should university be free but harder to get into?
Scroll to see replies
Original post by RSmith1007
That's rubbish, I put lots of time and effort into all my A Levels and will most likely come out with CCC, I would also argue that I put in more effort than some people getting BBB+. I'm just not as naturally clever, for my maths I went from being targeted and E to getting a C and that was through hard work and putting in hours of extra work a week.
I can not understand why any person doing Maths A level would be "targetted" at an E in the first place.
Jesus Christ! I've read a couple of pages of this thread and quite frankly... Some of You people are unreal. your living in a strange world where you seem to think your superior to everyone else, I mean 'donkey university' and 'racehorse university' your not the pinnacle of human evolution, 'joke degrees', 'not everyone should be allowed'.
who do you people really think you are. As far as I'm aware none of you are the next Einstein nor the next Shakespeare. Wake up and join the real world. Just because someone didn't get the same schooling, encouragement and direction as you doesn't mean you dictate what chances they have in life.
I've met hundreds of people with all sorts of wonderful degrees that have no skills outside of that degree. Being academically smart doesn't mean your a smart person.
and finally
all this talk about 'we've worked hard to get our place in uni'. Reading books and researching topics whilst Leung supported off your parents and living at home with them isn't hard work... Hard work is the guy that started life with nothing...not even a basic education, working 16 hours a day to support a family of four, self studying with the little time they have left, taking exams, passing every assessment the university can throw at them and the getting accepted at university... That's a place that's been earned in my opinion, what makes you think they shouldn't be allowed in?
my opinion anyway
Dean
who do you people really think you are. As far as I'm aware none of you are the next Einstein nor the next Shakespeare. Wake up and join the real world. Just because someone didn't get the same schooling, encouragement and direction as you doesn't mean you dictate what chances they have in life.
I've met hundreds of people with all sorts of wonderful degrees that have no skills outside of that degree. Being academically smart doesn't mean your a smart person.
and finally
all this talk about 'we've worked hard to get our place in uni'. Reading books and researching topics whilst Leung supported off your parents and living at home with them isn't hard work... Hard work is the guy that started life with nothing...not even a basic education, working 16 hours a day to support a family of four, self studying with the little time they have left, taking exams, passing every assessment the university can throw at them and the getting accepted at university... That's a place that's been earned in my opinion, what makes you think they shouldn't be allowed in?
my opinion anyway
Dean
(edited 9 years ago)
University should be for the elite. Mickey-mouse degrees should be erased, and replaced with vocational/apprenticeship qualifications. Money should not turn away students with exceptional potential.
I honestly don't understand what the Government are doing. Nobody will be able to repay the fees, especially as interest is due to rocket.
I honestly don't understand what the Government are doing. Nobody will be able to repay the fees, especially as interest is due to rocket.
Original post by lamyers1
What I would see as being a 'joke' course is 3 years studying coastal management which you can get into with a D at A-level. Things like that should be taught as an apprenticeship, what is your £9000/yr being spent on?
And I don't agree that university should be paid for. Yes, you are going to be in debt, but it's deducted like tax and doesn't affect your ability to borrow money or take out a mortgage. How is the government, which is already stretched as it is, going to be able to afford to put that many young people through uni?
And I don't agree that university should be paid for. Yes, you are going to be in debt, but it's deducted like tax and doesn't affect your ability to borrow money or take out a mortgage. How is the government, which is already stretched as it is, going to be able to afford to put that many young people through uni?
How is coastal management any more of a 'joke' than something like History of Art? Nothing against HoA folks, just using it as an example. I would imagine coastal management is actually quite useful, with engineering, economics, geography and geology amongst other things. Why should that be taught as an apprenticeship?
And (if the second part was a response to me as well) I think you misunderstood my use of 'paid for'. Paid for by the student, not the government.
There are two broad philosophical approaches a government can take to tertiary ed.
1) Impose a central limit (x% of students can go to uni). Then they can provide y amount of funding and have a justifiable say in what courses can and cannot be taught.
2) Let a free market reign. Anyone is welcome to go to any university that will accept them. They can study what they want, and universities can charge what they like. If someone wants to waste their time and money on a so-called mickey mouse degree, then that's fine.
At the moment (and tbh for the past 30 years) we have a halfway house between these options.
- There is a free market...but with a low ceiling for student payments.
- You can study pretty much what you want...but the government clearly want more people into STEM, they are just unwilling to directly force it (they were hoping the "free market" would do it automatically).
- Graduates pay their fees...but the government underwrites the very generous loans, much of which will never be paid off (actually resulting in a more progressive system than under labour!).
Personally, I think the government should come out and say that some degrees are more valuable than others, and give grants to students who study those degrees. But graduates should still have to pay for some of their degree, because some of the benefit goes to the individual. My uneducated guess is that the burden of cost should be about 50/50.
The government can then justifiably dictate that you must meet a minimum standard at A-level to get on a subsidized course.
This will not necessarily result in fewer students going to uni (although it might), which I don't think is necessarily desirable. But it will encourage people into particular degrees which I think is.
Of course there will be a huge debate in The Guardian as to why the world cannot function without English Lit and Arts History degrees...(well more than there already is!).
1) Impose a central limit (x% of students can go to uni). Then they can provide y amount of funding and have a justifiable say in what courses can and cannot be taught.
2) Let a free market reign. Anyone is welcome to go to any university that will accept them. They can study what they want, and universities can charge what they like. If someone wants to waste their time and money on a so-called mickey mouse degree, then that's fine.
At the moment (and tbh for the past 30 years) we have a halfway house between these options.
- There is a free market...but with a low ceiling for student payments.
- You can study pretty much what you want...but the government clearly want more people into STEM, they are just unwilling to directly force it (they were hoping the "free market" would do it automatically).
- Graduates pay their fees...but the government underwrites the very generous loans, much of which will never be paid off (actually resulting in a more progressive system than under labour!).
Personally, I think the government should come out and say that some degrees are more valuable than others, and give grants to students who study those degrees. But graduates should still have to pay for some of their degree, because some of the benefit goes to the individual. My uneducated guess is that the burden of cost should be about 50/50.
The government can then justifiably dictate that you must meet a minimum standard at A-level to get on a subsidized course.
This will not necessarily result in fewer students going to uni (although it might), which I don't think is necessarily desirable. But it will encourage people into particular degrees which I think is.
Of course there will be a huge debate in The Guardian as to why the world cannot function without English Lit and Arts History degrees...(well more than there already is!).
Original post by Mackay
I think, at the very least, every candidate should be required to attend an interview.
I wasn't interviewed to get into my University. In fact, I don't know anybody who was. It's ridiculous.
I wasn't interviewed to get into my University. In fact, I don't know anybody who was. It's ridiculous.
Are you serious - do you have any idea of the time and cost that would be involved
(edited 9 years ago)
But what about those who want to do as well as an expensive hobby
Nightworld1066
Nightworld1066
Original post by russellsteapot
How is coastal management any more of a 'joke' than something like History of Art? Nothing against HoA folks, just using it as an example. I would imagine coastal management is actually quite useful, with engineering, economics, geography and geology amongst other things. Why should that be taught as an apprenticeship?
And (if the second part was a response to me as well) I think you misunderstood my use of 'paid for'. Paid for by the student, not the government.
And (if the second part was a response to me as well) I think you misunderstood my use of 'paid for'. Paid for by the student, not the government.
I'm not saying that the course in itself is a joke, the fact that you can get in with a D at A-level is. As more people go to university it makes degrees stand out less, as so many young people applying for jobs now have them. (kinda like inflation).
The point of a degree is to further your education, so in order for people or are performing poorly in an educational setting, surely they should be taught in a more vocational way, such as in an apprenticeship, where they can go to college and be taught the theoretical side of things (like the biology etc) but spend the majority of their time in a practical setting, learning on the job.
it is free for people in Scotland. i soo should have moved to Scotland two years ago so that i would get free university
Original post by TenOfThem
Are you serious - do you have any idea of the time and cost that would be involved
I literally walked into University. And everybody I know did. Something needs to change.
Original post by Mackay
I literally walked into University. And everybody I know did. Something needs to change.
What would an interview have told them that they needed to know?
You achieved grades that they thought demonstrated adequate intelligence to study the degree you applied for.
Are you saying that you are not capable of doing the degree in question?
Original post by TenOfThem
Are you saying that you are not capable of doing the degree in question?
Are you saying that you are not capable of doing the degree in question?
Lol @ you. I graduated with First Class Honours.
Interviews would give applicants the experience of an interview, make sure that they know what is expected of them, give universities a chance to size them up/make sure they can offer something etc.
It's no use just accepting anybody who manages to get an A and two B's, because more and more people are getting them.
Original post by Mackay
Lol @ you. I graduated with First Class Honours.
Then you "walking into university" seems to make sense - so I do not understand your point
Interviews would give applicants the experience of an interview, make sure that they know what is expected of them, give universities a chance to size them up/make sure they can offer something etc.
The cost /time/inconvenience is far too much to justify "chance of an interview"
Offer what?
It's no use just accepting anybody who manages to get an A and two B's, because more and more people are getting them.
Hence the current changes to A Level
But then at least they can see what he the person is really like and if they are suited to Uni study
Nightworld1066
Nightworld1066
Original post by chazwomaq
This will not necessarily result in fewer students going to uni (although it might), which I don't think is necessarily desirable. But it will encourage people into particular degrees which I think is.
Of course there will be a huge debate in The Guardian as to why the world cannot function without English Lit and Arts History degrees...(well more than there already is!).
This will not necessarily result in fewer students going to uni (although it might), which I don't think is necessarily desirable. But it will encourage people into particular degrees which I think is.
Of course there will be a huge debate in The Guardian as to why the world cannot function without English Lit and Arts History degrees...(well more than there already is!).
I think government (all of political stripes) is very wary of this "five year tractor production plan" approach to higher education.
The government's record on predicting the future needs of the economy is very poor.
Look how poor it is at predicting the need for teachers when every aspect of demand and supply is either under state control (class sizes, subjects etc) or has a lead time of several years (birth rate) with the exception of the level of internal EU migration of school age children.
Original post by lamyers1
I'm not saying that the course in itself is a joke, the fact that you can get in with a D at A-level is. As more people go to university it makes degrees stand out less, as so many young people applying for jobs now have them. (kinda like inflation).
The point of a degree is to further your education, so in order for people or are performing poorly in an educational setting, surely they should be taught in a more vocational way, such as in an apprenticeship, where they can go to college and be taught the theoretical side of things (like the biology etc) but spend the majority of their time in a practical setting, learning on the job.
The point of a degree is to further your education, so in order for people or are performing poorly in an educational setting, surely they should be taught in a more vocational way, such as in an apprenticeship, where they can go to college and be taught the theoretical side of things (like the biology etc) but spend the majority of their time in a practical setting, learning on the job.
A levels aren't a very good measure of true ability, though, they're more a measure of method, memory and socioeconomic factors (with some 'ability', of course, but it has to be activated). Unless all the smart kids just coincidentally happen to go to the best-performing schools. Which is unlikely.
Poor A level performance shouldn't disqualify someone from 'true' academic study later in life. University is the first opportunity most people have to actually work on a level playing field, under their own steam without having everything spoonfed to them, and without their **** background holding them back. A lot of people **** up A levels and excel at university, and indeed it sometimes works in reverse.
Original post by russellsteapot
Unless all the smart kids just coincidentally happen to go to the best-performing schools. Which is unlikely.
If you take grades as a measure of school performance, then it's inevitable that the smart kids go to the best performing schools. Because pupil achievement is the definition of school performance.
But if you take contextual value added scores as a measure of school performance, these are not strongly related to pupil performance.
Also, your school's average performance is not related to how well you do at university, suggesting that schools at which pupils get good grades are not artificially boosting pupil's achievements. Private schools, on the other hand, do seem to be artificially boosting pupil performance at A level, and private pupils do relatively worse at uni.
I take issue with the use of predicted grades being used for entry offers. I was predicted BCDa which meant that I was severely limited as to where I could apply to, in your proposed system I most likely would not have been offered place. I did however achieve AABa (computing, maths, physics, as electronics).
In order to support your system I would argue that offers should be made upon actual achievements rather than predictions.
Maybe universities could shift their courses' start/finish dates along by a month to accommodate the changes.
In order to support your system I would argue that offers should be made upon actual achievements rather than predictions.
Maybe universities could shift their courses' start/finish dates along by a month to accommodate the changes.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- separate igcse science vs double award
- All U's for predicted grades
- Will I have time in uni to work? Will I earn anything?
- Mathematics and Philosophy Entry Grades
- Will taking Further Maths as a third subject be a disadvantage to apply for uni?
- I would like to apply to a US university from the UK.
- 4 a levels – when/should i drop to 3?
- Which exam boards are easiest to take Chemistry and Biology A-levels with?
- Bocconi Undergrad 2020 Onwards
- Imperial Computing - Further Maths or STEP?
- Should I do AAT after my degree or should I go straight into ACCA?
- What to do without qualifications?
- Canadian Intl. Student Help
- LNAT
- data science in Coventry University vs University of Essex
- should i drop my placement year?
- The Education system more like the biggest scam
- Singapore applicant to UK help
- Best A level subject combinations for economics bsc degree
- Business computing and IT
Latest
Trending
Last reply 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 3 days ago
Is it true that British unis are prejudiced towards degrees from Scottish unis?Last reply 3 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 ?
