Bolitics The New Condem Government

[mjmooney]

Its simple really, there are record numbers going to Uni because there are so many bloody universities full of people who should never be going in the first place (and that is Labour's fault).

I mean there's a girl in work who has just got a 2.2 in Criminology and is now returning to do a masters. Not being funny, she's as thick as ****. Most degrees in this country aren't worth a shite anymore, a British University degree used to mean something now there more & more universities being created in potting sheds. Someone was talking to me about Luton University the other day, which got me wondering which former Polytechnic it was, or maybe even which old teacher training college, it was neither it started out as an FE college. What needs to happen is these degrees that seemingly get handed out like confetti need to stop, its insane. These former colleges have become Universities because they are then able to charge "degree prices" for their courses.

The whole HE system needs changing, radically. Sure educate the less able but do it on a course that reflects their ability with a qualification to match. And as these course will be more vocational, maybe employers can contribute here.

If they want to cut funding for something then they can stop paying out huge sums of money for the complete and utter bollocks that is the NVQ / VRQ system - what an absolute insane system that is. An NVQ amounts to, tell us about your job - have a qualification and each ones costs the government a couple of grand a piece if they are funding them (which is the only reason people do them).

People who get a good standard of education pay for themselves over time Pete, the likes of you and I aren't paying for them, they pay back into the system through increased taxes anyway. What is about to happen is that lots of kids aren't going to go to Uni because in a few years it will cost them £30k plus just to get an education, which they will be saddled with as a debt for years to come and unable to afford a decent house and the problem of debt just compounds itself for generation after generation

excellent post/rant, and i fully agree.

in essence make uni for clever people rather than everyone.

My feelings exactly.

[Jon]

I think I'm turning into Prince Charles.

You think it looks like a monstrous carbuncle? :winkold:

[Jon]

I once won a £5 Pete Bland voucher.

How many minutes does that get you with him?

:oops:

[TrentVilla]

Universities in England face funding cuts of £4.2bn in the coming Spending Review, an e-mail leaked to the BBC News website suggests.

Universities UK head Professor Steve Smith wrote to vice-chancellors saying this week's Browne Review set out figures that "confirm our worst fears".

He says they signal a £3.2bn or 79% cut from teaching and £1bn from research in next week's Spending Review.

The government said it could not comment.

This is because the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills said it could not speculate about the Chancellor's spending review plans.

Currently universities are given around £11bn in government grants a year - this covers undergraduate and post-graduate teaching, research funding and infrastructure.

The UCU lecturers' union said cuts of the order being discussed would lead to university closures while the National Union of Students warned the government was stripping away the public funding of universities.

In his letter to fellow vice-chancellors, the UUK president suggests the impact of the Spending Review will be more important than Lord Browne's review of fees published this week.

This is "because potential cuts have been getting worse and worse", he says.

He continues: "Browne explicitly says that Hefce (England's university funding body) will have teaching funding of £700m; the current sum is £3.9bn.

"This implies a cut of around £3.2bn in state funding."

This would represent a 79% cut in the teaching grant.

"Browne's figures confirm our worst fears. Cuts in the order of £1bn for research also appear to be proposed."

A £4.2bn cut in funding would be almost four times that which universities had been expected to make by the previous government.

'Lost funding'

Professor Smith says the Browne report, which itself called for unlimited tuition fees, was framed by "what is coming on October 20".

And he adds that universities will do all they can to "replace as much of this lost funding as possible". This means raising tuition fees to make up for lost state funding, he says.

But he also warns that this may not be possible before 2012, when the government is expecting to have measures in place to allow for a rise in fees.

He adds: "The biggest worry is simple to state: if Browne fails to get through the Commons, or gets unpicked, or gets accepted but only after major changes are made, we will simply not be able to replace the unprecedented reductions in state funding that are coming in the Spending Review."

Responding to the claim, the general secretary of the UCU, Sally Hunt, said: "It is hard to believe that any government could contemplate making £4.2bn cuts to higher education given that it generates massive economic growth.

"Cuts of this magnitude will leave many cities and towns without a local university and our students paying the highest public fees in the world."

She called for an urgent review of the impact of "these unimaginable cuts".

President of the NUS Aaron Porter said: "The devastating scale of the cuts to publicly funded degrees planned for next week is laid bare by this admission.

"The true agenda of the coalition government this week is to strip away all public support for arts, humanities and social science provision in universities and to pass on the costs directly to students' bank accounts."

He accused vice-chancellors of standing by plans that would lead to many universities closing down.

A spokesman for the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills dismissed the figures as speculation

He added: "Lord Browne made recommendations to government this week on a new funding system. His proposals are for graduates to make a greater contribution to the cost of their education, linked to their ability to pay.

"These recommendations are currently under consideration and are informing our comprehensive spending review negotiations with the Treasury. Ensuring the university sector is properly funded remains a key objective for the government."

