New Labour's biggest failure was probably totally failing to resolve the issue with housing.
To a large extent they caused it through a combination of lax regulation (e.g. the famous 125% mortgage from Northern Rock), kickstarting the buy-to-let mania by undermining private pensions, and using immigration to boost GDP.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
How can levelling up entail making poor graduates pay more for university.
Let’s make pensioners pay, they don’t pay for anything else and get everything handed to them on a platter. Including housing prices, no tuition fees, free transport
Raving Lunatic
Hey Malcolm, hope you are well Sir.
I think you need a history lesson
As I said when I left school in 1962 I did not go to university and at the time the numbers doing so were low
I have found the data and this puts the idea pensioners had free university education is not true as the majority did not go to university
It was Blair whose mantra of education, education, education in 1997 was responsible for the explosion in numbers and I would argue too many are going to university today who should be starting apprentices and work placement from school
Todays pensioner's were born on or before 1955 so that is relevant to this discussion
'In the early 1960s, only 4% of school leavers went to university, rising to around 14% by the end of the 1970s. Nowadays, more than 40% of young people start undergraduate degrees – but it comes at a cost.
I can't comment on the 14% in the late 70s as I can't find the figures anywhere, but I do know that I left school in 1979 and went to University. My school was a Grammar school, yet only about 60% of us went to University, others went into white collar apprenticeships, accountancy, retail management etc. Also the staying on rate to 18 was much lower. Any Grammar school now would expect all of its students to go to University, and Comprehensives would expect most of them to go.
The problem is that Universities have effectively been repurposed to "finishing schools" rather than centres of excellence which they once were. (Much generalisation here).
This is the article and is well worth a read to put todays university attendance into its historical context
A very interesting article. I was struck by the statement that the A level student was under a lot of pressure. That could be a function of A level grade inflation of the past coupled with much moire recent toughening of the A level exams now.
Interesting to compare experiences. I went to MIT in Boston in 1967, which was thrilling and had loads of social life as well as exciting classes, but it became clear in a few months that the family couldn't afford to keep me there. So I switched to the (free) Copenhagen University from 1967-72 (BSc/Msc maths/computing) and then did a PhD at Birkbeck. The latter was entirely wfh (in Denmark) with monthly visits to my tutor - I never met another student - so isn't relevant here. The Copenhagen experience was very much of a city university in which everyone had their own social circles from home and just came in to study: there was the occasional party but quite limited interaction. Many of us were very political - I collected 2000 signatures in uni canteens to help the communists get to the 20K needed to qualify for the next election (the Danes have PR but you need to show you're non-trivial to stand at all) - but as a social experience it was pretty much a non-event. Are other city-based unis like that? I envied the stories of universities with campuses and joint student living.
But like others who have commented here I grew up with the middle-class assumption that of course I'd go to uni, to study whatever I was best at, with no particular thought to post-uni careers. I failed my first year due to the combination of uni-level maths and lack of fluent Danish; my parent said never mind, try again, and it worked out. When I finished my PhD it was a rude shick to realise that pure maths careers are actually quite rare - insurance, teaching and errr... So I relabelled myself as an IT specialist and that went well. If I'd said I wanted to be a carpenter my parents would have been supportive but perplexed.
Just been watching Farage's talking pints with David Starkey, in a (presumably) wetherspoons in Folkestone.
I mentioned yesterday about the effect of outlawing right ideas which were previously co-opted in to edges of the conservative party. This is a good example of the inevitable consequences. In the last few minutes of the video, Starkey is brilliantly convincing in his condemnation of the entire cultural and academic establishment. You just need the right person to carry this baton forward, and we have our own Zemmour.
At the moment, the Conservative Party has captured that block quite effectively given Brexit and the Eurosceptic / anti-woke bent of most of their MPs. The risk would come if the Tories went back to being led by a Cameron / Osborne type. Cannot see that happening for a while.
France is a very unhappy place. The U.K. is not.
I don't think so. The Euroscepticism is now a redundant issue. The tories anti woke stance is not particularly convincing and comes across as half assed and tokenistic, a crumb being chucked at the deplorables. For instance, they stood aside at the desecration of the cenotaph; and were unconcerned about the black lives matter protests during the pandemic. There are many other examples.
