18 year old electrician paying the tuition fees of 'toffs'

[johnfm]

Breadvan72 said:

May is perhaps closer to Rees-Mogg than she lets on. Imagine a world in which only the children of the well to do go to university, with just a few proley scholarship kids thrown in for good measure. Oh look! That's the world we had before 1945. Forward to backwards with Chairman May!

In all the May and Rees-Mogg bashing, I can't quite divine your position on tuition fees.

Are you for or against tuition fees?

[anonymous-user]

Yipper said:

Uni students are just *posh benefit-scroungers*.

They are *grown adults* who want someone to give them free money for 3-6 years to go drinking and banging.

Grown adults (not kids) who moan relentlessly about their £30k graduation "debt"... but can't wait to get a £30k BMW on PCP debt... and a £3k diving holiday in Thailand on creditcard debt... and a £300k shed on a cringey newbuild estate with even more debt...

They are just chancers and scroungers.

Peak Pistonheads.

[johnfm]

The replies on here tell me that some people don't really understand how the student loan for tuition fees actually works.

[anonymous-user]

Tuition fees or no? I favour the continuation of state funded education (I do not say free, because it is not always or even usually truly free, I say state funded) to the first degree level. My generation had the costs of university paid for, and many of us paid back those costs many times over.

No one quarrels with the idea of generally available state funded education to age 18 (optional after 16). Why not extend the availability for a few years?

One thing I am unsure about is why a Tory Government broke up the useful Polytechnic system that had been invented by Lord Hailsham's dad (or was it Lord Hailsham's granddad?). Blair's big expansion of universities was possibly a bit rash, but the percentage of the population going to tertiary education ought I suggest to be, if not fifty per cent, higher than it was in 1945, or indeed in 1981 when I went to university, betrayed my roots, and joined the lazy toff club.

[RizzoTheRat]

Don't you need to have a household income of around £40k before you're a net contributor to the system? In which case it's pretty unlikely that the 18 year old electrician is actually going to be contributing if tuition fees were scrapped anyway.

[roachcoach]

Breadvan72 said:

Tuition fees or no? I favour the continuation of state funded education (I do not say free, because it is not always or even usually truly free, I say state funded) to the first degree level. My generation had the costs of university paid for, and many of us paid back those costs many times over.

To add some balance, back then there were less airy-fairy/wishy-washy degrees. You needed a degree for specific jobs, more recently it's (almost) a case of you need a degree to flip a fking burger.

Which is why we get bullst like the equifax security exec having a music degree.

Degrees/further education required for a role (medicine, science, engineering, etc etc) are one thing, but degrees for the sakes of ticking a box on the HR form are quite another. I think most people can get behind ones that are clearly obvious, no-one is going to care about "paying" to train a doctor...but (for example) paying for someone to study "Scottish Ethnology" on the other hand...well that debate is set to get a little more heated.

tl;dr: imo not all degrees are creates equal so perhaps they should be dealt with differently.

But hey, I'm old too.

[Wobbegong]

randlemarcus said:

You seem to have taken the wrong message away from that. Why should the broad population fund something that is of direct benefit to the individual, and make them both more productive tax payers, and significantly personally better off?

Laudable degrees, i.e. Nursing, Teaching where there is no expectation of anything over a middle class life, publically funded in return for public service contracts, cool, no quibbles from me, as long as the recipient understands that qualifying and scarpering off brings financial pain.

David Beckham studies, nah, fund that yourself, and its up to you whether or not to query the 3 contact hours /week being worth nine grand a year.

I have no deep rooted objections to publically funded tertiary education attracting a lifelong graduate tax, but I think the loans system is slightly fairer on the broader population.

Personally I don't think nursing should be a degree. There's too much emphasis on being an academic rather than a nurse. I know several people who have dropped out of courses because although they were fantastic nurses on placement (which is simply pass or fail and contributes nothing to the final grade) they couldn't cope with the academic side. On the other hand I know a few useless nurses who graduated with a first class degree and struggle in the real world of nursing.

However I do agree with what you're saying. There needs to be a tiered system of degrees/universities with different costs/funding available depending on the course / institution. A friend of mine studied "zoo studies" or something like that at Wolverhampton University, cost the same as a course her friend did studying law at Birmingham. The quality of teaching and value of the degree was very different!

[johnfm]

Breadvan72 said:

Tuition fees or no? I favour the continuation of state funded education (I do not say free, because it is not always or even usually truly free, I say state funded) to the first degree level. My generation had the costs of university paid for, and many of us paid back those costs many times over.

No one quarrels with the idea of generally available state funded education to age 18 (optional after 16). Why not extend the availability for a few years?

