What's in a name?

When mine went to university they went their on their merits. They had tuition fees paid by the local council but we paid for their "maintenance", ie living, food etc etc.

What I see now is loads of young people loafing about until they are at least 25 or so, taking gap years. Failing and retaking exams thinking they can get into University to have a good booze up. (We have a few in our road for a start).

These people are not in work, not paying tax, presumably parents got child benefit for longer as the children were ostensibly studying. They are certainly on cannabis, who pays for that?

With regard to this topic, it is the mother of all jobs for this government to tackle. Try and support them and don't keep criticising.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Ignoring No.1's thoughtful contribution to higher education policy a fair system would recognise the value of a university education both to the individual and the economy. A proper progressive taxation system would largely look after the dual issues here because generally graduates become markedly high earners.
With the 'internecine' discussions within the coalition we are witnessing the gradual move to the privatisation of higher education which will leave UK at a disadvantage to the rest of Europe and beyond.

The Coalition doesn't know what it's doing on fees. Literally. The problem is that the whips can't guarantee Cameron a majority (as I explained at the weekend on Conservative Home at https://bit.ly/bcjm9F%29. Consequently, it's waiting to see what kind of reaction Browne gets before trying to forge a policy that will bring enough Lib Dem votes on board. With the CSR in 10 days forcing a decision on university finances, the coalition is now in a genuine crisis.

Hard sell maybe - but, at least this government is tackling and will tackle long standing problems in the economy. They should get credit for that.

But should we not wait to hear what Lord Browne has to say on this matter so that it can be considered in context.

David Cameron will - rightly - describe whatever is put forward as 'another tough decision'. And if we're all in this together so are students and their families.

This will result in the Lib Dems losing the student vote, there's not much doubt about that. This won't be insignificant, indeed they seem to have fought there last few election campaigns with a strong emphasis on scrapping tuition fees altogether.

This will also result in foreign students being even more attractive to universities. After all, they are all but guaranteed to be wealthy and so will be a preferable choice over a UK student.

Students are going to have to dress a lot smarter and convince admissions staff that, yes, of course they will be paying higher tuition fees than the next.

Of course, with just 1% of the poorest students going to Oxbridge, these universities won't have to worry and will grow even richer than they already are to the detriment of other universities, something which I'm sure won't concern the current regime.

The "Univerity Industry" has an interest in preserving its size. Its job seems to be to finish off the education of a lot of students who have been left ignorant by the state education system.
Commerce has a responsibility to teach and train new recruits. That has been diluted by the "everyone should go to university" policies of the previous government and which, like some other policies, just cannot be afforded.
The coalition is hung up on the policy; it should be brave enough to announce that University is only for the brightest and the rest should get "on the job" training - if they really wanted they could give some tax breaks to employers to persuade them.
And if you're clever enough to get there the university education should be free.
It's no use educating a lot of youngsters to a high standard of general education when they have poor job prospects.
The bright ones get on whatever you do.

I can understand why some taxpayers resent subsidizing students. But the key thing with any increase in fees or loan costs is to avoid discouraging poorer students from taking up university places. Students with wealthy parents are a lot more relaxed about going into debt because they have a financial safety net. For the sake of the economy, we need to ensure that the ablest students fulfil their potential. We don't want our university system to become like some giant Public School: dominated by students with rich parents and mediocre minds.

In principle, I dont see any reason why the compromise solution shouldnt work.

Theres a lot more hard sell's to worry about compared to this, Nick.

"We don't want our university system to become like some giant Public School: dominated by students with rich parents and mediocre minds."

Are you speaking for yourself there PD, or for us?

This looks like crisis alright, in the sense of "turning point". THe country clearly cannot afford to educate 50% of young people to degree level: and now expects them to borrow and pay for it themselves.

But the country does not have graduate jobs for 50% of the population: and these will not be created by increased graduate borrowing. The assumption that a degree guarantees someone a higher wage afterwards is about to be tested.

Equally, Flame #1 may be right that there are many so called students who are loafing around having a good time rather than studying for their careers: but then, if you can borrow and not pay anything back until you reach a certain level of income where is the incentive to work. What is the maths of this "graduate poverty trap" when student loans increase to say £21,000 in fees for a standard degree and maybe the same again in living expenses over the three years of study.

How long would it take a student to pay off that loan: and how long would it be before someone on an average first salary could start saving for a mortgage and contribute to a pension scheme?

Pretty soon, unless we can find jobs for all those loafers #1 dislikes they will continue to study for degrees just to get access to the cheap loans that they will never be able to repay.

I see that the young are getting shafted once again, being asked by their elders to pay even more money for an education that it is allegedly in the interest of the nation for them to have. Many of these elders will have paid nothing for their own university education, and some will even have received money from the state for going to university.

I'm fully in agreement with #4 - if the tax system is set up properly and university graduates will, as we are often reminded by politicians, be paid much more over their lifetime than a non-graduate, then they will also pay much more tax than a non-graduate.

What's the alternative? That these people don't go to university, don't get paid as much over their lifetime, and hence pay less tax than they would've done had they gone to university? Or perhaps the extra earning potential of graduates is a massive lie, or having expanded access to university isn't as beneficial to the country as we have been told.

Alternatively, maybe we should also talking about an A-level 'contribution' too, given that sitting A-levels will also enhance one's employability over GCSEs?

I was expecting more comments about this.

Still, I suppose it is early for students.

This whole debate seems to be based on completely the wrong premise. No-one is questioning why the universities feel they are justified in raising tuition fees.

How much does it actually cost a university to teach an undergraduate? For many subjects, the cost is minimal. The university just needs to provide maybe 10 lectures and a few tutorials per week. For popular courses, the lectures may be to 100 or more students, so the cost per student is very low, and anyway the lecture materials are often available online. As for tutorials, this can amount to setting and marking perhaps three essays per year. How much does this all cost the university? Even if you add in the time to produce the lecture materials, mark exams etc, it can't cost more than maybe £2000 per year (though obviously it will be more for some subjects such as medicine). That's how much it costs to teach a secondary school student - why should it cost more to teach undergraduates, who should after all be more self-sufficient at that age?

So what on earth is going on, with universities suggesting that students should pay £7000 or more per year? The only explanation I can see is that they are seeking to use undergraduate fees to subsidise research. If so then this is completely unacceptable. If research isn't deemed valuable enough to get a grant or external funding, then it shouldn't go ahead. It certainly should not be subsidised by students.

Tuition fees should only cover the cost of tuition. Research should be explicitly funded by research councils. Meanwhile universities could reduce the number of courses they teach to achieve better economies of scale. There should be more emphasis on traditional academic subjects such as maths, English, history, economics etc. which are actually the cheapest to teach, and students studying such subjects should pay reduced fees to reflect the lower cost.

Students are in many cases already paying more than their courses cost or are worth. They should not be forced to pay even more. Most importantly there needs to be a separate decision made as to whether we wish to fund the amount of research currently going on in universities. If so then it should be explicitly funded. If not, then we must reduce the number of academics and ensure that those remaining devote more time to teaching and less to research.

Not the Coalitions finest hour - seems a messy compromise for what should be one of the more important issues.

Without decent and affordable university education opportunity is denied on basis of money alone.

We need an educated workforce to contribute - since we are no longer allowing many very able people from abroad to come here to work and contribute to the UK we will have to grow more of our own.

I would rather that fewer went to university in the first place provided it remained the most able to benefit and contribute to the nation later rather than those with the deepest pockets (or least worried about taking on huge piles of debt).

