News UK's Tuition Fee Protest (Images)

[Gokul43201]

We're supposed to be less socialistic than Europe...

I think we are less socialistic than Europe, by a lot.

...but we're responding to the same crisis by moving to the left while they're moving to the right. That's pretty ironic to me.

Not to me. Why should it be obvious that some kind of optimal solution to the crisis does not lie in between Europe's (relatively) strong socialism and the US's weaker form of socialism?

 

[russ_watters]

I'm speaking in regards to people who don't have money being stuck in the poor areas and not being able to do anything about it. It's not fair that they are limited in their options to get out of said areas and now the options are becoming fewer.

Well the premise is faulty, which makes the conclusion faulty. It is extremely rare for people who are poor to "not be able to do anything about it". The vast majority are poor as a result of their own choices. Therefore, it is fair that they reap the 'rewards' of their efforts.

For people truly in need and truly not able to do anything about - a freak accident takes their leg off at the knee and now they can't work at the job they did before - the government should help. But only those people.

I totally agree that if you have more money you have every right to have a better house, but it's when you end up in a society that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor it isn't fair. Which is basically what we have now.

You can't have it both ways. If you give a house to someone who can't afford it, you take a house from someone who otherwise can. That's not fair in my book.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I totally agree that if you have more money you have every right to have a better house, but it's when you end up in a society that keeps the rich rich and the poor poor it isn't fair. Which is basically what we have now.

So, you would prefer a society that makes the rich poor and the poor "less poor." Sounds like communism to me. Everyone with the same amount of money, the same opportunities, the same same same.

What if everyone had the exact same opportunities to go to universities and come out with a phd? Do you really think there are jobs for EVERYONE to have a college education?

 

[JaredJames]

Did they offer any realistic ability to do what they said? If you believe nonsense because it sounds good, you deserve what you get.

I should clarify here, the Lib Dems promised to eradicate fees. However, they've now raised them without so much as a fight. If they had stood up for what they promised it would have been something (and the vote wouldn't have passed) and tuition fees wouldn't have risen nor fallen. Not what they promised, but at least nothing changes.

We all new cuts were coming but from where was the question. The lib dems and labour weren't making as drastic cuts as the conservatives, they've just gone in and wiped out everything they felt like. Serves the voters right though, we did put them there so we have to live with it.
I would like to see them prosecuted under the trade descriptions act though.

Are these the same group that made promises they couldn't keep? If you are running for office, you shouldn't be ignorant of what is going on. And the voters, shame on them if they didn't do their homework and chose to believe empty promises.

And I agree that the UK will never recoup the money spent. Look at China.

A different party started the olympic ball rolling years ago (by paying £400,000 for a logo that looks like Lisa Simpson perform a sex act), but all parties had a similar view on it. It was never up for debate as to whether or not they'd go ahead.

 

[russ_watters]

I think we are less socialistic than Europe, by a lot.

Not to me. Why should it be obvious that some kind of optimal solution to the crisis does not lie in between Europe's (relatively) strong socialism and the US's weaker form of socialism?

Maybe I'm thinking too much like a capitalist, but I thought the whole point of socialism was that it is worth accepting a lower GDP in order to bring-up the lower-class to an acceptable level of development. So in an economic crisis, there isn't a middle ground*: any increase in socialistic practices will decrease future GDP and worsten/prolong the crisis. In other words, you can only increase socialism when you have extra cash available. That's why - my distaste for national healthcare aside - the '90s would have been a much better time to implement it.

So it seems like the more socialist realize that more socialism makes an economic downturn worse/longer, but the less socialist don't.

*The middle-ground of socialism vs capitalism is growth vs development of the underclass (simplified).

 

[JaredJames]

Well the premise is faulty, which makes the conclusion faulty. It is extremely rare for people who are poor to "not be able to do anything about it". The vast majority are poor as a result of their own choices. Therefore, it is fair that they reap the 'rewards' of their efforts.

Ah, so it's fair that I'm stuck not able to afford to go into higher education (from age 16 onwards) because my parents messed up in school?

You can't have it both ways. If you give a house to someone who can't afford it, you take a house from someone who otherwise can. That's not fair in my book.

Woah. At what point did I say take houses from people and give them to the poor?

If you reduce the options available to the lower classes to improve their lifestyle, how are they ever going to get into a position of being able to afford better housing?

 

[JaredJames]

So, you would prefer a society that makes the rich poor and the poor "less poor." Sounds like communism to me. Everyone with the same amount of money, the same opportunities, the same same same.

