FabSwingers.com > Forums > The Lounge > tuition fees
tuition fees
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"Labour saying they will reduce fee's by 3000 conservative say that's bad for student uni's will have no money. I fear that in the future education will be only for the rich. Fee's should be means tested poor pay as little as 1000 a year rich pay as much as 15000 a year. This would be fair. Any views." We should retain 'full' fees for Scots...after all, they charge English students more don't they? | |||
 | |||
| |||
| |||
"A well educated populace enhances the economy of a country and those with degrees have an earning potential that means they can mitigate the l" ....oan repayments through their high wages. Although I'm a firm believer in free education. | |||
| |||
| |||
 | |||
"It's sickening. The government know full well that it will price most people out of education. I was lucky. I managed to have my fees paid by the LEA as my family was on benefits. I hope that still happens but I doubt it. "There is no funding for some course's, my daughter is in her fourth year doing a veterinary digree there is no funding at all for this course, you either pay the full free yourself or don't do it | |||
| |||
| |||
"It's sickening. The government know full well that it will price most people out of education. I was lucky. I managed to have my fees paid by the LEA as my family was on benefits. I hope that still happens but I doubt it. "I believe you still get help if your family is on a low income and don't have to start paying back until you're earning a decent amount anyway. | |||
"It's sickening. The government know full well that it will price most people out of education. I was lucky. I managed to have my fees paid by the LEA as my family was on benefits. I hope that still happens but I doubt it.
I believe you still get help if your family is on a low income and don't have to start paying back until you're earning a decent amount anyway."Not for all courses. | |||
" We should retain 'full' fees for Scots...after all, they charge English students more don't they?" yes they do... however.... education budgets are devolved down to the scottish parliament... so they decided kids who stay in scotland dont pay.. and it comes out their budget, you do know the welsh assembly do almost the same thing, but they re-introduced the maintainance grant for welsh students | |||
"Labour saying they will reduce fee's by 3000 conservative say that's bad for student uni's will have no money. I fear that in the future education will be only for the rich. Fee's should be means tested poor pay as little as 1000 a year rich pay as much as 15000 a year. This would be fair. Any views." That is ridiculous. | |||
| |||
" We should retain 'full' fees for Scots...after all, they charge English students more don't they? yes they do... however.... education budgets are devolved down to the scottish parliament... so they decided kids who stay in scotland dont pay.. and it comes out their budget, ..... " That, plus the Council Tax freeze are amongst the reasons NHS Scotland is falling apart. | |||
" We should retain 'full' fees for Scots...after all, they charge English students more don't they? yes they do... however.... education budgets are devolved down to the scottish parliament... so they decided kids who stay in scotland dont pay.. and it comes out their budget, you do know the welsh assembly do almost the same thing, but they re-introduced the maintainance grant for welsh students " I admit that I was not aware of the Welsh arrangement. Interesting though that the Scots also choose to charge the lower rate to anyone from Europe who isn't from England.Maybe a genuinely pure thought about use of their own budget has been tainted by the old anti English sentiment? | |||
" We should retain 'full' fees for Scots...after all, they charge English students more don't they? yes they do... however.... education budgets are devolved down to the scottish parliament... so they decided kids who stay in scotland dont pay.. and it comes out their budget, you do know the welsh assembly do almost the same thing, but they re-introduced the maintainance grant for welsh students I admit that I was not aware of the Welsh arrangement. Interesting though that the Scots also choose to charge the lower rate to anyone from Europe who isn't from England.Maybe a genuinely pure thought about use of their own budget has been tainted by the old anti English sentiment?" You're not accusing the SNP of being anti English, are you? | |||
" We should retain 'full' fees for Scots...after all, they charge English students more don't they? yes they do... however.... education budgets are devolved down to the scottish parliament... so they decided kids who stay in scotland dont pay.. and it comes out their budget, you do know the welsh assembly do almost the same thing, but they re-introduced the maintainance grant for welsh students I admit that I was not aware of the Welsh arrangement. Interesting though that the Scots also choose to charge the lower rate to anyone from Europe who isn't from England.Maybe a genuinely pure thought about use of their own budget has been tainted by the old anti English sentiment? You're not accusing the SNP of being anti English, are you?" "You can take away our independence but you cannae take our hatred" | |||
" We should retain 'full' fees for Scots...after all, they charge English students more don't they? yes they do... however.... education budgets are devolved down to the scottish parliament... so they decided kids who stay in scotland dont pay.. and it comes out their budget, ..... That, plus the Council Tax freeze are amongst the reasons NHS Scotland is falling apart." Bit, no a lot more to it than that! | |||
| |||
| |||
"My eldest is at uni the fees are £9000 a year and we get no help we pay the lot It's really hard but what can you do" Well that's not true - everyone gets a tuition fee loan to cover it. And then they don't pay it back until they're earning over £21k a year. And then it's only a tenner a month. | |||
| |||
"Milliband is saying anything and everything to get people to vote for him irrespective of whether or not his announcements are affordable ir not - just goes to show that he hasn't git a scooby and that Labour just can not be trusted with the British Economy." Nor can the Conservatives be trusted with the economy. | |||
| |||
| |||
"Milliband is saying anything and everything to get people to vote for him irrespective of whether or not his announcements are affordable ir not - just goes to show that he hasn't git a scooby and that Labour just can not be trusted with the British Economy." meanwhile Labour in Scotland (under the command of skeletor) are running a bring back booze at the fitba campaign. sure fire vote winner that one  | |||
"Milliband is saying anything and everything to get people to vote for him irrespective of whether or not his announcements are affordable ir not - just goes to show that he hasn't git a scooby and that Labour just can not be trusted with the British Economy. meanwhile Labour in Scotland (under the command of skeletor) are running a bring back booze at the fitba campaign. sure fire vote winner that one "Jim trusts the people and doesn't spend all his time looking for new ways to control them. | |||
"My eldest is at uni the fees are £9000 a year and we get no help we pay the lot It's really hard but what can you do Well that's not true - everyone gets a tuition fee loan to cover it. And then they don't pay it back until they're earning over £21k a year. And then it's only a tenner a month." there is a difference between getting your fees paid or help towards paying and getting a loan I never said loans were not avaliable | |||
"Milliband is saying anything and everything to get people to vote for him irrespective of whether or not his announcements are affordable ir not - just goes to show that he hasn't git a scooby and that Labour just can not be trusted with the British Economy. meanwhile Labour in Scotland (under the command of skeletor) are running a bring back booze at the fitba campaign. sure fire vote winner that one
