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

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by herzblut)
    Am I the only person in the world who thinks it is kind of amazing that we are at the dawn of an age where it will soon be the norm for people in the developed world to be educated to degree standard?
    I certainly hope so. Most people aren't capable of undertaking such education, and there isn't a demand for them if they were.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    I wouldnt, just as I dont like paying tax for people to go and spend it on getting drunk in the form of EMA.

    All I am doing is questioning your interpretation of the purpose of Unis. I mean some of them produce foreign leaders and foreign businessmen and thats not of any use to us?
    Ahh. I'm not saying that's the purpose of uni, I'm saying that subsidising degrees that just suck in money and are entirely useless is wrong.

    EDIT: View subject to revision. Maybe I'm saying that that is the purpose of subsidising university rather than the purpose of university itself. Hold on, I'll get some whiskey and try and actually take a viewpoint.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aspiringlawstudent)
    What sort of UCAS points / A-level grades do you think make someone a top academic candidate?

    Someone at my college genuinely said that CCC were "top grades" today and i literally guffawed.
    Well if a whopping 12% of candidates get AAA or better, a top candidate would have to do significantly better so it would be A*A*A*.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I think there need to be changes to the system to prevent funding being wasted on the growing number of students who don't seem to value it as education rather than just lifestyle, but I'm not sure that means reverting to the days when only the top few went to university. The service orientated British economy is nothing without a well-educated workforce and cutting back to 10-15% going to university seems rather drastic. Ideally, we want to get as many people to get a good quality university education as possible, but we want to try to avoid a system which encourages people not taking it seriously to take degrees they don't really need or have an interest in.

    The problem, as far as I can see, is that as it stands people who aren't as academically qualified or motivated take on courses which are irrelevant to any jobs they're likely to do and which aren't very well respected by employers, when really young people in this sort of situation would be much better served by vocational qualifications tailored towards gaining useful skills for the sorts of jobs they're likely to do. Courses which don't have the kind of high academic standards that will help students develop general skills should be a lot more limited than they are now, so that only those with a genuine interest and passion take them on, instead of them being a default option for people who aren't qualified enough to do something with a better reputation.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    Why would you want your tax money to go to someone studying a nonsubject at a pointless university (ie to get drunk for three years), who then goes on to get no benefit and a huge debt.
    But the question is, what is a pointless subject?

    This is a pretty much weekly proposal in GUD and not one person has really convinced my that the degrees they consider to be "soft" or "pointless" actually are.

    Named courses include: -

    Golf Course Management - Do we need a degree in it? It's more complex than people give it credit for and not as mickey mouse as it may sound. One degree I saw was just a branch of business studies. Has quite a high employment record (higher than academic degrees like English and philosophy)

    Nursing - This profession has become increasingly complex over the years as more routine tasks are taken over by health care assisstants and nurses more heavily involved in diagnosis and management of chronic medical conditions.

    Equine Science - Not just looking after horsies. It includes animal science, nutrition, biology and chemistry. The equine industry is worth millions and particularly important to the rural economy.

    Subjects like "film studies" are also mentioned. But these same people who criticise it go quiet when it's pointed out to them that "top ten" universities offer this course (e.g. Warwick).

    University is about education and passionate scholarship. All of the subjects I've mentioned above and many more have genuine academic worth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Well if a whopping 12% of candidates get AAA or better, a top candidate would have to do significantly better so it would be A*A*A*.
    My question was aimed at the OP really; i agree with you that A*A*A* or better would be a top candidate, but am curious to see what the OP thinks it is.

    If OP agrees with this then that wouldn't provide nearly enough graduates as i would assume that 1% of applicants at the very most would get A*A*A*
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    Ahh. I'm not saying that's the purpose of uni, I'm saying that subsidising degrees that just suck in money and are entirely useless is wrong.
    How come?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Yes but bright kids often leave state schools with mediocre GCSE/A-levels because of the rubbish teaching. Those with potential would have done much better had they been offered better tuition in private schools. So if you say ''No one with less than AAB (for example) can be admitted to university then you are cutting out the students who get less than that from state schools who could had done better at other schools. So then you're opening up a can of worms regarding class/university.

