A group of York students has won the opportunity to have their very own I-phone application developed after winning The App Challenge final, held at the Ron Cooke Hub on Wednesday, January 18.
YUSU Welfare officer Bob Hughes has warned students to be vigilant after a student loans phishing scam has been revealed.
Her Majesty the Queen will be visiting York on Maundy Thursday, 5th April, as part of the 800th anniversary of York’s Charter for the traditional “Royal Maundy” ceremony.
A flood caused by a heating system “failure” forced the university IT services to shut down many essential systems on Sunday night, causing problems for many students on the eve of their exams and assignment due-dates.
City of York Councillor James Alexander launched his campaign at the University of York. Alexander was YUSU President in 2004-05 and is currently a prospective Labour MP for the York Outer electoral ward.
Councillor Alexander commented that “in these times of international economic uncertainty I do not want to see potential world class academics put off University due to a lifting of the tuition fees cap.”
He added that he was impressed by New Labour's investment in higher education. He said: “You only have to look at the University of York, Askham Bryan, York College and York St John University to see what a huge difference this has made.”
However, many government ministers are looking at new ways to increase funding for higher education institutions. Lord Dearing said: "If we are to retain universities in the top ten, and top 50 in the world rankings, we shall need markedly higher levels of funding than at present.”
NUS President Wes Streeting has conceded that universities are “creaking under the pressure of market forces.”
A review of the current cap on tuition fees has been planned by Lord Dearing for 2009. Dearing was instrumental in the advent of tuition fees, publishing a report 10 years ago that advocated the fees.
Many prospective students from lower-income families are put off university by the debt they will accumulate. Current estimates of student debt following graduation range from £20,000-33,500.
Alexander hopes his petition will attract signatures from students all over York and people in his constituency.
The campaign against tuition fees already exists. The national campaign is going to last for the whole of 2009 and the only reason that James is involving himself is because he's trying to get support as prospective MP. He has nothing to do with this from a student point of view - I'm glad that he's involving himself but his facebook group says he's "running" the campaign and that's absolutely ridiculous. He's nothing more than an ex-student as far as the University of York is concerned - any other alumni could set it up and this comment would still be made. It should be led by YUSU, as it will be.
comment deleted by a moderator Now I actually have a degree to do, and Mitch is undoubtedly busy with his Masters, someone has to step up and fill in the void, otherwise all we'll have it Dan Taylor and a screen full of grey "Anonymous" comments...
A labour PPC against more fees? Labour...against fees!? This view is clearly at odds with the rest of his absymal party.
Labour's investment in HE has been minimal, the bill has been paid by students themselves, which for some has been £3k a year for library membership and 3 contact hours a week. Private investment and student investment is where the money comes from. Don't believe this labour spin.
The only party serious about limiting student debt are the liberal democrats. Labour introduced these fees, Labour will raise them.
comment deleted by a moderator Robbie - do you understand how HEFCE funding works? I ask that before I completely destroy your post about Labour investment in HE.
There is a quite significant difference between launching and supporting a campaign. The way it is presented it seems as if James Alexander is just trying to take credit for an idea and cause that are by no means his. And let us not forget that it was the "Labour" party that introduced fees in the first place and it is the same party that is now considering raising them even more than it already has. I don't know if Alexander really believes what he says, but if he does then he has clearly joined the wrong party.
Labour = rising tuition fees
#4 and #8
The specifics of James Alexander's campaign and motivation aside, not everyone in the Labour party supports increases in tuition fees. In fact, the current Labour MP for Selby (which covers the university but is being replaced at the next election) led the campaign among Labour MPs to break with the government and vote against variable fees. Unfortunately the rebelion failed and the government won by 27 votes. The Labour rebels included former cabinet members like Frank Dobson (who spoke at York last term), and Claire Short.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article1054252.ece
http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/john_grogan/selby
Incidentally, both the Tories and the Lib Dems have backtracked on their opposition to fees. The only reason they opposed them in the first place was to win student votes and try to bring down Blair. They have no ideological opposition to fees, and if in government, I very much doubt that either party would do anything different. Cameron has been very clear in his support of top-up fees, while the lib dems have gone strangely quiet on the subject and dropped a lot of hints that they wouldn't honour their anti top up fees pledge. Meanwhile their Lib Dem collegues in the Scottish Parliament have voted in favour of fees:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4594836.stm
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?storyCode=204657§ioncode=26
#9 The liberal democrats have not backtracked on opposition to fees. It is clearly stated as a key policy. http://www.libdems.org.uk/assets/0000/6176/Pocket_Guide_May_2008_FINAL__A4_.pdf
There's the policy guide from may 2008. Pretty clear on the abolition of fees.