There are a lot of things that you cannot question in the UK, without putting yourself at risk of serious personal, professional and legal consquences. Not even in a John Stuart Mill way, to test out if they are right or wrong. I am not going to list them out, because we all know what they are. And this will eventually result in anger that finds a political expression.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
I am very happy to have a discussion about funding higher education but I do think very strongly all changes should apply going forwards.
So if they want to change the system from say a year from now then I would not be in favour but they could justify it but how can you change a system which the people going into were doing so on good faith? This is how you destroy faith in the system
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
Yeah. That was a stupid move by Osborne. He shoulda left well alone.
Fascinating to see how the Johnson government’s post Brexit abject weakness is being portrayed around the world - no amount of bluster about “Global Britain” makes this look good https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1452237537607618563
Just been watching Farage's talking pints with David Starkey, in a (presumably) wetherspoons in Folkestone.
I mentioned yesterday about the effect of outlawing right ideas which were previously co-opted in to edges of the conservative party. This is a good example of the inevitable consequences. In the last few minutes of the video, Starkey is brilliantly convincing in his condemnation of the entire cultural and academic establishment. You just need the right person to carry this baton forward, and we have our own Zemmour.
At the moment, the Conservative Party has captured that block quite effectively given Brexit and the Eurosceptic / anti-woke bent of most of their MPs. The risk would come if the Tories went back to being led by a Cameron / Osborne type. Cannot see that happening for a while.
France is a very unhappy place. The U.K. is not.
I don't think so. The Euroscepticism is now a redundant issue. The tories anti woke stance is not particularly convincing and comes across as half assed and tokenistic, a crumb being chucked at the deplorables. For instance, they stood aside at the desecration of the cenotaph; and were unconcerned about the black lives matter protests during the pandemic. There are many other examples.
There are a lot of things that you cannot question in the UK, without putting yourself at risk of serious personal, professional and legal consquences. Not even in a John Stuart Mill way, to test out if they are right or wrong. I am not going to list them out, because we all know what they are. And this will eventually result in anger that finds a political expression.
I’d agree with you that a lot of the Conservative anti-woke agenda is, for now, pretty token. However, the direction of travel is clear and the key is here is that the composition of both the seats held and the Conservative MPs elected has changed dramatically in less than 5 years. Gone are the Home Counties Grieve and Gauke types and in their places are many more northern / midland working and lower middle class types. Whoever follows Boris will swing the Tories in a more socially conservative, anti-woke direction and, for good value bets for next leader, I’d be looking for those candidates who are naturally going to appeal to the MPs for Mansfield and Stoke.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
Again the right to make informed decisions. If potential students were warned, well this is what it costs right now but in the future you may have to pay more and for longer then fair enough. If they weren't this is just wrong. My understanding is that the latter is at least more typical and possibly universal.
Back to PB Tory-Corbynite favourite: Rachel Reeves’ Voice.
Yeah, her voice is fine. Once i had fast forwarded through the Marr lockdownism nonsense, I listened carefully to a) what she said and b) how she said it.
a) She seems highly competent and intelligent to me. As @HYUFD says, she is one of the really serious people in HMO.
b) Her voice is reassuring. It’s clear, serious and easy to listen to while sounding authoritative without being posh.
In short, the PB Tory-Corbynites are wrong about Rachel. She’s good.
Whoever follows Boris will swing the Tories in a more socially conservative, anti-woke direction and, for good value bets for next leader, I’d be looking for those candidates who are naturally going to appeal to the MPs for Mansfield and Stoke.
Making a 'brave' assumption the MPs for Mansfield and Stoke will continue to be under the Tory banner
Back to PB Tory-Corbynite favourite: Rachel Reeves’ Voice.
Yeah, her voice is fine. Once i had fast forwarded through the Marr lockdownism nonsense, I listened carefully to a) what she said and b) how she said it.
a) She seems highly competent and intelligent to me. As @HYUFD says, she is one of the really serious people in HMO.
b) Her voice is reassuring. It’s clear, serious and easy to listen to while sounding serious without being posh.
In short, the PB Tory-Corbynites are wrong about Rachel. She’s good.
