Are degrees in the UK value for money?

happyandcontented

CLAPTON wrote: »

One would hope a uni education would have taught one to question what is 'self evident' and find evidenced based experience to test it.
The results could be used to see if using the available money in a different ways would produce better outcomes.

I do have evidence based experience to back up my opinion but I can't use that to influence the thinking of anyone reading the posts. I am merely posing the question for others to use their own experiences or imagination to answer the question of whom they would rather have looking after their children or grandchildren.

Nor would I want children used a s guinea pigs for social engineering experiments when it would seem obvious that those with education are better placed to deliver better quality care at the level pre schools now require.

How children progress in nurseries forms part of their early years education and progress record. It is used to inform targets for all their primary education. So the quality of the care/education and stimulus they get at that foundation stage is crucial.

Tabbytabbitha

CLAPTON wrote: »

One would hope a uni education would have taught one to question what is 'self evident' and find evidenced based experience to test it.
The results could be used to see if using the available money in a different ways would produce better outcomes.

I'm sure that many of us would agree that it would be far better to work at returning academic standards to the level they used to be so that far fewer people would need to go to university to achieve those standards. However, there is no political will to accept that standards have fallen that far under their watch, on either side of the House and it also ignores the effect on the unemployment figures which I mentioned earlier.

justme111

westernpromise wrote: »

...Attending lectures ...was also largely fruitless.

That is what I would be worried about too.

CLAPTON

happyandcontented wrote: »

I do have evidence based experience to back up my opinion but I can't use that to influence the thinking of anyone reading the posts. I am merely posing the question for others to use their own experiences or imagination to answer the question of whom they would rather have looking after their children or grandchildren.


Nor would I want children used a s guinea pigs for social engineering experiments when it would seem obvious that those with education are better placed to deliver better quality care at the level pre schools now require.

so why then are you using children as guinea pigs for your favoured social experiment and excluding all alternatives?

How children progress in nurseries forms part of their early years education and progress record. It is used to inform targets for all their primary education. So the quality of the care/education and stimulus they get at that foundation stage is crucial.

This is truely too silly to answer.

happyandcontented

CLAPTON wrote: »

so why then are you using children as guinea pigs for your favoured social experiment and excluding all alternatives?



This is truely too silly to answer.

What viable, available alternatives am I excluding? You tell me.

How people get "educated" is largely immaterial, that they are matters (to me) greatly.

It may seem "truly" silly to you and I am not an advocate of it particularly, but that is what happens. Leaving that aside you can recognise at an early age a child who has regularly interacted with "educated" people and those who haven't. It may be unpalatable but it is true.

CLAPTON

happyandcontented wrote: »

What viable, available alternatives am I excluding? You tell me.

spending the money differently e.g.
-more staff
-targeting more resources on poorer /disadvanted children
-targeting money on poor parenting
-I'm sure there are other ways but I'm not well versed in the subject

How people get "educated" is largely immaterial, that they are matters (to me) greatly.

I don't understand what you are saying

It may seem "truly" silly to you and I am not an advocate of it particularly, but that is what happens.

if its ineffective and /or wrong, then it should be changed

Leaving that aside you can recognise at an early age a child who has regularly interacted with "educated" people and those who haven't. It may be unpalatable but it is true.

what evidence is there for this?

Arleen

happyandcontented wrote: »

Re your point about taxpayers. Undoubtedly there are some degrees that I would not be happy to fund as a taxpayer but that applies to many other things too. In a democracy you delegate those decisions to elected leaders and have to put up with things you may personally not be in favour of.

Art History done correctly, produces widely read/thoughtful/ hard working graduates who can work in many areas. Art History has always existed as a degree subject even when no fees were involved, why would I deny my child the chance to study something they had a passion for and which imbued transferable skills just because others saw no value in the subject?

We have tuition fees now which are repayable, historically this was not the case. Many of those who went through the system when it was free have pulled the ladder up after them. I feel from your posts that you see only value in "professional " subjects (which fyi all of my kids actually studied) perhaps because you didn't have the same opportunities or you worked your way up without a degree?

University education is about so much more than subject specific classroom learning.

You could also argue than knowing how much they are paying to be there makes current students value and appreciate that they need to work harder than those who went through free or with grants did. Knowing that you will come out owing 36k for tutition fees alone as my youngest son will, concentrates the mind wonderfully!

Actually where I come from higher education at public unis is fully paid for by the gov, up and including PHD levels and in all sort of whacky departments. I also have kids.

And why should you deny them that choice of ducation? For the same reason you may have to deny them weekend in Aruba - because you cannot afford it/it's economically unwise at the time. This should be next step in educating them to be financially independent and live within their means. If they are trully passionate about the subject, they will never lose it and will pursue it either at later time, or find a way to pursue it now. Part time study/work, remote learning are all viable options.
And as said on page before in this topic, if you can afford it and want to send them to college on your own money then it's no ones business. But when you do it on public dime then it shouldn't be surprising that some people may be unhappy to fund your kids wishes and seek for the legislation to change.

happyandcontented

CLAPTON wrote: »

spending the money differently e.g.
-more staff
-targeting more resources on poorer /disadvanted children
-targeting money on poor parenting
-I'm sure there are other ways but I'm not well versed in the subject
I don't understand what you are saying



if its ineffective and /or wrong, then it should be changed



what evidence is there for this?

All the above already happens. There are numerous initiatives which address all those avenues.

It isn't ineffective, it is a reasonably accurate indicator. My reservations stem from children being "taught" from such a young age when play is also beneficial.

I am saying that I am not an advocate of everyone going into full timeFE/HE. There is a place for part time vocational study ranged alongside work. That still has to be paid for and I am happy for the taxpayer to be involved with that if it produces better educated people.

There are numerous studies that show that the children of those who are educated or children who have had quality pre school education do better in school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26853447

https://www.macalester.edu/educationreform/publicintellectualessay/gratz.pdf

Ann, Benjamin L. “Parents’ Literacy and their Children’s Success in School: Recent Research, Promising Practices, and Research Implications.”

This research report focuses on the program developments created to improve the education of parents, specifically mothers, in order to improve the education of their children. It examines specifically how the literacy skills of mothers impact the literacy skills of their children, and the report finds that they are strongly interconnected.

CLAPTON

happyandcontented wrote: »

All the above already happens. There are numerous initiatives which address all those avenues.

It isn't ineffective, it is a reasonably accurate indicator. My reservations stem from children being "taught" from such a young age when play is also beneficial.

I am saying that I am not an advocate of everyone going into full timeFE/HE. There is a place for part time vocational study ranged alongside work. That still has to be paid for and I am happy for the taxpayer to be involved with that if it produces better educated people.

There are numerous studies that show that the children of those who are educated or children who have had quality pre school education do better in school.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-26853447

https://www.macalester.edu/educationreform/publicintellectualessay/gratz.pdf

Ann, Benjamin L. “Parents’ Literacy and their Children’s Success in School: Recent Research, Promising Practices, and Research Implications.”

This research report focuses on the program developments created to improve the education of parents, specifically mothers, in order to improve the education of their children. It examines specifically how the literacy skills of mothers impact the literacy skills of their children, and the report finds that they are strongly interconnected.

It seems to me your references support my points.

happyandcontented

CLAPTON wrote: »

It seems to me your references support my points.

I think it supports both our points. If educational standards means children are not getting the help at home then we need to make sure those charged with delivering pre school education are well qualified. Being in the low pay sector shouldn't mean the FE/HE route is closed to them. They provide a vital service to society.

Lack of educational attainment in young parents is an issue which is being explored by various initiatives both grass roots and nationally. Many schools hold workshops to help parents support their kids and they are targeted. Pupil Premium is there to support those from financially disadvantaged backgrounds and there are a lot of other schemes; nuture rooms, targeted TA support, subject interventions etc.