Tuition Fee Rises

[SuperMikey]

So, sure you've all heard about this by now. Lord Browne has recommended that the LibServatives raise tuition fees for universities to £7000, and also to allow top universities to charge what they want, which means that students wanting to go to top places like Oxford, Cambridge and even Southampton could end up paying well over £10k a year for their degree courses.

 

I may be a bit biased on this particular one, being a student myself, but this is just typical of the tories imo. They're taking the fairness out of the education system and making university an elitist thing again. Some may argue that it's a good thing, but we're all entitled to a good education, and let's face it, you need a degree to get anywhere in the world these days. I'm already going to graduate from Uni in a few years time saddled with £24k (min) of student debt, so imagine how much people would end up paying if they had to pay £15k a year as well as living costs!

 

Personally, I think it's a disgusting proposition that is just completely OTT. As I said, only the rich will be able to go to university if this goes through, and that's exactly how the tories want it. Same sh!t, different leader.

 

PS: There's a protest scheduled for November 10th in Westminster against the rises, we need as many people as possible!

[Saint_Jonny]

The level of the proposed rise is outrageous, while alot of uni's wont charge top dollar, you are looking at every single one of them charging 6k per year minimum in tuition fees if this comes in.

It'll take alot of time to go through so I will probably avoid the cost hike (unless im lucky enough to get a work placement for next year, though I might not bother looking for one if it means paying double rates when I want to come and finish my education...) but how will my younger sister EVER be able to justify that sort of outlay? People from mid-range earning family's like myself just wont be able to think about sending kids of to uni, and perspective students will be put off massively by this.

[iansums]

No point blaming the Tories (yet), this was an independent review launched last year by the Labour government. The figures do sound worrying though. To say 'you need a degree to get anywhere in the world these days' is complete bollix, plenty of people do very well without going to university.

[iansums]

So, sure you've all heard about this by now. Lord Browne has recommended that the LibServatives raise tuition fees for universities to £7000, and also to allow top universities to charge what they want, which means that students wanting to go to top places like Oxford, Cambridge and even Southampton could end up paying well over £10k a year for their degree courses.

 

I may be a bit biased on this particular one, being a student myself, but this is just typical of the tories imo. They're taking the fairness out of the education system and making university an elitist thing again. Some may argue that it's a good thing, but we're all entitled to a good education, and let's face it, you need a degree to get anywhere in the world these days. I'm already going to graduate from Uni in a few years time saddled with £24k (min) of student debt, so imagine how much people would end up paying if they had to pay £15k a year as well as living costs!

 

Personally, I think it's a disgusting proposition that is just completely OTT. As I said, only the rich will be able to go to university if this goes through, and that's exactly how the tories want it. Same sh!t, different leader.

 

PS: There's a protest scheduled for November 10th in Westminster against the rises, we need as many people as possible!

 

Actually, have you read the report or are you just going to protest anyway? Perhaps if you read it you may well change your mind.

[SuperMikey]

Actually, have you read the report or are you just going to protest anyway? Perhaps if you read it you may well change your mind.

 

I will protest anyway, regardless of which government proposed it. Just completely disagree with the idea.

[GenevaSaint]

Best go to the University of Amsterdam Mikey. 1600 Euro per year for their courses.

[GenevaSaint]

while we're on the subject, I hate the Scots!

 

Scottish and study in Scotland? FREE

English or Welsh PAY

EU Citizen FREE

 

Work that one out given that the UK economy as a whole contributes to Scotland. cvnts

[Lighthouse]

On the upside it might put people off going to uni for the "life experience". I've got mates who went to uni and have no idea what to do next because they did a pointless course which wont get you a job anywhere.

[OldNick]

it is not about elitism but about the country being in the s###. I have been paying taxes to subsidise for students education for 30 years.As someone who left school at 16 i have no real sympathy as see a city full of student bars.If there is such hardship how come they are so busy?

Perhaps all the people going to Uni to get an Ology may just go out and work and in turn help subsidise the rest.

