I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
The plumber will probably earn more than the doctor
Remember the illegal P&O sackings and the government saying that something would be done? To no great surprise, nothing has been done. The parent company continues to make huge profits and is a big player in Sunak's free ports idea. When the Tories talk about getting rid of red tape what they mean is that they want every worker to be at the mercy of rootless global capital. Instead of facing fine or jail, bosses who treat British workers like dirt on their shoe get a cosy relationship with the government and the opportunity to undermine rights even further. No wonder the government is so desperate for people to focus on the other boats crossing the Channel.
No-one comes well out of this, but whatever governments say this is a civil employment law matter for which there are courts. Trade unions have excellent and highly experienced firms who specialise in acting for them and their members.
It's quite possible there have been all sorts of settlements that no party wants publicity for.
The operation of the legal system in matters of tort and employment law is no business of government.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
There's more to apprentices than being a plumber's apprentice. There should be an apprentice-route into almost any professional career (doctor may be at the extreme end here where it is hard). But accountant? Lawyer? Surveyor? I see no reason why a degree should be a pre-requisite for starting out in any of these careers. Obviously there is learning to do along the way, but it makes no sense that it should start with three years studying something highly specific and not necessarily relevant in an arbitrary city far enough from home to be in a different television region but close enough to get home in an emergency.
FWIW, one of my three is pretty academic, and would probably squeeze the value out of a university education - though she'd probably also squeeze the value out of an apprenticeship. The other two are probably university bound because they are in the top half academically, but will they get the value out of it? It doesn't seem obvious to me that they will.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
University should just be for the academically gifted. At the moment it has turned into a finishing school for mediocre kids of the upper middle class who then foxtrot into that accountancy job that only needs A levels anyway.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
The plumber will probably earn more than the doctor
Not if the doctor becomes a partner in a GP practice or a consultant
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
Parents want Grammar schools, so their kids can go to Grammar school. They're not so keen on their kids going to Secondary Moderns, while Mrs Sprigg's son down the road goes up a fancy Grammar.
I'd say it's a bit more complicated than that.
The parents around here who complain most about the grammar school system are those with children who are 9 and 10 - i.e. going through preparation for the 11+. No-one enjoys that bit. But I've heard very few complaints about the system from anyone with kids of secondary school age. The number of people who are moving away from Trafford because their kids didn't get into the grammar schools is almost zero. And the grammar school isn't necessarily any fancier than the non-grammar. People's main complaints are the lack of places and the lack of choice. (Across Trafford there were hundreds who didn't get any place at all. What then? I don't know.) But that's because so many people with children are moving to Trafford. Because of the schools.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
University should just be for the academically gifted. At the moment it has turned into a finishing school for mediocre kids of the upper middle class who then foxtrot into that accountancy job that only needs A levels anyway.
Most of the lower middle class now go to university too, not just the upper middle class
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
University should just be for the academically gifted. At the moment it has turned into a finishing school for mediocre kids of the upper middle class who then foxtrot into that accountancy job that only needs A levels anyway.
Most of the lower middle class now go to university too, not just the upper middle class
Yes especially the former polys. But they often end up in the same sort of lower middle class jobs they would have got before anyway.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
The plumber will probably earn more than the doctor
Not if the doctor becomes a partner in a GP practice or a consultant
If that rumour is true and Kate Forbes does beat Yousaf to become FM and SNP leader it will give the SNP the same problem the Tories had with Truss and Labour had with Corbyn.
A leader the members voted for but most of the party's parliamentary representatives voted against. Unfortunately for them the SNP has no mechanism for MSPS or MPs to have a VONC in their leader without member involvement like the Conservatives
She will be a thousand times better than Useless would have been.
I also see that HYUFD is missing another major factor in the matter. FMs have to be positively elected by the Holyrood Parliament. It's not a God-given Divine Right like PMs are for the Tory Party memnership.
And most SNP MSPs will have to vote for Forbes as FM if the members voted for her as most Conservative MPs had to back Truss as PM once the Tory membership voted for her.
Except once Truss proved a dud, Conservative MPs could threaten to have a VONC in her which SNP MSPs can't in Forbes
Moving the goal posts again once you are shown to be wrong.
You're not thinking.
Oh I am right.
Most Conservative MPs didn't vote for Ken Clarke in 2001 or Rishi Sunak in summer 2022 as most Labour MPs didn't nominate Andy Burnham in 2015 but they were still clearly ahead of and preferred to IDS, Truss and Corbyn.
In terms of MSPs, the most relevant to electing the FM, in your own words a majority of SNP MSPs have endorsed Yousaf
You can't be right before AND after every time you say something different to what you did before!
Believe the word you want is not "right" but rather "correct"?
Coming to Rome has proved that everything we've got happening in the UK is happening across Europe, petrol here is more costly than back home and Italians are just as pissed off about it and accuse the oil companies of profiteering same as we do. They have illegal immigrant run car washes the same as we do and our very swanky Airbnb flat in Trastevere has advice not to raise the thermostat above 18.5 degrees to save energy. Even tomatoes are expensive, relative to normal for Italy. The guy in the frutteria was saying that they've at least doubled in price and tomatoes are way more important to Italians than they are to most other cultures.
Listening to our commentary back home and you'd believe that the UK is uniquely challenged by everything that's going on, yet it's the same everywhere. I guess the difference is that it was 18 degrees and sunny here so people are happier and that definitely makes a difference.
