I knew somebody who was doing Jewish Studies combined with Glass Crafts - as their dissertation piece they made a replica of a shop window of a watchmender and jeweller...

 

A bloke who was doing Nazi Studies and Performance Art then came and smashed it up dressed as an SS Officer.

 

edit: That was for whites man's benefit, I know how much he enjoys my punning and jokes.

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by Youri McAnespie

Do we want social mobility or not? Access to education is one of the keys to it...

 

And this Taxpayer's Alliance-esque ethos of 'I don't benefit directly, so why should I fund it?' that seems to be creeping in anywhere and everywhere, well, what about if we start extending it everywhere; health freaks complaining about NHS treatment of salad dodgers? The same with; non-boozers/smokers and pisscans/fagash's, the childless and the broody, the salad dodgers who plan on dropping dead before sixty and the health freaks who plan on pissing their commode chairs into the middle of the 21st Century?

 

Some things need a decent state provision to make for a decent society, regarding education, we're getting into the territory where a young couple from a less well off background leaving University will owe (combined) near to the cost of the house they grew up in, it'll put people off, especially if they continue to freeze the repayment threshhold. It'll mean rolling back the years to when any professional not covered in shit and concrete will be a big posh sod with plums in their mouth, again, whether it be a medical Doctor or a Doctor lecturing in Irish Glass Studies.

 

OK, you can't spend what you haven't got, but cutting public funding to anything and everything, let the market take up the slack, it'll make for a poorer Britain, and I don't mean folk going to dog food banks on the scrounge.

 

Up the Revolution, Power to the People!

There is access to all, you get a loan that you will never have to pay back if you earn less then 80% of the national average, what's wrong with that? If your only earning the average or just above it then your contribution towards your further education is minimal

 

On the other hand if you get a degree that helps propel you to a £50k+ career then surely it's only fair that you repay the loan?

 

I don't see anything wrong with the current system, I wish it was like this in 2002 when I fell into a degree course as my mates were generally going to Uni.

 

If it was now then hopefully the high fees would have made me think twice about wasting my time, or at least think harder about what I want to do for a living when I finish

 

The biggest problem for me was I was having to choose a course at 17 years old when I didn't have a fucking clue what career I wanted. The possibility that you may have to pay a lot of money back will hopefully make the youth of today consider their options in greater detail than I did. That's a good thing

If you think kids aren't already thinking twice, they are, in the cases I know, only five or six admittedly, they're very much considering whether to go or not - it's not an automatic, and I'd say around 80% of what's swaying that wavering is the debt they'll walk out with.

 

I also know some of the parents involved are pretty much naysaying the whole concept, and that is swayed almost entirely by the debt situation.

 

Anyway, you and Smiffs and one or two other graduates have said it hasn't meant a fuck to your life or career, I'd suggest if we put it to vote that you'd be greatly outnumbered by those who went and disagree.

 

People always talk about when they finished the grammar school system, they kicked the ladder out that they'd climbed, it seems we're hellbent on doing it again, but from further up the tree.

Non academic low paid grafters...

 

Let's do this social mobility thing proper.

 

Give them 30k+ over 3 or 4 years and see if it can improve their social wellbeing.

 

After all they could argue they're paying for these students to live their dream so why not give them something back?

 

Or does this fluffy bollocks only apply to academics?

They'd only spend it on consumer items and frivolities, because they've not had a higher education to make them impervious to brainwashing by adverts and shiny baubles (and they've not had the necessary indoctrination you get in the invariably commie academic world).

 

Who's talking about giving them grants, giving them £30k to spend? I'm talking about not breaking their back with a millstone of debt, I'd say around £3k a year repayable loans towards fees was about right, if we have to have a fee paying system.

 

And I do think there should be more kickstarter funds for grafters, more money put into apprenticeships and the like, I think trades and other non-academic professions should be seen as equal to academic studies.

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by Youri McAnespie

Good. So let's give them the same opportunity.