Jim trusts the people and doesn't spend all his time looking for new ways to control them."or maybe he just wants us all to get blootered 
| |||
"My eldest is at uni the fees are £9000 a year and we get no help we pay the lot It's really hard but what can you do Well that's not true - everyone gets a tuition fee loan to cover it. And then they don't pay it back until they're earning over £21k a year. And then it's only a tenner a month. there is a difference between getting your fees paid or help towards paying and getting a loan I never said loans were not avaliable " Everyone pays the lot and gets a fee. Some universities give mature students (like me) a small reduction in fees, but it's not much really. Nobody gets their fees 'paid' for them by the government. | |||
" We should retain 'full' fees for Scots...after all, they charge English students more don't they? yes they do... however.... education budgets are devolved down to the scottish parliament... so they decided kids who stay in scotland dont pay.. and it comes out their budget, you do know the welsh assembly do almost the same thing, but they re-introduced the maintainance grant for welsh students I admit that I was not aware of the Welsh arrangement. Interesting though that the Scots also choose to charge the lower rate to anyone from Europe who isn't from England.Maybe a genuinely pure thought about use of their own budget has been tainted by the old anti English sentiment? You're not accusing the SNP of being anti English, are you? "You can take away our independence but you cannae take our hatred"" The only 'hatred' I see on here comes from you....oh and what's a cannae? | |||
| |||
"Milliband is saying anything and everything to get people to vote for him irrespective of whether or not his announcements are affordable ir not - just goes to show that he hasn't git a scooby and that Labour just can not be trusted with the British Economy. meanwhile Labour in Scotland (under the command of skeletor) are running a bring back booze at the fitba campaign. sure fire vote winner that one
Jim trusts the people and doesn't spend all his time looking for new ways to control them.
or maybe he just wants us all to get blootered
"I'm saddened you have such little regard for the Scots. Why on earth would a life long tea totaler want everyone to get blootered? | |||
"I'm trying to think of how to word this without sounding snobbish, but I don't think it's going to work, so here goes: University degrees are not a God-given right. They used to be rare and actually meant something. Sure, it usually meant only the rich could go to university, but hey-ho. They are now common as much and usually aren't worth the paper they're written on. People go to uni and then seem to think they are above doing any job other than what they want, only there are now so many with the same opinion that it has made the whole experience virtually useless. I don't think I know a single uni graduate who has had to start repaying their loan (as they can't get a high enough paying job) and most of them only have a couple more years until the debt is going to be written off anyway. So I don't think there are many repaying said loans and surely, like the NHS (more people taking out than they are putting in) it simply cannot survive like that?" And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. | |||
"I'm trying to think of how to word this without sounding snobbish, but I don't think it's going to work, so here goes: University degrees are not a God-given right. They used to be rare and actually meant something. Sure, it usually meant only the rich could go to university, but hey-ho. They are now common as much and usually aren't worth the paper they're written on. People go to uni and then seem to think they are above doing any job other than what they want, only there are now so many with the same opinion that it has made the whole experience virtually useless. I don't think I know a single uni graduate who has had to start repaying their loan (as they can't get a high enough paying job) and most of them only have a couple more years until the debt is going to be written off anyway. So I don't think there are many repaying said loans and surely, like the NHS (more people taking out than they are putting in) it simply cannot survive like that? And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. " i have son who has a degree in modern languages - worked hard and now has a job in germany - his dream achieved - earning more than i ever did and hes not quite 24 - this is all down to his degree - my daughter is in her final year and working her arse off - has got a place in teacher training organised for next year she wouldnt have got if not for her degree results so far (looking like she might get a first if not a high 2:1) so to say not worth the paper theyre written on isnt true | |||
" We should retain 'full' fees for Scots...after all, they charge English students more don't they? yes they do... however.... education budgets are devolved down to the scottish parliament... so they decided kids who stay in scotland dont pay.. and it comes out their budget, you do know the welsh assembly do almost the same thing, but they re-introduced the maintainance grant for welsh students " Whether you agree with the general politics of the SNP I think this is one of the better things they have done via having a devolved parliament. No had to pay uni fees as did my friends before we had a devolved government. I agree I think tuition fees should be free in the whole of the UK or at least heavily subsidised, it's investing in the countries future by investing in the young. Money spent, in my opinion. Dx | |||
"I'm trying to think of how to word this without sounding snobbish, but I don't think it's going to work, so here goes: University degrees are not a God-given right. They used to be rare and actually meant something. Sure, it usually meant only the rich could go to university, but hey-ho. They are now common as much and usually aren't worth the paper they're written on. People go to uni and then seem to think they are above doing any job other than what they want, only there are now so many with the same opinion that it has made the whole experience virtually useless. I don't think I know a single uni graduate who has had to start repaying their loan (as they can't get a high enough paying job) and most of them only have a couple more years until the debt is going to be written off anyway. So I don't think there are many repaying said loans and surely, like the NHS (more people taking out than they are putting in) it simply cannot survive like that? And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. i have son who has a degree in modern languages - worked hard and now has a job in germany - his dream achieved - earning more than i ever did and hes not quite 24 - this is all down to his degree - my daughter is in her final year and working her arse off - has got a place in teacher training organised for next year she wouldnt have got if not for her degree results so far (looking like she might get a first if not a high 2:1) so to say not worth the paper theyre written on isnt true " Hence the use of the word "usually". | |||
| |||
"I don't think I know a single uni graduate who has had to start repaying their loan (as they can't get a high enough paying job) and most of them only have a couple more years until the debt is going to be written off anyway." My current partner will pay off his loan before the end of this year. Eight years after finishing his degree. My previous partner was going to finish paying off his student loan 12 years after his graduated (and that included doing a Masters too). I can't think of a single friend of mine who has taken a degree in the last 10-15 years and now works in a low wage job. They all have jobs that they wanted. Guess we must have differently-motivated friends. Me - I couldn't find any jobs that I enjoyed and was qualified for without a degree. Now I'm doing my degree. Even being on my degree course has opened doors in my freelance career, and mid way through my second year I'm earning more with my freelance writing that I fit in around my degree than I earned in a full time job before I started. In fact, I will start to pay off my student loan the month after I graduate if things keep picking up. So I guess you don't sound snobbish, just utterly bizarre. Either that or you have a very unmotivated group of friends who don't want to do well. | |||
