Bolitics The New Condem Government

[mjmooney]

Well I'd have been mightlily pissed off as a kid if somebody had given me some dumbed-down "teenage" version of Shakespeare. I **** loved it as it was, it was a revelation.

[Xann]

Jane Austen

Hated every over boiled word.

Well I'd have been mightily pissed off as a kid if somebody had given me some dumbed-down "teenage" version of Shakespeare. I **** loved it as it was, it was a revelation.

You're in the minority there weirdo.

[Risso]

Well I'd have been mightlily pissed off as a kid if somebody had given me some dumbed-down "teenage" version of Shakespeare. I **** loved it as it was, it was a revelation.

 

You're old enough to remember when people spoke like that!

[mjmooney]

 

Well I'd have been mightlily pissed off as a kid if somebody had given me some dumbed-down "teenage" version of Shakespeare. I **** loved it as it was, it was a revelation.

 

You're old enough to remember when people spoke like that!

 

 

Thy tongue outvenoms all the worms of Nile, thou villainous abominable misleader of youth. Would the fountain of your mind were clear again, that I might water an ass at it.

 

(So much better than "**** you, clearing in the woods", eh?)

[villaajax]

I just found Shakespeare rather tedious.

[Xann]

 Thy tongue outvenoms all the worms of Nile, thou villainous abominable misleader of youth. Would the fountain of your mind were clear again, that I might water an ass at it.

 

Do you laugh at the crap jokes too?

[StefanAVFC]

The problem is, is that teachers can't win.

 

If the kids do well, the exams were too easy.

 

If they do badly, the teaching was bad.

[villaajax]

The problem is, is that teachers can't win.

 

If the kids do well, the exams were too easy.

 

If they do badly, the teaching was bad.

 

 

That is exactly it! Really frustrating.

[bickster]

One of the objections to this is that it will "disadvantage less able pupils".

 

Isn't that the whole point of exams?

 

Make them harder, I say. Get back to university only being for clever kids (on a full grant, not a loan), instead of something to keep the unemployment figures down.

I'm in total agreement on that.

[bickster]

...and if you failed them first time around, you could keep on going back untill you didn't fail. The history change is quite good as well, british history should be taught in our schools.

The first point is daft, where else is there in the world that once you've taken an exam or a test you can never retake it? Or even under this proposal, you can't retake it for a year? You could only do it twice a year under the old system. Its a typical politicians red herring.

British history is taught in schools, has Mr Troutface given you the impression that it isn't? But history being taught as purely British is particularly dumb and insular

[mockingbird_franklin]

 

One of the objections to this is that it will "disadvantage less able pupils".

 

Isn't that the whole point of exams?

 

Make them harder, I say. Get back to university only being for clever kids (on a full grant, not a loan), instead of something to keep the unemployment figures down.

I'm in total agreement on that.

 

Totally agree too. It wouldn't be so bad if all these extra graduates were all doing real degrees rather than the raft of worthless mickey mouse ones being peddled. I speak from experience, my niece has spent 3 years racking up huge debts gaining a knowledge of a subject matter she probably could have gained on a high quality 26 week course. She was warned before she went on the course after me and my sister did a little investigating of her chosen 'degree' course. But she wanted so desperately to go to Uni despite being decidedly academically average and most definitely not the brightest spark. I guess her being happy with over £20,000 of debt for a pretty worthless qualification proves that

[tonyh29]

 

 despite being decidedly academically average and most definitely not the brightest spark.

 

 

don't you just love it when proud parents big up their children

[bickster]

despite being decidedly academically average and most definitely not the brightest spark.

 

 

don't you just love it when proud parents big up their children

Are you suggesting he supports sha? with his neice being his daughter an all that?

[tonyh29]

D'oh , I really shouldn't  read & reply to threads whilst on the phone   ...

 

where's the delete button when you need it

[Dr_Pangloss]

 

 

One of the objections to this is that it will "disadvantage less able pupils".

 

Isn't that the whole point of exams?

 

Make them harder, I say. Get back to university only being for clever kids (on a full grant, not a loan), instead of something to keep the unemployment figures down.

I'm in total agreement on that.

 

Totally agree too. It wouldn't be so bad if all these extra graduates were all doing real degrees rather than the raft of worthless mickey mouse ones being peddled. I speak from experience, my niece has spent 3 years racking up huge debts gaining a knowledge of a subject matter she probably could have gained on a high quality 26 week course. She was warned before she went on the course after me and my sister did a little investigating of her chosen 'degree' course. But she wanted so desperately to go to Uni despite being decidedly academically average and most definitely not the brightest spark. I guess her being happy with over £20,000 of debt for a pretty worthless qualification proves that

 

One does wonder what the alternatives are, many jobs out there require a degree, without that you won't get your foot in the door. It's not so much about the actual 'skills' you get from a degree but rather the signal that going to university and doing relatively well (in terms of grade) gives. 

 

What's perverse about this is that most of these jobs don't actually require a degree to do, but that's how the labour market is. If you have no degree and do not seek training (i.e. the trades) then your options might be:

 

McDonalds, bar work, sales assistant, bottom of the ladder in the public services , etc..

 

I certainly agree that not everyone should go to university, either because of a lack of an academic mind or a lack of maturity to complete a degree. The question is how do we direct those non-academically minded into decent jobs that pay decent money and perhaps offers people some sort of career. 

Edited June 13, 2013 by Dr_Pangloss

[chrisp65]

The trouble is its not joined up. We have a government that has a Department trying to make it harder to get exams and degrees.

We then have other government dpartments that are inflating what's needed to work for them.

 

I know somebody that didn't have a degree, was working for one of the Ministries as a consultant and they loved his work and gave him more and more. Of the consultants doing this particular line of work he was picking the most work, whilst also charging just about the highest fees. But you get what you pay for. Right?

 

Wrong.

 

That Ministry then decided that to ensure quality, you weren't allowed to be a consultant without a degree. Didn't matter what grade, they didn't even specify any particular field. But you had to have a degree to be considered. So the guy performing best and getting the most work and earning the most fees because he was delivering results...was no longer eligible.

 

Nuts.

[snowychap]

 

Raise interest rates on old student loans, secret report proposes.

 

A confidential report commissioned by the government has proposed redrawing the terms of student loans taken out over the past 15 years, that would make them more expensive to pay back for 3.6 million borrowers in England alone.

The proposal to increase the interest rates on the £40bn worth of loans is the most controversial of a series of options contained in a Whitehall-commissioned study examining how the coalition could privatise the entire stock of student loans issued since 1998.

Increasing the amount that students would be forced to pay back would make the loans more attractive to buyers.

The document, prepared by Rothschild investment bank, was submitted to the business department in November 2011, but is understood to still be under active review. It has never been made public, or been seen by higher education professionals.

Any move to increase the interest rates on loans already taken out could add extra years of repayments even for those who left university long ago.

In the report, dubbed Project Hero, the authors suggest a script for ministers to persuade graduates to accept the worsening of their conditions. "We all live in difficult times," they suggest ministers argue. "You have a deal which is so much better than your younger siblings (they will incur up to £9,000 tuition fees and up to RPI+3% interest rates)".

A statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills confirmed that ministers were still looking at how to privatise the pre-2012 student loan book. It noted: "The government has not made any changes to the pre-2012 loans interest rate terms … Work on the feasibility of selling the pre-2012 student loan book is ongoing."

Ministers already plan an auction of the remaining student loans issued between 1990 and 1998. Although they have a face value of £900m, they are expected to fetch a fraction of that amount. The real value lies in the loans issued after 1998, which are worth between £35bn and £45bn – many multiples more than all the state assets otherwise lined up for sale.

At the moment, the interest on all student loans taken out before 2012 is capped. Graduates pay interest at either the RPI measure of inflation or banks' base rate plus 1%, whichever is lower.

But in the privatisation study, Rothschild found that the rate-cap was a major deterrent to potential investors, who worried that if inflation outstripped the base rate they would lose out on returns.

In order to sell as much of the loan book as possible, the financiers advise that the government underwrite the risk with a financial instrument called a synthetic hedge, in effect using the public finances to guarantee returns to private investment.

Alternatively, they suggest dumping the cap on loan rates altogether. If that proves impossible, the team suggest "an 'offer of compromise', including a payment holiday, or an interest-free period or a different cap".

"The [financial] risk is best taken by government...; second best is it being taken by graduates...; and lastly by investors who want inflation protection."

Removing the cap would, however, burden graduates with years of extra repayments, lasting in some cases until the end of their working lives. At the moment, the cap on student debt taken out before 2012 keeps repayment rates at 1.5%. Lifting it would mean a rate of 3.6%, in line with RPI in March 2012. One indicative calculation suggests that an employee on £25,000 a year, with £25,000 of undergraduate loans taken out before 2012, could work until retirement without ever paying off their debt if the interest rate cap were removed.

Loans taken out since 2012 have interest rates fixed at RPI plus 3%.

The proposals were greeted with fury by lecturers' and students' representatives. "This government is showing that it's more concerned with helping investors make money than defending the interests of student and taxpayers," said Simon Renton of the University and College Union. "Students and taxpayers deserve better than a Hobson's choice between payday lending or another giant PFI."

Lifting the cap would also fly in the face of ministerial assurances that there would never be a retrospective change in terms. Speaking to a parliamentary select committee last June, universities minister David Willetts told MPs: "In the letter that every student gets there are some words to the effect that governments reserve the right to change the terms of the loans. That is a text that has always been there for students, but we have no plans to change the framework we have explained to the House of Commons."

The report was obtained by the False Economy website through a freedom of information request. Although over 90% of it was redacted, the blacking-out was light enough that virtually the entire report can be read. It was analysed for the Guardian by higher education analyst Andrew McGettigan.

"Many people have speculated about the problems associated with selling student loans," said McGettigan, author of The Great University Gamble. "This is the first authoritative confirmation we've had that the main impediment to sale is the interest rate protection in place for existing borrowers. Under these proposals, this government will get cash now but borrowers or future governments pick up the tab."

"The government must immediately rule out this outrageous suggestion," said Liam Burns of the National Union of Students. "Despite pushing them to establish in law that conditions on student loans could not be altered retrospectively the government refused and gave weak assurances that they had no plans to do so. Now we see their own advisers are suggesting that very move."

[Hurricanado]

Thing is, stuff has to be paid for eventually, no such thing as a free meal. If it had of been grants rather than loans, thats another 40bn that has to be paid off with higher taxes/lower public spending.

[snowychap]

Thing is, stuff has to be paid for eventually, no such thing as a free meal.

 

What are you going on about?

Edited June 14, 2013 by snowychap

[bickster]

Thing is, stuff has to be paid for eventually, no such thing as a free meal. If it had of been grants rather than loans, thats another 40bn that has to be paid off with higher taxes/lower public spending.

Does it really? £40bn in how many years? In terms of Govt annual spending its diddly squat, investing in the future prosperity of the country by educating the future work force. There's Govt departments that waste that much a year on hair brained schemes that never ever come to fruition. Why does it have to be paid back? Its paid back in extra taxes on higher incomes anyway