You forgot the whippets -- Lozzo Versys 650 Inter-Continental Hyperbolistic Missile , CBR600F-W racebike in the making, TS250C, RD400F (somewhere) BMW E46 318iSE (it's a car, not one of those 2-wheeled pieces of shite they churn out)
wrote: Not sure I'd go that far. It's more an attempt to add some detail to the discussion, rather that have it continue in a debate between "**** 'em" and "no poor person will ever go to uni again". I'm not sure it worked.
In reality I don't get the hysteria about the 'poor', this policy surely targets the middle income families transferring the burden of education funding from the state either to the parents or the children of said middle income parents? I must admit I am very disappointed though that people feel they can sign a document and then ignore it because they didn't get elected. However... I'm a pragmatist and in their situation I don't really want to consider how I would respond. Abstain seems a good response for the back-benchers. I'm also quietly amused by the response of a lot of the protestors that I've been observing on twitter, websites etc. etc. etc. Amused by the impact it's had on me; I've moved on from berating my children for *not* demonstrating to feeling that I can accept the rise in fees because I feel so alienated from the views expressed. Maybe I'm in a minority?
For detail I still think this has yet to be beaten (though I'm happy to be pointed at anything similar) for pointing out that it's not about the fees. http://www.lrb.co.uk/v32/n21/stefan-collini/brownes-gamble "Much of the initial response to the Browne Report seems to have missed the point. Its proposals have been discussed almost entirely in terms of ‘a rise in fees’. Analysis has largely concentrated on the amount graduates might pay and on which social groups may gain or lose by comparison with the present system. In other words, the discussion has focused narrowly on the potential financial implications for the individual student, and here it should be recognised that some of the details of Browne’s proposed system of graduate contributions to the cost of fees are, if his premises are granted, an improvement on the present patchwork arrangements. But the report proposes a far, far more fundamental change to the way universities are financed than is suggested by this concentration on income thresholds and repayment rates. Essentially, Browne is contending that we should no longer think of higher education as the provision of a public good, articulated through educational judgment and largely financed by public funds (in recent years supplemented by a relatively small fee element). Instead, we should think of it as a lightly regulated market in which consumer demand, in the form of student choice, is sovereign in determining what is offered by service providers (i.e. universities). The single most radical recommendation in the report, by quite a long way, is the almost complete withdrawal of the present annual block grant that government makes to universities to underwrite their teaching, currently around £3.9 billion. This is more than simply a ‘cut’, even a draconian one: it signals a redefinition of higher education and the retreat of the state from financial responsibility for it." lacked conviction.
Empty rooms are appearing in the corridors of my dept. Academics that retire or move to new pastures aren't being replaced. Most of the tutors on my course are part time. A mate in year 2 of his PhD is being asked to increase his teaching commitments: when I was an undergrad they mostly did the undergrad seminars and the odd guest lecture spot. Now he is being asked to teach entire modules on Masters courses. Of course, once he gets his PhD they won't give him a job as there will be another cheap doctoral student to take his place.
How does this differ from any other industry? Any paid role in education is ultimately still just a job, and you'll find people in jobs all over the world are asked to do things above and beyond their contracted roles all the time.
Most of them just get on with it but that's probably because they've been dealing with similar situations all their working lives. I might be able to find a shred of sympathy if the universities start bringing in East European contractors on 50% of the rate they'd been previously paying but until then tough luck.
Hang on, a Ph.D isn't 'training for another role', it's (usually funded) research to get a doctorate. The funding is naturally only for a finite duration too, just like any other fixed period contract in industry. Would you expect everyone else with a fixed period contract to be offered a paid permanent role at the end of a fixed term contract, or a more senior role just because they'd gained new skills on the job? I wouldn't. And out there in industry I regularly see dozens of people take on additional work, be sent abroad for months at a time, run projects alongside their day job, get seconded to manage whole departments - for no extra money, or guarantee of promotion. I'm not saying it's right, I'm just saying it's how things are, and education shouldn't be surprised that the practices that have become rife in the private sector are now finding their way to the public sector.
I've never claimed the entire UK software industry is being shipped offshore, more that a large amount of technology work has been going there in recent years, at the expense of local growth, and will continue to do so. It's not just technology, that's quite a mature market now. The next 10 years will see Accounting, HR and procurement, that sort of thing s being moved now by various PLC's. Even the NHS is doing it with back-office jobs, and after this batch of cuts it wouldn't be a surprise to see several councils jump onboard. How about at customers or suppliers you've worked with in your job, have you never seen that kind of thing happen there either?
IME most people with office jobs don't seem to think that trade unions are relevant to them, even when they're being screwed by their employer. The only significant exception being the public or ex-public sector.
Really? I've seen many of the above in my career. I would comment for balance though that being sent abroad for months at a go is usually something people want to do.
I've done both, and never seen the sort of thing that Ginge decribes either. Although I've been aware of it at Ginge's mob, who I've worked with several times over the years.
Probably has a lot to do with it. But surely you've been in 'crunch' times when you've been asked to take on other responsibilities due to lack of resources? I know I often have to take responsibility for things completely outside of my remit.
