This.

But if there's not enough jobs/apprenticeships to go round for school leavers, is it no suprise that they see university as the only option?

The thing I see, is that successive governments have just focussed on getting a greater and greater proportion of school-leavers to university. That has been the target.
Just nobody seems to have thought:
i) How do we pay for it?
ii) What do we do with all these graduates after they leave university?
iii) How do we now distinguish between people for jobs/etc now "everybody" has a degree?

Just checking! I'm feeling a little defensive today (in general, not just here - it's why I'm trying to stay away from people in case I lose all my friends )


Don't forget the Lady Gaga degree.


I'm proud to say that I'm not one of those people!

Why then do we have so many Polish dentists, plumbers, welders, truck drivers and catering personnel working in this country?

SB

Because people would rather employ someone who they don't need to train first.

Being cynical (just for a change), full time university students are not in the market for full time work, and so are not included in the unemployment figures. Could this be why the last government was so keen to encourage youngsters into university?

SB

Not cynical at all, just realistic.

However, it just makes them appear in the unemploment stats 3 years later!

Unemployed AND in debt

Yep

There's only one solution. WIN THE LOTTERY.

Definitely! It started when I was at school - they put up the school leaving age from 15 to 16, which meant that for a year the unemployment figures looked better. Successive governments have persuaded more and more children to stay on for 6th form (in my day it was quite rare) until recently they decided everyone should be in full-time learning until the age of 18. The pressure is on for many of these youngsters to end up at university. It all makes the unemployment figures better - but only in the short term!

Meanwhile, our kids are graduating with a lot of debt and not managing to find graduate jobs. A friend's son has an English degree from the University of Essex, has applied for many jobs with no success, and is currently washing up in a local pub to earn a crust. What a brave new world!

Not so. As far as I know, both Dentists and Gas Fitters are required by law to pass relevant examinations here in the UK before they are allowed to practice.

A friend who qualified and practiced Dentistry in the UK was not allowed to resume when she returned from Africa, even though she had practiced and taught whilst there.

The fact is, our education system just doesn't produce enough students with the ability or the desire to study these subjects.

SB

I got the impression that Dentistry was oversubscribed - it's also quite a demanding course.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7uRnAG3wJpE

I'm not so sure about that.

As I see it, one of the biggest problems is that engineering students, chemists and so forth have had a bad deal in industry for the past forty years or so, with the result that very few people want to study these subjects now. Meanwhile, those with degrees in Greek Mythology or Marquetry Marketing, and who wore silly ties and red braces were promoted to the top of the career ladder, over the heads of those who actually knew what they were doing.

SB

I don't know much about dentistry to be honest, but it's certainly got high entry requirements and it lasts 5 years... I lived with a dentistry student in 1st year and she kept complaining that it was hard work

Anyway.... I wish I had all the answers. I don't, unfortunately. I know plenty of engineers and they seem reasonably happy with their jobs . But there is still a jobs shortage... for engineers, scientists etc. I'm an unemployed scientist

I'm puzzled by "olive skin" (which is how a girl is described in a book I'm reading) Aren't olives either different shades of green or solid black? Neither makes very good skin tone in my opinion...

I'm guessing that the people mentioning all students paying ?9k per year are factoring in ?6k plus at least ?3k in tuition fees. Of course, if you had any ambition of studying at a Russel Group (who will blatently all charge ?9k), then its actually ?12k-?13k you'll have to borrow each year.

See, since my parents are only moderate well off, I get to borrow extra maintainance loan (and a good thing to, seeing as my parents are of the opinion their financial obligations to me ended at age 18). So my maintainance loan is typically around ?4k. So add that to the ?9k top rate, and you're looking at ?13k per year.

My sister graduated with a student loan which amounted to ?12k in total. Because I was daft enough to do an 'important' STEM subject, most of which require 4 years of study, mine is about ?40k. I'm having to borrow about ?7k for each year at uni plus interest. Last time I checked the loan was growing by around ?35 per month - so much for interest free.

So, considering that I'm getting fairly -impolite phrase deleted- already, I really feel for the scientists, engineers and mathematicans of the future, who won't really want to consider 4 year courses. They won't be able to afford them. Uni will be somewhere you get out of asap, doing a two or three year course to keep the debt down. Because under the new proposals, that debt will be taken into account when you apply for a mortgage. At present it isn't.


