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

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Oh, do come on, as soon as it happened the same businesses that hire university students from outside the top 40 would start hiring A-level students. Do you really think businesses think academia teaches students essential skills for the world of work? If anything, capitalists probably see universities as dangerous places of self-expression and would rather poach the kids young and mould them into subservient workers.
    But right at the start there'd still be loads of graduates in the job market from the days before the unis got shut, so at first there'd be absolutely no incentive for taking on A-level students, and that'd take 20-30 years before the number of graduates dropped to a low enough level to make taking on A-level students worthwhile. And no, degrees aren't perfect for a job, but they do teach more about what it's like to work long hours and live by yourself, and it's still one more set of experience/knowledge over A-levels.

    And by making such a ridiculous political statement, any valid point you might have had has been overshadowed.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SpiggyTopes)
    If people want to go there then why can't they?
    Because it is a waste of their time and money, and it devalues degrees.

    (Original post by SannaS)
    So students who aren't as high achieving and can't get in to the top 4 unis shouldn't go uni then? Selfish prat, having the opportunity for education outlaws it's cost, if you want free tuition so much go Scotland and get residence there
    :facepalm:
    You are aware that a degree from uni is NOT the same, NOR equal to that from a higher uni? It is a waste of time and money and is tantamount to a country wide scam.


    (Original post by Theflyingbarney)
    Just because somebody earns a degree from a less reputable institution it doesn't mean that what they've learnt is of no value, just that it's less impressive than that from a more reputable one. By closing all unis except the top 40 you'll be stranding everybody with less than roughly ABB at A-level with no option to gain any higher qualification than that, and no opportunity to do any specialised course. Plus, it'd be disastrous for the graduate jobs market, and massively increase unemployment. Yes, university costs a lot for the country to run but it's a lot cheaper than having a shortage of graduates and loads of extra unemployed/underemployed people sitting around.
    Yes
    it
    does

    I have known absolute idiots graduate from uni, this showing anyone moron can. And these people are so stupid that they must have learnt next to nothing from that degree.


    (Original post by TobaccoSmoke)
    Basically you're suggesting that it's a good thing that we have loads of low ranking universities with their main purpose of existence to hide the true unemployment figure?
    Oh you went there! :rofl: That is exactly what is going on and why labour fuelled it.


    (Original post by Popppppy)
    Going by the Guardian's league table this would result in closing down both universities in Northern Ireland, meaning those who don't want to/can't afford to travel across to England/Wales/Scotland cannot access higher education.

    Where would Northern Ireland get Doctors, Nurses, Lawyers, Engineers, any graduates for that matter?
    The rest of the UK? :teehee:


    (Original post by KayleighG)
    I chose A levels which are mainly exam based, I'm no good at exams but I have the same level of understanding as everyone else, I just don't get the grades to get into a top university. The degree I want to study is mainly coursework, why should I prevented from going to University, when I genuinely love learning because I'm not coming out with AAB?
    Degrees are not for fun. It is an investment. That is why.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)

    Degrees are not for fun. It is an investment. That is why.
    Yet people do this, because they get A's and into "top" University's. I don't want to go to University for fun, I genuinely want to learn more, but because I'm not as intelligent as other people who want to have fun I would be prevented if something such as this went ahead.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    The rest of the UK? :teehee:
    Oh Jimbo, you're so funny.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMonarchist)
    It would be better to shut down all these arts and humanities courses
    Do you mean artsy-fartsy-doo-dah or law/ BA Psychology ect?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    I believe economists call it the multiplier effect. The government invests x amount and gets x+y in return (to put it simply). In the case of universities, they immediately see money returned through income tax and national insurance from staff. They get better staff working for them which reduces expenditure and increases income. They also increase the productivity in the private sector through better staff and opening up new areas of investment. For instance, it was the Soviet government which put the first satellite into space. But now private companies can afford to do it. If they were left to their own devices the advance would never have been made on a cost-benefit analysis.

    Your vocational idea above is a perfect example of the problem. Yes, the individual plumber might have a good salary. But their multiplier effect is weak. The plumber does not actually generate any positive effect from their work. They are simply returning things to an equilibrium. A university-educated engineer, on the other hand, might create a more efficient central heating system which will save everyone across the planet money. Plus they create demand for semi-skilled plumbers who merely learn how to fix a small part of the system.

    For what it is worth, the government does not 'seriously prop up a lot of universities with grants'. (See my comment above for starters). On a very basic level, they merely act as a creditor to allow students to study in the first place (i.e. they loan students money to pay universities), and of course they make interest on these loans that are repaid so they are hardly selfless.
    Okay, I see your point, but I must ask:

    Where do universities get their funding from? I was under the assumption that a lot of university money came from the government, either via tuition loans or via direct funding from the government. If this is the case, then money returned in tax etc doesn't really compare to the amount of money the government pays out to the staff in the first place.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Theflyingbarney)
    But right at the start there'd still be loads of graduates in the job market from the days before the unis got shut, so at first there'd be absolutely no incentive for taking on A-level students, and that'd take 20-30 years before the number of graduates dropped to a low enough level to make taking on A-level students worthwhile. And no, degrees aren't perfect for a job, but they do teach more about what it's like to work long hours and live by yourself, and it's still one more set of experience/knowledge over A-levels.

    And by making such a ridiculous political statement, any valid point you might have had has been overshadowed.
    I personally don't believe this to be the case. I think it's another slice of the 'reason to go to university' propaganda pie.

    Going to university does teach you to live away from home - unless you're a stay at home student or you study at a university close to home.

