Outrageous University fees.

[llamatron]

So I guess for a student doing a history degree it is rather cheaper for the Univeristy in terms of costs than a science degree. Does this mean that the costs to the applicant are less/ will it mean they still will be when the changes come about?

 

not currently as I said above. I think history etc is subsidising science. Which seems acceptable as science degrees are of more use to society in the majority of cases.

 

I think this will change, but I think it will be more complicated than history costs less therefore we will charge less. I would guess there will be more support for science and engineering students than arts students but who knows. I think the competition will be a good thing though as long as the students realise how little the debt matters-you really dont notice it at all.

 

Actually on the other hand the sciences bring a lot of money into the university so maybe they are in fact self funding which arts subjects are unlikely to be. hmmmm

[llamatron]

Without meaning any disrespect to yourself. Do you think that a history degree is of the same value as a scientific or engineering degree ?

I personally do not. The sheer workload of a technical applied subject is a real trial for even the brightest student. Essentially it is already a course which is crushed into 3 years and could easily be taken over 5, there is so much to fit in.

Whereas many of the more bookish subjects from my time, included "reading weeks" where the task was essentially to read a certain amount of books. I go back to the days of student grants and some of my friends who were doing English basically spent all day in the pub and still got a good pass. While we were doing 35 hours a week plus 10 to 15 hours of homework, especially at the end of the academic year.

 

thats not what I said at all, all I said was you cant use contact time to decide whether someone is worthy of a degree. The subjects are too different. I relatively easily got a first in my science degree whereas I would have had a very hard time trying to pass in history.

 

How useful the subject is, is an entirely different matter. If someone is able to do history they have a lot of analytical skills, writing skills, debating skills that I will not have.

 

some people in science and arts subjects spend their entire degree drinking, some people worked constantly in both subjects. Science is probably more useful but it doesnt mean you have worked harder or are more highly skilled, its just given more respect.

[Conrod]

thats not true they are entirely different subjects which require different skills. A history student needs to be able to read an analyse text from many different sources, they will not necessarily need to be taught anything other than the technique of collating the information.

 

A science student will need to know and apply facts, therefore science can be taught in a lecture format whereas history cannot.

I don't disagree with the differences between the two types of subject, but with few exceptions the history/arts types of subject add bugger all to society except to self-perpetuate their own subjects - they don't develop medicine, provide clean water or produce safe energy.

[alchresearch]

Are you agreeing with condensing it , or are you saying it needs to be a 3 year course?

 

Condensing it.

 

It didn't really bother me as I just went back to work. My course was a fixed four year one because I was a part time student, but I could have easily done it in two, but they simply wouldn't let me.

 

It wasn't a timetabling issue, I could have easily made all the other lectures, I just wasn't allowed to do more than 2 modules a semester.

 

And when the modules were running that I didn't have to take and got instant credit (life / work experience) I couldn't do any of the others I was due to take the following semester - I had to just not go in! It was very frustrating.

 

Anyway, I had full time pals on the same course. When we left at 10.30 I asked what they were going to do and they just went down to the student union or back to bed!

[Phanerothyme]

I find it incredulous that some subjects take up only a few hours a week.

 

That is staff/student contact time. A student is expected to be able to study and learn without a staff member being present to spoonfeed them.

 

A typical 1/2:1 History student will be spending at least 15 hours a week reading sources and analyses. They may only have 6 hours of tutorials and lectures.

 

And English dissertation module will have perhaps 5-10 hours contact time per year

 

I don't disagree with the differences between the two types of subject, but with few exceptions the history/arts types of subject add bugger all to society except to self-perpetuate their own subjects - they don't develop medicine, provide clean water or produce safe energy.

 

Yeah, History, Literature, Art and Music all add bugger all to society.

[Chris_Sleeps]

Of course it still can be. It means that unless they earn more than 21k in a job they wont have to pay the fees back.

It is fairly simple to understand that someone coming from a poor background will think long and hard before taking on vast debts to become accountants, in this context. The poorer sections of society see very few rise out now when the limit is capped, and the average debt is £13-£15 thousand. If that number should double, triple, even quadruple, it is fare to say it will deter vast amounts of people away from studying. I see no reason why our society cannot afford to educate themselves.

 

but with few exceptions the history/arts types of subject add bugger all to society

That is a whole new debate in itself, but you are wrong. The humanities offer us as a society many wonderous things.

[llamatron]

I don't disagree with the differences between the two types of subject, but with few exceptions the history/arts types of subject add bugger all to society except to self-perpetuate their own subjects - they don't develop medicine, provide clean water or produce safe energy.

 

 

They are not useful for the making things type of applications but when you are talking about politics, foreign policy, ethics etc they are much more useful

 

They are perhaps more abstract but they do have useful applications for society and many for the individual doing the degree.

 

 

I am quite clearly straddling the fence, I will just add....."down with media studies".

[Bulgarian]

I think they should go back to it being paid fro by the government, but only the realy, realy bright kids get to go.

[llamatron]

It is fairly simple to understand that someone coming from a poor background will think long and hard before taking on vast debts to become accountants, in this context. The poorer sections of society see very few rise out now when the limit is capped, and the average debt is £13-£15 thousand. If that number should double, triple, even quadruple, it is fare to say it will deter vast amounts of people away from studying. I see no reason why our society cannot afford to educate themselves.

 

 

That is a whole new debate in itself, but you are wrong. The humanities offer us as a society many wonderous things.

 

so its not actually a problem with paying back the money as they wont notice it going out. Its more educating the poorer students on their perception of this particular debt. Its not like maxing out your credit card to go on holiday.

 

Maybe students could be sponsored by companies to do degrees and the company would pay the costs unless the student stopped working for them in which case they could pay the company back. Then the degree will be aiming towards a job and the population would be getting an education that is actually required for our jobs market.

 

I will quit my ramblings now

[llamatron]

I think they should go back to it being paid fro by the government, but only the realy, realy bright kids get to go.

 

that would of course solve everything but it aint gonna happen!