So yup, the new proposals will deter people from studying STEM subjects. What a brilliant proposal.


Moving onwards, poor students. Who will supposedly be better off.

Well, the thing with poor students is that they tend to come from families where debt is a BAD THING. Most of my genuinely low income friends wouldn't dream of borrowing thousands for anything without an obvious capital value - a house or car, for example. Borrowing thousands to gamble on getting a degree that MIGHT improve your job prospects is a huge risk. A risk that most young people from poorer families won't be willing to take.

I say this with such confidence, because most of my friends from secondary school decided uni was too expensive to be a realistic option when it only involved borrowing around ?12k to get a degree. Instead they took their talents and A Levels, got low paid jobs, and started popping out babies. Most of them are doing okay for themselves, after all, they were bright young people who could easily have got into university.

So, poor students are reluctant to borrow lots of money for education, regardless of how often some poncy politician tries to tell them this new system is fair. They also tend not to know much about applying for university, the options at university, how the funding works, or anything really helpful to make their decisions. Often they'll be at schools where the teachers may not have much experience of assisting with uni applications, so aren't much help either.

To try and counter this lack of information, there was this wonderful program known as AimHigher, which ran events to help pupils and their parents find out more about Uni. It did a lot of good. I know - I benefitted very directly from it, and it assisted me a lot in making the right long term decisions. Its just been scrapped.


So, our wonderfully ignorant ministers have not only just made Higher Education a lot less appealing to poor families. They've also just scrapped the scheme that helped encourage them to consider it in the first place.
Its all very well saying that universties will have to do more to increase their appeal, but I lived in a rural area where top universities are highly unlikely to consider sending representatives.


So in conclusion, I believe the new system will make studying STEM subjects less appealing and put poor families off HE. So I oppose it strongly. I am so angry and frustrated that our politicians do not understand these 'on the ground' issues, and don't appear to be listening to those that do. I think I can relate to why some people might feel like breaking things.

All that potential, all those children, who have had their futures sold to pay for the mistakes of the past. I'm not angry because I'll have to pay more (which I will). I'm angry for those who will miss out without any idea of what they've lost.



And of course those students on TV can't explain all this. The media wouldn't give them the time to even get started.

That is the main (terribly sad) thing - along with the hierarchy of the Liberal Democrats saying 'we will scrap tuition fees' when they...er...haven't. In spades.

Vandalising things (words cannot express what I feel about vandalising such monuments as the Cenotaph ) though is not the way forward, and it's a real shame some people had to do that, when the majority of protesters wanted to protest peacefully.

They probably made a lot of those promises thinking that they'd never be elected into government and actually have to deliver on them!

If you scrapped tuition fees altogether, where would the money come from seeing as there's "none left"?

I'm watching 'A Question of Sport'.

What exactly has former X Factor finalist Olly Murs got to do with sport?

They have one sports star and one celebrity on each team now rather than two sports stars.

Car Expert

Pity Have we not got enough celebrity shows on TV now? Don't get me started on 'All Star Family Fortunes'...

Mind you, Olly did play for Witham Town before his rise to fame.

Car Expert

You only know that 'cos you watched the programme, CE

No I actually knew that already. Such is my footballing knowledge

Car Expert

Car Expert

What can I do with about 500g of bean sprouts that isn't stir fry?!!

* noodle soup: A ramen noodle packet, with shredded chicken, then toss in beansprouts for 30 seconds before removing the heat.
* spring rolls: shred cabbage, carrot and onion, fry vegetables (including bean sprouts) lightly with garlic, pepper and soy sauce. Wrap with spring roll wrappers and steam (or deep fry if you REALLY want to be unhealthy)
* blanch, cool, put in vegetable wrap sandwiches with shredded vegetables and hummous, avocado, raisins, etc
* salad: blanch beansprouts, toss with raw shredded cabbage, carrot, onion with vinegar, ginger, garlic, soy, shredded chilli and a little bit of fried garlic oil

If you're really confident about their cleanliness you can skip the blanching.

I have read all the contributions about, and from, students and fully sympathise with their current and now future financial situations - after all, I was one once. But I have quoted Tamsin, not because I have anything against you, but because it helps focus on the system that was in place when I went to University (we didn't call it Uni in those days).

