University tuition fees

[KneeOn]

Calm down....

My point is that just because they have decided to "group" themselves together and they are harder to get into - doesn't guarantee the level of teaching is better.

Didn't mean to come across as aggressive

I still think the top RG Uni's are the pinicle of our education system.

You are right however, SOuthampton Solent is the best in the country.



For Maritime Degree's.

 

[Uncle C]

Sure, but I would say there are numerous upper second class degrees which will trump a first.

Of course, the University attended and the relevance and quality of the tuition will all be considered, but having a degree per see is not a passport to wealth. I would think in most industries that thirds and lower seconds are viewed very much on a par with 2 good A levels years ago.

Its a shame that the kids are not introduced to realities of life early on and many suffer heartache and a lowering of expectations when graduating.

 

[Simster]

Wrong

So you and shaolinpunk say "to luck out" means to be out of luck, yet me and the English based on-line Cambridge Dictionary say otherwise:

Definition from Cambridge Dictionary Online: Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus




Oh, and the Oxford dictionary too:

Oxford Dictionary of English

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Of course, the University attended and the relevance and quality of the tuition will all be considered, .

So why say only firsts are special then?

 

[hans kraay fan club]

So you and shaolinpunk say "to luck out" means to be out of luck, yet me and the English based on-line Cambridge Dictionary say otherwise:

Definition from Cambridge Dictionary Online: Free English Dictionary and Thesaurus

I meant what I meant. Everyone involved in the particular sub-discussion knew what I meant.

f*** off, COCK.

 

[Simster]

 

[shaolinpunk]

Both of those refer to the american meaning

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Lunch time. Laters

 

[Tooting Gull]

This is the problem though, and the circuituous nature of the argument. The current funding solution (with the majority of money coming from general taxation rather than fees) can only support a certain number of students at any one time. If you want more people to go to university you need to find a way of funding it, and in this age of austerity you're not going to get that money from central funding. Therefore the only alternative (given that the maths of a graduate tax doesn't work) seems to be increasing the fees charged. Fundamentally, you want more people going to university, but do not want to pay for it.

Your summary as above is refreshingly free of party dogma, a pretty accurate assessment that I'm sure most pragmatic university vice-chancellors would agree with.

Personally, I would want to pay for it, and have consistently questioned whether Labour's policy of going for quantity rather than quality has been good for either the individuals or the country.

I also don't quite see how the maths of a graduate tax defeated everyone. Surely what we've got, loan repayments triggered at certain income levels, isn't a million miles away.

 

[sten_super]

But I do want to pay for it. I'm happy for my taxes to go up to cover a whole range of items which I think would improve this country's lot.

I appreciate that, but are you representative of the 'average British person'? :tonguefirmlyincheek:

To be fair my post was aimed at KneeOn, who has said on the one hand that he thinks that the increased fees are unfair (without proposing an alternative) and on the other that he believes that more people should be encouraged to go to university.

I have no particular problem with funding higher education largely from general taxation, and minimising the impact on students. However, I do think, as beorthelm as mentioned, that there needs to be a discussion as to what purpose university serves. IMHO it should be a means to an end; i.e. you undertake a degree because it will be useful to you, give you useful knowledge/skills, and assist you in your future career. If a degree is not doing that, and a decent share of the current lot seem not to be, from anecdotal evidence of graduates applying for a raft of low paid low skilled jobs, then I honestly believe that the question should be asked as to whether that person should be doing that degree.

 

[beorhthelm]

Its not an 'excellent illustration' of anything. What nonsense. If somebody is taught effectively as a nurse, or doctor, what TINY difference does it make if the institution providing that training, has the word 'University' or the word 'Polytechnic' after its name?

the cost for a start. if it didnt matter, why did we change in the first place, and is it a coincidence cost of university became a issue soon after that change. theres also the standards expected of the teaching and students. And as another illustration, Doctors and many other highly regarded degrees are not available widely across all 120 odd uni's.

Why do you distinguish between vocational and academia ? Where does Law sit then ? What about Computer Science ?

Very odd and only in this country. A degree is "de-valued" because more people are doing them...

your point would be valid if all degrees were equal. we know full well they are not. it would be great if more people doing degrees meant they all came out with the same high level of education, but the fact is the increase in number is the result of lower standards and easier entry criteria.

i dont know about Law but i can speak of Computer Science, and in particular Computer Studies. the vocational skills needed for a general career in IT are barely taught in a CStudies degree. a CSci degree will focus more on programming but thats something History, Maths, Engineering graduates learn in 3 months of a graduate program anyway.

surely any one can see the difference between the acedemic objectives of furthering a field of study vocational objective of training people to work in technical jobs. the main reason i think the difference matters is the way vocational topics are shoehorned in to the old 3 year degree format. theres a place for Computer Studies and the popular whipping boy Media Studies, but do they need 3 years and a researched dissertation? i dont think so, it does little to train people in the vocational aspects of a career in IT or Media, just box ticking to meet the criteria for a different objective (training scientists/researchers/acedemics). I had maths statistics modules, only in the syllybus so the course could be considered a BSc.

i'm presuming the costs mostly come from supporting the staff, researchers, labs and buildings (often in expensive city centres), after all what is the difference between A level lectures and Degree lectures (often more to a class in the latter)? so it follows if higher education was in slimmer institutions like schools/colleges rather than universities, the cost would be cheaper and more young people would be better served by a cheaper (free) education.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

i dont know about Law but i can speak of Computer Science, and in particular Computer Studies. the vocational skills needed for a general career in IT are barely taught in a CStudies degree. a CSci degree will focus more on programming but thats something History, Maths, Engineering graduates learn in 3 months of a graduate program anyway.

surely any one can see the difference between the acedemic objectives of furthering a field of study vocational objective of training people to work in technical jobs. the main reason i think the difference matters is the way vocational topics are shoehorned in to the old 3 year degree format. theres a place for Computer Studies and the popular whipping boy Media Studies, but do they need 3 years and a researched dissertation? i dont think so, it does little to train people in the vocational aspects of a career in IT or Media, just box ticking to meet the criteria for a different objective (training scientists/researchers/acedemics). I had maths statistics modules, only in the syllybus so the course could be considered a BSc.

i'm presuming the costs mostly come from supporting the staff, researchers, labs and buildings (often in expensive city centres), after all what is the difference between A level lectures and Degree lectures (often more to a class in the latter)? so it follows if higher education was in slimmer institutions like schools/colleges rather than universities, the cost would be cheaper and more young people would be better served by a cheaper (free) education.

What is it you're trying to say? It's not clear to me.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

What is it you're trying to say? It's not clear to me.

I THINK his point is that, teaching somebody something vocational, in a proper hands-on way, even if done in the same way as in the former polytechnics, is somehow less valid, and more expensive, if someone changes the banner on the building to say 'University'.

As you say - not really clear, though.

 

[User removed 4]

And then when income tax is taken, also helps to pay for other students, and frontline services and other services along with counsil tax (which will be more than some one living in a counsil house). Forgot that bit?

i know there has been a recent thread about spelling but i f***ing despair that you are looking at starting university unable to spell a simple word like council

 

[hans kraay fan club]

i know there has been a recent thread about spelling but i f***ing despair that you are looking at starting university unable to spell a simple word like council

Capital 'i' please. You might also find these helpful: , , , ,

 

[El Presidente]

i agree

 

[Perry Milkins]

i agree

that is an exclellent animation Mr president, from where?

 

[Perry Milkins]

i know there has been a recent thread about spelling but i f***ing despair that you are looking at starting university unable to spell a simple word like council

tsk overdoing the swearing underdoing the punctie!

 

[sir albion]

Congratulations, thats definitely the most ignorant post of the day.

Why is it?How many students do 3 year courses then decide thats not for them?then they do another 3 years and so on,before you know it you have lazy 25 year olds with zero experience stuck in a rut.

The man has a point

 

[KneeOn]

i know there has been a recent thread about spelling but i f***ing despair that you are looking at starting university unable to spell a simple word like council

So i can't spell?

Yup, definately an idiot. Because I can't spell means i've got no knowledge. Logic at its finest here.