" I agree I think tuition fees should be free in the whole of the UK or at least heavily subsidised, it's investing in the countries future by investing in the young. Money spent, in my opinion. Dx " They *are* already heavily subsidised. I believe Oxford made an estimation last year that the true cost of educating a student was almost double what they paid in tuition fees. Most universities have endowments, commercial arrangements and so forth that cover the slack. | |||
" I agree I think tuition fees should be free in the whole of the UK or at least heavily subsidised, it's investing in the countries future by investing in the young. Money spent, in my opinion. Dx They *are* already heavily subsidised. I believe Oxford made an estimation last year that the true cost of educating a student was almost double what they paid in tuition fees. Most universities have endowments, commercial arrangements and so forth that cover the slack." I didn't know that, still think for people who live in the UK making it free would be money well spent but know money's tight everywhere just now
Dx | |||
"Either that or you have a very unmotivated group of friends who don't want to do well." Oh, I fully agree there. And they aren't "friends", just people I know - I have very little patience for slackers. I don't disagree with uni degrees altogether. Some people make very good choices and actually put them to use whereas others seem to just do it for the Hell of it and seem to think it's their God-given right, these are usually the ones that use their grants for piss ups and d*unken holidays. I do need to apologise as I seem to be ripping everyone's heads off lately but it just seems everyone wants everything for free (not necessarily selfishly) but can't contribute any logical way to pay for all of this. In an ideal World, all education and healthcare would be free, but it's not. | |||
The current £9k per annum system is all kinds of fucked up for the government in financial terms, but it's not really been a deterrent for student numbers. It seems a really odd thing for the Labour Party to have made a commitment to, as it really doesn't seem like something there's a big public outcry about anymore. Perhaps just a cynical play for Lib Dem voters who felt let down about this after the last election. | |||
| |||
"I'm trying to think of how to word this without sounding snobbish, but I don't think it's going to work, so here goes: University degrees are not a God-given right. They used to be rare and actually meant something. Sure, it usually meant only the rich could go to university, but hey-ho. They are now common as much and usually aren't worth the paper they're written on. People go to uni and then seem to think they are above doing any job other than what they want, only there are now so many with the same opinion that it has made the whole experience virtually useless. I don't think I know a single uni graduate who has had to start repaying their loan (as they can't get a high enough paying job) and most of them only have a couple more years until the debt is going to be written off anyway. So I don't think there are many repaying said loans and surely, like the NHS (more people taking out than they are putting in) it simply cannot survive like that? And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. i have son who has a degree in modern languages - worked hard and now has a job in germany - his dream achieved - earning more than i ever did and hes not quite 24 - this is all down to his degree - my daughter is in her final year and working her arse off - has got a place in teacher training organised for next year she wouldnt have got if not for her degree results so far (looking like she might get a first if not a high 2:1) so to say not worth the paper theyre written on isnt true " . Good point . Both your sons and daughters degrees are in subjects for which there is significant demand from employers . Language degrees can be difficult and you need significant ttalent to succeed . Potential employers will recognise this . To obtain a first or high 2 .1 you daughter will have both worked hard and also have other talents . They will however be other people doing degrees who do not apply themselves and are studying subjects which are irrelevant to potential employers . As a broad generalisation , people with degrees earn significantly more over their life than those without a degree. You do of course have to have other talent as well. | |||
" And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. " I'd say it depends hugely on the actual degree and the actual university. Everyone I studied with is doing well in good careers they wouldn't have got into without their degrees. But I studied traditional academic subjects at a high ranking university. A degree for the sake of it is not worth it. But a good degree from a good university, combined with the right skills and attitude will still open doors. | |||
"Milliband is saying anything and everything to get people to vote for him irrespective of whether or not his announcements are affordable ir not - just goes to show that he hasn't git a scooby and that Labour just can not be trusted with the British Economy."  Same old Labour planning to raid pension pots to pay for this (i seem to recall Gordon Brown raided pensions which cost Britain around £10 billion a year....and reduced the value of retirement funds by £100 billion in total for Labours term in office). This move will only benefit richer students in the long term anyway. | |||
 | |||
"Did you know in Sweden were I come from all education is free "It used to be here too Shag. Then we followed more of the neocon agenda. It's a failure atm | |||
" And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. I'd say it depends hugely on the actual degree and the actual university. Everyone I studied with is doing well in good careers they wouldn't have got into without their degrees. But I studied traditional academic subjects at a high ranking university. A degree for the sake of it is not worth it. But a good degree from a good university, combined with the right skills and attitude will still open doors." ^ this One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. | |||
"Did you know in Sweden were I come from all education is free
It used to be here too Shag. Then we followed more of the neocon agenda. It's a failure atm"YEs wonder why they started to change it, better to have it free so more will get it. | |||
" And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. I'd say it depends hugely on the actual degree and the actual university. Everyone I studied with is doing well in good careers they wouldn't have got into without their degrees. But I studied traditional academic subjects at a high ranking university. A degree for the sake of it is not worth it. But a good degree from a good university, combined with the right skills and attitude will still open doors. ^ this One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely." Saying that, the most teaching time I ever had was 12 hours a week in first term. It was down to 5 or 6 hours of seminars by third year, but there was a huge amount of self-study to do and it's sort of the nature of the subject I was doing (which suited me perfectly). | |||
"It's sickening. The government know full well that it will price most people out of education. I was lucky. I managed to have my fees paid by the LEA as my family was on benefits. I hope that still happens but I doubt it.
