Heartland

Very interesting discussion here, and I can assure you the problem is not limited to the UK or the US.

In Sweden in the 90's, politicians were convinced everybody needed an academic education regardless if the aim was pharmacology or hair cutting. This has brought a lot of people to the universities who do not fit in there, just because they are encouraged to do so by decision makers who think anything less than a degree is not worth anything. Misdirected equality and justice, apparantly.

I'm actually pro free education, but the admission (or education in itself!) shouldn't be so undemanding. There are people studying history in Sweden at around 20 colleges, whereas two of them actually produce "quality" graduates. Luckily, ambitious students tend to choose these two universities automatically. What I would want is to have ONLY these two unis teach history.

I'm also a friend of the "profession education" in my country of residence nowadays, Germany, ie you learn as an apprentice maybe three years from somebody who is already working in the profession.

Anyhow, I cannot explain myself as good as Sultan or EvilBastard, and English is not my native language, so I'll let it be for now. I do however think that the internet/Wikipedia has led to some of the laziness Sultan mentions; the students nowadays somehow expect all the knowledge to be no more than a mouse click away.

Just..explain to me how the statue of Churchill or the Cenotaph could possibly have anything to do with tuition fees, oh younglings? Proof they shouldn't be at university if they're so stupid they can't see the kind of public relations damage it'll do.

Yet again remain very disturbed by the behaviour of the police. Dragging people out of wheelchairs for the love of? My father always claimed you only ever join the police if you enjoy pushing people around with impunity. Rather looks like he was right..

you assume the people trashing the statue are even aware of the students' cause?

i think they're just yobs who heard there was going to be a protest and thought they could get up to a bit of mischief and cause a ruckus with the police on the back of someone else's event...

DeWinter wrote:My father always claimed you only ever join the police if you enjoy pushing people around with impunity.

Eeeee, la' - when I were young fella in t'police we could only dream of 'avin' an impunity. Best we could manage were 'arsh language and a clip around t'ear'ole.

Quiff Boy wrote:you assume the people trashing the statue are even aware of the students' cause?

i think they're just yobs who heard there was going to be a protest and thought they could get up to a bit of mischief and cause a ruckus with the police on the back of someone else's event...

I imagine it's a mix of both. The students got in to bed with some very unpleasant people, and it's backfired. The NUS has been known to cosy up to UAF and the anarchists before. After this, the average Middle-Englander who, let's not forget they'll have to persuade to pay extra taxation if they dont want a fee rise, will just not want to know now.

THEY f**ked US THE f**king c**t s f**ked US.

Maisey wrote:THEY f**ked US THE f**king c**t s f**ked US.

It's the government, and they're politicians. Getting f**ked by them is only ever a question of "when, how hard, and how often," never "if". F**king over the populace is what they do. Today it's the students, yesterday it was the miners, tomorrow it will be the aged and infirm and a week on Tuesday it will be the armed forces. The only advice one can offer is:
1. Do a Guy Fawkes and get rid of them once and for all. Of course, their replacement is not likely to be any better.
2. Pack your arse with broken glass - at least that way it will hurt them as much as it hurts you.
3. Keep the Astroglide close at hand.

Until the populace is willing to cough up to enable everyone to go to university to study Crochet Through The Ages then this is the way it's going to be. Mind you, no-one's yet mentioned that the massive increase in the number of people going to university has reduced the value of a first degree to something south of Zimbabwe's credit rating. If you put up the fees then fewer people will go to university, thereby increasing the perceived value of the degree, thus enabling the people who do go to earn more money and repay the taxpayer and dear old mum and dad more quickly.
There is an odd correlation between getting something for "free" and the perceived value of the thing. For example, when various well-meaning charities handed out mosquito nets willy-nilly to people in sub-saharan Africa, they later discovered that the nets were being used for everything from fishing to straining buttermilk - indeed, everything except what they were supposed to be used for. When they starting charging (a very small amount) for them, they discovered that they were used properly, that people took care of them, and the incidence of malaria in the region plummetted. Why? Because a free thing has no perceived value.
Higher education in Britain was free, and students (myself included) felt perfectly ok with blowing off lectures, getting drunk, going on demos, and generally doing everything apart from studying. Even now, when there is a cost, students think it is preferable to go to London and demonstrate against a perceived injustice, rather than studying and getting value out of their investment.
If I was a student's parent, and I was paying 3K a year to have my kid educated, only to discover that he'd skipped out on lectures and was throwing bricks at Starbucks, I'd have some Very Strong Words to say to him when he came home for Christmas.
If the student is footing the bill for the education himself, then it's slightly different, although apparently he feels that 3K is little enough money that he doesn't mind pi$$ing it against the wall. So let's jack it up even higher - let's make it 20K a year. Maybe then the student will apply himself in order to get a good degree, a decent job with a high salary in order to pay it off.
I appreciate that I probably come off like a reactionary old Daily Mail reader here, and that's not the intent. I realise that there are a great many student, like Oor Maisey who believe passionately in The Cause, and their commitment is to be commended.
Maybe it's time we considered that we can no longer keep doling out money unless we start asking people to stump up. But the country is up to its eyeballs in debt, the economy is in the $hitter, and I expect that if I went round with a collecting tin, asking for money to send students to college, I'd come home with nothing but a black eye and a really lovely kick in the bollocks.
Sad but true - if you want something then you're going to have to pay for it. And 9K is still well below what students in other parts of the world have to pay for higher education. Maybe in a few years things will have improved and we won't have to charge people, but right now them's the breaks. Throwing rocks through windows isn't going to change the fact.