    I suggest watching:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode...John_Humphrys/

    Brilliant documentary and very relevant to this thread.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Teveth)
    The suggestion is idiotic and lacking in sense. The idea that Britain should CUT the number of people going to university is ludicrous. We are already behind many developed countries.

    One of the things we do best in Britain is education. We should protect it from suggestions like those of the OP with venom. A more educated society is a better society.
    My god I nver thought I would say this but he is right.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teveth)
    The suggestion is idiotic and lacking in sense. The idea that Britain should CUT the number of people going to university is ludicrous. We are already behind many developed countries.

    One of the things we do best in Britain is education. We should protect it from suggestions like those of the OP with venom. A more educated society is a better society.
    If education is the thing we do best in this country then we should be very worried indeed. Just because everyone has the right to an education until they are 16 (or is it 18 now?) doesn't mean the education they are receiving is good. Our education system isn't about learning, it's about propping up the egos of the people at the top by endlessly testing to generate useless statistics. What happened to learning for fun and become more knowledgeable?

    How is it possible that you can go onto university with Es at A Level? Perhaps what is needed is to stop emphasising the university route as the 'best' route. Apprenticeships and going into work after school or college would be far more useful than postponing real life for 3 years, only to come out with a bad degree from a mediocre institution. At the same time, it shouldn't be expected that academically able people go to university. It's not the only way to make something of yourself.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aj12)
    My god I nver thought I would say this but he is right.
    Perhaps if he had written

    A more appropriately educated society is a better society.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    But the question is, what is a pointless subject?

    This is a pretty much weekly proposal in GUD and not one person has really convinced my that the degrees they consider to be "soft" or "pointless" actually are.

    Named courses include: -

    Golf Course Management - Do we need a degree in it? It's more complex than people give it credit for and not as mickey mouse as it may sound. One degree I saw was just a branch of business studies. Has quite a high employment record (higher than academic degrees like English and philosophy)

    Nursing - This profession has become increasingly complex over the years as more routine tasks are taken over by health care assisstants and nurses more heavily involved in diagnosis and management of chronic medical conditions.

    Equine Science - Not just looking after horsies. It includes animal science, nutrition, biology and chemistry. The equine industry is worth millions and particularly important to the rural economy.

    Subjects like "film studies" are also mentioned. But these same people who criticise it go quiet when it's pointed out to them that "top ten" universities offer this course (e.g. Warwick).

    University is about education and passionate scholarship. All of the subjects I've mentioned above and many more have genuine academic worth.
    Those subjects sound like they'd do just fine as vocational courses. You can't claim they have genuine academic worth when compared with the purer and considerably more difficult traditional courses.

    Personally I think that we don't need so much investment into higher education on the scale that we have now. Yes, study of history and english is important, but there are plenty of other things worth spending taxpayer money on. If people consider it so important, they can pay for it themselves.

    I consider the hard sciences, engineering and medicine the sorts of subjects worth subsidising on account of them being significantly more expensive yet so beneficial to the economy as a whole. A high tech manufacturing based economy seems to be to be the ideal direction in which this country should move~
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by adam_zed)
    How come?
    The money could be spent on something better (or not taxed in the first place). Do you have a point to make?
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    (Original post by Good bloke)
    Perhaps if he had written
    Well I don't really consider some of the courses on offer right now real education.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AskMeAnything)
    I was just pondering on university.

    Instead of making it more expensive, wouldn't it be more ethical to just cut the size of UK universities to make them smaller - go back to the days of 10-15% of people going into higher education, perhaps bringing back privately funded polytechnics for vocational skills.

    This way, only the top academic candidates go to university regardless of wealth - keeping student finance for those left over, obviously. Because currently what's going to happen is that intelligent but poorer candidates are going to be priced out of uni with 10,000 pound a year courses et cetera.

    Discuss!
    Indeed.

    If tuition fees do go up to 10k per year, it'll mean coming out of uni with about 40k of debt for the poorest students.