I believe you still get help if your family is on a low income and don't have to start paying back until you're earning a decent amount anyway."I'm on a very low income. My daughter did 3years fashion design course and didn't get any funding. Sh has now finished uni with around £30000 debt( tuition fees plus living loans) | |||
" And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. I'd say it depends hugely on the actual degree and the actual university. Everyone I studied with is doing well in good careers they wouldn't have got into without their degrees. But I studied traditional academic subjects at a high ranking university. A degree for the sake of it is not worth it. But a good degree from a good university, combined with the right skills and attitude will still open doors. ^ this One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. Saying that, the most teaching time I ever had was 12 hours a week in first term. It was down to 5 or 6 hours of seminars by third year, but there was a huge amount of self-study to do and it's sort of the nature of the subject I was doing (which suited me perfectly). " I don't think I did less than 5 or 6 hours per day right through my course, sometimes much more. Plus problems sheets, coursework and research in my "own time"! | |||
| |||
" And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. I'd say it depends hugely on the actual degree and the actual university. Everyone I studied with is doing well in good careers they wouldn't have got into without their degrees. But I studied traditional academic subjects at a high ranking university. A degree for the sake of it is not worth it. But a good degree from a good university, combined with the right skills and attitude will still open doors. ^ this One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. Saying that, the most teaching time I ever had was 12 hours a week in first term. It was down to 5 or 6 hours of seminars by third year, but there was a huge amount of self-study to do and it's sort of the nature of the subject I was doing (which suited me perfectly). I don't think I did less than 5 or 6 hours per day right through my course, sometimes much more. Plus problems sheets, coursework and research in my "own time"! "I read History though, so you're not being taught to sit and write down what someone says, you're being taught the skills to go away and research something and formulate an argument for yourself. Those 6 hours a week would be everyone coming back together to present and discuss and argue, which was very difficult to blag your way through if you hadn't put the work in the rest of the time. Totally different from a degree where you need a lot of contact time to be taught content. I think I probably did more work than any of the people I lived with, even though most of them had 20+ hours a week teaching time. It was a bit sink or swim though; it suited my studying style perfectly but a lot couldn't cope with the transition from spoon feeding at school to pretty much self-directed study. | |||
" And a lot of people I know with uni degrees still work as sales assistants, coffee baristas and cleaners... Not saying those jobs are "below" anyone as work is work, but even they now fail to see that it was worth it. I'd say it depends hugely on the actual degree and the actual university. Everyone I studied with is doing well in good careers they wouldn't have got into without their degrees. But I studied traditional academic subjects at a high ranking university. A degree for the sake of it is not worth it. But a good degree from a good university, combined with the right skills and attitude will still open doors. ^ this One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. Saying that, the most teaching time I ever had was 12 hours a week in first term. It was down to 5 or 6 hours of seminars by third year, but there was a huge amount of self-study to do and it's sort of the nature of the subject I was doing (which suited me perfectly). I don't think I did less than 5 or 6 hours per day right through my course, sometimes much more. Plus problems sheets, coursework and research in my "own time"!
I read History though, so you're not being taught to sit and write down what someone says, you're being taught the skills to go away and research something and formulate an argument for yourself. Those 6 hours a week would be everyone coming back together to present and discuss and argue, which was very difficult to blag your way through if you hadn't put the work in the rest of the time.
Totally different from a degree where you need a lot of contact time to be taught content. I think I probably did more work than any of the people I lived with, even though most of them had 20+ hours a week teaching time.
It was a bit sink or swim though; it suited my studying style perfectly but a lot couldn't cope with the transition from spoon feeding at school to pretty much self-directed study. "I read chemistry, so a very different discipline. It required a lot of teaching, (not entirely what I'd describe as just writing down what someone said, unfortunately! ) and a hell of a lot of lab time.
We had to learn to research, literature search and present data too though. | |||
" One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely." That's the same as mine. I have about 6-8 contact hours a week. But then I'm expected to be reading and researching for another 30 or so hours per week. If your friends daughter is not making up the numbers by doing the work, then more fool her. History of Art at Cambridge has about 6 hours of contact time per week. I'd say that's pretty much a well respected degree from a good academic university. If you do a science degree you often have lots of 'bench time' which isn't taught work - however there are staff for safety purposes. That's the equivalent of reading time in a humanities degree. | |||
"I think there should be less concentration on Uni's and look at starting some non-academic colleges (lie the old Polytechnics) to train non-academic people to do jobs that would give them a good income! " | |||
" One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. That's the same as mine. I have about 6-8 contact hours a week. But then I'm expected to be reading and researching for another 30 or so hours per week. If your friends daughter is not making up the numbers by doing the work, then more fool her. History of Art at Cambridge has about 6 hours of contact time per week. I'd say that's pretty much a well respected degree from a good academic university. If you do a science degree you often have lots of 'bench time' which isn't taught work - however there are staff for safety purposes. That's the equivalent of reading time in a humanities degree." I wouldn't, personally, consider the History of Art to be an academic degree subject. I don't doubt the quality of the course but I think it likely that those with degrees in the History of Art will find they have fewer employment options - particularly well paid options - than those with, say, physics degrees from top universities. And yes, my course included a lot of lab work but there was a teaching aspect to it. We had to learn a wide range of synthetic and analytical techniques. Even so, outside of the practical blocks, the taught hours amounted to far, far more than 8 or 9 hours per week. We also had to take humanities courses or another language at the same time, (I took the History of Science, amongst others). I don't think arts and humanities courses are less important, or in any way less, than what I consider academic subjects, but I do think, in general, they offer fewer options to those studying them. Those taking them need, imo, to have an idea of their desired career and to be sure how their chosen subject fits with that. | |||
" One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. That's the same as mine. I have about 6-8 contact hours a week. But then I'm expected to be reading and researching for another 30 or so hours per week. If your friends daughter is not making up the numbers by doing the work, then more fool her. History of Art at Cambridge has about 6 hours of contact time per week. I'd say that's pretty much a well respected degree from a good academic university. If you do a science degree you often have lots of 'bench time' which isn't taught work - however there are staff for safety purposes. That's the equivalent of reading time in a humanities degree." my daughter is studying english language and lit at a red brick uni - school advised them that redbricks were better to have on a cv and could make the difference - she has always got her head in books - the recommended read list is ridiculously lengthy - she has a friend there who partied too much last year and has now to resit the year - expensive lesson learnt for her - if you get the opportunity you make the most of it - both my kids went into uni with the mindset ok we will enjoy the lifestyle but we will work our butts off as its 3 years (4 for my son) of my life that will make such a difference to the rest of it - proud doesnt come close | |||
