The Student Room Group

STEM students should pay higher tuition fees

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Original post by Luke7456
Students who study maths at Cambridge already pay a lot more then students who study theology at chester.


Wut?

No they don't. They both pay the same tuition fee. And accomodation/living costs at Cambridge are much cheaper than most other universities - largely due to short terms.
Original post by jneill
Wut?

No they don't. They both pay the same tuition fee. And accomodation/living costs at Cambridge are much cheaper than most other universities - largely due to short terms.


I think you mis read my post a bit, I made the point in the very next paragraph that they pay more by working more hours.You possibly misunderstood what I meant here, and assumed I was referring to bar work or something.

No I mean they pay more with their labor. yes Cambridge students may pay the same tuition fees but I was clearly referring to cost in terms of Labor and hours of studying. By labor I mean the time they have to spend reading/studying learning etc.

This is not an obvious cost but an opportunity cost, they could use that time for recreation or for part time/full time work. They choose to forgo as a sacrifice to pursue a more rigorous degree.

I am aware that this not easy to put a figure on but it is still a significant cost that also contributes to a tougher degree.
Reply 42
Original post by Luke7456
I think you mis read my post a bit, I made the point in the very next paragraph that they pay more by working more hours.You possibly misunderstood what I meant here, and assumed I was referring to bar work or something.

No I mean they pay more with their labor. yes Cambridge students may pay the same tuition fees but I was clearly referring to cost in terms of Labor and hours of studying. By labor I mean the time they have to spend reading/studying learning etc.

This is not an obvious cost but an opportunity cost, they could use that time for recreation or for part time/full time work. They choose to forgo as a sacrifice to pursue a more rigorous degree.

I am aware that this not easy to put a figure on but it is still a significant cost that also contributes to a tougher degree.


You are incorrectly assuming a student of theology at Chester isn't doing a very significant amount of independent learning.
Original post by jneill
You are incorrectly assuming a student of theology at Chester isn't doing a very significant amount of independent learning.


I am assuming that as an aggregate average students studying stem degrees at elite universities put in more work then those studying weaker subjects at poorer universities.

I am sure most students put time into studying very significant is subjective term what is very significant 3 hours 8 hours 16 hours 30 hours 100 hours?

I am sure their are students who take the piss at cambridge and students who work their asses off at chester or elsewhere,

I speak generically in average terms.

Are you seriously going to tell me that a theology degree from Chester requires as much or more work then a maths degree from Cambridge?
So tired of people saying non-STEM subjects have low contact hours/are useless/won't get people a decent or good income, etc. People on this site seriously need to stop generalizing non-STEM as if it's all media studies at some low ranked university.
Original post by Tian1Sky
So tired of people saying non-STEM subjects have low contact hours/are useless/won't get people a decent or good income, etc. People on this site seriously need to stop generalizing non-STEM as if it's all media studies at some low ranked university.


But statistics show that non STEM degrees do tend to have lower contact hours and lower earning prospects.

Is using statistics "generalizing". If so, I'm all for it.
Reply 46
Original post by Luke7456
Are you seriously going to tell me that a theology degree from Chester requires as much or more work then a maths degree from Cambridge?


I am not a theologian, but it becomes very tedious when people talk down other courses/universities.
Original post by chazwomaq
But statistics show that non STEM degrees do tend to have lower contact hours and lower earning prospects.

Is using statistics "generalizing". If so, I'm all for it.


No, using statistics is not generalizing. Generalizing is using the average of a group of things and then saying it applies specifically to an individual (person, course, etc.) within that group. So, saying that the average non-STEM subject has fewer contact hours than the average STEM subject is true, saying that non-STEM subjects have fewer contact hours than STEM subjects is a generalization, because some don't.
To get back to the point of the thread, saying that non-STEM degrees should charge less because they have fewer contact hours and graduates are likely to earn less is stupid, because that is not necessarily the case. The thread should have argued: degrees with many contact hours and high probable earnings should charge higher tuition fees.
Original post by Tian1Sky
saying that non-STEM subjects have fewer contact hours than STEM subjects is a generalization, because some don't.


Meh, semantics.

If you say "men are taller than women", it's clear you mean on average and there can be exceptions. Doesn't really change the meat of the argument.
Original post by jneill
I am not a theologian, but it becomes very tedious when people talk down other courses/universities.


not all courses are equal and not all universities are equal. employers want skills and want hard workers. Some universities and degrees are better then others. Sorry if this offends people but it does people more favors then been dishonest. I am not implying that a degree in theology from Chester university has no worth or requires no work/effort.

I am saying a degree in Theology from Chester university has less economic worth and requires less work/effort then a stem degree from Cambridge.

this is a fact.
Reply 50
Original post by Tian1Sky
No, using statistics is not generalizing. Generalizing is using the average of a group of things and then saying it applies specifically to an individual (person, course, etc.) within that group. So, saying that the average non-STEM subject has fewer contact hours than the average STEM subject is true, saying that non-STEM subjects have fewer contact hours than STEM subjects is a generalization, because some don't.
To get back to the point of the thread, saying that non-STEM degrees should charge less because they have fewer contact hours and graduates are likely to earn less is stupid, because that is not necessarily the case. The thread should have argued: degrees with many contact hours and high probable earnings should charge higher tuition fees.


Degrees with many hours and high probable earnings are STEM degrees, no?
Original post by chazwomaq
Meh, semantics.

If you say "men are taller than women", it's clear you mean on average and there can be exceptions. Doesn't really change the meat of the argument.


Being tall or short is not generally considered insulting, saying someone's degree is easy/useless/etc. is. It's comparable to saying black people should be sent to prison more than white people because they are more criminal. By being so insensitive to the situation people who say these things are being unnecessarily offensive.
Original post by Lh030396
Degrees with many hours and high probable earnings are STEM degrees, no?


No. STEM stands for Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics, it does not been that those degrees necessarily have many hours or high probable earnings, nor does it mean that degrees that don't fall into that category have low hours or low probable earnings.
Reply 53
Original post by Tian1Sky
Being tall or short is not generally considered insulting, saying someone's degree is easy/useless/etc. is. It's comparable to saying black people should be sent to prison more than white people because they are more criminal. By being so insensitive to the situation people who say these things are being unnecessarily offensive.


I think that the race thing is a bit of an extreme analogy...
Original post by Lh030396
I think that the race thing is a bit of an extreme analogy...


Of course it is, that's why I wrote "comparable". That doesn't mean the two are equally serious or important, just that we can compare the two, in this case because they are both examples of an insensitive generalization.
Original post by Tian1Sky
Being tall or short is not generally considered insulting, saying someone's degree is easy/useless/etc. is. It's comparable to saying black people should be sent to prison more than white people because they are more criminal. By being so insensitive to the situation people who say these things are being unnecessarily offensive.


I am not going to be pulled into a conversation about race, we are talking about the value and rigor of degrees not the merits of the penal system or social inequalities.

It is a fact that different degrees are easier or harder then others, that some degrees require more work then others, and some degrees have more economic utility then others.

I don't want to get personal but I need to here to point out what people like you do.

when I was 3 my mother was told I was delayed. In case you don't know what they meant is that I was retarded. When my mother heard the term delayed she naturally thought that just meant i was behind right now but I would catch up.she based decisions on that until she found out what it actually meant then got me the actual help I needed.

before we get to the insults don't go there I am autistic I have been tested recently in (in January this year) and scored 144. now this is ironic because average IQ is 100 IQ<70 is considered retarded 100-70=30 144-100=44.
just putting it out there before the insults fly.

anyway I in fact got the help I needed and turned out fine. sure I struggle to get dates but I am functioning on a level that most people in society never will.

they should have just used the dreaded R word instead of trying to be politically correct. now I can use the G word. YAY.

your suggestion that people should not state actual facts because it hurts peoples feelings is asinine.

people need to know the truth so that they can make better informed decisions.

It does not do perspective students any favors to hide the truth from them in the name of political correctness as to avoid hurting feelings. The best practice is to be brutally honest with them and allow them to make a free informed decision with that information knowing the consequences.

if at that point knowing that information someone chooses to pursue a theology degree then that is their decision and i respect that.

Just don't expect me to lie to them and tell them they will earn the same as someone doing a maths engineering or law degree.
If anything it should be the other way around. Subsidise people doing degrees which will enable them to contribute to the country/economy (and also encourage people to take STEM) and if people want to study art or something then they have to pay for that.
Reply 57
Original post by doodle_333
If anything it should be the other way around. Subsidise people doing degrees which will enable them to contribute to the country/economy (and also encourage people to take STEM) and if people want to study art or something then they have to pay for that.


Are you saying that STEM degrees should be free? I believe that HE is extremely important but it should never be free. Also universities and the job market would become overwhelmed and saturated with STEM students, which would mean that graduate and STEM unemployment would alarmingly increase....
Original post by Lh030396
Are you saying that STEM degrees should be free? I believe that HE is extremely important but it should never be free. Also universities and the job market would become overwhelmed and saturated with STEM students, which would mean that graduate and STEM unemployment would alarmingly increase....


Personally (in my highly idealized fantasy world, I'm aware the practicalities probably wouldn't work) I think we should have a system where there is a lot more funding for courses which provide skills we need. Those should be in the form of bursaries which are only available to or more available to lower income students/state school students who are high achievers academically. They should basically provide significant funding for what we need, so for example, there should be some funding for psychology courses but only a small minority would receive it as we only need a small amount of those skills. We should be providing a lot more funding for STEM subjects as we need more skilled STEM workers. People who can afford uni anyway shouldn't get funding, epople who want to study media or some other useless crap shouldn't get funding and people who got like straight Cs at A level shouldn't get funding.
The reason STEM graduates can earn more is because there is a higher demand for them - they are core to so many industries, yet we don't have enough people studying these subjects for our needs. This pushed up the amount they can earn.

If we lower the tuition fees for non-STEM subjects and keep STEM at the current rate, that will only encourage people from not studying STEM subjects, increasing the shortage of such graduates.

Instead of solving/helping the situation, it would further increase the salary that STEM graduates could command, while also hitting our economy due to lack of suitably trained staff.

If anything, we need to be aiming for a highly trained STEM workforce, especially in the area of technology, in order to boost our economy. That can be achieved by making it more enticing to study STEM subjects at university - we do that by lowering the fees for STEM subjects - not raising them.

Quick Reply

Latest