Protests as Sussex University axes linguistics courses (From The Argus)

Some people in the public sector don't understand that economics applies to them to.

Welcome to the real world people...you might want to keep the banners handy ...there's more cuts to come!....a LOT more!

Maybe we can encourage Scotland to abolish their free prescriptions and for their students to pay tuition fees like English ones have to so that we can have some of our tax money back. The money returned can help save the Liguistics Department in Sussex....there...pr
oblem solved!

No?...Somehow I didn't think so!

lets keep these cuts coming and get some of these lazy turds into real work rather than leeching off the taxpayers while they party on at the boozer

First chemistry, now linguistics?

What subjects will be left? Basket weaving?

Why not just close the whole silly place and use it to play football instead?

feline1 wrote:
First chemistry, now linguistics?

What subjects will be left? Basket weaving?

Why not just close the whole silly place and use it to play football instead?

Useful courses for Sussex, or Brighton at least would be:

1. Closing down shops.
2. Digging up roads.
3. Dreadlock care.
4. The economics of parking spaces.
5. Drunks and druggies.

I am saddened by other comments putting down people who choose to be learning.

(Briefly, because what I really want to talk about is the closure of the department)

Students are not "leeching off taxpayers" we have been given loans (no, not grants like it might have been in your day) that we must pay back at inflation levels. We are all paying more than £3000 a year for our education, and a good number of us are having to work on the side to support ourselves. Our universities are now working very much in the business model, to ensure they are viable money-making enterprises.

Most importantly, the public sector does realise that "economics applies to them". This is one of the reasons this decision seems so baffling. The Linguistics department is the second best in the country. It is one of the things that makes Sussex a University of expertise and excellence. Closing such a brilliantly staffed department will only be detrimental to the University's financial future.

The closure is short-sighted and desperately demoralising for staff and students.

To be fair though, the effects will only be felt once the Vice Chancellor has been gracefully retired, with a ridiculous pension package. (See http://www.timeshigh
ereducation.co.uk/)

Three years ago I predicted that studentw would start evaluating what they were getting for their money.
A young friend of mine was receiving just three contact hours a week for an English degree from a "red brick" university despite paying more than three grand a year.
She would have more contact hours from the Open Uni without lower fees and been able to work full time.
In the 80s we received 12 contact hours a week at Warwick and thought that was paltry but the current students are being ripped off.
You may as well band together and hire a private tutor, go to France or Spain to uni, or go straight into a vocational job at 18 and study at Open Uni for less.
This recession will make students and their parents question the value of their investment and the quality of the education being offered.
Unis are going to have to "up" their game to stay competitive.

Baff wrote:
I am saddened by other comments putting down people who choose to be learning.

(Briefly, because what I really want to talk about is the closure of the department)

Students are not "leeching off taxpayers" we have been given loans (no, not grants like it might have been in your day) that we must pay back at inflation levels. We are all paying more than £3000 a year for our education, and a good number of us are having to work on the side to support ourselves. Our universities are now working very much in the business model, to ensure they are viable money-making enterprises.

Most importantly, the public sector does realise that "economics applies to them". This is one of the reasons this decision seems so baffling. The Linguistics department is the second best in the country. It is one of the things that makes Sussex a University of expertise and excellence. Closing such a brilliantly staffed department will only be detrimental to the University's financial future.

The closure is short-sighted and desperately demoralising for staff and students.

To be fair though, the effects will only be felt once the Vice Chancellor has been gracefully retired, with a ridiculous pension package. (See http://www.timeshigh

ereducation.co.uk/)

Please learn at your own expense but if you think £3000 covers the cost of your "learning" you are dreaming. This is massively funded by people like me i.e. tax payers who are fed up indulging people trying to avoid work with ba's and masters degrees leading nowhere other than self indulgence of the people at uni. As a company we do not even interview Uni students from the UK any more as statistically 60% can't even get to interview on time- they are just so used to turning up at Uni whenever. Not the real world I'm afraid!

TheInsider wrote:
Three years ago I predicted that studentw would start evaluating what they were getting for their money. A young friend of mine was receiving just three contact hours a week for an English degree from a "red brick" university despite paying more than three grand a year. She would have more contact hours from the Open Uni without lower fees and been able to work full time. In the 80s we received 12 contact hours a week at Warwick and thought that was paltry but the current students are being ripped off. You may as well band together and hire a private tutor, go to France or Spain to uni, or go straight into a vocational job at 18 and study at Open Uni for less. This recession will make students and their parents question the value of their investment and the quality of the education being offered. Unis are going to have to "up" their game to stay competitive.

The OU is an excellent alternative. I've taken two degrees with them - a Bachelors that took 7 years and a Masters that took 3. And all the while I was working full-time. It was a struggle at times balancing the various demands on my time but the major pay-back was that I've now managed to triple my salary in the seven years its been since a major career change as a result of the Bachelors degree.

Shame that there are apparently so many "Paul Calf"-esque anti-student dimbos out there. Studying at university is HOW WE BECOME MORE INTELLIGENT. (King & Bibble; I'm assuming you never went).

Ha, King! What a moron you are. What's your order of hate today? Immigrants -> Students -> Bankers? Get back to your Daily Mail.

It's a shame this course is closing but you have to admit that times change and some new courses arrive and some leave.

Maybe we could get Chomsky to come over here and have a word with somebody up top. He paved the way for the subject maybe he can rescue it.

TheInsider wrote:
Three years ago I predicted that studentw would start evaluating what they were getting for their money.
A young friend of mine was receiving just three contact hours a week for an English degree from a "red brick" university despite paying more than three grand a year.
She would have more contact hours from the Open Uni without lower fees and been able to work full time.
In the 80s we received 12 contact hours a week at Warwick and thought that was paltry but the current students are being ripped off.
You may as well band together and hire a private tutor, go to France or Spain to uni, or go straight into a vocational job at 18 and study at Open Uni for less.
This recession will make students and their parents question the value of their investment and the quality of the education being offered.
Unis are going to have to "up" their game to stay competitive.

I totally agree. £3k a year, two half days a week at the site, NO materials or books are covered in that cost... What exactly are you paying for? It's not on.

king,
Your comments are completely out of order and, quite frankly, extremely ignorant. Degrees lead nowhere? It is quite clear you do not have a degree yourself then. All the jobs I have applied for REQUIRE you to have a degree. Sixty 60% of graduates don't turn up to interview? I'm intrigued...would you mind revealing the survey that found this statistic?

The point you are missing "king", is that this does not just affect students or prospective students but staff who are experts in their field. Please continue to insult students by claiming YOU fund the £12000+ that THEY pay from THEIR OWN MONEY to study at University.

Get down from your high horse because you don't have one.