I'd sign up to it...

 

I've a nephew who's a good lad, but coasting in his academic studies, I've tried to get him to learn a trade instead and return to academic studies if/when he'll take it more seriously (if at all) and he reacts sniffily to it, and he's not been brought up with a silver spoon up his arse either.

 

It's about the only time I ever feel like giving him a crack (when he poo-poohs getting a trade).

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by Youri McAnespie

If you think kids aren't already thinking twice, they are, in the cases I know, only five or six admittedly, they're very much considering whether to go or not - it's not an automatic, and I'd say around 80% of what's swaying that wavering is the debt they'll walk out with.

 

I also know some of the parents involved are pretty much naysaying the whole concept, and that is swayed almost entirely by the debt situation.

 

Anyway, you and Smiffs and one or two other graduates have said it hasn't meant a fuck to your life or career, I'd suggest if we put it to vote that you'd be greatly outnumbered by those who went and disagree.

 

People always talk about when they finished the grammar school system, they kicked the ladder out that they'd climbed, it seems we're hellbent on doing it again, but from further up the tree.

It's a bloody good thing that they are considering it rather than just jumping in, surely you can agree that this is the case?

 

When I went in 2002 the halls were full of people just like me that didn't have a clue what we wanted to do in life. The default thing to do was go to uni and put the decisions making off for another few years.

 

So many dropped out after a year or ended up doing nothing at related to their degree.

 

I think you should only go if you really want to and you have an idea what your end game is, I.e doing an architect course and that's what you want to do

 

To fall into Uni studying the Beatles serves no purpose and the state has no place in picking up that tab

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by birch-chorley

It's a bloody good thing that they are considering it rather than just jumping in, surely you can agree that this is the case?

 

When I went in 2002 the halls were full of people just like me that didn't have a clue what we wanted to do in life. The default thing to do was go to uni and put the decisions making off for another few years.

 

So many dropped out after a year or ended up doing nothing at related to their degree.

 

I think you should only go if you really want to and you have an idea what your end game is, I.e doing an architect course and that's what you want to do

 

To fall into Uni studying the Beatles serves no purpose and the state has no place in picking up that tab

I applied to uni to study chemistry.

Once i got to uni i discovered they did Forensic Science as an option so i took that.

Dropped out after 18 months to work in a toy shop.

came home in the summer and started looking for lab technician work.

saw an advert for a Highways Technician that my qualifications covered

got the job after nearly 12 months since applying and working in New Look

Ended up going th'institute to do my studies.

I applied to uni to study chemistry.

Once i got to uni i discovered they did Forensic Science as an option so i took that.

Dropped out after 18 months to work in a toy shop.

came home in the summer and started looking for lab technician work.

saw an advert for a Highways Technician that my qualifications covered

got the job after nearly 12 months since applying and working in New Look

Ended up going th'institute to do my studies.

I was good at science at school / college

 

Everyone said stick with it as its a skill shortage

 

Went to uni to do biomolecular forensic science. Loved the forensic part but it was 80% biomolecular which was tedious. Any road, only realised that a career path in science usually involves being a lab tech on peanuts. All my own fault, wish I'd have thought twice about it all and taken my time to decide what to do next.

Edited October 17, 201510 yr by birch-chorley

Kinell, wish I'd done forensic science or environmental chemistry. Did chemistry with polymer science- thought it would be good for job prospects. By the fuck it was tedious, too much maths!!

A forensic scientist actually came into sixth form and said money was poor. Idiotic thing too say to impressionable teens who want to make millions..

 

Anyroad, quite agree that folks should be allowed to study courses that suit them, its just that the current system seems geared to getting folks believing they have to get a degree to succeed in life. Then when they do, reality dawns and the debt is in danger of not being paid.

More apprenticeships needed and vocational options; and respect for those who chose this option.

Kinell, wish I'd done forensic science or environmental chemistry. Did chemistry with polymer science- thought it would be good for job prospects. By the fuck it was tedious, too much maths!!