Did I say the same amount of money? No. It's when you are putting people in a position where it is difficult to change their circumstances I disagree with.

What if everyone had the exact same opportunities to go to universities and come out with a phd? Do you really think there are jobs for EVERYONE to have a college education?

This is on the basis every person goes to university and gets a phd. Firstly, just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean people will take it up (my sister hates school and couldn't wait to get out at 16) and it certainly doesn't mean people are suddenly capable of attaining the phd's.

 

[Gokul43201]

That's why - my distaste for national healthcare aside - the '90s would have been a much better time to implement it.

I'm a little confused about what you meant when you mentioned the response to the crisis. I thought you were talking about the stimulus bill, the TARP program, the GM deal, the Wall Street regulation bill, etc. I don't think of the Healthcare bill as being in response to the economic/financial/housing crisis.

 

[russ_watters]

Ah, so it's fair that I'm stuck not able to afford to go into higher education (from age 16 onwards) because my parents messed up in school?

Well yes, but you're stepping well past the issue: In the US anyway, the vast majority of the poor have not completed high school.

Woah. At what point did I say take houses from people and give them to the poor?

You didn't. The flaw is that you don't recognize that reality.

If you reduce the options available to the lower classes to improve their lifestyle, how are they ever going to get into a position of being able to afford better housing?

What?! By giving them housing, you are ensuring that they will never need to work harder to afford it!

Don't act like opportunities don't exist or we're talking about an all-or-nothing situation. We're not talking about the difference between homeless and living in a mansion, we're talking about the difference between Oxford and a cheaper college. Maybe it's a lot tougher to become rich if you went to a mediocre school (doubt it, but ok...), but even a mediocre school opens up a relatively easy path to the upper-middle class if you take proper advantage of it.

 

[JaredJames]

You didn't. The flaw is that you don't recognize that reality.

Hmm, the issue in the UK is more down to the lack of affordable housing as opposed to taking houses off people.

What?! By giving them housing, you are ensuring that they will never need to work harder to afford it!

This is a whole other issue for me, it relates to the benefit state.

I'm talking about limiting education options. If you raise costs, fewer people go to uni. If fewer people go to uni and as we found last year there aren't jobs for them, the government then has to support them. Is it better to have people working in university towards a qualification (or in a college for a skill) or is it better to simply have people sitting around accepting handouts for doing nothing?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

Did I say the same amount of money? No. It's when you are putting people in a position where it is difficult to change their circumstances I disagree with.

This whole argument is that poor people should be able to do the same things as the rich (or perhaps even the not-so-rich but not-so-poor) people. Problem is, this isn't possible without basically violating the rights of the rich, which is apparently ok with you because they're rich...

This is on the basis every person goes to university and gets a phd.

The point is that raising the bar doesn't increase opportunity, it just limits it elsewhere. If everyone has a college degree because they can get it for free or really cheap, you'll end up with a bunch of people with degrees in mechanical engineering driving taxis and working the gas pumps.

Firstly, just because the opportunity is there doesn't mean people will take it up (my sister hates school and couldn't wait to get out at 16)

EVERYBODY has the opportunity right now, but like most things in life you have to earn it.

and it certainly doesn't mean people are suddenly capable of attaining the phd's.

It doesn't mean people are capable of going to college at all, but you want to keep the bar nice and low just in case...

 

[CRGreathouse]

Ah, so it's fair that I'm stuck not able to afford to go into higher education (from age 16 onwards) because my parents messed up in school?

Can't you get a loan? That's what I did, and what most people do. Who seriously expects their parents to pay for their college?

 

[JaredJames]

University choice in the UK is a big deal. If you don't go to a university that is strongly rated in your course then your chances of getting a job after it are seriously affected. Cambridge has a 100% employability rate in some subjects, compared to only 70% for Kingston (where I'm at).

I don't like the idea of only having rich people able to go to somewhere like Cambridge and the poorer only being able to use the 'lesser' places. It puts a bias on people applying for jobs - it gives the rich a greater chance of getting jobs.

You make money the deciding factor in higher education, not academic ability.

 

[russ_watters]

I'm a little confused about what you meant when you mentioned the response to the crisis. I thought you were talking about the stimulus bill, the TARP program, the GM deal, the Wall Street regulation bill, etc. I don't think of the Healthcare bill as being in response to the economic/financial/housing crisis.

Well setting aside the fact that Obama has linked healthcare to the financial crisis, even if it was completely unrelated, it would seem unwise to do something harmful to the economy at a time when you should be fixing it. IOW, even if one doesn't consider it part of the stimulus, it still affects our economy -- a lot, and negatively!

So while Europe is doing things to reduce the harm of their socialism to help recover, the US is trying to add a piece of socialism that (according to you) is isn't intended to help but is nevertheless massive and expensive and (according to me) does harm at a time we should be helping.

The president said that in addition to helping millions who lack coverage, the health care legislation is central to the goal of eventually rebuilding the economy stronger than it was before the recession that began more than a year ago.

He said Medicare and Medicaid, government health care programs for the elderly and the poor, are the "biggest driving force behind our federal deficit."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/32088107/ns/politics-white_house/

And this, of course, while the healthcare bill does virtually nothing to deal with the Medicare/Medicaid funding issue.

 

[JaredJames]

Can't you get a loan? That's what I did, and what most people do. Who seriously expects their parents to pay for their college?

Yes in most cases, but it's the leaving debt that has now tripled (£9000 to £27000 for tuition alone - that doesn't include living costs).

 

[Mathnomalous]

Apples and oranges.

The market price of a house is determined by present market conditions while the market price of a university education is determined by prediction of market conditions X number of years in the future. When you buy a house, you get to enjoy the shelter offered by said house immediately; when you buy a university education, you primarily get to enjoy the benefits when an employer hires you and determines what your education is actually worth to that employer. A house will have the same price regardless of who buys the house; an education will vary across individuals even if the price paid is the exact same. A house is tangible, an education is intangible.

With that being said, I welcome the idea of privatized higher education. It is going to force many universities to play by market rules and to actually deliver a quality education or training. The beauty of it all is that knowledge itself is not affected by market forces; a person paying $10 to learn calculus will learn the same thing as a person paying $1,000 to learn calculus.

To make it clearer, it is the difference between buying a BMW and buying a Honda. Both cars will get you from A to B in a similar fashion, the primary difference being the BMW signals you have $$$ while the Honda says you got $; the primary function (getting you from A to B) will be almost the exact same for both cars.

 

[russ_watters]

Can't you get a loan? That's what I did, and what most people do. Who seriously expects their parents to pay for their college?

Because people in their '50s are a lot better able to afford college than people in their '20s, I think parents should pay for college for their kids if they can. It becomes something passed-on from generation to generation.

 

[JaredJames]

With that being said, I welcome the idea of privatized higher education. It is going to force many universities to play by market rules and to actually deliver a quality education or training. The beauty of it all is that knowledge itself is not affected by market forces; a person paying $10 to learn calculus will learn the same thing as a person paying $1,000 to learn calculus.

A nice post.

However, in the UK university ranks do play a big part in becoming employed once you graduate. See above post for notes on it.

 

[JaredJames]

Because people in their '50s are a lot better able to afford college than people in their '20s, I think parents should pay for college for their kids if they can. It becomes something passed-on from generation to generation.

Yes well for my mother, a single mother, who earns £17000 a year. Paying out the £9000 tuition costs (as of a years time) plus any living costs (excluding a part time jobs for me which would pay around £80 a week) would give a total of about £12000 per year. Yep, she could afford that.

I am the first in my family to go to university. I'm able to do so because of the current costs.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

University choice in the UK is a big deal. If you don't go to a university that is strongly rated in your course then your chances of getting a job after it are seriously affected. Cambridge has a 100% employability rate in some subjects, compared to only 70% for Kingston (where I'm at).

And you have to work accordingly hard to get into those schools. Does it really make sense for them both to cost the exact same?

I don't like the idea of only having rich people able to go to somewhere like Cambridge and the poorer only being able to use the 'lesser' places. It puts a bias on people applying for jobs - it gives the rich a greater chance of getting jobs.

Just because you're rich doesn't mean you have the grades to get into the good school, and it doesn't mean a "regular" guy can't get excellent grades in high school and get a student loan to go to the good school. "Rich" people aren't the only ones who get into good schools, or get good grades.

If you're "poor" and don't like where you're at, you'd better study hard and earn the right to get out of there. It shouldn't be the public's job to give it to you.

You make money the deciding factor in higher education, not academic ability.

I'll bet getting straight A's at Kingston is a lot better than straight C's at Cambridge...

 

[Mathnomalous]

However, in the UK university ranks do play a big part in becoming employed once you graduate. See above post for notes on it.

That is bad news for universities ranked below the "cut-off" for "eliteness" and great news for the vast majority of students who will not attend the best universities anyway. Since the end result is the same (getting a job), universities will start competing on the basis of which has a higher success rate on getting its students jobs.

