unbeliever   10 #25 Posted August 24, 2015 it still doesnt change the fact we all use the same roads. That tax money goes to upkeep and maintenance. And is in no way linked to the value of the car or the wealth of the owner. Good argument for abolishing tuition fees. I wouldnt be opposed necessarily. Economically or ideologically.  What tax rises or spending cuts do you propose to raise the money? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #26 Posted August 24, 2015 We sent a far smaller fraction of people to university. Should we go back to that? As already pointed out, the debt is on very generous and forgiving terms. People only pay back what they can afford when they can afford it. It's essentially a graduate tax. I don't think it even shows up on one's credit rating.  Of course we should send less to uni. A fair chunk of graduates are doing jobs now that 30 years ago could have been done with half a dozen o levels. I always thought a degree was a sign of intelligence, the cream of the crop. That can't be the case if half the population has one. And if you haven't got one? Scum. I'd imagine in middle class circles having offspring without a degree would carry a right stigma. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #27 Posted August 24, 2015 Of course we should send less to uni. A fair chunk of graduates are doing jobs now that 30 years ago could have been done with half a dozen o levels. I always thought a degree was a sign of intelligence, the cream of the crop. That can't be the case if half the population has one. And if you haven't got one? Scum. I'd imagine in middle class circles having offspring without a degree would carry a right stigma.  Times move on. Every developed nation is sending more kids to university. That doesn't mean we can just send millions under-educated people to uni to do media studies to make up the numbers and expect things to work out. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
TJC1 Â Â 10 #28 Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) What tax rises or spending cuts do you propose to raise the money? Â The whole point of cuts to achieve a surplus and start spending. Â I'm not a politician. However Corbyn proposed this policy change and 41 economists backed it. Â So obviously its not just blue sky thinking... Â ---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 15:12 ---------- Â Of course we should send less to uni. A fair chunk of graduates are doing jobs now that 30 years ago could have been done with half a dozen o levels. I always thought a degree was a sign of intelligence, the cream of the crop. That can't be the case if half the population has one. And if you haven't got one? Scum. I'd imagine in middle class circles having offspring without a degree would carry a right stigma. Â impossible with, quite rightly, an open door policy and the current commercial aspect. Unis will keep growing and expanding. Â There's an argument for making exams tougher - would that mean less students :suspect:qualify for Uni? not too sure... Â ---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 15:15 ---------- Â Times move on. Every developed nation is sending more kids to university. That doesn't mean we can just send millions under-educated people to uni to do media studies to make up the numbers and expect things to work out. Â I agree, Uni's create so many pointless courses now just to get the numbers in. You've just made an argument against commoditizing education... Â ---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 15:20 ---------- Â Does anyone think Uni's should only offer STEM subjects? Edited August 24, 2015 by TJC1 ..... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #29 Posted August 24, 2015 Does anyone think Uni's should only offer STEM subjects?  That would be a bit extreme. I would prefer an honest appraisal of what the economy needs and then a system of information and incentives to nudge prospective students in the right direction. Right now, we could just go all out in encouraging and incentivising STEM and it'd be a long time before it went too far in that direction. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
TJC1 Â Â 10 #30 Posted August 24, 2015 That would be a bit extreme. I would prefer an honest appraisal of what the economy needs and then a system of information and incentives to nudge prospective students in the right direction. Right now, we could just go all out in encouraging and incentivising STEM and it'd be a long time before it went too far in that direction. Â fair enough. Some of the course names now I can't get my head around - david beckham studies! lol:hihi: Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #31 Posted August 24, 2015 fair enough. Some of the course names now I can't get my head around - david beckham studies! lol:hihi:  I don't think that one was real. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
TJC1 Â Â 10 #32 Posted August 24, 2015 I don't think that one was real. Â A level 'general studies' -mmmmm.... Â ---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 15:29 ---------- Â anything that really has no application in the real world should be cut IMHO. Degrees are too expensive to chuff about for 3 years and have nothing to show for it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
tinfoilhat   11 #33 Posted August 24, 2015 I don't think that one was real.  According to google it was module on a degree course at Staffordshire university. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #34 Posted August 24, 2015 A level 'general studies' -mmmmm.... ---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 15:29 ----------  anything that really has no application in the real world should be cut IMHO. Degrees are too expensive to chuff about for 3 years and have nothing to show for it.  Usually 4 years these days. I wouldn't go so far as to cut it. If the student is financing themselves completely (even if with loans) then there's no harm done. As long as the students are made fully aware that they'll be 4 years older, owe a lot of money, and if anything they'll have reduced their earning power. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
mossdog   10 #35 Posted August 24, 2015 It is a complete waste of time and money over educating 50% of people attending Universities! Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...
unbeliever   10 #36 Posted August 24, 2015 According to google it was module on a degree course at Staffordshire university.  I thought it was something like that but I couldn't remember the details. A module is a long way short of a full degree on the subject, but I suppose it's still illustrative of a system of supposed education which is of little or no practical value.  ---------- Post added 24-08-2015 at 15:35 ----------  It is a complete waste of time and money over educating 50% of people attending Universities!  Clearly the optimum is above 5% as it was a couple of generations ago. Still you may be right that 50% is too high. I honestly think 50% is probably nearer the ideal than 5%, but we really need to get the bulk of them studying things which are genuinely and practically useful. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Share this content via...