This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
It is nuts.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30545455
What an industry. There are what ~650,000 in the cohort. So nearly everyone goes. The top four sets out of five.
To me it seems exploitative.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-30545455
What an industry. There are what ~650,000 in the cohort. So nearly everyone goes. The top four sets out of five.
To me it seems exploitative.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
The report says 50% are going - how do you make it such a high percentage?
The report says 50% are going - how do you make it such a high percentage?
In reply to lowersharpnose:
Get into massive debt very quickly, then having to vote for the political party that promises to keep the interest rate low at the cost of everything else....for the rest of your repayments....
Finance...the drug of a nation.
Breeding ignorance and feeding frustration..
<apologies to the Disposable Heroes>
> To me it seems exploitative.
Get into massive debt very quickly, then having to vote for the political party that promises to keep the interest rate low at the cost of everything else....for the rest of your repayments....
Finance...the drug of a nation.
Breeding ignorance and feeding frustration..
<apologies to the Disposable Heroes>
In reply to lowersharpnose:
There are more than a million 18 year olds in the UK and of course significant numbers going to University will be slightly older or mature or doing higher degrees / teaching conversions.
There is a debate here, but concentrating on misleading numbers will miss that.
There are more than a million 18 year olds in the UK and of course significant numbers going to University will be slightly older or mature or doing higher degrees / teaching conversions.
There is a debate here, but concentrating on misleading numbers will miss that.
In reply to sbc_10:
If only the debt was run in a sympathetic way to those who choose to take it on. Perhaps it could only be collected as a small fraction of income above some large threshold, and it could be written off eventually if not repaid, etc. That way those who take it on would never be exposed to the crippling impact that other types of debt incur.
Now why didn't they do it like that?
If only the debt was run in a sympathetic way to those who choose to take it on. Perhaps it could only be collected as a small fraction of income above some large threshold, and it could be written off eventually if not repaid, etc. That way those who take it on would never be exposed to the crippling impact that other types of debt incur.
Now why didn't they do it like that?
Post edited at 11:02
3
In reply to The New NickB:
Hold on a sec - I think sharpnose May have got a number wrong, but the rest of his point stands. I suspect he guesstimated this year's cohort at 1% of the population, when it's a bit higher than that. The half a million figure is correct, though, as is the 50% of cohort that this represents.
In recent years, the requirement for qualifications in jobs has been shifting about, until last year the proportions were roughly a quarter not needing any qualifications and a quarter needing a degree (the rest needing either school or FE qualifications). That means that half of the current crop will get a job for which their degree isn't actually required - although it may help (or hinder) them in employers choosing between otherwise equally able candidates.
Interestingly, last year government sources claimed that only a quarter of graduates ended up in jobs needing a degree - at the same time as most independent commenters stuck with half. But they would, wouldn't they?
Now that the government has priced learning for pleasure out of the market, what is it that's driving so many young people into higher education?
Martin
Hold on a sec - I think sharpnose May have got a number wrong, but the rest of his point stands. I suspect he guesstimated this year's cohort at 1% of the population, when it's a bit higher than that. The half a million figure is correct, though, as is the 50% of cohort that this represents.
In recent years, the requirement for qualifications in jobs has been shifting about, until last year the proportions were roughly a quarter not needing any qualifications and a quarter needing a degree (the rest needing either school or FE qualifications). That means that half of the current crop will get a job for which their degree isn't actually required - although it may help (or hinder) them in employers choosing between otherwise equally able candidates.
Interestingly, last year government sources claimed that only a quarter of graduates ended up in jobs needing a degree - at the same time as most independent commenters stuck with half. But they would, wouldn't they?
Now that the government has priced learning for pleasure out of the market, what is it that's driving so many young people into higher education?
Martin
In reply to wintertree:
I like sarcasm, too.
The problem is that there's been a government-sponsored push to view student loans as a benign debt - one that won't impact on anything else and which will never cause fuss or bother. It's fairly obvious why this has been the political direction taken.
It's not benign: it's a chunk of money which displaces its own volume in terms of access to other credit - which will actually have negative effects on the economy - and which does have a disproportionate effect on those on lower incomes (albeit only those above a certain level, but the debt doesn't just disappear).
A doctor labelling the threshold as large isn't particularly useful, either.
It's also a cynical tool used to devalue higher education - much of the trumpeted improvements to access to higher education have actually further selected against poorer students and have certainly impacted on subjects where there isn't a strong economic driver in terms of salary. The hypocrisy of the last Labour government in denying future generations the help that they themselves were given was one of the ugliest betrayals of founding principles in modern politics. I reckon.
Student debt is still debt. And if you think the government's always going to handle it with kid gloves, you're more trusting than me.
Martin
I like sarcasm, too.
The problem is that there's been a government-sponsored push to view student loans as a benign debt - one that won't impact on anything else and which will never cause fuss or bother. It's fairly obvious why this has been the political direction taken.
It's not benign: it's a chunk of money which displaces its own volume in terms of access to other credit - which will actually have negative effects on the economy - and which does have a disproportionate effect on those on lower incomes (albeit only those above a certain level, but the debt doesn't just disappear).
A doctor labelling the threshold as large isn't particularly useful, either.
It's also a cynical tool used to devalue higher education - much of the trumpeted improvements to access to higher education have actually further selected against poorer students and have certainly impacted on subjects where there isn't a strong economic driver in terms of salary. The hypocrisy of the last Labour government in denying future generations the help that they themselves were given was one of the ugliest betrayals of founding principles in modern politics. I reckon.
Student debt is still debt. And if you think the government's always going to handle it with kid gloves, you're more trusting than me.
Martin
In reply to maisie:
I pretty much agree with all that, although I have a bigger problem still, which is that a student loan is another big wedge in eroding a persons loan-adverse mentality and leading people into the noose of actually crippling finance. Student loans normalise the concept of borrowing for 500,000 people a year. Scary thought.
None of which excuses misrepresentation of the nature of student debt that is trotted out on every UKC thread related to the issue...
I pretty much agree with all that, although I have a bigger problem still, which is that a student loan is another big wedge in eroding a persons loan-adverse mentality and leading people into the noose of actually crippling finance. Student loans normalise the concept of borrowing for 500,000 people a year. Scary thought.
None of which excuses misrepresentation of the nature of student debt that is trotted out on every UKC thread related to the issue...
Post edited at 11:18
In reply to maisie:
Well that is the debate Martin, but of course the OP is missing that by concentrating on the wrong set of numbers.
Well that is the debate Martin, but of course the OP is missing that by concentrating on the wrong set of numbers.
In reply to The New NickB:
I based the 650k on my recollection of GCSE cohort size.
Looks like I was a little low, rather than 650.000, there are 777k 18 year olds.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population#tab-data-tabl...
(down load the zip & open the big file)
There is a debate here, but concentrating on misleading numbers will miss that.
Where do you get a million from?
I based the 650k on my recollection of GCSE cohort size.
Looks like I was a little low, rather than 650.000, there are 777k 18 year olds.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/taxonomy/index.html?nscl=Population#tab-data-tabl...
(down load the zip & open the big file)
There is a debate here, but concentrating on misleading numbers will miss that.
Where do you get a million from?
