Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
another day, another example of Tory ___________
fill in the missing blank
What's this about? I need to know whether to ignore it or be suitably outraged.
by paying up front to create extra places
the BBC analysis is actually rather softer than for instance the Guardian article
Yeah, shoddy idea. Rabble Rabble Rabble etc.
(Would be amazed if it happens in the form it currently appears to be in)
is there a form I have to fill in?
geddit? i'm here all...&c.
but I'm having a good time
coupon = slang for face
coupon = kinda like a form. kinda. coupons sometimes have a little form on them that you have to fill in.
fill in = punch
fill in a form ~= fill in a coupon = punch in the face
i'm wasted on you guys
."It was usual around the Glasgow area for bus and tram tickets to be called coupons, especially if they allowed for multiple journeys. Each time a journey was made, the coupon had a hole punched in it by the conductor. The next most common thing to get "punched" around Glasgow was someones face. Hence coupon and face became synonymous."
and I've never even been to Scotchland
HERE'S A JOKE:
What do you call a 9x9 grid of numbers attempting to ferment an uprising as a cover for an ulterior motive.
Usage: Both foment and ferment can be used to talk about stirring up trouble. - Collins English Dictionary
"An Uprising " here refers to a new ale they're producing in their micro-brewery. It's rich, dark, with strong fruit overtones but a top note of citrus hops (fuggles). They describe the taste as "revolutionary".
I've just got amnuck's Coup version because of it though.
But I do now.
Su -do -ku.
but like, it's not really news is it, i basically wake up expecting this stuff to happen nowadays
and this is the kind of s**t it's going to generate.
I can't wait to be 120
if they're creating EXTRA PLACES, then i think this could possibly be argued for. they're not taking anything away from anyone else (apart from maybe teaching/contact time? tricky...), yet it's going to create revenue for the universities. also, the revenue'll be immediate, you won't have to wait years for them to start earning £21,000 to pay stuff back.
isk because on first look it seems totally out of order. i think i'd like to wait and see before i made some immediate scorning remark about this.
basically - if the rich have the money, and want to pay, and it won't take anything away from anyone else - why should we stop them? (ok it's not that simple but... hmm.)
so yeah, shoot me.
due to an insufficient number of places. This will surely result in a net increase in the number of people going to university.
Even without this proposal, universities are increasing the number of overseas students to compensate for the reduction of central government funding. I guess it depends whether you think that the intake of our best universities should be increasingly determined a student’s ability to pay the higher fee rate rather than on potential academic ability.
I know people say that overseas students effectively subsidise the UK-based quota-ed students, but that will only continue for so long. A good example to look at is the Architectural Association school in London. During the 1960s and 1970s the most talented architectural students used to complete their training there on scholarships and the like. Due to changing to a fees-based system, it’s now a finishing school for wealthy overseas students and only a handful of UK students pass through its doors thesedays. That took 20 years. If things continue as they are, Oxford and Cambridge will almost certainly go the same way in the same period of time.
You're awarding (a proportion) of places, presumably at top universities, based on ability to pay, not academic ability. The extra competition post-graduation would almost certainly harm the chances of everyone who didn't have the ability to pay of doing as well post-university.
I assume that it'll be treated in the same way as non-EU students at the moment.
regardless of ability (although it probably does read like that). The point I was trying to make was more that by giving the wealthy a second bite of the cherry if they're unlucky to not get in first time round that the non-wealthy don't get, in 20/30 years time, you'll *probably* end up with the wealthy dominating the top jobs etc more than they would otherwise.
Old hat now this, sadly.
back to Victorianism?
Let's force this one through and see our Gini Coefficient go THROUGH THE ROOF. That'd be funny, right?
I'm a fan of things like this though, because sometimes I think "You'll never catch me voting for him... but David Cameron isn't really as bad as feared, is he?" and THEN he goes and suggests something like this which means I end up back in my default position of "Kill him... kill him now". I'm happier here so, fair play.
but don't actually let their kids go? We could call it 'income tax' or something.
couldn't the uni just not accept them first time round and make them pay the full whack if they want to go
I'm pretty certain that my Cambridge application had to include information on my parents' occupations and university education. That might be different now.
Though if I remember correctly, it's has a disclaimer attached saying this will not be used as a criteria for acceptance, just adds to their statistics on access from non-traditional backgrounds. If practise positive discrimination though, mine worked fucking wonders.
Your Cambridge application... had to include information on my parents' occupations... and university education?
What the actual fucking fuck is that all a fucking bout?
it would have been used to increase the numbers of students from poorer backgrounds (I know that it used to be pretty common practice for applicants to underplay their privileges).
There was little chance of me getting in anyway – they only took 28 students a year.
i've always been wary of positive discrimination.
I think universities are obliged to collect the statistics to demonstrate that their access arrangements are working - much like how your doctors surgery will ask you about your ethnic background when you join up.
and then obliged to provide the stats to HESA:
to ask for the background of students' parents isn't it? For statistical purposes, so we can all have a moan when oxford don't take enough paupers and stuff?
Fairly sure it's not going to affect an application much, why would some admin chump care what background an applicant's got, couldn't the admissions tutor just figure it all out in the interview anyway?
And I spent ages making up those hobbies as well.
hur hur. backdoor.
That system was grossly unfair but that's by the by.
Anyway, reducing places to favour the rich is fucking bollocks.
or was there a recommendation for less funded places in the Browne Review?
Quite possibly the tuition fee cock up. The government budgeted for an average fee of £7500, not £8500+, so there isn't enough money to pay the universities up front for all places, hence cuts and the government looking for a new way of funding them instead.
"It's no good guys, even I can't think of a crass retort to this one. You'll have to pull it."
and it turns out that a bunch of indie kids don't like it.