Students should face paying council tax, Lib Dems say

[jackobyte]

students to pay council tax...what a ridiculous and stupid idea
they already pay inflated fees and massive loans to fund their education and many work in part time wekend etc jobs to to pay for the other basics in life.
Discounts for students hell yes, why not, if your in a union etc you get some limited discounts on stuff whats the difference,if your a mp look at their discounts obscene ammounts.Personally i would like to see discounts like for the students get for armed forces personnel,nurses,and emergency services workers as they do one fantastic job.
Students as our kids in school are,are the investment of our future and in the sake of scientific and medical
students could be the saviour of us as a human race or indeed the world,you have to invest something for the future whether it be monatary or education to get something back at a later date,at least students
aim to get work or equip themselves for work to put back much needed tax once qualified and in work at higher earner bracket to lower the inflation in business sense.
So i would prefer some one get a wee bit of discount now to help them along instead of paying out benefits to people to sit on their backside and sprout out kids they expect the tax payer to fund which is bigger drain on tax payer than any number of students getting a little discount or free council tax.
well done to all students keep up the good work.

[jim]

That's a fair point, but the country as a whole also benefits, so long as the subjects are valuable ...

Personally I would divide subjects into three categories :-

High Value. These should be subsidised and include the major vocational subjects like engineering, science, maths, law, architecture, the medical disciplines, etc.

Standard Value. These should be part subsidised as ALL degrees currently are. This includes the less obviously useful subjects like history, music, geography, languages, PPE, media studies, etc.

Private Degrees. These should be fully self funded and include purely self interest subjects such as history of art, dance, classics, philosophy, etc.

We should be encouraging subjects that will sustain our nations wealth and force the idle rich to pay for their 3 years of messing about with "toy" subjects.

By doing that though, you risk ensuring that every student takes the same subjects because they are the cheap ones. We didn't get anywhere as a species by having everybody specialise in the same things.

Sure, some subjects look as though they don't provide any tangible benefits to society as a whole, but that's a very basic outlook. I fully agree that if someone spends 3 years doing philosophy, then spends the rest of their lives just 'contemplating' as if they're some kind of genius, then we've wasted money. But they can use what they've gained to go into business just like anyone who did engineering or physics. Most firms these days that I talk to are employing people from a range of disciplines to get a better breadth of skills.

The idea that physics students are all getting their degrees and working in the sciences to benefit humanity, whilst all of the philosophy students are getting their degrees and then contributing nothing to society is a bit simplistic, to say the least.

[dave87]

That's a fair point, but the country as a whole also benefits, so long as the subjects are valuable ...

Personally I would divide subjects into three categories :-

High Value. These should be subsidised and include the major vocational subjects like engineering, science, maths, law, architecture, the medical disciplines, etc.

Standard Value. These should be part subsidised as ALL degrees currently are. This includes the less obviously useful subjects like history, music, geography, languages, PPE, media studies, etc.

Private Degrees. These should be fully self funded and include purely self interest subjects such as history of art, dance, classics, philosophy, etc.


We should be encouraging subjects that will sustain our nations wealth and force the idle rich to pay for their 3 years of messing about with "toy" subjects.

I don't want to pick out this post in isolation, but I think the wider population have a fundamental misconception of the purpose of a university education, this just highlights it most clearly.

University education, unlike I would argue that you receive up until the age of 16, possibly 18, is not about teaching you a set of facts to pass an exam. Neither is it about teaching you a load of information so you can go off and be a lawyer/doctor/dentist/etc etc, though inevitably that is a very beneficial side effect. University education teaches you how to learn. It teaches you how to approach a problem. It teaches you how to educate yourself. That is key, and the reason why I'm going to defend the History of Art or PPE etc.

If you take a graduate from a decent university, having studied an academically rigorous degree (so no, not media studies or a variant thereof), and ask them to solve a problem in a field they've never studied before, and you did the same with someone who hasn't been to university - you'll get two very different results.