[OldNick]

while we're on the subject, I hate the Scots!

 

Scottish and study in Scotland? FREE

English or Welsh PAY

EU Citizen FREE

 

Work that one out given that the UK economy as a whole contributes to Scotland. cvnts

hey Geneva i haven't seen that passion since you played in the Forum match.....I still can see you laughing your socks off as i returned to my seat at the request of the ref. Lol

[iansums]

I will protest anyway, regardless of which government proposed it. Just completely disagree with the idea.

 

Ok, forget the government bit but have you read the report?

 

Seriously, this is an issue that must be resolved like the budget deficit it won't just go away. Protesting won't make it go away, what is your alternative? Please read the report.

[iansums]

This may help:

 

http://hereview.independent.gov.uk/hereview/report/

[Arizona]

hey Geneva i haven't seen that passion since you played in the Forum match.....I still can see you laughing your socks off as i returned to my seat at the request of the ref. Lol

 

What's it like to experience 'laughing your arse off' in full surround sound?

[stevegrant]

Summary from that report:

 

Zero cost up front

Repayments only made when graduate is earning £21k or more

Repayments are a fixed 9% of salary over £21k (e.g. if you're earning £25k a year, you pay 9% of £4k a year)

Repayments stop if the graduate stops earning £21k (could be interesting for those that go straight into self-employed work...)

The interest rate on the loan is the same rate at which the government borrows money

Any balance remaining after 30 years is written off.

[OldNick]

What's it like to experience 'laughing your arse off' in full surround sound?

I surprised you would have known what was going on

[JackFrost]

Labour were considering putting them up long before the coalition came into office

[Johnny Bognor]

I am personally against blanket rises across all degrees and would like to see a compromise.

 

If a degree is useful to the economy (i.e the taxpayer is likely to get a return on their investment) such as IT, Engineering, Accountancy, Law etc, then the state should/could subsidise it or I would also like to see more subsidy/investment from the business community for degrees that are specialist in their respective sectors. For example, it the legal profession need more lawyers, then put some money in to help out.

 

If a degree is useful to society (i.e. we need doctors and nurses) then again it should be subsidised as we are likely to all be beneficiaries one day.

 

If your degree is in Art History, Golf Management, Star Trek, Queer Musicology, Philosophy, Surfing, The Phallus, Doctorate of Philosophy in Ufology, David Beckham studies (yes, these are all real degree courses......see http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php), Media studies (which may as well be on that list) or Outer Mongolian Jazz in the 16th Century (OK, I made the last one up), then pay for it your ****ing self!

 

That way 'we' as a nation get the education we need.

 

That is all.

Edited 12 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[bridge too far]

Johnny - the degree subject shouldn't matter too much.

 

For example, many politicians studied PPE at University - hardly a 'useful' degree. My own son read Philosophy and makes a huge contribution (in tax as well as the work he does).

 

But I do agree that some degrees are perhaps of less importance. However, going to university and getting a degree says more about the student - self-discipline, determination, organisation - than the subject itself. This is why many employers look for graduates with good degrees, irrespective of subject.

[Lord Duckhunter]

My Mrs went back to uni as a mature student to become a midwife. Her degree was paid for by the NHS (us), but following qualifing you have to work for the trust for 2 years at roughly half wages to pay some back. It varies from trust to trust , some are 1 year. It seems like an entirely sensible arrangement and in my Mrs case she felt if was right that she contributed in this way.

[Johnny Bognor]

Johnny - the degree subject shouldn't matter too much.

 

For example, many politicians studied PPE at University - hardly a 'useful' degree. My own son read Philosophy and makes a huge contribution (in tax as well as the work he does).

 

But I do agree that some degrees are perhaps of less importance. However, going to university and getting a degree says more about the student - self-discipline, determination, organisation - than the subject itself. This is why many employers look for graduates with good degrees, irrespective of subject.

