Are degrees in the UK value for money?

LHW99

From an economic perspective, medicine is still a widely oversubscribed course with the hardest entry requirements. If demand is so high, why do we need to lower fees?

I agree (reluctantly) with the idea there is no commercial reason to reduce fees. However, the entry requirements now are over high IMO, probably because there is only room for a certain number of candidates while ensuring reasonable standards in the courses.
We need more doctors, so it would be good to carefully increase the number of places allowing good candidates with A/B grades to get places, rather than demanding A* because of lack of room. That would take more money though.

gfplux

LHW99 wrote: »

I agree (reluctantly) with the idea there is no commercial reason to reduce fees. However, the entry requirements now are over high IMO, probably because there is only room for a certain number of candidates while ensuring reasonable standards in the courses.
We need more doctors, so it would be good to carefully increase the number of places allowing good candidates with A/B grades to get places, rather than demanding A* because of lack of room. That would take more money though.

A little bit of social engineering like that would be very clever. Perhaps too clever for politicians to grasp.

westernpromise

BobQ wrote: »

We also need to discriminate in favour of having lower fees for the degrees that the nation needs.

What ought to happen is that universities offering degrees that don't add value or lead to better jobs will find they can't attract students and duly go bust. Unless that is allowed and encouraged to happen, then fees are just a tax. We have a habit in this country of propping up and excusing failing bits of the public sector rather than letting them go deservedly to the wall.

zagubov

silvercar wrote: »

From an economic perspective, medicine is still a widely oversubscribed course with the hardest entry requirements. If demand is so high, why do we need to lower fees?

From a social perspective, lowering the fees may attract people due to the low fees rather than the vocation.

From a VFM viewpoint, its a bargain compared with paying the same level for media studies.

We don't really need to incentivise people to become GPs any more than we already do, but we do need to motivate them to stick with the job. If the fees were massive but covered by a loan by the NHS and became repayable later, that might ensure people stay in the field.

It would have to be brought in gradually so prospective students knew what they were letting themselves in for, and we didn't end up with a bunch of disgruntled time-servers who feel trapped in the job.

michaels

gfplux wrote: »

A little bit of social engineering like that would be very clever. Perhaps too clever for politicians to grasp.

I thought part of the rationale for charging students in the first place was the idea that it would 'concentrate minds' when it came to choosing what to study. Obviously a complete failure though - anyone want to write a thesis on why the price signal doesn't work when it comes to UK students choosing a degree subject?

kabayiri

michaels wrote: »

I thought part of the rationale for charging students in the first place was the idea that it would 'concentrate minds' when it came to choosing what to study. Obviously a complete failure though - anyone want to write a thesis on why the price signal doesn't work when it comes to UK students choosing a degree subject?

I think it has boosted the marketing side of some Universities. Many students still seem happy to drift in to a subject they have scored well in, not particularly something they want to use for work.

We were discussing a couple of Universities earlier which offer an attainment incentive worth £2K or so, if you gain certain grades in A-levels. One of those scores worth this award was just 120 points, so not exactly aiming at the pinnacle.

This makes sense when you think about it. You can compensate for not having the best product (either Uni or course), by excelling in the marketing of what you offer.

happyandcontented

Some universities are sending out unconditional offers to those on Level 3 BTEC courses who have no qualifications beyond mediocre GCSE's.

This means the students have no incentive to even complete their courses. It seems clear to me they are not considering academic standards or even suitability for the course, but concentrating on their own funding levels.

CLAPTON

LHW99 wrote: »

I agree (reluctantly) with the idea there is no commercial reason to reduce fees. However, the entry requirements now are over high IMO, probably because there is only room for a certain number of candidates while ensuring reasonable standards in the courses.
We need more doctors, so it would be good to carefully increase the number of places allowing good candidates with A/B grades to get places, rather than demanding A* because of lack of room. That would take more money though.

the number of places for medicine are always filled as there are more good candidates than places.

its not entirely clear why we don't have more places : presumbaly a combination of the high cost of the courses (which could be mitigated by higher fees) and a bit of supplier restriction by the existing medical hierarchy.
perhaps we could start by doubling the fees for medicine and increase the supply of places and see the impact on numbers applying.

chucknorris

happyandcontented wrote: »

Some universities are sending out unconditional offers to those on Level 3 BTEC courses who have no qualifications beyond mediocre GCSE's.

This means the students have no incentive to even complete their courses. It seems clear to me they are not considering academic standards or even suitability for the course, but concentrating on their own funding levels.

Isn't a distinction at BTEC worth the same in UCAS points as an A level 'A' grade? If so, I don't see what the problem is. Are you sure that you are correct about 'unconditional' offers, that doesn't sound right, which universities are these, and for which degree courses?

kinger101

zagubov wrote: »

Part of the experience of the degree is obtaining a coherent body of knowledge, mastering it, gaining additional knowledge in related fields that support on the core subject and build on it, including tough subjects you wouldn't pick if you were learning out of interest.

As its been the norm for decades now to do Bachelor's degrees to honours level, the end stage is you learning from researchers and contributing to research by adding your additional work to the existing body of knowledge.

You'll have ploughed a path, and pushed the field forward a tad. It's a personal quest and overcoming the difficult parts are part of the battle. When you finish, your degree is meant to be a certificate of your intellectual horsepower, even if the actual knowledge gained doesn't stay with you.

You can learn stuff on, your own, the easy ways, by going on the internet or reading a well-written book. I'm not knocking becoming well-read and better-informed; these are great things in their own right and deserve to be encouraged for their own sake. But having a degree of education is something else.

You don't have to do it at a Russell Group uni to find it challenging and widely recognised (as any St Andrews' student would tell you).

It's the first level of education that's internationally recognised, unlike school leaving certificates. The fact that the UK has a good reputation for it bodes well.

At our place (Russell Group), we're told if the students have assessments based solely on recalling facts, we've not produced the assessment correctly.