Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
|
London Transport (uk.transport.london) Discussion of all forms of transport in London. |
Reply |
|
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Paul Weaver
writes Vague memory says I paid 80 pounds a term for a bedsit at Trinity, and I was a few years after you. Grants were something like 1400 for the year So, no fees There were fees, but they were included in the grant payment system and were therefore normally ignored. The 1400 was net of fees, and was the maximum if your parents were poor. IIRC, the minimum was 300 - your parents were expected to fill the gap, and you were in difficulty if they didn't. and twice the grant, Twice what grant? and you didn't have to pay it back Correct - that's what the word "grant" means. The governments of the previous decades had come to this strange conclusion that having graduates was good for the country. Of course, we didn't have every piddling little school for over-18s calling itself a "University". Then soon as you got into government you decided the rest of us wouldn't have that. Excuse me? I am not and never have been a part of government. And of course in 0 years time we'll have to pay for your pension too. And that makes even less sense. *I'm* paying for my pension - a significant proportion of my salary goes that way. And I don't get it for a couple of decades. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Clive D. W. Feather wrote to uk.transport.london on Mon, 24 Jan 2005:
Correct - that's what the word "grant" means. The governments of the previous decades had come to this strange conclusion that having graduates was good for the country. Of course, we didn't have every piddling little school for over-18s calling itself a "University". But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. -- "Mrs Redboots" http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/ Website updated 23 January 2005 with new photos |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Mrs Redboots
writes But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving. At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers are equally deserving of a "university" education. But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main driver. -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
writes But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving. At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers are equally deserving of a "university" education. I'd probably dispute that if I knew what you meant by "deserving"! But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main driver. Just think how many more wonders they could do by replacing the current system with the Australian system, so that not only rich people can afford to go to university... |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at 16:16:39 on
Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked: But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving. At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers are equally deserving of a "university" education. I'd probably dispute that if I knew what you meant by "deserving"! All 4-year olds should be given a chance at nursery education, because they will all potentially benefit from it. By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further education or vocational training, perhaps; not University). But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main driver. Just think how many more wonders they could do by replacing the current system with the Australian system, so that not only rich people can afford to go to university... I don't understand that remark at all. Are you saying that today, only the rich can go to university? In that case half the country is rich. -- Roland Perry |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
Roland Perry wrote:
Wed, 26 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked: But we *did* have the concept of free, universal education, which has now been lost. I suppose it will be nursery schools and classes next, then sixth forms..... until finally all education has to be paid for out of one's pocket, as well as through taxation. Oddly enough, there's much more money in state subsidised nursery care than ten years ago. All 4 year olds are equally deserving. At the risk of sounding a bit meldrew-ish I'm not sure 50% of teenagers are equally deserving of a "university" education. I'd probably dispute that if I knew what you meant by "deserving"! All 4-year olds should be given a chance at nursery education, because they will all potentially benefit from it. By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further education or vocational training, perhaps; not University). But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit? But it does wonders for the unemployment statistics. Which is the main driver. Just think how many more wonders they could do by replacing the current system with the Australian system, so that not only rich people can afford to go to university... I don't understand that remark at all. Are you saying that today, only the rich can go to university? In that case half the country is rich. I was exagerating a bit - it's not only the rich, but also those willing to risk being trapped in debt. |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article , Aidan Stanger
writes By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further education or vocational training, perhaps; not University). But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit? Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential students? How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original proposition? -- "now, the thing you type on and the window you stare out of are the same thing" |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In message , at
19:25:00 on Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: If your parents were better off you got a "reduced fees grant" meaning that you got no maintenance and paid something towards your fees. If your parents were even better off you got a minimum grant (UKP50 in my day) only and paid all your fees. And my recollection is that that for every extra pound the parent earned, more than a pound was deducted from the grant. A poverty trap by definition. -- Roland Perry |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
OT: Uni, was: Cambrige - London traffic up 75%
In article ,
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 19:25:00 on Tue, 25 Jan 2005, Colin Rosenstiel remarked: If your parents were better off you got a "reduced fees grant" meaning that you got no maintenance and paid something towards your fees. If your parents were even better off you got a minimum grant (UKP50 in my day) only and paid all your fees. And my recollection is that that for every extra pound the parent earned, more than a pound was deducted from the grant. A poverty trap by definition. Or the student. My TOTAL gap year's income (after tax) was deducted from my next year's grant AND FEES - though I now believe that I should have got a solicitor to challenge the latter. Regards, Nick Maclaren. |
Reply |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Traffic Jams in SE London | London Transport | |||
Traffic from M4 to London City Airport? | London Transport | |||
traffic is better, but livingstone is thinking of more traffic zone? | London Transport | |||
London's traffic problems solved | London Transport | |||
London Road Traffic Board | London Transport |