" One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. That's the same as mine. I have about 6-8 contact hours a week. But then I'm expected to be reading and researching for another 30 or so hours per week. If your friends daughter is not making up the numbers by doing the work, then more fool her. History of Art at Cambridge has about 6 hours of contact time per week. I'd say that's pretty much a well respected degree from a good academic university. If you do a science degree you often have lots of 'bench time' which isn't taught work - however there are staff for safety purposes. That's the equivalent of reading time in a humanities degree. I wouldn't, personally, consider the History of Art to be an academic degree subject. I don't doubt the quality of the course but I think it likely that those with degrees in the History of Art will find they have fewer employment options - particularly well paid options - than those with, say, physics degrees from top universities. And yes, my course included a lot of lab work but there was a teaching aspect to it. We had to learn a wide range of synthetic and analytical techniques. Even so, outside of the practical blocks, the taught hours amounted to far, far more than 8 or 9 hours per week. We also had to take humanities courses or another language at the same time, (I took the History of Science, amongst others). I don't think arts and humanities courses are less important, or in any way less, than what I consider academic subjects, but I do think, in general, they offer fewer options to those studying them. Those taking them need, imo, to have an idea of their desired career and to be sure how their chosen subject fits with that." Quite the opposite. My history of art degree opens doors into anything to do with communication, visual communication, anything in the creative industries that doesn't need a specific degree, academia, research, teaching, publishing, journalism, project management, picture researching... The list is endless. Anything basically that requires communication. A chemistry degree on the other hand. Opens doors to be a scientist or a teacher? Seems far more limited from my POV. Of course that could be just me not understanding what a chemistry degree teaches - but that of course could also be your problem with history of art too. | |||
" One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. That's the same as mine. I have about 6-8 contact hours a week. But then I'm expected to be reading and researching for another 30 or so hours per week. If your friends daughter is not making up the numbers by doing the work, then more fool her. History of Art at Cambridge has about 6 hours of contact time per week. I'd say that's pretty much a well respected degree from a good academic university. If you do a science degree you often have lots of 'bench time' which isn't taught work - however there are staff for safety purposes. That's the equivalent of reading time in a humanities degree. I wouldn't, personally, consider the History of Art to be an academic degree subject. I don't doubt the quality of the course but I think it likely that those with degrees in the History of Art will find they have fewer employment options - particularly well paid options - than those with, say, physics degrees from top universities. And yes, my course included a lot of lab work but there was a teaching aspect to it. We had to learn a wide range of synthetic and analytical techniques. Even so, outside of the practical blocks, the taught hours amounted to far, far more than 8 or 9 hours per week. We also had to take humanities courses or another language at the same time, (I took the History of Science, amongst others). I don't think arts and humanities courses are less important, or in any way less, than what I consider academic subjects, but I do think, in general, they offer fewer options to those studying them. Those taking them need, imo, to have an idea of their desired career and to be sure how their chosen subject fits with that." Couldn't disagree more. I work in finance with my Arts degree and masters, and am also involved in recruiting graduates to finance and policy roles. Without fail the arts and humanities graduates (I can think of History, English, Music and Geography particularly in the past few years) have been more successful in adapting to studying for a professional accountancy qualification while working full time, and more successful in succeeding in the job as a whole than the BSCs have been. Good Arts and Humanities degrees (granted, that's not all of them) teach you to think for yourself and express yourself based on research, and outside of the narrow confines of some quite niche careers those are incredibly important skills for any employer. If you're basing your assertion on published salary statistics from particular courses then it's probably worth bearing in mind that Arts and Humanities graduates by the nature of their interests are often attracted to areas of work that are much lower paid: e.g. museums, libraries, galleries and research. | |||
" One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. That's the same as mine. I have about 6-8 contact hours a week. But then I'm expected to be reading and researching for another 30 or so hours per week. If your friends daughter is not making up the numbers by doing the work, then more fool her. History of Art at Cambridge has about 6 hours of contact time per week. I'd say that's pretty much a well respected degree from a good academic university. If you do a science degree you often have lots of 'bench time' which isn't taught work - however there are staff for safety purposes. That's the equivalent of reading time in a humanities degree. I wouldn't, personally, consider the History of Art to be an academic degree subject. I don't doubt the quality of the course but I think it likely that those with degrees in the History of Art will find they have fewer employment options - particularly well paid options - than those with, say, physics degrees from top universities. And yes, my course included a lot of lab work but there was a teaching aspect to it. We had to learn a wide range of synthetic and analytical techniques. Even so, outside of the practical blocks, the taught hours amounted to far, far more than 8 or 9 hours per week. We also had to take humanities courses or another language at the same time, (I took the History of Science, amongst others). I don't think arts and humanities courses are less important, or in any way less, than what I consider academic subjects, but I do think, in general, they offer fewer options to those studying them. Those taking them need, imo, to have an idea of their desired career and to be sure how their chosen subject fits with that. Quite the opposite. My history of art degree opens doors into anything to do with communication, visual communication, anything in the creative industries that doesn't need a specific degree, academia, research, teaching, publishing, journalism, project management, picture researching... The list is endless. Anything basically that requires communication. A chemistry degree on the other hand. Opens doors to be a scientist or a teacher? Seems far more limited from my POV. Of course that could be just me not understanding what a chemistry degree teaches - but that of course could also be your problem with history of art too." Indeed that could well be the case. You're certainly not correct on the potential uses of a Chemistry degree. Even if you were, "scientist" covers quite a wide range of options in itself. Chemistry can be, (and in my case was), a very mathematical discipline and teaches data analysis and logical thinking, amongst other skills. It's often a springboard to banking and finance careers, logistics, IT, technical writing, medicine, research of all kinds and a range of other possibilities. For some companies the actual subject doesn't matter much, it's the demonstrated ability to be successful in a technical discipline at that level that interests them. My degree would allow me to take a fast track degree in medicine, if I could afford it. The university I attended as an undergraduate only offered science and technology courses (with humanities and arts modules), so my knowledge of arts and humanities subjects is limited. Most of my knowledge and opinion is based on the people I know who took arts and humanities subjects. Maybe those people, or their courses, are not a broad or realistic representation of the situation. Degrees, whatever the subject and whichever institution they are awarded by, are to some extent what an individual makes of them. As far as I can tell, my friend's daughter is doing the bare minimum. Awards from certain institutions and bodies will always open more doors than others, but it's still up to the individual to be able to make the most of the opportunities that brings. In my experience, some of the benefit of university is in the skills and experience gained alongside the qualification. If a degree is not worth the paper it's written on, that's partially down to the student. Some universities are able to pick the candidates that are most likely to make the best of their opportunities, and are better at encouraging students to excel. Ultimately it's down to the student though. | |||
"my daughter is studying english language and lit at a red brick uni - school advised them that redbricks were better to have on a cv and could make the difference - she has always got her head in books - the recommended read list is ridiculously lengthy - she has a friend there who partied too much last year and has now to resit the year - expensive lesson learnt for her - if you get the opportunity you make the most of it - both my kids went into uni with the mindset ok we will enjoy the lifestyle but we will work our butts off as its 3 years (4 for my son) of my life that will make such a difference to the rest of it - proud doesnt come close " They've definitely got the right attitude, I know people who went just for sake of it and ran up all the debts basically partying and not getting much out of it. They're the ones who now complain that their degree wasn't worth it. | |||
| |||
"Here's the REAL problem and this is why I am such a huge fan of people starting their own businesses right out of school (something I SHOULD have done) and even before they finish school: The further education transition to ideal job phase is dire. It's a fucking mess, especially at the lower levels, and yet our entire roadmap for the average person is "go to university and get a degree then get a job." That's bullshit. You should be freelancing at 13 and starting your own business at 16. By the time you finish school, you should have sufficient income that you never need to go to university anywhere. When you're in this position, the whole idea of going to university becomes a whole new ball game. It's not about preparing for work, It's about learning at your own leisure. It's about skills and expertise and interests. Whether you get a degree is NOT important. Whether you get good grades is NOT important. Whether you even GO to university is NOT important. " I disagree. For some people your model would be ideal. Other people need a formal education and are more suited to that than to vocational training. If everyone did things your way, in a few years we'd have no doctors, nurses, dentists, vets, legal professionals... Formal education has its place. A university education should not be expected or considered the norm for everyone though and nobody should get a degree or go to university for the sake of it. Vocational approaches and academic routes both have their place. | |||
"Here's the REAL problem and this is why I am such a huge fan of people starting their own businesses right out of school (something I SHOULD have done) and even before they finish school: The further education transition to ideal job phase is dire. It's a fucking mess, especially at the lower levels, and yet our entire roadmap for the average person is "go to university and get a degree then get a job." That's bullshit. You should be freelancing at 13 and starting your own business at 16. By the time you finish school, you should have sufficient income that you never need to go to university anywhere. When you're in this position, the whole idea of going to university becomes a whole new ball game. It's not about preparing for work, It's about learning at your own leisure. It's about skills and expertise and interests. Whether you get a degree is NOT important. Whether you get good grades is NOT important. Whether you even GO to university is NOT important. " I disagree with this. Many occupations cannot be practiced without a specific degree, mine included, so yes getting a degree is important to many people. However I do agree that for a lot of people getting a degree is not important and there are different avenues in life for everyone and a degree does not guarantee success! | |||
"My eldest is at uni the fees are £9000 a year and we get no help we pay the lot It's really hard but what can you do Well that's not true - everyone gets a tuition fee loan to cover it. And then they don't pay it back until they're earning over £21k a year. And then it's only a tenner a month." Tenner a Month? I repaid mine 12 years ago and then it was. £90 per month! | |||
" One of my friend's daughters is doing a degree at the moment. She's in her second year and has 9 hours of lectures per week, (and no practical work). That's a "full-time" course apparently! I fail to see how her "degree" will be worth anything much. A good, academic degree from a well respected university is a different matter entirely. That's the same as mine. I have about 6-8 contact hours a week. But then I'm expected to be reading and researching for another 30 or so hours per week. If your friends daughter is not making up the numbers by doing the work, then more fool her. History of Art at Cambridge has about 6 hours of contact time per week. I'd say that's pretty much a well respected degree from a good academic university. If you do a science degree you often have lots of 'bench time' which isn't taught work - however there are staff for safety purposes. That's the equivalent of reading time in a humanities degree. I wouldn't, personally, consider the History of Art to be an academic degree subject. I don't doubt the quality of the course but I think it likely that those with degrees in the History of Art will find they have fewer employment options - particularly well paid options - than those with, say, physics degrees from top universities. And yes, my course included a lot of lab work but there was a teaching aspect to it. We had to learn a wide range of synthetic and analytical techniques. Even so, outside of the practical blocks, the taught hours amounted to far, far more than 8 or 9 hours per week. We also had to take humanities courses or another language at the same time, (I took the History of Science, amongst others). I don't think arts and humanities courses are less important, or in any way less, than what I consider academic subjects, but I do think, in general, they offer fewer options to those studying them. Those taking them need, imo, to have an idea of their desired career and to be sure how their chosen subject fits with that. Quite the opposite. My history of art degree opens doors into anything to do with communication, visual communication, anything in the creative industries that doesn't need a specific degree, academia, research, teaching, publishing, journalism, project management, picture researching... The list is endless. Anything basically that requires communication. A chemistry degree on the other hand. Opens doors to be a scientist or a teacher? Seems far more limited from my POV. Of course that could be just me not understanding what a chemistry degree teaches - but that of course could also be your problem with history of art too. Indeed that could well be the case. You're certainly not correct on the potential uses of a Chemistry degree. Even if you were, "scientist" covers quite a wide range of options in itself. Chemistry can be, (and in my case was), a very mathematical discipline and teaches data analysis and logical thinking, amongst other skills. It's often a springboard to banking and finance careers, logistics, IT, technical writing, medicine, research of all kinds and a range of other possibilities. For some companies the actual subject doesn't matter much, it's the demonstrated ability to be successful in a technical discipline at that level that interests them. My degree would allow me to take a fast track degree in medicine, if I could afford it. The university I attended as an undergraduate only offered science and technology courses (with humanities and arts modules), so my knowledge of arts and humanities subjects is limited. Most of my knowledge and opinion is based on the people I know who took arts and humanities subjects. Maybe those people, or their courses, are not a broad or realistic representation of the situation. Degrees, whatever the subject and whichever institution they are awarded by, are to some extent what an individual makes of them. As far as I can tell, my friend's daughter is doing the bare minimum. Awards from certain institutions and bodies will always open more doors than others, but it's still up to the individual to be able to make the most of the opportunities that brings. In my experience, some of the benefit of university is in the skills and experience gained alongside the qualification. If a degree is not worth the paper it's written on, that's partially down to the student. Some universities are able to pick the candidates that are most likely to make the best of their opportunities, and are better at encouraging students to excel. Ultimately it's down to the student though." I have a BA (Hons) in Archaeology and Ancient History from a 'red brick' uni. I could, if I wish, turn it into a law degree for example, as the degree teaches us skills on how to argue and support it. As with any degree, you still have exams, coursework, lectures, presentations, debates and a dissertation. It's unfortunate, however, that the starting pay for an qualified archaeologist is the same as a building labourer!!
I've decided to continue my studies and fund myself to do a masters, not only to better myself, but as an engaging interest I have with the subject.
I've had a few random people raise their eyebrows at me, because my first degree was funded for a mature aged student. At least, I'm trying to better myself, rather than sit around and live of the state.  | |||
"Milliband is saying anything and everything to get people to vote for him irrespective of whether or not his announcements are affordable ir not - just goes to show that he hasn't git a scooby and that Labour just can not be trusted with the British Economy. Nor can the Conservatives be trusted with the economy. " You mean apart from every time they've balanced the books following a Labour Government that put the country in debt, yes? | |||
"My eldest is at uni the fees are £9000 a year and we get no help we pay the lot It's really hard but what can you do Well that's not true - everyone gets a tuition fee loan to cover it. And then they don't pay it back until they're earning over £21k a year. And then it's only a tenner a month. Tenner a Month? I repaid mine 12 years ago and then it was. £90 per month!" Mine was up to £200 a month by the time I got close to paying it off but that's because it's linked to salary, when I was first working it used to be £8 which didn't even come close to paying the interest. | |||
"Milliband is saying anything and everything to get people to vote for him irrespective of whether or not his announcements are affordable ir not - just goes to show that he hasn't git a scooby and that Labour just can not be trusted with the British Economy. Nor can the Conservatives be trusted with the economy. You mean apart from every time they've balanced the books following a Labour Government that put the country in debt, yes?" You must have an unusual definition of 'balanced'. | |||
"Here's the REAL problem and this is why I am such a huge fan of people starting their own businesses right out of school (something I SHOULD have done) and even before they finish school: The further education transition to ideal job phase is dire. It's a fucking mess, especially at the lower levels, and yet our entire roadmap for the average person is "go to university and get a degree then get a job." That's bullshit. You should be freelancing at 13 and starting your own business at 16. By the time you finish school, you should have sufficient income that you never need to go to university anywhere. When you're in this position, the whole idea of going to university becomes a whole new ball game. It's not about preparing for work, It's about learning at your own leisure. It's about skills and expertise and interests. Whether you get a degree is NOT important. Whether you get good grades is NOT important. Whether you even GO to university is NOT important. " Those things were all VERY important for me. And I didn't necessarily need to go to university, I wanted to. Not everyone can or wants to run their own business. And if any of those businesses ever wanted to expand, who the fuck would work for them, if everyone else was running their own business? A balanced economy needs a mix of entrepreneurs and employees, academics, creatives, innovators and people with practical hands on skills. No one path is any better than the other, people contribute to the world in a lot of different ways. | |||
"I think there should be less concentration on Uni's and look at starting some non-academic colleges (lie the old Polytechnics) to train non-academic people to do jobs that would give them a good income! " I agree
Also i think that if someone wants to go uni then they should pay for it themselves. They are the ones who can benefit from the higher earnings after they have completed the course .... if you want something then pay for it is my moto !!! | |||
"I think there should be less concentration on Uni's and look at starting some non-academic colleges (lie the old Polytechnics) to train non-academic people to do jobs that would give them a good income! I agree
Also i think that if someone wants to go uni then they should pay for it themselves. They are the ones who can benefit from the higher earnings after they have completed the course .... if you want something then pay for it is my moto !!!"there is more to it than that - how about all those people who dont have kids and pay for all the education - for all those who arent ill but pay for nhs - its about putting people into the system with qualifications - | |||
"I think there should be less concentration on Uni's and look at starting some non-academic colleges (lie the old Polytechnics) to train non-academic people to do jobs that would give them a good income! I agree
Also i think that if someone wants to go uni then they should pay for it themselves. They are the ones who can benefit from the higher earnings after they have completed the course .... if you want something then pay for it is my moto !!!"And the country doesn't benefit at all from their additional skills and qualifications and, hopefully, higher income. It makes sense for the country that the brightest people be educated, not the wealthiest. If people pay for their education themselves perhaps they should not pay income tax on any earnings increase brought about by the qualification. After all, they paid for the course so they could benefit from it and it's not like the country did anything to earn a greater share. The country needs a skilled and educated workforce to prosper and grow. Why should individuals be expected to fund that for the country? | |||
"I think there should be less concentration on Uni's and look at starting some non-academic colleges (lie the old Polytechnics) to train non-academic people to do jobs that would give them a good income! I agree
Also i think that if someone wants to go uni then they should pay for it themselves. They are the ones who can benefit from the higher earnings after they have completed the course .... if you want something then pay for it is my moto !!!
