Students

[scaramanga]

Hence why the higher fees in the first place is stupid. However it will never reach the trillions of pounds that the bailing out of capital did.

The higher fees aren't stupid, they're necessary, it's the lower limit on paying them back that's an issue.

Currently pretty much all courses at all universities are near the maximum price - that's already beginning to change and will continue to do so along market rules. Once the data are available, those courses that are less likely to result in a good job will have less value in the market and universities will have to charge less for them. That will mean that given their limited resources (space, lecturers, etc) they will have to try and maximize profit from what they have. In that scenario, only specialist universities will offer Fine Art and Sports Science and hopefully none will offer Social Studies. That will also conveniently tie in well with what the job market requires - if the market is short of IT graduates then IT degrees will have a higher value and universities will focus on it more.

These perfectly sensible and appropriate rules are skewed by the fact that there is a lower earnings limit on the payback of these fees. That allows those who want to doss who never plan on earning more than the lower limit (especially those who are willing to drain the state on benefits) can simply use it as a place to get ****ed for 3 years (not that there's anything wrong with enjoying uni, I certainly did my fair share of that).

And whilst bail outs are another discussion, I agree that they were entirely wrong - it should never have been done for many reasons.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

The higher fees aren't stupid, they're necessary, it's the lower limit on paying them back that's an issue.

Currently pretty much all courses at all universities are near the maximum price - that's already beginning to change and will continue to do so along market rules. Once the data are available, those courses that are less likely to result in a good job will have less value in the market and universities will have to charge less for them. That will mean that given their limited resources (space, lecturers, etc) they will have to try and maximize profit from what they have. In that scenario, only specialist universities will offer Fine Art and Sports Science and hopefully none will offer Social Studies. That will also conveniently tie in well with what the job market requires - if the market is short of IT graduates then IT degrees will have a higher value and universities will focus on it more.

These perfectly sensible and appropriate rules are skewed by the fact that there is a lower earnings limit on the payback of these fees. That allows those who want to doss who never plan on earning more than the lower limit (especially those who are willing to drain the state on benefits) can simply use it as a place to get ****ed for 3 years (not that there's anything wrong with enjoying uni, I certainly did my fair share of that).

And whilst bail outs are another discussion, I agree that they were entirely wrong - it should never have been done for many reasons.

Ok at least we are on the same page with the Bail out.

However I am saddened by the rest of your post. Earlier on you said that is nothing more important than education for education sake. Yet now you say that education should be at the mercy of the market,not the market of student choice,but the market of employment. Does that mean that History as a subject is of less important than business management. I would argue not. However it also has a logical flaw. For say all students accepted that they should study degrees that the employment market demands,then we would simply have millions of students with IT degrees or business ones. What then ? How is the problem of inflation of degrees solved ? The market takeover of education makes no sense.

My lectures involved a room and a lecturer. I had to buy my own texts or borrow them from the library. How expensive can a course like that be ?

 

[scaramanga]

Ok at least we are on the same page with the Bail out.

However I am saddened by the rest of your post. Earlier on you said that is nothing more important than education for education sake. Yet now you say that education should be at the mercy of the market,not the market of student choice,but the market of employment. Does that mean that History as a subject is of less important than business management. I would argue not.

Less important to the job market, yes. If someone wants to trade some of their employability for an education in History then great - there's nothing stopping them from doing that. Universities will still offer History degrees as some people will always want to study it

However it also has a logical flaw. For say all students accepted that they should study degrees that the employment market demands,then we would simply have millions of students with IT degrees or business ones. What then ? How is the problem of inflation of degrees solved ? The market takeover of education makes no sense.

I think there's a gap in your understanding of how markets work. Once the shortfall in IT staff has been fixed, the market value of such degrees will begin to fall and therefore they will become less popular and be replaced by the next skill that is in demand.

My lectures involved a room and a lecturer. I had to buy my own texts or borrow them from the library. How expensive can a course like that be ?

They're not expensive to the university - that's why prices can and will fall so far for pointless degrees. They are expensive in the Economics sense that each university has limited space and staff with which to teach students. Within those limits, universities will try and make as much profit as possible and will lean towards the market demand as that is what will pay the most per hour of limited resource.

Of course all students will be catered for, as eventually these market forces will filter out past the courses to the universities themselves too. So you'd be able to get a very cheap History degree from Portsmouth, but would have to pay a lot for one from Cambridge.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Less important to the job market, yes. If someone wants to trade some of their employability for an education in History then great - there's nothing stopping them from doing that. Universities will still offer History degrees as some people will always want to study it



I think there's a gap in your understanding of how markets work. Once the shortfall in IT staff has been fixed, the market value of such degrees will begin to fall and therefore they will become less popular and be replaced by the next skill that is in demand.



They're not expensive to the university - that's why prices can and will fall so far for pointless degrees. They are expensive in the Economics sense that each university has limited space and staff with which to teach students. Within those limits, universities will try and make as much profit as possible and will lean towards the market demand as that is what will pay the most per hour of limited resource.

Of course all students will be catered for, as eventually these market forces will filter out past the courses to the universities themselves too. So you'd be able to get a very cheap History degree from Portsmouth, but would have to pay a lot for one from Cambridge.

Yes but in the short term the market will
be saturated correct ? If so there will still be those that fail to find work. What will happen with things such as history degrees is that universities such as Portsmouth {I am sure it is great there} will no longer offer History degrees as they will not think them profitable. So it leads to a two tier university system,where only some universities will be able to offer what I would call core academic subjects.

Your starting premise is the one I have a problem with. That education should best be seen as a slave to the job market.

Understanding Kant will not enhance my job prospects but it will make me more educated.

 

[scaramanga]

Yes but in the short term the market with me saturated correct ?

Not really, no. The size of the demand will be relative to the size of the increase in value. So there shouldn't ever be a flood of students rushing to study one particular course, it will all be balanced by the level of demand.

If so there will still be those that fail to find work. What will happen with things such as history degrees is that universities such as Portsmouth {I am sure it is great there} will no longer offer History degrees as they will not think them profitable.

That may be the choice of some universities, but you yourself are an example that many people will choose to lose a bit of employability in favour of some knowledge of the classics. What will likely happen is that courses such as History will become part of a niche market where demand isn't particularly high but value is due to the fact that nobody will want some cheapo half-arsed Portsmouth Uni History course. So the bottom rung universities might not offer it, but the better ones will continue to do so.

So it leads to a two tier university system,where only some universities will be able to offer what I would call core academic subjects.

You say that like it's a bad thing. More than one tier isn't always undesirable - multiple tiers in football are essential, multiple tiers in society create ambition, multiple tiers in products allow them to attack large sections of the market and multiple tiers in universities mean that people aren't paying Oxbridge prices for an ex-poly education.

Your starting premise is the one I have a problem with. That education should best be seen as a slave to the job market.

Understanding Kant will not enhance my job prospects but it will make me more educated.

Everything is a slave to market forces in one way or another. It may not always be obvious, but it's there.

I'd also like to point out that studying philosophy at university isn't a prerequisite to understanding Kant!

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Not really, no. The size of the demand will be relative to the size of the increase in value. So there shouldn't ever be a flood of students rushing to study one particular course, it will all be balanced by the level of demand.



That may be the choice of some universities, but you yourself are an example that many people will choose to lose a bit of employability in favour of some knowledge of the classics. What will likely happen is that courses such as History will become part of a niche market where demand isn't particularly high but value is due to the fact that nobody will want some cheapo half-arsed Portsmouth Uni History course. So the bottom rung universities might not offer it, but the better ones will continue to do so.



You say that like it's a bad thing. More than one tier isn't always undesirable - multiple tiers in football are essential, multiple tiers in society create ambition, multiple tiers in products allow them to attack large sections of the market and multiple tiers in universities mean that people aren't paying Oxbridge prices for an ex-poly education.



Everything is a slave to market forces in one way or another. It may not always be obvious, but it's there.

I'd also like to point out that studying philosophy at university isn't a prerequisite to understanding Kant!

Ok one part at a time. If people are continually pushed to do market based degrees and if all students accepted that line,then we would not have solved the problem of value we will have simply pushed it around. Would it be good for the market to have 6 million IT graduates,we both know that it would not be. However that is in conflict with the message that we should all study degrees that have market appeal e.g IT. The message we are given is not even in line with the reality of what the market needs.

What will happen is what happened in the past is that those that can afford to go to Oxbridge will be able to study humanities. It has always amused me that those in power almost all to a man/woman have studied humanities courses telling us that we should study something practical. Why did they not take their own advice ?

I do think it is a bad thing. A degree should be a degree. The fact that it is not is not a call for a return to a two tier system but a failing of the current system.

Everything is a slave to market forces because we have made an economic and philosophical choice for it to be that way. Their are alternative this is not the end of history. However much some people would like it to be.

Point taken on Kant,but you understood what I meant. I am sorry for my slow reply but I am in the process of taking that bastion of the free market Orange to court.

 

[DHSF]

I see no point in degrees. I did a professional ACCA qualification that costs thousands (study days from work, course fees, revision courses, ACCA exams even ****ing exemption fees - yes you have to pay for NOT taking an exem). The ACCA exams were far more valuable than the degree I did. The problem is Employers want people with a degree, regardless of whether you have a professional qualification or not - which is staggering.

If Employers changed their view on matters and transitioned from placing such importance on A Levels and Degrees then more people would be going to work, doing far more valuable Professional exams, and ultimately learning a trade rather than silly degrees. This would definitely reduce student debt and actually would help people gain employment easier thus less benefits handed out etc. Snowball and knock on effects.

Hell - id go as far as to say any exams I have studied for have been worthless - it has only helped in two things - more clout as a human and a ****load more money. I have learnt a tonne load more from my experiences at work than the 15 years of education I went through.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

I see no point in degrees. I did a professional ACCA qualification that costs thousands (study days from work, course fees, revision courses, ACCA exams even ****ing exemption fees - yes you have to pay for NOT taking an exem). The ACCA exams were far more valuable than the degree I did. The problem is Employers want people with a degree, regardless of whether you have a professional qualification or not - which is staggering.

If Employers changed their view on matters and transitioned from placing such importance on A Levels and Degrees then more people would be going to work, doing far more valuable Professional exams, and ultimately learning a trade rather than silly degrees. This would definitely reduce student debt and actually would help people gain employment easier thus less benefits handed out etc. Snowball and knock on effects.

The point of my degree was that I wanted to learn and gain expertise in a subject.

 

[DHSF]

The point of my degree was that I wanted to learn and gain expertise in a subject.

Ah yes but I also wanted to learn a particular subject but actually the Professional qualification was far more worthwhile and the work experience even moreso.

I am not saying all degrees are useless (although it came across that way in my initial post) but when put into context of work and professional qualifications - then yes degrees are worthless.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Ah yes but I also wanted to learn a particular subject but actually the Professional qualification was far more worthwhile and the work experience even moreso.

I am not saying all degrees are useless (although it came across that way in my initial post) but when put into context of work and professional qualifications - then yes degrees are worthless.

I don't think it has to be an either or situation. I respect your qualifications. They are just as difficult to get. However the subjects I am interested in can only be learnt through a degree at the moment. I just am a firm advocate that education is an end itself. If you are smarter than you were before you took the course than it is far from worthless. We can have a world full of ****er...sorry i mean bankers can we?

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I read over 3 books a week on my course,and had to prepare a detailed presentation on some of the most complex and dense works ever written.

Then i have no problem with you because you will get a job and repay the loan and i applaud you for that. I hope my son goes to University and i like the sound of people exchanging ideas but people need to learn everything in this life costs something.

I also think this forum has gone massively to the left when anyone who supports UKIP is accused of being a racist.

Anyway next weeks target is mothers and maternity pay, as i do not believe there are any mothers on here it can be a bonding experience and we can all **** of that deluded group of benefit/credit stealing scum bags.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Then i have no problem with you because you will get a job and repay the loan and i applaud you for that. I hope my son goes to University and i like the sound of people exchanging ideas but people need to learn everything in this life costs something.

I also think this forum has gone massively to the left when anyone who supports UKIP is accused of being a racist.

Anyway next weeks target is mothers and maternity pay, as i do not believe there are any mothers on here it can be a bonding experience and we can all **** of that deluded group of benefit/credit stealing scum bags.

I never took a loan actually,I worked while at Uni. I really home this forum has gone to the left. It is what this country needs. Though obviously the middle aged generation that had it all will never agree.

 

[Kingdawson]

I'm not going to lie, one of the main reasons i went to uni was the student loan. Don't get me wrong i was obviously interested in obtaining a degree but i've always been one to think for the future so i knew the loan would help me long term.

Back in 05 the student loan was dependent on various things but mainly your accommodation (if you you lived on campus you would obviously be entitled to more). They would give about £6000 every year if you stated you was planning on living on campus and about £4000 if you lived at home. Naturally i was attracted to the £6000 figure more so i stated i was going to live on campus, actually lived at home, opened up a savings account, banked 5k in the account and kept the 1k in my current account for the year (plus the money i already had of course). Second year i actually stayed on campus but they still gave me 5k for some reason...banked 4k, kept 1k and kept it moving. 3rd year i went back home so banked 5k etc etc etc.

It's hard to 'make it' in this country without getting lucky (ie athlete, actor etc etc), mummy or daddy bank rolling you, or doing something on the side of your normal 09:00 to 17:00 which i would never do. Even having the degree means **** all nowadays as most my mates that obtained a good qualification are not doing anything related to the field they studied (me included tbh)... but they decided to splash the cash during uni which means they're even in a more ****ed up predicament barely surviving (literally in regards to some of them). That money has helped me immensely..still up to this day as it gave me something to work on..something that allows me the dream to strive to get more more more without taking shortcuts. Once you see a substantial figure in your account (especially when you;re young) you best believe you will be licking your lips at the prospect of working hard to get more.

I pay the loan back now and have done for years (like £100 a month at most) but i would do it again and again.

 

[DHSF]

I don't think it has to be an either or situation. I respect your qualifications. They are just as difficult to get. However the subjects I am interested in can only be learnt through a degree at the moment. I just am a firm advocate that education is an end itself. If you are smarter than you were before you took the course than it is far from worthless. We can have a world full of ****er...sorry i mean bankers can we?

Oh some subject can only be done from a degree, I totally agree, im not questioning that. I am just thinking that I could have saved thousands by going straight to a professional qualification but I know most Employers would just turn a blind eye to me if I did that - even though the degree will have had no bearing on my potential or expertise. I get shunned now cos of my A Levels which were two C's.

Education pre university makes you smarter and more intelligent but they prove a crucial foundation for you as a person but not to be able to work. Anyways I guess im digressing here.

 

[Paxtonloudmouth]

Oh some subject can only be done from a degree, I totally agree, im not questioning that. I am just thinking that I could have saved thousands by going straight to a professional qualification but I know most Employers would just turn a blind eye to me if I did that - even though the degree will have had no bearing on my potential or expertise. I get shunned now cos of my A Levels which were two C's.

Education pre university makes you smarter and more intelligent but they prove a crucial foundation for you as a person but not to be able to work. Anyways I guess im digressing here.

You will never see me defending employers. **** em.

 

[Richie]

Of course this largely rabid right wing forum decides to **** off students. Easy targets for the loads of money types. Easy to mock we humanities students with the old 'where is that going to get you.' Well you know what it got me,it got me an education. It allowed me to be exposed to some of the most powerful minds and ideas the world has ever seen. It allowed me a far wider on perspective and understanding on the problems that affect us in the world today. It allowed me to place these problems in it's proper historical context.

So we may we may not fit into your simple consumer model of society. We may not function in the roles that you want us to. You may consider us lazy even though most of us worked our backsides off at school for years,and many work alongside our degrees. You may use the old reactionary trope that everyone was more intelligent in the 50's. You can have all of that. I went to University not to get a job but to get an education. That is what I got. The best money I have ever spent.

Any of you of have a problem with me and my choices in life feel free to have a chat with me at the Lane. Block 22 row 5. Seat 169.

I don't think anybody disagrees with your decision to go to University. If you want to do it then great, good for you. Unfortunately, you took tax money in order to do it which you will likely not be able to repay if it doesn't get you a decent job.

I don't blame you, I blame a system which student loans at very low interest rates (I believe mine just rises with inflation) which the government knows will never be repaid.

Blame the government for giving these loans that won't be repaid, not the students who took them.

In short, if you want to study for the sake of study and not to get a job, pay for it yourself. The taxes of working people shouldn't be loaned out when they know it isn't coming back.

 

[Richie]

You will never see me defending employers. **** em.

You said you're starting your own business, don't you hope to eventually become an employer?

 

[THFC]

Some things shouldn't be left to market forces. For example would you be happy wondering if a doctor really has to remove your kidney or is really looking to pay for a new car? I really think the current system needs revisiting in many aspects the market is not free and can easily be manipulated to the extent that it can be seen as a hindrance to society.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

I never took a loan actually,I worked while at Uni. I really home this forum has gone to the left. It is what this country needs. Though obviously the middle aged generation that had it all will never agree.

Well the debt that this country is in was down to the left, the coalition have been trying to fight that fire ever since they got in and even with some cuts they have not been able to cut it.

Im 49 so not sure if i fit the middle age but i never had it all, in fact i have always worked though this is not about me personally for me the is a massive and i mean a massive problem in this country how everyone seems to think money grows on trees. Students seem to want free higher education everyone wants better health care then you have civil servants moaning about their pensions, pensions everyone in the private sector has to put up with.

What this country needs is economic sense, the social stuff the anti racism stuff i agree should go to the left, but when it comes down to money people need to be more realistic about how much money a country actually generates.

By the way i also agree with you about banking i assumed you were talking about the banking sector, im disgusted but not surprised by the latest revelations by Lloyds. None of the parties seem to want to sort that out though.

Next weeks rant will be Mothers and maternity leave so set your clock for it.

 

[THFC]

Actually I don't think anybody believes it all grows on trees. However to completely open up everything to market forces would be ridiculous in my opinion when considering the nature of a capitalist economy. The world does have finite resources yet why has this not lead to a mainstream
/mass usage of renewable energy which is evidently possible? The returns demanded by /shareholders/stakeholders/ceo have stifled this it could be said.