tuition fees - cap raised to £9k

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

Should imagine this will cut down on people dping 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.

There are a number of subjects that are not vocational but which I think add something to our society - music, literature, fine art, history and the classics, advanced mathematics. I believe a country that is the 7th richest in the world can afford some luxuries.

But I am a believer in elitism, in the sense that I believe degrees should be very hard to attain, and limited to the best people in a particular subject. There should be prizes and grants so they very best students go free. The others should work and pay for it.

Really2

ninky wrote: »

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?

That's been done for years, its called private education. They loan it from their future inheritance.

Is merit a reason for a degree? if so do the people who do a degree for merit not hold a value to it, or is a degree for merit OK if someone else pays?

WhiteHorse

Cleaver wrote: »

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.

Exactly. We want and need degrees that are of benefit to the nation as a whole.

I'm just not sure the "I don't like degrees so why should I fund others to do one?" argument fully stands up.

Agreed. It's far too simplistic.

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.

And so it should, if it benefits the nation as a whole (and that benefit need not be immediate and direct either).

I know a left-wing view such as this will get me lynched on this site, but there we go.

It's not necessarily a left-wing view. I would suggest that it's actually a progressive right-wing viewpoint.

tomterm8

Around my way, almost everyone has private lessons after school, or moves into a house depending on catchment area's to get into the best school. Houses can go up or down £40k just because some school changes its catchment area.

Hauptmann

WhiteHorse wrote: »

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.

This thread has pretty much been ruined by the claptrap you are spouting.
I have been in business and employing people for over 30 years. I take lads from the local FE colleges with motor trade qualifications.
By and large the standards now are as high as they have ever been. Most of the lads I see are hardly the cream of the crop and they do make spelling errors, but no worse than those I saw 20 or 30 years ago.
The only issue I have is that there are not enough youngsters staying on in FE and HE to do engineering and science-based courses. But the hard fact is that employers won't pay well for science and technology graduates. If the pay was good there would be no shortage. Most of the big employers therefore keep pay down, moan about a skills shortage and prefer to import lower cost labour from India etc.
The notion that there are hordes of students doing Media Studies is a fiction of the Daily Mail journalists. And to suggest that every course listed by UCAS Guide is 'crap' is just plain stupid.

WhiteHorse

tomterm8 wrote: »

There are a number of subjects that are not vocational but which I think add something to our society - music, literature, fine art, history and the classics, advanced mathematics. I believe a country that is the 7th richest in the world can afford some luxuries.

Such things are not luxuries, in the long term they are essential. It's just that they are over subscribed in the short term.

But I am a believer in elitism, in the sense that I believe degrees should be very hard to attain, and limited to the best people in a particular subject. There should be prizes and grants so they very best students go free. The others should work and pay for it.

Yes, excellence in key areas benefits everyone.

Really2

tomterm8 wrote: »

There are a number of subjects that are not vocational but which I think add something to our society - music, literature, fine art, history and the classics, advanced mathematics. I believe a country that is the 7th richest in the world can afford some luxuries.

But I am a believer in elitism, in the sense that I believe degrees should be very hard to attain, and limited to the best people in a particular subject. There should be prizes and grants so they very best students go free. The others should work and pay for it.

There are a number of subjects that are not vocational but which I think add something to our society -
music, = Become a musician or lecture
literature, = Become a writer or lecture
fine art, = become an artist, gallery owner or lecture
history and the classics, = become a historian or lecture
advanced mathematics. = Are you serious you can't get a good job with advanced mathmatics?
Many of the above do not need a degree to become good in a field?
How many musicians, writters, fine artists etc actually do a degree before they become good in their field?


But my simple point would be if they are that important to people why don't people study it via open university instead of the tax payers expenses.

I really doubt any of those are on your poor kids list of degrees, so why should people not pay for them?


But I agree with you on the last point

WhiteHorse

Hauptmann wrote: »

This thread has pretty much been ruined by the claptrap you are spouting.

Hmm. Insults.

I have been in business and employing people for over 30 years. I take lads from the local FE colleges with motor trade qualifications. By and large the standards now are as high as they have ever been.

Oddly enough, I was talking to a lad recently who was bemoaning the fact that his college 'motor trade qualification' had been dismissed by local garages as worthless.

Most of the lads I see are hardly the cream of the crop and they do make spelling errors, but no worse than those I saw 20 or 30 years ago.

Idle curiosity. What would the 'cream of the crop' be? And why do you not see them?

The only issue I have is that there are not enough youngsters staying on in FE and HE to do engineering and science-based courses.

We have gone in a very short space of time from being being one of the most technologically innovative countries in the world to a bunch of wannabee footballers and pop stars. Why do you suppose that is?

But the hard fact is that employers won't pay well for science and technology graduates.

They don't pay enough, that's for sure. On the other hand, technicians will always find a berth somewhere.

If the pay was good there would be no shortage.

Facing unemployment as a graduate in Goat Yodelling, would it not be better to earn a modest wage as a plumber or mechanic?

Most of the big employers therefore keep pay down, moan about a skills shortage and prefer to import lower cost labour from India etc.

There is some truth in this. Employers greed also plays a role.

The notion that there are hordes of students doing Media Studies is a fiction of the Daily Mail journalists.

Obtain a few course lists from some of the more recent universities. You will be surprised.

And to suggest that every course listed by UCAS Guide is 'crap' is just plain stupid.

Every course? This was not said.

tomterm8

Really2 wrote: »

There are a number of subjects that are not vocational but which I think add something to our society -
music, = Become a musician or lecture
literature, = Become a writer or lecture
fine art, = become an artist, gallery owner or lecture
history and the classics, = become a historian or lecture
advanced mathematics. = Are you serious you can't get a good job with advanced mathmatics?
Many of the above do not need a degree to become good in a field?
How many musicians, writters, fine artists etc actually do a degree before they become good in their field?


But my simple point would be if they are that important to people why don't people study it via open university instead of the tax payers expenses.

I really doubt any of those are on your poor kids list of degrees, so why should people not pay for them?


But I agree with you on the last point

I would say in a degree class in almost all of the subjects, less than 10% of the people who get the degree will ever make a living in the subject, unless they teach it.

Obviously, if you are good enough at practically anything, you can make a career of it. I know of someone who makes sculptures of buildings out of playing cards, but a degree in it isn't a vocational course.

By advanced mathematics, I am talking about a lot of the stuff that isn't very practical in the real world. I am sure you can make a living doing practical maths, much less so if you are doing mathematical research into prime number theory.

Hauptmann wrote: »

The notion that there are hordes of students doing Media Studies is a fiction of the Daily Mail journalists. And to suggest that every course listed by UCAS Guide is 'crap' is just plain stupid.

I'm sure there are a lot of people doing media studies, it is a very vocational course considering media and entertainment is a bigger sector of the UK economy than finance and banking, and is one of the few things we are world class in.

WhiteHorse

Really2 wrote: »

But my simple point would be if they are that important to people why don't people study it via open university instead of the tax payers expense.

Good point, although some subjects can't be studied that way - it's not practical.

However, where possible perhaps more focus should be placed on self-improvement. Working, paying your way and studying in your spare time (evening classes or distance learning).

Much more common in years gone by, perhaps it produced better and better motivated people.