I am a graduate and had my education paid for - I am happy to pay an extra graduate tax if applied to all graduates rather than just new grauates - if this means the difference to providing education at a reasonable cost which will help thei country and the students to start their working life without excessive debts.

Are the Conservatives just trying to get Vince to resign,lest Liam beats Vince to it perhaps?

Once again the coalition has to pick up the tab for the 'newlabour mess' that sagamix so resents anyone metioning.

No doubt their two dimensional new leader will take a swipe at this from every concievable angle bar one that actually says what the labour party would do about it and how the labour party would pay for it.

Is it any wonder the polls are placing labour back on 34% support after the 'non rally' of Red Ed? They haven't a clue what to do about the deficit, have a shadow chancellor without a single secondary qualification after his eleven plus and have an army of apologists claiming it's no longer up to them to propose alternative strategies.

And the media still obsessing that this is 'the one' that could break the coalition. Break the coalition and replace it with what? Replace it with a party that has abandoned all sense of purpose, reason and fiscal probity? Replace it with the same party that has 34% support? How does this work?

The public has got used to the idea that cuts are coming, that we lived beyond our means for some years and thet this situation is unsustainable. The labour party are on the wrong side of this argument from the outset; they were part of the narrative as the nation maxed out all its credit cards and sat on its backside watching reality TV. It's over.

It's a great time to be a tory...

Well if it's not up to the labour party to propose alternative strategies and say how they would be funded, then one presumes they never want to be in govenrment again...until maybe the national finances are back on track and they can spend some more money.

F-S @ 11
What's your point? That you don't want a university system that encourages poor but able students to flourish? You'd rather make it socially exclusive?

If it bugs you, you could replace 'We' with 'Most sane people' in my original post.

This is an accurate post from Nick. The liberal democrats most definitely do not get what they promised before the election. The each individually pledged and collectively commited too via their manifesto to repeal the tuition fees.

At the very least they are honour bound to oppose increases in fees and the coalition proposals allow increases upto 7000/annum. This is the critical point Nick and one you have convieniently forgotten to mention.

If the Liberal Democrat MPs approve this plan their credibility as people of their word is shot to pieces as are their electoral chances in the big student cities up and down the land.

pdavies65

Where does this myth keep coming from. Any semi-competent reading of economics will confirm that student fees are self financing and then some for the government in the form of higher tax receipts from the students during the life time of their employment. This is the core of the argument for encouraging as many as are able into the graduate employment route. The country benefits economically from a well educated workforce in the form of higher tax receipts if nothing else.

Flame #1 - rather sweeping generalisations there, don't you think? After all, a lot of students are on drugs far stronger than cannabis. Our current PM, for example, isn't even prepared to confess to what he shoved up his nose in his university days.

Once again, it's the 'squeezed middle' who are going to get screwed on this.

#13 Matthew

Seems to me the extra-earning potential of graduates is something of a lie: as it can only be a relative sum. Back when only 5% of people had a degree they were relatively rare, and so valuable, commodities. If everyone has them then, by definition, the average graduate income will be the same as the general population.

Everyone should have the opportunity to study to degree level: but if we get there then we have to realise that this is not going to give them a guarnateed higher income.

That will only happen if there are enough jobs out there willing to pay more for the graduates we are producing. The figures for yoth and for graduate unemployment suggest that this is not the case.

Does anyone know what proprtion of student loans are written off?

Soton @ 20
Agreed, but I don't know why your comment is addressed to me.

20- "Any semi-competent reading of economics will confirm that student fees are self financing and then some for the government in the form of higher tax receipts from the students during the life time of their employment."

Is that still the case? We can look at people who took degrees 20 or 30 years ago and see their incomes but how can we look at people now and know what they will be earning in 30 years' time? Graduates were once a small minority, with the odd notion that 50% of the population should get a degree, they are no longer in that position. Employers might be demanding a degree for a post that 25 years ago they wouldn't have but are they necessarily going to pay more just because they have the luxury of picking from graduates rather then 'A' level students?

tFoth @ 22 wrote:
Seems to me the extra-earning potential of graduates is something of a lie: as it can only be a relative sum. Back when only 5% of people had a degree they were relatively rare, and so valuable, commodities. If everyone has them then, by definition, the average graduate income will be the same as the general population.

>>

I don't follow your maths. Why does the extra earning potential have to be relative? The evidence shows that better educated populations earn more per capita, and this could theoretically hold good even if 100% had degrees. The final sentence in the paragraph I quoted is true, but your logic is faulty if you think this undermines the link between going to university and earning more.

"This looks like crisis alright, in the sense of "turning point". THe country clearly cannot afford to educate 50% of young people to degree level: and now expects them to borrow and pay for it themselves."

Not true, we can easily afford too do this we chose not too. That is what politics is about. The size of the university budget is a matter of political choice.

My political choice would be to make education mandatory upto the age of 21. We cannot find jobs for so many young people and keep old people in work into their 70s. We should accept this and fund education either via universities or via a system of top quality apprenticeships backed up by technical college courses as appropriate.

We need a high skill, high value added economy if we are to survive as a nation, the alternative is low skill, low wage and a retreat to 2nd world status.

MarkofSOSH..

I seem to remember half the previus nelwbaour cabinet of Gordon Brown sticking their hands up shortly after he announced his new cabinet, starting with Jacqui Smith, saying they had all inhaled something or other at some stage; what good did it do them? And what is your point? This little confession didn't stop her being a useless home secretary or her husband getting the tax payer to fund his porn.

If you want the coalition cabinet to write down the precise details of their student antics twenty five years ago for the greater edification of all then I suggest you justify why it was such a helpful experience under newlabour. It served absolutely no practical purpose whatsoever; on the contrary, it helped contribute to the belief that as long as you confessed you did something then you couldn't be punished for it.

It's a great time to be a tory...

@ #15 random_thought

Agreed with you up until you said:

"There should be more emphasis on traditional academic subjects such as maths, English, history, economics etc. which are actually the cheapest to teach, and students studying such subjects should pay reduced fees to reflect the lower cost."

We absolutely should NOT be creating our education system based on what it cheapest to teach. It should be based around what subjects are the most relevant, useful, and most importantly where there is a need in the employment market.

A major problem we have now is that due to the old 'get as many people into university as possible' policies of previous governments, we have too many people with degrees of little worth. Perhaps a points system where the importance of certain courses could be assessed and those that wish to attend courses of little worth pay may, and those that do useful courses pay less.

The are many unseen disadvantages of not having free and widely attended universities, it is increasingly easy to get move countries for a company if the country you are in does not have the skills available or at the right price. Living costs in the UK are high and so in turn are wage demand is high, now if you have higher wage demands you need something to bring to the table, having a huge amount of the population with a university eductation will do that.

If I was a business an the UK had an elite few who went to university why would I settle here when Eastern Europe has an elite few who have a university education, but with less wage demands or India were I can not only get the elite few at half the price but the unskilled workers are very cheap.

UK Plc needs a selling point and high levels of education throughout the population is one of the only options given our cost of living, it is not a case of a "nice to have" it is a case needing it of to protect our quality of life (not just improve it). We need to maintain education levels and when the economy recovers increase education levels.

