Are degrees in the UK value for money?

SingleSue

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Leap years are taught in Key Stage 2 maths (e.g. http://www.twinkl.co.uk/resource/t-he-254-leap-year-or-not-a-leap-year-activity-sheets)

So yes, that's between the age of 7 and 11.

I know i've explained the idea of leap years to my 8 year old, who hadn't covered it at school yet. Or wasn't listening

Why would you expect this to be covered in a university syllabus??

It's not a new thing either, we were taught about leap years in primary school (early junior years) way back in the 70's.

Cakeguts

kinger101 wrote: »

Interesting set of stats here;

http://www.bstubbs.co.uk/a-lev.htm

Generally, we can see that A-levels are getting easier (either by dumbing-down, or better training in exam technique), but generally, A* today is rarer than A was in 1993. C and below typically puts you in the bottom fifty-percentile, where you'd have probably been in the upper in 1993.

Some interesting comparisons between subjects (perhaps due to different cohorts). In further maths, A or A* has been 60%-ish since records began, with 30.1% getting this grade in 2017. For the often-derided (myself included) Media, Film, TV studies only awarded A* to 1.7%.

The problem for employers is knowing how you compare to your cohort based on these ever-changing results. What's wrong with fixing the grades based on percentiles (e.g, A% top 5%, A top 20%, B top 35%, C top 50%, D top 70%, E = bottom 100%, but still an acceptable minimum standard).

Those percentages is exactly how A level used to be marked. Some years you got a difference of 1 mark between grades. But at least they were calibrated whereas now they are more or less random every year and not calibrated so an A one year might not be the same as another year. I was one of the things that happened when they started the dumbing down. Someone decided that calibrating the grades was not fair or some other such rubbish. Anyway it allows you to seriously dumb down without anyone noticing because no one knows how many people get As and often it is considerable more than 5%. So really easy papers produce more As etc

That example shows what a complete mess A level marking has become. There isn't even any calibration between the subjects.

Cakeguts

GreatApe wrote: »

The problem with fixing the grades like that is that it won't work past mandatory education

So while you can have a GCSE in maths so the top 10% get an A* the next 10% get an A the next 10% B and so on. It doesn't work past GCSEs. Most Further Maths students get the highest two grades because only the very brightest do a course in further maths. Think of it like this say in a given year only 10 kids take maths and they are the 10 best mathematicians in the whole world. Using your method the fifth person would get a D even though they are #5 in the whole world. Clearly a bad way to do marking as in this example all 10 would easily be A* students

There has definitely been a dumbing down of some subjects. I was in one of the transitional years when the maths A-Levels were being changed. I recall asking my teacher who was changing and she said it appeared that they were just cutting about a third of it out.

It does. A levels always used to be marked in percentages. I think the O levels were as well. It meant that regardless of how easy or hard the exams were there were always the same percentage who got the top grade.

Once someone got the idea of dumbing A levels down they realised that they couldn't do it if they continued to be marked in percentages so they started to give grades on marks. This means that you can change the marking boundaries and award a lot more As. So if you dumb down a really long way you can get more people to have As and so more of them can go to university and more people can get a grade in an A level so that they university places can be filled.

When I did A levels the top 5% of candidates got a grade A and it was really really hard to get one. Anyone getting 3 As was likely to get a place at Oxford because that meant being in the top 5% of A level students in 3 subjects.

When I did A levels they were so difficult to pass that anyone who got an E then would now get an A. That is how far they have been dumbed down. Then they introduced A*. So the people who did A levels when I did them would have A* for a D. The Cs Bs and As were much much more difficult than anything anybody does in A levels now.

Some of the universities accept students who would when I did A levels have only got 3 O levels. You couldn't go to university with 3 O levels you had to have at least 5 and you had to have 3 A levels. Minimum advertised by universities was a C. So that in todays A levels would be A**. So no one going to university then would have had less than A** now. This is why universities are having to move to masters courses to get students up to the same standard as a bachelors used to be and of course that costs another year of fees.

This dumbing down thing is bad for everyone. People who can't get 3 A levels at grades A or A* are exploited for their money and people who do get A or A* have to do an extra year to get to the level that most employers are looking for. So 4 years that used to be 3 and 1000s of degrees that are worthless. How is that a better system?

getmore4less

ringo_24601 wrote: »

Leap years are taught in Key Stage 2 maths (e.g. http://www.twinkl.co.uk/resource/t-he-254-leap-year-or-not-a-leap-year-activity-sheets)

So yes, that's between the age of 7 and 11.

I know i've explained the idea of leap years to my 8 year old, who hadn't covered it at school yet. Or wasn't listening

Why would you expect this to be covered in a university syllabus??

The 100 400 rule is nothing to do with the real maths they are just chosen for their convenience along with the starting date.

The year is 365.2421897(rounded)
we are behind at y4/5
4 0.9687588
5 1.2109485

4 makes sense to add the day but then that puts us ahead every 4 year by 0.0312412

the closest multiples of 4 to make a day is 32 so the skip a year should be 128* years but it is set to 100 to make it easy.
(if it was every 128 years the next adjustment comes over 400,000 years later)

So now we are behind every 100 years by 0.21897
Closest multiple of 100 is 500 but 400 got chosen.


* 128 is 2^7 and 31 leap years is 2^5-1 the concept of binary leap years would save a lot of messing about.

Lingua

Cakeguts wrote: »

Where in Europe? I would expect Finland. I wouldn't expect France. I don't think you can pick any counrty and expect to be taught in English?

Also although the fees are free you have to be able to afford to live in the country. So if you find a course in Germany that is taught in English you have to also find somewhere to live. If you want to get a job to fund your living costs you need to speak German. In the end only people who are well off can study abroad.

I happen to speak the local language, so doing a degree abroad shouldn't be too much of an issue.

So many people see education as a chore, or a box to be ticked before going onto the 'real work' - I plan on studying for life, in some form or another. While working I can study through Open University or take night classes, etc. It's a shame that the idea of learning has been reduced to an obligation and not a pleasure to be enjoyed.

On the topic of difficulty at A-Level / university: Sixth form is difficult given the step up from GCSE - and then you adjust. The same gap applies to university and further education. Once you get to grips with what is required, you adjust and it seems a lot easier than it did when first starting. At the beginning of sixth form I balked at the depth of knowledge suddenly required, and the same happened when arriving at university. No doubt the same will be true when studying for a Masters and PhD.

Also, university is about more than just the academic degree. Whilst that may sound counter-intuitive (the academic relevance of a degree not being the sole reason to study? Madness!), the experiences had there are of importance too. Be it developing independence or encountering people of different ideologies or backgrounds, it helps to develop more rounded individuals. Certainly it's not worth the 9.25k/yr tuition fee, but that's an issue with government oversight and not the institution itself.

On a lighter note, I don't begrudge anyone going to university for a few years before having to enter the drudgery of the corporate world. With continued increases in life expectancy, we're being worked longer and longer. Rather than working from the age of 18 to [insert perpetually distant age here], a few years of freedom seem a welcome reprieve between the confines of pre-university education and the equally confining realm of work.

Lingua

economic

Lingua wrote: »

I happen to speak the local language, so doing a degree abroad shouldn't be too much of an issue.

So many people see education as a chore, or a box to be ticked before going onto the 'real work' - I plan on studying for life, in some form or another. While working I can study through Open University or take night classes, etc. It's a shame that the idea of learning has been reduced to an obligation and not a pleasure to be enjoyed.

On the topic of difficulty at A-Level / university: Sixth form is difficult given the step up from GCSE - and then you adjust. The same gap applies to university and further education. Once you get to grips with what is required, you adjust and it seems a lot easier than it did when first starting. At the beginning of sixth form I balked at the depth of knowledge suddenly required, and the same happened when arriving at university. No doubt the same will be true when studying for a Masters and PhD.

Also, university is about more than just the academic degree. Whilst that may sound counter-intuitive (the academic relevance of a degree not being the sole reason to study? Madness!), the experiences had there are of importance too. Be it developing independence or encountering people of different ideologies or backgrounds, it helps to develop more rounded individuals. Certainly it's not worth the 9.25k/yr tuition fee, but that's an issue with government oversight and not the institution itself.

On a lighter note, I don't begrudge anyone going to university for a few years before having to enter the drudgery of the corporate world. With continued increases in life expectancy, we're being worked longer and longer. Rather than working from the age of 18 to [insert perpetually distant age here], a few years of freedom seem a welcome reprieve between the confines of pre-university education and the equally confining realm of work.

Lingua

Is it really freedom for the student who is then saddled with 50k of student debt? Is it really freedom for the taxpayer who has to fund this 50k of debt? All just to delay going into the corporate world? I can think of FAR better ways ti delay going into corporate work then doing a useless degree.

Lingua

economic wrote: »

Is it really freedom for the student who is then saddled with 50k of student debt? Is it really freedom for the taxpayer who has to fund this 50k of debt? All just to delay going into the corporate world? I can think of FAR better ways ti delay going into corporate work then doing a useless degree.

It's only 50k of debt because the government decided to bump tuition fees up to 9k+. While I can see the value in some courses costing more (STEM subjects particularly), I don't see the value in an English Literature student paying 9k+ for 3 (three!) contact hours a week. I do see the value in an English Literature degree, but not in the fees.

However, I do agree that the current system is in need of reform. Particularly, most degrees use the first year to get everyone to the same standard and to teach essay-writing skills etc. First year doesn't count for most degrees aside from say Medicine, and works out at £9.25k tuition fees + £8k in maintenance loans, and isn't all that necessary. If a student isn't able to go straight into university-level education, they should take a foundation year. Essay-writing (as required at university) should be taught at sixth form. Just my two cents

Lingua

economic

Lingua wrote: »

It's only 50k of debt because the government decided to bump tuition fees up to 9k+. While I can see the value in some courses costing more (STEM subjects particularly), I don't see the value in an English Literature student paying 9k+ for 3 (three!) contact hours a week. I do see the value in an English Literature degree, but not in the fees.

