[Pink Bullets]

(Original post by paddyman4)
Common sense. 'Surf Science' does not deserve funding.

Or they could look at the graduates from every course in every uni and see if a non-negligible number of them go on to get jobs which required them to have a degree. If not, the course is not beneficial to social mobility or to the country.

Surf Science at Plymouth:

Our graduates are robust, entrepreneurial and well proven with success stories across scientific and commercial fields. Included are PhDs and masters degrees; directors, managers and business owners; scientists, university lecturers, teachers and even such diverse careers as an accountant and a solicitor.
A significant number of graduates have progressed to higher degrees, including three graduates, from the 6-year pool of graduates, undertaking PhDs: Ross Pomeroy (also a lecturer for Surf Science & Technology, and graduated 2004) 'Permeability characterisation of continuous filament mat reinforcements for resin transfer moulding'; Paul Cook (graduated 2003) 'Commoditised surf culture and how authenticity and irreverence are used to market surf brands'; Robert Brewin (graduated 2006) ‘Investigating the role of phytoplankton functional types in CO2 flux variability’. There are also many who have progressed to various masters programmes.

Many have progressed to positions within the surf industry, such as marketing managers and directors, brand managers, retail managers, distributors, business founders, association founders, team riders including: Finisterre; Headworx Ltd. (www; Noble Custom; Gotcha UK; Quiksilver UK; The British Tow Surf Association; YDNA Surf & Skate Shop; Billabong; Salomon; Oxbow; Gul; Hunter Boardwear; the British Surfing Association although this is not an exhaustive list.

You're right, society doesn't need any more company directors, business owners, scientists, solicitors, university lecturers or accountants.


Basically, you're proposing that certain degrees should not be funded because their graduates may not get graduate jobs. You would prefer cutting off funding so that the people who would study these degrees definitely don't get graduate jobs? What a grand old idea.

[Quady]

(Original post by paddyman4)
Common sense. 'Surf Science' does not deserve funding.

Or they could look at the graduates from every course in every uni and see if a non-negligible number of them go on to get jobs which required them to have a degree. If not, the course is not beneficial to social mobility or to the country.

So English Language goes too? Thats common sense.

Your second suggestion keeps surf science going...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8259015.stm

[paddyman4]

(Original post by Pink Bullets)
Surf Science at Plymouth:



You're right, society doesn't need any more company directors, business owners, scientists, solicitors, university lecturers or accountants.


Basically, you're proposing that certain degrees should not be funded because their graduates may not get graduate jobs. You would prefer cutting off funding so that the people who would study these degrees definitely don't get graduate jobs? What a grand old idea.

A quotation from a brochure has vested interest. It talks about the jobs their graduates have ended up in; it doesn't specify how many of those people had to get a second degree or other form of qualification to get those jobs, or if their surf degree had any relevance in them landing those jobs. They may as well have said that some of their graduates have gone on to have 5 kids and conclude that their degree increases fertility.

Those who became solicitors ans accountants definitely went on to get other degrees, there is no other way into those professions. All that quotation demonstrates is how universities attempt to deceive young people into thinking that the degree will improve their opportunities, so that they can earn a tidy £3000 a year from each.

I'm proposing reallocating funding from courses which are less useful to the student and the country, and use the money to attract students into subjects that will benefit their future financial security, increase their social mobility and provide the graduates that are needed. I think that is a grand idea.

[paddyman4]

(Original post by Quady)
So English Language goes too? Thats common sense.

Your second suggestion keeps surf science going...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/devon/8259015.stm

Anecdotal evidence.

[Quady]

(Original post by paddyman4)
Anecdotal evidence.

Sure. But 'job requiring a degree is quite would require anacdotal evidence too.

I'm happy to accept your quanitative evidence to support your view that surf science should be canned. You have that right?

[paddyman4]

(Original post by Quady)
Sure. But 'job requiring a degree is quite would require anacdotal evidence too.

I'm happy to accept your quanitative evidence to support your view that surf science should be canned. You have that right?

'job requiring a degree' isn't evidence, it's part of a criterion, quoted with out the rest of its sentence so that it makes no sense.

The only jobs mentioned in that article were not jobs which require a degree.

Many graduate jobs mentioned in Plymouth's own brochure are ones where a surf degree is not sufficient to be eligible to even apply for the job. This suggests that they are trying to mislead people.

[jk1986]

I'd quite like to see some major changes, wouldn't expect it to happen but interested to see what people think:

1) Increase the minimum university starting age to 21 (or even 19, that would probably do enough) - I think this would break the common 18 year old view of university being an extension of school. At the moment I reckon a decent number of 18 year olds are going to uni because they can and not really knowing what course they want to do. Increasing the age to 21 would mean 18 year olds would go into the workplace and if they then see a degree that will further them in their career or allow them to go into something else that they're interested in then fine. Investment banks + accountancy firms and other companies grad schemes could be converted to take in people off a-levels. They often take any good numerate degree but then make no use of the subject knowledge required and are just using degrees to differentiate applicants. Surely they could come up with they're own tests to get round this..

2) I'd imagine this would decrease the number of people going to university, but massively increase the "efficiency" of higher education - i.e. I reckon a large % of students would actually go into the fields they studied. I don't think the decreased numbers would lead to a less educated public because of this mismatch between courses and jobs. With the decreased numbers the government may be able to fund all tuition fees again, and perhaps degrees would become more valued..

[Quady]

(Original post by paddyman4)
'job requiring a degree' isn't evidence, it's part of a criterion, quoted with out the rest of its sentence so that it makes no sense.

The only jobs mentioned in that article were not jobs which require a degree.

Many graduate jobs mentioned in Plymouth's own brochure are ones where a surf degree is not sufficient to be eligible to even apply for the job. This suggests that they are trying to mislead people.

That was all the criterion said, what did I miss which added anything from your post?

To be fair I was assuming you needed a degree for the Quiksilver training program - am I wrong? I thought you needed an undergrad degree to do a PhD...? Your right, you need a post grad to become a teacher, but thats the same situation as PPE at Oxford.

-----------------

Just to confirm (since you forgot to mention) you don't have any quantitative or even qualitative evidence that surf science doesn't add value?

[Pink Bullets]

(Original post by jk1986)
Investment banks + accountancy firms and other companies grad schemes could be converted to take in people off a-levels.

What would be the incentive for these companies to hire teenagers, when they could just hire 24+ year old graduates? Companies aren't suddenly going to change their entry requirements just because people graduate when they're a few years older.

If people don't know what course they want to do, they're perfectly welcome to wait until they're 19 or 21. Why should people who know what course they want to do when they're 17 be punished because some people don't?

Side note: You say 'increase the minimum university starting age' as if there already is one. There isn't...

[Quady]

(Original post by jk1986)
I'd quite like to see some major changes, wouldn't expect it to happen but interested to see what people think:

1) Increase the minimum university starting age to 21 (or even 19, that would probably do enough) - I think this would break the common 18 year old view of university being an extension of school. At the moment I reckon a decent number of 18 year olds are going to uni because they can and not really knowing what course they want to do. Increasing the age to 21 would mean 18 year olds would go into the workplace and if they then see a degree that will further them in their career or allow them to go into something else that they're interested in then fine. Investment banks + accountancy firms and other companies grad schemes could be converted to take in people off a-levels. They often take any good numerate degree but then make no use of the subject knowledge required and are just using degrees to differentiate applicants. Surely they could come up with they're own tests to get round this..

2) I'd imagine this would decrease the number of people going to university, but massively increase the "efficiency" of higher education - i.e. I reckon a large % of students would actually go into the fields they studied. I don't think the decreased numbers would lead to a less educated public because of this mismatch between courses and jobs. With the decreased numbers the government may be able to fund all tuition fees again, and perhaps degrees would become more valued..

So you'd have a three year spell of people twiddling their thumbs in crappy jobs waiting to do a degree so then they can earn some proper money? What do you expect people to do in that year or three?

Firms already do, they have to cut graduate applications on a ratio of 30 to 1 using usually three levels of selection. 100 to 1 and four levels would be better then? Yes they will be the brightest and probs the same people who would get those jobs in three years, but it will reduce the number of scientists/engineers. Also you're saying there is zero value add in going to university. Even if its only forming networks.

I like the idea that I was capable for my job when I was 18, but in reality I probbaly wasn't. Just because I didn't go into chemistry doesn't mean it was useless.

[Quady]

(Original post by Pink Bullets)
What would be the incentive for these companies to hire teenagers, when they could just hire 24+ year old graduates? Companies aren't suddenly going to change their entry requirements just because people graduate when they're a few years older.

Easy, they could pay them less.

Then again they wouldn't be as good...

[Pink Bullets]

(Original post by Quady)
Easy, they could pay them less.

Then again they wouldn't be as good...

They can do that already. Are they?

[Quady]

(Original post by Pink Bullets)
They can do that already. Are they?

Yup, just at lower levels to the graduate entry.

[Quady]

(Original post by Pink Bullets)
They can do that already. Are they?

To help the poster out (as I don't totally disagree with them)

If you reduce the number of grads by creating a firebreak year or three:

Current entry jobs would differentiate. Currently A Level intake assumes someone with CCC as above that they will have gone to uni.

If A*A*A*A* students are in the job market current grad employers may take them on at a level abov the current A Level but just below present grad scheme. Since they are 'good' they would train them better than current A Level schemes so after 3 years they would be higher than current grads come in at. The A*A*A*A* student doesn't have to spend three years working on something that wont be relavent in order to get a piece of paper and some transferrable skills. Into the bargain they'd earn 25k progressing to 30k rather than getting debt.

[.ACS.]

Personally I'd quite like to see tuition fees raised. This would change the culture in the UK toward higher education and people would start to see it as an investment and so actually value it as opposed to going simply to postpone their life for three years and get paralytically drunk every night at the taxpayer's expense.

[aeonflux]

(Original post by Quady)
Because our society doesn't consider that we have a right to free tertiary education. Just as it doesn't consider we have the right to free cars.

And I'm making the argument that it should consider it. Not a hard concept.

[Quady]

(Original post by aeonflux)
And I'm making the argument that it should consider it. Not a hard concept.

Yup. Its so easy even I understand that.

Good lukc, but today you're losing.

[aeonflux]

(Original post by Quady)
Yup. Its so easy even I understand that.

Good lukc, but today you're losing.

Losing at what exactly?

[generalebriety]

(Original post by ellingham)
You on crack? i am not one hard core campaigner to be honest i couldn't care less if there are tuition fees, no tuition fees i dont care, i needed to pick something to campaign against to get through this module and i chose scrapping tuition fees. People love to get high and mighty over the internet. But still thank you for enlightening me on how the system works i don't get the 9% thing, explain?

Wow, what a disgusting attitude to take to someone who was attempting to help you. Go campaign against something you have a clue about. I'd have thought you had some idea of how the tuition fees system worked at the moment, given that you're a part of it.