spin spin sugar
it's gotta be big
sydney uni is LIFE.
</sarcasm
</sarcasm
Arts Advanced (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter spin spin sugar
- Start date
gloria*
skin graft
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 298
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
"You seem to be missing a key fact that the government not just the consumer, will have the increased (or possible, but unlikely decrease) cost of education"
--I STILL cannot believe you are using such comparisons. You can't compare individual education cost increases to government ones (even in mass) and expect it to hold up-- the Government is not some poor sick homeless little child--- they spend NOWHERE NEAR adequate amounts on health; I might point out to you the recent Medicare issues (within Sydney especially) that are limiting healthcare availability and also the fact that the governments supposed 'key health issue' for Australia over the last decade has been more funding and better rationing for health resources OUTSIDE our major cities-- currently G.P stats are down in all regional areas, (and that is fact, Im not just saying; you can check if you can be bothered) as are health resources etc --IE. The Gov is cutting back as it is. Continually, whether they have an exciting press release about it or not. Of course you don't think cuts in spenditure are a good move-- who does? But, it still happens whether you get there in time to have an opinion or not. Education is exactly the same. None of it is spread equally or even adequately and you will find that that exciting little list of billions etc you quoted isn't going to go far. "Greater scope" means nothing, especially in relation to 6-7 years time.
Come on! Firstly, take a look at the wording of those statements (whosever they are)-- if you're going to prove to the rest of Australia that our Gov has decided NOT to screw us over for the first time EVER, then go for the specifics. I can guarantee you wont find all of them, and further, none of these billion dollar phrases will be implemented the way you expect them to-- in the way impression says they will be implemented.
If you're going to argue that the many Australian People who endeavour to seek higher and tertiary education aren't going to be facing major problems than you're going to need to find another speech, because we've seen the billiondollar talk before; quoting statistics doesn't have the same effect that it once did. Localise it, show me EXACTLY where education is going to get better-- or further, give me a 2decade progression of education costs rising up to this apparently COMING one, and then put it alongside a comparison to their plans to increase employment throughout Australia --- you'll see similarities in past and future plans.
And THEN, when you've done that, try and tell me that unemployment in Australia hasn't risen or that it hasn't stayed exactly as it was.
(You can mention Whitlam and free education all you want, and its GREAT that were not paying quite the full fees anymore, but then you look at the changes that Hawk made and then further, what the Howard government is doing (by way of attempting to fund Australias unis in much the same way U.S ones are now funded) and its pretty fucking clear how very backwards we are going.)
I am just trying to show you that these digits to be implemented in the near future have been changed and re-evaluated every single fucking year and that's all it becomes-- this future plan. The minister of education can get on national TV and SAY it's going to happen because it IS a future plan, they can publish whatever they want so long as they're GOING TO DO IT but it's funny, because you know there always seems to be a hold-up.
Don't be fooled -- knowing about economics and being able to quote statistics doesn't give you any kind of insight into your government except for that one point you had about economic rationalism-- essentially, economic functionalism, because 'rationing' (in the true sense of the word) is NOT what out Gov does.
"Further, I do not think there should be increased government intervention in Universities. Universities have to be self sufficent,"
What the fuck? Is that like saying Health should be entirely separate? Or that certain areas of health should be entirely 'self sufficient.' Wow. Here I am, thinking that universities need funding because our education system is going down the drain but nonono--- it's THEIR OWN fault, because they're meant to pull funding off the trees!
Please. I mean. Where are you going to end that argument? Are we somehow drawing the line now, at funding for post-compulsory education? Because it certainly seems like it from that comment. Or perhaps youre [also] implying what I mentioned previouslythat like in the U.S, public education should be funded solely by the national economy --in which case, education is definitely screwed.
" and I guess we need to attract more international fee paying students to the country (maybe more domestic, but I am a bit hesitent about more places for domestic full fees - unless they are new places, rather than ex-HEC's places). Both the government and Labors plans have merit, and both have failings. I am not quite sure which will work best, probably Labor in the short term and the governments in the long term."
Many of our universities are overpopulated as is, in terms of places and resources. Perhaps we should find another planet for these students, perhaps we should wish upon a star. I realise that many universities are funded in part by international students (in fact I saw something about a Melbourne uni have 21% of its funding come from international students, rather than the average 7%) but you know, again, the Gov is relying on international boosts instead of redressing their Public Education policies.
