bluemoon32 said:A lot of students could save a fortune by staying at home & going to a local university, i understand some have to move as the local one doesn't do the course they want etc but too many look on it as a chance to move away & have a blast for 3 years.
TheMightyQuinn said:bluemoon32 said:A lot of students could save a fortune by staying at home & going to a local university, i understand some have to move as the local one doesn't do the course they want etc but too many look on it as a chance to move away & have a blast for 3 years.
You could see the 3 years away from home as a valuable education in itself.
Also for a lot of people going to their local uni isn't an option depending on grades etc.
Having said that, I know of a few people who opted to study locally thus saving money on board, food etc.
bluemoon32 said:TheMightyQuinn said:You could see the 3 years away from home as a valuable education in itself.
Also for a lot of people going to their local uni isn't an option depending on grades etc.
Having said that, I know of a few people who opted to study locally thus saving money on board, food etc.
I can understand the valuable education side years ago when students were a bit poorer & lived in bedsits and had to fend for themselves but the ones i see a lot nowadays seem to have more spare cash than working people & aren't really learning anything about life apart from pissing it up & going shopping.
I know that's a huge generalisation but students have an easier time of it today imo, even with tuition fees etc.
In the past most students from a less well off background had to find work around their course, many today just live off their loans instead.
Nervous Nedum said:bluemoon32 said:I can understand the valuable education side years ago when students were a bit poorer & lived in bedsits and had to fend for themselves but the ones i see a lot nowadays seem to have more spare cash than working people & aren't really learning anything about life apart from pissing it up & going shopping.
I know that's a huge generalisation but students have an easier time of it today imo, even with tuition fees etc.
In the past most students from a less well off background had to find work around their course, many today just live off their loans instead.
if a student isn't living at home, there's no way they can be living off their loan alone. they may have financial income from their parents, but the cost of accommodation itself is barely covered by most students loans. this is where the students from poor families get a lot of help from student finance, students from well off families get help off their parents, and where students from low-mid income middle class families get screwed.
TheMightyQuinn said:I had my own hustle on at uni to help me pay my way. Had I not been earning my own money, once I'd paid my rent and bought the books I needed (bearing in mind I studied English literature) I had about £20 a week to live on, perhaps a bit less.
Scottyboi said:TheMightyQuinn said:I had my own hustle on at uni to help me pay my way. Had I not been earning my own money, once I'd paid my rent and bought the books I needed (bearing in mind I studied English literature) I had about £20 a week to live on, perhaps a bit less.
Selling bud ehhh!!!
Sam Eto's P45 said:Most posters appear to be of the same view, that education is a right not a luxury.
But at what the level does free or to be more accurate totally state funded (tax payer) education end and contributions begin, who should pay for what seems to be the main point of difference?
Personal view, anyone going into higher education (university) should contribute as is the case now. They should pay for the qualification they have received when they are earning enough to do so. I struggle to agree with those who say university should be free simply because, most who take the opportunity to study at university and gain a degree will easily be recompensed in later life by the fact that their potential to earn increases vastly to the majority.In 2008/09, 2.4 million students enrolled in higher education. How many simply take the first or only job offered or 'sign on'?
To those who argue that a well educated country is a better country, I agree but shouldn't we,as a nation, ensure that all our young people are educated?
To argue that the system (as proposed recently) will hinder those from poorer backgrounds has some credence but in the main this appears to be nothing more than those in a position to pay, the middle classes, hiding behind this excuse they are simply not willing to do so. Those from poorer backgrounds do not make it this far.
From The Equality and Human Rights Commission Triennial Review Executive Study.
Free School Meals (FSM) are available in England and Wales to children who come from households with relatively low income. Students eligible for FSM are less than half as likely to achieve 5 good GCSEs including English and
Maths.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uploaded_files/triennial_review/tr_execsumm.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.equalityhumanrights.com/uplo ... ecsumm.pdf</a>
Money should be spent on education but it should be in the schools where all young people from all backgrounds, though the poorest the most,are being failed year in year out from my own experience nothing has change in more than 20 years.
For students from lower socio-economic groups, the gap widens during the school years. The gap in students’ GCSE results according to their
family backgrounds remains wider than most other educational inequalities, although tentative evidence indicates that it has started to narrow since 2006.
A point to consider.
Within the UK's prison population 80% of prisoners have poor writing skills, 50% have reading difficulties and 65% have trouble with numeracy.
<a class="postlink" href="http://www.dyslexia-parent.com/mag50.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.dyslexia-parent.com/mag50.html</a>