stupid government
Scroll to see replies
Original post by LexiswasmyNexis
To be honest I don't really think it needs any more explanation. But here we go.
You should also mention that you would create a cyclical boom and bust in that there would be incentives to do subjects until the surfeit of graduates depressed wages at which time the supply of new students would be choked off for another generation until wages rates rose again.
One can argue whether or not it is desirable to intervene in a market but a government that sells grain when there is a glut and buys it when there is a famine will alternately bankrupt and starve the population. (Did I mention Gordon Brown's gold policy?)
Original post by nulli tertius
You should also mention that you would create a cyclical boom and bust in that there would be incentives to do subjects until the surfeit of graduates depressed wages at which time the supply of new students would be choked off for another generation until wages rates rose again.
One can argue whether or not it is desirable to intervene in a market but a government that sells grain when there is a glut and buys it when there is a famine will alternately bankrupt and starve the population. (Did I mention Gordon Brown's gold policy?)
One can argue whether or not it is desirable to intervene in a market but a government that sells grain when there is a glut and buys it when there is a famine will alternately bankrupt and starve the population. (Did I mention Gordon Brown's gold policy?)
Haha yes.
"What Nulli said"
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by LexiswasmyNexis
To be honest I don't really think it needs any more explanation. But here we go.
1. The idea that you should tie degree worth to 'earning potential' doesn't sit well with me.
I disagree that worth is linked to salary because social utility is not linked to salary.
2. Many people who study degrees that you consider worthless go on to make a lot of money and aide the economy. You would discourage this from happening.
3. Conversely, you would give an advantage to those who do your worthy degrees but who have no hope of gainful employment.
4. You would create an artificial market where there were a disproportionate number of students doing your worthy jobs.
Over time this over supply would effect grad prospects and salaries. Would you change your model to reduce the financial package available?
If so, you model is self defeating.
If you would not, your model is logically fallacious.
5. A large majority of graduates do not work in the area that their degree is in. This is how it has always been. I don't see how you can calculate a true 'average salary' when each case is different without sledgehammering where a tooth pick is needed.
6. I suspect that your measure would indirectly discriminate against women who are statistically less likely to do engineering studies and statistically more likely to do arts.
Good luck getting that past equality legislation.
7. I suspect the subjects you consider less worthy are cheaper for universities to run. They do, therefore, subsidise more expensive courses (as they are charged the same).
If less people were to stop doing these courses, the funding for sciences and complex engineering would be more limited. The courses would become more expensive (defeating your objective re giving those students economic advantage) or they would become unsustainable.
8. The fact that you are so happy to make public service exceptions is an indication that hadn't thought it through.
9. Some of the most influential people in public life (politicians/lawyers) studied degrees your model might find has 'poorer' employment prospects (history, philosophy, law, psychology). Your plan would restrict social mobility in relation to these subjects. The resulting effect on social mobility in these key public areas would not be desirable.
10. If your model is based on earning potential in subject area, then it doesn't account for employment prospects of various universities. This is logically flawed.
In the alternative, if it did take account of university attended then it would be very dangerous for the sustainability of those courses and institutions.
You should not overlook the massive boost universities give to their local area courtesy of the people they employ and the money the students spend.
Summary:
-too many important variables your catch all policy would ignore
-efforts to catch all variables would be confusing, expensive, and logically self defeating
-you haven't really thought it through.
-apologies for typos. I'm in a rush.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
1. The idea that you should tie degree worth to 'earning potential' doesn't sit well with me.
I disagree that worth is linked to salary because social utility is not linked to salary.
2. Many people who study degrees that you consider worthless go on to make a lot of money and aide the economy. You would discourage this from happening.
3. Conversely, you would give an advantage to those who do your worthy degrees but who have no hope of gainful employment.
4. You would create an artificial market where there were a disproportionate number of students doing your worthy jobs.
Over time this over supply would effect grad prospects and salaries. Would you change your model to reduce the financial package available?
If so, you model is self defeating.
If you would not, your model is logically fallacious.
5. A large majority of graduates do not work in the area that their degree is in. This is how it has always been. I don't see how you can calculate a true 'average salary' when each case is different without sledgehammering where a tooth pick is needed.
6. I suspect that your measure would indirectly discriminate against women who are statistically less likely to do engineering studies and statistically more likely to do arts.
