STEM students should pay higher tuition fees

Scroll to see replies

I've already given you chapter and verse on Golf Management at Birmingham do you want me to show the social utility of Theology at Chester too?

Mathematical Sciences at Oxford : 92% employed or in further study after 6 months
Theology at Chester : 100% employed or in further study after 6 months

I'm not saying everyone should study Theology. I'm saying you need to stop talking down about courses that you consider somehow beneath you. It's not a good place to be.

Oh, and by the way, if everyone did Maths at Oxford (or more generally STEM at the Big 4 universities, whatever that means) their "prestige" would be lost anyway...

You're quoting courses that should all be on the job learning. The only reason they aren't is because universities are becoming money making pits.

On the job learning, keep in mind, can still lead to degree level qualifications.

Reply 141

Doones

Original post by SomeGuyHere

Employers complain that many highly academic courses are poor preparation for work, but you think we should have more of them?

And it's not me making the course comparisons...

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 142

SomeGuyHere

Original post by jneill

On the job learning are courses like apprenticeships where you're actually doing the job and learning from those who have done it for years. Often 1/4 of your time is spent in college. The exams are normally the same. Most construction jobs do it this way and shipbuilding have such paths into them(wields, electrical engineering etc).

Not sure what you thought I was saying. It's degrees that some industries have a problem with because they don't give any practical experience. It's why more and more have added placement years because without them finding a job after was ten times more difficult.

Reply 143

Luke7456

Original post by jneill

http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-chester-c55/theology-3-years-9000-v600-198870

the average graduate salary for a theology graduate from Chester is 16500
minium wage is £7.20*37.5*52=14040

now after tax
£14040=£12714
£16500 salary= £14387

this is £1673 a year difference.

it cost £9000 a year tuition fees which =£27000 however we need to take the opportunity cost for 3 years of not working full time. I will assume for the sake of argument that from September every year until to June every year the student works part time and from July-end of august they work full time this is far too generous.
7.20*20*44=6336+ 8*37.5*7.20=2160
this leads to another 4218 a year which * 3 = 12654

when added to the £27000 we get £39654

even on this modal it takes 24 years to pay this back ignoring interest and all other costs.

The only reason this makes sense economically is because you don't have to pay it back unless you earn over a certain threshold basically because you now don't have to pay it back.

http://university.which.co.uk/university-of-cambridge-c05/mathematics-3-years-9000-g100-13234

the average graduate salary for OXbridge maths exceeds £30000

which after tax gives £22422

a graduate premium of £9708.

the degree would have paid for itself in almost 4 years.

That is one heck of a difference.

now as for employment figures some universities lower down have been caught employing their own graduates to boost their figures for employment. I am not going to say Chester have done this because I have not looked at Chester for this specifically. But any figures of 100% are dubious. I look at the actual value of graduates salary as an average rather then employment figure. If employment is above 85% that is good enough.

Chester's figure barely beats minimum wage. I can get that salary by working in call centers or working a number of menial jobs which pay slightly above min wage. Literally I am not even sure if their graduate average salary would actually beat what I could expect without ever having to do a degree.

I am not talking down courses which I believe are beneath me as you put it. If someone is really passionate about Art or Theology and they have a genuine desire to pursue that for a career then fair enough. I do however think it is only fair to point out that this is not an economically positive move. You can argue their are other priorities to economics and I can understand that position but this thread has been mostly talking about economic salary expectation and utility.

I would still want to do a maths degree even if the evidence showed it was terrible for graduate employment for what its worth, I guess I like maths. However if maths did have poor figures I would be honest and say so, rather then try to make out it had just as much economic value as degrees which it clearly did not match for economic opportunity.

As it so happens maths is a good degree economically though so yay me :biggrin:

.

I want the best for myself I set high standards for myself. You can argue that there is nothing wrong with working as a checkout girl/boy at tesco for the rest of your life. You know what if your happy with that then fair enough, but I am not.

Reply 144

frostfly

@Lh030396 STEM subjects are generally much more intellectually demanding than art subjects, so there is a reason why graduates earn more. But what you're technically saying is that students of art subjects should pay less, not that STEM students should pay more. You can't just demand a lower tuition because the subject you want to study won't really get you highly-paid job, lol.

Reply 145

evantej

Original post by Ringstone

The funding position is more that 50% of the population, instead of about 10% in the old days, now go to university - and who ever said 50% of the population was "university material"?

Ally that to the fact that many of these students are studying the equivalent of "Comparative Morris Dancing" and the State can no longer afford to uniformly subsidise degrees, particularly those whose economic or social utility is not obvious - to be polite - BSc in Applied Golf Course Management [Birmingham] anyone? A BSc for Goodness' sake!

STEM degrees are however unquestionably useful, and therefore still attract indirect subsidy.
It's all a matter of choice. The State chooses to subsidise certain courses it sees as socially or economically useful, if you choose to pursue one that is not viewed in that way that is an issue for you, but don't complain about it.

Your argument that, because you choose to follow a course of study valued by neither society or employers, somebody else should help to pay your fees verges on the needy. It's £9000 a year, take it or leave it, if it's neither financially or emotionally worth it to you, go do something else.
In terms of your comments on STEM employers, it's five or six years between an engineer graduating with a Masters and getting their Charter as a fully fledged, fully trained professional engineer - during which their sponsoring company has considerable input.

I never suggested that 50% of the population is ‘university material’.

The problems is in the ‘old days’ there were significantly more employment opportunities available for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. There is little, if any, heavy industry or manufacturing is left in the UK. These industries used to employ thousands of people and train them on the job (e.g. car manufacturing, mining, steel works, textiles). What industry is left is highly mechanized or produces more specialized, high-value equipment (e.g. aerospace, electronics, pharmaceuticals). These industries employer fewer staff and expect them to be more highly educated. The size and scope of these employers mean that only the biggest can offer training or contribute towards education at university. There has also been wide-spread privatization which have significantly reduced the number of employees across the board. There has also been a social change where significant number of women have entered the employment market and put pressure on a dwindling number of jobs.

No one suggested STEM degrees are not useful (though I would dispute your suggestion that they are unquestionably useful). They criticised your suggestion that non-STEM subjects were not useful. jneill demonstrated your criticism of golf management was just prejudice. Your example of comparative morris dancing is also a strawman argument. No course exists. But if it did I could understand why it would. Tourism makes up an increasingly significant amount of the rural economy (where there is an absence of other employment opportunities). The employment market has changed beyond all recognition. More people need to attend university and do specialist courses. Just because you do not think they have any value does not make it so.

People like you seem very happy to judge others choices without offering any solutions. If universities tried to reduce the number of students then these people would most likely be unemployed and not have the skills to seek employment or become self-employed themselves. The increasing number of graduates in mature economies suggests this is a natural trend. Education is important in a knowledge economy.

Reply 146

evantej

Original post by Luke7456

[...] now as for employment figures some universities lower down have been caught employing their own graduates to boost their figures for employment. I am not going to say Chester have done this because I have not looked at Chester for this specifically. But any figures of 100% are dubious. I look at the actual value of graduates salary as an average rather then employment figure. If employment is above 85% that is good enough. [...]

On the contrary, it tends to be more prestigious universities who employ their own students. The career service at my university effectively pays employers to take students on work experience placements. Less prestigious universities simply do not have the money to do this so I do not know where you get that idea from.

Your points about employment rates and graduate salary are funny. The NHS is the largest employer in the UK by an absolute mile. Graduates of healthcare courses would expect 100% employment rates. Yet their graduate salary is capped because of pay scales. (The same applies to teachers).

If your logic does not work with the largest group of graduates who actually obtain graduate level employment then perhaps you need to rethink how you approach the issue.

Reply 147

Luke7456

Original post by evantej

I would think the NHS would target stem subjects over theology. If I am wrong with that then I guess I could add to the reasons to be glad I have private health care insurance. :biggrin:

Reply 148

evantej

Original post by Luke7456

I would think the NHS would target stem subjects over theology. If I am wrong with that then I guess I could add to the reasons to be glad I have private health care insurance. :biggrin:

My comment criticised your evaluation of non-STEM/STEM subjects on economic/employment grounds. Did that go completely over your head?

Reply 149

Luke7456

Original post by evantej

My comment criticised your evaluation of non-STEM/STEM subjects on economic/employment grounds. Did that go completely over your head?

no it didn't go over my head it is just nonsense. I consistently state that their will always be exceptions but I am speaking about generic trends, then people like to go what about this exception.

The NHS has many problems and giving one example of an employer who is disingenuous. When I refer to low graduate salaries what I am getting at is people who end up working as Shelf stackers call center work kitchen porters etc. that is why they have such low figures. Teachers and Medical roles are respectable careers, it seems like your trying to point at a one specific peculiarity to try and imply that low salary figures are misleading.

Prove to me that a Theology degree or an art Degree is needed to work in the NHS, if you can then this would be a case for major problems within the NHS.

when I refer to universities employing their own graduates I am referring to practices like employing them for a few hours on near min wage as cleaners or library assistants etc. Just to boost their stats.

if a university is paying to get me into a prestigious job that just sells the university more.

Reply 150

lilymoran

Original post by Luke7456

intelligence is genetic
IQ is strongly correlated to earnings and success.

Not according to this person - but hey, what does a professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford know. ( Professor Dorothy Bishop ).

'Where does the myth of a gene for things like intelligence come from?
There's a widespread belief that individual genes determine traits such as intelligence, optimism, obesity and dyslexia. But genetics rarely works that way'

Reply 151

lilymoran

Original post by Gatewaymerge

Another thing is that STEM students have 30 hour contact times while humanities have around 5 hours max. We got to standardise the price of lectures.

The problem with your reasoning is that you are comparing chalk and cheese. ( I also think that many Arts' subjects have more than 5 hours - I had more than double that.)

Many STEM subjects require hours in Labs. - hours which are obviously hours worked and supervised. It does not follow that the notional fewer contact hours that Arts Students have are really fewer hours either worked by the students or hours spent by their lecturers preparing and marking their work.

Take a languages' student who may spend 3-5 hours preparing a translation, which will be painstakingly marked by the lecturer - yet apparently this only translates ( sorry) into 1 lecture hour. or, a literature student who may read 10+ + books for a single essay, following just 1 hour of a lecture, to be marked in great detail by the lecturer.

These students are in reality getting a lot of individual attention , maybe more than STEM students?

Reply 152

lilymoran

Original post by honour

Are they? Generally more intellectually demanding than eg. Philosophy, Law, Languages, Psychology ........Perhaps you should have a go at some of these and see how you get on.

Reply 153

lilymoran

Original post by Lh030396

Yes, I do think that the more prestigious the university the higher the fees. Clearly Oxbridge should be charging more than Anglia Ruskin...
And I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the notion that 'a degree is a degree.' That's just not the case these days. I wish that it was, but in this day and age of economic hardship more importance is placed on the practical scientific and mathematical subjects than the philosophy-type degrees...

You know there is really not the correlation between ' practical scientific and mathematical subjects' and what's good for the economy, that you imagine. Even less is there a correlation between these subjects and what's good for the country as a whole, for people as a whole.

There are million/billion pound industries which do not require scientific / mathematical skills.

For people to live a rounded fulfilling life they need the Arts - film, sculpture, paintings, books, music; an understanding of human society and how it has developed ( history, geography, philosophy, psychology, sociology, politics, etc. )

Just studying science and maths just won't do. We ignore all these things at our peril. Ignorance leads to bad decisions in both Arts and Sciences.

Reply 154

lilymoran

Original post by #ChaosKass

I would begin with a base of £20,000 a year, then universities would be able to adjust them based on supply and demand (this would require the higher education sector to be completely privatised, to allow universities to have complete control).

I would not completely abolish them, but put severe restrictions on the quality and quantity of people who are accepted onto them, for example if you want to do psychology then you would need to have evidence of wanting a career in psychology, not just because you want "the university experience" and are picking the easy course.

Hmm, so Psychology is an easy course?

There is a argument that knowledge is important for its own sake - the more people learn about the human condition eg. the better people they will be - not just the more they will earn, but the better citizens, friends, parents, politicians, doctors, managers, lawyers etc. We are, arguably, more tolerant, wiser even, than we were 300 hundred years ago because of the wider access to education. Education in its broadest sense is what help us to be human.

Psychology helps us to understand how people think and react - pretty important. We no longer throw people into deep dungeons and starve them, burn them at the stake , sell them into slavery because we have learnt to have empathy. You don't learn this from a study of maths and science only.

Reply 155

#ChaosKass

Original post by pickup

I'm not saying that Psychology is generally easy, just that it happens to be one of the courses containing a significant proportion of students who only attend university to drink and party, and therefore the quantity of people accepted on to Psychology courses needs to be dramatically reduced - i.e. you should only be accepted if you have evidence of wanting a career in Psychology.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 156

Doones

I'm going to repeat my earlier post:

Original post by jneill

26% of FTSE100 & FTSE250 CEOs have an arts degree. 28% have a science degree.

Life is a balance between art and science.

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 157

DziNe

Original post by jneill

I'm going to repeat my earlier post:

By definition, only 100 people can be CEO of a FTSE100 company. This isn't evidence that arts degrees are as good for careers.

Reply 158

james813

Firstly, the way tution fees are paid back depends massively on salary. It's STEM students who go on to contribute to the economy and pay for education, pensions, health etc. I don't see why they should pay more to a university than someone wasting their time using government loans with a David Beckham degree.