They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?


--
Adam

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:38:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

£107.20 for a 40hr week. Damn near twice JSA for a 16-24yo.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

How much do Uni students get paid?

On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?


More to the point, would you? Is there any guarantee that you'll try and
teach them something?

On 7/2/2013 1:38 PM, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

If the apprentice master is a good teacher, yes.

On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?


Better than having to pay for the apprenticeship, as once was the practice.

Colin Bignell

stuart noble wrote:
On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?


More to the point, would you? Is there any guarantee that you'll try
and teach them something?

It's guaranteed that I could teach them something. It's up to them if they
want to learn.

--
Adam

"ARW" wrote in message
...
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20
a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

I was paid peanuts when I was an apprentice and I was worked like a dog.
My C&G is still valid but worthless.
I should have learnt to play that guitar.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wTP2RUD_cL0

Adrian wrote:
£107.20 for a 40hr week. Damn near twice JSA for a 16-24yo.

Rent £60-ish a week, gas+leccy+water £20 or so a week, food another £20 or so a week, transport at least another tenner, that's £110 so far, presumably clothes, TV license, phone, books, newspapers, etc., costs a negative amount...

JGH

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:38:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

At one time the apprentice would pay to learn from the master so, on
balance, its not a bad deal really.

David

On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

Most "students" don't get any pay and even have to pay for the course
themselves. A decent apprenticeship is a good option.

SteveW

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 8:09:12 PM UTC+1, wrote:
Adrian wrote:

£107.20 for a 40hr week. Damn near twice JSA for a 16-24yo.

Rent £60-ish a week,

that pays for a room in many areas. I'm not sure you'd get a broom cupboard for that in London.

gas+leccy+water £20 or so a week,

a grand per bedroom per year? no way. closer to 1500pa per 5 beds, or 300pa each = £6 pw

food another £20 or so a week,

£15's enough, thats £81 so far

transport at least another tenner,

I walked or biked at that age.


that's £110 so far

£81pw leaves £26 more for other bits. Generous no, but sufficient.

presumably clothes, TV license, phone, books, newspapers, etc., costs a negative amount...

newspapers? How many 16yr olds buy a tv license?

If theyre any good they can more outside of those 40hrs without much trouble. People expect everything given to them on a plate now - and when it is, as in this case, they then whine its not enough, and cant be arsed to do the work. Thankfully not everyone, just the majority.


NT

On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?




When I was an apprentice in the early sixties I got just over £2.00 per
week - and we worked from 8.30am until 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and
until 1.00pm on Saturday. In comparison - even taking inflation into
account - £107 per week seems not too bad.

"Mr Pounder" wrote in message ...


"ARW" wrote in message
...
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20
a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

I was paid peanuts when I was an apprentice and I was worked like a dog.
My C&G is still valid but worthless.


I semi agree there.
ONC seems worthless these days, all the employers bang on about at
interviews is Not Very Qualified level 1- yada yada yada

IIRC that NVQ was derived from the old City & Guilds stuff inc' ONC and the
like, yet is ignored.

DILLIGAF? No..... I've been out of work for 6 weeks in 30 years... so ****
the current "buzzword" employers.

On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 12:09:12 -0700, jgh wrote:

£107.20 for a 40hr week. Damn near twice JSA for a 16-24yo.

Rent £60-ish a week

Boo. ****ing. Hoo.

Is there a reason why the average* apprentice-age yoof can't live at
home? There is far too much expectation of everything, immediately.

* - Yes, I appreciate that for some there may be. They tend to be the
ones happy to extract digit and be grateful for what they can get for
themselves.

On Tuesday, July 2, 2013 8:10:31 PM UTC+1, David P wrote:

At one time the apprentice would pay to learn from the master so, on

balance, its not a bad deal really.

They still do, in effect.
The wages won't keep anyone clothed, fed and housed, so they're dependent on Mum & Dad for subsidies.

My son's employer had a big hike in insurance premiums. because he had an apprentice on the sites.

We had tp pay that or he wouldn't have had a job.

On Tue, 2 Jul 2013 18:38:54 +0100, "ARW"
wrote:

They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

"Wages" are paid for working. Apprentices don't work as such - they're
learning how to do a job, so such things as minimum wage don't really
apply.

--
Frank Erskine

ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?



As long as they are treated as apprentices and not cheap labour, yes.

--
AC

ARW wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?


