Planetarion Forums

Weeks · 13 Dec 2003, 01:13

Someone explain it to me. I really can't be arsed to read that Guardian article.

Are they saying that 1k a year the goverment paid for my tution fees (as my family's working class i.e. poor) are no longer going to be there for me?

Bob The Scutter · 13 Dec 2003, 01:15

i havent read the actual outcome of all this fee crap, but reports when it was being discussed never said anything about that. All i saw/read about it was that the uni's can charge what they want, it didnt say anything about the governments removing their help. For all we know they could even up the money for stupidly priced courses to help people who cant afford them anymore

Weeks · 13 Dec 2003, 01:19

If unis (in pertic. cambrigde, oxford) start charging their own fees, there'll be even more of a two tier society than there is at the moment :S.

Bob The Scutter · 13 Dec 2003, 01:21

nah, cos rich mummys and daddys boys and girls will still be able to afford to go

people who cant, im guessing will just moan until the government pay for it

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Dec 2003, 02:20

What's happening is they're trying to improve 'access' to universities by putting up the costs of going to university, so that only the richest and the poorest can go (the poorest get grants).

It's a stupid system, one that is opposed by every student body in existance and is an attempt by the government to make up its lack of funding for research.

What did you expect from a policy formulated in the reign of a higher education minister who didn't like students?

Weeks · 13 Dec 2003, 02:24

Apparently Unis like cambridge aren;t getting enough working class students.
And this is suppose to make it even more unlikely i heard?

Nodrog · 13 Dec 2003, 02:24

Its a stupid compromise between privitising them and having them state run, which is stupid and will benefit absolutely nobody. The top unis should tell the government to go screw themselves, and turn completely private.

Nodrog · 13 Dec 2003, 02:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weeks

Apparently Unis like cambridge aren;t getting enough working class students.
And this is suppose to make it even more unlikely i heard?

Its hardly cambridge's fault that private/public school students are generally more intelligent and better educated than their state school equivalents.

lokken · 13 Dec 2003, 02:35

If many unis charge the full top up fee, have them in court for price fixing.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Dec 2003, 02:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weeks

Apparently Unis like cambridge aren;t getting enough working class students.
And this is suppose to make it even more unlikely i heard?

The main problem is that they don't apply; the ratio between acceptances and applications is pretty much the same for the public and private sectors.

The university got immensely irritated by Marge Hodge, when she said that working class people didn't have a chance, because the main reason they don't apply is because there is this image of them not having a chance.

Cambridge has spent an enormous amount of time and resources on 'access' (as they term it), and remarks like the ones from the former Higher Education Minister (she's amazing, she really is. Criticises the universities endlessly for things that she imagines as Higher Education Minister, and is now the Minister for Children, which is a great job for someone who oversaw a giant paedophile scandle.) are immensely damaging.

Dace · 13 Dec 2003, 03:00

This Government is really starting to piss me off.

So much so i might even consider voting next time round.

GREEN PARTY HERE I COME!

Nodrog · 13 Dec 2003, 03:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

This Government is really starting to piss me off.

So much so i might even consider voting next time round.

GREEN PARTY HERE I COME!

A vote for more government is a vote for freedom

Dace · 13 Dec 2003, 03:22

Explain yourself Nod.

Nodrog · 13 Dec 2003, 03:26

http://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/pol...003/index.html

Dace · 13 Dec 2003, 03:48

Bullet point your argument DON'T MAKE ME WORK FOR IT!

at0mic.c0w · 13 Dec 2003, 03:49

same old same old.
the three universities in my town have been on strike for the last 2 weeks.

Dace · 13 Dec 2003, 03:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by at0mic.c0w

the three universities in my town have been on strike for the last 2 weeks.

BUT STUDENTS NEVER DO ANY WORK ANYWAY SO HOW CAN THEY GO ON STRIKE?!

at0mic.c0w · 13 Dec 2003, 04:03

the idea obviously was to give room for public demonstrations - noone in their right mind claims that students not going to their lectures make any difference.

queball · 13 Dec 2003, 04:13

as I understand it (which I probably don't), there will be some streamlining. The £1K tutorial fee will go since it sucks anyway. that could look like removing government support.
Differential fees mean universities can charge what they llike, (although there are limits in place at something like £3K a year?)
I don't see why it'd affect applicants. You pay the debt afterwards, when you're able to.
The argument seem to range about the huge size of student debts, but this is a bit of a distraction. What matters is who ends up paying. The Lib Dems want to raise income taxes, the Tories want to cut down on the number of students, and Labour want to get students to pay.

Nodrog · 13 Dec 2003, 04:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by queball

I don't see why it'd affect applicants. You pay the debt afterwards, when you're able to.
The argument seem to range about the huge size of student debts, but this is a bit of a distraction. What matters is who ends up paying. The Lib Dems want to raise income taxes, the Tories want to cut down on the number of students, and Labour want to get students to pay.

