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

Education is now a product not a service Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    Your house is burning, you call the fire brigade, they sort it out, you benefit.
    How does one benefit from their house burning? Insurance claims?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    I think it's an appropriate choice of words to get my point accross
    I understand the point you're trying to get across but using it in terms of a 'product' or 'service' is ridiculous.

    Education is still a service... there's no two ways about it. The only way it could be turned into a product was if they just gave you a text book and said "learn this!" with no lectures, tutorials, seminars, workshops etc.

    People pay for lots of services and it could be argued that people don't really pay for products anymore, they're paying for the service. For example, people who go to Starbucks buy coffee... but are also looking for the whole package of their friendly staff, their warm interior, cosy sofas and the good conversations they are likely to have over that cup of coffee. They part with their cash full well knowing that they expect more than just the cup of coffee.

    I think you've presented a ridiculous analogy, I'm sorry.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    By making education a "service," you already made it a "product." Real education is neither.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    a public service is something which is provided to all free of charge (paid indirectly through tax obviously)

    a product is something the individual choose to pay for at their own risk
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    a public service is something which is provided to all free of charge (paid indirectly through tax obviously)

    a product is something the individual choose to pay for at their own risk
    Well, you never said a public service, you said a service.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Not exactly: even a completely "free" public service is a product - instead it's a product provideded socially by the state.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    A product is something that is made to be sold. Anyway, you both know what I mean, stop being so petty.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    A product is something that is made to be sold. Anyway, you both know what I mean, stop being so petty.
    A service is also something that is provided to be sold. I'm not being petty, I'm just a business student, this is what I do.

    Would you honestly consider a law firm or a consultancy group to sell a 'product'? No, they provide a service that you pay for. It's exactly the same in terms of education.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The government and tax payer pays for you to stay in education until your 18. For 13 years of your life, you get a good education. University isn't something you are "entitled" to, it is something you should earn. The previous government promoted everyone to try and achieve for University, as they thought that it would provide more highly skilled Brits and with the constant rise in immigrants, I'd imagine they expected them to probably do more of the lesser work along with the 50% who didn't want to.

    Your £7K doesn't go towards the government to pay off debts and whatever. It pays for you to go to university, it's your choice. The government can't afford to send 50% of teenagers to go into university, along with post-graduates, along with foreign students, along with people who want to take a gap year and what not. If you think your £7K pays completely for your education think again, the government isn't profiting from you going to university, society is. The government is trying to get you to go so you can benefit society, but it can't send everything there in it's current state, why do people overlook this. Yes it'll cost more for people to get the bigger loans out, but in the long term it'll mean the government will be able to support itself for future generations who want to go and then they might go down. Yes it sucks that some of us will have to pay the higher fees, but that's life I'm afraid.

    At the end of the day, would you rather get some of the best education in the world for £7K, get all the opportunities that come with it and the skills or keep them low, have 50% of the country who are just as skilled as you. I do think University should be for the best and you can call me elitist for it, but university isn't for everyone. I'm not some big shot who's going off to Cambridge, I'm an above average student sure, but I'm not saying this because "Oh your parents must be rich and be able to pay for it" no, I'm just being realistic.

    The government isn't making money from this, infact it's losing it. You're not paying millions upon millions a month, you'll pay the same as everyone else who's earning the same as you. If you're not prepared to pay for the chance at university, don't apply. There are other options available to you, you're not screwed if you don't go to uni.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HJV)
    The same argument that is used for tuition fees could also be used - without any change - to putting high fees for calling the fire brigade.
    They already do this in parts of the USA I believe.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Xhotas)
    The government and tax payer pays for you to stay in education until your 18. For 13 years of your life, you get a good education. University isn't something you are "entitled" to, it is something you should earn. The previous government promoted everyone to try and achieve for University, as they thought that it would provide more highly skilled Brits and with the constant rise in immigrants, I'd imagine they expected them to probably do more of the lesser work along with the 50% who didn't want to.

    Your £7K doesn't go towards the government to pay off debts and whatever. It pays for you to go to university, it's your choice. The government can't afford to send 50% of teenagers to go into university, along with post-graduates, along with foreign students, along with people who want to take a gap year and what not. If you think your £7K pays completely for your education think again, the government isn't profiting from you going to university, society is. The government is trying to get you to go so you can benefit society, but it can't send everything there in it's current state, why do people overlook this. Yes it'll cost more for people to get the bigger loans out, but in the long term it'll mean the government will be able to support itself for future generations who want to go and then they might go down. Yes it sucks that some of us will have to pay the higher fees, but that's life I'm afraid.

    At the end of the day, would you rather get some of the best education in the world for £7K, get all the opportunities that come with it and the skills or keep them low, have 50% of the country who are just as skilled as you. I do think University should be for the best and you can call me elitist for it, but university isn't for everyone. I'm not some big shot who's going off to Cambridge, I'm an above average student sure, but I'm not saying this because "Oh your parents must be rich and be able to pay for it" no, I'm just being realistic.

    The government isn't making money from this, infact it's losing it. You're not paying millions upon millions a month, you'll pay the same as everyone else who's earning the same as you. If you're not prepared to pay for the chance at university, don't apply. There are other options available to you, you're not screwed if you don't go to uni.
    I think if university is reserved for the academically gifted then it can be a public service free of charge. This is how it was before the 1990s.

    The idea to privatise education and double the amount of students had the intention of raising the skill level of the British workforce to adapt to a capitalist economy but it was a very naive concept. A person of average (academic in this case) ability will always end up in an average paid job; it is impossible to make people 'cleverer'. They did however want to give the illusion they were making people cleverer which is why they lowered entry requirements and make a degree a perfectly achievable qualification even for people of below average academic ability.

    The main hole in the privatisation argument is that it is based on 'if you want an advantage in the job market, then you should have to pay for it'. Whilst this is a fair comment in neglects the fact that with an ever increasing number of graduates, the idea that a degree guarantees a top job is absurd. What will happen with this generation is the people with 1sts and 2.1s in well respected courses will take the to jobs. People of average ability will get average jobs, regardless of a piece of paper which says they have a 3rd class degree in media studies.

    Higher education should be a public service to to the academically gifted who will in turn fund it by the high income tax they pay on their top salaries.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by garethDT)
    I think if university is reserved for the academically gifted then it can be a public service free of charge. This is how it was before the 1990s.

    The idea to privatise education and double the amount of students had the intention of raising the skill level of the British workforce to adapt to a capitalist economy but it was a very naive concept. A person of average (academic in this case) ability will always end up in an average paid job; it is impossible to make people 'cleverer'. They did however want to give the illusion they were making people cleverer which is why they lowered entry requirements and make a degree a perfectly achievable qualification even for people of below average academic ability.

    The main hole in the privatisation argument is that it is based on 'if you want an advantage in the job market, then you should have to pay for it'. Whilst this is a fair comment in neglects the fact that with an ever increasing number of graduates, the idea that a degree guarantees a top job is absurd. What will happen with this generation is the people with 1sts and 2.1s in well respected courses will take the to jobs. People of average ability will get average jobs, regardless of a piece of paper which says they have a 3rd class degree in media studies.

    Higher education should be a public service to to the academically gifted who will in turn fund it by the high income tax they pay on their top salaries.

    I do agree with you that paying for a degree does not necessarily mean you will get into a higher paid job and be able to pay it back, but on average getting a degree does open doors. There will be those that get lucky, who meet the right people at university and make the right connections who'll excel ahead of the others, but that happens in a capitalist society. Some people will pay £30K for a degree in Sociology and probably still end up working behind a Mcdonalds counter. The same could happen for someone with a Law degree, History degree, but that happens. Going to university doesn't mean you'll get ahead of everyone else, but it gives you the chance to try to. Some people won't get it, others will, but that's just life.

    I'm sure the Government would love to be able to close down some courses, but you know what would happen if they did. "Elitist Tories closing down university just for the Elite" "Labour promises to re-open them if elected" if they closed down a media faculty at every university (for example sake) they can't win at all. But something had to be done, if they went down the route of making sure only the academically gifted will go to university, people who don't believe in that will oppose, students will oppose and generally people will oppose and then they lose office at the next election. They try to appeal to the masses, but they can't when it comes to education. Everyone wants a free one, everyone wants to get ahead, but it just won't happen.

    If the media had to maintain complete neutrality, then politics would be so much easier.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CitizensUnited)
    There's a counter-argument that a society where everybody has degrees has its own problems, e.g. in getting an experienced plumber, or an experienced bricklayer.
    The value of those jobs will go up as less people choose to do them, at which point less people will get degrees to fill those roles. It'll sort itself out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Prince Rupert)
    'Education' is not exclusively university education though, it includes primary and secondary education that EVERYONE gets for free

    It's perfectly possible to leave school at 18 (as will be law soon) and have a successful life, the many millionaires who left school at 16 would testify to this
    Well quite obviously a university degree isn't an absolute necessity to become a millionaire (if that's one's goal in life), but you can't deny that there is a correlation between wealth and level of education.

    The job of the government is to enable people to live better lives, and provision of university education is one such way.
    This.:rolleyes:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thegenius31416)
    You evidently do not understand the difference between the term 'product' and the term 'service'. :facepalm:
    Haters gonna hate.:rolleyes:
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mituozo)
    The value of those jobs will go up as less people choose to do them, at which point less people will get degrees to fill those roles. It'll sort itself out.
    not unless they come up with carpentry/plumbing degrees first. In which case everyone would stay in education for longer, so they don't come in the unemployment statistics, because that's the thing the government just can't deny, the further we shamelessly pursue capitalism, unemployment will inevitably rise.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Student)
    How does one benefit from their house burning? Insurance claims?
    You benefit from the arrival of the fire brigade because they stop your house from burning down due to you being stupid and leaving the cooker on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I find it funny that people actually think that the taxpayers will pay less when in fact they won't.

    The taxpayer pays the full amount of the initial up front costs whether its through loans or through government funding.

    If tuition costs £3290 per year then over 3 years it costs roughly £10,000.

    If tuition costs £9000 per year then over 3 years it costs £27,000.

    £17,000 more than it initially did.

    The whole system will cost the taxpayer a lot more initially as the students don't pay anything until they have graduated and are in a decent job. Even then its unlikely that students will pay it all back which will hit the economy hard.

    The Liberal Democrats & Conservatives clearly haven't thought through the long term economic impact.

    The main reason the government has cut the budget and are using bigger loans is so they can use that part of the budget elsewhere now. That then means they can free up funds elsewhere to save money and cut into the deficit.

    However, when students graduate with this mass amount of debt and do not pay it all back then it will become a burden on the taxpayer as the debt will have been unpaid. The ones who will then have to pay for this are the taxpayers including the students who have got good jobs and are paying back - so therefore, the extra tax raised from successful graduates will not going into boosting the economy but will go to pay off the loans of graduates who have

    1) done Mickey Mouse degrees at the expense of the taxpayer
    2) have not got a graduate job to pay back the loan

    The most logical solution is a graduate tax. This will then mean students will apply for courses that are far more likely to lead to a good career than doing a course in Surfboarding or Equestrianism, which lets face it, do not have very lucrative career paths - unless you are actually fully involved in the sports and take part in competition - which you do not need a degree for in the first place.

    The new system will put a massive burden on the economy and the taxpayer in the long term.

    It was bad enough under Labour as loans were not being paid back but now with increased debts not being paid back then the impact on the economy will be worse.

    Under the current system the average student leaves with between £20,000-25,000 debt. So lets take £25,000

    If ten students do not pay back that loan then thats a £250,000 debt that the taxpayer needs to clear. If one hundred do not this leaves a burden of £2.5m on the economy - the taxpayer.

    Under the new system students are likely to leave university with between £40,000-50,000 so I'll take the lowest in this circumstance.

    If ten students do not pay back that loan then thats a £400,000 debt that the taxpayer needs to clear. If one hundred do not this leaves a burden of £4m on the economy - the taxpayer.

    Also, as the threshold under the new system is higher then less are likely to pay back which means the taxpayer, some of which will be graduates, will pay it through taxation.

    People keep waffling on about how the students are paying more when in reality they are not because there is no guarantee they will ever pay it back - realistically, the taxpayer pays more so anyone who is a taxpayer and voted in favour of the increase is really dumb, it must be said.

    Why on earth would you want to pay loans of £6000-9000 to cover tuition when you were only paying £3290?

    The overall outcome of the new system means that the taxpayer will pay more and universities will then get more money to get more funding << those that charge £6000+.

    The rest of the universities are likely to struggle and either shut down or merge with each other.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jb9191)
    I find it funny that people actually think that the taxpayers will pay less when in fact they won't.

    The taxpayer pays the full amount of the initial up front costs whether its through loans or through government funding.

    If tuition costs £3290 per year then over 3 years it costs roughly £10,000.

    If tuition costs £9000 per year then over 3 years it costs £27,000.

    £17,000 more than it initially did.

    The whole system will cost the taxpayer a lot more initially as the students don't pay anything until they have graduated and are in a decent job. Even then its unlikely that students will pay it all back which will hit the economy hard.

    The Liberal Democrats & Conservatives clearly haven't thought through the long term economic impact.

    The main reason the government has cut the budget and are using bigger loans is so they can use that part of the budget elsewhere now. That then means they can free up funds elsewhere to save money and cut into the deficit.

    However, when students graduate with this mass amount of debt and do not pay it all back then it will become a burden on the taxpayer as the debt will have been unpaid. The ones who will then have to pay for this are the taxpayers including the students who have got good jobs and are paying back - so therefore, the extra tax raised from successful graduates will not going into boosting the economy but will go to pay off the loans of graduates who have

    1) done Mickey Mouse degrees at the expense of the taxpayer
    2) have not got a graduate job to pay back the loan

    The most logical solution is a graduate tax. This will then mean students will apply for courses that are far more likely to lead to a good career than doing a course in Surfboarding or Equestrianism, which lets face it, do not have very lucrative career paths - unless you are actually fully involved in the sports and take part in competition - which you do not need a degree for in the first place.

    The new system will put a massive burden on the economy and the taxpayer in the long term.

    It was bad enough under Labour as loans were not being paid back but now with increased debts not being paid back then the impact on the economy will be worse.

    Under the current system the average student leaves with between £20,000-25,000 debt. So lets take £25,000

    If ten students do not pay back that loan then thats a £250,000 debt that the taxpayer needs to clear. If one hundred do not this leaves a burden of £2.5m on the economy - the taxpayer.

    Under the new system students are likely to leave university with between £40,000-50,000 so I'll take the lowest in this circumstance.

    If ten students do not pay back that loan then thats a £400,000 debt that the taxpayer needs to clear. If one hundred do not this leaves a burden of £4m on the economy - the taxpayer.

    Also, as the threshold under the new system is higher then less are likely to pay back which means the taxpayer, some of which will be graduates, will pay it through taxation.

    People keep waffling on about how the students are paying more when in reality they are not because there is no guarantee they will ever pay it back - realistically, the taxpayer pays more so anyone who is a taxpayer and voted in favour of the increase is really dumb, it must be said.

    Why on earth would you want to pay loans of £6000-9000 to cover tuition when you were only paying £3290?

    The overall outcome of the new system means that the taxpayer will pay more and universities will then get more money to get more funding << those that charge £6000+.

    The rest of the universities are likely to struggle and either shut down or merge with each other.
    Realistically though the amount of graduates who in the next 30 years will never earn more than £21k is ridiculously small. Also you don't seem to be taking into account that everyone's interest on the new rate will be very significant, and will certainly outweigh the money lost on those who slip through the net.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Education is a product we consume, and it's been that way for a considerable time. The New Labour govt turned education into a British Rail - everybody could get on board for a small fare. Before that, higher education was reserved for bright people only. That was also an era where there was no such thing as teaching Policing or Nursing in a classroom or lecture theatre - you couldn't get degrees in those subjects as you had to do ON THE JOB training. A better and cheaper system.

    When the problem is cost, there is one holy cow that nobody dares mention in all of this. That is, it's not the universities that cost the govt a lot of money in subsidies, it's the NHS. Massive, bloated, ineffective, a relic of the post-War British recovery. Doctors cost the taxpayer well over 100K a year each, yet most of their time is spent dispensing painkillers and diagnosing minor infections and ministering to the elderly. How does the education system at present help with this? It doesn't .. it just makes it much WORSE.

    How does it make it worse? Nursing is becoming a 'profession' instead of a vocation because of these various nursing and medical degrees e.g. Radiography. An inferior one to physician but still bloody expensive so we need to get foreigners/agency staff to take up the mundane jobs of wiping asses in the hospital wards and sweeping up. Policing is becoming a 'profession' because of these bull**** degrees too. Which is better, a paid traineeship where a trainee cop goes out walking on the beat, or sits in a lecture hall for 3 years thinking he's a lawyer because he knows PACE and the Theft Act?

    We need a healthy injection of common sense and higher education has to be significantly cut back. This country was built on heavy industry and colonies. Both of those are long gone. The 'service industries' never arose to take their place. There are no jobs here except for unskilled eastern European labourers or being some sort of lackey to the latest fashions of the rich. This is NOT a country that can accommodate the expectations of tens of millions of graduates. We need to get people out of student mode in early adulthood and into apprenticeship mode. Higher education should once again be only for the few.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Did TEF Bronze Award affect your UCAS choices?
    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.