The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Check out BBC Parliament - they're totally ragging each other to bits with their snidey words. "Those privatising vultures on the other bench" has to be the best quote so far.
On a more political level, the higher education bill will be voted on tonight- It if passes, those of us who plan on going to uni will end up being more so in debt and have to pay in advance too. If it isn't passed then we will not be as much in debt, but some universities will be shut down due to lack of funding - and some subjects such as medicine will be underfunded and have a lack of resources.
Labour want to put the bill through, but the conversatives dont, and nobody invited the Lib Dems to the conference.
The vote is at 7pm, and results will be accounced at about 8 I think.
Personally I hope it doesn't pass, but the labour argument seems to be strong, and they have more seats than the conservatives. The only real way the bill cannot pass is if all the conservatives vote against the bill, and a fair share of the labour MPs vote against their own bill too.
On a more political level, the higher education bill will be voted on tonight- It if passes, those of us who plan on going to uni will end up being more so in debt and have to pay in advance too. If it isn't passed then we will not be as much in debt, but some universities will be shut down due to lack of funding - and some subjects such as medicine will be underfunded and have a lack of resources.
Labour want to put the bill through, but the conversatives dont, and nobody invited the Lib Dems to the conference.
The vote is at 7pm, and results will be accounced at about 8 I think.
Personally I hope it doesn't pass, but the labour argument seems to be strong, and they have more seats than the conservatives. The only real way the bill cannot pass is if all the conservatives vote against the bill, and a fair share of the labour MPs vote against their own bill too.
Page:
Dr Gonzo wrote:
> If you weeded out the people who won't get any benefit from
> university there'd be a whole lot more money. The country realy
> doesn't need that many English and Media graduates.
I've been saying this for years. But it is the Psychology graduates that annoy me. Because there are so many folk who don't know how we do things, but know why we do them.
They were only ever any good for eyecandy.
> If you weeded out the people who won't get any benefit from
> university there'd be a whole lot more money. The country realy
> doesn't need that many English and Media graduates.
I've been saying this for years. But it is the Psychology graduates that annoy me. Because there are so many folk who don't know how we do things, but know why we do them.
They were only ever any good for eyecandy.
Skarra wrote:
> The Government is between a rock and a hard place. The Uni's are
> banging on for more money,
And this wonderful solution won't supply anywhere near what they need. fantastic plan that; keep the original problem and add a whole new one by annoying many of your supporters.
> but the average folks on the street
> already pay 5/6, and don't want to pay any more.
And? No one wants to pay taxes anyway, and who says they'd have to pay more? The government should direct more of the pie towards universities. They should also stop trying to get every Tom, Dick and Harry into third level education. For far too many people it is now just the easy step after A-Levels. A couple of years dossing about, maybe a few repeated years and changed courses, then...
If you weeded out the people who won't get any benefit from university there'd be a whole lot more money. The country realy doesn't need that many English and Media graduates.
> The Government is between a rock and a hard place. The Uni's are
> banging on for more money,
And this wonderful solution won't supply anywhere near what they need. fantastic plan that; keep the original problem and add a whole new one by annoying many of your supporters.
> but the average folks on the street
> already pay 5/6, and don't want to pay any more.
And? No one wants to pay taxes anyway, and who says they'd have to pay more? The government should direct more of the pie towards universities. They should also stop trying to get every Tom, Dick and Harry into third level education. For far too many people it is now just the easy step after A-Levels. A couple of years dossing about, maybe a few repeated years and changed courses, then...
If you weeded out the people who won't get any benefit from university there'd be a whole lot more money. The country realy doesn't need that many English and Media graduates.
Jackus wrote:
> Arn't the government supposed to be offerering money for students?
Only for the poorest? If your parents have a salary over about 18K then you don't get all that money. And the money you are given in a grant form is countered out by the top up fees meaning that you end up owing more to the government than you would under the old system. Under the current system I pay no tuition fees and get around £3000 in a loan each term. Under the new system I'd get about £1000 in a grant and have pay £4000 in fees each year (though not repaid until later).
>And
> if you actually get a job worth diddly squat, you can repay them?
Yep, except you repay more each month than you would under the old system because you owe more overall.
>If
> you get a bad job, you don't necassairily(sp?) have to pay? That's
> what I understand.
After 25 years the loan is written off. What are the odds that your job stays below the 15K a year level eh, for 25 years? And just imagine what 25 years of interest at around 3% is going to do on a balance of around 12-15K...
> Arn't the government supposed to be offerering money for students?
Only for the poorest? If your parents have a salary over about 18K then you don't get all that money. And the money you are given in a grant form is countered out by the top up fees meaning that you end up owing more to the government than you would under the old system. Under the current system I pay no tuition fees and get around £3000 in a loan each term. Under the new system I'd get about £1000 in a grant and have pay £4000 in fees each year (though not repaid until later).
>And
> if you actually get a job worth diddly squat, you can repay them?
