Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    labour wanted everyone in FE to keep the unemployment figures down.
    high unemployment is one of the worse things for a government in terms of re-election
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Phew, thank god I decided not to reapply this UCAS cycle. On the King's website the entry standards for my course have increased and according to the BA handbook the intake of students has risen 10-25% each year.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BrightGirl)
    What? If you introduce an extra £1000 out of people's own pockets, that will just make uni unaccessible to people with hardly any money.
    £1000 a year isn't much, and people who can't afford to put aside even that much would be devastated by living costs. I know some relatively poor people with family incomes less than £20k, and they managed to put aside enough to pay tuition without a loan. People should think about the cost.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Phalanges)
    So universities will find themselves in a position where they can pick only the very best applicants?

    Doesn't sound dreadful at all.
    Thing is, though, I'm a total moron. More competition is bad for me :eek3:
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Oh, yippee for me.

    I guess I'm not too bothered. I was planning on getting straight As for A level so I should be fine... right? Right? :eek:
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by a.posteriori)
    Thing is, though, I'm a total moron. More competition is bad for me :eek3:
    Well then universities will be glad they get better candidates than you then.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For me it's no longer a simple issue of universities being too accessible, it's the quality and cost of this education that troubles me.

    The reason the government want you in university is because it frees you from needing a job for three years. If the government can get more people into university then they've achieved a short-term fix to the economic crisis by providing more jobs for those that really do need it. We only have to look at the school system to see that overcrowding reduces the quality of education and this will happen at universities to an unprecedented level.

    If you attend a mid-to-bottom table university, namely any new or post-polytechnic university you'll have noticed that there are more students on campus now. These universities receive a ton of applications with many of these applications becoming worthless as they're chosen at insurance choices, so with clearing looming and a ton of empty seats the universities can open their doors and make as much money as they need; who cares if the facilities are stretched? It's only a polytechnic. It's surprising to know that a large number of ex-polytechnics are doing rather well for themselves from this student population boom, whereas the lack of money in HE is crippling some of the better academic institutions.

    The final nail through the heart of university-level education is trade degrees. I am of the opinion that a degree shouldn't be tailored towards a job; I dread the day that I go onto the UWE website and find BSc Plumbing. Universities seem to be taking anything that requires a level of skill and time and turning it into a degree, and it's great for them as they can charge £3K a year for a number of trade courses or closely-related courses.

    I guess it's easy to say this as I'm close to finishing my course, but I think that universities should be allowed to charge whatever they want for a degree and should have to handle their own admissions. £3K is too cheap for a good education and three years of your life is too expensive for the education that students are receiving, so top universities should be allowed to charge more for a great education and to limit those that apply and ex-polytechnics should be able to reap the rewards of being accessible by charging more and being able to improve facilities. Outside of this I think that universities should only be able to charge for courses based on quality; that is to say that if a student isn't fully happy with the level of education they've received they should be entitled to their money back.

    Only high-quality education should be accessible and at the moment it appears that both sides aren't getting the quality they deserve. Three years is too long to be spent in a poor academic institution and if faced with the prospect of attending university again I'd think seriously against it as I could write everything substantial I've learned there that I wouldn't learn in a work environment on my hand.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikejpb)
    The reason the government want you in university is because it frees you from needing a job for three years. If the government can get more people into university then they've achieved a short-term fix to the economic crisis by providing more jobs for those that really do need it.
    So why are they cutting places now?
    Why were they increasing places when unemployment was at a 25 year low?

    Why you say doesn't stack up to reality.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    since about 2006 people have been going to uni on credit, simply can't go on with the numbers of students involved ...CUTS.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Quady)
    So why are they cutting places now?
    Why were they increasing places when unemployment was at a 25 year low?
    I'd like to see some figures to back up what you're saying, so I'll provide my own.

    As you can see before 2005 unemployment did fall, but by mid 2005 it kept rising up to the peak of where it was in 2008. Despite the rosy outlook on that graph a lot of the dip can be put down to a number of things; the slump in the early 90's and the rise in demand near 1998 can explain the fall in unemployment, and the recent spouts of unemployment stemming from immigration and the collapse of the manufacturing industry in the UK, not to mention our recent recession. However, when looking at the bigger picture the loss in the labour markets is not responsible for the highs and lows since the 60's.

    Saying that we were at a 25 year low doesn't mean that we're all got jobs and everyone is happy. That 25 year low just says that we're in less trouble than we were during our time with this lovely woman; take from that what you wish.

    (Original post by Quady)
    Why you say doesn't stack up to reality.
    A similar system seems to work reasonably well in a country called America. Their universities are making obscene amounts of money and that can be seen by the level of education one receives in their higher institutions.

    Of course I may be wrong, I don't claim to be an expert in economics, nor do I claim to know much about the university system here and abroad. To me it just seems that what many refer to as the best three years of your life aren't as great as they could be.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mikejpb)
    I'd like to see some figures to back up what you're saying, so I'll provide my own.

    As you can see before 2005 unemployment did fall, but by mid 2005 it kept rising up to the peak of where it was in 2008. Despite the rosy outlook on that graph a lot of the dip can be put down to a number of things; the slump in the early 90's and the rise in demand near 1998 can explain the fall in unemployment, and the recent spouts of unemployment stemming from immigration and the collapse of the manufacturing industry in the UK, not to mention our recent recession. However, when looking at the bigger picture the loss in the labour markets is not responsible for the highs and lows since the 60's.

    Saying that we were at a 25 year low doesn't mean that we're all got jobs and everyone is happy. That 25 year low just says that we're in less trouble than we were during our time with this lovely woman; take from that what you wish.



    A similar system seems to work reasonably well in a country called America. Their universities are making obscene amounts of money and that can be seen by the level of education one receives in their higher institutions.

    Of course I may be wrong, I don't claim to be an expert in economics, nor do I claim to know much about the university system here and abroad. To me it just seems that what many refer to as the best three years of your life aren't as great as they could be.
    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/e...-year-low.html

    Thatcher wasn't in power in '77 was she?

    I was going by people claiming JSA.

    There has to be unemployment for a labour market to operate, its impossible for it to be zero.

    Your saying the UK was still suffering the slump of the early 90s after the dot com boom had burst?

    You forgot to mention why places are being reduced now as unemployment is rising...

    A lot of analysis into causes of unemployment doesn't hide that places rose while unemployment fell and is now falling as unemployment is rising.
 
 
 
The home of Results and Clearing

2,722

people online now

1,567,000

students helped last year
Poll
A-level students - how do you feel about your results?
Useful resources

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.