(Part 2) Best products from r/unitedkingdom

I know this will sound like something you may have tried, but I'd consider taking

Taking friendship beyond social activities? It's hard. It's really hard - and it only gets harder as you get older.

But it's massively possible - and you should try, because it's important.

Since you're highly educated (compared to some), perhaps consider reading up on this area. It's not as crazy as it might sound - psychology and social situations (as much as they're really hard to understand) are pretty well documented, and with some thought and effort, you can massively improve various bits of social skills (it may be hard to introspect and work out what to improve, but perhaps just say "everything" and keep working at it?)

It's not really exactly what you want, but I do recommend reading this book because whilst it may sound irrelevant (and lame?) it's really awesome at helping you understand things like this.

I think I'd suggest that your perception of the problem as 'integration' with the racially English people as just... well, a perception.

My suggestion might be to get involved in some new activities - set yourself some challenges - to do things you've never done before - perhaps try 8 new things in a month? Different activities (ever joined a caving club, taken a cookery class, or learnt to dance salsa, been to yoga?) of course - you probably know this bit really well.

Next try and work out how you can improve the lives of those 'activity partners' - how you can make them happier. Can you offer to teach their children a skill (teach them to code/soldier/codeclub?)? Can you introduce them to some other people they might share interests with? Can you introduce them to another activity that is also fun?

Actually, I said that book might not be relevant - it definitely is. Go read it. :)

Also, if you're ever in sunny (lol!) Manchester feel free to PM me! :D

Sounds like a good plan... there are a lot of software developer roles available in Amsterdam (also Utrecht for startups).

I'd recommend trying to learn a bit of Dutch before you move over. If you're in London you should be able to find language schools teaching Dutch, and they don't have to be particularly expensive. I also took Skype lessons for a year (found a tutor via italki, can put you in touch if you're interested) which helped, and you can keep it up after you move. Language partners are good if you can get them, but this is difficult in Dutch because there are no Dutch people wanting to learn English (they already know it!)

Once in Amsterdam use meetup.com to find a Dutch-speaking group for beginners, this will give you a few hours a week practising Dutch at the least.

For self learning, there are a number of mobile apps available, e.g. Memrise and Duolingo, that are good for beginners. I also used both the Pimsleur & the Michel Thomas audio courses, which I got discounted on Amazon (they are both pretty expensive full price). The Pimsleur course is good for absolute beginners, and Michel Thomas is better once you've got a hang of some basics.

Getting Dutch people to speak Dutch to you is a struggle, and one that can only be overcome by sounding Dutch. A good way to get the hang of pronunciation is listening, and singing along to awful Dutch music. This has the added advantage of allowing you to join in at karaoke.

Anyway, best of luck! Sure you'll be fine and have a lot of fun in Amsterdam.

Feel free to ask if there is anything else I can help with.

I was in the same situation as you and this took me months of emails and calls to work out. It's a bit tricky so prepare yourself.

I'm sure you know to become a clinical psychologist (I presume this is what you want to do) you need to do a 4th year (honours or specialist) in Australia. This fourth year will have a thesis/research project component that all degrees in UK have and you don't have to apply for it. Once you do honours here you can then apply for a masters in Australia, however it is very competitive with 15 positions and about about 450 applicants per uni.

If you just do a specialist 4th year, you can be a registered psychologist which is basically 'psychologist lite' and your pay is capped. This isn't really an option in the UK, closest thing is an 'assistant clinical psychologist'.

In the UK, all degrees are honours degrees (the third year has a dissertation), however it is no where near as intensive as what an Australian honours year is. Overall, a UK undergrad is harder than an AU undergrad, but honours is the equivalent of a masters or mini phd. We complete a thesis (original piece of work) whilst in UK they do a dissertation (synthesis and adding own comments).