Good luck getting that past equality legislation.
7. I suspect the subjects you consider less worthy are cheaper for universities to run. They do, therefore, subsidise more expensive courses (as they are charged the same).
If less people were to stop doing these courses, the funding for sciences and complex engineering would be more limited. The courses would become more expensive (defeating your objective re giving those students economic advantage) or they would become unsustainable.
8. The fact that you are so happy to make public service exceptions is an indication that hadn't thought it through.
9. Some of the most influential people in public life (politicians/lawyers) studied degrees your model might find has 'poorer' employment prospects (history, philosophy, law, psychology). Your plan would restrict social mobility in relation to these subjects. The resulting effect on social mobility in these key public areas would not be desirable.
10. If your model is based on earning potential in subject area, then it doesn't account for employment prospects of various universities. This is logically flawed.
In the alternative, if it did take account of university attended then it would be very dangerous for the sustainability of those courses and institutions.
You should not overlook the massive boost universities give to their local area courtesy of the people they employ and the money the students spend.
Summary:
-too many important variables your catch all policy would ignore
-efforts to catch all variables would be confusing, expensive, and logically self defeating
-you haven't really thought it through.
-apologies for typos. I'm in a rush.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
1- i think agree to disagree
2- if they go on to make a lot of money then that would be reflected in the figures. It has nothing to do with what I consider to be worthless
3- No hope of gainful employment > lower salary > lower maintenance loan/grant
4- A high supply of workers will force the wage down which in turn will affect the stats gathered by the uni which will then impact on the maintenance support.
6- indirectly and unintentionally yes but if theyre gonna do a micky mouse course then such is life
7- I'm willing to concede that i'm wrong on this but universities are a business, they're surely not going to run a department at a loss?
8- Nurses have always been an exception to me when arguing about jobs but that's only cos i think they're vastly underpaid.
9- fair point
10- My model would take into account employment prospects of the university.
In a recession the weak and inefficient businesses fail and the strong survive, the same principle applies here.
I think you're vastly overestimating the impact of the model, it's not the difference between £5 and £20,000 the amounts would still be a similar range as they are now just better distributed.
Original post by blue n white army
1- i think agree to disagree
2- if they go on to make a lot of money then that would be reflected in the figures. It has nothing to do with what I consider to be worthless
3- No hope of gainful employment > lower salary > lower maintenance loan/grant
4- A high supply of workers will force the wage down which in turn will affect the stats gathered by the uni which will then impact on the maintenance support.
6- indirectly and unintentionally yes but if theyre gonna do a micky mouse course then such is life
7- I'm willing to concede that i'm wrong on this but universities are a business, they're surely not going to run a department at a loss?
8- Nurses have always been an exception to me when arguing about jobs but that's only cos i think they're vastly underpaid.
9- fair point
10- My model would take into account employment prospects of the university.
In a recession the weak and inefficient businesses fail and the strong survive, the same principle applies here.
I think you're vastly overestimating the impact of the model, it's not the difference between £5 and £20,000 the amounts would still be a similar range as they are now just better distributed.
2- if they go on to make a lot of money then that would be reflected in the figures. It has nothing to do with what I consider to be worthless
3- No hope of gainful employment > lower salary > lower maintenance loan/grant
4- A high supply of workers will force the wage down which in turn will affect the stats gathered by the uni which will then impact on the maintenance support.
6- indirectly and unintentionally yes but if theyre gonna do a micky mouse course then such is life
7- I'm willing to concede that i'm wrong on this but universities are a business, they're surely not going to run a department at a loss?
8- Nurses have always been an exception to me when arguing about jobs but that's only cos i think they're vastly underpaid.
9- fair point
10- My model would take into account employment prospects of the university.
In a recession the weak and inefficient businesses fail and the strong survive, the same principle applies here.
I think you're vastly overestimating the impact of the model, it's not the difference between £5 and £20,000 the amounts would still be a similar range as they are now just better distributed.
I think you should go away and think about it. Many STEM departments would make a loss if not for support from other departments.
Also you are linking employment prospects and unis/courses in a way that I have pointed out is self defeating and logically flawed.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by blue n white army
I agree that essential public sector workers should be supported and have a better system of funding.
If golf course management has high employment rates with high salaries then i wouldn't say it's a worthless degree at all.
lets not get into investment banking a) it will end up going seriously off topic b) i've just finished my dissertation on this area, any more will give me a migraine.
If golf course management has high employment rates with high salaries then i wouldn't say it's a worthless degree at all.
lets not get into investment banking a) it will end up going seriously off topic b) i've just finished my dissertation on this area, any more will give me a migraine.
and c) it rather defeats your point (in addition to the excellent post by Lexis).
Original post by eelnais
I'm not happy with the system. Because we were struggling for some money last year, my Mum worked a crazy amount of overtime and because of that I get £3600.
I can't even afford accommodation. I'm at a loss at what to do.
I can't even afford accommodation. I'm at a loss at what to do.
If your income has dropped by 15% or more then you can phone student finance and ask for what I believe is an in-year assessment. Basically it assesses your income on this financial year, not last one.
Original post by Esempy
I'm both completely baffled and disgusted that so many people in this discussion so far don't think that you can be both poor and hard working. Manual labour, in general, is harder work and pays less than a majority of jobs. So the idea that you're either poor or hard working is just ridiculous.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Posted from TSR Mobile
Agreed. My mum used to do anything up to 60 hours a week. We were by no means well off. And yes, she worked hard. Her job (including previous) was very demanding.
I think most posters here are confusing the OP's point and assuming he's a spoilt rich kid crying about not getting what he wants.
The way I see the situation is this:
somebody from a low-income background will receive enough money from the government to support himself at University
somebody from a wealthy family whose parents are happy and able to give money will be able to support himself at University
somebody from a middle-income family (by this I mean about 40-80,000) may or may not receive money from his parents to support himself at University
Yes, the low-income student will have struggled financially before going to University, but the middle income student without parental support is wholly reliant on securing employment to support himself. In the current job climate, that may mean dropping out because he simply can't find work and therefore can't get enough money to support himself.
It's not simply a matter of saying, your parents can support you but they choose not to. That's not the fault of most students and there's nothing they can do about it. It doesn't give them any more money to tell them that their parents should be providing it!
The way I see the situation is this:
somebody from a low-income background will receive enough money from the government to support himself at University
somebody from a wealthy family whose parents are happy and able to give money will be able to support himself at University
somebody from a middle-income family (by this I mean about 40-80,000) may or may not receive money from his parents to support himself at University
Yes, the low-income student will have struggled financially before going to University, but the middle income student without parental support is wholly reliant on securing employment to support himself. In the current job climate, that may mean dropping out because he simply can't find work and therefore can't get enough money to support himself.
It's not simply a matter of saying, your parents can support you but they choose not to. That's not the fault of most students and there's nothing they can do about it. It doesn't give them any more money to tell them that their parents should be providing it!
Original post by Origami Bullets
If your income has dropped by 15% or more then you can phone student finance and ask for what I believe is an in-year assessment. Basically it assesses your income on this financial year, not last one.
If your income has dropped by 15% or more then you can phone student finance and ask for what I believe is an in-year assessment. Basically it assesses your income on this financial year, not last one.
Oh wow, really? Where can I find information about this? Thank you!
Original post by Katie_p
I think most posters here are confusing the OP's point and assuming he's a spoilt rich kid crying about not getting what he wants.
The way I see the situation is this:
somebody from a low-income background will receive enough money from the government to support himself at University
somebody from a wealthy family whose parents are happy and able to give money will be able to support himself at University
somebody from a middle-income family (by this I mean about 40-80,000) may or may not receive money from his parents to support himself at University
Yes, the low-income student will have struggled financially before going to University, but the middle income student without parental support is wholly reliant on securing employment to support himself. In the current job climate, that may mean dropping out because he simply can't find work and therefore can't get enough money to support himself.
It's not simply a matter of saying, your parents can support you but they choose not to. That's not the fault of most students and there's nothing they can do about it. It doesn't give them any more money to tell them that their parents should be providing it!
The way I see the situation is this:
somebody from a low-income background will receive enough money from the government to support himself at University
somebody from a wealthy family whose parents are happy and able to give money will be able to support himself at University
somebody from a middle-income family (by this I mean about 40-80,000) may or may not receive money from his parents to support himself at University
Yes, the low-income student will have struggled financially before going to University, but the middle income student without parental support is wholly reliant on securing employment to support himself. In the current job climate, that may mean dropping out because he simply can't find work and therefore can't get enough money to support himself.
It's not simply a matter of saying, your parents can support you but they choose not to. That's not the fault of most students and there's nothing they can do about it. It doesn't give them any more money to tell them that their parents should be providing it!
It's also not the governments problem to figure out whether your parents choose to financially support you at university or not. If a students parents are choosing not to, with that much cash to spare, then it's an issue they need to take up with their family and not with the student financing system. I can honestly say I have never met a parent who wouldn't realistically help their child in times of financial need, I think a lot of students from middle class families assume, or say, their parents won't help out when in actuality they would.
If there's only a certain budget for student financing, it just makes sense for it to be given in balance to income. There's no other method for giving it out that would be fair or make sense IMO.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by Katie_p
Yes, the low-income student will have struggled financially before going to University, but the middle income student without parental support is wholly reliant on securing employment to support himself. In the current job climate, that may mean dropping out because he simply can't find work and therefore can't get enough money to support himself.
Yes, the low-income student will have struggled financially before going to University, but the middle income student without parental support is wholly reliant on securing employment to support himself. In the current job climate, that may mean dropping out because he simply can't find work and therefore can't get enough money to support himself.
Not really. In theory a student shouldn't need to drop out for financial reasons. This would be a terrible waste. If things are so severe that dropping out is one of the few, or only, option, then there is financial support available (hardship loans, Access to Learning Fund and university grants)
(edited 11 years ago)
Original post by tombrown7
It really annoys me when they say "anyone can go to uni", i just filled in my application and based on my parents salary, i will hardly get nothing at all. They get decent salary but have so many outgoing like mortgage, credit card bill and many more, so can't really provide for me.
Most of the time, to go you have to be either be from a rich background or poor (where they get everything given to them on a silver platter). But a hard working family gets no help what so ever :/
Most of the time, to go you have to be either be from a rich background or poor (where they get everything given to them on a silver platter). But a hard working family gets no help what so ever :/
Totally agree with you dude! You should write something like you live with your Grandmother and she's calming a pension
.Something else that grinds my bones is that people from poorer neighborhoods can go to a RG university with lower grades because they are POOR!
How is that fair?? Just because your rich doesn't mean you didn't work hard to get that A*!
Original post by bahjat93
Totally agree with you dude! You should write something like you live with your Grandmother and she's calming a pension .
Something else that grinds my bones is that people from poorer neighborhoods can go to a RG university with lower grades because they are POOR!
How is that fair?? Just because your rich doesn't mean you didn't work hard to get that A*!
.Something else that grinds my bones is that people from poorer neighborhoods can go to a RG university with lower grades because they are POOR!
How is that fair?? Just because your rich doesn't mean you didn't work hard to get that A*!
It isn't because they are poor; it is because there isn't a level field.
Why should you get preference just because you are likely to have had all the advantages to facilitate your learning?
Grades are not totally representative of ability or aptitude for a subject at university level- you will probably see that at degree level.
Posted from TSR Mobile
Original post by blue n white army
As for your final point, universities have all sorts of figures on their courses. A university is able to say "a student on the X degree, on average, will earn £YYYYU, these figures could be easily submitted, along with average living costs, to a body which decides the loans.
I'm guessing you've based this on the median salary information included on the unistats website.
For what it's worth that information is based on a survey of graduates. Graduates can refuse to answer the survey at all and even if they complete the survey they can refuse to answer certain questions. They can also answer WHATEVER THEY LIKE about what their salary is.
Basing any calculation on average salary also excludes any factor of whether graduates GET a job, whether they're available to work or whether they go onto further study.
Basing the future finance of students on a course on SELF REPORTED salaries of graduates is completely ridiculous and would lead to the data quality of that information being even more distorted than it is atm. It also would prevent universities starting up new courses or radically changing their course content because that would invalidate the link with earnings of current graduates.
Original post by bahjat93
Something else that grinds my bones is that people from poorer neighborhoods can go to a RG university with lower grades because they are POOR!
Source please?
Well I agree with the title.
Original post by PQ
Source please?
I don't have a link maybe the op does but an example i've come across is the Newcastle partners scheme, basically if your post code matches and you do some 2 week summer school you can get in with lower grades for numerous courses.
Original post by PQ
Source please?
Go to Leeds University Applications thread and you'll see how people get lower offers due to them coming from a disadvantaged background
Original post by blue n white army
I don't have a link maybe the op does but an example i've come across is the Newcastle partners scheme, basically if your post code matches and you do some 2 week summer school you can get in with lower grades for numerous courses.
People think i make stuff about!!
I HONESTLY DON'T MAKE THINGS UP!
Original post by bahjat93
Go to Leeds University Applications thread and you'll see how people get lower offers due to them coming from a disadvantaged background
Original post by blue n white army
I don't have a link maybe the op does but an example i've come across is the Newcastle partners scheme, basically if your post code matches and you do some 2 week summer school you can get in with lower grades for numerous courses.
Neither of those schemes are aimed at "poor" people. There's no way to get into these schemes and agreements via just having a low income
Original post by eelnais
Oh wow, really? Where can I find information about this? Thank you!
I've never had to submit one, so I really don't know the details. However, if you google 'student finance current year assessment' then some useful info does come up.
Original post by bahjat93
Totally agree with you dude! You should write something like you live with your Grandmother and she's calming a pension .
Something else that grinds my bones is that people from poorer neighborhoods can go to a RG university with lower grades because they are POOR!
How is that fair?? Just because your rich doesn't mean you didn't work hard to get that A*!
.Something else that grinds my bones is that people from poorer neighborhoods can go to a RG university with lower grades because they are POOR!
How is that fair?? Just because your rich doesn't mean you didn't work hard to get that A*!
For the OP to claim that they live with their grandmother would be fraud. I'm sure that you would think that benefit fraud was wrong. This is no different.
With regards to Access schemes, there are various schemes across different universities. One that hasn't yet been mentioned is the Manchester Access Programme.
However, I think you are somewhat missing the point with them. There is evidence out there to suggest that students with certain circumstances (low parental income, in care, difficult personal circumstances, certain postcodes, poorly performing school etc.) will get A Level grades that are around two grades lower than a person who has equal innate intelligence with a somewhat nicer background. When they are removed from that environment, and they go to university, they are then able to compete on a level playing field.
For what it's worth, different schemes have different entry criteria. You can still get on the Access to Leeds scheme if you meet only two criteria from the list below.
Leeds
•
From a household with an annual income of £25,000 or below OR in receipt of 16-19 Bursary Fund or Discretionary Learner Support with income threshold of £25,000, OR in receipt of free school meals during their GCSE studies
•
In the first generation of their immediate family to apply to higher education
•
Attends, or have attended, a school which achieved less than the national average of 5 A* to C passes (including English & Maths) at GCSE
•
Only option is to attend a local university
•
Studies disrupted by circumstances in their personal, social or domestic life
•
Live in a geographical area with low levels of progression onto higher education (click here to check the area you live in
•
Living or grew up in public care
That would mean that you could still get onto their scheme if your parents earn a lot of money, you live in a nice area and go to a private school. You'd just have to show that you met two of the other criteria - for instance, that neither of your parents went to uni and you have caring responsibilities for a disabled sibling, or you've had a serious illness during your A Levels.
To recognise that some people have circumstances that restrict their ability to show their full intellect through their A Level grades does not denigrate that others have worked hard. It is simply an attempt to level the playing field.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Are communists stupid?
- entry requirements
- What do you think of HS2 only going to Birmingham
- TSR Goes Green: How important will the environment be in this year's election?
- Universal credit help
- Smoking
- advice?
- a very stupid question but I'm very confused
- College won't let me resit my A-Levels
- TSR opinion poll, Feb 2024: how would you vote in the general election?
- Uni of Bolton new med school
- can't go to ucl bc intl fees but got home fees for others :(
- STEM is not the future !
- Fun top secret info, Spread to your friends/try the first three
- Shamima Begum was made a scapegoat – we would welcome her back, say Bethnal Green res
- Moved from the UK to Turkey
- Hung up over choice to study domestically
- Kallisto's Saturday Question: Royals
- Edexcel Business GCSE Paper 1 (1BS0/01) - 18th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Explain Liss truss policies to me
Latest
Trending
Last reply 2 days 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 2 days 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 ?