You know I am SICK TO DEATH of having to defend myself and the view of more than half the population because an intelligent yet at the same time naive person with an understanding of economics comes along with a budget list and a microphone yelling "it's for the greater good!". Okay, it's NOT, and that comment about misinformation and half truths (I assume it was aimed at least partially at myself) applies just as much to you and the rest of the nation because your government is never going to tell you an entire truth about reforms etc, and education is in the same position as every other area of government 'interest': lacking.
Except maybe defence, but we wont go there.
Its great that youre happy with your countries current tertiary education policies, its great that you seem to think that university can only be for the rich--- and I mean, by endorsing this on a personal level, thats exactly what you are saying. Youre saying SCREW the Australian public, SCREW the families and individuals particularly in regional areas of Australia (more than 1 third of the population) who cant afford higher and tertiary education costs as it is, SCREW gloria*, because just like my government, I believe in pushing everything else out of the way for a rise in my dollar. I believe in the international market, I believe in money.
On the other hand, perhaps youre just entirely too optimistic about your government.
I find that like many economically driven opinions, yours fails to consider the social effects of such reforms, and fails also to localise these effects to an individual levelbecause thats really what uni is about, achievement on an individual level. And if nobody but the rich can afford it, then whats the fucking point.
(It occurs to me that this is the wrong place for this. If you wish to respond, pm me or we should make another thread or something.)
--I STILL cannot believe you are using such comparisons. You can't compare individual education cost increases to government ones (even in mass) and expect it to hold up-- the Government is not some poor sick homeless little child--- they spend NOWHERE NEAR adequate amounts on health; I might point out to you the recent Medicare issues (within Sydney especially) that are limiting healthcare availability and also the fact that the governments supposed 'key health issue' for Australia over the last decade has been more funding and better rationing for health resources OUTSIDE our major cities-- currently G.P stats are down in all regional areas, (and that is fact, Im not just saying; you can check if you can be bothered) as are health resources etc --IE. The Gov is cutting back as it is. Continually, whether they have an exciting press release about it or not. Of course you don't think cuts in spenditure are a good move-- who does? But, it still happens whether you get there in time to have an opinion or not. Education is exactly the same. None of it is spread equally or even adequately and you will find that that exciting little list of billions etc you quoted isn't going to go far. "Greater scope" means nothing, especially in relation to 6-7 years time.
Come on! Firstly, take a look at the wording of those statements (whosever they are)-- if you're going to prove to the rest of Australia that our Gov has decided NOT to screw us over for the first time EVER, then go for the specifics. I can guarantee you wont find all of them, and further, none of these billion dollar phrases will be implemented the way you expect them to-- in the way impression says they will be implemented.
If you're going to argue that the many Australian People who endeavour to seek higher and tertiary education aren't going to be facing major problems than you're going to need to find another speech, because we've seen the billiondollar talk before; quoting statistics doesn't have the same effect that it once did. Localise it, show me EXACTLY where education is going to get better-- or further, give me a 2decade progression of education costs rising up to this apparently COMING one, and then put it alongside a comparison to their plans to increase employment throughout Australia --- you'll see similarities in past and future plans.
And THEN, when you've done that, try and tell me that unemployment in Australia hasn't risen or that it hasn't stayed exactly as it was.
(You can mention Whitlam and free education all you want, and its GREAT that were not paying quite the full fees anymore, but then you look at the changes that Hawk made and then further, what the Howard government is doing (by way of attempting to fund Australias unis in much the same way U.S ones are now funded) and its pretty fucking clear how very backwards we are going.)
I am just trying to show you that these digits to be implemented in the near future have been changed and re-evaluated every single fucking year and that's all it becomes-- this future plan. The minister of education can get on national TV and SAY it's going to happen because it IS a future plan, they can publish whatever they want so long as they're GOING TO DO IT but it's funny, because you know there always seems to be a hold-up.
Don't be fooled -- knowing about economics and being able to quote statistics doesn't give you any kind of insight into your government except for that one point you had about economic rationalism-- essentially, economic functionalism, because 'rationing' (in the true sense of the word) is NOT what out Gov does.