 

In some ways yes and in others I disagree. If I want to operate on people, a degree in philiosophy isn't going to cut it (excuse the pun). There are some careers where the subject matter is of the utmost importance, in fact essential.

 

As an employer, I look at the subject studied as it gives an indication as to whether the student is serious about what they are going to do. If I am hiring an IT Techie, an IT degree (or any degree involing logic) would be more preferable to Golf Management. If I am hiring a finance person, accountancy would be more useful than Media Studies. Therefore the subject you study is relevant to many employers.

 

Graduate unemployment is at its highest level and quite frankly, many of the graduates I see are unemployable. There is a mis-match between what is required by the economy and what students are prepared to study.

 

I am happy to pay more or contribute more if there is a return. I refuse to subsidise some **** head student who wants to do some mickey mouse course that is only good for their own ego.

Edited 12 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Lord Duckhunter]

I've been looking into it, and a couple of degrees have caught my eye.

 

Surf Science and Technology at Plymouth

 

Stand-up Comedy at Kent and Salford

 

Brewing & Distilling at Heriot-Watt University

 

Golf Management Studies at Birmingham

 

and finally Stained Glass Window Studies at Swansea Institute

 

If I could spend a couple of years lounging around doing one of the above, and the tax payer picks up the tab, think of the contribution I could make to Society.

[buctootim]

I've been looking into it, and a couple of degrees have caught my eye.

 

Surf Science and Technology at Plymouth

 

Stand-up Comedy at Kent and Salford

 

Brewing & Distilling at Heriot-Watt University

 

Golf Management Studies at Birmingham

 

and finally Stained Glass Window Studies at Swansea Institute

 

If I could spend a couple of years lounging around doing one of the above, and the tax payer picks up the tab, think of the contribution I could make to Society.

 

TBF brewing and distilling is a real industry requiring real science. And golf is a major leisure activity requiring people who know what they're doing - but yep the rest is a waste of public money.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

I've been looking into it, and a couple of degrees have caught my eye.

 

Surf Science and Technology at Plymouth

 

Stand-up Comedy at Kent and Salford

 

Brewing & Distilling at Heriot-Watt University

 

Golf Management Studies at Birmingham

 

and finally Stained Glass Window Studies at Swansea Institute

 

If I could spend a couple of years lounging around doing one of the above, and the tax payer picks up the tab, think of the contribution I could make to Society.

 

I actually have a good friend who did that degree and it certainly isn't a dossers degree like the others you've mentioned. He needed good science A Levels to get on it for one thing.

[bridge too far]

 

As an employer, I look at the subject studied as it gives an indication as to whether the student is serious about what they are going to do. If I am hiring an IT Techie, an IT degree (or any degree involing logic) would be more preferable to Golf Management. If I am hiring a finance person, accountancy would be more useful than Media Studies........

 

My son, the one with a Philosophy degree, has a very senior position with one of the major IT players in the world.

[Lord Duckhunter]

I actually have a good friend who did that degree and it certainly isn't a dossers degree like the others you've mentioned. He needed good science A Levels to get on it for one thing.

 

I just looked up the head brewer from my favourite tipple Tanglefoot, so an apoligy to all budding brewers is in order.

 

http://www.beerreviews.co.uk/beer/meet-the-brewer-toby-heasman-hall-and-woodhousebadger-brewery/

 

Seems he went to Heriot-Watt University,the taxpayer should be paying for his education, without his knowledge and know how I wouldn't have met my Mrs..

[Seaford Saint]

In some ways yes and in others I disagree. If I want to operate on people, a degree in philiosophy isn't going to cut it (excuse the pun). There are some careers where the subject matter is of the utmost importance, in fact essential.

 

As an employer, I look at the subject studied as it gives an indication as to whether the student is serious about what they are going to do. If I am hiring an IT Techie, an IT degree (or any degree involing logic) would be more preferable to Golf Management. If I am hiring a finance person, accountancy would be more useful than Media Studies. Therefore the subject you study is relevant to many employers.

