tuition fees?
Posted by chet
Morbid Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Education is not about jobs. That is secondary.
>
> Every way that social sciences have found, to
> measure decision-making and quality of life, show
> improvements with education. You just make better
> choices, in health, in wealth, in social settings
> and so on.
>
> Education improves quality of life. Education
> makes the educated a better citizen and is a
> resource for society. Hence education simply
> builds a better society, regardless of the
> prospects of ever getting a job.
>
> That is the primary objective of education.
> Building a better world for everybody.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
-------------------------------------------------------
> Education is not about jobs. That is secondary.
>
> Every way that social sciences have found, to
> measure decision-making and quality of life, show
> improvements with education. You just make better
> choices, in health, in wealth, in social settings
> and so on.
>
> Education improves quality of life. Education
> makes the educated a better citizen and is a
> resource for society. Hence education simply
> builds a better society, regardless of the
> prospects of ever getting a job.
>
> That is the primary objective of education.
> Building a better world for everybody.
REHAB IS FOR QUITTERS
I didn't go to uni because my A levels went disastrously and basically I didn't think I was clever enough. On the basis of the stress of probably failing at uni and hence being in epic debt would have probably caused, I think I made the correct decision.
I don't think university should be the "be and end all" of education anyway. I know graduates from my year at school who are un-employed and are on benefits, they're probably infinitely more academically intelligent than me, vastly more qualified than me, yet I am the one with relatively steady full time employment and ironically funding the self-employed graduate via my taxes, and that's fine so long as they're actively looking for work and not simply sitting on their arse and somehow living a better standard of life than me on my money :P
There also seems to be a lot of nonsense degrees, which strikes of a dumb downed society, (though I could be wrong on this :P ) and isn't it true that many people go into a completely different field of employment than what they studied for? Which certainly suggests that simply having the word "degree" on your CV opens several doors and gives you a leg up over non graduates.
However, being academically smart and having a degree doesn't necessarily make you better for the job over someone who is educated to college level, or who did an apprenticeship or some other job based learning, or simply left school straight into employment. Heck one of the physics teachers I had during my time in the sixth form may have known his subject inside out and back to front (which he clearly did) but other than that he was a complete idiot who I seriously doubt was capable of even tying his own shoe lace, had a complete lack of common sense, practicality or organisation.
So whilst a degree shows an ability to learn a subject or a field of expertise, it doesn't automatically show an ability to apply it, and to me being able to apply your ability, having common sense and practical ability to organise and manage is far more valuable than a piece of paper with "deegree" on it that costs £9000 or more.
And whilst rising uni fees will certainly be a bore and added pressure on future students, the money has to come from somewhere, you could say that if should be completely funded by the state, and whilst that would be wonderful, you'd also have a heck of lot of tax payers paying for an education that they'll never receive. Whilst I agree everyone should have an equal opportunity to have the education, I don't agree that it should be funded by the tax payer, or tax payer funded banks or whatever, mainly because I know I'll never be going to uni and don't see why I should be paying for other people to do so.
I don't think university should be the "be and end all" of education anyway. I know graduates from my year at school who are un-employed and are on benefits, they're probably infinitely more academically intelligent than me, vastly more qualified than me, yet I am the one with relatively steady full time employment and ironically funding the self-employed graduate via my taxes, and that's fine so long as they're actively looking for work and not simply sitting on their arse and somehow living a better standard of life than me on my money :P
There also seems to be a lot of nonsense degrees, which strikes of a dumb downed society, (though I could be wrong on this :P ) and isn't it true that many people go into a completely different field of employment than what they studied for? Which certainly suggests that simply having the word "degree" on your CV opens several doors and gives you a leg up over non graduates.
However, being academically smart and having a degree doesn't necessarily make you better for the job over someone who is educated to college level, or who did an apprenticeship or some other job based learning, or simply left school straight into employment. Heck one of the physics teachers I had during my time in the sixth form may have known his subject inside out and back to front (which he clearly did) but other than that he was a complete idiot who I seriously doubt was capable of even tying his own shoe lace, had a complete lack of common sense, practicality or organisation.