Couple of thoughts on the vaccination programmme: the Chief Medical Officers wrote to health Ministers on September 13th telling them to vaccinate the user 16s… as of last week, no maintained secondary school in North Yorkshire had run their vaccination sessions, one school has had three cancellations and is not due to have a team in to vaccinate the pupils until the second week in November…. Meanwhile 13% of pupils are absent due to Covid and staff absence peaked at 25%…. Secondly, people trying to book boosters with the local GP practice have been told there are no vaccines available until early December…make of those what you will.
The regional variations for 12-15s are interesting:
South East 24.6% East 24.01% East Midlands 23.6% North West 20.5% North East 18.5% West Midlands 17.6% Yorkshire 16.7% London 16.2% South West 14.3%
Which suggests some parts are less competent than others.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
The problem is that the government is involved at all in higher education funding.
There should be a contract between a student, a commercial financier, and the academic institution, without the government being involved.
If government wishes to underwrite loans to the banks, to make the terms more attractive to the student, then fine. If government wishes to directly fund places on certain courses, that’s fine too. But government loans to students just leaves a political plaything that’s attractive to Chancellors of the Exchequer.
Back to PB Tory-Corbynite favourite: Rachel Reeves’ Voice.
Yeah, her voice is fine. Once i had fast forwarded through the Marr lockdownism nonsense, I listened carefully to a) what she said and b) how she said it.
a) She seems highly competent and intelligent to me. As @HYUFD says, she is one of the really serious people in HMO.
b) Her voice is reassuring. It’s clear, serious and easy to listen to while sounding serious without being posh.
In short, the PB Tory-Corbynites are wrong about Rachel. She’s good.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
Again the right to make informed decisions. If potential students were warned, well this is what it costs right now but in the future you may have to pay more and for longer then fair enough. If they weren't this is just wrong. My understanding is that the latter is at least more typical and possibly universal.
I would favour starting the repayment at a lower threshold but having a lower repayment rate.
Which I think would encourage people to take more worthwhile courses.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
The problem is that the government is involved at all in higher education funding.
There should be a contract between a student, a commercial financier, and the academic institution, without the government being involved.
If government wishes to underwrite loans to the banks, to make the terms more attractive to the student, then fine. If government wishes to directly fund places on certain courses, that’s fine too. But government loans to students just leaves a political plaything that’s attractive to Chancellors of the Exchequer.
Absolutely. At present you are taking out a loan of the size of a small mortgage without knowing the rate, at what level of income it becomes payable and for how long it is repayable. I mean, would you do this with any other debt?
The Observer has run a story based on a random Twitter poll accusing the government of failing to deliver air monitors to schools. The article even links to the tweet.
Back to PB Tory-Corbynite favourite: Rachel Reeves’ Voice.
Yeah, her voice is fine. Once i had fast forwarded through the Marr lockdownism nonsense, I listened carefully to a) what she said and b) how she said it.
a) She seems highly competent and intelligent to me. As @HYUFD says, she is one of the really serious people in HMO.
b) Her voice is reassuring. It’s clear, serious and easy to listen to while sounding authoritative without being posh.
In short, the PB Tory-Corbynites are wrong about Rachel. She’s good.
I think that she stands out in the shadow cabinet in the same way as Rishi does in the actual cabinet. A serious person on top of the issues. I wish that was not so unusual on both sides of the political divide.
Fascinating to see how the Johnson government’s post Brexit abject weakness is being portrayed around the world - no amount of bluster about “Global Britain” makes this look good https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1452237537607618563
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
The problem is that the government is involved at all in higher education funding.
There should be a contract between a student, a commercial financier, and the academic institution, without the government being involved.
If government wishes to underwrite loans to the banks, to make the terms more attractive to the student, then fine. If government wishes to directly fund places on certain courses, that’s fine too. But government loans to students just leaves a political plaything that’s attractive to Chancellors of the Exchequer.
Absolutely. At present you are taking out a loan of the size of a small mortgage without knowing the rate, at what level of income it becomes payable and for how long it is repayable. I mean, would you do this with any other debt?
It would be called financial abuse of the vulnerable under any other circumstance.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
I am very happy to have a discussion about funding higher education but I do think very strongly all changes should apply going forwards.
So if they want to change the system from say a year from now then I would not be in favour but they could justify it but how can you change a system which the people going into were doing so on good faith? This is how you destroy faith in the system
But this gang of Tories have done everything possible to destroy our faith in all parts of the system. From elections to justice to the competence and honesty of the authorities.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
The problem is that the government is involved at all in higher education funding.
