Tories have lost the vote of the young generation.

[bluethrunthru]

I used to work in the public sector many moons ago and they funded my training on the condition that I would continue to work there for a certain number of years (3 I think). If I chose to leave before the end of that period, then I was expected to pay it back pro rata. I think the same principle can be applied to university study. Student loans could be written off if the student goes on to work for a few years in that, or a related field.

It seems reasonable to me that if the state is to fund these studies then it should get some benefit in exchange. I'd also apply it to all types of vocational training as well, not just degree courses.

some may think it odd for a lefty but I think the principle basically stifles creativity and enterpreneurship which we will need in spades

 

[bluethrunthru]

Extending Help to Buy is a genius way of winning the youth vote... allowing the price of assets currently held by older, wealthier generations to be propped up and further inflated by enabling the youths to take on even higher levels of lifetime debt slavery.

Pure genius.

QE for the housing market - pouring money into the procurement of a finite resource will just push prices up.....actually building new affordable homes where they are needed- the South East - would be a better way of spending the £10bn windfall off Mavis' money tree

 

[Manc in London]

And it's a shame. The idea that often Oxbridge educated, very intelligent, hardworking people go into politics in order to line their back pockets on a miserable £90k a year when they could probably earn 2 to 20 times that in business, is laughable.

They go into politics because they care deeply about our country, and want to do their utmost to make it better.

I'd put 600+ MPs in this category. And a few backstabbing slimeballs ruin the reputation of all of them.

I don't know where to start. I know details of a number of MPs down the years. Not one of them would earn incomes several times more than an MP salary. I guess when you are talking about MPs salaries, you do not include benefits such as, expenses claims (eg assistance with second mortgages), paying family members inflated salaries for admin roles, fantastic pensions and very high salaries for 'advisory' roles and non executive positions at large organisations who wish to infuence.

I doubt that all of them do it as some kind of civic duty. Some will, undoubtedly, but I would think there are those who are meglomaniacs and those who would like to stick there snouts in the trough for doing veey little.

I have worked with enough politicians to not trust any of them.

 

[Manc in London]

What utter bollocks. So we should only pay for things that directly benefit us? I've never used any of the following in the last decade:
The police
The fire brigade
The ambulance service
A hospital
But I'm very happy to have my wages taxed so that these services are universally available. And I'd happily pay for our youth to go to University. It won't directly benefit me. It will benefit them. Loving the Tories in full flap mode. Constantly shooting themselves in their self-righteous feet. What goes around comes around. Shower of self-serving wankers.

Couldn't agree more.

 

[The Light Was Yellow Sir]

Notwithstanding the challenges, we've had for a long time now a shortage of good science teachers. Can you not see the advantage of encouraging students to do science degrees (and perhaps science and teacher training), by providing financial help for such, whilst at the same time not providing support for "David Beckham Studies"?

Seems pretty sensible to me.

And regards your point 2, it's called choice. Stay on the career path for which you benefitted from free training, or choose to change at your cost. Your choice. I don't see why the NHS should fund the training of doctors who then immediately go off and do most work in the private sector, do you? There has to be some quid pro quo, surely?

But it's ok for European and Asian countries to fund the training of doctors, who we then go and get to work for the NHS, so we can then have a cap on numbers we will train here?

 

[bluethrunthru]

But it's ok for European and Asian countries to fund the training of doctors, who we then go and get to work for the NHS, so we can then have a cap on numbers we will train here?

whether people on here like it or not there are jobs that some businesses want to recruit graduates to do. If we don't generate the graduates they will just import them. Forget Brexit if they want them they will tell the Govt of the day to let them in or they will move their operation to a place where they can recruit the staff.

 

[mccity]

I guess you're left with all knowledge is valuable (and it is) but some more than others. Can't we criticize courses, scrutinize social benefit, or lack thereof.. what are we playing at? We want to fund the kids that'll most likely help civilization, not acquire socially useless bollocks. It's a messy subject, but surely there are bullshit pursuits, and useful pursuits.

I can't be arsed going into it but yeah this.

 

[Kompany Car]

Notwithstanding the challenges, we've had for a long time now a shortage of good science teachers. Can you not see the advantage of encouraging students to do science degrees (and perhaps science and teacher training), by providing financial help for such, whilst at the same time not providing support for "David Beckham Studies"?

Seems pretty sensible to me.

And regards your point 2, it's called choice. Stay on the career path for which you benefitted from free training, or choose to change at your cost. Your choice. I don't see why the NHS should fund the training of doctors who then immediately go off and do most work in the private sector, do you? There has to be some quid pro quo, surely?

Think the big problem is Universities are businesses . To teach someone Science or Engineering costs a lot of money with all of the labs and contact time required, by contrast humanities students get hardly any contact time and don't need any expensive equipment. So from the universities point of view its either 9k+ per year with high costs or the same figure with low costs and as it's been run as a business it's all about margins.
Yes I know it's wrong but it's unfortunately the way education has gone.
I would go as far as to say without some of the other degrees being offered, the universities would not be able to offset the cost of the Science subjects.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Couldn't agree more.

Well you're daft as well then. Bitter and daft.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Think the big problem is Universities are businesses . To teach someone Science or Engineering costs a lot of money with all of the labs and contact time required, by contrast humanities students get hardly any contact time and don't need any expensive equipment. So from the universities point of view its either 9k+ per year with high costs or the same figure with low costs and as it's been run as a business it's all about margins.
Yes I know it's wrong but it's unfortunately the way education has gone.
I would go as far as to say without some of the other degrees being offered, the universities would not be able to offset the cost of the Science subjects.

Good point.

I wonder if there's also an issue of competing for grades? The easier the subjects, the more 1sts and 2.1's they can hand out, and the university goes up in the rankings?