Discussion
What does everyone think about tuition fees?
They are a key election battleground because the Tories are committed to scrapping them.
Personally I think they are a good thing for two reasons
1. Provide source of finance to universities that desperately need it.
2. Helps to discourage people taking a degree without thinking things through (simply because that is what everyone else is doing)-ie helps them to value a degree.
They should be amended however to get rid of the socialist control measures.
The access regulator should be scrapped and, since they will be repaid upon getting a decent job, there should be no means testing.
They are a key election battleground because the Tories are committed to scrapping them.
Personally I think they are a good thing for two reasons
1. Provide source of finance to universities that desperately need it.
2. Helps to discourage people taking a degree without thinking things through (simply because that is what everyone else is doing)-ie helps them to value a degree.
They should be amended however to get rid of the socialist control measures.
The access regulator should be scrapped and, since they will be repaid upon getting a decent job, there should be no means testing.
They need to be changed.
Nursing, medical, engineering, science etc
Free course + a living grant
Media, Basketweaving, Surfing, History, IT
£20K per year cost + no grant (to pay for the useful degrees)
Get a degree by all means but if that degree is nonsense (by any reasonable definition) then you'll be paying through the nose for it my son.
Nursing, medical, engineering, science etc
Free course + a living grant
Media, Basketweaving, Surfing, History, IT
£20K per year cost + no grant (to pay for the useful degrees)
Get a degree by all means but if that degree is nonsense (by any reasonable definition) then you'll be paying through the nose for it my son.
It's simple. You don't need tuition fees if a sensible pecentage (25-30%) of school leavers go to university.
If you ditch Blair's idiotic target of having 50% go to university then the government can afford to pay for university upkeep. Though obviously you'd have to scrap universities that are useless (or turn them into some sort of institution that would actually turn out usefully qualified people). I doubt many would miss them...
What's a media studies degree from the University of Wolverhampton worth anyway?
Edited to respond to Plotloss - What's a physics degree from Wolverhampton worth? You don't need to do A level Maths to get in, so how exactly are you gonna deal with real physics? Surely better to fun quality degrees in whatever subject than to fund worthless degrees in specific subjects?
>> Edited by Duncan23 on Tuesday 12th April 12:49
If you ditch Blair's idiotic target of having 50% go to university then the government can afford to pay for university upkeep. Though obviously you'd have to scrap universities that are useless (or turn them into some sort of institution that would actually turn out usefully qualified people). I doubt many would miss them...
What's a media studies degree from the University of Wolverhampton worth anyway?
Edited to respond to Plotloss - What's a physics degree from Wolverhampton worth? You don't need to do A level Maths to get in, so how exactly are you gonna deal with real physics? Surely better to fun quality degrees in whatever subject than to fund worthless degrees in specific subjects?
>> Edited by Duncan23 on Tuesday 12th April 12:49
Plotloss said:
They need to be changed.
Nursing, medical, engineering, science etc
Free course + a living grant
Media, Basketweaving, Surfing, History, IT
£20K per year cost + no grant (to pay for the useful degrees)
Get a degree by all means but if that degree is nonsense (by any reasonable definition) then you'll be paying through the nose for it my son.
In principle I would tend to agree, but I feel that categorising IT in with basket weaving/yoghurt knitting, might conceivably be a mistake, given that just about everything has, or will have, a processor in it.
Plotloss said:
They need to be changed.
Nursing, medical, engineering, science etc
Free course + a living grant
Media, Basketweaving, Surfing, History, IT
£20K per year cost + no grant (to pay for the useful degrees)
Get a degree by all means but if that degree is nonsense (by any reasonable definition) then you'll be paying through the nose for it my son.
I agree with you up to a point Plotloss degree subjects in which there is a shortage of graduates in the economy could be made exempt.
and if someone is willing to pay 3K a year to do media studies let them.
Duncan23 said:
It's simple. You don't need tuition fees if a sensible pecentage (25-30%) of school leavers go to university.