More to the point, would you? Is there any guarantee that you'll try
and teach them something?

It's guaranteed that I could teach them something. It's up to them if they
want to learn.


Who says you are a good teacher? Knowing stuff does not make you able to
teach it at all.

In fact, you have already indicated that you are not a good teacher, as
you have already worked out your excuse should some one failed to learn
from you. You would just say the student didn't want to, students fault.
Cant possibly be your fault, right?

Hope you are not typical.

--
AC

"AC" wrote in message ...
ARW wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?


More to the point, would you? Is there any guarantee that you'll try
and teach them something?

It's guaranteed that I could teach them something. It's up to them if
they
want to learn.


Who says you are a good teacher? Knowing stuff does not make you able to
teach it at all.

In fact, you have already indicated that you are not a good teacher, as
you have already worked out your excuse should some one failed to learn
from you. You would just say the student didn't want to, students fault.
Cant possibly be your fault, right?

Hope you are not typical.

--
AC


I'm not sure that apprentice learning is about anyone's ability to 'teach'
as such. It's more about the apprentice's ability to learn from someone who
is a skilled master of the job that they are apprenticed to. Apprentices
have always been assigned a mentor who is their 'master', and have always
learnt the job as a result. Not all - or probably even many - will have been
good 'teachers' in the conventional sense. I don't know if it's still the
case, but when I was an apprentice 40 odd years ago, the 'on-the-job'
training was supplemented by day release at college, which is where your
'conventional' teaching of the theory took place.

Arfa

"AC" wrote in message ...
ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?



As long as they are treated as apprentices and not cheap labour, yes.

--
AC


Sorry, but that is the case, and always has been. As soon as an apprentice
has learnt enough to do a particular task safely and efficiently, then they
will be used as cheap labour to do that job for evermore - or until they
leave, or qualify and get an apprentice of their own. It's the nature of the
beast, and I don't really see any harm in it. My apprenticeship was five
years, and I was used as cheap labour for a lot of that time, but so were we
all. It was the price you paid for learning a trade that would hopefully
keep you earning for the rest of your life. I don't think it did us any
harm.

Arfa

On Wednesday 03 July 2013 00:25 AC wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Who says you are a good teacher? Knowing stuff does not make you able to
teach it at all.

In fact, you have already indicated that you are not a good teacher, as
you have already worked out your excuse should some one failed to learn
from you. You would just say the student didn't want to, students fault.
Cant possibly be your fault, right?

Hope you are not typical.


In this type of work, it should be sufficient that the "master" is an expert
in his field. It's not the teacher's job to entertain the apprentice and
stop his attention wandering. This is not primary school.

The apprentice's job is to watch the teacher and ask pertinent questions and
generally do what he's told.

A "bad" teacher would be one who did not show the apprentice anything nor
let him have a go, with suitable correction of mistakes - or a teacher who
was actually a bit crap at his job.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

On 03/07/2013 07:12, Tim Watts wrote:
On Wednesday 03 July 2013 00:25 AC wrote in uk.d-i-y:

Who says you are a good teacher? Knowing stuff does not make you able to
teach it at all.

In fact, you have already indicated that you are not a good teacher, as
you have already worked out your excuse should some one failed to learn
from you. You would just say the student didn't want to, students fault.
Cant possibly be your fault, right?

Hope you are not typical.


In this type of work, it should be sufficient that the "master" is an expert
in his field. It's not the teacher's job to entertain the apprentice and
stop his attention wandering. This is not primary school.

The apprentice's job is to watch the teacher and ask pertinent questions and
generally do what he's told.

A "bad" teacher would be one who did not show the apprentice anything nor
let him have a go, with suitable correction of mistakes - or a teacher who
was actually a bit crap at his job.


I guess the first skill any junior employee learns is how to get along
with people you don't like. My first boss was an egocentric tyrant but,
once I toed the line, he was actually a dream to work for, and 50 years
later I still find myself asking what he would have done in a certain
situation

ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

Yep .
In fact eldest son is an apprentice mechanic, he is in his fourth
year (no more college, "yay" qouth he). We have already had people ask
him for advice/look things over etc . He will also be a (relatively,
more than the dole/dead end job) high earner when he is fully 'time
served'.


Living at home[1] he has electricity/food etc supplied he gives his
mum digs (the amount is unknown to me but it is nothing like JHGs
numbers). Indeed he has enough 'spare' to run a small car (of course
he maintains/services and diagnoses any problems with it himself using
his spare time but the employers ramp etc).

[1] Fully understand not all 20 year olds can/want to live at home

In message , Farmer
Giles writes
On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole £1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?




When I was an apprentice in the early sixties I got just over £2.00 per
week - and we worked from 8.30am until 6.00pm Monday to Friday, and
until 1.00pm on Saturday. In comparison - even taking inflation into
account - £107 per week seems not too bad.

£4-8/- a week for an electrical engineering apprentice 1960. There may
have been a slight element of London weighting.



--
Tim Lamb

On Wednesday 03 July 2013 08:44 soup wrote in uk.d-i-y:

ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

Yep .
In fact eldest son is an apprentice mechanic, he is in his fourth
year (no more college, "yay" qouth he). We have already had people ask
him for advice/look things over etc . He will also be a (relatively,
more than the dole/dead end job) high earner when he is fully 'time
served'.


Living at home[1] he has electricity/food etc supplied he gives his
mum digs (the amount is unknown to me but it is nothing like JHGs
numbers). Indeed he has enough 'spare' to run a small car (of course
he maintains/services and diagnoses any problems with it himself using
his spare time but the employers ramp etc).

[1] Fully understand not all 20 year olds can/want to live at home

If I were 16 now, I would be giving serious second thoughts to going to
university with the extorninate costs involved. Assuming I knew I was handy
with computers, I would probaby consider apprenticing with a company that
did something with networking, datacenters or similar. Then I would find out
what, if any, university course was likely to be a net benefit to me (ie
lead to good payback in terms of work and was in demand).

I would also make sure I had relevant summer jobs booked for which prior
work experience would probably go a long way to securing.

Back in the 80's, I went to uni because I had the A-levels and there was no
reason not to (effectively free). As it happened I did a course (physics)
that seemed easy at school but was actually not suited to me at a higher
level (computing and electronics would have been).

The only use my degree is is in passing the fairly arbitrary "must have a
numerate degree" that most of my university posts require. I have never used
anything beyond A Level maths and physics for anything in the real world.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

"Arfa Daily" wrote in message
...


"AC" wrote in message ...
ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?



As long as they are treated as apprentices and not cheap labour, yes.

--
AC


Sorry, but that is the case, and always has been. As soon as an apprentice
has learnt enough to do a particular task safely and efficiently, then
they will be used as cheap labour to do that job for evermore - or until
they leave, or qualify and get an apprentice of their own. It's the nature
of the beast, and I don't really see any harm in it. My apprenticeship was
five years, and I was used as cheap labour for a lot of that time, but so
were we all. It was the price you paid for learning a trade that would
hopefully keep you earning for the rest of your life. I don't think it did
us any harm.

Yes. I was 15 when I started my apprenticeship. I was 18 when I was left
on my own.

If I were 16 now, I would be giving serious second thoughts to going to
university with the extorninate costs involved.

It's certainly true that there are too many at university, and not enough
in other forms of education that would give them - personally - a lot
better return.

Of course, the costs haven't changed - it's just that the student pays
rather than the taxpayer - the university still gets much the same amount
as they always did. The repayments are low enough that many will never
repay the loan before it's written off after 30 years - someone on
£30,000 p.a. pays £67.50 a month - if they've never had that in the first
place, they won't miss it much.

But the real problem is that there aren't many (often more suitable)
options.

Assuming I knew I was
handy with computers, I would probaby consider apprenticing with a
company that did something with networking, datacenters or similar. Then
I would find out what, if any, university course was likely to be a net
benefit to me (ie lead to good payback in terms of work and was in
demand).

I could offer you one! We have a very high employability rating too!

I would also make sure I had relevant summer jobs booked for which prior
work experience would probably go a long way to securing.

True. Again...getting a uni course that includes a year in industry makes
a dramatic difference - and can be financially rewarding - we've had
placement students on as much as £37,000 for their placement year,
although they were worked hard and had to be bloody good.

Back in the 80's, I went to uni because I had the A-levels and there was
no reason not to (effectively free). As it happened I did a course
(physics) that seemed easy at school but was actually not suited to me
at a higher level (computing and electronics would have been).

Same here. Electronics was wrong for me but computing would have been
right.

The only use my degree is is in passing the fairly arbitrary "must have
a numerate degree" that most of my university posts require. I have
never used anything beyond A Level maths and physics for anything in the
real world.

