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

should university be free but harder to get into? Watch

    • PS Reviewer
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abdul-Karim)
    Not entirely sure what that connotes?
    Do you actually not understand? It means that OP's suggestion of minimum BCC leaves all those between a bus ticket and <BCC unable to get a degree.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    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)
    Yes and they are wrong as the recruitment consultant said.

    Your view is essentially the utilitarian view. Unless study has value for the economy/employer it has no value.

    I, on the other hand, take the Alan Bennett democratic view, that education is important in itself 'pass it on' ( History Boys). That it has a value for everyone.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    I think up to around 1990, the % of people going to tertiary education was around 6%, that was when tuition was free and there were means tested grants as well. Now, its 38% so the cost to the country is a lot higher.

    If the % of UG were pegged back to 1990 levels, we could in theory have grants and free tuition again but that would mean a lot of students would never have a tertiary education.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    I think up to around 1990, the % of people going to tertiary education was around 6%, that was when tuition was free and there were means tested grants as well. Now, its 38% so the cost to the country is a lot higher.

    If the % of UG were pegged back to 1990 levels, we could in theory have grants and free tuition again but that would mean a lot of students would never have a tertiary education.
    I'm not saying this to you right but why do people on TSR ask for people's opinions on a post, they set a question to be answered, and then just attack anyone who has a different view to them? You clearly don't want an answer because you're pretty confident in your mind that you're already right and everyone else is wrong.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    I'm not saying this to you right but why do people on TSR ask for people's opinions on a post, they set a question to be answered, and then just attack anyone who has a different view to them? You clearly don't want an answer because you're pretty confident in your mind that you're already right and everyone else is wrong.
    Its called a debate, each side can put forward its arguments/ Of course each side would like to present its arguments as well as possible and sound confident in their own argument.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    I'm not saying this to you right but why do people on TSR ask for people's opinions on a post, they set a question to be answered, and then just attack anyone who has a different view to them? You clearly don't want an answer because you're pretty confident in your mind that you're already right and everyone else is wrong.
    Because this is the Socratic method of learning,. ( I think.)

    Ask questions, object to answer, ask questions, object again.

    By arguing we learn, not by being deferential; or necessarily polite.

    All good stuff.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    The permanent, plaintive cry of TSR:
    More like 'please please stop telling everybody in the world that any degree, no matter what it is, is of enough value to to make up for £27k+ in debt and the opportunity cost of 3 years without apprenticeship/work, and having me subsidise these people who will inevitably graduate with said degree and struggle to find a job they believe is commensurate with their qualification, eventually settling for signing on or a non-graduate job with little to no chance in either case of them ever returning the subsidy to me or my children'.

    More generally: I think higher education is broken. The system was somewhat better when there were fewer universities and A Levels were harder, but tertiary education was free: it imposed a natural cap, by ability, on those who went on to further study. Such a system is also a far better setup for social mobility than the current system - back then, they didn't take as much account of background and went by 'grades are grades', but nowadays there is plenty of data available for universities to set differing entry criteria by family income, school type, whatever they please. As long as it is objectively shown that an AAA private schooler whose parents are on 100k+ performs equivalently on a degree to a BBB comp schooler whose parents are on 20k-, and the entry criteria are made to match this, then I would be in total support of such a system.

    Nowadays, though, the supply side of higher education is gradually being marketised but the government has created a distortion on the demand side by a) providing extremely generous financing and b) not providing enough other options to develop a career post-A Level. This leads to the situation outlined above where students happily take degrees in courses that give them minimal employment prospects, to the detriment of both the individuals and government finances.

    And in response to one of your other posts, while there does appear on the face of it an inefficiency in teaching archaic but 'tough' subjects (e.g. Classics) at the traditional universities vs a more revelant, practical course (e.g. Business & Management) at an ex-poly, the fact remains that the fomer is more employable than the latter. As such, many graduate employers are essentially saying that degree content is of little use to them and all they want is high academic intellect as signalled by completing a tough degree at a top university. Of course if they are simply interested in that metric then there is no need to have degrees at all, save for particular careers which directly build on degree level material and academia. Again, then, this suggests a drastic slimming of tertiary education to only include courses which cater for those particular careers/academia, if we are trying to aim for any sort of efficiency.

    The alternative is to completely marketise both sides of the equation, i.e. have as many universities as they like offering whatever degrees they like with whatever entry criteria and standards they like, but also remove government funding entirely from higher education (perhaps save for the subset of degrees identified above). This will no doubt lead to most higher education spots being taken up by dumb but rich students, and may end up perpetuating significantly reduced social mobility. Hence I prefer the alternative of free but significantly narrowed, and also strongly/objectively background-adjusted, education.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Its called a debate, each side can put forward its arguments/ Of course each side would like to present its arguments as well as possible and sound confident in their own argument.
    Theres debate and then there is just slamming people who don't agree with you.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    Theres debate and then there is just slamming people who don't agree with you.
    Not my intention to slam people but I am robust if the situation demands it.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JayJay-C19)
    Yeah but you're still ignoring the other side of my argument; how would the universities have the facillities they do and teachers that they so that would make it worth attending if they had NO money coming in? The government wouldn't be able to give enough, it's under enough strain because of finances as it is without that.
    I suspect that they would be able to afford it if numbers went back to what they used to be. However, that won't happen, so we're stuck with it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carnationlilyrose)
    I suspect that they would be able to afford it if numbers went back to what they used to be. However, that won't happen, so we're stuck with it.
    Precisely.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    More like 'please please stop telling everybody in the world that any degree, no matter what it is, is of enough value to to make up for £27k+ in debt and the opportunity cost of 3 years without apprenticeship/work, and having me subsidise these people who will inevitably graduate with said degree and struggle to find a job they believe is commensurate with their qualification, eventually settling for signing on or a non-graduate job with little to no chance in either case of them ever returning the subsidy to me or my children'.

