Just worked out what we are paying per our for daughter's uni education...scarey!

ThumbRemote

takman wrote: »

A university lecturer earns far more than a primary school teacher. So if being a lecturer is such an easy job and easier than a primary school teacher why don't they all apply to a university for a job instead?.
The simple fact is that they don't have the knowledge or skill to be able to do that job. I'm not trying to belittle primary school teachers because they do an important job, I'm just giving a realistic comparison.

You're just giving a realistic comparison. Yes, of course, that's why you say that primary teaching is "basically skilled childcare". That's not realistic, it's you spouting rubbish.

takman wrote: »

Also as the poster above said research and papers are part of their job and they are expected to be pushing the boundaries in their area of expertise, so you can't say lecturing is a sideline when it's all part of the same job!.

StaffieTerrier agreed lecturing is a sideline. "The teaching is a compulsory part of their contract but the research is their main focus because that's what pays to keep them in their post." It might be part of their job, but if it's not the main focus then it's a sideline.

takman wrote: »

Plus to say they give the same lecture that they have done for the last 10+ years is ridiculous. You really think someone on an IT course or programming course, robotics course etc will be learning the same content as 10 years ago????.

Actually yes, on a programming course they could do, with some minor changes - programming languages don't change that often. Many theories and academic background is less fast-moving that you'd think. Minor changes year on year may occur, now and again a major change, but overall things will stay similar. On a wide range of other courses they will stay even more constant; some others will be faster moving.

StaffieTerrier

ThumbRemote wrote: »

StaffieTerrier agreed lecturing is a sideline. "The teaching is a compulsory part of their contract but the research is their main focus because that's what pays to keep them in their post." It might be part of their job, but if it's not the main focus then it's a sideline.

But Universities don't just employ lecturers. For all students to get an education a University needs staff other than just lecturers. I work as technical support staff. Student fees go a long way to pay for these types, and other, roles. For any students studying science, the fees help to pay for the practical classes. Other degrees will have similar costs. Students fees don't only pay for the lecturing.

vikingaero

warehouse wrote: »

You're moaning about university fee's yet my local garage charged me £20 per minute for the recent work on my car.

Who are the crooks here?

Without you giving more details I would say the crooks are the general public wanting something for nothing. I suspect there's more to your story?

ThumbRemote

StaffieTerrier wrote: »

But Universities don't just employ lecturers. For all students to get an education a University needs staff other than just lecturers. I work as technical support staff. Student fees go a long way to pay for these types, and other, roles. For any students studying science, the fees help to pay for the practical classes. Other degrees will have similar costs. Students fees don't only pay for the lecturing.

Yes, I agree. I wasn't trying to minimise the cost of a degree, apologies if it came across that way.

teddysmum

As has been said ,it is unrealistic to compare a teacher's salary with university fees. All the money paid to you daughter's school is not all spent on salaries.

Cakeguts

The problem with a university degree now is that there are too many of them to make anyone with one stand out. This is why it is so important to get extensive work experience during the long university holidays.

Some schools appear give all their A levels students information about going to university but nothing about other courses or apprenticeships. Do the number of students going onto university (any university, any course) make the schools' league tables look better? At one point I wondered if the universities were paying schools to send students to university?

If you look at the graduate prospects for top universities and then compare them to bottom ones you can see that there is more chance of someone getting a graduate level job after getting a degree from a top university.

University seems to be the only place where market forces don't seem to apply and students seem quite prepared to pay the same fees for courses of varying standards and leading to varying opportunities. You could say that you pay for a university education. How many people would pay the same for a lesser product as for a much better product? Yet students pay £9000 per year for top university courses as well as the watered down easy ones. Why? Surely the watered down degree courses that lead to fewer jobs and barely any graduate level jobs should cost less to study for?

There doesn't appear to be enough information about the jobs that you can get with university degrees to help students find out what they are paying for. How many people want to study for 3 years for a watered down degree that leads to a job as a care worker? Not that we don't need people to work as care workers but how many university students know that this is the kind of job that they can expect to get after their degrees and if they did know would they still be happy to spend the 3 years and get into debt? Also would people be prepared to get a loan to pay £9000 per year to become a care worker if they knew that with a different course at a different university they could get a much better paid job?

There was more choice when the universities were called technical colleges, teacher training colleges, polytechnics and universities. You could tell what kind of course you were going to get. Now it is very difficult to know what you are paying for.