Our graduates use rather more, but computers are ubiquitous and I guess
it's to be expected.

--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

"Adrian" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 02 Jul 2013 18:38:54 +0100, ARW wrote:

They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

£107.20 for a 40hr week. Damn near twice JSA for a 16-24yo.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?

How much do Uni students get paid?

How much do they earn?

On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:35:53 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

If I were 16 now, I would be giving serious second thoughts to going to
university with the extorninate costs involved.

er, I'm sure you realise that you don't go to University at 16, you
go to "Sixth Form" to get A levels to go to University at 18...

The costs, well the student loan is cheap money and you don't start
paying it back until you are on a reasonable income and even then
it's at a pretty low rate and it gets written off after 25/30 years
or so.

No.1 Daughter is currently "in limbo" between Secondary and Sixth
Form. I'm only half keeping an eye on the University Fees/Student
loan stuff as they are almost bound to change the rules again between
now and two years time...

Assuming I knew I was handy with computers, I would probaby consider
apprenticing with a company that did something with networking,
datacenters or similar.

Bits of paper are useful but I do agree that real experience in the
work place has a lot of value to employers. If it only shows that you
are willing to get out there and do something rather than sit around
waiting for something to happen.

--
Cheers
Dave.

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a whole
£1.20 a
week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?


Better than having to pay for the apprenticeship, as once was the
practice.

I agree. The hardest part is trying to convince them to look at the
long-term picture.

On Wednesday 03 July 2013 10:42 Dave Liquorice wrote in uk.d-i-y:

On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 09:35:53 +0100, Tim Watts wrote:

If I were 16 now, I would be giving serious second thoughts to going to
university with the extorninate costs involved.

er, I'm sure you realise that you don't go to University at 16, you
go to "Sixth Form" to get A levels to go to University at 18...

Well, yeah... But 16 is a good time to start thinking about it - it may
affect the choice of A-Levels taken ;-o

The costs, well the student loan is cheap money and you don't start
paying it back until you are on a reasonable income and even then
it's at a pretty low rate and it gets written off after 25/30 years
or so.

This is true - but what about the means tested maintenance/cost of living
side - that looks horrendous? It seems that a lot of working parents would
have to support their kids through uni for housing and food. Or am I wrong?

No.1 Daughter is currently "in limbo" between Secondary and Sixth
Form. I'm only half keeping an eye on the University Fees/Student
loan stuff as they are almost bound to change the rules again between
now and two years time...

Assuming I knew I was handy with computers, I would probaby consider
apprenticing with a company that did something with networking,
datacenters or similar.

Bits of paper are useful but I do agree that real experience in the
work place has a lot of value to employers. If it only shows that you
are willing to get out there and do something rather than sit around
waiting for something to happen.

--
Tim Watts Personal Blog: http://squiddy.blog.dionic.net/

http://www.sensorly.com/ Crowd mapping of 2G/3G/4G mobile signal coverage

Reading this on the web? See:
http://wiki.diyfaq.org.uk/index.php?title=Usenet

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:


This is true - but what about the means tested maintenance/cost of living
side - that looks horrendous? It seems that a lot of working parents
would have to support their kids through uni for housing and food. Or am
I wrong?

That was certainly true 50 years ago. When we married, SWMBO was still a
student. Her father got a massive civil service payrise and her grant went
down even thought I was supposed to be the one 'supporting' her.

--
From KT24

Using a RISC OS computer running v5.18

On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 11:41:26 +0100, charles wrote:

In article , Tim Watts
wrote:


This is true - but what about the means tested maintenance/cost of
living side - that looks horrendous? It seems that a lot of working
parents would have to support their kids through uni for housing and
food. Or am I wrong?

That was certainly true 50 years ago. When we married, SWMBO was still
a student. Her father got a massive civil service payrise and her grant
went down even thought I was supposed to be the one 'supporting' her.

AFAIR, they can still get about 65% of the student maintenance loan. At
that level, since they probably won't pay it all back anyway, might as
well lump it in.



--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

Arfa Daily wrote:
"AC" wrote in message
...
ARW wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a
whole £1.20 a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?


More to the point, would you? Is there any guarantee that you'll
try and teach them something?

It's guaranteed that I could teach them something. It's up to them
if they
want to learn.


Who says you are a good teacher? Knowing stuff does not make you
able to teach it at all.

