Having supported two kids who are not even my own thru Uni, I have some views on this lark, and I get frustrated that when discussing the merit of it, nobody - including opposition politicians - seems to ask the right question.
It is argued that if we didn't pay these fees, the amount currently raised by fees would be lumped on general taxation. @Rob7Lee above made that point.
However that assumes that these fees cover the costs of providing this education. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS REALLY IS THE COST. sorry for shouting...How can it possibly be that the cost of providing a degree at Oxford Poly is the same as at Oxford Uni? What did the Unis do. with all the money when suddenly they started receiving 3 x more revenue than in the previous year? Well Judging by the experience of my niece at Loughborough, they didn't invest in an IT system fit for purpose. The Open University has a far better one, for heavens sake. On the other hand we know where some of the money did go. Straight into the pockets of vice-chancellors and other cronies at the top of the Uni tree. Same old privatized Britain. We put up with prices and costs which make no sense when compared to other countries, and then have a debate about how much tax should pay for it all. Not whether the price is ridiculous in the first place. Same story with HS2. Should we build it or not, what a burden on our taxes. Yes we should build it, but how on earth is it so frigging expensive?
Share the view @PragueAddick having a one fee for all Uni's seems a little mad. I've been to see about 6 Uni's the past year. Some had clearly been investing substantial amounts on theatre's, IT, Library's, accommodation etc and was quite impressive, others didn't look like they'd spent a penny for many many years so god knows where all the money has gone for some of those.
That is a good point you make Prague. But then surely you would also have to then factor in the course ot study? E.g a science degree would cost more to run than an English Lit degree. It would be a minefield. So I can understand the logic of a 1 size fits all approach to an extent.
And another point - logically, the best unis would charge the highest rates - that could limit some intillegent kids from poorer backgrounds applying to them
That is a good point you make Prague. But then surely you would also have to then factor in the course ot study? E.g a science degree would cost more to run than an English Lit degree. It would be a minefield. So I can understand the logic of a 1 size fits all approach to an extent.
Which is why a pair of boxers cost the same as a suit, right?
And another point - logically, the best unis would charge the highest rates - that could limit some intillegent kids from poorer backgrounds applying to them
No one is suggesting the best Uni's should charge more, jus that the shit one's should charge less!
That is a good point you make Prague. But then surely you would also have to then factor in the course ot study? E.g a science degree would cost more to run than an English Lit degree. It would be a minefield. So I can understand the logic of a 1 size fits all approach to an extent.
Which is why a pair of boxers cost the same as a suit, right?
And another point - logically, the best unis would charge the highest rates - that could limit some intillegent kids from poorer backgrounds applying to them
No one is suggesting the best Uni's should charge more, jus that the shit one's should charge less!
Exactly. I understand that it is true that some degrees, mainly science, are more cost heavy, and we don't want to discourage kids from choosing them.
The obvious problem is that £9,000 was always set as the maximum, but in fact was adopted by unis as the standard, because nothing stops them. It's the old old story of British privatisation. You get some zealots, usually in the Treasury or similar, who have never actually worked in a real, competitive, private sector job, who think that they have created a market, so the market decides and is "efficient". They actually create a private monopoly (water, railways) or a pseudo market where the main players collude with each other. And the people at the top get very very rich, and then often spend loads of money lobbying govt. to ensure they cement the status quo.
When the fees were trebled to 9k, nobody stopped to ask in detail, how did you get to 9k? And how come if you need 9k, a uni on the Continent like Maastricht can charge around £1,500 to foreign students?. Is Canterbury or Loughborough 4 times better than Maastricht? Prrrrlease...
You can’t blame the Universoties for charging the maximum. It’s the students that are stupid enough to pay £9k a year to study at a crappy institution where there degree will not be worth the paper it’s written on.
These are the students with average A levels that should, probably, get a job at 18 but want the ‘lifestyle experience’ - I.e. a three year pi$$ up. Also, in reality, many of these candidates will never earn enough to repay any of it so why wouldn’t they go?
You can’t blame the Universoties for charging the maximum. It’s the students that are stupid enough to pay £9k a year to study at a crappy institution where there degree will not be worth the paper it’s written on.
These are the students with average A levels that should, probably, get a job at 18 but want the ‘lifestyle experience’ - I.e. a three year pi$$ up. Also, in reality, many of these candidates will never earn enough to repay any of it so why wouldn’t they go?
Don't know why it's so hard to understand that some people want to do something they enjoy irrespective of how much they will earn from it.
As for crappy institution, maybe they didn't get the grades to study somewhere better? Does that mean they shouldn't do the thing they enjoy?
I sort've agree that you can't blame the universities for charging the maximum but you can blame the government for allowing them to charge it and for not ensuring that the money generated is wisely spent.
I'd question the number who go to university as well.
I've all but stopped employing graduates now for most jobs with a few exceptions (actuarial students we still do).
I'd rather take a bright A Level student who at 18 we can employ, train, put through their insurance exams (degree equivalent) that the company pay for and by 21 they are streets ahead of a graduate, have a degree, no student debt and will be a couple of steps up the ladder.
