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

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    Everyone seemed to be doing fine when they were subsidised by the government. The Government just needs to find a way to cut fees, ... Maybe increase taxes

    The cost with so many attending is simply too high

    They have effectively raised taxes but they have raised future taxes of those that benefit rather than current taxes
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    They should scrap degrees such as, oh god i can't think of any now, glass making or needlework(i doubt such degrees exist, but they're just examples) and combine various degrees into a 4-year degree. I can't think of any obvious examples i'm afraid. Sport science or something like that.
    Can you think of any degrees that you would actually scrap?

    There is plenty of discussion on this thread suggesting the degree we should scrap are things like English Literature - do you agree with that?

    I, also on this thread, suggested the cost to the students should be inversely proportional to the usefulness of the degree (in societal/economic terms) - do you agree with that?

    Alternatively - for degrees such as medicine, which I think you are looking at - perhaps there should be a system where loans are paid for you whilst you are working for the NHS
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Convince me how it will benefit all the taxpayers who won't for themselves and for their kids get a chance to go to university so that the likes of you can swan around studying English literature or art history for three years before you join a graduate scheme with barely any usable skills for the industry it which you will be working.
    If everybody has a degree, it's the norm, which means the taxpayer is in a whole load of debt, a lot of which will never be repaid, and there's simply no need for a society where a degree is the norm. BUT, if a select few have a degree and many are encouraged to do apprenticeships, learn trades such as those as electricians, plumbers, engineers then there'll be more of a balance. There'll be less debt for the economy and the tax payer, there'll be more of a difference between someone with a degree and someone without one rather than it becoming average and normal.
    Those going to uni will be the ones suited to further academic study, therefore the money the government spends on funding their studies will almost certainly be repaid back ten-fold into the system in the future.

    I don't want to join a grad scheme after my degree, I want to travel, teach abroad (TEFL) and I believe the skills I gain during my degree will absolutely be transferable and important in the future. I'm already qualified to be a L3 T.A however it's impossible to get a job as one (in my area anyway) because I'm competing with people who have degrees, masters, and even teachers, so I feel having a degree will definitely give me a better chance at getting a job as a T.A. I'm interested in publishing, editorial work and all sorts of other jobs that are linked directly to my degree choice..

    There's no point in educating absolutely everyone up to degree-standard, when we do that not only does it take away the meaning of a degree, it raises collective debt massively and there's plenty jobs such as those I mentioned earlier that don't require degrees, and those jobs are absolutely in demand.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Emememily733)
    If everybody has a degree, it's the norm, which means the taxpayer is in a whole load of debt, a lot of which will never be repaid, and there's simply no need for a society where a degree is the norm. BUT, if a select few have a degree and many are encouraged to do apprenticeships, learn trades such as those as electricians, plumbers, engineers then there'll be more of a balance. There'll be less debt for the economy and the tax payer, there'll be more of a difference between someone with a degree and someone without one rather than it becoming average and normal.
    Those going to uni will be the ones suited to further academic study, therefore the money the government spends on funding their studies will almost certainly be repaid back ten-fold into the system in the future.
    No actually what you are saying is that you want a nice life paid for by lots of people who will have much grottier ones as a result of such a policy.

    When higher education was expanded in the 1960s the point was appreciated but the decision came down in favour of grants

    Higher education, it is argued, is an investment that, in many cases at least, carries with it the prospect of earnings substantially higher than the earnings of those who have not had it. Admittedly it is highly desirable that this privilege should not be confined to those whose family position enables the necessary finance to be forthcoming - la carrèire ouverte aux talents is an important social objective. But if finance is provided by outright subsidy from public funds, it is said, a new position of privilege is created: the recipient of the subsidy is being put in a position to command a higher income in virtue of taxes paid, in part at least, by those whose incomes are smaller.
    However, Gove put it more succinctly 4 years ago:-

    Someone who is working as a postman should not subsidise those who go on to become millionaires
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    No actually what you are saying is that you want a nice life paid for by lots of people who will have much grottier ones as a result of such a policy.

    When higher education was expanded in the 1960s the point was appreciated but the decision came down in favour of grants



    However, Gove put it more succinctly 4 years ago:-
    No.. I'm not saying that. You come across a very bitter, troll-like angry person, are you saying that an electrician has a grotty job? My cousin would disagree with you - he loves his job, he's very glad he didn't pursue a degree as he knows in himself he's more suited to his trade. A system with fewer people with degrees, more people in apprenticeships and trades would benefit everyone - there'd be less debt, more payoff in the end and I believe, much lower levels of unemployment. I've said all I've got to say on the matter.

    edit; actually find it disgusting that you refer to electricians and other trades as "grotty", you are absolutely stuck up yourself to the max. I sure hope people like you aren't allowed into uni.
    Offline

    21
    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.
    Its a plan. I think it is too "command economy" myself.

    My view is that two things need tackling.

    The first is transparent pricing rather than the raft of cross subsidies that current exist,

    Secondly, students have got to be made to care about that pricing, which means a retreat from income contingency in the loans. Clearly you cannot have simple "commercial loans" but I think if the top slice of fee loans was not income contingent (and of course the top slice is where any differences will lie) you will approach something like a free market on the demand side, without pricing the poor but bright out of the market. I accept that the Courtauld may become even more the preserve of trustafarians but I am not sure that equality of opportunity means lotus leaves for everyone.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    I also think that some graduate and expect to get a job overnight, we'll it doesn't always work like. Often people graduate but they don't always use their degree knowledge into interviews or even selection application.

    I have come across do many people on here who have graduated in history with a 2:1 yet when it comes to the job they just don't emphasis what they have learned or apply it to job


    Nightworld1066
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    It's also about finding what works for you a job as electrician will pay the bills, get off benefits system etc but ultimately you gotta work hard


    Nightworld1066
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Abdul-Karim)
    Much tougher entry requirements.. suggests BCC.

    /thread
    Loool tell him akhi
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    Nothing is free,someone has to pay for it.

    Some would like ordinary working men and women to pay taxes to fund certain other privileged people to go to uni for free,to think themselves better than their benefactors and then speed ahead of them in life in many respects without a whiff of recognition or gratitude.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Its a plan. I think it is too "command economy" myself.

    My view is that two things need tackling.

    The first is transparent pricing rather than the raft of cross subsidies that current exist,

    Secondly, students have got to be made to care about that pricing, which means a retreat from income contingency in the loans. Clearly you cannot have simple "commercial loans" but I think if the top slice of fee loans was not income contingent (and of course the top slice is where any differences will lie) you will approach something like a free market on the demand side, without pricing the poor but bright out of the market. I accept that the Courtauld may become even more the preserve of trustafarians but I am not sure that equality of opportunity means lotus leaves for everyone.
    Yeah, the government has something a little bit like what you're espousing for postgrad or mid-career education - it's called the Professional Career and Development Loan. Essentially you can borrow money with the government backing the loan and covering the interest for the duration of your course, but you have to start paying it back within 3 months or so after your course is done - regardless of employment status/income.

    That level of income-unconditionality may put off too many poorer students, but I do think there is scope for some level of it to be introduced. I'm not much of a 'command economy' ideologist myself, so if there is a suitable marketised or semi-marketised system then I'm all game for it. However pragmatism and results are more important than ideology, so I'm willing to go with whatever works best. I do stand by my assertion that the current system is far from ideal for many students, the public purse, and society as a whole.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    Yeah, the government has something a little bit like what you're espousing for postgrad or mid-career education - it's called the Professional Career and Development Loan. Essentially you can borrow money with the government backing the loan and covering the interest for the duration of your course, but you have to start paying it back within 3 months or so after your course is done - regardless of employment status/income.

    That level of income-unconditionality may put off too many poorer students, but I do think there is scope for some level of it to be introduced. I'm not much of a 'command economy' ideologist myself, so if there is a suitable marketised or semi-marketised system then I'm all game for it. However pragmatism and results are more important than ideology, so I'm willing to go with whatever works best. I do stand by my assertion that the current system is far from ideal for many students, the public purse, and society as a whole.
    Have the terms changed? I thought it was the first month after finishing. Hope I'm wrong.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mutleybm1996)
    Not off the top of my head. I'd think they should keep all of the traditional subjects, so keep English Literature.
    Explain why you think I, as a tax payer, should pay more to fund someone doing an English Lit degree (lets face it - a subject that is studied for self interest nothing else) but at the same time refuse to fund a Sport Science Undergraduate - given that we live in a time when society needs more people who understand the health risks/benefits associated with sports
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carnationlilyrose)
    Have the terms changed? I thought it was the first month after finishing. Hope I'm wrong.
    Barclays says: "pay nothing until two months after you finish your course (including a one-month interest holiday)". So looks like we were both wrong

    Possibly the co-op's terms are different?
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    Barclays says: "pay nothing until two months after you finish your course (including a one-month interest holiday)". So looks like we were both wrong .
    Well, that's slightly better than I thought, but worse than you did. I assume the Co-Op have the same terms?


    Ten, you have wounded me.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carnationlilyrose)
    Well, that's slightly better than I thought, but worse than you did. I assume the Co-Op have the same terms?


    Ten, you have wounded me.
    Just looked it up. "You pay back nothing until one month after your course is complete." Everything else looks exactly the same.

    Barclays 1 Co-op 0.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ClickItBack)
    Just looked it up. "You pay back nothing until one month after your course is complete." Everything else looks exactly the same.

    Barclays 1 Co-op 0.
    The threads in the postgrad forum go back a long way and seem to suggest that actually getting the loan from the Co-Op was easier than Barclays, so it kind of evens up.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Explain to me how going back to the day when Middlesex Poly had the largest philosophy faculty in the country will help anything.

    Oh you again, Are the UCU paying you overtime ?

    To answer the Q, That would have no bearing in universities since they wouldn't be one and hopefully to do Phil at a ' real ' uni, the entrance requirements would be a lot higher.

    So if people want to pay 7500 to do Phil at a institution which is recognised as a notch lower in class than ' real ' unis then so be it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Zenomorph)
    Oh you again, Are the UCU paying you overtime ?

    To answer the Q, That would have no bearing in universities since they wouldn't be one and hopefully to do Phil at a ' real ' uni, the entrance requirements would be a lot higher.

    So if people want to pay 7500 to do Phil at a institution which is recognised as a notch lower in class than ' real ' unis then so be it.
    I think we have the nub of it. Provided they don't call them universities, so far as you are concerned "out of sight, out of mind".

    Well of course, governments which have to fund these things can't operate like that.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by plasmaman)
    Why did it take 5 years?
    I did my NVQ/BTEC whilst working full time. I wouldn't want to be doing my course without the experience I've had, though


    Posted from TSR Mobile
 
 
 
  • 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.