MrSmith Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Why is it sensible to assert that the brightest from the poorest backgrounds will be happy to take on 40k of debt. The really sensible ones will head to places like Holland and get a more rigorous education for a fraction of the cost. I have no idea, who said it is sensable that brightest from the poorest backgrounds will be happy to take on 40k of debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I have no idea, who said it is sensable that brightest from the poorest backgrounds will be happy to take on 40k of debt. It was inferred in Rupert's response to my post about poor kids taking on 40k of debt. The bright ones will do well irrespective of background for sure but to do so in England saddles them with huge debts. There is nothing sensible about kids from disadvantaged backgrounds taking on 40k of debt. Especially in this economic climate. The other problem is that there is no way of knowing how many are being put off from applying. It's a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 It was inferred in Rupert's response to my post about poor kids taking on 40k of debt. The bright ones will do well irrespective of background for sure but to do so in England saddles them with huge debts. There is nothing sensible about kids from disadvantaged backgrounds taking on 40k of debt. Especially in this economic climate. The other problem is that there is no way of knowing how many are being put off from applying. It's a mess. I didn’t conclude that anyone should be happy to have student depts. I concluded that the debt is a price worth paying if you end up with a useful degree that gives you a good job and higher than average earning. There is no reason for anyone with the debt to worry because it only has to be paid back when and if you can afford it, and many of the debts will eventually be written off if the student doesn’t get into a position in which they can afford to pay it back. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I didn’t conclude that anyone should be happy to have student depts. I concluded that the debt is a price worth paying if you end up with a useful degree that gives you a good job and higher than average earning. There is no reason for anyone with the debt to worry because it only has to be paid back when and if you can afford it, and many of the debts will eventually be written off if the student doesn’t get into a position in which they can afford to pay it back. I understand exactly what you are saying. There's no doubt the new higher fees make it harder for poor kids. Applications are down 10% this year. The higher fees are a barrier, the UK now one of the most expensive countries to get a degree. We don't know how many people have been deterred from applying and it's probable that some of the brightest and most able from poor backgrounds haven't applied. Like I said a complete mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
puisseguin Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Maybe kids from more affluent households will be supported by their parents. They may not have the same size loans. Maybe their parents will have connections to help them into work after graduating. To be up against that maybe looks daunting to kids from poorer backgrounds. Be interesting to see some solid figures on this. The old system was far better. I went to university and the tax payers paid for it. They even paid my board and lodgings and gave me a nice fat grant to buy beer, fags and cuban heels. No one ever asked me for a penny in return. Those were the days. Sadly I couldn't repay the taxpayers as I was offered a job overseas and by the time I returned to the UK I was semi retired. Now I have a place in France where I intend to retire and grow grapes. The UK should start paying my pension in around 18 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I understand exactly what you are saying. There's no doubt the new higher fees make it harder for poor kids. Applications are down 10% this year. The higher fees are a barrier, the UK now one of the most expensive countries to get a degree. We don't know how many people have been deterred from applying and it's probable that some of the brightest and most able from poor backgrounds haven't applied. Like I said a complete mess. This is a good thing, too many young people were encouraged wrongly to pursue degrees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 This is a good thing, too many young people were encouraged wrongly to pursue degrees. I agree that too many people were going to University who shouldn't, but if the drop is due to fees then it will be the poorest who are not going, and some of them may also be the brightest. As for banks targetting scientists and engineers, (and I've also heard this,) banks can offer salaries that no one else can match. They are then put to work devising software and new algorythms that can rip us off even faster, and take out the human element. These scientists and engineers should be working to find the new cure for cancer or the next big thing, not making phenominally wealthy people even wealthier. But what institute, research or development facility can offer anything much in the way of pay? They can't compete and probably had their grants cut to the bone. It's all mad. I despair. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 I agree that too many people were going to University who shouldn't, but if the drop is due to fees then it will be the poorest who are not going, and some of them may also be the brightest. As for banks targetting scientists and engineers, (and I've also heard this,) banks can offer salaries that no one else can match. They are then put to work devising software and new algorythms that can rip us off even faster, and take out the human element. These scientists and engineers should be working to find the new cure for cancer or the next big thing, not making phenominally wealthy people even wealthier. But what institute, research or development facility can offer anything much in the way of pay? They can't compete and probably had their grants cut to the bone. It's all mad. I despair. It's not all mad and there's no reason to despair. Be honest, every one of us wants to get paid as much as possible for the skills we have. If someone has worked hard to gain a scientific or engineering degree why shouldn't they take the chance to be rewarded? Besides which scientists trying to find cures for human diseases experiment on live animals which is a far more morally wrong than working for a bank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 This is a good thing, too many young people were encouraged wrongly to pursue degrees. So why did the tories upgrade polytechnics into universities and are now saying there are too many people going to university, so they try to restrict Higher Education by making it financially restrictive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rupert_Baehr Posted June 28, 2012 Share Posted June 28, 2012 Why is it sensible to assert that the brightest from the poorest backgrounds will be happy to take on 40k of debt. The really sensible ones will head to places like Holland and get a more rigorous education for a fraction of the cost. There is indeed nothing to stop an English student (and I used the word 'English' rather than 'British' because not all British students face the same scale of charges) from applying for a University place at any University within the EU and providing that University is outside the UK, the English student will pay exactly the same as any other European student. That English student may, of course, be required to demonstrate competence in the language of the country in which (s)he is studying. - That isn't usually a problem for European students wishing to study in the UK, so presumably it won't be a problem for English students wishing to study in Europe, will it ? There are a few universities (notably the University of Prague) which offer some courses in English. That's another option. As for the courses being 'a fraction of the cost', do you have comparative figures? (I don't have current figures. The last time I looked (about 5 years ago) at the cost of medical degrees [taught in English] at Prague, the tuition fees were slightly higher than those in England, but the cost of living for students was significantly lower and the overall cost of the degree was slightly lower than it would have been in the UK.) It was inferred in Rupert's response to my post about poor kids taking on 40k of debt. The bright ones will do well irrespective of background for sure but to do so in England saddles them with huge debts. There is nothing sensible about kids from disadvantaged backgrounds taking on 40k of debt. Especially in this economic climate. The other problem is that there is no way of knowing how many are being put off from applying. It's a mess. What's the difference between a poor kid taking on 40k of debt and a rich kid taking on 40k of debt? - Given that neither has to repay the debt until (s)he is earning above a certain level (and at that level, neither is poor.) Where the 'barriers to entry' for a given trade or profession are high, the number of applicants for that trade or profession is likely to be low and the amount that successful entrants can earn is likely to be high. The height of the barriers to entry is not determined solely by tuition fees. During the past many years, the number of university entrants has increased steadily year-on-year. Some have argued that given that people aren't getting noticeably smarter, the increased numbers entering university have lead to an overall reduction in standards. That does not mean that all courses have become diluted; indeed the academic standards in some courses are probably higher now than they have ever been. Perhaps the question should not be: "How many students are deterred from going to university by higher fees" but "How many students are deterred from enrolling in courses which are deemed to be a 'soft option' by increased tuition fees? If the number of low-ability students enrolling in 'soft option' courses which are unlikely to lead to a rewarding career is reducing, is that really such a bad thing? How much money can the country afford to spend subsidising students who "are only here for the beer"? Society does need Humanities graduates; it also needs Arts graduates, Language graduates and a steady supply of other talented academics. It probably also needs some 'Meeja Studies' graduates and may even need one or two graduates in Advanced Alpine Flower Arrangement, but it does not need thousands of them. I understand exactly what you are saying. There's no doubt the new higher fees make it harder for poor kids. Applications are down 10% this year. The higher fees are a barrier, the UK now one of the most expensive countries to get a degree. We don't know how many people have been deterred from applying and it's probable that some of the brightest and most able from poor backgrounds haven't applied. Like I said a complete mess. Why are higher fees a deterrent if students do not have to repay them? - if the job a graduate can obtain with a particular qualification doesn't pay enough to require the student to repay the fees, what's the problem? If it's not cost-effective to undertake a particular course (the outlay will never be recouped) why should people be encouraged to take that course? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.