King's comments about interviews are interesting. Part of my job is to employ graduates each year. We now take two thirds overseas-born graduates (attending UK unis) to one third British-born graduates because the overseas student standard of basic education is far higher.
Many of them speak several European languages as an additional skill to their chosen subject.
We have found in recent years, that we were investing £3/4,000 per annum in training for our graduates, to find out that they were planning to clutter off on a gap year snowboarding within a year. This costs our company money. Overseas students have not yet embraced this adult leisure culture and come into the workplace to stay and have a long career which is what, as an employer, we need, retention and consistency of highly educated employees.
In addition to this, overseas students don't turn in for work hung over (or having enjoyed other substances) on a Friday morning.....or any morning in fact.
They seem much more focused, ambitious and almost grateful for their employment/training opportunity.
We are hoping that employing more overseas graduates will raise the bar for the British born graduates, but most of the failings come from the formative level education with very poor English, maths and sciences.
I think the recession will force British students to focus and forgo the personal pleasure they seem to follow years after graduating because they are putting themselves out of the running with other countries.

Some "lazy turds" to consider:
Isaac Newton – Trinity College, Cambridge
Alexander Graham Bell – Edinburgh University, University College London
Francis Crick – UCL
Virginia Woolf – King’s College London
Alan Turing – University of Manchester
Stewart Adams (inventor of Ibuprofen) – University of Nottingham
Professor Ian Donald (pioneer of diagnostic and obstetric medical ultrasound) – University of Glasgow
Frank Pantridge (inventor of the portable defibrillator) – Queen’s University Belfast.

Study at university facilitates the careers and discoveries of people like this, it is not simply a way to put off getting a "real" job for a few more years.

It is also worth noting the lack of democratic process involved in closing the Lingusitics deparment. The objection is not simply that the department is being closed, but that the decision has not gone through any of the proper channels and therefore renders the opinions of students and staff as moot.

king wrote:

Baff wrote: I am saddened by other comments putting down people who choose to be learning. (Briefly, because what I really want to talk about is the closure of the department) Students are not "leeching off taxpayers" we have been given loans (no, not grants like it might have been in your day) that we must pay back at inflation levels. We are all paying more than £3000 a year for our education, and a good number of us are having to work on the side to support ourselves. Our universities are now working very much in the business model, to ensure they are viable money-making enterprises. Most importantly, the public sector does realise that "economics applies to them". This is one of the reasons this decision seems so baffling. The Linguistics department is the second best in the country. It is one of the things that makes Sussex a University of expertise and excellence. Closing such a brilliantly staffed department will only be detrimental to the University's financial future. The closure is short-sighted and desperately demoralising for staff and students. To be fair though, the effects will only be felt once the Vice Chancellor has been gracefully retired, with a ridiculous pension package. (See http://www.timeshigh ereducation.co.uk/)

Please learn at your own expense but if you think £3000 covers the cost of your "learning" you are dreaming. This is massively funded by people like me i.e. tax payers who are fed up indulging people trying to avoid work with ba's and masters degrees leading nowhere other than self indulgence of the people at uni. As a company we do not even interview Uni students from the UK any more as statistically 60% can't even get to interview on time- they are just so used to turning up at Uni whenever. Not the real world I'm afraid!

I love a good ol' fashioned rant against students. As an ex-student from Brighton and studying in Brighton, i do sympathise with your narrow minded unsustainable reactionary opinions, I really do. I hate other students as much as you do, believe me. I think there are two kinds of student, however, those who want to learn, and those who are not ready to take on the real world. Your firm may not "take on graduates", but in actual fact you only go so far in big business by being a bitter 30 something bitter about their lack of opportunities during the thatcherite junta.

IF you are so worried about your income tax liability being used inappropriately, why don't you write to the Treasury?

"Dear Treasury, I am upset because I went to the so-called university of life and as such I over compensate for my own intelligence shortcomings by being aggresively jealous of young people in education. Please could you ensure that my 0.00000000001% of your income tax revenues are NOT used to fund their social lives?

yours,

A.N Idiot"

lol the problem is that higher education has been debased into a Thatcherite Polyversity shambles, where 50% of the population are farmed through dumbed-down courses consisting of little more than dishing out a few photocopied handouts, which the "students" are too busy to read because they all have to work in Macdonalds 45 hours a week to pay their fees.

This is absolutely ridiculous. How can any university even think about wanting to cut one of courses that is the best in the country!

There are so many keen linguistic students who have been completely demoralised by these actions, and so many more 'would-be' future students who are missing out on the unbelievable learning opportunities that Sussex University offers.

This news is appaling and devastating to a huge amount of people, and it has not even been argued with the University Committee. That in itself is a horrendous foulplay.

Yes but you have to admit,
if the university cut the number of students,
the Argus would be relieved of its duty to print endless stories about student-noise-nuisan
ce-neighbours from hell every week.

king wrote:

Baff wrote: I am saddened by other comments putting down people who choose to be learning. (Briefly, because what I really want to talk about is the closure of the department) Students are not "leeching off taxpayers" we have been given loans (no, not grants like it might have been in your day) that we must pay back at inflation levels. We are all paying more than £3000 a year for our education, and a good number of us are having to work on the side to support ourselves. Our universities are now working very much in the business model, to ensure they are viable money-making enterprises. Most importantly, the public sector does realise that "economics applies to them". This is one of the reasons this decision seems so baffling. The Linguistics department is the second best in the country. It is one of the things that makes Sussex a University of expertise and excellence. Closing such a brilliantly staffed department will only be detrimental to the University's financial future. The closure is short-sighted and desperately demoralising for staff and students. To be fair though, the effects will only be felt once the Vice Chancellor has been gracefully retired, with a ridiculous pension package. (See http://www.timeshigh ereducation.co.uk/)

Please learn at your own expense but if you think £3000 covers the cost of your "learning" you are dreaming. This is massively funded by people like me i.e. tax payers who are fed up indulging people trying to avoid work with ba's and masters degrees leading nowhere other than self indulgence of the people at uni. As a company we do not even interview Uni students from the UK any more as statistically 60% can't even get to interview on time- they are just so used to turning up at Uni whenever. Not the real world I'm afraid!

With an attitude like that,I'd be surprised if you're put in charge of making the tea, let alone having anything to say about recruitment policy. And no doubt the irony of your final statement is lost on you.

Well....Folks the truth may hurt but the reality is hurting students in Brighton and the UK even more. What do we look for? No 1- the right attitude and No 2- intelligence. These people can be trained in roles and do not come with the baggage and sense of entitlement so illustrated in many of the comments here. In ,line with Theinsider you should see the cv of an overseas candidate- well presented as are they when they turn up for interview. Second rathers may have secured a job before but as they are discovering- life is becoming harder.

To the "king": If you read the article carefully, you will have noted that linguistics students are among the highest-qualified in the country, many of them having AAA A-levels. So rant on about lazy students, but do you really think you're getting straight As by hanging around, smoking dope all day?

To the "insider": you're joining the anti-protest chorus, pointing out that overseas graduates are so much better because, among other things, they can speak foreign languages. Shouldn't you then actually SUPPORT the provision of language and linguistics at UK universities and at Sussex? The decision to axe linguistics is indicative of the very problem you are mentioning, so rather than rant about lazy students being taken away their toys you should stand up for the kind of education linguistics still can provide, the kind of education many of the overseas graduates you are employing got from their home universities.

aLinguist wrote:
To the "king": If you read the article carefully, you will have noted that linguistics students are among the highest-qualified in the country, many of them having AAA A-levels. So rant on about lazy students, but do you really think you're getting straight As by hanging around, smoking dope all day?

