MSE News: University fees could rocket after funding review

Oldernotwiser

Stryder wrote: »

You have as much grasp on this as a one legged Rhino has on a rope ladder

1) Education, like health and foreign aid, is a policy born out of a principal and ethics. There was a time when all three did not exist and if you are not clear on it read Jane Eyre! There are some things you do because it is right.

The introduction of all of these was based on political and economic need. The country needed a literate workforce, healthy soldiers and overseas markets for its goods; principals and ethics came a long way behind.

2) We have had something like 700 of class struggle from the first peasants revolt, the Magna Carta, etc. etc. The point is that the wealth of a CHILD should not determine its potential. If you block the poorer access after 18, this will also affect their choices as children.

Children from poor families are much better funded than those who are more affluent and this is likely to remain the same.

3) Do you really think that high levels of education does not affect the economy for the better? Maggie killed manufacturing (which I assume are the jobs these "apprentices" should take. So our economy is based on technical skills, like banking (ok, unintentional joke), research, IT, etc. This needs a high level of education, not only for the workers but all the other professionals surrounding the system (contract lawyers, managers, HR professionals, IT engineers and programmers, etc etc).


The country does now need educated people but that shouldn't have to mean the numbers now going to university. Educational standards have fallen so drastically that employers now have to look for graduates for the same level of education that they would once have got by employing people with A levels. If we brought our educational standards up to where they were 50 years ago, we would need fewer than half the graduates that we do these days and the country might have the chance of funding them better.

You have a very poor grasp of history and I have student loans.:D

The_One_Who

Stryder wrote: »

You have as much grasp on this as a one legged Rhino has on a rope ladder

1) Education, like health and foreign aid, is a policy born out of a principal and ethics. There was a time when all three did not exist and if you are not clear on it read Jane Eyre! There are some things you do because it is right.
2) We have had something like 700 of class struggle from the first peasants revolt, the Magna Carta, etc. etc. The point is that the wealth of a CHILD should not determine its potential. If you block the poorer access after 18, this will also affect their choices as children.
3) Do you really think that high levels of education does not affect the economy for the better? Maggie killed manufacturing (which I assume are the jobs these "apprentices" should take. So our economy is based on technical skills, like banking (ok, unintentional joke), research, IT, etc. This needs a high level of education, not only for the workers but all the other professionals surrounding the system (contract lawyers, managers, HR professionals, IT engineers and programmers, etc etc).

I wonder - did you go to University and did you pay?

Please, tell me where I have said that the poor cannot go to university, simply because they are poor. University (higher education) should be available for everyone with the academic ability. Of course, those from the poverty-ridden schemes in the inner cities have lower educational standards (as well as lower ambitions), but that is taken into consideration during the application process. Many universities have widening participation programmes in place.

Yes, the country does need educated people (although I believe most of the population is involved in the service economy, rather than the knowledge economy), and we have those educated people. That's the problem, we have far too many of them to fill the required vacancies. If university was restricted to those with the academic ability, there would be fewer students and more money to go around for them.

Again, if you do not get into university there is nothing stopping anyone from improving their grades, doing access courses, the OU, the lot. We need to cap the number of students because the market for them is saturated. So much so that there are plenty of these educated people either looking for work (and on JSA) or in low-paid retail or service jobs.

Yes, I did go to university, but because I am in Scotland I didn't pay fees. I would have gladly taken out loans if I was required to though. I understand how much a university education costs and I was always going to go to university, I wasn't just there for the cheap alcohol or because it was expected of me to go.

Stryder

The One Who>>

If you tell people who combined families income does not come to £20,000 a year and whose family does not have these aspirations, that their education will cost probably £50,000 (including living expenses) then a lot will not go. Simply as. Not all but many people could not imagine such debt, and neither can their parents. The point of funding is that wealth should not have any affect on the anyone aspirations.

Of course, those from the poverty-ridden schemes in the inner cities have lower educational standards (as well as lower ambitions), but that is taken into consideration during the application process. Many universities have widening participation programmes in place.
Sorry but that simply is not countering the effect of the evil alliance (coalition).

Again, if you do not get into university there is nothing stopping anyone from improving their grades, doing access courses, the OU, the lot. Again, for most, this is such an unrealistic view of the world. If you are in the "poverty ridden" estates, then this is exactly the kind of thing you are not empowered or motivated to do.


