They're just not content with charging every students thousands upon thousands of pounds every year that we are at university. They want to cost us graduates an extra £500m per year interest.

It will take me more than five years before I start paying off the capital on my £9,000 student loan [plus, of course, my student account overdraft]. I will start paying off the hundreds of pounds that has been added as interest on my loan next month, so I will be about 28 before I even start paying off the capital on my loan.

Why is this? Because in 2003 the government decided to change the official measure of inflation from the Retail Price Index (RPI), to the lower Consumer Price Index (CPI) - but without changing the Student Loan interest rates. Luckily for me, I am earning more than the minimum amount for graduates to start paying off their loan - £15,000 - already, so I'm less screwed than many.

Graduates are to be used to plug the holes in the government's finances. Because we're easy to target and have no choice. What a bunch of bastards.

I also haven't received any information from the Student Loan Company in at least two years. So the bastards can't even be arsed to let me know how much I owe them, yet they're going to start taking it out of my paycheck anyway. I hate the lot of them.

This is the brand-new lecture theatre at my alma mater. Even though I never actually went in this hall, yet alone had lectures in it [because by the time it opened, I was in my postgrad year and didn't have any lectures any more].

I have to say, it doesn't strike me as a dustbin. Or even as my fellow former University of Essex student, Asp, describes it "a tin can". Rather, it looks like someone has just gone over-board with the tin foil on a Blue Peter model.

It is, however, as Asp notes, "a [nice] change from the rest of the concrete jungle that is the 'squares' structure of the University of Essex." And it is also, as the UoE spokesman says "probably the most striking modern building on the campus." That would be because it's the only real modern building on campus. But even so, it's still ugly.

The proportion of middle class children going to university has grown under Labour:

So charging loads of money for students to go to university has increased the proportion of middle class children going to university. Who'd've thunk it?! After all, when it's going to cost so much, many "working class" people would prefer to just earn now. Especially considering the devaluing of the worth of a degree and the continual rise in the cost of getting one.

Middle class parents will be far more willing and able to financially support their offspring, and the extra loan that those whose parents don't earn much can get doesn't really help - since it has to be paid back as well.

So Labour have driven an increase in the middle-class domination of universities. Most certainly not what they had in mind.

Cross-posted at Educational Conscription

The Oxford Union has voted 2-1 to invite the BNP leader Nick Griffin and Holocaust denier "historian" David Irving speak in a debate. My reaction is simple: So what?

Mike Ion thinks that this is wrong because it "will only help legitimise the BNP". Will it really? No. The Oxford Union is a student society, for crying out loud, and a debating society with it - and debates require representatives from both sides, however repugnant you may find their views. That they have invited them gives neither the BNP and their racist ideology or David Irving and his historically inaccurate Holocaust denial any more credibility or mainstream appeal. After all, the Oxford Union passed the motion "This House would under no circumstances fight for its King and country" in 1933, and yet I bet they did go on and fight in the Second World War.

Besides, it would have been extremely ironic to have backtracked on this issue and refused to have these people speak, considering that this very debate is supposed to be about free speech!

UPDATE: Tory MP Dr Julian lewis has quit the Oxford Union over this. What an idiot. Free speech means free speech. Saying that they can't be allowed to speak at an event because most of us disagree with them is just idiotic. Just prove that their views are wrong by beating them in debate, rather than just banning them from speaking.

What need is there fore one?

So haven't students opinions been taken into consideration before? There is little more need for a minister for students than there is for a minister for pwople with red hair. Students have few concerns that differ from the rest of the population bar those directly relating to their courses, tuition fees, or potential careers. All of these are already covered - or at least should be - by the Universites Secretary and the minister for Higher Education [whose current absurdly long title is Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education].

Students already have their "own" pressure group - the NUS - despite it constantly being run by a bunch of hypocritical socialist idiots. In fact, the entire Department for Innovation, Universities and Skills should really be focused primarily on students. There is no point or need whatsoever for a dedicated minister to do this. Having one is nothing more than an attempt at spin to try and revitalise flagging Labour Party university societies.

Students don't want a government minister dedicated to "listening" to them, who will then just ignore them.

Also, there is quite a substabtial amount of irony in appointing a former head of the AUT lecturers' union as the Minister for Students.