 

Graduate unemployment is at its highest level and quite frankly, many of the graduates I see are unemployable. There is a mis-match between what is required by the economy and what students are prepared to study.

 

I am happy to pay more or contribute more if there is a return. I refuse to subsidise some **** head student who wants to do some mickey mouse course that is only good for their own ego.

 

I used my Philosphy degree in the early years of my career. I ended up in IT. University changed me enormously, its not not necessarily the subject that is studied, but the whole experience. I could not in all conscience stop some one from attending.

[SuperMikey]

My Mrs went back to uni as a mature student to become a midwife. Her degree was paid for by the NHS (us), but following qualifing you have to work for the trust for 2 years at roughly half wages to pay some back. It varies from trust to trust , some are 1 year. It seems like an entirely sensible arrangement and in my Mrs case she felt if was right that she contributed in this way.

 

That is a sensible agreement - the NHS have it right on that one imo. Know a lot of student nurses, physiotherapists, speech therapists etc from my halls and they cite that as being one of the things that sold the course to them.

 

Having skimmed through the report, I can see what the ConDems are trying to do. Universities are overcrowded, so raising the fees will cut down on places and therefore government spending on said universities.

To me though, it seems that they're just trying to make more money from the people that can't really afford it. I don't know many people who could afford £10k a year for a course at a good university.

Imo there are other ways of making money that would be more successful than this - try investing in business for one. You have to spend money to make money.

 

Either way, this could potentially lose a lot of support for the Conservatives.

[buctootim]

I used my Philosphy degree in the early years of my career. I ended up in IT. University changed me enormously, its not not necessarily the subject that is studied, but the whole experience. I could not in all conscience stop some one from attending.

 

University is great. Three years of being young, getting drunk, getting laid, and having fun. I wouldnt have missed it for the world. Id like my kids to have the same experience. That doesnt change the fact that its not reasonable to expect someone who is working to give up part of their family income to fund a student on a course unless there is some wider economic benefit / wealth creation.

 

In my totalitarian state students in subjects like biochemistry, engineering, medicine and IT would get free courses and grants. Most students in soft subjects (with a few exceptions for real talents) like philosophy, East African cultural studies or social anthropology would have to pay their own way.

Edited 12 October, 2010 by buctootim

[Whitey Grandad]

while we're on the subject, I hate the Scots!

 

Scottish and study in Scotland? FREE

English or Welsh PAY

EU Citizen FREE

 

Work that one out given that the UK economy as a whole contributes to Scotland. cvnts

 

I'm with you Geneva. Let's just rase taxes on all the Scots.

[Whitey Grandad]

If, as we are told, graduates earn more then they will pay more in taxes throughout their lifetime. This is just another LibDem hate measure.

[Saintandy666]

I remember the promises before the election, the reason millions voted... especially students. Well, I think the Lib Dems just successfully destroyed one of the key elements of their core vote.

 

I know this is a coalition, so compromise is not only necessary, but inevitable. This, however, is not compromise. It is the bulldozing of everything the Liberal Democrats stood for, believed in and wanted.

 

I know we are in hard times, but it is in these hard times we should be making sure our higher education system is affordable as well as able to compete with the best in world. Not enough funding? How about cut trident... there's £5bn straight away each and every year. This is the end of affordable higher education.

 

My parties views are no longer seem to reflect what is similar to my own. I've kept my renewing form for my membership until now, but I think it'll find its place nicely within my recycling bin.

 

 

I just sent that comment to the BBC, hope it gets published.

[Johnny Bognor]

My son, the one with a Philosophy degree, has a very senior position with one of the major IT players in the world.

 

Good for him, but he would never have made a surgeon with that degree, as per my example, where in some lines of work, the subject matter is essential.

 

I used my Philosphy degree in the early years of my career. I ended up in IT. University changed me enormously, its not not necessarily the subject that is studied, but the whole experience. I could not in all conscience stop some one from attending.

 

Good for you and I am sure there will be other examples of people doing well in careers with a degree that isn't necessarily relevant.

 

However, it is now about choices as the money is thin on the ground. As opposed to increasing fees on ALL courses, my argument is that if savings have to be found, then it would be better to fund the courses where there is more likely to be a return, whilst increasing the fees on others. It kills two birds with one stone - saving some money, whilst ensuring that the future of the economy is protected. Increasing all fees is a bad idea, whilst funding all courses is unaffordable.

 

Surely common sense would dictate that there is a compromise to be had and what I am arguing is exactly that?

 

I still stand by my statement that there is a mismatch in what industry/the economy needs and what people choose to study. By encouraging people into areas where there is a demand, this has to be a good thing.

Edited 12 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Arizona]

I remember the promises before the election, the reason millions voted... especially students. Well, I think the Lib Dems just successfully destroyed one of the key elements of their core vote.

 

I know this is a coalition, so compromise is not only necessary, but inevitable. This, however, is not compromise. It is the bulldozing of everything the Liberal Democrats stood for, believed in and wanted.

 

I know we are in hard times, but it is in these hard times we should be making sure our higher education system is affordable as well as able to compete with the best in world. Not enough funding? How about cut trident... there's £5bn straight away each and every year. This is the end of affordable higher education.

 

My parties views are no longer seem to reflect what is similar to my own. I've kept my renewing form for my membership until now, but I think it'll find its place nicely within my recycling bin.

 

 

I just sent that comment to the BBC, hope it gets published.

 

I don't get why people are so keen to cut trident. It's THE deterant. If someone like Russia or China decided they don't like us, 90 F2 Typhoons isn't going to keep them out. I know it's a paranoid view on the world, but we need a deterant incase the worst case scenarios unfold. I certainly wouldn't chuck it away so a few a few more students can go to uni.

[Saintandy666]

I don't get why people are so keen to cut trident. It's THE deterant. If someone like Russia or China decided they don't like us, 90 F2 Typhoons isn't going to keep them out. I know it's a paranoid view on the world, but we need a deterant incase the worst case scenarios unfold. I certainly wouldn't chuck it away so a few a few more students can go to uni.

 

Most countries in the world don't have nuclear weapons. But ok, have it your way... I'm still sure we can find the extra few billion pounds to plug this hole(it is that important so we can compete with the countries you mentioned). I am not a fool by the way who thinks there should be no cuts. I'm also not an advocate of 'a few more students going to university'. I just want a decent level of people going getting a quality degree at an affordable price.

[Deppo]

I am personally against blanket rises across all degrees and would like to see a compromise.

 

If a degree is useful to the economy (i.e the taxpayer is likely to get a return on their investment) such as IT, Engineering, Accountancy, Law etc, then the state should/could subsidise it or I would also like to see more subsidy/investment from the business community for degrees that are specialist in their respective sectors. For example, it the legal profession need more lawyers, then put some money in to help out.

 

If a degree is useful to society (i.e. we need doctors and nurses) then again it should be subsidised as we are likely to all be beneficiaries one day.

 

If your degree is in Art History, Golf Management, Star Trek, Queer Musicology, Philosophy, Surfing, The Phallus, Doctorate of Philosophy in Ufology, David Beckham studies (yes, these are all real degree courses......see http://www.toptenz.net/to-10-useless-college-classes-degrees.php), Media studies (which may as well be on that list) or Outer Mongolian Jazz in the 16th Century (OK, I made the last one up), then pay for it your ****ing self!

 

That way 'we' as a nation get the education we need.

 

That is all.

 

One of the things that I learnt at university was to discern a reliable source from an unreliable one when conducting research. Funnily enough, most academics use TopTenz.net rather than journals and textbooks for trustworthy information.

[bridge too far]

Given this country's great achievements in the Arts, Sciences and Technology, I think it would be a crying shame if a huge talent is missed because his / her family just couldn't afford to send him / her to the best university.

