Is it "socially unjust" to charge young students for their university education?

[yxee]

That's a bit old, it happened some months ago. Germany's on the right track here, I'm encouraging my son to learn German so that, in ten years time, he can get his university education for nothing.

All the politicians currently running our country had university tuition for free, I see no reason why kids of today can't benefit in the same way that they (and I) did.

To go to university 40 years ago you had to be smart. I don't think that's the case now.

I'd happily subsidise SOME higher education via taxation, but only the core subjects that actually require a degree (STEM, economics, and that's about it), and only on the condition that the students actually succeed. If you drop out, you should pick up the bill.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The party wasn't the point (although it's an interesting side topic), but the timescale was. HT blamed today's politicians, but it was politicians from nearly 20 years ago that started this particular ball rolling.

Apologies I wasn't clear, I meant this generation of politicians..not literally those in power today ...which is what I wrote. I'm aware of Labour introducing fees to students and my disgust at this has been previously covered on this site.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don't think it unreasonable that the student themselves contributes to the overall cost given they will gain from it. Equally some of the cost should be bourne by the taxpayer becaue as a society we all benefit from an educated workforce and the tax they pay is likely to be more. It certainly shouldn't be free to the student though. Then again, I still believe uni should be for the educational elite and not for any Tom, Dick or Harriet who decides they want a three year piss up.

I aspired to be part of the educated elite and engage on a FOUR year piss up. I consider myself a partial success.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I don’t think it’s socially unjust to charge. I went to university when the fees were approximately £1,000 per year, which I think is a fair amount to contribute.
I also disagree with those differentiating between the science and art subjects, they are both just as important IMO.

This strikes me as anti-intellectual.

 

[KZNSeagull]

What happened to company sponsored bursaries? Do they still do them and if not why not? They should be encouraged to do so particular where the country lacks skills - maths, engineering, sciences etc.

 

[pb21]

This strikes me as anti-intellectual.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying it’s anti-intellectual to consider both the arts and the sciences with equal importance, or that it’s anti-intellectual to consider one more important than the other? Presumably the latter?!

 

[WATFORD zero]

I would suggest a minimal fee, maybe a thousand a year, as a loan. If you don't finish the degree, then you are still liable for the full three (or four) thousand.

My eldest, who is in his last year at Uni (so has had the full 9K a year fees) had to get a minimum AAB for his course/Uni, and worked really hard to get them. What I don't understand is how kids are getting onto a degree course with 3 'C' grades at A level. ( I left school at 16 and have never had to deal with further education prior to my kids).

*edit* Although i have had to deal with hundreds of computer science graduates but appreciate that may take us off topic

 

[wellquickwoody]

That's a bit old, it happened some months ago. Germany's on the right track here, I'm encouraging my son to learn German so that, in ten years time, he can get his university education for nothing.

All the politicians currently running our country had university tuition for free, I see no reason why kids of today can't benefit in the same way that they (and I) did.

What about those of us who did not go to Uni? Should we pay for everyone else to go? And their kids? And why raise the expectations of all young people to such a level that they will not want to take on a 'normal/lesser' career?

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

I would suggest a minimal fee, maybe a thousand a year, as a loan. If you don't finish the degree, then you are still liable for the full three (or four) thousand.

My eldest, who is in his last year at Uni (so has had the full 9K a year fees) had to get a minimum AAB for his course/Uni, and worked really hard to get them. What I don't understand is how kids are getting onto a degree course with 3 'C' grades at A level. ( I left school at 16 and have never had to deal with further education prior to my kids).

*edit* Although i have had to deal with hundreds of computer science graduates but appreciate that may take us off topic

I had five offers to study chemistry at university in 1972, all of which were considerably less than CCC; my offer from the Univ of Salford was EE. One of my schoolmates was offered the same (might have been EEE though) to read Natural Sciences at one of the Oxford colleges (Keble I think).

 

[wellquickwoody]

This. I have an issue with today's politicians getting their education for free and then pulling up the drawbridge. Seems very unfair and very I'm-alright-jack.

Thirty years ago only 10-15% of the population went on to University, not the at least 50% that do now.

And why stop at degree courses? Why not allow people to skive out of the real world completely by publicly funding the whole population to do Masters degrees until they are old enough to claim the pension that they have not paid into?