Source: BBC

University campuses are often regarded as breeding grounds of the Left. But, really, they're not all that much so any more. Certainly in my experience at Essex, once a hot-bed a Lefty radicalism, the lecturers were far more so than the students. But I don't think that these new posters [via Shane Greer], produced by the Young Britons' Foundation really work very well.

They don't really mean anything, or say anything. I think they are underestimating and over-sexualising students by proposing such posters.

Shane thinks that they are "just the ticket for university conservative groups across the UK" because they are "fun, edgy, and... exciting". I think they're just pretty sad, really. They don't seem "edgy" at all, but a retreat to mere sexualisation.

No-one is going to be persuaded to join the Conservative Party by pictures of topless men or girls looking deeply into the camera. They might be by posters which actually represent what the Conservatives mean. The Boris posters that were given out last year by Conservative Future societies at Freshers Fairs last year are far superior to this offering. At least they were actually somehow connected to the party itself, and not just a transparent attempt to be mildly pornographic.

Life's better under a Conservative - but these posters aren't the best way to make it happen.

University courses don't "resemble part-time employment". Whilst students are lazy, and few do what really is "the equivalent of a full-time job", it is nowhere near as easy as they are suggesting:

That there is a difference is the number of hours spent working on various university schemes is obvious. Some such as medicine require long hours to cover what needs to be done, while others just don't need so long.

What this ignores is that being a university student isn't a job. Students don't - and can't - do the 9-5 working day. As a student, you can and often do work at all times of the day. You also don't have weekends "off" as there is still work that you can and possibly should do. There is no such thing as a real holiday - between terms there is always essays to write, for example, and there is always more reading around the subject that can be done. There is no such thing as time off when you are a student.

Some courses require lots of direct tutoring and others very little - but they require more unsupervised work. The time you spend working on most courses also varies week-on-week, more so when lots of independent study is required. Some weeks I could have worked just a couple of hours or so a day. But others, especially when essay deadlines neared, I could spend up to 10 hours or more working, with pretty much just toilet and meal breaks all day - and this could occur for several weeks in a row.

It also misses out the very simple fact that most students have to actually earn money as well. You either have a part-time job during term time or work a hell of a lot during your "holidays". You may think a two/three month "summer" is idyllic, but when you have to use that time to earn enough money to live on for the next year [as the Student Loan will only just about cover accommodation - and that's if you're lucky] it really isn't.

But concentrating simply on the hours spent studying ignores what university is really about. It is more than just a place where you get a degree, it is about getting life experience as well. If it was just about getting a qualification, it wouldn't fulfil the needs of the nation at all. Uni is about developing social skills as well - and that is where the hundreds of clubs and societies that exist on university campuses come in. Extra-curricular activities are as important to do as the academic study, and can be as important as the degree in getting a job. They are certainly at least as important for personal development.

Anyone who considers the number of hours spent studying to be the axis along which degrees are classified is an idiot. Going to university is about far, far more than just a degree. And in many ways the degree itself is worth less - certainly at the moment where there are so many graduates - than the non-academic work you do at university that is not included in the study. being a student on no course "resembles part-time employment". The level fluctuates, but it sure as hell isn't just "part-time".

Source: The Telegraph

Who is it that is discriminating - universities or the state school students?

This story is incomplete, and shows how statistics can easily be abused. It says that only 57.9% of Cambridge students and 53.7% of Oxford students come from state schools, leading John Denahm to claim that they are ignoring state school applicants. But what percentage of the applicants to Oxford and Cambridge came from state school pupils? It is the difference between them that matters.

It might be more of a "dog bites man" story to say that "Poor biased against Universities" rather than "man bites dog" type of headline John Denham provided today, but without the other statistics I mentioned above, the ones we are given are meaningless. Just because only 58% of Cambridge's students come from state schools isn't a bad thing in and of itself. If only 58% of it's applicants were from state schools, then it's probably about right. No university is going to deliberately choose less intelligent students simply down to class snobbery. They want the best and brightest that they can get, and since they receive no more money whether or not they take students from state schools, that's who they're going to pick - the best of the applicants.

To say that they are biased against state school students because they form only a slight majority of the students they take in is absurd. They are going to take the best applicants - whoever they be, wherever they are from.

Source: The Telegraph

More than 5,000 people have joined a Facebook group opposed to HSBC's scrapping on it's free overdraft on graduate accounts, and have caused the bank to retreat:

That a bank the size of HSBC has been forced to retreat on this policy shows the power that the internet and social networking sites such as Facebook can wield. It wasn't long ago that Cadbury brought back the Wispa chocolate bar after on-line campaigns.

What their action of ending the free overdraft facility has done is dealt them a huge blow. The purpose of student accounts is to encourage a graduate to continue to bank with them after they have closed that account. What HSBC have done will cause big problems for them, especially with students, both now and in the future. If they are willing to change the conditions on an account in such a way and at such short notice, what will they do in the future? If I was a fresher going to University this September, I know that I certainly wouldn't get a HSBC student account, and I have every intention of avoiding using HSBC myself.

Whoever at HSBC thought up this idea is an idiot. It has caused a PR disaster for them. I would be surprised if many freshers signed up with them, and if many of their existing student customers did not go elsewhere. the other banks must be laughing, with the problems HSBC have caused for itself.

Sources: The Telegraph, BBC

Why should non-Christians be allowed to join a Christian society - where all of its activities are presumably based around the religion?

The NUS have a slight point - there should be "equal opportunities", and these exist within this society, since meetings are open to all. Why should non-Christians be able to join this sort of Christian society? The next step along this absurd line is to say that Labour Party members should be allowed to join a Conservative Party society, vice-versa, and etc.

I can't see why people who weren't members of a particular religion or party would want to join a student society dedicated to it anyway, so where is the problem to be solved? Have there been complaints from non-Christians that they weren't allowed to join this society? I very much doubt that there has been. There are more than enough societies that most people want to join at a Fresher's Fair. So why the absurd demand?

Religious and political societies in the real world and on campuses operate this sort of "discriminatory" procedures. They always have, and I'm sure they always will. Quite why the Student's Guild at Exeter decided to threaten the loss of it's status is beyond me. Sheer stupidity.

Source: The Telegraph

The "iPod generation" [an acronym for young people who are insecure, pressured, overtaxed and debt-ridden, but also quite a good description in a more physical way] has been throroughly screwed over by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and the Labour Party during the last decade. I wrote on this back in September, and the same facts have been reached through another investigation:

"The average graduate will face an effective tax rate of 47.2% in 2012 as a result of these factors, it says, including student loans and pension contributions... While rising house prices [now eight times the average earnings of 22-29 year olds] have exposed sharp inequalities between the generations, the report says that over the long term pensions will highlight the divide." (The Times)

My generation has thus been screwed over completely by Tony Blair and Gordon Brown - who certainly can't escape any blame for the extra taxes! - during the last decade. We have been completely and utterly screwed over.

When we are facing an effective tax rate of nearly 50% in five years time, it is quite obvious that something has to be done. When this occurs, the entire country will suffer. The iPod generation will have to pay the costs of the welfare state, especially pensions, without getting any of the benefits.

We have all been failed by Tony Blair, Gordon Brown, and the Labour Party.

Source: The Times

Facebook is a social-networking site, on which there are millions of people. Most of these are students or "young people" but the numbers of the oldies is growing...

"Leading "social network" sites such as MySpace and Facebook, which once left adults baffled, are reporting a huge influx of members who are longer in the tooth.
Facebook, which began life as a site for students to talk to each other and exchange news and photographs, threw its doors open nine months ago to the rest of the world. Last week, the site reported that more than half of its members are now non-students, with membership growing fastest among the over-25s." (The Telegraph)

That so many Facebook members are no longer students isn't that much of a surprise - as a large number leave university every year. And neither is the fact that membership is growing fastest among the over-25s, as most of those under 25 who will join already are members.

But there is an inter-generational battle going on, especially between members of the same family, with one person saying: "My college-age daughter indicated she would rather torch her computer than give me access to her page." I am again not particularly surprised about it, though I can't really see the point of not making parents with a Facebook profile a "friend". You can, after all, give "limited profiles" which restrict the information on your page that can be viewed by that person. One young Facebook user says: "Everyone in the whole world thinks it's super creepy when adults have Facebooks." Except they don't. It's only creepy if they try to be "down with the kids" while they do it.

Facebook has evolved into a very useful tool beyond it's original purpose, I'm sure. I keep up with my brothers more through Facebook than any other means - partially at least because we all still nominally live at "home" [even though I am currently the three of us only one not there]. I would be happy for my parents to join Facebook - I just don't know what possible use they could have of it, since none of their friends are likely to have profiles. I would probably give them only limited access, however. There are some things that it is best for parents not to know or see.