"Further, I do not think there should be increased government intervention in Universities. Universities have to be self sufficent,"
What the fuck? Is that like saying Health should be entirely separate? Or that certain areas of health should be entirely 'self sufficient.' Wow. Here I am, thinking that universities need funding because our education system is going down the drain but nonono--- it's THEIR OWN fault, because they're meant to pull funding off the trees!
Please. I mean. Where are you going to end that argument? Are we somehow drawing the line now, at funding for post-compulsory education? Because it certainly seems like it from that comment. Or perhaps youre [also] implying what I mentioned previouslythat like in the U.S, public education should be funded solely by the national economy --in which case, education is definitely screwed.
" and I guess we need to attract more international fee paying students to the country (maybe more domestic, but I am a bit hesitent about more places for domestic full fees - unless they are new places, rather than ex-HEC's places). Both the government and Labors plans have merit, and both have failings. I am not quite sure which will work best, probably Labor in the short term and the governments in the long term."
Many of our universities are overpopulated as is, in terms of places and resources. Perhaps we should find another planet for these students, perhaps we should wish upon a star. I realise that many universities are funded in part by international students (in fact I saw something about a Melbourne uni have 21% of its funding come from international students, rather than the average 7%) but you know, again, the Gov is relying on international boosts instead of redressing their Public Education policies.
You know I am SICK TO DEATH of having to defend myself and the view of more than half the population because an intelligent yet at the same time naive person with an understanding of economics comes along with a budget list and a microphone yelling "it's for the greater good!". Okay, it's NOT, and that comment about misinformation and half truths (I assume it was aimed at least partially at myself) applies just as much to you and the rest of the nation because your government is never going to tell you an entire truth about reforms etc, and education is in the same position as every other area of government 'interest': lacking.
Except maybe defence, but we wont go there.
Its great that youre happy with your countries current tertiary education policies, its great that you seem to think that university can only be for the rich--- and I mean, by endorsing this on a personal level, thats exactly what you are saying. Youre saying SCREW the Australian public, SCREW the families and individuals particularly in regional areas of Australia (more than 1 third of the population) who cant afford higher and tertiary education costs as it is, SCREW gloria*, because just like my government, I believe in pushing everything else out of the way for a rise in my dollar. I believe in the international market, I believe in money.
On the other hand, perhaps youre just entirely too optimistic about your government.
I find that like many economically driven opinions, yours fails to consider the social effects of such reforms, and fails also to localise these effects to an individual levelbecause thats really what uni is about, achievement on an individual level. And if nobody but the rich can afford it, then whats the fucking point.
(It occurs to me that this is the wrong place for this. If you wish to respond, pm me or we should make another thread or something.)
blah blah blah
honestly who cares about money rite now
FINISH your goddam HSC and THEN worry bout HECS and all that doohickey.
Until u get a UAI nothing is certain so why waste time and energy arguing useless facts which may never indeed affect u?
honestly who cares about money rite now
FINISH your goddam HSC and THEN worry bout HECS and all that doohickey.
Until u get a UAI nothing is certain so why waste time and energy arguing useless facts which may never indeed affect u?
braindrainedAsh
Journalist
Maybe I won't go to Sydney Uni then...... I don't want to be paying my HECS off for 5 or 6 years longer than I would at another uni.....
gloria*
skin graft
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 298
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
lol me too 
(bored)
look-- we're never going to agree on this, basically because we just think differently-- I realise that you must know more than me about politics and economics etc (especially because you're going to be doing that at uni) and my area of knowledge (and it IS knowledge) is more on the social side.
You're totally right. My words come entirely from my emotions because I know I won't be able to afford uni, and if I somehow get that far, I wont be able to pay the debt off. And you know, that isn't fair. I shouldn't have to be deprived of an education because I'm not rich. And I can't believe that somebody else around my age who would have friends in the same position could think that RIGHT.
Point of interest: I DID say you are intelligent and you ARE naive in terms of social effects (dude it's not an insult so much as a simple observation), much the same way I am in the intricasies of government policy. However, calling you naive doesn't warrant that blow about me not bothering to get into uni. Just because I don't use your highschoolbased terminology of economics and politics doesn't mean I'm stupid and it doesn't mean that I don't have a point. I am currently doing three extension courses at my school and am ranked in the top three for all of them-- that should be fair proof that I am at least well informed and able to understand shit, even if you are going to be brutal to the point of outright bitchyness.
