Tuition Fee Rises

[aintforever]

I went to uni but probably wouldn't if I was starting out now - because of the fees. I suspect increasing them will put people off from lower/middle incomes. As Granty pointed out, it's not serious debt, but when I was 18 the idea of getting into debt scared me and I suspect people from poorer backgrounds wont like the idea of being in over 30K of debt.

 

We all know the Tories would love it if only the rich went to the best Unis, and give their offspring the best chance over everyone else. That's why we should view these plans with caution.

 

Having said that something needs changing, when I was at Uni many students were there for the scive, repeating years again and again. the Uni played along with it because they got their fees of the council.

Edited 12 October, 2010 by aintforever

[Arizona]

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.

 

How is nuclear war not a deterrent? You don't get it. Nobody wants to use nukes, that's exactly why you have them. To DETER people from attacking you. The way you're painting it, Britain needs nukes so we can go and blow the crap out of countries bigger than us. That's not the point at all. We need them so that if in 20 or 30 years Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran or otherwise decide they don't like us, we can put them off attacking. What if Iran develops nuclear warheads and we haven't got any? That's a terrible scenario.

 

Name two nuclear powers who have ever gone to war. Nukes are the main reason the cold war stayed cold. Both sides knew if there was an escallation in any conflict it could lead to worldwide annihalation. Not a risk either side wanted to take. The closest it ever got was the Cuban Missile Crisis and even then both sides were desperate for an excuse to back down, without losing face.

[bridge too far]

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

 

 

Well obviously I don't know for sure, but I'd be very surprised if he did TBH.

 

My point was aimed at JB who implied that, basically, philosophy degrees weren't worth anything in the real world and that he would only employ IT graduates for an IT job.

[benjii]

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

 

Indeed.

 

Once the powers that be finished dumbing down school education they moved on to the unis...

[benjii]

I have a philosophy degree.

 

At least I think I do. I am a Pyrrhonic sceptic so I have my doubts.

[Clapham Saint]

Well obviously I don't know for sure, but I'd be very surprised if he did TBH.

 

My point was aimed at JB who implied that, basically, philosophy degrees weren't worth anything in the real world and that he would only employ IT graduates for an IT job.

 

Was just kidding.

[bridge too far]

I went to uni but probably wouldn't if I was starting out now - because of the fees. I suspect increasing them will put people off from lower/middle incomes. As Granty pointed out, it's not serious debt, but when I was 18 the idea of getting into debt scared me and I suspect people from poorer backgrounds wont like the idea of being in over 30K of debt.

 

We all know the Tories would love it if only the rich went to the best Unis, and give their offspring the best chance over everyone else. That's why we should view these plans with caution.

 

having said that something needs changing, when I was at Uni many students were there for the scive, repeating years again and again. the Uni played along with it because they got their fees of the council.

 

TBF I find that hard to believe. My daughter had to repeat the first year of her maths degree because of illness. The local authority would only fund 3 years in total so we had to fork out for the repeat year, both tuition and accommodation even though, in those days, students didn't pay tuition fees at all.

[aintforever]

TBF I find that hard to believe. My daughter had to repeat the first year of her maths degree because of illness. The local authority would only fund 3 years in total so we had to fork out for the repeat year, both tuition and accommodation even though, in those days, students didn't pay tuition fees at all.

 

My mate did the first year 3 times in a row, never got close to passing and never paid a penny just got his grant check and smoked loads of weed. I think some of his mates had been there longer but cant be sure - you might be right about the 3 year thing. The Uni definitely didn't give a monkeys as they got paid per student.

[Johnny Bognor]

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

 

Yes I do and maybe I was being a bit flippant, but my point still stands regarding those degrees that are worth investing in where we can get a tangible return

 

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.

 

So what if it is? My point being is that there are some degrees which benefit us economically and others which may enrich the life of the individual, but why should I have to pay for it

 

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.

 

I agree that it is a shame and in an ideal world there would be free education for all. Meanwhile, back in the real world, there is no money and that magic socialist money tree didn't exist. Unfortunately we had a history graduate who ran our economy in to the ground. You could argue that the current man is also suitably unqualified to run an economy, however I guess we can hope that being a history graduate, he might learn from the mistakes of the past.

 

@ all of you arguing the toss, I was trying to find a compromise, where some courses could/should be protected and/or subsidised. If you don't agree, then ******** to you, lets just stick up ALL tuition fees (as is being proposed) for everyone!

[Arizona]

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.

 

I'm fully in support of intelligent students going to good universities to do useful degrees. I left school 4 years ago and I'd say 90% of people in my year went to uni. The problem I found was it just seemed to be the norm. It was just assumed you would go to uni. All the teachers were completely obsessed with UCAS applications and getting everyone in somewhere. It didn't matter whether it was scratch-your-arse-ology or piece of wood studies, it was just taken for granted that all their students would go to uni. Some of them looked possitively disgusted when I told them I wasn't going, but ironically I ended up with a job when most of my year was barely half way through their course.

 

In some ways I don't think there should be any school help at all with uni applications. I think it should be purposely difficult to get in, so that only those who are really committed and passionate about a certain subject go to uni. I'd say a fair chunk of those at uni are just going with the flow.

[bridge too far]

Johnny B - you're missing the point. Yes some degrees are maybe 'useless' but some graduates with useless degrees (in your eyes) go on to do good and worthwhile things.

 

Using my family as an example again (sorry) - my SiL studied Marketing at Solent University. As part of his course he had to do some work experience. For him this entailed working with some children with special needs on a project.

 

As a result, as soon as he graduated, he did a PGCE and now is a great primary school teacher with responsibility for special needs children in his school.

 

Had he not gone to University to do a 'useless' degree, some children would have been much worse off.

 

You can't judge everything in life on whether it returns a profit (although well educated children sounds like a good return to me). There's too much emphasis on 'profit' - there are other things in life that are as important.

[Johnny Bognor]

Well obviously I don't know for sure, but I'd be very surprised if he did TBH.

 

My point was aimed at JB who implied that, basically, philosophy degrees weren't worth anything in the real world and that he would only employ IT graduates for an IT job.

 

Look BTF, in large corporates with graduate intake programmes, they can be more flexible as to who they take in and then train them suitably in their careers.

 

However, in SME's (which make up for the largest part of our economy) you need people to hit the ground running. If I hire someone straight from Uni, then they need to have studied a relevant subject. In Finance, I don't have the time/resource to train a Media Studies graduate in the basics of finance. If I hire someone in HR, an English graduate is no good. If I hire someone in IT, a music graduate doesn't help much. If I hire someone in production, a degree in aromatherapy does diddly squat for me. I have people with 1st Class English Degrees from Cambridge doing data entry for me - far more qualified than I'll ever be, but that is all they are good for in my business.

 

Speak to any owner / manager of an SME and they'll tell you the same. The only other alternative is not to hire graduates and take them in after they have a few years experience and training (at someone else's expense).

 

I am not saying it is right, it is just the way it is.

[dubai_phil]

Tuition Fees.

 

Unfortunately, the reality is - that was what Parents were invented for.

 

Thank God the last of my my 3 finshed 18 months ago.

 

Any parent who doesn't try and help no matter what it does to their savings - well sorry, they read the manual wrong. I couldn't afford it then and now, after being cleaned out in a Divorce I wish I had it back.

 

BUT, I know I left something behind as a legacy, they all did well. and I won't feel so guilty when I need their help in 15 years or so.

 

Sure at the time I earnt more than a factory worker at Ford, and I do NOT think that kids from "the wrong side of the tracks should be barred from bettering themselves IF they have the ability by a lack of finance.

 

But, Parents have a responsibilty no matter how much it hurts and should help out as much as they can, AND as with me, it SHOULD hurt

[benjii]

 

In some ways I don't think there should be any school help at all with uni applications. I think it should be purposely difficult to get in, so that only those who are really committed and passionate about a certain subject go to uni.

 

TBF, the UCAS form is only the "foot in the door" for the degrees in the highest demand. Most of them will also require an interview and some sort of additional work-based test.

[aintforever]

Education is not just about getting a job, it's about furthering knowledge. It's typical of today's world that people judge what is worth learning on the basis of how many £££'s you can grab at the end of it.

[dubai_phil]

Degrees

 

Are you an Artist or a "Producer"?

 

Will you add value to the economy or take money out of it?

 

Why do so many kids Art related Degrees and find they cannot get work? The answer is simply that in the REAL world, there are no jobs for Philosphers. Indusrty makes money and pays wages and taxes that pays for Philosophers to work out what it means. IF Uni's make too many Philo's, nobody makes enough money to pay for them.

 

Uni's need to teach subjects that EARN MONEY when you Graduate. Lawyers make more money than struggling Artists, not just cash wise but in terms of taxes. Artists want grants - who gives the money to Gov to do that - Taxpayers.

 

So teach Uni kids the skills Industry needs. How many Uni's teach "The Science of Selling"? (or how to be an Insolvency Practioner like AA and make a fortune being a ****) - VERY few. But hell, I could find thousands of Media Studies graduates or TV Film Editors if I wanted to.

 

 

Rant over, back to beer.

 

 

Hey Did I mention I shot a net 10 under Par 62 today in a Golf Tournament?

[dubai_phil]

Education is not just about getting a job, it's about furthering knowledge. It's typical of today's world that people judge what is worth learning on the basis of how many £££'s you can grab at the end of it.

 

Yes. TOTALLY. However, The British Education System is designed to do exactly this.

 

IF 90% of all graduates are produced to "Further Knowledge", who pays for them to do that?

 

is it fair that the remaining 10% are taxed up to their eyebrows to give those Furtherers "Research Jobs" for Life and full salary pensions at the end?

 

No of course not.

 

Balance is needed and that is what is missing

 

We need GOOD Researchers, not LOTS of them

[Clapham Saint]

...... Unfortunately we had a history graduate who ran our economy in to the ground. You could argue that the current man is also suitably unqualified to run an economy, however I guess we can hope that being a history graduate, he might learn from the mistakes of the past.

 

LOL .

 

For what its worth I agree, why shouldn't we offer a financial incentive for those who might move into courses which will help in covering a shortfall in a desired skill?

 

It doesn't mean that a philosophy (or what ever) degree isn't valuble. It just means that the country is seeking to recruit high caliber students into courses which it considers beneficial. What courses those are will no doubt change depending on the circumstances of the time.

