tuition fees?

Jim has a point in that some education isn't actually education. Some woman was in the tabloids here recently for getting a phd in Coronation Street (For those outside the UK, it is a successful long running soap opera in the UK). I'm all for education, but that is a joke.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
theRacingLine.net
SportsCarArchives.com

J i m Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> 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.

That requires some sort of discussion about what is useful for society. That is a political discussion. Write an email to you local representative. Write letters to you media (hopefully newspaper) of choice. It is possible to incite change, and your tax money does make you entitled to have a say in the political discussion.

> But degrees in media?

Ahhh, the Sophists as the Greeks called them. The philosophers had the opinion that those that got education had a duty to make it useful for society. Among other things, they did so, by arguing for truth at the marketplace, the political scene of the time. Thus they fought for enlightenment of the populace, for the promoting of wisdom, and for democracy through rational discourse.

The Sophists took the philosophical education, and sold their services to the rich, who felt marginalized by democracy. The ethos was manipulation of the masses, and hence distortion of the political realm, so the rich could use their wealth to acquire political power beyond the intentions of the system.

Not much has changed unfortunately. If you watch Fox news you will get the point.

That being said, there are quests worth doing, that require media studies. Not all of them are intellectual whores.

> 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.

Sounds pretty exotic. :S But we don't have a degree in photography here in Denmark, so I wouldn't know.


DaveEllis Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Jim has a point in that some education isn't
> actually education. Some woman was in the tabloids
> here recently for getting a phd in Coronation
> Street (For those outside the UK, it is a
> successful long running soap opera in the UK). I'm
> all for education, but that is a joke.


Usually, the ph.d. student will have put in a section about the relevance of the current study. But you will have to find the dissertation itself to get the information (or contact the author in question). I can think of a few approaches to such a ph.d. that would be worth doing. I can also think of many that are not.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/21/2010 02:47PM by Morbid.

Britian went through a phase a long time ago of converting colleges to universities, and the courses too. This was a mistake. Media, care nursing, photography should have been kept as college courses...

I think also, as an engineering grad I wont mind the increase because IF i manage to get a job in aerospace paying back a £9,000/year tuition will not be of any trouble. For degrees with jobs that will pay well enough the increase is okay (£21,000 +).... but degrees where starting wage is below £21,000 (many!) then the tuition should be equivalent IMO.

Dave, that phd, is the subject coronation street and is it in regards to how coronation street portrays lives or something of that sort? or the media behind it? more info would be more telling.... that does sound pretty poor though!

---

"Trulli was slowing down like he wanted to have a picnic" LOL

+1 on Chet there, spot on what I was trying and failing to imply.

Tuition increases would perhaps be better proportioned to the expected and gained salary.

As with Chet, I don't like the rise, but knowing exactly where you are heading out of it post-uni is significant.

Too many people are paying too much to gain very little, which is the essence of this problem. They basically don't really need to be there doing a degree in something pointless. I have as much debate from reading Heat Magazine as friends who have done three years of a Social Media course. It only cost me 65p.

That isn't being harsh, its pretty true. Degrees for the sake of 'free for all education' might be great morally, but what is the point? In the short, they are happy at being given chances as others. But long term, they still wont gain much to aid their input on society, and the vast majority end up doing something they didn't want or expect to. Too many loose opportunities these days.

Give students restricted choices, but give those fewer choices greater depth and sense of direction/purpose.

Quick roundup of a snippet of people I have spoken to recently from my uni gang:

Emma - studied English Literature. Got a 2.1. Unemployed for 15 months after graduating. Got a temp 3 month placement as a secretary for a marketing firm. Unemployed for another 4 months. Now works as a marketing something/receptionist.
Sal - studied Economic Law. Got a 2.1. Went straight into a job in London. Still there. Just bought his first apartment.
Jon - studied Architecture. Got a 2.2. Joined the police graduate scheme. Now a qualified street officer.
Carly - studied English and Creative Writing. Got a 2.1. Did summer work in a tea shop. Now works in a supermarket. Still.
Duncan - studied product design. Worked in a bar for the summer break. Joined a PGCE course. Now a D&T teacher.
Rob - studied product design. Did bar work for summer and went travelling. Got a job for an aerospace and structural steel company. Still employed there.
Matt - studied architecture.
Joe - studied psychology. Got a 2.1. Went travelling. Bar work. Now working for a hospitality programme for english people out in Dubai on holidays and some entertainment thing.
Finch - studied Business. Got a 2.2. Works in a pub still.
Sam - studied marine biology. Worked as admin staff in an office for a year. Saved and applied to Manchester Uni to work as a part time NHS cardiac nurse.
David - studied astrophysics and did a masters in programming. Got a First. Now works in canada square, London, in banking security systems.
Amy - studied psychology and sociology with media. Works in River Island.
Beth - studied media and creative writing. Jobless for a year. Just applied to do a PGCE.
Alvin - studied Geography and Combined Biology with Business. Now works for Thames Water.


Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it

danm Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Degrees
> for the sake of 'free for all education' might be
> great morally, but what is the point?

Yes...

The sovereignty of the individual: the inalienable right to live one’s life and to seek happiness - it is great morally but really... what is the point? Free choice is so... messy! It is much better that some autocratic authority keeps order, and tells you what to do. It makes for greater depth and sense of purpose!

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.

The future of things to come is currently running on a severely restricted and uncharged battery life.

The current generation is taking so much from this 'freedom of choice' and whatnot, that this throwaway attitude and care-lessness about what happens next is going to bite them and us in the backside very soon. There is not future planning. Coronation Street degree now, because. No questions.

And then what?

If anything, the years of wars fought to give us this freedom could ironically be the end of us by making everyone self centred and full of solitary goals and intentions.

We ALL suffer for no reason. Everything sacrificed to make this world where we are all free to make choices creates people who just do as they please for themselves. They do things 'because they want to'. Not necessarily because they NEED to. Freedom and rights is a wonderful gift we are able to have and express. But this I feel must be limited in order for our human race to flourish. Thats called sacrifice, aka work, jobs, chores, charity etc.

I think most of the world would choose not to work in any form if they didn't have to. But they do, because they NEED to. To stay alive. These crappy degrees are not remotely preparing people for the future, and that is the basis of my argument.

Wars fought to provide freedom. Three generations later, we are all doing what we want, and because of that, things get neglected. Vital things. Why is it it comparisons are made quoting this current social climate to be worse than it was during the great global depression of the 20s and world wars?

The issue I have with this freedom of choice isnt that they should not be allowed it, but they should really have at least an indicative direction at what they want from it re: useless degree courses.

Sure, its fine not to know. Variation et all, but when such a large proportion are 'gambling' on the unknown, do you not see why this is irritating? Freedom then becomes a liability, because it could lead to a worse off society of 'takers' who grow up without a sense of purpose, and end up not knowing how to fit a role.

In other organisms, this is parasitic. It leads us to the many interpretations and aspects of social darwinism and fascism, and the many contraditions. I find it fascinating.

Society of all forms needs rules and regulators. Nature has always had it. It will never cease. And if, when, it does, then said society will collapse.

A parasitic race is not exactly the utopian dream of freedom, is it? But too much freedom is going to make this. We may get the odd happy camper willing to give, but most people take. Its a sad truth.


If we were in a colony of ants, and decided to wander off and not 'work' collecting food, our colony suffers. If two ants do it, hardly a different. But when every ant does so, KABOOM.

See where I am going? Freedom = yes. BUT with a slither of purpose by means of rules and hierarchy.


Jenson drives it like he owns it; Lewis drives it like he stole it



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2010 11:09AM by danm.

Morbid, I haven't the intelligence to put up much of a debate to you :p Freedom of choice is paramount, I'd never assume to tell anyone what to do with their lives or what career they ought to persue. I can't help being irked when others try telling me what to do with my life (referring to things outside the forum and in actual real life) and I also can't help having distaste for what I see as unworthy use of tax payers contributions what ever it might be, weather I'm justified in that view or not, it's my freedom to have it.

Freedom of choice in education should of course be there, but that doesn't mean that there can't be incentives to motivate people away from nonsensical wastes of a degree and into somehing that truly benefits society in general such as medicine, technology and renewable energy. These are things which could really make a difference. I really can't see the use in having a degree on a fictional soap opera, indeed I could probably pull something more useful out of my backside. Yet if someone chooses to follow that avenue, then fine that's their freedom, but they should be prepared to pay for it.

