Are degrees in the UK value for money?

SingleSue

GreatApe wrote: »

Men and women don't get into relationships with some aggregated average man or woman they get with individuals who are a wide spectrum of dominant to submissive smart to dumb pretty to ugly.

What does it add to state that men and women are equal. Equally important? Sure it's so obvious it doesn't need stating. Equally strong smart driven? Maybe but since people get together with individuals they won't be equals one of the two will be smarter or stronger or more aggressive or earn more. What should those women or men feel that are lessor than their partner on some trait if everyone is running around proclaiming were all equal at everything? Should they blame their partner or the opposite sex or society itself? Or grow up and accept you are not some average aggregate nor will your partner be. If you want a meek man go find a meek man if you want a dominant one go find a dominant one. You won't be able to change the dominant or the meek man from what they are to some aggregate average.

Anyway there is something wrong with current western culture.
With uk born women having only 1.5 kids that isn't sustainable.
And one of the reasons for this unsustainable situation is the university bubble

I said an equal partnership. That means that in modern life there is no place to be talking about the man having to provide and the woman having to stay at home, both are equally able to do those roles.

Why should a man have all the pressure to provide? All the worry about making sure their family has enough to eat, that he earns enough to pay to keep a roof over their heads? Surely that is not fair to the man.

Sure we all have strengths and they contribute to an equal partnership but they may not be in the stereotypical gender defined roles. Men are equally able to be the main care giver, just the same as woman are equally able to be the main provider. Having a protruding genitalia does not make you a poorer care giver or a better provider, you just have different genitalia.

Similar but not quite the same, why is there the expectation that the male pays for the first date or meal out? Why put the onus on them to fork out, why not the woman...or just split the cost (or as I did with the last relationship, we took turns to pay)

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

That won't work because the parents kids and the public and university industrial complex will vote you out

The only workable method is to give the kids choice and if the kids choose to spend their £50k on a house or starting a business rather than studying photography and philosophy at Luton its up to them and no one will/can blame them

If you force it upon them (not going to university) even indirectly it won't get anywhere


I winder how many idiots were involved in this decisions over how many decades
Who thought expanding university could be anything other than lowering standards and inventing new pointless courses? In some ways they add a lot of negative value if your told go to university for a better life and after 4 years on a photography course you are unemployed or stacking shelves you are likely be be resentful.

This wont work either. What 17 yr kid is going to spend it on a business idea over education? Those that do - most will have wasted it as most businesses fail. This is taxpayer money we are talking about as well which makes it a very bad idea and clearly unfair to the taxpayer as they are guaranteeing a large negative return on the cash.

Then it becomes a decision between a house and a degree - my reasoning on why students would just go for a degree wont change, and i'm willing to bet you wont see a big enough drop in degree applications to make your solution worthwhile. You will still have marketing by universities, schools, peer/parental pressure, the need to do one because jobs "require". All those things will remain and has a very powerful effect.

With my idea you are not forcing closure directly. You are simply reducing public funded degrees and encourage private sector (banks) to replace this funding - this way those who do want to do a degree will be able to at a "fair" price. Banks will lend to those students who they deem to be worth the risk. They could even charge students higher rates who they deem to be riskier.

I know what you are saying - my way will be impossible politically. But your way wont have a meaningful impact imo. So what are we to do?

This is just part of a much wider problem in western society of socialism where everyone expects the government to pay to support them in every way from education to old age care.

economic

SingleSue wrote: »

I said an equal partnership. That means that in modern life there is no place to be talking about the man having to provide and the woman having to stay at home, both are equally able to do those roles.

Why should a man have all the pressure to provide? All the worry about making sure their family has enough to eat, that he earns enough to pay to keep a roof over their heads? Surely that is not fair to the man.

Sure we all have strengths and they contribute to an equal partnership but they may not be in the stereotypical gender defined roles. Men are equally able to be the main care giver, just the same as woman are equally able to be the main provider. Having a protruding genitalia does not make you a poorer care giver or a better provider, you just have different genitalia.

Similar but not quite the same, why is there the expectation that the male pays for the first date or meal out? Why put the onus on them to fork out, why not the woman...or just split the cost (or as I did with the last relationship, we took turns to pay)

This is just a load of waffle. No one is saying that a man needs to be a provider and a woman needs to be at home. What we are saying is that is entirely depends on the man and the woman and how they structure their lives together.

