BBC News banging on about student loans, again!
Discussion
Caulkhead said:
Maybe the carrot and stick are round the wrong way. Maybe we should bill students for their course if they drop out, fail or don't directly utilise their degree in their career and those that do, we pay the bill for?
A system where graduates who never earn enough to make repayments get their debt written off appears to make the ultimate cost to the graduate of a degree proportional to how economically active the graduate is - which is arguably an index of the value the country gets out of providing the education. In other words, one could argue that degrees are free to those who give nothing back and not to those who do. I think this is the point where outraged supporters (not financially, obviously) of starving artists in garrets point out that the contribution some graduates make can't be measures in money and the lack of anyone willing to actually pay them for making that contribution in no way indicates the worth of the contribution...
Quite hard to pin down "don't directly utilise their degree", though - a degree should provide a lot of transferrable skills, that comment perhaps applies more to very strictly vocational training.
Caulkhead said:
Not really, I'd let all those examples you mention in, I'd just exclude obvious ones like not needing a sociology degree to work in McDonalds. Actually having said that, I don't think there is a job you need a sociology degree for is there? 
Ok, sometimes the ability to study for a degree and achieve a grade demonstrates that you can apply yourself regardless of subject.I know a couple of people with sociology degrees, they are sociology lecturers, which sort of proves your point
A few years ago at Warwick University in the students union toilets there was graffiti written over the toilet roll holder that said "Sociology Degrees, Please take One"
TTwiggy said:
Tax payers foot the bill for many things they may not like, use, or value.
But that does not make those things valueless. Though I studied technical subjects at university I always thought education transcended economic incentive alone, it was a wonderful thing to take classes and read books just for an appreciation. The world has a need for STEM graduates and more of them, without a shadow of doubt. However I’d not like to live in a society in which the arts, literature, history, philosophy etc. where so little appreciated that they were not taught. I think it would be a great loss as STEM and the previously mentioned subjects are best understood as complimentary.
Actually one of the great failings of western society in my view is that we don’t take more time to appreciate the fruits of human achievement. Many people (myself included to an extent) are still acting as utilitarian economic machines fueled by our ever increasing, yet insatiable, material desires when greater happiness might be brought to us be enriching other areas of our lives.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
speedy_thrills said:
TTwiggy said:
Tax payers foot the bill for many things they may not like, use, or value.
But that does not make those things valueless. Though I studied technical subjects at university I always thought education transcended economic incentive alone, it was a wonderful thing to take classes and read books just for an appreciation. The world has a need for STEM graduates and more of them, without a shadow of doubt. However I’d not like to live in a society in which the arts, literature, history, philosophy etc. where so little appreciated that they were not taught. I think it would be a great loss as STEM and the previously mentioned subjects are best understood as complimentary.
Actually one of the great failings of western society in my view is that we don’t take more time to appreciate the fruits of human achievement. Many people (myself included to an extent) are still acting as utilitarian economic machines fueled by our ever increasing, yet insatiable, material desires when greater happiness might be brought to us be enriching other areas of our lives.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
My wife is currently working towards another degree for the sheer joy of learning. She will end up with a BA in Humanities with Music. She's doing it through the OU. OU subsidy apart, she's paying for it herself. The shifting of the rules about how the courses are subsidised mean that this is about to become much more expensive, and while it doesn't affect her current course, it does mean she's thinking twice about going on to an MA. She thinks the changes in the funding structure are probably fair enough in times of austerity, in that people who don't already have a degree will qualify for student loans, so it will only really exclude people like her who are studying for fun.
I do think there is a place for tertiary education for fun or self improvement without meaning to use it in the workplace, but state subsidy for it does look like a bit of a luxury at the moment.
I do think there is a place for tertiary education for fun or self improvement without meaning to use it in the workplace, but state subsidy for it does look like a bit of a luxury at the moment.
TTwiggy said:
You're welcome to any opinion you wish to hold. But, if you remember how this started, I was replying to a point made by another poster (who has since come back in reasonable and polite terms to expain his position) and you saw fit to jump in. When I tried to point out the value of these subjects, you called me sarcastic - and yet you think I'm the one with the problem, and it's me who should 'take myself elsewhere'. Odd.