In case it is of interest, I went to a superb restaurant in Rome called Restaurant del Bolognese in Piazza del Popolo. It was recommended in a roundabout way by Bryan Ferry. The maitre d' asked if he could order the starter for me - and a superb selection of small pastas was produced. The mains were equally impressive.
Let me know how it was if you do check it out.
Thanks for the tip, will try and get to it, a lot depends on whether Jen is likely to sleep through dinner or not. Last night we went to a local osteria, they had a €16 each set menu for a primo, secondo and carafe of wine. It was among the best food I've had and it was just this unassuming place in a trendy suburb.
I mean, I've absolutely loved the enthusiasm and cut of the jib of @stodge and @MoonRabbit on here re: Cheltenham. I'm really pleased they've had so much fun.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
BANKS - Listen very carefully. Biden & the fed will guarantee all deposits (even foreign) in the banks they decide are ‘worthy’ People/ businesses with banks not deemed ‘worthy’ of deposit guarantees are moving their cash. This will speed up the collapse of all other banks. Why would you leave your money in a bank that cannot guarantee you won’t lose it all? When someone else can? This is a total shit show (technical term)
'The Conservative party put pressure on the BBC not to describe a claim by Boris Johnson that Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile as “false”, the Guardian has been told.
The allegation made by Johnson in February last year prompted fury, including from within his own party, and he eventually rowed back on the claim.
However, behind the scenes, Conservative party headquarters was pressing the BBC not to describe it as a “false” accusation. The BBC resisted the demand and continued to refer to it in those terms.'
I mean, I've absolutely loved the enthusiasm and cut of the jib of @stodge and @MoonRabbit on here re: Cheltenham. I'm really pleased they've had so much fun.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
It depends which ones you followed. I contrived to pick only their losers.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
The plumber will probably earn more than the doctor
Not if the doctor becomes a partner in a GP practice or a consultant
I counter with Charlie Mullins
True but he founded London's largest independent plumbing company.
Few plumbers would become LD donors like Mullins is now either!
LA Times (via Seattle Times) - A tasty L.A. mystery: Unwanted Uber Eats food deliveries vex Highland Park neighborhood
At first, the deliveries were sort of delightful.
There were chicken sandwiches, milkshakes, pastries, lattes and more. Then the items started arriving multiple times a day, at all hours, delivered by Uber Eats.
The thing is, the recipients never ordered any of it.
Since late February, a stretch of Range View Avenue in Highland Park, a Los Angeles neighborhood, has been inundated with unwanted deliveries from Uber Eats, the online food delivery service. The items, residents said, have mostly come from McDonald’s and Starbucks, though a few other fast-food chains have been represented, too.
Six Range View residents interviewed by The Los Angeles Times said they had received multiple Uber Eats deliveries of food they did not order — and that many of their neighbors had, too. A handful of people said they have gotten dozens of orders, sometimes receiving several a day.
“It is kind of remarkable what they are able to do with a pancake sandwich,” said bemused Range View resident Will Neal of the four McDonald’s McGriddles he and his wife received Feb. 25 — the first of about 40 deliveries to their home.
Now, though, after more than two weeks of the confounding conveyances — and plenty of time spent theorizing about the phenomenon — it has become, for at least some, a nuisance.
“I don’t trust it — I’m throwing it out,” said Dean Sao, a carpenter at Pasadena City College. “I don’t know who’s doing it. We were joking at first: It must be Elon Musk — I don’t know who else could afford it.” . . . .
Residents said that drivers delivering to Range View have provided scant information about the people placing the orders, either because they don’t have details or are not authorized to share them. The unsolicited deliveries, recipients said, have been in the names of other people. And the couriers, they added, also have mostly seemed undisturbed by the odd nature of the situation because the meals are paid for — and sometimes come with a tip. . . . SSI - two questions:
1. Can Smithson the Younger account for his whereabouts, or otherwise provided convincing alibi?
2. How long before someone in the afflicted hood posts a notice - "NO TRESPASSING, INCLUDING UBER DELIVERY DRIVERS - ALL VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED AND SUED FOR DAMAGES"? Sound like an open-and-shut case to me. Especially since 99.46% of the "food" delivered could qualify as toxic waste.
BANKS - Listen very carefully. Biden & the fed will guarantee all deposits (even foreign) in the banks they decide are ‘worthy’ People/ businesses with banks not deemed ‘worthy’ of deposit guarantees are moving their cash. This will speed up the collapse of all other banks. Why would you leave your money in a bank that cannot guarantee you won’t lose it all? When someone else can? This is a total shit show (technical term)
Like how this Twit (source????) included Biden. Did you turn your bullshit detector off?
I mean, I've absolutely loved the enthusiasm and cut of the jib of @stodge and @MoonRabbit on here re: Cheltenham. I'm really pleased they've had so much fun.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
It depends which ones you followed. I contrived to pick only their losers.
Both better than sticking a pin, I'd say. Which is high praise.
BANKS - Listen very carefully. Biden & the fed will guarantee all deposits (even foreign) in the banks they decide are ‘worthy’ People/ businesses with banks not deemed ‘worthy’ of deposit guarantees are moving their cash. This will speed up the collapse of all other banks. Why would you leave your money in a bank that cannot guarantee you won’t lose it all? When someone else can? This is a total shit show (technical term)
Presumably they suggested putting all your money in Crypto.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
We had leading universities for decades without students having to pay for them. The change to student fees was a political/philosophical decision and not an inevitable one.