There should be a contract between a student, a commercial financier, and the academic institution, without the government being involved.
If government wishes to underwrite loans to the banks, to make the terms more attractive to the student, then fine. If government wishes to directly fund places on certain courses, that’s fine too. But government loans to students just leaves a political plaything that’s attractive to Chancellors of the Exchequer.
Absolutely. At present you are taking out a loan of the size of a small mortgage without knowing the rate, at what level of income it becomes payable and for how long it is repayable. I mean, would you do this with any other debt?
As I said (at the time on here) - Osborne was an idiot to open the can of worms by freezing the threshold back in 2015. It was retrospective taxation, which goes against most peoples sense of natural justice.
It’s all to play for now, and the left could just write the loans off. Taking out a loan for uni could turn out to be a pretty smart move.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
The problem is that the government is involved at all in higher education funding.
There should be a contract between a student, a commercial financier, and the academic institution, without the government being involved.
If government wishes to underwrite loans to the banks, to make the terms more attractive to the student, then fine. If government wishes to directly fund places on certain courses, that’s fine too. But government loans to students just leaves a political plaything that’s attractive to Chancellors of the Exchequer.
There are parallels with the social care funding mess. As with social care, university education is recognised as being a public good, rather than entirely a private matter, and so the government is involved to an extent that it isn't for ownership of private cars, say. It's fabulously expensive and the bulk of the cost is met by the people who receive the service. There are many who advocate government assuming full responsibility for the cost, but no recent government has been willing to do so because of the price tag.
The recently announced solution for social care is to tax young people so that old people don't have to pay if they are unlucky enough to require social care. Seems obvious that we should tax old people to pay for free university education.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
The problem is that the government is involved at all in higher education funding.
There should be a contract between a student, a commercial financier, and the academic institution, without the government being involved.
If government wishes to underwrite loans to the banks, to make the terms more attractive to the student, then fine. If government wishes to directly fund places on certain courses, that’s fine too. But government loans to students just leaves a political plaything that’s attractive to Chancellors of the Exchequer.
Absolutely. At present you are taking out a loan of the size of a small mortgage without knowing the rate, at what level of income it becomes payable and for how long it is repayable. I mean, would you do this with any other debt?
As I said (at the time on here) - Osborne was an idiot to open the can of worms by freezing the threshold back in 2015. It was retrospective taxation, which goes against most peoples sense of natural justice.
It’s all to play for now, and the left could just write the loans off. Taking out a loan for uni could turn out to be a pretty smart move.
If the loans are written off they will be replaced with some sort of a graduate tax. Which somewhat disincentivises those tempted to pay them off quicker because they may end up paying twice!
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
Osborne froze the threshold at which repayments started in 2015.
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
Yeah. That was a stupid move by Osborne. He shoulda left well alone.
Mr Osborne did a lot of stupid things around 2015:
- choking off landlord investment in housing. - freezing Universal Credit and other benefits, such as Local Housing Allowance. - 1m IHT threshold.
I was pretty pissed off when the govt sold off my plan 1 student loan, recently. Now I’m rather relieved as it makes it very unlikely they’ll change the repayment terms.
A very interesting article. I was struck by the statement that the A level student was under a lot of pressure. That could be a function of A level grade inflation of the past coupled with much moire recent toughening of the A level exams now.
I remember the workload and pressure of A levels in the 80s being absolutely insane. I was lucky because I'd done my French A-level when I was 16 so I was only doing 3 when most of my contemporaries were doing 4. I doubt I would have got the grades I did otherwise.
My contrast doing Modern Languages at Durham seemed much easier. I was living at home and had ample time to fly Chipmunks with the UAS and build deathtrap Golf GTIs in addition to my academic workload.
Fascinating to see how the Johnson government’s post Brexit abject weakness is being portrayed around the world - no amount of bluster about “Global Britain” makes this look good https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1452237537607618563
My prediction is that in a few years the Tories will be looking back at the Truss and declaring her the worst minister in modern history. (I notice her polling has already nosedived so this has probably started to sink in.)
New Labour's biggest failure was probably totally failing to resolve the issue with housing.
