Why I choose to be part of the student protests...

[Maisey]

As you probably already know, there has been a lot of student activism in recent weeks on the subject of fees and cuts. I would like to briefly outline some of the main points (as I see them) here, which should go some way towards explaining why I'm involved in the Leeds Occupation.

Read the full treatise here

[Dark]

I went with the Glasgow Uni contingent. I already pay fees, and will not be affected by the change, but hey. Support is support, and we had a nice, peaceful, march into town.

My apologies to any bus routes we held up.

[robertzombie]

Thursday...

[Maisey]

The Leeds occupation are sending a bus down, which makes 3 or 4 bus loads coming from Leeds alone.

Due to having lectures during the day and promoting Warsaw during the night I won't be attending, but will be joining in some riotous activity in Leeds city centre tomorrow afternoon.

[markfiend]

Literally riotous?

Maybe I'm being paranoid here but using language like that might get the Plod interested. Be careful out there guys.

And another on general principles.

[sultan2075]

What exactly is the issue here? Unsurprisingly, it hasn't gotten a lot of coverage over here. As a college prof., I'm curious what exactly it takes to get college students to riot. Or take an interest in anything beyond the mirror, for that matter.

[Silver_Owl]

What exactly is the issue here? Unsurprisingly, it hasn't gotten a lot of coverage over here. As a college prof., I'm curious what exactly it takes to get college students to riot. Or take an interest in anything beyond the mirror, for that matter.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-11874633

[markfiend]

University fees are to be increased form a current average of around £3000 per year to £9000.

More particularly, a plank of the Liberal Democrat party's platform at the last General Election was a pledge to scrap university tuition fees. Now the LibDems are part of a coalition government who wish to treble the fees.

It is not proving to be a popular measure.

[DeWinter]

What exactly is the issue here? Unsurprisingly, it hasn't gotten a lot of coverage over here. As a college prof., I'm curious what exactly it takes to get college students to riot. Or take an interest in anything beyond the mirror, for that matter.

Well..students believe that although further education gives them vastly superior job prospets, they shouldn't be asked to contribute to the cost if those superior job prospects actually materialise.
On the grounds that society needs them, or further education should be free as a matter of principle, or those currently framing the laws recieved free education and their behaviour is therefore immensely gittish.
Public sympathy is generally muted because too many students are unbearably brimful of self-entitlement and twattish, the degrees themselves are often in subjects which are of no use in the world of work whatsoever (Sociology or Psychology was the textbook example in my day, now I'm told it's Media/Gender Studies), and even those with degrees in useful subjects are remarkably poor in comparison to the students of other countries, and according to many employers, unfit for work.
The students screaming about Clegg and the Libs remained rather quiet when the Labour government introduced the fees in the first place, so quite why they're now wetting their collective knickers is somewhat of a mystery. Oh, and he told a fib. Students didn't riot when Blair told a massive one and people ended up dying, but I expect they were in the subsidised bar and missed that one..

[markfiend]

Because, of course, the fact that (on average) the "vastly superior job prospets" means that they get higher-paying jobs, which in turn means they pay more taxes, doesn't count as contributing to the cost of their education?

Students starting university this year will leave in an average of about £25000 of debt; (source) add another £18000 onto that for the fees increase and you're asking graduates to start their working life £43000 in debt. Our fucking mortgage isn't that much!

It's a complete disincentive for anyone other than the privileged few to study.

And your analysis of students' character ("unbearably brimful of self-entitlement and twattish") seems to come straight from the pages of Viz and Student Grant.

[markfiend]

And another thing...

The students screaming about Clegg and the Libs remained rather quiet when the Labour government introduced the fees in the first place, so quite why they're now wetting their collective knickers is somewhat of a mystery.

New undergraduates (aged 18 now) were six years old when fees were introduced in 1998 and twelve when they were increased to their current levels in 2004. Mystery solved.

[DeWinter]

Because, of course, the fact that (on average) the "vastly superior job prospets" means that they get higher-paying jobs, which in turn means they pay more taxes, doesn't count as contributing to the cost of their education?

Students starting university this year will leave in an average of about £25000 of debt; (source) add another £18000 onto that for the fees increase and you're asking graduates to start their working life £43000 in debt. Our fucking mortgage isn't that much!

It's a complete disincentive for anyone other than the privileged few to study.

And your analysis of students' character ("unbearably brimful of self-entitlement and twattish") seems to come straight from the pages of Viz and Student Grant.

Thats a record response, I barely clicked the post button!!

But unless they earn above, what £15k, they won't pay a penny. Now, you live in the North of England too, what would you say the average wage is around here? It's not that, never mind the mythical "average" of 24k, unless you work in local government.
The doctors, lawyers, engineers will be earning in some cases way above the "average" wage even in their first year of work. To say that they shan't be feeling the pinch is to put it mildly. We keep hearing the rich should pay more, well, there you go!
A student loan will not stand against you for a mortgage or any other loan as far as I know, so it's not harmful to your credit either.
If the argument is that further education should be free for all. I would actually agree with you. But Labour sodded up both the economy and the higher education system. I don't say the Tory party may not have done exactly the same, but the facts remain. Billions extra into the system and we're on an academic level with Estonia. Our system has failed, and we need the money. Those that benefit from it should pay for it if they can. Thats reasonable to me. I see no reason why the burden should be spread on those who couldn't/didn't go.
If students have changed since my time as one I'd be more than delighted! But I see no great signs of this. The current lot seem even more anaemic, at least the ones I remember were politically aware. You're telling me you can't think off-hand ten things more worthwhile to riot about than this over the past twenty years? The students of today only care when something effects them it seems.

[DeWinter]

And another thing...

The students screaming about Clegg and the Libs remained rather quiet when the Labour government introduced the fees in the first place, so quite why they're now wetting their collective knickers is somewhat of a mystery.

New undergraduates (aged 18 now) were six years old when fees were introduced in 1998 and twelve when they were increased to their current levels in 2004. Mystery solved.

Haha, that is quite true! Didn't think that one through much. Point stands though. Do you remember rioting on either occasion, or just sulky letters in the student rag? I suspect it's largely because it's the Tories in.

[Quiff Boy]

awww, you crazy kids

[Quiff Boy]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sitAQkQF ... r_embedded

[markfiend]

I suspect it's largely because it's the Tories in.

I think it's the sense of betrayal by the LibDems. They got a big student vote off the back of their promise to scrap the fees. That promise has not just been broken but shattered. At least that's how I read it.

[Mr. Wah]

Students starting university this year will leave in an average of about £25000 of debt; (source) add another £18000 onto that for the fees increase and you're asking graduates to start their working life £43000 in debt. Our fucking mortgage isn't that much!

I think this is the thing that disturbs me most. How have we got to the point where we are basically telling young people that it's okay to take on such vast debt, and all by the age of 21? That would have been unthinkable not so long ago. I really worry about this country.

[weebleswobble]

...to get on the telly?

[DeWinter]

I think it's the sense of betrayal by the LibDems. They got a big student vote off the back of their promise to scrap the fees. That promise has not just been broken but shattered. At least that's how I read it.

One of Clegg's first actions as leader of the Libs was to go back on his party's manifesto pledge on the EU Constitution/Lisbon Treaty. Ordered his M.P's to abstain from the vote and fired the front benchers who actually voted with their conscience. So the guy does have form!
Then again, apart from scrapping ID cards and the Heathrow runway(latest bright idea is digging up half the countryide to take fifteen minutes off a trip to Birmingham..) I can't think of a single promise the Coalition has actually kept!

[markfiend]

I can't think of a single promise the Coalition has actually kept!

Politicians, eh?

[Maisey]

I suspect it's largely because it's the Tories in.

I think it's the sense of betrayal by the LibDems. They got a big student vote off the back of their promise to scrap the fees. That promise has not just been broken but shattered. At least that's how I read it.

Spot on. We always knew the Tories would f**k us, that's why we didn't vote for them. But I think its fair to say that almost every single student that actually voted went with Liberal Democrat, so there is a definite bad feeling.

"Nick Clegg shame on you, shame on you for turning blue"

"Nick Clegg we know you, you're a f**king Tory too"

"Nick Clegg massive twat, stabbed us in the f**king back"

[DeWinter]

I agree that Clegg really doesn't grasp the damage he's done to his party.
The Tory party had the most M.P's and the most votes, it's right that they formed the government, but I don't see why the Libs felt the need to enter into a coalition with either side. What stopped Clegg from telling Cameron to form a minority government and he'd support it's legislation as and when his party felt it right?

Incidentally David Davis is voting against tuition fees. He's the one the Tory party are itching to replace Cameron with should he balls this coalition thing up in fashion spectacular.

[markfiend]

What stopped Clegg from telling Cameron to form a minority government and he'd support its legislation as and when his party felt it right?

Because his planet-sized ego couldn't resist the "Deputy Prime Minister" title waved at him?

I hope that selling out the electoral prospects of the Lib Dems for the next generation was worth it.

Dick.

[EvilBastard]

I agree that higher education (at least, one's first degree) should be a right, not a privilege, but we have to face some uncomfortable facts.

Ultimately, someone somewhere has to pay for it. University lecturers don't work for free. Either the taxpayer needs to foot the bill, the students/their parents do, or money has to come from somewhere else in the budget. We could slash the defence budget, for example. Bin Trident, reduce the size of the armed forces by 90%, renegotiate our position within NATO and move to a defence-only model (as adopted by countries like Sweden). But any measure we take we incur costs, and someone (the taxpayer) will need to foot the bill.

Back in the day when a university education was not a default progression from secondary school, the amount of taxpayer money going into the pot was sufficient to cover fees. These days, when universities are offering degrees in frankly laughable subjects (war studies, pop music of the 1980s, underwater basket-weaving) in an effort to get more bums on seats and therefore increase their funding from the govt., everyone can find a course for which they're qualified. Time was when you didn't get a look-in unless you had 3 Cs at A level, and if you didn't have 3 As you didn't get onto the popular courses - vetinary science at Glasgow, law at Durham, archaeology at Lampeter. Now you can get onto a 3-year sandwich course for domestic science at Teeside Poly if you have 2 Us and an NF.

