Cost of a Master Degree

silvercar

The_One_Who wrote: »

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

Why should they fund failed years?

The_One_Who

silvercar wrote: »

Why should they fund failed years?

They don't always. There are rules about the 'false start' (need to leave before November, I think it is) and for personal circumstances you need to provide proof.

Really, I'm interested in why you (or anyone) thinks that the government should provide funding for postgraduate courses.

silvercar

The_One_Who wrote: »

Really, I'm interested in why you (or anyone) thinks that the government should provide funding for postgraduate courses.

Two reasons of fairness rather than the gov should provide all post grad funding.

Firstly, the inequality where you can enrol on a 4 years masters and get 4 years funding but if you do the degree and then go on to the masters at the same uni you don't get the 4th year funded.

Secondly, that if you muck up/drop out/ change course in one year, you are entitled to an extra years funding - so effectively 4 years, whereas if you use your 3 years productively and get your degree in 3yrs you can't get a 4th year for the masters. So you are being rewarded for failing a year.

Get rid these two inequalities and I would be happy for the gov not to fund post grad study.

McGuiver

The_One_Who wrote: »

They don't always. There are rules about the 'false start' (need to leave before November, I think it is) and for personal circumstances you need to provide proof.

Really, I'm interested in why you (or anyone) thinks that the government should provide funding for postgraduate courses.

I don't think that they should offer blanket funding like with undergraduate degrees, but I do think we should increase the level of competitive funding available for postgraduate qualifications. Why? There are lots of reasons for this. As a proportion of GDP, our spending on higher education is meagre, yet the return offered is vast (it's astounding that we still have some of the best universities in the world). A degree often isn't enough for a skilled job any more. As clearly documented elsewhere, what you find is that the top professions are populated with people from the higher socio-economic classes. In fact, social mobility has declined in the past 20 years.
I'm not for one minute a 'bleeding heart' socialist. However, I do think that we should give everyone who has the ability a greater chance at attaining higher qualifications to pursue their chosen careers. Instead,we have cut finding to the councils responsible for allocating competitive funding to the arts and social sciences. I know that Dave has said 'there's no money left', but the sums cut are piecemeal compared to our adventures in Libya and 'gifts' to developing countries like India (which has it's own space programme).
Ultimately, as a country what do we want? We're going to face some extremely big challenges over the next few decades and we must decide what our strengths are. I'd rather be part of a highly skilled population, comprised of engineers and scientists, than rely on our faltering manufacturing and financial services sectors to keep us prosperous as a nation. Ultimately, it is knowledge and technical skill that are the most valuable commodities and we're haemorrhaging this at a frightening rate.
So, I do think that we should fund post-graduate training and qualifications more - it's peanuts compared to what we spend on health and defence. By doing this competitively, we can ensure that only the most capable individuals, from whatever social background, receive funding. We can also be certain that we have the right mix of individuals to help us meet the challenges of the coming years.

The_One_Who

They aren't really inequalities though. Medics get all their courses funded, same with language students and any others who do placement years. The government will fund your undergraduate degree, and are generous in allowing a 'false start'. An undergraduate masters and a postgraduate are completely different. One is still an undergraduate, one is a postgraduate. Think of an undergraduate masters as a normal bachelors but with a placement year, but with the placement at the end, it might be easier, I don't know. The final year tends to be more lab-based. It is not the same as a postgraduate masters, and I know some people who had to do a postgraduate masters on top of their MSci degree because it didn't provide the necessary skills.

You aren't being 'rewarded' for failing a year. That student is going to have to explain what happened there to future employers. They get rewarded with an extra year of loans to pay back and an extra year at university whilst most of their friends progress. Both students will come out with the same degree (a bachelors), but one will have taken three years and the other four.

The_One_Who

McGuiver wrote: »

I don't think that they should offer blanket funding like with undergraduate degrees, but I do think we should increase the level of competitive funding available for postgraduate qualifications. Why? There are lots of reasons for this. As a proportion of GDP, our spending on higher education is meagre, yet the return offered is vast (it's astounding that we still have some of the best universities in the world). A degree often isn't enough for a skilled job any more. As clearly documented elsewhere, what you find is that the top professions are populated with people from the higher socio-economic classes. In fact, social mobility has declined in the past 20 years.

Social mobility has declined, yet the number of people going to university (from all backgrounds) has increased dramatically. So how will giving financial access to postgraduate education help or change that situation?

No, a degree often isn't enough for a good job now, what is required is experience. Another year at university doing a very academic qualification isn't going to give someone experience. I'd rather have the year's funds for a masters and use it to get the required experience I need for my chosen career.

By producing yet more masters graduates all we would be doing is pushing the system a long a bit. So instead of needing a 2.1, you'd need a masters qualification.

Instead,we have cut finding to the councils responsible for allocating competitive funding to the arts and social sciences.

Very true. And I disagree with the way research funding is going to be given in future with the need to 'policy relevant' and have a clear 'impact'. However, are there enough jobs to absorb more doctorates? Academia is already struggling.

I'd rather be part of a highly skilled population, comprised of engineers and scientists, than rely on our faltering manufacturing and financial services sectors to keep us prosperous as a nation.

There is loads of money for those wants to continue in the sciences, in some cases they struggle to give it away! We have seen the decline of science departments around the country, with a lot closing due to lack of interest. The government has tried to persuade students into taking science courses through financial incentives and it hasn't really worked.

Oldernotwiser

silvercar wrote: »

Two reasons of fairness rather than the gov should provide all post grad funding.

Firstly, the inequality where you can enrol on a 4 years masters and get 4 years funding but if you do the degree and then go on to the masters at the same uni you don't get the 4th year funded.

Secondly, that if you muck up/drop out/ change course in one year, you are entitled to an extra years funding - so effectively 4 years, whereas if you use your 3 years productively and get your degree in 3yrs you can't get a 4th year for the masters. So you are being rewarded for failing a year.

Get rid these two inequalities and I would be happy for the gov not to fund post grad study.

Sorry to repeat something that's been said several times but you seem to have missed the difference between an undergraduate and post graduate masters.

cardiffforthefacup

There is loads of money for those wants to continue in the sciences, in some cases they struggle to give it away! We have seen the decline of science departments around the country, with a lot closing due to lack of interest. The government has tried to persuade students into taking science courses through financial incentives and it hasn't really worked.

where do I find out about this or is it only for schools and undergrads?

silvercar

Oldernotwiser wrote: »

Sorry to repeat something that's been said several times but you seem to have missed the difference between an undergraduate and post graduate masters.

Do employers really see the difference?

The_One_Who

cardiffforthefacup wrote: »

where do I find out about this or is it only for schools and undergrads?

Find out about what? Money for those doing science courses? That is an individual university thing, some do it, some don't. And I'm not even sure the money is still there, but it was a few years ago.

silvercar wrote: »

Do employers really see the difference?

That depends. "Employers" is pretty broad. I know people who can fool people with their MA (hons) degree from a Scottish Ancient, especially once they head south of the border. They have to explain that it isn't a masters degree, that it is entirely the same as a BA or a BSc, it is just traditional to call them an MA. Equally, some universities and/or funding bodies will ask you to do a postgraduate masters on top in order to qualify for entry onto a PhD course.