Is post-school education good value for money?

Fireflyaway

If someone chooses to continue in education, working towards a specific goal then generally yes. What I don't agree with is forcing 16 year olds to stay on for another 2 years if they are unmotivated and don't want to be there. I attended a local college to do my HR qualifications. Nightmare. My class was constantly disturbed by teenagers running about, swearing and generally being a nuisance. They didn't want to be there. The teachers had to suffer kids skipping lessons and not achieving grades, thus making the college stats look bad, resulting in difficulty recruiting new teachers etc. Waste of taxpayers money.
My own CIPD qualification didn't pay off. Cost me £1200 but no job offers as I don't have any practical experience.... However my husband studied and changed career and is now very successful. But he did it pretty much for free. Online articles, borrowed books etc.
Its never too late to learn.

perfecthost

Karen_Bassett wrote: »

The answer is having different costs for different subjects according to the needs of the nation.

I think you and others here are highlighting something very relevant, but may be over-emphasising the importance of the subject. One of the main (highly inefficient and wasteful) purposes of a university education is what Professor Alison Wolf, in an August 2017 article for Prospect magazine, calls 'signalling'. Gaining a degree (at the right time) signals that you are a particular kind of person, i.e. a person like the people who might employ you. Interestingly, perhaps partly for the same reason, Prof Wolf, in a 2006 paper published in the Journal of Education Policy, demonstrated that, below a certain level, gaining a qualification as an adult had little or no effect on earning power.

System

avogadro wrote: »

I would like to see day-release courses, where students spend 4 days out of 5 studying and 1 day in the workplace. One thing I was lacking when I left university was relevant work experience.

Unfortunately, gone are the days whereby a placement can be found for everyone. More like one in fifty can get a placement.

System

MaisieMouSE wrote: »

My eldest son started at uni when the fees had been introduced at £3000 a year. He had very little tuition time, about 5 hours a week, with the rest being 'self-guided study'. Five years later, my youngest son started at uni, with a £9,250 ball of chain, and less than 8 hours tuition a week. This excuse of 'self-guided study' is an absolute cop-out and no value for money. I remember being amazed at the difference in five years all the universities having brand new facilities, or in the process of new buildings being built. All paid for by students, but no value in return. Incidentally, my youngest son has now dropped out of uni after one year as he felt he had not learnt anything!

My middle son did a full-time apprenticeship at college, but has been unable to get a job as he has no practical experience. How do you get the practical experience without a job? I would like to see an affiliation between education providers and employers where the apprentices are employed for, say, six months in order to gain the experience necessary to get a job elsewhere. Otherwise, doing apprenticeship courses would seem to be a waste of everyone's time and money.

I think a lot of parents think that the facilities at institutions fall out of the sky. Our department cost 16 million pounds to build and equip, 1 million on my area alone. Tuition fees pay for heating, lighting, Internet, incredibly expensive software and hardware, not to mention the teaching team. To 'buy' this kind of access in the 'real world' would cost around about £1000 per day in my field.

System

Kayalana99 wrote: »

It's really interesting in this thread that, whilst I've not read every post, most people who actually have a degree say it worked well for them. The ones disagreeing it never actually went to Uni.

As someone currently doing a OU degree, it's really interesting to hear people's experiences.

Yep - you are completely right. Most people who have a degree say it's benefited them. Those that haven't are all to quick to say they are not useful...funny that! A degree is more than just studying a course, it can be (for those interested) a complete u-turn in thinking and behaviour which can set them up on the right path for life. Of course, there are those doing it for the funding now...

System

4 of my kids went to college, the one that didnt is the one that up to yet has done the most with her life.

2 of my kids didnt do anything with their qualifications.

Gloomendoom

andydownes123 wrote: »

I think a lot of parents think that the facilities at institutions fall out of the sky. Our department cost 16 million pounds to build and equip, 1 million on my area alone. Tuition fees pay for heating, lighting, Internet, incredibly expensive software and hardware, not to mention the teaching team. To 'buy' this kind of access in the 'real world' would cost around about £1000 per day in my field.

The department I work for barely breaks even teaching UK undergraduates. Even at 9k a year.

theoretica

Value for money for whom? Just the students? Or the taxpayer? A skilled and educated population is good for the economy, but there are skill shortages where scholarships might help.

EoinD_2

As a lecturer and mother of two university students I can see this from both sides.

Education has become a financial transaction; which means many students believe they are entitled to a 'good' (2.1 or above) degree - regardless of what effort they put in. And universities conspire in this, as they are ranked by pass and retention rates etc; therefore, it is not in an institutions interests to disappoint.
If students were consumer savvy they really wouldn't accept the 'contracts' that they sign upon enrollment: for example they are told they're paying for computing or library facilities - there is never any mention of number of terminals, availability etc. But what they actually want is good teaching and good facilities; however, they have no way of really knowing if that's what they're getting until after they've signed a contract, paid their fees and are some way into the course. Universities do not and are not asked to abide by basic consumer law - if they were this might go some way towards improving the situation for students. .
And then there is the issue of why all courses cost the same - science and engineering courses are far more expensive to run than history or politics - are some students cross-subsidising others? And do all students actually get what they've paid for? One of my children constantly complains that his friends on other courses have more contact hours, field trips etc., while he is going to get five hours a week when he returns in two weeks time.As for academic support with coursework, written English, maths ... forget it - just something that looks good in the prospectus; or to convince them to sign up on 'open days'.
I've been at the University I work at for nearly twenty years and there have never been more people employed in senior management roles than there are now. These people are highly paid, completely non-productive and non-accountable. Every time the University goes up the rankings they award them selves another pay-rise/bonus; if we go down the rank and file get a kicking..
I believe that universities are making hay while the sun shines - time to rain on their parade and make them do the right thing. Too many people will be denied a fulfilling life because they are saddled with student debt. And for what - so that they can fight for jobs stacking shelves, or line the pockets of the university fat-cats who don't see students, just cash-cows.

mark5

Fluffybunny wrote: »

The most obvious issue is the fees in England and the lack of a maintenance grant. I still find it astonishing England based students are at a distinct disadvantage over their fellow UKers when it comes to going to University and nobody seems to be making a major noise about it. How can it be fair that a student from England can go on the same course in Scotland as a fellow Brit, but end up in huge debt - whereas the Scottish based student does not? They both may go for the same jobs (which could be in England). Why is the difference in tuition fees so huge between England and Wales? There is no distinction made between wealthy students and poorer students - yes they can all take out a loan, but the savvy rich would not, and the poor have to. Then there is interest on top of that. The maintenance loan is also an issue for first year students because they have to live somewhere. The quality of halls is not always great, but the charges are. I've seen so many Universities spending huge amounts on smart buildings that win awards and look snazzy, but I would rather money was invested so that students wouldn't have to pay so much just to attend. It's the quality of teaching that matters and I don't think that, given the number of teaching hours, students should be paying so much in England. Don't bring up the fees for Wales and Scotland, bring down the fees in England so that all UKers have an equal chance in life.

With Wales it's down to the Welsh assembly but we just suffer in other areas, when England had a council tax freeze for a few years my council tax was going up 5% each year.

The NHS seems to be better in England as well.

They give with one hand but take with the other, some gain from this while others don't!