Cost of a Master Degree

The_One_Who

BEEJJ wrote: »

My suggestion is in the light of the 'current inequality' of the number of years 'accross years of study' You have missed the initial point of the discussion. We know it is currently undergraduate study.

Let me get this right, in your system everyone should have access to funding for however long the longest undergraduate course lasts? Even if a person uses those funding years to complete a postgraduate qualification? You could be halfway through a PhD by then.

The current system is fair. It funds you for your undergraduate degree.

This is a different argument. I was building into the system the loan for postgraduate study and how it would be paid back.

Why should postgraduate study be government funded?

Actually I think that decently educated people who can argue logically is exactly what this country needs.

Why would it- So the current way of only people who can afford it do one is fair?

There is some funding available for postgraduate study, but it is limited and the pot is getting smaller all the time. If someone wants to do a masters degree they will find a way to do it. I think the government has better things to spend its money on that funding thousands of masters students doing it for no other reason than to put off going into the job market.

A masters doesn't even necessarily improve your CV. If, for example, you apply for a role where the requirement is a 2.1 (a lot of graduate schemes), and you have a 2.2, that masters degree isn't going to help you.

Actually a great number of students flunk first year especially those courses where the first year doesn't count.

Source?

That may have been the University you chose.

You have to have a minimum of a 2-1.

It seemed to be pretty standard application process. Very quick, very simple.

A lot of universities ask for a 2.1, but some don't. It depends on the course popularity and the university. The jump between undergraduate and postgraduate expectations is quite high, and really I think a 2.1 should be the minimum grade.

melancholly

BEEJJ wrote: »

On the basis that for 'most' masters you have to have an Upper Second class honours degree and you can't just do any subject. For an awful lot of undergraduate degrees you have to have 'a' levels but the standard for some is very low and the undergraduate course often completely unrelated to the 'a' levels. There are always going to be pointless undergraduate degrees and pointless masters but if we stick to the Russell group.

from my experience of working in HE, if you're prepared to pay, you can get on the masters.... that's my honest impression. that includes the Russell Group..... if people really do badly, then they fail and if they aren't intellectually up to it, they struggle. but it's about bums on seats in terms of getting in. this isn't exactly a popular opinion that people want to hear, but it is pretty real reflection. getting a funded masters is where it becomes all about the student and how good they are.

The_One_Who

BEEJJ wrote: »

On the basis that for 'most' masters you have to have an Upper Second class honours degree and you can't just do any subject. For an awful lot of undergraduate degrees you have to have 'a' levels but the standard for some is very low and the undergraduate course often completely unrelated to the 'a' levels. There are always going to be pointless undergraduate degrees and pointless masters but if we stick to the Russell group.

You do realise than the Russell Group is nothing more than a lobby group for the big research-based universities, don't you? There are plenty of excellent universities not in the RG.

Whether a degree is pointless or not is debatable, and very often in these discussions there is no definitive list of what is pointless.

A lot of people think that undergraduate places should be restricted to those with the academic ability to cope with the course. That means that someone with two Ds at A Level probably wouldn't be able to go to university without some sort of further study to get up to the level required.

McGuiver

BEEJJ wrote: »

Hi,

new here and maybe wrong forum...

Does anyone know why...

If you do a 4 year degree that gives you a Masters qualification you can get student funding for the 4 years.

If you do a 3 year Batchelors degree and then wish to do a further Masters you cannot get funding for the Masters year.

If you do a 3 year degree and flunk one of the years and repeat you can get funding for the 'extra' year.

At the moment my son is having to take out a business loan to fund a Masters - is this the best way of doing it?

I think that, given the surfeit in undergraduates, doing a Masters if a good way of increasing one's chances of getting a more technical job. Certainly, in my place of work (consultancy stuff) everyone has at least a Masters or is working towards one. I have many graduate friends, some with two degrees, who just can't get a job.

I know it's a depressing thought but it is becoming increasingly necessary to have at least a Masters to stand a chance of pursuing a professional career. Once A levels were enough, then a degree was enough and now employers are calling for post-graduate qualifications.

