to power.

It has been proven beyond doubt that entering the Iraq war was NOT IN THIS COUNTRY'S national interest. The lives it has cost (army and 7/7 victims), the impact it has had on the economy, the stain it has caused to this countrys reputation, the haunting lingering guilt that it has embedded into the national consciousness ....... this country has had to embrace all that baggage because of that decision ......

And to what end? The threat from terrorism is greater today than it ever has been and our spending on counter terrorism has increased beyond belief. There are more people who despise this country than ever before and for good valid reasons like their imnocent children or siblings being killed by allied forces - something the likes of you will academically write off as 'collateral damage'. And most critically, Iraq is a mess, without any clear route for it to be solved and whilst that bastard Blair has sailed into the sunset, I the tax payer am left paying for his mistake.

Same applies with the education system and Clegg's simply disgraceful lies. I follow politics in many developing countries famed for corruption and bad governance and yet in all my time following that, I have not seen a man sell out his electorate in the way Clegg's did. It's astonishing what corrupt characterless people will do for 5 mins of power. When such things happen, the electorate has every right to be heard whatever way it takes. Its OK for the west to invade Iraq or Libya through violent means because their leaders wont listen to civil instruction and debate ..... but when the UK public continually are ignored on promises made to them, they cant resort to other means. How does that work?

Brian, I have only bothered to engage with you because you seem to be a bright young man who has passion, ideals and principles. Before you reply to this post with what I'm sure would be a predefined answer based on ideology alone please just think about what I am saying. Actually I hope you don't reply, there is nothing to reply to. But as you grow older and so the impact of politics impacts your own life (I lost friends on 7/7, hold Blair accountable and will levy that charge against him when I meet God in the after life) so you will understand that to be a good politician, you need to have sympathy, empathy and loyalty for your electorate and not your own selfish ideological ambitions.

I would not even take the time to say all tihis if i thought you to be an idiot. You're not Its just tragic to see you talk like a parrot about things you have read out of a manual instead of genuinely processed with your logic and humanity. In politics, both are essential to help you get to moral absolutes that is fair.

Lecture over.
 

Ubik

Nothing happens until something moves!
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
19,051
Two tier system, here we come!
 

Gambit

Desperately wants to be a Muppet
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,998
It's obvious we are now moving towards the USA system . In fact I thought it was obvious when they started the child trust funds. Another expense I'm going o have to plan for when my little un gets older.
 

Ubik

Nothing happens until something moves!
Joined
Jul 8, 2010
Messages
19,051
The great loss is all those students who'll be put off applying because of the horrendous debt. It'll be yet another kick in the teeth if rich kids are able to hoover up places because they can pay extra for it.
 

Frosty

Logical and sensible but turns women gay
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
17,340
Location
Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango!
I'm sure universities have scrapped whole departments offering 'obscure', 'nonrelevant' classes and specializations. A great loss.

Examples would be good. Modern languages and adult learning wouldn't be two of them would they? After all, what this country needs is 120 Law Schools and for cutbacks to Languages. Madness.
 

Gambit

Desperately wants to be a Muppet
Joined
Sep 30, 2004
Messages
30,998
They scrapped those, did they not?
Yup, but they're scrapping loads of things that cost the government money. Equal oppurtunity regardless of social standard being another.
 

noodlehair

"It's like..."
Joined
Apr 1, 2004
Messages
16,445
Location
Flagg
Predictably pathetic.

Great that so many people in this country don't bat an eyelid to shit like this.
 

lynchie

Full Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
7,068
Examples would be good. Modern languages and adult learning wouldn't be two of them would they? After all, what this country needs is 120 Law Schools and for cutbacks to Languages. Madness.
What we really need is more students being funneled into the financial sector from day 1 of their degree. That's the best way to ensure a balanced economy.

Have they not noticed that most of the top Unis are limiting places on their courses by choice? Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, Imperial etc don't want huge cohorts on any given course, so every place given to Tarquin because he paid for it is a place taken away from someone who worked for it.

edit: Having said that, this is the government that thought a £9k cap would lead to a market in fees with a broad range between £6k and £9k. I'm not entirely sure they understand Universities.
 

golden_blunder

Site admin. Manchester United fan
Staff
Joined
Jun 1, 2000
Messages
120,602
Location
Dublin, Ireland
Predictably pathetic.

