LegoMan1031 Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Even though it was the minority of students (if some of them were even students) there that caused that damage and trouble it doesn't help picture students in a good light. Students and young people in general are given quite a bad label now a days anyway and now this is going to be all over the papers and news showing the damage which is just going to lower peoples opinions again thinking they are all just as bad!! Steriotyping to the max!
Platty Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I agree with the protest, the fees are ridiculous. However, the violent end was not needed. Shame as the news is all about that now with the idiots smashing stuff up rather than look at all these thousands of students who protested peacefully and come from miles away to be heard.
Ashley Posted November 10, 2010 Author Posted November 10, 2010 Wouldn't it be better to protest about where cuts are going, and not the cuts themselves? Our SU was protesting, primarily, about the manner in which the uni was planning on handling the cuts - by cutting contact time. Hence why we were heard singing "Can't Cut This" to the tune of 'Cant Touch This'. Demo buddy! Taken by me. I'm likely to be in photos somewhere. I woke up too late to go/excuse. I forgot Chair was going and others here. Could have met up. I did see the Kingston group and looked in but couldn't see you/probably wouldn't anyway. I agree with the protest, the fees are ridiculous. However, the violent end was not needed. Shame as the news is all about that now with the idiots smashing stuff up rather than look at all these thousands of students who protested peacefully and come from miles away to be heard. It is a shame it resulted in that. Thankfully a lot of reports are saying the excessive violence was not by students but random people who joined on looking to be violent. I left before all of that kicked off though so I didn't see the Millbank siege.
The fish Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Fun fact - the cut to the higher education budget in England & Wales is 40%. The rise in tuition fees is over 120%
The fish Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Percentages. How useless. Sorry, I should have made it clear that the rise in tuition fees will rise HE funding to a level over 120% of the current funding. They're increasing the HE funding, but at a more direct expense to the students themselves. This won't make me many friends, but that's probably actually a good thing.
Twozzok Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) I'm probably a minority here, but assuming the loans company will be covering the rise in tuitions fees, and the planned 9% of everything over 21k is implemented. Then who gives a shit? If anything graduates will be paying less money when they get a job. The average graduate who gets a job straight out of uni (at least in engineering, fuck you social science lot ) earns £24k. At the current 9% of everything over £16k'ish. That's 9% of £8k that'll be paid back per year, which is £720 a year (£60 a paycheck). For 9% of everything over £21k, the 9% is only applied to £4k of your salary, which is equal to £360 a year (£30 a paycheck). My solution to the problem? Get rid of funding for stupid-ass degrees like basket weaving. Shit like that should be done through apprenticeships and accredited diplomas and the like. Edited November 10, 2010 by Twozzok Punctuating like a motherfucker.
chairdriver Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Just arrived at Paj's in Kingston, having been at the march. Was right at the front for the majority of the Millbank escapade. Literally couldn't move, and had to shield my stunning friend Concepta from stuff being thrown. I'm glad things got serious, because it shows this is a serious issue.
Daft Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 That wasn't things getting serious. That was things getting petty.
Charlie Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 I'm glad things got serious, because it shows this is a serious issue. You're a moron. Making things violent just show that the protesters shouldn't be taken seriously because they can't protest a serious issue seriously.
LegoMan1031 Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 (edited) I'm glad things got serious, because it shows this is a serious issue. I'm sorry but serious is people taking the time out and travelling to do a protest to stand up for what they believe in, not smashing up a building and getting violant. Violance does not solve anything and only makes matters worse. If that is your thinking then are you saying the whole country should take to the streets and destroy stuff? The rise in tutition fee's is shit and not fair, but neither is all these people losing jobs with various cuts in the public sector (heck i might be one of them) etc. This is the line terrorists use, now i know that is on a different scale but it's the same idea, do things drastic (use of violance) to make a point and show your serious. Edited November 10, 2010 by Mike1988uk
Will Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 Christ on a bike, I've only just seen the violent bits and it's utterly ridiculous. I hope they do their best to catch anyone involved in the violence, immediately up their fees to double to proposed amounts and then on graduation day tell them that they're not getting a degree. Absolute bunch of pricks. I don't even know why they went to conservative HQ, surely they should be protesting labour for fucking up so badly we even need these cuts.