I passed with high enough A levels to earn a grant from our local education authority, which payed for my fees entirely for three years (Electrical Engineering at King's College, London). Because I lived at home, I did not qualify for a grant towards accommodation, but received a travel allowance. This just about paid for my tube fares, but after a couple of years, I bought a Lambretta scooter and went up to London on that. This saved money at the expense of having to sit in all weathers at traffic lights on the way to and from college. The savings were given back to my parents, who were certainly not rich by any stretch of the imagination, in return for the cost of having me live at home until I was 21 and not bringing any significant income into the house (although I always worked summer vacations and did the Christmas Post and they got some of my earnings from this). I worked hard, at no time did I live it up at college, and graduated without any overdraft. I existed on meagre earnings and pocket money from my parents, and simply could not afford to live in any way other than frugal.

So where did the fees money come from? It came from every rates paying household in my area. So rich and poor alike did in fact contribute to my higher degree, yet I was the one who was going to get a better, higher paid job. I did not borrow thousands to gamble on getting a degree, neither did my parents, but all those kind people who contributed towards my fees certainly gambled on me. And that fact was impressed on me by my mother and father, so that I was never to forget it.

But was that system truly fair? It relied on the somewhat specious argument that the country would be better off for me getting a degree in Electrical Engineering so the members of the population in my area would all have to pay for it (I like to think it was, actually, having helped to design our current BT telecommunications network, and helped with the standards for GSM mobile phones!). Most of them did not have children going to University, and as the numbers of those who did increased vastly over the last few years, it became an intolerable financial burden on the local population so an alternative payment system was devised so that those who benefitted from a degree, or their parents, would end up paying for it.

We are all free to draw our own conclusions as to which method we prefer, but I don't think it is fair to slag off the present government for trying to resolve the present financial crisis when they are staring at a huge overdraft of their, that is our, own when looking at the place where funds come from.

What goes around comes around...... seen that this week......

I don't disagree that something has to give to help fund higher education, I just feel that the way it has been done will do exactly what it should do least - put people off studying science, medicine, maths or engineering; especially those who are most poor. Its also tragic that it predominantly benefits the elite universities, and will unfairly penalise those that take most students from less wealthy backgrounds.

I also think its shocking that such a huge rise in the cost of a degree for students won't be matched by any improvements in the services provided. Because such a vast amount has been cut from the teaching budget (its the same amount as we've just given to Ireland to assist in resolving their financial crisis, consequently - somehow that money got found, but preserving teaching subsidies for universities was just too much...) even after these changes, universities will still be worse funded. At the end of the day, the only reason university management support these changes is because they have to replace the amounts that have been hacked out of their budgets from somewhere, and the students are the easy targets.

The term is often used to describe a particularly dark and attractive Mediterranean complexion, usually seen in peoples from southern Italy, Greece and northern Africa. I don't know where the term comes from, but it could have something to do with the popularity of olives in these regions.

SB

In my exam yesterday, the piece played for the last bit of the aural test was one of my brother's Grade 5 piano pieces, making it even easier to answer the questions confidently (although I am sure I would have known it was Romantic and minor anyway!)... should I have said anything? I wouldn't have wanted the examiner to make me repeat the test!

Do you ever get those emails where you think, hey if this is for real it could be REALLY exciting and if it's not it's just an annoying waste of my time?

Well I had one a few weeks ago that turned out to be the Real Thing.


Weeellllll..... I've just had another one and if it is another Real Thing it could be incredibly exciting

When I left school in the early 1970's only those who wanted to study medicine, law, engineering, theology, music, chemistry or other 'academic' subjects went on to university. The remainder studied for degrees or other qualifications on day release at Technical College, (which we or our employers paid for), whilst working in paid employment the other three days of the week. This did us no harm at all. There were also apprenticeships in those days, and again, apprentices would study their subjects at Technical College.

Crucially, the cost of funding this further education for a comparatively small number of students was probably insignificant when compared with the benefits to the nation, so everybody was happy.

The problems started when Polytechnics become universities, and successive governments obsessed about sending more and more school leavers to university, regardless of whether it benefited their career prospects, or the country as a whole.

Unfortunately, not all school leavers are 'graduate material', (that is not a negative reflection on those concerned); so a variety of newfangled degree courses were invented to cater for those who wanted a degree, but didn't' want to study classical degree subjects. Whilst subjects such as medicine, engineering, theology, law, music and chemistry may benefit the nation, many of the newer subjects do not, but they still cost, and somebody has to pay for them!

In an ideal world I agree that it would be wonderful if all education was 'free', along with unlimited 'free' social care, health care, welfare, housing benefit, and everything else that our society takes for granted nowadays. Unfortunately nothing is 'free', and those of us in the private sector who actually have to pay for these ever growing public services are finding that we no longer have the wherewithal to look after ourselves - and until May this year nobody was interested in our plight!

I have paid into pension funds all of my working life, but realistically I doubt that I will never be able to retire. One of the reasons is that Gordon Brown, when Chancellor raided, pension funds so that he could employ around a million extra public servants, who we now have to pay for. Worse still, not so long ago, these people threatened to strike for their right to retire at 50 on a full, index linked pension, whilst many of those who are paying for them are unlikely to be able to retire ? ever! What is fair about that?

If we accept that 'somebody' has to pay for our education, I would say the new, proposed system is as fair as it gets, and as I understand it, is modelled on a similar system which has worked well in Australia for many years. I should also point out that the review of university funding was commissioned by Labour whilst still in power, but they are now trying to distance themselves form the report's findings.

Education is all about studying: and I would suggest that if those concerned were to study the detail in these proposals, rather than rioting and damaging property, they might realise that what is proposed is actually fairer to 'everyone' than the old system, and will actually help those with limited means.

Regarding the crisis in Eire, the money provided by the British government is a loan, which will be repaid in full, with interest. Likewise, the money lent to the banks in this country will be repaid with interest. The money given to universities is not a loan, and will never be returned.

SB

Even with the "traditional" subjects there is a huge variation in the level of the students from different universities. I teach French-English translation classes in a French university where we get British Erasmus students from a wide range of Universities including ones in the Russell Group, former polytechnics and former teacher-training colleges. They are all third year students but their level of both English and French varies hugely from one university to another. Some of the universities sends students who are unable to understand the French texts I give them to translate, make both grammatical and spelling mistakes when writing in English and (according to my colleagues who teach English-French translation) are unable to conjugate even simple verbs in French and have an extremely limited vocabulary. On the other hand students from one of the other universities regularly hand in translations which are virtually perfect.

I'm far too sentimental for my own good... I was packing away all my concert tickets, programmes, mementos, letters and stuff this afternoon. (I have a useless memory so I collect everything related to special occasions in order to prompt memories at a later date).

I really felt quite sad. So many great people came to mind that I never see anymore. I really miss them.

Mildly insulted that anyone would suggest that I'd make such strongly worded comments about the new proposals on a public forum if I hadn't looked at them in some detail. Admittedly, I haven't been pouring over every single last word and phrase - but then, I'm in my final year, I have studying to do! Likewise, I haven't been gallivanting around the country smashing up buildings (much as I'd like to,!) again, because its my final year, I can't afford to miss lectures. Because, after ?40,000 and 5 years of studying there is no way on Earth I'll settle for anything less than a first class degree. It's cost enough!

But, oh yes, under these new proposals, next years students will have to find ?50 - 60,000 for the same degree. Because my university is planning to change the full fees, there is maintainance to borrow on top of tuition fees ,and the interest by which your loan grows during the time studying is horrific. Doesn't seem very fair to me.

From my own personal perspective, aside from my anger that poorer students ARE being ambandoned (I would have objected less to these new proposals if AimHigher hadn't also been scrapped) it doesn't quite seem fair that I might not have issues getting a mortgage, because I thought to invest in my education and do a subject which might be of benefit to society. It doesn't seem very fair that because that subject is highly paid (in recognition of its value, and the lack of students taking it) I will actually pay back more than the cost of that degree. When I'll be paying more in tax for the rest of my life anyway - just because I set aside my dreams of studying creative writing to do something that might actually help the mess previous generations have got our planet in to.

To compare implementing a system whereby young people who have never had the chance to vote, and have hardly got started on life are the ones most affected with the poor pension provision for the eldery - who have been voting all their lives for the governments who have implemented those plans, and have had all their lives to save is a little bit odd too. Don't forget it's not the 20-somethings like myself who are already through university that will be most affected, its the children in school at the moment.

Don't blame me, I have never in my life ever voted for Labour .

I can't get involved with this argument really. It's difficult for me to have an objective discussion about something which directly affects me and my family in a horrible way. I feel like I should openly agree with Tamsin (mostly) though, since it's never nice to feel like you're on your own in an argument.

