University fees.

Cakeguts

Does anyone else apart from me feel that university fees should reflect the level of student prospects rather than them all charging the same? University courses appear to be the only consumer products where people appear to be prepared to pay the same for a top course which leads to lots of opportunities for students to use their education as they would pay for a watered down course that leads to nothing or few opportunities.

meer53

Whats a "watered down course" ?

daytona0

meer53 wrote: »

Whats a "watered down course" ?

2 parts course and 1 part water I assume...

peachyprice

Popcorn anyone?

worried_jim

I agree. The proper subjects, maths, physics and chemistry should be free. Charge what you want for the muppet courses.

peter_the_piper

Makes sense, but who defines muppet?

daytona0

worried_jim wrote: »

I agree. The proper subjects, maths, physics and chemistry should be free. Charge what you want for the muppet courses.

I did a maths course and I do not hold the same level of disdain as you


(did you do one of those "proper" subjects too, or are you talking academically?)

Cakeguts

I wasn't really trying to point out the difference in types of courses what I was trying to point out was that although all degree courses cost the same some lead to more opportunities. Some lead nowhere. Courses that lead nowhere should really cost less than courses that lead to a lot of opportunities because you actually get less for your money from a course that leads nowhere.

splishsplash

meer53 wrote: »

Whats a "watered down course" ?

A homeopathy course, maybe?

boo_star

Cakeguts wrote: »

I wasn't really trying to point out the difference in types of courses what I was trying to point out was that although all degree courses cost the same some lead to more opportunities. Some lead nowhere. Courses that lead nowhere should really cost less than courses that lead to a lot of opportunities because you actually get less for your money from a course that leads nowhere.

Why?

The fact that the courses "lead nowhere" is irrelevant to the cost of administering those courses.

Surely the fairest way of doing things is to charge people fees proportional to the cost. Which may or may not result in your "easy degree" costing the same as a Physics degree.

Pollycat

Cakeguts wrote: »

Does anyone else apart from me feel that university fees should reflect the level of student prospects rather than them all charging the same? University courses appear to be the only consumer products where people appear to be prepared to pay the same for a top course which leads to lots of opportunities for students to use their education as they would pay for a watered down course that leads to nothing or few opportunities.

Can you clarify if this is a praise, vent or warning.
It seems more of a discussion subject.

Thanks