It's a real shame that there's such limited sources of funding, even competitive, for post-graduate qualifications because it's yet another barrier to social mobility and the reason why we tend to have more people called Tristan, Pandora, Peregrine and Horatio in top positions.

andymg

melancholly wrote: »

from my experience of working in HE, if you're prepared to pay, you can get on the masters.... that's my honest impression. that includes the Russell Group..... if people really do badly, then they fail and if they aren't intellectually up to it, they struggle. but it's about bums on seats in terms of getting in. this isn't exactly a popular opinion that people want to hear, but it is pretty real reflection. getting a funded masters is where it becomes all about the student and how good they are.

From my experience I completely agree. HE institutions are looking to get as many people as they can, quality is not always important. But the result from Masters will be defining and weed out chaff from the wheat.

BEEJJ_2

The_One_Who wrote: »

You do realise than the Russell Group is nothing more than a lobby group for the big research-based universities, don't you? There are plenty of excellent universities not in the RG.

Whether a degree is pointless or not is debatable, and very often in these discussions there is no definitive list of what is pointless.

A lot of people think that undergraduate places should be restricted to those with the academic ability to cope with the course. That means that someone with two Ds at A Level probably wouldn't be able to go to university without some sort of further study to get up to the level required.

Just talk to the professional bodies recuiting graduates re. Russell Group!!!

melancholly

BEEJJ wrote: »

Just talk to the professional bodies recuiting graduates re. Russell Group!!!

this has come up a lot. the RG unis are very good - there is no doubting that. however, there are plenty of unis not in the RG that are equally good (and in many cases better).

just as an example, i pulled up the Guardian league table for 2012 and when you compare the top 20 unis with the Russell Group members, there are some noticeable great unis that are not members:

3rd place - St Andrews
7th place - Lancaster
8th place - Durham
9th place - Loughborough
11th= place - Exeter
11th= place - Sussex
13th place - SOAS
14th place - Bath
15th place - York
17th place - Leicester
18th place - UEA
19th place - Surrey
(12 out of 20 aren't RG!)

your average member of any professional body wouldn't be able to list out in full at RG members. they use the term as a shorthand for a 'good' uni, but since so many great unis aren't members, it isn't quite what a lot of people think it is. it's a lobbying group. it is not a list of the only unis worth attending.

and since the Guardian focuses on teaching more than research, i've also had a look at the 'Complete University Guide' list and the same pattern is there:

5th place - Durham
6th place - St Andrews
9th place - Lancaster
10th place - Bath
12th place - York
15th place - Exeter
18th place - SOAS
19th= place - Loughborough
19th= place - Sussex
(so ~50% of the top 20 aren't RG!)

most people assume York, Durham, Exeter and St Andrews are RG members. because they are historically some of the best unis in the country. but they're not. just because the RG put out lots of press releases about how amazing they are, doesn't mean there aren't other, often better, places to go. (and that's before it gets broken down by individual subjects!)

(*i may well have missed some unis when comparing lists!)

stardance

BEEJJ wrote: »

His Masters at Exeter in Finance and Management is approx £9000

Then in taking a year out to work he could get a large proportion of that saved surely. That would decrease the loan needed. This would also increase empolyability once the course is completed (as opposed to going straight from undergrad to postgrad) and therefore increase the liklihood of finding a job which would potentially decrease the stress associated with starting to pay back the loan as soon as the course is completed. I would also imagine that in working whilst studying then some of the loan could also be saved up ready to be repayed once interest starts being applied.

Yes, there aren't the same kinds of funding available to postgrad as for undergrad but there are ways around it.

silvercar

The_One_Who wrote: »

There already is a maximum number of years funding. It is the number of years of your course plus one, to take into account false starts or other circumstances.

Unless you don't false start or flunk out, but work hard and then want to gain a further qualification (masters). In this case you only get the number of years of your course, not plus one.

The_One_Who

silvercar wrote: »

Unless you don't false start or flunk out, but work hard and then want to gain a further qualification (masters). In this case you only get the number of years of your course, not plus one.

Of course, and that's the best way to do it. Why should the government fund postgraduate degrees?