Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

UK to Have the Worlds Most Expensive Degrees watch

Announcements
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    You seem to be making this odd assumption that doing a strong academic course correlates to a high-paying job, so the people doing respected courses will be able to handle high tuition fees.

    As a science undergrad you will surely know that careers directly related to science (i.e. R&D) don't pay that much, despite being valuable to our society. If you burden science graudates with a huge debt, thye'll be put off heading into these less well-paid science-related careers, which is detrimental to our science & technology sector. Ideally we want all our intelligent science graduates to be making contributions to technological innovation, and allowing Britain to expand its science sector; not just rushing into finance jobs.

    I agree that high tuition fees make sure people make considered decisions about whether or not to go to university, but you're just punishing valuable graduates.
    I think that assumption is correct. Some R&D careers don't pay much, some do. But most science grads don't go in to R&D. Lots go in to law, finance and other 'high paying' sectors, as well as being generally employable at a higher salary than a less-qualified person.


    Why do we want all our science grads to be working in science? They have lots of skills past that, they are suitable for a huge range of careers and to pigeon-hole them all in to "go do R&D" is not the way forward. I am physics undergrad at a top uni, I am on for a first, and R&D is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever. The science degree will open the door to lots of careers which do interest me though, and that's what I'm doing it.

    Again - a higher tuition fee won't really punish the top grads. If anything it is a good thing for them, if I could choose tuition fees to rise astronomically after I graduate or even now, then great, there will be a lot less competition for graduate jobs down the line. Rising tuition fees puts more pressure on the weakest graduates, not the strongest ones.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    I was wondering if people consider games related courses 'mickey mouse' degrees, because if they do, then they are retards.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by asdfg0987)
    A Berkeley education would cost a student from, say, Alabama well over US 120,000 without any financial aid. And not everyone can get in anyway.
    Yes, for out of state students I am aware that fees are higher. My point was that not all of the best universities in the US are private.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    I think that assumption is correct. Some R&D careers don't pay much, some do. But most science grads don't go in to R&D. Lots go in to law, finance and other 'high paying' sectors, as well as being generally employable at a higher salary than a less-qualified person.

    Why do we want all our science grads to be working in science? They have lots of skills past that, they are suitable for a huge range of careers and to pigeon-hole them all in to "go do R&D" is not the way forward. I am physics undergrad at a top uni, I am on for a first, and R&D is of absolutely no interest to me whatsoever. The science degree will open the door to lots of careers which do interest me though, and that's what I'm doing it.
    If you as an individual don't want to go into R&D, that's completely irrelevant, as we're talking about science graduates in general.

    Look at jobs listings, careers in science do not pay that well across the board. I am not saying we should pigeonhole science graduates into science-related careers at all! I am saying that if you charge science graduates exorbitant amounts to get their degree, you're going to put them off going into science-related careers, even if that would have ordinarily been their preferred option. If a science graduate is inclined towards work in research, but is stuck with a huge debt, they're going to be far more likely to pursue a high-paying job so they can pay off this debt more quickly and get on the property ladder among other things; rather than go into research and end up ladled with debt for decades.

    Of course science graduates can be good for things like law and banking etc. but these sectors have no shortage of graduates; whilst some engineering firms, for example, just aren't able to find the graduates they need. The fact is that there are many people who would be suitable for a commercial banking job, but you need very specialised graduates for tasks like designing piping systems etc.


    Again - a higher tuition fee won't really punish the top grads. If anything it is a good thing for them, if I could choose tuition fees to rise astronomically after I graduate or even now, then great, there will be a lot less competition for graduate jobs down the line. Rising tuition fees puts more pressure on the weakest graduates, not the strongest ones.
    AGAIN, why are you so insistent that top graduates go on to earn lots of money? It's not necessarily true AT ALL. Your salary depends on supply&demand, which varies with the sector you work in. Pretty much all university lecturers (at least at all the reasonably research-intensive unis) were top graduates and yet they aren't exactly earning big bucks. Please, stop assuming that being a top graduate is synonymous with getting a high-paying job.

    Here's an interesting statisic for you:
    "London South Bank University has ranked 6th in the UK for graduate starting salaries, ahead of many universities of Russell Group, such as University of Cambridge, University of Warwick, University of Bristol, and University of Edinburgh‎"
    ~Source: The Times

    One of the worst universities in the country, and yet it produces graduates who get paid a lot?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TheMeister)
    You're deceiving the people replying to this post quite maliciously by not stating the difference between public and private universities and the according fees
    Or the UCU is. I stated quite clearly that it was the public university sector we were looking at. I'm not trying to deceive anyone, I just couldn't be bothered to write an extra paragraph outlining the complex differences between public and private universities in the US which vary from state to state. (and yes, they are quite complex, not just based on public subsidy or the lack of. Some private universities still receive public subsidy in some form, making the lines even more blurred.) Private Unis still charge higher fees and that is outlined in the table below the original article, which bear in mind, I did not write. Besides, 2/3 of students attend public institutions and so pay the average fees stated by the OECD. Obviously not for out of state students who pay much larger fees, but I'm not sure about the OCED's methods. One would assume they are quite reliable, it being one of the worlds best economic organisations.

    And that really is beside the point, its not all about america. Our degrees would still cost more than any of the other countries listed there. That is still a point worth talking about. Many very very good universities exist outside the US and UK yet they charge less than us (provided student fees rise).

    Its the internet, not the house of commons, I'm not actively out to mislead people. I just wanted to hear what people thought.
    • Political Ambassador
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Political Ambassador
    And look the countries with the most expensive degress tend to be the highest in the world league tables
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    x
    Do you really not think that salary is correlated to degree quality? It seems completely intuitive to me that it is.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by infernalcradle)
    as long as the help available for fees rise in line with them....I see nothing wrong with higher fees.....

    I daresay it would stop mickey mouse degrees as most people will not get themselves in c. £40-50K debt for a degree in "women studies"
    This... And what the hell are woman studies? :rofl:
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by spidergareth)
    When the Browne review is announced in a few weeks, it is expected to recommend that the cap on student tuition be lifted. A study by the UCU has found that UK already has the 4th most expensive public university degrees of any developed country.

    A fee rise would make our public degrees the most expensive in the world.

    Link to original OCED research if anyone thinks the UCU has been selective.
    It also has the best public university system in the world. There is a clear correlation, in countries like France/ Germany/ Spain where it's completely free standards are significantly lower. Furthermore campus universities in America are AMAZING, as by charging high fees they get to spend vast amounts on superior facilities that make the best universities in the UK pathetic in comparison to their mediocre ones, at least in terms of campus facilities.

    You get what you pay for, so given this IMHO universities should be private and the best should charge ridiculously high fees and have bursary schemes like harvard/ Yale where significant numbers of applicants get financial assistance/
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Wasn't the government trying to attract students from less privileged backgrounds into studying univrsity degrees? I would think that taking the cap off the fees would act as a deterrant for many, :erm:.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    Do you really not think that salary is correlated to degree quality? It seems completely intuitive to me that it is.
    Allegedly a lot of people go for jobs they find interesting or rewarding in ways other than just financially. Ferinstance physics lecturers aren't simply failed investment bankers.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Joinedup)
    Allegedly a lot of people go for jobs they find interesting or rewarding in ways other than just financially. Ferinstance physics lecturers aren't simply failed investment bankers.
    Yes, this makes sense. Also lots of graduates end up working in jobs which are not at all related to their degree, whether they are graduate jobs or not.

    But it seems intuitive to me, that if I run a company I would be willing to pay more for, say, an Oxford graduate than, say, an Edge Hill graduate, all other things being equal (if they both got a first and both got the same A-levels, and both have the same previous work experience).

    e: And this is true right up the scale. Oxford more than ICL, ICL more than, say, Bath, Bath more than ... and so on.

    e2: Just to make it perfectly clear, I don't want to go in to IBD.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by innerhollow)
    Of course not. You're looking at it in far too simplistic a manner- salaries depend on the sector you work in, not the quality of your degree. Someone graduating with a 1st in Chemistry from Oxford who goes into analytical chemistry will earn less than someone graduating with Business Management from a low-ranked uni who goes into a commmerical managment position, simply because that's how the market dictates it. How can you then say it's all about the higher degree quality? Don't use your intuition when logic says otherwise.
    Yes, but on average the Oxford graduates will earn more, no?

    Is there statistics for highest salaries of graduates from different universities? It would be interesting to see the correlation coefficient between this and a university ranking list from this year.


    Say we could measure the average salary of graduates from each university. So the average salary of an Oxford graduate is A, Cambridge B, and so on.

    Do you think this salary would be the same from each university? Or that the lower universities would earn more? Or that there would be no correlation at all?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    Yes, but on average the Oxford graduates will earn more, no?

    Is there statistics for highest salaries of graduates from different universities? It would be interesting to see the correlation coefficient between this and a university ranking list from this year.


    Say we could measure the average salary of graduates from each university. So the average salary of an Oxford graduate is A, Cambridge B, and so on.

    Do you think this salary would be the same from each university? Or that the lower universities would earn more? Or that there would be no correlation at all?
    Well he's already provided one fact. It's up to you to decide how you'll interpret it.

    London South Bank University has ranked 6th in the UK for graduate starting salaries, ahead of many universities of Russell Group, such as University of Cambridge, University of Warwick, University of Bristol, and University of Edinburgh‎"
    ~Source: The Times
    Wasn't his whole point that this decision of raising the cap will push students away from taking jobs such as analytical chemistry given that there are better financial careers. You'd essentially be brain draining the UK in favour of finance and law.

    There's a high chance that Oxford graduates will earn more, but that means nothing if they end up going into market sectors that don't pay much anyhow. More so than other students who go into that sector, less so than students who go into other sectors.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    TBH the statistics have been completely twisted. UK degrees will still be cheaper than those in America. The UK has universities that are second only to those in America, so it makes sense. Not that I particularly want fees here to be raised. But just because other places in Europe have no fees doesn't mean we should follow. As an EU citizen you are perfectly free to study in Europe, so if you want to go to an Estonian university and pay no tuition fees then no one is stopping you from doing so.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tombola)
    Wasn't his whole point that this decision of raising the cap will push students away from taking jobs such as analytical chemistry given that there are better financial careers. You'd essentially be brain draining the UK in favour of finance and law. There's a high chance that Oxford graduates will earn more, but that means nothing if they end up going into market sectors that don't pay much anyhow.
    But that's not really a brain drain! Those brains are put to use just as well in finance or law as they are in R&D!

    If he has a full article for his fact, or better yet a full league table of average salaries, then we could look at the correlation between that and university quality. One data point is not correlation

    (Original post by Tefhel)
    TBH the statistics have been completely twisted. UK degrees will still be cheaper than those in America. The UK has universities that are second only to those in America, so it makes sense. Not that I particularly want fees here to be raised. But just because other places in Europe have no fees doesn't mean we should follow. As an EU citizen you are perfectly free to study in Europe, so if you want to go to an Estonian university and pay no tuition fees then no one is stopping you from doing so.
    'you get what you pay for' applies here :yes:


    e: going to play golf, won't be replying for the rest of the afternoon, have fun everyone.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    Yes, this makes sense. Also lots of graduates end up working in jobs which are not at all related to their degree, whether they are graduate jobs or not.

    But it seems intuitive to me, that if I run a company I would be willing to pay more for, say, an Oxford graduate than, say, an Edge Hill graduate, all other things being equal (if they both got a first and both got the same A-levels, and both have the same previous work experience).

    e: And this is true right up the scale. Oxford more than ICL, ICL more than, say, Bath, Bath more than ... and so on.

    e2: Just to make it perfectly clear, I don't want to go in to IBD.

    It's complicated - some firms look at it that way, esp square milers and so on but a lot of firms have less than astronomical turnovers and pay structures you'll have to fit in with, they don't particulaly want to compete for oxbridge graduates if it means offering silly money.

    These days more than ever you're very unlikely to stay in the same company for your entire career, after your first job it's far less important where you went to uni.
    Changing jobs is for most of us how you get your salary increased cos the internal management structure of companies has been thinned out so there's not really a the career ladder within firms that there used to be any more.

    fwiw I've sat on the other side of the interviewers desk (back office @ LSE member) hiring graduates with a few years work experience and in total honesty we absolutely could not give a monkey's about which uni they'd been to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by M_E_X)
    But that's not really a brain drain! Those brains are put to use just as well in finance or law as they are in R&D!

    If he has a full article for his fact, or better yet a full league table of average salaries, then we could look at the correlation between that and university quality. One data point is not correlation
    It's a brain drain in the sense that we'll get overtaken by other countries in technological advancement in favour of specialising in the financial market. Then again... London is meant to be known for it's finance.

    Also I'd just like to point out that while undergraduate degrees are important, post-graduate degrees can be equally important and as far as I'm aware... they tend to be on a more equal level. All it just means is that while a undergraduate from high ranking university is valuable, an Msc at a stereotypically 'lower ranking' university will end up helping a student more so in their future career. The league tables for postgraduate is different from undergraduate league tables.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    They'd better be worth it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well it doesn't tell you the salaries of the universities but this:
    http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/stug...ort=EMPLOYMENT

    ... shows the employability of each university. ICL comes out on top but 2nd is the Robert Gordon (never heard of that place before :/). However it puts Oxbridge in 9th and 10th place so it's credibility is questionable.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

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

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.