Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to be very heartened by the student riots!

426 replies

Heathcliffscathy · 10/11/2010 22:07

apathy be damned...I predict more riots...looks like the youth have found their teeth.

OP posts:
blinks · 11/11/2010 01:50

nice

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 11/11/2010 01:50

Goodness Appletrees your bootstraps must be feeling the strain now. I didn't say no-one went to university. I'm saying that top percentage wasn't unaffected by such matters as who could pay for their child's education, and who could afford for their children to keep going to school and then university. You know it as well as I do. It was a biased system that privileged the well-off. Or do you think it's just down to genes/chance that members of some families have been attending Oxford/Cambridge for generations?

As for academic attainment being the sole way to access university. This would do a lot to disadvantage those with e.g. dyslexia who are not given the support they need at school, but wish to go on to study.

Mooos · 11/11/2010 02:52

They were protesting at the wrong place and wrong time - should have been done a couple of years ago AT THE HOMES OF THE BANKERS.

Appletrees · 11/11/2010 07:11

I think you exaggerate the bias by the seventies. I need a computer not a phone for this. It feels like there is some deliberate obtusity here. Dyslexia: of course dyslexic people can achieve academically. You are not suggesting they can't? I don't understand.
You posited a number of requirements for university attendance. You were very clear. But in 1980, no, they didn't obtain. What did matter was being bright and working hard and winning selection. For some people that didn't matter. But we aren't talking about brideshead revisited here. On average, to go to university you had to be bright and work hard.

Appletrees · 11/11/2010 07:30

Ok I think I understand your dyslexia point. That's not an argument against this. That's an argument for improving primary and secondary education for dyslexix people.

sarah293 · 11/11/2010 07:50

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

Ormirian · 11/11/2010 07:59

Hmmm...I'd be more impressed if they had this sort of passion over something other than their own finances TBH.

Passion, good.
Passionate protest, good.
Rioting, to a certain extent OK as it focuses minds.
But over their future bank balances.... no.

daftpunk · 11/11/2010 08:20

In the good old days only the intelligent went to university ....when did it change? - When did it become the norm for any random thicko to get a degree? Most of these 'students'' are layabouts doing degrees in something totally unworthwhile. Why should I pay for them?

sarah293 · 11/11/2010 08:31

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

GrendelsMum · 11/11/2010 08:35

I'm not sure that higher education is a right, not a privilege. I certainly feel immensely privileged still to have had the chance of doing my degree.

It seems to me that we currently massively subsidise the cost of full-time undergraduate degrees, in comparison to the cost of part-time adult degree-level study of the sort that people can pick up and incorporate into their adult lives, around work and study.

I value higher education hugely, but I don't think that in many cases people need to do it as three years full-time between 18 and 21. I'd like to see much more encouragement of life-long learning, and part of that would be making that cheaper, and traditional full-time undergraduate degrees more expensive.

emptyshell · 11/11/2010 08:36

I was the last year that got student grants. I still only just paid off the remainder of my student debt last year. My husband will probably never fully repay his, my younger brother similar. I wouldn't have got to go to university with the financial situation how they're now proposing if my family's financial situation was what it was back when I went through.

When I WAS at university, the apathy and ignorance of how the rest of the world lived of the students on my course (and I did politics) was shocking. I was at uni at the time Blair came to power - and at uni as the tutition fees initially came in, and I remember one of my lecturers being incredibly shocked that his students didn't seem to care that the principle of free higher education for all had been breached. We tried desperately to get people out to protest against tuition fees back then - the I'm all right Jacks couldn't be bothered, indeed with the way they treated me as the token Northern working-class one on the course I actually think they were happy at the thought of not having their hallowed halls darkened by the commoners to be honest. Yes, I went to one of the fairly highbrow unis (Oxbridge reject territory), but I'd earnt my place, I held my own academically - but they still resented me being there and treated me as some kind of intellectual inferior (and boy oh boy did I fight that corner all the time I was there - if I learnt anything, I learnt about how the British class system is still alive and kicking).

I'm sorry it's taken things getting this bad to get students out and awake about what's going on within politics to be honest. I'm sad that the little we DID do when I was at uni wasn't enough to stop the fees (it was never going to be) and that when the genie was let out of the bottle, there was going to be no way of getting it back in there. I'm sorry that other kids in my position are going to have to go to their home-town universities and not have the chances I had.

I'd also bet there wasn't a massive contingent from my old uni in London yesterday to be honest - because mummy and daddy will see most of them all right.

Yes I think that the expansion of degrees had got to ridiculous levels, yes I think that needed reining in somewhat and the mickey mouse subjects needed knocking into touch, but not to this level. I think there needed to be some form of scrutiny going on into whether a degree was academically rigorous to justify public funding to be honest - something akin to NICE for degrees... and if you wanted to go for your BA in Friendship Bracelet Making - that you'd have to pay for, but I do believe passionately that a bright kid from a less than comfortable background shouldn't be denied the chance to study a decent academic degree because of parental bank balance.

BTW - the anti-tuition fees campaigns I was caught up in were in the name of the Lib Dems. Imagine how fluffy and happy I feel toward Clegg and Cable and co now!

sarah293 · 11/11/2010 08:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

fedupofnamechanging · 11/11/2010 08:44

I think there will be more respect for the police when they stop attacking demonstrators for no reason. The police have been responsible for mindless violence as much as any demonstator.

scotsgirl23 · 11/11/2010 08:48

I do think the whole Labour target of 50% of people going to university was excessive and unnecessary - it has meant that many employers stipulate a degree for jobs that just don't require it in reality. My current job was originally advertised as requiring a grad, and it was only because the agency liked me and took a chance on persuading the company to let me do the numerical tests that I got the job.

However, I'm under no illusion that everyone without a degree can talk themselves in to a job ata higher level and I think asking for degrees for unskilled and semi skilled jobs needs to stop. Someone with A level maths and common sense could do my job. It doesn't need a maths grad.

On the flip side though, I'm also a full time student, and I don't necessarily think tuition fees are a bad thing. I do however think that unis should be forced to up their standards; I'm in fourth year at the moment, and I get a ridiculous 4 hours contact teaching time. (and, no, this isn't a degree in applied massage or somesuch, it's a proper degree in a vocational subject at a top scottish uni) I would certainly not be happy paying £9k a year for that. My objection isn't to paying for my degree, or even paying £9k a year for it, but to paying 9k a year for a grand total of 80 hours teaching time! I'd hapily pay for my education, but if you are going to charge people that much then the standards need to improve.

HRHCavey · 11/11/2010 08:51

I'm not being argumentative (possibly just thick - no degree you see Grin) but can someone explain to me why the new system will be so much worse than the old one?

From what I can see the new system requires no upfront payments and the wage threshold for repayments has gone up so those in low-earning jobs will not have to pay anything back.

How is that a bad thing?

Yes fee-free higher education for all would be great, but there is not enough money in the pot!

In my personal experience, very few people use their degrees in everyday life. Of the small circle of friends and family I have that went to Uni (5) only 1 now works in a job related to that degree. Not an encouraging statistic!

I'd be in favour of more people studying via their employer, therefore getting a relevant qualification and also on the job training.

AuntieMaggie · 11/11/2010 09:01

So it's ok that some people whose only crime was to turn up to work yesterday got hurt in the riots and a whole office block had to be evacuated?

Most of the offices in Millbank Towers have nothing to do with the Tories!

I am disgusted with the behaviour of these individuals and although I accept that it was a minority, a minority of 50,000 students is a lot of people!

I think that each of those involved in the violence should be charged with the cost of the emergency services, the wages of the staff that won't be able to go to work today and the cost of clearing up their mess as well as what other punishment they get - why should our taxes pay for it?!

sarah293 · 11/11/2010 09:04

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

ElephantsAndMiasmas · 11/11/2010 09:04

My undertstanding HRH is that students are currently leaving uni with around 20-30k of debt: tuition fees of 9k+, rent for three years of 12k+, plus living expenses, books, travel passes etc etc, being the bare minimum. The tuition fees are going to triple. They might be saying now this will be for "exceptional circumstances" but this will turn out to mean "giving a real degree instead of one made of icing" and all the decent unis will charge this. So tuition fees of 27k+ for a three year couse, plus rent and living expenses of at least 15k, putting a normal student doing a three year course in debt of at least 42k before they're 21.

