Should tuition fees for STEM (science, tech, engineering, maths) courses be cut?
•
CBI recommends that the government should cut tuition fees for science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) courses.
•
Key sectors of the UK economy, including manufacturing, creative industries and green economy, are facing "a skills crunch".
•
42% of UK firms faced difficulties recruiting individuals with STEM skills and knowledge last year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-26530729
Should studying STEM courses cost less than studying arts/humanities?
Is the shortage of skilled STEM workers indicative of wider problems in the UK education system?
Original post by Puddles the Monkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-26530729
Should studying STEM courses cost less than studying arts/humanities?
Is the shortage of skilled STEM workers indicative of wider problems in the UK education system?
•
CBI recommends that the government should cut tuition fees for science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) courses.
•
Key sectors of the UK economy, including manufacturing, creative industries and green economy, are facing "a skills crunch".
•
42% of UK firms faced difficulties recruiting individuals with STEM skills and knowledge last year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-26530729
Should studying STEM courses cost less than studying arts/humanities?
Is the shortage of skilled STEM workers indicative of wider problems in the UK education system?
Despite them costing a lot more to fund, yes, I do think that lowering fees would encourage more people into considering them as options.
There is no actual evidence of a STEM skills shortage in the country. STEM degrees don't have 100% employment, and many STEM graduates have to find work in other areas, like finance and accountancy, because there isn't enough of it in their own.
Anyone put off studying a degree because of the cost clearly does not understand the finance system, so probably shouldn't be going to university in the first place.
Anyone put off studying a degree because of the cost clearly does not understand the finance system, so probably shouldn't be going to university in the first place.
Is there any evidence to suggest that lowering the fees would alleviate this issue? Of all subject areas, I don't think STEM students would be the most concerned about expense, as these areas are among those with the greatest ROI. Doesn't make much sense to me.
Original post by TurboCretin
Is there any evidence to suggest that lowering the fees would alleviate this issue? Of all subject areas, I don't think STEM students would be the most concerned about expense, as these areas are among those with the greatest ROI. Doesn't make much sense to me.
You're right that it cannot be that they are suggesting that high STEM fees put people off. Arts courses cost as much to do.as STEM subjects, so there's no sensible claiming that these students are being lost to the other side for reasons of cost: "I was going to do Engineering until I discovered that for the same price I could do History..." That reading of the argument (as the removing of a deterrent factor) would make sense only if it could be claimed that there are substantial numbers of young people who would do STEM but who are put off going to university altogether by the tuition fees, which as well is too much a reach.
I think what's being suggested instead is that non-STEM subjects be made relatively less attractive by their being more expensive in comparison. "I'd really love to do History but it's 9k and you can do Engineering for half that..."
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by cambio wechsel
You're right that it cannot be that they are suggesting that high STEM fees put people off. Arts courses cost as much to do.as STEM subjects, so there's no sensible claiming that these students are being lost to the other side for reasons of cost: "I was going to do Engineering until I discovered that for the same price I could do History..." That reading of the argument (as the removing of a deterrent factor) would make sense only if it could be claimed that there are substantial numbers of young people who would do STEM but who are put off going to university altogether by the tuition fees, which as well is too much a reach.
I think what's being suggested instead is that non-STEM subjects be made relatively less attractive by their being more expensive in comparison. "I'd really love to do History but it's 9k and you can do Engineering for half that..."
I think what's being suggested instead is that non-STEM subjects be made relatively less attractive by their being more expensive in comparison. "I'd really love to do History but it's 9k and you can do Engineering for half that..."
If we're going on the belief of a shortage of STEM skills in the economy, then surely what we need are people actually continuing with those subjects into employment, not people who aren't genuinely interested in them and only taking them because they're comparatively less expensive.
Original post by Smack
If we're going on the belief of a shortage of STEM skills in the economy, then surely what we need are people actually continuing with those subjects into employment, not people who aren't genuinely interested in them and only taking them because they're comparatively less expensive.
there's sense here, yes. But I'm not making this argument, only trying to unpick what is the CBI's reasoning - they are not looking to remove the price-disincentive from engineering, because there presently is none; rather they are trying to shift it to non-engineering by making that pricier in relative terms.
But I think what's true, what we most of us know, and what is endlessly evidenced on this site, is that there's a steady creep from 17 year old idealism to 21 year old pragmatism, as the history student embarrasedly edges ever closer the KPMG stall at the recruitment round. He's not going into accountancy for the love of it and instead is making concession to a fast arriving economic reality. Engineering firms must envy the accountants for being able to hoover these up.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by cambio wechsel
He's not going into accountancy for the love of it and instead is making concession to a fast arriving economic reality. Engineering firms must envy the accountants for being able to hoover these up.
Why?
Original post by Smack
Why?
the accountancy firms know that Steve's not in it for the love (where the measure of that is choosing at 17) but still can and will recruit him. The engineering folk, though, are denied all of these who come to their financial senses shortly before graduation. It's too late as they don't have the core skills and the in-subject degree requirement for licensing. It's this structural difference which likely informs the want for a nudge at 17.
Original post by cambio wechsel
the accountancy firms know that Steve's not in it for the love (where the measure of that is choosing at 17) but still can and will recruit him. The engineering folk, though, are denied all of these who come to their financial senses shortly before graduation. It's too late as they don't have the core skills and the in-subject degree requirement for licensing. It's this structural difference which likely informs the want for a nudge at 17.
