Just curious, as I read discussions about increased fees and fee capping, and whether or not all courses and/or all universities should cost the same.

Japan privatized the national universities 4 years ago, and they now charge about 4,300 GBP for the first year...with private universities charging at least an additional 2,500GBP for that first year, up to a total of 10,000GBP to 15,000GBP for first-year courses in expensive subjects such medicine, engineering... or private conservatoires and music colleges.

That means that even the cheapest option costs as much as an average private school.

IF the UK heads the same way, how would you feel? Fair enough, since university education is an option, and one which should provide dividends in future; or a bad move which will rob the country of skills and talent in future?

Just curious!

I'll be frank. University in the UK or rather "Uni" as it is termed by teenagers, has become something of a fashionable thing to do these days, rather than serve a purpose in its truest sense. It's just another thing to list on your CV and to be honest doesn't mean as much as it used to.

The education system here fails miserably at the age of 14, when children are forced into choosing subjects for GCSE exams. It's been like that for several decades, but at 14 how many children really know what they will want to do with the rest of their lives? Or, put it another way, some of the most exciting 40 year olds I know still don't know what they want to do with their lives!

Our university system - which is made up of universities in the true sense and those which were once 'polys' (polytechnic colleges) for practical subjects - is over subscribed with students wanting to study mainly media based subjects, or IT, for which the job market is saturated to the point that most of these graduates are unlikely to ever get a job in their chosen industry.

Mickey Mouse courses abound, by that I mean subjects that are not really degree material, they should really be studied as an apprenticeship or a 'City and Guilds' practical experience/job-based training programme. The universities running these courses do tend to be the former polys.

UK children have developed a serious aversion to subjects such as maths, engineering and science, especially physics. These subjects are difficult, requiring the use of real brain power to think logically and solve problems, and they aren't considered 'cool' subjects either. As a result there has been an upsurge in demand for people already trained and qualified in maths, engineering and sciences to go out into schools, talking to children, getting them interested in science by using demonstrations that show science is around us all of the time. If we are to solve the energy crisis, feed an ever growing human population, stop global warming, or prevent the decimation of the rainforests etc. then graduates in relevant sciences are going to be needed - a degree in Media Studies with History and Drama is not going to save the human race from its own ignorance.

Far from high fees creating a shortage of students, it might encourage those who really want to be there to study something worthwhile. Talented students who come from less well off backgrounds should be given ample access to apply for funding, especially if they going to study sciences or maths, but I'm sure higher fees would deter those who treat uni as a bit of a doss and then drop out half way through the course.

Meh. You might have picked one of my favourite soap box topics here. Don't say I didn't warn you.

Even tuition fees of £3k per year, deferred until you are earning was enough to put most of my school friends off university. They had been brought up (in many cases, I generalise, obviously) to feel that being in debt was wrong.

Similarly, I can't help but feel resentful knowing my sister left uni with debts of £12-15k. I'll graduate with a debt two or three times that amount: The difference pre and post tuition fees is vast.

I wouldn't mind so much if we seemed to get good value for money, but even on an Engineering degree, with more lecturers than most students, our money gets us about 12 hours a week of lectures, computer classes, labs and so on, for 20 weeks per year. Considering how little contact you get with lecturers in these, I do sometimes wonder if I could learn my way around the subject far more effective sat at home with a pile of books... Of course, these factors vary hugely from course to course, and between different universities. Next semester I can expect about 1 hour of contact time per week!

I also wouldn't mind if the amount given / permitted to borrow for maintenance purposes was actually enough to live off, but to be honest, you are lucky if it covers the rent. Oddly enough, my parents don't really see why they should be expected by the government to cover my living expenses now that I'm post-18, legally an adult etc. I don't see why they should either: I'd much prefer to be financially independant. This situation leaves us trying to live off £1k a year from overdrafts (mercifully the banks provide these 'loans' interest free... unlike the student loans company!).

All in all, while there is no ideal system, uni is a very expensive thing to do because you don't know what else to do with your life. And you had better make sure you're doing a course that is useful once you graduate. That said, my friends that chose not to go to university are also wondering if they made the right decision: They've tended to find themselves in jobs, rather than careers.