To become a clinical psychologist in the UK with an Australia B.A, you're going to have to either complete a 4th year in AU (Apply for honours everywhere or transfer into a course with a fourth year option), or go to British Psychological Association website and search for masters/postgrad degrees in the UK that will give you GBC (Graduate Basis Membership). Once you complete a 1 year conversion course/graddip/masters, you will have GBC.

Note: Even if you have a UK passport (dual citizenship AU and UK?), you won't be paying EU fees as you are not a resident. I am the same. You have to live in the UK/EU for 5 years to pay EU fees so you will be paying international fees upwards of $25000 AUD for your Converstion Course/GradDip of 1 year. If you're able to pay that then you'll be fine. Otherwise it is best to get into a fourth year in AU. If you do that and get an average of 80, you can send your transcripts to the BPA and they'll give you GBC as it is equivalent. Main focus is completing this research project/thesis/dissertation at a 2:1/80% level.

Once you've got GBC, a masters in psychology in the UK is of little use, just make your resume look better to get the assistant psychologist job (which are also incredibly competitive so it can help if you're happy to throw down the money and another year) and will cost upwards of $25k/£16k.

You want to do a Doctorate in Clinical Psychology to become a Clinical Psychologist which is 3 years, funded by the NHS at £22k a year and involves 2 years practical training and a 100k word thesis.

You can apply for 4 universities and there are usually 500 applicants for each and 15 positions at each uni (about 16 offer the course) and there's about 1200 applicants for UCL (London), less in places like Bangor (200 applicants).

You need a minimum 2:1 and which converts to an Australian Distinction degree, however most will have a HD average. You also have to have done 6 months to 1 year work as an Assistant Clinical Psychologist/Research Assistant/Social Worker to even be considered for an interview. They invite about 50 people in for interviews in June each year.


tldr:
if you can, do a 4th/honours/specialist year in Australia because it'll cost you $5000.
If you didn't get accepted into any of the honours applied for look at other options such as forensic psychology/developmental psychologist/counselling psychologist.
Move to the UK and find work as an assistant psychologist using your UK visa.
Apply for D.Clin degrees, get funded by the NHS and become a clinical psychologist.



I hope that's helped a bit. I hope it doesn't come across as too presumptuous but I wish someone told me all this. Becoming a psychologist is cut throat as it is and there's many hoops to jump through. Moving countries makes it much harder but it's possible if you have the $ and put the hard work in.

Some websites

http://www.prospects.ac.uk/clinical_psychologist_entry_requirements.htm

http://www.amazon.com/How-Become-Clinical-Psychologist-Getting/dp/1583912428

http://www.nhscareers.nhs.uk/explore-by-career/psychological-therapies/careers-in-psychological-therapies/psychologist/training/

http://www.clinpsy.org.uk/forum/viewtopic.php?t=341

You'll be surprised to hear that Rail ticket prices are much higher today (its quickly becoming a rich man's toy), and tax payers subsidise private companies running the trains far more than they ever did under BR. It wasn't perfect admittedly, but by the end of the 70's BR had managed to turn itself around, despite having the lowest investment in western Europe. Nevertheless they managed to run the intercity routes at cost, compare that to today where those routes are heavily subsidised (except East Coast which went from being a massive loss making private route, to just about being in profit, with the highest customer ratings, all after it was nationalised a few years ago), BR managed to run so efficiently that they actually consulted the continental railways, which you will notice are still nationalised and in fact ultimately own many of the companies running our routes. If we had had a similar amount of investment to the continent, and BR hadn't been run into the ground in preparation for privatisation we might have a service to rival the rest of Europe (take Ireland who have over a 99% record on being on time, thats with a 5 minutes window of the eta, after privatisation here in the UK we now have a 30minute window and don't get anywhere close to that on time rate.

