University costs

studentphil

Oldernotwiser wrote:

Most people nowadays are unaware that not everybody used to get a full grant under the old system. They were very strictly based on your parents' income; in my own case my parents were a postman and a civil service clerk and they were assessed as having to make a substantial contribution. If they were unable or unwilling to make this contribution then there was nothing you could do about it, you couldn't go to university. I had friends in this position who had to work for three years to achieve independent student status as their parents' were well off but refused to contribute.

At that time only 10% of the population went to university. The reason that many people (including myself) think that degrees are easier nowadays is because 40% of young people undertake higher level study and many of them are not that bright! A system that caters for 40% has to be less stringent than a system that caters for the top 10% only. On a personal level I have studied at undergraduate level in the early seventies, late seventies and the mid nineties which, I feel, gives me a perspective of higher education that not many people have.

There were many clever people in the past that never got a shot at decent schooling. So to say 40% means degrees are easier does not really follow. It could equally suggest that many people now get a shot at an education that did not in the past because of mainly social or economic barriers.

I grant you there are some stupid people at university.

But internationally we are 10-20 % behind other major developed countries in HE enrollment- so by your lights -thank God we don't have those dumbed down overseas degrees that let upto 60% do HE.

tr3mor

studentphil wrote:

There were many clever people in the past that never got a shot at decent schooling. So to say 40% means degrees are easier does not really follow. It could equally suggest that many people now get a shot at an education that did not in the past because of mainly social or economic barriers.

That is more the case now than in the past.

Whether you get a decent schooling now depends entirely on your parents' hard work to get you into a decent school. Many parents don't care and their kids go to crap schools because of this.

Grammar schools were a much fairer system overall.

It's proven by the lack of social mobility - if you're born into a poorer family now you're more likely to stay poor for the rest of your life than any time in modern history.

Also, the number of people doing degrees is ludicrous considering only 50% of pupils get 5 A-Cs (inc Maths and English) at GCSE.

Oldernotwiser

As a working class grammar school student I couldn't agree more with your comment; they were a great catalyst in society and responsible for increased social mobility.

I also agree with the fact that there have in the past been many people who were capable of university study who were denied it. However, many people now at university are there because their vocational areas now have to be studied at university - nursing is a good example of this - rather than because they are better qualified. As educational standards have dropped, increasingly high qualifications have become necessary; this doesn't mean that people have become better qualified, just that they now take longer to reach the same level and and the qualification has a grander name!

Internationally, you're not comparing like with like. Some countries' degrees are only equuivalent to HND in the UK and many countries take 5/7 years to reach that point. Other countries have an open entry policy where anyone can go as long as they can afford it. That doesn't mean that they all graduate, simply that the enrolment figures are high.

Personally I feel that about 20/25% would be about the right level for university attendance in the UK. At that level the country might have been able to fund it properly and limit entry to those who had a real desire and aptitude to study at this level. One day, when I am Queen.....

melancholly

Oldernotwiser wrote:

Personally I feel that about 20/25% would be about the right level for university attendance in the UK. At that level the country might have been able to fund it properly and limit entry to those who had a real desire and aptitude to study at this level. One day, when I am Queen.....

and also there might even be enough jobs out there that required a degree to make it worthwhile to students!! there just aren't enough jobs out there that need graduates at the moment, so people get in a lot of debt and then struggle to pay it off becuase not everyone can get a highly paid city job.

tr3mor

melancholly wrote:

and also there might even be enough jobs out there that required a degree to make it worthwhile to students!! there just aren't enough jobs out there that need graduates at the moment, so people get in a lot of debt and then struggle to pay it off becuase not everyone can get a highly paid city job.

Degree funding should be rationed on the requirements of industry. So there would be more funding or grants for engineering, medicine, sciences, etc, and less for the arts.

studentphil

tr3mor wrote:

Degree funding should be rationed on the requirements of industry. So there would be more funding or grants for engineering, medicine, sciences, etc, and less for the arts.

That is such a 1D view. The arts have so much interesting to know about in them and so many skills you can develop through the Arts. If you makes Arts not important then we as a society will be so much reduced in our thinking and diversity.

There is clear Economic argument against that, why should the tax payer fund solely and completely firms employees? What is wrong with firms getting out the cheque book and funding more people through uni? Like in Germany firms often employ people from 18 and employ them and fund them studying at the same time-- like day release uni in a way-- why not do that in Britain?

There is then an issue of is just using uni to meet today's economic need is short termist as in 10 years time all these really vital stuff now might be worthless. At least with a good tradtional subject you get skills and abilities for life not just some short term economic need as voctional degrees/ economic need degrees do.

studentphil

Oldernotwiser wrote:

As a working class grammar school student I couldn't agree more with your comment; they were a great catalyst in society and responsible for increased social mobility.

I also agree with the fact that there have in the past been many people who were capable of university study who were denied it. However, many people now at university are there because their vocational areas now have to be studied at university - nursing is a good example of this - rather than because they are better qualified. As educational standards have dropped, increasingly high qualifications have become necessary; this doesn't mean that people have become better qualified, just that they now take longer to reach the same level and and the qualification has a grander name!

Internationally, you're not comparing like with like. Some countries' degrees are only equuivalent to HND in the UK and many countries take 5/7 years to reach that point. Other countries have an open entry policy where anyone can go as long as they can afford it. That doesn't mean that they all graduate, simply that the enrolment figures are high.

Personally I feel that about 20/25% would be about the right level for university attendance in the UK. At that level the country might have been able to fund it properly and limit entry to those who had a real desire and aptitude to study at this level. One day, when I am Queen.....

It is the case that even in Europe they are moving to the 3 year BSc/ BA.
It is true that European degrees used to like something inbetween a BA and a MA and take upto 5 years.

I also agree with the fact that there have in the past been many people who were capable of university study who were denied it. However, many people now at university are there because their vocational areas now have to be studied at university - nursing is a good example of this - rather than because they are better qualified. As educational standards have dropped, increasingly high qualifications have become necessary; this doesn't mean that people have become better qualified, just that they now take longer to reach the same level and and the qualification has a grander name!

There is certainly some truth to that. You only need to look at lecturers, you never needed a PHD to be lecturer 30 years ago (would have got in with a BA/ BSC), but now they won't touch you for those jobs without a PHD.

tr3mor

studentphil wrote:

That is such a 1D view. The arts have so much interesting to know about in them and so many skills you can develop through the Arts. If you makes Arts not important then we as a society will be so much reduced in our thinking and diversity.

Ah well, at least we can all be unemployed free thinkers when China and India take over the world.

I wouldn't be stopping students from studying the arts if they really wanted to. Only the very best in their fields would get funding, the students going to uni for 3 years because they can't think of anything better to do wouldn't.

studentphil

tr3mor wrote:

Ah well, at least we can all be unemployed free thinkers when China and India take over the world.

I wouldn't be stopping students from studying the arts if they really wanted to. Only the very best in their fields would get funding, the students going to uni for 3 years because they can't think of anything better to do wouldn't.

I hear science grads don't get fab jobs either anyway. So it is very complex to know what is best to study. There certainly is an issue about if Employers should fund more people through degrees instead of waiting for an almost fully skilled employer that they pay nothing towards the training of.

Idiophreak

studentphil wrote:

So it is very complex to know what is best to study.

Yes and no.

Even, well, someone that would take a BA in Noddy and Big Ears, can tell that a BA in Noddy and Big Earsmight not open the most doors...