J i m, you do have your right to have a distaste. I even encouraged you to express it, and get engaged in the power-fields that generate those choices. There are many possible outcomes of that. You might learn something. You might also influence some decision makers. It is up for grabs, and that is exactly my point: that is democracy. Go out there and have your say.

Regarding what is useful for society... yes, that is a tricky one. If you read the history of science, you would see, that time and time again, the most unlikely of choices, the most bizarre preoccupations, and utterly weird combinations are those that produce the greatest advances for, not only science, but also for society and the individual. It seems so contra-intuitive that it boggles the mind; except where else would you expect to find new things, than where no one finds it worthwhile looking?

It is precisely because you think it is nonsense, that you don't make the discovery. A few years before Einstein revolutionized physics, the scientific community was convinced, that all the rules and laws had been discovered - it was just a matter of getting all the measurements done and catalogued. We laugh at alchemy, but who would have thought, that centuries of alchemy would lead to chemistry? A waste... for centuries, yes... today, well you tell me!

And this is the point about sciences and knowledge. You cannot predict what leads to what, because you are operating with the map you already have, and discovering something new is to jump completely out of that map! You cannot even predict what endeavours will lead to something useful, and what endeavours will not.

Penicillin has saved at least a hundred million lives. It was probably in widespread use as mouldy bread during the middle ages, but was dismissed as folk lore. Since then it was discovered no less than 4 times and 70 years went by, before it was acknowledged and put into mass production: "What, you want us to cure people with pieces of rotting bread?!? You must be mad!" We all knew the Earth was flat and you would drop off the edge if you went too far. But Columbus wagered his life and 2 extremely valuable ships, resources and crew, that it was not. What if, it hadn't been for those men, who challenged public belief?

The Greeks had all the necessary ingredients for launching the industrial revolution long before Jesus was born. They even had a working steam engine. But they didn't launch the industrial revolution, because what they lacked was a mentality that was refined enough to give a sh!t about other people, they did not like. Their society was based on 1-3% free men, and the rest were serfs and slaves. Doing manual labour was considered techné, an activity no free man would engage in. It would be like you rolling around in mud. It was the work for slaves! So why develop technology to improve their lives? It was easier just to buy another slave. Exactly the same problem mired the Romans, and their civilization collapsed just like the Greek civilization.

It would take over a thousand years to recover from the consequences of what they considered "useless" and "wasteful". And the recipe was millions and millions of manuscripts, plays, poems and songs, that made us develop sympathy and empathy towards people less fortunate than ourselves. The recipe was wasteful and useless culture. The Greeks and the Romans had no problem working people to disability or putting them to their deaths for laughs and giggles. We don't think like that (except fascists and racists), and that is exactly why we strive to produce ever more technology and science that will help improve the quality of life on this planet. That is why we could, and DID launch the industrial revolution, and since the modern revolution and after that, the information revolution.

Being the person, who does not follow the herd invites ridicule. Yet, this is exactly what is needed to make something new. This is the point Steve Jobs is making in the video I linked to, using his own life as an example. He had no idea what he wanted to do, and was a floater at Uni. However, his choices jelled in a way no one could foresee and produced Apple. The modders and programmers here, make stuff that the VAST majority of the entire planets population would agree is utterly useless. Yet Stephan opts to pay for it, and it has brought all sorts of things, that you could never predict.

Someone has to pay. And since the discoveries benefit us all, we all get to contribute. It is just... well it would be nice if it was a neat, structured and predictable process, so we could eliminate all the waste, and get to the really efficient stuff. You know, bang for the buck...

This is the problem... cut away all the "useless" stuff, and you will cripple the whole system. That is why we have to tolerate all the "useless" stuff, and stress the individuals pursuit of what makes sense to them. There is waste, and there are excesses in the system, but it is exactly the point, that we have no good way of telling "waste" from the next revolution that makes the system as it is. To get the good stuff, you will have to accept that at lot of it does not pan out in your lifetime, if ever at all, because we don't have a clue - and those that say they do are lying!

Google has embraced these insights. They have made that into their company strategy for handling knowledge, innovation and management. Last time I checked, every Google employee can use up to 20% of their time, doing whatever they think is best for the company, no questions asked, no management involved. Even the janitors can do this! If you wanted to, you could probably hide in a closet or sit on your butt and drink coffee all day. I bet many employees use that time for socializing and other "non-productive" matters. But that does not stop Google.

They know, if you want the good stuff, you have to accept the waste.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2010 05:09AM by Morbid.