Even if I don't quote statistics (because I honestly don't see the point-- we're highschool students) my points are still as valid as yours are (the fact that I continued to argue with you about it is an indication of the validity of your argument)-- that point of yours about 1/3 of the pop NOT living in regional and rural areas was uninformed and sly-- you were taking advantage of the fact that I didn't post a statistic. I've just spent a fuckload of time researching the state of regional and rural Australia and I wouldn't have said that if it weren't true- likewise with the employment point.
I'm not going to respond to your little 'I ask' section, because it clearly does stem from the same kind of bitchyness that had you telling me not to bother with uni (I still can't get over that; it's judgemental and fucking hurtful) however I ask that you perhaps examine your opinion on a level just a little more broad in terms of the effects of all this economic shit. Like, clearly you're not interested in the social side of it, and that's totally fine-- it's not your area of interest, but hey, the social side is what Australia is based on.
Your entire argument is effective in theory and if it is confined simply to politics and ecomoy-- yr teacher at school would give you an A, I'm sure. But you know. It's not everything. When one of your friends doesn't get into uni for cost-related issues maybe you'll see. Not everything is about regurgitating a bunch of fucking statistics.
(lastly-- those cuts about my grammer are fucking annoying. I don't point out all yr spelling mistakes simply for the reason of making a fool out of you. That's fucking immature.)
(bored)look-- we're never going to agree on this, basically because we just think differently-- I realise that you must know more than me about politics and economics etc (especially because you're going to be doing that at uni) and my area of knowledge (and it IS knowledge) is more on the social side.
You're totally right. My words come entirely from my emotions because I know I won't be able to afford uni, and if I somehow get that far, I wont be able to pay the debt off. And you know, that isn't fair. I shouldn't have to be deprived of an education because I'm not rich. And I can't believe that somebody else around my age who would have friends in the same position could think that RIGHT.
Point of interest: I DID say you are intelligent and you ARE naive in terms of social effects (dude it's not an insult so much as a simple observation), much the same way I am in the intricasies of government policy. However, calling you naive doesn't warrant that blow about me not bothering to get into uni. Just because I don't use your highschoolbased terminology of economics and politics doesn't mean I'm stupid and it doesn't mean that I don't have a point. I am currently doing three extension courses at my school and am ranked in the top three for all of them-- that should be fair proof that I am at least well informed and able to understand shit, even if you are going to be brutal to the point of outright bitchyness.
Even if I don't quote statistics (because I honestly don't see the point-- we're highschool students) my points are still as valid as yours are (the fact that I continued to argue with you about it is an indication of the validity of your argument)-- that point of yours about 1/3 of the pop NOT living in regional and rural areas was uninformed and sly-- you were taking advantage of the fact that I didn't post a statistic. I've just spent a fuckload of time researching the state of regional and rural Australia and I wouldn't have said that if it weren't true- likewise with the employment point.
I'm not going to respond to your little 'I ask' section, because it clearly does stem from the same kind of bitchyness that had you telling me not to bother with uni (I still can't get over that; it's judgemental and fucking hurtful) however I ask that you perhaps examine your opinion on a level just a little more broad in terms of the effects of all this economic shit. Like, clearly you're not interested in the social side of it, and that's totally fine-- it's not your area of interest, but hey, the social side is what Australia is based on.
Your entire argument is effective in theory and if it is confined simply to politics and ecomoy-- yr teacher at school would give you an A, I'm sure. But you know. It's not everything. When one of your friends doesn't get into uni for cost-related issues maybe you'll see. Not everything is about regurgitating a bunch of fucking statistics.
(lastly-- those cuts about my grammer are fucking annoying. I don't point out all yr spelling mistakes simply for the reason of making a fool out of you. That's fucking immature.)
Just remember that HECS allows you to defer the payments... Having a large debt once you graduate might not be your cup of tea, but it is still better than being forced to pay up front...
Interest on HECS is wrong, though.
Interest on HECS is wrong, though.
White Rabbit
Bloody Shitcakes
Hecs is great and they should leave it alone. I reckon I should pay part of my higher education but would only be able to do that should I be able to pay it after I start earning real money - I could hardly pay fees with my family's welfare payments
Oh, and don't argue economic rationalism. Sure, you may sound smart but you seem to have missplaced your moral backbone.
What did you pull this statement from your arse?
