2015- July Budget

[Obelix]

I don't see why they shouldn't be.

 

Because the content of a degree is such that most people will not be able to complete the course with sufficient understanding to pass the examinations...

 

of course you can always stack the books by making the degree easier and dumbing down HND, A levels, and finally GCSE's but that makes them pointless. It also increases the gap between degrees and PhD as you ahve to produce original research for a doctorate and that's something that almost no one can do well and it's very difficult to actually dumb that down.

[Alan Ladd]

How many seats did you get?

 

---------- Post added 09-07-2015 at 13:33 ----------

 

 

Look it at this another way. Nobody goes to university except the elite. What happens?

Whether you loke it or not we need people to go to uni to get better paid work to pay more into the system.

 

You and me both benefit from this so why shoildnt the public contribute?

 

Majority of about 12?

[Anna B]

I've not seen anyone mention that Osborne has given the go-ahead for 'top universities' to hike up fees over £9,000.

 

Of course, not hiking up your fees sends the message that you are not a top university, so they'll all do it, as happened when Oxbridge decided to charge the top rate...

[Eater Sundae]

It's not clear.

I think 50% is ambitious for BSc's. At least until schools have been reformed to be substantially more intensive in STEM subjects: longer hours and more focus on STEM would be required.

There's no reason why we can't train a great many more people in STEM subjects beyond school even if they're not all up to doing the BSc's. I'm thinking more applied or semi-vocational rather than pure academic training.

We're not doing enough to encourage able kids into STEM.

I'd like to see lower fees for more economically useful post-school studies.[/QUOTE]

 

Re bib. I agree.

 

However, I think that a government with a free market bias would be less inclined to want to social engineer in this way as it smacks of a Stalinist style of central government decreeing that we will have 50,000 chemical engineers, 20,000 biologists etc, (although social engineering by selling off public sector housing is OK).

 

A way round this might be to provide tax advantages to encourage companies to sponsor students. This way suitable students would get "free" education, and business would get competent and appropriately trained employees.

[phoenixboy]

Hello. Public sector worker. Told you that already.

 

The public used to pay the whole thing. Perhaps you're not advocating a return to that.

The debt for higher education is shared between the student and the state. The parents are not involved in the arrangement. Whether or not the parents have money does not seem relevant.

 

Maybe you have a different opinion. But that doesn't matter because you didn't vote, and you still insist that this is okay. So nobody will care what you think.

 

I got the maintenance grant myself. Bet you will still try and tell me how it works despite obvious lack of knowledge.

[Anna B]

Have you a link please Anna?

 

BBC lunchtime News followed by ITV lunchtime news at 1.30pm. Both lead with it. Might repeat it at 6.0pm News I should think.

[unbeliever]

 

Re bib. I agree.

 

However, I think that a government with a free market bias would be less inclined to want to social engineer in this way as it smacks of a Stalinist style of central government decreeing that we will have 50,000 chemical engineers, 20,000 biologists etc, (although social engineering by selling off public sector housing is OK).

 

A way round this might be to provide tax advantages to encourage companies to sponsor students. This way suitable students would get "free" education, and business would get competent and appropriately trained employees.

 

It's not really social engineering to routinely offer state bursaries to well qualified students studying STEM subjects at university. They already do it for STEM PGCE and PGDE students because they need more STEM teachers. Why not extend this to STEM undergraduates.

[altus]

We're not doing enough to encourage able kids into STEM.

 

Until companies start paying people to do STEM jobs what they can get doing non STEM jobs[1] it won't matter how many kids we get interested in STEM subjects.

 

 

[1] And stop having moving into management as the only career path.

[Cyclone]

Because the content of a degree is such that most people will not be able to complete the course with sufficient understanding to pass the examinations...

I don't see why that should be the case.

Most people aren't stupid, in fact most people are reasonably smart.

 

So unless you deliberately design degree's to be harder and to only be achievable by a small elite then there is nothing to stop the majority being educated to that level.

[unbeliever]

I don't see why that should be the case.

Most people aren't stupid, in fact most people are reasonably smart.

 

So unless you deliberately design degree's to be harder and to only be achievable by a small elite then there is nothing to stop the majority being educated to that level.

 

With the best will in the world, some people just don't have the raw intelligence for these subjects.

Still there are many who are capable who don't follow this path because the schools aren't doing right by them. There are still more (particularly female) who are not drawn to STEM degrees because of our culture. I think financial incentives to do STEM at degree level for those who are clearly able would help. I also think we need more emphasis on STEM at school.