2015- July Budget

[I1L2T3]

I have not made one statement about higher education in either of those countries. You've consistently sought to present that I have.

 

That's a lie

 

You've then failed to acknowledge your strawman, in order to derail the thread.

 

You are in fact a lying troll. I expected better from you.

 

Actually you were responding to this:

 

Why shouldn't we aspire to be a country where half the population have a degree, preferably in science or engineering .

 

I'm simply pointing out that contrary to the inference in your response that Japan and Korea have more graduates per head of population than us.

 

No lies. No strawman. Just utterly irrefutable facts.

 

And I'm not a troll.

[unbeliever]

Actually you were responding to this:

 

Why shouldn't we aspire to be a country where half the population have a degree, preferably in science or engineering .

 

I'm simply pointing out that contrary to the inference in your response that Japan and Korea have more graduates per head of population than us.

 

No lies. No strawman. Just utterly irrefutable facts.

 

And I'm not a troll.

 

The Japanese school year is 11 days longer than in England (201 vs 190).

They're held to a higher standard and more is expected of them in terms of homework etc.

If we push kids harder in school and expect more of them, there's no reason why we can't significantly increase the number of STEM graduates in the UK.

I don't know if 50% is achievable or not, but there's nothing wrong with setting an ambitious target to work toward.

As I said before, I think there should be financial incentives for kids to choose STEM at university and more emphasis should be placed on STEM in schools.

There must be so many kids capable of becoming STEM graduates who for one reason or another don't.

 

In the US there is a term for an A- grade for Japanese, Korean etc kids. It's called an "Asian F".

 

If the government pushes the message that a STEM degree is the ideal for long enough and backs that up with financial incentives, eventually the UK culture will catch on.

Edited July 10, 2015 by unbeliever

[tzijlstra]

Referring to STEM education, one of my grandsons has recently been selected to attend 'Master Classes' in maths, science and technology. He's only 9 years old and still at primary school but has been recognized as being gifted in these subjects therefore he's been going to a secondary school to attend these 'Master Classes'.

 

I am delighted to hear that francy, not just because it's your grandson but because one of the biggest fundamental flaws in the British system is the simple fact that brighter kids are not stimulated enough, this sort of master class could really help accelerate progression for these pupils.

[psynuk]

Under the existing system they DO pay for it. Up to £9k a year in fees plus whatever they have to borrow for living expenses in addition to the maintenance grant.

 

With the changes the £9k a year cap for fees has been lifted and they can borrow up to £8.2k for living expenses. That is over £17k a year and would be up to almost £52k for a three year course, maybe more depending on fees. To train as a doctor, dentist or vet would cost £86k.

 

£52k-£86k of debt. Couple this with the fact that the less well off are about to experience further reduced incomes. Have a think again and try and argue this will not be a barrier.

 

As for who pays then I for one am more than happy for my taxes to be used to support access to the higher education system

 

I just don't understand how this argument against paying for a degree works?

 

Granted if your taking the stance of 'in the past it was state funded' or 'the money is going into frivolity such as mp's subsidised beer' then they're almost legitimate grievances.

But; 'oh noes poor student is having to pay to become trained as gp/dentist architect/teacher/any job role that requires degree level cert. So is going to have 30/70/100k+ worth of debt.'

And ? so what? The GP can then command a massive wage. It's an investment in ones own future, it being a public service role is neither her nor there. If they were being made to work 'pro bono' for a decade then fair enough put the cost on the taxpayer, but their not.

 

If I wanted a fully equipped workshop to design jetpacks in, should the taxpayer fund it?

 

The requirement of degrees for certain professions is questionable due to the cost reward ratio. But in general it's a personal investment in an individual and should be paid for by the individual concerned.

 

If you've got a degree under your belt your not 'less well off' your probably poised to become one of the really high earners of the world.

 

If you choose a degree that has no viable chance of a career at the end or a slim chance, then your either already rich enough to not be concerned or pretty dumb and the same still applies. Your degree should be funded by you because you've been immersing yourself for four years in what is known as a hobby.

[Obelix]

Actually you were responding to this:

 

Why shouldn't we aspire to be a country where half the population have a degree, preferably in science or engineering .

 

I'm simply pointing out that contrary to the inference in your response

 

Still lying - still trolling I see.

 

Come back when you wish to apologise

[psynuk]

I would prefer it if the state would fund a degree/phd for everyone, but not at the expense of more 'worthy' expenditures.