 

In the future, it will be even more Eton / Oxbridge judges, politicians and medics but they won't necessarily be the best.

[Johnny Bognor]

One of the things that I learnt at university was to discern a reliable source from an unreliable one when conducting research. Funnily enough, most academics use TopTenz.net rather than journals and textbooks for trustworthy information.

 

To be fair, I just googled useless degrees and picked the first one (that happened to be a bit crap). These were just used to make a point, which you can do without hours and hours of research. I think peeps as a whole, got the gist of what I was saying, so your point is?

[Johnny Bognor]

Given this country's great achievements in the Arts, Sciences and Technology, I think it would be a crying shame if a huge talent is missed because his / her family just couldn't afford to send him / her to the best university.

 

To be fair, I would include sciences. The UK's pharmacuetical and biotech industries are healthy and worth investing in.

 

Technology is another important area for us to progress as a nation. In fact, it was the positioning of Stanford University in terms of being a centre of technical excellence that spawned Silicon Valley that led to the creation of the most successful technology companies in the world (Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, HP, Intel etc) which generates immense wealth for the US as a nation. Had Stanford University in Silicon Valley gone for art, history and philosophy, where would they be now?

 

This supports my view that universities need to meet the needs of the nation and the economy, rather than some leftie vision as to the right to be educated in whatever one chooses. You could almost call me a commie for such centralised planning. I think people should choose to be educated in what they like, but the state should only pick up the tab for degrees that provide ROI.

Edited 12 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Verbal]

I don't get why people are so keen to cut trident. It's THE deterant. If someone like Russia or China decided they don't like us, 90 F2 Typhoons isn't going to keep them out. I know it's a paranoid view on the world, but we need a deterant incase the worst case scenarios unfold. I certainly wouldn't chuck it away so a few a few more students can go to uni.

 

Because it's not even a deterrent. We can't fire any part of our nuclear arsenal without American approval. And besides, nuclear fallout does not respect borders. If you consider for a moment what the deterrent actually means - actually loosing off a nuclear weapon and all its unimaginable consequences - it's really no option at all. For which we pay BILLIONS. The beneficiaries are not us, but the defence contractors who pay PR companies and politicians well to perpetuate such a morbidly stupid logic.

 

Set against that nonsense, give me more students any day.

[Ludwig]

In some ways yes and in others I disagree. If I want to operate on people, a degree in philiosophy isn't going to cut it (excuse the pun). There are some careers where the subject matter is of the utmost importance, in fact essential.

 

As an employer, I look at the subject studied as it gives an indication as to whether the student is serious about what they are going to do. If I am hiring an IT Techie, an IT degree (or any degree involing logic) would be more preferable to Golf Management. If I am hiring a finance person, accountancy would be more useful than Media Studies. Therefore the subject you study is relevant to many employers.

 

Graduate unemployment is at its highest level and quite frankly, many of the graduates I see are unemployable. There is a mis-match between what is required by the economy and what students are prepared to study.

 

I am happy to pay more or contribute more if there is a return. I refuse to subsidise some **** head student who wants to do some mickey mouse course that is only good for their own ego.

 

Do you know what logic is? Or what a philosophy degree at most UK institutions actually entails?

[buctootim]

Because it's not even a deterrent. We can't fire any part of our nuclear arsenal without American approval. And besides, nuclear fallout does not respect borders. If you consider for a moment what the deterrent actually means - actually loosing off a nuclear weapon and all its unimaginable consequences - it's really no option at all. For which we pay BILLIONS. The beneficiaries are not us, but the defence contractors who pay PR companies and politicians well to perpetuate such a morbidly stupid logic.

 

Set against that nonsense, give me more students any day.

 

1. Do you really think that the Americans saying 'no' would carry any weight if the UK was directly and imminently threatened? 2. Mutually Assured Total Destruction is not the only option. Trident warheads are very flexible capable of delivering small local payloads. They represent just about the only option we have of wiping out a missile site in Iran or some other far flung remote threat.

