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

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    If thats what makes you happy then thats great
    running out of decent replies aint ya.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Except a) most degrees don't lead to a job because they're academic and have no direct application in and of themselves and b) the people in low skilled, low wage jobs would still be in those jobs regardless of whether they went to uni or not.
    This was the point being made in the first place, how can people not see this astounds me.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    This was the point being made in the first place, how can people not see this astounds me.
    Still doesnt mean they should be denied the opportunity of an education. Most graduate jobs are non degree specific. Your suggestion just promotes elitism.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Who said deny them? I never said deny them now, you are putting words into my mouth.

    EDIT: I would say they still would want a reputable degree, would you not agree?
    I think your OP is just alarmist. It promotes only these degrees which give an economic advantage and thereby enable the borrower to repay the money. Not everyone can or wnats to become an investment banker or lawyer.

    Education is an investment in oneself and an investment by the government into the skills of its people. It wasnt long ago and education up to degree level was free and therefore the taxpayer footed the whole bill.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Never said they did - Again you are just assuming.

    Paying £50k for a degree which is worthless is about the same as paying £50k for a luxury car with no petrol, you can experience the feeling but you are going no where and just obstructing others.

    There corrected the last line for you aswell - Define investment please.
    You seem unable to see the bigger issue or understand the value in education that doesnt pay for itself in £. Shortsighted much.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    According to the reports this morning the "average English student" has student loans of £44,000 which could rise too £50,000 in the next few years.

    If people are having their debts cleared after 30 years and also not having to pay them back until they earn £21,000 then this is just causing huge amount of debt to be passed onto the tax payer. The outstanding loan debt is £46bn and will rise to £200bn in the next 30 years - NAO

    About 50% of students are not expected to earn enough money to repay ALL their loan.
    so much for their standard of living when they can't even live a decent life but they have to pay back their loan what was the point of the degree then?

    (Original post by IneeddatgradePLZ)
    I think students should be paid to go to university, thoughts?
    Isn't this what Sweden does? or it was some country somewhere in the world...

    it's a brilliant idea
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Completely agree with the OP. Grossly oversimplifying his post but effectively loans should be more strict, especially when people can get by with not paying them after reading "Mickey Mouse" degrees et al.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by IneeddatgradePLZ)
    I think students should be paid to go to university, thoughts?
    This actually happens in Saudi Arabia, for real. Students on average get around £250-450 per month, while medical students get up to £920 per month.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Yes a Drama degree from London met is remarkably value how ignorant of me.

    Yeah that was my point however it seems its illegal to hold such views.
    Well if you read the report, then you might want to consider why students from our competitor countries leave uni with much lower debt's than UK students. You said ignorant, not me, but please yourself.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Metrododo)
    Completely agree with the OP. Grossly oversimplifying his post but effectively loans should be more strict, especially when people can get by with not paying them after reading "Mickey Mouse" degrees et al.
    Agreed, **** sport science, philosophy, physics, and medicine. Especially, medicine, they're only going to strike as soon as they graduate anyway.
    • Very Important Poster
    Offline

    19
    Very Important Poster
    (Original post by Donkey******)
    Agreed, **** sport science, philosophy, physics, and medicine. Especially, medicine, they're only going to strike as soon as they graduate anyway.
    Yes ofc people doing those subjects contribute nothing, they should stop teaching them.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    Yeah that was my point however it seems its illegal to hold such views.
    As I imagine you would as well, I wish Uni education was also free or much cheaper like other countries but the money would just come back out the taxpayer's pocket.

    Furthermore those saying "I want to study for the sake of studying" or "doing the degree for itself and not being a career sheeple" - that's all well and good, but why should the taxpayer pay for this, it's as simple as that. For nearly all degrees, the "education" provided can be found elsewhere - MOOCS (online courses) or anywhere on the internet, Uni Open courseware, libraries,...

    For instance I've more or less taught myself the entire Economics curriculum on the MIT open courseware and other other modules to prepare myself for Uni in September as well as general knowledge. The knowledge in itself is interesting but ultimately I care about having the degree that will allow me to apply to graduate jobs as many other people must feel.