However, I do agree that the current system is in need of reform. Particularly, most degrees use the first year to get everyone to the same standard and to teach essay-writing skills etc. First year doesn't count for most degrees aside from say Medicine, and works out at £9.25k tuition fees + £8k in maintenance loans, and isn't all that necessary. If a student isn't able to go straight into university-level education, they should take a foundation year. Essay-writing (as required at university) should be taught at sixth form. Just my two cents

Lingua

If the government didn't increase the tuition fee cap, the costs would be borne by the taxpayer on day 1. I prefer tuition fees rising to save the taxpayer money (but given the repayment rules a significant number of loans wont be paid back so will be borne by the taxpayer anyway).

Perhaps the best way to come up with the education system is to provide student loans only for courses that are vital to the economy. The rest not funded at all. This will collapse all the useless degree courses (yes that includes English Literature) and a free market will be born where if people really want to study a degree this would create demand and therefore supply at a more reasonable price (since not nearly as many students would want to do the degree compared to currently).

Of course the above is not politically viable so GreatApe's idea would probably work better.

Lingua

economic wrote: »

If the government didn't increase the tuition fee cap, the costs would be borne by the taxpayer on day 1. I prefer tuition fees rising to save the taxpayer money (but given the repayment rules a significant number of loans wont be paid back so will be borne by the taxpayer anyway).

Perhaps the best way to come up with the education system is to provide student loans only for courses that are vital to the economy. The rest not funded at all. This will collapse all the useless degree courses (yes that includes English Literature) and a free market will be born where if people really want to study a degree this would create demand and therefore supply at a more reasonable price (since not nearly as many students would want to do the degree compared to currently).

Of course the above is not politically viable so GreatApe's idea would probably work better.

The issue there, you see, is that degrees are quite often interchangeable for a wide range of fields. While you of course need to study Medicine to become a doctor, it's not so clear-cut for other domains. Besides that, you are essentially saying that only those subjects which contribute to the economy have any intrinsic value, completely ignoring the immeasurable importance of the arts and other creative subjects. It's hyper-capitalistic.

While increasing tuition fees does increase the amount of debt per student, it does not increase the amount of loan repaid. In fact, the recent increase of the repayment threshold to £25'000 means that less money than ever will be repaid. That's not the fault of students, regardless of their degree choice. I agree with Martin Lewis in his assessment of the student loan as a form of student tax, one which is pursuable across national boundaries and therefore much easier to collect.

If you really want students to pay more, or to reduce the debt burden to the government of tertiary education, then I suggest you consider the following:
1) increasing the repayments of graduates (by reducing the repayment threshold or increasing the percentage from 9%). Good luck with any party getting elected with that in their manifesto
2) identify the most expensive subjects studied at university and explore ways to create gradated tuition fees depending on overall cost to provide that degree. English Literature is far less resource-intensive than Biomedicine, so why is it the same fee?

All of this isn't even to mention the issue of widening participation for disadvantaged students, the varying quality of universities, or the difficulty in collating and managing a list of 'in-demand' subjects. For example, would you support funding a nursing degree from Suffolk (worst university in the country according to: https://www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/league-tables/rankings) even though its teaching is not as robust as other establishments? Equally, how would you encourage long-term study in secondary and post-secondary education to specialise in specific subjects? If a student chooses certain GCSEs and A-Levels to study one degree and then is told at the end of their course that the degree is no longer 'in-demand', you are creating confusion. Never mind that they might have pursued specific extra-curricular activities to tailor them to one degree, and have less experience for their personal statement to then apply for another degree.

I look forward to hearing your solutions.

Lingua

kinger101

GreatApe wrote: »

You don't understand (if you had an A-Level in maths you would )
Only people who know they can get good grades take further maths.

Think of it this way,
If at GCSE you awarded A* for the top 10% and A for the next 10% and B for the next 10%..etc
That works as GCSE maths is mandatory

Let's say we changed GCSE so it was optional
Let's say the bottom two thirds now that it is optional decide GCSE maths is not for them
So you remain with the top 1/3rd of students doing maths GCSE

What sort of grades do you award them now? Do the bottom 10% get failed even though they probably have a good grasp of GCSE maths? While they are the bottom 10% of the kids that choose to take GCSE maths they are at the top 30% of all kids their age at maths.

Do you get it?

With Further Mathematics A-Levels it is self selecting
Only the top 1% of students choose it and it makes sense they get very High grades because they are intelligent kids and are self selecting. Your method would be terrible at informing anyone of the kids ability.

So one more your method would work for subjects and levels of education that are mandatory but it would not work for A-Levels where people segregate according to ability

I don't believe you have an A-level in maths. Otherwise you wouldn't invent fictitious cherry-picked cohorts of 10 to make your point. The statistics part would include something on sampling error.

As for the top 1%, are you telling me there were in total 1.6 M A-level students in 2017 (as 16K took further maths), and that the top students always take further maths, even if their skills are in languages, the sciences or the arts.

You've also cherry picked by selecting maths. That's actually seen less grade inflation than all the other subjects. Biology for example. Why do you think universities now all want AAB when in 1992, BBC might have got you into a Russel Group uni?

Stop trying to make a point by inventing your own facts.