>> Edited by Duncan23 on Tuesday 12th April 12:49
I agree in part Duncan-though I'm not sure even 30% is sustainable with current university financing.
Ultimately though whether it is 10% of students going to university or 50% they should pay a part of the cost of their education-with (as I mentioned above)exemptions for certain critical degrees.
Duncan23 said:
Edited to respond to Plotloss - What's a physics degree from Wolverhampton worth? You don't need to do A level Maths to get in, so how exactly are you gonna deal with real physics? Surely better to fun quality degrees in whatever subject than to fund worthless degrees in specific subjects?
I am of course basing any proposition on the myth of common sense being present somewhere in this country.
Computing Science is not the same as basket weaving 
The problem I have with scrapping tution fee's is a purely selfish one - if they do scrap them completely what about me and the 8 years or so of people who have had to pay £3k to do our degree along with loosing grants etc. It strikes me as been entirely unfair to use people as test-subjects for a system which when shown to "fail" is then revoked leaving the test-subjects out of pocket.
<edit> I know loans will be still be used, but if tution fees are scrapped, there is £3k of the loan back already. You can bet your bottom dollar the moeny I've paid to Uni won't be refunded either!</edit>
Personally I don't see a problem with the system as it is now, but maybe more grants could come in for subjects such as nursing, midwifery, teaching etc. As pointed out how do you say "this is a cheap course". The other thing I think should be addressed is a modification should be made to the tolerances - at £19,999pa you pay pretty much nothing, £25k you pay £3,000 a year.
>> Edited by docevi1 on Tuesday 12th April 13:08
JagLover said:
I agree in part Duncan-though I'm not sure even 30% is sustainable with current university financing.
Ultimately though whether it is 10% of students going to university or 50% they should pay a part of the cost of their education-with (as I mentioned above)exemptions for certain critical degrees.
I'm not convinced this serves our culture though. Say I am really good at history (extremely hypothetical!) and want to do it at Uni. I am good enough to go to Oxbridge, but I will have to pay at least 9 grand for my course. Or I can go to a redbrick and get some sort of grant. Unless my parents are loaded I'm going to the place that offers me a good deal. And the Oxbrige place is filled by someone who is not as good but is happy to pay the cash. The result - our elite universities get worse, and the talented poor students get a raw deal.
I fail to see why doing a degree in a "critical" subject is something that needs to be encouraged by cash. Of the 9 physicists I know, 2 are doing research, 1 is doing teaching and 6 are in IT. Why should they be funded, when the history grad who becomes a teacher is not? It comes down to jobs. How many are there in physics? Without the jobs, you lose the graduates in any case.
[quote=docevi1] Computing Science is not the same as basket weaving
[quote]
And nor is a GOOD history degree.
As pointed out here, there are simply too many universities out there and many of them provide sub-standard courses (even in 'practical' subjects) where graduates can have little/no chance of employment when they graduate. Too many courses have little requirement of actually doing any work, leaving the students to sit around most of the day and not bother attending the one-two hours a day of lectures.
The system needs to be radically slimmed down to separate the wheat from the chaff (or should that be chavs?
)
Edit to say: Duncan23 makes a good point re the funding of certain 'key' subjects - of the scientists I went to uni with, five are now working in the City earning big bucks, one is a journalist on a national newspaper and only one is still in science (ESA). I'm not sure I'd want to give extra funding to guys who get their Physics/Chemistry/Engineering degrees when all along they know they are going to jump on the first Corporate Banking/Accountancy/Management Consultancy gravy train that pulls in...
>> Edited by sj78 on Tuesday 12th April 13:35
Computing Science is not the same as basket weaving [quote]
And nor is a GOOD history degree.
As pointed out here, there are simply too many universities out there and many of them provide sub-standard courses (even in 'practical' subjects) where graduates can have little/no chance of employment when they graduate. Too many courses have little requirement of actually doing any work, leaving the students to sit around most of the day and not bother attending the one-two hours a day of lectures.
The system needs to be radically slimmed down to separate the wheat from the chaff (or should that be chavs?
) Edit to say: Duncan23 makes a good point re the funding of certain 'key' subjects - of the scientists I went to uni with, five are now working in the City earning big bucks, one is a journalist on a national newspaper and only one is still in science (ESA). I'm not sure I'd want to give extra funding to guys who get their Physics/Chemistry/Engineering degrees when all along they know they are going to jump on the first Corporate Banking/Accountancy/Management Consultancy gravy train that pulls in...
>> Edited by sj78 on Tuesday 12th April 13:35
Plotloss said:
docevi1 said:
Computer Science is to Science what Plumbing is to Hydrodynamics.
You're a developer, theres no science to it.
And this country is so short of good plumbers that the buggers can get away with charging an arm and a leg. Don't know what the going rate is for basket weavers.
Furthermore by that logic doctors and nurses are the equivalent of car mechanics.
>> Edited by einion yrth on Tuesday 12th April 13:37
Duncan23 said:
I'm not convinced this serves our culture though. Say I am really good at history (extremely hypothetical!) and want to do it at Uni. I am good enough to go to Oxbridge, but I will have to pay at least 9 grand for my course. Or I can go to a redbrick and get some sort of grant. Unless my parents are loaded I'm going to the place that offers me a good deal. And the Oxbrige place is filled by someone who is not as good but is happy to pay the cash. The result - our elite universities get worse, and the talented poor students get a raw deal.
Well with tuition fees at a max 3K there is little difference in the fee charged between universities.
Given that they are repaid after graduation, not before I don't see how they work as a disincentive to the poor who know they will be able to get a good job with their degree.
In regards to the exceptions-the point is what is good for the economy-not necessarily whether they join the public sector or not.
Plotloss said:depends on your interpretation of the word science
You're a developer, theres no science to it.
einion yrth said:
Simple test. If you can spell 'lose' and 'losing' correctly, you get a grant, otherwise it's fees time. Sorry Docevi1  |
I've dyslectic tendencies 
, always have and learn to live with making spelling mistakes and asking for confimation before regarding it as final 
docevi1 said:
Can I make you feel like a little bit of muck on the floor? Can I, please, oh go on
Nope, 'cos I'm callous and completely heartless
JagLover said:
What does everyone think about tuition fees?
They are a key election battleground because the Tories are committed to scrapping them.
Personally I think they are a good thing for two reasons
1. Provide source of finance to universities that desperately need it.
The alternative view is that it should be the job of the government to finance the education of the people that will, in future, lead this country.
JagLover said:
2. Helps to discourage people taking a degree without thinking things through (simply because that is what everyone else is doing)-ie helps them to value a degree.
Unfortunately the Labour policy is to try and get as many people as possible to go through university, whether or not they need it, or it's appropriate to their future career choices. At that age, most kids are well aware that a degree would be the longest commitment they have yet to make, so they don't need much encouragement to think about it a little.
Personally, I think tuition fees are a terrible idea, actively discourage students and don't benefit the universities as much as they should (admin costs etc.). I'd prefer governments to pay for higher education, and maybe get the money back through a 1% graduate tax - on the principle that if degrees are worth anything, they should easily justify 1% of your future income.
Tuna said:
Personally, I think tuition fees are a terrible idea, actively discourage students and don't benefit the universities as much as they should (admin costs etc.). I'd prefer governments to pay for higher education, and maybe get the money back through a 1% graduate tax - on the principle that if degrees are worth anything, they should easily justify 1% of your future income.
But then we are not necessarily discouraging people from doing a degree if they do not need to do it.
If the cost of the degree is constant that is better than being penalised afterwards for having a decent job.
I think Tuition Fees are a great idea personally-if you don't pay for something you don't value it.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff