University building - a fake economy?

[Bargepole23]

1st Class Honours engineering degree from a Russell Group university and fully paid for. My entire costs were taken care of which gave me a great motivation to do well with the golden opportunity I was given. Hence the getting a 1st which carried on with getting my chartership a few years ago. It's all about improving yourself to be the best you can.

 

This is somewhat of a family tradition we have where the children get their university costs taken care of as a way of investing in their future. I'll be doing the same for my children and it will continue.

 

Same here.

 

Do you think all families can afford to maintain a tradition whereby all costs are paid for by the family. I'm sure you don't. So what then? A loan is required.

 

If it doesn't seem likely that borrower will be able to pay it all back, then should that person be prevented from attending Uni? I don't think so, do you?

[Cyclone]

It was thanks to new Labour that I was given a completely free university education. They even gave me £200 a year for books, which I bought much cheaper second hand from students a year ahead, so came out in front!

 

I'm fairly sure that labour continued to cut the old system of maintenance grants and to increase the student loans scheme.

 

---------- Post added 29-11-2016 at 13:10 ----------

 

 

If it doesn't seem likely that borrower will be able to pay it all back, then should that person be prevented from attending Uni? I don't think so, do you?

 

Attendance should be based on academic capabilities rather than any estimated future ability to pay IMO.

That said, if you can't afford your own fine arts degree, then should the state pay for it? It's different if the degree is one that society will find useful, but there are definitely courses that are more useful than others.

[ez8004]

Same here.

 

Do you think all families can afford to maintain a tradition whereby all costs are paid for by the family. I'm sure you don't. So what then? A loan is required.

 

If it doesn't seem likely that borrower will be able to pay it all back, then should that person be prevented from attending Uni? I don't think so, do you?

 

Depends on what your priorities are. I don't think it is difficult to fund my children to university. This is because I studied for a degree that gets remunerated very well.

 

A lot of degrees simply are not economical and therefore a waste of time. If you can't earn the average wage even with a university education then yes it shouldn't have been undertaken.

[Cyclone]

Depends on what your priorities are. I don't think it is difficult to fund my children to university. This is because I studied for a degree that gets remunerated very well.

 

A lot of degrees simply are not economical and therefore a waste of time. If you can't earn the average wage even with a university education then yes it shouldn't have been undertaken.

 

So our society should be all about the $$$ and art, history, literature, those things should be considered useless and nobody should study them.

What a horrible view of the world.

[Obelix]

Depends on what your priorities are. I don't think it is difficult to fund my children to university. This is because I studied for a degree that gets remunerated very well.

 

A lot of degrees simply are not economical and therefore a waste of time. If you can't earn the average wage even with a university education then yes it shouldn't have been undertaken.

 

That argument is so flawed it is not even wrong.

[Cyclone]

So, which thing is a bubble? The number of students? And it's being sustained by public investment (ie the loans)?

So what will cause it to burst? Presumably that would be the removal of the public money support, right.

 

So why are you predicting that the public support (loans) will continue for just long enough to pay off the mortgages on the accommodation for the students? And then 'burst'?

And if something lasts for 30 years, in what way can it be described as a bubble? The entire point of that phrase is that it's a short term phenomenon. Student numbers have been fairly steady for 1.5 decades now though, that already well exceeds the definition of bubble...

 

So if these privately built accommodation blocks are funded by the market, and they serve students at universities for the next 30 years, long enough to pay for themselves many times over, what's the "fake economy" bit? Surely they're a) needed by the students, b) a good investment for the companies?

 

I'd quite like the OP to come back and explain anyway, the original post doesn't really make any sense given his subsequent comments.

[unbeliever]

So our society should be all about the $$$ and art, history, literature, those things should be considered useless and nobody should study them.

What a horrible view of the world.

 

Nobody wants to eliminate art. But there's nothing wrong with prioritising.

[ez8004]

That argument is so flawed it is not even wrong.

 

Well, they had better not complain that the benefits system isn't generous enough.

[Bob Arctor]

I'd quite like the OP to come back and explain anyway, the original post doesn't really make any sense given his subsequent comments.

 

The original post title was a question, not a statement. I know some people are prone to masking statements as questions but mine was a genuine question. I am wondering whether the system of student finance will implode because so many of the loans won't be paid back, and that the buildings will turn out to have been built on the back of unsustainable debt. Like commercial property before the 2008 crash.

Edited November 29, 2016 by Bob Arctor

[phil752]

The majority of funding from students in Sheffield arrives in the form of foreign students. Pull the plug on immigration, pull the plug on those students. For years the Universities UK body has been explaining that a large number of 'immigrants' are in fact students.

 

from eastern Europe ?

 

---------- Post added 30-11-2016 at 00:32 ----------

 

As a postgraduate student, I think Government made a joke of the university system. I think the three problem areas are entry standards, subjects, and capacity (particularly with polytechnics).

 

You don't need to be amongst the most intelligent to go to university anymore. Many are getting places with (pretty effortless) BTEC's and "alternative routes".

In my opinion, if you can't study at A Level standard or even GCSE standard, you shouldn't be doing a degree.

 

Then there are the comedic subjects like Drama, Sports, Furniture Design, Art, etc. SHU actually has a degree in conducting surveys...

If you want to be an actor, go to a drama school. If you want to be a footballer, join an academy. And surely conducting surveys is part of Marketing?

Many of these subjects don't actually lead to any particular career or job role. Those that do are often too competitive because of the sheer amount of people with said degrees. As a result, student loans don't get paid back because nobody has a job/earns enough to do so!

 

Capacity-wise, there don't seem to be any limited places anymore. The universities just keep on expanding places to fill the demand of their courses, therefore there's no competition. It just further devalues university education.

 

It all makes the Oxbridge/Red-brick snobbery seem reasonable.

 

Regarding who is the biggest winner, well, the largest accommodation provider (Unite Students) had a net income of £355M last year.

 

The biggest losers are the students and the taxpayer.

 

well said >>>

 

---------- Post added 30-11-2016 at 00:38 ----------

 

Depends on what your priorities are. I don't think it is difficult to fund my children to university. This is because I studied for a degree that gets remunerated very well.

 

A lot of degrees simply are not economical and therefore a waste of time. If you can't earn the average wage even with a university education then yes it shouldn't have been undertaken.

 

did your parents find it difficult to fund your education.