I do somewhat resent the implication that uni means less than it used to etcetc. Or that its fashionable. :S

There's the alternative option of working while studying part-time. Mature students (ie. over 21 years of age) opt for this because they either missed out on the opportunity to go to university - at a time when very few people went on to such an education - or it's the only way they can make ends meet and get the qualifications they want/need. I did my physics degree part time in the evenings while working full-time! I am probably one of the least organised people in existance, but if I managed it, anyone can!

The other option is to study with the Open University by distance learning. Far from it being a university for no hopers or those who were rejected by a campus, it is a way of avoiding debt, paying for your course in manageable chunks, studying in manageable chunks and showing an employer just how dedicated and self-reliant you are. Distance learning probably requires the highest determination, dedication and best time management ever - attributes highly regarded by any employer who's worth working for.

EDIT: An additional bonus of working and studying at the same time, is that your employer will possibly pay your fees for you if the degree is related to the work you do. It's perfectly possible to get a job in your chosen area, at a lower level, and demonstrate your committment to progression through studying part-time. A good employer will favour an enthusiastic applicant with lower qualifications just as much as taking on a graduate.

I'm not going to deny that Mickey Mouse courses exist - I agree there. I don't see, however, how making it difficult for poorer children to go to university is supposed to prevent this. These are clearly two separate issues. Rich kids take Mickey Mouse degrees just as much as poor kids.

I was actually saying that poorer children should be encouraged to attend university by the provision of better state funding, providing they have the ability to be there and by that I mean academic performance as a whole.

Children from all financial backgrounds do take Mickey Mouse degrees, but it begs the question as to whether the degree they are taking is a reflection of the fact that they are simply 'going' to university -because that's what people think they have to do these days - or going on to study with a real purpose in mind. With many, the former does apply. Some will have just applied for a Mickey Mouse degree, but there will also be proportion of applicants who will not get the results they wanted and will go through the clearing process at the last minute just so they can secure a place, on anything, just so they are going to university, even if it means the only course left is tomato packing at the Univeristy from the Back of Beyond.

I was going to say a bit more, but then I don't want it to turn into a full-scale political debate... so I'll just sum up instead.

The only way I think I would be able to accept any more rises in tuition fees is if the Government is willing to pay for it... however, this would require cuts in another field or more taxes. Furthermore, would they be justified? Are they even justified now? I don't think so. Think of the amount of money that all the students of medicine will have racked up by the end of their course, and when they come out, due to the complete fiasco the Government has made of the health service, it does not provide dividends. So I'm not surprised that many have emigrated. But they are already quite sizeable sums of debt already to leave with, and to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if it puts off everybody from going, including all those studying subjects in demand today. Those from sufficiently poor backgrounds would probably get sufficient subsidisation for it not to matter, however, and those that are sufficiently rich can pay for it. Though if the Government were more prudent with what they spent on things in the first place, they'd probably be able to afford for everyone to go.

I also resent the implication that a university degree means less than it used to or is fashionable, but there is an element of truth in it - the status of the average degree is being corrupted diluted by the high amount of cop-out and over-subscribed subjects, which results understandably in cynicism of employers about the value of degrees (and these get the same subsidisation other subjects do). But degrees are clearly not worth the same value to society. The way I see it is that the Government should subsidise the courses that are desperately required heavily, and heavily under-subsidise or not subsidise at all all the 'pointless' courses: this would then sort out the problem of too many useless degrees, increase the impression of the average degree, and we would have no more shortages. And possibly only support courses of a certain standard offered by certain unis, because of course, some unis offer much better and more respectable degrees than others, which is often not reflected. No point in having the 'right' subject if the course isn't up to scratch, because again, this would taint the image of the degree.

And I think this idea of shipping everybody off to uni is absolutely ridiculous. There should be greater encouragement of apprenticeships for those that are more suited to this route, and other alternatives, and not putting everyone through the same route as if they are all compatible. It should be university places to fit the able students, and not setting a target of a zillion university places and trying to find people to fit into them. The influx of all these useless courses and fake universities came after it became the norm for everyone to have a degree - if you didn't, you would probably be deemed a failure - and this is probably down to the Government incentive of trying to get 50% of people or so into university, and indirectly creating this image. Yes, subsidise and encourage those that are able and from a poorer background to go to uni, but don't shove everyone into uni, and don't waste taxpayers' money by using it to fund a Masters in 'How Many Ears Does Mickey Mouse Have?' studies (for anybody, regardless of if they are rich or poor) - put it towards helping out those that are actually willing to take up the subjects you're short on!

Why is there a shortage of scientists? Because the Government doesn't look after them well enough, and there is absolutely no incentive for students to follow up with these subjects if they do take them. They could become a teacher or a lecturer or a scientist, but frankly, just having a passion for the subject is not going to be enough for most - they need at least a reasonably pay too! Whereas being an accountant or banker or whatnot gives a much better pay, hence that's where a significant number go. Those with a sufficient interest in their subject probably emigrate and find much better opportunities in countries abroad where their profession is much better respected (and they are probably not hounded down by our overzealous animal rights protesters, which is a product of our over-PC society). Ultimately, this results in the so-called 'brain drain', leaving a country that falls completely behind in terms of technology, and has no services to offer at all. And with the Government incentive to push everyone into uni, there are no skilled workers left either. And primary resources are of course out of the question. So, what do we export then? Well, we do have a lot of paparazzi. And Jade Goody. Great. That'll save the economy. Yay.

~Wobby~

I know, and I agree that people shouldn't be pressured to do university for the sake of it. I don't think that tuition fees are related in any way though. The situation you're describing is the situation we're already living with - means tested aid from the government - that's what we have now! It hasn't stopped Mickey Mouse courses - in fact they've become more prevalent in recent years.

I just don't see the connection between these courses and fees. I don't think there is one.

Scientists earn an absolute pittance! Most people go into science for the love of it, not the money, but they still have to eat.

In London I remember that most people could only afford to be scientists because their other half had a better paid job. What finally brought it home to me was when, despite gaining an MSc and my experience, I was earning less than my sister who'd gone into nursing with a handful of GCSEs.

I can't remember there ever being a shortage of young scientists. I don't think there is. However, there may appear to be a shortage of experienced scientists for the simple reason that they leave the country or change career.

Steve

Exactly. But that's the problem here... we just can't keep hold of our experienced scientists, either due to them leaving the country for better opportunities (and/or weather and lifestyle!) or converting to a better paid job (scientists can easily become bankers etc.), and there needs to be something done to change that - greater encouragement, support, facilities etc...

~Wobby~

I wonder where one would draw the line at "Mickey Mouse courses".

When I applied to university my Dad asked me whether I didn't want to study "something useful". With that, I think he would have meant law, medicine or economics (which is what he studied).

I've got a degree in neuroscience. In my eyes that is definitely "something useful", clearly some people (like my Dad!) disagree.

I'm going to be a scientist... looks like I have lots of fun to look forward to when I (try to) get a job

Some well argued, well informed posts here (especially AmandaL's).

It is also a problem that you are not allowed to simply take exams, or otherwise demonstrate your knowledge and competence at degree level without first spending years attending the requisite (and expensive) courses. So stuff you have taught yourself, by whatever means, cannot be accredited. This is very unfair.

This is actually one of the attractions of music. Ultimately all that matters is whether you can play or not. And so far as certification goes the diploma/grade exams assess what you can do. They don't oblige you to take a particular course, for a particular length of time, and pay large (and if you already know the stuff unnecessary) fees for the privilege.

I believe it's possible to do that here in Italy. I work with one person who occasionally goes into university to take an exam. He studies by himself and says he'll get his degree in a few more years.

Though I think he's been saying that for the last 5 years!

If I remember rightly, the London University external program is the cheapest way to do that. It's like the O.U. but without the tutor support, materials and assignments etc. I think you just get a book list and study guide. Last time I looked (years ago) you paid to register for a course, but then had to pay extra if you wanted your essays marked!

Steve

I have taught for the OU (up to this year), and for three 'brick' universities. OU courses have excellent materials, and are well supported if students are willing to actually contact their tutor - especially for humanities courses where the contact time at 'brick' universities is typically 3-7 hours a week!

University contact time has always been very low - it's the nature of the beast, since teaching is supposed to take up a maximum of 40% of academics' time - and is probably better at the 'new' universities than the traditional ones. And I'm not sure what constitutes a 'mickey mouse' degree - that sounds a bit like a knee jerk response...is music mickey mouse? Is philosophy (the subject I teach)? If so, why? If not, why not?

My particular grouch is about how many people are encouraged to go to university, and what their expectations are. This is an academic institution, and you are there to study, with other attractions (finding a mate (or several!), living independently, having a lively social life) fringe benefits that you can pursue anywhere. It isn't a finishing school for the middle classes!

If you don't want to pursue serious independent academic study, don't go - and unless you need certain qualifications for your job, I don't believe that should prejudice you in the job market. Given the reduction in employers' trust in university degrees, it probably won't in future (and I'll be out of a job - but hey ho...)

Just my 2p.
nick

We get all our uni fees paid for here, regardless of what background you are from (and you can apply for living grants too) Still, not everyone goes to uni.

Are you off to university soon, Wobby? I remember all the excitement last Autumn with lots of the year 13 forumites getting offers etc, but I don't remember where you are off to in the end. All I remember is that you wanted to read Chemistry. Hope you won't end up in banking!

*Saddened*

It would appear that degrees are going the same way as GCSE's. Something C.G.O.P's don't really understand and certainly don't appreciate or value. Starting to wondering why I'm bothering to spend 5 years at university judging by some of the posts here... oh yes, I remember: Because its a pre-requisite to becoming a chartered engineer!

Still, I suppose I had better get back to my programming, seeing as I'm working all weekend to keep inside my overdraft limit. Of course you can work while you studying your degree: But I really don't want to end up in the position my sister did, where she got a 2.1 instead of a 1st class degree because she was working 20 hours a week to earn sufficient to stay there. Still I fear I'm starting to slide into that trap.

Tuition fees do put off poorer students, because they are far less likely to feel comfortable about borrowing £7-8k per year to go to university. Students from second or third uni-attending generations, with a slightly better understanding of the system, seem to be happier to grit their teeth and watch the debts mount up.

I find both of these posts extremely blinkered and somewhat insulting. It makes me feel like I shouldn't even bother. Thanks very much.

But the courses you are all mentioning are decent courses and degrees, and this deserves recognition - each degree is unique and should be treated differently. The problem is that there are so many newly-turned universities that are literally throwing out degrees to anybody that it is reducing the credibility of the average degree. I don't think increasing tuition fees any further will do any good apart from deter everybody however...


Haha, very funny!

I guess I should be more prudent with what I type here in case my funding gets cut! We shall have to see how things turn out later on whether I am tempted by the money that being a banker could provide - especially with the huge stack of debts that I'll be stuck with after 4 years! Another reason not to make tuition fees too high! But I might be more of the emigrating type - see if I can pick up a new language, and possibly pick up a bit of sun! It really depends on what the situation is like when I come out!

~Wobby~

From the BBC News website:

"The tables show that nationally 46.7% of pupils at the end of their compulsory education attained the equivalent of a grade C or above in five GCSEs including English and maths."
(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/7179479.stm)


So, the government has a 50% participation target for higher education, but only 46.7% of students meet the GCSE benchmark.
I can't help thinking there's a bit of a problem here...

Yet more dumbing down...

I was speaking with a friend earlier this week. He has signed on to do a BA in Sport. His course will, apparently, give him a pass degree in two years with only two days a week "study" allowing him to continue with full-time work in the meanwhile, and obtain an honours degree after three years.

I don't want to come across as a total grumbler but, if this is correct, we're going the same way as USA degrees where, generally, an MA in the States is worth no more (and, sometimes, rather less) than a BA in this country. Not fair on those who have done it the "proper" way....

I don't think it actually reduces the credibility of degrees as a whole. They may be given the same level and number of points on the qualifications framework regardless of university or subject but anyone knows that a BA from Glasgow Caley doesn't have the same status as a degree from Glasgow or St Andrew's. After all we don't look at degrees from Harvard, Yale or Brown as being devalued or less credible just because America has dozens of other 'universities' which pump out people with various letters appended.



Well I won't try to speak up for the English system, but in Scotland we still use the four year honours degree.

It's always worth being cautious about American university qualifications, especially the kind which you get emails about telling you to send them £X and they'll give you a degree with no additional effort. Of course some of the Ancient universities still award MAs as a first degree here, while Oxford and Cambridge just give you an MA two years after graduating with a BA.

It's always worth being cautious about American university qualifications, especially the kind which you get emails about telling you to send them �X and they'll give you a degree with no additional effort.

oh, really ? I would never have imagined !

Oh, I had completely forgotten that some people don't actually comprehend levity unless it's surrounded by smilies for them to look at. To think some people are complaining about universities dumbing down, perhaps the general populace should be examined first.

[withrolledeyes]If smilies are beneath you, you could always use psuedo-html! [/withrolledeyes]

I think smilies come across as a bit less pretentious though.

My understanding is that with a 2.1 as an undergraduate of Oxbridge, Oxbridge automatically offer you an MA for an additional fee. Anyone care to enlighten me further, please?



I nearly forgot that some people unfortunately don't have a sense of humour until I read your post....!

Somehow writers since before Chaucer and indeed ordinary people have been writing letters etc to communicate through the written medium without feeling the necessity to either draw pictures in for every emotion/attitude or specifically adding bracketed words indicating an emotion or other attitude. (And I do use smilies occasionally, just far less than some seem to consider necessary).

If people are going to try doing down universities/degrees then it's legitimate to question the kind of society which would allow the very degradation they're protesting about. I'd say for example that using little smiley faces when somehow or other we've been able to communicate through writing for centuries without them is a far clearer sign of dumbing down than the vast majority of degrees awarded to people by British universities. If I'd added /:P/:o or any one of the dozen or so other ones this probably wouldn't have came up, but why should it be deemed necessary in discussing a serious issue to do so when they add no particular aesthetic value and no additional meaning beyond that already expressed in the English language? Unless of course we're expected to assume that the only way people will fully comprehend what has been written is if they've got a picture alongside .



Not automatically, the wikipedia entry on it reveals it's actually a longer period than I thought (6-7 years depending on the whether we're talking about the -bridge or the Ox- part), and there may be an additional fee attached but again it varies by circumstance. One I hadn't been aware of though:

"In accordance with the formula of ad eundem gradum recognition that exists between the three universities, a graduate of Oxford, Cambridge or Dublin who is entitled to an MA may be conferred with the equivalent degree at either of the other two universities without further examination.[5][6] The Board of Trinity College, Dublin currently restricts its ad eundem awards to eligible members of the Dublin academic staff, or those who wish to register for a higher degree at Dublin;[7] Cambridge restricts its awards to those "matriculated as a member of the University";[8] Oxford considers applicants who are undertaking a course of study or fulfil some educational role at Oxford, or who have "rendered valuable services to the University or to its members."[9]"

In case you haven't picked up on it I was also highlighting the double standard you seem to be employing (if you want a smilie added to indicate that in future please inform me which one you'd prefer). For example you said "if this is correct, we're going the same way as USA degrees where, generally, an MA in the States is worth no more (and, sometimes, rather less) than a BA in this country. Not fair on those who have done it the "proper" way....". While a situation has existed for centuries where people are given MAs either free or for a nominal fee from two of the most respected universities in the country, and at the Ancient Scottish universities they are awarded as a first degree for some Arts disciplines. Then there is the fact that in Scottish universities we do an extra year, so maybe England and other countries where the 3 year honours is the standard are not doing it in the ""proper" way".

It's always refreshing that when people don't have an argument to make beyond idle ranting or point scoring they resort to attack. Or at least it would be if it didn't happen so often.

Too many people at university? That's a possibility, but I imagine that plenty of people are scared NOT to get some kind of degree. That's certainly the case in Japan - and with theBaby Boom bulge here being much more sharply defined than in most western countries, the universities that popped up to feed the frenzy are now finding the wolf at the door.

A good friend of mine is a freelance journalist...she's a journalist because her parents sent her to a commercial high school and secretarial college instead of normal high school/university, and she literally cannot get a permanent job (outside assembly line/cash register/typist) without one. (In Japan, "permanent" jobs are very different from "non-regular" jobs - the latter may involve the same duties and hours, but carry none of the social welfare benefits, or other legal guards and checks).

One difficulty of raising fees suddenly is that nobody has been used to paying for their near-adult children's education - everybody in Japan (and probably the US) knows that the College Fund gets started at birth, and even if it's impossible to keep up with doubling fees or changing ambitions, at least there's usually some money saved for each child to start their adult life with. People here usually keep household accounts books, and they save hard, but it does help...but that would take a generation or two to become the norm.

