Stop the Cuts - National Demonstration

^ and thats the really fucked up bit for me, the ideology behind it, rather than the making students pay bit, this really will spell disaster for so many subjects and departments. its really worrying.

^orly?

Yes.

Srsly?

;)

Fo realz yo.

I thought I was being Schlicked and couldn't figure out why.

Leave old Moritz out of this.

i want to do the Printmaking MA at the RCA, but i can't afford it.

Why can't you afford it, have they asked for money up front ?

Student loans aren't offered for post graduate courses.

Grad courses aren't affected directly by increasing the fees for undergrad courses though.

Grad courses aren't affected directly by increasing the fees for undergrad courses though.

Yes you're right, but i think MA course fees will rise to match them as they are just tuition fees, being taught by the same lecturers. They're currently at a similar level to an ubdergraduate course year.

Grad courses aren't affected directly by increasing the fees for undergrad courses though.

But they are affected by the funding cuts.

i think MA course fees will rise to match them as they are just tuition fees, being taught by the same lecturers. They're currently at a similar level to an ubdergraduate course year.

one difference is that a lot of colleges have postgrad students teaching undergrads for a shocking % of contact time - but they can't really get away with that for postgrad (which is mainly research anyway) so they may actually increase postgrad courses even higher as it is one of the few areas of teaching carried out by universities where an actual academic of worth is required.

Student loans aren't offered for post graduate courses.

Didn't realise that, cheers.

The idea of free university is itself nonsensical, no such thing exists nor has ever existed, nor could exist.

The only question is who pays, the students themselves or the working man though taxation.

People seem to think that if they pay for their course it costs money - but if we take the money from the wages of bin men, engineers, nurses, doctors and hairdressers then it's somehow 'free' ?

I think you're tilting at a straw man here, but I'm less concerned about that than the implication that it's always better for the student to pay for their own education than have the state pay for it.

Where do we stop with this line of argument? I spent years as a student listening to 'working men' of all stripes, but mainly those who (unlike me) hadn't chosen to (try to) go to university, moaning about students, 'parasites', scroungers', and so on. All because the state - i.e. everyone, including myself and my future self - funded my educational choices, which were not their choices. If I bought into their Sun-congenial line of reasoning, I might be similarly inclined to object to the state - i.e. everyone, including myself - funding a healthcare system that is used much more by people with lower educational attainment (unlike me), because in the UK as in most countries they enjoy a greater burden of disease - arguably because of their choices (which are not my choices): to smoke more, to drink more, to exercise less, and so on.

But I don't buy into this line of reasoning. I am happy to pay for universal healthcare, because it makes for a society that is fairer, whatever choices people make, and there are important (and well-documented) benefits that flow from living in a fairer, more equal, society. And for the same reason I am happy to pay out of my 'working man's' taxes to make choosing higher education a viable (or at least not terrifying) choice for people from lower-income families.

I think you're tilting at a straw man here . . .

I can't see the straw man in what I wrote, but would be happy for you to point it out to me, I think you might be misunderstanding what I am saying.

but I'm less concerned about that than the implication that it's always better for the student to pay for their own education than have the state pay for it.

Not sure anyone on this thread has said it's always better for the student to pay for their own education than have the state (taxation of the working man) pay for it ?

I certainly haven't.

Where do we stop with this line of argument.

It's not a line of argument as such, I am just pointing out that the idea of a 'free' education tends to be banded around as if such a thing exists - you either pay for it yourself or the working man is taxed to pay for it - the only argument I can see for the use of the term 'free' higher education is perhaps some form of the 'free at the point of delivery' mantra.

some other stuff about a Sun-congenial line of reasoning

Great stuff.

The straw man is the idea that anyone believes that education is free in the sense that no one pays for it. By 'free' education I mean one that the state pays for. I don't know, maybe some people believe that education literally costs nothing, so no one has to pay, but I've never met them.

As for the rest of it, maybe I have misunderstood your more substantive position. It's just that when people start talking about 'bin men' being taxed to fund HE in my experience they tend to the view that people should pay for their own HE and leave the bin men out of it.

I feel like going to uni again just too see what's all about with those fees.
I always though(t) , that you'd have to pay upfront and that put me off studying in this country.

As for the rest of it, maybe I have misunderstood your more substantive position. It's just that when people start talking about 'bin men' being taxed to fund HE in my experience they tend to the view that people should pay for their own HE and leave the bin men out of it.

Tynan doesn't play the devil's advocate, Tynan is the devil's advocate.

Wait, maybe he's the devil's advocaat, I forget.

I would even say that tynan is the evil's dadvocate.

The straw man is the idea that anyone believes that education is free in the sense that no one pays for it.

Understood, I am making that claim, but as I think that is the case I can't see it as a straw man - that is I am not trying to (wilfully) misrepresent an argument, I could of course be mistaken, but my mistake, if shown to be the case, is genuine.

By 'free' education I mean one that the state pays for. I don't know, maybe some people believe that education literally costs nothing, so no one has to pay, but I've never met them.

I agree that most people engaged in this kind of conversation tend to understand the basic concepts involved, but I suspect (and my suspicions are based on their arguments) that there is a section of people who do think such a thing exists.

And when I say they think this, I don't mean to say they actively engage the idea, they more tend to be people thrust along by emotion who hold the idea unthinkingly, they've not really given it much thought, they just assume education should be 'free' without ever considering what that means.

As for the rest of it, maybe I have misunderstood your more substantive position. It's just that when people start talking about 'bin men' being taxed to fund HE in my experience they tend to the view that people should pay for their own HE and leave the bin men out of it.

I was at pains to list a cross section of low and high earners (low - high - low - high - low) - I made the deliberate move to not list careers like bankers and politicians (which might have been seen as an appeal to popular emotions.)

We have a name for an argument that cherry picks - in this case - 'bin men' and makes it's case based on that alone.

: P

I feel like going to uni again just too see what's all about with those fees.
I always though(t) , that you'd have to pay upfront and that put me off studying in this country.

Well that's good, the last thing we need now is 'your lot' coming over here and stealing our university places, bringing with you disease and religion and spicy food.

"Working man"?
Mmm, smells like Teen Spirit. I mean a wind-up.

Tynan doesn't play the devil's advocate, Tynan is the devil's advocate.

For what it's worth, they are genuinely my opinions, right or wrong as they might be, I am not playing the devil's advocate.

"Working man"?
Mmm, smells like Teen Spirit. I mean a wind-up.

Here's the thing, I don't think you can have an honest conversation about things when they are this contentious, you have to tip-toe around people's hair triggered preconceptions - you might read a whole load of stuff into my use of the term 'working man' - but I thought about what I wanted to say, I tried to be specific.

'Working man' in this case means 'tax payers', there was a good reason I simply didn't state this as 'tax payers'.