Relative to US colleges they were declining as the top professors and researchers went to the US as they were paid more
There is no evidence of such a decline at all. The decision to turn universities into businesses first and seats of learning/research second was an ideological one not one borne out of necessity.
I mean, I've absolutely loved the enthusiasm and cut of the jib of @stodge and @MoonRabbit on here re: Cheltenham. I'm really pleased they've had so much fun.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
It depends which ones you followed. I contrived to pick only their losers.
Both better than sticking a pin, I'd say. Which is high praise.
Oh yes. It's just that I'm hopeless. I shall stay away from the turf in future.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
University should just be for the academically gifted. At the moment it has turned into a finishing school for mediocre kids of the upper middle class who then foxtrot into that accountancy job that only needs A levels anyway.
Most of the lower middle class now go to university too, not just the upper middle class
And the brightest families get their children to go for the degree apprenticeships.
I mean, I've absolutely loved the enthusiasm and cut of the jib of @stodge and @MoonRabbit on here re: Cheltenham. I'm really pleased they've had so much fun.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
I backed my 16 tips in 4 £5 win Luck15s. Got a bit back, but not close to making money.
But that’s not the point though. It’s been more fun than Christmas and much cheaper 🙂
Over the course of the last 12 months I’m still in profit I think from a couple of big lucky 15 wins. And that was despite throwing away lots of money at the Arbor festival.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
We had leading universities for decades without students having to pay for them. The change to student fees was a political/philosophical decision and not an inevitable one.
Relative to US colleges they were declining as the top professors and researchers went to the US as they were paid more
There is no evidence of such a decline at all. The decision to turn universities into businesses first and seats of learning/research second was an ideological one not one borne out of necessity.
Yes there was, top professors and researchers could earn double their salary at a US college and many made that move.
Now 40% go to university it is also wrong for the 60% who don't go to have to subsidise all their fees and living costs via higher taxes. They could just about stomach paying for the top 10% academically who would become doctors and lawyers etc not the rest. Hence both the LDs in 2005 and 2010 and Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 failed to get a majority for their manifesto commitment to scrap University tuition fees
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
The plumber will probably earn more than the doctor
Not if the doctor becomes a partner in a GP practice or a consultant
I counter with Charlie Mullins
True but he founded London's largest independent plumbing company.
Few plumbers would become LD donors like Mullins is now either!
I remember him doing a tv interview from his villa in Marbella saying people need to be getting back to the office.
BANKS - Listen very carefully. Biden & the fed will guarantee all deposits (even foreign) in the banks they decide are ‘worthy’ People/ businesses with banks not deemed ‘worthy’ of deposit guarantees are moving their cash. This will speed up the collapse of all other banks. Why would you leave your money in a bank that cannot guarantee you won’t lose it all? When someone else can? This is a total shit show (technical term)
They are putting tracking chips in the currency.
Take your money out of your wallet, hold it up to the light. See the dark line?
I mean, I've absolutely loved the enthusiasm and cut of the jib of @stodge and @MoonRabbit on here re: Cheltenham. I'm really pleased they've had so much fun.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
It depends which ones you followed. I contrived to pick only their losers.
Also depends how you mixed up the type of bet and size of stake.
Also, Stodge is right to avoid handicaps. I can’t because my Nan got so many winners on handicaps. But tips I was so confident about Delta Work and Galopin I put in the header, are in non handicaps it’s true.
BANKS - Listen very carefully. Biden & the fed will guarantee all deposits (even foreign) in the banks they decide are ‘worthy’ People/ businesses with banks not deemed ‘worthy’ of deposit guarantees are moving their cash. This will speed up the collapse of all other banks. Why would you leave your money in a bank that cannot guarantee you won’t lose it all? When someone else can? This is a total shit show (technical term)
They are putting tracking chips in the currency.
Take your money out of your wallet, hold it up to the light. See the dark line?
Yup - burn every banknote you have. NOW!
Do they really do that with rubles?
OR the counterfeit greenbacks that Putin is likely churning out, and using to pay his bot brigade?
Coming to Rome has proved that everything we've got happening in the UK is happening across Europe, petrol here is more costly than back home and Italians are just as pissed off about it and accuse the oil companies of profiteering same as we do. They have illegal immigrant run car washes the same as we do and our very swanky Airbnb flat in Trastevere has advice not to raise the thermostat above 18.5 degrees to save energy. Even tomatoes are expensive, relative to normal for Italy. The guy in the frutteria was saying that they've at least doubled in price and tomatoes are way more important to Italians than they are to most other cultures.
Listening to our commentary back home and you'd believe that the UK is uniquely challenged by everything that's going on, yet it's the same everywhere. I guess the difference is that it was 18 degrees and sunny here so people are happier and that definitely makes a difference.
The same also in Spain and France where I was recently.
I mean, I've absolutely loved the enthusiasm and cut of the jib of @stodge and @MoonRabbit on here re: Cheltenham. I'm really pleased they've had so much fun.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
I have booked my ticket for Scottish Grand National in April. A great day out.
Do we possibly have yet another one of Mad Vlad's finest bots on the job here on PB?
Perhaps unsurprisingly, their IP address shows up in the dnsbl.spfbl.net list as compromised.
Which is a shame. But I say we let them stay. Who's with me?
Please Sir! Can we keep the troll, sir?
I promise to feed and water it and it can stay in one of the spare hutches for COVID scientists.
Tsk guvnor, you should never keep trolls near Covid experts - especially Russian trolls. The trolls cannot cope with that much disinformation and they become homely baboushkas - even the male ones. No, Russian trolls have to be kept in a specially armoured bunker in St Petersburg. I import them from there, though can only get one out a week, on Saturdays. They don't last long in the wild though.
By the way, I might be having a fresh batch of Conservative MPs arriving in a couple of years, if you want someone raving about the advantages of Brexit and the gloriousness of Boris and JRM.
I mean, I've absolutely loved the enthusiasm and cut of the jib of @stodge and @MoonRabbit on here re: Cheltenham. I'm really pleased they've had so much fun.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
I have booked my ticket for Scottish Grand National in April. A great day out.
We had to encourage you into going at last minute last year, as I remember it. And then you had lots of fun, winners, sunshine.
Scottish Springs tend to be nicer weather than the summers?
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
The plumber will probably earn more than the doctor
Not if the doctor becomes a partner in a GP practice or a consultant
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
Parents want Grammar schools, so their kids can go to Grammar school. They're not so keen on their kids going to Secondary Moderns, while Mrs Sprigg's son down the road goes up a fancy Grammar.
I'd think I'd have comprehensive middle schools, then at 16, you go to a grammar or a technical college (as the free options). I'd steal the term 'ivy league' from the US (I know that there it means the elite universities) and ensure these colleges had a strong sporting aspect and the opportunity to go on to apprenticeships or further study. I think most parents just want their kids to prosper and be happy.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
Parents want Grammar schools, so their kids can go to Grammar school. They're not so keen on their kids going to Secondary Moderns, while Mrs Sprigg's son down the road goes up a fancy Grammar.
I'd think I'd have comprehensive middle schools, then at 16, you go to a grammar or a technical college (as the free options). I'd steal the term 'ivy league' from the US (I know that there it means the elite universities) and ensure these colleges had a strong sporting aspect and the opportunity to go on to apprenticeships or further study. I think most parents just want their kids to prosper and be happy.
I think selection at 16 is a good option, and one which the UK used to effectively have. I also think the US system of having "Honors Programs" - effectively schools within schools - is a good idea.
Love how me talking aboutbyhe banking system has me accused of being a russian troll. Or was it my comments on universities im confused lol .
Dude:
You post some crazy ass conspiracy thing about Biden and banking that lacked all your previous intelligence, and then when I put your IP address through a blacklist check it spat out compromised.
You will understand - in those circumstances - that people might be a little suspcious.
Love how me talking aboutbyhe banking system has me accused of being a russian troll. Or was it my comments on universities im confused lol .
Dude:
You post some crazy ass conspiracy thing about Biden and banking that lacked all your previous intelligence, and then when I put your IP address through a blacklist check it spat out compromised.
You will understand - in those circumstances - that people might be a little suspcious.
You spoil all the fun, Robert.
Why not just let him think people might be taking him seriously?
By May it will be - what a kerfuffle over the NHS and doctors/nurses; still, the whole country was going mad with inflation and Ukraine and what have you.
I think actually the NHS will be subsumed into the general year of chaos and hence this will benefit the Cons.
I wouldn't count on it! Junior doctors are in no mood to settle,
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
Fees at ETH, Zurich ... CHF 730/Semester, about £650
(ETH is usually the highest ranked University on continental Europe).
Zurich not in the top 10 either which is solely UK and US universities
"Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA." is what you said a moment ago. Make up your mind.
PLus - it's a score of which teaching only forms a part. This thread is about teaching. Now research is important, but it's no good to the satudent paying a fee if the teaching is crap.
So you are using the wrong metric.
Personally I would vary fees so you pay more at Oxford than Manchester Metropolitan. If you think the teaching is better at the latter you can apply there instead
If you think all subjects are of equal quality in a single university you are very wrong - both in teaching and in research.
Hence the problem is 'one size fits all fees' not fees themselves.
Universities which are the highest ranked for teaching and research should be able to charge the highest fees but not lesser ranked Universities.
That applies too to courses, the highest ranked departments should be able to charge the highest fees.
As should oversubscribed courses which lead to high post graduation average earnings like economics, business, law, medicine and IT and engineering be able to charge higher fees than say humanities subjects or the creative arts
All of which sounds like a rather complicated way of the state setting prices.
Mind you, it's pretty bloody complicated as it is. If you take an English Literature degree at a rubbish university, chances are you probably won't ever pay your student load back - so you're being subsidised by those who made better decisions.
I'd like to see the state paying it's children's university fees - but the state should take a rather more informed view over how many of each sort of graduate it needs. So probably more places paid for for maths students than for English Literature students. The downside of this is the state is a pretty poor arbiter of which courses have value.
I'd be all for the state taking an informed view of how many graduates it needs. But I'm sure the cost/benefit analysis of the value of a three-year degree would result in a much lower estimate of the optimal number of graduates than the current 50% or so. And then who would break the news to the voters? Not politicians angling for re-election, that's for sure!
You reckon? I'd have thought "50% of children to go to university is far too high" is pretty much received wisdom now amongst the electorate. I reckon a government aiming for an initially modest reduction down to about 40%, allied to greater investment in apprenticeships, would be seen fairly favourably by the electorate.
As long as it doesn't affect their son/daughter/grandson/granddaughter's chance of a place.
And, if you are any sort of civic leader, as long as it doesn't cause your local university, no matter how wobbly its staus, to have to close.
I would far rather my three kids have access to an apprenticeship than a place at university.
And I daresay Manchester could stomach a modest loss of students.