[Deppo]

To be fair, I just googled useless degrees and picked the first one (that happened to be a bit crap). These were just used to make a point, which you can do without hours and hours of research. I think peeps as a whole, got the gist of what I was saying, so your point is?

 

My point being that that article is b*ll**** with a massive anti-education bias. And it refers mostly to modules rather than degree courses.

[Verbal]

1. Do you really think that the Americans saying 'no' would carry any weight if the UK was directly and imminently threatened? 2. Mutually Assured Total Destruction is not the only option. Trident warheads are very flexible capable of delivering small local payloads. They represent just about the only option we have of wiping out a missile site in Iran or some other far flung remote threat.

 

Truly desperate, desperate stuff. I suggest you do a history degree.

[buctootim]

Truly desperate, desperate stuff. I suggest you do a history degree.

 

Ah. Condecension in the absence of wit or wisdom. Must try harder.

[bridge too far]

To be fair, I would include sciences. The UK's pharmacuetical and biotech industries are healthy and worth investing in.

 

Technology is another important area for us to progress as a nation. In fact, it was the positioning of Stanford University in terms of being a centre of technical excellence that spawned Silicon Valley that led to the creation of the most successful technology companies in the world (Oracle, Microsoft, Apple, HP, Intel etc) which generates immense wealth for the US as a nation. Had Stanford University in Silicon Valley gone for art, history and philosophy, where would they be now?

 

This supports my view that universities need to meet the needs of the nation and the economy, rather than some leftie vision as to the right to be educated in whatever one chooses. You could almost call me a commie for such centralised planning. I think people should choose to be educated in what they like, but the state should only pick up the tab for degrees that provide ROI.

 

What a sad, sad world it would be if we didn't have excellent arts and humanities.

 

Some things you just can't judge by a bottom line. Think of the money British theatre earns for the economy because of visits from tourists, for example.

[Clapham Saint]

Given this country's great achievements in the Arts, Sciences and Technology, I think it would be a crying shame if a huge talent is missed because his / her family just couldn't afford to send him / her to the best university.

 

In the future, it will be even more Eton / Oxbridge judges, politicians and medics but they won't necessarily be the best.

 

I would offer a subsidy to those gaining higher grades (regardless of course).

 

If a student gained 4 A*s and wants to go to uni then they are more deserving of the nation's investment than another wanting to go to the University of making up the numbers with 1 E and an F.

[benjii]

The problem is the number of people at universities. They should be for the academic elite and most of them, currently, are not. If this policy causes a decline in the number of people at university then good.

 

I do worry about how the poorest and the lower middle classes will perceive this but structural reform is necessary. The only viable alternative would be to just compulsorily close down a load of the pointless universities but that would hardly be fair to the people studying or working at them; let the market decide.

[benjii]

...

Edited 12 October, 2010 by benjii

[Clapham Saint]

The problem is the number of people at universities. They should be for the academic elite and most of them, currently, are not. If this policy causes a decline in the number of people at university then good.

 

I do worry about how the poorest and the lower middle classes will perceive this but structural reform is necessary. The only viable alternative would be to just compulsorily close down a load of the pointless universities but that would hardly be fair to the people studying or working at them; let the market decide.

 

Tony Blair's policy (or his government's anyway) of wanting 50% of school leavers to go to Uni was just plain stupid.

 

For many of those who have been to Uni in the last few years I'm sure that vocational courses or getting straight into the working world would have been far more beneficial to them.

 

The brightest should go to Uni regardless of background (hence the subisdy for high A level grades above), insisting that everybody goes, even if it means wasting 3 years studying Kilingon from the union bar is a waste of both money and time.

Edited 12 October, 2010 by Clapham Saint

[Clapham Saint]

My son, the one with a Philosophy degree, has a very senior position with one of the major IT players in the world.

 

A graduate working hard, doing well for himself and no doubt earning a lot of money. I bet he voted conservative.