 

[JaredJames]

Just because you're rich doesn't mean you have the grades to get into the good school, and it doesn't mean a "regular" guy can't get excellent grades in high school and get a student loan to go to the good school. "Rich" people aren't the only ones who get into good schools, or get good grades.

You'd be surprised what money can do for you when it comes to certain universities.

If you're "poor" and don't like where you're at, you'd better study hard and earn the right to get out of there. It shouldn't be the public's job to give it to you.

I know what I want to reply with, but can't get it into the right words. Give me a bit on this one (it's 4am and I'm going to bed soon).

I'll bet getting straight A's at Kingston is a lot better than straight C's at Cambridge...

Not for an employer, something I proved on application for a placement last year.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

You'd be surprised what money can do for you when it comes to certain universities.

People rich enough to buy a building for the university in exchange for an education don't need a job, and therefore probably won't be competing with you in the job market when they graduate...

Not for an employer, something I proved on application for a placement last year.

Maybe you don't want to work for that company then!

 

[Mathnomalous]

And you have to work accordingly hard to get into those schools. Does it really make sense for them both to cost the exact same?

No, it does not make sense. That actually benefits the easier school. When most people buy products, they expect the product to make an aspect of their lives easier or more pleasurable, not more challenging.

Just because you're rich doesn't mean you have the grades to get into the good school, and it doesn't mean a "regular" guy can't get excellent grades in high school and get a student loan to go to the good school. "Rich" people aren't the only ones who get into good schools, or get good grades.

If you're "poor" and don't like where you're at, you'd better study hard and earn the right to get out of there. It shouldn't be the public's job to give it to you.

Except it does not matter where a rich person goes, they already have the $ and connections to succeed. And if higher education is privatized, you can expect the "best" schools to cater to the rich.

I'll bet getting straight A's at Kingston is a lot better than straight C's at Cambridge...

Not if Cambridge gets you a job more easily than Kingston.

 

[Evo]

A nice post.

However, in the UK university ranks do play a big part in becoming employed once you graduate. See above post for notes on it.

Same in the US. And the better universities charge through the nose $40-$60k a year.

 

[JaredJames]

Same in the US. And the better universities charge through the nose $40-$60k a year.

Wow, that's steep.

But I see that as unfair as you are introducing money as a deciding factor in where you can be educated, when I personally see it should be down to ability.

An ideal system would be one where the best in a subject go to the best facilities for that subject. Obviously, that's not how things work but I don't see why we can't try to work towards it.

Thanks to the UK's current system where all charges are virtually equal. Anyone can apply anywhere and the main deciding factor is what qualifications you leave school with.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes well for my mother, a single mother, who earns £17000 a year. Paying out the £9000 tuition costs (as of a years time) plus any living costs (excluding a part time jobs for me which would pay around £80 a week) would give a total of about £12000 per year. Yep, she could afford that.

I am the first in my family to go to university. I'm able to do so because of the current costs.

As I said: if they can.

 

[Evo]

Wow, that's steep.

But I see that as unfair as you are introducing money as a deciding factor in where you can be educated, when I personally see it should be down to ability.

No, you have to have the grades, you have to have done charitable work, been an intern, have letters of recommendation , and if you have all that, then you get the privilege of paying, if they accept you. Of course there are scholarships loans, etc... to help. Evo child is hoping to get into Stanford and is trying to get all of her "extracurricular" requirements and letters of recommendation together. She has the grades.

 

[mheslep]

We're supposed to be less socialistic than Europe but we're responding to the same crisis by moving to the left while they're moving to the right. That's pretty ironic to me.

Yep, +1

 

[mheslep]

Yes well for my mother, a single mother, who earns £17000 a year. Paying out the £9000 tuition costs (as of a years time) plus any living costs (excluding a part time jobs for me which would pay around £80 a week) would give a total of about £12000 per year. Yep, she could afford that.

I am the first in my family to go to university. I'm able to do so because of the current costs.

And the current costs are the current costs because the government has been i) borrowing money and/or ii) taking money by force from other people and funneling it indirectly to you. Great Britain can not do any more of i) unless it want's to become Greece, and it's done about as much of ii) as it can, witness Keith Richards living in fabulous Weston, Connecticut, USA where http://reason.com/blog/2010/11/01/keith-richards-we-left-england" Hmmm. Either chalk that last anecdote up as a drug induced irrationally, or all that bluff about tax increases having no impact on the behavior of the rich is load of bull.