Appreciate university isn't just about the piece of paper at the end but i'd give it a lot of consideration as to what your degree will do for you in the future.
I'd question the number who go to university as well.
I've all but stopped employing graduates now for most jobs with a few exceptions (actuarial students we still do).
I'd rather take a bright A Level student who at 18 we can employ, train, put through their insurance exams (degree equivalent) that the company pay for and by 21 they are streets ahead of a graduate, have a degree, no student debt and will be a couple of steps up the ladder.
Appreciate university isn't just about the piece of paper at the end but i'd give it a lot of consideration as to what your degree will do for you in the future.
But it's a bit sad when success in life is reduced to how quickly you can take steps up "the ladder".
Maybe university can teach you how to pursue an interest which can sustain you through long periods of unemployment and retirement which all young people will probably have to cope with in the future - no matter how far up they manage to climb?
You can’t blame the Universoties for charging the maximum. It’s the students that are stupid enough to pay £9k a year to study at a crappy institution where there degree will not be worth the paper it’s written on.
These are the students with average A levels that should, probably, get a job at 18 but want the ‘lifestyle experience’ - I.e. a three year pi$$ up. Also, in reality, many of these candidates will never earn enough to repay any of it so why wouldn’t they go?
Don't know why it's so hard to understand that some people want to do something they enjoy irrespective of how much they will earn from it.
As for crappy institution, maybe they didn't get the grades to study somewhere better? Does that mean they shouldn't do the thing they enjoy?
I sort've agree that you can't blame the universities for charging the maximum but you can blame the government for allowing them to charge it and for not ensuring that the money generated is wisely spent.
Firstly I do understand that people should be allowed to study what they want to but if they are not exceptional candidates there is a case to be made that they shouldn’t be allowed to have that experience funded by someone else. The idea of university is that society pays for it for the betterment of society, not for an 18 year old with a D and an E to spend three years doing ten hours contact time a week to get a degree in a subject that they have no intention of working in just for the three year ‘experience’.
In answer to your second paragraph, sadly I think the answer is yes. Poor grades at A level (that normally means a lack of commitment and/or effort) should mean that those candidates should get out and start earning a living and pay for themselves, rather than ‘study’ for a further three years when they don’t have a track record of working hard enough on their studies.
The crappy institutions would make the case that it costs them as much to put on a degree course as the better ones. Remember that not only do all the Universities receive Government Funding but the better ones receive investments and sponsorship from corporate bodies and alumni.
I also agree with Rob7Lee is that way too many of each year group go on to University now. There are just not enough employment positions that justify that level of study or the debt that needs to covered from their time studing and, more importantly, the extra three years that they do not earn any money or pay any taxes.
In an ideal world we would all be able to get a degree and have a lovely house and a nice car and all that. In reality, though, someone needs to sweep the streets, collect the bins and flip burgers at McDonalds. None of those jobs are worthless, and they are all necessary - they just don’t need, not can justify, Graduates that have cost £50k in fees, rent and living costs for the three years that they have not been working from 18 to 21.
I'd question the number who go to university as well.
I've all but stopped employing graduates now for most jobs with a few exceptions (actuarial students we still do).
I'd rather take a bright A Level student who at 18 we can employ, train, put through their insurance exams (degree equivalent) that the company pay for and by 21 they are streets ahead of a graduate, have a degree, no student debt and will be a couple of steps up the ladder.
Appreciate university isn't just about the piece of paper at the end but i'd give it a lot of consideration as to what your degree will do for you in the future.
But it's a bit sad when success in life is reduced to how quickly you can take steps up "the ladder".
Maybe university can teach you how to pursue an interest which can sustain you through long periods of unemployment and retirement which all young people will probably have to cope with in the future - no matter how far up they manage to climb?
I get the sentiment, but really, Uni teaches you how to pursue an interest whilst in unemployment and retirement?
My point was from an employers perspective not just the individual, if you want to go to Uni for the reasons you have cited then of course thats everyone's prerogative. I did say "i'd give it a lot of consideration as to what your degree will do for you in the future".
My experience is 99% of people who come into employment either post A Levels or a Degree want to get on, move up the ladder, however you wish to describe it. I was just trying to show there are other ways to do that than University and in many instances the alternative is probably a better way.
I am not sure I agree with @Rob7Lee on this , but I do agree a related point, that the employable quality of graduates has surely gone down. Look at what has happened to the number of 1sts achieved. 20 odd years ago it was 2-3%. Now it is apparently 26%. For heaven's sake. That includes my nephew, who fell off the E&Y graduate training scheme, and has since struggled to kickstart a career. He is very bright, but I can see why he fails interviews. A 1st....
You can’t blame the Universoties for charging the maximum. It’s the students that are stupid enough to pay £9k a year to study at a crappy institution where there degree will not be worth the paper it’s written on.
These are the students with average A levels that should, probably, get a job at 18 but want the ‘lifestyle experience’ - I.e. a three year pi$$ up. Also, in reality, many of these candidates will never earn enough to repay any of it so why wouldn’t they go?
