I have to agree. This will be the first of many protests. There will be the odd riot as well. I think that longer term we could have more than under Maggie.

Well, they're just stopping people getting benefits anyways. Theres a guy up this way, in a wheelchair, needs 2 walking sticks to shuffle just a few feet and is on morphene as he's in constant pain 24 hours a day.

He's no longer eligible for mobility allowance apparently.

In fighting is not going to help anyone.

I expect to see more social action in the future, especially when the bank bonuses get announced. We're being taken for fools.

Yes many people will suffer even if they had nothing to do with the crisis. With the unemployment benefit changes many will find that it will be much tougher on the dole. I do think that some of the changes are sensible but the heavy handed nature will probably mean that in the end they will get abandoned. There is nothing about this that means that we are all in this together.

I'm terribly sorry but having watched what happened ( yes admittedly on TV so it only got the nasty bits ) my attitude is sod em, if they ( students ) behave like that why should tax payers help them.

heads for the nuclear fall out bunker.

A lot of people complain about what's happening, but I don't see anyone actually putting forward any alternatives.

Let's face facts - we're in the s****** far enough to see under the rim, and the way we've been wasting money in the past is unsustainable (particularly the welfare system) - we have to do something now or we'll end up like Ireland (or Greece). It may be painful for the next few years, but it has to be done - we can't go on spending money we don't have, and until that's sorted out things aren't going to improve.

Student grants are a tricky thing to sort out.

First off, they should be means-tested, but that's not a simple thing to do (look at how many parents aren't married, or live apart). Second, it should be related to the course being studied and the potential benefit to society in the future (after all, who would you prefer to support - a medical student or someone doing media studies?). Third, it should be used for things that are necessary (accommodation, books etc) and not wasted in the pub.

It's easy to complain about what the Government does - but try coming up with a viable alternative that doesn't cost money to implement and is fair to everyone.

I thought they were. When I was applying for my grant when I was going to university, there was a section for those who had not been financially independent for a few years. You had to fill in details of parents’ income. To me, that looked like means testing. Going in as a mature student, I didn’t need that bit, and I got a full grant.

Here’s the thing - those people complaining about grants being spent down the pub etc. may have a point. I saw a lot of people doing just that - and they were all the school leavers who saw university as a kind of free meal ticket. Maybe going straight to higher education from school is a bad thing. At that point, there is nothing to lose. However, going as a mature student means that you have given up something - a job and an income, which kind of shows a level of seriousness about it. On my course, the mature students seem to have done better, and we all agreed at the time that the risk and sacrifice was greater, and was a more powerful motivator to succeed.

My proposal would be for prospective students to show that they had been in the workplace for 4 years+ before being allowed near any kind of state funding for higher education. If you want to waste mummy and daddy’s money on a fool’s errand straight from school, then that’s your prerogative. If you want any kind of state support, prove you can hold down a job first.

It makes a kind of sense but wouldn't it in reality create an age divide in the student population? Every year you'd get 'rich' 18 year olds and 'poor' 22 year olds. Plus if you're rich, that means you'll effectively get a head start, because you can get your degree and be applying for graduate jobs before the 'poor' even have a chance to start their courses.

I'd prefer some sort of 'pay it back' scheme to be honest. You get a full grant if you're doing a degree which has obvious societal benefit and as a requirement you have to work for the state at a relatively modest wage for the same number of years afterwards. Once that's done, you're free - no student loans, you've paid it back in kind. This could be open to anyone who wants to apply given the course they are applying for has obvious application - so we're talking about degrees with required teacher training at the end or law or medical degrees or maybe engineering. But not media studies or what have you - you can do a degree in those if you like, but you'll have to pay for it yourself.

Jon

I am trying to remember - but I think it’s Russia where if you do higher education, you have to do a number of years of state work. So doctors have to work in state hospitals, teachers have to take a placement given to them by the state. After that time is up, you can work where you want.

Yeah, I think quite a few countries do it actually. Plus it's generally considered an alternative to doing national/military service as well, so if you get a degree and work for the state for a few years you don't have to spend a year in the army or whatever.

I don't think it should be mandatory for all graduates or anything, I just think it's a reasonable bargain between the state and the student. The student gets their degree without a mountain of debt, the state gets an skilled employee for a few years at a basic but still liveable wage.

Jon

Same in Finland, a year in the military or a year doing work in the community. However, that's just as it is, it isn't linked to education or anything.

They do look at the total amount coming in, but don't take any consideration as to what might be going out (loans, rent/mortgage payments, etc.)

In my eyes, everyone would get the same amount of money (if you come from a 'rich' background or a 'poor' background, you all get the same), and everyone has to pay that back in full. No/low interest, but you could start by paying small amounts (1-5% of monthly income) if you earn little, or larger amounts (say 10%) if you earn more (percentages are stab-in-the-dark numbers).
If you are doing a science, or engineering, it would be cheaper, if you were doing media studies, etc it would be more, but everything would be covered in the form of a no/low interest loan and everyone would get the same amount of maintenance.

Government pays out X amount and gets at least X back. These people would then, presumably, go and get relatively high paying jobs and pay more tax back to the country.

I like the idea of people working before going to uni, but then again if you did that you'd have to learn how to learn again...Though overall I do like the idea.

I've passed the idea on to my local MP - see what response I get

That’s what I had to do. I went on an Access Course - which was just that - learning to learn. You come out with a certificate with the equivalent of A level standard in a number of subjects, and that is acceptable to Universities for degree entry. Given that there is a lot of grumbling from Universities about having to run remedial courses for students because schools don’t teach the subjects properly any more, this kind of thing would probably not be a bad idea. You learn proper academic practices, get your skills honed and then if you pass, you can proceed to the degree course.

Oddly, this kind of thing has been done in art and design for a very long time - you have to do a Foundation course before you can progress to a degree. During the Foundation course, you specialise through the year. My Art & Design Access course paralleled this, but had extra classes for academic practice. I think other disciplines could do well to adopt this kind of approach.

Was that written by Paul Calf? So anti student.