Are degrees in the UK value for money?

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

So explain where the upfront £24 billion comes from now to give every 18 year old starting uni this past month the cash? I've paid back two student loans, and your assumption we lose it all is nonsense. The nurses that you two bemoan so frequently go straight into jobs starting at £25k a year in London for instance, well over the current repayment threshold, and so start to pay back their loans from month one of qualifying.

How about Dean the motorbike thieving 18 year old with a GCSE in art. You giving him 30 grand? What about Henrietta who's daddy earns 20 million a year in the city? You actually believe that there wouldn't be wholesale civil unrest if you can't find a few quid a month for heating for pensioners in the winter but you can get £24 billion for some teenagers to go on the !!!!!! / start a property portfolio?

I'm sure no one would complain that the country is helping its children

The net cost is closer to £9B in the short term and long the it would be a significant saving annually.

Actually even less cost because I didn't even consider where the money goes. If it goes to buying a house the kids will pay stamp duty. A £200k house has £1.5k stamp duty and £30k into shares has £150 stamp duty let's say the kids go half and half. Multiply by about 500,000 and that is significant £400 million back for that too. So cost is perhaps closer to £8.5 billion in the short term and a huge saving Long term.

And recall the additional income tax and NI paid is straight away as the kids go work instead of school.

You also end up with a much richer population how do you take the goods of that into account?

GreatApe

Is it surprising that the socialists are quick to anger when you propose giving children some capital of their own to use how the children see fit. We can't have the kids owning their own homes and owning shares in businesses and working full time jobs between the ages of 18-22

No that wouldn't be good they might not vote for the socialists better to fund them into universities where we can brain wash them into hating capital homeownership and controlling their own finances at a young age.

Cakeguts

There is something odd going on in nursing. There appear to be a lot of people doing nursing degrees but there don't appear to be many getting jobs at the end of the degrees. It doesn't seem to be due to them not applying for the jobs but rather they aren't offered jobs in nursing because many of the degrees are at universities where the quality of the student and degree are not good enough for the actual job. There are figures somewhere I have forgotten where that show how many nursing graduates are offered nursing jobs at the end of their degrees. The number is really small. There appears to be a mismatch between the level of education needed to work as a nurse and the level of the nursing degrees offered by some of the universities.

http://www.uwl.ac.uk/course/nursing-adult-3/35631 This university is usually very close to the bottom of the league tables and it looks as if you can get onto this course with 2 A levels. So this is one of those university courses that when you have finished it is worth the same as a couple of old CSEs.

Someone has already mentioned in this thread that you could train nurses without them going to university well this is one of the courses in the UK where the training on the job would probably be better than attending this course for 3 years. I can't imagine that many people would get a job after this course. It is one of the courses where a lot of people get nursing degrees but don't get a job in nursing. That wastes everyone's time and money.

I really can't see the point of offering nursing courses where the students are unable to learn well enough to get a job in nursing afterwards. It would be better for everyone to limit the number of nursing courses so that only people who are going to work in nursing do them. Basically at the moment nursing is attracting people who can't get a job with that kind of salary in anything else and because of that they aren't suitable for nursing either.

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

I'm sure no one would complain that the country is helping its children

The net cost is closer to £9B in the short term and long the it would be a significant saving annually.

Actually even less cost because I didn't even consider where the money goes. If it goes to buying a house the kids will pay stamp duty. A £200k house has £1.5k stamp duty and £30k into shares has £150 stamp duty let's say the kids go half and half. Multiply by about 500,000 and that is significant £400 million back for that too. So cost is perhaps closer to £8.5 billion in the short term and a huge saving Long term.

And recall the additional income tax and NI paid is straight away as the kids go work instead of school.

You also end up with a much richer population how do you take the goods of that into account?

So you're genius idea is giving a jobless 18 year old 30 grand to buy a 200k house, so he / she can pay the 170k mortgage how? You're also going to extend help to buy to dish out billions of pounds of taxpayer money in servicing the mortgage? I can't even be bothered trying to debate this one! I'm broken.

economic

Windofchange wrote: »

So you're genius idea is giving a jobless 18 year old 30 grand to buy a 200k house, so he / she can pay the 170k mortgage how? You're also going to extend help to buy to dish out billions of pounds of taxpayer money in servicing the mortgage? I can't even be bothered trying to debate this one! I'm broken.

if they dont have a job, they wont be able to get a mortgage in the first place so buying a home of out of the question. they can buy stocks however.

Windofchange

Cakeguts wrote: »

There is something odd going on in nursing. There appear to be a lot of people doing nursing degrees but there don't appear to be many getting jobs at the end of the degrees. It doesn't seem to be due to them not applying for the jobs but rather they aren't offered jobs in nursing because many of the degrees are at universities where the quality of the student and degree are not good enough for the actual job. There are figures somewhere I have forgotten where that show how many nursing graduates are offered nursing jobs at the end of their degrees. The number is really small. There appears to be a mismatch between the level of education needed to work as a nurse and the level of the nursing degrees offered by some of the universities.

http://www.uwl.ac.uk/course/nursing-adult-3/35631 This university is usually very close to the bottom of the league tables and it looks as if you can get onto this course with 2 A levels. So this is one of those university courses that when you have finished it is worth the same as a couple of old CSEs.

Someone has already mentioned in this thread that you could train nurses without them going to university well this is one of the courses in the UK where the training on the job would probably be better than attending this course for 3 years. I can't imagine that many people would get a job after this course. It is one of the courses where a lot of people get nursing degrees but don't get a job in nursing. That wastes everyone's time and money.