Here

[ender4]

big cuts in Uni funding then, if true.

[markavfc40]

The cuts to the Universities funding is just one of many in the next few days that are going to make people gasp. Many are going to be way above what is necessary and are very much based on ideology. The fact they think we are stupid enough to believe that these cuts are simply down to the deficit needing to be cut will come back to bite these **** on the arse. The deficit needs to be cut everyone accepts that. The speed and level of these cuts though will plunge us deeper into the mire and bring misery to millions.

[peterms]

The cuts to the Universities funding is just one of many in the next few days that are going to make people gasp. Many are going to be way above what is necessary and are very much based on ideology. The fact they think we are stupid enough to believe that these cuts are simply down to the deficit needing to be cut will come back to bite these **** on the arse. The deficit needs to be cut everyone accepts that. The speed and level of these cuts though will plunge us deeper into the mire and bring misery to millions.

It's going to be pretty messy. Cuts of this size, 80%, will mean many universities can't continue to function. It will be interesting to hear the government's view of the likely consequences of whatever level of cuts they make, and the political justification for them.

Though of course it's pretty likely that the actual level will be less than the figure now being trailed as a softener.

[TrentVilla]

Indeed it will likely be less and softeners do tend to work but when the softener is around 80% what follows is still going to hurt. Universities will close as a result of cuts at this level which along with the tuition fee changes is going to result in less university places and a glass ceiling for those who can afford them.

I do think the number of universities and degree students is too high but I don't think this is the way to address it and I think cuts on this sort of scale go way past need and point directly towards ideology. I hate to think about the knock on effects of these cuts on cities in terms of income from students and the job losses both direct and indirect.

One thing that doesn't seem to be being talked about is that there is going to end up being a bidding war for places at university on fee's with the fee's going up according to demand with the more wealthy students having a distinct advantage.

[chrisp65]

With regard uni places, fees and Bicksters attitude toward everyone and anyone getting a crack at Uni.

I'm in a fairly unusual position of being middle aged and in full time employment, but to further my career I've just completed (and gained) a BSc.

I think I can honestly say that I now have some letters that will impress people that don't have a clue what the course entailed. But did I learn anything new? No. Was the teaching up to speed with real world developments and current practises? Mostly, but hardly cutting edge. Was the course tailored to prepare the full time students for the real world in a design office. Nnnnnnno. Not. Even. Close.

O.k. perhaps we teach people to think and not just to know how to work to today's standards and norms. Did the course encourage thinking, improvisation and innovation? Did it fook.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that I'd personally now have a very different attitude towards anyone sending in a CV with a degree from there instead of a few years of sitting in a real office cracking on with the mundane bottom rung stuff.

A very enlightening couple of years. I didn't even turn up to get attendance marks after year one, more important stuff to do than get a tick in a register which unbelievably contributed towards marks (5% for attendance!) on a degree course. I had no idea you could get marks towards a degree......for attendance. Other students (the fulltime ones) had absolutely no idea how to organise themselves. Did Uni show them how to organise and prioritise? No. Did Uni simply mark them down in a sink or swim attitude to non submission of work? No. Uni simply permanently moved deadlines and altered set tasks to ensure everyone could manage just fine. Which is great, because out in business world, those students will have loads of Clients and managers that will also move deadlines and ease tasks to make sure everything stays nice and comfy.

I was always a great believer in University education and experience for everyone. Then I went to Uni.

Perhaps fees, which i was always opposed to, can actually be a force for good. Weeding out people using it as an option other than going and getting a job they didn't really fancy and weeding out silly courses and making employers realise that if someone has done the job for 25 years and doesn't appear to be totally incompetent, perhaps the paper proof is a pointless waste of money.

Oh, and I ain't naming names until the paperwork comes through!

[jonno_2004]

Everyone should have a right to that education IMO - regardless of how one puts a 'level' on their intelligence - employers usually weed out those who obviously shouldn't have been there by a) type of course (Film studies?) Course/Uni 'rating' (I think it's important to emphasise some of the newer universities have incredibly competitive courses in certain disciplines) and c) A-levels.

It's why most graduate schemes have a high UCAS points band, you have to have both to get on the good schemes. On the flip side, those who didn't get amazing A-levels for whatever reason are given another chance to prove their intelligence as such by Universities that do not ask for all A's.

There are those that go for an extra 3 or 4 years doing f' all, and it's even worse on the Isle of Man as the taxpayer pays tuiton fees (which tend to be around double UK fees, too) for those to doss about on the piss.

[peterms]

In these difficult economic times, it will help the morale of the nation if we remember that we're all in this together.

Now, there's been some petty-minded sniping about bankers and their bonuses, largely coming from marxist types who want to foment a pointless class struggle in the country. So to counter this political nonsense, let me set before you a few simple facts, which I hope you will find, as I do, give reassurance about the motives and capability of those who look after our financial interests.