A forensic scientist actually came into sixth form and said money was poor. Idiotic thing too say to impressionable teens who want to make millions..

 

Anyroad, quite agree that folks should be allowed to study courses that suit them, its just that the current system seems geared to getting folks believing they have to get a degree to succeed in life. Then when they do, reality dawns and the debt is in danger of not being paid.

More apprenticeships needed and vocational options; and respect for those who chose this option.

That's what i went to study but after finding out they did forensic science i opted for those modules.

 

I found the forensics stuff so interesting i neglected the chemistry modules and bummed out.

.........

 

There probaby project planners now or health and safety police. Or some other such job where they don't know shit from clay.

I was talking to one of my colleagues the other day & we both thought that becoming project planners was a good idea, seeing as the planners spend half their time asking us about basic dependencies, then ignoring what we've told them. And they then get paid more than us. Bastards.

He's reet.

Is he fuck. So the only valid degree is a science one? What the hell do you think we all do with an arts degree? Sit on our arses calling each other darling whilst throwing pashminas over our shoulders?

 

We've had this debate before. The creative industries are a huge revenue stream for the government, more people watch theatre in London than go to Premiership football, culture doesn't just enrich people's lives it enriches our economy as well.

 

My current company works in data for the cultural sector. We have the largest cultural Big Data set in the world, every household in England is there, segmented on their propensity to cultural attendance, as well as over 7 million booker records. We work across the sector to ensure everyone, no matter what their background, has access to arts and culture and to make organisations better at understanding their audiences. Why? Is this worthless?

 

Let's look at and example such as Margate. A dump of a town. Since the Tate opened there it's brought 30 million into the local and regional economy, more businesses have set up, it's allowed the council to re brand the place so more visitors to the newly reopened Funland - every cultural economic impact study I have worked on shows the value of culture is measured in growth and increased spend per head of local population.

 

We also work with two Data Scientists as many large corporate companies (we are a not for profit company by the way so only spend on our costs) do who build products for the sector to increase their ability to grow and develop audiences. This idea of arts vs science is a myth that needs to be dispelled. In many cases we work together for real data driven decision making. If you think we're all sat here being loveies contributing nothing to the economy and only catering for rich, white middle class folk that it's not entirely the correct picture. In some cases yes, and I wish actors would stop talking about the value of arts - makes me want to stop all funding, self serving knobs mainly.

 

And yes I draw a decent wage, not been out of work since I left uni ( a drama degree that included a module in Arts Marketing which directly led to my first job after I pestered them to hell whilst still studying) a degree is an opportunity and it's what you make if it. I think the governments investment in me has be worthwhile in terms of money earnt in tax and the places I've worked for generating vast sums of money.

 

I think you'd call that a bite!

I'll tell you what enriches people's lives, food and shelter. Until everyone has that, the arts can get fucked.

I'll tell you what enriches people's lives, food and shelter. Until everyone has that, the arts can get fucked.

 

 

Crawley makes a case that the arts are profitable and contribute to the economy through

 

 

Dunno why The Tate couldn't have been built in Barnsley

We also work with two Data Scientists as many large corporate companies (we are a not for profit company by the way so only spend on our costs) do who build products for the sector to increase their ability to grow and develop audiences. This idea of arts vs science is a myth that needs to be dispelled. In many cases we work together for real data driven decision making.

You're like the Sam Allardyce of Arts marketing with all this tech.

 

Have you considered getting some actors in who are considered 'over the hill' in Hollywood and letting them have one final swansong?

 

You could also strap a prozone kit to some of the ushers to make sure they're putting in an honest shift. Maybe write a distance/ice cream sale/revenue algorithm?

Crawley makes a case that the arts are profitable and contribute to the economy through

 

Aye, they'd be the first to campaign that all profits should be ploughed back into arts.

Do the arts make a positive financial contribution to the UK?

