Are degrees in the UK value for money?

justme111

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Clearly the sensible plan is to train more doctors, not least so that we are not dependent on recruiting 25% of doctors from abroad, however, don't underestimate the battle with the unions that this will involve.

Sensible would be to address the reasons of retention not working. Demoralisation by impossibility to deliver decent service being the first one. Training more doctors would require more funding- any guess on whether there likely to be shortcuts in quality of training ? Do you know GP has 7 minutes per appointment? Do you think one can do proper job in that time specially keeping in mind quantity of hoops and paperwork?
The root of the issue is government's pretence NHS healthcare can be free at the point of delivery with limited funding. Trying to redirect the blaim is obfuscation and hypocrisy.

movilogo

It depends on what you want.

If you want to be a good employee in a large company, then yes, UK degrees are OK-ish value for money. However, you can often similar cheaper education from other countries which is even better value for money.

If you want to be an entrepreneur and start hiring people for your own business, then I don't think UK degrees are good value for money.

Running_Horse

We have a sizeable chunk of money going into a college fund for our child. Can't help thinking it would be better to let them accumulate maximum student debt which may never be repaid, then put the money towards a deposit on a house.

economic

Running_Horse wrote: »

We have a sizeable chunk of money going into a college fund for our child. Can't help thinking it would be better to let them accumulate maximum student debt which may never be repaid, then put the money towards a deposit on a house.

might as well right. game the system as much as possible.

michaels

Running_Horse wrote: »

We have a sizeable chunk of money going into a college fund for our child. Can't help thinking it would be better to let them accumulate maximum student debt which may never be repaid, then put the money towards a deposit on a house.

Guess it depends whether you think they will earn enough to pay it back - given it is not cheap debt then probably giving them the money for the studies is financially best.

BobQ

jamesmorgan wrote: »

Whilst this seems eminently sensible, the problem with implementing it is that in a monopoly industry, unions have great power. The doctor's union (BMA) have routinely obstructed trying to increase the number of doctor's the UK train as they recognize that increasing this would put downward pressure on wages and increase the possibility of unemployment in the sector. As a union, their primary purpose is to protect the terms and conditions of their current members.

Until recently all governments have shied away from from a battle with the unions. This changed recently with the battle over junior doctors rotas, but what was less publicized was that the BMA were also angered over government plans to increase the number of doctors we train (from 6000 pa to 7500).

Clearly the sensible plan is to train more doctors, not least so that we are not dependent on recruiting 25% of doctors from abroad, however, don't underestimate the battle with the unions that this will involve.

I take your point, but since the public have voted for restrictions on immigration and generally making this country less friendly for foreigners to work here, the Government will need to take on the medical unions and face up to their responsibilities to properly staff the NHS. They have not shied away from undermining other unions, I am sure they can be equally nasty towards the BMA.

BobQ

chucknorris wrote: »

I can't speak for every degree course, only the ones that our department (property and construction) delivers. We need accreditation from the RICS (Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors) and the CIOB (Chartered Institute of Building), so we need their approval of our degree courses, otherwise they could withdraw their accreditation. This has happened in the past to some of our competitors delivering the same or similar degrees, when that happened, a number of their students left those universities, and transferred to us to finish their degree, and also their new intake of students was reduced in the following year.

We regularly meet up with the RICS and the CIOB (and also employers who sponsor part time students) and they give us feedback on our degrees. Usually we are all singing from the same hymn sheet, because usually we all want the same result.

Most professional bodies have a role in accrediting degree courses in their fields, but I am not sure that this should be used to restrict the numbers studying those courses. If this is happening then I am sure a Government could intervene and address such restrictive practices. Nobody would support the RMT limiting the number of train drivers who could work in the UK would they?

BobQ

justme111 wrote: »

Sensible would be to address the reasons of retention not working. Demoralisation by impossibility to deliver decent service being the first one. Training more doctors would require more funding- any guess on whether there likely to be shortcuts in quality of training ? Do you know GP has 7 minutes per appointment? Do you think one can do proper job in that time specially keeping in mind quantity of hoops and paperwork?
The root of the issue is government's pretence NHS healthcare can be free at the point of delivery with limited funding. Trying to redirect the blaim is obfuscation and hypocrisy.

We certainly should be addressing retention.

Training more or retaining more are two sides of the same coin

My argument is that there are some degrees that are more useful than others and which the nation needs graduates in predictable numbers and we need to do what we can to ensure this happens by discounting the fees that must be paid to undertake them.

Medicine is a good example as most doctors early post graduate careers are as employees of the NHS. So in return for lower fees they ought to accept a commitment to work for the NHS for a defined period. If the do not want to accept the commitment then they should pay the full fees. Training quality and standards can be ensured through accreditation.

The same approach could be applied for other graduates in those disciplines w need to have. Personally I think employers should subsidise these types of degrees (public and private sector) as they used to through bursaries.

For degrees that there is no great demand for the normal fees should apply. I see no reason to subsidise or even give loans to people who are just going to university for the "experience" and predictably end up with poor degrees that lead to a job paying not much more than the living wage.

chucknorris

BobQ wrote: »

Most professional bodies have a role in accrediting degree courses in their fields, but I am not sure that this should be used to restrict the numbers studying those courses. If this is happening then I am sure a Government could intervene and address such restrictive practices. Nobody would support the RMT limiting the number of train drivers who could work in the UK would they?

It isn't used to restrict numbers, the students will simply go elsewhere (and vote with their feet). I think you that you have probably misunderstood my post.

EDIT: If a particular university is not delivering what the RICS/CIOB agrees with, then they are entirely correct to withdrawn their accreditation.

kinger101

michaels wrote: »

Guess it depends whether you think they will earn enough to pay it back - given it is not cheap debt then probably giving them the money for the studies is financially best.

Yup, the post-2012 rates can be pretty high (up to RPI+3%). Well in excess of a mortgage. Guess this adds another dimension to the question. The degrees which enhance your earning potential the most will cost more in the end, as you will pay them back, and at a higher rate of interest.