Strike!

[Pross]

Very quiet on the upcoming junior doctor’s strike. Do they have any public support?

I can’t see how there is any justification for a 20%+ pay rise the year after a 28% pay rise.

Isn't the justification basically that the people actually doing the job whilst the current lot were in primary school accepted below inflation rises and its just not fair when they compare their salary to a junior doctor in 1965 or something. As I've said before, it's a ridiculous argument to go back to a point prior to when you started training towards being a doctor and using inflation from that time to argue you are deserving of a second huge payrise in succession. You knew the pay rates when you started training and if that wasn't acceptable maybe a different career would have been better.

 

[First Aspect]

The other half of their argument is that there aren't guaranteed jobs at higher levels.

I mean FFS. Join the club.

When I was at uni someone made a pretty good argument about the medical profession. Compared to other courses, surprisingly few people fail. Then they become doctors and most of them become more senior, GPs or Registrars or Consultants having taken the appropriate steps.

So your main filter for being a competent doctor is at A-Levels.

 

[bobzmyunkle]

When I was at uni someone made a pretty good argument about the medical profession. Compared to other courses, surprisingly few people fail. Then they become doctors and most of them become more senior, GPs or Registrars or Consultants having taken the appropriate steps.

So your main filter for being a competent doctor is at A-Levels.

Cakewalk innit.

 

[First Aspect]

Cakewalk innit.

No, and they are all absolute saints. But whatever they are complaining about, employment prospects, job security and long term wealth shouldn't really be on the list.

I think they will find themselves on the wrong side of this particular argument.

 

[BoldonLad]

Their student debt hardly (if at all) decreases, the interest rate on it makes it a Sisyphean task to attempt to pay it back.

Although I personally take advantage of it, in my era, "university education" was free. I feel it should be free still, certainly for those skills which would be generally. regarded as "valuable" (yes, another minefield of differing opinions).

However Student "Debt" isn't really a debt, it is a form of "Graduate Tax".

I cannot think of another form of debt where your monthly repayments are based on your income, rather than the amount you "borrowed", nor can I think of any other form of debt where the debt is written off after a period of time (true to form, the scheme has been tinkered with making it complex) of 30 or 40 years, depending on when you studies started.

 

[First Aspect]

Although I personally take advantage of it, in my era, "university education" was free. I feel it should be free still, certainly for those skills which would be generally. regarded as "valuable" (yes, another minefield of differing opinions).

However Student "Debt" isn't really a debt, it is a form of "Graduate Tax".

I cannot think of another form of debt where your monthly repayments are based on your income, rather than the amount you "borrowed", nor can I think of any other form of debt where the debt is written off after a period of time (true to form, the scheme has been tinkered with making it complex) of 30 or 40 years, depending on when you studies started.

Yes, it's a tax of sorts, but it's based on loan amount that accrues interest.

It could only be free (or less expensive) if there were fewer places at university (or higher education in general). I struggle to see how that could be a good thing.

 

[BoldonLad]

Yes, it's a tax of sorts, but it's based on loan amount that accrues interest.

It could only be free (or less expensive) if there were fewer places at university (or higher education in general). I struggle to see how that could be a good thing.

Before Blair, the proportion obtaining a Degree was much smaller. That did not mean there was no further education. All Blair achieved (IMHO) was to make a degree less "valuable" (increase in supply), so, now, the aspiring graduate, wishing to elevate themselves above the sea of degree holding rivals, needs to plod on for a post graduate qualification.

 

[First Aspect]

Before Blair, the proportion obtaining a Degree was much smaller. That did not mean there was no further education. All Blair achieved (IMHO) was to make a degree less "valuable" (increase in supply), so, now, the aspiring graduate, wishing to elevate themselves above the sea of degree holding rivals, needs to plod on for a post graduate qualification.

It was more of a rebranding of some courses as "degrees" combined with a significant overall expansion, I would say. Either way, it's not free, one way or another.

 

[secretsqirrel]

Before Blair, the proportion obtaining a Degree was much smaller. That did not mean there was no further education. All Blair achieved (IMHO) was to make a degree less "valuable" (increase in supply), so, now, the aspiring graduate, wishing to elevate themselves above the sea of degree holding rivals, needs to plod on for a post graduate qualification.

That was happening before Blair.

 

[First Aspect]

That was happening before Blair.

Only people who first went to Eton were allowed to go.