Students already pay for it. The taxation taken from that dumb "increased £500,000 lifetime earnings" figure people throw around pays back any assistance students get several times over.

Dace · 13 Dec 2003, 04:37

Quote:

Originally Posted by queball

the Tories want to cut down on the number of students

I might vote Conservative then.

50% of the population with a Uni degree.

**** OFF BLAIR!

queball · 13 Dec 2003, 04:47

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

Students already pay for it. The taxation taken from that dumb "increased £500,000 lifetime earnings" figure people throw around pays back any assistance students get several times over.

Do students to universities proposing higher fees get higher income though?

Weeks · 13 Dec 2003, 04:48

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

I might vote Conservative then.

50% of the population with a Uni degree.

**** OFF BLAIR!

You'd prefer a more uneducated population?
Asking for harder degrees ok. But just less education is pretty shit.

queball · 13 Dec 2003, 04:50

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dace

I might vote Conservative then.

50% of the population with a Uni degree.

**** OFF BLAIR!

Well, I might be misstating their position.

Quote:

Originally posted by the Conservative Party website
- Scrap Labour's arbitrary university admissions target
- Axe the proposed Access Regulator for universities
- Improve vocational and technical education

edit: you know your vote doesn't make a difference rite

Dace · 13 Dec 2003, 05:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Weeks

You'd prefer a more uneducated population?
Asking for harder degrees ok. But just less education is pretty shit.

Thats not the case at all.

Degree standard stays pretty much the same.

Colleges go back to being colleges (not shitty Unis that noone really wants to go to).

We dont want more people with Uni degrees at the expense of people with vocational qualifications.

Infact what queball says the Tory POV is i agree with.

Dace · 13 Dec 2003, 05:12

OHHHH and MY VOTE WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE EFF ESS!

Nodrog · 13 Dec 2003, 05:19

getting rid of this stupid system where your a-level (or equivalent) school grades play a large part in the admissions process would be a good place to start.

Dace · 13 Dec 2003, 05:22

Why would it Nod?

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Dec 2003, 05:27

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nodrog

getting rid of this stupid system where your a-level (or equivalent) school grades play a large part in the admissions process would be a good place to start.

What would make more sense would be to make the A-level a useful qualification, rather than just a way to give everyone 8 A's to prove that the education system is so terrific.

I mean, we're talking about a government that actively lower the standard required to get grades AFTER THE PAPER HAS BEEN SAT AND MARKED just to get the level of passes they promised.

Nodrog · 13 Dec 2003, 06:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

What would make more sense would be to make the A-level a useful qualification, rather than just a way to give everyone 8 A's to prove that the education system is so terrific.

I mean, we're talking about a government that actively lower the standard required to get grades AFTER THE PAPER HAS BEEN SAT AND MARKED just to get the level of passes they promised.

After the universities have declared their intention to go private, they should openly declare that A Levels are absolutely worthless, and stop using them as even a secondary factor in determining admissions. This would also have the benefit of potentially killing the whole "National Curriculum" idea overnight.

Radical Edward · 13 Dec 2003, 06:22

what are you gonna do then Nod?

Nodrog · 13 Dec 2003, 06:35

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

what are you gonna do then Nod?

For admissions? I'd like to see universities issue their own exam papers (collectively, since individually would be a bit chaotic). Set a day of the year for "university admission exams", and invite students to come along to several centres around the country to sit them and see how they do. Have the exams geared towards assessing intelligence and potential, rather than being about testing how much you can cram into your head, like A Levels are (all exams should be open book for instance). Cambridge maths STEP papers are a good example of this, but they dont really go far enough. Other things to determine admissions would be American style SAT papers, and (obviously) interviews.

As for schools, once we've admitted that the national curriculum paradigm is stupid, I'd expect different schools to teach things in different ways. Some would probably collaborate with universities to come up with a syllubus that would help to prepare students for further education, some would probably revert to giving children a "classical education" (good idea++), some might go for programs such as International Bacclaurettes which are far superior to A-levels, and some would adopt retarded 'progressive' programs and be driven out by market forces.. At no point would the government have a say in cirriculum setting, or any other aspect of education.

Radical Edward · 13 Dec 2003, 06:51

Do you think the system would be adaptible, rapidly delf regulating and geographically fair though? I cannot see really how the system could adapt rapidly (i.e. within a year) to any flaws. How would the exposure to market forces be expressed, and is having a school generate a load of thick shitheads for a few years before it shuts down really an acceptable method of market judgement? I suppose one method would be to get parents to be more involved, but this works on the assumption that the parents care, which many quite frankly don't, or perhaps have committees of parents who do actually care.any suggestions? if I am not making my point clear enough here, feel free to ask.