    I'd simply reduce the amount of people going to university by imposing a minimum grade threshold of at least 3 Cs at A2 or the equivalent of to accommodate other level 3 qualifications. Less students would be going to university - reducing the amount of funding required overall. This saving means tuition fees won't need to go up, so able students won't have to pay 10k to fund students who've scraped into London Met to do a degree in which the average student has 110 UCAS points...

    I don't have the exact figures but I would like to know how much it costs to fund students who achieve less than 240 UCAS points/CCC/other level 3 equivalent to do a poor degree at a poor university.

    I'm not against resits in the slightest, btw. If you get CCD, resit and get BBC then by all means you should apply to university. However I'd hate to see able students put off university by the cost, when measures could be taken to significantly reduce the funding universities require.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    Those subjects sound like they'd do just fine as vocational courses.
    Despite the ever increasing amount of science and sophistication in these roles? I've already mentioned that nursing is a far more complex role than it was.

    I'm sure we can say the same about engineering then if we take it far enough.

    [/QUOTE]Yes, study of history and english is important, but there are plenty of other things worth spending taxpayer money on.

    if people consider it so important, they can pay for it themselves.
    [/QUOTE]

    So if I want to become a curator, for example, I'd need to pay for my undergrad degree myself alonsgside the required masters and PhD? That will stretch into six figures quite easily.

    There are a wide range of graduate jobs, vital to both the economy and society, where a humanities background valued as a science background.

    I consider the hard sciences, engineering and medicine the sorts of subjects worth subsidising on account of them being significantly more expensive yet so beneficial to the economy as a whole. A high tech manufacturing based economy seems to be to be the ideal direction in which this country should move~
    But they already are subsidised far more than the arts are.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by meowmeowmutiny)
    The money could be spent on something better (or not taxed in the first place). Do you have a point to make?
    I did have and I can be bothered to pursue it in this slow way. dw
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Purely from a funding point of view I'd like to see some official figures sometime about how much we subsidise EU students for uni education, as we are obliged to, compared to how much other EU nations subsidise our students going abroad. I'd also like to see some stats about how many graduates go abroad and never get taxed to subsidise the next generation of graduates here. These seem to me to be areas where not much can be done but we are probably losing money.

    As for forcing fewer people to go to university I think we should be funding as many places as possible, but in the right subjects. The government should take greater control over which subjects are studied and put quotas in place, much like those already in areas like medicine, as to how many people at institutions can study what, thus ensuring that we have the right amount of graduates in the areas our economy needs while stopping people taking subjects that are fairly unnecessary for us. This would quite possibly lead to cuts to humanities, as has been mentioned above as a good idea, but the courses would still exist, just with fewer places on them subsidised.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    People in this thread are saying that a student loan of 40k is affordable for poorer people - patently untrue. A degree (especially anything under a 2:1) is so commonplace these days that there's no guarantee they'll have very good prospects at all. My mate considers himself only able to go to uni if he earns 10 grand over the next year before uni, because he's already been 'priced out'. Do you really think someone who is right at the bottom of the social ladder - maybe doing one of these 'mickey mouse' degree's, can afford a 40 grand debt?

    But that won't affect the upper-middle class and above, and thus it's unethical.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by River85)
    Despite the ever increasing amount of science and sophistication in these roles? I've already mentioned that nursing is a far more complex role than it was.
    As far as I'm aware, the cutting edge in medical research isn't happening in the field of nursing. Nursing is a vocational subject and there is nothing wrong with that. As for the others, as far as I know none of my friends in businesses are really looking for graduates in golf management or anything like that. If you want to study something like that then that's great, just pay for it yourself.

    I'm sure we can say the same about engineering then if we take it far enough.
    Not really, no.

    So if I want to become a curator, for example, I'd need to pay for my undergrad degree myself alonsgside the required masters and PhD? That will stretch into six figures quite easily.
    If it is valued then I'm sure there'll be someone willing to invest in you.

    There are a wide range of graduate jobs, vital to both the economy and society, where a humanities background valued as a science background.

    But they already are subsidised far more than the arts are.
    Then I'm sure people will pay and others will invest in it. The reason I'd subsidise science and technology is on the basis that it is an area with such huge benefits to the economy and to quality of life, and one that we're rapidly going to fall behind on.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Has a teacher ever helped you cheat?
    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.