Read my posts again I work in the legal world only one member of staff has a degree are any of the staff lawyers NO
You didn't mention in any of your posts that none of the staff in your legal company were lawyers, I assumed with it being a legal company it would have lawyers working there, hence I asked the question if you needed to have a degree to qualify as a lawyer - for all I know there may be another route to qualification but since I don't work in a legal company I don't know..
I'd hope that the universities select their students on the basis of ability rather than the size of their cheque-book.
I think the whole "Only rich people will bother with uni" thing is something of a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of increased fees when, in fact, as long as people are taking useful courses then it shouldn't affect their decision.
I guess it's possible that all the media studies and psychology courses will be filled with rich kids but, meh.
With your upfront payment scheme, the university selection won't come into it.
For example, you'll have two 18 year olds applying for a particular place. Both meet the entry requirements.
However, one from a poor background, one from a rich background. The one from the poor background has better grades than the rich person, but can't afford 30k upfront so cannot take that place. In one fell swoop you destroy the asperation of social mobility to anyone in poorer areas and the rich/poor divide continues to increase.
i agree. I went to uni, dropped out in the 3rd year and went travelling for a year.
got back, went into a temp job whilst i looked for jobs i wanted but never left and have now worked my way up to the 3rd tier (out of 5) in one of the worlds biggest companies. All in 5 years. And its not even related to why i went to uni
I can't imagine getting to the third year and not finishing, you had so much invested by then, it would have broken my heart not to qualify. BUT I had worked for four years (one on an Access course) so that I could become a teacher.
I think I could end up paying back more than most if I don't get in this year.
I have one student loan from the degree paying back:-
8% when I earn £15k on my first student loan.
If I get a second one to do a PGCE I'll be paying back
(?) percent on a £9k loan when I earn £21k.
So when I get to £21k I'll be paying back both loans at the same time.
This could put off people with loans taking PGCE's.
I wonder how that will work?
My student loans didn't even include the tuition fees which were paid as I was a single parent.
With your upfront payment scheme, the university selection won't come into it.
For example, you'll have two 18 year olds applying for a particular place. Both meet the entry requirements.
However, one from a poor background, one from a rich background. The one from the poor background has better grades than the rich person, but can't afford 30k upfront so cannot take that place. In one fell swoop you destroy the asperation of social mobility to anyone in poorer areas and the rich/poor divide continues to increase.
It's just a plain bad idea.
Wait, are you on about my up-front payments nonsense?
I thought I already made it clear that was just a hypothetical situation designed to make people consider whether they'd actually have the determination to enter further education if they had to actually pay, up-front, for it.
I wasn't actually advocating it as a legitimate idea.
I thought you were talking about the idea that the new system of student fees would only allow rich people to enter uni'.
Breaking windows, paintballing targets... are not crimes in my opinion.
Yours is the kind of attitude that will alienate public opinion and make it less likely that the increase in university fees will ever be reversed.
You reveal your anarchic and, frankly, juvenile attitudes, in your statement that "Breaking windows, paintballing targets.... are not crimes"
It is one of the most ludicrous statements made in this thread - and that's saying something.
What the students did yesterday was excessive, disgraceful and an affront to democracy. What the Police did was a necessary response to the criminal behaviour of some of the crowd.
I do not support this Government or the bill that was passed yesterday - but there are right and wrong ways of protesting and yesterday was wrong.
One does need money to start a business. In one form or the other, you need money/financial backing.
If people had that, they would probably go for the business opportunity rather than a degree, or a low paying job.
not really, no. admittedly you might need a low paying job *as well* when starting up, but you only need to look at the stories of Alan Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne (as well as many other entrepreneurs) to realise that starting a business is not only for the already-wealthy.
Edit:e.g. I was at an event recently where 17 and 18 year olds were (successfully) developing their business ideas while still at college.
You're talking as though the police set out with an intention to kettle people just for kicks.