Doesn't that depend on your kids' aptitudes? You'd be pretty pissed, surely, if one was bright and academic, and wanted to be doctor, but because of circumstances could only get a job as a plumber's apprentice.
I mean, sure, it'll pay the bills. But it would be an enormous waste of their talents.
The plumber will probably earn more than the doctor
I don’t know Bob is but it’s an excellent analysis. There’s no way Labour get 48% in GE PV but it’s still very possible for Tories to get 32% or more at the general election.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
We had leading universities for decades without students having to pay for them. The change to student fees was a political/philosophical decision and not an inevitable one.
Relative to US colleges they were declining as the top professors and researchers went to the US as they were paid more
There is no evidence of such a decline at all. The decision to turn universities into businesses first and seats of learning/research second was an ideological one not one borne out of necessity.
Also, from what I've heard talking to academics, most of them aren't that happy about developments over the last two decades or so. Hard to make the case that the changes were motivated by a desire to keep top academics happy.
Re: "Reed" - perhaps worth noting, that Reed College in Portland, Oregon was alma mater of John Reed, author of "Ten Days That Shook the World" who died and was buried in Moscow in 1920, in Red Square just a kopeck's throw from Mad Vlad the Elder.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Kismet? Or more Kremlin Bullshit?
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
We had leading universities for decades without students having to pay for them. The change to student fees was a political/philosophical decision and not an inevitable one.
Relative to US colleges they were declining as the top professors and researchers went to the US as they were paid more
There is no evidence of such a decline at all. The decision to turn universities into businesses first and seats of learning/research second was an ideological one not one borne out of necessity.
Yes there was, top professors and researchers could earn double their salary at a US college and many made that move.
Now 40% go to university it is also wrong for the 60% who don't go to have to subsidise all their fees and living costs via higher taxes. They could just about stomach paying for the top 10% academically who would become doctors and lawyers etc not the rest. Hence both the LDs in 2005 and 2010 and Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 failed to get a majority for their manifesto commitment to scrap University tuition fees
Brilliant point. People do forget that the 2005 election was essentially a referendum on the Lib Dem policy on tuition fees, and that it resulted in a crushing 78% vote in favour of keeping them.
I don’t know Bob is but it’s an excellent analysis. There’s no way Labour get 48% in GE PV but it’s still very possible for Tories to get 32% or more at the general election.
You don't know Bob and you are a regular poster on PB???
He was the founder of MORI and one of the most respected pollsters of all time - he is actually Sir Robert Worcester (now aged 89):
Just another meh midterm poll with the scores bouncing around the margin of error. Barely worth a pixel of analysis, never mind your enthusiastic over-analysis.
Re: "Reed" - perhaps worth noting, that Reed College in Portland, Oregon was alma mater of John Reed, author of "Ten Days That Shook the World" who died and was buried in Moscow in 1920, in Red Square just a kopeck's throw from Mad Vlad the Elder.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Kismet? Or more Kremlin Bullshit?
Love how me talking aboutbyhe banking system has me accused of being a russian troll. Or was it my comments on universities im confused lol .
Still no "source" for that "tweet" which "you" posted?
ChatFSB ?
Ok guys heres the source. To be fair i think the source has a certain "angle" on things. Doesnt mean they are wrong though. Watch the video. Its based on what Yellen said when they were questioned in congress.
Re: "Reed" - perhaps worth noting, that Reed College in Portland, Oregon was alma mater of John Reed, author of "Ten Days That Shook the World" who died and was buried in Moscow in 1920, in Red Square just a kopeck's throw from Mad Vlad the Elder.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Kismet? Or more Kremlin Bullshit?
Wow you are quite the conspiracy theorist.
Naw. Personally am a Reformed Kismetarian.
And quite willing to consider other possibilities. Such as "Reed" is in your case twinned & preceded by "Thin"?
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
90% of over 65s never went to university at all. If that was still the case tuition fees would not have been needed.
However you cannot expect the taxpayer to subsidise all students still now 40% go to university
Every other Western European country has student fees that are more modest than ours.
We should be able to match tuition fees in the Netherlands (2,314 euros a year), Germany (250 euros a semester) or France (the average is a few hundred euro a year).
Whereas the UK's fees are more like a public (state) US University.
And continental Europe doesn't have a single university in the top 25 in the global rankings outside Switzerland.
Whereas most of the top 10 universities globally are in the UK and USA.
If you want world leading universities you need students who attend them to pay for it
We had leading universities for decades without students having to pay for them. The change to student fees was a political/philosophical decision and not an inevitable one.
Relative to US colleges they were declining as the top professors and researchers went to the US as they were paid more
There is no evidence of such a decline at all. The decision to turn universities into businesses first and seats of learning/research second was an ideological one not one borne out of necessity.
Also, from what I've heard talking to academics, most of them aren't that happy about developments over the last two decades or so. Hard to make the case that the changes were motivated by a desire to keep top academics happy.
That is the message I hear from my son who lectures at one of the more traditional Universities.
I don’t know Bob is but it’s an excellent analysis. There’s no way Labour get 48% in GE PV but it’s still very possible for Tories to get 32% or more at the general election.
You don't know Bob and you are a regular poster on PB???
He was the founder of MORI and one of the most respected pollsters of all time - he is actually Sir Robert Worcester (now aged 89):
Just another meh midterm poll with the scores bouncing around the margin of error. Barely worth a pixel of analysis, never mind your enthusiastic over-analysis.