Don't know why it's so hard to understand that some people want to do something they enjoy irrespective of how much they will earn from it.
As for crappy institution, maybe they didn't get the grades to study somewhere better? Does that mean they shouldn't do the thing they enjoy?
I sort've agree that you can't blame the universities for charging the maximum but you can blame the government for allowing them to charge it and for not ensuring that the money generated is wisely spent.
Agree and disagree with this. Uni benefits people and society hugely but indifferent ways. For some it's the degree, skills and earning potential. For others it's soft skills/transferable skills/independence/belonging etc. All bring benefits and society is better off.
What I don't like (probably because I'm personally affected) is that that those who go to uni purely for the enjoyment for it and gone out with a poor degree from a poor uni and have not increased their earning potential should be subsidised for it by the state or by me (through the graduate tax that they are pretending is a student loan - see any of my previous posts on this).
The point is the interest is loaded so as to make it a 'hybrid tax' (official term). So under current interest rates you have to be earning 55k to even cover the monthly interest. So all the time your studying plus for the first few (10) years of work the total sum is just growing. With compound interest the amount owed could easily be triple that which you initially owed.
So at the end of the 30 years you could still 'owe' something but have actually paid off considerably more than you borrowed. Money saving expert ran some scenarios and one of them ended up paying 7 times what they initially borrowed.
You're starting that as a fact, but I can only see it as a suggestion, as part of a scenario where interest is no longer charged.
Take me for an example. My fees were 9k a year. I worked hard throughout sixthform, and my time at uni, including working full time in my summer's so that I did not need to borrow any more than I had to. So I borrowed 27k for fees and 3k in maintenance over the course. The rest I self funded with not a penny from my parents or anyone else.
So 30k debt. 20k less than the average will be for those starting uni this year.
Except it wasn't 30k. By the time I'd graduated the interest had pushed it to 35k. I got onto a good graduate job earning well in London. Right at the top end for someone doing what I do at this level. It'll still take me 10 years to get the the point where I am earning enough to actually cover the interest monthly let alone actually reducing the balance. By which point I could owe them nearly 80k depending on RPI.
Does anyone think that is good, fair or logical?
I'm okay with it as I've accepted that it's a graduate tax not a loan and thatvill never pay it off barring a huge intlheritance from a long lost relative.
My issue is with the government pretending it's a loan when it's not. It's a tax call it that. I also take issue with them letting people who have rich parents pay the 'fees' upfront and so avoid the tax.
I also have issue with the government using CPI (the lower measure of inflation) for anything they pay out. And RPI (higher) for anything they take in. That's blatant profiteering in the same way that commercial banks do it.
Ive just done some spreadsheet analysis (slow day at work) and 20 years after graduating with good salary growth (better than I'm expecting) I will have paid back nearly 20k but still 'owe' over 105k.
The thing about firsts is that because people pay a lot of money, they expect something for it. Defeats the entire purpose. Equivalent example: me and my boss at the time helped teach in the "LPC" law course at herts uni. A lot of the students were foreign, and basically bankrolled the university because they are charged a lot of money. For that money, they expected to pass. Some of them were shit... My boss gave them low marks for a test. They complained... My boss was basically Larry David's character from curb your enthusiasm. The sparks flew and it was hilarious.
The rules of the game have changed now there are fees. A serious conversation about what uni is and what it should and shouldn't do needs to happen.
I'd question the number who go to university as well.
I've all but stopped employing graduates now for most jobs with a few exceptions (actuarial students we still do).
I'd rather take a bright A Level student who at 18 we can employ, train, put through their insurance exams (degree equivalent) that the company pay for and by 21 they are streets ahead of a graduate, have a degree, no student debt and will be a couple of steps up the ladder.
Appreciate university isn't just about the piece of paper at the end but i'd give it a lot of consideration as to what your degree will do for you in the future.
But it's a bit sad when success in life is reduced to how quickly you can take steps up "the ladder".
Maybe university can teach you how to pursue an interest which can sustain you through long periods of unemployment and retirement which all young people will probably have to cope with in the future - no matter how far up they manage to climb?
what like media studies or humanities ???
I blame Labour for the rise in University & College graduates studying meaningless courses. Tony Blair wanted to get 50% of all school leavers to go onto further education & its lead to a whole generation of lost opportunity for many to learn a decent trade & thus we have had hundreds of thousands of EU nationals coming over here to work as plumbers etc.
I'd question the number who go to university as well.
I've all but stopped employing graduates now for most jobs with a few exceptions (actuarial students we still do).
I'd rather take a bright A Level student who at 18 we can employ, train, put through their insurance exams (degree equivalent) that the company pay for and by 21 they are streets ahead of a graduate, have a degree, no student debt and will be a couple of steps up the ladder.
Appreciate university isn't just about the piece of paper at the end but i'd give it a lot of consideration as to what your degree will do for you in the future.
But it's a bit sad when success in life is reduced to how quickly you can take steps up "the ladder".