there is more to it than that - how about all those people who dont have kids and pay for all the education - for all those who arent ill but pay for nhs - its about putting people into the system with qualifications - "Nah, it totally makes sense that only the wealthy should be educated. It makes it so much easier to keep the peasants in their place that way. | |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
| |||
"Friend of mine went do derby uni and came out with quite a debt...he got a job in sainsburys and paid it off within 14 months. Easy enough if your good with your money. I'm not...." The advice given is not to pay it off with voluntary contributions , just let them take it from your wages. The interest is small and the monthly payment insignificant. Most people with an average or slightly above income will never pay off the full total so it's like a cash gift from the government. If you work abroad you pay nothing back , if you are on a low income you pay nothing back. So it is a bad idea to voluntary pay money when there is really no need or urgency to do so. | |||
| |||
"Archeologists starting wage less than a site labourer? That's more than a touch insulting.. Let's get this right, a site labourer works bloody hard for their money usually ending up with knackered backs and knees building your home, your school, hospital and your uni. An archeologist does nothing more than mess around in the mud digging up stuff nobody really gives a toss about. So yes you should earn less!!" I don't think anyone is saying labouring is not a hard and valuable job (we'd be a bit buggered without people to build stuff); the point was that you don't need qualifications to do it. The only one showing any ignorance and insulting someone else's occupation here is you. | |||
"Friend of mine went do derby uni and came out with quite a debt...he got a job in sainsburys and paid it off within 14 months. Easy enough if your good with your money. I'm not.... The advice given is not to pay it off with voluntary contributions , just let them take it from your wages. The interest is small and the monthly payment insignificant. Most people with an average or slightly above income will never pay off the full total so it's like a cash gift from the government. If you work abroad you pay nothing back , if you are on a low income you pay nothing back. So it is a bad idea to voluntary pay money when there is really no need or urgency to do so. " God knows, I've never been to uni...probably never will. That's just how he did it, he didn't need to pay it at that point as he hadn't earned enough or wasn't earning enough (however the heck it works) but he didn't want it hanging about...so he just paid it off..... | |||
"Here's the REAL problem and this is why I am such a huge fan of people starting their own businesses right out of school (something I SHOULD have done) and even before they finish school: The further education transition to ideal job phase is dire. It's a fucking mess, especially at the lower levels, and yet our entire roadmap for the average person is "go to university and get a degree then get a job." That's bullshit. You should be freelancing at 13 and starting your own business at 16. By the time you finish school, you should have sufficient income that you never need to go to university anywhere. When you're in this position, the whole idea of going to university becomes a whole new ball game. It's not about preparing for work, It's about learning at your own leisure. It's about skills and expertise and interests. Whether you get a degree is NOT important. Whether you get good grades is NOT important. Whether you even GO to university is NOT important. " Lots of people who start their own business do not succeed . What type of business could anyone start at 13 and actually succeed . They may be some success stories but these are very rare . Passing exams and having the right attitude are extremely important in a significant number of roles . Some firms will even recruit based on the class of your degree . They only want the best . | |||
"Archeologists starting wage less than a site labourer? That's more than a touch insulting.. Let's get this right, a site labourer works bloody hard for their money usually ending up with knackered backs and knees building your home, your school, hospital and your uni. An archeologist does nothing more than mess around in the mud digging up stuff nobody really gives a toss about. So yes you should earn less!! I don't think anyone is saying labouring is not a hard and valuable job (we'd be a bit buggered without people to build stuff); the point was that you don't need qualifications to do it. The only one showing any ignorance and insulting someone else's occupation here is you. " the statement was written with derision, as if it was insulting that a qualified archeologist deserves to earn more than a labourer. So no it was an insulting statement. I am was a groundworker many years ago, i went back into education and at the time i had a wife, two small children and worked full time. I know first hand how difficult site work is and how difficult gaining a degree is and I can tell you now, working on that site was a damn site harder than uni. I applaud anyone who wants to improve themselves but to say someone's vocation is less valuable because they didnt go to uni is insulting. | |||
"Archeologists starting wage less than a site labourer? That's more than a touch insulting.. Let's get this right, a site labourer works bloody hard for their money usually ending up with knackered backs and knees building your home, your school, hospital and your uni. An archeologist does nothing more than mess around in the mud digging up stuff nobody really gives a toss about. So yes you should earn less!! I don't think anyone is saying labouring is not a hard and valuable job (we'd be a bit buggered without people to build stuff); the point was that you don't need qualifications to do it. The only one showing any ignorance and insulting someone else's occupation here is you. the statement was written with derision, as if it was insulting that a qualified archeologist deserves to earn more than a labourer. So no it was an insulting statement. I am was a groundworker many years ago, i went back into education and at the time i had a wife, two small children and worked full time. I know first hand how difficult site work is and how difficult gaining a degree is and I can tell you now, working on that site was a damn site harder than uni. I applaud anyone who wants to improve themselves but to say someone's vocation is less valuable because they didnt go to uni is insulting. " And you think to say someone else's occupation is messing in the mud digging up stuff nobody really gives a toss about ISN'T insulting? | |||
"Archeologists starting wage less than a site labourer? That's more than a touch insulting.. Let's get this right, a site labourer works bloody hard for their money usually ending up with knackered backs and knees building your home, your school, hospital and your uni. An archeologist does nothing more than mess around in the mud digging up stuff nobody really gives a toss about. So yes you should earn less!! I don't think anyone is saying labouring is not a hard and valuable job (we'd be a bit buggered without people to build stuff); the point was that you don't need qualifications to do it. The only one showing any ignorance and insulting someone else's occupation here is you. the statement was written with derision, as if it was insulting that a qualified archeologist deserves to earn more than a labourer. So no it was an insulting statement. I am was a groundworker many years ago, i went back into education and at the time i had a wife, two small children and worked full time. I know first hand how difficult site work is and how difficult gaining a degree is and I can tell you now, working on that site was a damn site harder than uni. I applaud anyone who wants to improve themselves but to say someone's vocation is less valuable because they didnt go to uni is insulting. And you think to say someone else's occupation is messing in the mud digging up stuff nobody really gives a toss about ISN'T insulting? " Nope just thought one derogatory remark deserved a reply in the same manner. | |||