I thought @MoonRabbit holds the IP on torturing data in polls?
Re: "Reed" - perhaps worth noting, that Reed College in Portland, Oregon was alma mater of John Reed, author of "Ten Days That Shook the World" who died and was buried in Moscow in 1920, in Red Square just a kopeck's throw from Mad Vlad the Elder.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Kismet? Or more Kremlin Bullshit?
A good u/g university friend in the 1960s spent an academic year on an exchange at Reed. I note that John Reed is not mentioned in the Wiki list of famous Reed alumni
Love how me talking aboutbyhe banking system has me accused of being a russian troll. Or was it my comments on universities im confused lol .
Still no "source" for that "tweet" which "you" posted?
ChatFSB ?
Ok guys heres the source. To be fair i think the source has a certain "angle" on things. Doesnt mean they are wrong though. Watch the video. Its based on what Yellen said when they were questioned in congress.
Re: "Reed" - perhaps worth noting, that Reed College in Portland, Oregon was alma mater of John Reed, author of "Ten Days That Shook the World" who died and was buried in Moscow in 1920, in Red Square just a kopeck's throw from Mad Vlad the Elder.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Kismet? Or more Kremlin Bullshit?
A good u/g university friend in the 1960s spent an academic year on an exchange at Reed. I note that John Reed is not mentioned in the Wiki list of famous Reed alumni
Love how me talking aboutbyhe banking system has me accused of being a russian troll. Or was it my comments on universities im confused lol .
Still no "source" for that "tweet" which "you" posted?
ChatFSB ?
Ok guys heres the source. To be fair i think the source has a certain "angle" on things. Doesnt mean they are wrong though. Watch the video. Its based on what Yellen said when they were questioned in congress.
Janet Yellen is worryingly unconvincing in her reply to the Oklahoma senator about the knock-on consequences for community banks.
Re: John Reed and Reed College, I stand corrected - not for the first OR the last time!
John Reed was grad of Harvard NOT Reed College. Have always had stuck in my head that he went to RC, seeing as how both he & it were/are old-school Portlandia.
So thanks for knocking THAT misconception out from between my ears.
BTW, Reed College is perhaps the most prestigious institution of higher learning in the Pacific Northwest, especially from academic perspective.
Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington (so nice they named it twice) is also highly regarded, not as much in academics are Reed, but perhaps more so in social standing, at least north of the Columbia River. Very popular with Seattle's "Mossback" gentry for example.
Re: "Reed" - perhaps worth noting, that Reed College in Portland, Oregon was alma mater of John Reed, author of "Ten Days That Shook the World" who died and was buried in Moscow in 1920, in Red Square just a kopeck's throw from Mad Vlad the Elder.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Kismet? Or more Kremlin Bullshit?
A good u/g university friend in the 1960s spent an academic year on an exchange at Reed. I note that John Reed is not mentioned in the Wiki list of famous Reed alumni
Love how me talking aboutbyhe banking system has me accused of being a russian troll. Or was it my comments on universities im confused lol .
Still no "source" for that "tweet" which "you" posted?
ChatFSB ?
Ok guys heres the source. To be fair i think the source has a certain "angle" on things. Doesnt mean they are wrong though. Watch the video. Its based on what Yellen said when they were questioned in congress.
Janet Yellen is worryingly unconvincing in her reply to the Oklahoma senator about the knock-on consequences for community banks.
Re: John Reed and Reed College, I stand corrected - not for the first OR the last time!
John Reed was grad of Harvard NOT Reed College. Have always had stuck in my head that he went to RC, seeing as how both he & it were/are old-school Portlandia.
So thanks for knocking THAT misconception out from between my ears.
BTW, Reed College is perhaps the most prestigious institution of higher learning in the Pacific Northwest, especially from academic perspective.
Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington (so nice they named it twice) is also highly regarded, not as much in academics are Reed, but perhaps more so in social standing, at least north of the Columbia River. Very popular with Seattle's "Mossback" gentry for example.
Those liberal arts colleges are something special imo. I visited a former colleague at Lewis and Clark, and that too was quite impressive, though not in the same league as Reed.
Re: "Reed" - perhaps worth noting, that Reed College in Portland, Oregon was alma mater of John Reed, author of "Ten Days That Shook the World" who died and was buried in Moscow in 1920, in Red Square just a kopeck's throw from Mad Vlad the Elder.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Kismet? Or more Kremlin Bullshit?
A good u/g university friend in the 1960s spent an academic year on an exchange at Reed. I note that John Reed is not mentioned in the Wiki list of famous Reed alumni
Love how me talking aboutbyhe banking system has me accused of being a russian troll. Or was it my comments on universities im confused lol .
Still no "source" for that "tweet" which "you" posted?
ChatFSB ?
Ok guys heres the source. To be fair i think the source has a certain "angle" on things. Doesnt mean they are wrong though. Watch the video. Its based on what Yellen said when they were questioned in congress.
Janet Yellen is worryingly unconvincing in her reply to the Oklahoma senator about the knock-on consequences for community banks.
Re: John Reed and Reed College, I stand corrected - not for the first OR the last time!
John Reed was grad of Harvard NOT Reed College. Have always had stuck in my head that he went to RC, seeing as how both he & it were/are old-school Portlandia.
So thanks for knocking THAT misconception out from between my ears.
BTW, Reed College is perhaps the most prestigious institution of higher learning in the Pacific Northwest, especially from academic perspective.
Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington (so nice they named it twice) is also highly regarded, not as much in academics are Reed, but perhaps more so in social standing, at least north of the Columbia River. Very popular with Seattle's "Mossback" gentry for example.
Those liberal arts colleges are something special imo. I visited a former colleague at Lewis and Clark, and that too was quite impressive, though not in the same league as Reed.
My wife was at Wellesley when I met her. How I managed to get her to slum it with me I’ll never know.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
Yes but what is the main cause of high property prices? The fact that the population is 10 million higher now than it was in the 1990s. And who is most supportive of high levels of migration? Young people.
I don't much care for the elderly baiting that some posters indulge in on pb.com.
There is however no doubt that there is huge generational unfairness (induced primarily by property price rises but also University tuition fees and a rotten tax system).
It would be pleasant to see political parties tackle this with more than honeyed words.
One person in recent years who did this was Jeremy Corbyn, who pledged to scrap University tuition fees and write off tuition debt. That would have been a start.
Yes but what is the main cause of high property prices? The fact that the population is 10 million higher now than it was in the 1990s. And who is most supportive of high levels of migration? Young people.
Big picture - Lab still flat at 47% but clear Con move upwards - previously 26%, now 28%.
And no that's not a margin of error movement - because it's the average across nine or ten pollsters. But it's still only a very small reduction in the Lab lead.
I mean, I've absolutely loved the enthusiasm and cut of the jib of @stodge and @MoonRabbit on here re: Cheltenham. I'm really pleased they've had so much fun.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
I have booked my ticket for Scottish Grand National in April. A great day out.
We had to encourage you into going at last minute last year, as I remember it. And then you had lots of fun, winners, sunshine.
Scottish Springs tend to be nicer weather than the summers?
Re: "Reed" - perhaps worth noting, that Reed College in Portland, Oregon was alma mater of John Reed, author of "Ten Days That Shook the World" who died and was buried in Moscow in 1920, in Red Square just a kopeck's throw from Mad Vlad the Elder.
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Kismet? Or more Kremlin Bullshit?
A good u/g university friend in the 1960s spent an academic year on an exchange at Reed. I note that John Reed is not mentioned in the Wiki list of famous Reed alumni
Love how me talking aboutbyhe banking system has me accused of being a russian troll. Or was it my comments on universities im confused lol .
Still no "source" for that "tweet" which "you" posted?
ChatFSB ?
Ok guys heres the source. To be fair i think the source has a certain "angle" on things. Doesnt mean they are wrong though. Watch the video. Its based on what Yellen said when they were questioned in congress.
Comments
No further bets now, from me.
It's quite possible there have been all sorts of settlements that no party wants publicity for.
The operation of the legal system in matters of tort and employment law is no business of government.
FWIW, one of my three is pretty academic, and would probably squeeze the value out of a university education - though she'd probably also squeeze the value out of an apprenticeship. The other two are probably university bound because they are in the top half academically, but will they get the value out of it? It doesn't seem obvious to me that they will.
The parents around here who complain most about the grammar school system are those with children who are 9 and 10 - i.e. going through preparation for the 11+. No-one enjoys that bit.
But I've heard very few complaints about the system from anyone with kids of secondary school age. The number of people who are moving away from Trafford because their kids didn't get into the grammar schools is almost zero. And the grammar school isn't necessarily any fancier than the non-grammar.
People's main complaints are the lack of places and the lack of choice. (Across Trafford there were hundreds who didn't get any place at all. What then? I don't know.) But that's because so many people with children are moving to Trafford. Because of the schools.
Another huge field though. My book is closed.
But, if I'd followed all their tips, would I actually have made any money?!
BANKS - Listen very carefully. Biden & the fed will guarantee all deposits (even foreign) in the banks they decide are ‘worthy’ People/ businesses with banks not deemed ‘worthy’ of deposit guarantees are moving their cash. This will speed up the collapse of all other banks. Why would you leave your money in a bank that cannot guarantee you won’t lose it all? When someone else can? This is a total shit show (technical term)
'The Conservative party put pressure on the BBC not to describe a claim by Boris Johnson that Keir Starmer failed to prosecute Jimmy Savile as “false”, the Guardian has been told.
The allegation made by Johnson in February last year prompted fury, including from within his own party, and he eventually rowed back on the claim.
However, behind the scenes, Conservative party headquarters was pressing the BBC not to describe it as a “false” accusation. The BBC resisted the demand and continued to refer to it in those terms.'
I contrived to pick only their losers.
Few plumbers would become LD donors like Mullins is now either!
At first, the deliveries were sort of delightful.
There were chicken sandwiches, milkshakes, pastries, lattes and more. Then the items started arriving multiple times a day, at all hours, delivered by Uber Eats.
The thing is, the recipients never ordered any of it.
Since late February, a stretch of Range View Avenue in Highland Park, a Los Angeles neighborhood, has been inundated with unwanted deliveries from Uber Eats, the online food delivery service. The items, residents said, have mostly come from McDonald’s and Starbucks, though a few other fast-food chains have been represented, too.
Six Range View residents interviewed by The Los Angeles Times said they had received multiple Uber Eats deliveries of food they did not order — and that many of their neighbors had, too. A handful of people said they have gotten dozens of orders, sometimes receiving several a day.
“It is kind of remarkable what they are able to do with a pancake sandwich,” said bemused Range View resident Will Neal of the four McDonald’s McGriddles he and his wife received Feb. 25 — the first of about 40 deliveries to their home.