Maybe university can teach you how to pursue an interest which can sustain you through long periods of unemployment and retirement which all young people will probably have to cope with in the future - no matter how far up they manage to climb?
what like media studies or humanities ???
I blame Labour for the rise in University & College graduates studying meaningless courses. Tony Blair wanted to get 50% of all school leavers to go onto further education & its lead to a whole generation of lost opportunity for many to learn a decent trade & thus we have had hundreds of thousands of EU nationals coming over here to work as plumbers etc.
Also helped them disguise the unemployment rate.
My niece's course would fall into that category (although 'humanities', a word you clearly don't understand, covers probably 40% of all courses). Had I not offered to underwrite her financially, it seems doubtful that she would have taken up the opportunity.
I am confident that as a result of doing so, she will make a greater overall contribution to society than any of the many Independent Financial Advisers I have met. Sadly this won't be reflected in her relative financial status, but this does not seem to unduly worry her.
I'd question the number who go to university as well.
I've all but stopped employing graduates now for most jobs with a few exceptions (actuarial students we still do).
I'd rather take a bright A Level student who at 18 we can employ, train, put through their insurance exams (degree equivalent) that the company pay for and by 21 they are streets ahead of a graduate, have a degree, no student debt and will be a couple of steps up the ladder.
Appreciate university isn't just about the piece of paper at the end but i'd give it a lot of consideration as to what your degree will do for you in the future.
But it's a bit sad when success in life is reduced to how quickly you can take steps up "the ladder".
Maybe university can teach you how to pursue an interest which can sustain you through long periods of unemployment and retirement which all young people will probably have to cope with in the future - no matter how far up they manage to climb?
what like media studies or humanities ???
I blame Labour for the rise in University & College graduates studying meaningless courses. Tony Blair wanted to get 50% of all school leavers to go onto further education & its lead to a whole generation of lost opportunity for many to learn a decent trade & thus we have had hundreds of thousands of EU nationals coming over here to work as plumbers etc.
Also helped them disguise the unemployment rate.
My niece's course would fall into that category (although 'humanities', a word you clearly don't understand, covers probably 40% of all courses). Had I not offered to underwrite her financially, it seems doubtful that she would have taken up the opportunity.
I am confident that as a result of doing so, she will make a greater overall contribution to society than any of the many Independent Financial Advisers I have met. Sadly this won't be reflected in her relative financial status, but this does not seem to unduly worry her.
But will she pay as much tax as they do? Also many IFAs didn’t go to University so they haven’t even benefitted from the three year education and will have done their training ‘on the job’. However I’m sure @golfaddick will be much able to make a case the all these IFAs that are making no contribution to society than I could.
I left school at 16, 3 days after taking my final O level in the June & started work immediately. Not been out of work since. Paid tax all my life & so get wound up when students moan that they have to pay back the money the borrowed to sit around for 4 years learning something that they are probably not going to use or need when they finally decide to join the rat race. Studying to be a doctor or a lawyer is both practical & highly comendable - a "degree" in media studies isnt imo.
I left school at 16, 3 days after taking my final O level in the June & started work immediately. Not been out of work since. Paid tax all my life & so get wound up when students moan that they have to pay back the money the borrowed to sit around for 4 years learning something that they are probably not going to use or need when they finally decide to join the rat race. Studying to be a doctor or a lawyer is both practical & highly comendable - a "degree" in media studies isnt imo.
Got any clients who are in the marketing or advertising business? If so, maybe politely enquire about their degree quals.
It's been said loads of times that a Uni degree is about much more than the narrow functional topics. I did a business studies degree, sponsored by the company who then took me on as a graduate who already knew a lot about the company's biz at the start. Quite a lot of my degree was "humanities" based btw, but you can't get much more purpose built for a productive career in business. Nevertheless my first boss in marketing told me that overall a degree was evidence of a mind that has been trained, and the actual subject is of far less importance. He had a degree in chemistry. He was a better marketeer than me, and a bloody good bloke too. Since then, I've seen plenty of evidence that he is right. Type of degree, not a differentiator. Degree vs no degree, big differentiator.
Having supported two kids who are not even my own thru Uni, I have some views on this lark, and I get frustrated that when discussing the merit of it, nobody - including opposition politicians - seems to ask the right question.
It is argued that if we didn't pay these fees, the amount currently raised by fees would be lumped on general taxation. @Rob7Lee above made that point.
However that assumes that these fees cover the costs of providing this education. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS REALLY IS THE COST. sorry for shouting...How can it possibly be that the cost of providing a degree at Oxford Poly is the same as at Oxford Uni? What did the Unis do. with all the money when suddenly they started receiving 3 x more revenue than in the previous year? Well Judging by the experience of my niece at Loughborough, they didn't invest in an IT system fit for purpose. The Open University has a far better one, for heavens sake. On the other hand we know where some of the money did go. Straight into the pockets of vice-chancellors and other cronies at the top of the Uni tree. Same old privatized Britain. We put up with prices and costs which make no sense when compared to other countries, and then have a debate about how much tax should pay for it all. Not whether the price is ridiculous in the first place. Same story with HS2. Should we build it or not, what a burden on our taxes. Yes we should build it, but how on earth is it so frigging expensive?
There, I feel better now...
There's a massive misconception in this post, which is that unis were suddenly rich as a result of these fees. They get no more money than they ever did and possibly less, because of the cuts to their funding from government.
Just for info, Oxford and Cambridge both claim that their average undergraduate costs £18k a year to teach and that they subsidise the other half.
I left school at 16, 3 days after taking my final O level in the June & started work immediately. Not been out of work since. Paid tax all my life & so get wound up when students moan that they have to pay back the money the borrowed to sit around for 4 years learning something that they are probably not going to use or need when they finally decide to join the rat race. Studying to be a doctor or a lawyer is both practical & highly comendable - a "degree" in media studies isnt imo.
Got any clients who are in the marketing or advertising business? If so, maybe politely enquire about their degree quals.
It's been said loads of times that a Uni degree is about much more than the narrow functional topics. I did a business studies degree, sponsored by the company who then took me on as a graduate who already knew a lot about the company's biz at the start. Quite a lot of my degree was "humanities" based btw, but you can't get much more purpose built for a productive career in business. Nevertheless my first boss in marketing told me that overall a degree was evidence of a mind that has been trained, and the actual subject is of far less importance. He had a degree in chemistry. He was a better marketeer than me, and a bloody good bloke too. Since then, I've seen plenty of evidence that he is right. Type of degree, not a differentiator. Degree vs no degree, big differentiator.
Prague, I'm not disagreeing with you but just for reference how old, on average, are the graduates that you talk about being better for having gone to University, opposed to not going? Also would you suggest that a graduate of University of Derby (ranked =90th in the UK and not in the top 800 worldwide) that has two 'E's at A Level and 4 'C's at GCSE level is a better candidate than someone that left school at 18 (with much better grades) and three years work experience?
I only ask as there was a time when all graduates were top performers right from joining senior school so the degree itself wasn't evidence of the ability of the individual but the outcome. If 50% of each year group are going to go to university does that mean that half of the population are going to automatically going to be the same as you and your Chemistry graduate mentor? I seriously doubt it but I'd be interested to read your thoughts on it.
I left school at 16, 3 days after taking my final O level in the June & started work immediately. Not been out of work since. Paid tax all my life & so get wound up when students moan that they have to pay back the money the borrowed to sit around for 4 years learning something that they are probably not going to use or need when they finally decide to join the rat race. Studying to be a doctor or a lawyer is both practical & highly comendable - a "degree" in media studies isnt imo.
When you left school the job market was far more accessible to young people whereas nowadays for most jobs above a minimum wage it is hopeless for a young person to get on the career ladder without at least a degree as a minimum. Yes there are exceptions and yes some firms now have their own training schemes that bypass the university process but these are also extremely competitive to get into.
Look on any job site for entry level professional roles. There will be hundreds of applications for a single role and they will all normally require the applicant to state they have a degree or equivalent as a minimum.
I left school at 16, 3 days after taking my final O level in the June & started work immediately. Not been out of work since. Paid tax all my life & so get wound up when students moan that they have to pay back the money the borrowed to sit around for 4 years learning something that they are probably not going to use or need when they finally decide to join the rat race. Studying to be a doctor or a lawyer is both practical & highly comendable - a "degree" in media studies isnt imo.
When you left school the job market was far more accessible to young people whereas nowadays for most jobs above a minimum wage it is hopeless for a young person to get on the career ladder without at least a degree as a minimum. Yes there are exceptions and yes some firms now have their own training schemes that bypass the university process but these are also extremely competitive to get into.
Look on any job site for entry level professional roles. There will be hundreds of applications for a single role and they will all normally require the applicant to state they have a degree or equivalent as a minimum.
Is this because a degree is the be all and end all or is it that, with 50% of the population being encouraged to get one, there is a question why an entry level professional role would be suitable to a candidate that doesn't have one?
At the risk of being controversial, if the top half go then does that mean that those that don't are in the bottom half? Does any company HR team aspire to employ a below average candidate?
I left school at 16, 3 days after taking my final O level in the June & started work immediately. Not been out of work since. Paid tax all my life & so get wound up when students moan that they have to pay back the money the borrowed to sit around for 4 years learning something that they are probably not going to use or need when they finally decide to join the rat race. Studying to be a doctor or a lawyer is both practical & highly comendable - a "degree" in media studies isnt imo.
Got any clients who are in the marketing or advertising business? If so, maybe politely enquire about their degree quals.
It's been said loads of times that a Uni degree is about much more than the narrow functional topics. I did a business studies degree, sponsored by the company who then took me on as a graduate who already knew a lot about the company's biz at the start. Quite a lot of my degree was "humanities" based btw, but you can't get much more purpose built for a productive career in business. Nevertheless my first boss in marketing told me that overall a degree was evidence of a mind that has been trained, and the actual subject is of far less importance. He had a degree in chemistry. He was a better marketeer than me, and a bloody good bloke too. Since then, I've seen plenty of evidence that he is right. Type of degree, not a differentiator. Degree vs no degree, big differentiator.
Prague, I'm not disagreeing with you but just for reference how old, on average, are the graduates that you talk about being better for having gone to University, opposed to not going? Also would you suggest that a graduate of University of Derby (ranked =90th in the UK and not in the top 800 worldwide) that has two 'E's at A Level and 4 'C's at GCSE level is a better candidate than someone that left school at 18 (with much better grades) and three years work experience?
I only ask as there was a time when all graduates were top performers right from joining senior school so the degree itself wasn't evidence of the ability of the individual but the outcome. If 50% of each year group are going to go to university does that mean that half of the population are going to automatically going to be the same as you and your Chemistry graduate mentor? I seriously doubt it but I'd be interested to read your thoughts on it.
I understand your question. Overall I am looking back over 38 years since he told me that, (gulp), of which the most recent 24 of those years are in a country outside the UK (double gulp) - but in most of those 24 more recent years I am actually assessing people's skills on almost a daily basis (its my work). While there are always exceptions, in the vast majority of cases those with degrees exhibit a better grasp of strategic marketing and business issues, because they know how to address a business issue from multiple angles, and weigh up the best solution. They are also generally more likely to exhibit a rounded view of their overall lives, and their individual role in their society. In this relatively meritocratic field of business there are non-graduates who have done very well for themselves but they tend to be wheeler dealers rather than thinkers, and can be problematic as bosses or team leaders.
As you have doubtless spotted, I'm not in a position to assess whether the greater number of graduates in the UK in the last 20 plus years has diluted that difference. It might have done to some extent. As I wrote earlier, I am uneasy that my nephew is one of 26%, rather than 2%, who got a first. On the other hand it is surely interesting that I found the same differences between grad and non grads in an entirely different country.
I left school at 16, 3 days after taking my final O level in the June & started work immediately. Not been out of work since. Paid tax all my life & so get wound up when students moan that they have to pay back the money the borrowed to sit around for 4 years learning something that they are probably not going to use or need when they finally decide to join the rat race. Studying to be a doctor or a lawyer is both practical & highly comendable - a "degree" in media studies isnt imo.
When you left school the job market was far more accessible to young people whereas nowadays for most jobs above a minimum wage it is hopeless for a young person to get on the career ladder without at least a degree as a minimum. Yes there are exceptions and yes some firms now have their own training schemes that bypass the university process but these are also extremely competitive to get into.
Look on any job site for entry level professional roles. There will be hundreds of applications for a single role and they will all normally require the applicant to state they have a degree or equivalent as a minimum.
Is this because a degree is the be all and end all or is it that, with 50% of the population being encouraged to get one, there is a question why an entry level professional role would be suitable to a candidate that doesn't have one?
At the risk of being controversial, if the top half go then does that mean that those that don't are in the bottom half? Does any company HR team aspire to employ a below average candidate?
I'm not saying it is right but those are the rules of the game.
I imagine many of those who do not go to university go on to have far better careers in vocations that do not require a degree. Why the government insisted and still insists that half of young people should have a degree is beyond me. But to recruiters it serves as a useful gatekeeping exercise, even though having a degree is by no means a guarantee the candidate isn't a total shit-for-brains.
We are a services based economy so there is a higher demand for qualified capable people in entry level roles but we now have a situation where you have dozens of equally competent candidates in their twenties competing for a role whilst we have sectors begging for more candidates who have to rely on skilled migrants because young people do not lean toward those sectors.
The question of are fees fair cannot really be addressed without also considering the fact we live with a system where non-degree holders without a decent vocational qualification are severely at a disadvantage.
Having supported two kids who are not even my own thru Uni, I have some views on this lark, and I get frustrated that when discussing the merit of it, nobody - including opposition politicians - seems to ask the right question.
It is argued that if we didn't pay these fees, the amount currently raised by fees would be lumped on general taxation. @Rob7Lee above made that point.
However that assumes that these fees cover the costs of providing this education. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS REALLY IS THE COST. sorry for shouting...How can it possibly be that the cost of providing a degree at Oxford Poly is the same as at Oxford Uni? What did the Unis do. with all the money when suddenly they started receiving 3 x more revenue than in the previous year? Well Judging by the experience of my niece at Loughborough, they didn't invest in an IT system fit for purpose. The Open University has a far better one, for heavens sake. On the other hand we know where some of the money did go. Straight into the pockets of vice-chancellors and other cronies at the top of the Uni tree. Same old privatized Britain. We put up with prices and costs which make no sense when compared to other countries, and then have a debate about how much tax should pay for it all. Not whether the price is ridiculous in the first place. Same story with HS2. Should we build it or not, what a burden on our taxes. Yes we should build it, but how on earth is it so frigging expensive?
There, I feel better now...
There's a massive misconception in this post, which is that unis were suddenly rich as a result of these fees. They get no more money than they ever did and possibly less, because of the cuts to their funding from government.
Just for info, Oxford and Cambridge both claim that their average undergraduate costs £18k a year to teach and that they subsidise the other half.
I have heard this defence before, and in principle, you would suppose that it must be true, because it would fit with the government idealogy. But have you ever seen an authoritative study which proves that this is true?
So your understanding is, that when the 3k fee level came in, the govt. had cut x millions from the education budget, and told the unis that they would make up the shortfall by being allowed to charge 3k for fees? And then, very pleased with the result, they cut x millions x2 more out, and told the unis they can charge 9k?
There is a snag with that nice simple scenario. I don't recall about the first 3k fee level, but one of the scandals of the 9k is, it is supposed to be a maximum.That implies that the govt. didn't really have such a detailed understanding of uni cost bases. It was a bit finger in the air, and hey; lets create a market. It also doesn't address my other point, that unis across Europe seem to have much lower cost bases because they can charge much lower fees than 9k even for foreign students. That's my main point. In Britain we never seem to start from the right place which is, why is something so sodding expensive in the first place ? We just seem to shrug our shoulders and then conduct the usual tribal left/right war about who is going to pay this exorbitant cost.
After seeing my lad just finish his degree last summer (business/professional football) And can't get a decent job over minimum wage And to be fair he knuckled down worked hard I do have to question is it all worth it All the sacrifices made during that time Had to sell the Lexus and swap for a Volvo estate and no exotic holidays only Greece every year!!
Comments
It is argued that if we didn't pay these fees, the amount currently raised by fees would be lumped on general taxation. @Rob7Lee above made that point.
However that assumes that these fees cover the costs of providing this education. IT HAS NEVER BEEN DEMONSTRATED THAT THIS REALLY IS THE COST. sorry for shouting...How can it possibly be that the cost of providing a degree at Oxford Poly is the same as at Oxford Uni? What did the Unis do. with all the money when suddenly they started receiving 3 x more revenue than in the previous year? Well Judging by the experience of my niece at Loughborough, they didn't invest in an IT system fit for purpose. The Open University has a far better one, for heavens sake. On the other hand we know where some of the money did go. Straight into the pockets of vice-chancellors and other cronies at the top of the Uni tree. Same old privatized Britain. We put up with prices and costs which make no sense when compared to other countries, and then have a debate about how much tax should pay for it all. Not whether the price is ridiculous in the first place. Same story with HS2. Should we build it or not, what a burden on our taxes. Yes we should build it, but how on earth is it so frigging expensive?
There, I feel better now...
The obvious problem is that £9,000 was always set as the maximum, but in fact was adopted by unis as the standard, because nothing stops them. It's the old old story of British privatisation. You get some zealots, usually in the Treasury or similar, who have never actually worked in a real, competitive, private sector job, who think that they have created a market, so the market decides and is "efficient". They actually create a private monopoly (water, railways) or a pseudo market where the main players collude with each other. And the people at the top get very very rich, and then often spend loads of money lobbying govt. to ensure they cement the status quo.
When the fees were trebled to 9k, nobody stopped to ask in detail, how did you get to 9k? And how come if you need 9k, a uni on the Continent like Maastricht can charge around £1,500 to foreign students?. Is Canterbury or Loughborough 4 times better than Maastricht? Prrrrlease...
These are the students with average A levels that should, probably, get a job at 18 but want the ‘lifestyle experience’ - I.e. a three year pi$$ up. Also, in reality, many of these candidates will never earn enough to repay any of it so why wouldn’t they go?
As for crappy institution, maybe they didn't get the grades to study somewhere better? Does that mean they shouldn't do the thing they enjoy?
I sort've agree that you can't blame the universities for charging the maximum but you can blame the government for allowing them to charge it and for not ensuring that the money generated is wisely spent.
I've all but stopped employing graduates now for most jobs with a few exceptions (actuarial students we still do).
I'd rather take a bright A Level student who at 18 we can employ, train, put through their insurance exams (degree equivalent) that the company pay for and by 21 they are streets ahead of a graduate, have a degree, no student debt and will be a couple of steps up the ladder.
Appreciate university isn't just about the piece of paper at the end but i'd give it a lot of consideration as to what your degree will do for you in the future.
Maybe university can teach you how to pursue an interest which can sustain you through long periods of unemployment and retirement which all young people will probably have to cope with in the future - no matter how far up they manage to climb?
In answer to your second paragraph, sadly I think the answer is yes. Poor grades at A level (that normally means a lack of commitment and/or effort) should mean that those candidates should get out and start earning a living and pay for themselves, rather than ‘study’ for a further three years when they don’t have a track record of working hard enough on their studies.
The crappy institutions would make the case that it costs them as much to put on a degree course as the better ones. Remember that not only do all the Universities receive Government Funding but the better ones receive investments and sponsorship from corporate bodies and alumni.
I also agree with Rob7Lee is that way too many of each year group go on to University now. There are just not enough employment positions that justify that level of study or the debt that needs to covered from their time studing and, more importantly, the extra three years that they do not earn any money or pay any taxes.
In an ideal world we would all be able to get a degree and have a lovely house and a nice car and all that. In reality, though, someone needs to sweep the streets, collect the bins and flip burgers at McDonalds. None of those jobs are worthless, and they are all necessary - they just don’t need, not can justify, Graduates that have cost £50k in fees, rent and living costs for the three years that they have not been working from 18 to 21.
My point was from an employers perspective not just the individual, if you want to go to Uni for the reasons you have cited then of course thats everyone's prerogative. I did say "i'd give it a lot of consideration as to what your degree will do for you in the future".
My experience is 99% of people who come into employment either post A Levels or a Degree want to get on, move up the ladder, however you wish to describe it. I was just trying to show there are other ways to do that than University and in many instances the alternative is probably a better way.
What I don't like (probably because I'm personally affected) is that that those who go to uni purely for the enjoyment for it and gone out with a poor degree from a poor uni and have not increased their earning potential should be subsidised for it by the state or by me (through the graduate tax that they are pretending is a student loan - see any of my previous posts on this).
The rules of the game have changed now there are fees. A serious conversation about what uni is and what it should and shouldn't do needs to happen.
I blame Labour for the rise in University & College graduates studying meaningless courses. Tony Blair wanted to get 50% of all school leavers to go onto further education & its lead to a whole generation of lost opportunity for many to learn a decent trade & thus we have had hundreds of thousands of EU nationals coming over here to work as plumbers etc.
Also helped them disguise the unemployment rate.
I am confident that as a result of doing so, she will make a greater overall contribution to society than any of the many Independent Financial Advisers I have met. Sadly this won't be reflected in her relative financial status, but this does not seem to unduly worry her.
It's been said loads of times that a Uni degree is about much more than the narrow functional topics. I did a business studies degree, sponsored by the company who then took me on as a graduate who already knew a lot about the company's biz at the start. Quite a lot of my degree was "humanities" based btw, but you can't get much more purpose built for a productive career in business. Nevertheless my first boss in marketing told me that overall a degree was evidence of a mind that has been trained, and the actual subject is of far less importance. He had a degree in chemistry. He was a better marketeer than me, and a bloody good bloke too. Since then, I've seen plenty of evidence that he is right. Type of degree, not a differentiator. Degree vs no degree, big differentiator.
Just for info, Oxford and Cambridge both claim that their average undergraduate costs £18k a year to teach and that they subsidise the other half.
I only ask as there was a time when all graduates were top performers right from joining senior school so the degree itself wasn't evidence of the ability of the individual but the outcome. If 50% of each year group are going to go to university does that mean that half of the population are going to automatically going to be the same as you and your Chemistry graduate mentor? I seriously doubt it but I'd be interested to read your thoughts on it.
Look on any job site for entry level professional roles. There will be hundreds of applications for a single role and they will all normally require the applicant to state they have a degree or equivalent as a minimum.
At the risk of being controversial, if the top half go then does that mean that those that don't are in the bottom half? Does any company HR team aspire to employ a below average candidate?
As you have doubtless spotted, I'm not in a position to assess whether the greater number of graduates in the UK in the last 20 plus years has diluted that difference. It might have done to some extent. As I wrote earlier, I am uneasy that my nephew is one of 26%, rather than 2%, who got a first. On the other hand it is surely interesting that I found the same differences between grad and non grads in an entirely different country.
I imagine many of those who do not go to university go on to have far better careers in vocations that do not require a degree. Why the government insisted and still insists that half of young people should have a degree is beyond me. But to recruiters it serves as a useful gatekeeping exercise, even though having a degree is by no means a guarantee the candidate isn't a total shit-for-brains.
We are a services based economy so there is a higher demand for qualified capable people in entry level roles but we now have a situation where you have dozens of equally competent candidates in their twenties competing for a role whilst we have sectors begging for more candidates who have to rely on skilled migrants because young people do not lean toward those sectors.
The question of are fees fair cannot really be addressed without also considering the fact we live with a system where non-degree holders without a decent vocational qualification are severely at a disadvantage.
So your understanding is, that when the 3k fee level came in, the govt. had cut x millions from the education budget, and told the unis that they would make up the shortfall by being allowed to charge 3k for fees? And then, very pleased with the result, they cut x millions x2 more out, and told the unis they can charge 9k?
There is a snag with that nice simple scenario. I don't recall about the first 3k fee level, but one of the scandals of the 9k is, it is supposed to be a maximum.That implies that the govt. didn't really have such a detailed understanding of uni cost bases. It was a bit finger in the air, and hey; lets create a market. It also doesn't address my other point, that unis across Europe seem to have much lower cost bases because they can charge much lower fees than 9k even for foreign students. That's my main point. In Britain we never seem to start from the right place which is, why is something so sodding expensive in the first place ? We just seem to shrug our shoulders and then conduct the usual tribal left/right war about who is going to pay this exorbitant cost.
And can't get a decent job over minimum wage
And to be fair he knuckled down worked hard
I do have to question is it all worth it
All the sacrifices made during that time
Had to sell the Lexus and swap for a Volvo estate and no exotic holidays only Greece every year!!