 

---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 01:20 ----------

 

Because it would be impossible to do so and would mean wasting the truly brights talents.

 

Samsung and LG don't want a workforce full of degree grads and they don't have one. They want a workforce full of technicians - which is what they have - hands on people to make the stuff and a group of engineers to design the stuff. Similarly Honda don't have a factory full of engineering graduates assembling cars - they'd get bored and leave. They have skilled technicians and machinists making them and a smaller number of R&D engineers designing them.

 

I don't get this stance either?

It's akin to 1880's where only primary education was needed,

1893 was an improvement, 1918 even more so.

 

Why wouldn't you want the person cooking the chips in the local chippy educated to phd level? It should be the aim to educate everyone as much as possible. The bar should be raised continually and the training needed to clear it provided and accessible.

 

Also, you have absolutely no idea what the potential ability level of the populace is, the actual attainment is not of much an indicator. degrees are not some mystical hurdle only possible for the leet intelligentsia to cross.

[Happ Hazzard]

The more people that have degrees, the less they mean. How about making GCSEs and A-Levels more challenging instead of dumbing down degrees? Go back to the old top 10% get an A, next 10% get a B etc instead of the current system where half the candidates get top marks and almost everyone passes.

[psynuk]

That's just stupid.

 

I know what your getting at, but if the only use of degrees is as a yardstick for selectivity... Then why wouldn't you want everyone who could, to have one?

Yes you'd need an other yardstick on top of the degree level but still.

 

Is their anyone who thinks education is a bad thing?

[I1L2T3]

Still lying - still trolling I see.

 

Come back when you wish to apologise

 

Not trolling. Show me where I lied.

 

And, stop being so precious.

 

---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 08:36 ----------

 

I just don't understand how this argument against paying for a degree works?

 

Granted if your taking the stance of 'in the past it was state funded' or 'the money is going into frivolity such as mp's subsidised beer' then they're almost legitimate grievances.

But; 'oh noes poor student is having to pay to become trained as gp/dentist architect/teacher/any job role that requires degree level cert. So is going to have 30/70/100k+ worth of debt.'

And ? so what? The GP can then command a massive wage. It's an investment in ones own future, it being a public service role is neither her nor there. If they were being made to work 'pro bono' for a decade then fair enough put the cost on the taxpayer, but their not.

 

If I wanted a fully equipped workshop to design jetpacks in, should the taxpayer fund it?

 

The requirement of degrees for certain professions is questionable due to the cost reward ratio. But in general it's a personal investment in an individual and should be paid for by the individual concerned.

 

If you've got a degree under your belt your not 'less well off' your probably poised to become one of the really high earners of the world.

 

If you choose a degree that has no viable chance of a career at the end or a slim chance, then your either already rich enough to not be concerned or pretty dumb and the same still applies. Your degree should be funded by you because you've been immersing yourself for four years in what is known as a hobby.

 

This is where you misunderstand my point. I' m not saying students shouldn't contribute. I think we have a problem in the UK having pretty quickly evolved the system to be one of the most expensive in the world for students, but that is another issue.

 

My issue in this case is the solution to the scrapping of the grants for the poorest is to allow them to borrow more, and potentially more than anyone else. I think there needs to be some concrete non-debt based support in place for students from families with the lowest incomes, and maybe for students who are estranged from their families. I'd put the cut-off for such support at the same level as the benefit cap to keep things fair and consistent across the board. IMO its wrong to completely scrap the current maintenance provision.

[harvey19]

Not trolling. Show me where I lied.

 

And, stop being so precious.

 

---------- Post added 11-07-2015 at 08:36 ----------

 

 

This is where you misunderstand my point. I' m not saying students shouldn't contribute. I think we have a problem in the UK having pretty quickly evolved the system to be one of the most expensive in the world for students, but that is another issue.

 

My issue in this case is the solution to the scrapping of the grants for the poorest is to allow them to borrow more, and potentially more than anyone else. I think there needs to be some concrete non-debt based support in place for students from families with the lowest incomes, and maybe for students who are estranged from their families. I'd put the cut-off for such support at the same level as the benefit cap to keep things fair and consistent across the board. IMO its wrong to completely scrap the current maintenance provision.

 

Why should those from poorer backgrounds get their education free when others have to take out a loan.

All students should have the same criteria applied.