Is this a rather long winded way to say that being obsessed with coronation street could stumble on the next big relvoulution? No I'm sorry, but on the whole your examples are of people who made theory based on obversation and then backed it up with evidence. Society's blindness to this had as much to do with cultural/religious dictatorship and far more than it did to the rising cost of university.

Also people like Einstein for example would have been just as learned in established understanding. I'd envisage that much of their breakthrough research came from their own time on top of the generic stuff they'd already be doing anyway.

The chances of a obsession with coronation street producing the next big thing are really incredibly small, what would you hoping to research? Cultural & social issues? Pychology? The effect of media and broadcasting on society? Well then wouldn't actual life and a degree in psychology social economics or something along those lines be a far better platform from which to do that? Why is it more benifical to progress to do it from a fictional medium with a exaggerated perspective on one perceived reality soley aimed at entertainment and profit?

I think this thread has left the discussion on university fees, and is fast moving into human rights & philosophy. I do think we've achieved a bit of overkill

There is no overkill. I am honestly trying to reply to what you said. Bringing the mentioned ph.d. back into the discussion, when I never brought it up is a blow below the belt. You read what I posted to Dave. It is not reasonable to reduce all I said to the absurd, so it can be dismissed in such a fashion.

I am a philosophy and history major. However, my time at philosophy has also been spent on science studies, including the history of science and epistemology. So I have extensive studies on what science and knowledge really is, and how it operates. I have also been on the board of directors at my university for 3 years, as a voting member, 2 of which I served as a voting member of the research committee. I have granted doctorate titles, founded new Ph.D. programmes, research schools and national research centers, and contributed to the national research plan. 3 of those years, I was a voting member of the educational commitee. I have opened and closed various educations, including, but not limited to bachelor and master degrees. I have done this in most of the fields of knowledge that are present at universities (medicine, law and theology excluded). I have been part of juggling an annual budget of over 65 million Euros and took personal responsibility for their use... it was tax-payer money... all of it!

I did that for free. No pay of any kind. I went into quite a bit of personal debt to do that, because I knew who would do it, if I didn't. I did that to the best of my ability, because I have been taught, that my education should serve humanity, regardless of whether or not I have any monetary gains coming to me. That is how I will repay society for the rest of my life... And if you look at my efforts here at the forums, I do that often, without glory or praise.

Quite the contrary, people don't like when I begin to speak up, and I am often met with anger and resentment. But I do it anyway, because I believe that it is for the good of humanity and because it is my academic duty. That is how I repay society... and of course, with hard cash to meet my current study debts of approximately 60.000€.

This is how I operate. This is how many university graduates operate. Far from all of them, but still the percentage is sizeable.

This is what I have learned in that time. I offered it to you. I tried to express it, through various angles, with well chosen examples, that would illustrate the core of the matter, because I cannot type all that up in a way that you would understand without writing a book - and even then, I would probably fail. So this was my effort to communicate with you, on the issues you raised. I am not in this discussion to win over you. I am here to share with you.

I can understand, that you don't want to believe what I say is true. I don't know why, but I reckon that you either think, that I don't have good intentions or that I am somehow misguided despite my qualifications on the matter. In any case, you want to believe, that people like me are leeches on your wallet.

Fine.

If you adamantly want to believe that, I won't stop you.

---

It's only after we've lost everything, that we are free to do anything.



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 12/22/2010 03:44PM by Morbid.

Now hold on.

I've only been putting forward my view here, we've already established that it's my freedom to do that, as it is yours, as it anybodies choice to choose whatever uni course or direction in life they want to.

However I haven't been calling other people's views hogwash or below the belt, indeed I've done my best not to trample all over other peoples views regardless whether I agree with them or not. To be honest I'm not exactly appreciative of having my arguments dissected in great detail and then having all manner of things derived from when I really haven't intended to imply half of what's been taken from it.

I find it a shame to be handled in such a manner (it almost feels like i've been spoken down to) by a person whom I both like and respect.

I may not be particlary clever, I do have rather limited mental capacity for academics, I'd always be the first to realise and appreciate that, I'm certainly not stupid though, but I'm beginning to be made to feel that way wether it has been said or not.

I think there has been some very valid points from both sides of the coin here, I'm not trying to change your view either, but just because someone doesn't agree, doesn't make the other view wrong.