Are degrees in the UK value for money?

Cakeguts

Windofchange wrote: »

So we'll just take your word for it that somewhere in the ether there is some sort of thing that says loads of nurses are not suitable for interviews at hospitals? And of course a near 99% employment rate is based on 1 nurse qualifying with 99 others working in their local Sainsbury's.

Please don't bother yourself with doing any actual reading such as:

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/nursing

97.1% of nursing graduates are health professionals (i.e. nurses), and 1.2% are 'other' such as maybe some supermarket work, or gone travelling etc.

This is a very good example of what these fudged figures are. A health professional doesn't have to be a nurse. Health professionals include carers. Carers in old people's homes carers in the community, and people who work in low level jobs in hospitals. They don't have to be nurses. Some of the jobs they do don't need any extra training other than that you get on the job. You can become a "health professional" by doing an apprenticeship.

Now thinking back to the young people who are wanting to go to university to get a better job. Nursing pays more than many of these people with their 2 A levels can get in most jobs. Even some of the top apprenticeships need 3 A levels. The problem is that the kind of person who thinks that they can get more money from nursing than they can get by working in a call centre (or some other job that is their ability level) are not the kind of person that hospitals may want. So when they finish their nursing degree they get the jobs in health care that you could do with just the 2 A levels which means that 3 years and a lot of money has been wasted on people who are not right for the job from the beginning but the universities don't care as long as they fill the courses.

Koldweather1

4 to a student house is VERY common, I've lived down a street for the best part of a decade growing up where 75% of the houses were student houses, and nearly all had 4 tenants in them. Few had more, I'd say probably 10% had 2, 30% had 3, 50% had 4 and then the remaining above and below figures are pretty small percentages. I also remember at uni many people were in 3-4 people houses.

If they were to all buy a house, your going to need to have 3-4 time the number of currently supplied properties through landlords. Even taking a lower figure of 2 people sharing a house/property, your still going to be on the low side of supply needed.

I actually quite lik the idea in a way, but it WILL 100% push prices of houses up, people go balls to the wall for a stake in the property market and peopl throw EVERYTHING quite often to get onto the ladder, no reason to think youngsters don't mentally work the same, because they do. I should know, I'm still just about of that generation who are at uni (well I maybe just out now, but uni really wasn't that long ago for me).

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

Half the students wouldn't buy a house straight away I suspect most would keep it in the stock market until they are older.

I'm not convinced the kids would buy a house and live in it all by themselves. They would couple up as most people do. Or they could buy a house and rent a room or two to lodgers.

Plus this isn't additional demand the majority of those kids would buy their own home at some stage so even if there is more demand today there will be less demand in five years time

And 5 students per property isn't the norm. The most I ever lived was 3 students a property and more often it was 2 students per property. Some of my school friends were also renting a whole property for themselves of course they were the better off ones.

Ok, so say 25% of them buy a house. That is around 200,000 homes a year we need to build just for 18 year olds. So, I ask again, where are you getting these houses from when we can't even build a fraction of that at the moment? As for most would keep it in the stock market - I thought you were tying them into keeping the stocks until retirement earlier?

Then you go on to say that you would advocate everyone getting together and getting into property with their best mate whilst 18 years old? Because, you know, at 18 you are nice and stable, good career, no wish to go travelling or work abroad for a bit. Of course the answer to not wasting the countries money is giving a load of teenagers a property around their neck for them to default on as soon as they want to move to another part of the country after uni, or move in with their girlfriend.

I don't know what warped world you lived in as a youngster, but my experience of uni is that everyone was living at least 3 to a house. I lived with 5 others for two years. I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere on the internet, and I would put money on it that the norm isn't what your reality seems to have been.

As for the majority of these kids would buy their own house anyway - have you seen the latest first time buyer figures? Home ownership amongst the under 45's has fallen off a cliff.

You've come up with some madness on here such as scouring old people's homes for dates, or explaining what all young women want, and this one is right up there.

Windofchange

Cakeguts wrote: »

This is a very good example of what these fudged figures are. A health professional doesn't have to be a nurse. Health professionals include carers. Carers in old people's homes carers in the community, and people who work in low level jobs in hospitals. They don't have to be nurses. Some of the jobs they do don't need any extra training other than that you get on the job. You can become a "health professional" by doing an apprenticeship.

Now thinking back to the young people who are wanting to go to university to get a better job. Nursing pays more than many of these people with their 2 A levels can get in most jobs. Even some of the top apprenticeships need 3 A levels. The problem is that the kind of person who thinks that they can get more money from nursing than they can get by working in a call centre (or some other job that is their ability level) are not the kind of person that hospitals may want. So when they finish their nursing degree they get the jobs in health care that you could do with just the 2 A levels which means that 3 years and a lot of money has been wasted on people who are not right for the job from the beginning but the universities don't care as long as they fill the courses.

No, you are wrong. A healthcare professional is by definition a regulated individual who is registered with the HCPC / NMC after having completed a recognised degree to practice.

http://hcpc-uk.org (Health and Care professions council)

https://www.nmc.org.uk (Nurses and Midwifery council)

It does not include HCA's, assistants, admin staff etc, although there is a body within the NMC that does give a professional voice to HCA's. I have a few HCA's in my team - they have no professional qualifications, they simply pass an interview and work under my direction. They are not regulated, and are not considered healthcare professionals, they are healthcare assistants (HCA's).

Nurses are not doing a 3 year course and then working as a HCA. As per my previous post, some 97% of them are going into nursing after qualifying. What you could bring up in terms of wasting money is why so many are leaving the profession, and why we have 10's of thousands of unfilled vacancies due to the government cuts and mis-management.

Infact, whilst we're talking about waste, how about the figure that only 58.5% of junior doctors go on to specialist training in the UK - in other words commencing training to be a consultant / GP?

https://www.foundationprogramme.nhs.uk/download.asp?file=Careers_destination_2016.pdf

You are barking up the wrong tree. The scandal / waste is actually in those who are leaving the various professions down the line from qualifying. I live this every day. I've said before on here, if you could come spend a day with me and see how stretched we are as a major London trauma hospital it would give you an understanding of why so many are burning out and leaving. In the example of my trust, we have 6 nurses doing what should be done by 10 (42% vacancy).

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Ok, so say 25% of them buy a house. That is around 200,000 homes a year we need to build just for 18 year olds. So, I ask again, where are you getting these houses from when we can't even build a fraction of that at the moment? As for most would keep it in the stock market - I thought you were tying them into keeping the stocks until retirement earlier? s
Then you go on to say that you would advocate everyone getting together and getting into property with their best mate whilst 18 years old? Because, you know, at 18 you are nice and stable, good career, no wish to go travelling or work abroad for a bit. Of course the answer to not wasting the countries money is giving a load of teenagers a property around their neck for them to default on as soon as they want to move to another part of the country after uni, or move in with their girlfriend.

I don't know what warped world you lived in as a youngster, but my experience of uni is that everyone was living at least 3 to a house. I lived with 5 others for two years. I'm sure the answer is out there somewhere on the internet, and I would put money on it that the norm isn't what your reality seems to have been.

As for the majority of these kids would buy their own house anyway - have you seen the latest first time buyer figures? Home ownership amongst the under 45's has fallen off a cliff.

You've come up with some madness on here such as scouring old people's homes for dates, or explaining what all young women want, and this one is right up there.

They keep it in the stock market until they retire but they can use it for their first home at any time before that. 25% won't buy straight away in year 1

Homes come onto the market via new builds and also via dead people not needing homes anymore. The second group is the larger of the two. Also if landlords had fewer student tenants they would have to sell up. These kids won't add to housing demand unless they live much less dense than they otherwise would which I don't think is very likely.

If the kids are happy living 4-5 to a house then they can do that as owners too. I had a friend who bought a house age 20 and he rented the spare rooms out. I think he did that until he was in his early 30s

Your hate for property is ignorant. I've owned my house for a while and I've moved around the country for business. Moving doesn't mean an owner defaults moving means they sell the house and buy another or rent it out and rent for a while before they return.

I think you just hate the idea that an 18 year old can buy a house while i assume you are a lot older and haven't managed to do so yet

Windofchange

GreatApe wrote: »

They keep it in the stock market until they retire but they can use it for their first home at any time before that. 25% won't buy straight away in year 1

Go on then, give me a number. 10%? 5%? Call it 10%. That is around 80,000 homes just for 18 year olds. I'll ask again, where are you going to get 80,000 houses purely for 18 year olds? You won't answer because you can't. This is before you've even found £24 billion a year to give to them.

GreatApe wrote: »

Homes come onto the market via new builds and also via dead people not needing homes anymore. The second group is the larger of the two. Also if landlords had fewer student tenants they would have to sell up. These kids won't add to housing demand unless they live much less dense than they otherwise would which I don't think is very likely.

But hang on, you just said you knew loads of students who lived on their own. Which one is it? You can't make up your mind you're so muddled.

GreatApe wrote: »

If the kids are happy living 4-5 to a house then they can do that as owners too. I had a friend who bought a house age 20 and he rented the spare rooms out. I think he did that until he was in his early 30s

And how will that work out when aged 21 they all want to go do different things? go travelling, move to London etc etc. You're advocating a load of 18 year olds clubbing together to buy a house at university!? You've got a friend who has done everything haven't you? It's the basis of all your arguments. I know this because I've done this, I have a friend who has done that.

GreatApe wrote: »

Your hate for property is ignorant. I've owned my house for a while and I've moved around the country for business. Moving doesn't mean an owner defaults moving means they sell the house and buy another or rent it out and rent for a while before they return.

Where have I said I hate property? I'm simply pointing out the huge gaping holes in your assumptions. You reckon that our teenagers can just pack up and sell their house tomorrow when they want to move? When one of the group screws another one's girlfriend and they all fall out? What if shock horror they hit negative equity and can't sell because they can't afford to!? Jesus wept there is so much wrong with your 'great idea' it is mind blowing, but you just don't get it because nothing can ever go wrong with housing can it.

GreatApe wrote: »

I think you just hate the idea that an 18 year old can buy a house while i assume you are a lot older and haven't managed to do so yet

I've mentioned on so many threads that I pay a mortgage. You assume wrongly as per usual, I'm doing very nicely thank you. I have no problem with an 18 year old getting a house if they so wish, but why on earth should the rest of the country subsidise it!? What about those who never will and never want to go to university? You going to give them £30 grand as well to offset the loss to the state of the student loan and tuition fees that they were never going to take out anyway, or are you going to claim every 18 year old goes to university?

GreatApe

Windofchange wrote: »

Go on then, give me a number. 10%? 5%? Call it 10%. That is around 80,000 homes just for 18 year olds. I'll ask again, where are you going to get 80,000 houses purely for 18 year olds? You won't answer because you can't.

Im not sure how to answer it but I do know FTB numbers can and do vary, for instance FTB numbers for year to date July 2017 were 356k while FTB numbers year to date for July 2015 were 303k so that is a swing of 53k in FTB.

What is more interesting is that HPI was higher in the year to July 2015 than it was in the year to July 2017 so despite the growth in FTB numbers house price inflation didnt go up but went down

I would just go back to what I said before, overall housing demand is what is important so the important metric is if the kids opt to live less dense than they otherwise would have done and I think that is unlikely.

There is also another benefit, most likely the kids would buy local to where they grew up so demand would be more spread out. Whereas when they go off to university they exert pressure on often concentrated areas like inner London has lots of big universities so they add to rental demand in central and inner London.

This is before you've even found £24 billion a year to give to them.

It is closer to £9 billion and that isn't a loss its a transfer

And how will that work out when aged 21 they all want to go do different things? go travelling, move to London etc etc. You're advocating a load of 18 year olds clubbing together to buy a house at university!?

There choices no not limited because of this idea, they would have FAR MORE Choice because of this. If they want to travail how does this limit them? If they want to move to London how does this limit them?

Where have I said I hate property? I'm simply pointing out the huge gaping holes in your assumptions.

I cant remember were you the mean mode median toad? that took half a day to get your head around that or am I thinking of one of your pals?

Yes im sure there will be considerations I havent thought through, but nothing you have highlighted is a big issue

You reckon that our teenagers can just pack up and sell their house tomorrow when they want to move? When one of the group screws another one's girlfriend and they all fall out?

How is that different from a couple who buy a house age 30 together?
How is that different from people who get divorced or never got married and just walk out on each other? !!!! can happen but I trust that most people are decent unlike you who seems to think especially the poor are too stupid to manage their own money and properties that they need the state (and people like you) to manage their lives for them

What if shock horror they hit negative equity and can't sell because they can't afford to!?

Yes that would be your wet dream only its not likely if they get £30k each that is a 50% deposit on a £120k house. There isnt going to be a 50% house price crash. If the couple so wanted to do so they could pay off their mortgage completely in 7 years so by the time they are 25 they would be mortgage free. That would cost them just £767 a month in mortgage repayments for 7 years and then they own a house outright. If your couple was on minimum wage they would have a take home of £2314 which means their 7 year repayment mortgage is only 1/3rd of their take home pay which means it would be VERY EASY TO SERVICE.

Jesus wept there is so much wrong with your 'great idea' it is mind blowing, but you just don't get it because nothing can ever go wrong with housing can it.

For the majority Its a lot less risky than spending £60-80k on university plus £60-80k lost income while at university

I've mentioned on so many threads that I pay a mortgage. You assume wrongly as per usual, I'm doing very nicely thank you. I have no problem with an 18 year old getting a house if they so wish, but why on earth should the rest of the country subsidise it!?

We would not be subsiding housing, the kids can use it for an education or a pension or a house. Do you think when we give pensioners pensioner credits that we are subsiding bingo halls and cat food manufacturers and M&S?

What about those who never will and never want to go to university?

This would be fairer on them

You going to give them £30 grand as well to offset the loss to the state of the student loan and tuition fees that they were never going to take out anyway, or are you going to claim every 18 year old goes to university?

About half go to university and that number might increase if things stay as they are.
And yes all the kids would get this £30k
Its not a loss, we are not sending them on holiday. If they keep it as a pension then they will be rich when they retire which means less need to pay pensioners benefits. If they buy a house they will benefit financially from perhaps 10-20 years of saved rent plus buying a house 10-20 years ago at cheaper prices. If they go to university its then upto them.

GreatApe

Spending on UK higher education providers increased by 6 per cent in 2014-15 to £31.2 billion, new figures show.

Reduce the higher education budget to £10 billion and you can give each and every kid £30k without increasing any taxes or borrowing more

Cakeguts

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/nursing I couldn't find the figures I saw the first time but these will do. 86% of nursing graduates working as nurses but it doesnt't tell you what the drop out rate on courses is but I believe it is quite high.

Windofchange

Cakeguts wrote: »

https://www.prospects.ac.uk/careers-advice/what-can-i-do-with-my-degree/nursing I couldn't find the figures I saw the first time but these will do. 86% of nursing graduates working as nurses but it doesnt't tell you what the drop out rate on courses is but I believe it is quite high.

So you've found something that says 86% of nurses who graduate go on to be nurses and you think this proves the system is rotten and loads of people are taking the !!!! and going on to be shelf stackers? Kind of proves my point really doesn't it? I have a figure saying 97%, you have one that says 86%. Let's meet in the middle and say 92% of nursing students go on to be nurses. It is hardly scandal of the century is it!?

Even if huge numbers of nurses are dropping out, then by definition they don't get a degree, so don't fit in with your beef that loads of people are getting degrees and then going on to do jobs that they don't need a degree for. I don't see your argument either way. Nurses and other health professions no longer get any sort of bursary, so actually it is the same cost as someone doing English or whatever. If they drop out of uni at year one, then they are the same burden on society as someone dropping out of English or lesbian dance theory in year one.