Take an example - Someone who has done a History degree. Give them a Legal question to scrutinise....there will be a considered, logical, structured approach learned through having studied History, which they will use to solve the problem. I'm not saying that someone who hasn't gone to university won't be able to solve the same problem - but there is a distinct set of transferable skills that academically rigorous degrees teach you. The topic matter is largely irrelevant - it is the approach, the 'soft skills' that count. It is also the reason why you find so many History students, Economics students, etc etc heading into complex areas like Law, Aerospace, dare I say Politics?

This is also the reason why so many places have Graduate Programmes, not just '18/21+ and completed some formal training or other'. Employers know these skills are developed, honed, refined in a different context, but they know they are transferable. They know with a limited investment in the graduate, they are likely to reap a substantial reward - they don't know that with someone at 18.

The other aspect to University is that it shows what you can do. A number of people I know were tutored through some of their classes at school, and did very well. A number also had a lot of pressure placed on them by their families, which resulted in them doing very well. Come to university and unless you are extremely bright, then you get out what you put in. If you don't do the work, the University can kick you off the course, but I know a number of people who missed most of the lectures on my degree course, crammed before the exam and got a Desmond (Tutu, 2:2) out the end of it. Equally I know people who worked very hard and got 1st Class Honours, despite getting a B at A-Level in some long forgotten subject.

So yes, I'm a fervent believer in the value of History of Art, or Philosophy, or PPE etc etc. And yes, I will even begrudgingly accept an academically rigorous modern course may develop the same traits, but I've yet to see someone provide a convincing argument that University does not produce transferable skills, which I believe are central to having the best chance to make something of a career in the increasingly complex modern world.



On a separate but related note - Bunji - what's with the hate towards people who sit in offices? Just because an accountant attacks a complex tax problem but doesn't get sweaty building a wall, does it make his contribution any less valid, or any less worthy because he had a degree to get there?

[Bunjiweb]

Not sure where I showed the hate towards people in offices?...

Looks like I opened a can of worms.

[dave87]

why don't they put in a year or two of hard graft at the lower end of the employment spectrum to help them afford it, rather than building up the ridiculous amount of credit owed from such a young age....

Perhaps I've misread it, but the implication I got from that was that the stuff at the lower end of the employment spectrum was harder, and therefore more valid than the postgraduate job they'll be going into.

If I've misread it/that wasn't what you intended, then my apologies.

[billythewiz]

University education teaches you how to learn. It teaches you how to approach a problem. It teaches you how to educate yourself. That is key, and the reason why I'm going to defend the History of Art or PPE etc.

In the distant past university was the preserve of the wealthy. It was fun time that was purely "academic", i.e. it was of little, practical application. Upon completion, the graduate would stroll into Sandhurst, the city or political position, all courtesy of their old school tie. It didn't matter a jot what they studied.

In more recent years, your statement above has been used to perpetuate the status quo in the face of a massive increase in student numbers. The statement has some truth, in some subjects, but none whatsoever in some others. I'd actually place media studies as being a lot more useful at providing experience of "how to approach a problem" or "how to educate yourself" than say, History of Art or Classics (that's Latin and Greek for those readers who don't realise just how useless it is).

The attitude you express is fine while we are a rich country able and willing to fund anyone who can be bothered to attend, in any nonsense they want to study.
Unfortunately money is now tight and I think the tax payer has the right to see some return on their investment.

You state "there is a distinct set of transferable skills that academically rigorous degrees teach you". I agree. There is also a distinct set of essential skills that an engineering degree (say) teaches you. Every graduate can enrol on accountancy training, or join Proctor and Gamble's Graduate Sales scheme. It doesn't matter what they studied. Any old crap will do, just so long as they passed. That is not true of the skills we need. I'd like to see a PPE graduate get a job as a Civil Engineer !

If your kids want to study Social Anthropology, that's fine, so long as you pay for it and you (they) don't ask my kids to subsidise them. I'm very willing to subsidise your kids if they are going to study something that is likely, or at least capable, of providing some benefit back to our country. They don't have the right to 3 years of fun and frolics, just because they passed some A levels.

FYI, my first degree was a 4 year sandwich course in Physics. I spent a year at UKAEA Harwell doing Nuclear Physics research. I paid for my Masters Degree (Software Engineering) myself, having worked for a few years as an electronic engineer. During those years at Uni I met many of the "2.2" and "1st" types you mention. I met a very small number of planet brains who got their 1st with relative ease. I also met a much larger number of people who studied very hard and still struggled to get their 2.2, despite having a fist full of As at A-level. They were often ex-public schoolies who struggled when they had to do all the work themselves, especially as they had foolishly chosen to attend a university that mainly offered "hard" subjects. There were very few of what the Yanks would call "Liberal Arts" degrees, where I studied.

[TheAnimus]

To me the problem is simple an issue of subject equality, not all subjects are equal. We simply don't need or demand certain subjects, they are no interest to the economy.

As such why are we paying for those?

Also we don't need half as many graduates as we are getting, we can't afford it.

Going back to a more meritocratic system were you have to earn a place by exemplary academic performance might be an idea.

But if we have the 50% notion, someone has to pay, and given that before having 10% of the population been degree education, not having one wasn't a major disadvantage, now not having one is a very large disadvantage, as such why should the other 50% pay for it?

[billythewiz]

Today, if you were 18 and facing a £30k-£50k debt on graduation, would you be more willing to take a Mechanical Engineering course, with 40 hours a week, 40 weeks a year and a 20% failure rate ?
Or would you opt for a History course, with 8 hours a week, 26 weeks a year and a 5% failure rate ?

How much money should the tax payer spend on those two subjects ? The same ? More on history ?

[roachcoach]

Also we don't need half as many graduates as we are getting, we can't afford it.

Simply because degrees have been devalued. They mean nothing much at all any more, save in the specific fields that actually *need* them.

When you see basic admin posts wanting 'educated to a degree level', there is something way off balance. Too many jobs want ANY degree, again, that tells you how much it *actually* matters.


People don't do degrees because they're interested in the study/education any more. They do them because degrees today are the 1980s O-level when it comes to job seeking. Some exceptions obviously apply.

[billythewiz]

Why typing a previous post I looked up "Social Anthropology jobs" and found this.

Kent is a fine University, but I think it's pretty sad to see that when it comes to Social Anthropology, 30% have to study something else and those that do find employment, find it in such well defined areas as "Clerical & Secretarial".

And for that there should be state subsidy ?

[jim]

You state "there is a distinct set of transferable skills that academically rigorous degrees teach you". I agree. There is also a distinct set of essential skills that an engineering degree (say) teaches you. Every graduate can enrol on accountancy training, or join Proctor and Gamble's Graduate Sales scheme. It doesn't matter what they studied. Any old crap will do, just so long as they passed. That is not true of the skills we need. I'd like to see a PPE graduate get a job as a Civil Engineer !

Great. I don't want to be a Civil Engineer though, so tell me why under your plan I should be forced to do an engineering degree?

Today, if you were 18 and facing a £30k-£50k debt on graduation, would you be more willing to take a Mechanical Engineering course, with 40 hours a week, 40 weeks a year and a 20% failure rate ?
Or would you opt for a History course, with 8 hours a week, 26 weeks a year and a 5% failure rate ?

How much money should the tax payer spend on those two subjects ? The same ? More on history ?

If I wanted to do Mech Eng, the former, if I wanted to history, the latter.

Having said that, it seems a little pointless discussing your post, since you're just making up bizarre statistics to back up a dodgy argument. Since when did any university have different length terms for different subjects? And since when did a history course take 8 hours a week?

[aidanjt]

In many European countries, higher education is paid for by the state. Why? Because it's an investment in the future. Today's students will be building tomorrow's economy. Saddling them with choking debt and driving them into the grind stone isn't a recipe for success.

[roachcoach]

In many European countries, higher education is paid for by the state. Why? Because it's an investment in the future. Today's students will be building tomorrow's economy. Saddling them with choking debt and driving them into the grind stone isn't a recipe for success.

That's because of the reasons in my earlier post - a degree is now required for almost all but the most burger-flippier of roles. A VERY swift check on S1 jobs reveals this: HR Assistant, ideally DEGREE educated. £8.50 per hour. Seriously? A degree required for a £16k job?

Most students aren't doing degrees because they want that degree, they're doing it as its the only way to have a fighting chance at employment in today's utterly screwed up job market. That's the only reason they're boosting the economy: its horribly difficult to get a decent job without one.

It would probably be healthier long term to have less people go to uni so fewer employers can demand degrees for roles which patently have NO requirement for a degree. The elitism of a 'degree' has created a situation where not having one is crippling, as opposed to advantageous/required for a certain specialised role/field as it was in the past.

I take issue with the situation we've created where EVERYONE and their dog is obligated to do a degree (any degree at all), unless they want almost as big a handicap in job applications as a criminal record. I also take issue when people say they want free education - they don't, they want a free degree so they can get good work, free education is already here, libraries are over there. But I digress on that last point.



Caveat: I'm well aware there are a decent number of positions out there which genuinely require a degree, but those are very much in the minority, even lower are the decent jobs which don't need one at all, those are a dying breed though.

[Larkspeed]

Some people do...

Some people take time out to get a job and work a menial job for 2 years to build up some money... Commuting an hour a day in order to have a job...
Then when they get to uni, as well as having uni work to do, they hold down a job... Or multiple jobs..
In order to pay the bills, sure, student finance pays the rent but there's plenty of other things to cover.
Not only do some people have 15+ hours of lectures to attend, but they also have work interspaced with that, giving them 9-7 days in some cases. On top of that, add in additional work at weekends to pull in some more cash, and being turned away from work opportunities because you don't have anough time in the day to cover them. Then add in the time needed to juggle 6 assignments at a time and needing to split your time between all of them in order to get them in on time and still maintain >90%

I pay tax on my work because I have a job to go to when i'm out of term time as well as in term time.. Because that's what the system imposes. I don't moan. I get on with it like everyone else.
I don't bitch and moan when my car needs repairing and i'm left to foot a £2000 bill or when insurance comes round the corner again. I get on with it.

Sure some students live off money from their parents. But others try their utmost to do everything on their own, to not accept help whenever it is offered, only when it is needed. Sure some students drink their life away at the pub and just fail their degree, and you know what? That's their choice, if that's the person that they want to be, building up debt for no reason, then so be it...

I juggle everything and still manage to maintain a somewhat healthy social life. Sure I haven't been 'out' more than three times this year, and I haven't gone anywhere with my girlfriend, but at the end of the day, it's just tough luck, neither of us can afford it, so we just spend time together when we get chance when neither of us are working. Even if that means she has to come see me while i'm in networking labs doing EIGRP/RIP practicals or in the microprocessor labs designing circuit boards or she's doing some screen printing, or just at home while i'm writing code or she's doing artwork...

Some people juggle more than others think in order to survive and better themselves without making a fuss about it... And you know why? Because that's life..

And that is exactly how it should be done.

Sorry but all these students that moan that they have to pay for this or that and are now moaning that they have to pay taxes and then either sit on their butts playing xbox with their mates or polishing a bar stool need to spend a bit less time skiving and a bit more time actually doing some real work towards attaining their goals instead of thinking it should just be handed to them.

Higher education is a privilege not a right and that privilege costs money. Live with it.

[mcmiller]

To me the problem is simple an issue of subject equality, not all subjects are equal. We simply don't need or demand certain subjects, they are no interest to the economy.

As such why are we paying for those?

Also we don't need half as many graduates as we are getting, we can't afford it.

This comes across as really arrogant. You'll be writing next that Universities should only have science and engineering subjects no English or art subjects because art has never contributed anything to society, ugh...

[shaithis]

Today, if you were 18 and facing a £30k-£50k debt on graduation

I stopped it there as for me this is the moist pertinant bit...........if you are racking up 30-50k of debt, then what is another £1kpa?

Just add the tax to their debts....it's hardly going to make a difference for them in the long run.