    Yes, research is (thankfully) alive at Universities but let's see them as what they are nowadays - access opportunities towards graduate roles - for the most part and act accordingly.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by 999tigger)
    Yes ofc people doing those subjects contribute nothing, they should stop teaching them.
    Exactly, homoeopathy can solve this doctor's strike.
    • TSR Support Team
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    TSR Support Team
    (Original post by Metrododo)
    As I imagine you would as well, I wish Uni education was also free or much cheaper like other countries but the money would just come back out the taxpayer's pocket.

    Furthermore those saying "I want to study for the sake of studying" or "doing the degree for itself and not being a career sheeple" - that's all well and good, but why should the taxpayer pay for this, it's as simple as that. For nearly all degrees, the "education" provided can be found elsewhere - MOOCS (online courses) or anywhere on the internet, Uni Open courseware, libraries,...

    For instance I've more or less taught myself the entire Economics curriculum on the MIT open courseware and other other modules to prepare myself for Uni in September as well as general knowledge. The knowledge in itself is interesting but ultimately I care about having the degree that will allow me to apply to graduate jobs as many other people must feel.

    Yes, research is (thankfully) alive at Universities but let's see them as what they are nowadays - access opportunities towards graduate roles - for the most part and act accordingly.
    Tertiary education was never for 'graduate roles' it was to expand one's mind and study advanced works in a supportive environment. It's only recently universities have begun changing into career factories (LSE being the worst offender) and not encouraging free thought, intellectual exploration and development of the mind.

    You have to understand that not everyone's motive is to hit that magical 'six fig' figure, some go purely to develop themselves - often, a few of these free thinkers end up in grad jobs as a result of their development.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Princepieman)
    Tertiary ducation was never for 'graduate roles' it was to expand one's mind and study advanced works in a supportive environment. It's only recently universities have begun changing into career factories (LSE being the worst offender) and not encouraging free thought, intellectual exploration and development of the mind.

    You have to understand that not everyone's motive is to hit that magical 'six fig' figure, some go purely to develop themselves - often, a few these free thinkers end up in grad jobs as a result of their development.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    I know, but that's the way it is now - as I mentioned, nothing magical will be taught at Unis that you cannot teach yourself, or in groups, elsewhere. Will Hunting is mostly right in saying that education can by acquired for $1.50 and a library card (ie the internet)
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Multiculturalism)
    As if we're going to get nuked :rolleyes:
    Yeah that won't happen lol. That's what nukes are for.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TSRFT8)
    0/10 dont beg reps.
    You appear to have missed the sarcasm, it's OK, daddy wouldn't hug you, we get it.
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Little Toy Gun)
    Having educated and skilled people in the society is good for everyone not just the individuals.
    What, all these people thinking their going to work in TV by doing media studies are highly educated people!?
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    The truth is, you can't have a target to send 50% of people to uni - theirs not enough jobs in many areas. By sending more people to get degrees, the more devalued degrees become. Of course in some areas like STEM subjects, its a completely different story - we actually need more.

    I run a business, most people come in with degrees these days - whats the point if everyone has one! I don't even consider them as an employer anymore, I like people who get experience working with customers and have put themselves out there. I run a web design business, if I had 2 people. 1 who worked in a supermarket or 1 who got a degree - I would probably take the one in the supermarket (at least they got people skills and put themselves out there and done the hard work).
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Upon reading through the thread, I believe the following are the problem areas that ultimately devalue higher education (when combining them all) that cause such distaste in the topic discussed.

    1. Not enough jobs
    2. Those w/o a degree are prioritised over those w/ a degree
    3. Respect for people w/ a degree depends on what degree
    4. Increasing debt on students, increasing burden on the taxpayer

    This is a case that I have submitted to my MP when addressing the future of maintenance grants, which help those from poorer backgrounds, to access higher education. Once upon a time, women were downgraded and marginalised for what they could do, with the war effort demonstrating that there was more that women can do. Why were they downgraded and marginalised? because they did not fit the working image, the working man as the breadwinner, their gender did not fit and there was nothing women could do about that.