 

For example if we a short of nurses or octors then their courses could be discounted.

[benjii]

Education is not just about getting a job, it's about furthering knowledge. It's typical of today's world that people judge what is worth learning on the basis of how many £££'s you can grab at the end of it.

 

I agree.

 

However the key is the "furthering" bit. Unfortunately most people at university are not intellectually elite any more.

[benjii]

Degrees

 

Are you an Artist or a "Producer"?

 

Will you add value to the economy or take money out of it?

 

Why do so many kids Art related Degrees and find they cannot get work? The answer is simply that in the REAL world, there are no jobs for Philosphers. Indusrty makes money and pays wages and taxes that pays for Philosophers to work out what it means. IF Uni's make too many Philo's, nobody makes enough money to pay for them.

 

Uni's need to teach subjects that EARN MONEY when you Graduate. Lawyers make more money than struggling Artists, not just cash wise but in terms of taxes. Artists want grants - who gives the money to Gov to do that - Taxpayers.

 

So teach Uni kids the skills Industry needs. How many Uni's teach "The Science of Selling"? (or how to be an Insolvency Practioner like AA and make a fortune being a ****) - VERY few. But hell, I could find thousands of Media Studies graduates or TV Film Editors if I wanted to.

 

 

Rant over, back to beer.

 

 

Hey Did I mention I shot a net 10 under Par 62 today in a Golf Tournament?

 

Phil, just because you study philosophy, for example, it does not follow that you aspire to be a philosopher when you leave university. I think you will find that many lawyers did history, english, philosophy etc first degrees and honed skills doing them that are in demand in the legal world. Many kids, frankly, won't really know what they want to do in the "real world" when they are 18.

 

Not sure if you mentioned the golf or not. I suspect you probably did somewhere. I can assure you that no one gives a toss but, if it makes you feel better, well done.

[aintforever]

We need GOOD Researchers, not LOTS of them

 

Agree, that's why it's important that people from lower/middle incomes are not put off higher education.

[Special K]

For the prospective undergrads here, we used to have things called "Polytechnics" which had a bias towards vocational degree courses. And damn useful they were too, until it was decided that every college of FE in the country should call themselves a University and should offer hundreds of meaningless courses just to stop pesky school leavers from signing on and making the jobless figures look bad.

 

On other points, I don't necessarily buy the "experience" excuse about college life. If you want to work, you'll do it either at college or in the workplace. I know of plenty of excellent achievers who took the work route over Uni and proved themselves immensely capable, sometimes more equipped to outthink and outperform graduates.

 

However, i don't believe that what you study is necessarily relevant either. I know of a History graduate who is an extremely successful lawyer now, ditto an English and Politics Graduate who was a DCI before he was 40.

 

Overall, it would be a shame to preclude talent from University places, but if it serves to reduce the number of places and up the quality, then it's worth a shout.

[Johnny Bognor]

LOL .

 

For what its worth I agree, why shouldn't we offer a financial incentive for those who might move into courses which will help in covering a shortfall in a desired skill?

 

It doesn't mean that a philosophy (or what ever) degree isn't valuble. It just means that the country is seeking to recruit high caliber students into courses which it considers beneficial. What courses those are will no doubt change depending on the circumstances of the time.

 

For example if we a short of nurses or octors then their courses could be discounted.

 

...and that is my point precisely. If fees have to go up, then we can look at areas where there are needs/potential returns and ring fence them, at the expense of others. Not ideal, but needs must. As I have said before, I am against fees going up, but something has to be affordable.

 

If we take a macro view as to where the nation will be in 30, 40, 50 years time, where are we going to generate wealth? We need to invent and design the products/services of the future. If we do this, our nation will be wealthier (which means we can all argue about how that can be spent/distributed). If we don't, we'll all be highly educated sitting in our grass huts listening to the philosophers tell us all where we all went wrong, whilst the Chinese and Indians will be delivering food parcels and holding Live Aid concerts for us poor old Brits.

[aintforever]

How is nuclear war not a deterrent? You don't get it. Nobody wants to use nukes, that's exactly why you have them. To DETER people from attacking you. The way you're painting it, Britain needs nukes so we can go and blow the crap out of countries bigger than us. That's not the point at all. We need them so that if in 20 or 30 years Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran or otherwise decide they don't like us, we can put them off attacking. What if Iran develops nuclear warheads and we haven't got any? That's a terrible scenario.

 

Name two nuclear powers who have ever gone to war. Nukes are the main reason the cold war stayed cold. Both sides knew if there was an escallation in any conflict it could lead to worldwide annihalation. Not a risk either side wanted to take. The closest it ever got was the Cuban Missile Crisis and even then both sides were desperate for an excuse to back down, without losing face.

 

Of course there is a risk in not renewing Trident but I reckon it's worth taking. There are plenty of countries around the world who don't want/need nuclear weapons. If we stop sticking our nose in other countries business there is no reason why anyone would want to nuke us. Why Iran should concern us I do not know. Korea and China don't give a monkeys about us, and I'm pretty sure the US would act before their armies are massed in Calais.

 

Russia and the potential Arctic conflict is the only threat to us, and in that case we would just be a pawn in a new Cold war - better off out of it altogether.

[Arizona]

Of course there is a risk in not renewing Trident but I reckon it's worth taking. There are plenty of countries around the world who don't want/need nuclear weapons. If we stop sticking our nose in other countries business there is no reason why anyone would want to nuke us. Why Iran should concern us I do not know. Korea and China don't give a monkeys about us, and I'm pretty sure the US would act before their armies are massed in Calais.

 

Russia and the potential Arctic conflict is the only threat to us, and in that case we would just be a pawn in a new Cold war - better off out of it altogether.

 

20 years ago nobody in the UK gave a crap about Afghanistan. Infact at one point the US was flogging weapons to support what was basically the Taliban to fight against the Soviets. We can only make educated guesses as to the threats the UK might face in the future. I'd personally want to be prepared for the worst case scenario in order to prevent it. Remeber Neville Chamberlain, walking off the plane... "Peace in our time". I'm just guessing hypothetical enemies here, but there are plenty of people out there who don't like us. I know you're probably being tongue in cheek with the "armies massed in Calais" comment, but in 20 or 30 years technology will probably have moved on so far that you don't have to go places to start a war. Kim Jong Il could launce nuclear missiles from his back yard and have them land in a smiley face pattern on Southern England.

 

Just to reiterate. I'm not saying these things WILL happen. The threat of nuclear war doesn't keep me awake at night, but I do want to be prepared incase it becomes a threat one day. It seems like a high cost, but when the steaks are THAT high, it's worth taking IMO. It's like paying car insurance. I'd wager most middle aged people have been driving 20 years without an accident. I'd also wager most of them go the extra cash for fully comp. insurance, even though they haven't had any accidents and aren't expecting any in the future.

[Whitey Grandad]

"Tread softly and carry a big stick". Theodore Roosevelt.

[buctootim]

"Tread softly and carry a big stick". Theodore Roosevelt.

 

Quite. Trident costs us less than £2bn a year - 0.3% of government expenditure .

[Saintandy666]

Quite. Trident costs us less than £2bn a year - 0.3% of government expenditure .

 

Actually about £5bn a year to maintain.

[buctootim]

Actually about £5bn a year to maintain.

 

Trident costs c£1.2 billion pa to run (excl build costs). The replacement would cost c£76bn over 30 years including build, so about £2.5bn pa according to the guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/21/military.armstrade

Edited 12 October, 2010 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

Trident costs c£1.2 billion pa to run (excl build costs). The replacement would cost c£76bn over 30 years including build, so about £2.5bn pa according to the guardian. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/sep/21/military.armstrade

 

Ah, but it is more according to Greenpeace as with VAT the costs go up. WTF? Where do they think the VAT goes?

[Verbal]

Degrees

 

Are you an Artist or a "Producer"?

 

Will you add value to the economy or take money out of it?

 

Why do so many kids Art related Degrees and find they cannot get work? The answer is simply that in the REAL world, there are no jobs for Philosphers. Indusrty makes money and pays wages and taxes that pays for Philosophers to work out what it means. IF Uni's make too many Philo's, nobody makes enough money to pay for them.

 

Uni's need to teach subjects that EARN MONEY when you Graduate. Lawyers make more money than struggling Artists, not just cash wise but in terms of taxes. Artists want grants - who gives the money to Gov to do that - Taxpayers.

 

So teach Uni kids the skills Industry needs. How many Uni's teach "The Science of Selling"? (or how to be an Insolvency Practioner like AA and make a fortune being a ****) - VERY few. But hell, I could find thousands of Media Studies graduates or TV Film Editors if I wanted to.

 

 

Rant over, back to beer.

 

 

Hey Did I mention I shot a net 10 under Par 62 today in a Golf Tournament?

 

I do wonder (especially with that dangerously close to parodic comment you ended with) whether you've just been an expat for too long. I know plenty of philosophy graduates - history, politics, sociology, government studies as well. And when I compare them to the science and engineering graduates I've also known over the years, its the Arts and Humanities ones who've almost always done better in life. Now this is all circumstantial of course, and I really would like to see a decent longitudinal study done on this. But the meagre wage-slave future mapped out for so many scientists and technologists isn't, in my experience at least, matched by the A& H graduates. Check out the top echelons of the BBC, the Civil Service, the heads of charities, private schools political parties, those with major directorships. Whatever you may say about the impact of their social origins on their success, arts graduates are hugely overrepresented among the British elite. Now of course, by all means, tell children of people of lesser means that they cannot study the subjects studied by those further up the class ladder - but be careful that you are not making a tiny contribution to perpetuating or even rigidifying a characteristically British class system that is ossified enough already.

 

When you cheer on a government that deliberately breaks the university system, be careful also that they (and you) know why they're breaking and what will replace it. If you really want a throwback to the late 50s, before the first modern expansion of the university system, one thing is for sure: to remain even vaguely technologically and intellectually in the game with other advanced economies, we will have to import talent by the boatload.

 

But don't worry, it won't get so bad that we'll have to ask you back!

 

Toodle pip, and don't forget to shout 'fore' when you whack your next tee shot into an Indian contract worker.

[Big John]

Taxing people who aren't even in the job market is abhorrent.

 

I have a feeling that our student population may well be the ones to start the ball rolling with big protets in the very near future, although not in favour of violent disorder this government might just be about to feel the wrath of the people. There are many reasons for people to be angry with the state and moreso the banks, not sure the police would be able to cope to be honest.

 

 

It's started in France yesterday in response to their retirement age increase plans:

http://www.france24.com/en/20101012-france-pensions-reform-youth-join-strikes-protests-senate-vote?autoplay=1

 

 

I know they are infamous for their protests but even secondary school kids are joining in this time around.

 

Vive La Revolution.

[Johnny Bognor]

Check out the top echelons of the BBC, the Civil Service, the heads of charities, private schools political parties, those with major directorships.

 

Hmm, there is something in that, but it is more about the individual's ability, more than the subject of a degree as to where someone ends up eventualy. In politics, the Chancellor is a history graduate, the shadow chancellor was a postie. Let us look at the most succcessful business people from Alan Sugar, Richard Branson, Doug Ballyntine, Peter Jones, etc none of which had degree whatsover. So a degree on it's own is not the be all and end all.

 

It is also worth pointing out that you are looking at the graduates of yesteryear where they were in the top 10% academically. I guess they all ended up in the top 10%, so you could argue that back then, subject choice was not so important. However today, with 50% of youngersters going to uni, you don't need to be a maths graduate to know that they won't all make the top 10%. I'd wager that one fifth might, with the other 4 fifths fighting over the scraps. With this in mind, if you are not going to make the top 10%, you would be better off studying something useful. Therefore, I would suggest that 20/30/40 years ago, subject matter was less important, however today it is essential to make the right choices in terms of subject area.

 

The number of graduates with 1st class honours degrees (in fairly useless subjects) doing menial jobs is testament to this, without considering record levels of graduate unemployment.

Edited 13 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Stuntman Mike]

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.

 

Totally with you on this.

 

I'm actually going through the process of applying for a senior role in a very large company - had 6 interviews so far. There preference is for someone with a relevant degree, preferably an MBA on top.

 

The only times it doesn't really apply is if you're in sales (for example), you can pretty much do that, at any level, with any old degree, or no degree.

 

And that's the point, in some jobs, relevant degrees are very much required, no matter how much experience you have, employers still like to see that you're serious about your subject matter from a young age!

 

The whole point about the fees is that, surely we wouldn't be needing to ask grads to pay more if there weren't so many people going to university to study things they don't need to!! It's common sense really. There are too many graduates out there looking for work and not finding it.

[Johnny Bognor]

Totally with you on this.

 

I'm actually going through the process of applying for a senior role in a very large company - had 6 interviews so far. There preference is for someone with a relevant degree, preferably an MBA on top.

 

The only times it doesn't really apply is if you're in sales (for example), you can pretty much do that, at any level, with any old degree, or no degree.

 

I agree with you, however I have found that those with degrees in psychology can do well in sales as they may be able to read people better.

[dune]

The Socialists left us with a mountain of debt and a deficit and simplythe interest on the debt is enough to purchase a new aircraft carrier every week, and still paying this huge amount doesn't bring the debt down. That is why tough decisions are having to be taken, blame Labour and those who voted for them.

[teamsaint]

this is all a great example of "Create the problem, and then find the solution you like".

We could afford all sorts of desireable things, (like subsidised universities) if we wanted to. But those in power don't want to.

 

Those at the top will be able to buy their prized places at top uni's, everybody else will be scrabbling around for scraps....and I reckon at least 30 unis will close or return to vocational courses only.And Oxbridge etc will still be cheaper than Eton and Winchester.

 

Tory governments mean a country run by the rich, for the rich. Thats the whole point.

[Stuntman Mike]

I agree with you, however I have found that those with degrees in psychology can do well in sales as they may be able to read people better.

 

You have a fair point! Also, those with degrees in Politics and wordy subjects where they need to talk! I was crap at sales, I'm a Science geek ;-)

[GenevaSaint]

The Socialists left us with a mountain of debt and a deficit and simplythe interest on the debt is enough to purchase a new aircraft carrier every week, and still paying this huge amount doesn't bring the debt down. That is why tough decisions are having to be taken, blame Labour and those who voted for them.

 

Seriously, change the record Tory boy. I'm sick to death of hearing that everytime there's an interview with a politician!

 

Make sure you enjoy the Tory party for five years (even if you didn;t vote for them); they're ****ing off middle England so much that they'll be voted out in the next election. Mind you. at least it's a change from the usual Tory policies or protecting middle England and the rich bastards and ****ing over the poor.

[anothersaintinsouthsea]

The Socialists left us with a mountain of debt and a deficit and simplythe interest on the debt is enough to purchase a new aircraft carrier every week, and still paying this huge amount doesn't bring the debt down. That is why tough decisions are having to be taken, blame Labour and those who voted for them.

 

We've had socialists in charge of the UK? when was that?

[dubai_phil]

For the prospective undergrads here, we used to have things called "Polytechnics" which had a bias towards vocational degree courses. And damn useful they were too, until it was decided that every college of FE in the country should call themselves a University and should offer hundreds of meaningless courses just to stop pesky school leavers from signing on and making the jobless figures look bad.

 

On other points, I don't necessarily buy the "experience" excuse about college life. If you want to work, you'll do it either at college or in the workplace. I know of plenty of excellent achievers who took the work route over Uni and proved themselves immensely capable, sometimes more equipped to outthink and outperform graduates.

