should university be free but harder to get into?

Original post by pickup

This confirms what I have said , doesn't it - a recruitment professional is saying that SMEs have got it wrong.

I am afraid the customer, in this case the employer, is always right.

Reply 61

Original post by lascelles

I got two Ds at Alevel and a pass in my BTEC/NVQ, then worked hard for 5 years to gain the experience I needed to get onto my course (primary education). I don't feel like I deserve to be there any less than those who just came out of sixth form and got better grades than me. I do, however, feel that my course should maybe be more subsidised. No one working as a primary school teacher is ever going to pay off the 27K+ loan in 30 years, so it seems a bit pointless charging so much.

Why did it take 5 years?

Reply 62

hellodave5

19

Original post by plasmaman

I agree with the teaching bit, but not sure if I agree that "all degrees are very difficult and challenging". Of course that depends on individual talents.

Yeah, of course. Generally speaking, degrees are difficult; even if just a test of willpower to see the end of 3 years.
Have you completed one?
Of course, it can depend on knowledge and intelligence; but effort is always a significant factor in outcomes (though there are always anomalies ofc).

EDIT: I still feel that an intelligent person, such as a med or law student, would still have to put in A LOT of effort to come out with a first in anything regardless of subject.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 63

JayJay-C19

I believe you should have to pay. Otherwise people who arent serious would get in for the sake of it and disrupt other pupils and also, the government couldnt possibly fund the universities enough to make it worth there while for the pupils and them. No way.

Reply 64

Original post by plasmaman

You really don't need an English degree to be able to order your thoughts, argue your point eloquently and use accurate written expression.

No, you don't but these skills are learnt in an English Degree so are illustrative of why these degrees have transferable skills and are in demand. I'm sure Modern Languages Degrees, History degrees etc. have similar transferable skills.

Some fortunate people may have picked them up in other ways but a degree in an arts subject may just give some reassurance that candidates will have them.

Reply 65

Carnationlilyrose

Original post by JayJay-C19

I believe you should have to pay. Otherwise people who arent serious would get in for the sake of it and disrupt other pupils and also, the government couldnt possibly fund the universities enough to make it worth there while for the pupils and them. No way.

All I can say is that is didn't happen like that. When hardly anyone went to university, those who did were usually the serious ones, and the government paid them to do so.

Reply 66

Original post by nulli tertius

But largely the problem is this;

what the OP wants to do away with is likely to be courses like International Spa management at Derby but he wouldn't want to touch English Lit at Manchester

Look at the employability figures (not just the 6 months one, but the salary 40 months from graduation)

https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10007851FT-B3503/ReturnTo/Search

https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10007798FT-261/ReturnTo/Search

If we are cutting back courses of little economic benefit; then it is the students of Beowulf in Manchester rather than bikini waxes in Buxton that should be culled.

I'd suggest that fewer English Literature courses were offered, certainly. It's a tough one, because economically, they contribute little, but limiting their existence risks undermining the importance of literature and language. I suppose we need to look at the careers which these degrees give access to. I mean to say, what job, other than being an English Literature teacher, requires only an Eng. Lit. degree. Equally, what job actually requires an International Spa Management degree. In this sense, neither degree is necessary.

Reply 67

JayJay-C19

Original post by carnationlilyrose

All I can say is that is didn't happen like that. When hardly anyone went to university, those who did were usually the serious ones, and the government paid them to do so.

Yeah fine but we're talking about now, aren't we.

Reply 68

Original post by nulli tertius

But largely the problem is this;

what the OP wants to do away with is likely to be courses like International Spa management at Derby but he wouldn't want to touch English Lit at Manchester

Look at the employability figures (not just the 6 months one, but the salary 40 months from graduation)

https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10007851FT-B3503/ReturnTo/Search

https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10007798FT-261/ReturnTo/Search

If we are cutting back courses of little economic benefit; then it is the students of Beowulf in Manchester rather than bikini waxes in Buxton that should be culled.

So the salary of someone from Derby's Spa Management course is in the range £19k-£30k 40 months after graduation.

What the Op wants is up to her/him but English Graduates will have transferable skills and will no doubt be following careers which start relatively low but have high potential.

Beowulf, you know, is only a very small part of an English Degree ( though as an early example of our literature important.)

Reply 69

Original post by pickup

No, you don't but these skills are learnt in an English Degree so are illustrative of why these degrees have transferable skills and are in demand. I'm sure Modern Languages Degrees, History degrees etc. have similar transferable skills.

Some fortunate people may have picked them up in other ways but a degree in an arts subject may just give some reassurance that candidates will have them.

But what advantage is there in having an English degree when the skills acquired can be learned elsewhere, whether that be in another degree or not?

Reply 70

Original post by nulli tertius

I am afraid the customer, in this case the employer, is always right.

Or increasingly discovering as SME employers have, by their own admission, that they got it wrong. They should have listened to what an experienced recruitment consultant told them.

Reply 71

Original post by plasmaman

I'd suggest that fewer English Literature courses were offered, certainly. It's a tough one, because economically, they contribute little, but limiting their existence risks undermining the importance of literature and language. I suppose we need to look at the careers which these degrees give access to. I mean to say, what job, other than being an English Literature teacher, requires only an Eng. Lit. degree. Equally, what job actually requires an International Spa Management degree. In this sense, neither degree is necessary.

Once you apply the test of "necessary" there was really only one career that required a degree and that was Church (this has now changed). Within the last 30 years there was a way to qualify as a medic without a degree. I have solicitors in my firm who are not graduates and I can still find you a few non-graduate barristers.

Reply 72

Maker

OP

20

Original post by nulli tertius

But largely the problem is this;

what the OP wants to do away with is likely to be courses like International Spa management at Derby but he wouldn't want to touch English Lit at Manchester

Look at the employability figures (not just the 6 months one, but the salary 40 months from graduation)

https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10007851FT-B3503/ReturnTo/Search

https://unistats.direct.gov.uk/subjects/employment/10007798FT-261/ReturnTo/Search

If we are cutting back courses of little economic benefit; then it is the students of Beowulf in Manchester rather than bikini waxes in Buxton that should be culled.

I think you have to consider if the students that did spa management had already had previous work experience in a similar field so would have more work experience to help them get a job while those who did english came straight from school.

Reply 73

Carnationlilyrose

Original post by JayJay-C19

Yeah fine but we're talking about now, aren't we.

I thought you were speaking hypothetically of a situation in which fewer students went to university. If the numbers of students were reduced to small numbers, then those who went to university would be self-selecting to be fairly serious about it and universities would select on that basis as well. The smaller supply of places would have the effect of making people take the place more seriously. You'd have a situation as with medicine, where intense competition rules out those who would 'disrupt other pupils'. After putting in so much effort to get there, people would be less likely to throw the place away. Money needn't enter into it to get that effect.

Reply 74

Original post by nulli tertius

Once you apply the test of "necessary" there was really only one career that required a degree and that was Church (this has now changed). Within the last 30 years there was a way to qualify as a medic without a degree. I have solicitors in my firm who are not graduates and I can still find you a few non-graduate barristers.

I'm talking about now

Reply 75

Original post by pickup

Or increasingly discovering as SME employers have, by their own admission, that they got it wrong. They should have listened to what an experienced recruitment consultant told them.

You haven't read the article properly. SME employers are becoming less likely to recruit graduates.

That is a consequence of state subsidised apprenticeships. In reality SME employers (I know; I am one) never bought into the idea of the value of degrees. The problem was that instead of getting bright office juniors and the like at 16 who would work their way up, these people weren't on the market any more. They all wanted to do degrees. Accordingly employers ended recruiting at 21 essentially the same people they used to recruit at 16 but with a greater knowledge of Jane Austen or working class housing. These subsidised apprenticeships give them the opportunity to return to how it used to be (if not at 16 then at least at 18)

Reply 76

Original post by Maker

I think you have to consider if the students that did spa management had already had previous work experience in a similar field so would have more work experience to help them get a job while those who did english came straight from school.

I think, but I can't give you data, that it is a course that attracts school and college leavers. One major difference is that the students are likely to get relevant vacation jobs.

Reply 77

mellie220

12

I think the standards set for some Universities are just a joke - which is why I agree with tuition fees at the moment.
I would like to see limited places and more funding so a degree can gain back it's 'prestige' again. Of course, it's a bit hard setting fixed standards because some A-Levels are harder than others - it's pretty given that Sciences are harder than most Humanities (and this is coming from a Humanities student). However, I don't believe if you're getting CCC (even after resist) or something at A-Level you are going to be cut out for University, it obviously shows you are not disciplined (which will ultimately be a massive problem at University) or, if you have tried, you are probably not academically equipped enough to be carrying on further study (and there is nothing wrong with that, I hate how academia is valued above skilled vocational trades).

Reply 78