Your inability to use apostrophes when you have an English Language degree.

Deliberate error?

Nah. Wires 71's error was deliberate though.

I got my degree in analising and critiquing articles written bye linguists.

I don't go round critiquing internet forums.

I still got my degree minus my 'lack of apostrophes'.

Maybe you'll all show a bit more tolerance towards the current unrest when there's more crime at home with less police and fewer prison spaces; when your children are sharing a class with 39 other pupils with one teacher between 3 classes; when you're paying more for health care and when you're reapplying for own job as a jobshare!
For the sake of your country and Warrington Rugby League: get out there and RIOT!!!!! SMASH THE PLACE UP!!!
(Meet at Robin Park, Wigan, Saturday, 3.00pm)

Blair's idea of 50% in HE was based on the idea that we are now in the era of the 'knowledge economy' based on the service sector. In the old days you had unskilled and skilled workers, and the skilled workers were people who could operate new technologies....now the kind of technology mainly used it business is IT and the internet which doesn't require high technical skill to use so 'skilled' workers are people who have some knowledge which they can use for productive gain.

As technology has improved we've seen a rise in wage inequality because technological progress tends to replace workers, it puts unskilled people out of their old jobs onto the dole, while it puts skilled people out of their old jobs into new jobs where their skills/knowledge are now more productive so they get higher wages. But there's a natural correction mechanism in the supply. More people see that if you up your 'skill' in the knowledge economy (ie go into higher education) then you get better wages, so more people want to do it, that increases the supply of the 'skilled' workers and so it pushes down their wages, or in the case of when the demand for these services drops (like the last few years) it means more of them are unable to find work.

Most of the courses people describe as 'mickey mouse' degrees are vocational ones targeted at a sector, they have as much value as there is demand in the sector, eg 'tourism management' is worth it if the tourism sector is booming and you learn relevant knowledge on the course. If the sector doesn't have enough demand or the curriculum doesn't give you anything relevant then its a problem. Then you get a high number of graduates doing 'traditional' subjects like History and Classics who get no relevant knowledge and rely on the idea that they have 'transferable skills', but when the graduates have spent 3 years socialising and then done enough to get a 2:1 expecting to get a good job, they realise they have got no magic 'transferable' skills that joe public who has been working in the real world hasn't got.

Ive got 3 kids approaching Uni age, have only ever voted Labour and I totally support what the govt is doing in principle. However, the govt should subsidize heavily the courses we need, medicine, science and the other subjects where we lack the skills and provide no support for crap like comtemporary dance if not all Art subjects etc. You cant keep asking the workers to pay more and more for someone else's hobby. A simple formula for deciding which courses are worth subsidizing using a bit of volume data-
quantity people with specific degree
people with a job related to degree
vacancies by degree skill

all of a sudden we realise we have millions of people with art related degrees of no value to the nation

I'm not sure why the police let them riot, there is an easy solution - water cannon. They dont like getting washed so this should make them run. If not they will probably freeze to death,either way - job done !

Nicked from newspaper today:

In the interests of fairness, shouldn't all 18 year olds be offered a low-interest £27000 loan, which they can do with as they please...

There's certainly more crime now with the wasters your supporting.Wouldn't p$ss on a student if he was on fire.Load of freeloaders imo.Constantly hear them at the gym saying had a late night,got in at 3 smashed + didn't get up until 12,and you want me support the losers!Just an excuse to have 5 yrs getting off their heads.Coppers should have been tougher instead of being softies.Wouldn't pussyfoot about in most other countries.In the name of Warrington RLFC you say!Now that statement just shows what a turdhead you are.

Yeah give them a loan,most of them would stock up on wkd blue and condoms!!!!!!!!They should of all listened more at school in the first place!!

Yes they should have.

You can talk all you want about there being an 'option' to go to university. It simply isn't an option to any sensible young adult.

I forget the statistic off the top of my head but i believe there was a figure bounded about of 2 million new jobs for uni graduates while a few thousand for those without.

We can admit that universities are getting saturated and you can belittle degrees as much as you want; the fact remains, however, that over the past 13 years the emphasis on university education has been magnified greatly. You could say that the best way to cut the massive influx is to price out those who are either not wealthy enough or not willing to get in as much as debt as another person. You still have the problem of an uneven distribution of jobs between the new "skilled" degree holders and those that will be left with no university education.

The government has made their bed in the respect that they have created an influx of uni students, now they must lie in it. If we hold ourselves to any standard we would not have the most expensive education in the first world. Even more expensive than the US (excluding ivy league schools)

Also, these remarks about students being a dross or drunkards. Makes me sick. We frown upon people saying all Moslems are terrorists or that all women should be in the kitchen. Why is it acceptable to portray students as drains on society. The vast majority are hard working people with good moral fibre. Don't envy the young for being young. It is very unbecoming.

As i have said i support the protests in every respect. I do not support violence. That has only been a small section of the students though (in fact the majority was actually other fringe groups) These protests will eventually sway government and i hope that there is a showing like that every week for the 5 years of this current government. They need to know that they have wronged.

students,the cheeky tax dodging bar stewards.

Thats a great post no one is saying its all students are they the post is called Student Protests and that is what most people on here are passing judgement on,well that and the news and the front page headlines over the past several days.....It doznt paint a very good picture does it??

Okay, most. You need only look at the post above yours or the several above mine. There is a massive generalisation of students.
The story in the papers is just that; a great story.
With every protest there will be a fringe element that takes it too far. Unfortunately i suspect that they acted as a catalyst to some students who went there with good intentions. Of course the actions of the police were a major reason for the outbursts yesterday. Their tactics were way off. Holding them all together with the trouble makers, letting the violent protesters at the supreme court and treasury and then themselves getting violent towards the them. Some people went with war on their mind yesterday. A lot of the police were happy to oblige. This only added to the anger.

We can scoth and condemn those that vandalised the Churchill statue or at pink Floyd guitarist's son on the cenotaph (he admitted he got swept up in the anger) but we must also remember that there are students and children in hospital today. One bleeding into the brain (I believe) after he was hit in the head with a police baton.

It was an ugly day for politics yesterday (i feel that it was ugly for a reason. A good cause) but the blame should not be entirely on the students. We must remember that the students had planned a peaceful protest and a little meeting which was altered by the authorities

Chasing Royal cars is an urban pastime. Don't these country folk no anything about our ways!

The thing is most protests are supposed to be peacefull,but for some reason they never are,put it down to heavy handedness of the police or a small minority of thugs or just put it down to everyone fighting for the same thing!!!
it all ends the same way things gettin set on fire things gettin destroyed or people being carted off to hospital with all sorts of injuries!

Anybody else notice that only one student has been confirmed as being involved in the trouble. Some hoorah Henry from Cambridge. These increased fees will only last for a couple of years at the most as, like every major polictial decision made since the mid seventies, it is made based on polictial idiology and survival rather than economic benefit. When these measures start to hit "average" families who at the last election may have voted Tory and it looks like the Tories will lose the support, they will be reassessed.

I don't have a problem with the repayments system under these proposals. It is linked to earnings, and the threshold where you start to pay back has gone up from £15000 a year to £21000 a year. They are charging a (fairly low) rate of interest on the amount due but because it's taken out as an extra 'tax', you won't get bailiffs coming round and it gets written off after 30 years so if you end up never earning much you will just have a small (or none) extra tax and the outstanding amount will be written off in the end. When people say 'graduates will come out owing £40000' its a bit misleading because effectively that's an extra tax burden: if you want to look at it like that then everybody owes hundreds of thousands right now because thats what the government is going to take off you in the future, in VAT, petrol duty, income tax, NI and the rest of it! The thing to watch for though is I bet the government keeps that threshold of £21k fixed for a good few years rather than increasing it in line with inflation. Inflation is 4.5% at the moment so if they don't raise the threshold then in five years time that will be equivalent to a threshold of about £16800 in todays money. This is probably a tactic they have factored in to the costings.

I can see the argument for it being fairer that this repayment 'tax' is a burden which falls to graduates themselves rather than general taxation otherwise everybody else ends up subsidising graduates for having an advantage which usually leads to them earning more. However I don't think the government should remove its subsidy to the costs of students university education, because its not just a private gain, its a social gain in that the economy relies on graduates. Developing countries have problems of the 'brain drain' ie their graduates go overseas where they can earn more which leaves them with a shortage, if we incentivise people not to go then we could end up with a shortage that will lead us having to rely on increasing skilled immigration to fill the gap. If you look at Australia they have a shortage of graduates in the financial and business sectors so they rely heavily on Indians and in a lot of financial companies there the management is dominated by Indians, who hire other Indian graduates, sometimes Indian graduates from Aussie universities. So this causes social tensions.

100% support for the protests. Non violent protest don't make the front page so again I support it 100%. Attacking the Royal family car, 1000%. Parasites. I do wonder though if that was set up. Maybe people we're getting used to seeing the lone police van, with more press around than protesters, being attacked !!

Whilst Scotland offer free University places and Wales says they will not increase fees, England have voted to double/ treble the fees for it's students. I thought this was a United Kingdom? Seems to me you are penalised for being a student in England!

Despite several discussions with my student daughter I am struggling to see what they are protesting about. At the moment they get loans and grants to pay for Uni education which they have to start repaying once they earn above £15000. With the proposals they get loans and grants to pay for Uni education which they have to start repaying once they earn above £21000 to take into account the higher amount borrowed. It won't stop poor children going to Uni - no-one pays up front anyway. Yes they leave with a debt but that debt is repayable through their wages when they could be earning a decent wage. If I was a student I would be more upset that we weren't on a level playing field across the UK.

one thing about these so called students going on a protest,it gives the police a break from chasing proper criminals..i.e the motorists..just think an afternoon without a few quid in the bank..

No they wont....they'll just get less and less support from the man in the street.

I heard an interview on the radio and a student really couldnt believe that the lib-dems hadnt kept their pre election promise....

its quite scary that real world isnt it....