And for the record, the NUS is the biggest bunch of feather-bedders in history. The exec on any campus cares more about lining its own pockets and if the students suffer then tough cheese. How do you think Stephen Twigg got where he is (or at least was, until recently)? It wasn't through looking after the interests of his union's members, that's for damn' sure.

Sorry. Drunk. Just phoned Vince Cables office and spent 2 minutes swearing into his answer machine.

sultan2075 wrote: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.

Well this is it. We have been complaining elsewhere about "the suits" -- and indeed the bureaucrats are taking over the UK education system too.

Maybe there is something to the Discordian idea about society progressing through five stages (rather than the three of Hegelian dialectic): Chaos, Discord, Confusion, Bureaucracy, and The Aftermath.

Maisey wrote:Sorry. Drunk. Just phoned Vince Cables office and spent 2 minutes swearing into his answer machine.

Should that not be "Cable's"?

markfiend wrote:

sultan2075 wrote: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.

Well this is it. We have been complaining elsewhere about "the suits" -- and indeed the bureaucrats are taking over the UK education system too.

Maybe there is something to the Discordian idea about society progressing through five stages (rather than the three of Hegelian dialectic): Chaos, Discord, Confusion, Bureaucracy, and The Aftermath.

"It was around the 1970s that the human spirit began to be overwhelmed by bureaucracy (although the trend had been growing for many decades)."

Apologies for intruding on this but I just read the thread and it seemed quite interesting.

I am a bit torn between both sides actually. I do understand the issue that everyone should not necessarily have a degree, but I am not sure I know how to find a way to choose who is fit or not to undertake higher education.

While I cannot understand a system that would allow for a degree in "hotdogs through the ages" for example (in Belgium we do not seem to have those, for us the "garbage" sections are still psychology or political science), I do not believe there is a way to know beforehand to whom a specific education is useful or not.

If I take my own experience as an example (not always a good thing to do, but then again...), I would never have been allowed to study with high tuition fees or a priori exams.

I come from a poor social background which means my parents would have not been able to pay for my education. Luckily, in Belgium, we have a very social system which resulted in me not costing a penny to my parents.

I was not a very good student in high school either, so I don't believe I would have been able to get a loan. It was not beacuse I didn't care enough, but I had a huge stress problem which had probably to do with my background. In fact, I only got rid of this very recently and have always underachieved in school because of this.

At college though, I did not perform bad (underachieving does not necessarily failing as per sé), became a relatively good mathematician, and afterwards actuary, and am now considered a very valuable one by my employer as well.

I am really sure that in any system proposed to refrain people to get higher education, I would not have had the chance to become something that makes me very happy.

I am also sure that in most of these systems, the poor people wil be the first to suffer.
Bad luck then? I hope I'm wrong, but a society in which the rich effectively always become richer and the poor always become poorer is not the sort of society I would like for my children, even if I'm not one of the poor anymore...

randdebiel² wrote:I am also sure that in most of these systems, the poor people wil be the first to suffer.
Bad luck then? I hope I'm wrong, but a society in which the rich effectively always become richer and the poor always become poorer is not the sort of society I would like for my children, even if I'm not one of the poor anymore...

Well said.

Slightly more amusing is the reveal that the rather boot-faced girl swinging from the Cenotaph turns out to be the son of Dave Gilmour! Having "tried his hand at journalism" (failing at it), and "being on a modelling agencies books"(meaning he didn't get a single booking because he looks like an ugly girl), he's now studying history at Cambridge.
He didn't realise it was the Cenotaph apparantly(just a random war memorial so obviously fair game) so isn't likely to pass his degree with that level of brain power. And is a lying little tit.