University education should be open to all and free for those less well off than others

I think a lot of universities need to reassess their course structure and decide if a lot of the courses on offer are actually of any use to anyone, surely if the degree course in 'John Lennon' are scrapped then the money could be used for something useful like lowering fees for proper qualifications

I realise that the majority of courses are useful; but there a lot of courses being offered that will only offer a degree qualification at the end that is absolutely worthless to an employer

We need to subsidise education but we have to draw the line somewhere as to what 'useful' education is

We need to generate a well qualified workforce, but they need to be qualified in something useful !!

18#

There wasnt a point being made, just a simple question as to who you think you are speaking on behalf of, thats all.

If you're speaking for fellow left-wing inclined minds, getting your habitual baiting of the hook in, against those who choose to pay for the education of their litter, then fine.

So long as we know you're not presuming to speak for the rest of us.

My own personal view is that it should be based completely on academic results at A level or equivalent, places first come first served and if anything, certain types of in demand skills/courses could/should be sponsored more by bursaries from business or government departments. If you want to fast track graduates and think they're the future, then fine, put your money where your mouth is and pay for it on the students behalf either in part or full, in return for say, a minimum of 5 years service post-graduation. Whether you're from a rich or poor family shouldnt make a bit of difference.

As it happens at the moment, we appear to have an inbalance in terms of what subjects we need graduates in (engineering, medicine, etc) and what we're actually getting (sociologists, PPE professional politicians, media studies, fine arts, etc). Graduate unemployment is a problem. Theres not an awful lot of point trying to encourage as many into tertiary education as possible to make it look as if all these kids are going to be more employable when they finally hit the job market by virtue of having a degree only to find that all the work has either been given to economic migrants or is offshored to India and China.

Unless you specifically want to massage the NEETs figures that is and make it look as if you're doing something for the young in order to capture their votes once every five years when in reality you're selling them out...

As an aside, in terms of the amount of breakthroughs in science, technology, etc (and also other non-scientific disciplines) that were made by British universities over the previous 100, 200 or 250 years, compared to what happens now (notable exceptions though, like the human genome, etc), before such seats of learning had to be seen as being "inclusive", I would say that the old system didnt serve us particularly badly.

And as Neil says, this might not be the coalitions finest hour, but then again, what is going to be? Coalition is all about compromise. The only way you're going to get around that is to vote in a single party again with a big enough working majority to pursue what they intend to do. And if AV+ finds its way onto the statute books, theres going to be an awful lot more of this, so I suppose we had all better get used to it.

#15 Random Thought

A really good point - and one people should take note of.

Why is it that Universities are not being asked to cut their costs rather than double their price? I thought the name of the game was "efficiency" - but I guess in this case its different because the whole thing can still be done on the never-never. After all, there's a whole new generation of borrowers out there.

I don't think it's very fair to charge people differently for the same thing. They are getting the same opportunity out of higher education as their peers, so why should some pay more for it than others?

In response to #15 random_thought, the reason students have to pay for a lot more than a few overpopulated lectures is because while some degrees (English, History, Philosophy) cost the University little more than a few lecturers and library books, these students are effectively subsidizing the more expensive degrees such as Chemistry, Physics, Natural Science etc which incur much higher resource costs. I don't see this to be a huge problem, as it is vitally important that we have enough doctors, scientists etc. But I don't see why one English Literature graduate should pay more than another English Literature graduate.

I don't think it would be the end of the world to have a system where some Universities cost more than others though - surely it's obvious to everyone that a degree from Oxbridge is worth much more than an equivalent degree from an ex-Poly so why are we pretending otherwise?

#15 has hit the nail on the head - everyone is missing the important point of whether students are getting value for their money.

The answer is they're not. The question of whether to keep tuition fees or adopt a graduate tax should be debated later. The debate should now focus on what our universities should be providing the UK. University staff should be focusing on teaching and supporting students - not mediocre academic research. This ratio needs to be addressed before anything.

The prospect of paying £7000+, along with maintenance fees, is wholly wrong and unjustifiable. The answer is not more money - it's reform. If privatised specialist universities were encouraged, standards of education would get higher and tuition fees would become more competitive, as educational institutions would have to battle to win the best students.

25#

You dont follow it, because you dont understand the notion of "scope creep".

What he was saying was that when a smaller proportion of graduates were around, there was more demand than supply. Now thats not the case. And, for definate in the IT industry, the difference that being a graduate makes to what you'll end up earning is either directly inversely proportional or it has no relation at all. In industries such as IT, for the most part, having a degree is not an indication of you being likely to earn more - as such requirements for a degree are used as filtering tools by businesses and by recruiters - its more often than not an indication as to whether you will work at all, regardless of your other competancies.

Put simply, if you flood the job market with graduates on some sort of equality of opportunity ticket, then you end up devaluing the qualification. Thats what he's trying to say.

We already have an uncomfortable degree of elitism - based on money rather than merit - in our schools system and this inevitably feeds through to the tertiary sector. It's key to reverse this if we want to improve the quality of people coming through to take up positions of influence and leadership in all walks of our national life. For me, the way to do this is to (i) toughen up on university entrance criteria, and (ii) make a university education free at the point of delivery (i.e. funded out of taxation) to all successful state school applicants. I don't favour a graduate tax because I find it gimmicky and I don't see a great deal of sense in attributing certain slices of tax to certain items of expenditure. It's fungible; we raise money via tax and we invest it in our priorities - such as this one, high quality education in the mainstream sector. The payback will justify the spend.

#25 Pdavies

With respect you are making a different point. I agree that (it is at least possible/probable) if 100% of the population has a degree then the total income of the population will be higher.

But someone with a degree will not be earning more than someone without one - if only because there is no-one without one to compare him with.

This is, of course, a reductio ad absurdam: but the fact remains that the more common degrees become the less their value to the holder.

The principle seems to be something like this: "Those who benefit should pay their fair share".

Of course, society benefits from having university graduates in terms of (1) a more highly skilled workforce and (2) higher tax revenues. It is then odd to continue the constant erosion of state-funded support of higher education.

I argue these and several other arguments at The Brooks Blog here: https://the-brooks-blog.blogspot.com/2010/10/should-students-pay-more-their.html

26: # soton blogger

I accept your correction. I should have said, the country "is not willing to" afford higher education for all.

I also share your concerns regarding on the one hand the fact that we do not have enough jobs for our young people (and so send them to education) and are going to ask the over 65s to hang onto their jobs even longer - thereby reducing the number of "dead men's shoes" for the younger to fill.

I do not think that educating people creates jobs: certainly not directly and certainly not without a relatively low "elasticity". The challenge we face today is not to find enough graduates to fill the availabel jobs: it is to find enough jobs for the available graduates.

Fubar @ 35

Yes, I understand supply and demand - d'uh. But the job market is global and it does not follow that educating more than a certain percentage of the population to degree level cancels out any advantage. This has nothing to do with your bete noir, the "equality ticket".

I am not sure I would agree on the lack value for money point. As an anecdotal point I am currently doing a evening course at my local university this costs £175 for a total of 22 contact hours.

That works out at about £7.95/hr, I am also doing guitar lessons which cost about 20 quid an hr. This seems pretty good value for money to me albeit the former is a group of 20 and the guitar lessons one-2-one. This is balanced against the lecturer being PhD educated and trained to teach and the guitar tutor being a spotty teenage yoof !

"My political choice would be to make education mandatory upto the age of 21."

Great. You'd be volunteering to teach a class full of 20 year olds who didn't want to be there then?

random_thought @ 15

If what you say is true, then running a private university would be a very attractive proposition financially. They could undercut existing universities and still make a handsome profit.