Yep, except you repay more each month than you would under the old system because you owe more overall.
>If
> you get a bad job, you don't necassairily(sp?) have to pay? That's
> what I understand.
After 25 years the loan is written off. What are the odds that your job stays below the 15K a year level eh, for 25 years? And just imagine what 25 years of interest at around 3% is going to do on a balance of around 12-15K...
Jackus wrote:
> Arn't the government supposed to be offerering money for students?
Only for the poorest? If your parents have a salary over about 18K then you don't get all that money. And the money you are given in a grant form is countered out by the top up fees meaning that you end up owing more to the government than you would under the old system. Under the current system I pay no tuition fees and get around £3000 in a loan each term. Under the new system I'd get about £1000 in a grant and have pay £4000 in fees each year (though not repaid until later).
>And
> if you actually get a job worth diddly squat, you can repay them?
Yep, except you repay more each month than you would under the old system because you owe more overall.
>If
> you get a bad job, you don't necassairily(sp?) have to pay? That's
> what I understand.
After 25 years the loan is written off. What are the odds that your job stays below the 15K a year level eh, for 25 years? And just imagine what 25 years of interest at around 3% is going to do on a balance of around 12-15K...
> Arn't the government supposed to be offerering money for students?
Only for the poorest? If your parents have a salary over about 18K then you don't get all that money. And the money you are given in a grant form is countered out by the top up fees meaning that you end up owing more to the government than you would under the old system. Under the current system I pay no tuition fees and get around £3000 in a loan each term. Under the new system I'd get about £1000 in a grant and have pay £4000 in fees each year (though not repaid until later).
>And
> if you actually get a job worth diddly squat, you can repay them?
Yep, except you repay more each month than you would under the old system because you owe more overall.
>If
> you get a bad job, you don't necassairily(sp?) have to pay? That's
> what I understand.
After 25 years the loan is written off. What are the odds that your job stays below the 15K a year level eh, for 25 years? And just imagine what 25 years of interest at around 3% is going to do on a balance of around 12-15K...
*cannabis
Hmm, these waster courses (influenced by the Cannais topic) - I don't fully understand why people take them. If you're interested in something, such as History or Philosophy, and wanted to read the works of Plato or whatever, surely it'd be wiser to do it in your spare time, maybe while working or pursuing other courses? After all, I know a few people in technical courses that pursue other academic works in their spare time.
"1) have an entrance test to weed out all the timewasters. less people means less expense."
But they don't want that. They WANT all the idiots at uni, because, as everyone knows, having a degree in a worthless subject GUARANTEES a job!
Blair needs to wake up.
But they don't want that. They WANT all the idiots at uni, because, as everyone knows, having a degree in a worthless subject GUARANTEES a job!
Blair needs to wake up.
SHEEPY wrote:
> Fecking New Labour
Didn't i hear that it doesn't effect scotland anyway?
> Fecking New Labour
Didn't i hear that it doesn't effect scotland anyway?
a few ideas occur:
1) have an entrance test to weed out all the timewasters. less people means less expense.
2) reduce the cost of the first year. The first year doesn't count towards the final degree score and a lot of people drop out during that time:
less money on first year=saving
fewer people on 2nd/3rd year=saving
besides, i don't feel i've had the £1200 fees worth of tuition during my first year as it is....
3) legalize and tax cannabis. hell, most students buy it anyways so they'd kind of be paying for themselves in a way :)
seriously though, there's definately money in the notion of legalising and adding tax to cannabis, but not in the foreseeable future of this stoic little nation :(
honestly though, now that this motion has passed, it's just showed us further what a bunch of hypocrits the government are. "More people into universities" they cry, then up the price so no-one can afford it. "We're against Blair" say a group of rebelling MP's, then mysteriously change their minds (probably struck an "except our kids" deal with someone) so once again the working class carry the can. Indeed, this idea works perfectly well for the children of the MP's who passed it, but i'm damn sure neither i nor my parents make as much money as they do.
1) have an entrance test to weed out all the timewasters. less people means less expense.
2) reduce the cost of the first year. The first year doesn't count towards the final degree score and a lot of people drop out during that time:
less money on first year=saving
fewer people on 2nd/3rd year=saving
besides, i don't feel i've had the £1200 fees worth of tuition during my first year as it is....
3) legalize and tax cannabis. hell, most students buy it anyways so they'd kind of be paying for themselves in a way :)
seriously though, there's definately money in the notion of legalising and adding tax to cannabis, but not in the foreseeable future of this stoic little nation :(
honestly though, now that this motion has passed, it's just showed us further what a bunch of hypocrits the government are. "More people into universities" they cry, then up the price so no-one can afford it. "We're against Blair" say a group of rebelling MP's, then mysteriously change their minds (probably struck an "except our kids" deal with someone) so once again the working class carry the can. Indeed, this idea works perfectly well for the children of the MP's who passed it, but i'm damn sure neither i nor my parents make as much money as they do.
Page: