Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Why not cut university places instead of raising fees? Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheGrandmaster)
    People don't pay taxes to fund your 'interests'.
    I'd pay for it, I just don't believe in cutting courses because they want more "vocational" courses out of University. A high majority of vocational courses need to be studied to degree level to get the sufficient jobs.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michael321)
    But I'm arguing that a degree in Golf Management is total wastage of resources. It will not reduce our skill base - someone would be better learning "Golf Management" on the job - and it will save the taxpayer thousands of pounds, plus the degree recipient thousands of pounds in debt for little to no gain.

    My argument is that it won't reduce the skills base, because these degrees offer little value.
    I understand what you are saying, I mean personally I don't really know what a Golf Management degree involves so I can't actually comment. The raise in fees, will allow the increase in the places to what you would class as 'useful' degrees, however, actually benefiting society in the long run. I do believe that even in correspondence with the increase of 'useful' degrees that the amount of places for 'mickey mouse' degrees, does need to be considerably reduced but not completely irradicated.
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    Where can you do these metalworking degrees then?
    I believe there are several, and there are worse degrees too. But here's an example: http://www.shu.ac.uk/prospectus/course/705/
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Just scrap degree like Golf Management and Beach Management. End of.

    To be honest, I do not think cutting uni place would be a better option.

    If those kind of courses are scrapped, that would be a better idea. It is not even popular cos people keep poking fun at them plus I would rather do something like business management if I really want to go into that kind of jobs - it will give me a broader knowledge about management.

    Cuttin uni places, as someone suggested above, will decrease the number of people going to university and recieve that amount of education. There will be less doctors, lawyers which does not sound very good to me.It will put pressure on me as well, so not good.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Why not just cull idiots?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michael321)
    Am I the only one who thinks this is a good idea? I believe in free or very cheap university education for all those, of sufficient intelligence, who wish to do a degree which will benefit them, and, indirectly, society. But I don't think the taxpayer should foot the bill for thousands of non-degrees which do little to improve people's opportunities and have no tangible benefit for society. Before Labour last came to power, there were few problems with university funding, because not so many people went to uni. The target of sending 50% of people to university is ridiculous and unnecessary. Degree level education should be something for those who really need it for their vocation, or are studying something which will have a definite benefit to them and society.

    We should be open minded about new universities and degrees, and be prepared to fund those which are very rigerous and respectable, but many useless degrees at bad institutions should not be funded by the taxpayer. Those attending them would be better off with a job, and some on task training, than with £15k of debt. Yet it seems this idea has become taboo nowadays, and we must all subscribe to the idea that 50% of people are bright and motivated enough to merit a degree level education at the taxpayer's expense.

    Thoughts? Please try to keep it to decent arguments, back up your points etc.
    I personally think we have too many universities that aren't too great. This usually isn't a problem when they offer specialist degrees, because they often fill a niche and so are employable and valuable. But when they offer a degree that can be done at 50 different, 'better' universities, there is a problem, because they will find it very hard to get a job with their degree. Perhaps courses with an employability below a certain threshold and that are offered elsewhere could be scrapped/have places reduced?

    I think the new fee proposals are a good thing, because they should encourage people to really think whether their degree is worth it. But the Government is still insisting they will increase places by 10%, which I think is crazy, and will cost a lot in loans to be given out.

    In my opinion they need to cut university places so that it becomes affordable to provide free higher education for those meriting a place, say, the top 20% academically, perhaps with special dispensation for important vocational degrees. But viable alternatives have to be established for other students to go into for this to be plausible, and I think admissions tests that assess cognitive ability should be included to ensure students from a less privileged background don't miss out.
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chlobofro)
    I'd pay for it, I just don't believe in cutting courses because they want more "vocational" courses out of University. A high majority of vocational courses need to be studied to degree level to get the sufficient jobs.
    It's irrelevant whether you want to pay higher taxes so someone can go and do a degree entirely for their own enjoyment and no material gain - the question is whether the majority of the working population would.

    Most basic jobs (craftsmanship, secretarial/administrative, menial, driving busses/lorries etc. etc.) do not need a degree. They certainly didn't used to - the increasing requirement now is a very bad thing, and should be reversed ASAP (by cutting said degrees) - but as I say, it is bigged up, and few people take most of these degrees that seriously. They just get people into needless debt and waste money.


