Dubai Forums Dubai Discussions Dubai Politics Talk

Socialism in action (both the mob violence and failed policy)?

I guess students in the UK might actually have to work for a change and take out loans that, as individuals, they'll be responsible for paying back.

To me, the latter is the only fair option since university attendance is a privilege, not a right. And why should taxpayers who never went to college foot the bill for someone to major in Women's studies (and fail a few courses along the way)?

Tens of thousands of students are protesting against plans by the British government to raise university tuition fees, smashing windows and lighting fires in London, the capital.

...

"We are destroying the building just like they are destroying our chances of affording higher education," said Corin Parkin, 20, a student at London's City University.

Spending cuts

The action is being taken against the decision by the coalition Conversative and Liberal Democrat government to raise the cost of studying by $14,000 a year.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europ ... 69753.html

event horizon wrote:To me, the latter is the only fair option since university attendance is a privilege, not a right. And why should taxpayers who never went to college foot the bill for someone to major in Women's studies (and fail a few courses along the way)?

I strongly disagree. It's the right. If some taxpayers are not capable their children might be. Otherwise the latter have no chance to have high education regardless of their ability.
Is it Socialism? Probably Yes, its one of the best feature.

If some taxpayers are not capable their children might be.

But why should taxpayers who decided not to attend higher education after they graduated from high school (secondary education) have to pay for other adults?

It is certainly a choice to go to university and you can still make a living without a university degree. Also, it's not like an undergraduate degree in most fields will land a recent graduate a well paying job. Even in the hard sciences and math (except engineering) it's expected to go on to graduate school if they wish to find a decent job. In fact, by not saturating colleges with tons of students you are increasing the value of any degree.

Otherwise the latter have no chance to have high education regardless of their ability.

That's what loans are for and working while you go to school. I don't understand this sense of entitlement people have. They're not children anymore. They should pay their own way once they graduate high school.

In any event, I don't know anyone who is not able to go to school because of a lack of money. That's why we have community colleges, grants for low income families and, yes, students can get jobs and take out loans.

To me, the latter is the only fair option since university attendance is a privilege, not a right. And why should taxpayers who never went to college foot the bill for someone to major in Women's studies (and fail a few courses along the way)?

But why should taxpayers who decided not to attend higher education after they graduated from high school (secondary education) have to pay for other adults?

You’re right to emphasise and to put the questions in this manner!
However, In a world where most employers prefer university degrees amongst employees, makes it a right for those who have no choice but to demand uni. attendance , simply for the purpose of competition...
Unfortunatly like anything else under capitalist system, university degrees and diplomas are being exploited, traded and consumed very easliy as well...
To me, in an idealistic world, there should be fewer universities in each country with giant research labs for techno, science, social/political/cultural matters etc..prepared only for those extra brillant- selected students to produce theory for problems that are bothering humanity in each country/world for whatever reason there might be ...And those student who wisht to go through university education should solely choose such path to be part of permenant academic life so to stay within the same cycle. ..

Anyone esle who simply want to learn how to perform a certain type of job, like sales/marketing/financial/art/engineering/medicine should go to vocational higher education system where theories produced at univerities are thought how to apply while being practised at work place at the same time, until of coursse students are skilled/confident/qualified enough to manage themselves and the job they're about to undertake ...
If it happens like the way I wish to see it, then it becomes a must that we, tax payers pay for those who wish to persue academic career- simply for our own good.. Of course in return we should monitor how those few universities and academicians perform to find solutions to our daily problems that are becoming desperate for most of us..like enviromental problems, diseases, monetary/economic problems etc..

In my opinion, those who attend to vocational education should be half subsidized (like for lecturers fees) and half pay for the consumable materials (like teaching equipments, books, water, electricity, repairs etc)...Those who cannot pay for consumable expenses should be given student loans to be paid back when in employement...

First of all welcome back Berrin.

Secondly I don't fully agree with your point about vocational higher educational system because it takes at least 4 years for engineering and 5-6 for science and medicine to cover only basic theoretical knowledge to make an appropriate job.

For example afrer a half-year course of Quantum Mechanics in my uni 90% of students had negative result on the test. It was a result of an atempt to squeeze full uni programme in 4 years. After my graduation the course was expanded to 1 year with much better results on exam.

Moreover the programms require full time and force. So you cannot do something for a living.

To me, in an idealistic world, there should be fewer universities in each country with giant research labs for techno, science, social/political/cultural matters etc..prepared only for those extra brillant- selected students to produce theory for problems that are bothering humanity in each country/world for whatever reason there might be ...And those student who wisht to go through university education should solely choose such path to be part of permenant academic life so to stay within the same cycle. ..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_ ... #Criticism

I don't think that will guarantee anything.

However, In a world where most employers prefer university degrees amongst employees, makes it a right for those who have no choice but to demand uni. attendance , simply for the purpose of competition...
Unfortunatly like anything else under capitalist system, university degrees and diplomas are being exploited, traded and consumed very easliy as well...

That's nonsense, of course.

Someone can easily do well in life without a university degree and university degrees do not even remotely guarantee success in life. It's more important what you major in than the fact that you have a degree, because university education in 'Women's studies' or even in pure science won't get you very far in the real world.

Anyone esle who simply want to learn how to perform a certain type of job, like sales/marketing/financial/art/engineering/medicine should go to vocational higher education system where theories produced at univerities are thought how to apply while being practised at work place at the same time, until of coursse students are skilled/confident/qualified enough to manage themselves and the job they're about to undertake ...

I agree that people should go to school if they want to, but I don't think other citizens should pay their way.

It's about choice, and if they make the choice to go to school, then they should pay for their education for themselves.

If it happens like the way I wish to see it, then it becomes a must that we, tax payers pay for those who wish to persue academic career- simply for our own good..

Why? If their studies and research are a benefit to society, then they can apply what they do to the real world and pay for continued research that way.

Of course in return we should monitor how those few universities and academicians perform to find solutions to our daily problems that are becoming desperate for most of us..like enviromental problems, diseases, monetary/economic problems etc..

The government already does that here in the US. That's why molecular biology, for instance, in the treatment and prevention of disease, is by far the largest sub-field of biology.

In my opinion, those who attend to vocational education should be half subsidized (like for lecturers fees) and half pay for the consumable materials (like teaching equipments, books, water, electricity, repairs etc)...Those who cannot pay for consumable expenses should be given student loans to be paid back when in employement...

I think people should just take out interest free loans, apply for grants and scholarships and get a part time job to pay for any expenses that the loans and grants don't cover.

Well I think this basically means that higher education will only be available to the well off, who can afford it and the poor, who will get grants etc. Means there will be a huge divide as once again, the middle classes are the ones losing out.

The average student, having completed a 3 or 4 years degree course would come out owing approx 50,000 pounds - how on earth are they going to begin to pay that back? Not only that, it means other things get put on hold, like buying your first apartment/house, starting a family etc.

It's a complete disaster.

I was at uni when the first ever student fees came in. I was appalled because I was working two jobs to pay my way, yet those who couldn't be bothered to get off their lazy backsides and claimed all the benefits, had the fees wavered. Well I stood up for myelf and I fought it, put forward my case and managed to not pay the fees either.

Well I think this basically means that higher education will only be available to the well off, who can afford it and the poor, who will get grants etc. Means there will be a huge divide as once again, the middle classes are the ones losing out.

Middle class go to college just fine in the US. Yes, there are shortcomings, but those could be handled without the government resorting to 'free' tuition. Probably the best idea are interest free loans, but I guess giving loans out to students who have no prior credit is not the greatest idea.

Some actually argue that colleges are saturated with too many students. In reality, that's probably true, there are too many psychology, poli sci, sociology, biology majors, etc., that will find out their degree isn't worth more than the paper it was printed on. Even the hard(er) science degrees such as pure math, physics and chemistry are worthless without graduate school and even then, most careers in these fields are low paying compared to engineering or computer science or accounting, just to give some examples.

It would be much better for students to learn an actual skill, like carpentry, electrical, HVAC or automotive. Society needs carpenters, not Women's studies majors.

how on earth are they going to begin to pay that back?

Right, have someone else pay it, that's how. Perhaps if more students decided to major in engineering or accounting rather than philosophy, the amount of tuition graduates need to pay back over a reasonable period of time wouldn't be such a discouragement from attending college if they knew they could get a job immediately after graduating rather than diddling around with a worthless degree?

it means other things get put on hold, like buying your first apartment/house, starting a family etc.

