Work based apprenticeships can't cover everything, theyre fantastic for more 'hands on' professions, but for more academic jobs you need to have studied the theory in that field before you start learning the ropes on the job itself.
Debt dosen't just vanish if you don't pay it.
I went to a 'crappy school' where someone in the year above left with 11A*s at GCSE level (I don't know how well they did at A level), which just goes to show what you can achieve if you are willing to put the effort in and you're smart enough, even at a supposedly 'crappy state school'.
I went to a 'crappy school' where someone in the year above left with 11A*s at GCSE level (I don't know how well they did at A level), which just goes to show what you can achieve if you are willing to put the effort in and you're smart enough, even at a supposedly 'crappy state school'.
Last edited by 5haz, .
No amount of faith is going to make £40,000 of debt vaporise into thin air. If a government defecit is so unacceptable, then why is a student defecit considered so normal? Graduates have credit ratings too.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Stronger enforcement and harsher punishments cost more money.
It'll discourage some hard working people too, surely raising the required grades would be a much fairer way of weeding out those who are going to waste time and money. I don't understand why nobody has even given this idea the slightest consideration?
Meanwhile, the honest, tax paying bloke's idea of fun is to go out and get smashed and perhaps beat someone's face in for looking at their girlfriend, this is the reason why even the McDonalds on my home town's high street has to have security staff after 9pm, and why there has to be heavy police presence, and I wonder who pays their wages?
Is that not having 'fun' at somebody elses expense? This is why quite a few of the people who complain about students are massive hypocrites. Its easy to pick on students because their costs on the government and taxpayer are more obvious and visible, while most people are completely oblivious to the costs of their own actions. At least you're more likely to gain worthwhile skills from university than you are from a drunken punch up.
Is that not having 'fun' at somebody elses expense? This is why quite a few of the people who complain about students are massive hypocrites. Its easy to pick on students because their costs on the government and taxpayer are more obvious and visible, while most people are completely oblivious to the costs of their own actions. At least you're more likely to gain worthwhile skills from university than you are from a drunken punch up.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Everybody has to pay for everybody (unless you're a tax dodging business don and you've got the government in your pocket), one day you'll get old and somebody will have to pay for your care, what will you do if you have no family or personal savings left to cover it? How will you feel if younger generations complain about funding your welfare? Its 'I'm alright Jack' until it affects you.
Its also ironic that at the same time, people who complain about students and have 'proper jobs' can be drunken thugs themselves, and cost the government a packet.
This song sums it up fairly well, regardless of what you think about drugs.
Last edited by 5haz, .
A lot of people don't like students because of ignorance and ill informed stereotypes. Its just another case of the general public being too stupid to realise that just because some students who don't deserve a place make the newspapers, dosen't necessarily mean that the same image can be applied to all students.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Well, more fool them for chosing a saturated degree and then not working hard enough to stand out amongst all the other graduates.
At least in that case they have more control over their own progress, if they lose out its their fault.
In a system where increased entry grades and smaller cuts and fee increases were introduced, hard working but less fortunate students would still have a chance while the cost of education on the government would drop and the value of currently overpopulated degrees would rise. In short, everyone would gain something, apart from the lazy of course.
In a system where spending cuts and fee rises take centre stage, some very intelligent but financially restricted people will lose out while some wealthy but not academically minded people will get places they don't deserve.
At least in that case they have more control over their own progress, if they lose out its their fault.
In a system where increased entry grades and smaller cuts and fee increases were introduced, hard working but less fortunate students would still have a chance while the cost of education on the government would drop and the value of currently overpopulated degrees would rise. In short, everyone would gain something, apart from the lazy of course.
In a system where spending cuts and fee rises take centre stage, some very intelligent but financially restricted people will lose out while some wealthy but not academically minded people will get places they don't deserve.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Oh theres been plenty of jumping on a bandwagon for sure, theres those that just can't accept that the current system can't be kept up forever and those who aren't happy about the fact they won't be able to afford so much cheap cider and pizza anymore.
But personally I've looked at the plans and I don't see anything better about being saddled with even more debt. The changes move the higher education system in the right direction (helping the reduce the government defecit and reducing the inflation of some degree courses), but they go about it in the wrong way.
Also, it'd help if certain figures and organisations outside education actually paid the tax they owe, that would help balance the governments income vs spending. I'm sure theres plenty of money to be saved and found outside of education.
EDIT: Just because you may not have to pay the debt off dosen't mean it just magically goes away, the government could choose to just ignore their debt but theyre not for the same reasons why students can't ignore the debt they're going to end up with. Debt makes you a financial pariah.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Don't you think there may be quite a few who would be prepared to work hard but will be put off by the financial risk anyway? At least by raising entry requirements you're taking in those who have already proven themselves to be hard working, while at the same time reducing the cost of education for the government/taxpayer. Some potential students are going to have to lose out, but at least under that kind of plan they would lose out because they failed to take the intiative and get the grades.
Must admit it did make me laugh to see friends waving 'Socialist worker' banners; friends who were neither socialists or workers.
Although from what I've seen here, those students who are in favour of the current plans tend to be the ones who have everything covered by mummy and daddy and have never hard to worry about financial strain in their life.
Must admit it did make me laugh to see friends waving 'Socialist worker' banners; friends who were neither socialists or workers.
Although from what I've seen here, those students who are in favour of the current plans tend to be the ones who have everything covered by mummy and daddy and have never hard to worry about financial strain in their life.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Trouble is you can't blanket apply that view to every degree course available. Some degrees are already very valuable, while others (psycology) are pretty saturated. Wealth dosen't necessarily = intelligence though and thats where the problem lies. The system about to be introduced is one where wealth will have too much of an influence on who gets to take education further, those less fortunate will be deterred by the huge debts placed upon them. Surely a better way of cutting down on saturation of degree courses would be to raise required grades, at least then the smaller number of students will be a fairer representation of the population.
The problem is more the potential for a 300% increase in fees, essentially the debt is not being reduced, just shifted onto people who had no part in creating it in the first place, and it wont dissapear just because you don't have to pay it back below £20,000 income. If anything, the handouts will only get bigger.
The solution should include a smaller increase of up to 50-75%, but if a government wants to start cutting its spending on education it should begin by demanding raised required grades, at least that way potential students are sorted by their intelligence rather than by the depth of their family pockets or what the government can afford to give them. No one can deny that government spending on education needs to be decreased, but it could be done in a fairer and less excessive way, but thats the conservatives for you.
As for banning marches, its pretty much impossible to hold a march as it is because theres always a bunch of idiots in every movement that can't be trusted not to ruin it for everyone else and police tactics are uneccessarily heavy handed and humiliating on the wrong people.
The solution should include a smaller increase of up to 50-75%, but if a government wants to start cutting its spending on education it should begin by demanding raised required grades, at least that way potential students are sorted by their intelligence rather than by the depth of their family pockets or what the government can afford to give them. No one can deny that government spending on education needs to be decreased, but it could be done in a fairer and less excessive way, but thats the conservatives for you.
As for banning marches, its pretty much impossible to hold a march as it is because theres always a bunch of idiots in every movement that can't be trusted not to ruin it for everyone else and police tactics are uneccessarily heavy handed and humiliating on the wrong people.
Last edited by 5haz, .
The governments and sponsors are the 'markets', what I said still applies. They are interested in parting with so much money because they percieve F1 to be a glamourous spectacle, of course real racing isn't quite like that and but F1 has been made increasingly artificial in order to keep up that image and therefore commercial needs now dictate the direction of the sport more than anything else.
Oh of course, the safety regulations must be the only reason why Abu Dhabi has a huge luxurious hotel built on top of it, and must explain why in Korea they're having to build a business district around the track just to make the whole thing profitable. Meanwhile the track design plays second fiddle to these developments because it makes less money, and genuine racing venues that are dedicated homes to the sport lose out because they don't look pretty enough.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Quite right hes not the only person to blame, its very easy to think in black and white but of course Tilke isn't the only one involved, essentially his job is to design a Casino/Hotel with a racetrack added on the side.
Like a lot of F1's problems, bad tracks are part caused by the massive commercialisation of the sport, trying to artificially force a 'spectacle' out of the racing to ensure that all the 'markets' around the globe get the same uber glamourous 'product'. Unfortunately for the genuine enthusiasts who can see past all the glitter it all looks very dead and contrived, in the same way genuine musicians feel about reality TV karaoke shows.
Like a lot of F1's problems, bad tracks are part caused by the massive commercialisation of the sport, trying to artificially force a 'spectacle' out of the racing to ensure that all the 'markets' around the globe get the same uber glamourous 'product'. Unfortunately for the genuine enthusiasts who can see past all the glitter it all looks very dead and contrived, in the same way genuine musicians feel about reality TV karaoke shows.
Oh be quiet, you.
Well seriously I'd say fresh is something that's come straight from the grill or has only just been put out on the stall, depends on what the food is obviously.
Last edited by 5haz, .
Thats a matter of taste.
Burger King is better, but neither beat Wimpy, I'd rather wait a bit longer for something to be cooked fresh than it sitting on a shelf with flies buzzing around it for 10 minutes.
Yeah that too, the best circuits are designed almost by accident. Tilke tries too hard to create interesting circuits and the result is too contrived. Theres too much emphasis on asthetics and not enough on the track itself. It'd be interesting to see the process Tilke and co go through when designig a track, just to see how much thought they really put into it.
Nice one, Trackday Trophy looks good, might be doing it next year.
Cars need to be designed that are less aerodynamically sensetive to turbulence from other cars, and that means aerodynamic pieces with simpler profiles.
It just annoys me that people think 'just because its alternative, its 100% true'. Wikileaks's evidence comes straight from the horses mouth, rather than through some misguided idiot's blog page.
Its a shame that Julian Assange's legit movement is going to get polluted by and ascociated with the usual deluded lunatics.
KERS and adjustable wings are a very 'canned' sort of overtaking aid though, its really an over complicated solution to a problem thats really simple, only trouble is the simple solution involved un-learning a decades worth of aerodynamics knowledge.
Ahh we used to have one of them.
FGED GREDG RDFGDR GSFDG