Coonababaran is a town in the Macquarie region, it isn't affluent like Bowral or anything, but it's hardly Dubbo (It's a lovley little country town) - their weekly income in $176 a week - the cost of living may be lower, but so is their gross income. You only get more if your a Teacher, Nurse ect, because your covered by a statewide agreement. Generally, you don't get much. Trust me, bushies don't have a higher disposable incomes. I on't know where you got that idea, but it's a pretty missinformed one.
Oh, and don't argue economic rationalism. Sure, you may sound smart but you seem to have missplaced your moral backbone.
What did you pull this statement from your arse?
Coonababaran is a town in the Macquarie region, it isn't affluent like Bowral or anything, but it's hardly Dubbo (It's a lovley little country town) - their weekly income in $176 a week - the cost of living may be lower, but so is their gross income. You only get more if your a Teacher, Nurse ect, because your covered by a statewide agreement. Generally, you don't get much. Trust me, bushies don't have a higher disposable incomes. I on't know where you got that idea, but it's a pretty missinformed one.
White Rabbit
Bloody Shitcakes
LOL mate, Economics I ment, has no moral backbone - it wasn't ment to be an attack against you - sorry if it sound directed at you..I guess it could have been a worded a little better Economics just shits me ATM, and love paying it out (makes me feel better when I'm doing pretty shit in it at school )
I don't disagree that the suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne that are socio-economically disadvantaged, but you'll find Cambeltown and Minto ect have lower housing costs, just like country towns. You'll find that alot is pretty relative.
Also, you'll find most country towns (I stress TOWNS. Not CITIES like Wagga Wagga, Albury, Armidale, Dubbo ect, OR large town centres such as Bathurst with 30,000 + ppl) rely on agriculture, there is no way around this. The costs of living in the bush are low, but the incomes are pretty relative.
And yeah, I did disgress a little, but I feel the need to agrue for the bush.
Anyways, but to your discussion - My planed Uni isn't upping fees, so I'm pretty safe
Economics just shits me ATM, and love paying it out (makes me feel better when I'm doing pretty shit in it at school )I don't disagree that the suburbs in Sydney and Melbourne that are socio-economically disadvantaged, but you'll find Cambeltown and Minto ect have lower housing costs, just like country towns. You'll find that alot is pretty relative.
Also, you'll find most country towns (I stress TOWNS. Not CITIES like Wagga Wagga, Albury, Armidale, Dubbo ect, OR large town centres such as Bathurst with 30,000 + ppl) rely on agriculture, there is no way around this. The costs of living in the bush are low, but the incomes are pretty relative.
And yeah, I did disgress a little, but I feel the need to agrue for the bush.
Anyways, but to your discussion - My planed Uni isn't upping fees, so I'm pretty safe
gloria*
skin graft
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 298
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
omg melbournian you are STILL going on with this shit??
look, it's great that you have an opinion and that you have discussions (arrogant bitching sessions, either way) with us, but like I said before, this IS the wrong place for it.
If you want to argue economic shit on and on (like those ratdogs that latch onto the leg and don't let go) just to prove to us how very smart you are and hey lets face it, for the sake of your online image, then do it somewhere else-- make another thread.
This thread, by title, IS for people with an interest in the Arts Advanced course at Sydney Uni.
(ps, I'll be sure to send you my 7000 word investigation into the state of rural and regional australia in comparison to city areas as well as over time-- it's full of statistics, you'll love it [apart from the fact that is proves everything rural/regional-related that you've stated to be wholly misinformed.])
IF YOU'RE GOING TO RESPOND DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN A MORE APPROPRIATE THREAD.
look, it's great that you have an opinion and that you have discussions (arrogant bitching sessions, either way) with us, but like I said before, this IS the wrong place for it.
If you want to argue economic shit on and on (like those ratdogs that latch onto the leg and don't let go) just to prove to us how very smart you are and hey lets face it, for the sake of your online image, then do it somewhere else-- make another thread.
This thread, by title, IS for people with an interest in the Arts Advanced course at Sydney Uni.
(ps, I'll be sure to send you my 7000 word investigation into the state of rural and regional australia in comparison to city areas as well as over time-- it's full of statistics, you'll love it [apart from the fact that is proves everything rural/regional-related that you've stated to be wholly misinformed.])