The US has a largely private higher education system. Fees at the top 15 universities in the US are all over $35,000 per annum. These institutions also rely heavily on alumnae support.

If providing high quality tuition is as cheap as you suggest, why do these private universities in the US have to charge so much? Why have market forces not driven the price down?

Or are you wrong about the real cost of offering university tuition?

@41

The "lack of value for money point" is absolutely pivotal to this whole thing. You cannot justify doubling a student's tuition fee to £7000+ when the ratio of direct teaching time to research remains unaltered and not even discussed.

36. At 11:55am on 11 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
"We already have an uncomfortable degree of elitism...make a university education free at the point of delivery (i.e. funded out of taxation) to all successful state school applicants."

A sort of aparthied system aimed at those who went to private schools? Nothing like a bit of segregation to make us more equal. Would you make privatly education people sit at the back of the bus?

I'm sre I've asked this before but can't recall your answer. So you'd be comfortable with a poor student who'd won a scholarship at a private school being unable to afford a place at university whilst the son of (say) a millionaire Labour politician got his university education free?

And how long would someone have to have been at state school to qualify? Their entire schooling? Bit tough on immigrants ariving half way through schooling. Would a few days a week in a private nursery put the dampers on free University education? Maybe just the last year?

Details, real world stuff. Not really your strong point though.

Don't those who come from private schools contribute in taxation later in life?

Your proposal is purely politically driven. Thank goodness there's no chance at all of it being implemented. Just more wasted hot air.

I am a member of a privileged elite, one of a tiny cohort who obtained a quality education in this country.

Did I go to Eton, Westminster School or even a Grammar?

No, none of these.

I attended one of the two Technical Secondary Modern schools in England in the mid-1960's, and I eventually became a systems engineer.

As Frank Field mentioned recently, the politicians squabbled over education and never got the third 'technical' stream going and a direct consequence of that political failure today is that where we as a country, languish, mired in debt, Germany yet again is powering ahead, exporting all those wonderfully engineered German cars, motorcycles, machine tools etc; which are in heavy demand, not the least from China.

Now we have a seriously unbalanced economy, where the perception from outside of the country is that we no longer make anything.

There was something very odd about the overnight Blairite aspiration that '50% of children would attend a University' and yet continue to more-or-less ignore the technical education stream.

If you are looking for somebody to blame for our plight, then look no further than politicians from the past four or five decades - they have presided over a broad decline, even during the Thatcher years, when at best, it was somewhat arrested and some would argue, is where the imbalance in the economy really started.

Management consultants AT Kearney occasionally pop onto my radar, and here are two facts from some of their recent work:

a) 2% of UK citizens control 90% of the wealth

b) 95% of UK citizens will retire in poverty

So, 95% of us really are 'all in it together' - and 2% are clearly not - they truly float in a world 'above money'.

#42 and that is different than teaching a class full of 16 year olds who fundamnentally lack the emotionally and financial savvy to realise what is in their best interests ?

Come to think of it, given what I am proposing is a dual track approach splitting academic and practical and the presumably greater emotional maturity of the 18-21 cohort it ought to be an easier sell than the current deal.

Life isnt all about doing what we want short term, it includes that but we all have to occasionally do what is in our long term interests too.

Quite clearly we tax-payers cannot afford to re-pay a deficit and subsidise a full-time undergraduate education for 50% of school-leavers, but rather than merely push the problem around the plate, why not address some of the fundamental issues with the way university education is arranged? How many students have to get home to oversee the harvest, or face a week-long journey on horseback each way between home and college – yet these historical issues explain why students only spend half of the year actually studying?
Universities are all effectively private organisations, if they want tax-payers money to help fund their activities then they should arrange their courses to be far more efficient; providing a minimum of 30 hours of student contact time per week over a standard 46 week year, thus cutting most courses down to less than two years, would go along way in doing so.

Why do we still insist on treating all degree subjects as equal, when quite clearly some are far more beneficial to society than others? For example, hobby subjects like English merely pander to students’ interests, whereas a degree in Education – possibly targeted at teaching English – is clearly of value to us all. We should be concentrating our hard-earned tax pounds on the courses that contribute to the whole of society, the hobby and interest subjects could still be available, but on a part-basis – we used to call them ‘Evening Classes’.

As to the argument that going to university is not just about education but is also about young people learning to live away from home and develop their character - then if this is of so much value to society why don't we provide an opportunity to do just that to all, not just 50%? Or is it not worth our investing a single penny in the Thick Kids?

.

I agree with #33, and would venture to suggest that perhaps another option is to abolish some of the underperforming universities who receive public funds ( although I accept that then raises the question of how performance would be measured) so that funds can be reallocated? Universities UK has 133 members but some of these may be privately funded, and there may be some publicly funded ones that aren't registered?

Another point for discussion : Should EU students pay higher fees than UK students? I was an international student and think it was fair that I paid higher fees given my parents were not UK taxpayers - perhaps there should be a revised fee structure to cater for EU students too?

"But the job market is global and it does not follow that educating more than a certain percentage of the population to degree level cancels out any advantage. This has nothing to do with your bete noir, the "equality ticket"."

The job market is indeed global. Hence, why overseas students are worth as much to the economy as they are, which is probably one of the reasons why so many student visas have been issued. And quite a number of them overstayed on.

The left does not seem to have a problem with money for education, when it appears it is coming from overseas, n'est ce pas? So, why not our own?

And given that the job market is global and more of us, students included are probably going to have to ship out to other parts of the world to get work pray tell me, where is the benefit in spending oodles of taxpayers cash that we dont have in order for our graduates to get jobs overseas and pay a completely different exchequer?

Where is the benefit to the UK in that?

You either charge everyone or no-one. You could just charge the overseas ones, but then, they'd just go elsewhere in the world to study instead. I'm not sure the British university education still has the cachet that it may have had 100 years ago.

My objection to the "equality ticket" is that it is fundamentally skewed data that has been hijacked for purely partisan political purposes by people who wouldnt know equality if it bit them on the kiester. Nothing to do with this particular conversation.

No14 AndyPandy,
The country will be delighted to know that AndyPandy rises before students.

When tuition fees were introduced the idea was - as now - that the student only started to pay them, and any student loan needed for living expenses,when their subsequent annual earnings exceeded a certain threshold. ie the concept was independent of the student's prior financial background.

This simple and logical concept was however then muddied, in the usual way, by politicians who insisted, totally unnecessarily, that 'poorer' students should also receive a bursary. Hence the £3000 per student the university received was in fact worth a lot less than this to the university as a substantial fraction of it had to be returned to students in the form of bursaries.

£3000 was at the time considered to be a realistic tuition fee by universities if they didn't have to pay bursaries. So I would have thought that if the necessity to give bursaries was removed all that universities need now is £3000 plus a sum for inflation over the years since inception of the scheme.

I'm sure this would lead to a tuition fee a lot less than £7000-£1000 presently being mentioned.

As to graduating interest payments on the student loans and tuition fees according to subsequent earnings, this does seem rather odd.
We don't do this for any other form of loan - a mortgage or car or business start-up loan.

Don't we have a tax system which allows us to take a larger fraction of earnings from higher earners? Surely this is the appropriate instrument to use.

Andy @ 45

Do let me know if you want to discuss the issue.

"it does not follow that educating more than a certain percentage of the population to degree level cancels out any advantage."

Well, sorry, but I completely disagree. You flood the market, the intrinsic value of the qualification drops. It is meant to be a symbol of excellence not of universal entitlement. Not everyone is ever going to be capable of achieving this academic standard, although it is perfectly possible to attain a similar level vocationally.

In real life, having a degree is no guarantee of finding employment commensurate with what you have studied. Ask my sister who studied fine art only to end up being a manageress of a property lettings agency not even earning within sniffing distance of 30K. What the hell was the point of that and saddling herself with over 20K of debt in the process?

In the IT industry, I am telling you for a fact that IT degrees are being used as filtration tools by the recruitment industries and employers because they know that they can drive down wage costs by picking freshly graduated students to do the jobs that would previously have been those of professionals. The former students, saddled with more debt will accept a lower wage than the established professional can and yet do not have the realworld experience that the professional does, particularly when it comes to alignment of business interests with system capabilities. Thats if the positions havent been offshored already or lost through the Inter Company Transfer scheme which following the EU-India Free Trade Agreement to be signed in December is going to only get worse.

A degree is meant, as I've said before, to be a sign of academic excellence. A form of elite, if you will. But, I know how much that word upsets you lefties unless it is used in conjuction with "marxist intellectual...". By having too many of them, you're devaluing the qualification.

"Would you make privatly education people sit at the back of the bus?"

Bus?

You think he'd let them on or anywhere near a bus???

He'd want them wearing sack-cloth and ashes in a cattle truck being shipped off to somewhere unpleasant. Theres a place in Cheshire that provides most of the country's road salt. That'd more likely be the destination he'd have in mind.

36. At 11:55am on 11 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
"It's key to reverse this if we want to improve the quality of people coming through to take up positions of influence and leadership in all walks of our national life. For me, the way to do this is to (i) toughen up on university entrance criteria,"
=========================================================================
I totally agree with your point here. It is not a question of if we can afford the current education model, it is do we need the current education model.

I have for a number of years been responsible for our graduate intake. Now I know this sounds a little old hat but the quality of graduates coming through has dropped and dropped significantly.

It had got so bad that I had to introduce "grammar" and "report writing" courses for the graduates. In addition I had to, where appropriate, run courses from IT through to statistical analysis. So bad has it become, that now in the first year of employment we are only expecting the graduates to be available for work for 50% of the time.

All this from what are supposed to be the top 10% in the UK.

Now I must state that there are exceptions to this but unfortunately the norm is very disappointing and worrying.

On another point why do we need to have degrees for everything. Golf course management is and example. Again a close friend of mine has experience with this one. Things have got so bad that he has now reverted to growing his own so to speak and has taken on school leavers and is training them himself. He plans to nurture them through all aspects of golf course management allowing them to have a full understanding of all aspects. Those who are not able to progress all the way will still have gained experience and a career in which ever field they excel in. As he says they are all good at something.

Finally and probably most controversially, why do nurses need a degree? Again I am not speaking from my point of view but that of my wife a health professional for some 32 years. What we have now in the most are people comming out of university with a degree in nursing who have no interest in patient care or working on the wards but who are more interested in a career in hospital management. Unfortunatley this is being driven not only from government departments but also the RCN who are hell bent on nurses being classed as professionals, no matter what impact it has on the profession.

Yes I think we need universities but we also need a return to vocational training. We need to raise the standard of the first and the standing of the second.

Re RedandYellowandGreennotBlue's comment (No. 7) I'm worried that someone of presumably university calibre does not know that its not "...fought there last few election campaigns....", but "...fought THEIR last few election campaigns....". I see a lot of graduates coming into the workplace that don't know the basics of the 3R's, which is even more worrying.

On the topic of funding - if we don't have the money to provide free university education to all (which we don't) then it seems logioal that we have to create a graduated system in which the onces that benefit most pay more. It can't be right that a graduate who ends up stacking shelves in the local supermarket pays as much as another who ends up in a high-flying role with a top tier company.

@Fuber-Saunders

I don't think that suggesting we'd rather have just the brightest go to university than just the richest is really the same as baiting those 'who choose to pay for their own litter'. In my experience, if your parents don't help pay for your university education its not because they are gleefully rubbing their hands together at the money they've saved by tricking the government into paying for it, it's because they genuinely can't. If you can pay to send your (academically bright) child to university, you should do. If you can't, that shouldn't mean your child doesn't go, or should come out in enormous debt.

And education is an investment; if your investment does well, then you see a large return. If the investment doesn't do so well, then you accept that sometimes you make a loss. Similarly, if the government invests in a student who ends up earning lots, it seems fair that they see a large return on that investment. If they invest in a student who doesn't end up earning much, then it seems unreasonable to expect the same rate of return. On this model, why shouldn't higher earning graduates pay back their investment at a higher rate of return? It's the government's job then as an investor to make sure that Universities take on those students who will ensure a good return for those who invest in degrees, by training people in things that will either strengthen the economy and add value, or will create value in society that may not be an economic boost, but which we nonetheless value enough to be happy sustaining a loss financially speaking. For example, an individual nurse may never pay much in taxes, or add much value to the economy by his actions, but at the same time we see that work as valuable enough to warrant spending the money.

And while I agree that we're not getting enough science and technology students into our universities, I am completely fed up with people lumping all non-science degrees into the same 'waste of time' category, and labelling all PPE students as 'professional politicians'. Firstly, an incredibly rigourous academic course like PPE or History is in no way the same thing as a degree in Media Studies or David Beckham. I'm sure there are those for whom a degree in media studies will be invaluable as a building block for a career in media, but for many doing subjects in the latter category, the aim is just to get a degree, regardless, and without doing any really challenging work. A degree like PPE (which is generally only offered at the best universities in the country), or a decent History course will demand as a basic, flexible thinking and an ability to read, comprehend and synthesise complicated material, while coming to thoughtful conclusions based on evidence. If you're telling me that this ability, plus a deep knowledge and understanding of the systems around us and how they work, isn't a valuable commodity then I think you underestimate the needs of some of the best income-generating businesses in this country.

And while I am happy to state my bias upfront as an Oxford PPE student (whose parents fall into one of the lowest income brackets), I think it's deeply unfair that all PPE students are painted as career politicians as we also go on to support and run NGOs, consultancy firms, international development agencies, banks, retail businesses, and a whole host of other activities. PPEists become the next generation of leaders of whatever they do because you have to work incredibly hard and end up with knowledge that is both deep and broad, and which you are able to apply to whatever problem you are presented with. Perhaps its just my view, but I think we need leaders who are capable, bright, and properly trained.

I thought Nick's article was about Lib/Dem treachery and broken promises? It is amazing what impact a ministerial salary, and riding about in a ministerial car can have on fundamental beliefs and principles.

53. At 12:37pm on 11 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
Andy @ 45

Do let me know if you want to discuss the issue.
=========================================================================Much rather discus the fact that your fab four elite have bottled it and come out against a rise in personal taxation, or is this just one of those throwaway lines to woo the public - or should I say middle England.

Fubar @ 54 wrote:
[PD65]"it does not follow that educating more than a certain percentage of the population to degree level cancels out any advantage."

[F-S] Well, sorry, but I completely disagree. You flood the market, the intrinsic value of the qualification drops. It is meant to be a symbol of excellence not of universal entitlement. Not everyone is ever going to be capable of achieving this academic standard, although it is perfectly possible to attain a similar level vocationally.

>>

It's analogy time, Fubar. Suppose I decide to introduce a system which rewards cafés and restaurants with a star rating depending on their level of hygiene: 5 stars means top notch, 1 star means the odd rat here and there. When first introduced, only 5% of establishments get 5 stars. But over the years, this figure climbs to 50%. Does this 'flood the market' and devalue the rating? Well yes, in a way - a superficial way - but I'd still rather have 50% with five stars than 5%.

A university degree is not "meant to be a symbol of excellence", it's a qualification. We shouldn't limit their number because of some misplaced notion that by doing so we raise their value. Degrees aren't watermelons.

this is an huge industry all the landlords all the takeaways the clubs ect it is like having thousands of holidaymakers with no responsibilities and a wonderful plastic friend, no taking a degree at their local university for these adventurers where they could enjoy the home comforts best go 200 miles away and take the same course, as a postscript if anybody thinks giving access to a credit card to a eighteen year old who probably has never earnt a penny is a prudent idea and will be used wisely has never been to a students union

"A degree is meant, as I've said before, to be a sign of academic excellence. A form of elite, if you will. But, I know how much that word upsets you lefties unless it is used in conjuction with "marxist intellectual...". By having too many of them, you're devaluing the qualification."

You are quite wrong on this historically at least. A degree isnt an elite it was simply the academic equivilent of the apprenticeship. You apprentice yourself to the academic community until having completed your PhD you are qualified to join them as peers.

No real difference between that and joining a guild house. Except one is practical and the other academic.

@57

"It can't be right that a graduate who ends up stacking shelves in the local supermarket pays as much as another who ends up in a high-flying role with a top tier company."

It isn't that black and white I'm afraid. I'm not saying you're wrong, but I would suggest that paying for your own personal higher education experience is fairer in principle, than paying more for other people's over a lifetime.

How about a regressive tax.

Identify all those who have been to university and add 1% to their tax rate (from base) until the defict is cut. This could fund more than just universities it might raise enough to keep building schools.
At the same time encourage a voluntary code amongst organisations (possibly incentivised by a cut in NI which in turn could be subsidised by the degree tax) to train the next generation internally withoout havingt o go to University and collect a degree with little usefulness in real life.
Universities really are not the be all and end all

#36 when I did my education my dad gave me £2 for some beer and a game of grib on a sunday with my friend and that all I got. After 5 years on extra "proper" education I went to work. I had to forgo an awful lot of things that my friends were doing BUT it was theirs and my choice what to do. Part of the problem is that people think going to univ is like having a job and you get money from others to have the time of your life.

its about expections and making sacrifices something ZaNU_Liebour believe that you do not have to make as you can spend somebodies elses monies.

Why oh why do we need 50% to go to university seems that that is the fundamental question after we work ut why the school are turning out poorley educated students which also has been backed up by the "leftie" teacher talking at the tory conference too.

"51. At 12:34pm on 11 Oct 2010, IPGABP1 wrote:
No14 AndyPandy,
The country will be delighted to know that AndyPandy rises before students."


More hilarity from changing someone's name. How ARE the kiddies Party bookings coming along? Do your jokes get any staler or duller? I bet the kids can't wait until your half hour slot is up and they can get back to the jelly and icecream.

"And education is an investment; if your investment does well, then you see a large return. If the investment doesn't do so well, then you accept that sometimes you make a loss. Similarly, if the government invests in a student who ends up earning lots, it seems fair that they see a large return on that investment. If they invest in a student who doesn't end up earning much, then it seems unreasonable to expect the same rate of return. On this model, why shouldn't higher earning graduates pay back their investment at a higher rate of return?"

Largely agree, which is why I said in my original post "maybe the coalition comprimise in itself is not such a bad solution" or words to that effect. I also alluded to the fact that coalitions force comprimises perhaps more than any other type of governance, where what a particular party's dogma or principles or manifesto may allude to or promise may end up being spectacularly different from what they end up delivering.

The noise is coming from those who oppose such a compromise on ideological grounds. Not those who see what they perceive to be right for the country, the students and the system as a whole. Just purely their own political agenda.

"Perhaps its just my view, but I think we need leaders who are capable, bright, and properly trained."

Arguably true. Having the ability to lead would also help. Some can and some cant regardless of their level of academic achievement. Ed Balls in particular. He's not a leader, he's an egomaniac with a Napoleon complex.

"53. At 12:37pm on 11 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
Andy @ 45

Do let me know if you want to discuss the issue."

A good start would be you answering the points I raised.

63#

Ah, OK. Fair enough, I am happy to stand corrected.

Can I pose one question though and appreciate the historical aspect of it may not tie in perfectly - the situation you refer to is crystal clear for those proceeding into academia - and surely not all who took degrees in the past did it purely to go into academia - what of those degrees that were, as you say, more "vocational" in outlook?

61#

Not the best analogy in the world pd.

You dont go into a cafe and stay there for five years being publicly funded and then go and try and get a job based on the fact you've been living in a five star cafe for 5 years.

If a cafe is a rat infested greasy spoon you go and take your trade elsewhere. You dont write letters to a five star cafe begging to be let in for years beforehand and your admission being dependent on other factors.

All you're after is refreshment which an immediate here and now hit. It has no bearing whatsoever on your future unless you end up with some of the poison put down for the rats in your sugar bowl.

What I'm saying about the numbers is that the more you have in particular field or specialisation, the less they are going to earn, hence this graduated system of taxing the higher earning ones more than the lower earning ones is, although in principle a good compromise, it may not prove to be workable in the end.

Someone has already alluded to degree qualified nurses. You shouldnt need a flippin' degree to be a nurse for gods sake, this is, as the contributor said, all about turning nursing into a profession rather than a vocation.

Fubar @ 68 wrote:
The noise is coming from those who oppose such a compromise on ideological grounds. Not those who see what they perceive to be right for the country, the students and the system as a whole. Just purely their own political agenda.

>>

You don't necessarily mean me, but in case you do (and I know you do) my emphasis on not discouraging able but poor students from going to university has nothing to do with any political agenda. (Agenda? Moi?) It's just economic sense: you get a better return on your state investment if university students are there because of innate ability, not accident of birth.

I love the idea that the cost is only x amount because they just need to be taught for x number of hours. What about the cost of the lecture theatres, the sports facilities, the transport links, the cleaning, the admin, the Library services, do you even know how much Academic journals actually cost? There are so many costs that universities have to bear that need to be taken into consideration. Large building projects cost millions and the money isn't recouped for a long time for one thing.

I personally think that there are a lot of people that just shouldn't be at university. That is some individual people would not benefit from it in terms of it being of use to a future career or even them benefitting personally from a new way of life being a student.
There is also the point about stupid degrees, it might be a small point but it is a point to be made. Why shouldn't someone that is doing Theory of Art, or 18th Century Italian Politics be expected to pay their way over someone that is doing Engineering or Medicine? Too many people these days (especially in some of the 'lesser' ex-poly's) are doing a degree because they were told that they should, without looking at why they should. The idea that you get a job out of having a degree, let alone a better job is becoming a weaker and weaker position. That you did a degree atall used to be a good sign of being able to do things, but with so many people doing a degree the idea of that means that issue is negated and you'll have to start having degrees that actually mean something for your job.

fubar @ 55

You're being as irredeemably silly as Andy.

This is carrot, not stick - if you come from a private school, the support remains as now (cheap loans). From a state school, free.

Fund from general taxation - based on overall tax & spend priorities. For cuts elsewhere, a serious look at the NHS and the MoD; on the revenue side, maybe review the higher rate amounts/bands.

Plus, we tighten up on entrance criteria for university. All can go if qualified; criteria mean those who do go will be those who'll benefit the most. Benefit them, benefit us.

Grant available only for quality courses. Support remains as now (cheap loans) for other courses - no state school / private school distinction regarding this.

Benefits:

- better quality universities.
- greater middle class buy in to the mainstream schools sector.
- promote merit not money as the prime factor in educational achievement.

An erosion of privilege and at the same time a boost for standards.

Extremely savoury.

I have been there, got an Engineering degree and have spent 20+ years working hard for various automotive suppliers / manufacturers.
What confounds me is the seemingly never ending list of degrees which do not lead on to useful employment.
Perhaps a different way would be for companies to be involved by sponsoring students through their studies, with suitable Government incentives/tax breaks. That would mean that the next generation come out of colleague with qualifications that are actually relevant to the countries needs, and have a good chance at gainful employment at the end of it.

Haven't had time to read all the drivel already published, but its time to put my 2 pence worth in. I take no account of inflation or decimalisation when writing that. Since I was first able to put my tuppence in, its worth has risen dramatically, and on comparative purchasing power is now about a fiver. Now that ought to buy me a considerable amount of attention.

The various arguments about further education are an example of all that is wrong with the way we look at problems and apply solutions.

Problem: poor kids can't get to university.
Solution: give them grants

Problem: stupid kids can't get to university.
Solution: make universities offer more spaces to everybody, regardless of academic capability or economic worth.

Problem: universities cant continue because they don't have enough money to accept all the potential students.
Solution: let them charge tuition fees to students from England.

Problem: poor and stupid kids cant afford the tuition fees.
Solution: lend them the money and let them pay it back out of higher earnings when they start work (distinct sound of laughter echoing up sleeves)

Problem: we don't have enough money to lend to students, and we don't have enough money to give to unviersities, and we don't have enough jobs to provide to debt-ridden graduates to enable them to pay back the vast amounts of money we've lent them.
Solution: lose the election, and let the other side sort it out........

"you get a better return on your state investment if university students are there because of innate ability, not accident of birth."

And I say again. If you have pretty much offshored all the work that you've been training them to do, then you're going to get NO return on your investment at all are you? They will either fall through the cracks or emigrate and in the latter case, another exchequer will receive the benefit of their education and not you.

And no, I wasnt directly pointing the finger at you, I was referring to Nick's opening statements -

"Angry Lib Dems will see it as code for higher fees which they promised to vote against. The more help the Tories give Vince Cable to sell the idea to his backbenchers the more it may look like a graduate tax or, as many would put it, "another tax on the middle classes".

"Then, as with child benefit, there will be the inevitable alleged "unfairness" of one student being in line to pay zero interest living next to a fellow student who will pay the full whack."

Thats what I was referring to.

57. At 12:51pm on 11 Oct 2010, Dean Maisey wrote:
"I'm worried that someone of presumably university calibre does not know that its not "...fought there last few election campaigns....", but "...fought THEIR last few election campaigns...."."

And, believe it or not, I'll be annoyed at myself for the rest of the day for typing that, as I'm particularly careful at getting homophones such as this correct. Let's just put it down to trying to type whilst the thought is still in my head!

Agree with the rest of your post.

(by the way it should be "does not know that it's not" not "does not know that its not")

"if you come from a private school, the support remains as now (cheap loans). From a state school, free."

There's no justification for that at all except your political views. Suppose I were to suggest it should be the other way round. As arbitrary as you. Those who come from private schools get grants, those from public schools get loans. The justification being that state school pupils have already received their state education funding. If you can't see that this would be wrong, your political blinkers are giving you an even narrower view of the world than I thought.

And of course you STILL can't answer the practical question of what would constitute 'coming from a private school'. If someone switched how would you treat that? If you can't answer even the most simple of problems, your scheme would never get off the ground.


"Grant available only for quality courses."

And who gets to decide which are the quality courses? On what basis?

I wonder about you sometimes, so sure that you are 'right', that your views must be forced on others. You don't daydream about being sat on a throne as you send out your edicts do you?

74#

"You're being as irredeemably silly as Andy"

Substitute cynical for silly and yeah, mea maxima culpa. However, you do make a rod for your own back sometimes mate.

Im_alright_jack wrote:

What confounds me is the seemingly never ending list of degrees which do not lead on to useful employment.


Not just that but the sheer number of people doing these courses. I'm not saying we don't need people doing these things, but do we really need a few hundred each year from varying universities across the country year after year?

People used to do a History degree say, or an English degree as it was a basis to start postgraduate work, or teaching work where A degree was the entry level for the next stage. So you did it to be educated and have a future. But now too many people are doing that without realising they've ended up with a degree that is useful for nothing and all you end up with at the end of it is debt and a good insight into something that is to all intents, useless.

Many courses are sponsored by businesses and involve doing real work in the factory/company in general. But then so do lots of vocational courses that have nothing to do with university.

71
Not the best analogy in the world pd.

You dont go into a cafe and stay there for five years being publicly funded and then go and try and get a job based on the fact you've been living in a five star cafe for 5 years.

>>

You're not even trying, Fubar.

Scarcity value is important to people who collect stamps or sell diamonds. But when it comes to education, it is in our national interest to provide as much as we can afford because a better skilled workforce creates more wealth. Yes, we have to make sure that we are equipping graduates with useful skills that meet our current and future needs. But unless you are an inveterate elitist, there is no sound argument which says we should cap the number of people who attend university simply in order to make degrees rarer.

One of the big problems as I see it is the increase in degree courses that the Universities have and are introducing. They are a total waste of time as are any many of the none vocational courses that are run in our colleges and universities.

People, young and old are making a living from enrolling in these courses and the Colleges and Universities are making a fortune along with them.

If its none vocational, scrap it.

@73

"I love the idea that the cost is only x amount because they just need to be taught for x number of hours. What about the cost of the lecture theatres, the sports facilities, the transport links, the cleaning, the admin, the Library services, do you even know how much Academic journals actually cost?"

Of course universities have huge costs but the suggestion is a near 100% increase in annual tuition fees. What exactly is that money going to spent on?

The fact is that many students receive a bad and infrequent level teaching - and to suggest a 100% raise in tuition fees is absolutely wrong without addressing how universities can become more efficient.

"A good start would be you answering the points I raised." - andy @ 69

To fubar at 74 but good for you too.

However, if you remain very very angry at the notion of tightening up on university entrance criteria, and at the same time incentivising the middle class to use state schools (whilst not making anybody financially worse off than they are now, should they still choose to opt out) ... if you're livid about this, yet are super relaxed about a scenario where educational achievement is driven mainly by parental means, then I'm sorry, Andy, but you and I are destined never to share the duvet on this one.

@84

"Of course universities have huge costs but the suggestion is a near 100% increase in annual tuition fees. What exactly is that money going to spent on?"

Everything that has already been mentioned. They also need to do things like built up their funds for when sharper cuts might come in or they need to spend a lot of money on something, such as new student accommodation or new teaching buildings, or even to help plug holes in pension schemes. Better to save then spend than just borrow isn't it?
I remember when my university spend tens of millions building new accommodation. Right as I was leaving.