Iun Posted November 10, 2010 Posted November 10, 2010 With all respect... I genuinely hope this helps to cut the wasters out of the system - there are those who view University as either a recreational activity, or a means to avoid reality/work for three to four years. Case in point: out of 24 people in my Corridor in the first year, I was the only one who came out with more than a pass. Why? I actually studied. One of the guys I lived with in second year was on his third restart of a new degree - he actually admitted he didn't want to work. However, this will also hit those who have great potential but not the funds to back this up, and that is where I think the protests are right.
Mr-Paul Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 (edited) Some pics from my perspective: F-U. Big Ben. FIRE. Flaming Placard. More fire. Glass damage. Lol. Jesus man. Flaaaaare. Edited November 12, 2010 by jayseven
Nintendohnut Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 I saw some good photos of guys holding up placards saying 'Mildly concerned' and 'Disgruntled (but comfortable)' There was also a great one that said 'The Tories put the 'N' in CUTS' Wish I'd been able to go, but just too busy. Also, there's a tiny, guilty part of me who is thinking 'I have a degree. If it costs more, less people will go. Then my degree will be worth more...' I know it's wrong, and I do disagree with the TF rise, but, y'know.... it's true
Mr-Paul Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 I was thinking the same logic earlier... more likely to get me a job... but then my brother will be in the first generation of the raised fees, which seeing he is only 16 now, he has never worked/paid taxes/abused the NHS/abused benefits/got us all into debt so it seems very unfair that if he is to be successful it will cost him a lot of money whereas posh twats like Clegg and Cameron had money from their rich families and yet paid hardly a penny towards their education and are passing the buck onto the next generation. It's simply unfair. And with regards to the matter of cuts in education funding as opposed to tuition fees rises, I don't feel I get enough hours a week for my £3,000 a year, let alone the £9,000 the students of the future will potentially be paying.
dan-likes-trees Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 Some pics from my perspective: FIRE. Flaming Placard. More fire. Some of those are really good you know, particularly the ones of the fire.. probably too late now but they'd potentially have been newspaper-worthy. Anyway, yeah, I should have gone, I was like a 30 minute train journey away too. Ah well, essays and that. Some irony in not being able to protest about others not being able to get degrees because I'm too busy doing mine? Shame about the violence. From the BBC video it's pretty clear there was quite alot of knobs not remotely bothered about university issues and only there for the violence. The whole idea of tuition fees is monumentally flawed. There is no way that my course (english lit) should justify £3000, let alone 9000, particularly given I have about 8 contact hours a week. I'm sure that with better uni finance management alot could be saved. Still. At least it's not over 9000, amirite?
The fish Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 The whole idea of tuition fees is monumentally flawed. There is no way that my course (english lit) should justify £3000, let alone 9000, particularly given I have about 8 contact hours a week. I'm sure that with better uni finance management alot could be saved. Still. At least it's not over 9000, amirite? Chemical Engineering uses over £100,000 in chemicals per student per year, and I, as a Civil Engineer, have/had at least 24 contact hours a week - business and arts degrees make up the difference for science and engineering degrees.
Debug Mode Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 I'm at a loss with my own views with this one. There should be exceptions to the current cap, I agree, especially with what The Fish has posted, I always knew many courses were bound to be ridiculously more expensive. The problem is a lot of Universities love money, like mine, and will always move it to the cap. I would not pay more than the current cap for my course, that's pretty much set in stone. Another thing that I'm at a loss with is my view on the 'violence' displayed. Not very much violence displayed to be perfectly honest, do people not remember the Poll Tax riots? Now THAT was violent. But I'm still undecided about the effect of the violence. I think violence is a good exhibition of how the people are no longer going to take bull shit from the Government after promises were made. Any one who says simply going and protesting is 'serious enough' because you made the effort have to be joking. Don't get me wrong, you have my respect, I'm damn glad to see people are finally getting off their asses (Despite the fact the majority still think liking a page on facebook is a valid protest). But it's not really serious enough, you're technically asking them politely to reconsider their plans to make more money. The fact it got this far, even with a coalition with the Lib Dems (who lets remember, the leader of is from a largely student based constituency), means it's highly unlikely they'l change their proposals. The Lib Dem's are pretty fucked after this term, no one, especially the students, will take them seriously. So some form of violence is some what of a necessity. It shows people are mad, they're willing to do what ever it is to change the direction, that people still hold power. Problem is, I can never fully agree with the violence despite my views its needed, because the damage comes out of our taxes.. I fucking hate being neutral.
Iun Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 The Fish makes a good point: more labour and contact-intensive degrees are subsidised by people on less workload-heavy courses. However, degrees in the Arts have a tendence towards being less vocational and more vague, whereas somebody studying engineering is essentially learning a profession. I did two Arts degrees concurrently, and I actually regret it. The best thing I did was spend a year on a work placement with my French degree, it taught me to wise up about the real world. A lot of people think higher education should be free: why? Why should the tapayer subsidise people who are not necessarily working hard towards their stated goal -or those who don't even have a goal? Of course, the reverse of that is that the hard-workers are punished too for no reason. But there is of course the argument that the serious students are more employable in the long-term and therefore it's a trade-off between suffering now and prosperity in the future. Actually I believe Freud said something about deferred pleasure - a child cannot accept short term pain for long-term gain, but an adult theoretically can.
Debug Mode Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 A lot of people think higher education should be free: why? Why should the tapayer subsidise people who are not necessarily working hard towards their stated goal -or those who don't even have a goal? I was wondering this myself seeing some of the banners asking for it. Higher education has never been free, it's not free now, why should it be made free?
dan-likes-trees Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 The Fish makes a good point: more labour and contact-intensive degrees are subsidised by people on less workload-heavy courses. However, degrees in the Arts have a tendence towards being less vocational and more vague, whereas somebody studying engineering is essentially learning a profession. I did two Arts degrees concurrently, and I actually regret it. The best thing I did was spend a year on a work placement with my French degree, it taught me to wise up about the real world. A lot of people think higher education should be free: why? Why should the tapayer subsidise people who are not necessarily working hard towards their stated goal -or those who don't even have a goal? Of course, the reverse of that is that the hard-workers are punished too for no reason. But there is of course the argument that the serious students are more employable in the long-term and therefore it's a trade-off between suffering now and prosperity in the future. Actually I believe Freud said something about deferred pleasure - a child cannot accept short term pain for long-term gain, but an adult theoretically can. All good points. The whole debate raises pretty interesting questions about the purpose of a university degree itself. Should it be preparing you for the job market or aiming to educate and teach? In the case of English it's especially clear - having an english degree isn't going to lead many places without further qualifications. Yet at the same time the course is (or can be) incredibly interesting and educational. In a sense you could even argue that arts degrees should be cheaper than sciences, given that the course is a) far less expensive to run and b) generally provides less long term financial gain. Alas though, that's little more than a very vague pattern, and would most likely lead to a bad case of students picking courses based on price rather than content. The problem really is, as everyone has said, the students who are just using university for fun, as something to do for 3 years before getting a job. Someone from my halls last year said how he was only at uni because he was getting it all paid for b the government - grants and bursarys - and that he wouldn't be there otherwise. How can universities realistically know which students are going to uni to learn and who's going to have fun and waste time?
Ashley Posted November 11, 2010 Author Posted November 11, 2010 Still. At least it's not over 9000, amirite? There was a banner that on one side said something like "How bad are tuition fees going to be?" and the other side said "Over 9000!!!" with Goku. I was wondering this myself seeing some of the banners asking for it. Higher education has never been free, it's not free now, why should it be made free? They were. Up until...1996 I think. They were definitely free in the past.
Mr-Paul Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 Some of those are really good you know, particularly the ones of the fire.. probably too late now but they'd potentially have been newspaper-worthy. I was actually considering sending them to the newspapers, but their file sizes were struggling to upload to my email and I didn't know how far I should compress them down from their original raw images and then I had to go out again so I gave up. I might give it another go this morning, you never know.
dan-likes-trees Posted November 11, 2010 Posted November 11, 2010 I was actually considering sending them to the newspapers, but their file sizes were struggling to upload to my email and I didn't know how far I should compress them down from their original raw images and then I had to go out again so I gave up. I might give it another go this morning, you never know. Go for it. It's potentially too late as today's papers are obvious printed and out but it's worth a try. Even if you only send the last fire one its worth a go (Best one IMO, well framed and summarizes events nicely)
Recommended Posts