So whilst a degree shows an ability to learn a subject or a field of expertise, it doesn't automatically show an ability to apply it, and to me being able to apply your ability, having common sense and practical ability to organise and manage is far more valuable than a piece of paper with "deegree" on it that costs £9000 or more.
And whilst rising uni fees will certainly be a bore and added pressure on future students, the money has to come from somewhere, you could say that if should be completely funded by the state, and whilst that would be wonderful, you'd also have a heck of lot of tax payers paying for an education that they'll never receive. Whilst I agree everyone should have an equal opportunity to have the education, I don't agree that it should be funded by the tax payer, or tax payer funded banks or whatever, mainly because I know I'll never be going to uni and don't see why I should be paying for other people to do so.
"The population of U.S. undergraduates at United Kingdom schools has spiked 30 percent in five years, to 3,560 in the 2008-09 academic year, the most recent figure available from Britain's Higher Education Statistics Agency."
[www.washingtonpost.com]
One extra thing to be blamed on the US
[www.washingtonpost.com]
One extra thing to be blamed on the US
J i m schrieb:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Heck one of the physics teachers
> I had during my time in the sixth form may have
> known his subject inside out and back to front
> (which he clearly did) but other than that he was
> a complete idiot who I seriously doubt was capable
> of even tying his own shoe lace, had a complete
> lack of common sense, practicality or
> organisation.
basic features of all physicists
used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld
-------------------------------------------------------
> Heck one of the physics teachers
> I had during my time in the sixth form may have
> known his subject inside out and back to front
> (which he clearly did) but other than that he was
> a complete idiot who I seriously doubt was capable
> of even tying his own shoe lace, had a complete
> lack of common sense, practicality or
> organisation.
basic features of all physicists
used to be GPGSL's Nick Heidfeld
Morbid...
I wasn't arguing against education, I was merely reflecting that university education or educated people aren't always the best things since sliced bread, it's not entirely hogwash.
Besides I also don't think raised fees are the biggest disaster of the world, especially if people are able to get loans, sponsorships or scholarships. Plus with a student loan, you only really start paying it back when you start earning above a certain amount, and since it's spread over a very long period it's a very manageable amount to pay. I'm not sure what happens if a graduate never starts earning that threshold though, do they simply not have to repay the loan or what?
I wasn't arguing against education, I was merely reflecting that university education or educated people aren't always the best things since sliced bread, it's not entirely hogwash.
Besides I also don't think raised fees are the biggest disaster of the world, especially if people are able to get loans, sponsorships or scholarships. Plus with a student loan, you only really start paying it back when you start earning above a certain amount, and since it's spread over a very long period it's a very manageable amount to pay. I'm not sure what happens if a graduate never starts earning that threshold though, do they simply not have to repay the loan or what?
I went to University, and I look back now and partly think I may have been better going straight into a job, worked my way up, and studied part time.
Not possible for everyone, or their career path.
I studied architecture, and have landed, by fluke, a postgraduate job in Eton, Windsor in a lovely little firm doing work on Eton College and other prestigious locations.
But despite this, and a 5k pay rise after only three months, I still feel I may have been better working right after A Levels, being a 'teaboy', learning the ropes, and then doing my Uni course on a one-day a week and taking an extra year/two years to finish it.
I'd have earn on the go AND gained experience.
Then again, I most likely wouldn't have been considered for this job without my degree...
Swings and roundabouts.
A bit off topic to where I was intending to reply, sorry.
But I am in favour of the rises. Sure, people miss out. That is unfair.
However, the problem is so bad with the de-valuing of a degree that I honestly think the UK needs this drastic approach to get back to the state we were in 10-15 years ago or so.
Depending on the course, say, Medicine? The rise in fee's makes it almost impossible for a lesser well off student with a good head the chance to become a Doctor. True? I say false... In some cases, perhaps. But there are opportunities such as sponsorships, grants, that sort of thing with the right role and job.
Where there is a need, there are funds of some form. Even in a recession.
But it's the 'dossy' courses where students end up without a specific role that are causing the issue in my opinion.
Media. Philosophy. English Literature. American Studies. Photography.
Sure, if you are going into teaching, or using these directly... I think that's good!
But to do a degree 'for the sake of it', 'a la carte' is the killing point. What are your intentions?
I watched Gossip Girl last night and it got me thinking... how some people have a career path lined up post-degree, and thus have a direction and a focus to work towards.
The trouble with 'dossy' degrees is that they don't have a specific outcome. The degree could therefore be almost anything, a filler. A thing to do, to say you've done it. Only to end up in a job you could have got most likely before that degree.
In these cases, the degree is a bit of a waste. Of money. Time. Purpose.
How many people do I know have 'secretary' or 'PA' or 'admin staff' as a job role? My own girlfriend is struggling with a textiles degree. She's fighting for admin/secretary roles. She's being interviewed with 18 year olds with no degree, but can do the exact same role. For lesser wage. Guess who wins!?
It's nice to have aims, but I think degree choice should have stricter ruling.
People should prove why they should take it. Not just scoring marks, but showing how they will use it. Companies, if only, should be allowed to have wider intern programmes. The government could make better use of ditching 100's of crap courses by assisting real companies into taking on students into guaranteed roles. Even for short term. The real world is scary, and we have too many entering it without a clue how it works.
But what if they can't? Well.... no jobs, no purpose, then the degree intake is lowered per year on a demand basis.
I apologise for sounding snobby. I don't mean to be.
I am only saying this because I took a degree knowing EXACTLY what I would get from it, and the EXACT role I would slot into it. My path was made, and I haven't fallen offtrack. Even in the recession.
Rare? Lucky? Yes. I am thankful.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2010 12:48AM by danm.
Not possible for everyone, or their career path.
I studied architecture, and have landed, by fluke, a postgraduate job in Eton, Windsor in a lovely little firm doing work on Eton College and other prestigious locations.
But despite this, and a 5k pay rise after only three months, I still feel I may have been better working right after A Levels, being a 'teaboy', learning the ropes, and then doing my Uni course on a one-day a week and taking an extra year/two years to finish it.
I'd have earn on the go AND gained experience.
Then again, I most likely wouldn't have been considered for this job without my degree...
Swings and roundabouts.
A bit off topic to where I was intending to reply, sorry.
But I am in favour of the rises. Sure, people miss out. That is unfair.
However, the problem is so bad with the de-valuing of a degree that I honestly think the UK needs this drastic approach to get back to the state we were in 10-15 years ago or so.
Depending on the course, say, Medicine? The rise in fee's makes it almost impossible for a lesser well off student with a good head the chance to become a Doctor. True? I say false... In some cases, perhaps. But there are opportunities such as sponsorships, grants, that sort of thing with the right role and job.
Where there is a need, there are funds of some form. Even in a recession.
But it's the 'dossy' courses where students end up without a specific role that are causing the issue in my opinion.
Media. Philosophy. English Literature. American Studies. Photography.
Sure, if you are going into teaching, or using these directly... I think that's good!
But to do a degree 'for the sake of it', 'a la carte' is the killing point. What are your intentions?
I watched Gossip Girl last night and it got me thinking... how some people have a career path lined up post-degree, and thus have a direction and a focus to work towards.
The trouble with 'dossy' degrees is that they don't have a specific outcome. The degree could therefore be almost anything, a filler. A thing to do, to say you've done it. Only to end up in a job you could have got most likely before that degree.
In these cases, the degree is a bit of a waste. Of money. Time. Purpose.