In fact, you have already indicated that you are not a good teacher,
as you have already worked out your excuse should some one failed to
learn from you. You would just say the student didn't want to,
students fault. Cant possibly be your fault, right?

Hope you are not typical.

--
AC


I'm not sure that apprentice learning is about anyone's ability to
'teach' as such. It's more about the apprentice's ability to learn
from someone who is a skilled master of the job that they are
apprenticed to. Apprentices have always been assigned a mentor who is
their 'master', and have always learnt the job as a result. Not all -
or probably even many - will have been good 'teachers' in the
conventional sense.



I don't know if it's still the case, but when I
was an apprentice 40 odd years ago, the 'on-the-job' training was
supplemented by day release at college, which is where your
'conventional' teaching of the theory took place.

I teach them theory when we are travelling to jobs. They are still getting
paid even if it is a two hour journey to work. If some of it sticks then it
is worth it

--
Adam

AC wrote:
ARW wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 02/07/2013 18:38, ARW wrote:
They will rise from £2.65 per hour to £2.68 per hour. That's a
whole £1.20 a week extra for working a 40 hour week.

Would you still want your child to take an apprenticeship?


More to the point, would you? Is there any guarantee that you'll try
and teach them something?

It's guaranteed that I could teach them something. It's up to them
if they want to learn.


Who says you are a good teacher? Knowing stuff does not make you able
to teach it at all.

In fact, you have already indicated that you are not a good teacher,
as you have already worked out your excuse should some one failed to
learn from you. You would just say the student didn't want to,
students fault. Cant possibly be your fault, right?

Hope you are not typical.

You can hope for whatever you want.

I teach life skills better than most.

--
Adam

Adrian wrote:
Is there a reason why the average* apprentice-age yoof can't live at
home? There is far too much expectation of everything, immediately.

Well, by definition, where you live is home, so unless you are living
in a doorway, then by definition yes apprentice-age yoofs are living
at home.

Oh, you mean live at *somebody* *else's* home and *not* *pay* *rent*.
Yes, I wish I could live somewhere rent free.

JGH

soup wrote:
[1] Fully understand not all 20 year olds can/want to live at home

Yes, I'm sure plenty of 20-year-olds want to live in doorways or under bridges.
That's why they're there, they *want* to be.

JGH

Bob Eager wrote:
Of course, the costs haven't changed - it's just that the student pays
rather than the taxpayer

The students are *supposed* to pay, but the overwhelming expectation
is that the student's parents pay. I've never seen newspaper articles
on "how to pay your university fees", but piles and piles of "how to
pay your child's university fees".

JGH

On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 13:08:24 -0700, jgh wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
Of course, the costs haven't changed - it's just that the student pays
rather than the taxpayer

The students are *supposed* to pay, but the overwhelming expectation is
that the student's parents pay. I've never seen newspaper articles on
"how to pay your university fees", but piles and piles of "how to pay
your child's university fees".

The fact remains is that {students,parents} now pay all of it rather than
about a third, and the government pays nothing rather than two thirds.

As for the parents paying - that's daft, because there is no real
incentive to pay fees (or the repayments thereof) *at least* until
graduation.

But it sells papers I suppose.
--
Use the BIG mirror service in the UK: http://www.mirrorservice.org
My posts (including this one) are my copyright and if @diy_forums on
Twitter wish to tweet them they can pay me £30 a post
*lightning surge protection* - a w_tom conductor

On Wed, 03 Jul 2013 20:52:15 +0000, Bob Eager wrote:

Of course, the costs haven't changed - it's just that the student pays
rather than the taxpayer

The students are *supposed* to pay, but the overwhelming expectation is
that the student's parents pay. I've never seen newspaper articles on
"how to pay your university fees", but piles and piles of "how to pay
your child's university fees".

The fact remains is that {students,parents} now pay all of it rather
than about a third, and the government pays nothing rather than two
thirds.

Umm, no.

Courses are still heavily subsidised for UK students. The exact amount of
subsidy obviously varies from course to course, institution to
institution, but it's still there. If it wasn't, then overseas students
would be paying £9k, too. They aren't - they pay a lot more - and
universities NEED to attract them for that funding, to help with
subsidising UK students. Even then, universities require a lot of other
funding to not collapse financially.

Given that the number of students at university has exploded in the last
few decades, was it really sustainable to expect government to support
them all to the same extent?