Facebook is a modern phenomena. There are groups for everything - even one for Readers of Iain Dale's Diary now [and I'm a member of the group]. It has evolved way beyond it's original premise, and has taken on a life of it's own. It is certainly no longer just for the kids.

Source: The Telegraph

Student debt, for the first time, has topped £3 billion. Yes, three billion pounds of debt owed by students, a rise of more than £620 million owed by undergraduate in England. This student debt of £3 billion is three times that owed by students in 1997.

Whilst Student Loans may be the cheapest loan anyone is likely ever to get [as interest is only at the rate of inflation] it is not nice to know that there is such a huge amount of debt hanging around your debt. I have more than £9,000 of student loans debt and several thousand pounds of other debt accrued through my time as a student [finally ending in September]. And first-years now will end their time at university with at least £18,000 of student loans debt - so from that perspective, I'm lucky - although my younger brother isn't. I can, however, understand that to some extent students loans are necessary to fund the massive increase in the number of students - despite the fact that I think it is not a good thing.

What really annoys me is that Scottish students are set to have no fees at all - and most annoyingly, funded by English taxes:

"BRITISH taxpayers are to meet the £2 billion cost of reintroducing free university education in Scotland – but students from England and Wales will still have to pay the full fees.
Under plans to be announced by the Scottish executive on Wednesday, Scottish students who now pay £2,000 on graduation will be charged nothing from 2009. From 2011 at the latest they will also see loans wiped out and maintenance grants reintroduced." (The Times)

It is outrageous that Scottish students get free education whilst English and Welsh students are paying through the nose, especially when the money to make it possible for this to happen is coming from England and Wales. It really is hypocritical that the Scottish Nationalist Party will fund their policy on free university education through funding that they would not have were they an independent state. If they want to prove that they can act and live as an economically viable independent state, then they should only use Scottish-raised taxes to fund the elements of Scottish policy on which the Scottish Parliament currently controls.

If the SNP were to provide free university education from their own taxes, I could have no opposition to it - and I would in fact applaud their prioritising. But when they plan to provide free university education off English taxes when English student debt has breached £3 billion, I can have nothing but contempt for their hypocrisy and for this government for allowing it to happen.

That a British Prime Minister can have his constituency where his own educational policies are not applied, and where indeed the opposite is happening, I don't understand either.

Sources: The Telegraph, The Times

Well, my Students Union seems to prefer tackling speed limits. They want to lower the speed limit on one part of a dual carriageway from 70 to 50mph because two people have been killed crossing the road there in the last ten months, and some beforehand as well. They also want a foot bridge to be built over the road. Yet there is an underpass, lit and with CCTV, just a hundred yards or so away - and a zebra crossing just a bit further up the road. Pretty much all of the students killed there were either drunk, high on drugs, or both. As far as I am concerned, they have only themselves to blame.

The SU has set up a petition, most recently signed by both the local MPs - Lib Dem Bob Russell (Colchester) and Conservative Bernard Jenkin (North Essex) [both pictured above] - to call for the changes they wish made. The MPs are just doing what MPs do best - self-publicity.

It is ridiculous. The road is perfectly safe. I myself have crossed it hundreds of times, and so long as you are sober there is no problem, since you can see hundreds of metres in both directions as it is a nice straight road.

There is also a far far larger problem which they and previous SU administrations have ignored - drugs on campus. Bouncers at the entrance to the nightclubs are not allowed to search people, and even those caught taking or even dealing drugs inside a venue are not properly dealt with, and soon allowed back into SU premises. They haven't even dismissed a bartender who was caught with drugs.

They ignore the drugs and violence (as well as under-aged drinking by kids from the local estates) on campus in favour of making ridiculous publicity stunts on road safety and speed limits. If they put even half the effort they have into this stupid campaign over lowering one speed limit into tackling drugs, the problem would be far far lower than it is. This is just part of the reason why I hate student politics.

My essays are finally done, over, complete - and handed in!

I have been working on these essays pretty much constantly for over two months now, all of whom were due directly one after another. During that time I have read a good twenty books and articles and written nearly 15,000 words.

But now I have finally finished the last one! All completed, footnoted and bibliography added!

So now I have a chance to relax a little! And then get working on my dissertation (due in September)...

At least I don't have any exams, a fact which I will now rub in the faces of all my friends who do. Mwahahaha!