How many people do I know have 'secretary' or 'PA' or 'admin staff' as a job role? My own girlfriend is struggling with a textiles degree. She's fighting for admin/secretary roles. She's being interviewed with 18 year olds with no degree, but can do the exact same role. For lesser wage. Guess who wins!?
It's nice to have aims, but I think degree choice should have stricter ruling.
People should prove why they should take it. Not just scoring marks, but showing how they will use it. Companies, if only, should be allowed to have wider intern programmes. The government could make better use of ditching 100's of crap courses by assisting real companies into taking on students into guaranteed roles. Even for short term. The real world is scary, and we have too many entering it without a clue how it works.
But what if they can't? Well.... no jobs, no purpose, then the degree intake is lowered per year on a demand basis.
I apologise for sounding snobby. I don't mean to be.
I am only saying this because I took a degree knowing EXACTLY what I would get from it, and the EXACT role I would slot into it. My path was made, and I haven't fallen offtrack. Even in the recession.
Rare? Lucky? Yes. I am thankful.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2010 12:48AM by danm.
In conclusion, the rises ARE a bad thing. For many.
But in the context of the UK working and not falling into a pit, we need to lower the amount of 'floaters' in university.
People spending tax money doing a course that adds nothing to their education. Get them doing useful things. Why learn about Hieroglyphics if you just like the course, but want to work in an office with zero relevance!? Pointless... no offence. I have a friend who did this, because he 'liked Egyptians'. He is not a runner for a TV station. Referred by a friend, word of mouth. His degree? No real use here...
Education is vital. But a degree isn't automatically education. And that, I feel, is the problem.
Remove the pointless junk, and invest in the chain of Education to Jobs. It's the weak link.
A uni course should have a 3/6/9/12 month guaranteed role upon graduation with a firm as part of taking the time study. Think how beneficial that would be to the student to get vital experience; cuts the 'instant job seeker' syndrome for at least the first 3/6/9/12 months and companies get either cheap labour for a short while, or a handy new member of their team with little effort. Or they could have the role, and work for no money during the internship in return for having their fee's partly reduced/paid. Either way, the money taken to pay for such a course via taxes is reinvested back to the nation in the form of workforce. Three months of experience and unpaid work could effectively pay for a third of a degree. That's a heck of a lot better than we have now. And it keeps employment flowing.
We have a surplus of 'over qualified' kids without actual qualifications of use, and no direct jobs for them. Get them doing something more useful, and cut out the pointless options.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2010 01:02AM by danm.
But in the context of the UK working and not falling into a pit, we need to lower the amount of 'floaters' in university.
People spending tax money doing a course that adds nothing to their education. Get them doing useful things. Why learn about Hieroglyphics if you just like the course, but want to work in an office with zero relevance!? Pointless... no offence. I have a friend who did this, because he 'liked Egyptians'. He is not a runner for a TV station. Referred by a friend, word of mouth. His degree? No real use here...
Education is vital. But a degree isn't automatically education. And that, I feel, is the problem.
Remove the pointless junk, and invest in the chain of Education to Jobs. It's the weak link.
A uni course should have a 3/6/9/12 month guaranteed role upon graduation with a firm as part of taking the time study. Think how beneficial that would be to the student to get vital experience; cuts the 'instant job seeker' syndrome for at least the first 3/6/9/12 months and companies get either cheap labour for a short while, or a handy new member of their team with little effort. Or they could have the role, and work for no money during the internship in return for having their fee's partly reduced/paid. Either way, the money taken to pay for such a course via taxes is reinvested back to the nation in the form of workforce. Three months of experience and unpaid work could effectively pay for a third of a degree. That's a heck of a lot better than we have now. And it keeps employment flowing.