    Why do I mention women? It is because I believe it is students that are now being downgraded and marginalised? To suggest that every student should pay every part of the loan they are given, is to suggest every student has the ability BUT if they don't, then they don't fit the working image, because they are not wealthy or not, they did not get that job because someone 'better' got it first. There is nothing poorer students can do about being poor, just as there was nothing women could do about being women. However, when women were able to climb higher, they were able to break that glass ceiling and achieve. To go to Uni and get a degree, provides the means to be able to break that glass ceiling, that they (who did not fit) were able to achieve!

    However, the root problem, is if there is not that job at the end, that makes the degree worth while. If the student gets the degree and gets the job that works with it, then those students are more likely to pay back and perhaps pay back it all (depending on income) - and these are the students that the taxpayer doesn't have to worry about BUT the students who were not so fortunate, that have to find work elsewhere as they didn't reach the mark after working hard, only for their efforts to count for nothing! Don't you think it is hard enough for the student to find his/her result not meeting the grade and then trying to find work elsewhere, only to receive a bad reception.

    Women did not ask for the treatment they received, but it happened due to society, but a breakthrough soon emerged. Now, students did not ask for the treatment they are receiving. They did not ask for the loans, but they exercised their right/autonomy to seek an education, to brake that glass ceiling and I don't believe we should be judgemental as to the choice that students have made - and why? is this topic even existing - because of the concern that students don't pay their loans - a legitimate concern BUT once upon a time, education was free! and education was funded by the State by taxpayers money.

    Taxpayers > Tax > State > Education > Students > Higher Paid work > Higher Paid Taxes > Public Services > Taxpayers

    State > Education
    ^ If we examine this aspect...

    In the past, the State funded all education, students achieved or did not achieve, students then contributed as a taxpayer regardless of achievement and regardless of wealth - no problemo

    NOW, the State finances all education, students pay back what they can (depending on achievement and wealth) and contribute as a taxpayer regardless, the State indirectly funds education (as they were doing before) for those students that are unable to pay back or not able to pay it all back (so the only State money in HE) - all of a sudden, a problem, as students facing these difficulties are scapegoated, that they are the problem and NOT the State that is raising the fees, and making the portion of State/taxpayer funding larger to make it more of a problem

    IF the State wants to help Students to repay, then (to refer back to the original list): (1) provide more jobs that are degree-worthy to make the degree worthwhile, (2) while understandable that businesses prefer candidates with hands-on experience, open up more opportunities/apprenticeships for postgraduates that didn't meet the mark, (3) if there is an opportunity/apprenticeship for postgrads specifically, then the students' work will be respected, (4) understand the problems students face in the job market and revisit tuition fees to make repayments possible and not im-possible

    I am not totally against tuition fees personally, as I understand the reasoning why, but it needs to make sense, or students from poorer backgrounds will be even more marginalised and not have that desire to break the glass ceiling, that HE is more trouble than it is worth - and yet! we have shortages here and there in different sectors - is the answer to cut off those at the bottom end? If a teacher is too 'upper-class', then students aren't going to respect back - would it not be nice to have a student from a poor background, to become a teacher and encourage others to follow? - How can this be done if there is undue pressure to pay back it all? Will a teacher's salary even pay off the full amount? If not, shall we not promote teachers b/c their pay is not going to settle the debt? (same goes with other professions)

    Perhaps what would work more, is a standard tuition fee for the University you are attending and the facilities/resources that come with it - the 'push comes to the shove' then, for the State & the University to help Students get into work - which, upon getting work with the help of the degree, would then require a percentage of earnings to be used to give back to the system that got that work in the first place, for however long. I am not a politician though XD but the idea is partly-supported by NUS

    The National Union of Students proposed an extra tax of between 0.3 per cent and 2.5 per cent of their income above £15,000, for a period of 20 years, with the highest earners paying higher rates.

    The reason I say partly-support, is that the tax would cover all expenses, but the Lib-Dems previously argued this and lost because it was felt that the cost of University education would not cover it - so having a standard tuition fee could help. If repayments are the problem, this would solve them.
 
 
 
  • 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's your favourite Christmas sweets?
    Useful resources
    Uni match

    Applying to uni?

    Our tool will help you find the perfect course

    Articles:

    Debate and current affairs guidelinesDebate and current affairs wiki

    Quick link:

    Educational debate unanswered threads

    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.