As for state owned, invested, or guaranteed industry, well yes it would be mad to subsidise clearly uneconomic projects, no ones talking about that. The point is more Mines were closed under the Wilson government than Thatcher, the difference was that uneconomic mines were identified in partnership with the Unions, closed, and new jobs found. A good example of this is with Michael Foot, who had to close the steel works in his own constituency Ebwr Vale, he genuinely thought he was going to be lynched when it was announced. When it closed they re-tooled, and up-skilled the workforce and opened a steel plating plant, which was a huge success. What happened under Thatcher was a politically motivated attack (this is all coming out with the 30 year rule cabinet papers) to close both uneconomic mines yes, but a huge number of profitable mines also (there was one mine which was targeted as 'uneconomical' which was taken over as a worker coop that only closed a couple of years ago, there is still a small amount of mining in the UK). They cynically left entire communities with no other option when they were closed, no investment to create new jobs, nothing. And it turned out to be a false economy, it costs a lot more to put thousands on the dole, destroying local economies and satellite businesses etc, than it is to wind down one industry as you build up another.

Ok as for the deficit, you have to go back to the planned mixed economy period to find constant budget surplices, its under the neoliberal, hands-off, economy where we find budget deficits. Both Thatcher and Major ran bigger deficits than Labour, Labours deficit compared very favourably to other countries in fact, to the point that George Osbourne promised to match Labour spending pound for pound. Then the crash hit, and because we had shifted our economy so far away from industry towards the service and finance sector we were far more exposed than any other country (say like Germany which maintains a strong SME industry). As people lost their jobs, and we bailed out the financial sector the deficit ballooned, we weren't living beyond our means, we were simply too exposed, thanks in part also to light touch regulation (Osbourne was calling for more deregulation beforehand if you remember).

We're not a poor country, private wealth in this country has never been higher, £7 trillion, wealth inequality has never been higher either and this is the reason were having such issues with growth and deficit reduction. The fact that the top earners contribute 30% of tax revenue is a huge problem, not something to boast about as the Tories keep doing. A huge amount of money is being withheld from the real economy. Start ups, and even long established companies simply cannot get the investment they need to expand to create more jobs, this is where the state needs to step in.

The 'good times' under Constervative and New Labour were built on a fib, it required unsustainable amounts of private debt, the subsidising of companies through tax credits, and the madness of subsidising private landlords rather than building social housing. It also required a large amount of people circulating through unemployment, in a job - on the dole for 6 months - in a job - repeat (there are only 2000 families with two generations out of work, and those out of work for more than 2 years has only skyrocketed after the crash) this kept wages low, as full employment allows for much stronger bargaining power.

So if our country is so rich, whats there to do about it? Well actually crack down on tax evasion and avoidance, currently HRMC have 3000 people investigating benefit fraud, but only 300 people investigating tax evasion which represents 170 times the loss than benefit fraud. a 5% one off wealth tax on the very richest in this country would eliminate the deficit for a year, allowing that money to spent on investing in new jobs. Full employment with well payed productive workers paying tax will pay off the deficit quicker than the massive shift to low pay and no pay weve seen.

Anyway I've gone on too much, sorry about that, I probably havn't explained the position too well as there is a hell of a lot of factors to it. If you're interested in seeing another side than the Austerity narritive I recommend two books which will explain it a lot better than me.
Richistan by Robert Frank shows how trickle down economics is a fantasy, and also shows an insight into how the other half live, really well written, a bit like an American Louis Theroux - http://www.amazon.com/Richistan-Journey-Through-American-Wealth/dp/0307341453

And Shock Doctrine by Naomi Klein, which was published not long after the crash, and explains scarily presciently the ideological underpinning to Austerity, as well as the roots of neoliberalism. http://www.amazon.com/Shock-Doctrine-Rise-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1395079797&sr=1-1&keywords=Shock+Doctrine

Edit Sorry, missed off a point about taking over industry etc costing money. Things like the railway you can simply allow the franchises to pass, or allow the Nationalised East Coast company to bid on the other franchises. Things like Water, or industry you want to support, you simply swap their shares for government bonds, it doesnt cost anything, and the shareholders get a secure longterm invetment, everyone wins.