I agree with Tamsin's point about higher fees for what looks like less education.

Mad Tom made a point a while back in another thread about taking control of your education if you want to achieve anything. A degree from University X is worth more than a degree from University Y - to your employer, but what it's worth to you is mostly up to yourself.

You did an admirable job of disgusing it, and I think many of us believed humour was beyond your capabilities. But otherwise your arguments were as strong as ever; the fact people use smilies online is certainly a very clear sign of dumbing down and should be addressed immediately.


You get automatically upgraded to an MA at Oxford because the degrees are clearly so much harder than at other universities. People who are good enough to get in and pass deserve a better qualification. Innit.

this probably wouldn't have came up (quote snhs)

no comment

Of course, the irony is, that smilies were actually invented in a university, in order to ease communication!

Second irony is, I find that people tend to get my humour in writing, whether I use them or not! So, erm, might I imply that perhaps where people find that their light-hearted (?!) message is lost, they might wish to consider modification of their own writing style... or resort to smiliage.

And, third irony is, (much as I hate to name-drop... I mean, provide (unnecessary?) supporting arguments for my own views) it seems the esteemed inventor of the smilie, agrees with me on both counts. *suprised*

http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~sef/sefSmiley.htm

The fact that basic comprehension of written English is so poor is rather more concerning, although I suppose for some ignorance is bliss. I think it is actually, or at least a symptom of it, after all it is not the students aspiring and getting into university which is causing the problem it is the nature of the society which allows the problem to begin. There are of course various factors in this, for example the expectation that people won't comprehend a basic sentence without illustrations, government policies/targets and indeed those of previous (particularly Labour) governments etc. But the root of the problem is not with the universities or the students themselves as some seem to think.

No, it is not actually.



To begin with that is one claim of where smilies originate, it doesn't make it authoritative and the author himself accepts that.

Perhaps surprisingly you didn't mention that he "to a large degree" agrees with the view I expressed on it. His primary defence of the practice hinges on 1 in 100 or so being clueless. As I'd far rather direct posts to the 99% that can read than the 1% who need pictures and insult the intellect of the other 99% I think I'll retain my current style of writing.

So let's see ... does this mean that you think it is less insulting to assume that you are always 100% right about every tiny detail of anything you care to post about.

I think a quick search of Scot Fahlman quickly establishes that he is widely acknowledged as the authorative creator of the smilie *sigh*. Additionally, dearest shns, do learn to notice when you're just being teased. Its amusing at first, but quickly becomes depressing when you respond to everything so defensively or personally! I can never find the energy for holding a proper debate with you, so generally I am just being playful...

Anyways, back to (the more interesting topic of) tuition fees?

OMG OMG OMG I was being sarcastic, like duh obviously. How could you not understand it? Oh well, I least I didn't use a smiley to make my meaning clear...

I wondered how long it would be before snhs added a political flavour to the discussion.

As for emoticons and the such, the content of speech is only one of a number of means by which meaning is understood - we listen for things such as tone of voice, facial expression and other non-verbal signs. These can't be readily communicated on an internet discussion forum, so hence the (occasional overuse) of smilies.

Now, please can we return to the subject of university tuition fees?

I once had a Cambridge graduate pretentious enough to tell me it was because students at Cambridge and Oxford worked harder for their degree than anyone else at any other university

Not believing a word of that I went and did a bit of research and discovered the MA thing is in fact a historic throwback. Where you once had to study for 7 years for an MA degree, now you do three or four years study for your BA the MA is then awarded after working in the 'university of life' for another two or three years.

Going back to the topic of whether a degree is worthwhile, yes it is to the individual. I certainly wouldn't have put myself through the pain and endurance of a physics degree at University College London if I'd not thought I would find it of personal value. It was b****y hard work, working full-time and then spending my evenings and weekends with my head buried in some of the toughest text books in existance. And not just for a few months, I had no life, it was solid hard work for four years. The exams were monumentally difficult, there were at least three where I only passed by the skin of my teeth and I also had one 'referral' where strictly speaking I failed, but not enough to have to resit. Instead I had to rework the exam paper over the summer holiday - getting everything right, no mistakes allowed - and then take a viva on it at the start of the autumn semester. There were times when I literally sat and cried over the difficulty of understanding it, but to be honest, it made me more determined, a stronger person and a lot better at dealing with problem solving in all respects.

Since then I've been bitten by the learning bug. I now thrive on learning new things and I've taken some OU modules with the intention of eventually building them into a degree - for my own personal satisfaction, nobody elses.



When I was at school I'd been classified as a 'working class academic failure' pupil, deemed only suitable to get a job in a shop until such times as I got married and had a few kids.

Oh how wrong school teachers can be....

EDIT: A footnote to this. I paid my own way through my music degree (by entry at 20 instead of 18 and working for those two years) and also my physics degree! I received no government or parental funding whatsoever.

A mere 7% of the communication I read recently

93% tone of voice, inflection etc., facial expressions and body language!





<10% -> University
Cost can be covered by general taxation and grants. Standards high.

=~50% -> University
Much higher costs. Government avoids raising taxes to pay for it by charging students
Standards lower. The average are not so capable as the <10% brightest

End results.

- More emphasis on University as training for a better-paid career/job, less on the disinterested pursuit of knowledge and research

- Less affluent discouraged from attending (debt-averse). To the rich it makes no difference - they can afford it. For the very poor there are bursaries and scholarships. Those in the middle catch it (as usual)

- Many students have to combine work with study. For most that is not going to make much difference. But for the small number of very serious students this will seriously affect the quality of their studies.

And for once snhs is absolutely right - it is all about politics, posturing etc. ... very New Labour (aka duplicitous, patronising, insulting, hypocritical ...)

Of the 30 who started their physics degree (part-time at UCL) at the same time as me, only 5 of us survived the course! Two of those - both of whom were mind-blowingly clever at the subject - got First Class honours, so I think quality of results are also influenced by how good (naturally talented) you are at the subject in the first place.

I think he's done it again.

I've always wondered why even a highly advanced civilisation such as ours (emoticon for those who don't spot sarcasm) needs 50% of the population have degrees, when most of the graduates I come across these days are working in call centres. That's what devalues degrees, not the perceived reduction in difficulty.

So I'm for going back to 10% and covering the cost from general taxation.

Especially if this is coupled with meaningful high quality training for the other 90 %.

Oh absolutely. Again supported from general taxation. I think an appropriately qualified workforce is what we need, rather than a highly qualified one.

Yes, I'd agree with that, but, this leads back to my original thoughts, that going on to university is something that has become fashionable, de rigeur in the current era, rather than something that truly is a necessity.

It is far to easy to say that only 10% should go to university when you are already a graduate. After you, you wouldn't be in 30% who would suddenly be denied a place at a university... but you might have been! Should apparently less academic students be denied the entire experience of university? Many of my friends who got only acceptable grades at college, or no Alevels at all, have suddenly blossomed academically after going to university, and many have gone on to have respectable graduate jobs. Why is a foundation degree in health and beauty therapy or photography not a suitable qualification for someone to become a therapist or photographer? Are we saying that these are subjects not worth having a degree in... because they aren't traditional? Are you implying that, for example, these vocational degrees, by nature of being degrees, don't actually qualify people appropriately? Is a photography degree any more vocational than one in chemical engineering?

*baffled*... but a few things to think about.

At the risk of putting words into other people's posts, I *think* it's generally felt that there's nothing wrong with careers in beauty therapy or photography, but that these are skills far better learnt "on the job" rather than in a university environment.

The mother of a former pupil of mine was a beauty therapist, and, had assessment been by way of anything other than NVQs, would no doubt have been entitled to some very impressive post-nominals.

I sometimes wonder how much of a shortage of skilled bricklayers and plumbers there would be if bricklaying and plumbing were available as degree courses.

On the other hand, it's a pity that people who are not planning on going to university can so easily conclude that they don't need study skills - there are a lot of professional exams, reports and other "academic" aspects out there that people going into a "trade" are simply not aware of when they are 15.

University fees - loans, yes, but why not interest-free loans? (Or alternatively, loans structured so that you are "forgiven" the interest or part of the capital if you graduate within a certain time, to encourage more realistic degree planning.) An educated workforce is undoubtedly in the national interest, otherwise guvmints wouldn't bother teaching people to so much as spell their names.