tuition fees - cap raised to £9k

C_Mababejive

Quite right too. Why should the working man/woman pay for others to further their career prospects and quality of life? Pay for it yourselves.

WhiteHorse

olly300 wrote: »

The CBI wanted more graduates not the government.

But graduates in what? I suspect that Spa Management etcetera may not be what they had in mind. Furthermore, Blair stated that he wanted everyone to go to university. That is the government.

Medical students have had trouble getting training places for the last few years. This has lead to some potential junior doctors going aboard to train. They aren't likely to come back either.

True, and certainly a serious situation that needs redressing.

What is a rubbish degree subject?

Usually an invented subject (lots of universities came up with non-subjects just to meet the criteria for John Majors instant-university status).

I looked the requirements for doing Golf Management last year. Both universities that did the course made it clear that the course was vocational, and you couldn't do or continue with the course if you couldn't get the right type of work at a golf course.

And just how many 'Golf Managers' does the nation require for it's continued prosperity and security? Does this really require a degree? Does it merit that level of educational resources? Or would a simple certificate from a local College suffice?

I've also heard time and time again that a History graduate is more likely to be unemployed than a Media Studies one.

Unfortunately true. On the other hand, the media is another giant bubble in the process of contracting.

In fact I know from the people I graduated with years ago the people who had difficulty getting jobs where Geography graduates.

True, although geography per se is not a useless subject. Unfortunately, you don't need many geographers.

Those who did random subjects like Psychology and Politics knowing that it would be harder to get a job compared to say a Science graduate really pulled their finger out in their final year to ensure they got a decent one.

This opens another can of worms. How many of those jobs were real and will now be disappearing?

Cleaver

C_Mababejive wrote: »

Quite right too. Why should the working man/woman pay for others to further their career prospects and quality of life? Pay for it yourselves.

Isn't every single thing paid for via tax subject to this type of logic? We both know it's more complex that this.

Why should I pay for maternity wards? I'm male, I'm not going to have a baby.

Why am I paying for trident? I don't need a nuclear sub.

Why am I paying for schools? I don't plan to have kids.

Why am I paying for benefits? I work, I don't need them.

And so on and so on.

You can debate back and forth about the issue, but I guess the reason that taxpayers help fund degrees is because it ultimately gives the country an educated workforce which in turn benefits us all in a roundabout way. I'm not dismissing your point, and debating whether the taxpayer should fund degrees is comepletely valid. I'm just not sure the "I don't like degrees so why should I fund others to do one?" argument fully stands up. If there's a kid from a council estate who's hard-working, intelligent, ambitious and wants to work hard at a degree but their family can't support them to go then I'm actually happy for some of my tax money to help them go to university. I know a left-wing view such as this will get me lynched on this site, but there we go.

Cleaver

WhiteHorse wrote: »

True, although geography per se is not a useless subject. Unfortunately, you don't need many geographers.

I have a degree in geography. When I went for a job interview as an IT Project Manager for a large mutli-national a couple of years ago I sat in front of a man who read over my CV infront of me. He generally muttered "good, good" as he went over my experience. Whilst scanning my CV he said:

"and you do have a degree don't you?"

"Yes", I replied.

"good, good" he said.

And we got on with the interview from which I was successful. Many employers, whether you agree or not, just like people with degrees. I'm not sure if you've noticed but it's not 1963 anymore and people with geography degrees do go on to do things other than be geographers.

Rochdale_Pioneers

I think what entertains me most is the desperate spin to hide the basic fact that the huge increase in fees directly replaces the huge cut in government funding to universities. Students are being asked to foot the cost currently met by the taxpayer.

But, insists Cable et al, this won't put anyone off going to university! OK so the NUS and polls and vox pops of young people all disagree, but what do they know?

Really2

Should imagine this will cut down on people doing degrees in goat yodeling.

Hopefully they will cut back on the, how should I put it, less usefull degrees.

I should imagine paying for it would mean more who do a degree would study for something which pays well at the end.

Lets face it there are a fair few people who have done degrees for the sake of it and do a job they never needed a degree for in the first place.
Such people were detrimental to the tax payer and the economy, I doubt they would have done it for the "experience" if it cost £9K a year.

Just hope the support for the poorer is there.

WhiteHorse

Cleaver wrote: »

IWhere have you 'seen' these people?Does your company employee them? If so, why? Or do you interview them? Why are you interviewing them if their application showed that they were barely literate?

Seen at interview and via CV. Some could barely even talk. I've also seen no-end of teenagers with umpteen triple-A-gold-starred O and A levels who were quite literally incapable of filling in an application form correctly.

When I was at school, 10 A's at O Level meant that Oxford might consider taking you direct. Now they all have these. Has the population suddenly become full of genuises? Or have successive governments been fiddling the figures? As the Americans say, Go figure.

They are sometimes employed because they are stupid (they of course believe that they are very clever indeed), and can be exploited. Ruthless, yes, but that's the way of the world.

...and, most importantly, the individual.

Yes, character can account for a lot and so it should, but the debate here is about the paperwork.

What bothers me is this claptrap rhetoric about modern graduates ...

True, there is a measure of hyperbole (and of course necessary to sell the more lurid newspapers).

Experience and the person is the most important thing, but if degrees are becoming oh-so common place then I wouldn't want to be without one. You look 'worse' than the person who has one in a lot of cases.

A contradiction perhaps. The preeminence of 'character' against the necessity of being one of the multitude?

That's complete rubbish in my humble opinion.

Fair enough, but that's my experience and that of many of my acquaintances also.

Really2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Students are being asked to foot the cost currently met by the taxpayer.

If we forget how it was previously funded in the past you would have to ask what was wrong with that?
The people who use it pay for it?
At the moment you still have many poor family contributing to richer family's childrens higher education?

If the support for the poorer is there (not sure how much it is with the state of the economy at the moment) it could work out.

In reality we are going to be like any other country's and parents will have to prepare for their childs further education, but is that really wrong?

The current system is just as unfair to those that don't go to university,

I for one already have plans in place for my childs further education should he decide to go.

WhiteHorse

Cleaver wrote: »

Many employers, whether you agree or not, just like people with degrees.

As a hangover from when a degree (any degree), meant something. Then it moved to replacing A Levels when the government wrecked those. Now degrees are also devalued.

I'm not sure if you've noticed but it's not 1963 anymore and people with geography degrees do go on to do things other than be geographers.

Quite. Geographers not employed as Geographers.

ninky_2

so regressive this policy. further removing merit from the education system and replacing it with the ability to pay. hey, why don't they suggest secondary school students take out loans to pay for better schooling?