I'd recommend some British comedy. I'm sure you could find some in the US, but we've got some absolutely amazing sitcoms, sketch shows and standup acts. Classics like Monty Python, Black Adder or Only Fools & Horses. I also highly recommend The IT Crowd and The Inbetweeners. For standup, there's the likes of Rob Brydon, Eddie Izzard and Dara O'Briain. I dunno how much exposure these get outside the UK, so have a look around in the US/Amazon.com first, but I most people would appreciate the humour (well, except The Inbetweeners can be very vulgar, Eddie Izzard's a transvestite and Dara is an 'atheist catholic' - some might not like that).

On the off chance you know any Doctor Who fans, find some DW stuff to take back with you, like a model sonic screwdriver or sweet-dispensing TARDIS. Judging by r/DW, the American fans are some of the most fanatic, so this would be a great gift. And if they're not DW fans, well, there series is awesome, so DVDs.

Oh, and if you know any young kids/people with young kids, consider getting them Mr Bliss by Tolkien. I've had a quick look on Amazon.com and it doesn't seem to be stocked there, so my guess is it's not very prolific in the US. I found it in a Waterstones a couple months back looking for a book for my kid siblings and the hardcover is an absolutely marvellous book just to hold in your hands, with some great illustrations by Tolkien.

Thanks for the recommendation, that sounds fascinating.

Reminds me a little of one of my favourite books. The A303: Highway to the Sun - which sounds dry and anorakish, but is really an easily-accessible casual-history book about the stories of everything along the road, from huge medieval festivals to the rise of the car and the 1940s-1970s visions of a far huger motorway network than what we have today, the collapse of which has preserved the countryside and all the ancient settlements en route. As well as the rise and destruction of 'free festival' hippy culture, wealthy aristocrats fighting in woodlands...

I was reminded of that just because it's the book that really taught me to visualise a pre-modern England, and it's fascinating to see on your map that the most important 'highways' are the great rivers. Now, whenever I cross over an anonymous concrete bridge on that road I might think "six thousand years ago, the megaliths of Stonehenge were floated past those riverbanks".
Also from that map, "Hamtun" = walled town = Southampton! I will order the first of those books for sure. Thanks again.

Well, three reasons basically:

1. I don't know any skilled software developers who have problems finding jobs. All my techie friends are happily employed. Sure, we complain about not being paid enough occasionally, but that's probably better than not having jobs :)
   
2. It's a fairly mobile career. If the UK job market is not for you, it's relatively easy(er) for move to other countries where IT is generally more in demand. Places like Canada, Australia, NZ, etc.
   
3. I've known some friends who'd taken such conversion courses. They were previously doing office admin, biology, history, etc. and got fed up with their job prospects. After the conversion Msc, they're all employed in IT now and seem to quite enjoy it.
   
   Note that the keyword here is 'skilled'. In general, have on-demand skills in something and opportunities will open. That applies to other fields as well, but it's especially true in IT where continuous learning is the name of the game. Also, my 'IT' here is the narrow world of software development. I don't know anything about system supports, database admins, IT sales, etc.

> Oh dear. Do please forgive me for not linking this extremely hard to find study.

Never beg forgiveness for something you have not done. Especially since it is so easy to find that I had read it before you decided you had linked it.


> No worries there, sunshine, I'm just enjoying yanking your chain 'cause you're clearly a right wanker.

Although you are not. You are clearly pulling your own chain. Repeatedly. Which is fine in the privacy of your own delusions. But in public it does put you in a poor light. Which is, perhaps, best.

> ... just out of interest, have you heard of this tiny little country called Australia?

No. Is it as interesting as Cockaigne where you clearly hail from. Should you actually suppose that is funny I recommend a career in Accountancy. Although, given your innumeracy I fear that would be beyond you.

> Yes, and every other fucking voting system in existence. The point, you obtuse lump of enthusiastically transgressive armpit wax, is how you get the "highest scoring choice". Do feel free to read some of the less challenging introductions on the subject.

How we laughed. Yes. Had you actually read the paper you keep claiming to have linked to you might have noticed that three voting methodologies failed to get any preferences and... hilariously... the winning methodology got more than 50% preferences thus reducing, in a mathematical sense, to being a simple First Past The Post Poll.

"The Highest Scoring Choice Turned Out To Be Selected By A First Past The Post Preference", is not really the ideologically acceptable headline you were seeking. I recommend you read some less challenging material in future.

Your problem seems to be supposing that abusing strangers on the internet is a great substitute for numeracy and the capacity for mathematical analysis of choice and decision processes. Which is fine when you are drunk. Never sober up, poppet.

> In any case, returning to the original argument, no-one who studies the actual science of voting argues that FPTP "...is no better and no worse than other methods", any more than any reputable climatological scientist will deny the current climate breakdown...

Lord Louth would love you. Except, probably not.

Indeed, if you ever work out the original point made about voting methods then, perhaps, you will realise that you are digging a deeper hole. Which is fine. The stupid should bury themselves and save the world a task.

> In any case, returning to the original argument, no-one who studies the actual science of voting argues that FPTP "...is no better and no worse than other methods", any more than any reputable climatological scientist will deny the current climate breakdown...

It is best not to compare political sciences to reputable sciences. Where climate change has been pretty much understood since 1824 when it was described and 1896 when a specific predictive model was put forward.

You seem to be struggling with the concept that two different things can behave in identical ways. Perhaps if you weaned yourself off your current addictions to the politics of Cockaigne that might happen.

Have you heard of not holding your breath. Or irony. No. Good. Carry on.

I know this isn't a website, but I find out very informative, and relatively quick (but incredibly dense)

http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-European-Union-Introduction-Introductions/dp/0199233977

It's the Oxford Very Short Introduction series. The authors note that they are themselves pro-European, but they acknowledge that right from the beginning precisely because they're so committed to creating as impartial a work as possible. And they do a very good job of it.

They don't go into differing interpretations of the EU, like the various merits and demerits of freedom of movement (the thing Cameron wants to claw back at the moment) ect. It would have to be a much larger book if that were the case. But it means that you will definitely understand everything you need to to evaluate whether you think the EU is a good thing or not.

There's some stuff it doesn't touch on, but that only bothers me because I'm a politics student and wanted to look something up about European Party funding, but that's never really touched upon.

Sorry to hear about your difficulties mate, this is something I can certainly relate to. I came back from travelling a few years ago, and since then I've felt really lost in life, and unfortunately I also developed a moderate depression, while all my friends seem to be settled and happy.

This is a book that I've found really useful to help me get by. Although the main focus of the book is about how to lift depression, it can also be used as a prevention rather than a cure. I'm pointing this book out, because telling yourself things will get better isn't a very proactive approach, and I've found that to be one of the biggest factors in how I feel. If you don't change anything in your life, it's unlikely things will just change of their own accord and get better for you in general. I really hope I'm not coming across as patronising here, I have no idea of your personal circumstances - I'm just going by my own personal experiences.

And when you say you have nobody to guide you out of it, I would seriously recommend some kind of talk therapy with a professional if that's the case. Having some kind of support is so important at times like this. Even having someone you can offload to is a big help.

Anyway, I hope I haven't offended, and apologies if I have. I hope that 2015 does prove to be a better year for you!

Take care :)

> Europe

That's development aid. Aid given to governments by other governments. It doesn't include aid given by charities and non-profits, and doesn't include humanitarian aid given outside of developmental aid. The US is, in fact, the first country to provide aid, and it's often important aid like food, medical supplies, and personnel that has value that can't be stated financially.

Example: Haiti. The US was the first country outside of Latin American to respond, and did basically the majority of work.

> All the members states of the United Nations.

The U.S. contributes more to the UN than any other country -- 22 percent of the regular UN budget and 27 percent of the peacekeeping budget

> Médecins Sans Frontières

The US has committed $350m with the department of defence prepared to spend more than $1bn to control the outbreak. The US military has said it would deploy up to 4,000 troops to the region. It is sending 200,000 items of equipment, running a training centre in Liberia, and a staffing hospital for health workers.