Now, though, after more than two weeks of the confounding conveyances — and plenty of time spent theorizing about the phenomenon — it has become, for at least some, a nuisance.
“I don’t trust it — I’m throwing it out,” said Dean Sao, a carpenter at Pasadena City College. “I don’t know who’s doing it. We were joking at first: It must be Elon Musk — I don’t know who else could afford it.” . . . .
Residents said that drivers delivering to Range View have provided scant information about the people placing the orders, either because they don’t have details or are not authorized to share them. The unsolicited deliveries, recipients said, have been in the names of other people. And the couriers, they added, also have mostly seemed undisturbed by the odd nature of the situation because the meals are paid for — and sometimes come with a tip. . . .
SSI - two questions:
1. Can Smithson the Younger account for his whereabouts, or otherwise provided convincing alibi?
2. How long before someone in the afflicted hood posts a notice - "NO TRESPASSING, INCLUDING UBER DELIVERY DRIVERS - ALL VIOLATORS WILL BE PROSECUTED AND SUED FOR DAMAGES"? Sound like an open-and-shut case to me. Especially since 99.46% of the "food" delivered could qualify as toxic waste.
It's just that I'm hopeless. I shall stay away from the turf in future.
But that’s not the point though. It’s been more fun than Christmas and much cheaper 🙂
Over the course of the last 12 months I’m still in profit I think from a couple of big lucky 15 wins. And that was despite throwing away lots of money at the Arbor festival.
Which is a shame. But I say we let them stay. Who's with me?
SSI - options shown are left and right; not clear IF talking about facial cheeks, or???
Now 40% go to university it is also wrong for the 60% who don't go to have to subsidise all their fees and living costs via higher taxes. They could just about stomach paying for the top 10% academically who would become doctors and lawyers etc not the rest. Hence both the LDs in 2005 and 2010 and Corbyn in 2017 and 2019 failed to get a majority for their manifesto commitment to scrap University tuition fees
Take your money out of your wallet, hold it up to the light. See the dark line?
Yup - burn every banknote you have. NOW!
Also, Stodge is right to avoid handicaps. I can’t because my Nan got so many winners on handicaps. But tips I was so confident about Delta Work and Galopin I put in the header, are in non handicaps it’s true.
I promise to feed and water it and it can stay in one of the spare hutches for COVID scientists.
OR the counterfeit greenbacks that Putin is likely churning out, and using to pay his bot brigade?
By the way, I might be having a fresh batch of Conservative MPs arriving in a couple of years, if you want someone raving about the advantages of Brexit and the gloriousness of Boris and JRM.
Scottish Springs tend to be nicer weather than the summers?
I expect it will finish at 18.30.
I passed out on the sofa last night, dreaming of going through race cards. I was awoken by dear GF shouting “NELLY YOU UTTER WANKER!”
It’s been a great week. ☺️
They are funny, harmless, and it keeps them away from causing mischief elsewhere.
But as they used to say when I were a lad: one for a Protestant, two for a catholic and three for the orthodox
You post some crazy ass conspiracy thing about Biden and banking that lacked all your previous intelligence, and then when I put your IP address through a blacklist check it spat out compromised.
You will understand - in those circumstances - that people might be a little suspcious.
NEW Pre-Budget Westminster Voting Intention.
LAB 48% (+3)
CON 32% (+3)
LD 8% (-2)
GRE 2% (-1)
SNP 3% (nc)
REF 3% (-1)
Others 5% (-1)
F/w 13-15 March. Changes vs. 2-3 March.
So another poll showing Con rating well up - though lead unchanged.
But remember what Bob Worcester always said - always look at the rating, not the lead.
So, on that basis, a bit more encouragement for Con.
https://twitter.com/Survation/status/1636767308436717574?cxt=HHwWjIC-9b3M-7YtAAAA
Q: Who do you trust more on the economy?
Sunak 41
Starmer 35
Q: Who do you trust more on the economy?
Reeves 39
Hunt 34
Why not just let him think people might be taking him seriously?
Coincidence? Conspiracy? Kismet? Or more Kremlin Bullshit?
He was the founder of MORI and one of the most respected pollsters of all time - he is actually Sir Robert Worcester (now aged 89):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Worcester
https://twitter.com/BernieSpofforth/status/1636765921434804225?s=20
And quite willing to consider other possibilities. Such as "Reed" is in your case twinned & preceded by "Thin"?
I note that John Reed is not mentioned in the Wiki list of famous Reed alumni Janet Yellen is worryingly unconvincing in her reply to the Oklahoma senator about the knock-on consequences for community banks.
John Reed was grad of Harvard NOT Reed College. Have always had stuck in my head that he went to RC, seeing as how both he & it were/are old-school Portlandia.
So thanks for knocking THAT misconception out from between my ears.
BTW, Reed College is perhaps the most prestigious institution of higher learning in the Pacific Northwest, especially from academic perspective.
Whitman College in Walla Walla, Washington (so nice they named it twice) is also highly regarded, not as much in academics are Reed, but perhaps more so in social standing, at least north of the Columbia River. Very popular with Seattle's "Mossback" gentry for example.
https://pollingreport.uk/seats
Must be a reflection of a small uptick in the Tory share in many recent opinion polls.
Big picture - Lab still flat at 47% but clear Con move upwards - previously 26%, now 28%.
And no that's not a margin of error movement - because it's the average across nine or ten pollsters. But it's still only a very small reduction in the Lab lead.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_next_United_Kingdom_general_election