Should all degrees be funded by the Government?

Not sure where to put this, but never mind.

I personally think they should only fund degrees in subjects where businesses are actually demanding workers. Why should the state have to fund people studying Events management and Viking studies?

I also think that people studying STEM subjects and Economics etc shouldn't have to pay fees at all, providing they plug skill gaps. This would also include subjects like Medicine, nursing etc.

(edited 9 years ago)

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Aph

Do you count psychology as STEM. also what if I wanted to do a physics and sociology degree should that be fully funded or not? In your opinion.
[QUOTE:mathsz0r]x

Reply 2

Mathsz0r

Original post by Aph

Do you count psychology as STEM. also what if I wanted to do a physics and sociology degree should that be fully funded or not? In your opinion.

Psychology being somewhat of a fad degree at the moment, no.

Partially funded.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 3

M1011

Valuable degrees to the economy should be funded based on merit IMO - e.g. you get good enough grades you can have funding.

Reply 4

Changing Skies

What about people like me who will be studying a half STEM half non-STEM degree?

Doesn't seem like the best idea, if people knew they wouldn't have to pay if they did a STEM degree, surely more people would study them and then there would be too many graduates in those fields?

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 5

Mathsz0r

Original post by M1011

Valuable degrees to the economy should be funded based on merit IMO - e.g. you get good enough grades you can have funding.

Yeah, I think that would be a brilliant idea. Get AAA at A2 and your degree is funded etc and would arguably work better than just discriminating degree subjects.

Reply 6

Mathsz0r

Original post by Changing Skies

Half funding. I prefer the stance mentioned above you actually, specific A-Level requirements for funding would probably be better considering someone with A*AA at A2 is highly likely going to be very talented at their degree subject, regardless of what it is, and will be valuable to that industry.

Reply 7

SomePaleChick

I think a degree should be funded on how well you do in that degree because then that would encourage people to work harder in their degree and not go out drinking every night (not that there's anything wrong with that :wink:

)

At the same time though this poses a lot of problems too.

Reply 8

Mathsz0r

Original post by SomePaleChick

)

At the same time though this poses a lot of problems too.

That could prevent people from University in the first place though due to the money aspect. The overall idea would be to make University far more accessible to those doing degrees of real merit.

Reply 9

Aph

Original post by Mathsz0r

Psychology being somewhat of a fad degree at the moment, no.

i completely disagree with you there psychology is very important; you need someone to help you when you start suffering from depression or to increase office productivity! It most definitely is STEM

Partially funded.

Surely such a degree is more important as it makes for a more well rounded individual who can go into more fields and would be more valuable to a company.

Reply 10

MidnightDream

Maybe just partially fund the degrees if they are being funded by employers but then you run the risk of having too many people doing these degrees :smile:

Reply 11

cambio wechsel

Original post by Mathsz0r

I personally think they should only fund degrees in subjects where businesses are actually demanding workers.

Original post by Mathsz0r

I also think that people studying STEM subjects and Economics etc shouldn't have to pay fees at all, providing they plug skill gaps.

Why economics? Economics is a social science, not that there'sanything wrong with that. Its graduates secure good employment outcomes because (i) they are a self-selecting group comprising a more than usually high proportion of the ambitious, and (ii) they can be understood to have a grasp of stats. That's it.

Reply 12

DErasmus

No the government shouldn't fund any universities with the exception of Oxford and Cambridge, those universities that think they can make money providing a service should fund themselves and provide scholarships (or perhaps we could move to a government recognition system where the most reputable universities are funded based on merit). As for degrees themselves no, no one should fund someone elses higher education with the exception of scholarships.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 13

SomePaleChick

Original post by Mathsz0r

That could prevent people from University in the first place though due to the money aspect. The overall idea would be to make University far more accessible to those doing degrees of real merit.

Yeah , that's why I said it would pose a lot of problems.

I was just saying this because I don't think certain degrees should be funded (e.g STEM) while others shouldn't. You could argue it's more useful but then there would be so many applicants and the competition for a place would be tougher than it is now.

Reply 14

Mathsz0r

Original post by cambio wechsel

you suggest an obvious third party who might pick up the bill. Why should the general taxpayer provide an at-no-cost training scheme for private corporations and a free education for specifically those people identified as able to pay for one?

Why economics? Economics is a social science, not that there'sanything wrong with that. Its graduates secure good employment outcomes because (i) they are a self-selecting group comprising a more than usually high proportion of the ambitious, and (ii) they can be understood to have a grasp of stats. That's it.

I don't suggest anything, I'm saying by encouraging and providing education in these subjects, the UK will see a far greater benefit than the current system.

Economics has been shown to be a degree of real merit and has been a highly demanded degree by employers. To say our main economic power is financial services, the better the graduates, the greater chance we remain competitive in that industry.

Reply 15

DErasmus

Those degrees that are necessary would evolve organically if the government did not fund them, all the bs would be weeded out unless someone wealthy enough decided they would fund it themselves.

Reply 16

Mathsz0r

Original post by SomePaleChick

Competition is what is needed though - it wouldn't stop the best applicants bring successful, it could arguably make them better as they need to work harder.

Reply 17

DErasmus

Original post by Mathsz0r

Competition is what is needed though - it wouldn't stop the best applicants bring successful, it could arguably make them better as they need to work harder.

What we need is more work mobility, there is no reason why many disciplines cannot be learned away from formal institutions given the widespread access to information we have at our disposal.

Reply 18

Mathsz0r

Original post by DErasmus

Those degrees that are necessary would evolve organically if the government did not fund them, all the bs would be weeded out unless someone wealthy enough decided they would fund it themselves.