To the "insider": you're joining the anti-protest chorus, pointing out that overseas graduates are so much better because, among other things, they can speak foreign languages. Shouldn't you then actually SUPPORT the provision of language and linguistics at UK universities and at Sussex? The decision to axe linguistics is indicative of the very problem you are mentioning, so rather than rant about lazy students being taken away their toys you should stand up for the kind of education linguistics still can provide, the kind of education many of the overseas graduates you are employing got from their home universities.

Good luck in MacDonalds then

king wrote:
Well....Folks the truth may hurt but the reality is hurting students in Brighton and the UK even more. What do we look for? No 1- the right attitude and No 2- intelligence. These people can be trained in roles and do not come with the baggage and sense of entitlement so illustrated in many of the comments here. In ,line with Theinsider you should see the cv of an overseas candidate- well presented as are they when they turn up for interview. Second rathers may have secured a job before but as they are discovering- life is becoming harder.

Whilst I accept criteria No1 and No2, shouldn't you really add the requirement to be able to string a coherent and grammatically correct sentence to that? Or would that mean a certain level of redundancies being made?

mcmikerg wrote:
Shame that there are apparently so many "Paul Calf"-esque anti-student dimbos out there. Studying at university is HOW WE BECOME MORE INTELLIGENT. (King & Bibble; I'm assuming you never went).

People don't become "more intelligent". Somebody who learns more is not more intelligent than somebody who does not. It means the first has more knowledge, not more intelligence. Also, there are quite a few university courses these days which do not require substantial academic study. Not all courses have the same value to society.

Let's keep this in perspective. This course may be the second best in the country, but there only currently 55 students on it. It seems to be either very specialist, as so few numbers are involved, or not very popular, for the same reason. I have no idea which it is.

Reading aLinguist's comment about 3 A grade A levels, I feel the need to offer a retort. A levels today are not as hard as A levels when I took them, twenty two years ago. Don't even try and pretend that they are. So three A grades today is achievable by much larger selection of people than may be apparent. That does not mean that everyone could get three A grades.

aLinguist. Don't get your knickers in a twist. My comments are not anti university or anti this course. If you read them properly you may learn something about employers. It would be sad if this course was to close just as it will be sad if the social care course at Reading Uni closes.
However, overseas students who study law, politics or economics or any other degree courses, often turn up to interviews with my company and have two or three languages in addition to their degree subject which they have learned in their own time or as an extra curricular activity as part of their drive to create a competitive personal package.
If you read my comments properly, they are about students ensuring they get a top rate education because they are paying high fees for it. Education is a purchase and students should check the quality of their purchase before handing over money. They should not be fobbed off by two to three contact hours a week.
As an employer of dozens of graduates each year, I hope students graduating this year, take heed of the advice I gave earlier.
This is going to be one of the toughest decades for employment and British students are going to face some tough competition and deciding to take a gap year two years into your employment does not go down well with employers.

Dear Insider: thank you for the clarification; I apologise for lumping you together with "king", whose comments are neither helpful, nor informed. I can agree on a number of issues with you, and there is much to complain about over the state of higher education in the UK. I think this issue is orthogonal to the one at hand, though, the closure of one of the remaining truly interdisciplinary courses at Sussex.

Bibble: I didn't mean to say that AAA A-levels make linguistics students superstars; all I meant to say that they are in the top bracket of students at Sussex in general, in terms of entry tariffs. If the university was committed to excellence, they should value this.

And yes, there are currently only 55 students, and linguistics is a kind of specialist field, but what does that say? That we shouldn't support smaller degrees? Even outside academia, there are specialisations in which only few people work but which are nevertheless important. And there is another reason why there are only 55 students: because linguistics has already been through a number of cuts; the university won't allow more in, although the demand is there (hence the ability to pick the best).

Dear "king": don't worry about my job. I'm catered for.

aLinguist wrote:
Dear Insider: thank you for the clarification; I apologise for lumping you together with "king", whose comments are neither helpful, nor informed. I can agree on a number of issues with you, and there is much to complain about over the state of higher education in the UK. I think this issue is orthogonal to the one at hand, though, the closure of one of the remaining truly interdisciplinary courses at Sussex.

Bibble: I didn't mean to say that AAA A-levels make linguistics students superstars; all I meant to say that they are in the top bracket of students at Sussex in general, in terms of entry tariffs. If the university was committed to excellence, they should value this.

And yes, there are currently only 55 students, and linguistics is a kind of specialist field, but what does that say? That we shouldn't support smaller degrees? Even outside academia, there are specialisations in which only few people work but which are nevertheless important. And there is another reason why there are only 55 students: because linguistics has already been through a number of cuts; the university won't allow more in, although the demand is there (hence the ability to pick the best).

Dear "king": don't worry about my job. I'm catered for.

a lingual - good to hear that you are catered for and that you got in one word new to me (orthogonal). Makes that degree worthwhile then!

Theinsider makes the case less emotionally perhaps then both of us both he/she is spot on in many regards as we are both speaking with experience of reviewing cv's of UK Vs overseas students.

Economic reality reality is what is facing this course now and this will only be compounded into the jobs market.

You may not like it but the reality is that a pumped up economy has driven employers to accept almost anything with two legs coming through the door looking for a job but not anymore.

Try and be mature enough to accept this change and adapt and move on but don't continue to kid yourself.

As a Linguistics lecturer at a "foreign" university I can vouch for the quality of Linguistics students at the best departments in Britain. Such students are among the best in the world. I have had personal recent experience of this in my role as an external examiner for an English university.
Being a relatively small discipline with a concomitantly small number of lecturers (and students) Linguistics is always a tempting target for deans/vice-chancello
rs who want to save money with a minimum of "grief".
In the scandalous affair of another top-ranking Linguistics department, that at Durham, the money saved was to be used to encourage a failing language department. In other words, destroy a top department to subsidize a poor one. To judge by the official noises something similar appears to be going on here.
With some international experience as far as students are concerned I would not say that English students are less hard-working than their counterparts abroad.
One mustn't forget that deans and vice-chancellors know very little about other subjects than their own. They are often unaware of the jewels in their own crowns.

glasscontainer wrote:
As a Linguistics lecturer at a "foreign" university I can vouch for the quality of Linguistics students at the best departments in Britain. Such students are among the best in the world. I have had personal recent experience of this in my role as an external examiner for an English university.
Being a relatively small discipline with a concomitantly small number of lecturers (and students) Linguistics is always a tempting target for deans/vice-chancello

rs who want to save money with a minimum of "grief".
In the scandalous affair of another top-ranking Linguistics department, that at Durham, the money saved was to be used to encourage a failing language department. In other words, destroy a top department to subsidize a poor one. To judge by the official noises something similar appears to be going on here.
With some international experience as far as students are concerned I would not say that English students are less hard-working than their counterparts abroad.
One mustn't forget that deans and vice-chancellors know very little about other subjects than their own. They are often unaware of the jewels in their own crowns.

I am sure that the quality is fantastic and I really appreciate the use of words such as "concomitantly" (which showing my ignorance of the finer points I'm afraid I had to look up). The reality is that life has moved on but the very basics of working life are being missed by so many students.

As a business we even pay expenses on a discretionary basis when people travel to interviews with us and we are consistently disappointed with UK candidates. I am sorry to say but it is the reality and the same reality is facing students in this department who would have been prime candidates for roles in our business. Regretably the feeling of many is "entitlism" (not sure if that is even a word!) that a degree has been done and a job at x rate is their entitlement. The foreign applicants ( and yes we have had some weak candidates are almost universally professionally prepared and presented). So...my final word here is that its not just about a degree.

It is clear at the moment that graduates need more than just a degree to be able to compete on the jobs market. What must be pointed out though, is that the Linguistics department at Sussex has the highest graduate employment rate of any linguistics department in the country with 75% of its graduates in further study or employment at least 6 months after graduation. It is also has one of the highest employment rates of all the departments at Sussex. It seems absurd that a department with such high employment rates should be cut.

king wrote:

Baff wrote:
I am saddened by other comments putting down people who choose to be learning.

(Briefly, because what I really want to talk about is the closure of the department)

Students are not "leeching off taxpayers" we have been given loans (no, not grants like it might have been in your day) that we must pay back at inflation levels. We are all paying more than £3000 a year for our education, and a good number of us are having to work on the side to support ourselves. Our universities are now working very much in the business model, to ensure they are viable money-making enterprises.

Most importantly, the public sector does realise that "economics applies to them". This is one of the reasons this decision seems so baffling. The Linguistics department is the second best in the country. It is one of the things that makes Sussex a University of expertise and excellence. Closing such a brilliantly staffed department will only be detrimental to the University's financial future.

The closure is short-sighted and desperately demoralising for staff and students.

To be fair though, the effects will only be felt once the Vice Chancellor has been gracefully retired, with a ridiculous pension package. (See http://www.timeshigh


ereducation.co.uk/)

Please learn at your own expense but if you think £3000 covers the cost of your "learning" you are dreaming. This is massively funded by people like me i.e. tax payers who are fed up indulging people trying to avoid work with ba's and masters degrees leading nowhere other than self indulgence of the people at uni. As a company we do not even interview Uni students from the UK any more as statistically 60% can't even get to interview on time- they are just so used to turning up at Uni whenever. Not the real world I'm afraid!

King said
--------------------
-----------------
As a company we do not even interview Uni students from the UK any more as statistically 60% can't even get to interview on time- they are just so used to turning up at Uni whenever. Not the real world I'm afraid!
--------------------
----------------

If that's how decisions are made at your company then I don't rate its chances of survival. If you have any statistics to back up your position then what you are saying is you don't interview any UK graduates because 60% of them are not punctual on one occasion.

If punctuality is more important in your line of business than ability, why not reject candidates on that basis rather than taking the reactionary view and unfairly rejecting the 40% of graduates who do turn up to their interview on time?

If what you are saying is true, then you are missing out on some highly motivated and capable people based on the flawed logic that because some students are lazy all students are lazy. This makes me wonder what other areas of your business you apply the same logic to.

King said
--------------------
---------------
This is massively funded by people like me i.e. tax payers who are fed up indulging people trying to avoid work with ba's and masters degrees leading nowhere other than self indulgence of the people at uni.
--------------------
---------------

Having been both a student and taxpayer, I could equally say that I am fed up with indulging businesses trying to avoid paying for any kind of on-the-job training, and who think that the function of a university is to do that for them.

Universities exist primarily to expand the breadth of human knowledge and disseminate this as widely as possible. If you don't know the word "disseminate" you can search for it online courtesy of a piece of academic research called Google. As it happens, this research has benefited business greatly and is constantly being honed by computer scientists informed, in part, by linguistics research.

ohh. employing people who will turn up for appointments with clients or others on time is pretty important and yes is a prime filter in our recruitment. If you really think that your brilliance means that tardiness should be accepted then my point is absolutely proven.

king wrote:
ohh. employing people who will turn up for appointments with clients or others on time is pretty important and yes is a prime filter in our recruitment. If you really think that your brilliance means that tardiness should be accepted then my point is absolutely proven.

That's not what you said before. You said you don't interview ANY UK students. This appears to be irrespective of their timekeeping abilities as, if you don't invite them for interview, there's no way of knowing if they'd have been late.

I replied that if timekeeping is your main concern why not filter on that basis alone? I never suggested you should take people on who are not suitable. Just that you shouldn't use spurious statistics to reject people who might be.

When I attended my very first interview many years ago, the chief executive of the company had a pile of unopened letters of application in his hand as he began to interview me.
He dropped them in the bin and said: "These people couldn't spell my name correctly on the envelope so why should I bother reading what they have to say."
He fired people on the spot who were continually late or who he found had moaned about the workload or company and replaced them with people who weren't late and who were committed. He is a very successful British businessman who always told me to always, always examine the detail.
It was a very valuable lesson learned. I sometimes have up to 80 applications per graduate placing. It can be hard to choose between candidates who often have the same qualifications, work experience etc....so then I look at the detail more closely such as punctuality and also to see if they can spell driving licence correctly on their CV. Even with spell check a few fall through the net. There are some howlers in there but it's a tough world and talent isn't just the degree awarded you have to choose someone and it will be that someone who is on time, who pays attention to detail in their CV as well as having the educational background.

TheInsider wrote:
When I attended my very first interview many years ago, the chief executive of the company had a pile of unopened letters of application in his hand as he began to interview me.
He dropped them in the bin and said: "These people couldn't spell my name correctly on the envelope so why should I bother reading what they have to say."
He fired people on the spot who were continually late or who he found had moaned about the workload or company and replaced them with people who weren't late and who were committed. He is a very successful British businessman who always told me to always, always examine the detail.
It was a very valuable lesson learned. I sometimes have up to 80 applications per graduate placing. It can be hard to choose between candidates who often have the same qualifications, work experience etc....so then I look at the detail more closely such as punctuality and also to see if they can spell driving licence correctly on their CV. Even with spell check a few fall through the net. There are some howlers in there but it's a tough world and talent isn't just the degree awarded you have to choose someone and it will be that someone who is on time, who pays attention to detail in their CV as well as having the educational background.

I think even most graduates would agree that having a degree is no guarantee of a person's ability to do a job. On the other hand, it's no guarantee that they wouldn't be able to do it either. What it does show is that they are able to learn and commit to something for an extended period of time. Both useful skills in the workplace.

What would you have thought if your first interviewer had dropped a pile of CVs into the bin explaining that "These people are graduates"? That is pretty much what King is claiming his business does.

University should be free, but for the intelligent minority, no matter teir background. The idea of charging intelligent kids is a backward step that will mean all lawyers / doctors ect will come from wealth rather than intelligence. The country will again be run b the "tim nice but dim" type people.

In the 1940/50s kids like my dad got on because they were bright no matter that his parents were poor. If born now, then he would never have gone to uni.

As for the comments about lecturers and students - well people have a point. long holidays, and an easy life is what university is rightly known for. This is a shame. Students should be funded, but they should have to work and like the rest of us, should have 23 - 25 days holiday a year only.

oh - well at least the uni might stop bilding north of the by pass.

There is now a petition to save Linguistics at Sussex: http://www.ipetition
s.com/petition/Save_
linguistics/
All signatures are very much appreciated. Let's not let the university get away with closing down such a valuable and successful department at Sussex.

I agree that university should be free, for the able.

I keep wondering about those foreign graduates taking the jobs of British graduates, could it be because the foreign ones are happy with lower wages?? If that is the case, some of the problem of immigration in Britain is pointing towars employers, no? TheInsider.

Txa wrote:
I agree that university should be free, for the able.

I keep wondering about those foreign graduates taking the jobs of British graduates, could it be because the foreign ones are happy with lower wages?? If that is the case, some of the problem of immigration in Britain is pointing towars employers, no? TheInsider.

Nope we pay market rate and above plus healthcare bonuses etc.

Its all about right attitude and intelligence. We now recruit enthusiastic 18 year olds who show the right attitude then a Uni student who has attained some of the attitudes so common amongst UK graduates. They progress rapidly, get great training and of course move over time but we are pround to have emplyed them and they always come back to thank us. Thats the difference.

Txa wrote:
I agree that university should be free, for the able.

I keep wondering about those foreign graduates taking the jobs of British graduates, could it be because the foreign ones are happy with lower wages?? If that is the case, some of the problem of immigration in Britain is pointing towars employers, no? TheInsider.

Nope we pay market rate and above plus healthcare bonuses etc.

Its all about right attitude and intelligence. We now recruit enthusiastic 18 year olds who show the right attitude then a Uni student who has attained some of the attitudes so common amongst UK graduates. They progress rapidly, get great training and of course move over time but we are pround to have employed them and they always come back to thank us. Thats the difference.

hmmm its interesting how a story about a Uni cutting a course has fallen into a debate about current student attitudes and the economics of education....

Whilst I think that Sussex University cutting one of the top rated courses in the country is a crazy idea and a slight false economy - They could, I’m sure afford to lose a few of the less popular courses which do not equip students with the skills needed to excel within what is left of the UK job market (eg Cultural Studies!) Universities do this all the time, unpopular courses go and are replaced depending on current workplace trends.

A lot more work place training is needed to boost the credentials of the UK graduate market. I worked alongside both my undergraduate and post graduate degrees in an area of work that was relevant which meant I finished with a decent education backed up with some excellent work experience plus a bit of cash left over to pay off my overdraft at the end...I don’t know the best way to secure future funding for universities but I certainly know that is NOT through astronomical fees and unmanageable levels of debt. The American means tests bursaries are a reasonably good idea although make a mockery of the usefulness of secondary education.

king wrote:

Txa wrote: I agree that university should be free, for the able. I keep wondering about those foreign graduates taking the jobs of British graduates, could it be because the foreign ones are happy with lower wages?? If that is the case, some of the problem of immigration in Britain is pointing towars employers, no? TheInsider.

Nope we pay market rate and above plus healthcare bonuses etc. Its all about right attitude and intelligence. We now recruit enthusiastic 18 year olds who show the right attitude then a Uni student who has attained some of the attitudes so common amongst UK graduates. They progress rapidly, get great training and of course move over time but we are pround to have emplyed them and they always come back to thank us. Thats the difference.

I disagree wholeheartedly.

At the age of 18 I KNEW i was not equipped for meaningful employment, so i deferred my university entrance by 2 years to gain some work experience.

Now I am (almost) a certified chartered accountant, simply because I chose a course which would make me employable. And I am now employed in financial analysis, work that one out - how many 18 year olds would be able to scrutinise financial reports with a "can do" attitude?

I am assuming your jobs are sales based, and being advertised on Gumtree, and not the FT!

If the university had not spent the last 5 years spending on reorganisations which did not work it might be able to keep its courses open. Funded by the tax payer, they are in permanent reorganisation. The new schools created at great expense a mere 5 or 6 years ago are now been disbanded and a new structure set up. Admin structures formed and reformed. Office space and carpets built up and pulled up/down again while the courses take second place. Staff organised and reorganise dtime and time again.But for its location ( in trendy Brighton) it would be really stuggling to attact students.

What it should be doing is opening its courses up to be followed part time, evenings, weekends which the local working population could access. It is not putting itself in the heart of the community as a resource for learming we can all tap in to.

actually- you got that wrong also as we team up with local secondary schools and sponsor a number or initiatives on bringing school leavers into the workplace. We train up business analysts, programmers etc. Its not just Uni's that can train people but glad you feel the better for it.

BBBrighton wrote:

hmmm its interesting how a story about a Uni cutting a course has fallen into a debate about current student attitudes and the economics of education....

Whilst I think that Sussex University cutting one of the top rated courses in the country is a crazy idea and a slight false economy - They could, I’m sure afford to lose a few of the less popular courses which do not equip students with the skills needed to excel within what is left of the UK job market (eg Cultural Studies!) Universities do this all the time, unpopular courses go and are replaced depending on current workplace trends.

A lot more work place training is needed to boost the credentials of the UK graduate market. I worked alongside both my undergraduate and post graduate degrees in an area of work that was relevant which meant I finished with a decent education backed up with some excellent work experience plus a bit of cash left over to pay off my overdraft at the end...I don’t know the best way to secure future funding for universities but I certainly know that is NOT through astronomical fees and unmanageable levels of debt. The American means tests bursaries are a reasonably good idea although make a mockery of the usefulness of secondary education.

It was bound to fall into a debate about economics as that is usually what drives the withdrawal of programmes. On that score, the decision to withdraw Linguistics does not make sense. But then neither did the attempted closure of the Chemistry department.

There's plenty of people in business like King who don't like paying taxes to keep open subjects he doesn't see the point of. Unfortunately, the VC at Sussex seems to be listening more and more to those voices of ignorance.

Where I disagree with you is equating the popularity of a subject with its importance. The Psychology department at Sussex is much bigger than either the Maths or Physics departments. Surely you don't believe it is any more worthy of being maintained. Surely the study of maths and physics is no less important than the study of psychology, even though they might currently be less popular with young people.

As I said before, a university's function is to increase human knowledge, not to train people for the workplace. I don't understand people who dislike paying for this increase in knowledge yet are happy to enjoy the benefits.

Johnny Yesno wrote:

BBBrighton wrote:

hmmm its interesting how a story about a Uni cutting a course has fallen into a debate about current student attitudes and the economics of education....

Whilst I think that Sussex University cutting one of the top rated courses in the country is a crazy idea and a slight false economy - They could, I’m sure afford to lose a few of the less popular courses which do not equip students with the skills needed to excel within what is left of the UK job market (eg Cultural Studies!) Universities do this all the time, unpopular courses go and are replaced depending on current workplace trends.