One thing I am unsure about is why a Tory Government broke up the useful Polytechnic system that had been invented by Lord Hailsham's dad (or was it Lord Hailsham's granddad?). Blair's big expansion of universities was possibly a bit rash, but the percentage of the population going to tertiary education ought I suggest to be, if not fifty per cent, higher than it was in 1945, or indeed in 1981 when I went to university, betrayed my roots, and joined the lazy toff club.

(1) Why should there be an arbitrary target of % of population that go to university? The 'right' % should go. Personally, my position it that a more educated populace is a good thing. I don't think there is only value in 'useful degrees' - but some thought should be given as to what constitutes degree level studies.

(2) The way tuition fees work, university education is 'state funded'. The tuition fees 'loan' is not a real loan in the traditional sense. The result is merely an additional level of taxation for a limited period on those who earn over a certain sum. It is targeted taxation and if tuition fees were properly explained, no student capable of the thought required to go to university would object to the paltry additional taxation (about £140/month for those on £40k/year)


There is an issue with the maintenance loan. Given that really st student accommodation is about £100/week the only concern I see is students paying to live while at uni. (The real pisser here is the transfer of wealth from the 'state' (net taxpayers as you know) to student digs landlords). They've had a windfall as many tens of thousands flood university towns and pay £100/wk for a damp, st room sharing with 5 other students*.)

I think government interference has not been beneficial to the students. I expect too many getting places with limited academic skills - but I'd like to see evidence of the overall harm to society of a few thousand 'average' academics not in the job market for 3-4 years.

• I am, of course, generalising with a broad brush. There are many non-damp rooms and many plcs now doing large scale, new-build student flats. It remains, however, money for old rope transfer of ££££ to the landlord class.

[Eddie Strohacker]

roachcoach said:

To add some balance, back then there were less airy-fairy/wishy-washy degrees. You needed a degree for specific jobs, more recently it's (almost) a case of you need a degree to flip a fking burger.

Which is why we get bullst like the equifax security exec having a music degree.

Degrees/further education required for a role (medicine, science, engineering, etc etc) are one thing, but degrees for the sakes of ticking a box on the HR form are quite another. I think most people can get behind ones that are clearly obvious, no-one is going to care about "paying" to train a doctor...but (for example) paying for someone to study "Scottish Ethnology" on the other hand...well that debate is set to get a little more heated.

tl;dr: imo not all degrees are creates equal so perhaps they should be dealt with differently.

But hey, I'm old too.

Oh I don't know so much. Any undergraduate course if can live up to the name should be a demonstration on on the part of the successful participant of abstract thought, reasoning, organisation, clear expression, advanced comprehension, an ability to meet deadlines under pressure & solve complex issues using the skills acquired. And they would be the tangible benefits. Living away from home at eighteen & mixing with a wide range of people confers other more discrete qualities you won't find in the prospectus but I know it to be so. Even when it's not just in the bar (It's always in the bar).

[anonymous-user]

The idea that every degree must link to a job is, I suggest, a mistaken one. Academic study can be valuable as a training in how to think, and that training can be valuable in my jobs. My degree course (history) was probably configured as training for civil servants but was also useful training for journalism, the law, and other careers. Most of the science graduates that I know are not professional scientists, but work in various office jobs in management, the City, whatever. Their degrees help them in their business lives, not because they know about thermodynamics, but because they know how to analyse and reason.

Add to this the incalculable value to a society of having people who are learned in a wide variety of subjects. It would be a poor world that measured everything in vocational or monetised terms.

The stereotype of the university experience is booze and partying, but in reality there can also be the experiences of study, of communal living, of taking part in sport, drama, debating, you name it. If done properly the university experience can be and is life enhancing, and an experience that resonates with you for years afterwards.

[anonymous-user]

roachcoach said:

...

Which is why we get bullst like the equifax security exec having a music degree.

...

Why is it bullst for anyone to have a music degree? What a fab thing to have a degree in!

[roachcoach]

Eddie Strohacker said:

roachcoach said:

To add some balance, back then there were less airy-fairy/wishy-washy degrees. You needed a degree for specific jobs, more recently it's (almost) a case of you need a degree to flip a fking burger.

Which is why we get bullst like the equifax security exec having a music degree.

Degrees/further education required for a role (medicine, science, engineering, etc etc) are one thing, but degrees for the sakes of ticking a box on the HR form are quite another. I think most people can get behind ones that are clearly obvious, no-one is going to care about "paying" to train a doctor...but (for example) paying for someone to study "Scottish Ethnology" on the other hand...well that debate is set to get a little more heated.

tl;dr: imo not all degrees are creates equal so perhaps they should be dealt with differently.

But hey, I'm old too.

Oh I don't know so much. Any undergraduate course if can live up to the name should be a demonstration on on the part of the successful participant of abstract thought, reasoning, organisation, clear expression, advanced comprehension, an ability to meet deadlines under pressure & solve complex issues using the skills acquired. And they would be the tangible benefits. Living away from home at eighteen & mixing with a wide range of people confers other more discrete qualities you won't find in the prospectus but I know it to be so. Even when it's not just in the bar (It's always in the bar).

You've just described a job, where people pay their own way through life and don't rack up thousands in debt in the process

But really what we need is to reduce the insistence on degrees for jobs where experience and on job learning will do just fine. More trainee/apprentice type things need to come back, where the young kids are treated well and learn as they go.

It is improving I grant you, but for a long time it was properly ridiculous and there is still a hell of a long way to go.

[Smiler.]

Breadvan72 said:

roachcoach said:

...

Which is why we get bullst like the equifax security exec having a music degree.

...

Why is it bullst for anyone to have a music degree? What a fab thing to have a degree in!

Comes right in handy for pulling strings.

[johnfm]

Breadvan72 said:

The idea that every degree must link to a job is, I suggest, a mistaken one. Academic study can be valuable as a training in how to think, and that training can be valuable in my jobs. My degree course (history) was probably configured as training for civil servants but was also useful training for journalism, the law, and other careers. Most of the science graduates that I know are not professional scientists, but work in various office jobs in management, the City, whatever. Their degrees help them in their business lives, not because they know about thermodynamics, but because they know how to analyse and reason.

Add to this the incalculable value to a society of having people who are learned in a wide variety of subjects. It would be a poor world that measured everything in vocational or monetised terms.

The stereotype of the university experience is booze and partying, but in reality there can also be the experiences of study, of communal living, of taking part in sport, drama, debating, you name it. If done properly the university experience can be and is life enhancing, and an experience that resonates with you for years afterwards.

Agree - had this very discussion with a US colleague about university tuition fees. She just could not grasp that studying (for example) history or philosophy had benefit to society even if that graduate then goes on to be a binman.

I would like to see a lot more basic ethics/philosophy taught in schools and at uni. Just the act of thinking about how to think is invaluable.

[anonymous-user]

johnfm said:

(1) Why should there be an arbitrary target of % of population that go to university? The 'right' % should go. Personally, my position it that a more educated populace is a good thing. I don't think there is only value in 'useful degrees' - but some thought should be given as to what constitutes degree level studies.

(2) The way tuition fees work, university education is 'state funded'. The tuition fees 'loan' is not a real loan in the traditional sense. The result is merely an additional level of taxation for a limited period on those who earn over a certain sum. It is targeted taxation and if tuition fees were properly explained, no student capable of the thought required to go to university would object to the paltry additional taxation (about £140/month for those on £40k/year)


There is an issue with the maintenance loan. Given that really st student accommodation is about £100/week the only concern I see is students paying to live while at uni. (The real pisser here is the transfer of wealth from the 'state' (net taxpayers as you know) to student digs landlords). They've had a windfall as many tens of thousands flood university towns and pay £100/wk for a damp, st room sharing with 5 other students*.)

I think government interference has not been beneficial to the students. I expect too many getting places with limited academic skills - but I'd like to see evidence of the overall harm to society of a few thousand 'average' academics not in the job market for 3-4 years.

• I am, of course, generalising with a broad brush. There are many non-damp rooms and many plcs now doing large scale, new-build student flats. It remains, however, money for old rope transfer of ££££ to the landlord class.

I agree with pretty much all of that.

[SamR380]

Wobbegong said:

Personally I don't think nursing should be a degree. There's too much emphasis on being an academic rather than a nurse. I know several people who have dropped out of courses because although they were fantastic nurses on placement (which is simply pass or fail and contributes nothing to the final grade) they couldn't cope with the academic side. On the other hand I know a few useless nurses who graduated with a first class degree and struggle in the real world of nursing.

A nurse these days has a vastly different role and range of responsibilities than they had 30 years ago. Where before there were doctors and nurses, there are now health care assistants, associate nurses, nurses and doctors. Jeremy Hunt is now pushing for nurses to be able to prescribe medication, if this is to be implemented it surely justifies a degree-type education?

Edited by SamR380 on Tuesday 3rd October 12:46

[Eddie Strohacker]

roachcoach said:

You've just described a job, where people pay their own way through life and don't rack up thousands in debt in the process

But really what we need is to reduce the insistence on degrees for jobs where experience and on job learning will do just fine. More trainee/apprentice type things need to come back, where the young kids are treated well and learn as they go.

It is improving I grant you, but for a long time it was properly ridiculous and there is still a hell of a long way to go.

I've had both & I don't think that's true at all.

The world needs ditch diggers, I agree. But it also needs engineers who design the digger the digger sits in. As for the second point, you'd have to take that up with employers. The argument runs that widening higher education increases the pool of graduates & thence ever more lowly jobs having a degree required tag applied to them. I believe UK Plc hasn't kept pace with the supply of well educated bright young things, the failure is on them, not on widely reported but actually very small numbers of B.a. Beyonce studies courses.

[roachcoach]

Breadvan72 said:

The idea that every degree must link to a job is, I suggest, a mistaken one. Academic study can be valuable as a training in how to think, and that training can be valuable in my jobs. My degree course (history) was probably configured as training for civil servants but was also useful training for journalism, the law, and other careers. Most of the science graduates that I know are not professional scientists, but work in various office jobs in management, the City, whatever. Their degrees help them in their business lives, not because they know about thermodynamics, but because they know how to analyse and reason.

Add to this the incalculable value to a society of having people who are learned in a wide variety of subjects. It would be a poor world that measured everything in vocational or monetised terms.

The stereotype of the university experience is booze and partying, but in reality there can also be the experiences of study, of communal living, of taking part in sport, drama, debating, you name it. If done properly the university experience can be and is life enhancing, and an experience that resonates with you for years afterwards.

Not "must", I suggest it should if the taxpayer is asked to front it.

It always annoyed me that people keep banging on about entitlement to free education - the library is over there, off you pop, learn until your wee heart is content. No, what they want is certificate to a meal ticket - and that's absolutely fine, but at least they could be honest about it. Nothing wrong with wanting that, nothing at all but at least call a spade a spade.

There's a huge amount to be said for vocational training: we took on some school leavers here as apprentices and trained them up in IT and I can assure you after 4 years they're significantly more capable and useful than grads. Granted it is abused a lot these days, but that can be corrected with a bit of will and encouragement.

It is disingenuous to suggest that one can only gain problem solving and life skills by going to university. That is an personal attitude more than anything else.

Finally it's nothing to do with the student lifestyle, I don't judge them for that, for a huge number of students it is utterly, utterly st.

At the end of the day, I'd rather my taxes went towards paying for docs/etc than someone doing some useless degree just so they can pop off the bank X and join their grad scheme for some extra £££. Again, the ambition is fine, but tax income is finite, so I think it should be spent differently.


Edit: The real trouble is, this requires employers to change at the same time as everything else, which will just not happen.

Edited by roachcoach on Tuesday 3rd October 12:47

[PurpleMoonlight]

randlemarcus said:

You seem to have taken the wrong message away from that. Why should the broad population fund something that is of direct benefit to the individual, and make them both more productive tax payers, and significantly personally better off?

Laudable degrees, i.e. Nursing, Teaching where there is no expectation of anything over a middle class life, publically funded in return for public service contracts, cool, no quibbles from me, as long as the recipient understands that qualifying and scarpering off brings financial pain.

David Beckham studies, nah, fund that yourself, and its up to you whether or not to query the 3 contact hours /week being worth nine grand a year.

I have no deep rooted objections to publically funded tertiary education attracting a lifelong graduate tax, but I think the loans system is slightly fairer on the broader population.

I agree with this.

Back in the day only the 'brightest and the best' went to university, and they likely needed financial assistance from their parents.

But gradually over time, largely driven by the Labour ideal that every child should have the same opportunities regardless of ability, it's been dumbed down to simply an extention of school with the added bonus of a huge loan and a student bar. The universities have become businesses with those in charge reaping huge rewards.

The whole thing needs a rethink.

[roachcoach]

PurpleMoonlight said:

randlemarcus said:

You seem to have taken the wrong message away from that. Why should the broad population fund something that is of direct benefit to the individual, and make them both more productive tax payers, and significantly personally better off?

Laudable degrees, i.e. Nursing, Teaching where there is no expectation of anything over a middle class life, publically funded in return for public service contracts, cool, no quibbles from me, as long as the recipient understands that qualifying and scarpering off brings financial pain.

David Beckham studies, nah, fund that yourself, and its up to you whether or not to query the 3 contact hours /week being worth nine grand a year.

I have no deep rooted objections to publically funded tertiary education attracting a lifelong graduate tax, but I think the loans system is slightly fairer on the broader population.

I agree with this.

Back in the day only the 'brightest and the best' went to university, and they likely needed financial assistance from their parents.

But gradually over time, largely driven by the Labour ideal that every child should have the same opportunities regardless of ability, it's been dumbed down to simply an extention of school with the added bonus of a huge loan and a student bar. The universities have become businesses with those in charge reaping huge rewards.

The whole thing needs a rethink.