uus student fees protests

regob

the university of ulster is holding a protest at all their campuses this tuesday in relation to the increasing student fees and debt. i dont think it will make any difference but at least they are trying. so why dont queens do something of the same.

pow wow

What kinda increases are we talking about? I haven't heard much about it tbh (and I wouldn't have at UUM either before you start the QUB bashing!)

regob

ellscurr wrote: »

What kinda increases are we talking about? I haven't heard much about it tbh (and I wouldn't have at UUM either before you start the QUB bashing!)

i know they are increasing the same as last year, seventy quid or something, but the point of the uus protest. ( wich are taking place on each campus this tuesday) are for the fact that we should be getting free education. sure queens joined that exclusive league ( the one that oxford and all are in) so there fees are gonna be goin sky high.

was in uum today ellscurr. how crammed in is that place, i never noticed it before

pow wow

regob wrote: »

i know they are increasing the same as last year, seventy quid or something, but the point of the uus protest. ( wich are taking place on each campus this tuesday) are for the fact that we should be getting free education. sure queens joined that exclusive league ( the one that oxford and all are in) so there fees are gonna be goin sky high.

was in uum today ellscurr. how crammed in is that place, i never noticed it before

I have to disagree on getting free education. Some things in life you have to pay for and I think college is one of them.

Where were you in Magee? The union crampage is self explanatory really because it's a basement gackhole. Now the QUB Union...that's a union lol

regob

i have to disagree with ya there, i think we should have a right to free education, at least on a means tested benefit kinda scheme. i was at the library, which is absolutely tiny, and just like all the differnt buildings are like stuck together, its very clostropobic. qub union is one hell of a union. especially the thursday nites. love the spot, prob only one good thing bout qub

pow wow

regob wrote: »

i have to disagree with ya there, i think we should have a right to free education, at least on a means tested benefit kinda scheme. i was at the library, which is absolutely tiny, and just like all the differnt buildings are like stuck together, its very clostropobic. qub union is one hell of a union. especially the thursday nites. love the spot, prob only one good thing bout qub

Why should education be free? Explain.

regob

im taking this in the eyes from a student whos from down south. the increasing costs of locating yourself in some of the university towns is ridiculous, in some cases this cost is unreachable by the student which in result puts them in alot of debt. and having 3000 pounds on top of this doesnt help. why have free health, why not free education?

Bottle_of_Smoke

regob wrote: »

im taking this in the eyes from a student whos from down south. the increasing costs of locating yourself in some of the university towns is ridiculous, in some cases this cost is unreachable by the student which in result puts them in alot of debt. and having 3000 pounds on top of this doesnt help. why have free health, why not free education?

You're entitled to a loan you don't have to pay back until you're in employment after graduation. Why do you expect another country to pay for your education?

regob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

You're entitled to a loan you don't have to pay back until you're in employment after graduation. Why do you expect another country to pay for your education?

i didnt say that, i meant it in general everybody should be entitled to free education by a means tested method

Bottle_of_Smoke

regob wrote: »

i didnt say that, i meant it in general everybody should be entitled to free education by a means tested method

Why should they when a loan which won't need to be paid until student is in post-graduation employment is on offer?

Seeing as the feees won't be paid until then, how are they having any effect on affordability of university towns?

Means tested doesn't work. My parents both work so I wouldn't qualify for any grant etc. They bought a house a few years back so now can't afford to pay for my education, why should my education suffer because my parents bought a house whilst some other guy who's parents earn less get to go to college and I don't?

Pay for it yourself through a post graduation loan is fairest to everyone.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Was hilarious the protest here(i wasn't taking part)

Some dickhead with a "we're broke" banner whilst wearing a tommy hilfiger jumpoer.

pow wow

regob wrote: »

im taking this in the eyes from a student whos from down south. the increasing costs of locating yourself in some of the university towns is ridiculous, in some cases this cost is unreachable by the student which in result puts them in alot of debt. and having 3000 pounds on top of this doesnt help. why have free health, why not free education?

Because the buck has to stop somewhere.

Dude, I graduated £15k in the hole because I didn't qualify for the goodies Southern students get...I'd count myself lucky if I were you.

regob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Was hilarious the protest here(i wasn't taking part)

Some dickhead with a "we're broke" banner whilst wearing a tommy hilfiger jumpoer.

i didnt take part either mate like but i had a reason, i had to hand in a assignment at class

regob

ellscurr wrote: »

Because the buck has to stop somewhere.

Dude, I graduated £15k in the hole because I didn't qualify for the goodies Southern students get...I'd count myself lucky if I were you.

but like mate, im in six grand of debt and counting as it is, hence the reason i feel no student should have to have this.

pow wow

regob wrote: »

but like mate, im in six grand of debt and counting as it is, hence the reason i feel no student should have to have this.

Why not though? It's an education. In theory at least it'll benefit us in the long-term. Why shouldn't we pay for it? Fair play to all those who went to the protests though; nice to see a united front for something!

regob

ellscurr wrote: »

Why not though? It's an education. In theory at least it'll benefit us in the long-term. Why shouldn't we pay for it? Fair play to all those who went to the protests though; nice to see a united front for something!

students should be trained and sent out to the world in such a situation of which they can make the biggest contribution, having this debt is a downfall. e.g. in future application that will be made for martgages, having this negative equity will in fact decrease their ability to get a mortgage. so my overall point is that students shoul be sent out at their optimum

pow wow

regob wrote: »

students should be trained and sent out to the world in such a situation of which they can make the biggest contribution, having this debt is a downfall. e.g. in future application that will be made for martgages, having this negative equity will in fact decrease their ability to get a mortgage. so my overall point is that students shoul be sent out at their optimum

They can make the 'biggest contribution' fairly regardless of how much debt they're in.

Let's go to Ryan's and worsen the debt!

Bottle_of_Smoke

regob wrote: »

students should be trained and sent out to the world in such a situation of which they can make the biggest contribution, having this debt is a downfall. e.g. in future application that will be made for martgages, having this negative equity will in fact decrease their ability to get a mortgage. so my overall point is that students shoul be sent out at their optimum

People with degrees/third level education earn more than those who don't. They can afford this debt.

regob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

People with degrees/third level education earn more than those who don't. They can afford this debt.

first of all thats not quite true? second explain to me how having this debt can be seen as positive thing as your putting across as i do not understand

Bottle_of_Smoke

regob wrote: »

first of all thats not quite true? second explain to me how having this debt can be seen as positive thing as your putting across as i do not understand

First of all, it is true. How is it not?

What do you mean by "positive thing"?

I agree with it because people who go to college benefit from their education, and will do better financially from it. Therefore they should pay for at least some of it. I understand it's difficult to raise those funds when you're 18/19 which is why you pay for it *after you graduate*

regob

lad your speaking nonsense, it is known that people without any qualification earn more than a graduate with an arts student. its a fact. i know this is not all graduates but it proves your point is wrong

Bottle_of_Smoke

regob wrote: »

lad your speaking nonsense, it is known that people without any qualification earn more than a graduate with an arts student. its a fact. i know this is not all graduates but it proves your point is wrong

Simply having any degree will get you further in jobs that don't require you to have a degree.

A graduate with an arts student? what did you mean to say there?

regob

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

Simply having any degree will get you further in jobs that don't require you to have a degree.

A graduate with an arts student? what did you mean to say there?

simple typo, thank for pointng. an arts graduate will earn less than somebody who left school at sixteen and worked

Bottle_of_Smoke

regob wrote: »

simple typo, thank for pointng. an arts graduate will earn less than somebody who left school at sixteen and worked

After a few years the likelihood is they'll be earning more though. And you only have to pay back your fees loan when you're earning > a certain amount.

regob

so your contradicting your point?

Bottle_of_Smoke

regob wrote: »

so your contradicting your point?

how exactly? I said that after a few years the arts graduate will be earning more than the guy who left school at 16. And the Arts graduate doesn't have to make repayments until he's earning over a certain amount. What is unfair about this situation?

And you have to remember an arts graduate is the extreme situation put forward by anti-fees protesters. Most other graduates will earn more in their first year of employment.

regob

"People with degrees/third level education earn more than those who don't. They can afford this debt."

u first of all said that

then u say

"I agree with it because people who go to college benefit from their education, and will do better financially from it. Therefore they should pay for at least some of it. I understand it's difficult to raise those funds when you're 18/19 which is why you pay for it *after you graduate*"

and

"After a few years the likelihood is they'll be earning more though. And you only have to pay back your fees loan when you're earning > a certain amount. "

and finally


"how exactly? I said that after a few years the arts graduate will be earning more than the guy who left school at 16. And the Arts graduate doesn't have to make repayments until he's earning over a certain amount. What is unfair about this situation?

And you have to remember an arts graduate is the extreme situation put forward by anti-fees protesters. Most other graduates will earn more in their first year of employment.!"

ure speaking out of your ass, come back when ya have a valid point

Bottle_of_Smoke

regob wrote: »

"People with degrees/third level education earn more than those who don't. They can afford this debt."

u first of all said that

then u say

"I agree with it because people who go to college benefit from their education, and will do better financially from it. Therefore they should pay for at least some of it. I understand it's difficult to raise those funds when you're 18/19 which is why you pay for it *after you graduate*"

and

"After a few years the likelihood is they'll be earning more though. And you only have to pay back your fees loan when you're earning > a certain amount. "

and finally


"how exactly? I said that after a few years the arts graduate will be earning more than the guy who left school at 16. And the Arts graduate doesn't have to make repayments until he's earning over a certain amount. What is unfair about this situation?

And you have to remember an arts graduate is the extreme situation put forward by anti-fees protesters. Most other graduates will earn more in their first year of employment.!"

ure speaking out of your ass, come back when ya have a valid point

Where is the contradiction? Genuine question. Why did you add in an exclaimation mark in the last quote? Why you even quoted it is very odd as it was said after I asked you where I contradicted myself.

Can you actually point out how I contradicted myself? You see what you just did there was list things I've said and then insulted me. Seemed like a reasonable debate before that. I guess you know you're wrong.