Student Top Up fees
Posted by: Laurie Saunders on 19 January 2004
This one has probably been covered already, however:
I am just amazed at what seems to have been a Government "own goal" here. They have actively strived for, and largely achieved a huge increase in the numbers of students entering Higher Education. I cannot comprehend why they did not seem to forsee the concomitant deamands on funding, and the implications of this, viz the need to raise this money from somewhere, and the likely public response to this
The debate about whether it is a Good Thing for 50% of the "age cohort" to go to university is another interesting angle on this
Working in the state run education sector, I obviously have a special interest in this area
laurie S
laurie
I am just amazed at what seems to have been a Government "own goal" here. They have actively strived for, and largely achieved a huge increase in the numbers of students entering Higher Education. I cannot comprehend why they did not seem to forsee the concomitant deamands on funding, and the implications of this, viz the need to raise this money from somewhere, and the likely public response to this
The debate about whether it is a Good Thing for 50% of the "age cohort" to go to university is another interesting angle on this
Working in the state run education sector, I obviously have a special interest in this area
laurie S
laurie
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Steve G
Scotland has supposedly already got 50% of school-leavers going into higher education but this seems to have led to very high drop out rates for certain of the new universities.
Scotland has also ditched student fees but there seems to be a feeling in the labour party up here that if higher variable fees are brought into England then something similar might be necessary up here as well.
It seems amazing to me that these are labour policies and not tory ones although I haven't seen enough of the financial details to know the reasoning behind it (although generally it sounds like a bad idea to me).
Regards
Steve
Scotland has also ditched student fees but there seems to be a feeling in the labour party up here that if higher variable fees are brought into England then something similar might be necessary up here as well.
It seems amazing to me that these are labour policies and not tory ones although I haven't seen enough of the financial details to know the reasoning behind it (although generally it sounds like a bad idea to me).
Regards
Steve
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Derek Wright
One of the major reasons for increasing the percentage of the population attending "university" was to reduce youth unemployment, this has now been replaced by graduate unemployment.
No doubt there is a need for an increae in the number of graduates over the 5% to 10% of the population that occured when I was a lad - but I have doubts that the economy really benefits from a very high percentge of graduates - some of which are going to be unhappy as there is no guaranteed "golden future" for them
Ironic that as an unemployed youth one would get government subsidy - but as an undergraduate one can look forward to a debt of 12 to 15k to pay off
Of the last few years graduates that I am aware of - all of them are not in their chosen sphere of study, their current emplyment ranges from being a plumber, a data entry person and a temporary contract tester. The plumber is probably the happiest as he has got there after a series of trial and error work experiences but the other two are in their first paid employment after graduating.
Oh - I am aware of a fourth - she is sensibly enjoying herself in Australia for a year - but after that she has no idea what she will do.
Given the that the current government loves to micro manage every thing they do not appear to have determined what mix of skills the economy needs to function beneficially and so arrange that there mix of courses to meet such needs - unless they can see that the number of local tv stations will dramatically increase hence the need for Media Studies graduates.
PS what does a Psychology graduate do in real life?
Derek
<< >>
No doubt there is a need for an increae in the number of graduates over the 5% to 10% of the population that occured when I was a lad - but I have doubts that the economy really benefits from a very high percentge of graduates - some of which are going to be unhappy as there is no guaranteed "golden future" for them
Ironic that as an unemployed youth one would get government subsidy - but as an undergraduate one can look forward to a debt of 12 to 15k to pay off
Of the last few years graduates that I am aware of - all of them are not in their chosen sphere of study, their current emplyment ranges from being a plumber, a data entry person and a temporary contract tester. The plumber is probably the happiest as he has got there after a series of trial and error work experiences but the other two are in their first paid employment after graduating.
Oh - I am aware of a fourth - she is sensibly enjoying herself in Australia for a year - but after that she has no idea what she will do.
Given the that the current government loves to micro manage every thing they do not appear to have determined what mix of skills the economy needs to function beneficially and so arrange that there mix of courses to meet such needs - unless they can see that the number of local tv stations will dramatically increase hence the need for Media Studies graduates.
PS what does a Psychology graduate do in real life?
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Steve Toy
Top-up fees suck.
They are about equality of outcome triumphing over equality of opportunity.
Scottish ministers and MPs in Westminster know this but they will still vote for them in England whilst maintaining free higher education in Scotland.
They know that full independence for Scotland would be a bad thing because they would no longer be subsidised by the English taxpayer.