Post edited at 12:09
In reply to maisie:
Do the govt/independent commenters use the same definitions? There are jobs which need a degree; and jobs which need some common sense together with basic maths and literacy, that HR departments deem to be graduate level posts.
Unless young people are lucky enough to get one of the genuine apprenticeships, (as opposed to being an 'apprentice" shelf stacker), there are limited opportunities to develop a career without a degree. The ONC/HNC route on day release has, I believe, bit the dust, leaving a degree the best option for most young people. It's a sad state of affairs, and I can't see what was wrong with the old system.
Ridge
(Non-graduate in a job where a degree is essential).
> Interestingly, last year government sources claimed that only a quarter of graduates ended up in jobs needing a degree - at the same time as most independent commenters stuck with half. But they would, wouldn't they?
> Now that the government has priced learning for pleasure out of the market, what is it that's driving so many young people into higher education?
Do the govt/independent commenters use the same definitions? There are jobs which need a degree; and jobs which need some common sense together with basic maths and literacy, that HR departments deem to be graduate level posts.
Unless young people are lucky enough to get one of the genuine apprenticeships, (as opposed to being an 'apprentice" shelf stacker), there are limited opportunities to develop a career without a degree. The ONC/HNC route on day release has, I believe, bit the dust, leaving a degree the best option for most young people. It's a sad state of affairs, and I can't see what was wrong with the old system.
Ridge
(Non-graduate in a job where a degree is essential).
In reply to maisie:
I guess teenagers now get the impression that if you get a degree then you're in the top half of society and not the bottom half. To quite an extent that may be true -- unless you're the type of self-driven entrepreneur who can create their own opportunities and businesses, but not many are.
What is interesting is that for all the dire predictions -- every time fees were hiked -- of a collapse in student numbers, they've only gone up.
Some random thoughts:
* I'd be in favour of a state bursary system for the students with the best grades from poor backgrounds. (Though I'd first look at the evidence as to whether they are actually being deterred.)
* I don't see much alternative to the "personalised graduate tax" that we have now. If you put it on general taxation then you hit the half of the cohort who don't go to uni, and I don't see how that makes it fairer. About the only alternative would be to add in a retrospective element to the tax, but there are practical problems with that, and in the long run it would transition to the current system anyhow.
* Given that the UK government can't easily recoup EU students who go back to their countries, I think there is shortly going to be a big EU-wide "issue" over funding across borders.
* Being a little controversial, I think that nearly all students are getting a poor deal. If you look into university finances, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that student fees are subsidizing research and scholarship by academics. (Essentially they are paying for the time of academics to do scholarship and research, in order to then have the privilege of being taught by academics doing research and scholarship, but I'm not sure this is fair or a good deal for them.)
* In some ways, that's the fault of student choice, since the intent was a market with many universities setting lower fees. But, teenage applicants see any suggestion of a "cut price" offering as meaning a "sub standard" one, and just avoid it. Nearly all the universities that did try pitching at a lower fee have now raised theirs to be in-line with everyone else.
> ... what is it that's driving so many young people into higher education?
I guess teenagers now get the impression that if you get a degree then you're in the top half of society and not the bottom half. To quite an extent that may be true -- unless you're the type of self-driven entrepreneur who can create their own opportunities and businesses, but not many are.
What is interesting is that for all the dire predictions -- every time fees were hiked -- of a collapse in student numbers, they've only gone up.
Some random thoughts:
* I'd be in favour of a state bursary system for the students with the best grades from poor backgrounds. (Though I'd first look at the evidence as to whether they are actually being deterred.)
* I don't see much alternative to the "personalised graduate tax" that we have now. If you put it on general taxation then you hit the half of the cohort who don't go to uni, and I don't see how that makes it fairer. About the only alternative would be to add in a retrospective element to the tax, but there are practical problems with that, and in the long run it would transition to the current system anyhow.
* Given that the UK government can't easily recoup EU students who go back to their countries, I think there is shortly going to be a big EU-wide "issue" over funding across borders.
* Being a little controversial, I think that nearly all students are getting a poor deal. If you look into university finances, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that student fees are subsidizing research and scholarship by academics. (Essentially they are paying for the time of academics to do scholarship and research, in order to then have the privilege of being taught by academics doing research and scholarship, but I'm not sure this is fair or a good deal for them.)
* In some ways, that's the fault of student choice, since the intent was a market with many universities setting lower fees. But, teenage applicants see any suggestion of a "cut price" offering as meaning a "sub standard" one, and just avoid it. Nearly all the universities that did try pitching at a lower fee have now raised theirs to be in-line with everyone else.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I looked at the headline number of 500k. I think this figure must include a lot of mature students.
According to the gubmint stats, there are 777k 18 year olds. My 650k estimate is just number taking GCSEs, I didn't realise so many did other exams (IGCSE and whatnot).
I now think the 500k figure includes a decent slug of mature students and those dong further degrees
I looked at the headline number of 500k. I think this figure must include a lot of mature students.
According to the gubmint stats, there are 777k 18 year olds. My 650k estimate is just number taking GCSEs, I didn't realise so many did other exams (IGCSE and whatnot).
I now think the 500k figure includes a decent slug of mature students and those dong further degrees
What really annoys me is we're desperately short of engineers and applications are down again this year as it's one of the hard subjects (2.5% across the board) but everyone of my students will end up repaying their debt. It wouldn't surprise me if a large majority of the non professional subjects won't.
What a waste of money paying for a three year social while studying history of dance before said student takes up what would have been a clerical or secretarial job that is now called transitional talent manager (at which they are useless).
Don't worry though, Asia and India are producing plenty of engineers. I wonder if they need any talent managers or transitional change orgranisers?
Cheers
Toby
What a waste of money paying for a three year social while studying history of dance before said student takes up what would have been a clerical or secretarial job that is now called transitional talent manager (at which they are useless).
Don't worry though, Asia and India are producing plenty of engineers. I wonder if they need any talent managers or transitional change orgranisers?
Cheers
Toby
In reply to Toby_W:
Engineering is seen as being a difficult market to stay employed in unless you are willing to make a lot of sacrifices. I did an engineering degree first, worked for Rolls Royce for ten years and then I was made redundant, not because there was no work to be done but because fresh graduates from overseas would do the job for less money and security. Since then I have struggled in short term contracts here and there, using most of my spare cash to keep myself topped up in technology training. I know that now all the UKC engineers will come out and say that they have had permanent contracts for over thirty years and are on a hundred grand a month but it isn't everyone's experience and it isn't the way young people see engineering. Unless you are very talented at it (and I am not, I was pushed into it against my will) then it really isn't worth investing your time and money. Why bother with engineering when you can do accountancy and get a good job with some security, or environmental sciences and get a job that is actually interesting.
Engineering is seen as being a difficult market to stay employed in unless you are willing to make a lot of sacrifices. I did an engineering degree first, worked for Rolls Royce for ten years and then I was made redundant, not because there was no work to be done but because fresh graduates from overseas would do the job for less money and security. Since then I have struggled in short term contracts here and there, using most of my spare cash to keep myself topped up in technology training. I know that now all the UKC engineers will come out and say that they have had permanent contracts for over thirty years and are on a hundred grand a month but it isn't everyone's experience and it isn't the way young people see engineering. Unless you are very talented at it (and I am not, I was pushed into it against my will) then it really isn't worth investing your time and money. Why bother with engineering when you can do accountancy and get a good job with some security, or environmental sciences and get a job that is actually interesting.