 

However, i don't believe that what you study is necessarily relevant either. I know of a History graduate who is an extremely successful lawyer now, ditto an English and Politics Graduate who was a DCI before he was 40.

 

Overall, it would be a shame to preclude talent from University places, but if it serves to reduce the number of places and up the quality, then it's worth a shout.

 

More towards the point I was making (which Verbal slightly hijacked into a Political angle)

 

Supply & Demand.

 

Industry creates the money that pays for the Public Sector. So, using the "Graduates taking top jobs at such as The BBC etc" of course breadth of "training" is important, but who provides PUBLIC Funds? Wealth creators of course.

 

So, the PROBLEM with Uni education is that it is trying to be all things to all people. A philosophy degree is given a "higher importance" than (for example as shown y some of the replies on here - a Degree in Psychology, Human Behaviour and NLP aimed at producing SalesPeople. This is done by an Education system that is inherently designed to self perpetuate.

 

There is nothing inherently WRONG about "research or knowledge seeking or esoteric" degree courses. BUT those courses MUST be balanced by providing courses that also create graduates that are READY to start work to create more wealth to pay the taxes that the Public Sector needs in order to pay "The Thinkers"

 

That is NOT a party political position, it is a realism position. A History graduate will spen 3 years learning. To then become a "successful lawyer" they will have to start again running through a long set of legal training, possibly 6 to 9 years. History degree has prepared him for that, BUT it will be a long road before he (she) can be earning the big bucks and paying the big taxes to help subsidise Education for those that follow.

 

The Polytechnics were not "of the right class" for the Education System. They were looked down upon, and YET, they were designed to include Vocational training and to give WORK experience so graduates could move straight into employment rather than McDonalds. They did not "further the search for knowledge"

 

The Apprenticeship schemes were disolved.

 

Both related issues that means that the supply of Graduates who are ready to add value to a highly taxed BUSINESS was reduced.

 

British Industry has long worked with Uni's and has long found good people from them - again, the elite 10% almost. Yet the MAJORITY of business and the MAJORITY of graduates find themselves not ready for each other the day after graduation.

 

THAT is the crime, that is where the need for fees to cover exploding costs comes from. Courses must be designed to create The Thinkers AND The future Workers / Managers QUICKER.

 

A Chemistry Graduate should not have to spend their first year in employment pushing buttons on a machine while he (she) learns to exist within a "Corporate Environment" did their course include even a DAY on how a Business is structured? How to compose a Corporate EMail? Nope.

 

Law Degrees are possibly the closest to the perfect example of Uni's creating the RIGHT Graduates, but (to quote Ann Robinson in Weakest Link once) just how many jobs are there every year in "The Media" for the thousands that take a "Media Studies" Degree?

 

BALANCE is wrong in Education, because Education is a far more "Class Based" system than society. Work in The Wealth Creating Sector is Bad, become an Educator is Good is the mantra.

 

Well, that is what you now have and now it has to be paid for.

 

(Oh and how many Uni's in UK create Golfers? Footballers (hahahaha)? Compare that to the number of European Golfers who had to go to the US system and now earn millions a year which could be paid in taxes here rather than over there - it was a relevant dig.)

[Seaford Saint]

Good buddies....we have an Eton/Oxbridge dominated Parliamentary system. Lets change the education system so we keep the masses down. Lets frighten the masses by inventing enemies (China, Iran etc) to justify Trident.

 

Who owns the Bank of England?

 

Lets monetize the masses as much as we can, get them into debt so we can control them. We are/were the 4th richest country in the world. Is this the best we can do for our children?

 

At the same time as doing this to our children, this week HP announce 1300 UK redundancies, Vodafone announce the closure of a call centre in Banbury 400 jobs lost. Work is going abroad.

 

The country is going down the pan. I will tell my kids that if they have to pay for a Uni education they should have no qualms about leaving the country for one which will give them better prospects, Oz or Canada for example. Does Australia have much of a nuclear capability? Canada?

[dune]

The country is going down the pan.

 

The country went down the pan when Labour riddled us with a mountain of debt.

[Special K]

More towards the point I was making (which Verbal slightly hijacked into a Political angle)

 

Supply & Demand.

 

Industry creates the money that pays for the Public Sector. So, using the "Graduates taking top jobs at such as The BBC etc" of course breadth of "training" is important, but who provides PUBLIC Funds? Wealth creators of course.

 

So, the PROBLEM with Uni education is that it is trying to be all things to all people. A philosophy degree is given a "higher importance" than (for example as shown y some of the replies on here - a Degree in Psychology, Human Behaviour and NLP aimed at producing SalesPeople. This is done by an Education system that is inherently designed to self perpetuate.

 

There is nothing inherently WRONG about "research or knowledge seeking or esoteric" degree courses. BUT those courses MUST be balanced by providing courses that also create graduates that are READY to start work to create more wealth to pay the taxes that the Public Sector needs in order to pay "The Thinkers"

 

That is NOT a party political position, it is a realism position. A History graduate will spen 3 years learning. To then become a "successful lawyer" they will have to start again running through a long set of legal training, possibly 6 to 9 years. History degree has prepared him for that, BUT it will be a long road before he (she) can be earning the big bucks and paying the big taxes to help subsidise Education for those that follow.

 

The Polytechnics were not "of the right class" for the Education System. They were looked down upon, and YET, they were designed to include Vocational training and to give WORK experience so graduates could move straight into employment rather than McDonalds. They did not "further the search for knowledge"

 

The Apprenticeship schemes were disolved.

 

Both related issues that means that the supply of Graduates who are ready to add value to a highly taxed BUSINESS was reduced.

 

British Industry has long worked with Uni's and has long found good people from them - again, the elite 10% almost. Yet the MAJORITY of business and the MAJORITY of graduates find themselves not ready for each other the day after graduation.

 

THAT is the crime, that is where the need for fees to cover exploding costs comes from. Courses must be designed to create The Thinkers AND The future Workers / Managers QUICKER.

 

A Chemistry Graduate should not have to spend their first year in employment pushing buttons on a machine while he (she) learns to exist within a "Corporate Environment" did their course include even a DAY on how a Business is structured? How to compose a Corporate EMail? Nope.

 

Law Degrees are possibly the closest to the perfect example of Uni's creating the RIGHT Graduates, but (to quote Ann Robinson in Weakest Link once) just how many jobs are there every year in "The Media" for the thousands that take a "Media Studies" Degree?

 

BALANCE is wrong in Education, because Education is a far more "Class Based" system than society. Work in The Wealth Creating Sector is Bad, become an Educator is Good is the mantra.

 

Well, that is what you now have and now it has to be paid for.

 

(Oh and how many Uni's in UK create Golfers? Footballers (hahahaha)? Compare that to the number of European Golfers who had to go to the US system and now earn millions a year which could be paid in taxes here rather than over there - it was a relevant dig.)

 

I agree that the university system is ultimately elitist, but that is no bad thing provided it can be shown to perform. but that attitude can only survive in the top Uni's. I also agree that Uni's and business need to be more in tune with what is required as the end game, but the Uni's probably fear that this would impact on their decisions to offer certain courses. The lower end of the quality spectrum will have to rethink what they offer (media studies, travel / tourism, etc).

 

I wholeheartedly agree that the demise of vocational courses has had a hugely detrimental effect on the future of British business. Unfortunately this has been allowed to happen and is mostly the result of short term political aims.

 

But i don't agree with the assumption that one has to start again when chosing a career. The chap i know who is a barrister (not solicitor, i did him down!) spent 1 year on a conversion course, sailed through Law school as a post grad and was qualified about 12 months later than his contemporaries who followed a law degree. Conversely my cousin did a law degree, post grad law school, spend 3 years on the rock and roll becasue he couldn't get a job (doing very well now though, in Dubai oddly enough Phil).

 

I think a great deal comes down to the individual and what they want to achieve. But we don't need loads of graduates, we need more focused, quality graduates for all disciplines.

[Verbal]

How is nuclear war not a deterrent? You don't get it. Nobody wants to use nukes, that's exactly why you have them. To DETER people from attacking you. The way you're painting it, Britain needs nukes so we can go and blow the crap out of countries bigger than us. That's not the point at all. We need them so that if in 20 or 30 years Russia, China, N. Korea, Iran or otherwise decide they don't like us, we can put them off attacking. What if Iran develops nuclear warheads and we haven't got any? That's a terrible scenario.

 

Name two nuclear powers who have ever gone to war. Nukes are the main reason the cold war stayed cold. Both sides knew if there was an escallation in any conflict it could lead to worldwide annihalation. Not a risk either side wanted to take. The closest it ever got was the Cuban Missile Crisis and even then both sides were desperate for an excuse to back down, without losing face.

 

I think you need to re-read my post.

[Seaford Saint]

You had to be there to see what Maggie Thatcher did to society to know who damaged us the most. Labour/Conservative....is there actually a difference?

 

Never mind, we have the X factor

[Verbal]

Hmm, there is something in that, but it is more about the individual's ability, more than the subject of a degree as to where someone ends up eventualy. In politics, the Chancellor is a history graduate, the shadow chancellor was a postie. Let us look at the most succcessful business people from Alan Sugar, Richard Branson, Doug Ballyntine, Peter Jones, etc none of which had degree whatsover. So a degree on it's own is not the be all and end all.

 

It is also worth pointing out that you are looking at the graduates of yesteryear where they were in the top 10% academically. I guess they all ended up in the top 10%, so you could argue that back then, subject choice was not so important. However today, with 50% of youngersters going to uni, you don't need to be a maths graduate to know that they won't all make the top 10%. I'd wager that one fifth might, with the other 4 fifths fighting over the scraps. With this in mind, if you are not going to make the top 10%, you would be better off studying something useful. Therefore, I would suggest that 20/30/40 years ago, subject matter was less important, however today it is essential to make the right choices in terms of subject area.

 

The number of graduates with 1st class honours degrees (in fairly useless subjects) doing menial jobs is testament to this, without considering record levels of graduate unemployment.

 

That's an awful lot of guesswork Johnny. I'm not doing much better, quoting personal experience, but I worked in the BBC Science Dept a while ago, and guess what the majority of staff there didn't have: a science degree. most were arts graduates of one kind or another, and a very large number of them were Oxbridge. The arrival of post-1992 universities - former polys - may have widened access to higher education beyond reason (it's arguable), but they haven't altered the British class system, and the way in which the more established universities are feeders into it.