    I don't think a degree teaches you long hours, and if it does, then you can learn the same work-ethic elsewhere.

    I can't think of a single job-specific improvement university has made to my life. Other than moving to a city and finding more work opportunities (which I could have done without going to university).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with this mainly because people who go to better university's are the ones who can afford to pay back their student loan whereas many people who do useless degrees can never pay it back so it seems people who work harder and get into better degrees end up paying for the useless degrees of others. (This is just generally and obviously doesn't apply to everyone)


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TobaccoSmoke)
    League tables. They're usually very accurate and respected by top employers.
    Troll. You got be ****ing kidding me. So much fail in this sentence :facepalm:
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Because it is a waste of their time and money, and it devalues degrees.



    :facepalm:
    You are aware that a degree from uni is NOT the same, NOR equal to that from a higher uni? It is a waste of time and money and is tantamount to a country wide scam.




    Yes
    it
    does

    I have known absolute idiots graduate from uni, this showing anyone moron can. And these people are so stupid that they must have learnt next to nothing from that degree.




    Oh you went there! :rofl: That is exactly what is going on and why labour fuelled it.




    The rest of the UK? :teehee:




    Degrees are not for fun. It is an investment. That is why.
    Bottom line is: degrees from RG are better and degrees from ex-polys/non-top universities are worth less. If people stopped gaining degrees from non-top universities and kept degrees for the cream of the crop students they would be more valued? Less unemployment for graduates?

    Surely that means that all graduate jobs would go to the top university students and not students from ex-polys. Your theory seems floored as employers are quite happy to employ graduates from the likes of Man Met/Portsmouth

    My brother went Nottingham Trent part-time and now earns £120,000 a year and my sister went Man Met and works in New York in a top magazine. I can't wait to go Portsmouth in September
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    How ridiculous. Tomorrow I'll be firming a university which is in the 70s and rejecting one in the 20s. The higher ranked university is less respected for my course, and in a really horrible place. League tables don't mean everything
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TobaccoSmoke)
    League tables. They're usually very accurate and respected by top employers.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcus2001)
    this made my night:rofl:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Jimbo1234)
    Because it is a waste of their time and money, and it devalues degrees.
    People should be allowed to chose how they spend their time and money so long as it causes no harm to anybody else.

    No it doesn't! If you have a 2:1 from Oxford, nothing will change the fact that you have a 2:1 from Oxford, it will still be a 2:1 from Oxford! It's like the argument gay marriage devalues hetero marriage.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Op's post in translation: "I'm at a Russell Group Uni and I'm struggling to get a 2:2. If I had my way, it would mean my degree is worth something. Must belittle others to gain self worth"
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AntiMonarchist)
    It would be better to shut down all these arts and humanities courses
    Justify.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TobaccoSmoke)
    League tables. They're usually very accurate and respected by top employers.
    now we know you're trollin...
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ilickbatteries)
    Okay, I see your point, but I must ask:

    Where do universities get their funding from? I was under the assumption that a lot of university money came from the government, either via tuition loans or via direct funding from the government. If this is the case, then money returned in tax etc doesn't really compare to the amount of money the government pays out to the staff in the first place.
    Of course the government receives less back from income tax than it pays out. Though in a mixed economy it is not that simple. In financial terms, the member of staff will pay other things which go directly to the (local) government, for example council tax and VAT, and they will spend the rest of their wage in the private economy which supports other people (e.g. shelf stacker in Asda). But that is not the point I was making. The multiplier effect is about the member of staff generating positive benefits. For instance, a lecturer might cost the government £30,000 per year. But that lecturer teaches students and might write an article or book that year. That work supports staff in a publishing house. Then people buy that work. More and more gets given back to the government in pure financial terms. But of course academia is about the ideas in the work. The work might be a journal article describing the results of a drug trial which get fed back into the NHS, saving millions of pounds and thousands of lives etc., etc.. All these people live longer and fitter lives, paying more tax and finance the original pay of the lecturer.

    But to get back to the main point. Higher education is not a statutory provision. Unlike mainstream education and the NHS, which would simply absorb any extra budget allocated to them, higher education has to compete for funding by meeting strict criteria so it not a case of being simply allocated x amount of funding. (The same applies for further education with regards to the Skills Funding Agency).

    The government really only provides an element of stability and stimulates growth. The removal of the teaching grant for most subjects ultimately means, while the taxpayer loans the student the money upfront, the student is funding higher education now. It is not right to say that the money comes from the government. It is a basic credit agreement. It is like saying Barclays funded business x because they provided a loan which allowed business x to expand in the short term. That is not the case at all. Business x funded itself and said it would be liable no matter whatever the consequences (i.e. pay interest if they can pay the loan or become insolvent if not).

    Funding can come from lots of places though. Alumni, charities, other government departments, postgraduate students, private businesses, investors, private interests, people using facilities, and learned societies. For example, 40% of the University of Oxford's income for 2011/12 came from 'external research sponsors'.

    A very simple example is a university library. From your point of view the government pays for it. But by having those resources the university has created a multiplier effect. First of all, it supports students studying. Secondly, it helps lecturers create new research. Thirdly, I am not a student at the university but I paid to join as an external member. The university continues to generate more and more income on from its original investment.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Lol this debate... I have sympathy for students who aren't 'Oxbridge' material or whatever so unis who allow students with not so impressive grades still allow them to take opportunities .... What else could people do without university ?!


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Universities also teach life skills and are not only just built up of academic merit.... everyone should have the opportunity to go to university regardless of amazing grades.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you rather give up salt or pepper?
    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

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