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

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    That's great but how do they benefit from funding middle class teenagers' qualifications?
    By having doctors, nurses etc etc?
    Also, the economy benefits by having an educated workforce. Especially in this day and age where we have a "Knowledge economy"[/QUOTE]

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Also last time I checked public transport was not free, and middle class people use schools and hospitals as well.
    Public transport is heavily subsidised by public money. Its why the cuts we are now seeing are having a huge impact on many bus services.

    As for hospitals, as I said above, the poorer in society are more likely to have health problems, and so rely on the NHS more. Of course that is a generalisation, but is usually true.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    They tend also to spend a higher proportion of their income on VAT.
    Any source for this? Given that they will spend a much larger proportion of their income on food/ clothes/ gas/ leccy than a family with a larger disposable income I don't think the numbers are that straight forward.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    No specific source sorry, it is something that has been mentioned by an awful lot of people I have talked to (IRL and online). Never been able to find a definite source though. But the logic does follow. Especially if we are talking about people on lower wages, as they will be more dependent on government handouts, public transport and the NHS (the poorer generally have worse health).
    I think these stats may be lifetime figures or for "the poor" generally.

    People in manual employment, particularly men in manual employment have very low public transport usage and very high car usage. Almost by definition people in work do not have poor health. That isn't to say they will not later have serious health problems. Unless one has high housing costs and is thus eligible for housing benefit, the only benefits someone in full-time employment is likely to receive are Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit. Whilst the middle class woman who shops in Waitrose pays no VAT on her food the working class man who buys a takeaway pays at 20%.

    It is one of the Daily Mail's complaints that the ordinary working man doesn't get out of the tax system what he puts in.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    You make it sound so easy. In reality it isn't of course.
    And you also seem to be assuming everyone who does a degree will go into that industry when they graduate. That is not the case. Especially when we have employers asking for "a degree" to get an interview.
    What about something like PPE? No jobs specifically want that, yet it has proven very successful in "training" our MP's etc (although I suppose you could debate how "successful" it has been with what MP's seem to be like these days).
    You seem to be missing the point - the very fact that you are able to identify criteria that makes, for example, PPE useful, shows that such criteria can be identified and applied. As I said, getting an effective list of such criteria would take research and debate. The fact that I personally haven't identified an exhaustive list is absolutely irrelevant to my arguement.

    Nope. Its a BSc. No prior degree needed.
    While I'd agree most computer games degrees are worthless, there are always exceptions, and the Abertay Course is one of them. People have to be careful when they label courses as "mickey mouse" because of examples like this.
    Abertay doesn't have a BSc in Computer Games Design that is widely recognised in the industry. In fact, no university in the UK does, because Computer Games Design degrees are comparatively worthless.

    It does however have a well respected Computer Games Technology BSc, which is essentially a Computer Science degree with just 1/6 of its modules focussed on application to gaming contexts (which, in a normal Comp-Sci degree, is just as achievable through optionals).
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by wdywuk)
    Any source for this? Given that they will spend a much larger proportion of their income on food/ clothes/ gas/ leccy than a family with a larger disposable income I don't think the numbers are that straight forward.
    Here is a lefty blog to this effect

    http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2...is-regressive/

    But it was drummed into me in A level economics 30 years ago.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    I think these stats may be lifetime figures or for "the poor" generally.

    People in manual employment, particularly men in manual employment have very low public transport usage and very high car usage. Almost by definition people in work do not have poor health. That isn't to say they will not later have serious health problems. Unless one has high housing costs and is thus eligible for housing benefit, the only benefits someone in full-time employment is likely to receive are Child Benefit and Child Tax Credit. Whilst the middle class woman who shops in Waitrose pays no VAT on her food the working class man who buys a takeaway pays at 20%.

    It is one of the Daily Mail's complaints that the ordinary working man doesn't get out of the tax system what he puts in.
    That is where the confusion comes then.
    To me, "working class" means those who are working, but are on the lower "rungs" of society, living near (relative) poverty, who cannot afford a car etc etc.
    Where as what you are talking about (takeways, cars, the "ordinary working man", the DM) I would call middle class.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    By having doctors, nurses etc etc?
    Also, the economy benefits by having an educated workforce. Especially in this day and age where we have a "Knowledge economy"


    Public transport is heavily subsidised by public money. Its why the cuts we are now seeing are having a huge impact on many bus services.

    As for hospitals, as I said above, the poorer in society are more likely to have health problems, and so rely on the NHS more. Of course that is a generalisation, but is usually true.
    I don't see how the economy benefits from draining thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on every middle class student studying media studies when there's a serious shortage of plumbers, electricians, sheep shearers, agricultural workers, butchers, care assistants, chefs and cooks, social workers and welders so much so that immigrants have to be flown in to do those below degree level jobs.

    Please explain to me how the first year of university isn't anything but a holiday camp centred around alcohol abuse and parties for wealthy middle class students paid for at the expense of everyone else in society who actually have to work hard to earn a living, who see no benefit from having a backload of graduates being churned out with useless media studies and philosophy degrees to live either on the dole or off their rich parents?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    You seem to be missing the point - the very fact that you are able to identify criteria that makes, for example, PPE useful, shows that such criteria can be identified and applied. As I said, getting an effective list of such criteria would take research and debate. The fact that I personally haven't identified an exhaustive list is absolutely irrelevant to my arguement.
    But I don't think you can make such criteria that are totally accurate for all circumstances. There will always be exceptions.
    Golf Management is often thrown around (along with media studies), yet if you actually look at it it is no where near "worthless" or whatever.

    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Abertay doesn't have a BSc in Computer Games Design that is widely recognised in the industry. In fact, no university in the UK does, because Computer Games Design degrees are comparatively worthless.

    It does however have a well respected Computer Games Technology BSc, which is essentially a Computer Science degree with just 1/6 of its modules focussed on application to gaming contexts (which, in a normal Comp-Sci degree, is just as achievable through optionals).
    My apologies. Its still symantics though. The games tech course still has a few "designy" modules in it. The point that I was trying to make though is that while games course in general are looked down upon (even ones that try to focus on programming), the one at Abertay is not. As I said above, there will always be exceptions.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    I don't see how the economy benefits from draining thousands of pounds of taxpayers money on every middle class student studying media studies when there's a serious shortage of plumbers, electricians, sheep shearers, agricultural workers, butchers, care assistants, chefs and cooks, social workers and welders so much so that immigrants have to be flown in to do those below degree level jobs.

    Please explain to me how the first year of university isn't anything but a holiday camp centred around alcohol abuse and parties for wealthy middle class students paid for at the expense of everyone else in society who actually have to work hard to earn a living, who see no benefit from having a backload of graduates being churned out with useless media studies and philosophy degrees to live either on the dole or off their rich parents?
    1 - Since when does every middle class student study media studies?
    Answer = They don't.

    2 - There has to be a "grounding period" to ensure everyone is to the same standard. You can blame that on different exam boards, the fact that some schools don't offer certain subjects, the fact that some students will be from different countries etc etc. It isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

    3 - Why are you assuming that everyone who goes to uni is middle class :confused:

    4 - I really don't see why you are chucking Philosophy in there too. A subject that has been studied since universities have existed. Have a look at Michael Sandels lectures on political philosophy and you may change your mind.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    That is where the confusion comes then.
    To me, "working class" means those who are working, but are on the lower "rungs" of society, living near (relative) poverty, who cannot afford a car etc etc.
    Where as what you are talking about (takeways, cars, the "ordinary working man", the DM) I would call middle class.
    A full-time employee working 48 hours a week (it is reasonable to choose 48 hours because full-time manual jobs usually have the possibility of overtime) at the national minimum wage of £5.93 per hour (I am allowing no premium rate for overtime) earns £14,800 before tax.

    The median salary for full time employees is around £25,000. Only when you start counting part time employees does it drop to the £20-22,000 usually quoted.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    A full-time employee working 48 hours a week (it is reasonable to choose 48 hours because full-time manual jobs usually have the possibility of overtime) at the national minimum wage of £5.93 per hour (I am allowing no premium rate for overtime) earns £14,800 before tax.
    Which surely just backs up my point?
    You can quite easily be working full time, yet still earn not very much at all.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    1 - Since when does every middle class student study media studies?
    Answer = They don't.

    2 - There has to be a "grounding period" to ensure everyone is to the same standard. You can blame that on different exam boards, the fact that some schools don't offer certain subjects, the fact that some students will be from different countries etc etc. It isn't as easy as you make it out to be.

    3 - Why are you assuming that everyone who goes to uni is middle class :confused:
    Don't put words into my mouth. If you are middle class and can afford to pay for your own education, taxpayers still pay for a lot of it.

    But by far and large most students ARE middle class.

    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    4 - I really don't see why you are chucking Philosophy in there too. A subject that has been studied since universities have existed. Have a look at Michael Sandels lectures on political philosophy and you may change your mind.
    I'm not saying philosophy shouldn't be studied, I'm saying if you want to study it why should someone else other than you have to pay for it? Especially when your family can afford to pay it themselves.

    If the economy desperately needed more people with a certain type of degree, it makes sense that there should be more funding and scholarships for those of less privileged backgrounds to be able to do that degree.

    However, why the under-privileged and working class people are forced to fund rich kids to better themselves and make themselves richer with degrees that are of no use to society and probably don't even need is beyond me.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Which surely just backs up my point?
    You can quite easily be working full time, yet still earn not very much at all.
    You and I have a different perception of money!

    I don't consider nearly £15000 not much at all.

    I gave those figures because you were talking about the really poor not affording takeaways or running a car. That is an entirely different order of poverty from someone on 15 grand a year.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    OMG stop whining and being poor
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    You and I have a different perception of money!

    I don't consider nearly £15000 not much at all.

    I gave those figures because you were talking about the really poor not affording takeaways or running a car. That is an entirely different order of poverty from someone on 15 grand a year.
    While I would agree £15k isn't "poverty", it really isn't as much as you seem to think.
    Certainly, not being able to afford a car is easily possible on £15k (especially if you are young and take into account insurance costs).

    Certainly in areas where more people are earning £15k a year, you get much greater health issues etc. And you can forget about going anywhere near the property ladder.

    As you said, the average wage is £25k. So someone on £15k is no where near being the "ordinary working man".

    Anyway, this is all going way off topic. The fact remains that it does look like most unis are at least going to try to charge £9k. Something which willets and co would probably deny if you asked them about it.

    (Original post by Stefan1991)
    Don't put words into my mouth. If you are middle class and can afford to pay for your own education, taxpayers still pay for a lot of it.

    But by far and large most students ARE middle class.

    I'm not saying philosophy shouldn't be studied, I'm saying if you want to study it why should someone else other than you have to pay for it? Especially when your family can afford to pay it themselves.

    If the economy desperately needed more people with a certain type of degree, it makes sense that there should be more funding and scholarships for those of less privileged backgrounds to be able to do that degree.

    However, why the under-privileged and working class people are forced to fund rich kids to better themselves and make themselves richer with degrees that are of no use to society and probably don't even need is beyond me.
    Certainly in my experience it is the students from working class backgrounds who are more likely to go into "useless" degrees.

    Personally, as I have said, I don't think there is such a thing as a "useless degree". Especially with degrees essentially becoming an extension of a young persons education, someone without a degree is in a worse position than someone with a degree (even if that degree is something like Philosophy).

    As I have said, with the new system, we have a bit of a stupid situation really. It will more than likely cost the taxpayer more, it will more than likely cost most students more, yet the universities will probably not get any more money than what they do already.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Lots of people here are failing to acknowledge that an educated populace generates more growth, taxable income etc - graduates pay on average roughly £25k (estimate based on £100l increase in income) more in tax over their lifetime, much much more than the tax subsidy cost.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)



    Certainly in my experience it is the students from working class backgrounds who are more likely to go into "useless" degrees.
    Not sure.

    One of the reasons for low Oxbridge admissions by state pupils is there is a tendency for them to go for the most competitive vocational degrees, law, medicine and economics and management.

    One of the issues is that what is a useless degree for someone with one background may not be for someone else.

    It is always said English is better than media studies. If you want a BBC traineeship or Daddy can secure you an internship at Faber that is perfectly true. If, however you are joining the bottom of admin/junior management ladder in the NHS, the team building skills learned putting together some awful student short film might be preferable to having your nose in Keats.

    In other words some degrees may only be useful to someone who already has a significant advantage in life and the best choice for someone without that advantage may be different to the best choice for someone with it.

    Media studies might be an extreme example but business studies seems to be a very popular degree choice despite the economics/IB fraternity sneering at it and I suspect that many recruiters for junior commercial positions value it.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    Lots of people here are failing to acknowledge that an educated populace generates more growth, taxable income etc - graduates pay on average roughly £25k (estimate based on £100l increase in income) more in tax over their lifetime, much much more than the tax subsidy cost.
    But for male arts graduates that figure was estimated at £22,458 in 2005 and £35000 by another source in 2007.

    Assuming those figures haven;t changed much, add in student debt plus interest and the graduate is in a negative position. The country is perhaps £5-8K better off if he pays back all his debt for taking the risk that he might not.

    It isn't a very good bargain either for student or government.

    Although the government is peddling an apprenticeship agenda at present, in 10 years time when there are a lot of graduates with a lot of debt and not a lot of extra income, you may see the political agenda change. Those graduates are going to want the door firmly slamming on "make your way up from the bottom" schemes. It may be you won't be able to call yourself an HR person without a PG Dip diploma in HR.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    But for male arts graduates that figure was estimated at £22,458 in 2005 and £35000 by another source in 2007.

    Assuming those figures haven;t changed much, add in student debt plus interest and the graduate is in a negative position. The country is perhaps £5-8K better off if he pays back all his debt for taking the risk that he might not.

    It isn't a very good bargain either for student or government.

    Although the government is peddling an apprenticeship agenda at present, in 10 years time when there are a lot of graduates with a lot of debt and not a lot of extra income, you may see the political agenda change. Those graduates are going to want the door firmly slamming on "make your way up from the bottom" schemes. It may be you won't be able to call yourself an HR person without a PG Dip diploma in HR.
    The solution is to more tightly regulate courses which don't benefit the graduate then surely.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Not sure.

    One of the reasons for low Oxbridge admissions by state pupils is there is a tendency for them to go for the most competitive vocational degrees, law, medicine and economics and management.

    One of the issues is that what is a useless degree for someone with one background may not be for someone else.

    It is always said English is better than media studies. If you want a BBC traineeship or Daddy can secure you an internship at Faber that is perfectly true. If, however you are joining the bottom of admin/junior management ladder in the NHS, the team building skills learned putting together some awful student short film might be preferable to having your nose in Keats.

    In other words some degrees may only be useful to someone who already has a significant advantage in life and the best choice for someone without that advantage may be different to the best choice for someone with it.

    Media studies might be an extreme example but business studies seems to be a very popular degree choice despite the economics/IB fraternity sneering at it and I suspect that many recruiters for junior commercial positions value it.
    I did say "in my experience".

    Certainly, if you compare the people in the sixth form I went to ("Deprived area") with the sixth forms some of my uni friends went to, more people from my sixth form are doing degrees that are less academic / viewed as "worse" than other degrees.

    The thing with the oxford admission stats are also partly down to a lower % of state school pupils getting AAA than private school pupils.

    And I agree. That is partly what I was trying to say to other posters. There is very rarely a degree that is totally worthless, and in most situations someone with a degree (no matter what it is) will be preferable to an employer than someone who has the same skillset and experience but no degree.

    (Original post by HistoryRepeating)
    The solution is to more tightly regulate courses which don't benefit the graduate then surely.
    Not benfetting the graduate financially does not mean not beneftting the graduate though.
    And infact, university being about getting a well paid job after a few years is quite a modern idea really.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    As I said, independant body, decides on discrimination criteria, applies funding for university places accordingly.

    In particular, funding for more vocational courses than there are said vocations jobs would be pretty illogical.
 
 
 
Poll
Do you agree with the PM's proposal to cut tuition fees for some courses?
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

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.