Yes, indeed, you were replying, and you were using sarcasm. Therefore you were being sarcastic. I didn't 'jump in', I was 'replying to a point made by another poster' (you). Nor do I think you should take yourself elsewhere, I'm simply explaining to you that I don't want to pay so that other people can study arts subjects, and that I was very unlikely to chage my opinion. Not odd at all, when you look at it a little more closely.singlecoil said:
Yes, indeed, you were replying, and you were using sarcasm. Therefore you were being sarcastic. I didn't 'jump in', I was 'replying to a point made by another poster' (you). Nor do I think you should take yourself elsewhere, I'm simply explaining to you that I don't want to pay so that other people can study arts subjects, and that I was very unlikely to chage my opinion. Not odd at all, when you look at it a little more closely.
If you've set out why and I've missed it earlier in the thread then apologies (on a phone) but why do you not want to pay for them? And how would you define an arts subject? anything that's not scientifically based? Not having a dig, I respect your opinion, just curious as to the why! otolith said:
Quite hard to pin down "don't directly utilise their degree", though - a degree should provide a lot of transferrable skills, that comment perhaps applies more to very strictly vocational training.
I'm all for keeping these things simple - how about 'Did you have to have a degree to get your job?" If yes the taxpayer pays, if not the graduate does.In reality we need to look at what proportion of the jobs in the UK need a degree and which need technical training and try to invent a system that roughly supplies people in those proportions. If your degree isn't aimed primarily at securing yourself a career, you pay, if it is and you succeed, we pay.
lazystudent said:
singlecoil said:
Yes, indeed, you were replying, and you were using sarcasm. Therefore you were being sarcastic. I didn't 'jump in', I was 'replying to a point made by another poster' (you). Nor do I think you should take yourself elsewhere, I'm simply explaining to you that I don't want to pay so that other people can study arts subjects, and that I was very unlikely to chage my opinion. Not odd at all, when you look at it a little more closely.
If you've set out why and I've missed it earlier in the thread then apologies (on a phone) but why do you not want to pay for them? And how would you define an arts subject? anything that's not scientifically based? Not having a dig, I respect your opinion, just curious as to the why! Caulkhead said:
otolith said:
Quite hard to pin down "don't directly utilise their degree", though - a degree should provide a lot of transferrable skills, that comment perhaps applies more to very strictly vocational training.
I'm all for keeping these things simple - how about 'Did you have to have a degree to get your job?" If yes the taxpayer pays, if not the graduate does.In reality we need to look at what proportion of the jobs in the UK need a degree and which need technical training and try to invent a system that roughly supplies people in those proportions. If your degree isn't aimed primarily at securing yourself a career, you pay, if it is and you succeed, we pay.
My wife read English. She joined her current employer as a junior in an HR management information team, got onto the IT training scheme, progressed to Senior Developer before making a conscious effort to get into project management (including spending her own money on an OU project management unit, which is how she came to get a taste back for education). She's now a project manager.
Careers are fluid these days. Someone who graduates with the intention of stacking shelves, poncing about on the dole or being a house spouse might have wasted the state's investment in him or her, but it's not realistic to expect an 18 year old to pick a vocation for life.
otolith said:
Careers are fluid these days. Someone who graduates with the intention of stacking shelves, poncing about on the dole or being a house spouse might have wasted the state's investment in him or her, but it's not realistic to expect an 18 year old to pick a vocation for life.
Indeed, but the fairest method to allocate resources is related to ability (whether it be in the arts or sciences), and more often than not it is based on an intention to succeed. If someone shows aptitude for a subject then they are more likely not to waste their time at university, even if they don't end up pursuing a career based on their studies.fido said:
Indeed, but the fairest method to allocate resources is related to ability (whether it be in the arts or sciences), and more often than not it is based on an intention to succeed. If someone shows aptitude for a subject then they are more likely not to waste their time at university, even if they don't end up pursuing a career based on their studies.
You're preaching to the choir there, I would cut the number of places to what can be fully funded and then reform A-levels to enable them to do their proper job of sorting sheep from goats.otolith said:
reform A-levels to enable them to do their proper job of sorting sheep from goats.
