STEM students should pay higher tuition fees

Announcements Posted on
How helpful is our apprenticeship zone? Have your say with our short survey 02-12-2016
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    The best predictor of your future earnings is your parents earnings. Students from wealthier backgrounds tend to go on to earn more... and wealthier students also tend to be over-represented at "prestigious" universities.

    Be careful with your cause and effect...
    intelligence is genetic
    IQ is strongly correlated to earnings and success.
    what came first the chicken or the egg?

    however that is going off topic obviously their are a lot of highly intelligent people from poor backgrounds just as a generic rule higher intelligence is likely to be more represented in wealthier back grounds.

    On top of this wealthier parents can will and do use their resources in ways to help their children get onto stem subjects and more prestigious universities. heck take a look at the private tutor industry they would never be able to command that money if people could achieve the same results without even bothering to go to university just by osmosis because they came from privilege.

    There is a disadvantage to coming from a poorer back ground for sure, and unless we change society in ways that would radically alter it for the worst it would be literally impossible to completely overcome this.

    However in order to get the most prosperous society we can we should strive to make sure that everyone has the opportunity for success, and that we reduce disadvantage as much as realistically possible.

    The best way to do this is by making sure that everyone can make informed decisions not by living in a delusion that a Theology degree from Chester is worth as much as a maths degree from Oxbridge.

    Better support, more resources into nutrition and education and a decent family back ground will give young people more chance of getting into Oxbordge UCl or Imperial the UKs big four. However when an employer comes to making the decisions they will say wow an Oxbridge maths degree not wow how big is your parents mansion again.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Using some basic economic principles, the idea posted in the OP will simply serve to reduce the number of people applying for STEM subjects, as many people and their parents will lean more towards the cheaper degrees as all they will think of is having less debt, thus reducing the number of qualified scientists and engineers in the future. Those who would have been pioneering scientific innovation and driving economic growth would be replaced by people who cannot find a job due to excess supply in areas such as journalism and other cheaper degree-related fields. Effectively, you'd damage the economy massively in the long run. In addition, it would be excessively difficult to determine what degrees and courses at which universities would be charged at what price - does a degree like economics class as STEM even though at some unis it involves very little maths? What about business, which often produces highly paid graduates?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    I've no idea. Ask them...

    (It doesn't counter the point that this degree has economic utility.)
    Keep telling yourself that, you might make yourself believe it.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    The best way to do this is by making sure that everyone can make informed decisions not by living in a delusion that a Theology degree from Chester is worth as much as a maths degree from Oxbridge.
    I've already given you chapter and verse on Golf Management at Birmingham do you want me to show the social utility of Theology at Chester too?

    Mathematical Sciences at Oxford : 92% employed or in further study after 6 months
    Theology at Chester : 100% employed or in further study after 6 months

    I'm not saying everyone should study Theology. I'm saying you need to stop talking down about courses that you consider somehow beneath you. It's not a good place to be.

    Oh, and by the way, if everyone did Maths at Oxford (or more generally STEM at the Big 4 universities, whatever that means) their "prestige" would be lost anyway...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Maker)
    Keep telling yourself that, you might make yourself believe it.
    You don't consider the golf industry has economic utility? A £4.3 billion business in the UK alone?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    I've already given you chapter and verse on Golf Management at Birmingham do you want me to show the social utility of Theology at Chester too?

    Mathematical Sciences at Oxford : 92% employed or in further study after 6 months
    Theology at Chester : 100% employed or in further study after 6 months

    I'm not saying everyone should study Theology. I'm saying you need to stop talking down about courses that you consider somehow beneath you. It's not a good place to be.

    Oh, and by the way, if everyone did Maths at Oxford (or more generally STEM at the Big 4 universities, whatever that means) their "prestige" would be lost anyway...
    You're quoting courses that should all be on the job learning. The only reason they aren't is because universities are becoming money making pits.

    On the job learning, keep in mind, can still lead to degree level qualifications.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SomeGuyHere)
    You're quoting courses that should all be on the job learning. The only reason they aren't is because universities are becoming money making pits.

    On the job learning, keep in mind, can still lead to degree level qualifications.
    Employers complain that many highly academic courses are poor preparation for work, but you think we should have more of them?

    And it's not me making the course comparisons...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    Employers complain that many highly academic courses are poor preparation for work, but you think we should have more of them?

    And it's not me making the course comparisons...

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    On the job learning are courses like apprenticeships where you're actually doing the job and learning from those who have done it for years. Often 1/4 of your time is spent in college. The exams are normally the same. Most construction jobs do it this way and shipbuilding have such paths into them(wields, electrical engineering etc).

    Not sure what you thought I was saying. It's degrees that some industries have a problem with because they don't give any practical experience. It's why more and more have added placement years because without them finding a job after was ten times more difficult.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jneill)
    I've already given you chapter and verse on Golf Management at Birmingham do you want me to show the social utility of Theology at Chester too?

    Mathematical Sciences at Oxford : 92% employed or in further study after 6 months
    Theology at Chester : 100% employed or in further study after 6 months

    I'm not saying everyone should study Theology. I'm saying you need to stop talking down about courses that you consider somehow beneath you. It's not a good place to be.

    Oh, and by the way, if everyone did Maths at Oxford (or more generally STEM at the Big 4 universities, whatever that means) their "prestige" would be lost anyway...
    http://university.which.co.uk/univer...00-v600-198870

    the average graduate salary for a theology graduate from Chester is 16500
    minium wage is £7.20*37.5*52=14040

    now after tax
    £14040=£12714
    £16500 salary= £14387

    this is £1673 a year difference.

    it cost £9000 a year tuition fees which =£27000 however we need to take the opportunity cost for 3 years of not working full time. I will assume for the sake of argument that from September every year until to June every year the student works part time and from July-end of august they work full time this is far too generous.
    7.20*20*44=6336+ 8*37.5*7.20=2160
    this leads to another 4218 a year which * 3 = 12654

    when added to the £27000 we get £39654

    even on this modal it takes 24 years to pay this back ignoring interest and all other costs.

    The only reason this makes sense economically is because you don't have to pay it back unless you earn over a certain threshold basically because you now don't have to pay it back.

    http://university.which.co.uk/univer...000-g100-13234

    the average graduate salary for OXbridge maths exceeds £30000

    which after tax gives £22422

    a graduate premium of £9708.

    the degree would have paid for itself in almost 4 years.

    That is one heck of a difference.


    now as for employment figures some universities lower down have been caught employing their own graduates to boost their figures for employment. I am not going to say Chester have done this because I have not looked at Chester for this specifically. But any figures of 100% are dubious. I look at the actual value of graduates salary as an average rather then employment figure. If employment is above 85% that is good enough.

    Chester's figure barely beats minimum wage. I can get that salary by working in call centers or working a number of menial jobs which pay slightly above min wage. Literally I am not even sure if their graduate average salary would actually beat what I could expect without ever having to do a degree.

    I am not talking down courses which I believe are beneath me as you put it. If someone is really passionate about Art or Theology and they have a genuine desire to pursue that for a career then fair enough. I do however think it is only fair to point out that this is not an economically positive move. You can argue their are other priorities to economics and I can understand that position but this thread has been mostly talking about economic salary expectation and utility.

    I would still want to do a maths degree even if the evidence showed it was terrible for graduate employment for what its worth, I guess I like maths. However if maths did have poor figures I would be honest and say so, rather then try to make out it had just as much economic value as degrees which it clearly did not match for economic opportunity.

    As it so happens maths is a good degree economically though so yay me .

    I want the best for myself I set high standards for myself. You can argue that there is nothing wrong with working as a checkout girl/boy at tesco for the rest of your life. You know what if your happy with that then fair enough, but I am not.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Lh030396 STEM subjects are generally much more intellectually demanding than art subjects, so there is a reason why graduates earn more. But what you're technically saying is that students of art subjects should pay less, not that STEM students should pay more. You can't just demand a lower tuition because the subject you want to study won't really get you highly-paid job, lol.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Ringstone)
    The funding position is more that 50% of the population, instead of about 10% in the old days, now go to university - and who ever said 50% of the population was "university material"?

    Ally that to the fact that many of these students are studying the equivalent of "Comparative Morris Dancing" and the State can no longer afford to uniformly subsidise degrees, particularly those whose economic or social utility is not obvious - to be polite - BSc in Applied Golf Course Management [Birmingham] anyone? A BSc for Goodness' sake!

    STEM degrees are however unquestionably useful, and therefore still attract indirect subsidy.
    It's all a matter of choice. The State chooses to subsidise certain courses it sees as socially or economically useful, if you choose to pursue one that is not viewed in that way that is an issue for you, but don't complain about it.

    Your argument that, because you choose to follow a course of study valued by neither society or employers, somebody else should help to pay your fees verges on the needy. It's £9000 a year, take it or leave it, if it's neither financially or emotionally worth it to you, go do something else.
    In terms of your comments on STEM employers, it's five or six years between an engineer graduating with a Masters and getting their Charter as a fully fledged, fully trained professional engineer - during which their sponsoring company has considerable input.
    I never suggested that 50% of the population is ‘university material’.

    The problems is in the ‘old days’ there were significantly more employment opportunities available for unskilled and semi-skilled workers. There is little, if any, heavy industry or manufacturing is left in the UK. These industries used to employ thousands of people and train them on the job (e.g. car manufacturing, mining, steel works, textiles). What industry is left is highly mechanized or produces more specialized, high-value equipment (e.g. aerospace, electronics, pharmaceuticals). These industries employer fewer staff and expect them to be more highly educated. The size and scope of these employers mean that only the biggest can offer training or contribute towards education at university. There has also been wide-spread privatization which have significantly reduced the number of employees across the board. There has also been a social change where significant number of women have entered the employment market and put pressure on a dwindling number of jobs.

    No one suggested STEM degrees are not useful (though I would dispute your suggestion that they are unquestionably useful). They criticised your suggestion that non-STEM subjects were not useful. jneill demonstrated your criticism of golf management was just prejudice. Your example of comparative morris dancing is also a strawman argument. No course exists. But if it did I could understand why it would. Tourism makes up an increasingly significant amount of the rural economy (where there is an absence of other employment opportunities). The employment market has changed beyond all recognition. More people need to attend university and do specialist courses. Just because you do not think they have any value does not make it so.

    People like you seem very happy to judge others choices without offering any solutions. If universities tried to reduce the number of students then these people would most likely be unemployed and not have the skills to seek employment or become self-employed themselves. The increasing number of graduates in mature economies suggests this is a natural trend. Education is important in a knowledge economy.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    [...] now as for employment figures some universities lower down have been caught employing their own graduates to boost their figures for employment. I am not going to say Chester have done this because I have not looked at Chester for this specifically. But any figures of 100% are dubious. I look at the actual value of graduates salary as an average rather then employment figure. If employment is above 85% that is good enough. [...]
    On the contrary, it tends to be more prestigious universities who employ their own students. The career service at my university effectively pays employers to take students on work experience placements. Less prestigious universities simply do not have the money to do this so I do not know where you get that idea from.

    Your points about employment rates and graduate salary are funny. The NHS is the largest employer in the UK by an absolute mile. Graduates of healthcare courses would expect 100% employment rates. Yet their graduate salary is capped because of pay scales. (The same applies to teachers).

    If your logic does not work with the largest group of graduates who actually obtain graduate level employment then perhaps you need to rethink how you approach the issue.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    On the contrary, it tends to be more prestigious universities who employ their own students. The career service at my university effectively pays employers to take students on work experience placements. Less prestigious universities simply do not have the money to do this so I do not know where you get that idea from.

    Your points about employment rates and graduate salary are funny. The NHS is the largest employer in the UK by an absolute mile. Graduates of healthcare courses would expect 100% employment rates. Yet their graduate salary is capped because of pay scales. (The same applies to teachers).

    If your logic does not work with the largest group of graduates who actually obtain graduate level employment then perhaps you need to rethink how you approach the issue.
    I would think the NHS would target stem subjects over theology. If I am wrong with that then I guess I could add to the reasons to be glad I have private health care insurance.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Luke7456)
    I would think the NHS would target stem subjects over theology. If I am wrong with that then I guess I could add to the reasons to be glad I have private health care insurance.
    My comment criticised your evaluation of non-STEM/STEM subjects on economic/employment grounds. Did that go completely over your head?
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by evantej)
    My comment criticised your evaluation of non-STEM/STEM subjects on economic/employment grounds. Did that go completely over your head?
    no it didn't go over my head it is just nonsense. I consistently state that their will always be exceptions but I am speaking about generic trends, then people like to go what about this exception.

