viscount17
Money List Winner
because it's all theoretical and doesn't really count?
Bloody Students!
- Thread starter lobthewedge
- Start date
because it's all theoretical and doesn't really count?
Ethan
Money List Winner
During all the Daily Mail type coverage of these protests, a few key facts were omitted. The public purse makes a net profit from graduates, through the extra tax and NI contributions they pay. Graduates are a good investment for the public.
There is a perverse incentive at play now. People who get degrees in rubbish subjects don't have to repay as much as those who get degrees in subjects which lead to good paying jobs. This should be turned around to encourage good degrees which lead to good jobs. Therefore people should be encouraged to do degrees in subjects which are useful for the country and which will repay the public purse, and they should not be charged fees - they are a good investment. People who do degrees in useless subjects which will not lead to them paying decent tax revenues should be allowed to do so, but pay for the privilege as it is a waste of public money.
There is a perverse incentive at play now. People who get degrees in rubbish subjects don't have to repay as much as those who get degrees in subjects which lead to good paying jobs. This should be turned around to encourage good degrees which lead to good jobs. Therefore people should be encouraged to do degrees in subjects which are useful for the country and which will repay the public purse, and they should not be charged fees - they are a good investment. People who do degrees in useless subjects which will not lead to them paying decent tax revenues should be allowed to do so, but pay for the privilege as it is a waste of public money.
colint
Tour Rookie
I think that's a bit narrow minded, saying the only graduates who add value to a country are those entering high paying careers. How about someone doing a history or classics degree to work in a museum or gallery etc, they'd be on a pretty average wage but I'd say they add value to the country.
I prefer the current method of anyone above £21k paying a share, it's the only fair way of doing it. If it's a degree for the sake of it you probably won;t bother, if it's something your passionate about, then you'll probably still go, and if it's something which will give you a well paying and secure career then the fees are a small price to pay, literally.
I prefer the current method of anyone above £21k paying a share, it's the only fair way of doing it. If it's a degree for the sake of it you probably won;t bother, if it's something your passionate about, then you'll probably still go, and if it's something which will give you a well paying and secure career then the fees are a small price to pay, literally.
Aztecs27
Money List Winner
medwayjon said what I was going to say.
The majority of people don't go to university to learn any more. They go to avoid having to have the worries of life hang above them and stretch out their youth for 3 or 4 years. Of all my friends that went to university, there were 4 (out of around 30 of my closest friends) who actually went for an education.
The other 26 went to drink beer, sleep with women and do absolutely nothing for 4 years.
(They all went to the same Grammar school and all got good enough grades to be accepted onto a "proper" course)
I totally agree that university is your only option if you want to become a doctor, dentist, vet, lawyer etc...(and these should either a.) get a reduction in fees or they won't care because they'll be earning more than enough money to pay back their loan once they leave with their degree anyway) but because of the influx of polytechnics, which are just glorified colleges, I don't see why I, the taxpayer, should have to fund for people to piss their student loans away on beer for four years.
If that's what you choose to do, so be it, go and enjoy yourself. But don't bitch and moan when you have to pay for it.
The majority of people don't go to university to learn any more. They go to avoid having to have the worries of life hang above them and stretch out their youth for 3 or 4 years. Of all my friends that went to university, there were 4 (out of around 30 of my closest friends) who actually went for an education.
The other 26 went to drink beer, sleep with women and do absolutely nothing for 4 years.
(They all went to the same Grammar school and all got good enough grades to be accepted onto a "proper" course)
I totally agree that university is your only option if you want to become a doctor, dentist, vet, lawyer etc...(and these should either a.) get a reduction in fees or they won't care because they'll be earning more than enough money to pay back their loan once they leave with their degree anyway) but because of the influx of polytechnics, which are just glorified colleges, I don't see why I, the taxpayer, should have to fund for people to piss their student loans away on beer for four years.
If that's what you choose to do, so be it, go and enjoy yourself. But don't bitch and moan when you have to pay for it.
Aztecs27
Money List Winner
This is the key. Price rises or not, if you care about going to university to better yourself and your future career, you're probably not going to have a problem paying with it as it will "pay for itself" in the long run.
If you're going to avoid joining the real world for an extra couple of years, then I can see why it would be an expensive way to spend 3 years doing nothing.
Ethan
Money List Winner
I understand perfectly that there is more to it, but my point is simply addressing the question in the terms used to justify the fees; that the public purse is paying and that graduates earn more money as a result of their degree. The same arguments can be turned on their head.
To take your example of classics graduates, then you are saying that you, as a tax payer, are happy to subsidise people who do degrees which lead to no or low paying jobs. Unfortunately the people who do a degree in skateboarding may fall into the same category.
