Cyclone Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 And how is this charity able to function? Is it by fund raising and donations? There's no argument that the state provides a large amount of money to universities in compensation (or payment) for the students they teach. They are also free to teach overseas students who pay the full amount themselves. They aren't state run organisations though, which is what ownership implies and what you were inferring through the 'blame' for student debt being directed to the government. Either way, neither the government nor the university promises anyone a job simply because they have a degree. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Charities get their money from all sorts of places including those that you suggest. That doesn't mean that they are owned or controlled by the government, even if they are part funded by the government. This isn't really open to interpretation so you might as well move the discussion on. But this specific charity isn't financed from all sorts of places, it's financed by the government. So my question is- who are government receiving these donations from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Of course they are financed "from all sorts of places". Universities have many income sources, including fees, grants, research, business, legacies, donations... they aren't just financed by the government. Danot, you can try as many angles as you like, the facts are plain and won't change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southcoast Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 If these companies want staff to work for them, then they should pay wages out of their own profits. They shouldn't expect free workers at the taxpayers expense who are on work placement (or slave labour as it used to be called). People say the long term have a choice, either to accept the work placement or lose their benefits. Its hardly a fair choice now is it? For all those people in favour of this, one day you might find yourself in this very situation, and lets see how smug you are when you given the choice of measly jobseekers allowance or starving/losing your home. As a taxpayer, why do I have to fund these nasty companies so they can have their slave labour? Well said.its slave labour ans nothing more,some companies are doing very nicely out of free labour,they are like the old victorian workhouse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 It's common knowledge that the vast majority of universities are government financed which is why students were protesting at the governments proposals to increase tuition fees. Taking this into account, it'd be hard to argue that universities are not government owned institutions of higher education. The government was actually reducing a legal restriction on how much the university was allowed to charge, not increasing the fee itself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 There's no argument that the state provides a large amount of money to universities in compensation (or payment) for the students they teach. They are also free to teach overseas students who pay the full amount themselves. They aren't state run organisations though, which is what ownership implies and what you were inferring through the 'blame' for student debt being directed to the government. That's like saying the NHS isn't owned by the government either but rather owned by no one since the government make partial sometimes full payment to pharmacists, doctors, hospitals on behalf of certain members of society while others pay the full amount for prescriptions and NI contributions. As I see it they are one in the same as both institutions are government financed and all decisions relating to either of them are made through the act of parliament. Posted by Cyclone Either way, neither the government nor the university promises anyone a job simply because they have a degree. That's right, but feeling resentful about finding yourself unemployed despite years of studying and spending thousands of pounds on obtaining the degree, then being threatened that your benefits (your only source of income) may be stopped should you refuse to agree to accept the opportunity when it arises to get you off benefit after completing a mandatory two week work trial where you're expected to accept any job offer no matter how menial the duties may seem, is a little hard to swallow don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Of course they are financed "from all sorts of places". Universities have many income sources, including fees, grants, research, business, legacies, donations... they aren't just financed by the government. Danot, you can try as many angles as you like, the facts are plain and won't change. Were the increases in tuition fees unnecessary then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The government was actually reducing a legal restriction on how much the university was allowed to charge, not increasing the fee itself.Were the fees increased or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 As I see it You can see it how you like, you're still wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 You can see it how you like, you're still wrong. What's your definition of right? Is it- Tony? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.