I think you will find, if you do go to protests, that the police attitude is quite undemocratic. As for you watching the coverage I watched some of it too. Did you miss the student who spoke about how some students became violent, and other students turned against them? However, when the police began beating students, the students all then united against the police?
Maybe it would help to see things as a whole. Every protest, and always there is violence from the police at students. Maybe you missed the G20 protests where a man was killed by the actions of the Police? Or where a woman was beaten by a big macho fool of a policeman? Or where some were beaten severely over the head by the police?
The government, the mainstream media and a minority of people seem to view yesterday in isolation from everything else. When I encounter a wasp, I know already from past knowledge that they are dangerous and can harm me, and I act accordingly. The police are aggressive and heavyhanded. Not a democratic police force by any means.
Also, you say you watched the footage unfold in real time. There were about 30 000 students apparently. From that number AN EXTREMELY SMALL minority were violent. Let's have a bit of balance. The police are fully armed, they have the protection of the state. They need more guidance on riding a horse .....
You didn't mention in any of your posts that none of the staff in your legal company were lawyers, I assumed with it being a legal company it would have lawyers working there, hence I asked the question if you needed to have a degree to qualify as a lawyer - for all I know there may be another route to qualification but since I don't work in a legal company I don't know..
I never said I worked for a legal "company" I said I work in the legal world
Yours is the kind of attitude that will alienate public opinion and make it less likely that the increase in university fees will ever be reversed.
You reveal your anarchic and, frankly, juvenile attitudes, in your statement that "Breaking windows, paintballing targets.... are not crimes"
One of the most ludicrous statements made in this thread - and that's saying something.
This is all your opinion. Much like how I have my own opinion. Anarchy, having "juvenile attitudes" are not illegal. And as for alienating public opinion, that's quite an amazing assumption. But still, it is only your personal assumption. Not any kind of fact. The Daily Mail spreads spouting rage and wrath at the actions of a very very small minority is really not fact nor proof of what the entire UK population think or feel.
You can use the ignore function to save yourself from reading further ludicrous statements.:)
Wait, are you on about my up-front payments nonsense?
I thought I already made it clear that was just a hypothetical situation designed to make people consider whether they'd actually have the determination to enter further education if they had to actually apy, up-front, for it.
I wasn't actually advocating it as a legitimate idea.
I thought you were talking about the idea that the new system of student fees would only allow rich people to enter uni'.
Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
Fair enough.
I still think the increased fees will deter students from poorer backgrounds, and it will also deter people from entering vital - but relatively low paid - professions such as teaching and nursing where they have no hope of paying off their loans, meaning they are just subject to a 30 year graduate tax.
This is why I'm uncomfortable with the increased cap - I believe education should be available solely on the basis of merit, rather than money, and I also think the fact that medics, engineers etc benefit society as a whole has rather been forgotten.
Like I said, I'd rather there was a large decrease in the number of places available, but those places should be free.
Lots of courses which are currently provided as 4 year degree courses could quite easily be condensed into shorter courses provided by local colleges etc at a much reduced cost.
Nick Clegg and "that lot" for pleading us to vote for them, and makinga promise, and then breaking it.
The minority of students for being violent and upfront and idiots to the police and doing damage
The police for not learning their lesson and doing the same thing, there should have been more of them to cover ground, but their tactic was all wrong, I saw a police push a protester in the face when he was trying to leave.... and the hitting of innocent girls was too far obviously
Posting from Ireland, but having caught a lot of the Skynews coverage yesterday, I actually cannot believe the anti-police spin some posters are putting on the events..
What was undemocratic about your police agreeing a protest route in advance so that the students could legitimately air their grievances? The protestors failed to respect this reasonable, fair, mutual arrangement- not the police! Why did they deviate from the route decided upon?
