J
jhs2
Guest
Icarebecauseyoudo said:A fair few will be taking a 100% pay cut old chum
One of my lecturers is taking that.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Icarebecauseyoudo said:A fair few will be taking a 100% pay cut old chum
How much of a pay cut are the lecturers taking?
In this time of austerity?
So are you suggesting that there are examples of institutions giving BScs for degrees in, say, history or creative events management?
It's the truth - tuition fees for most universities are trebling under the Tories. Haven't you heard about it?
Before, the government paid the universities more money, directly.
Now, to offset the reduction, the student-contributed proportion of tuition fees is rising. However, you churn out shit like:
"the Government (i.e. the taxpayer) stumps up the cash instead. And that's now three times as much under the Tories, than we used to."
Whilst carefully ignoring that the government was stumping up 2/3 of the current amount in the first place. For every student.
So I'll ask again. Deliberate lie, or basic ignorance?
It's you who is ignorant here.
Cameron told us that kids needn't be put off by increased university fees - which would be the exception, rather than the rule - because a lot of these will be written off if that person doesn't reach a specific level of earnings.
He seriously miscalculated the number of universities that would charge these increased fees (i.e. most), thereby landing the country with an unexpectedly huge amount of costs to bear for those much larger sums (three times larger) that will be lost through graduates not earning enough, leaving the country, or being too expensive to track for the next three decades.
Are you denying that he said he'd write off a substantial number of these debts? And that these individual debts are now three times what they were when he made this stupid promise?
We're actually losing money here, because a lot of it won't be paid back.
He seriously miscalculated the number of universities that would charge these increased fees (i.e. most), thereby landing the country with an unexpectedly huge amount of costs to bear for those much larger sums (three times larger) that will be lost through graduates not earning enough, leaving the country, or being too expensive to track for the next three decades.
What you, presumably wilfully, are ignoring, is that the amount (approximately 2/3) that it has "risen" would have been paid by the government anyway, before the restructuring. In full. For all students.
By those figures, if 1/3 of graduates pay back their full loan then we're no worse off than where we started. And I reckon, somehow, that 1/3 might just make it above that earnings threshold. Maybe more - who knows.
80% of women graduates 'won't repay loan' after tuition fees rise
29th March 2011
Around four in five female graduates will never repay their student loan under the Coalition’s new tuition fees regime, it emerged yesterday.
An analysis of the student loan system shows that middle-income men who will finally pay-off their loan at the age of 47-50, will bear the brunt of the cost of higher education.
The figures show that between 70 and 80 per cent of women – up to 150,000 a year – will never repay their full loan, compared with 20 to 30 per cent at present. And when loans are written off, 30 years after graduation, the average woman will still owe £26,500.
Under the new regime, graduates will not have to pay off their loan until they earn £21,000 and women will not have to pay anything when they take time off to raise children.
How do you think it's done now? Magic?
sure as shite doesn't smell of Roses.
and whats more they will be missing a lot of acedemically sound working class kids, with great 'A' level grades, because they and their parents can't afford to fund higher education.
The kids from wealthier families will be able to go because mammy and daddy can afford it.
Do we live in a classless society?![]()
So why not accept they can't compete and charge the £5k - such a short term policy it's plain daft - at least places like Sunderland can compete on key courses like Pharmacy , I'm not aware of Teeside having an exemplary reputation in a particular line of study but I'd welcome being proved wrong
I think they should have a sliding scale with fees. People doing sensible stuff like most BScs should pay less and people doing pointless things like most BAs and media type things should pay more.
And thats regardless of where they are studying.
What is your degree? Sorry if you have already said.
It's nice to know that after 7 years of uni that my BA was a pointless waste of time.
Bugger, I'll have to go back and study some shite BSc.
My degree is in maths, from sheffield uni.
Think you'll struggle to find a post on this thread where I claim to have a great degree or 'big up' Sunderland University , I did however use it to illustrate that not all BA degrees are shit ... If Teeside Business School is better than Sunderland then great , I look forward to seeing their graduates rise to meteoric levels in the world of banking and commerce .....
Thats not exactly the most practical degree mate. Are you now a mathematician?
A maths degree is probably one of the better degrees to get, it will open loads of doors.Thats not exactly the most practical degree mate. Are you now a mathematician?
A maths degree is probably one of the better degrees to get, it will open loads of doors.
A maths degree is probably one of the better degrees to get, it will open loads of doors.
You have to be pretty smart to do a maths or a music degree I should think.Aye to further education. Just like the actuarial courses this chap took. I knew a girl in toronto that had a music degree and went on to be an actuarial.
Don't get me wrong I'm not slagging it but it's hardly comparable to say a mechanical or civil engineering degree is it?