    The NHS has many problems and giving one example of an employer who is disingenuous. When I refer to low graduate salaries what I am getting at is people who end up working as Shelf stackers call center work kitchen porters etc. that is why they have such low figures. Teachers and Medical roles are respectable careers, it seems like your trying to point at a one specific peculiarity to try and imply that low salary figures are misleading.

    Prove to me that a Theology degree or an art Degree is needed to work in the NHS, if you can then this would be a case for major problems within the NHS.

    when I refer to universities employing their own graduates I am referring to practices like employing them for a few hours on near min wage as cleaners or library assistants etc. Just to boost their stats.

    if a university is paying to get me into a prestigious job that just sells the university more.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=Luke7456;68050140]intelligence is genetic
    IQ is strongly correlated to earnings and success.

    Not according to this person - but hey, what does a professor of developmental neuropsychology at the University of Oxford know. ( Professor Dorothy Bishop ).

    'Where does the myth of a gene for things like intelligence come from?
    There's a widespread belief that individual genes determine traits such as intelligence, optimism, obesity and dyslexia. But genetics rarely works that way'
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Gatewaymerge)
    Another thing is that STEM students have 30 hour contact times while humanities have around 5 hours max. We got to standardise the price of lectures.
    The problem with your reasoning is that you are comparing chalk and cheese. ( I also think that many Arts' subjects have more than 5 hours - I had more than double that.)

    Many STEM subjects require hours in Labs. - hours which are obviously hours worked and supervised. It does not follow that the notional fewer contact hours that Arts Students have are really fewer hours either worked by the students or hours spent by their lecturers preparing and marking their work.

    Take a languages' student who may spend 3-5 hours preparing a translation, which will be painstakingly marked by the lecturer - yet apparently this only translates ( sorry) into 1 lecture hour. or, a literature student who may read 10+ + books for a single essay, following just 1 hour of a lecture, to be marked in great detail by the lecturer.

    These students are in reality getting a lot of individual attention , maybe more than STEM students?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by honour)
    Lh030396 STEM subjects are generally much more intellectually demanding than art subjects, so there is a reason why graduates earn more. But what you're technically saying is that students of art subjects should pay less, not that STEM students should pay more. You can't just demand a lower tuition because the subject you want to study won't really get you highly-paid job, lol.
    Are they? Generally more intellectually demanding than eg. Philosophy, Law, Languages, Psychology ........Perhaps you should have a go at some of these and see how you get on.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lh030396)
    Yes, I do think that the more prestigious the university the higher the fees. Clearly Oxbridge should be charging more than Anglia Ruskin...
    And I'm sorry but I have to disagree with the notion that 'a degree is a degree.' That's just not the case these days. I wish that it was, but in this day and age of economic hardship more importance is placed on the practical scientific and mathematical subjects than the philosophy-type degrees...
    You know there is really not the correlation between ' practical scientific and mathematical subjects' and what's good for the economy, that you imagine. Even less is there a correlation between these subjects and what's good for the country as a whole, for people as a whole.

    There are million/billion pound industries which do not require scientific / mathematical skills.

    For people to live a rounded fulfilling life they need the Arts - film, sculpture, paintings, books, music; an understanding of human society and how it has developed ( history, geography, philosophy, psychology, sociology, politics, etc. )

    Just studying science and maths just won't do. We ignore all these things at our peril. Ignorance leads to bad decisions in both Arts and Sciences.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #ChaosKass)
    I would begin with a base of £20,000 a year, then universities would be able to adjust them based on supply and demand (this would require the higher education sector to be completely privatised, to allow universities to have complete control).

    I would not completely abolish them, but put severe restrictions on the quality and quantity of people who are accepted onto them, for example if you want to do psychology then you would need to have evidence of wanting a career in psychology, not just because you want "the university experience" and are picking the easy course.
    Hmm, so Psychology is an easy course?

    There is a argument that knowledge is important for its own sake - the more people learn about the human condition eg. the better people they will be - not just the more they will earn, but the better citizens, friends, parents, politicians, doctors, managers, lawyers etc. We are, arguably, more tolerant, wiser even, than we were 300 hundred years ago because of the wider access to education. Education in its broadest sense is what help us to be human.

    Psychology helps us to understand how people think and react - pretty important. We no longer throw people into deep dungeons and starve them, burn them at the stake , sell them into slavery because we have learnt to have empathy. You don't learn this from a study of maths and science only.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: October 31, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Today on TSR
Poll
Would you rather have...?
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

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.