University Fees

Gloomendoom

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Ah Yes but no but. Given that University is a money making cash cow of a business

Back in the real world, many universities barely break even teaching undergraduates. Despite the fees.

claire16c

adindas wrote: »

[FONT=&quot]Well it was written in 20 August 2007, we are now in 2013 are not we ?[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]How many degree programmes have been closed sofar due to poor number of students, thus it does not meet the breakeven to run it.[/FONT] But at least it helps the uni to keep the people who are teaching that subjects to stay on the job for a few years.

[FONT=&quot]The specialist make up design, did they learn it at the university offering degrees or in the intensive 3-6 months training course and/or the job training through apprentice? Gok Wan become a fashion designer did he earn degree for it or did he get this skills from university of life ?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Martial art and adventure tourism design, did they learn it at the university offering degrees or in the intensive training course or on the job training?[/FONT]

Gok Wan isn't a fashion designer he's a stylist.

Everyone I used to work with in fashion buying & design had a degree in art, textiles or fashion. Tons of famous fashion designers have degrees from places like Goldsmiths.

I know someone who did the same fashion business course degree I did & then went I to do a make up course (not sure if it was a masters or short course though) and is now a make up artist in the west end.

Some of these subjects people think are 'Mickey mouse' can lead to good jobs!

claire16c

FBaby wrote: »

You don't have to go to Uni straight after college if your reason to go to Uni is not job related. My mum did a PhD in the field of International Negotiations at the age of 55. She is now 65 and has just started a degree in Archaeology. Both were/are costing her, but she did it for her enjoyment/prestige and nothing to do with getting a job. She did however went to a renown business school after college for the purpose of a gaining a good job. I did a Masters in Business, but started a course in Public Health some years ago whilst working full-time and did a course in Counselling two years ago, both purely to develop my knowledge of the subjects.

Do you need to go to Uni to be successful in these fields? Can't you be an innovator/inventor/artist and not aimed for a successful career?

There is a thread that has just been started in the employment page that illustrate perfectly how I feel. A young lady who went to Uni and got a degree in 'childhood studies'. Decided that she wanted to do project work, so paid again to get a qualification in that field, now struggling to get a job for lack of experience. All normal, and she seems to be motivated and doing well and will no doubt find a good job at some point, but was it worth spending up to £30K for her degree? In my case, it could be £60+ for two kids, for some even more. That's a lot of money that could be invested elsewhere to provide for my children.

If she decided to be a primary school teacher she'll need that degree. Lots of people change their minds career wise & have to retrain but it doesn't mean their degree is worthless.

If the person doesn't get a reasonably well paying job they won't pay back the loan anyway. I'm sure the calculations Martin has done showed most people don't pay it all back.

Prothet_of_Doom

Gloomendoom wrote: »

Back in the real world, many universities barely break even teaching undergraduates. Despite the fees.

Really? Then the business model is flawed, perhaps? Not enough research paid for by big business ?

adindas

claire16c wrote: »

I know someone who did the same fashion business course degree I did & then went I to do a make up course (not sure if it was a masters or short course though) and is now a make up artist in the west end.

Some of these subjects people think are 'Mickey mouse' can lead to good jobs!

Well did the make up artist, need MSc in Make up artist ????

Is not that enough to get a few weeks training course, do apprentice, and and on the job training. The same process with people who want to become hair stylist, nail technicians, or Chef in fast food outlets, etc. Where is the academic rigorous of justifying people to be awarded Master's by doing Make up artist ?

There is no doubt few people with such skills could earn very high income. But is it not that true this one exists in any fields and nothing to do with the degree course at a university. Top footballers, sportsmen/women, Olympic medalists could earn seven figures income a year and they do not need a university degree. What is needed is talent, discipline in practice and extreme strong determination to reach the top and to some extent, luck.

A 15 years old kid could become a make artist from few weeks training course, do apprentice and on the job training. Once they become a Make up artist award them Masters degree because they have the similar level of knowledge with those who did MSc in Make up artist. This kid haven't even got A level and now could jump to master degree.

