Student Debt on MoneyBox Live BBC4 RUBBISH!!

Lokolo

You asked the question 'At what point do you stop paying for education?' and my answer is simply when it is compulsory.

I've used this analogy quite a few times but our taxes go towards the basics, everyone gets them. Should wewant to improve ourselves furthemore,we should pay out of our own pocket. An example of this is comestic surgery, e.g. A boob job. This is a luxury that people want to improve themselves. Those that want it, pay for it themselves.

I also doubt you would agree that the taxpayershould pay if neither you nor your childrenattended university.

The_One_Who

2sides2everystory wrote: »

x

So you think the state should also fund postgraduate education?

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I suspect perhaps wrongly, that person benefits from a public sector retirement plan too!

How ironic Today's students aren't going to have the wedge to meet any of the promises made to the public sector with regards to retirement. Nor will they have the inclination, the intergenerational pact - you pay for my education I pay for your pension - has been broken. I hope the person you are referring to is working and saving like mad Nobody knows this more than David Willetts (The universities minister, but you all knew that!) or try this one

2sides2everystory

The_One_Who wrote: »

So you think the state should also fund postgraduate education?

I believe that 5 years including a year working in industry should be the aim for the best engineering undergraduates and maybe selected science and maths courses. I am sure there are other courses some people might suggest are justifiable for similar treatment. I can't envisage a situation where I would easily support state-funding of a first degree in one subject and then a PhD doing something highly specialised in any subject even if it was related to the first degree. Otherwise it would certainly need to lead to an obvious solid career opportunity in a valued sector.

However I am aware of, but not sure of, the various routes for those aspiring to MD so I know that many committed undergraduates have to settle for a life sciences first degree of some sort and then embark separately on medicine as a second degree in order to achieve their original goal and I support state funding for that too.

amiehall

2sides2everystory wrote: »

I believe that 5 years including a year working in industry should be the aim for the best engineering undergraduates and maybe selected science and maths courses. I am sure there are other courses some people might suggest are justifiable for similar treatment. I can't envisage a situation where I would easily support state-funding of a first degree in one subject and then a PhD doing something highly specialised in any subject even if it was related to the first degree. Otherwise it would certainly need to lead to an obvious solid career opportunity in a valued sector.

However I am aware of, but not sure of, the various routes for those aspiring to MD so I know that many committed undergraduates have to settle for a life sciences first degree of some sort and then embark separately on medicine as a second degree in order to achieve their original goal and I support state funding for that too.

Your general points aside, those courses for graduates to undertake fast-track medical degrees are designed for those who have a change in career goal later in life or didn't know what they wanted to do aged 18. For people to use them as a substitute for an UG medical degree is a total waste of everyone's time and money! If they spent the 3 years they'd otherwise be spending on their 1st degree working, getting experience, and reapplying for their medical degree, I'd wager anyone that couldn't get a place on a standard medical degree would only be someone a medical school was never going to take. Why anyone would recommend pursuing a BSc first is beyond me. Applications for GEP medicine are far FAR more competitive than standard 5 year courses and someone that wasn't up to scratch for the less competitive course, isn't all that likely to be successful at this stage either.

While I do support the GEP for people looking for a change in career, honestly I think if I could ban applications from people who've applied for a 5 year medical degree in the past I would #rantover

arsenalbarnie

amiehall wrote: »

Your general points aside, those courses for graduates to undertake fast-track medical degrees are designed for those who have a change in career goal later in life or didn't know what they wanted to do aged 18. For people to use them as a substitute for an UG medical degree is a total waste of everyone's time and money! If they spent the 3 years they'd otherwise be spending on their 1st degree working, getting experience, and reapplying for their medical degree, I'd wager anyone that couldn't get a place on a standard medical degree would only be someone a medical school was never going to take. Why anyone would recommend pursuing a BSc first is beyond me. Applications for GEP medicine are far FAR more competitive than standard 5 year courses and someone that wasn't up to scratch for the less competitive course, isn't all that likely to be successful at this stage either.