    More generally: I think higher education is broken. The system was somewhat better when there were fewer universities and A Levels were harder, but tertiary education was free: it imposed a natural cap, by ability, on those who went on to further study. Such a system is also a far better setup for social mobility than the current system - back then, they didn't take as much account of background and went by 'grades are grades', but nowadays there is plenty of data available for universities to set differing entry criteria by family income, school type, whatever they please. As long as it is objectively shown that an AAA private schooler whose parents are on 100k+ performs equivalently on a degree to a BBB comp schooler whose parents are on 20k-, and the entry criteria are made to match this, then I would be in total support of such a system.

    Nowadays, though, the supply side of higher education is gradually being marketised but the government has created a distortion on the demand side by a) providing extremely generous financing and b) not providing enough other options to develop a career post-A Level. This leads to the situation outlined above where students happily take degrees in courses that give them minimal employment prospects, to the detriment of both the individuals and government finances.

    And in response to one of your other posts, while there does appear on the face of it an inefficiency in teaching archaic but 'tough' subjects (e.g. Classics) at the traditional universities vs a more revelant, practical course (e.g. Business & Management) at an ex-poly, the fact remains that the fomer is more employable than the latter. As such, many graduate employers are essentially saying that degree content is of little use to them and all they want is high academic intellect as signalled by completing a tough degree at a top university. Of course if they are simply interested in that metric then there is no need to have degrees at all, save for particular careers which directly build on degree level material and academia. Again, then, this suggests a drastic slimming of tertiary education to only include courses which cater for those particular careers/academia, if we are trying to aim for any sort of efficiency.

    The alternative is to completely marketise both sides of the equation, i.e. have as many universities as they like offering whatever degrees they like with whatever entry criteria and standards they like, but also remove government funding entirely from higher education (perhaps save for the subset of degrees identified above). This will no doubt lead to most higher education spots being taken up by dumb but rich students, and may end up perpetuating significantly reduced social mobility. Hence I prefer the alternative of free but significantly narrowed, and also strongly/objectively background-adjusted, education.
    As the Open university has proved, many people who didn't / don't have A levels etc, can complete degree courses.

    Universities are primarily about education ( as well as offering a way to a job.)

    If people want higher education and it benefits them and the country by having a more informed population able to make better decisions then I see no problem.

    Do we really want to go back to the days when education meant learning the absolute minimum to get a job at 13, 14 15, 16? Isn't it better to keep people's options open for as long as possible?

    In a democracy we need an educated population. Otherwise the confident educated will always have the ability to pull rank on the deferential uneducated and become a self perpetuating oligarchy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TenOfThem)
    Nonsense
    Just a small sample from current students
    Attached Images
       
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    Just a small sample from current students
    Your point?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    Pay-yes
    9k-no
    3k is FINE in my books but tripling the fees is just ridiculous especially with the high accommodation costs
    Oh no, definitely. I agree it's too much but I do believe we should pay
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    Agreed, but not 9k a year
    Yeah
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    Oh look, another 30 year-old who hasn't studied any of the current or soon-to-be-implemented a-level specifications for sciences/maths
    Nah mate, early 20s and did the exact same specification everybody just did a month ago.

    I did M, FM, AFM, Physics and Chem.They were far too easy. The reason the specifications are changing is because universities have continually voiced concern that the standard of A Levels is not suitable preparation for degree level work any longer. Seriously: go read the report.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    I admit, the maths syllabus is pretty easy- especially core 1-3 and S1, but still, that doesn't mean that people still struggle with A-levels, they are still hard for current students. Especially as teachers, and adults in general, from what i understand it's natural to feel as if it were harder when you were doing A-levels, just like for me GCSE's were pretty easy on reflection, they won't be for current students.
    You suggested that A Levels are harder now and that BCC would be an offer for a "joke" degree in the early 1980s

    I pointed out that this was nonsense

    You responded with some quotes from students who think their A Levels were hard

    I am still at a loss to see your point
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    Pay-yes
    9k-no
    3k is FINE in my books but tripling the fees is just ridiculous especially with the high accommodation costs
    Who do you expect to pay for the rest of the costs?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pickup)
    As the Open university has proved, many people who didn't / don't have A levels etc, can complete degree courses.

    Universities are primarily about education ( as well as offering a way to a job.)

    If people want higher education and it benefits them and the country by having a more informed population able to make better decisions then I see no problem.

    Do we really want to go back to the days when education meant learning the absolute minimum to get a job at 13, 14 15, 16? Isn't it better to keep people's options open for as long as possible?

    In a democracy we need an educated population. Otherwise the confident educated will always have the ability to pull rank on the deferential uneducated and become a self perpetuating oligarchy.
    The point is it doesn't benefit them and nor does it benefit the country. I'm sorry, but it is not an efficient use of £27k+ of public money per person to educate anyone who so desires it in whatever they want to learn. Government finances are limited - that money could instead be used for all the other things a decent democracy needs, like scholarships for the poor, or increased R&D spending, or helping support SMEs, or increasing funding of the NHS.

    I'm an academic for academic's sake. I genuinely love learning. But I don't think it's right or necessary that the government should subsidise that desire*. If I want to learn any subject at all, I can do so for free and in my own time via the plethora of MOOCs available these days. I also think MOOCs will be a game changer for higher education as a whole, but I'm not yet sure how exactly.

    *Unless I have shown, via grades, that my ability in said subject is high enough to be of tangible benefit to society.
 
 
 
  • 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
    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.