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

"You should only go to Uni if you have an A at A-level" Watch

  • View Poll Results: The government should only subsidise courses for people who have achieved an 'A'
    Agree wholeheartedly
    31
    11.57%
    Agree somewhat, but think this measure is too extreme.
    108
    40.30%
    Disagree
    129
    48.13%

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    Definitely not, there are plenty of people who don't have A-grades doing courses at university that are going to be exceptionally beneficial to society, probably moreso than people who are doing traditional, academic degrees - I'm mainly thinking of healthcare and social work type courses.
    A fair point.

    I think many of the comments echo my own view that this is an extreme measure.

    I do however think that it is unrealistic to try and get such a high proportion of school leavers into tertiary education under the current funding model.

    Following on from OhNO!'s point how what would be people's view be of differing levels of government subsidy based on the level of usefullness to society and the economy. Taking the previous example, social work courses are made free (the UK in general is short of social workers) and to offset this change courses like History of Art, Classics and subsidised less by the government as they have fewer practical applications that can be directly linked to being benificial to society.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ronaldo91)
    stupid, there are people who want to go to uni for the experience and may not have an A, but for most who want to go to uni to pursue serious study then they should be getting an A anyway

    you would be depriving people of more opportunities
    Sorry, "the uni experience" is not something the taxpayers have an obligation to pay for.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Rinsed)
    Now, I'm not disagreeing on principle. If you were talking about people not even getting Cs, then I might perhaps agree, but this thresh-hold is ridiculous.
    So what if someone got DDD or DDE or DEE or EEE?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    where is the fairness in that ? the grades you achieve account for squat at A level. The people who achieve less have as much right to further education.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DeeDub)
    Following on from OhNO!'s point how what would be people's view be of differing levels of government subsidy based on the level of usefullness to society and the economy. Taking the previous example, social work courses are made free (the UK in general is short of social workers) and to offset this change courses like History of Art, Classics and subsidised less by the government as they have fewer practical applications that can be directly linked to being benificial to society.
    Definitely not - obviously as an arts student I wouldn't agree with that. A degree doesn't have to have a practical application in order for its continued teaching to be incredibly beneficial to society, and to students - I think it would be an incredible shame if universities just became institutions which people went through to get a job. If you started cutting funding for degrees like literature and history of art, you might as well cut funding for art galleries, film boards, theatres, libraries - universities, and generally society, need to be more than just "practical". Art and academia have their worth.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bagration)
    Sorry, "the uni experience" is not something the taxpayers have an obligation to pay for.
    sad truth is that taxes have to be paid, and unis will subsidised so yes it opens doors to more people wanting to go to uni?

    do you mean it isn't 'right' or do you mean they actually don't pay taxes? :s either i cba to argue, fact is taxes are getting paid to fund uni and last time i checked avoiding taxes is illegal so it is basically an obligation
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by DeeDub)
    Following on from OhNO!'s point how what would be people's view be of differing levels of government subsidy based on the level of usefullness to society and the economy. Taking the previous example, social work courses are made free (the UK in general is short of social workers) and to offset this change courses like History of Art, Classics and subsidised less by the government as they have fewer practical applications that can be directly linked to being benificial to society.
    The issue is, who would decide and how? How does government decide which degrees are beneficial and so deserve funding and those which aren’t and so don’t?

    Society needs lawyers, accountants, and professional economists, so these courses have a high value to society, but at the same time as professions tend to pay the highest salaries. Should these courses receive a lot of subsidy due to the requirements of society or none whatsoever due to high remuneration once in employment? The same goes for those studying medicine or nursing.

    Teachers are in high demand, though no specific undergraduate degree really exists to become a teacher. The usual route is to do an undergraduate degree in any discipline and then do a PGCE.

    But, another thing... what if people choose degrees which are heavily subsidised because society needs those professions, yet said people choose after their degree not to go into that profession?

    It’s a sticky situation whichever way one looks, and so really (I think) the government should offer the same amount of subsidy to all courses irrespective if the government is going to do so.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i didn't get any 'A' grades at A-level, but at Uni i am getting the same grades as people who did. i know people who went to my sixth form who got mainly A's, they have now gone to the same uni as me and are in some of my classes and are getting the same grades. some have even gained lower ones than me.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ronaldo91)
    there are people who want to go to uni for the experience a
    Why should the taxpayers pay for an individual student, who solely goes to university just for the experience?

    I disagree, as an A is a profound threshold for many.
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by ronaldo91)
    sad truth is that taxes have to be paid, and unis will subsidised so yes it opens doors to more people wanting to go to uni?

    do you mean it isn't 'right' or do you mean they actually don't pay taxes? :s either i cba to argue, fact is taxes are getting paid to fund uni and last time i checked avoiding taxes is illegal so it is basically an obligation
    He means, and rightly so, that taxpayers shouldn't be paying for someone to attend university for the sole purpose of drinking for three years.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Disagree.

    My main argument would be that someone could get quite bad grades at A level because they've had bad circumstances surrounding their A levels, had bad teachers, etc. even if they're actually very intelligent.

    Saying that, I do think too many 'average' people are going to Uni because they just get the required grades but they aren't actually remotely intelligent.

    I don't know. I disagree with the idea of the "A" grade, but agree with the sentiment that Uni should probably be more difficult to get in to.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    An A grade is a ridiculously high benchmark to set. I do accept, though, that some people are at University who probably shouldn't be. I mean, people scraping in with a D and an E would really be better off going into employment or a more vocational form of training.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That is so stupid. For people who are clearly not doing so well in the subjects that they choose to carry on in (below C's maybe) that could make some sense.

    Plus it's too flawed, someone could end up doing worse because of personal circumstances.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by OhNO!)
    Definitely not - obviously as an arts student I wouldn't agree with that. A degree doesn't have to have a practical application in order for its continued teaching to be incredibly beneficial to society, and to students - I think it would be an incredible shame if universities just became institutions which people went through to get a job. If you started cutting funding for degrees like literature and history of art, you might as well cut funding for art galleries, film boards, theatres, libraries - universities, and generally society, need to be more than just "practical". Art and academia have their worth.
    My concern is that there is not enough money.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8158885.stm

    "They will be part-funded: universities will get students' tuition fees but not grants for teaching and other support."

    We can't have everything so either more will have to be paid in tuition fees or courses will have to go. I am not suggesting that Arts courses are slashed but rather saying that room has to found somewhere and mayve tough decisions may have to be taken. Education is a wonderful thing and it drives the economy, society and culture and there is a lot to be said abot knowledge for knowledge's sake.

    Currently the system is one size fits-all in that the government has levelled the economic playing field as much as it can be making all courses cost the same. This means that cost is removed from the decision on which course to take, this is a good thing, in the united states you will struggle to become a doctor or a lawyer if you can't afford it. But perhaps this level playing field could be inclined as bit to encourage people to aim a bit higher and do more challenging courses.
    Offline

    18
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by .ACS.)
    I'm sorry, but those are the worst examples ever. Parents in more affluent families can also, believe it or not, get divorced, and the cheating girlfriend can happen to anyone. Plus, I'd hardly say the latter is a reason at all for doing badly - it happens, that's life, get over it.
    I didn't say anything about earning more or less. And you've obviously never been heartbroken.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    what about BBB?

    maybe the cut off should be around C's?

    how about you need 2 grades C or above?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    My girlfriend argued that young people, i.e. 18 year olds with children shouldn't be allowed to go to uni untill the child is atleast 4 years old...
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Many people have commented on the relevance of grades and the problems which can arise with them. After a little bit of thought i realised that first year at Uni was there to deal with this problem. Perhaps first year should be considered as one big long interview to test how appropriate you are for your course, location and university itself.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Disgree.
    1:BBB, BBC, ACE. which one would you prefer? I know that's slightly over the top.

    2. People in state school/poor education are less likely to get that A you want us all to have.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ronaldo91)
    sad truth is that taxes have to be paid, and unis will subsidised so yes it opens doors to more people wanting to go to uni?

    do you mean it isn't 'right' or do you mean they actually don't pay taxes? :s either i cba to argue, fact is taxes are getting paid to fund uni and last time i checked avoiding taxes is illegal so it is basically an obligation
    I meant it isn't right. At the moment you are absolutely correct that people are forced to pay tax to subsidise's someone who wants to go to uni for "the experience." What I should have said is "The taxpayers ought not to be obligated to pay for x"
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 5, 2009
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.