Furthermore they do have an ideological opposition to fees, in that those with the ability to succeed should not be inhibited by the burden of debt. Liberalism is about freedom and access. There seems to be consistency between ideology and fees policy to me.
Their pledge to scrap fees has lasted way beyond blair's premiership, therefore your point about toppling blair is dubious. The THE article is out of date, since Clegg's election the 50p tax rate has been dropped along with any notion of keeping or raising fees.
Of course there will be some dissenters in the labour party, i presume most members of NOLS and York Labour Club are against fees too, yet this doesn't matter when Blair and Brown have sidelined the cabinet, the parliamentary party and the grassroots, and have displayed nothing but contempt for campaigns and concerns of non-government MPs (reduction of question time, less time for private members bills etc...)
Supporting a labour break from government policy seems a lost cause. We simply cannot trust this government to act in the interests of the population. If education education education really was what mattered to labour, perhaps it should have taken precedence over the iraq war, trident and endless tiers of bureaucracy and middle-management and quangos.
It's a shame that education won't even be an issue at the next election due to the economy.
Lib Dems are anti-fee, Tories are anti-cap and Labour MPs are completely mixed... Regardless, we need to stand as a united front on this. I have no idea what James Alexander thinks he can add to a national student campaign, however.
Vote Conservative!!
I'd rather die!!
#12
Sure, because the Labour government is not right wing enough? Although to be fair at least the tories are honest about it.
comment deleted by a moderator Actually, I think Mitch is on a PhD. What is the world coming to?
#10 "Furthermore they do have an ideological opposition to fees, in that those with the ability to succeed should not be inhibited by the burden of debt. Liberalism is about freedom and access. There seems to be consistency between ideology and fees policy to me."
No, the closest the Lib Dems get to a coherent ideology is pledging what they can to win votes, and acting in the interests of the middle classes. The Lib Dems are not a liberal party like you say, but rather an inconsistent mix of the former Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party.
My point about bringing Blair down was more aimed at Tories than at Lib Dems. They’ve openly performed a full U-turn, and yet surprisingly, only very few tories voted with Blair in support of what is now their party’s policy.
Most of the Labour opposition to free university education, comes from it being seen as effectively a subsidy for the rich. The middle classes dominate academia and the prestigious universities, and yet they are the ones best able to afford it. Back in my parents’ days, university students (mostly middle class) got free education and grants to live on, while those people on vocational courses and studying in further education colleges (mostly working class) had to pay fees. That was monumentally unfair. The situation has thankfully now changed, with EMAs providing support to people from low income backgrounds in further education, and means tested support with university tuition fees.
However, I think the government is misguided if it thinks that by increasing fees they are taking away a middle class subsidy. Instead they risk of putting barriers in place to people from poorer backgrounds attending university. When my Dad went to university, he was the first in his family to do so, and benefited from a grant and free university education. He thinks that without that he would not have gone to university rather than get into debt. Variable fees also risk a two tier education system. Prestigious universities will charge higher fees, making them even more the preserve of the middle class, while also receiving higher funding than less prestigious universities that people from poorer backgrounds will go to out of concern with cost.
So labour's opposition to fees is one of spite and class jealousy? And for a labour supporter to criticise a party for having no coherent ideology is laughable. Clause 4, anyone?
EMA is one of the most abused pieces of legislation i have seen in my life. People on EMA at my old school would spend the money on booze, petrol, fags and no doubt drugs too. Particularly as the system only needs to take into account one parent's income if they are divorced. The whole concept smacks of bribery.
No tuition fees is a lot fairer than £3k a year plus a token amount of EMA.
If you want to believe that class is the root cause of everything, be my guest. Yet there are many of us at university today whose families have completely transcended class boundaries.
HE and FE should remain free to all. It (in most circumstances) benefits the economy, the individual and society as a whole to ensure we educate our citizens to a level which means we are able to compete on the world stage in business, industry and research.
Anyway, i suppose a quick rant on the Yorker isn't the best place to discuss the differences between parties. Maybe this can be picked up at a Lib Dem/Labour meeting or perhaps it'll come up at the council/european elections next year.
"Yet there are many of us at university today whose families have completely transcended class boundaries."
Translation: I'm middle class and everyone else can f*** off!
"People on EMA at my old school would spend the money on booze, petrol, fags and no doubt drugs too."
I'm sure that if you got a full university living expenses grant, you wouldn't spend a penny on drugs, alcohol, fags, Efe's or Ziggy's.
You must log in to submit a comment.
Report