I am all in favour of full Scottish independence where all Scottish politicians (Blair and Brown at least) would have to relocate North of the border.
Regards,
Steve.
PS: I mean no offence to anyone who is Scottish.
They are about equality of outcome triumphing over equality of opportunity.
Scottish ministers and MPs in Westminster know this but they will still vote for them in England whilst maintaining free higher education in Scotland.
They know that full independence for Scotland would be a bad thing because they would no longer be subsidised by the English taxpayer.
I am all in favour of full Scottish independence where all Scottish politicians (Blair and Brown at least) would have to relocate North of the border.
Regards,
Steve.
PS: I mean no offence to anyone who is Scottish.
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Mekon
quote:
Originally posted by Derek Wright:
What does a Psychology graduate do in real life?
quote:
From The British Psychological Society
Careers in Psychology
There are good employment prospects for psychology graduates in other fields for which their training will have provided them with relevant expertise. Market research, social work, nursing, advertising, sales, personnel management and careers guidance are all areas for which a psychology degree will provide a good basis.
Psychology graduates will have knowledge of the assessment of personality, intelligence and attitudes, interviewing techniques, questionnaire design and analysis, child development, and methods of teaching and learning.
A psychology degree is also a good basis for many jobs where employees receive additional training (the police, Armed Forces, advertising and broadcasting, for example) or where they will gain further professional qualifications while working (accountancy, banking, management, personnel, market research). Psychology graduates may work in an interdisciplinary position with, for example, biologists, engineers, physiologists and physicists.
However, employers are usually looking for general or 'transferable' skills, and a psychology degree provides an arguably unique combination of these.
Of the people I hung out with on my degree, one has trained as a health psychologist, one works for an AIDS-related charity, one is doing a sport psychology masters, and 4 of us are doing PhDs. Not a very representative sample, I suspect.
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Laurie Saunders
Having been through the HE system myself with the aid of a government grant (I paid no fees)....there was no way my parents could have afforded to subsidise me... it would be hypocritical to support "pulling the ladder up behind me"
On the other hand, I am not sure that the hard pushed taxpayer would accept quietly, picking up the bill..given the possible impending row over Council Tax
My main concern is this drive to achieve this magical 50% figure. Students I know who have no real desire to go to university feel that they must do so, or be "left behind"
I would actually question the standard/value of the degree that many finally achieve
Many degree courses are now so heavily biased towards coursework.....one can keep re-submitting it until it reaches the required standard; and there are political pressures on academic staff not to fail candidates......what does getting the degree (in many cases) indicate?
In my more cynical moments, I smell idealogical anti-elitism.....destroy something because the majority of people cannot achieve it
Laurie S
On the other hand, I am not sure that the hard pushed taxpayer would accept quietly, picking up the bill..given the possible impending row over Council Tax
My main concern is this drive to achieve this magical 50% figure. Students I know who have no real desire to go to university feel that they must do so, or be "left behind"
I would actually question the standard/value of the degree that many finally achieve
Many degree courses are now so heavily biased towards coursework.....one can keep re-submitting it until it reaches the required standard; and there are political pressures on academic staff not to fail candidates......what does getting the degree (in many cases) indicate?
In my more cynical moments, I smell idealogical anti-elitism.....destroy something because the majority of people cannot achieve it
Laurie S
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Derek Wright
Mekon
I suppose I walked into that <g>
Thanks for the info - but what percentage of the Psychology graduates do treat it as a general degree and not a specialist degree
Derek
<< >>
I suppose I walked into that <g>
Thanks for the info - but what percentage of the Psychology graduates do treat it as a general degree and not a specialist degree
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by ejl
quote:
Thanks for the info - but what percentage of the Psychology graduates do treat it as a general degree and not a specialist degree
Derek,
Although I don't have a number for you, it's worth mentioning that the majority of general, undergraduate degree recipients don't wind up working in their major area. This is not something new but has always been the case. Only health sciences, educational specializations, and some engineering degrees consistently place their graduates in their degree areas.
Although some people might think this is a problem, it's not one. The point of a college degree is the cultivation of a broad set of problem-solving and communication skills, not specialized job training, which is better left to vocational and trade schools.
It's worth bearing in mind that, whatever the current employment picture looks like, college graduates in every country are considerably more likely to be employed, to recieve higher wages, and to be healthier and live longer than those without degrees. This obtains regardless of the proportion of the population that has a college degree.