 

[Notters]

I don’t think it’s socially unjust to charge. I went to university when the fees were approximately £1,000 per year, which I think is a fair amount to contribute.
I also disagree with those differentiating between the science and art subjects, they are both just as important IMO.

Blimey, I'm surprised at your right-wind stance!

I think people should be paid to go to university. I agree re different subjects, but quality is important.

 

[WATFORD zero]

I had five offers to study chemistry at university in 1972, all of which were considerably less than CCC; my offer from the Univ of Salford was EE. One of my schoolmates was offered the same (might have been EEE though) to read Natural Sciences at one of the Oxford colleges (Keble I think).

Without wishing to appear rude, why on earth would a university believe that someone who is incapable of passing an A level, could get a good degree ? Or is it all about the Uni getting the funding ?

 

[brightn'ove]

with degrees shorter (they do not need to be three years)

I agree with most of what you say except for this. Degrees should be longer. Most of the countries that have a better university system than us have four-year degrees with a much broader range of subjects covered. 3 years is too short in my opinion, by the time you're in your final year you've only just settled in.

 

[brightn'ove]

What about those of us who did not go to Uni? Should we pay for everyone else to go? And their kids? And why raise the expectations of all young people to such a level that they will not want to take on a 'normal/lesser' career?

Why shouldn't everyone aim for the top?

 

[Gwylan]

Without wishing to appear rude, why on earth would a university believe that someone who is incapable of passing an A level, could get a good degree ? Or is it all about the Uni getting the funding ?

No uni would make an offer to someone who couldn't pass an A level. In my day, universities could take mature students if they took an entrance exam (don't know if that's still the case).

In Alex, Alex Dawson's day, it wasn't uncommon for universities to make offers on Es: Cs were common and As and Bs were reserved for particular courses. Remember in 1972, a set number had to fail A - levels - can't remember whether it was 30 or 40% but it was quite a large number

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Why shouldn't everyone aim for the top?

Quite. It's odd how Tories like WellQuickWoody espouse competition an aspiration everywhere except education.

 

[WATFORD zero]

No uni would make an offer to someone who couldn't pass an A level. In my day, universities could take mature students if they took an entrance exam (don't know if that's still the case).

In Alex, Alex Dawson's day, it wasn't uncommon for universities to make offers on Es: Cs were common and As and Bs were reserved for particular courses. Remember in 1972, a set number had to fail A - levels - can't remember whether it was 30 or 40% but it was quite a large number

Sorry, showing my age (similar to Alex, Alex Dawsons - think we may have even gone to the same school). GCE grade A-C were passes in my day and nothing else counted ! Assumed same at A level. But question remains, is two or three A levels grade D or E a good indication that the person is capable of getting a good degree, either today or back when me and Alex were alive ?

 

[dazzer6666]

If you are from anywhere else in Europe it is free in Scotland, just not for English and Welsh.

Correct........

 

[Alex Alex Dawson oo! oo!]

Without wishing to appear rude, why on earth would a university believe that someone who is incapable of passing an A level, could get a good degree ? Or is it all about the Uni getting the funding ?

Can't see why I should think you're being rude? You might get a "low" offer from a university because they've already assessed how good you are and decided that they want you. Believing that A level performance necessarily reflects how a student might perform at degree level (and beyond) is mistaken; a university education (undergrad or post grad) is not about absorbing facts and regurgitating them "Gove like" over a three hour period in May/June. Grade E is an A level pass btw (certainly was in old money).

 

[Gwylan]

But question remains, is two or three A levels grade D or E a good indication that the person is capable of getting a good degree, either today or back when me and Alex were alive ?

I don't know how many people got 2 Es back in 1972 but my guess is no more than 20% (and probably fewer than that) At the moment, just under 50% go to uni, so 2 Es would probably be a top half performance

EDIT. Just see AAD's post.

"Believing that A level performance necessarily reflects how a student might perform at degree level (and beyond) is mistaken; a university education (undergrad or post grad) is not about absorbing facts and regurgitating them "Gove like" over a three hour period in May/June."

This is spot on. I remember being told back in 1973 that universities believed O level performance was a better guide to degree success than A levels. I'm thinking about a friend of mine with two kids: one was phenomenal at A level, one struggled: the former dropped out of uni, the latter has won the prize for top student two years running