Great that so many people in this country don't bat an eyelid to shit like this.
it comes at a time when most people are worrying about how they are going to pay their mortgage never mind send a kid to University. You can hardly blame people for prioritising.
 

mjs020294

New Member
Newbie
Joined
May 13, 2008
Messages
16,820
It's obvious we are now moving towards the USA system.
What exactly are you classing as the US system? Ivy League schools aside the system is fairly affordable in the US. There are far more loan, grant and scholarship options. Many States have very competitive tuition fees($4-$5k) for State schools. In tuition is only about 25-30% of the cost of attending these days.
 

VoetbalWizard

New Member
Newbie
Joined
Jan 16, 2006
Messages
12,585
Location
at the altar of ryan giggs
What exactly are you classing as the US system? Ivy League schools aside the system is fairly affordable in the US. There are far more loan, grant and scholarship options. Many States have very competitive tuition fees($4-$5k) for State schools. In tuition is only about 25-30% of the cost of attending these days.
For the american middle class (fams earning under 100k), i'd say ivy league is hell of a lot cheaper than public/non-elite privates since tuition is fully paid by the school.

It's those families earning 200k+ that are driven to publics as they are in a tough position of being too weathy for tons of grants but not wealthy enough to swallow a 50k/year school bill.
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,939
The same story was reported this morning by The Guardian, The Independent, BBC News and Sky News.

The government is doing some political backtracking basically after David Willetts suggested - and deliberately left open the possibility when asked - that wealthy families would be allowed to go 'off-quota' and pay for places. He was quickly told by Tory spin doctors that these kind of policies have to go through the back door, not the front.
 

rednev

There is non worthy of worship except God
Joined
Jul 7, 2006
Messages
24,305
I wouldn't be surprised if the story was deliberately put out there to test the water. It seems to be a tactic Cameron's been using often.
 

Team Brian GB

Baby Cameron loves X-Factor
Joined
Jan 11, 2008
Messages
16,249
Supports
Chelsea
The government is doing some political backtracking basically after David Willetts suggested - and deliberately left open the possibility when asked - that wealthy families would be allowed to go 'off-quota' and pay for places. He was quickly told by Tory spin doctors that these kind of policies have to go through the back door, not the front.
No he didn't, he was naive in not being blunt but he most certainly didn't say that. The one thing he did say is that whatever the government does they wouldn't disadvantage social mobility, that to me says it was never on the agenda.
 

MikeUpNorth

Wobbles like a massive pair of tits
Joined
Apr 26, 2007
Messages
19,939
No he didn't, he was naive in not being blunt but he most certainly didn't say that. The one thing he did say is that whatever the government does they wouldn't disadvantage social mobility, that to me says it was never on the agenda.
His original point, before the corrections started coming, was that any increase in student numbers helps social mobility, which is not necessarily true. It's just paying lip-service to social mobility.

"There are various important issues that need to be addressed around off-quota places, but I start from the view that any increase in the total number of higher education places could aid social mobility." David Willetts, pre-spin.

It reminds me of George Osbourne labelling his budget 'progressive'.
 

Untied

Full Member
Joined
Jun 12, 2009
Messages
4,480
No he didn't, he was naive in not being blunt but he most certainly didn't say that. The one thing he did say is that whatever the government does they wouldn't disadvantage social mobility, that to me says it was never on the agenda.
I think they were testing the water. "These are just ideas". "Ideas that are being put to us". Why would you talk about potential policies that are still at the idea stage if not to test the public's reaction to them.

Also the idea that this government is committed to social mobility because it says so it pretty laughable.
 

Frosty

Logical and sensible but turns women gay
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
17,340
Location
Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango!
A new private university in London staffed by some of the world's most famous academics is to offer degrees in the humanities, economics and law from 2012 at a cost of £18,000 a year, double the normal rate.

The Oxbridge-style university college aims to educate a new British elite with compulsory teaching in science literacy, critical thinking, ethics and professional skills on top of degree subjects taught in one-to-one tutorials.

Its first master will be the philosopher AC Grayling, and top teachers from Harvard, Princeton, Oxford and Cambridge will include Richard Dawkins teaching evolutionary biology and science literacy, Niall Ferguson teaching economics and economic history and Steven Pinker teaching philosophy and psychology.

New College of the Humanities, based in Bloomsbury, is being backed by private funding and will aim to make a profit. It will offer some scholarships, with assisted places being granted to one in five of the first 200 students.

Grayling said he was motivated in part by fears that government cuts to university humanities and arts courses could leave "the fabric of society poorer as a result".

"Society needs us to be thoughtful voters, good neighbours, loving parents and responsible citizens," he said. "If we are to discover and inspire the next generation of lawyers, journalists, financiers, politicians, civil servants, writers, artists and teachers, we need to educate to the highest standards and with imagination, breadth and depth."

The college aims to attract candidates with at least three A grades at A-level with the promise of more direct teaching than at traditional universities. The student-teacher ratio will be better than 10 to one and there will be 12 to 13 hours' contact with teachers each week.

Graduates will come away with a degree from the University of London and a separate diploma from the college to reflect the additional course that includes practical professional skills such as financial literacy, teamwork, presentation and strategy.

Other teachers signed up include Sir David Cannadine, a history lecturer at Princeton; Ronald Dworkin QC, a leading constitutional lawyer teaching at University College London and New York University; and Steve Jones, a leading geneticist. Lawrence Krauss, professor of Earth and space exploration and physics at Arizona state university, who has advised Barack Obama on science policy, will teach cosmology and science literacy.

One of the backers is Charles Watson, chairman of the City PR firm Financial Dynamics. He said: "Higher education in the UK must evolve if it is to offer the best quality experience for students and safeguard our future economic and intellectual wealth. New College offers a different model – one that brings additional, private sector funding into higher education in the humanities when it is most needed, and combines scholarships and tuition fees."
New university gathers top academics to teach £18,000-a-year degrees | Education | guardian.co.uk

It's begun!

Give it 10 years and Oxbridge will go private.

Mind you, that degree sounds awesome...
 

Adzzz

Astrophysical Genius - Hard for Grinner
Staff
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
32,781
Location
Kebab Shop
£18,000 a year is slightly less than the total debt of 3 years in other humanities courses.

I suspect unless the course offers complimentary blowjobs from Emma Watson, it's not worth it. It's also setting a dangerous precedent in University fees across the country and will simply lead to the red-brick establishments charging similar ludicrous fees.

It's the end of higher education as we know it.
 

Frosty

Logical and sensible but turns women gay
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
17,340
Location
Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango!
Oxbridge are not bound by Parliament, given that they existed before Parliament and so theoretically can go private any time they wish. They can afford to as well. Red-brick institutions would need Parliament's consent to go private.

Looking at the names of staff, it would be an amazing learning experience.
 

Adzzz

Astrophysical Genius - Hard for Grinner
Staff
Joined
Jan 13, 2008
Messages
32,781
Location
Kebab Shop
Oxbridge are not bound by Parliament, given that they existed before Parliament and so theoretically can go private any time they wish. They can afford to as well. Red-brick institutions would need Parliament's consent to go private.

Looking at the names of staff, it would be an amazing learning experience.
I've no doubt the government will see the scope for further profit from the red-brick uni's and simply up the charge, not on parity with this 18grand place but atleast over £9,000.
 

Frosty

Logical and sensible but turns women gay
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
17,340
Location
Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango!
I've no doubt the government will see the scope for further profit from the red-brick uni's and simply up the charge, not on parity with this 18grand place but atleast over £9,000.
That's the thing though - the current £9,000 fees are leaving the government in a much worse financial position than the £3,000 fees ever were.

What would be much better for the government would be to allow the universities to go private, which would mean the State no longer has to fund teaching or research.
 

Silva

Full Member
Joined
Apr 2, 2010
Messages
30,756
Location
Smoke crack like Isaac Asimov
What would be much better for the government would be to allow the universities to go private, which would mean the State no longer has to fund teaching or research.
What a fantastic idea, this way the rich can go to universities they deserve to go to! There are absolutely no losers in the system you propose. Certainly not people from poor socio-economic backgrounds.
 

Frosty

Logical and sensible but turns women gay
Joined
Jan 11, 2007
Messages
17,340
Location
Yes I can hear you Clem Fandango!
What a fantastic idea, this way the rich can go to universities they deserve to go to! There are absolutely no losers in the system you propose. Certainly not people from poor socio-economic backgrounds.
What would be better for the government. The government. The current system is costing the country billions and is unaffordable.