Historically the man has been the provider and the woman has been at home looking after the kids. This has changed a lot over the last century. Women can now take care of themselves financially but they also have a biological clock where if they don't have a child by 35, it's likely they will be childless forever. They will have to make some sacrifice in their career to have a child when young whilst men don't have to. If you think that is unfair then you have no idea how life works.

Men's role in society has also changed for the worse - many but not all see themselves as not having purpose as the woman is able to support themselves. You see lots of successful women now who are in relationships with younger guys - its like the roles have reversed quite a bit. Women crave for younger guys because they have more stamina in bed. The younger guys crave for older women because they have have no role in society and so want to feel empowered by being with an older successful woman to tell them what to do. Its like the younger guy wants to have mother in his life.

SingleSue

A man's purpose is the same as a woman's purpose, it's just the attitudes that have changed (for the better!)

A woman doesn't need to sacrifice her career when she has children, especially if she has a partner as either one of them can take on a care giver role. The man may not have to sacrifice his career but he may want to.

As for life, I think I know by now how it works. I was supposed to be the one who carried on with their career whilst my (now ex) husband stayed at home to bring up our eldest son, unfortunately the threat of humiliation from his friends made him change his mind just prior to me going back to work after my (very short) maternity leave. It not only ruined my career but also our finances as I was by far the higher earner with scope to go even further whilst his prospects were a lot lower than mine (in employment, he was a steady as you go person, I was the risk taker and more ambitious one).

As an older woman, I do not crave a younger man, just someone who believes my opinion has the same weight as his and not someone who rejects my opinion or view just because I am female, no matter what age they are. Personally, I prefer someone closer to my age as I just wouldn't have the energy to keep up with someone much younger.

GreatApe

SingleSue wrote: »

I said an equal partnership. That means that in modern life there is no place to be talking about the man having to provide and the woman having to stay at home, both are equally able to do those roles.

I dont think anyone has said women have to stay at home and men cant do housework. I say often and repeatedly most women used to work even 50 or even 100 years ago its just a myth that women did not work in the past it was maybe true for a small percentage of middle class women but the census data shows the majority of women did work in the past.

What I said was more and more women and men are working and taking care of the house as can be seen by the massive boom in single occupancy homes. Germany is further ahead than us but something crazy like half of their homes are lived in by just one person they work and they do the housework. What has suffered is children not being born and people not coupling up either to marry or live like they are married. The peter pan generation the generation that does not want to grow up and thinks they can stay young forever only time waits for no man.

Why should a man have all the pressure to provide? All the worry about making sure their family has enough to eat, that he earns enough to pay to keep a roof over their heads? Surely that is not fair to the man.

Absolutely correct but men just accept it and get on with it. It is women attitudes you need to change on that one most women will leave their partners if they lost their job but most men wouldn't leave their partners if they lose their jobs. Likewise most women want a high status well paid men while most men dont really care what their partner does for work or how much they earn.

Sure we all have strengths and they contribute to an equal partnership but they may not be in the stereotypical gender defined roles. Men are equally able to be the main care giver, just the same as woman are equally able to be the main provider. Having a protruding genitalia does not make you a poorer care giver or a better provider, you just have different genitalia.

This is silly men and women are not the same even a man the same man is different when on or off steroids. Even if you believe men and women are physically and mentally exactly the same the different hormones mean they will manifest differently in temperament size strength and interests.

Men can take care of kids, women can work. Men have no objection to women working women have worked for all of living memory. But many women have objections to stay at home fathers most women would not like that.

Similar but not quite the same, why is there the expectation that the male pays for the first date or meal out? Why put the onus on them to fork out, why not the woman...or just split the cost (or as I did with the last relationship, we took turns to pay)

Perhaps because for most of history men have dated and partnered up with women younger than themselves and for most of history people got married in their early twenties which means they were dating in their late teens early twenties. If the woman is 18 and the man is 22 it is more likely that man is employed and it is more likely he is paid more because he has been in the workforce for longer.

I wonder if the wage gap myth is partly due to women dating older men and seeing them earn more. That way on aggregate women would report their partners earning more and assume it was due to sex rather than age/experience.

SingleSue

GreatApe wrote: »

I dont think anyone has said women have to stay at home and men cant do housework. I say often and repeatedly most women used to work even 50 or even 100 years ago its just a myth that women did not work in the past it was maybe true for a small percentage of middle class women but the census data shows the majority of women did work in the past.

What I said was more and more women and men are working and taking care of the house as can be seen by the massive boom in single occupancy homes. Germany is further ahead than us but something crazy like half of their homes are lived in by just one person they work and they do the housework. What has suffered is children not being born and people not coupling up either to marry or live like they are married. The peter pan generation the generation that does not want to grow up and thinks they can stay young forever only time waits for no man.



Absolutely correct but men just accept it and get on with it. It is women attitudes you need to change on that one most women will leave their partners if they lost their job but most men wouldn't leave their partners if they lose their jobs. Likewise most women want a high status well paid men while most men dont really care what their partner does for work or how much they earn.



This is silly men and women are not the same even a man the same man is different when on or off steroids. Even if you believe men and women are physically and mentally exactly the same the different hormones mean they will manifest differently in temperament size strength and interests.

Men can take care of kids, women can work. Men have no objection to women working women have worked for all of living memory. But many women have objections to stay at home fathers most women would not like that.



Perhaps because for most of history men have dated and partnered up with women younger than themselves and for most of history people got married in their early twenties which means they were dating in their late teens early twenties. If the woman is 18 and the man is 22 it is more likely that man is employed and it is more likely he is paid more because he has been in the workforce for longer.

I wonder if the wage gap myth is partly due to women dating older men and seeing them earn more. That way on aggregate women would report their partners earning more and assume it was due to sex rather than age/experience.

There was a 5 year age gap between me and my husband, we were earning the same amount at the time we met and paid equally for our dates.

I got married a few weeks before my 20th birthday after a 3 year courtship.....I may not have been in the workforce for as long as him but I was 10 times more ambitious.

GreatApe

economic wrote: »

This wont work either. What 17 yr kid is going to spend it on a business idea over education? Those that do - most will have wasted it as most businesses fail. This is taxpayer money we are talking about as well which makes it a very bad idea and clearly unfair to the taxpayer as they are guaranteeing a large negative return on the cash

What is the return on the marginal student? 0%? Can the businesses lose more than 100%?

Also I suspect of those that opt to use their coupon not for education 90% would use it to buy a house or put it into a pension very few would use it for a business.

Then it becomes a decision between a house and a degree - my reasoning on why students would just go for a degree wont change, and i'm willing to bet you wont see a big enough drop in degree applications to make your solution worthwhile. You will still have marketing by universities, schools, peer/parental pressure, the need to do one because jobs "require". All those things will remain and has a very powerful effect.

Jobs only require a degree because there is a surplus of degrees. If a company needs a task done and they cant find a worthless degree holder to do their task they will just ask for A-Levels or GCSEs.

With my idea you are not forcing closure directly. You are simply reducing public funded degrees and encourage private sector (banks) to replace this funding - this way those who do want to do a degree will be able to at a "fair" price. Banks will lend to those students who they deem to be worth the risk. They could even charge students higher rates who they deem to be riskier.

It wont work even I will vote you down and I want to shrink the sector I would be amazed if you got more than 5% of the vote share proposing commercial funding of student loans on bank terms. And what is likely to happy even if by some miracle you got it passed is that very soon the government would backstop these loans so the banks would give to anyone who wanted to study anything anywhere.

I know what you are saying - my way will be impossible politically. But your way wont have a meaningful impact imo. So what are we to do?

Perfection is the enemy of the good
For a start forget your idea it wont be passed we both agree on that
My idea of a £50k (or whatever is appropriate) coupon to be used on an education or a house or a pension will work. We can argue how many percent will opt for the house/pension over the education but clearly some will. As a guess I think the university numbers would shrink by at lest half of what they are and it will be heavily on the lessor schools and lessor degrees. So Oxford will not lose anyone while Luton will go bankrupt

Also with this coupon you can get rid of help to buy or the LISA etc. The LISA already contributed upto £32,000 per kid in free money. These coupons just front end the support. You could also have the coupons paid back on similar terms to the current student loans.

economic

GreatApe wrote: »

What is the return on the marginal student? 0%? Can the businesses lose more than 100%?