This. In my day only 5% of students went on to uni because that was the number that got sufficient A levels to let them in.Just talking to my son and his mates, ok they go to a selective school but he is forecast 8 x GCSE A* and 2 A's. Most of his mates are forecast at least 6 A*'s. When I did O levels, only the elite got more than 5 A's and 3 A's at A level was Obridge. Oxbridge is now 2 x A* and an A minimum, plus entrance exam
singlecoil said:
Use Psychology said:
students shouldn't pay for their university education because society benefits from it.
(when done properly and appropriately, i.e. no s
t degrees, at real universities, etc.)
I consider such degrees as classics, history, English etc s(when done properly and appropriately, i.e. no s
t degrees, at real universities, etc.)t (to use your expression ) as well, especially when taken at Oxbridge colleges. They should certainly exist, but I don't think it is fair that taxpayers should have to fund them.Don't be ridiculous.
clarkey328is said:
TTwiggy said:
You mean my examples that will all (most likely) have been created by arts graduates?
Of the original subjects that were studied at university - classics, theology, law, architecture and medicine - only medicine is a science.
Before the industrial revolution, most of the 'great men' in the history of this country were arts graduates.
I have the greatest respect for science
- and did A levels in physics and chemistry - I just object to the offhand dismissal of the arts that pervades this site.
Fair enough, my point was more along the lines that the arts need very little formal training, and very very rarely to degree level. You are assuming my dismissal of arts subjects is a wholesale dismissal of the arts in general. It's not, I just don't think the taxpayer should have to fund it to such a ridiculous scale when the overwhelming majority of BA students will get nowhere near repaying their loan.Of the original subjects that were studied at university - classics, theology, law, architecture and medicine - only medicine is a science.
Before the industrial revolution, most of the 'great men' in the history of this country were arts graduates.
I have the greatest respect for science
- and did A levels in physics and chemistry - I just object to the offhand dismissal of the arts that pervades this site.
ks. Most BA grads will get no where near repaying their loan? You start repaying as soon as you earn £15000 a year....that's McDonalds burger flipper money. I have a BA and my loan is being paid off at £200 a month and will be paid off in about 5 year.1981linley said:
Ok, so lets not value History or English. Let's throw away our culture and heritage by discouraging all but the very rich from persuing them....let the poor do technology and engineering....let them work in the factories and the mines. Let us forget the lessons of History, let fascism or communism re-emerge, hey, at least under Hitler science, all manner of experiments, the chemical industry and medicine flourished, not to mention engineering, of the mechanical AND social kind. Think V2 rockets, U boats, Zyklon B, let dictators again pull the wool over our eyes while we ignore it and do what's best for our country. Let us forget how to reason, weigh up evidence, form balanced and justified opinions, let us forget how to see through government and corporate spin and propaganda.
Don't be ridiculous.
Don't be ridiculous.
And you are telling ME not to be ridiculous????
singlecoil said:
I wouldn't draw a sharp line anywhere, but I can tell you that, for instance, History of Art would be on the other side of it. As to why I don't want to pay for young people to spend a few years studying such subjects, are you really sure you need me to answer that? Is it really not self explanatory?
So you put no value on art galleries then? singlecoil said:
1981linley said:
Ok, so lets not value History or English. Let's throw away our culture and heritage by discouraging all but the very rich from persuing them....let the poor do technology and engineering....let them work in the factories and the mines. Let us forget the lessons of History, let fascism or communism re-emerge, hey, at least under Hitler science, all manner of experiments, the chemical industry and medicine flourished, not to mention engineering, of the mechanical AND social kind. Think V2 rockets, U boats, Zyklon B, let dictators again pull the wool over our eyes while we ignore it and do what's best for our country. Let us forget how to reason, weigh up evidence, form balanced and justified opinions, let us forget how to see through government and corporate spin and propaganda.
Don't be ridiculous.
Don't be ridiculous.
And you are telling ME not to be ridiculous????
...albeit completely irrelevant to this thread
Colonial said:
singlecoil said:
I wouldn't draw a sharp line anywhere, but I can tell you that, for instance, History of Art would be on the other side of it. As to why I don't want to pay for young people to spend a few years studying such subjects, are you really sure you need me to answer that? Is it really not self explanatory?
So you put no value on art galleries then? Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff