University Funding

[TheAnimus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8263672.stm

University students in the UK should pay more for their loans and accept higher tuition fees as "inevitable", says a report from business leaders.

So who thinks students should pay more for their uni?

Myself, I blame Labour for doing their level best to destroy higher education.

The notion of 50% of the population having a degree is really quite fricken pointless as anyone who's ever worked in a secondary school will tell you.

When will government be allowed to say, we are not all carbon copies, we are differen't, we excel at differen't things, in the same way someone who is retarted as me will ALWAYS have problems with written communication by hand, there are some people who just can't deal with institutional education.

So we end up with far more people going to uni, de-valuing the merrit of a degree. If 50% of the population has one, you've not changed the bounderies of what it means to be upper-middle class. You've redefined and cermented the idea of been working class.

At the same time, business will adapt with crude predudice towards courses and institutions, after all if you've a stack of 100 CVs, you don't have time to read them all do you? So you start your '**** sift' based on grade, anything but a first goes, pfft thats a polly, pfft no one counds a Ba as a degree... etc.

No it seams all the political parties are now commited to this frankly awful future, which means the standards of our education will drop horrifically. As a result in the really high paid fun challenging jobs, such as those in the city, the 6 figure salaries will be going to people who where educated abroad, in europe or the states etc. This will be because a higher level has been assumed. At the moment, from personal experiance I look down even on places like MIT compared to a lot of middle of the road UK establishments, this is thanks to the specalisation afforded by our A-Level system. However this seams to have changed so much in the last 2 years alone, I'm now starting to rate the british institutes less.

So what is the solution? Apply a tax on the pointless degrees, and use them to fund some of the incredibly high cost ones? Cut back on the number of places available? Make people do decent A-Levels otherwise they won't have a place?

I don't like that, but its what seams is now inevitable, by new labour frecking with the standards of education so much, some degrees/a-levels are a total joke, everyone who's done one of those and a proper one knows this, employers know this. Who dosen't know it? Those who are from disadvantaged backgrounds.

Well done labour, you've widended the socail disparity gap today, and set it up to be widened expontually further in the future.

Who the **** voted for these morons.
(also please see our 10 yr defecit and the fact I can buy sod all euros today).

[Phage]

*Disclaimer - I never went to Uni. Yes I *understand* anecdote does not equal evidence.

Labour has failed in it's plan to increase the quality of education at all levels. I have the experience of helping my step kids (UK - Grammar) and my kids (Aus - Govt.) with their homework in the same years. The Aus kids are FAR in advance of the UK

UK Science home work = What is a mammal ? (He didn't know)
Aus = What is the equivalence Principle ? Design an experiment to demonstrate it.

Labour have proven to betray their principles by decreasing social mobility, decreasing education, decreasing civil liberties. The really bad news is that the Bullingdon club is the only other option.

We're DoooOOOOoooommmmed.

[Salazaar]

Ahhhh, hate to do this but it's seems... Seams are what hold your jeans together.

Anyway, it's a tough question. Someone has to pay for higher education, and why not those who benefit from it? Perhaps some extension to the loans system would help.

[Saracen]

It seems to me that Labour has confused itself, and got two principles terminally mixed up. They seem to equate equal opportunity in education with identical education, meaning they want everyone to go to university. I fully support the notion of equal opportunity, regardless of affluence, but the notion of an artificial 50% figure seems daft to me. Not everybody wants to go, not everybody will be doing something career-wise that will benefit from it and, let's face it, not everybody is up to it.

For instance, an old friend of mine is, academically, a walking disaster area, and has been since our mutual school days. And he'd be the first to admit it. But artistically, he's extremely gifted. Not only would a university education not have helped him later in life, and not only do I very much doubt he'd have had a prayer of successfully completing it, but he'd have absolutely hated it.

University should be open to all, and social background (and affluence) didn't ought to be a barrier to going to university, IF you have both the aptitude and inclination.

The trouble is, by being determined to to get a given number into university, you massively increase the number of places required, which massively increases the cost of the entire system, which changes the basis of the system because central government won't fund it (or rather, won't use OUR money to do so). which means loans. And, given the size of debt students come out of university with these days, that's a significant deterrent to the less affluent, so far from reducing any differential in education, I have to wonder if they're increasing it. I sure as hell would have thought long and hard about letting myself in for that size of millstone by going to uni.

So how far does a free, universal state-funded education go? In my opinion, as far as school and np further. After that, career paths diverge. So at 16 or thereabouts, you ought to have the opportunity to go on for another couple of years, and if you make the grade, go to university. But you also ought to have equal access to quality vocational training and apprenticeships.

So we ought to have an educational system that selects based on ability and not bank account, encourages and supports, and where necessary, financially assists university for those that want it and qualify, and that supports vocational/apprenticeship routes, and not one that arbitrarily decides 50% of young people need degrees.

And on the subject of grades, what about school grades. When figures show grades improving year after year after year, either academic attainments are constantly improving) and frankly, I see little sign of that) or the standards represented by grades are slipping. There are universities and employers that are already disregarding some exams results as the grades tell them nothing useful, so they do their own assessments, and TheAnimus is right, degrees will (if they haven't already) go the same way. If employers can't use the possession of a degree to filter, they'll use the grade of it, and if that doesn't work, they'll use second degrees, and if that doesn't work, they'll come up with their own methods or aptitude tests.

[Lucio]

You know what would really help students? Scrapping the idea that education should be a continiuous process from 5 up until you stop. Make it far easier for people to leave a couple of years between A-levels and University and let them get to a better understanding of what they want to do in life.

In fact, I'd go as far to say as no one under 21 should attend university, unless they're training on something particularly long term (e.g. medicine). It'd help ensure that those that went to uni really wanted to learn, and those that just didn't know what to do with themselves could get some real world experience.

[TheAnimus]

Uni in many ways is a great way to get 'real world' experiance thou. Only those who I went to 6th form with who went to uni have escaped cornwall. Its a 100% sucsess rate too.

[Salazaar]

You know what would really help students? Scrapping the idea that education should be a continiuous process from 5 up until you stop. Make it far easier for people to leave a couple of years between A-levels and University and let them get to a better understanding of what they want to do in life.

In fact, I'd go as far to say as no one under 21 should attend university, unless they're training on something particularly long term (e.g. medicine). It'd help ensure that those that went to uni really wanted to learn, and those that just didn't know what to do with themselves could get some real world experience.

I'd be one of the first to agree with that. I'm sure it's fine for some but 16/18 is no age to be making major decisions, I wish I could go back now and change my A-Level and degree courses. I no way do I regret going to uni but with a bit more real world experience I could have made so much more of it.

On the other hand, after having worked in the real world, for real wages, in a real house, it would be very hard to uproot and go back to the student lifestyle.

[jim]

I would just like them to scrap all the stupid subjects, and ensure that everything's on a level playing field.

It's extremely stupid, in my opinion, that somebody can struggle like hell with a very challenging IOP Physics A-Level course (that would be me) while other people muck around with rubbish like "Travel and Tourism", and it passes as a qualification. Even teachers know that it's a joke - somebody I know applied to do Travel and Tourism, and was told by their teachers to swap courses - it was, according to them, geography for the thick kids. So why don't the thick kids just take geography and get an E? There's no point designing courses that are supposed to be easier, it just complicates the whole sytem.

It's exactly the same situation at university - somebody says "I got a 2:1 at Uni". You can't say "that's fantastic", because first you've got to check. Was that at Durham or Thames Valley? And assuming it's anything other than the top universities, you've then got to ask what course. English or Media?

Nobody understands what the qualifications mean - employers can't suss out what's actually worthwhile, and whether that simply means that said person turned up to their exams after 3 years of dossing. Students can't suss out what's actually worth taking, because a course that sounds very interesting by name is usually making up for its lack of substance. Just a total mess as far as I'm concerned, that seriously needs a revamp. It won't get one, but there you go.

[TheAnimus]

Nobody understands what the qualifications mean - employers can't suss out what's actually worthwhile, and what indicates that said person turned up to their exams after 3 years of dossing. Students can't suss out what's actually worth taking, because a course sounds interesting by name, usually to make up for its lack of substance. Just a total mess as far as I'm concerned, that seriously needs a revamp. It won't get one, but there you go.

Its really sad, but I do this. Oxbridge firsts only.

I have a 2:1 from redbrick. So i know i'd be excluding me, its just a time thing.

[pollaxe]

I think the degree system has been fundamentally cheapened. It's not just Labour's fault (though they must carry a lot of the blame) as it was happening when I were a lad. When I sat my B.A. finals in 1994 I had eighteen hours of exams. A friend who sat his at the same time had six. On paper our 2:1 degrees are of equal worth (though they are in different subjects.) Making all polytechnics universities didn't help, in my view.

Target culture of having x number of the population university-educated is pretty pointless and worrying. However, I'd hate for us to be in the situation where the rich are educated and the poor are trained. I worked throughout my PhD and it was bloody tough but I managed to pay my way. My father did an apprenticeship with Rolls Royce and it stood him in great stead. His engineering knowledge is massive, of course he learned stuff in the industry but that apprenticeship was a superb grounding in technical skill and knowledge.

I'm not at all convinced that education standards are improving. Browsing forums (or fora if you want to be snotty, I suppose!) can be a depressing experience as well as talking to youngsters. I'm not talking just about standards of English but a general lack of gumption/knowledge of some pretty basic things. Obviously that's a pretty blanket statement and there are exceptions to this. It was probably just as bad in my day and I'm looking back through rose-tinted wine glasses.

Anyway, back to my Daily Mail (and I remember when all this were fields, etc. etc.)

[shaithis]

Considering the recent A-level results, there is a new wave of super-intelligent students who should be able to pay this money back faster then the previous generation.....so it's all fair IMO

[no_numb]

I'm in university and there are definately people who go to uni who shouldn't. I have about 20 hours of lectures a week then lab work on top of that and there are people who have under 10 hours total. I know these people are supposed to be doing extra on top but in reality they are not really doing anymore outside of lectures then we are. I think these sorts of courses should be shortened to 2 years and then they should have a normal amount of lectures.

I also know a few people who really are uni for no good reason studying things like photography. I am a keen photographer and I really cannot imagine studying for 3 years accumulating £20k debt just to learn about a hobby which you really dont need a degree in to do well in.

The debt we accumulate from being a student is bad enough but when you're in uni for half the amount of time that other people are and still have the same debt its rediculous.

Perhaps another change is the amount you pay for each subject. For example I do chemistry and I use up a lot of expensive equipment and chemicals where as a friend who does ecomonics has to pay for printed handouts. We both pay the same amount even though I use up far more resources. Perhaps this isn't a good idea though as then science degrees might end up less popular and we might get a shortage.

[Andeh13]

A lot more people do have degrees but the quality of degrees varies hugely. Solid degrees are on the down turn (maths, sciences etc) whilst the likes of Media/film/etc studies, ____ology is on the up turn. The number of people iv met over the last 3 years at uni doing dance, media studies, film studies (2 hours a week of lectures), physiology, classical music studies etc....

[Phage]

Its really sad, but I do this. Oxbridge firsts only.

I have a 2:1 from redbrick. So i know i'd be excluding me, its just a time thing.

All the people I've met from Oxford have not been worth feeding.
I ignore degrees altogether. Do you have the Professional Quals and What work have you done ?

[Virtual Monkey]

All the people I've met from Oxford have not been worth feeding.
I ignore degrees altogether. Do you have the Professional Quals and What work have you done ?

This is probably the most practical solution, but what about recent graduates who are trying desperately to get a foot on the ladder? Most people need 2+ years industry experience in whatever field to even be considered for a vaguely decent job, and so you get a Catch 22 situation of needing to get a job for the experience but not having enough experience to do so! Then it sort of becomes about who you know, who is willing to get you a job, which can't be a good thing.

So yes, less people going to uni please. The problem is that there isn't really much for young people to actually do after finishing school/sixth form, except become a builder/plumber/forklift driver or work in a shop.

[TheAnimus]

All the people I've met from Oxford have not been worth feeding.
I ignore degrees altogether. Do you have the Professional Quals and What work have you done ?

Fraid thats not what I've found. I've found plenty who I didn't hire, some who where just trying to show how clever they where by explaining things in big O notation when its really not whats wanted at all etc.

But thats the saving when hiring a graddy, two years later they are often double the price, so you have to wade through the dross.

the thing is compare the average output of say portsmouth (which i've found to have appaluingly badly educated people who have 1sts) to oxbridge.

All these things are is ment to be a proof that you've been educated in xyz, so that i can then assume they will be able to do ijk with whatever the new concepts and ideas are.