Also I suspect of those that opt to use their coupon not for education 90% would use it to buy a house or put it into a pension very few would use it for a business.



Jobs only require a degree because there is a surplus of degrees. If a company needs a task done and they cant find a worthless degree holder to do their task they will just ask for A-Levels or GCSEs.


It wont work even I will vote you down and I want to shrink the sector I would be amazed if you got more than 5% of the vote share proposing commercial funding of student loans on bank terms. And what is likely to happy even if by some miracle you got it passed is that very soon the government would backstop these loans so the banks would give to anyone who wanted to study anything anywhere.



Perfection is the enemy of the good
For a start forget your idea it wont be passed we both agree on that
My idea of a £50k (or whatever is appropriate) coupon to be used on an education or a house or a pension will work. We can argue how many percent will opt for the house/pension over the education but clearly some will. As a guess I think the university numbers would shrink by at lest half of what they are and it will be heavily on the lessor schools and lessor degrees. So Oxford will not lose anyone while Luton will go bankrupt

Also with this coupon you can get rid of help to buy or the LISA etc. The LISA already contributed upto £32,000 per kid in free money. These coupons just front end the support. You could also have the coupons paid back on similar terms to the current student loans.

I think i would agree with you if you put it like that. As long as the 50k is a loan that needs to be paid back with interest. Not the ideal solution but its probably worth trying as the net cost would be 0 and probably a gain.

Tough to see actual impact but certainly beats keeping the status quo!

Cakeguts

dunroving wrote: »

But students have the choice not to take these courses... nobody is forcing them.

That is the problem. Because many state schools do not have career departments the less able students don't realise that these courses are not "real" degrees and how on earth are they supposed to find out? Their parents who haven't been to university just think that it is wonderful that their child has got a place at university and don't question the course because years ago a university course meant a good job. No one is prepared to tell them the truth about the courses. When you have schools where all A level students are handed a form to fill up to apply for a university course how can these students find out they are being conned and are only going to be at university to make money for the university.

It will probably take a couple of generations for the con to be properly recognised for what it is.

dunroving

dunroving wrote: »

But students have the choice not to take these courses... nobody is forcing them.

economic wrote: »

On the whole students don't know much about the real world. How are you expecting them to make a sound decision at 17 years old?

Its really about game theory - since most people are doing a degree and since most decent jobs require a degree (even though you don't actually use any of the skills and knowledge from the degree), students probably feel they have no option but to give in and spend £50k on a degree certificate worth as much as toilet tissue paper.

So its combination of false marketing from schools, universities, pressure from parents, seeing everyone else do one, seeing decent jobs require one - so they just go ahead and waste time and money on a degree.

What should happen is government should stop funding for all degrees apart from those that require the skills and knowledge that actually add value to the economy and are crucial to the functioning of this country AND where without a degree it would be impossible to enter into that job - so generally vocational degrees like medicine and dentistry.

Then for the rest, since the government has stopped the funding, the private sector can fund loans at competitive rates for students who wish to do other degrees. Banks can make the choice who to lend to - they would decide John doing maths at Cambridge is well worth the risk so the bank would provide funding for him. Conversely they would would run a mile from Jack who wants funding for a maths degree at Luton University.

You could even have P2P lending for students as well. But that could actually make the problem worse unless the platforms have strict criteria similar to the banks.

In this way you will see all the rubbish universities close down along with the rubbish degrees. So number of students entering uni will fall drastically. Companies will drop the "degree required" requirement. Students will start work at age 17-18yr, and they will be much better off.

Cakeguts wrote: »

That is the problem. Because many state schools do not have career departments the less able students don't realise that these courses are not "real" degrees and how on earth are they supposed to find out? Their parents who haven't been to university just think that it is wonderful that their child has got a place at university and don't question the course because years ago a university course meant a good job. No one is prepared to tell them the truth about the courses. When you have schools where all A level students are handed a form to fill up to apply for a university course how can these students find out they are being conned and are only going to be at university to make money for the university.

It will probably take a couple of generations for the con to be properly recognised for what it is.

Aargh! We live in an era of learned helplessness, absolution of self-responsibility and a blame culture.

It is shocking that parents will put hours of research into what mobile phone or television to buy but (supposedly) are unable to figure out how to guide their child in one of the most important decisions of their lives.

Give me a break!