The other issue is a geographical one. I lived in a town of 20k people, which is not too big and cannot support alot of schools. It would be rather awkward on me if there were no suitable schools for me and others like me nearby, since the even smaller numbers of us would not be able to support a school in it's entirity. Most children tend to go to to the schools near where their parents have a job, as opposed to parents having jobs near where the schools are good... what wayz round this would there be?

In general I think that conceptually your ideas are good ones. A levels were a bag of shite, and so were GCSEs, and if anything, my education was stunted by having to conform to some artificial ideal, artificial age limits and lack of system plasticity. Whether I can support your ideas on anything more than a purely conceptual level though depends on whether the benefits of change would outweigh the costs, and as yet I cannot see if they do.

Radical Edward · 13 Dec 2003, 06:54

incidentally I think university admissions exams are the best idea, since that would allow the universities to individually tailor their exams to get the sorts of students they want. It would also allow students to re-take each year until they got it. I assume though that one would either have to always pay for the exams, or get a number of free ones and then have to start paying.

Dante Hicks · 13 Dec 2003, 08:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radical Edward

I suppose one method would be to get parents to be more involved, but this works on the assumption that the parents care, which many quite frankly don't, or perhaps have committees of parents who do actually care.any suggestions?

There's not exactly much incentive to get involved now (for parents, or random members of the community) since so much is controlled by central government. If what kids were taught was much more "up for grabs", it instantly becomes a more rewarding/interesting thing to get involved in.

Nod's ideas are generally fine. In the short-term, I don't care whether schools are privatised or not, just want to abolish the damn national curriculum.

Rids · 13 Dec 2003, 10:14

When I left college, I was inelligable for any decent University because, well, I ****ed up. Spent two years playing Snooker instead of working.

Now I'm 21, and spent 3 years 'working' to some extent or another, I'm ellgable for any Uni that accepts mature students. Sure, I have to do a foundation course for the first year, and then the main degree course, but I can still get the qualification.

Why a foundation course couldnt be offered to people with less than impressive A Level results (as long as they show potential, good score in aptitude tests etc) I dont quite now, basically, I lost 3 years doing shat jobs because I wouldnt repeat college.

Lord Cheese · 13 Dec 2003, 11:58

I may be missing the point here but sometimes i really wonder what the point in having so many students going to uni is. For people who know what they want to do and need to get specialist skills to do this career of their choice then the idea is fine, but what i see a lot of atm is people going to uni to do any old degree because it is what everyone else is doing and what is almost seen as expected (80%-90% of my 6th college have gone to uni) and a large proportion of them are going to come out of uni with a degree completely irrelevent to their career choice. Apparently this qualifies them to be more competent than someone who has gone vocationally based which seems a joke to me the only thing is that they will have gained is skills in learning, which can easily be made up by training skills in work.
To me the net result of these 3(to 5) years in uni has been a huge drain on the public resources and university resources, for very little achievement. The average student who is doing a university degree just because it is there wont add anything amazing to the research side of things because they are well..average.
So my solution would be to make vocational based training (and with training i mean a proper structured exams/work based evidence qualification which is respected as a proper qualification), far more appealing and far better documented and publicised, because at the moment there is no real structure or explanation (there was none of the talks, documentation or support that was there for people wanting to go to uni and careers advice, under there latest gimmick name of 'Connexions' knew absolutely nothing to help me, i had to research it all entirely by myself). This approach gets the same results of getting people trained through uni except that the qualifications are relevent to what you do and will help your work and people dont spend 3 years just wasting money and are productive.
Personally i dont agree with the 'top up fees' as the current £1000 pa is covered by the student loan system anyway and students will be looking at coming out of uni after a 3 year course looking at a debt of £18000 to £20000 if they are conservative and dont go out drinking etc, which to me seems a hell of a lot.
If you have a real issue with it i suggest writing a letter to your mp would make more impact than anything else you could do - personal letters from members of their constituency make them sit up and take notice.

the_dastardley_chihuahua · 13 Dec 2003, 12:09

maybe people want to go to university for the experience, for the chance to expand their mind etc. i have a friend at uni who is doing a forensic science degree, he has no intention at all of getting a job in a police lab or anything remotely connected to his degree.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Dec 2003, 13:19

You'll always get people who do degrees that don't want to continue on afterwards; you'll get quite a few people who think they will and then won't.

The thing to cut down on is the 'joke' degrees, like the Pyrotechnics Degree at the university of South Bank.

Or Media Studies, that's a great one.

Ragnarak · 13 Dec 2003, 14:28

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rids

Why a foundation course couldnt be offered to people with less than impressive A Level results

er that's what DOES happen

Ragnarak · 13 Dec 2003, 14:31

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Or Media Studies, that's a great one.

I'm in no way trying to defend Media Studies but some sort of degree where you learn the technicalities of film making and directing and everything (like a 20th century version of English Lit i guess but including more scientific/engineering aspects) would be an interesting degree in my opinion.