Salary is a blunt tool, but the one chosen by the Govt to differentiate between who pays and who doesn't.
colint
Tour Rookie
I wouldn't say I'm happy to subsidise anyone, but I can live with the graduates in socially useful jobs. I'd hope that the skateboarding academics would think twice, and maybe more of these pointless degrees would be dropped if the uptake reduces. I just can't think of a better way of doing it than a salary based repayment model.
viscount17
Money List Winner
is this not the crux of it? a number* of those falling into this category will never pay for it, so expensive - yes, but not for them!
* probably neither as large nor as small as proponents of each side think.
Q do you have to re-imburse the public purse if you fail or are sent down?
medwayjon
Tour Winner
Ethan,
We have gaping differences in many of our views, but your notion of in some way sponsoring people doing specific degrees which are of immense value to the country is simply a great proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------
I think one of the key problems is the number of no-mark degrees now available and the ease on which people can get onto a degree course of some sorts just for the sake of it.
I think employers really need to take a very good look at themselves as it is their bias towards graduates that is a major contribution to the bigger picture.
Why do they place a huge emphasis on "graduate development programmes" for jobs that do not require a degree? Why should someone with an English degree get a relatively well-paid job straight out of Uni at a bank or retailer regardless of the fact they have zero experience?
To me the firms that do this have a few questions to answer to.
We have gaping differences in many of our views, but your notion of in some way sponsoring people doing specific degrees which are of immense value to the country is simply a great proposal.
------------------------------------------------------------
I think one of the key problems is the number of no-mark degrees now available and the ease on which people can get onto a degree course of some sorts just for the sake of it.
I think employers really need to take a very good look at themselves as it is their bias towards graduates that is a major contribution to the bigger picture.
Why do they place a huge emphasis on "graduate development programmes" for jobs that do not require a degree? Why should someone with an English degree get a relatively well-paid job straight out of Uni at a bank or retailer regardless of the fact they have zero experience?
To me the firms that do this have a few questions to answer to.
Aztecs27
Money List Winner
Well then what are they moaning about?!
Stupid bloody students!
Ethan
Money List Winner
Jon
I think we agree that there are a whole load of people doing useless degrees which have devalued some of the value of going to University. Labour's target of 50% going to Uni was, at best, completely arbitrary. I grew up on a Council estate, did well at school and managed to get the grades to do Medicine, but would not have been able to go without a grant.
Under the new scheme, it appears that if you get in to do a degree with bugger all prospect of a good job, then you pay nothing. If you do well and get a good job (whether because of the degree or not), you pay. That is a state subsidy for crap degrees.
colint
Tour Rookie
Is the problem that there are too many university places and it's too easy to get in ? There's no merit in itself in going to uni now, everybody who wants to go seems to. My friends son is doing English after getting a B and C at A level !
Someone coming out of uni should be reconised as bright, hard working and dedicated but it's just not the case any more. We need to make school exams more testing and reduce the number of places so only the truly talented get in. You have to be a graduate to even get an interview at my place and the standard of people we see is appaling.
Someone coming out of uni should be reconised as bright, hard working and dedicated but it's just not the case any more. We need to make school exams more testing and reduce the number of places so only the truly talented get in. You have to be a graduate to even get an interview at my place and the standard of people we see is appaling.
medwayjon
Tour Winner
Ethan,
That is so true that those who end-up not paying a bean because they leave uni and go into lower-paid jobs are effectively getting a state-subsidy for their mickey-mouse degree and it is totally wrong.
There should be a condition that regardless of salary, repayments are due. It would possibly deter the idle from doing a no-mark degree just as an excuse to bum-around for 3 more years after school.
How many people for example do sports-science and end up working behind the counter at a Gym or go to work at a shop or something on a wage below the threshold when repayment kicks-in? Probably vast amounts I would expect.
Fair-play to you for what you have achieved, whatever you earn as a doctor multiply it by 10 and it still wouldnt be enough in my eyes. If there is one thing I respect more than anything else it is the genius, the skill, and the precision of medical science.
That is so true that those who end-up not paying a bean because they leave uni and go into lower-paid jobs are effectively getting a state-subsidy for their mickey-mouse degree and it is totally wrong.
There should be a condition that regardless of salary, repayments are due. It would possibly deter the idle from doing a no-mark degree just as an excuse to bum-around for 3 more years after school.
How many people for example do sports-science and end up working behind the counter at a Gym or go to work at a shop or something on a wage below the threshold when repayment kicks-in? Probably vast amounts I would expect.
Fair-play to you for what you have achieved, whatever you earn as a doctor multiply it by 10 and it still wouldnt be enough in my eyes. If there is one thing I respect more than anything else it is the genius, the skill, and the precision of medical science.