Do the arts make a positive financial contribution to the UK?

Yes. For every one pound the government spends on culture, the arts return five pounds to the treasury. The arts adds 7.7 billion to our economy. The government spends relatively little on funding arts and culture and we've become pretty adept at creating models that work financially. Which is why the ROI is so great.

 

And as for the good in our bellies, roof over our head Venn diagram argument it works for almost anything other than food and shelter, and totally ignores the fact that once these are aquired mankind will look to use creative ingenuity to invent and find ways of understanding the world around them. From cave paintings to pop music, it's a human need, and it's pretty silly and reductionist to argue otherwise.

You're like the Sam Allardyce of Arts marketing with all this tech.

 

Have you considered getting some actors in who are considered 'over the hill' in Hollywood and letting them have one final swansong?

 

You could also strap a prozone kit to some of the ushers to make sure they're putting in an honest shift. Maybe write a distance/ice cream sale/revenue algorithm?

Funnily enough that's not too far away from some of the stuff being built - secondary spend in relation to productions so people can forecast correctly!

Yes. For every one pound the government spends on culture, the arts return five pounds to the treasury. The arts adds 7.7 billion to our economy. The government spends relatively little on funding arts and culture and we've become pretty adept at creating models that work financially. Which is why the ROI is so great.

 

And as for the good in our bellies, roof over our head Venn diagram argument it works for almost anything other than food and shelter, and totally ignores the fact that once these are aquired mankind will look to use creative ingenuity to invent and find ways of understanding the world around them. From cave paintings to pop music, it's a human need, and it's pretty silly and reductionist to argue otherwise.

 

 

If it pays, I'm in.

 

 

For the other bit, I do understand totally the creative "need" (I play the saxophone, for example), but there should not be a state-led arts sector. Indeed, creativity should flow from the individual.

Aye, they'd be the first to campaign that all profits should be ploughed back into arts.

Who said that and why? Of course I'd like more funding for the sector but only in a sustainable way - believe me I've seen enough public money wasted to not believe that arts is in anyway amune to being profligate.

 

But to say fuck it - we don't need the cultural sector, only fund the scientists when all history and evidence point to this being against what a society needs (if it wasn't a need, it'd die off of it's own accord)

 

And y'know what some people don't like the arts, and that's ok; it's not fucking compulsory, it doesn't make you less of a person. But many do and without creative people Britain would be a much poorer place, certainly economically.

If it pays, I'm in.

 

 

For the other bit, I do understand totally the creative "need" (I play the saxophone, for example), but there should not be a state-led arts sector. Indeed, creativity should flow from the individual.

Well that's the question isn't it? It's a drop on the ocean arts funding but America doesn't have it, they rely on fundraising and giving - but then access to arts is more difficult than here where anyone can walk into a museum free of charge and see great works.

 

Actually in recent year - say over the last 10 - the sector has been very good at using a mixed model, which us the way I think it should be. For example, the British museum fund their large exhibitions with sponsorship from BP (lots of protests about that) but without it you simply couldn't put on the exhibition - and as you say, if the money isn't there in the public pot we have to find other means, if it's not earnt it's sponsorship.

 

The best organisations follow this model - a mix if funding (for new work and to develop artists) commercial product, funding and then yes earned revenue via tickets and secondary spend.

 

It's not many intuitions that rely on funding alone, but it must be there to ensure art organisations don't just have to chase audiences all the time. Or like in the states put on work because the main sponsor has said what they want on.

 

Many popular works started off as funded projects and they wouldn't have been able to exist without it.

 

Although, for me if you are in receipt of public money it is your duty to ensure everyone who you are set out to serve has access, which is why we do the stuff we do to help organisations achieve this.

Yes. For every one pound the government spends on culture, the arts return five pounds to the treasury.

 

 

could that figure be greater, though

 

ie not funding the shit stuff that nobody is interested in?

 

 

 

do we have a similar figure for the monarchy