While I do support the GEP for people looking for a change in career, honestly I think if I could ban applications from people who've applied for a 5 year medical degree in the past I would #rantover

I agree.:)

Voyager2002

Lokolo wrote: »

You asked the question 'At what point do you stop paying for education?' and my answer is simply when it is compulsory.

I've used this analogy quite a few times but our taxes go towards the basics, everyone gets them. Should wewant to improve ourselves furthemore,we should pay out of our own pocket. An example of this is comestic surgery, e.g. A boob job. This is a luxury that people want to improve themselves. Those that want it, pay for it themselves.

I also doubt you would agree that the taxpayershould pay if neither you nor your childrenattended university.

Yes, you are responding to a profound question.

The problem with your answer is that we (as a society) really do need medical doctors, teachers, engineers... and there is no way to produce such people without a university education. Nor would it be sensible to make university compulsory, since at least fifty per cent of the population would not benefit from what universities have to offer.

Even post-graduate education leads to unexpected benefits for all, and so I would argue for limited state support for this. However, at both u/g and p/g levels support should only be for people who choose to engage fully with the demands of academic life. For those who find leisure activities more appealing, there should be rapid, blame-free routes out of study towards employment.

2sides2everystory

amiehall and arsenalbarnie I do not really understand your point.

Are you saying that someone who knows they might not be able to deliver tip top grades at A level and is therefore unlikely to be able to land a place on a pure medicine course is a waste of space because they have chosen to take the low road or slow road to practising medicine? Surely not?

Our schools standards are not consistent enough to make the cut that early.

Besides, my experience of meeting various doctors in recent years, confirms to me that as with all team endeavours, a mix of ability and passion and dispassion amongst team members creates the best medical practice.

I'd rather for example in day to day geriatric medicine have someone fully aware of their limitations forming judgements about my parents' care than someone who turns up in a Bentley and signs his name for 20 operations a day and cancels half a dozen tomorrow with the wave of a hand.

amiehall

2sides2everystory wrote: »

amiehall and arsenalbarnie I do not really understand your point.

Are you saying that someone who knows they might not be able to deliver tip top grades at A level and is therefore unlikely to be able to land a place on a pure medicine course is a waste of space because they have chosen to take the low road or slow road to practising medicine? Surely not?

Our schools standards are not consistent enough to make the cut that early.

Besides, my experience of meeting various doctors in recent years, confirms to me that as with all team endeavours, a mix of ability and passion and dispassion amongst team members creates the best medical practice.

I'd rather for example in day to day geriatric medicine have someone fully aware of their limitations forming judgements about my parents' care than someone who turns up in a Bentley and signs his name for 20 operations a day and cancels half a dozen tomorrow with the wave of a hand.

Most GEP courses also have an A Level requirement so I'm not sure what you think taking that route avoids? I'm sorry if that hits a nerve. I know people who have resat A Levels and gained a place on a medical degree. I'm totally not a fan of people having one chance but the fact of the matter is that, if you can't get a space on an UG medical degree, taking a 1st degree then GEP instead is a HUGE waste of tax payer resources. I would support the existence of a state funded GEP but not for the reasons you gave before (the forever dedicated people that couldn't get in at 18...) but yes because I think the medical profession needs people from a variety of backgrounds and that often includes people that initially started down another career path and brings a wealth of other skills and experiences to the job.

arsenalbarnie

amiehall wrote: »

Most GEP courses also have an A Level requirement so I'm not sure what you think taking that route avoids? I'm sorry if that hits a nerve. I know people who have resat A Levels and gained a place on a medical degree. I'm totally not a fan of people having one chance but the fact of the matter is that, if you can't get a space on an UG medical degree, taking a 1st degree then GEP instead is a HUGE waste of tax payer resources. I would support the existence of a state funded GEP but not for the reasons you gave before (the forever dedicated people that couldn't get in at 18...) but yes because I think the medical profession needs people from a variety of backgrounds and that often includes people that initially started down another career path and brings a wealth of other skills and experiences to the job.

I agree again