But it doesn't really concern the engineering folk as there are more than enough engineering graduates to recruit from. Steve's friend, David, who studied civil & structural engineering, is also likely to be joining him in approaching the accountancy firm's stand at the careers fair as he did not manage to find a job with an engineering company. And for every Steve that lands a job with an accountancy (or similar) firm, there's many more that don't.
As a sort of aside, if they cut the cost of a STEM degree, how will they fill the funding gap? Especially because it costs a whole lot more to teach/train an engineering student, than, say, a history student, because of the equipment involved.
Original post by cambio wechsel
You're right that it cannot be that they are suggesting that high STEM fees put people off. Arts courses cost as much to do.as STEM subjects, so there's no sensible claiming that these students are being lost to the other side for reasons of cost: "I was going to do Engineering until I discovered that for the same price I could do History..." That reading of the argument (as the removing of a deterrent factor) would make sense only if it could be claimed that there are substantial numbers of young people who would do STEM but who are put off going to university altogether by the tuition fees, which as well is too much a reach.
I think what's being suggested instead is that non-STEM subjects be made relatively less attractive by their being more expensive in comparison. "I'd really love to do History but it's 9k and you can do Engineering for half that..."
I think what's being suggested instead is that non-STEM subjects be made relatively less attractive by their being more expensive in comparison. "I'd really love to do History but it's 9k and you can do Engineering for half that..."
I honestly think there's no good interpretation of the proposal. Do you really think the industry is looking to attract grads who chose their field based on cost? I'm sure there must be other factors at play which are causing businesses to call for this.
Original post by ParetoOptimum
As a sort of aside, if they cut the cost of a STEM degree, how will they fill the funding gap? Especially because it costs a whole lot more to teach/train an engineering student, than, say, a history student, because of the equipment involved.
probably some sort of increased subsidy... Theresa May flew a similar kite a while back but I've heard nothing since.
tbh I'd rather they just bit the bullet and capped the number of english/history/law etc students eligible for funding rather than trying to fiddle the pseudo market until 'the problem solves itself' but politicians will be politicians I suppose.
No definitley not, they cost more to run- arts students subsidise them enough as it is atm. And besides of those who don't most students either know they definitley don't want to do a sciencey subject at uni or they choose their A-Levels before they know they do and then don't have the right a-levels to do so.
(edited 10 years ago)
Original post by Puddles the Monkey
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-26530729
Should studying STEM courses cost less than studying arts/humanities?
Is the shortage of skilled STEM workers indicative of wider problems in the UK education system?
•
CBI recommends that the government should cut tuition fees for science, technology, engineering and maths (STEM) courses.
•
Key sectors of the UK economy, including manufacturing, creative industries and green economy, are facing "a skills crunch".
•
42% of UK firms faced difficulties recruiting individuals with STEM skills and knowledge last year.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-sussex-26530729
Should studying STEM courses cost less than studying arts/humanities?
Is the shortage of skilled STEM workers indicative of wider problems in the UK education system?
I think that would be absolutely disgraceful. On top of the fact that STEM courses cost much more, it implies that STEM subjects are worth more than the arts which absolutely isn't true. The Arts make up a huge proportion of the UK's economic output and they're one of the things that make the UK so internationally appealing. The UK is an international culture hub and alienating the arts would not only be disgusting by principle, it would also be economically foolish.
Artists are wiser than scientists, anyway.
There are several flaws to cutting the tuition fees of STEM subjects.
Firstly, these are degrees with the highest running costs, so it would essentially mean more money diverted from areas of vocational funding.
Secondly, I think a better idea would be to have industry subsidise these degrees, on the basis these students worked for them after graduation. I know for a fact an accountancy firm has started doing this in the North East
Lastly, all it would cause would be an influx of people who would have taken arts degrees and enjoyed them, but instead have chosen to do degrees in fields in which they have no interest, just because it guarantees a job
Posted from TSR Mobile
Firstly, these are degrees with the highest running costs, so it would essentially mean more money diverted from areas of vocational funding.
Secondly, I think a better idea would be to have industry subsidise these degrees, on the basis these students worked for them after graduation. I know for a fact an accountancy firm has started doing this in the North East
Lastly, all it would cause would be an influx of people who would have taken arts degrees and enjoyed them, but instead have chosen to do degrees in fields in which they have no interest, just because it guarantees a job
Posted from TSR Mobile
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Stick at LSE or clearing
- University Tuition Fees and Employment Prospects
- Always feeling directionless in life
- Economics vs Computer science vs Math degree
- A levels economics computer science maths
- Software engineering
- Can you get a job in engineering with a HNC?
- Dropping out of uni and reapplying
- Computer Science in aston or UWE Bristol
- Choosing a career
- What course can I do to get a high paying salary and enjoyment in IT/tech field
- Tuition Loan for Second Degree in STEM
- Engineering Vs physics degree
- Havent even started uni but feel like I’ve already chosen the wrong degree
- Career advice
- Which one of these unis best for Supply Chain Management MSc
- Career options: medicine or different STEM job?
- Medicine Or Computer Science?
- can i change my uni course?
- Adult dependent grant
Latest
Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?Trending
Last reply 1 day ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 2 days ago
If the Russell Group was now a fair representation of what it still claims to beLast reply 1 month ago
Is University of Birmingham prestigious and respected well enough in UK ?