IF YOU'RE GOING TO RESPOND DO IT SOMEWHERE ELSE IN A MORE APPROPRIATE THREAD.
gloria*
skin graft
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 298
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
whiterabbit posted this link which describes the wollongong Arts (Dean Scholars) course.
Is it generally the same? Is it better / worse? (I don't know if the fact that one is at wollongong uni and one is at sydney uni means anything...?)
The necessary uai is written to be 93-- would I be better off aiming for that?
Is it generally the same? Is it better / worse? (I don't know if the fact that one is at wollongong uni and one is at sydney uni means anything...?)
The necessary uai is written to be 93-- would I be better off aiming for that?
gloria*
skin graft
- Joined
- Jun 16, 2003
- Messages
- 298
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
I don't dismiss it-- I'm bored with it. Find something more exciting to talk about!
you shit me too sweetie. : ) hahaha
(re:yr cheap shot: uai predictions [from the people who understand and know how they work] actually show I'm headed for high 90's // there's actually a post about it somewhere on this thing. I don't expect to reach anywhere near that, but my aim is around the low nineties, and i'd like to think that it's not miriculia [another madeup word yes] but REALISTIC to hope to achieve that.)
you shit me too sweetie. : ) hahaha
(re:yr cheap shot: uai predictions [from the people who understand and know how they work] actually show I'm headed for high 90's // there's actually a post about it somewhere on this thing. I don't expect to reach anywhere near that, but my aim is around the low nineties, and i'd like to think that it's not miriculia [another madeup word yes] but REALISTIC to hope to achieve that.)
Melbournian: This is a off track, but there was a proposal to open up HECS to market forces...
I haven't been paying much attention lately, so whether they backed off or it was just for the new loans scheme...
Eh.
I haven't been paying much attention lately, so whether they backed off or it was just for the new loans scheme...
Eh.
spin spin sugar
it's gotta be big
you fucking moron.
calling this girl unintelligent was bullshit to begin with- now you are making bitchy comments about her expected uai. what the fcuk is wrong with you? you are behind a COMOUTER here. you have NO UNDERSTANDING of WHO SHE IS and WHAT she can do.
so let me tell you what she CAN do, as someone who goes to school with her.
she is first in extension 1 english
extension 2 english - last ranking was 2nd or 3rd but this may have been amended recently (to 1st)
1st in history extension
2nd in ancient history
1st in music 2
1st in music extension
1st in society and culture
the moderator Minai estimated a 99+ uai for her.
wow, i bet you feel stupid now, particular given such results are incredibly hard in a grade of 550.
sydney really doesn't need any more people like you.
edit: in retrospect this reply is pretty harsh, but a harsh personal comment deserves a harsh personal reaction./
Last edited:
spin spin sugar
it's gotta be big
rankings are REALLY quite simpleOriginally posted by melbournian
I don't get this ranking stuff, because we do not have it in Victoria. However, I guess it also depends on what school you go to, as obviously schools that are selective and schools that are not will be comparable. Am I right in this assumption? Also am I right in assuming it would depend on the number of students taking a course at the given school?
I really couldn't give two shits what she can and can't do. It doesn't effect me, so please tell someone who cares.
Btw, I am not behind a computer. I am in front of it
#1 = person with highest mark. usually high 90's.
yes it would have to do with the number of people enrolled in the course, hence the point i made about being in a grade of 550 - most in nsw are 150. generally speaking, numbers are thus 4 or 5 times larger in various courses at our school.
for the record, i can find out the numbers of those in the course for you if you want? would that convince you any more?
selective schools and public schools are easily comparable with a view to top students. perhaps not with 'average' students, but certainly with those at the top. and yes honey i know, i have been to both.
clearly you do care either way, as you made a judgement to begin with, and you responded to the comment i made. go on, show us all how much you DONT care by just fucking off and leaving the thread alone.
p.s yes, BEHIND a computer. hiding, even. i'd love to see you say she was unintelligent to her face
Last edited:
spin spin sugar
it's gotta be big
what do you mean? like where are they ranked in the state?
I think that the major point of the students was that if partial deregulation was to take place, then what would be able to stop full deregulation in the future?
The idea of interest on HECS may not have been completely true, but who is to say that it won't be in the future?
Edit: Added 'idea of'.
The idea of interest on HECS may not have been completely true, but who is to say that it won't be in the future?
Edit: Added 'idea of'.