Are degrees in the UK value for money?

silvercar

kinger101 wrote: »

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.

True.

Also will limit the amount of mortgage lenders will give you ie if you have £50 a month going to repay your student loan, that will effect the max mortgage you can secure.

adindas

michaels wrote: »

The BBC has a piece linked to the increase in maximum fees to £9,250, their take is on the repayment model but entirely misses the point that it is effectively now a graduate tax.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-38651059

However this got me wondering whether the proposed fees are actually reasonable compared to the cost of providing the course.

I believe that secondary education - say A levels - is done in the state sector for about 5k per pupil per year.

So then I wondered (for a humanities subject) how much it costs to teach a degree course. For example lectures often have many more students in them with one lecturer than the typical A level class - thus the 'instruction' bit of the teaching is cheaper per head.

However of course there are also smaller 'tutorial' type lessons and then marking of course work and exams. However it seems to me that for courses without major requirements for lab work the cost per pupil of a degree should be about the same as an A level course - ie a lot cheaper than the proposed £9250 annual fee.

Now perhaps universities are cross-subsidising more expensive subjects such as sciences and medicine but if so is this reasonable - perhaps a uni could only offer cheap to teach courses and significantly undercut others that do the cross-subsidy?

Does anyone know why uni courses in general cost much more than A levels?

If you are taking the degree which historically have been proven worthy then the answer is yes.

I have not heard anyone argues that degree in medicine, dentistry certain degrees in Engineering are not worthy ...

If you are studying just because you are following the crowd, because it is easy to get then it might not be worthy at all. There is a very good chance people will end up doing the job which does not need degree at all.

Keep in mind majority of student loan in the UK are not repaid back in full. This might be because the student just do what they like and not what they could make out of it, ending up working in low paid job below the repayment threshold. Thus do not need to repay even a penny, totally waste of taxpayer's money.

BobQ

chucknorris wrote: »

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.

I take your point that if the courses are not accredited then students will (and indeed should) go elsewhere. But if there are no shortages of places on accredited courses and the standards are being maintained then there is not a problem.

I do not know if chartered surveyors are in short supply or not, but if they are, then I do not believe that the Institution should be allowed to do things that limit numbers of places as it is suggested the BMA are doing for doctors. Failing to accredit, or withdraw accreditation of a compliant course is surely not in the public interest?

Professional bodies are not a law unto themselves, they exist though the granting of a Royal Charter. A Chartered institution is a legal entity which exists on the authority of the Queen and is regulated by the Privy Council. Legally they must act in the public interest. It follows that if they do not act in the public interest the Privy Council has a duty to amend their Charters.

justme111

I am not that familiar with university education but logic dictates that if there is no limit on places quality will go down hence BMA actually acts in public interests preventing graduatuon of half baked doctors.
The point is until there is limited funding and unlimited demand for NHS no measures will be successfull.

adindas

BobQ wrote: »

I am not an expert in how universities work so am happy to be corrected. However, I get the impression that universities operate like independent businesses safe in the knowledge that whatever they provide in types and numbers of courses, is up to them and what they see as their strategy for the institution.

My view is that they should be made more responsive to the businesses that employ their graduates be they private or public sector. In the case of medicine it should not be the BMA or RCN that drives the numbers of courses. It should be the NHS and private hospitals. But in turn they should plan to provide post graduate training that matches that demand. This means selection based on high standards and guarantees of jobs to those that graduate that last a few years. The same should apply to those that employ other professionals.

Of course the universities should be able to provide additional places which have no guarantees of work but we need to have a national strategy that ensures the universities meet the demand we know exists. We also ought to subsidise those who study what the nation needs with lower fees.

I frankly do not care how much universities charge people in fees to study things they want to do as a whim, that is a matter for market forces. Similarly some courses w will never be able to predict the demand for (like media studies) but for those we need and can reasonably predict we need a plan not a group of universities pursuing their own agenda.

The problem here in the UK is that the attitude of the youngsters to choose the subject to read at the university. Many are doing it because it is fun easy to get. How many students here are fancy to study history, literature, sport management, creative writing, etc. It has been proven historically that unless you belong to a very lucky one, get relatives, parent who could help you on the job ladder the chance is that you will be working in the job which do not need degree at all.

Compare it to the subject such as Medicine, Dentistry, Engineering, Science, Math, etc.


,

BobQ

justme111 wrote: »

I am not that familiar with university education but logic dictates that if there is no limit on places quality will go down hence BMA actually acts in public interests preventing graduatuon of half baked doctors.
The point is until there is limited funding and unlimited demand for NHS no measures will be successfull.

I am not arguing for unlimited places in medical schools. Quality does not necessarily fall just because you have more places, its for the BMA etc to decide if someone is suitable qualified.

The country needs a certain number of doctors each year and we need to train roughly that number. Not training enough is not a solution and there is no evidence that training enough for our needs will reduce standards.

Tell me if you have a choice between being treated by a doctor with a second class degree in medicine or a VACANCY for a doctor with a first class degree in medicine ?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

I am not arguing for unlimited places in medical schools. Quality does not necessarily fall just because you have more places, its for the BMA etc to decide if someone is suitable qualified.

The country needs a certain number of doctors each year and we need to train roughly that number. Not training enough is not a solution and there is no evidence that training enough for our needs will reduce standards.

Tell me if you have a choice between being treated by a doctor with a second class degree in medicine or a VACANCY for a doctor with a first class degree in medicine ?

Just for the record, the BMA is a doctors' trade union. It's leadership is a left wing group with a wish to overthrow the Tory government

To practice medicine in the UK, one needs to register with the GMC.

michaels

silvercar wrote: »

True.

Also will limit the amount of mortgage lenders will give you ie if you have £50 a month going to repay your student loan, that will effect the max mortgage you can secure.

Although of course with large deposits getting you a much cheaper mortgage and property prices rising that 50k of parental money might still be better off invested in a deposit than the uni fees. Swings and roundabouts....

Cakeguts

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.

What I would say is that before they decide to spend it you might want to check that the degree study that they are paying for will benefit them rather than be spent by the university staff on their mortgages and new cars for teaching at a university that could do with being renamed a college of arts that is not able to award degrees because their standards are too low.

There are a large number of universities in the UK that are being run for the benefit of their staff and not the students. One which will remain nameless runs a fashion course several hundred miles away from any fashion centre. You can get in there with a portfolio and the ability to spell your name correctly. It basically caters for the future clothes shop workers but you don't need to spend £50,000 on a university course to get a job selling clothes. You can do this straight from school. It basically takes people who can't get into anywhere else. I am not sure that universities that have such low entry requirements and run courses that you can't do anything with except have an "experience" should be allowed to let students get loans. If students want to study just because they want an experience and are unable to get into anywhere else then they should pay for the courses at the full price . I don't suppose anyone would want to go there if this was the case they probably wouldn't feel that the "experience" was worth that amount of their own money.

zagubov

In this country, Doctors degrees vary in title but they're nominally ordinary bachelor's degrees awarded in twos or occasionally threes (ie I don't think you can get a Bachelors of Medicine without the Surgery one and vice versa). Not honours and not graded. The entry requirements are usually well above what's needed to handle the science content.

To be blunt they could let a lot more candidates in without reducing the performance of the sector.

Alternatively you could do what they apparently do in Italy and let everybody who wants to be there into medical school. And then you have the fiercest first year in the world to scare off the armies of the uncommitted and unsuitable.