Eric
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
PS: I mean no offence to anyone who is Scottish.
You really are an idiot Steven. You should try reading something other than the Daily Express for once.
I'm very thankful that your current profession means that you only dispense your "wisdom" in places like this and to anyone unfortunate enough to get you as their mini-cab driver. It was no loss to the teaching profession when you moved onto your true calling, however you're a convincing argument for why higher-education isn't all it's cracked up to be.
Regards
Steve
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by syd
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
Top-up fees suck.
They are about equality of outcome triumphing over equality of opportunity.
Scottish ministers and MPs in Westminster know this but they will still vote for them in England whilst maintaining free higher education in Scotland.
They know that full independence for Scotland would be a bad thing because they would no longer be subsidised by the English taxpayer.
I am all in favour of full Scottish independence where all Scottish politicians (Blair and Brown at least) would have to relocate North of the border.
Regards,
Steve.
PS: I mean no offence to anyone who is Scottish.
No offence taken Steve, but surely Tony Blair, though born in Edinburgh, is an English politician as he is the elected representative of the good people of Sedgefield. Even if we ever decide to vote for Independence you get to keep him.
Yours in Music
Syd
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by ejl
quote:
I cannot believe this is always true - what if 100% went to Uni ??
Keith,
Yes, it's always true in fact.* In the hypothetical case you describe comparisons would, of course, be meaningless because there would be no contrast class. Although there may be an upper limit on returns here, it hasn't yet been found.
I've seen worldwide figures sorted by country that confirm this. I can't find them again on the web, but here are some recent numbers for the U.S., which has a proportionately very high number of college graduates (ca. 50%), and so would offer a clear opportunity to disprove the correlation, if anything would.
Unemployment is lower among college graduates of every every age, gender and ethnic group. Notice that while the employment rate fluctuates between '91 and '94, the differential between degreed and undegreed people is fairly constant.
Mortality rates consistently lower for college graduates of every gender and ethnic group..
College graduates earn significantly more. Notice that female college graduates earn almost two times as much.
quote:
To digress a bit, but with some parallels, I read an article propounding the virtues of Marriage; it said that married people were richer, happier and more successful than unmarried people - so get married; but actually richer, happier and more successful people are much more able to get and stay married , so it is a symptom not a cause!
The point of my saying (in my original post) that the improvments have been noted regardless of the proportion of a nation's population that has a college degree was to undermine parallels like yours. Although no study can definitively establish a causal link, there is nonetheless strong inductive evidence that college degrees are a cause of the benefits observed, not a co-varying factor (should this be surprising?) If success and college degrees had a common cause, we would expect to see college degree holders and life-success deviate at some point. To date we have not, even in populations with extremely high proportions of degree earners. The burden of proof now surely lies with those who deny anything more than a correlation between a college degree and success.
Eric
* There was a (perverse) exception during the Khemer Rouge years in Cambodia, where those with college degrees were sent to re-education camps, killed, etc.
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Derek Wright
The new graduate in the UK has to contend with a triple whammy of challenges
They will start work with a debt of nearly a years salary (assuming that they can get a job)
They will be presented with a need to start saving for a pension as soon as they start working (company pensions schemes have been or are being shredded) or look forward to working until they die or are signed off as unemployable.
Should the graduate be so minded to mate and breed then they can look forward to finding extra money to fund their offspring through university so that the offspring do not start out their lives with huge debts.
And as a final treat they will find that their jobs will be undercut by equally qualified graduates in emerging economies.
Given the above stresses and potential worries how will their physical health and wealth stand up.
The wise school leaver may decided that regardless of their "A" level result that it is not beneficial going on for further study.
Derek
<< >>
They will start work with a debt of nearly a years salary (assuming that they can get a job)
They will be presented with a need to start saving for a pension as soon as they start working (company pensions schemes have been or are being shredded) or look forward to working until they die or are signed off as unemployable.
Should the graduate be so minded to mate and breed then they can look forward to finding extra money to fund their offspring through university so that the offspring do not start out their lives with huge debts.
And as a final treat they will find that their jobs will be undercut by equally qualified graduates in emerging economies.
Given the above stresses and potential worries how will their physical health and wealth stand up.
The wise school leaver may decided that regardless of their "A" level result that it is not beneficial going on for further study.
Derek
<< >>
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by ejl
Derek,
The challenges you describe are exactly the ones that U.S. students have faced for decades.
As you probably know, higher ed. in the U.S. is not directly subsidised. Although low-interest loans and some partial scholarships are available, most students pay the lion's share of their tuition fees themselves. In the case of some private universities, this can run to $30,000 per year, before room and board.
While high, these costs are vastly outweighed by subsequent earnings. In 2002, the average lifetime earnings of non-degree holders was $1.2m, vs. $2.1m for those with bachelor's degrees.
As far as heath, etc., the numbers in the charts I linked above were for people in the U.S., who as I said have to pay for most of their higher ed.
FWIW, I owed about $40,000 after graduate school, which is on the low side for many graduate degree holders. Repaying it was frankly not that bad; interest rates were very low, and repayment programs flexible. Obviously I was making a lot more with my degree, too. There's no reason the U.K. couldn't set up similar programs.
Alex,
What's so bad about Blair's proposal? (I'm just asking -- I've only read brief blurbs about it). Is it the idea of getting more money to higher ed in the U.K. that you're opposed to, or the way in which Labor wants to do it?
Eric
The challenges you describe are exactly the ones that U.S. students have faced for decades.
As you probably know, higher ed. in the U.S. is not directly subsidised. Although low-interest loans and some partial scholarships are available, most students pay the lion's share of their tuition fees themselves. In the case of some private universities, this can run to $30,000 per year, before room and board.
While high, these costs are vastly outweighed by subsequent earnings. In 2002, the average lifetime earnings of non-degree holders was $1.2m, vs. $2.1m for those with bachelor's degrees.
As far as heath, etc., the numbers in the charts I linked above were for people in the U.S., who as I said have to pay for most of their higher ed.
FWIW, I owed about $40,000 after graduate school, which is on the low side for many graduate degree holders. Repaying it was frankly not that bad; interest rates were very low, and repayment programs flexible. Obviously I was making a lot more with my degree, too. There's no reason the U.K. couldn't set up similar programs.
Alex,
What's so bad about Blair's proposal? (I'm just asking -- I've only read brief blurbs about it). Is it the idea of getting more money to higher ed in the U.K. that you're opposed to, or the way in which Labor wants to do it?
Eric
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by ejl:
What's so bad about Blair's proposal? (I'm just asking -- I've only read brief blurbs about it). Is it the idea of getting more money to higher ed in the U.K. that you're opposed to, or the way in which Labor wants to do it?
The idea of more money going into further education isn't an issue but I'd want to see it used wisely. I'm not convinced an artificial target of 50% of school leavers going into further education is wise however.
If graduates are expected to earn more than non-graduates then surely they'll contribute enough in the extra tax they pay over their working lives?
What I'd want to know is how much of the extra spending required is needed to meet the 50% target and how much is required to meet the needs of a further education system without artificial student number targets. Unfortunately there appears to be little sensible public debate on this.
Regards
Steve
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Mick P
Before you start ranting on about the poor bloody students, just think of us poor bloody tax payers.
Regards
Mick
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by MichaelC
quote:
Originally posted by alexgerrard:
At the end of the day, I am glad that I have cancelled my Labour Party Membership, and this whole policy underlines exactly why I did. As did the Iraq War. And the diplomatic fellatio with Bush. And the stupid fannying around regarding the Euro.
/rant over
ag
The new face of the Tory Party?
Mike
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by MichaelC
For the record I am against the suggestion (or is it imposition?) of top up fees. I believe that students should be encouraged to broaden their horizons and develop/learn new skills.
I am a firm believer that the majority of those who enjoy further education will ultimately pay for their education through our taxation system.
I do believe that our further education system could do better to encourage students into the not so glamorous world of engineering for example rather than media studies...but that's another argument altogether.
Cheers
Mike
I am a firm believer that the majority of those who enjoy further education will ultimately pay for their education through our taxation system.
I do believe that our further education system could do better to encourage students into the not so glamorous world of engineering for example rather than media studies...but that's another argument altogether.
Cheers
Mike
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Laurie Saunders
Some very interesting, strongly held views. For what it is worth, I have direct eperience as (1) a student who went right through the system in the early 70`s at taxpayers expense (2)I am now an aggrieved taxpayer, constantly whingeing about the amount of tax I pay to support "scroungers" and (3) I daily deal with students having to live with and make decisons about higher education....
I can see all sides of the argument...however what seems to be at the root of the problem, from where I see it is that the Goverment is walking into the same kind of mistake that Mrs Thatcher did with the Poll tax..