 

And please don't take too seriously the idea that there are a lot of grads doing menial jobs. Come back in say 10 years time and look again. Most people I knew did menial work when they left, or voluntary work of some kind. Their career trajectories since have in most cases been pretty meteoric (knighthoods, directorships, etc). Everyone starts at the bottom - and looking at what people do immediately after uni is massively misleading.

[Johnny Bognor]

That's an awful lot of guesswork Johnny. I'm not doing much better, quoting personal experience, but I worked in the BBC Science Dept a while ago, and guess what the majority of staff there didn't have: a science degree. most were arts graduates of one kind or another, and a very large number of them were Oxbridge. The arrival of post-1992 universities - former polys - may have widened access to higher education beyond reason (it's arguable), but they haven't altered the British class system, and the way in which the more established universities are feeders into it.

 

And please don't take too seriously the idea that there are a lot of grads doing menial jobs. Come back in say 10 years time and look again. Most people I knew did menial work when they left, or voluntary work of some kind. Their career trajectories since have in most cases been pretty meteoric (knighthoods, directorships, etc). Everyone starts at the bottom - and looking at what people do immediately after uni is massively misleading.

 

But this doesn't get away from the point that in the past, the top 10% academically ended up in the top 10%. Now we have the top 50%, most of whom won't make the top 10% by definition, unless 50% of the population will be directors and knights of the realm, which would be a case of too many chiefs and not enough indians. We can't all be at the top at the end of the day.

 

The sheer amount of people with degrees, devalues a degree simply as it is not as 'special' as it once was. When we advertise for a vacancy, the number of applicants with degrees is outstanding. As a small business, it makes sense to hire the right person and if there are two that are identical, except for the degree subject, it makes more sense to select the one with the most relevant qualification who a) demonstrates a general interest in that discipline and b) can hit the ground running. Therefore in the world of work, some degrees are more useful than others.

 

When my kids come of age, I would like them to go to Uni, but I will suggest they do something that makes them more employable / attractive to employers.

Edited 13 October, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Stuntman Mike]

You had to be there to see what Maggie Thatcher did to society to know who damaged us the most. Labour/Conservative....is there actually a difference?

 

Never mind, we have the X factor

 

Not really. The "middle man" will be screwed whoever is in office. In just seems now that the "middle man" is a wider spectrum of man ...

[trousers]

More towards the point I was making (which Verbal slightly hijacked into a Political angle)

 

Supply & Demand.

 

Industry creates the money that pays for the Public Sector. So, using the "Graduates taking top jobs at such as The BBC etc" of course breadth of "training" is important, but who provides PUBLIC Funds? Wealth creators of course.

 

So, the PROBLEM with Uni education is that it is trying to be all things to all people. A philosophy degree is given a "higher importance" than (for example as shown y some of the replies on here - a Degree in Psychology, Human Behaviour and NLP aimed at producing SalesPeople. This is done by an Education system that is inherently designed to self perpetuate.

 

There is nothing inherently WRONG about "research or knowledge seeking or esoteric" degree courses. BUT those courses MUST be balanced by providing courses that also create graduates that are READY to start work to create more wealth to pay the taxes that the Public Sector needs in order to pay "The Thinkers"

 

That is NOT a party political position, it is a realism position. A History graduate will spen 3 years learning. To then become a "successful lawyer" they will have to start again running through a long set of legal training, possibly 6 to 9 years. History degree has prepared him for that, BUT it will be a long road before he (she) can be earning the big bucks and paying the big taxes to help subsidise Education for those that follow.

 

The Polytechnics were not "of the right class" for the Education System. They were looked down upon, and YET, they were designed to include Vocational training and to give WORK experience so graduates could move straight into employment rather than McDonalds. They did not "further the search for knowledge"

 

The Apprenticeship schemes were disolved.

 

Both related issues that means that the supply of Graduates who are ready to add value to a highly taxed BUSINESS was reduced.

 

British Industry has long worked with Uni's and has long found good people from them - again, the elite 10% almost. Yet the MAJORITY of business and the MAJORITY of graduates find themselves not ready for each other the day after graduation.

 

THAT is the crime, that is where the need for fees to cover exploding costs comes from. Courses must be designed to create The Thinkers AND The future Workers / Managers QUICKER.

 

A Chemistry Graduate should not have to spend their first year in employment pushing buttons on a machine while he (she) learns to exist within a "Corporate Environment" did their course include even a DAY on how a Business is structured? How to compose a Corporate EMail? Nope.

 

Law Degrees are possibly the closest to the perfect example of Uni's creating the RIGHT Graduates, but (to quote Ann Robinson in Weakest Link once) just how many jobs are there every year in "The Media" for the thousands that take a "Media Studies" Degree?

 

BALANCE is wrong in Education, because Education is a far more "Class Based" system than society. Work in The Wealth Creating Sector is Bad, become an Educator is Good is the mantra.

 

Well, that is what you now have and now it has to be paid for.

 

(Oh and how many Uni's in UK create Golfers? Footballers (hahahaha)? Compare that to the number of European Golfers who had to go to the US system and now earn millions a year which could be paid in taxes here rather than over there - it was a relevant dig.)

 

More nails on head than an Indian circus trick that's gone badly wrong.