In reply to Toby_W:
Ever considered that education sometimes may be about more than getting a secure job? It may be true that only a small proportion of non-vocational graduates end up in related jobs but what a dull world we would live in if everyone only ever followed vocational paths.
> What a waste of money paying for a three year social while studying history of dance before said student takes up what would have been a clerical or secretarial job that is now called transitional talent manager (at which they are useless).
Ever considered that education sometimes may be about more than getting a secure job? It may be true that only a small proportion of non-vocational graduates end up in related jobs but what a dull world we would live in if everyone only ever followed vocational paths.
In reply to john arran:
I agree. But..., a lot of these 500,000 are doing low-grade vocational courses.
I agree. But..., a lot of these 500,000 are doing low-grade vocational courses.
In reply to Clarence:
But I do wonder if the expansion in student numbers was really a good idea, the loss of old style apprenticeships that some of my friends did back in the 70s (some of whom went down the HNC, HND, BSc route) seems a huge error
> or environmental sciences and get a job that is actually interesting.
If you are one of the few that manage to get a job - luckily I was (after a period of voluntary work back when postal signing on gave you plenty of free time for such things) but the competition for jobs is intense & in reality you need more than just a degreeBut I do wonder if the expansion in student numbers was really a good idea, the loss of old style apprenticeships that some of my friends did back in the 70s (some of whom went down the HNC, HND, BSc route) seems a huge error
Post edited at 17:47
1
In reply to Toby_W:
At least according to the online calculators, most of my students (vets) will not repay all of their loans.
> ?......but everyone of my students will end up repaying their debt. It wouldn't surprise me if a large majority of the non professional subjects won't.
At least according to the online calculators, most of my students (vets) will not repay all of their loans.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Particularly when Surrey opens its doors......
I used to run a FdSc course, which was seen as an alternative route to the same vocational point as the pre-existing work-based, day-release course. What it actually provided were massively increased upfront fees, severe limits on earning potential whilst training, absolutely zero increased earning potential afterwards, less acquisition of practical skills and no possibility of ever earning enough to pay back fees. Whilst that sounds cushy, and something of a free education, the living costs which the students weren't able to provide for through work compounded the debt, in a 'tough sh*t, pay us our money' kind of way. I didn't stick at it very long.
I'd say the mainstream equivalent is the Media Studies degree, with or without the Communications bollox. I'd be interested to hear from anybody who thought it was either a useful vocational degree, or a degree which would be pursued for the sheer love of the subject.
Not everybody needs a degree and we absolutely have to stop pretending that having a degree makes you better. Better how? Fairly tough vocational degrees like medicine are absolutely necessary, and being an expert in medieval land management is clearly a labour of love reflecting a desire to learn for learning's sake, but they don't make you magically better than other people.
More jobs is the answer, not more degrees.
Martin
> At least according to the online calculators, most of my students (vets) will not repay all of their loans.
Particularly when Surrey opens its doors......
I used to run a FdSc course, which was seen as an alternative route to the same vocational point as the pre-existing work-based, day-release course. What it actually provided were massively increased upfront fees, severe limits on earning potential whilst training, absolutely zero increased earning potential afterwards, less acquisition of practical skills and no possibility of ever earning enough to pay back fees. Whilst that sounds cushy, and something of a free education, the living costs which the students weren't able to provide for through work compounded the debt, in a 'tough sh*t, pay us our money' kind of way. I didn't stick at it very long.
I'd say the mainstream equivalent is the Media Studies degree, with or without the Communications bollox. I'd be interested to hear from anybody who thought it was either a useful vocational degree, or a degree which would be pursued for the sheer love of the subject.
Not everybody needs a degree and we absolutely have to stop pretending that having a degree makes you better. Better how? Fairly tough vocational degrees like medicine are absolutely necessary, and being an expert in medieval land management is clearly a labour of love reflecting a desire to learn for learning's sake, but they don't make you magically better than other people.
More jobs is the answer, not more degrees.
Martin
In reply to maisie:
I don't disagree, but more students = more jobs and less people to be unemployed.
I don't disagree, but more students = more jobs and less people to be unemployed.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
I think the aspect of this that seems to be getting overlooked is that this pressure to go to university means there are also many people there now that are set up to fail by being pushed towards a learning style that doesn't suit them. My husband is an intelligent guy, so the school careers people pushed him towards uni, and his parents thought it was a good idea too, as that is what clever people do. No one stopped to ask how he learns, which is practically. He went to do chemical engineering, failed first year. Resat the year and passed. Same drill with second year, and then failed 3rd year and finally decided that uni maybe wasn't for him. So 5 years of his life wasted, and by the time that was done, he was too old to get an apprenticeship, as the state only funds young apprentices. (Ok, there is still a chance that he could get one, but there are not many who want to take on 'older' apprentices). So he's stuck in a dead end job on a fraction over the minimum wage as he's not managed to get into any kind of job with training. I do not believe that 50% or more of the population are really book learners, and far more would thrive in much more practical training, and many jobs could be learnt through practical means.
I think the aspect of this that seems to be getting overlooked is that this pressure to go to university means there are also many people there now that are set up to fail by being pushed towards a learning style that doesn't suit them. My husband is an intelligent guy, so the school careers people pushed him towards uni, and his parents thought it was a good idea too, as that is what clever people do. No one stopped to ask how he learns, which is practically. He went to do chemical engineering, failed first year. Resat the year and passed. Same drill with second year, and then failed 3rd year and finally decided that uni maybe wasn't for him. So 5 years of his life wasted, and by the time that was done, he was too old to get an apprenticeship, as the state only funds young apprentices. (Ok, there is still a chance that he could get one, but there are not many who want to take on 'older' apprentices). So he's stuck in a dead end job on a fraction over the minimum wage as he's not managed to get into any kind of job with training. I do not believe that 50% or more of the population are really book learners, and far more would thrive in much more practical training, and many jobs could be learnt through practical means.
1
In reply to maisie:
Sorry, grammar bugbear of mine, should be 'fewer' NEETS, not 'less' NEETS!
> More students = less NEETs, not more jobs
> Martin
Sorry, grammar bugbear of mine, should be 'fewer' NEETS, not 'less' NEETS!
In reply to maisie:
Halls of residence, catering, lecturers, cleaners, building larger facilities - new jobs are being created ( Surrey, Aberystwyth,Cardiff, Ulster....)
> More students = less NEETs, not more jobs
> Martin
Halls of residence, catering, lecturers, cleaners, building larger facilities - new jobs are being created ( Surrey, Aberystwyth,Cardiff, Ulster....)
In reply to john arran:
Yes. Nothing to add really, other than I think we would agree on your broader point. I think my issue is with the idea that everyone should go to uni with many people doing courses that have no merit and teach nothing leaving people with a large debt for nothing.
It does make sense to me though I charge 9k a year and can take a small number ( lab and equipment space) of stem subject students who are expensive to teach and equip or 300 community studies students who are cheap and need almost nothing, the government will also pay me for these students with no real checks as there is no sort of profession body to keep an eye on quality.
Regarding it being tough as an engineer, I suspect you're not the only one and i've been there as well and as you say the competition is increasing from engineers from other parts who will work harder and may have a better skill set for far less security.
I was talking in particular about our graduates who are some of the best I've taught, in part down to the course we teach, or rather that they teach themselves during the many practical projects they do from their first to their final year.
Cheers and hope you are all happy and well for for the holidays.
Toby
Yes. Nothing to add really, other than I think we would agree on your broader point. I think my issue is with the idea that everyone should go to uni with many people doing courses that have no merit and teach nothing leaving people with a large debt for nothing.
It does make sense to me though I charge 9k a year and can take a small number ( lab and equipment space) of stem subject students who are expensive to teach and equip or 300 community studies students who are cheap and need almost nothing, the government will also pay me for these students with no real checks as there is no sort of profession body to keep an eye on quality.
Regarding it being tough as an engineer, I suspect you're not the only one and i've been there as well and as you say the competition is increasing from engineers from other parts who will work harder and may have a better skill set for far less security.
I was talking in particular about our graduates who are some of the best I've taught, in part down to the course we teach, or rather that they teach themselves during the many practical projects they do from their first to their final year.
Cheers and hope you are all happy and well for for the holidays.
Toby
In reply to Ridge:
Had a look and it would appear the definition is:
Professors Peter Elias and Kate Purcell at the University of Warwick have defined a non-graduate job as one in which the associated tasks do not normally require knowledge and skills developed through higher education to enable them to perform these tasks in a competent manner
Examples of non-graduate jobs include receptionists, sales assistants, many types of factory workers, care workers and home carers.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_337841.pdf
Not exactly the most useful or precise definition in the world.
I am at a loss as to whether, for example, my job as a programmer would count. A degree can help but also hinder in my experience for code monkeys.
> Do the govt/independent commenters use the same definitions? There are jobs which need a degree; and jobs which need some common sense together with basic maths and literacy, that HR departments deem to be graduate level posts.
Had a look and it would appear the definition is:
Professors Peter Elias and Kate Purcell at the University of Warwick have defined a non-graduate job as one in which the associated tasks do not normally require knowledge and skills developed through higher education to enable them to perform these tasks in a competent manner
Examples of non-graduate jobs include receptionists, sales assistants, many types of factory workers, care workers and home carers.
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171776_337841.pdf
Not exactly the most useful or precise definition in the world.
I am at a loss as to whether, for example, my job as a programmer would count. A degree can help but also hinder in my experience for code monkeys.
In reply to dissonance:
Well, I'm pleased to discover photocopying a load of documents I had to sign as part of one of my menial jobs in order to 'evidence my competence' has elevated me to a graduate, at least in the eyes of Profs Elias and Purcell, as I have a Level 4 No Value Qualification in that particular role. Chuck in my brace of HNCs and I must be practically a Doctor. (Or not).
It appears that any job that might involve anything other than following a tick list must automatically require 'knowledge and skills developed through higher education'. Expanding the definition of graduate to included pretty much anyone who isn't doing a minimum wage job is a good way to prove the value of being a graduate.
Word.
> Had a look and it would appear the definition is:
> Professors Peter Elias and Kate Purcell at the University of Warwick have defined a non-graduate job as one in which the associated tasks do not normally require knowledge and skills developed through higher education to enable them to perform these tasks in a competent manner
Well, I'm pleased to discover photocopying a load of documents I had to sign as part of one of my menial jobs in order to 'evidence my competence' has elevated me to a graduate, at least in the eyes of Profs Elias and Purcell, as I have a Level 4 No Value Qualification in that particular role. Chuck in my brace of HNCs and I must be practically a Doctor. (Or not).
> Examples of non-graduate jobs include receptionists, sales assistants, many types of factory workers, care workers and home carers.
It appears that any job that might involve anything other than following a tick list must automatically require 'knowledge and skills developed through higher education'. Expanding the definition of graduate to included pretty much anyone who isn't doing a minimum wage job is a good way to prove the value of being a graduate.
> Not exactly the most useful or precise definition in the world.
Word.
Post edited at 21:53
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Really? We are generally given the impression that vets, though the training is long, is very well paid.
Really? We are generally given the impression that vets, though the training is long, is very well paid.
In reply to Roddytoo:
Sadly not! - its well paid, but certainly not very well payed. Average salary for vets in the uk last year was £32,000, compared to Dentists at about £50,000 and doctors at £70,000.
Combined with the 5 year course which means that the accrued debt is greater, the goverments calculators suggest most graduates will not pay back their debt in full.
(edit - plus very large proportion of workforce is female, so time out for kids etc)
Sadly not! - its well paid, but certainly not very well payed. Average salary for vets in the uk last year was £32,000, compared to Dentists at about £50,000 and doctors at £70,000.
Combined with the 5 year course which means that the accrued debt is greater, the goverments calculators suggest most graduates will not pay back their debt in full.
(edit - plus very large proportion of workforce is female, so time out for kids etc)
Post edited at 22:20
In reply to girlymonkey:
Working in University admin I've seen quite a few people who thrive when on a placement year, becoming polished, self-respecting professionals, before then they have been academically poor/failing and dropping into a pit of mental health problems. The most tragic cases we deal with are when people struggle on for years and years (someone famously retook the second year five times), wasting critical formative years of their life in an environment which is not suited to them.
Kudos for the the intelligent points being raised all round. For me on the one hand I'm glad that direct state funding for students has disappeared as we will be somewhat cushioned from the next round of cuts, on the other I can't help but feel that we are very much now a business rather than an educational establishment and that we have lost something valuable as a result of this.
Working in University admin I've seen quite a few people who thrive when on a placement year, becoming polished, self-respecting professionals, before then they have been academically poor/failing and dropping into a pit of mental health problems. The most tragic cases we deal with are when people struggle on for years and years (someone famously retook the second year five times), wasting critical formative years of their life in an environment which is not suited to them.
Kudos for the the intelligent points being raised all round. For me on the one hand I'm glad that direct state funding for students has disappeared as we will be somewhat cushioned from the next round of cuts, on the other I can't help but feel that we are very much now a business rather than an educational establishment and that we have lost something valuable as a result of this.
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Ah, I see where you're coming from. But basically, these jobs are being paid for through private debt - and this is debt which we oughtn't to be encouraging for many. I know this government likes privatisation, but getting 18 year olds to borrow money to create jobs is both a step too far and a failure of duty.
Martin
> Halls of residence, catering, lecturers, cleaners, building larger facilities - new jobs are being created ( Surrey, Aberystwyth,Cardiff, Ulster....)
Ah, I see where you're coming from. But basically, these jobs are being paid for through private debt - and this is debt which we oughtn't to be encouraging for many. I know this government likes privatisation, but getting 18 year olds to borrow money to create jobs is both a step too far and a failure of duty.
Martin
Post edited at 23:02
In reply to girlymonkey:
And that should be NEETs, not NEETS........
Plus, there're definitely less of them. If the number were greater, there'd be more. But it's not, so there are less, innit.
Martin
> Sorry, grammar bugbear of mine, should be 'fewer' NEETS, not 'less' NEETS!
And that should be NEETs, not NEETS........
Plus, there're definitely less of them. If the number were greater, there'd be more. But it's not, so there are less, innit.
Martin
In reply to Roddytoo:
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Etc.
Martin
> Really? We are generally given the impression that vets, though the training is long, is very well paid.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha. Etc.
Martin
In reply to wintertree:
This is actually a terrible way to run the system. It means that there is no risk to doing a course if you don't expect to get a job at the end of it: you'll never make payments. However, if you get a job which pays OK but not great then you get stuck with paying back far more than you borrowed as compound interest kicks in. Because payments are capped as a fraction of income and there's a good chance you'll be making them until the maximum time limit kicks in it doesn't really matter how much you borrow: i.e. no incentive to go for a cheaper course.
We've set up a system for handing money to Universities. Anyone can get a loan if they can find a course that will take them and they may as well borrow as much as they can. The result is time wasting courses and loans that will be written off. The Scottish system with a limited supply of fully paid bursaries lets the state control costs. An actual loan system where you really needed to pay it back and you would be screwed if you took out a big loan for a rubbish course would make the students control costs.
> If only the debt was run in a sympathetic way to those who choose to take it on. Perhaps it could only be collected as a small fraction of income above some large threshold, and it could be written off eventually if not repaid, etc. That way those who take it on would never be exposed to the crippling impact that other types of debt incur.
This is actually a terrible way to run the system. It means that there is no risk to doing a course if you don't expect to get a job at the end of it: you'll never make payments. However, if you get a job which pays OK but not great then you get stuck with paying back far more than you borrowed as compound interest kicks in. Because payments are capped as a fraction of income and there's a good chance you'll be making them until the maximum time limit kicks in it doesn't really matter how much you borrow: i.e. no incentive to go for a cheaper course.
We've set up a system for handing money to Universities. Anyone can get a loan if they can find a course that will take them and they may as well borrow as much as they can. The result is time wasting courses and loans that will be written off. The Scottish system with a limited supply of fully paid bursaries lets the state control costs. An actual loan system where you really needed to pay it back and you would be screwed if you took out a big loan for a rubbish course would make the students control costs.
In reply to maisie:
I concede the NEETs point, but they are fewer because they are quantitative. If there were less, then we couldn't count how many less, but we can so there are fewer.
> And that should be NEETs, not NEETS........
> Plus, there're definitely less of them. If the number were greater, there'd be more. But it's not, so there are less, innit.
> Martin
I concede the NEETs point, but they are fewer because they are quantitative. If there were less, then we couldn't count how many less, but we can so there are fewer.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
I cannot watch the video, as I'm not in Blighty.
Does the headline figure include overseas students?
I cannot watch the video, as I'm not in Blighty.
Does the headline figure include overseas students?
In reply to girlymonkey:
I'm fewer than convinced. Are you sure it shouldn't be 'very less NEETs'?
> I concede the NEETs point, but they are fewer because they are quantitative. If there were less, then we couldn't count how many less, but we can so there are fewer.
I'm fewer than convinced. Are you sure it shouldn't be 'very less NEETs'?
In reply to tom_in_edinburgh:
Whilst its true that anyone can get a loan, there are not an infinite number of courses/places, there is still some restriction on what can be offered.
There are exemptions for AAB+ students:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jan/13/aab-st...
> Anyone can get a loan if they can find a course that will take them and they may as well borrow as much as they can.
Whilst its true that anyone can get a loan, there are not an infinite number of courses/places, there is still some restriction on what can be offered.
There are exemptions for AAB+ students:
http://www.theguardian.com/higher-education-network/blog/2012/jan/13/aab-st...
In reply to lowersharpnose:
The idea of graduate and non-graduate jobs seems to be something of a throwback to the days of rigid class separation - in those days if your dad was a bank manager, you could be a bank manager too, no questions asked. These days we like to think we have a 'meritocracy' whatever that means, but really the class definitions have just been changed. If you go to university, you enter a different social class. The subject you study is largely irrelevant, and the uni you go to only subtly nuances your new graduate-class status. If you have a degree, you are suddenly entitled to join the forces as an officer or join the 'graduate schemes' of multinational companies who wouldn't give you a second look as a 'non-graduate'.
As posted above, the employers claim that this is a result of the skills gained in higher education. I'm very skeptical about this claim. For example, I studied physics and most of the career opportunities open to me were through big accountancy companies such as Deloitte, KPMG,PWC etc. "Well", you might say, "physics is largely maths therefore it makes sense that accountants could come from physics"... and you would be right. But the requirements for these jobs were 'any degree 2:1 or above'. So unless there was some core educational content in all degrees which completely passed me by, they had no interest in what you did at uni, just that you'd been.
The idea of graduate and non-graduate jobs seems to be something of a throwback to the days of rigid class separation - in those days if your dad was a bank manager, you could be a bank manager too, no questions asked. These days we like to think we have a 'meritocracy' whatever that means, but really the class definitions have just been changed. If you go to university, you enter a different social class. The subject you study is largely irrelevant, and the uni you go to only subtly nuances your new graduate-class status. If you have a degree, you are suddenly entitled to join the forces as an officer or join the 'graduate schemes' of multinational companies who wouldn't give you a second look as a 'non-graduate'.
As posted above, the employers claim that this is a result of the skills gained in higher education. I'm very skeptical about this claim. For example, I studied physics and most of the career opportunities open to me were through big accountancy companies such as Deloitte, KPMG,PWC etc. "Well", you might say, "physics is largely maths therefore it makes sense that accountants could come from physics"... and you would be right. But the requirements for these jobs were 'any degree 2:1 or above'. So unless there was some core educational content in all degrees which completely passed me by, they had no interest in what you did at uni, just that you'd been.
In reply to stroppygob:
Yes, I think they are included in the 500,000 which brings the percentage down.
Yes, I think they are included in the 500,000 which brings the percentage down.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
According to this there were 307,205 in 2012-13.
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-26836962
According to this there were 307,205 in 2012-13.
http://www.bbc.com/news/education-26836962
In reply to stroppygob:
Thanks. The 307k is the number of students here, so maybe divide by three and bit to get the yearly enrolment figures.
So, the headline figure includes foreign students (80k-100k?, mature students and those on further degrees). Still not sure what proportion of our young people go to university.
Looks like under half, given 777k 18 year olds
A hell of an industry.
Thanks. The 307k is the number of students here, so maybe divide by three and bit to get the yearly enrolment figures.
So, the headline figure includes foreign students (80k-100k?, mature students and those on further degrees). Still not sure what proportion of our young people go to university.
Looks like under half, given 777k 18 year olds
A hell of an industry.
In reply to lowersharpnose:
The UK has one of the lowest proportions of its population in HE of the major western economies (lucky for us we do import skilled workers from overseas really). This is in a system that will very likely cost the taxpayer as much with the 9k fees as it did with 3k fees (and barely more than if it was all fee free) but since due to accounting methodology the student debt doesn't count in the UK deficit that's seemingly all OK. Despite much effort and many fine words the system is arguably getting worse in terms of equality of access for the most socially disadvantaged. So yes, it sure is one hell of an industry on the financing side at least (9k for all those students and the service and write-off costs don't save us anything).
On the plus side the overseas income in HE is one of the UK's largest export markets, our research is one of the best per capita or per pound spent in the world and students have the highest recorded satisfaction levels ever (before they leave and way too many fail to find a decent job).
The UK has one of the lowest proportions of its population in HE of the major western economies (lucky for us we do import skilled workers from overseas really). This is in a system that will very likely cost the taxpayer as much with the 9k fees as it did with 3k fees (and barely more than if it was all fee free) but since due to accounting methodology the student debt doesn't count in the UK deficit that's seemingly all OK. Despite much effort and many fine words the system is arguably getting worse in terms of equality of access for the most socially disadvantaged. So yes, it sure is one hell of an industry on the financing side at least (9k for all those students and the service and write-off costs don't save us anything).
On the plus side the overseas income in HE is one of the UK's largest export markets, our research is one of the best per capita or per pound spent in the world and students have the highest recorded satisfaction levels ever (before they leave and way too many fail to find a decent job).
In reply to Offwidth:
Really?
Percentage of Population Achieving High School Graduation or Equivalent
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/images/publications/books/stewart2012_fig1.gif
> The UK has one of the lowest proportions of its population in HE of the major western economies (lucky for us we do import skilled workers from overseas really).
Really?
Percentage of Population Achieving High School Graduation or Equivalent
http://www.ascd.org/ASCD/images/publications/books/stewart2012_fig1.gif
Post edited at 05:07
In reply to lowersharpnose: does making it to 18 count as HE?
Id like to see some backup for that 'lowest' claim tho'
Id like to see some backup for that 'lowest' claim tho'
In reply to wbo:
Some data there to play with :
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z6409butolt8la_#!ctype=c&st...
> does making it to 18 count as HE?
> Id like to see some backup for that 'lowest' claim tho'
Some data there to play with :
http://www.google.com/publicdata/explore?ds=z6409butolt8la_#!ctype=c&st...
In reply to RomTheBear:
Some interesting data in there, I like Australia's c140% secondary education enrolment rate!
Some interesting data in there, I like Australia's c140% secondary education enrolment rate!
In reply to Dr.S at work:
Lol yes, I think that's because they use the same age group across countries.
> Some interesting data in there, I like Australia's c140% secondary education enrolment rate!
Lol yes, I think that's because they use the same age group across countries.
In reply to Clarence:
I work in Engineering, my youngest daughter has a Math/Physics degree and is currently unemployed, my Employer is currently recruiting, but I advised her against going Engineering, as I have seen them ruthlessly shed people too.
(in a weak moment I has said she can stay at home until she finds something better.)
I work in Engineering, my youngest daughter has a Math/Physics degree and is currently unemployed, my Employer is currently recruiting, but I advised her against going Engineering, as I have seen them ruthlessly shed people too.
(in a weak moment I has said she can stay at home until she finds something better.)
1
In reply to Jim C:
Name me a profession that is completely happy with their lot or more than a few that dont end up with some members in organisations that sometimes ruthlessly shed staff.
One of the biggest problems with the current fee system is that the graduates heading for professional work almost certainly end up paying all thir loan back whereas those who end up unemployed or in low paid work don't. It's a daft reverse incentive to economic growth for the sake of the ideology of reducing government debt. This is of course a further disincentive to poorer kids entering the professions with say no family money to help out when they later need a mortgage: it's a huge risk when you can just go to work with good A levels and maybe consider a degree later.
Name me a profession that is completely happy with their lot or more than a few that dont end up with some members in organisations that sometimes ruthlessly shed staff.
One of the biggest problems with the current fee system is that the graduates heading for professional work almost certainly end up paying all thir loan back whereas those who end up unemployed or in low paid work don't. It's a daft reverse incentive to economic growth for the sake of the ideology of reducing government debt. This is of course a further disincentive to poorer kids entering the professions with say no family money to help out when they later need a mortgage: it's a huge risk when you can just go to work with good A levels and maybe consider a degree later.
In reply to Offwidth:
I agree completely about fees being a disincentive to poorer kids entering a profession, but can you "just go to work" with A levels these days, or is a degree rapidly becoming a prerequisite for jobs that 20 years ago would have needed a couple of O levels?
> ...This is of course a further disincentive to poorer kids entering the professions with say no family money to help out when they later need a mortgage: it's a huge risk when you can just go to work with good A levels and maybe consider a degree later.
I agree completely about fees being a disincentive to poorer kids entering a profession, but can you "just go to work" with A levels these days, or is a degree rapidly becoming a prerequisite for jobs that 20 years ago would have needed a couple of O levels?
In reply to Jim C:
I think this could well prove to be a visionary moment
> (in a weak moment I.........)
I think this could well prove to be a visionary moment
In reply to Ridge:
You always could just go to work. The fairness of a society and the subsequent maximum success of an economy relies on getting the right people into the right jobs not just the rich backed up by importing skilled immigrants.
You always could just go to work. The fairness of a society and the subsequent maximum success of an economy relies on getting the right people into the right jobs not just the rich backed up by importing skilled immigrants.
In reply to Ridge:
sadly I think it is becoming a prerequisite. Especially when combined with central HR departments and algorithmic management of cv submissions.
Recently my manager had to politely to explain to HR he didnt want their piece of shit software to sort the cvs in advance and discard as required.
Apparently the conversation went downhill after the hr retard came out with something along the lines of "its software and you should trust it. Are you a luddite?". He is one of the best code monkeys I know (unusual for management) and has a sensible understanding of the limitations of our profession.
> but can you "just go to work" with A levels these days, or is a degree rapidly becoming a prerequisite for jobs that 20 years ago would have needed a couple of O levels?
sadly I think it is becoming a prerequisite. Especially when combined with central HR departments and algorithmic management of cv submissions.
Recently my manager had to politely to explain to HR he didnt want their piece of shit software to sort the cvs in advance and discard as required.
Apparently the conversation went downhill after the hr retard came out with something along the lines of "its software and you should trust it. Are you a luddite?". He is one of the best code monkeys I know (unusual for management) and has a sensible understanding of the limitations of our profession.
In reply to Offwidth:
Exactly the same complaint (that the higher paid pay much more) could be made about income tax, which is the only sensible alternative to the current system. Are you a flat taxer? Would you agree that, for example, a 50% top rate might be a disincentive to economic growth?
> One of the biggest problems with the current fee system is that the graduates heading for professional work almost certainly end up paying all thir loan back whereas those who end up unemployed or in low paid work don't. It's a daft reverse incentive to economic growth for the sake of the ideology ...
Exactly the same complaint (that the higher paid pay much more) could be made about income tax, which is the only sensible alternative to the current system. Are you a flat taxer? Would you agree that, for example, a 50% top rate might be a disincentive to economic growth?
In reply to all:
Interesting discussion this, lots of calm and sensible points. What has happened to UKC lately?
As for the original numbers, the Tony Blair target was 50% of the cohort (by...can't remember), we're certainly not there (thank god) and the Tories have rightly in my view scrapped this massively bollox policy. Massively bollox because it's founded on nothing: as I understand it, the thinking was as crap and simplistic as "in the modern world we need high levels of skill for a knowledge economy and that means more graduates" - and either didn't consider or didn't care about the obvious consequences of lowering the value of degrees through two mechanisms:
- employers asking everyone for a degree for no reason
- the proliferation of bad and useless courses
[Coel]
Aaah! How did we end up like this? The generation paying for their education themselves have been horribly conned. We should see people who contribute to society by doing useful work as the set to aspire to (and that can be either socially worthy or just being economically useful, depending on your values). You might need a degree for some of those roles and not for others, it's arbitrary to value.
I think there are some principles out of which you could construct a sensible HE policy, and for me they go something like this:
- Those who benefit from the top jobs that require university training should pay for that training. There is no way on earth people on the minimum wage should be paying for doctors' and lawyers' training.
- HE is not one thing, it has no intrinsic value just by being HE, and IMO we need to completely bin the ludicrous idea that the social aspects of HE (staying in bed until the afternoon, getting pissed all the time, trying to have sex constantly, taking drugs, not having any responsibility, etc) have some kind of value in themselves and can be described as "personal development" or other such nonsense. In some cases HE provides vocational training with little or no other benefit to society, in other cases it provides value to individuals and society that has nothing to do with vocational training - the learning for it's own sake, or for the sake of enriching society with knowledge thing cited above. If as a society we want to hold onto the latter aspect, we should put our hands in our pockets and fund it through general taxation.
- Society does not provide equal chances to those born in rich and poor circumstances. If we as a society believe in social mobility, then we need to publicly fund it - another role for general taxation.
On a more practical note, whatever policy we have needs to try to achieve some equilibrium where there is supply and demand for good courses and not bad ones. That means fewer places of course. Proliferation of bad courses funded by personal and public debt is a dire, dire outcome for an HE policy. Oh look...
I think this is fairly difficult, and it probably needs a combination of:
- a graduate tax to fund the courses - so those who benefit pay for it, but it's progressive and isn't personal debt. And so there's a limited resource to fund good stuff and not bad stuff, with the ability to cross-subsidise "intrinsic value" courses from vocational or "economic value" courses between institutions
- loans for living expenses. It's wrong to pay upfront, that just closes down opportunities for anyone but the very rich
- grants for living expenses for poor kids
Such a system would mean that the burden falls on those who benefit, and that there's appropriate redistribution to achieve the goals of funding education that has intrinsic rather the economic value, and social mobility.
I think the graduate tax lost out because the accounting is just a nightmare - how much are you going to get, when? But it does seem to me the fairest way to fund the courses.
Interesting discussion this, lots of calm and sensible points. What has happened to UKC lately?
As for the original numbers, the Tony Blair target was 50% of the cohort (by...can't remember), we're certainly not there (thank god) and the Tories have rightly in my view scrapped this massively bollox policy. Massively bollox because it's founded on nothing: as I understand it, the thinking was as crap and simplistic as "in the modern world we need high levels of skill for a knowledge economy and that means more graduates" - and either didn't consider or didn't care about the obvious consequences of lowering the value of degrees through two mechanisms:
- employers asking everyone for a degree for no reason
- the proliferation of bad and useless courses
[Coel]
> I guess teenagers now get the impression that if you get a degree then you're in the top half of society and not the bottom half.
Aaah! How did we end up like this? The generation paying for their education themselves have been horribly conned. We should see people who contribute to society by doing useful work as the set to aspire to (and that can be either socially worthy or just being economically useful, depending on your values). You might need a degree for some of those roles and not for others, it's arbitrary to value.
I think there are some principles out of which you could construct a sensible HE policy, and for me they go something like this:
- Those who benefit from the top jobs that require university training should pay for that training. There is no way on earth people on the minimum wage should be paying for doctors' and lawyers' training.
- HE is not one thing, it has no intrinsic value just by being HE, and IMO we need to completely bin the ludicrous idea that the social aspects of HE (staying in bed until the afternoon, getting pissed all the time, trying to have sex constantly, taking drugs, not having any responsibility, etc) have some kind of value in themselves and can be described as "personal development" or other such nonsense. In some cases HE provides vocational training with little or no other benefit to society, in other cases it provides value to individuals and society that has nothing to do with vocational training - the learning for it's own sake, or for the sake of enriching society with knowledge thing cited above. If as a society we want to hold onto the latter aspect, we should put our hands in our pockets and fund it through general taxation.
- Society does not provide equal chances to those born in rich and poor circumstances. If we as a society believe in social mobility, then we need to publicly fund it - another role for general taxation.
On a more practical note, whatever policy we have needs to try to achieve some equilibrium where there is supply and demand for good courses and not bad ones. That means fewer places of course. Proliferation of bad courses funded by personal and public debt is a dire, dire outcome for an HE policy. Oh look...
I think this is fairly difficult, and it probably needs a combination of:
- a graduate tax to fund the courses - so those who benefit pay for it, but it's progressive and isn't personal debt. And so there's a limited resource to fund good stuff and not bad stuff, with the ability to cross-subsidise "intrinsic value" courses from vocational or "economic value" courses between institutions
- loans for living expenses. It's wrong to pay upfront, that just closes down opportunities for anyone but the very rich
- grants for living expenses for poor kids
Such a system would mean that the burden falls on those who benefit, and that there's appropriate redistribution to achieve the goals of funding education that has intrinsic rather the economic value, and social mobility.
I think the graduate tax lost out because the accounting is just a nightmare - how much are you going to get, when? But it does seem to me the fairest way to fund the courses.
Post edited at 21:12
In reply to Jon Stewart:
I would supplement that with a regulatory look into institutional accommodation pricing - especially at places where a first year in halls is mandatory - as some places would seem to have undergone massive inflation busting rises over the last two decades.
I'd probably also get the competition commission to look at student rental housing and the emerging private halls of residences sprouting up everywhere.
My suspicion is that a lot of institutions are funding vanity projects and a small number - per city - of private individuals, some coincidentally on the institutional staff - are raking it in, rising the cost of attending HE substantially.
> - loans for living expenses. It's wrong to pay upfront, that just closes down opportunities for anyone but the very rich
I would supplement that with a regulatory look into institutional accommodation pricing - especially at places where a first year in halls is mandatory - as some places would seem to have undergone massive inflation busting rises over the last two decades.
I'd probably also get the competition commission to look at student rental housing and the emerging private halls of residences sprouting up everywhere.
My suspicion is that a lot of institutions are funding vanity projects and a small number - per city - of private individuals, some coincidentally on the institutional staff - are raking it in, rising the cost of attending HE substantially.
In reply to Coel Hellier:
Let's stick to fees shall we. How about contributing some of your views rather than change the subject with spurious comparisons with income tax. My views are: that the increase from £3k to £9k (with its huge extra debt load for students), widely being predicted to save almost nothing for the taxpayer, is a massive scandal; that those in lower paid professional jobs end up with a disproportionate payback load is a scandal; that very low applications of those from poorer backgrounds compared to most European nations is a scandal as is the slow closing of the gap despite requirements on pretty much every university as part of the access deal for a right to charge £9k.