I believe the only one who justify Make up artist is a Master course is the university / course provider who provide this course to get people enter their course.

Anyway is there any Masters course MA in Science and Art of Making Love. if it is available for free I might want to joint the course, lol ..

VJsmum

Prothet_of_Doom wrote: »

Really? Then the business model is flawed, perhaps? Not enough research paid for by big business ?

THe problem is that it IS a business model at all. Should universities be a business? to make the figures add up the fees would have to be much higher - or class sizes much bigger.

The problem I feel lies in the schools - to make the school "look good" they need students to be going to top ranking universities. Try to walk into a 6th form and persuade these students to look at Construction Management, Quantity Surveying or Architectural technology at a 50+ ranked university - they don't want to know and the schools don't really want to know as they want their pupils to be going to Russell group studying an "academic" subject. Or the students want to do something "sexier". TIme after time on open days we watch people walking past our stands towards "digital music technology" or "motor racing engineering" or computer games technology when it is our courses that would give them the jobs.

Our admissions are also governed by professional institutions requirements, which say that we have to have 280+ points, which doesn't fit in with our 50+ ranking.

But, do you know what? we are bloody good, we spend a lot of time and effort into making our course right and fit for someone going into a profession. We spend a lot of time with the students helping them to do well. Last year I marked some masters exams at a "Russell group" university - they were appalling - our undergraduates could have done it better. But they get the students in, charge them a fortune and ensure they pass (I had questions to answer as to why I had marked so low "err, cos they didn't answer the questions correctly") - progression looks good, student satisfaction is then good (cos they all pass) BINGO up the rankings they go, research money then comes in. ANd the students can't do the bloody job.

Person_one

VJsmum wrote: »

Last year I marked some masters exams at a "Russell group" university - they were appalling - our undergraduates could have done it better. But they get the students in, charge them a fortune and ensure they pass (I had questions to answer as to why I had marked so low "err, cos they didn't answer the questions correctly") - progression looks good, student satisfaction is then good (cos they all pass) BINGO up the rankings they go, research money then comes in. ANd the students can't do the bloody job.

Ahem, I'm at a Russell Group uni, some of us can string a decent sentence together.

I've been to an ex-poly too, both were the right choice at the time with different strengths and weaknesses, there's no need for either chips on shoulders or superiority complexes from either.

VJsmum

Person_one wrote: »

Ahem, I'm at a Russell Group uni, some of us can string a decent sentence together.

I've been to an ex-poly too, both were the right choice at the time with different strengths and weaknesses, there's no need for either chips on shoulders or superiority complexes from either.

LOL - sorry It just really got my goat (as you could tell).

Personally I rather like the Poly model, horses for courses. I am rather in admiration of "Anglia Polytechnic University" for saying it like it is.

I would rather work for a top ranked Poly than a lower ranked uni.

neverdespairgirl

claire16c wrote: »

If she decided to be a primary school teacher she'll need that degree. Lots of people change their minds career wise & have to retrain but it doesn't mean their degree is worthless.

If the person doesn't get a reasonably well paying job they won't pay back the loan anyway. I'm sure the calculations Martin has done showed most people don't pay it all back.

Having a decent degree matters a lot more than the subject, unless you want to be a doctor / vet / etc.

My sister's degree is in primary education, and she's now a journalist. My brother has a law degree, and teaches.

FBaby

If she decided to be a primary school teacher she'll need that degree. Lots of people change their minds career wise & have to retrain but it doesn't mean their degree is worthless.

I don't think any degrees are totally worthless. Depends what you want to do with it, but are they all worth the investment of 30K

If the person doesn't get a reasonably well paying job they won't pay back the loan anyway. I'm sure the calculations Martin has done showed most people don't pay it all back.

That is exactly my point. If the degree my kids decide to go for is unlikely to pay much, then why should I pay for it? Not sure about seeing student loans as a door not to care much. These will either have to be repaid, even if at a very low level each month, or if they are never repaid, it's a waste of tax payers money as the government will just lose the income it invested.