Dante Hicks · 13 Dec 2003, 14:52

Personally, I don't think worthless degree's are a worse problem than people doing degree's they have no interest/acumen for, merely to get a degree.

Since a lot (if not most) people don't seem to do work connecting to their first degree, I doubt it really matters what the degree is in. Obviously the Pyrotechnics Degree at South Bank is worthless, but that's because it's at South Bank (and Pyrotechnics would be a more practical degree anyway, I presume).

I only know one person with a degree who sits in the same area of the office as I do, and her degree is in Geology (she currently works in a admin role). Now, presuming an equal standard of teaching, I don't see how her degree would have been that much more of a waste of time (in her current role) if she had done David Beckham studies or whatever*.

There seems to be a popular media hobby of criticising certain degree types. I don't see why it really matters though. If my degree was named "Marxist & Liberal Political Theory" it'd probably be seen as more worthless, yet that's basically what I did for three years.

*Obviously yes, there's an argument that worse students are generally going to take worthless degrees, and it's less likely to have supporting resources, etc, etc.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Dec 2003, 15:00

Equal standards of teaching are immaterial if the methods and goals of the course are different.

Dante Hicks · 13 Dec 2003, 15:06

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Equal standards of teaching are immaterial if the methods and goals of the course are different.

Well, what is the "goal" of any degree? It's either some kind of training/education in a particular field (Law, Medicene, lots of others) and/or it's some kind of general education to help "life skills" (or something).

Clearly the number of people doing History degrees (say) far outstrips the demand for Historians (or history teachers, or people doing any job even vaguely involving history). The majority of people who do a degree in history will probably never have to write a historical paper once they've graduated. More directly, they will probably never have to give a view on the collapse of the Roman Empire (except in more exotic pub conversation).

But they will have to write general business reports, analyse statistics, consider bias in sources, etc, etc. I don't see (inherently) why these secondary lessons couldn't be gained from studying anything (even something specifically worthless).

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Dec 2003, 15:08

How would those kinds of skills be emphasised in David Beckham studies?

Dante Hicks · 13 Dec 2003, 15:13

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

How would those kinds of skills be emphasised in David Beckham studies?

Well, I'm presuming that you have to write papers, do research, consider quantative/anecdotal sources, etc when doing such a degree. Once again, I'm presuming some kind of standard in teaching. If that doesn't exist obviously it's a different example.

The specific subjects I have studied (at times) have been utterly worthless, during some of my education. But it wasn't a waste of time (usually) because I was supposed to be learning how to construct arguments, etc.

It's the debating principle, surely? People debate the correct colouring of salt & vinegar crisp packets not because it matters per se, but they are practicing a plethora of other skills.

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Dec 2003, 15:16

The subject is very important. For instance, the nature of empiricism is more emphasised in Physics than in Biology.

Dante Hicks · 13 Dec 2003, 15:20

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

The subject is very important. For instance, the nature of empiricism is more emphasised in Physics than in Biology.

Oh, of course. Doing a natural sciences degree is undoubtedly very different to a social sciences degree I imagine (I've only sat in on the former, so I can't comment particularly). Some degrees are obviously eminently more practical, and so it's foolish to compare (Medicene, as I've mentioned).

But I don't see how a David Beckham degree is that much more of a waste of time than say, English Literature - unless you are planning some career relating to either. The actual subject matter of Eng Lit appears to be of nil use, but I'm sure the skills, etc you learn are great. If after either degree you end up doing a random office job (which let's face it, most graduates are going to these days) both would probably be equally valuable.

Deffeh · 13 Dec 2003, 15:29

This far without a complaint about the Scottish MPs passing the bill through?

Im not in a position to judge, but, my observations are so far :

There is too high a focus on going to Uni. Its not the most important thing in the world.

My entire secondary education was useless, as In Stirling, as soon as you are accepted you can just take three random subjects - it doesnt matter if i was good at English, Media, Business, German etc - i could have taken Enviromental Science, Politics (and i did!), and Psychology or some pish. A Levels / Highers are pretty much seen as aptitude tests the way this system works.

Im at uni because i want the experience. I love the drinking, and the meeting new people, etc etc. Even if i come out with My English Degree or Politics Degree or English / Politics, whatever, what ****ing use itll be to me i dont know and dont care. People just presume a degree = a job. I know people here who are driving themselves into serious serious debt at the age of 18 to do a Philosiphy/Psychology Degreee. When was the last time you saw a post for a philosipher advertised in the paper? People like that should just drop out and figure out what they want to do with their lives. WOrking in retail, manual labour, blah de blah de blah. Everyone ends up hating their job anyway, so why not cut out the debt just because university is the "done thing".

MrL_JaKiri · 13 Dec 2003, 15:29

English literature is complete bollocks though.