You're talking as though the police set out with an intention to kettle people just for kicks.. Anyone watching the events unfold in realtime, saw that some protestors commenced violence long before the police were forced to take measures to contain the situation! What were they supposed to do- allow the violent element to run loose and potentially encroach further upon the Parliament? Allow those who committed criminal acts to just wander off? Some violent elements avoided close containment... and what happened? They went on a rampage up Oxford Street. It's hilarious for you to suggest that the police would use this tactic to 'goad' people-how would it be in the interests of the police to make their own jobs as difficult as possible, to put themselves and their colleagues in immediate danger?!
As for the 'students' fighting against kettling- the clear impression given by the footage recorded yesterday, was that most of the hooded/balaclava-wearing thugs were just out for a brawl.. Hence, the violence kicked off before kettling was resorted to.. A lot of them probably had no interest in the student cause whatsoever. Time after time, the cameras caught scenes of the police standing by, holding their lines, while protestors hurled metal fences into their ranks, threw missiles, bricks- some really nasty scenes of some yobs trying to pole-axe the police with metal bars.. Far from the police goading these muppets, a lot of the 'protestors' were verbally abusing the police, trying to provoke them- lots of really cringey 'gangsta' poses being pulled.. Pathetic stuff. Any reasonable person watching the scenes would recognise straight away who the aggressors were.
You're right that the majority of the students were seemingly non-violent.. But wtf were so many of them doing, providing the scum-element with an audience?? Standing around gawping, taping the violence, instead of sticking with the agreed route!? No bloody wonder they got stuck in a kettle- what did they expect? They had plenty of time and opportunity to remove themselves from the flashpoints.. If you loiter around a crime-scene, you're gonna have to go through the time-consuming, processing procedures etc. Common sense like. If you don't wanna get lumped in with the guilty and have to hang around for hours until you're cleared- steer well clear?!
The non-violent element owed their cause a bit more respect- they should have disassociated themselves with the bad element (To be fair, I'm sure a lot of them did, or at least tried to..) instead of idly surveying the wanton destruction of their city.. I'm a student myself, I protested the rise in college fees here. I've always avoided those out to cause damage- they undermine your cause completely and dilute your message. I have zero sympathy for the swathes of people who voyeuristically clustered around the flashpoints yesterday..
Overall, I think your police did a great job in a v.difficult situation. I personally don't know how they can stoically take the kind of sh*t they have to put up with.. Especially when the anger against them is so misdirected. Fair play to them.
Brilliantly observed, the individuals who blame the police, will always find a way of blaming them regardless of what does or does'nt happen.
not really, no. admittedly you might need a low paying job *as well* when starting up, but you only need to look at the stories of Alan Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne (as well as many other entrepreneurs) to realise that starting a business is not only for the already-wealthy.
Edit:e.g. I was at an event recently where 17 and 18 year olds were (successfully) developing their business ideas while still at college.
Sure, and these entrepreneurs are always in the minority. Every individual is not a genius, a brave explorer, a maverick or a chancer. Most people are raised to be fairly cautious, and expected to lead a very predictable life.
For every Alan Sugar there are millions of people who have only recently become bankrupt due to the recession, or people who simply can't cut the mustard a la Dragon's Den.
It's not practical to expect that people should make do with a low quality of life, or come up with a successful business idea. It's more practical to know that we aspire to a life of some comfort, and that we need to have a degree in order to have access to any chance of fulfilling the desire for a comfortable life. When I say comfortable, I do not mean overseas holidays every year, or living in a mansion. I mean being able to afford food, clothing, fun activities, a house, security, heating and things like that. If you have a degree and have a well paying job it is more likely you will have a chance to accrue the money you may need to start some kind of modest business.
This is all your opinion. Much like how I have my own opinion. Anarchy, having "juvenile attitudes" are not illegal. And as for alienating public opinion, that's quite an amazing assumption.
You made an incorrect statement i.e. "Breaking windows, paintballing targets.... is not a crime" in your opinion - so I thought I'd correct you.
Your opinion about what is criminal behaviour doesn't enter into it - breaking windows and paintballing targers IS a crime. Fact. The police are put there by the taxpayers and rate payers to stop and deal with criminal behaviour. Fact. The police did their best to stop and deal with the criminal behaviour. Fact.
But yes, it is my opinion (which I am entitled to) that this outrageous violent behaviour by the student demonstration yesterday will work against the students cause. I have no doubt about it - we've seen it before many times in recent history.
A lot of the students I see posting on internet forums are whiney tossers with an inflated sense of entitlement and no grasp of life in the real world.
I think you will find, if you do go to protests, that the police attitude is quite undemocratic. As for you watching the coverage I watched some of it too. Did you miss the student who spoke about how some students became violent, and other students turned against them? However, when the police began beating students, the students all then united against the police?
Maybe it would help to see things as a whole. Every protest, and always there is violence from the police at students. Maybe you missed the G20 protests where a man was killed by the actions of the Police? Or where a woman was beaten by a big macho fool of a policeman? Or where some were beaten severely over the head by the police?
The government, the mainstream media and a minority of people seem to view yesterday in isolation from everything else. When I encounter a wasp, I know already from past knowledge that they are dangerous and can harm me, and I act accordingly. The police are aggressive and heavyhanded. Not a democratic police force by any means.
Also, you say you watched the footage unfold in real time. There were about 30 000 students apparently. From that number AN EXTREMELY SMALL minority were violent. Let's have a bit of balance. The police are fully armed, they have the protection of the state. They need more guidance on riding a horse .....
The police are a small minority compared to the many thousands pushing towards them.
The police always get the shit, I know they're doing a job but why should they have to put up with all those arseholes chucking missiles at them?
If the protesters were peaceful they wouldn't be having problems.
Sure, and these entrepreneurs are always in the minority. Every individual is not a genius, a brave explorer, a maverick or a chancer. Most people are raised to be fairly cautious, and expected to lead a very predictable life.
For every Alan Sugar there are millions of people who have only recently become bankrupt due to the recession, or people who simply can't cut the mustard a la Dragon's Den.
It's not practical to expect that people should make do with a low quality of life, or come up with a successful business idea. It's more practical to know that we aspire to a life of some comfort, and that we need to have a degree in order to have access to any chance of fulfilling the desire for a comfortable life. When I say comfortable, I do not mean overseas holidays every year, or living in a mansion. I mean being able to afford food, clothing, fun activities, a house, security, heating and things like that. If you have a degree and have a well paying job it is more likely you will have a chance to accrue the money you may need to start some kind of modest business.
Is there some evidence to suggest people with degrees are more likely to start up a business?
I'd bet that the vast majority of businesses are started by people without degrees.
In fact, I would have thought that people with a degree who are earning good money as an employee are much less likely to consider starting their own business.
Whole "poor student" argument just totally fell apart.
Proves the point that plenty of them were purely there for trouble.
yep I just posted on another thread he dose not have worry about fees :mad: the only thing that make me smile about it is a lot of the papers had him down as a girl
Sure, and these entrepreneurs are always in the minority. Every individual is not a genius, a brave explorer, a maverick or a chancer. Most people are raised to be fairly cautious, and expected to lead a very predictable life.
For every Alan Sugar there are millions of people who have only recently become bankrupt due to the recession, or people who simply can't cut the mustard a la Dragon's Den.
It's certainly not for everyone, and it took me about 15 years to believe I had 'what it takes'. But I'd say personal skills are more important to the success of a business than financial reserves, or a degree.
It's a viable alternative to school-leavers and, thankfully, one that is increasingly promoted. Good for the economy too.
This is all your opinion. Much like how I have my own opinion. Anarchy, having "juvenile attitudes" are not illegal. And as for alienating public opinion, that's quite an amazing assumption. But still, it is only your personal assumption. Not any kind of fact. The Daily Mail spreads spouting rage and wrath at the actions of a very very small minority is really not fact nor proof of what the entire UK population think or feel.
You can use the ignore function to save yourself from reading further ludicrous statements.:)
Make up your mind first you say it was a small minority in one post, and now a very, very small minority. If you keep on posting it will be 5 boys and their pitbull.:rolleyes:
Comments
You didn't mention in any of your posts that none of the staff in your legal company were lawyers, I assumed with it being a legal company it would have lawyers working there, hence I asked the question if you needed to have a degree to qualify as a lawyer - for all I know there may be another route to qualification but since I don't work in a legal company I don't know..
One does need money to start a business. In one form or the other, you need money/financial backing.
If people had that, they would probably go for the business opportunity rather than a degree, or a low paying job.
With your upfront payment scheme, the university selection won't come into it.
For example, you'll have two 18 year olds applying for a particular place. Both meet the entry requirements.
However, one from a poor background, one from a rich background. The one from the poor background has better grades than the rich person, but can't afford 30k upfront so cannot take that place. In one fell swoop you destroy the asperation of social mobility to anyone in poorer areas and the rich/poor divide continues to increase.
It's just a plain bad idea.
http://www.spiegel.de/img/0,1020,1227359,00.jpg
I can't imagine getting to the third year and not finishing, you had so much invested by then, it would have broken my heart not to qualify. BUT I had worked for four years (one on an Access course) so that I could become a teacher.
I think I could end up paying back more than most if I don't get in this year.
I have one student loan from the degree paying back:-
8% when I earn £15k on my first student loan.
If I get a second one to do a PGCE I'll be paying back
(?) percent on a £9k loan when I earn £21k.
So when I get to £21k I'll be paying back both loans at the same time.
This could put off people with loans taking PGCE's.
I wonder how that will work?
My student loans didn't even include the tuition fees which were paid as I was a single parent.
Wait, are you on about my up-front payments nonsense?
I thought I already made it clear that was just a hypothetical situation designed to make people consider whether they'd actually have the determination to enter further education if they had to actually pay, up-front, for it.
I wasn't actually advocating it as a legitimate idea.
I thought you were talking about the idea that the new system of student fees would only allow rich people to enter uni'.
Sorry if there was any misunderstanding.
Yours is the kind of attitude that will alienate public opinion and make it less likely that the increase in university fees will ever be reversed.
You reveal your anarchic and, frankly, juvenile attitudes, in your statement that "Breaking windows, paintballing targets.... are not crimes"
It is one of the most ludicrous statements made in this thread - and that's saying something.
What the students did yesterday was excessive, disgraceful and an affront to democracy. What the Police did was a necessary response to the criminal behaviour of some of the crowd.
I do not support this Government or the bill that was passed yesterday - but there are right and wrong ways of protesting and yesterday was wrong.
not really, no. admittedly you might need a low paying job *as well* when starting up, but you only need to look at the stories of Alan Sugar and Duncan Bannatyne (as well as many other entrepreneurs) to realise that starting a business is not only for the already-wealthy.
Edit:e.g. I was at an event recently where 17 and 18 year olds were (successfully) developing their business ideas while still at college.
I think you will find, if you do go to protests, that the police attitude is quite undemocratic. As for you watching the coverage I watched some of it too. Did you miss the student who spoke about how some students became violent, and other students turned against them? However, when the police began beating students, the students all then united against the police?
Maybe it would help to see things as a whole. Every protest, and always there is violence from the police at students. Maybe you missed the G20 protests where a man was killed by the actions of the Police? Or where a woman was beaten by a big macho fool of a policeman? Or where some were beaten severely over the head by the police?
The government, the mainstream media and a minority of people seem to view yesterday in isolation from everything else. When I encounter a wasp, I know already from past knowledge that they are dangerous and can harm me, and I act accordingly. The police are aggressive and heavyhanded. Not a democratic police force by any means.
Also, you say you watched the footage unfold in real time. There were about 30 000 students apparently. From that number AN EXTREMELY SMALL minority were violent. Let's have a bit of balance. The police are fully armed, they have the protection of the state. They need more guidance on riding a horse .....
I never said I worked for a legal "company" I said I work in the legal world
This is all your opinion. Much like how I have my own opinion. Anarchy, having "juvenile attitudes" are not illegal.
You can use the ignore function to save yourself from reading further ludicrous statements.:)
Fair enough.
I still think the increased fees will deter students from poorer backgrounds, and it will also deter people from entering vital - but relatively low paid - professions such as teaching and nursing where they have no hope of paying off their loans, meaning they are just subject to a 30 year graduate tax.
This is why I'm uncomfortable with the increased cap - I believe education should be available solely on the basis of merit, rather than money, and I also think the fact that medics, engineers etc benefit society as a whole has rather been forgotten.
Like I said, I'd rather there was a large decrease in the number of places available, but those places should be free.
Lots of courses which are currently provided as 4 year degree courses could quite easily be condensed into shorter courses provided by local colleges etc at a much reduced cost.
Nick Clegg and "that lot" for pleading us to vote for them, and makinga promise, and then breaking it.
The minority of students for being violent and upfront and idiots to the police and doing damage
The police for not learning their lesson and doing the same thing, there should have been more of them to cover ground, but their tactic was all wrong, I saw a police push a protester in the face when he was trying to leave.... and the hitting of innocent girls was too far obviously
Brilliantly observed, the individuals who blame the police, will always find a way of blaming them regardless of what does or does'nt happen.
Tear gas and rubber bullets would have sorted out the rioters.
Sure, and these entrepreneurs are always in the minority. Every individual is not a genius, a brave explorer, a maverick or a chancer. Most people are raised to be fairly cautious, and expected to lead a very predictable life.
For every Alan Sugar there are millions of people who have only recently become bankrupt due to the recession, or people who simply can't cut the mustard a la Dragon's Den.
It's not practical to expect that people should make do with a low quality of life, or come up with a successful business idea. It's more practical to know that we aspire to a life of some comfort, and that we need to have a degree in order to have access to any chance of fulfilling the desire for a comfortable life. When I say comfortable, I do not mean overseas holidays every year, or living in a mansion. I mean being able to afford food, clothing, fun activities, a house, security, heating and things like that. If you have a degree and have a well paying job it is more likely you will have a chance to accrue the money you may need to start some kind of modest business.
You made an incorrect statement i.e. "Breaking windows, paintballing targets.... is not a crime" in your opinion - so I thought I'd correct you.
Your opinion about what is criminal behaviour doesn't enter into it - breaking windows and paintballing targers IS a crime. Fact. The police are put there by the taxpayers and rate payers to stop and deal with criminal behaviour. Fact. The police did their best to stop and deal with the criminal behaviour. Fact.
But yes, it is my opinion (which I am entitled to) that this outrageous violent behaviour by the student demonstration yesterday will work against the students cause. I have no doubt about it - we've seen it before many times in recent history.
Whole "poor student" argument just totally fell apart.
Proves the point that plenty of them were purely there for trouble.
Oh, I see. Irrefutable opinion then. :sleep:
Then your opinion is different to that of the law.
The police are a small minority compared to the many thousands pushing towards them.
The police always get the shit, I know they're doing a job but why should they have to put up with all those arseholes chucking missiles at them?
If the protesters were peaceful they wouldn't be having problems.
Is there some evidence to suggest people with degrees are more likely to start up a business?
I'd bet that the vast majority of businesses are started by people without degrees.
In fact, I would have thought that people with a degree who are earning good money as an employee are much less likely to consider starting their own business.
That's just me though.
yep I just posted on another thread he dose not have worry about fees :mad: the only thing that make me smile about it is a lot of the papers had him down as a girl
It's certainly not for everyone, and it took me about 15 years to believe I had 'what it takes'. But I'd say personal skills are more important to the success of a business than financial reserves, or a degree.
It's a viable alternative to school-leavers and, thankfully, one that is increasingly promoted. Good for the economy too.
Make up your mind first you say it was a small minority in one post, and now a very, very small minority. If you keep on posting it will be 5 boys and their pitbull.:rolleyes: