"Student fees may have to rise or be diverted from teaching."

[The Birdman]

It doesn't matter....Jeremy Corbyn will get it all written off for them anyway won't he??

He will promise to write it off and once elected then say he didint mean it like he said last week about Ex students debts on the Andrew Marr Show.

 

[El Presidente]

It's generally accepted the grammar schools are a better environment

News to me. Educational research does not support that viewpoint.

 

[PILTDOWN MAN]

They ended 5 years ago for new employees, and going forward for current employees. For folk like me who have been paying into a final salary scheme for 35 years, we have an expectation that the terms advertised when we paid the money would be met. If you get a mortgage on your house, pay it for 25 years, then go to collect the deeds, you don't expect to be told, 'sorry old son, we cocked up our risk assessment, and now you can't have the house unless you pay another £50 thousand. I have been paying £500 a month due to the need to make up for the shortage of years - university academics don't start their proper job till they are late 20s at th3 earliest. I accepted that during the last 5 years the additional bnefit wil be based on average rather than final salary. What I fear now is that my 'pot' will be 'adjusted' to take account of 'prvailing economic circumstances'. If the pension company try to pull that stunt thn there will be consequences.

I haven't read the whole thread but for the message to which I reply perhaps there is a sense that we academics sit around in tweed jackets drinking sherry, while our secretaries send off our letters to Nature, and our children go from prep school to Eton. Far from it. Th money is shit. In the early 90s, I nearly lost my (small end of terrace victorian) house because my take hom pay (£1000) did not allow me to live and pay the mortgage (which crept up to £800 thanks to Lawson's boom and bust). It has taken dcades to get my finances in order. It comes as little surprise that just as I am about to slump into the prone posture of retirement, the incompetant beast of capital is sneaking up, once again, to roger me up the backside. Marvellous.

I know what you need, some eeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee's

 

[ManOfSussex]

There's lots of magic money trees in the offshore forests though.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

It's generally accepted the grammar schools are a better environment (as so many Labour MPs put their kids in them if they can as well as the Tories). We need to accept that not all kids are academically minded, so maybe we should reconsider what education is for. How many people do jobs which don't really require much in the way of traditional education (apart from an understanding of the language and basic maths)?

I was unfortunate enough to go to Tideway. There were many kids there who had no interest in education and were disruptive. Also, the standard of teaching was poor IMO. So how do we address the issue of those who want to get on and study being in the same school as those who don't?

So do we make every school a grammar? Is it this simple? I don't think it is.

As an aside when did you go to Tideway. Yes there were some disruptive kids with little interest but I do not feel this hindered me. I also felt the standard of teaching was fine. Both my brother and myself got what we needed and went on to further study. Ive always been grateful to the school. Maybe we're talking about different eras.

 

[dazzer6666]

From what I read recently, this is no longer the case for some/many in the public sector. This used to be the case, but has changed. Many in the private sector have had wages freezes/cuts since the financial crash as well.

A big problem is expectations though IMO. So many expect(ed) to wok for 30 years and then retire on 2/3 final salary. So, they start work say at 20, retire at 50 and live until 75/80. It logically does not make sense that you can generate enough 'wealth' in 30 years to cover your consumption for your life. Until the is addressed in the public sector these type of issues won't get addressed.

True enough - the maths simply din't work. People are going to have get used to the fact that the retirement age will drift later and later, and has to due to the increase in life expectancy.

Salaries have seen little or no movement for the majority in my industry in recent years (pretty common now to get a small increase say once every 3 years), but this has resulted in people being far more willing to move firms to get an increase instead, so wage inflation is still happening.

 

[Big G]

He will promise to write it off and once elected then say he didint mean it like he said last week about Ex students debts on the Andrew Marr Show.

Exactly.
Bloke's an utter shyster!

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

He will promise to write it off and once elected then say he didint mean it like he said last week about Ex students debts on the Andrew Marr Show.

If you don't Corbyn, that's ok. But perpetuating the myth that he promised to write off student debt, a promise that he NEVER actually made, just makes you look like a bit of a fool.

 

[Thunder Bolt]

If you don't Corbyn, that's ok. But perpetuating the myth that he promised to write off student debt, a promise that he NEVER actually made, just makes you look like a bit of a fool.

A few days ago I posted a video of the Shadow Justice minister saying exactly that. Corbyn may be the leader but he's not the only Labour MP who made promises.

 

[Neville's Breakfast]

I agree too, but over 60% of those aged 18 don't go to university.

The problem starts at 16 with too many students going into sixth form when it would be more appropriate for them to be in paid work. This has an effect on per pupil school funding and ridiculous A level class sizes. The Blair Government created a culture of large numbers continuing in full time education with no sensible plans as to how to pay for it and no extra graduate jobs when they finish. Consequently graduate salaries are depressed as large numbers apply for few jobs.

 

[El Presidente]

The problem starts at 16 with too many students going into sixth form when it would be more appropriate for them to be in paid work. This has an effect on per pupil school funding and ridiculous A level class sizes. The Blair Government created a culture of large numbers continuing in full time education with no sensible plans as to how to pay for it and no extra graduate jobs when they finish. Consequently graduate salaries are depressed as large numbers apply for few jobs.

I suspect many 16 year olds choose additional education because see it as enhancing their life long employment opportunities.

The apprenticeship scheme that is an alternative to A Levels/FE/HE is unfortunately shambolic, and offers relatively little incentive.

I think the best system is the German one, which has fewer people going into (no tuition fee) HE, but also a well organised, well funded, and well instructed vocational training scheme. But Germany has also has an economy which is 30% manufacturing, at least twice that of the UK, so there are jobs for these people to go into. Engineers and scientists are valued in Germany, unlike the UK.

 

[BensGrandad]

I think that many go into 6th form college to avoid joining the unemployed queue and do not follow up their 6th form with a job that it is education for.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

I think that many go into 6th form college to avoid joining the unemployed queue and do not follow up their 6th form with a job that it is education for.

Education of one sort or other is compulsory now. Unemployment is not a 'thing' for 16-18 year olds.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

If you don't Corbyn, that's ok. But perpetuating the myth that he promised to write off student debt, a promise that he NEVER actually made, just makes you look like a bit of a fool.

He was happy enough at the time not to deny it even though it was oft repeated. It gained a lot of traction for Labour and his recent comments are disgraceful.

 

[midnight_rendezvous]

He was happy enough at the time not to deny it even though it was oft repeated. It gained a lot of traction for Labour and his recent comments are disgraceful.

His comments that he didn't promise to wipe out existing student debt, something that's actually true, is disgraceful? He promised to abolish tuition fees and said he would 'look into' existing student debt, nothing more. This stance was surprisingly more welcome to young people than the Tories stance, where a rise in tuition fees is on the horizon.

 

[Green Cross Code Man]

His comments that he didn't promise to wipe out existing student debt, something that's actually true, is disgraceful? He promised to abolish tuition fees and said he would 'look into' existing student debt, nothing more. This stance was surprisingly more welcome to young people than the Tories stance, where a rise in tuition fees is on the horizon.

I will retract and apologise for my statement. In my haste, i read student debt for tuition fees. I am a silly boy.

 

[chip]

Worrying indeed and not for the first time. Now we have a cap on the final salary element (£55k?) and a strange choice of contribution-based systems. Interesting that people think that academics could get a 2/3 pension after 20 years. It used to be 0.5 after 40 and, as you rightly point out, getting 40 years of service after a PhD and postdoc is going to make you nearer 70. After the last changes I have little idea what to expect and am paying more for it.

I remember a few years ago when USS got into its last troubles someone saying student fees would have to go up to plug the black hole - not sure how that would work. The money isn't great and I know of very few colleagues who do less than 40 hours a week and would expect that they won't have a job for much longer. TEF, REF, research income, teaching assessements, leadership targets all make the job less pleasant. "Teaching" classes of 300 plus is very challenging and quite routine now. I agree with you that this has now got to a critical point and is becoming unsustainable. It seems that all the Russell group are in crisis and people will be losing their jobs soon. What wonderful news that their pensions have also collapsed.

But I think I have worked out who you are Harry Wilson's tackle, from the old seagulls mailing list?

They ended 5 years ago for new employees, and going forward for current employees. For folk like me who have been paying into a final salary scheme for 35 years, we have an expectation that the terms advertised when we paid the money, up to any change going forward, would be met. If you get a mortgage on your house, pay it for 25 years, then go to collect the deeds, you don't expect to be told, 'sorry old son, we cocked up our risk assessment, and now you can't have the house unless you pay another £50 thousand'. I have been paying £500 a month due to the need to make up for my shortage of employment years - university academics don't start their proper job till they are late 20s at the earliest. I accepted that during the last 5 years and the next few, the acruing benefit going forward will be based on average rather than final salary. What I fear now is that my 'pot' will be 'adjusted' to take account of 'prevailing economic circumstances'. In other words the buggers are not going to meet the longstanding contractual arrangements. If the pension company (for it is a private company, not the university itself) try to pull that stunt then there will be consequences.

I haven't read the whole thread but for the message to which I reply perhaps there is a sense that we academics sit around in tweed jackets drinking sherry, while our secretaries send off our letters to Nature, and our children go from prep school to Eton. Far from it. The money is shit. In the early 90s, I nearly lost my (small end of terrace victorian) house because my take home pay (£1000) did not allow me to live and pay the mortgage (which crept up to £800 thanks to Lawson's boom and bust). It has taken dcades to get my finances in order. It comes as little surprise that just as I am about to slump into the prone posture of retirement, the incompetant beast of capital is sneaking up, once again, to roger me up the backside. Marvellous.

With respect to student fees, I just don't understand that. The universities, which are nominally independent but are a actually nationalised industry like the 'health service', give mone from themselves and from our pay packet to a private company to manage our pensions. It is for the company to take responsibility. I can only assume that the manager in chief (the government) thinks there are so many staff involved it will destroy the higher education sector if we all get shafted, and so is going into panic mode, scoping around for a solution, and mooting 'soak the students'. That will never work.

Personally I do not think we can afford our higher education sector. Where I work we teach medical students, among others, at a prestigious teaching hospital, and other allied health professionals. We also have highly ranked research. However the latter is mostly fluff and operates like football, massive income, massive spend, but not a lot achieved). Most of the UK provides scond rate degrees with little real value (exacerbated by Mr Tony turning simple polytchnics into universities) and undertakes little or no rsearch. We could close 70% of them, but the effect would be catestrophic, since there would be a sudddn glut of 16-21 year olds looking for jobs formerly taken by 21 year olds with a degree in sanitation management from the university of cntral England (Neasdon polytechnic). Personally I am gnerally in favour of extended education; however it seems very clear now that the nation cannot afford to pay for it.

This is all separate however from the massive cock up overseen by the private company that manags the pensions. Perhaps I should take my money and run, now, before I'm told 'sorry, the cupboard is bare'.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Indeed. A worry.

Yes I was and still am on the Mailing List. PM me

Worrying indeed and not for the first time. Now we have a cap on the final salary element (£55k?) and a strange choice of contribution-based systems. Interesting that people think that academics could get a 2/3 pension after 20 years. It used to be 0.5 after 40 and, as you rightly point out, getting 40 years of service after a PhD and postdoc is going to make you nearer 70. After the last changes I have little idea what to expect and am paying more for it.

I remember a few years ago when USS got into its last troubles someone saying student fees would have to go up to plug the black hole - not sure how that would work. The money isn't great and I know of very few colleagues who do less than 40 hours a week and would expect that they won't have a job for much longer. TEF, REF, research income, teaching assessements, leadership targets all make the job less pleasant. "Teaching" classes of 300 plus is very challenging and quite routine now. I agree with you that this has now got to a critical point and is becoming unsustainable. It seems that all the Russell group are in crisis and people will be losing their jobs soon. What wonderful news that their pensions have also collapsed.

But I think I have worked out who you are Harry Wilson's tackle, from the old seagulls mailing list?

 

[Hastings gull]

News to me. Educational research does not support that viewpoint.

And what "research" would that be? Not long ago, we had someone on here, saying that "research" proved that had he gone to another school, he would have done better!!

 

[knocky1]

And what "research" would that be? Not long ago, we had someone on here, saying that "research" proved that had he gone to another school, he would have done better!!

He was wrong as that research would have said he had a much better chance of doing better, if he'd gone to a better school he would have phrased it differently and been right.