You are also making the (sensible) assumption that there is a parallel between what you pay for and what you get.
That's the same as expecting your food to be twice as good as you paid twice the amount as somewhere else for the same dish. It might be true but often that's just subjective anyway. You are paying for a service. If you don't like it, then you go somewhere else.
You make the decisions on if you will pay (or in this case owe) the going rate for your course. That is your choice. If you don't think it's worth it then you look elsewhere. You juggle the benefits of your course againt the practical elements (awful housing, rough area, little pastoral support against best place to do course, has good work experience links, higher % of graduates employed within 2 years) and you make a decision. You do the research beforehand. If a place has a really bad reputation, that the grades are low or the teaching is shoddy why would you choose to go there? If it is the only place you could get into with your 2 E's then maybe you should consider not going atall?
The idea that university is right for everyone is a falacy.


"The fact is that many students receive a bad and infrequent level teaching - and to suggest a 100% raise in tuition fees is absolutely wrong without addressing how universities can become more efficient"

That might have nothing to do with the tuition fees, that could simply be down to the universities not having a proper teaching assessment system, not hiring the right people, not having the right courses. Or indeed choosing the wrong students. It is a two-way street, with discussions, tutorials, seminars as well as lectures, if you don't have a student body that engages then the experience, and the end result can be very different, no matter how much they paid to be there, or how much debt they took on. Doesn't all need to be money based. Universities could be more efficient and still end up costing more money. A better result isn't always the cheapest one.

82#

I'm not saying we should make degrees rarer pd, come on, you're just trying to wind me up now.

What you didnt pick up on about the thrust of my argument was

1) What about the costs of those who apply, go to Uni but then drop out before completing the course - presumably someone is picking up the tab?

and

2) If you're churning out graduates by the trainload, you have to have something for them to go to afterwards in order to pay back what you've invested in them, otherwise they will either fester on the dole or stacking shelves, or they will emigrate. Either way, you get no payback

Now. Does that help? Its all well and good saying that all those who are able should go, but lets try and have some joined up thinking here, eh?

We already ahve a progressive tax system. Although it isnt described as such, the overwhelming majority of those earning more than £44k (and therefore paying 40% or even 50% tax) went to University. Sure there are a few exceptions - people who left school at 16 with no qualifications and end up running a business empire, Lord Sugar for example - but they are few and far between.

Lets call this proposal for a graduate tax what it is - an increase in taxation generally.

"85. At 2:44pm on 11 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:

"A good start would be you answering the points I raised." - andy @ 69"

I didn't think you'd be able to.

The millionaire Labour politician who sends their son to the local comp is clearly in a far better financial position than the poor parents whose child gets a scholarship to a private school yet you give free University education to the millionaire's child and force the working class lad to take out loans.

Do your daft plans work in SimSagaLand?

85#

I never said I was livid about it mate. I just think that both parents and students should think long and hard about whether university is really going to help them achieve what they want before setting out down that path. Professionally, personally and financially.

Some of us are not cut out for it and are not academically bright enough. I'm not. I worked my tail off on the two A levels I did, thought I'd done what was needed in the exams and ended up bombing both of them royally. Didnt bother me that much as I picked up a few more O levels along the way and the personal experience of doing the A level courses was highly beneficial. But, by the standards of the time, 1983, I wasnt bright enough to go to uni.

Took me about 5 minutes to get over it and get on with life instead. Life and work is not all about tertiary education, the chance of going to uni is but a small component.

"Substitute cynical for silly and yeah, mea maxima culpa." - fubar @ 80

Well let's find out, shall we? Let's you and I just check back to the offending post (55) and see if we can discern any cynicism.

Nope - still looks plain silly, I'm afraid.

#9 pdavies65 wrote:
"We don't want our university system to become like some giant Public School: dominated by students with rich parents and mediocre minds."

Yes, but.

We don't want our university system to be dominated by students with poor parents and mediocre minds either.

So we don't want mediocre minds at university at all. Agree?

#83 wrote:
"If its none (sic) vocational, scrap it."

Subjects such as philosophy, for example, teach you how to think. This has an economic benefit to employers. And of course a social and cultural benefit as well.

Fubar_Saunders @ 91

You say that life and work is not all about tertiary education but from personal experience, I disagree.

Following a technical secondary education, I was sponsored at technical college, initially by the REME and latterly, by the British Aircraft Corporation (BAC) and found the experience and qualifications invaluable.

As the countries industrial base has been severely degraded over the decades, this route to a working life seems to have been closed off for many young people.

I don't think it is any co-incidence that my three boys work respectively in finance (2) and property (1).

"... the overwhelming majority of those earning more than £44k (and therefore paying 40% or even 50% tax) went to University. Sure there are a few exceptions - people who left school at 16 with no qualifications and end up running a business empire, Lord Sugar for example - but they are few and far between."


Are you quite sure about that??? Really quite sure???

#82 pd65 wrote:
"But unless you are an inveterate elitist, there is no sound argument which says we should cap the number of people who attend university simply in order to make degrees rarer."

You tempt me, you really do.

A degree is just a word, or a piece of paper. There is no reason why improving the education of the population has to end with a degree. We could easily have one or two year courses leading to an improvement in general education, or vocational qualifications. Instead of seeing educational achievement as a series of steps (GCSE, A level, degree) we should see it as a continuum, with many stages on the way.

@86

I think you make some interesting points there, which in a way supports what I was saying.

You list all the things that universities have to spend money on - such as accommodation and pension plans for staff; and that tuition fees and the quality of service aren't necessarily linked.

These points for me are evidence that before a premature discussion on whether to have an unhealthy rise in tuition fees or adopt a graduate tax - serious thought needs to be placed on how enhance a students quality of education through efficiency. My personal view is there needs to a real focus on the frequency of students attending lectures and seminars.

After this, then rationally discuss the merits of raising tuition fees or adopting a graduate tax.

"91. At 3:11pm on 11 Oct 2010, sagamix wrote:
"Substitute cynical for silly and yeah, mea maxima culpa." - fubar @ 80

Well let's find out, shall we? Let's you and I just check back to the offending post (55) and see if we can discern any cynicism.

Nope - still looks plain silly, I'm afraid."



Must be cold up there, Saga. And windy.

I refer of course to the incredibly high horse you have climbed upon.

Fubar @ 87

1) You mean people like Bill Gates? I don't know for sure, but I guess his personal taxes to date probably cover any state subsidy he received.

2) Yes, we need jobs for the graduates but as a nation, we are not over-qualified. If anything, there is a skills shortage, not a graduate longage. Better tailored degrees are good, more vocational qualifications likewise. But despite your protestations, you were in fact arguing in favour of making degrees rarer: "if you flood the job market with graduates, then you end up devaluing the qualification." No - we just need to update our notion of what being a graduate means. Go back far enough and most ordinary people left school at twelve. Anyone with secondary education was part of an elite. The same arguments would have applied: universal secondary education devalued the qualification. But I'd rather have a better educated population; it's good for the economy and, of course, the soul.

Looking long term, rather than at tomorrow morning, it's quite reasonable that an ever increasing proportion of young people will benefit from, and be equiped to handle, a tertiary education - by which I mean beyond 18. Open questions as to what types of courses will be most suitable - the mix of pure academic versus more vocational and practical, for example - what sort of places will offer them, and how funded, but our direction of travel should be that way.

Standards always rising, the skills and educational attainment of our population ticking ever upwards. This is progress.

What's key is that merit, not parental means, is the main driver for achievement.

Also let's remember we'll soon all be living beyond 100 and working till about 75 (the age we used to commence the Big Sleep ... if we were lucky). No reason to rush into the suit or overalls, quite the opposite.