Let's stick to fees shall we. How about contributing some of your views rather than change the subject with spurious comparisons with income tax. My views are: that the increase from £3k to £9k (with its huge extra debt load for students), widely being predicted to save almost nothing for the taxpayer, is a massive scandal; that those in lower paid professional jobs end up with a disproportionate payback load is a scandal; that very low applications of those from poorer backgrounds compared to most European nations is a scandal as is the slow closing of the gap despite requirements on pretty much every university as part of the access deal for a right to charge £9k.
In reply to Offwidth:
Hi Offwidth, I don't think we're nearly at the end of this particular HE experiment. The caps for undergrads come off in the next UCAS intake which further skews the landscape. I'm pretty sure that the REF which we've just done will be the last to be associated with QR funding, so all research funding will come with 100% full economic costs and go basically all to the Russell Group.
If you look at one of Imperial's MScs, say Control Engineering, they charge 27k per year, you can only get on with a high 1st class degree, and they're over subscribed because of the Imperial reputation. This will, I'm guessing eventually be the case at undergrad level at some point in the near future.
Hi Offwidth, I don't think we're nearly at the end of this particular HE experiment. The caps for undergrads come off in the next UCAS intake which further skews the landscape. I'm pretty sure that the REF which we've just done will be the last to be associated with QR funding, so all research funding will come with 100% full economic costs and go basically all to the Russell Group.
If you look at one of Imperial's MScs, say Control Engineering, they charge 27k per year, you can only get on with a high 1st class degree, and they're over subscribed because of the Imperial reputation. This will, I'm guessing eventually be the case at undergrad level at some point in the near future.
In reply to paul_in_cumbria:
Well i hope all the funding doesnt go to the Russell group as that would be dishonest... it should go to where its been assessed as best and where the best applications come from. The research active staff in my area in a post 92 have just got a mainly international excellence rating for General Engineering in REF.
As for MSc courses they are sadly often 'cash cows' that subsidise other University activities and the 'full' label hides the dearth of recruitment from UK students. This extra income is needed partly as guarenteeing full economic costing for research is, as you hint at, a problem for many institutions not fully acknoweledged by government. I dont know the Imperial courses so well but at £27k they may leave themselves open to questions about the added value they deliver at that cost within the value set of a Uk university... UK MSc courses are also popular with Europeans as they cut a year from their studies with good jobs available in the UK and elsewhere.
Well i hope all the funding doesnt go to the Russell group as that would be dishonest... it should go to where its been assessed as best and where the best applications come from. The research active staff in my area in a post 92 have just got a mainly international excellence rating for General Engineering in REF.
As for MSc courses they are sadly often 'cash cows' that subsidise other University activities and the 'full' label hides the dearth of recruitment from UK students. This extra income is needed partly as guarenteeing full economic costing for research is, as you hint at, a problem for many institutions not fully acknoweledged by government. I dont know the Imperial courses so well but at £27k they may leave themselves open to questions about the added value they deliver at that cost within the value set of a Uk university... UK MSc courses are also popular with Europeans as they cut a year from their studies with good jobs available in the UK and elsewhere.
Post edited at 09:57
In reply to Offwidth:
Latest article from Times Higher:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/fee-hike-has-not-driven-teaching...
Fee hike ‘has not driven teaching improvement’, says UUK panel
6 January 2015 | By Joe Sandler Clarke
Raising tuition fees to £9,000 has not helped drive improvements in teaching despite the government’s insistence it would improve standards
That is among the interim findings of Universities UK’s Student Funding Panel, which was established last year to examine the current system.
With the general election only five months away, the panel hope that the recommendations will pay a significant role in shaping the manifestos of the three main parties.
After hearing from a number of prominent figures in higher education and policy, the panel, which is itself made up of education experts and high-profile university figures, says there is “little evidence that the reforms have improved incentives for institutions to pursue innovations in teaching”.
It also finds fee increases have led to a drop in the number of “flexible” places available to students, with the 2012 reforms coinciding with “the number of part-time undergraduate entrants to institutions in England having almost halved between 2010-11 and 2013-14”.
Commenting on tuition fees directly, the panel raised concerns about the amount of money being repaid by post-2012 undergraduates and some members said the repayment period of 30 years was too long.
The panel also expressed concerns about the level of support available to students experiencing financial difficulties “who do not qualify for the full package of maintenance support”.
However, the document is noteworthy for not making any recommendation on the fee cap level, even though a number of vice-chancellors have questioned whether it should rise above £9,000.
In 2013, Sir Christopher Snowden, UUK president and vice-chancellor of the University of Surrey - and chair of the funding panel - said the £9,000 cap “could not be frozen forever”. His comments followed others made by University of Liverpool vice-chancellor Sir Howard Newby and the University of Oxford’s Andrew Hamilton, who have both raised questions about the future of the fee cap.
Commenting on the panel’s interim findings, Sir Christopher called on more work to be done to see how the fees system in England could be further improved.
“There has been a lot of commentary recently about the long-term financial sustainability of the current funding and fees system in England,” he said.
“We need more evidence on how the system can best deliver value for money for students, encourage greater participation of part-time and mature students and provide a stable funding environment for all universities.”
Latest article from Times Higher:
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/fee-hike-has-not-driven-teaching...
Fee hike ‘has not driven teaching improvement’, says UUK panel
6 January 2015 | By Joe Sandler Clarke
Raising tuition fees to £9,000 has not helped drive improvements in teaching despite the government’s insistence it would improve standards
That is among the interim findings of Universities UK’s Student Funding Panel, which was established last year to examine the current system.
With the general election only five months away, the panel hope that the recommendations will pay a significant role in shaping the manifestos of the three main parties.
After hearing from a number of prominent figures in higher education and policy, the panel, which is itself made up of education experts and high-profile university figures, says there is “little evidence that the reforms have improved incentives for institutions to pursue innovations in teaching”.
It also finds fee increases have led to a drop in the number of “flexible” places available to students, with the 2012 reforms coinciding with “the number of part-time undergraduate entrants to institutions in England having almost halved between 2010-11 and 2013-14”.
Commenting on tuition fees directly, the panel raised concerns about the amount of money being repaid by post-2012 undergraduates and some members said the repayment period of 30 years was too long.
The panel also expressed concerns about the level of support available to students experiencing financial difficulties “who do not qualify for the full package of maintenance support”.
However, the document is noteworthy for not making any recommendation on the fee cap level, even though a number of vice-chancellors have questioned whether it should rise above £9,000.
In 2013, Sir Christopher Snowden, UUK president and vice-chancellor of the University of Surrey - and chair of the funding panel - said the £9,000 cap “could not be frozen forever”. His comments followed others made by University of Liverpool vice-chancellor Sir Howard Newby and the University of Oxford’s Andrew Hamilton, who have both raised questions about the future of the fee cap.
Commenting on the panel’s interim findings, Sir Christopher called on more work to be done to see how the fees system in England could be further improved.
“There has been a lot of commentary recently about the long-term financial sustainability of the current funding and fees system in England,” he said.
“We need more evidence on how the system can best deliver value for money for students, encourage greater participation of part-time and mature students and provide a stable funding environment for all universities.”
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...