No-one will be able to get mortgages. It will take people the rest of their lives to pay off the debt. People will only be able to go to university if they are damn sure they will get a high-paying job straight out of it. And we all know how many high-paying jobs there are out there, right? Of course, if you have personal or family wealth, this huge bill will not be as scary because a) you may well look to inherit a house b) you have financial security (the opposite is inconceivable to those in the current cabinet) and c)your education may well have cost that prior to university anyway.

Marjoriew · 11/11/2010 09:08

God help us all if those thugs are the future of the country!

scotsgirl23 · 11/11/2010 09:11

I'm sorry elephant but I have to disagree with you - I come from a very poor background, and although tuition fees weren't an issue, cost of going to uni was. But, tuition fees that I had to pay back once, and only once, I was earning a decent wage would not have stopped me.

TandB · 11/11/2010 09:12

I very much agree with Emptyshell in relation to some sort of system that would assess the relative academic value of a course - perhaps there could even be a sliding scale of funding - degrees that lead to qualifications that we desperately need as a society - medical degrees, nursing and teaching qualifications etc are fully funded, other degrees partially funded, and degrees that have no practical application not funded at all.

It is a great shame that funding is being cut, but the bottom line is that we can't afford to continue to fund everything that we have funded in the past. As a country, we have to tighten our belts and higher education is, in my view, a legitimate target for some sort of cutback. But any cuts need to be supported by an alternative qualification model for those who don't go on to higher education. I think that it is right to say that degrees have been hugely devalued by the idea that everyone should go on to university. If we diverted people away from degrees that ultimately are not going to help them get a job, and into practical courses and apprenticeships, we save money and improve the skills base in the country.

Not everyone is academic, but we have a situation where people expect to go on to university regardless of academic level, and probably feel that others expect them to do so. Someone who struggles academically but is very good with their hands would almost certainly be happier and more successful apprenticed to a master carpenter, for example, than pushing themselves through a course on history of carpentry.

I think that, as a country, we are a bit like the children of a well-off family who suddenly find that they can't afford the things they have always enjoyed, because dad (or mum) loses his job. Just because we have had something in the past, does not mean that we can afford to have it now.

As regards to the protests, a protest that turns violent is always going to do more harm than good. However it happened, I think this riot or whatever you want to call it, was a waste of time. I am shocked at those who think that the violence is in any way justified. I have represented many "professional" protesters over the last few years. Many of them attend protests of this sort with a pre-arranged plan of how to try to push the police into misconduct and catch them on video. They will use violence, verbal abuse, whatever it takes. They are a spectacular pain in the backside and waste public money and court time. It is a great shame that some students clearly got themselves sucked in.

ilovesprouts · 11/11/2010 09:13

they should be made to pay for the damage

TheCoalitionNeedsYou · 11/11/2010 09:14

Why is it this issue that got this kind of response, as opposed to all the others that will effect more people more seriously?

scotsgirl23 · 11/11/2010 09:16

Riven - I totally agree with you there, I think the quality and quantity of undergraduate teaching is shocking - and my course doesn't exactly have or require significant facilities. However, my uni has an overall student:staff ratio of almost 3:1, and I personally don't see how that is necessary either. I appreciate you need many people above and beyond lecturers to make a uni run, but that figure is insane.

LaWeaselMys · 11/11/2010 09:17

I don't think it's unfair of them to be worried about their future balance... Currently newspapers are writing endless articles about how screwed my generation is (under 25s) with our no pensions, no jobs, no hope of buying a house unaided until we're nearly 40... And I've only got 10k of student debt.

To an already stamped on generation it's incredibly unfair to be saddled with even more debt that will likely effectively remove the option of ever buying a house for all but the highest earners. Since this country relies on the housing Market to provide private income in retirement by downsizing.

It is a major deal, and everyone has a right to be angry about it. Criminal damage not so much obviously.

Up thread someone asked about the Iraq war, I know plenty of people who walked out of class on protest days and sat in the street until they were arrested.