One of my tutors told us the other day that "education should be a gift that is passed down from one generation to the next. It's also a question of justice. Justice between the generations."

This is not justice. It's not even truly about the cost of education. If this were truly about paying for education, English students would not be threatened with paying ?9000 for, essentially, a library card and two hours a week tutoring, then leaving university with few job prospects anyway. My life's dream is to be an academic. I will leave university with a PhD, and debt which adds up to probably more than I will ever earn in my life. And that's if I'm successful which is quite unlikely.

Basically, we're paying the debts of our parents' and grandparents' generation. It's no wonder that those in that generation think it's a good policy. They got to benefit from borrowing vast amounts, and now don't have to pay it back.

I particularly thought the post which said, essentially "I got my education for free... doesn't seem fair really... Better rectify that, by making other people pay more than they'll ever be able to afford!" was an interesting one. Perfect logic there - you feel guilty about your privilege, so to make yourself feel better about it, other people should have to live their lives in debt? I'm sure it makes sense in your head. To me, it's the height of hypocrisy to decide that something is fair, only because it doesn't actually affect you.

And look, now this feels like a personal attack. I'm sorry about that, but I'm disinclined to change it. As I said, this is my life, and the life of my little sister, and it IS personal.

What I feel is the most unfair thing of all, is for government to "sell" a university education as being the key to a better job. Hundreds of thousands of students have got into debt on the basis of this lie, and it *is* a lie under the current system of mass university education. The previous government started it, and this government is perpetuating it. The most able students will get a good job, as they always would have done. The [relatively] less able students will get what may be perceived to be [relatively] less good jobs, as they always would have done, except now they're in debt.

Mass university education cannot be afforded by the taxpayer. For every university student, it's someone else's cancelled operation, or longer waiting list, or higher prescription charges, or.... XYZ. Either students have to pay or the numbers have to be cut back to a more realistic level. I don't agree with students having to pay these ridiculous amounts of money. Even if students don't have to pay it back until they're earning X amount, starting adult life in debt is a heavy burden to carry and inducing/promoting a debt culture is, in my opinion, a reprehensible thing for governments to do.

I don't have the answer - but then I'm not paid to come up with the answers. It's a very thorny issue, and many people object to a university education being restricted to the most able students. Note I said "most able", not "most able to afford it". When I was in education, I was at an ordinary state school and many students went to university and received a grant. Some went to Oxbridge and again they were just from ordinary families down the street. I am bemused when I read about only wealthy families being able to send their children to Oxbridge as it wasn't like that in my experience "in my day". If it's changed, then that's wrong, but if Oxbridge is working within the system, then it's the system that's wrong.

There were also technical colleges where people learnt a skill and some members of my family who went to technical college got good jobs. "The tech" was a reputable and well-respected route for school leavers to take. As I understand it, it was only when they became "polytechnics" that they started being perceived as some sort of university, albeit "not quite as good", hence the eventual conversion to university status and the start of the whole mess that has now become higher education.

I didn't have a university education but I've made a good living without it. So have hundreds and thousands of other people. One of my clients is a former coal miner, and he is is not well educated at all. When the pits closed in South Yorkshire, he started selling a few things and about 30 years later, he sold what had become a chain of businesses for mega-million pounds. Although he doesn't have even a basic higher education, he's astute, phenomenally hard-working, good with people etc. A university degree is not the panecea for a good life or a good job, and this government should stop perpetuating the lie started by the last government that it is. Apart from the fact that it's not true, it can make thousands of young people who don't get a university place feel like failures and that makes me very cross because it's a long way from the truth. Granted some employers will only recruit graduates, but many thousands of other employers look for other qualities such as commonsense, attitude, integrity, conscientiousness, aptitude for the job, willingness and ability to learn etc. Good employers will look beyond exam results for the candidates' potential in the particular job on offer.

I wouldn't worry about me fighting the corner alone on this one. I know I'm not the only on who feels the same way I do. At the same time, I also do see both sides - I'm just more passionate about one than the other. No-one can deny that if the money lopped out of university budgets for teaching isn't replaced by students, then there won't be a HE sector in this country before long. That said, I think it is very wrong that even with the new proposals, the amount of money taken away won't be replaced. So students will pay more, and receive less.

So that's not very fair.