First, there has been some exaggeration of the cost of rescuing the banks from the consequences of their own misdeeds. I have heard some silly figures quoted, so let's settle on an average figure, quoted here. £850 bn, or thereabouts, give or take a few bill, seems a modest price to pay for saving the dignity of the banks and allowing them to continue to operate in a manner which they find befitting. Decent lunches, liveried chauffeurs, flexible expenses accounts, roomy offices with flunkies, respectable severance terms, that sort of thing.

Of course, bonuses will continue to be paid, because after all we need to attract the best brains to this arduous and creative work. It's true that the Governor of the Bank of England said that bonuses directly contributed to the financial collapse, but I'm sure that simple jealousy should play no part in our thinking. Our bankers are after all wealth creators. Those who claim that trading does not create wealth but is a purely parasitic pastime are suffering from the cardinal sin of envy. Have no truck with their malign influence.

We will need to continue to pay bonuses, as any fule kno. Otherwise, how will we compete on the global economic stage?

Yes, in this time of austerity, there is a high price to be paid. It was with great sadness that I released one of my personal assistants. The burden placed upon the remaining four will be great; but with the spirit of the blitz in mind, I am sure they will deliver.

Oh, by the way, there will be a spot of collateral damage around higher education, employment, that sort of caper. Pity, but unavoidable, given the wholly unforeseen mess we inherited from the Trotskyites.

Chin up!

[snowychap]

First, there has been some exaggeration of the cost of rescuing the banks from the consequences of their own misdeeds. I have heard some silly figures quoted, so let's settle on an average figure, quoted here. £850 bn, or thereabouts, give or take a few bilL , seems a modest price to pay...

A price or a cost?

[peterms]

First, there has been some exaggeration of the cost of rescuing the banks from the consequences of their own misdeeds. I have heard some silly figures quoted, so let's settle on an average figure, quoted here. £850 bn, or thereabouts, give or take a few bilL , seems a modest price to pay...

A price or a cost?

Oh, a price. It definitely wasn't the cost.

[JulieB]

Tonight's Dispatches is becoming quite interesting!

Although everyone is entitled to plan their tax affairs as prudently as possible - (shall I send my details 8) - it's a bit hard to swallow when these Business gurus & ministers are doing it on such a massive scale, whilst at the same time overseeing the national debt & telling us to accept the pain of the cuts!

[snowychap]

There seem to be a lot of holes in the coalition ship judging by all of these leaks.

The latest [leak] seems to suggest that it is the intention to make 'affordable housing' (what there is of it) less affordable (it might, also, have an adverse impact upon the housing benefit bill but, obviously, they'll have thought that one through, won't they?).

[mykeyb]

Before the election Dave stood up and basically said the cuts were no big thing - cant remember if it was a penny in the pound or 10p in the pound but all could be achieved through prudence. Now it appears that we will have less police on the streets and criminals let out early because it costs too much to keep them banged up.

Sorry but Im not sure too many tory supporters voted for that shitty little idea so I am of the opinion they can feck right off.

[Awol]

Sorry but Im not sure too many tory supporters voted for that shitty little idea so I am of the opinion they can feck right off.

I didn't vote Tory thinking that they would eviscerate what still remains of the armed forces in the middle of a war, but that's what's coming in about three hours.

Osborne, putting the N into cut.

[peterms]

I'm intrigued by the idea of aircraft carriers sans aircraft.

I wonder if Mr Fox has considered the Russian approach - inflatables which look like weapons.

If we had inflatable aircraft filled with helium, they could be parked on the deck of the carriers, and when untethered, they would actually fly. They would need a strong retaining wire, preferably painted sky colour so it wasn't easily visible, but I'm sure something would be possible even within current budget constraints.

[Chindie]

Without the jets on them (and enough support craft) the carriers may as well have a giant target painted on them should they need to be used in combat shortly.

Interesting that the Beeb mentioned that at least one of the carriers will be designed with 'interoperability' in mind, so our allies can use them for their jets too.

Perhaps we're to become the taxi service of the worlds military.

[Awol]

I'm intrigued by the idea of aircraft carriers sans aircraft.

You and the rest of the world excluding HM's Treasury, although I'd imagine the Iranians et al are rolling around weeing in their dishdasha's with laughter.

Conflicts we didn't see coming in the last 30 years: Falklands, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, Sierra Leone, Afghanistan and Iraq. Forces employed: Full spectrum of the army, navy, RAF, marines and SF.

Much as it pains me to say it any cuts should have hit the army, RAF and the navy, in that order. The idea that this government have produced anything remotely approaching a "strategic" defence review is laughable and I'm devastated at the sheer incompetence of it all. I know they had a 38 billion black hole in equipment ordered under the last gov vs funds to pay for it, but aircraft carriers sans aircraft ? *slaps head, falls over*.