I'm sorry CHB, not only did New Labour not solve the housing crisis they had a huge hand in creating it with the boom in private rentals and people deciding that screwing young people with punitive rents was a good way to make a living. I rented for 6 years before I was able to buy my own place and I could only afford to do so because I work in banking.
A very interesting article. I was struck by the statement that the A level student was under a lot of pressure. That could be a function of A level grade inflation of the past coupled with much moire recent toughening of the A level exams now.
I remember the workload and pressure of A levels in the 80s being absolutely insane. I was lucky because I'd done my French A-level when I was 16 so I was only doing 3 when most of my contemporaries were doing 4. I doubt I would have got the grades I did otherwise.
My contrast doing Modern Languages at Durham seemed much easier. I was living at home and had ample time to fly Chipmunks with the UAS and build deathtrap Golf GTIs in addition to my academic workload.
Well you would find it easier doing a Micky Mouse degree with 2 lectures a week.
Things were a bit more intense over in the Engineering Faculty. My final year was tough going. Certainly a lot more so than my A Level years.
But getting through Sixth Form and University set me up for a professional career. The effort paid off, that's for sure.
New Labour's biggest failure was probably totally failing to resolve the issue with housing.
I'm sorry CHB, not only did New Labour not solve the housing crisis they had a huge hand in creating it with the boom in private rentals and people deciding that screwing young people with punitive rents was a good way to make a living. I rented for 6 years before I was able to buy my own place and I could only afford to do so because I work in banking.
New Labour's biggest failure was probably totally failing to resolve the issue with housing.
I'm sorry CHB, not only did New Labour not solve the housing crisis they had a huge hand in creating it with the boom in private rentals and people deciding that screwing young people with punitive rents was a good way to make a living. I rented for 6 years before I was able to buy my own place and I could only afford to do so because I work in banking.
I think you are being generous there - you could only escape the trap of private rental because you were in banking
National Health Commission spokesman Mi Fend - BBG *China'a current covid outbreak covers 11 provinces, govt says *China expects number of new covid cases to keep rising *China says areas affected by covid outbreak may further expand
Fascinating to see how the Johnson government’s post Brexit abject weakness is being portrayed around the world - no amount of bluster about “Global Britain” makes this look good https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1452237537607618563
My prediction is that in a few years the Tories will be looking back at the Truss and declaring her the worst minister in modern history. (I notice her polling has already nosedived so this has probably started to sink in.)
Hilarious to see arch Remainers slapping themselves on the back by repeating their own spin lines. The purpose of trade deals is comparative advantage improves the overall standard of living for both sides. New Zealand can produce farm products more cheaply than us so they can specialize in that while we buy, and we can produce better financial services, legal services, cultural products, aerospace, pharmaceuticals, etc etc so we can sell more of that to them. It makes far more sense than the EU approach of taking taxpayer money to subsidize farms because there wasn't a market for their stuff, while blocking trade deals because of French sensitivities.
A year ago today, Liz Truss signed a post-Brexit trade deal with Japan, and subsequently told Parliament it delivered ‘higher’ benefits than our previous deal via the EU. Now I can reveal her officials advised her on how to correct that false claim, something she never did. (1/5) https://twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/1451910001409368074
A year ago today, Liz Truss signed a post-Brexit trade deal with Japan, and subsequently told Parliament it delivered ‘higher’ benefits than our previous deal via the EU. Now I can reveal her officials advised her on how to correct that false claim, something she never did. (1/5) https://twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/1451910001409368074
I thought we were talking about the New Zealand deal? You are like a shoal of falsehoods rapidly dodging and turning direction as you are followed by the shark of truth.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
While the argument on right and wrong may not cut much mustard with those running the Tory Party, a note on self-interest might: historically, whilst younger people have strongly tended left-wing and gradually migrated to Conservative support as they’ve aged through the various age groups, if the Tories fuck them about financially for forty year, that migration is very likely to halt.
The oft-maintained refrain that demographics will kill off the Tories has long been disproven by this age migration. Cut that off, and they’ll make it come true.
People take quite a while to let go something financial like that
I thought we were talking about the New Zealand deal?
We're talking about the fact that all the 'fabulous' Brexit trade deals that Truss has championed are shit.