The US has committed more money than any other country, but what is most important is material and personnel assets devoted to fighting Ebola that you can't just put a price tag on.

> Lebanon apparently.

The US is the most desired destination for migrants in the world.

> Russia

The allies, including the Russians, were losing across the board in WWII before the US entered the conflict. Russia didn't liberate anyone by the way, they simply took control from the Nazis and subjugated the countries they "liberated".

People always say the Soviets won WWII, but the Soviets only began to make offensive progress after US-provided war aid began flooding in, and after the US opened the second front in Europe (something Canadians and Brits failed to do on their own without the US, in the disaster later euphemistically called the 'Dieppe Raid"). A liberation of western Europe would not have occurred without the US.

Look at this map of army deployments on the western front in Europe:

Simpson, 9th Army (USA)

Dempsey, 2nd Army (USA)

Hodges, 1st Army (USA)

Patton, 3rd Army (USA)

Patch, 7th Army (USA)

Bradley, 12 Army (USA)

Montgomery, 21st Army (UK)

Crerar, 1st Army (Canada)

Let's quote Stalin himself, who is just about the last person who would have benefitted from admitting the importance of the US:

'The United States is a country of machines. Without the use of these machines through Lend-Lease, we would lose this war.' —Josef Stalin (1943)

> Asia

> Why don't you show some respect to the rest of world whose accomplishments you seem to be trying to steal?

Why don't you stop lying to yourself and others in your quest to rob the US of credit for its accomplishments?

The US is ranked as the most innovative nation on the planet.

American universities lead the world in academia in every broad subject:

Natural Sciences and Mathematics

Engineering/Technology and Computer Sciences

Life and Agriculture Sciences

Clinical Medicine and Pharmacy

Social Sciences

We live in the information age. 8 of the top 14 tech companies in the world are American compared to 6 Asian companies.

The US by itself is responsible for 78% of global medical research spending.

Eight of the top 10 medical advances in the past 20 years were developed or had roots in the U.S. The Nobel Prizes in medicine and physiology have been awarded to more Americans than to researchers in all other countries combined. Eight of the 10 top-selling drugs in the world were developed by U.S. companies.

I'll answer indirectly by telling you the story I read in the book Cityboy (which by the way, I totally recommend). I'll kept it short: author ends up in investment banking, makes good money and very rich friends. One day, he is invited to a Ibiza by private jet by some very rich friends who discuss something about money and taxes during the flight. Wanting to fit in, the guy (who is making like £100k at that point) complains about income tax and how half his money is taken away. His rich friends look at high shocked and say something like "What? You pay taxes?". You're not rich enough if you pay taxes, even if you make £100k.

My advice, bar the obvious morally correct advice others have given:

• Talk about the weather too much. If you live in LA this may be hard to vary the conversation but if you are wanting to be truly British then you need to talk about the weather. Preferably wish for colder weather when it is hot and vice versa.
  
• Ensure you queue up correctly. A queue is a line in your terms. Never call it a line if you are British. A British person knows the exact order of who arrived at a queue (whether an actual 'line' like a bus stop or an informal queue like a bar). Never disobey the order. If someone jumps in front of you then you should be planning revenge.
  
• Recognise these accents (there is no such thing as a normal British accent): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dABo_DCIdpM
  
• Consider purchasing this: http://www.amazon.co.uk/How-be-British-Collection/dp/0952287013
  
• Argue about the definition of dinner and tea.
  
• Know how to make a good fry up.
  
  Please let us know how this goes. Maybe over tea sometime.
  
  EDIT: To remain convincing you should also be out of bed by now. :)

I'll tell you about mine...

Beyerdynamic DT 990 Pro

These are my 'don't want to wake the misses' headphones for when I want to listen to something but can't use the PC speakers. I keep these indoors.

They're really great - very happy with them. Good noise production across all levels and with a nice meaty bass. There are more expensive models but for the price I don't regret it at all.

And for walking around...

Betron B750s

Despite being just £11.99 these bad boys have great sounds for their size and seem very durable. They're also very compact (unlike the Beyerdynamic's) so I can stuff them in my pocket when walking to work etc.

I quite like them them in theory, but historically they don't have any noticeable effect on election results. Most extreme case being the last US election cycle where Trump embarrassed himself resolutely in every single one, lost according to basically every single metric, then won the election anyway. Remember "I agree with Nick" after his strong debate showings? The Lib Dems lost seats that year.

This study looked at every publically available source of polls from every single presidential debate from 1952 through to 2008 and found that aside from 1976, the best prediction for results was the initial verdict before the debates. The authors noted that any evidence of debate effects on results is fragile, agreeing with previous studies on the same matter.

We all want to see live debates between our leaders, but the evidence that suggests they actually have any meaningful influence on election results is shaky at best. In the eyes of Joe Public it's still going to come down to who looks less awkward eating a bacon sandwich.

You appear to have missed several of my points, so I'm just going to roll my eyes and make some general comments and then leave it here and not come back.

I can only presume that you come from a background that has given you supportive parents (and I note here that your parents were giving you money. Mine wouldn't even let me stay for a summer in their household: very, very different situation) and friendly local companies who will offer you continuous summer work (like that bike shop, which is one of the few seasonal jobs that I could see increasing over summer drastically enough to welcome back a full-time employee). I am envious of your good luck for many reasons.

My father would not have let me, for instance, stay at his house over summer. Nor could he have provided me with any money. I survived my first 4 months of university on £50 of student loan (having picked up uncatered halls at only £90/week for my first year, due in full on day 1 of degree. It was an utter shithole (since closed, revamped, and reopened at a 30% increase in rent), but it was at least cheap enough to let me use the first of student loan to build up a buffer to prepare for the second and third year). Why? Because my father didn't even do the paperwork to get me the correct student loan for his income, because he didn't see the point. My father is completely and utterly useless and to this day we have a very strained relationship based on things like this.

It kind of seems that your university-related reading was very, very different to mine. You had correct answers. We.. didn't. Some of these things can be accounted for and probably should be (more so than they currently are under the system) and I think we can agree that obviously different degrees have different requirements just based on comments about being able to Google for answers. I wish that that was possible. It really wasn't. I tried. We don't have "right answers", we have "academic opinions". Which more often than not involve reading through another dozen books. I'd hazard a guess at 300-500 books a year on my various reading lists.

Do science degrees have the same kind of costs as a music degree? I doubt it. But I didn't do engineering so I can't be sure.

But, for example, there's half a dozen pieces of software at various price points that most musicians have to pick up somewhere between their GCSEs and their first year of professional work, combined cost of around 2-3K. Running costs of playing an instrument of any kind are several hundred pounds. Things like sheet music are far more expensive than people realise: something like this is definitive, and the equivalent "cheaper" versions that come in 12 books like this for combined cost of around £60-70 are literally not worth the paper they're printed on once you get to a certain standard (ie. you're doing music at university or at a music college). And because the people that tend to buy the decent sheet music tend to be those that are using it themselves, the only people selling it are dead or publishing. And hence the music is horribly out of date and, once again, not worth the paper it's printed on. Academia in music has changed drastically in just a couple of generations. Expensive time to be studying it.

So perhaps this kind of thing contributed to why I felt that university was more of a struggle and why £10K/year was probably not enough (though looking at my spreadsheets I could probably have managed to do it if I had sacrificed anything that wasn't directly related to eating, sleeping and studying, presuming that no accidents ever happened whatsoever over the 3 years I was there). Partly because of the 12-months thing: if I consider for 9-months instead then the numbers are much more optimistic. Around £8K would have probably made do: and partly because of professional investments I made like travelcards to get around for work, etc.