They could always become a machinist or go to trade school to work in HVAC or something for a few years and take courses at night at their local community college.

Actually, machinists make more money than your average college graduate will. Why not encourage 'blue collar' jobs as an attractive option for students to consider going into after high school?

Why do people in America and the UK look down at plumbers, construction workers and value anyone who has a degree, in any subject, even if they wasted four years of their life cheating off of tests, copying their hw from sites that offer solutions and only showing up to class on test day?

I know from having a self-employed carpenter in my family, that a carpenter uses their mind far more than most people in society, degree holders included.

I was at uni when the first ever student fees came in. I was appalled because I was working two jobs to pay my way, yet those who couldn't be bothered to get off their lazy backsides and claimed all the benefits, had the fees wavered. Well I stood up for myelf and I fought it, put forward my case and managed to not pay the fees either.

Yeah, it sucks having to work. But I can guarantee you a lot of people who do heavy manual labor but use their minds at the same time would put most students who go to school and work full time to shame.

No one suggesting higher education should be FREE! That's not what people are complaining about, but the huge INCREASE in fees to approx 9,000 pounds year.

event horizon wrote: Probably the best idea are interest free loans, but I guess giving loans out to students who have no prior credit is not the greatest idea.

Absolutely true as high education is luxury - Harvard for spoilt brat and job of carpenter or absolutely worthless comunity college for a son of single mother just like BMW and Ford Focus.

Even the hard(er) science degrees such as pure math, physics and chemistry are worthless without graduate school and even then, most careers in these fields are low paying compared to engineering or computer science or accounting, just to give some examples.

I don't know why US needs such kind of education at all. It has been much easier to attaract talents from Russia or China where the education is free and pay them next to nothing against their qualification.
I have no reason why should I pay for education the people who are going to work for probable enemy but it's fair.

In addition I think that high education is absolutely worthless if you have time and force to do part-time job.

Horizon, you as a propagandist are very keen in different "ism" and think that your system can work without people. In my view any system can work only if there is an opportunity to go up for the most talented people.

In 1997, Sir Ron Dearing produced a landmark report into the future of higher education which concludes that students will have to pay towards the cost of university. "We therefore recommend that students enter into an obligation to make contributions to the cost of their education once they are in work." The Labour government, elected in May 1997, accepted the recommendation that there should be a tuition fee of £1,000, with the promise that it would provide financial support to "ensure free higher education for the least well off".

University Students have been protesting since the first ‘top-up fees’ were introduced in 1997 and left wing extremists have traditionally hi jacked the demonstrations at every occasion. The first top-up fee of £1000 was increased by 200% to £3,000.00 in 2003 and now a further 200% increase to £9,000.00 is scheduled to be introduced in 2012. Student Finance still remains fair through means testing by The Student Loans Company (SLC) a UK public sector organisation, established to provide financial services, in terms of loans and grants, to students annually, in colleges and universities across the four education systems of England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. Any loans provided by the SLC are made at favourable interest rates and repayment is expected when the student takes on full time employment with earnings exceeding £15,000 pa.

In summary, the top-up fees are increasing considerably more than inflation but even with a ceiling of £9,000.00 they are only a fraction of the fees charged by the UK’s leading and favoured Universities.

Horizon, you as a propagandist are very keen in different "ism" and think that your system can work without people. In my view any system can work only if there is an opportunity to go up for the most talented people.

??

LoL.

What does RC mean, can anyone fill me in? I must be having a blonde moment.

I think the uni should have fees but just think its probably gone up too much too soo because of the economic sitation. People should always be given the opportunity to seek higher education and should not excluded if they don't have money. But I do think that there should be some fees and the ability for students to borrow. Ultimately there are student loans that charge around 1% per annum - and if you are serious about getting an education than you will borrow and repay it once you have a job. I think this ensures that you don't go to university just for a joke as there is no downside in it for you. I think there were too many people in the UK going to university for the fun of it with all taxpayers suffering the burden. I am therefore in both camps - some fees but not so much that it excludes that want to get higher education but only those that are doing it because there is no cost to themselves involved.