The students who no-one deny have the ability to make the most of university, it has been suggested, will be the ones to get good jobs. Same as always. Wonderful and fantastic. Except, it seems likely that they will also be the ones who land up earning more. So, they'll pay more tax overall, and pay more than the total cost of their degree to subsidise the degrees of all those students who perhaps weren't really suited to university in the first place, who'll end up in more average paid jobs.

Also not very fair.

The AimHigher scheme, which did miraculous things for helping young people in deprived areas see university as a realistic option has been scrapped. This program helped inform 14-16 YOs and their families about the option of university (and what they needed to do at GCSE and in Further Education / 6th Form to get there). Now, when it is needed the most to get poor young people to even consider incurring so much debt, it is gone.

That's the most unfair thing of all. And, far beyond my own personal selfish stance on the issue (yay, ?40k of debt, 3-5% interest to keep it growing, and no mortgage for me!), is the bit I'm really angry about.

I think anyone who truely believe what has been done is fair, has very little understanding of the realities of a typical secondary school in a deprived area. Scrapping AimHigher, and pretending that universities have the first clue how to approach widening participation, and countering the negative pressures against 'getting more education' amongst less well off teenagers, tells me all I need to know about how little our MPs understand their country and it's social issues.

So who should pay then?

Is it fair that those who couldn't even spell the word 'university', let alone attend one, should pay for those that do?

(I ask this question as the parent of two teenage children who will almost certainly go to uni in due course.)

Maybe it is also time that school aged children attending state schools made more of their primary and secondary education, which is free. If these students learned as much about English, Maths, Chemistry and Physics, etc. as they do about computer games, mobile phones and training shoes this country would be in much better shape than it is now. Peer pressure in some secondary schools is appalling, and I am sure ruins more careers that tuition fees ever will.

I lecture part time to post grad students, and many of them struggle to compose a cogent sentence, let alone a cogent paragraph. They also seem to think that text speak, poor grammar and spelling mistakes are wholly acceptable in technical reports.

What has gone wrong?

SB

One suggestion I have seen thrown out there is that there should be a quota of scholarships awarded solely on academic ability. So for example, if we need 500 new medicine graduates to train as doctors each year, 500 students should be able to apply to study medicine for free. Similarly, at present many many multitudes more archaeology students graduate than there are jobs for archaologists, curators, researchers etc. So the amount that are needed are supported and receive free tuition.

Everyone else could then still have the opportunity to study, but they would have to finance it in a similar way to at present.

This is a nice idea, and appeals to me and those students who feel confident they could have got such a scholarship if one were offered. It could be used to match the number of graduates to the subjects that are needed.

No minister would ever give it consideration though - after all it smacks of elitism. Perish the thought we might be elitist on merit and academic ability for entrance into our universities! I also can't see how it'd ever be made to work. Its too hard to distinguish who would be worthy of a free place, and too difficult to decide what subjects we need more graduates in.


As for poor quality post-graduate students - I was under the impression that often students who do masters degrees end up in that position either A) because they want to switch dicipline B) because they STILL don't yet know what they want to do with the rest of their life or C) because they can't get a job / PhD with their current degree. Surely that inevitably means that you are not going to see many of the better quality students doing (taught) postgraduate degrees?

I like that idea Tamsin, but like you I doubt that it could ever be made to work. However, I can see merit in offering free places to those who want to study disciplines that are always in demand, and which enrich our society, (medicine, engineering, sciences, music, languages and so forth). Those studying more 'esoteric' subjects, (often seemingly taken 'for the sake of it') could then be charged; but I doubt that that would be accepted either.

The truth is, we don't need more graduates; we need more plumbers, gas fitters, electricans, builders, joiners and other trades people so we don't have to rely on foreign labour. These people don't need university; they need good technical colleges, (with good teachers), and good aprenticeships.




In my case the students know exactly what they want to do, (I would rather not say here), and need to have the ability to prepare well written and authoritative written reports. Whilst these students clearly have a good understanding of their core subjects, many simply don't have a satisfactory command of written or spoken English. This I find very worrying.

SB

Why is it that every time bad weather is forecast, Metcheck's website goes down?...

Here here b-c !
I'm dithering about driving down from Lancashire to Bradford-on-Avon tomorrow to see Mum and take her Xmas presents - will go anyway I think.
Forecasts seem to vary between 'sunny but cold' and 'blizzards, snowdrifts don't step outside the front door unless you have to'. !!

Well it's been wrong for the last week anyhow so no loss