If we want to continue to encourage those whose university education will ultimately provide little benefit to the common purse to pursue higher education, then the money has to come from somewhere.

[sultan2075]

University fees are to be increased form a current average of around £3000 per year to £9000.

More particularly, a plank of the Liberal Democrat party's platform at the last General Election was a pledge to scrap university tuition fees. Now the LibDems are part of a coalition government who wish to treble the fees.

It is not proving to be a popular measure.

Is it a necessary measure? I'm reminded again: eventually, you run out of other people's money to spend.

I agree that higher education (at least, one's first degree) should be a right, not a privilege, but we have to face some uncomfortable facts.

I don't think anyone has a positive right to higher education. I've certainly seen enough students traipse through my classrooms who--to be perfectly honest--aren't fit to shear sheep for a living. Yet we (in the US, at least) have convinced ourselves that everyone needs a college degree. I'm partly getting the impression that such is the case over there, as well. As Rousseau wrote (paraphrased from memory), he who would be a bad poet or a subaltern geometer might well have made an excellent clothmaker. A great many that are admitted to colleges and universities simply don't belong there.

Ultimately, someone somewhere has to pay for it. University lecturers don't work for free.

True. I get paid in vegetable scraps, for instance. Might as well be working for free, actually. But there are intangible benefits: at the end of the day, I'm extraordinarily lucky to be paid (very little) to talk about the great books of western civilization with interested and intelligent young people. Granted, there aren't as many interested and intelligent young people as I'd like, but still: there's nothing I like better than seeing that someone has actually understood something in Plato or Hobbes or Nietzsche.

Part of the financial trouble in the American system stems from a manifold increase in bureaucracy over the last 20-40 years. I'd wonder if that's the case in this situation as well. Perhaps student fees could be decreased if one took out a flensing knife and went after the administrative side of things. The problem there, however, is that administrators and bureaucrats are unwilling to trim their own fat. They either demand more taxpayer money or they increase the (already higher than most expect) workload of the faculty. There are simply Too Many Administrators, and most of them don't actually do any positive good for the schools they are at, yet they receive inordinate salaries. If anyone were serious about cutting costs in higher-ed, that seems to be the place to start.

...

Back in the day when a university education was not a default progression from secondary school, the amount of taxpayer money going into the pot was sufficient to cover fees. These days, when universities are offering degrees in frankly laughable subjects (war studies, pop music of the 1980s, underwater basket-weaving) in an effort to get more bums on seats and therefore increase their funding from the govt., everyone can find a course for which they're qualified. Time was when you didn't get a look-in unless you had 3 Cs at A level, and if you didn't have 3 As you didn't get onto the popular courses - vetinary science at Glasgow, law at Durham, archaeology at Lampeter. Now you can get onto a 3-year sandwich course for domestic science at Teeside Poly if you have 2 Us and an NF.

I've no idea how your grading system works, but I think I've gotten the gist of it from your comments. And again, I see what strike me as the same problems as we have in the US. When education moves from a "formation of souls" model, as it had for most of Western history, to a "customer service" model, the product declines. In most commercial transactions, the customer can know what he wants and pursue it. In education, however, the so-called customer is, by definition, ignorant. Serving the student's wants is not identical to serving the student's needs, and the student doesn't know what he needs. For example, at the beginning of the semester that is winding down now, a number of my students complained to me that 1) there's too much reading, 2) I don't use Power Point, 3) I don't give them copies of my own notes, 4) I expect them to remember too much, 5) I expect them to write too much, and 6) I don't provide electronic resources of any kind. By the end of the semester, after they'd actually learned something, many of those students thanked me for organizing the class the way I had, because unlike the vast majority of their other teachers, in both college and high-school, I didn't coddle them and do the work for them. They were actually grateful that I made them think, even though they were against it at the beginning of the semester. If I'd organized the class along the lines that they would have liked at the start, we'd have watched movies all the time. If I'd organized the class along customer-service lines, they'd have learned nothing. I'm lucky in this regard: I have colleagues at other colleges who have told me that their administration pressures them to "dumb down" their courses in order to keep "bums on seats." Luckily for me, the administrators I deal with are too stupid to exert that sort of pressure on me.

If we want to continue to encourage those whose university education will ultimately provide little benefit to the common purse to pursue higher education, then the money has to come from somewhere.

It should come from them. Society does need artists, it does need humanists, it does need philosophers and anthropologists and political scientists. These people do play a very important role in society. The scholar plays a very important role in society. But at the same time, the scholar has an obligation to study subjects that are a bit more serious than pop music of the 80's. I love TSOM, for example, but the idea that someone might get a Ph.D. for writing a dissertation on them somewhat sickens me.