I really can't see the point of offering nursing courses where the students are unable to learn well enough to get a job in nursing afterwards. It would be better for everyone to limit the number of nursing courses so that only people who are going to work in nursing do them. Basically at the moment nursing is attracting people who can't get a job with that kind of salary in anything else and because of that they aren't suitable for nursing either.

You do a nursing course, you come out as a registered nurse. What on earth are you on about? This isn't a case of having some random degree in history and not getting on the Accenture consulting graduate scheme because someone with PPE beat you to it! The nursing qualification is standardised across all universities, and the link you post to states slightly further down the page:

We have a 98.9% employment rate (Source 2014-15 DLHE).

Another MSE expert giving opinions on something they know nothing about.

Windofchange

economic wrote: »

if they dont have a job, they wont be able to get a mortgage in the first place so buying a home of out of the question. they can buy stocks however.

And of course the stock market only ever goes up, so the 18 year old is guaranteed to make millions init bruv.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

So explain where the upfront £24 billion comes from now to give every 18 year old starting uni this past month the cash? I've paid back two student loans, and your assumption we lose it all is nonsense. The nurses that you two bemoan so frequently go straight into jobs starting at £25k a year in London for instance, well over the current repayment threshold, and so start to pay back their loans from month one of qualifying.

How about Dean the motorbike thieving 18 year old with a GCSE in art. You giving him 30 grand? What about Henrietta who's daddy earns 20 million a year in the city? You actually believe that there wouldn't be wholesale civil unrest if you can't find a few quid a month for heating for pensioners in the winter but you can get £24 billion for some teenagers to go on the !!!!!! / start a property portfolio?

Dean the motorbike thief might be less inclined to be a thief if he got together with Henrietta and they both used their £30k government capital to put down as a deposit on a £120k 3 bedroom house in Birmingham. The rest they would borrow on a 20 year repayment Mortgage

From there they would have a mortgage that cost less than renting a social house. £300pm mortgage and the house they own outright after 20 years and then no mortgage.

They could work two full time jobs earning £20k+ each until they are 25 at which point they have kids. Hopefully (and typically this is the case) with 7 years work experience Dean can move up a bit and be on £30k. Henrietta can look after the kids until the youngest is 15 and then return to work too at age around 40.

Both would live an independent decent life.
They could easily clear their mortgage before the first kid arrives making life a lot easier.

Seems quite a good outcome to me.


The alternative is that they both go to university and rack up £80k in debt each. (4 year course £10k tuition £10k living loan). They leave university age 22 and start working they have rent to pay so can't save much. They end up together and buy a house age 30 instead of age 18 with a small deposit they managed to save. The house is 50% more expensive than if they had bought at age 18 due to inflation. They also get married at age 30 same time as having bought the house. They have kids age 32 and get on with their life and £160k in student debts.

They had kids 7 years later. Had to pay £60k more for the same house. Spent 12 years on rent paying 6% instead of 2% on a mortgage so that's another £84k lost on rent.. Henrietta has to take time off work at more of her peak earning working years. They had to pay some of their student loans back and society will need to pick up the rest.

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

You do a nursing course, you come out as a registered nurse. What on earth are you on about? This isn't a case of having some random degree in history and not getting on the Accenture consulting graduate scheme because someone with PPE beat you to it! The nursing qualification is standardised across all universities, and the link you post to states slightly further down the page:

We have a 98.9% employment rate (Source 2014-15 DLHE).

Another MSE expert giving opinions on something they know nothing about.

The general population has an employed rate of 99%
That is to say longer term unemployment is only about 1%

Unemployment isn't an issue in the UK
Universities shouldn't even state what the unemployment or employment levels are without also stating the average UK wide 6+ month unemployment rate

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Dean the motorbike thief might be less inclined to be a thief if he got together with Henrietta and they both used their £30k government capital to put down as a deposit on a £120k 3 bedroom house in Birmingham. The rest they would borrow on a 20 year repayment Mortgage

From there they would have a mortgage that cost less than renting a social house. £300pm mortgage and the house they own outright after 20 years and then no mortgage.

They could work two full time jobs earning £20k+ each until they are 25 at which point they have kids. Hopefully (and typically this is the case) with 7 years work experience Dean can move up a bit and be on £30k. Henrietta can look after the kids until the youngest is 15 and then return to work too at age around 40.

Both would live an independent decent life.
They could easily clear their mortgage before the first kid arrives making life a lot easier.

Seems quite a good outcome to me.


The alternative is that they both go to university and rack up £80k in debt each. (4 year course £10k tuition £10k living loan). They leave university age 22 and start working they have rent to pay so can't save much. They end up together and buy a house age 30 instead of age 18 with a small deposit they managed to save. The house is 50% more expensive than if they had bought at age 18 due to inflation. They also get married at age 30 same time as having bought the house. They have kids age 32 and get on with their life and £160k in student debts.

They had kids 7 years later. Had to pay £60k more for the same house. Spent 12 years on rent paying 6% instead of 2% on a mortgage so that's another £84k lost on rent.. Henrietta has to take time off work at more of her peak earning working years. They had to pay some of their student loans back and society will need to pick up the rest.

Because Henrietta who's dad earns 20 million a year in finance would need to get a student loan of course. Just for the thrill of feeling like a proper student - oh look daddy, I'm a proper poor person, how magical. And of course she would go scouring the local council estate for a future husband. Dean should probably go visit the old people's home and marry a rich 80 year old shouldn't he according to your madness a few months ago? Or should he get Henrietta on a date and immediately enquire about how rich her parents are and what her financial situation is like?

I'd love to meet you in real life. It would be fascinating.