Employer led culture

[455driver]

So you're saying that poor students shouldn't be able to access education because god forbid should the tax payer have to pay for it? Why do people always us the whole 'tax payer' arguement to justify things, I would rather taxpayers money be used to fund education rather than lining shareholders pockets.

Well most students do take pride in their work, they've chosen to be on that course, they're not there against their own choice, unlike school. I've worked in a fast food chain, there's no real room to take pride in your work because you have to conform to strict standards.

Yes the world is big and bad, but there's nothing wrong with wanting things to be better rather than blithely accepting things.

You have had your education for free, you choose to go into further education (to what end exactly?) so that is your choice.

Oh and as for your rant earlier, if you had bothered to read it all I was actually sticking up for most students who are doing useful courses which will benefit themselves (by improving their earning potential, and the Country by filling the skills shortage) but there are quite a few students who are just doing a course because they can and have no intention of using their time in further education for anything useful.

Oh, I use my natural ability to p+ss people off, its a gift from the Gods!
Why do you choose to latch onto the negative in every post rather than understand them in their entirety?

 

[SWTH]

So you're saying that poor students shouldn't be able to access education because god forbid should the tax payer have to pay for it? Why do people always us the whole 'tax payer' arguement to justify things, I would rather taxpayers money be used to fund education rather than lining shareholders pockets.

Well most students do take pride in their work, they've chosen to be on that course, they're not there against their own choice, unlike school. I've worked in a fast food chain, there's no real room to take pride in your work because you have to conform to strict standards.

Yes the world is big and bad, but there's nothing wrong with wanting things to be better rather than blithely accepting things.

I'm saying, as I have done repeatedly, if you want it, you pay for it. I fail to see any issue with that. Exactly why should anyone else have to stump up for your desire to gain qualifications? You were given a decent education, that provided between the ages of 4 & 16. You want more paid-for education? Above and beyond the 12 years already funded out of the public purse?

As for the tax-payer issue, there is only a finite sum of money available for the budget. Ideally, less expenditure equals lower taxation. The state should not need to provide anymore than the basics, personal responsibility and a willingness to better yourself should be the driving force behind improving your life. More expenditure leads to higher taxation, to balance the books. Higher taxation leads to personal expenditure being squeezed. So, if students demanding that others should fund their lifestyle choice (gaining extra qualifications is YOUR CHOICE) leads directly or indirectly to an increase in taxation, don't you think taxpayers might be just a little put out?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

By paying off a mountain of debt, for the first 10 years of your working life.

Correct. But if you have chosen wisely, that will be more than balanced by the rewards of a better career.

 

[455driver]

By paying off a mountain of debt, for the first 10 years of your working life.

Yes exactly, by using the increased pay that degree has enabled you to earn! :roll:

So basically you want todays taxpayers to fund your degree so you can earn (and keep) more money, is that right?

If so it is a very selfish outlook on life!

 

[Yew]

but there are quite a few students who are just doing a course because they can and have no intention of using their time in further education for anything useful.

As an aside, I'd be quite interested to see figures for the percentage of students whom

a) go into a graduate level job in their chosen subject
b) go into a graduate level job ina subject similar to, or using skills from their degree subject
c) go into a graduate level job in something completely diffferent
d) do something completely different at a 'starter' level
e) go into a 'starter' level job as they are unable to find a suitable position in their sibject


A breakdown by subject and university would be even more interesting. It would also see how large your 'quite a few' is..

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

As an aside, I'd be quite interested to see figures for the percentage of students whom

a) go into a graduate level job in their chosen subject
b) go into a graduate level job ina subject similar to, or using skills from their degree subject
c) go into a graduate level job in something completely diffferent
d) do something completely different at a 'starter' level
e) go into a 'starter' level job as they are unable to find a suitable position in their sibject


A breakdown by subject and university would be even more interesting. It would also see how large your 'quite a few' is..

Interesting...I did (d) I think, started from the very bottom because that particular profession was trying to recruit graduates. I didn't have any perks/fast tracking or whatever.
Some have an assumption that people who go to University are only in it for their increased eaning potential, in my time there seemed to be very few, but, hey, I probably mixed with the wrong people!

 

[Abpj17]

It's pretty sound economics for the state to fund a certain proportion of higher education. It's silly to argue otherwise. It lifts the education level of the population which lifts GDP per capita, which increases the tax base which funds pensions, health, education etc. And pre-funding in advance simply isn't feasible for students from poor background - without a significant system of grants and bursaries. Unsurprisingly some of them will have a lot more worth to the UK than some of the 'rich-entitled'.

There is obviously a debate around what proportion and what subjects...

(arguably employers should fund certain specialist degrees; and there is a credible case - given current numbers, for example, to subsidise science degrees but perhaps not more populist ones)

[And I would move to probably Switzerland, the Netherlands or France - I've already lived in France for a year; I can't recall having to work all out at university tho - math degrees do not involve lots of writing and a guaranteed job in my last year meant I could pick the subjects I was most interested in, which didn't necessarily equate to those I would achieve the highest grades in!]

 

[455driver]

It's pretty sound economics for the state to fund a certain proportion of higher education. It's silly to argue otherwise. It lifts the education level of the population which lifts GDP per capita, which increases the tax base which funds pensions etc.

There is obviously a debate around what proportion and what subjects...

(arguably employers should fund certain specialist degrees; and there is a credible case - given current numbers, for example, to subsidise science degrees but perhaps not more populist ones)

I dont think anyone has said otherwise, despite what some people think they are reading into posts!

 

[Butts]

My view is that the massive expansion of Higher Education which took place in the nineties was a mistake.

It has lead to unrealistic aspiration and expectation with regard to the the value of a Degree in today's employment market.

A lot of the Poly's that became Universities and the plethora of "sign your name to get in" HE establishments do not fool anyone particularly firms looking to recruit.

The old derogatory expression for Uni's of Red Brick should be adapted to Red S**t for a lot of these places.

Outwith Russell Group with a few notable exceptions - forget it

 

[ralphchadkirk]

A lot of the Poly's that became Universities and the plethora of "sign your name to get in" HE establishments do not fool anyone particularly firms looking to recruit.

I disagree. My university was previously a college yet is respected for STEM subjects, and indeed valued as one of the best in the country for the degree I'm doing.

 

[Butts]

I disagree. My university was previously a college yet is respected for STEM subjects, and indeed valued as one of the best in the country for the degree I'm doing.

I did say "a lot" not all

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I disagree. My university was previously a college yet is respected for STEM subjects, and indeed valued as one of the best in the country for the degree I'm doing.

Same. My university is younger than both of my parents are, yet is still recognised as one of best in the country for business and engineering, as well as probably the best for the degree I do.

 

[EM2]

My view is that the massive expansion of Higher Education which took place in the nineties was a mistake.

It does make me wonder if everyone has a degree, what value do they have?

 

[Butts]

It does make me wonder if everyone has a degree, what value do they have?

From Oxford,Cambridge,St Andrews quite a bit in certain circles

 

[dcsprior]

So you are quite happy for the taxpayer to fund students doing courses in Miley Cyrus or the Simpsons are you?
Both of these have been offered (and done) in the past.
Can you explain exactly what use these qualifications are going to be in the future?

If there is something to be gained from these courses (for the individual and/or for society as a whole) then yes, the taxpayer should fund them; otherwise, they shouldn't be offered at all.

Surely the whole point of College etc is to enable the recipient to get a head start on the job market and not just to get paid to get p+ssed for 2 years, and if it is going to improve their earning potential then why shouldnt they pay for it themselves?

I think its a side-effect of charging for higher education is that it encourages people to think of a uni course as something which is done in order to get a better job - as opposed to more education sometimes being an end in itself.

Of course its the 'you must go to College' mentality which has buggered the job up because people who dont need to go to College feel compelled to even though they dont know what they want to do in the future or what course they want to do at College resulting in them getting disillusioned with the course and building up a sh+tload of debt as well.

Agree wholeheartedly.

Thinking about it dispassionately, I'd say that if that the country could easily afford higher education when 10% of the population to university, but this is more challenging now that something like 40% of the population now do, could the solution be to give free tuition to those in the top quartile of grades at the end of the previous year? But then I start arguing with myself over the fact that that education being free is a basic principle which we shouldn't deviate from

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I did say "a lot" not all

True. I also meant to say it was a Poly, not a college!

 

[Butts]

True. I also meant to say it was a Poly, not a college!

Nothing wrong with certain Poly's, my brother went to Plymouth Polytechnic as it was then called in the 1980's

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Nothing wrong with certain Poly's, my brother went to Plymouth Polytechnic as it was then called in the 1980's

Indeed. Mine was a Poly from 1952 until 1992 when it was granted University status.

 

[43021HST]

You have had your education for free, you choose to go into further education (to what end exactly?) so that is your choice.

Oh and as for your rant earlier, if you had bothered to read it all I was actually sticking up for most students who are doing useful courses which will benefit themselves (by improving their earning potential, and the Country by filling the skills shortage) but there are quite a few students who are just doing a course because they can and have no intention of using their time in further education for anything useful.

Oh, I use my natural ability to p+ss people off, its a gift from the Gods!
Why do you choose to latch onto the negative in every post rather than understand them in their entirety?

Ok my previous post probably was a bit strong but in my defense I did write that at about midnight before I went bed, I should avoid late night internet use .

To be honest I've always avoided the useless subjects, so far I've studied engineering and now I'm doing IT, I will concede a bit by saying that such courses as Floristry or Equine Studies probably shouldn't be included in the syllabus.

But I still fail to see why the students should have to pick up the cost of higher education, in fact the higher wages they earn later from their job would put more money back into the system. If an ex student is paying off a mountain of debt, they're less likely to spend as much money they receive from their job, on goods and services. Less money being spent means less jobs and less VAT being paid to the government, simple economics 'Init'. In fact tax payers pay more for health care, welfare and pensions than they do for education, as this handy pie chart shows.

 

[Butts]

Ok my previous post probably was a bit strong but in my defense I did write that at about midnight before I went bed, I should avoid late night internet use .

To be honest I've always avoided the useless subjects, so far I've studied engineering and now I'm doing IT, I will concede a bit by saying that such courses as Floristry or Equine Studies probably shouldn't be included in the syllabus.

But I still fail to see why the students should have to pick up the cost of higher education, in fact the higher wages they earn later from their job would put more money back into the system. If an ex student is paying off a mountain of debt, they're less likely to spend as much money they receive from their job on goods and services. In fact tax payers pay more for Health care, welfare and pensions than they do for education.

Have you checked the actual repayment rates, they are staggered depending on the income earned. Until and if you get up to quite a substantial salary they are minimal.

I think £97.2 Billion spent on Education is not exactly chickenfeed.

 

[ainsworth74]

Quite, the rules for mine is that I have to be earning slightly over £15,000 before I repay anything whilst for students on the new system it's over £21,000 before they have to repay anything. Whilst I'm no fan of the changes that came into student finance (I felt, perhaps selfishly, that the system I was under was a good one for both student, university and taxpayer) it isn't the biggest burden to bare overall. Especially considering that if your income drops back under the threshold payments stop again.

 

[43021HST]

I think I read earlier on in this thread the repayment system apparently costs the government more than what the old grant system did. I think 97.2 billion for education is well justified, I in fact reckon more is spent on school education than higher education, the equipment required for higher education is far more minimal, a lot of the time you're simply allocated an assignment and told to go away and research it.

But the way the repayment system as described by other users, suggested that more of a sizable chunk of a pay packet would be taken out.

 

[ainsworth74]

I can certainly imagine that the new one will as unless the economy kicks up a gear and those graduates with in excess of £30,000 in debt start getting some high paying jobs they'll never pay off those loans before they expire and are written off!

 

[EM2]

To be honest I've always avoided the useless subjects, so far I've studied engineering and now I'm doing IT, I will concede a bit by saying that such courses as Floristry or Equine Studies probably shouldn't be included in the syllabus.

Might find it a bit difficult to find people who can treat sick horses, if they've not been able to learn about them.

 

[Butts]

Quite, the rules for mine is that I have to be earning slightly over £15,000 before I repay anything whilst for students on the new system it's over £21,000 before they have to repay anything. Whilst I'm no fan of the changes that came into student finance (I felt, perhaps selfishly, that the system I was under was a good one for both student, university and taxpayer) it isn't the biggest burden to bare overall. Especially considering that if your income drops back under the threshold payments stop again.

Ha you missed the old days....

No Tuition Fees , Maintenance Grants , Housing and Unemployment Benefit out of Term Times - ie during the summer.

My brother once got a DSS Grant for a new bed and blew the lot on booze - no wonder he had to do "a year again" ending up at Plymouth Poly for 4 years.

 

[ainsworth74]

Yes those were the good old days!

Though I think asking students to contribute something towards their education isn't a bad thing (just not neccessarily as much as it is now ). Also good look trying to get any money out of my Local Authority from the Social Fund (the equivilent of your brothers grant today). Recently had one guy who was turned down because he didn't have any money (they want to do them as loans wherever possible). Or their latest wheeze is if you live with friends or relatives they must be able to support you so there's no need for any money from us.

Needless to say they're underspending their budget quite handily...

 

[SWTH]

But that chart also shows that the education budget is twice the defence budget, and over five times the transport budget.

You say you've done engineering and are now doing IT. Does that mean you have an engineering degree (mechanical, electrical?) and are now pursuing a second degree, or is it all part of the same course?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Ha, you missed the old days....

Like my time at Manchester University that saw me obtain my First in Mathematics as long ago as 1966...

 

[Oswyntail]

.......To be honest I've always avoided the useless subjects, so far I've studied engineering and now I'm doing IT, I will concede a bit by saying that such courses as Floristry or Equine Studies probably shouldn't be included in the syllabus. ...

Might find it a bit difficult to find people who can treat sick horses, if they've not been able to learn about them.

And this is another problem. EM2 is absolutely right - there is a need for graduate-level specialists in equine care. There is also a need for graduates in IT and Engineering. However, I have no doubt whatsoever that no one knows what the need actually is. I would also wager that the country is grossly over-supplied in IT and engineering graduates and under-supplied in equine specialists! What we need is people who know enough to follow the instructions of the experts competently and safely, and a sufficient supply of experts. We do not need thousands of new recruits who could knock up a decent operating system but cannot turn their hand to updating a decades old program to reflect commercial changes. If we need graduates, it is mostly because they have shown an ability to learn at a particularly intensive level subjects that require flexibility and thought. Traditional humanities subjects are every bit as useful in this respect as Engineering and Maths.
But the real, desperate need, is for recruits who could manage a ****-up in a brewery. No, not MBAs, or management consultants - managers!

 

[ralphchadkirk]

the equipment required for higher education is far more minimal, a lot of the time you're simply allocated an assignment and told to go away and research it.

I completely disagree. The equipment and facilities to teach some courses is hugely expensive. Students at most universities also get the opportunity to be involved in research at the cutting edge of their subject. A lot of study is spend in the library reading books, articles and research literature (remember, you read for a degree - you have to demonstrate expert level knowledge in the subject) but these also are hugely expensive.

I would also wager that the country is grossly over-supplied in IT and engineering graduates and under-supplied in equine specialists!

I suspect those graduating with a BEng or MEng in a true engineering subject - mechanical, electrical, civil or chemical for example - are very sought after.

 

[Tetchytyke]

the equipment required for higher education is far more minimal, a lot of the time you're simply allocated an assignment and told to go away and research it.

You read for a degree, you are not spoon-fed a degree. A degree is meant to be about independent study, with lectures and tutorials as a guide to the basics rather than being everything you need to know.

This is a constant frustration in my line of work, where people do not understand this and do not understand why they have failed their course.

The costs of "equipment" for a humanities degree is higher than you would think- the books and journals required are eye-wateringly expensive- and lecturers don't come cheap. £10k a year is about right. For a lab-based degree you can double the costs.

But the real, desperate need, is for recruits who could manage a ****-up in a brewery. No, not MBAs, or management consultants - managers!

Yet, ironically, you can forget about getting a managerial job in finance or similar industries if you don't have an MBA.

I don't really know what skills they learn for their £50,000 tuition fee, but that's a completely different argument...