A fantastic illustration of the way these so called "violent" protests are being antagonised and in same cases STARTED by police officers. Also illustrates the media's keenness to report in favour of the government and brand protesters as "thugs" rather than normal young people outraged by the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tXNJ3...MZ-AUo

The reporting of this entire issue has sickened me. They've consistently attempted to over shadow the actual issue by focusing on the actions, they'e preferentially reported police casualties over student ones, because how can you argue that students are the most violent party when you have 10 student injuries for every 1 police injury.

Having been on marches (admittedly, not in London) I can confirm that the violence mostly only starts when police instigate it in order to intimidate and control the protesters.

Maisey wrote:Having been on marches (admittedly, not in London) I can confirm that the violence mostly only starts when police instigate it in order to intimidate and control the protesters.

This is also my experience. And it was a hell of a lot worse when the Plod didn't have to worry about people recording footage on their mobile phones.

I really hate how pro police reporting undermines the cause of the protests and makes people who's only interaction with them is via their TV intrinsically biased against them. They're happy to talk about a burning bench, but they don't focus on a CAVALRY CHARGE AGAINST SCHOOL KIDS.

In the rolling news coverage their was up to the minute stats on police injuries (about 10 all told) but NO coverage on student injuries and no final statistic (3 or 4 times the amount, some with near fatal injuries).

It's disgusting and its sick... but how can you fight it? I guess you could throw a brick through broadcasting house's window, but then they win don't they? We're all, every single one of us a minority of thugs and yobs.

No mention either of how a student ended up with severe head trauma and is currently hospitalised having undergone brain surgery. I had to hold my nose and read the Guardian for that piece of info. But then I've said many times here and elsewhere I dont consider the BBC at all unbiased.
Apparantly there'll be an investigation, in which doubtless a few policemen will be accused of rather silly abent-mindedness in forgetting to wear any indentification, and that CCTV cameras have a strange habit of breaking down around police officers!

DeWinter wrote:I dont consider the BBC at all unbiased.

Pardon my colonial ignorance, but isn't the BBC owned by the government? What else would you expect?

The BBC is paid for by the taxpayer but, partly because it relies on an effectively socialist method of funding, it is generally ever so slightly left wing in its broadcasting. It's unusual for the BBC to brush over facts to support one side of the story, especially when that side is a conservative one. We see that far more often on SKY News.

sultan2075 wrote: Pardon my colonial ignorance, but isn't the BBC owned by the government? What else would you expect?

It's independent in the same way the NHS is free. The British government doesn't control the BBC's day to day running, but it appoints the Directors and controls the financing so in reality does control it. The NHS is free at the point of use but costs some 80 plus billion a year through taxation so actually costs more than private health insurance would for the whole population. Both are somehow viewed as preferable and more "caring" than their private counterparts despite having far larger budgets forcibly taken from peoples money. I wouldn't try and understand. I was born and raised here, and it's a mystery to me..!

Maisey wrote:The BBC is paid for by the taxpayer but, partly because it relies on an effectively socialist method of funding, it is generally ever so slightly left wing in its broadcasting. It's unusual for the BBC to brush over facts to support one side of the story, especially when that side is a conservative one. We see that far more often on SKY News.

In my opinion, and purely opinion it is, the BBC has been decidedly more wary of exercising editorial independence since it was given a complete bitchslapping by Labour over the whole "45 minutes" farrago and Greg Dyke fired.
I suspect with the Tory party never being too keen on the BBC anyway, and the financial climate being how it is, the BBC are too afraid to pick a fight with the current government. Hence it's reporting of this situation being completely one-sided.

Frankly, the idea of state-run media doesn't sit well with me at all. I'm not a big fan of National Public Radio in the US either.

Shameless Hypocrisy: I do enjoy the BBC World Service broadcast on NPR.

By in large I'm very pro BBC - up till now feeling that it was a reflection of the mood of the populace, not a vehicle for propaganda.

Great discussion here.

markfiend wrote:

Maisey wrote:Having been on marches (admittedly, not in London) I can confirm that the violence mostly only starts when police instigate it in order to intimidate and control the protesters.

This is also my experience. And it was a hell of a lot worse when the Plod didn't have to worry about people recording footage on their mobile phones.

How true. There was very similar Police behaviour at Poll Tax, anti-apartheid, Anti-Nazi, anti Criminal Justice Act etc demos I attended back in the day. Digital recording devices have really opened up the ability to collect independent evidence. The rozzers did a good job in destroying film from cameras as I remember.

Maisey wrote:By in large I'm very pro BBC - up till now feeling that it was a reflection of the mood of the populace, not a vehicle for propaganda.

Not quite on the same subject, but I'm sure you'll find the film by John Pilger (shown on ITV last night) most interesting as an fascinating discussion on journalistic independence vs government influence.

http://www.johnpilger.com/articles/why- ... d-honestly