You also seem to have missed the fact that, as I keep on pointing out, I was fine with working part-time as well as living on the student loan. I was frugal, I was careful, and I budgeted extremely well. Hence why I managed to live on £10K/year + income from other things to pay for things like Sibelius and the other things that I offset as "professional investments". Things like the cheap suit and the cheap shoes (second hand, charity shop, lasted until a few months ago when they finally gave up the ghost 4 years on!) that ended up getting me the professional work in the summer. Quite a lot of these things were paid for out of savings rather than any earnings as well, and some things were picked up by various grants, loans, etc. so it gets complicated^TM . I had to explain it once to the taxman, I'd rather not go there again for another few months.

My point is that you can't live on just the student loan. Which I think we both agree on. You required funding from part-time work and parents. I required funding from lots of part-time work. The fact that you were paid less and received money from your parents to make up the difference is exactly how it's supposed to work. Whether or not that's fair based on your particular circumstances I can't speak for, but most of what I've seen said that - in my case - it worked as intended. My parents wouldn't and couldn't support me, so I received support from the government that covered my essential living costs whilst at university when supplemented by me pulling 60-70 hour weeks. Thank god I didn't go to Oxbridge, I suppose, as then I would have been utterly fucked.

Suffice to say, we have very different opinions that obviously lead us to have very different conclusions.

I will maintain that the current student loan is inadequate to cover living costs unless you sacrifice literally everything else. You will maintain that it is fine that you can do it if you sacrifice everything else. We will both agree that student loans require supplementation to be practical - even though universities hate the fact that part-time work has become necessary - and we can get on with our lives.

Richard R. Weiner's 1981 book "Cultural Marxism and Political Sociology" is "a thorough examination of the tensions between political sociology and the cultural oriented Marxism that emerged int the 1960s and 1970s." You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Cultural-Marxism-Political-Sociology-Research/dp/0803916450

Marxist scholars Lawrence Grossberg and Cary Nelson further popularized the term in "Marxism and the Interpretation of Culture", a collection of papers from 1983 that suggested that Cultural Marxism was ideally suited to "politicizing interpretative and cultural practices" and "radically historicizing our understanding of signifying practices." You can buy it here:http://www.amazon.com/Marxism-Interpretation-Culture-Cary-Nelson/dp/0252014014

"Conversations on Cultural Marxism", by Fredric Jameson, is a collection of essays from 1982 to 2005 about how "the intersections of politics and culture have reshaped the critical landscape across the humanities and social sciences". You can buy it here: http://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093

Cultural Marxism," by Frederic Miller and Agnes F. Vandome, states that "Cultural Marxism is a generic term referring to a loosely associated group of critical theorists who have been influenced by Marxist thought and who share an interest in analyzing the role of the media, art, theatre, film and other cultural institutions in a society You can buy it here. http://www.abebooks.co.uk/Cultural-Marxism-Frederic-Miller-Agnes-Vandome/2237883213/bd

The essay "Cultural Marxism and Cultural Studies," by UCLA Professor Douglas Kellner, says " 20th century Marxian theorists ranging from Georg Lukacs, Antonio Gramsci, Ernst Bloch, Walter Benjamin, and T.W. Adorno to Fredric Jameson and Terry Eagleton employed the Marxian theory to analyze cultural forms in relation to their production, their imbrications with society and history, and their impact and influences on audiences and social life... http://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/kellner/essays/culturalmarxism.pdf

see http://culturalpolitics.net/cultural_theory/journals for a list of cultural studies journals such as "Monthly Review", the long-standing journal of Marxist cultural and political studies"

"Cultural Marxism: Media, Culture and Society", Volume 7, Issue 1 of Critical sociology, of the Transforming Sociology series, from the Institute for Advanced Studies in Sociology.

Well here's one for a start https://www.amazon.com/Jameson-Conversations-Cultural-Post-Contemporary-Interventions/dp/0822341093