Oldernotwiser>> you are a miserable right winger with extremist views who attacks anyone who may receive a penny off the state... and I have heard your whining before
As for my assessment of society you are so far off course you missed the iceberg and run aground on the isle of skye!

1) - welfare state was created after the war and when there was no necessity for healthy armies:
The National Health Service Act 1946 came into effect on 5 July 1948
2) State Education
Elementary Education Act 1870 started the key principals of compulsory state education; A driving force behind the Act was a perceived need for Britain to remain competitive in the world by being at the forefront of manufacture and improvement. so in other words - an educated population is good for the economy. But this was in fact preceded by the Forster act that was focused on the moral implications of education.
3) The idea that education 50 years ago was perfect is a joke. We live in a different world and this comparison is a joke - pre-calculators, pre computer/internet, pre-global economy, etc etc. And although I agree some key elements are less rigorously taught (English and Maths being key) the breadths of education is much wider now.
And whilst many employers look for people with Masters and work experience now this is not a reflection just on an assumed reduction in standards, but the fact there are a lot more people with degrees and the "graduate schemes" are still quite limited. And a degree is not JUST about getting a job but about giving people an education which empowers them in all the decisions they make.

Mind you - if your right about educational standards going down it would explain all those people who voted for evil tories and lib dems, and well... YOU!

The_One_Who

Stryder, you do realise that ad hominem attacks on people really don't help your argument, right?

Stryder wrote: »

If you tell people who combined families income does not come to £20,000 a year and whose family does not have these aspirations, that their education will cost probably £50,000 (including living expenses) then a lot will not go. Simply as. Not all but many people could not imagine such debt, and neither can their parents. The point of funding is that wealth should not have any affect on the anyone aspirations.

I would fall into that group. I am from a low-income family, in an area of deprivation and went to a school that wasn't exactly great. I still wanted to go to university and if I needed to take out loans to do it I would have. I cut my costs by living at home (quite common in Scotland, especially the west coast), and other students can too if they want/need to. I don't quite buy into the lack of independence arguments. I am effectively lodging in my parents house. I do everything for myself. Life is all about compromise and if you want something bad enough then you will compromise. Unfortunately some students don't want to and just expect things to be given to them.

Sorry but that simply is not countering the effect of the evil alliance (coalition).

So what do you want to happen? A full redistribution of the country's wealth is never going to happen.

Again, for most, this is such an unrealistic view of the world. If you are in the "poverty ridden" estates, then this is exactly the kind of thing you are not empowered or motivated to do.

So again, what do you want to happen?

And whilst many employers look for people with Masters and work experience now this is not a reflection just on an assumed reduction in standards, but the fact there are a lot more people with degrees and the "graduate schemes" are still quite limited. And a degree is not JUST about getting a job but about giving people an education which empowers them in all the decisions they make.

Yes, there are too many graduates for the job market to absorb. I'm not just talking about the hallowed graduate scheme, but for a lot of jobs. So, ultimately, there does need to be some sort of review of this.

I agree that a university education is not just about getting a job. However, a job is an integral part of life, and a lot of graduates would like to be employed soon after their graduation.

shooter

As a prospective university student... This is what I have to say;

I am happy to pay for my education but feel that the change in fees will create a huge divide within society... gone are the days when you had to come from a wealthy background to be able to go to university.

Equality is what is spouted these days and making a university education something that is only for the rich will not help this country weather it has a knock on effect to the economy or the skills market is neither here nor there...

I am 40 years old and until my husband died in 2006 was in effect his unpaid nurse. Of course I did this out of love for him but also in doing so saved this country tens of thousands of pounds... But when trying to find employment since, I find that now if you do not have a 5 year traceable work history that even the most menial of jobs is not open to you.

I decided to give myself a better chance within the job market by returning to education to get some qualifications behind me. To do this I have to retrain.

Another thing to keep in mind is that 20 or so years ago someone could leave school and get a job with almost any company with just their A levels and some even with just O levels..... This is not the case anymore. Those same companies now require that their prospective employee to have a degree and not necessarily in a vocational subject.

Many employers now value the soft skills that come from having studied to degree level. Communication, teamwork, social skills etc.

I for one am lucky that I will be starting in 2011 and not 2012 as my total student debt will be in the region of £30,000 (Fees and maintenance) once I have graduated and will happily pay this back, had I been starting the following year my total debt could have been in the region of £60,000 as my 1st choice is in the top 5 on the league table and likely to be one of the highest fee charging universities.

My background is not one of financial security and my 17 year old daughter, by her own choice is supporting me through the college course that is preparing me for university, we live in social housing in possibly the poorest area of our borough and without student finance AND without a University degree we are likely to stay here.

University education gives people from MY background Hope of a better future and greater financial security.

So I say to those that think people like me should not be entitled to this opportunity, I can only assume you come from some sort of financial security and have never had the desire to better yourself!

As for THE ONE WHO...

QUOTE:
"Of course, those from the poverty-ridden schemes in the inner cities have lower educational standards (as well as lower ambitions), but that is taken into consideration during the application process."

What gives you the right to make this statement!!!

Firstly; just because a person is from area like this does NOT mean that they have a lower educational standard NOR is your presumption that they have lower ambitions Correct...Many see a University education as a means to escape the deprivations that their
Micro-society has.

Also Universities make absolutely no concessions what so ever, for where you have come from...Every degree course has an entry criteria and this must be meet in order for an offer to be made!!!!!!!!


Just for the record I am applying to UCL to do an ITMB Degree that is 100% employment focused, and Not a degree that doesn't lead directly
to employability.


Sorry for the long post and RANT over...

Oldernotwiser

Stryder wrote: »

Oldernotwiser>> you are a miserable right winger with extremist views who attacks anyone who may receive a penny off the state... and I have heard your whining before!

And you are so far off course that you have missed the planet! I am life long Old Labour and a trade unionist. I also have 40 years experience in and around education and several personal experiences of HE.

Of course employers can be fussy because there are so many graduates but, again, your weak grasp of history is showing. Virtually all professions now need to ask for higher level qualifications to acquire the level of education that is required. even when they find it difficult to recruit.

Do you realise that teaching became a graduate profession less than 40 years ago and that, back then, you didn't need A levels to go to Teacher Training college? That most solicitors used not to be graduates? That you could enter basic nursing with 2 O levels and full nursing with 5? That people with A levels could enter the Civil Service as Higher Executive Officers??

So people can use computers and the internet these days - big deal! Skills that can be learnt over a few weekends do not equate to educational standards which are now at least two years behind what they used to be.

Wicked_witch

No real input here, but had to giggle at ONW being described as right wing! :eek:

Actually, some input- my parents 'only' have O-levels and they still regularly put me, a graduate, right about such diverse subjects as grammar, military history and where to find Portsmouth on a map. It would be quite pointless for me to pretend that the education I had was anywhere near as comprehensive as theirs. And looking at the essays that got my son high marks in english, there is another large gap between the generations- sure the ideas and creativity are there, but any work so badly spelled, poorly set out and grammatically suspect as that would have been returned unread by any of my teachers. I think they have made allowances for his dyslexia but personally I wish they hadn't as it encouraged him to be lazy and careless about his mistakes rather than working on them...

The_One_Who

shooter wrote: »

I am happy to pay for my education but feel that the change in fees will create a huge divide within society... gone are the days when you had to come from a wealthy background to be able to go to university.

Equality is what is spouted these days and making a university education something that is only for the rich will not help this country weather it has a knock on effect to the economy or the skills market is neither here nor there...


What gives you the right to make this statement!!!

Firstly; just because a person is from area like this does NOT mean that they have a lower educational standard NOR is your presumption that they have lower ambitions Correct...Many see a University education as a means to escape the deprivations that their Micro-society has.

Also Universities make absolutely no concessions what so ever, for where you have come from...Every degree course has an entry criteria and this must be meet in order for an offer to be made!!!!!!!!

Firstly, university is not going to be only for the wealthy. There will be loans, grants and bursaries for those from the low-income families. Really, it will be the middle-income families who will continue to suffer.

As for what gives me the right to say that: social statistics, and knowledge of society shows that those from the poorer inner cities or from an environment of poverty do tend to have lower ambitions and lower educational standards. Of course there are those who get out of the trap (I am one of them), but it an exception rather than a rule.