A lot more work place training is needed to boost the credentials of the UK graduate market. I worked alongside both my undergraduate and post graduate degrees in an area of work that was relevant which meant I finished with a decent education backed up with some excellent work experience plus a bit of cash left over to pay off my overdraft at the end...I don’t know the best way to secure future funding for universities but I certainly know that is NOT through astronomical fees and unmanageable levels of debt. The American means tests bursaries are a reasonably good idea although make a mockery of the usefulness of secondary education.

It was bound to fall into a debate about economics as that is usually what drives the withdrawal of programmes. On that score, the decision to withdraw Linguistics does not make sense. But then neither did the attempted closure of the Chemistry department.

There's plenty of people in business like King who don't like paying taxes to keep open subjects he doesn't see the point of. Unfortunately, the VC at Sussex seems to be listening more and more to those voices of ignorance.

Where I disagree with you is equating the popularity of a subject with its importance. The Psychology department at Sussex is much bigger than either the Maths or Physics departments. Surely you don't believe it is any more worthy of being maintained. Surely the study of maths and physics is no less important than the study of psychology, even though they might currently be less popular with young people.

As I said before, a university's function is to increase human knowledge, not to train people for the workplace. I don't understand people who dislike paying for this increase in knowledge yet are happy to enjoy the benefits.

Ah... voices of ignorance until you want our taxpayers money. Got it.

Its a a funny old world but most things tend to revolve around money.

king wrote:
actually- you got that wrong also as we team up with local secondary schools and sponsor a number or initiatives on bringing school leavers into the workplace. We train up business analysts, programmers etc. Its not just Uni's that can train people but glad you feel the better for it.

Fine, University is an option for some to delay entry into the working economy, but please do not form an opinion of an entire section of society based upon your preconceptions of all students being stereotypical hedonists. I went to better myself, so i wouldnt have to put up with admin jobs paying less than £20k per annum for the next 5 years. I applaud what your business is doing for young people, but surely even with your prejudices even you can appreciate that not every industry sector can afford to take a risk on a positive thinking school leaver? Why would a law firm (for instance) choose an 18YO who has not been trained and intensively educated in a specifically chosen field?
University enables people to aim higher.

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

king wrote:
actually- you got that wrong also as we team up with local secondary schools and sponsor a number or initiatives on bringing school leavers into the workplace. We train up business analysts, programmers etc. Its not just Uni's that can train people but glad you feel the better for it.

Fine, University is an option for some to delay entry into the working economy, but please do not form an opinion of an entire section of society based upon your preconceptions of all students being stereotypical hedonists. I went to better myself, so i wouldnt have to put up with admin jobs paying less than £20k per annum for the next 5 years. I applaud what your business is doing for young people, but surely even with your prejudices even you can appreciate that not every industry sector can afford to take a risk on a positive thinking school leaver? Why would a law firm (for instance) choose an 18YO who has not been trained and intensively educated in a specifically chosen field?
University enables people to aim higher.

I do understand the need for Uni for many disciplines but there are many where it is just a place to doss off for a few years. That is what I do not appreciate particularly when the tax payer is paying for it. I would happily endorse a much more supportive financial environment for this that merit it but we desperately need to get away from the concept that Uni is a 3-4 year alcohol binge as seems to be the case too often.

king wrote:

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

king wrote:
actually- you got that wrong also as we team up with local secondary schools and sponsor a number or initiatives on bringing school leavers into the workplace. We train up business analysts, programmers etc. Its not just Uni's that can train people but glad you feel the better for it.

Fine, University is an option for some to delay entry into the working economy, but please do not form an opinion of an entire section of society based upon your preconceptions of all students being stereotypical hedonists. I went to better myself, so i wouldnt have to put up with admin jobs paying less than £20k per annum for the next 5 years. I applaud what your business is doing for young people, but surely even with your prejudices even you can appreciate that not every industry sector can afford to take a risk on a positive thinking school leaver? Why would a law firm (for instance) choose an 18YO who has not been trained and intensively educated in a specifically chosen field?
University enables people to aim higher.

I do understand the need for Uni for many disciplines but there are many where it is just a place to doss off for a few years. That is what I do not appreciate particularly when the tax payer is paying for it. I would happily endorse a much more supportive financial environment for this that merit it but we desperately need to get away from the concept that Uni is a 3-4 year alcohol binge as seems to be the case too often.

Yes, we do need to get away from that concept. Perhaps the voices of ignorance should stop perpetuating that myth. Then the voices of ignorance might stop filtering applications from graduates just because they are graduates (a pretty ignorant thing to do in my book).

Oh, and care to elaborate on which subjects are worthy of your respect? No Googling to find out what the long words mean, mind.

king wrote:

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

king wrote: actually- you got that wrong also as we team up with local secondary schools and sponsor a number or initiatives on bringing school leavers into the workplace. We train up business analysts, programmers etc. Its not just Uni's that can train people but glad you feel the better for it.

Fine, University is an option for some to delay entry into the working economy, but please do not form an opinion of an entire section of society based upon your preconceptions of all students being stereotypical hedonists. I went to better myself, so i wouldnt have to put up with admin jobs paying less than £20k per annum for the next 5 years. I applaud what your business is doing for young people, but surely even with your prejudices even you can appreciate that not every industry sector can afford to take a risk on a positive thinking school leaver? Why would a law firm (for instance) choose an 18YO who has not been trained and intensively educated in a specifically chosen field? University enables people to aim higher.

I do understand the need for Uni for many disciplines but there are many where it is just a place to doss off for a few years. That is what I do not appreciate particularly when the tax payer is paying for it. I would happily endorse a much more supportive financial environment for this that merit it but we desperately need to get away from the concept that Uni is a 3-4 year alcohol binge as seems to be the case too often.

That last point I completely agree with - even on my course the majority of students did not have the skills or desire to dedicate themselves to the field, and I am annoyed by the social culture of university as much as you are. (particularly the people who studied marketing, who are essentially made up of attractive women who are only just too intelligent to work in a nail salon)

Although, as a tax specialist myself, I would say that the majority of higher band income tax payers are graduates themselves, and therefore the whole system is justified in a roundabout way. It is the parents of the students studying courses like Media Studies who I feel are the most unfairly afflicted.

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

king wrote:

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

king wrote: actually- you got that wrong also as we team up with local secondary schools and sponsor a number or initiatives on bringing school leavers into the workplace. We train up business analysts, programmers etc. Its not just Uni's that can train people but glad you feel the better for it.

Fine, University is an option for some to delay entry into the working economy, but please do not form an opinion of an entire section of society based upon your preconceptions of all students being stereotypical hedonists. I went to better myself, so i wouldnt have to put up with admin jobs paying less than £20k per annum for the next 5 years. I applaud what your business is doing for young people, but surely even with your prejudices even you can appreciate that not every industry sector can afford to take a risk on a positive thinking school leaver? Why would a law firm (for instance) choose an 18YO who has not been trained and intensively educated in a specifically chosen field? University enables people to aim higher.

I do understand the need for Uni for many disciplines but there are many where it is just a place to doss off for a few years. That is what I do not appreciate particularly when the tax payer is paying for it. I would happily endorse a much more supportive financial environment for this that merit it but we desperately need to get away from the concept that Uni is a 3-4 year alcohol binge as seems to be the case too often.

That last point I completely agree with - even on my course the majority of students did not have the skills or desire to dedicate themselves to the field, and I am annoyed by the social culture of university as much as you are. (particularly the people who studied marketing, who are essentially made up of attractive women who are only just too intelligent to work in a nail salon) Although, as a tax specialist myself, I would say that the majority of higher band income tax payers are graduates themselves, and therefore the whole system is justified in a roundabout way. It is the parents of the students studying courses like Media Studies who I feel are the most unfairly afflicted.

And the point is, it is the fault of the government that these courses are made available - not the students who are taking advantage of them being available.

if there is a willing supplier (i.e. the university wanting to increase their revenues through useless arbitrary degree disciplines) and there is a willing buyer (i.e. the parents of the overpriviledged yet under-educated) then there will always be these courses in the free market.

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

king wrote:

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

king wrote: actually- you got that wrong also as we team up with local secondary schools and sponsor a number or initiatives on bringing school leavers into the workplace. We train up business analysts, programmers etc. Its not just Uni's that can train people but glad you feel the better for it.

Fine, University is an option for some to delay entry into the working economy, but please do not form an opinion of an entire section of society based upon your preconceptions of all students being stereotypical hedonists. I went to better myself, so i wouldnt have to put up with admin jobs paying less than £20k per annum for the next 5 years. I applaud what your business is doing for young people, but surely even with your prejudices even you can appreciate that not every industry sector can afford to take a risk on a positive thinking school leaver? Why would a law firm (for instance) choose an 18YO who has not been trained and intensively educated in a specifically chosen field? University enables people to aim higher.

I do understand the need for Uni for many disciplines but there are many where it is just a place to doss off for a few years. That is what I do not appreciate particularly when the tax payer is paying for it. I would happily endorse a much more supportive financial environment for this that merit it but we desperately need to get away from the concept that Uni is a 3-4 year alcohol binge as seems to be the case too often.

That last point I completely agree with - even on my course the majority of students did not have the skills or desire to dedicate themselves to the field, and I am annoyed by the social culture of university as much as you are. (particularly the people who studied marketing, who are essentially made up of attractive women who are only just too intelligent to work in a nail salon) Although, as a tax specialist myself, I would say that the majority of higher band income tax payers are graduates themselves, and therefore the whole system is justified in a roundabout way. It is the parents of the students studying courses like Media Studies who I feel are the most unfairly afflicted.

And the point is, it is the fault of the government that these courses are made available - not the students who are taking advantage of them being available.

if there is a willing supplier (i.e. the university wanting to increase their revenues through useless arbitrary degree disciplines) and there is a willing buyer (i.e. the parents of the overpriviledged yet under-educated) then there will always be these courses in the free market.

As has been argued here already students are supposedly at the upper end of the learning tree so you would hope that they could rationalise this for themselves.

The market is speaking now with the lack of funding available so everyone should be happy!

king wrote:

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

king wrote:

Paul Skinnbach wrote:

king wrote: actually- you got that wrong also as we team up with local secondary schools and sponsor a number or initiatives on bringing school leavers into the workplace. We train up business analysts, programmers etc. Its not just Uni's that can train people but glad you feel the better for it.

Fine, University is an option for some to delay entry into the working economy, but please do not form an opinion of an entire section of society based upon your preconceptions of all students being stereotypical hedonists. I went to better myself, so i wouldnt have to put up with admin jobs paying less than £20k per annum for the next 5 years. I applaud what your business is doing for young people, but surely even with your prejudices even you can appreciate that not every industry sector can afford to take a risk on a positive thinking school leaver? Why would a law firm (for instance) choose an 18YO who has not been trained and intensively educated in a specifically chosen field? University enables people to aim higher.

I do understand the need for Uni for many disciplines but there are many where it is just a place to doss off for a few years. That is what I do not appreciate particularly when the tax payer is paying for it. I would happily endorse a much more supportive financial environment for this that merit it but we desperately need to get away from the concept that Uni is a 3-4 year alcohol binge as seems to be the case too often.

That last point I completely agree with - even on my course the majority of students did not have the skills or desire to dedicate themselves to the field, and I am annoyed by the social culture of university as much as you are. (particularly the people who studied marketing, who are essentially made up of attractive women who are only just too intelligent to work in a nail salon) Although, as a tax specialist myself, I would say that the majority of higher band income tax payers are graduates themselves, and therefore the whole system is justified in a roundabout way. It is the parents of the students studying courses like Media Studies who I feel are the most unfairly afflicted.

And the point is, it is the fault of the government that these courses are made available - not the students who are taking advantage of them being available.

if there is a willing supplier (i.e. the university wanting to increase their revenues through useless arbitrary degree disciplines) and there is a willing buyer (i.e. the parents of the overpriviledged yet under-educated) then there will always be these courses in the free market.

As has been argued here already students are supposedly at the upper end of the learning tree so you would hope that they could rationalise this for themselves.

The market is speaking now with the lack of funding available so everyone should be happy!

No, if it was left to the market we wouldn't have people studying astronomy or particle physics, as the market can't see the profit. That these disciplines may yield unforeseen benefits in the future is pretty much lost on the market. That is why we have to overcome the market's stupidity by publicly funding such pursuits.

So, that said, which disciplines do you feel we need a university system for?

King,
You keep mentioning tax-payers money implying that you funded my education. Last time I checked, it was my money that paid for my tuition fees, my education, my rent, my bills, etc. So, I'll hold my hands up if I'm mistaken but, what exactly did you pay for with your taxpayers money?

Dan2 wrote:
King,
You keep mentioning tax-payers money implying that you funded my education. Last time I checked, it was my money that paid for my tuition fees, my education, my rent, my bills, etc. So, I'll hold my hands up if I'm mistaken but, what exactly did you pay for with your taxpayers money?

He's just narked because tuition fees alone don't keep universities open. That'll be the justification for increasing tuition fees when the government make further cuts to the public money that universities receive.

The sad thing about King's view is that he resents paying for anything that he personally won't use, even if he benefits from living in a more developed society. Funnily enough, people who take that attitude happily pay for insurance year after year even if they don't need to claim on it.

Dan2 wrote:
King,
You keep mentioning tax-payers money implying that you funded my education. Last time I checked, it was my money that paid for my tuition fees, my education, my rent, my bills, etc. So, I'll hold my hands up if I'm mistaken but, what exactly did you pay for with your taxpayers money?

I love this debate which really just reinforces my experience on the lack of reality that pervades so many students.So you think £3000 a year pays for your University place. Take a look at the real cost and you will see where taxpayers i.e. folk like me pay.

I really did have to laugh when it got to who pays your bills etc. Really what kind of planet do you live on. They are your bills and your responsibility. Try looking up the word.

king wrote:

Dan2 wrote: King, You keep mentioning tax-payers money implying that you funded my education. Last time I checked, it was my money that paid for my tuition fees, my education, my rent, my bills, etc. So, I'll hold my hands up if I'm mistaken but, what exactly did you pay for with your taxpayers money?

I love this debate which really just reinforces my experience on the lack of reality that pervades so many students.So you think £3000 a year pays for your University place. Take a look at the real cost and you will see where taxpayers i.e. folk like me pay. I really did have to laugh when it got to who pays your bills etc. Really what kind of planet do you live on. They are your bills and your responsibility. Try looking up the word.

I think £3k per annum goes a lot further in real terms than it did all of those years ago when you had already made your mind up about students.

The thing is, the government are not stupid. They would not make these courses available, and university more accessible but for their estimates of the present value of future cash flows. It is statistically proven that on average a graduate earns up to £4k per annum more than a person of similar age who did not go to university. The government would be crazy to issue all of this debt (i.e. loans/grants/bursari
es) without having a matching future cash flow. If you look at the bigger picture, if it wasnt for people who take on the risk of a lifetime of debt in exchange for knowledge, the UK would still be in an industrial dark age.

Whatever your aspersions are towards students, the tax you pay to "fund" a student lifestyle has been more than repaid to you throughout generations of endeavour - resulting in the comfortable lives we all lead today. You should try and enrol and better yourself.

king wrote:

Dan2 wrote:
King,
You keep mentioning tax-payers money implying that you funded my education. Last time I checked, it was my money that paid for my tuition fees, my education, my rent, my bills, etc. So, I'll hold my hands up if I'm mistaken but, what exactly did you pay for with your taxpayers money?

I love this debate which really just reinforces my experience on the lack of reality that pervades so many students.So you think £3000 a year pays for your University place. Take a look at the real cost and you will see where taxpayers i.e. folk like me pay.

I really did have to laugh when it got to who pays your bills etc. Really what kind of planet do you live on. They are your bills and your responsibility. Try looking up the word.

I think you should fill us in on the real cost, King, as I have to admit I don't know what it is. You are so up tight about it that I assume you have the figures to hand. I would imagine, though, that it depends on what course you are doing, so it won't be just one figure.

It would also be useful if you could supply some figures on how much tax it costs you personally to keep universities functioning. Perhaps then I could feel your taxpaying pain.

A figure I do know is the debt a graduate starts their working life with. £18 000 in tuition fees and maintenance loans alone. Not the kind of debt you want to earn on a booze-up. That snipe is typical of the lack of reasoning you've been displaying throughout. You've seen some drunk students therefore all students spend their entire courses drunk. Good luck running that business on inductive logic.

Johnny Yesno wrote:

king wrote:

Dan2 wrote:
King,
You keep mentioning tax-payers money implying that you funded my education. Last time I checked, it was my money that paid for my tuition fees, my education, my rent, my bills, etc. So, I'll hold my hands up if I'm mistaken but, what exactly did you pay for with your taxpayers money?

I love this debate which really just reinforces my experience on the lack of reality that pervades so many students.So you think £3000 a year pays for your University place. Take a look at the real cost and you will see where taxpayers i.e. folk like me pay.

I really did have to laugh when it got to who pays your bills etc. Really what kind of planet do you live on. They are your bills and your responsibility. Try looking up the word.

I think you should fill us in on the real cost, King, as I have to admit I don't know what it is. You are so up tight about it that I assume you have the figures to hand. I would imagine, though, that it depends on what course you are doing, so it won't be just one figure.

It would also be useful if you could supply some figures on how much tax it costs you personally to keep universities functioning. Perhaps then I could feel your taxpaying pain.

A figure I do know is the debt a graduate starts their working life with. £18 000 in tuition fees and maintenance loans alone. Not the kind of debt you want to earn on a booze-up. That snipe is typical of the lack of reasoning you've been displaying throughout. You've seen some drunk students therefore all students spend their entire courses drunk. Good luck running that business on inductive logic.

Try some research.Thought thats what you guys did???

UoS expenditure is about £132m and approx 10500 students....

king wrote:

Johnny Yesno wrote:

king wrote:

Dan2 wrote:
King,
You keep mentioning tax-payers money implying that you funded my education. Last time I checked, it was my money that paid for my tuition fees, my education, my rent, my bills, etc. So, I'll hold my hands up if I'm mistaken but, what exactly did you pay for with your taxpayers money?

I love this debate which really just reinforces my experience on the lack of reality that pervades so many students.So you think £3000 a year pays for your University place. Take a look at the real cost and you will see where taxpayers i.e. folk like me pay.

I really did have to laugh when it got to who pays your bills etc. Really what kind of planet do you live on. They are your bills and your responsibility. Try looking up the word.

I think you should fill us in on the real cost, King, as I have to admit I don't know what it is. You are so up tight about it that I assume you have the figures to hand. I would imagine, though, that it depends on what course you are doing, so it won't be just one figure.

It would also be useful if you could supply some figures on how much tax it costs you personally to keep universities functioning. Perhaps then I could feel your taxpaying pain.

A figure I do know is the debt a graduate starts their working life with. £18 000 in tuition fees and maintenance loans alone. Not the kind of debt you want to earn on a booze-up. That snipe is typical of the lack of reasoning you've been displaying throughout. You've seen some drunk students therefore all students spend their entire courses drunk. Good luck running that business on inductive logic.

Try some research.Thought thats what you guys did???

UoS expenditure is about £132m and approx 10500 students....

Nice attempt at sidestepping the question, there. You're the one complaining about how much tax you pay for students to have a booze-up. How much of your taxes goes towards this? You must know what it is you're complaining about, right?

In arriving at your figure, I hope you've taken into account that much of that £132M is not spent on students directly. There's the infrastructure to maintain and salaries to pay including over £220,000 for the VC.

You should also take the university's income into account, such as research funding from businesses and higher tuition fee income from overseas students.

On top of that, university funding is not raised by local taxation but national taxation. That means that a simple £132M / 10,500 calculation is way off the mark.

For someone who lives in the "real world" you have an astonishing lack of understanding of the tax system.

really splitting hairs at this point. Methinks you will be impressing me with your macro-economic view of the world next week.

I am so impressed!

Bye!

king wrote:
really splitting hairs at this point. Methinks you will be impressing me with your macro-economic view of the world next week.

I am so impressed!

Bye!

Getting you to support your arguments with some actual facts is splitting hairs, is it?

Let's face it. You have a massive chip on your shoulder and were just taking the opportunity to have a rant about students. I tried to get you to justify your opinions but you can't. Now you're flouncing off in a huff because you've shown yourself to be no more than a blowhard. The door's over there. Don't sla- Oh, you did.

The University should unquestionably strive to keep and enhance it's world class Linguistics department - that the department has done so well with such a small faculty/staff should clarify that it is a valuable investment in University status, as well as a valuable resource for world scholarship.

Johnny Yesno wrote:

king wrote: really splitting hairs at this point. Methinks you will be impressing me with your macro-economic view of the world next week. I am so impressed! Bye!

Getting you to support your arguments with some actual facts is splitting hairs, is it? Let's face it. You have a massive chip on your shoulder and were just taking the opportunity to have a rant about students. I tried to get you to justify your opinions but you can't. Now you're flouncing off in a huff because you've shown yourself to be no more than a blowhard. The door's over there. Don't sla- Oh, you did.

agreed. Bye, "king".

I totally agree

I totally agree