We have a surplus of 'over qualified' kids without actual qualifications of use, and no direct jobs for them. Get them doing something more useful, and cut out the pointless options.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2010 01:02AM by danm.
depends what we define as 'floaters' in regards to tuition fees.
some people may mistake the tuition rise as an elitist move that only benefits the financially secure.
in part it does, sadly.
however, it does then make potential students question if they REALLY want to go to university, and if it will serve them to be 30k in debt. Is that course REALLY worthwhile?
That in itself will surely cut the number of students generally, and thus in theory reduce the need for 'wet' courses in rubbish subject degrees, and strengthening the value of other degrees. Isnt that what is trying to be achieved long term?
Employers know the value of a First Degree Media student and a 2.2 Medicine student. Heck, even a Third medical student....The whole concept of floater courses shouldn't have been given a chance to flourish as they have done. Sure, people know the difference between two students, but it is an unnecessary burden on the economy in the name of 'everyone should have the opportunity'.
They should. If its worthwhile at the end. And only then.
Still doesnt quite solve if you are poor though... but then a tougher entrance procedure with fewer places and no crap courses would be easier to fund. We'd only be paying taxes for half of the shi% we are paying for now, and getting quality students at the end of it.
Now, we pay for them to waste 3 years to be trained in a subject with no relevance for a position they could have taken aged 18. And they we probably pay another few years old jobseekers because they are unspecifically skilled. Lol.
Tuition Rise is harsh though.
Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it
some people may mistake the tuition rise as an elitist move that only benefits the financially secure.
in part it does, sadly.
however, it does then make potential students question if they REALLY want to go to university, and if it will serve them to be 30k in debt. Is that course REALLY worthwhile?
That in itself will surely cut the number of students generally, and thus in theory reduce the need for 'wet' courses in rubbish subject degrees, and strengthening the value of other degrees. Isnt that what is trying to be achieved long term?
Employers know the value of a First Degree Media student and a 2.2 Medicine student. Heck, even a Third medical student....The whole concept of floater courses shouldn't have been given a chance to flourish as they have done. Sure, people know the difference between two students, but it is an unnecessary burden on the economy in the name of 'everyone should have the opportunity'.
They should. If its worthwhile at the end. And only then.
Still doesnt quite solve if you are poor though... but then a tougher entrance procedure with fewer places and no crap courses would be easier to fund. We'd only be paying taxes for half of the shi% we are paying for now, and getting quality students at the end of it.
Now, we pay for them to waste 3 years to be trained in a subject with no relevance for a position they could have taken aged 18. And they we probably pay another few years old jobseekers because they are unspecifically skilled. Lol.
Tuition Rise is harsh though.
Things like medical degrees etc which produce doctors etc in my view should be subsidised, be either through the state and/or through private scholarship. Let's face it, you have to be damn clever to become doctor, and then probably even smarter to then specialise on top of that and become a surgeon etc. This is the kind of thing where practically no one is going to enter into it lightly. You can never have too many doctors either, even if the government are trying to cut services (which frankly is insane).
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for there being motivation and subsidisation for the kind of degrees at that are properly useful to society as a whole, things which really push forward development and make things better for everybody, I never advocated against that.
But degrees in media? Couldn't those be funded, or at least subsidised by the media companies and broadcasters? When I was in the sixth-form there were 4 of us studying maths, physics and computers. Nearly all of the others were doing media studies and the like. And why on earth do you need a degree in photography?! That's a nonsense if there ever was one, some of the best photographers I know are self taught in photography and employed gainfully in it on their talent, and not for an expensive sheet of paper.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for there being motivation and subsidisation for the kind of degrees at that are properly useful to society as a whole, things which really push forward development and make things better for everybody, I never advocated against that.
But degrees in media? Couldn't those be funded, or at least subsidised by the media companies and broadcasters? When I was in the sixth-form there were 4 of us studying maths, physics and computers. Nearly all of the others were doing media studies and the like. And why on earth do you need a degree in photography?! That's a nonsense if there ever was one, some of the best photographers I know are self taught in photography and employed gainfully in it on their talent, and not for an expensive sheet of paper.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.