eman   10 #13 Posted December 7, 2010 (edited) Waste Mangement with Dance. That is the actual name of a degree currently available at Northampton University. Labour have created this problem by shoving mickey mouse degrees down everyone's throat. Students exit their 3 year drinking binge expecting the world to be at their feet only to be hit with the hard reality that the dude flipping burgers at Maccy D's has better prospects for career development and their degree in media studies doesn't actually lend itself to a high flying six figure career. University is NOT for everyone and it SHOULD be a privilege, based on merit, for worthwhile degrees, which will actually be relevant in the real world. Half the problem is people still believe that any degree is better than no degree, which simply isn't true any more and hasn't been for a long time, recession or no recession. Boom. Edited December 7, 2010 by eman Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
bethwebb   10 #14 Posted December 7, 2010 So you believe that someone on the National Minimum wage should contribute more so you can have an advantage in the jobs market? If you want the advantage, why not pay for it?  You're totally right. Higher education should only be for the rich. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
bobbie   10 #15 Posted December 7, 2010 You're totally right. Higher education should only be for the rich.    It should only be for the most able.  If, however, it is to be for the masses, then surely the students should pay their way for their 3 year parties.  If you don't like it, then get a job. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
bethwebb   10 #16 Posted December 7, 2010 It should only be for the most able.  I agree it should be based on merit, but the most able aren't necessarily the ones who are able to afford it. These cuts will lead to an underclass of people who can't afford to better themselves through higher education, and the only ones with degrees will be the rich.  The Tory dream. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
eman   10 #17 Posted December 7, 2010 It should only be for the most able. If, however, it is to be for the masses, then surely the students should pay their way for their 3 year parties.  If you don't like it, then get a job.  Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
bobbie   10 #18 Posted December 7, 2010 I agree it should be based on merit, but the most able aren't necessarily the ones who are able to afford it. These cuts will lead to an underclass of people who can't afford to better themselves through higher education, and the only ones with degrees will be the rich. The Tory dream.    If you don't start paying back until after you earn £21,000 then surely its not a bad deal.  How can that lead to an education underclass?  You try getting £21,000 if you leave school without any qualifications, or if you have been forced into a minimum wage job......you think these people should pay so you can have a greater advantage? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
eman   10 #19 Posted December 7, 2010 I agree it should be based on merit, but the most able aren't necessarily the ones who are able to afford it. These cuts will lead to an underclass of people who can't afford to better themselves through higher education, and the only ones with degrees will be the rich. The Tory dream.  Regarding funding for people who are perhaps financially disadvantaged, I think it should be means tested on a case by case basis but with stringent criteria, with academic merit and the specific degree course in question receiving the most scrutiny. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
bobbie   10 #20 Posted December 7, 2010 Over a working lifetime 21 - 68 years old (47 years), somone who earns £21,000 per year will earn £479024 more than someone who only earns the minimum wage.  You think paying £40,000 is harsh?  479024 - 40,000 still leaves you with an extra £439024 over 47 years Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
lolli_pop   10 #21 Posted December 7, 2010 You're totally right. Higher education should only be for the rich.  Of course it should - got to keep out those who didn't go to the "right" schools. And everyone knows that only rich kids make good doctors Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
bethwebb   10 #22 Posted December 7, 2010 Of course it should - got to keep out those who didn't go to the "right" schools. And everyone knows that only rich kids make good doctors  It's what Mr Cameron would have us believe! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mossdog   10 #23 Posted December 7, 2010 I agree it should be based on merit, but the most able aren't necessarily the ones who are able to afford it. These cuts will lead to an underclass of people who can't afford to better themselves through higher education, and the only ones with degrees will be the rich. The Tory dream. The Socialist dream is that everyone can better themselves through useless degrees...............what utter rubbish for the 50% wasting their time.Blair and Brown and the rest of the spendthrifts should be imprisoned! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
bethwebb   10 #24 Posted December 7, 2010 The Socialist dream is that everyone can better themselves through useless degrees...............what utter rubbish for the 50% wasting their time.Blair and Brown and the rest of the spendthrifts should be imprisoned!  What about the degrees that are genuinely important? I'm currently studying to be a nurse, and intend to work for the NHS for the rest of my life. Waste of time? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...