    Here's a nice wikipedia article outlining the dangers of academic inflation:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_Inflation
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by street.lovin')
    Just scrap degree like Golf Management and Beach Management. End of.
    I see that you are applying to politics. Surely golf management is of more direct relevance to the national economy than politics (i.e. managing golf clubs and tournaments) than politics that has minimal direct relevance to the economy. I say scrap politics instead

    The government practially is scrapping both by the way, teaching grants for courses other than the STEM ones (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) are being removed and will be almost entirely self-funded by the student.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michael321)
    I believe there are several, and there are worse degrees too. But here's an example: http://www.shu.ac.uk/prospectus/course/705/
    That course looks quite appealing. Links with regional firms, national competitions, study abroad in barcelona or Tokyo. I'm impressed
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    I see that you are applying to politics. Surely golf management is of more direct relevance to the national economy than politics (i.e. managing golf clubs and tournaments) than politics that has minimal direct relevance to the economy. I say scrap politics instead

    The government practially is scrapping both by the way, teaching grants for courses other than the STEM ones (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) are being removed and will be almost entirely self-funded by the student.
    I would argue that good arts courses at reputable institutions teach, and test, key underlying skills which are trickier to obtain on the job - for instance communication, analysis, writing, broad contextual understanding of the modern world and so on. Which is why I think if someone wants to go into, say, media, they are far better off getting a broad, rigerous degree in English Lit than one in media studies.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SPMS)
    Basic Economics really.
    The idea is to increase Unviersity places, to increase our skill based economy, to hence further grow our economy further, we are far behind other countries in the terms of graduates it produces.
    You are saying reduce that skill base, resulting in slower growth of the economy.
    The skill base is going to have to be reduced either way. By raising fees you are deterring a great deal of people from even considering doing a degree. In an ideal world we would let everyone go to university for free, but we obviously can't afford to do that. In that case, I would rather unis cut down on the number of places on courses, and the number of 'non-degrees', instead of the number of applicants from disadvantaged backgrounds. But that might just be me
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by michael321)
    It's irrelevant whether you want to pay higher taxes so someone can go and do a degree entirely for their own enjoyment and no material gain - the question is whether the majority of the working population would.

    Most basic jobs (craftsmanship, secretarial/administrative, menial, driving busses/lorries etc. etc.) do not need a degree. They certainly didn't used to - the increasing requirement now is a very bad thing, and should be reversed ASAP (by cutting said degrees) - but as I say, it is bigged up, and few people take most of these degrees that seriously. They just get people into needless debt and waste money.

    I don't think any degree gives you no material gain. I want to do Journalism and that's very vocational.. sure I could learn on the job. I could work my way up. But why should I when there is a degree which would qualify me and also dwell on my interests. If someone wants to be in needless debt.. it's not up to the government. It's up to them. The country is being bossed around by elitist toffs enough.. leave education out of it haha. People get so het up about it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SPMS)
    Basic Economics really.
    The idea is to increase Unviersity places, to increase our skill based economy, to hence further grow our economy further, we are far behind other countries in the terms of graduates it produces.
    You are saying reduce that skill base, resulting in slower growth of the economy.
    I disagree.

    There has to skilled jobs in order for the educated to utilise their knowledge.

    What the bigger problem in this country is, is the fact that if you don't go to uni, your job prospects decrease dramatically. Even though many 'graduate' jobs don't really require a degree, in terms of skills. This means that I am against simply cutting uni places, because at the moment, a university degree is the best thing that you can do to improve your career. (Please don't come up with examples of people who made it big without, the majority won't and the other side of the coin, those with a degree that made it big, a large part most likely would not have made it without that degree).
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Complex Simplicity)
    That course looks quite appealing. Links with regional firms, national competitions, study abroad in barcelona or Tokyo. I'm impressed
    Well they would say all that. But everything mentioned could be learned on the job. See a couple of posts above for the wiki article on academic inflation, but here's a quote:

    Academic inflation occurs when university graduates take up work that was not formerly done by graduates of a certain level, and higher-degree holders continue to migrate to this particular occupation until it eventually becomes a field known as a 'graduate profession' and the minimum job requirements have been inflated academically for low-level job tasks.[2]

    The institutionalizing of professional education has resulted in fewer and fewer opportunities for young people to work their way up from artisan to professional status (e.g. as an engineer) by 'learning on the job'. Academic Inflation leads employers to put more and more faith into certificates and diplomas awarded on the basis of other people's assessments.[2]
    • PS Helper
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by chlobofro)
    I don't think any degree gives you no material gain. I want to do Journalism and that's very vocational.. sure I could learn on the job. I could work my way up. But why should I when there is a degree which would qualify me and also dwell on my interests. If someone wants to be in needless debt.. it's not up to the government. It's up to them. The country is being bossed around by elitist toffs enough.. leave education out of it haha. People get so het up about it.
    Actually it's competative careers like journalism where the specific degrees are the most useless, because people with vocational degrees (like journalism) from lower grade unis are competing with those from better unis with degrees in stuff like English Lit. Thus the specific degree would not qualify you that well, and it would waste loads of money, and be less challenging than something like Eng Lit.

    The problem is that degrees are becoming more necessary for low grade jobs like the aformentioned metalworking, which is a pity, because it just leads to huge levels of needless debt for no gain.

    As I said before, it's not just up to them, because the govt subsidises uni education, particularly for the poorest. And high personal debt levels are economically harmful.

    Also I hate the use of the word toff. It's so representative of double standards - if someone from a working class background was in government and someone called them a chav, that wouldn't go down well, so why should toff?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    The problem with cutting places is that it would inevitably result in some universities being shut down. So not only is it not a vote winner since it means telling parents their kids will have an even harder time getting into uni, but they'll also be cutting many jobs AND would still be seen as elitist (Half the protest signs would still be relevant if they did cut university places!).

    To be frank, the boost in the education system over the years has created many universities it can't sustain, but to increase the fees is much more palatable than to cut back to the number of universities we had a few decades ago. The coalition knows there is no way they could get out of this problem without being villified, and Labour are taking full advantage (even though they are largely to blame).

    So to cut a long story short, there are no winners, and there were never going to be any.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SPMS)
    Basic Economics really.
    The idea is to increase Unviersity places, to increase our skill based economy, to hence further grow our economy further, we are far behind other countries in the terms of graduates it produces.
    You are saying reduce that skill base, resulting in slower growth of the economy.
    Some of the 'mickey mouse' degrees result in people having spent 2/3 years in uni getting a degree completely irrelevant to the job they get, and not being qualified in anything useful. Vocational training and apprenticeships may be of more help, and also would mean people don't rack up lots of debt due to uni years. This would result in a positive contribution to the economy.
    Not saying I agree with the OP, but just saying the argument is slightly more complex than that.
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Organ)
    I see that you are applying to politics. Surely golf management is of more direct relevance to the national economy than politics (i.e. managing golf clubs and tournaments) than politics that has minimal direct relevance to the economy. I say scrap politics instead

    The government practially is scrapping both by the way, teaching grants for courses other than the STEM ones (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics) are being removed and will be almost entirely self-funded by the student.
    But how many people actually do Golf management? I have not seen any.

    I cannot say those courses are underperforming but they are not popularly chosen by students and so what is the point of having them? They (unis) could still have it, but not as a degree. It's more like vocational course or something like that. To be honest, some degrees don't deserve a degree status. You can probably say the same for politics, but I think Politics is more traditional when it comes to university degree - it is not as 'cool' as Economics or Law I think, but it is not a bad alternative Not that I am doing it to become a Lawyer, I am just saying that it should not be scrapped and it deserves to be a degree..

    Scrap degree like golf management or surf science or beach management and give them status for vocational courses instead e.g. Diploma ....

    Yep, Politics does not directly contribute to the national economy but what is the difference between it and Economics which people regard as highly academic. Golf Management is just way too specific and business management or soemthing like that is more desirable, in my point of view. After you do business management degree then you can apply for golf club and get trained anyway.



    Sorry to offence anyone I was jsut using those degrees as examples. to suppor t my arguments... :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    OP You are a buffoon.
    The government want more people to go to university. Browne predicated his reforms on a 10% increase in student numbers. The UK is rapidly plummeting down the list of developed countries in the number of graduates produced each year. It is because they perceive a need for more graduates that they are changing the funding because the tax payer couldn't sustain the required increase in numbers under the current funding regime. Who the hell decides what degrees are most economically beneficial? More arts graduates are employed each year than science graduates.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by danny111)
    I disagree.

    There has to skilled jobs in order for the educated to utilise their knowledge.

    What the bigger problem in this country is, is the fact that if you don't go to uni, your job prospects decrease dramatically. Even though many 'graduate' jobs don't really require a degree, in terms of skills. This means that I am against simply cutting uni places, because at the moment, a university degree is the best thing that you can do to improve your career. (Please don't come up with examples of people who made it big without, the majority won't and the other side of the coin, those with a degree that made it big, a large part most likely would not have made it without that degree).
    I see what you are saying that and in some points agree but not totally, I agree that a degree does not actually give you a skill to a 'graduate' job, however it does provide you with new improved skills on a whole?
    In which case doesn't neccesseariy mean that they should be brought to a 'job' , I would look at it like they can encourage enterprise further than a less skilled person would, in which case results in the new creation of jobs and hence will increase the skilled quantity, for a new set of graduates to utilise thier knowledge and hence encourage economic growth Hence the more people that can be educated and encoruaged to be entrepenurial then more likely it will result in more postions for the graduate postions to be filled and for the economy to grow.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.