No we were talking about your link regarding the New Zealand trade deal. Then when you couldn't deal with the counter argument you switched to spamming links about the Japan trade deal. When I present counter arguments to your point there, you will move on to something else. Because, like all obsessives, you can't have a thoughtful discussion and just repeat talking vaguely related talking points. American conservatives are just the same.
Its important to point out, without resorting to insults, that my generation (i’m 30 in a few months) have been told our whole lives that the route we must take was GCSEs - ALevels - Degree - Job. We did what we were told and now we’re met with “you went to Uni? What a stupid move you entitled lazy so and so.”
And now we’ll potentially have to repay our loans for another 10 years of compounded interest?
I’m personally (although I may be in a minority amongst my peers) do not oppose the loan system, but that was under the proviso that the understanding was not messed with at the whim of the prevailing wind.
An additional graduate tax for 40 years is a very different proposition to one for 30 years. A repayment threshold at 21k is a very different proposition to one at 26k.
It would be unconscionable, in my view, to apply these material changes retrospectively. If they are done prospectively then the next generation will need to weigh more carefully whether a degree is really worth it.
We have a moral duty as a society to give them proper information to make that choice. So, for example, every theatre study or film study course should be obliged to state the percentage of their graduates who are making a living in these areas 5 years after graduation. They should also be obliged to confirm the average earnings of their graduates 5 and 10 years out, with government assistance if necessary. This should apply to every subject of course.
We also need to develop alternatives such as apprenticeships. If young people still want to have the time of their lives at Uni (as I did) and think its worth the price good luck to them. But it needs to be an informed choice. I think that this would have 2 useful effects. Firstly, some would be usefully diverted. Secondly, those who went would be a lot more insistent on getting their monies' worth.
But isn't that exactly what is rumoured?
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
It is and it would be wrong.
While the argument on right and wrong may not cut much mustard with those running the Tory Party, a note on self-interest might: historically, whilst younger people have strongly tended left-wing and gradually migrated to Conservative support as they’ve aged through the various age groups, if the Tories fuck them about financially for forty year, that migration is very likely to halt.
The oft-maintained refrain that demographics will kill off the Tories has long been disproven by this age migration. Cut that off, and they’ll make it come true.
People take quite a while to let go something financial like that
Also, the migration was always a fairly weak effect. The massive age gradient only really kicked in in 2017.
Now, the Conservatives should continue to convert people to the cause. But the need to run an awful lot faster than before to stand still, and I see little sign that they're even trying.
A very interesting article. I was struck by the statement that the A level student was under a lot of pressure. That could be a function of A level grade inflation of the past coupled with much moire recent toughening of the A level exams now.
I remember the workload and pressure of A levels in the 80s being absolutely insane. I was lucky because I'd done my French A-level when I was 16 so I was only doing 3 when most of my contemporaries were doing 4. I doubt I would have got the grades I did otherwise.
My contrast doing Modern Languages at Durham seemed much easier. I was living at home and had ample time to fly Chipmunks with the UAS and build deathtrap Golf GTIs in addition to my academic workload.
My A-levels were harder than any of my degrees, and I’ve got four of them.
Way harder than a PhD, which often surprises people.
Comments
It will apply to those who have already graduated, it is why Martin Lewis is up in arms about it
But like others who have commented here I grew up with the middle-class assumption that of course I'd go to uni, to study whatever I was best at, with no particular thought to post-uni careers. I failed my first year due to the combination of uni-level maths and lack of fluent Danish; my parent said never mind, try again, and it worked out. When I finished my PhD it was a rude shick to realise that pure maths careers are actually quite rare - insurance, teaching and errr... So I relabelled myself as an IT specialist and that went well. If I'd said I wanted to be a carpenter my parents would have been supportive but perplexed.
There are a lot of things that you cannot question in the UK, without putting yourself at risk of serious personal, professional and legal consquences. Not even in a John Stuart Mill way, to test out if they are right or wrong. I am not going to list them out, because we all know what they are. And this will eventually result in anger that finds a political expression.
So if they want to change the system from say a year from now then I would not be in favour but they could justify it but how can you change a system which the people going into were doing so on good faith? This is how you destroy faith in the system
But it was cancelled after the 2017 election.
Now its certainly wrong to do it retrospectively but that should have been a huge warning that trusting governments for the next 30+ years was high risk.
https://twitter.com/gavinesler/status/1452237537607618563
https://twitter.com/alextaylornews/status/1452184063024979971
Yeah, her voice is fine. Once i had fast forwarded through the Marr lockdownism nonsense, I listened carefully to a) what she said and b) how she said it.
a) She seems highly competent and intelligent to me. As @HYUFD says, she is one of the really serious people in HMO.
b) Her voice is reassuring. It’s clear, serious and easy to listen to while sounding authoritative without being posh.
In short, the PB Tory-Corbynites are wrong about Rachel. She’s good.
South East 24.6%
East 24.01%
East Midlands 23.6%
North West 20.5%
North East 18.5%
West Midlands 17.6%
Yorkshire 16.7%
London 16.2%
South West 14.3%
Which suggests some parts are less competent than others.
There should be a contract between a student, a commercial financier, and the academic institution, without the government being involved.
If government wishes to underwrite loans to the banks, to make the terms more attractive to the student, then fine. If government wishes to directly fund places on certain courses, that’s fine too. But government loans to students just leaves a political plaything that’s attractive to Chancellors of the Exchequer.
Which I think would encourage people to take more worthwhile courses.
https://twitter.com/anthonyjwells/status/1452235202986708993
https://www.theguardian.com/education/2021/oct/24/only-8-of-uk-schools-have-received-air-monitors-that-were-promised-by-government
That'll be reliable
Lions and tigers and trolls, Tra-La !
As I said (at the time on here) - Osborne was an idiot to open the can of worms by freezing the threshold back in 2015. It was retrospective taxation, which goes against most peoples sense of natural justice.
It’s all to play for now, and the left could just write the loans off. Taking out a loan for uni could turn out to be a pretty smart move.
The recently announced solution for social care is to tax young people so that old people don't have to pay if they are unlucky enough to require social care. Seems obvious that we should tax old people to pay for free university education.
Makes a change from everything else going up in cost too
- choking off landlord investment in housing.
- freezing Universal Credit and other benefits, such as Local Housing Allowance.
- 1m IHT threshold.
Amongst others.
My contrast doing Modern Languages at Durham seemed much easier. I was living at home and had ample time to fly Chipmunks with the UAS and build deathtrap Golf GTIs in addition to my academic workload.
https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2021/oct/23/new-trade-deals-are-unfair-on-farmers-and-wont-help-emissions
My prediction is that in a few years the Tories will be looking back at the Truss and declaring her the worst minister in modern history. (I notice her polling has already nosedived so this has probably started to sink in.)
Things were a bit more intense over in the Engineering Faculty. My final year was tough going. Certainly a lot more so than my A Level years.
But getting through Sixth Form and University set me up for a professional career. The effort paid off, that's for sure.
https://twitter.com/C_Barraud/status/1452172483918979077
National Health Commission spokesman Mi Fend - BBG
*China'a current covid outbreak covers 11 provinces, govt says
*China expects number of new covid cases to keep rising
*China says areas affected by covid outbreak may further expand
https://twitter.com/robfordmancs/status/1452258052455944196
https://twitter.com/thesundaytimes/status/1452163044872790017
The difference between a press release and the reality of implementing an FTA.
The benefits of these agreements are not guaranteed (even tariff reductions -> RoO) and conditional on implementation. https://twitter.com/AnnaJerzewska/status/1451860724247142404
A year ago today, Liz Truss signed a post-Brexit trade deal with Japan, and subsequently told Parliament it delivered ‘higher’ benefits than our previous deal via the EU. Now I can reveal her officials advised her on how to correct that false claim, something she never did. (1/5)
https://twitter.com/EmilyThornberry/status/1451910001409368074
https://twitter.com/trussliz/status/1452219574351499274?s=21 https://twitter.com/SophiaSleigh/status/1452261137383297030/photo/1
The oft-maintained refrain that demographics will kill off the Tories has long been disproven by this age migration. Cut that off, and they’ll make it come true.
People take quite a while to let go something financial like that
Desperate to avoid talking about how shit the deals are...
Now, the Conservatives should continue to convert people to the cause. But the need to run an awful lot faster than before to stand still, and I see little sign that they're even trying.
The subject is how shit all the deals are.
Way harder than a PhD, which often surprises people.