Try to replace one iniquitous system with another, perhaps slightly less iniquitous, and you get howls of protest, and blame
Youngsters in many cases now feel almost compelled to go to University, for fear of being left behind "in the race" Despite what politicians will tell you, I believe that rigour, and standards have been massacred to make this possible....(howls of protest awaited) So in making HE available "to all" in many ways, has been a self - defeating exercise
The bright, able students are still there, as ever they were...I see too many students who have been led to believe that a (any) degree will be a ticket to a good career, and become very bitter when it doesn`t work out.
I think we have to bite the bullet..if, as a nation we want the "luxuries" of a "free for all" health service , and education service, then we must be prepared to pay for it..whichever way you present it, the "fairest" way of providing services is to take from those most able to contribute...ie through income tax
I must add that I am simply playing devils advocate here...privately I have one or two concerns about the notion of what the government/taxpayer does and does not provide.
The word that comes up in topics like these, and one that makes me cringe, is "fairness"...presented as an objective concept ie, fairness can be defined in absolute terms....in reality, I am certain, it is a highly subjective term, and is often used as a disguise for self-interest...that is why Tony Blair is foolish to attempt to sell his fees topup policy as "fair"......it will never be seen as such by those who have to pay them
Laurie S
I can see all sides of the argument...however what seems to be at the root of the problem, from where I see it is that the Goverment is walking into the same kind of mistake that Mrs Thatcher did with the Poll tax..
Try to replace one iniquitous system with another, perhaps slightly less iniquitous, and you get howls of protest, and blame
Youngsters in many cases now feel almost compelled to go to University, for fear of being left behind "in the race" Despite what politicians will tell you, I believe that rigour, and standards have been massacred to make this possible....(howls of protest awaited) So in making HE available "to all" in many ways, has been a self - defeating exercise
The bright, able students are still there, as ever they were...I see too many students who have been led to believe that a (any) degree will be a ticket to a good career, and become very bitter when it doesn`t work out.
I think we have to bite the bullet..if, as a nation we want the "luxuries" of a "free for all" health service , and education service, then we must be prepared to pay for it..whichever way you present it, the "fairest" way of providing services is to take from those most able to contribute...ie through income tax
I must add that I am simply playing devils advocate here...privately I have one or two concerns about the notion of what the government/taxpayer does and does not provide.
The word that comes up in topics like these, and one that makes me cringe, is "fairness"...presented as an objective concept ie, fairness can be defined in absolute terms....in reality, I am certain, it is a highly subjective term, and is often used as a disguise for self-interest...that is why Tony Blair is foolish to attempt to sell his fees topup policy as "fair"......it will never be seen as such by those who have to pay them
Laurie S
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Steve Toy
quote:
You really are an idiot Steven. You should try reading something other than the Daily Express for once.
I'm very thankful that your current profession means that you only dispense your "wisdom" in places like this and to anyone unfortunate enough to get you as their mini-cab driver. It was no loss to the teaching profession when you moved onto your true calling, however you're a convincing argument for why higher-education isn't all it's cracked up to be.
One disgruntled and intellectually-challenged Scot did indeed take offence at something he should consider more carefully, especially as he has not answered any of the issues/questions raised above.
I'm sure that the rest of the more capable populus of Scotland could possibly help him out on this matter.
Regards,
Steve.
PS: I read the Daily Telegraph
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on TUESDAY 20 January 2004 at 02:47.]
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Steve Toy
Graduates who benefit from higher education financially in the long term pay for their initial privilege many times over by paying more tax through their lifetime.
Regards,
Steve.
Regards,
Steve.
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Two-Sheds
Initially I was against top up fees and I still am (just). I went to university in the UK in the last year before fees were introduced so I escaped them. To me I find it hard to accept this argument coming from politicians who all recieved thier higher education for free and probably got significantly more in grants than todays students.
I get the impression that GCSE's are easier than O-Levels. At the time I took them (93 I think) the GCSE's seemed hard, but then the step up to A-level was huge and I remeber the A-levels being very hard so I'm not sure that they are any easier than they were back in the old days.
I certainly feel that too many people are heading to university now. The whole system needs to be looked at because I think more vocational training for some people would be more benefit than shoving them through the university system and coming out the other side with no more opportunities than when they went in. Of course if less people went then there should be enough money without top up fees.
Then again on the other hand why shouldn't the people who benefit from the education get a reduction in fees? If they do in general earn much more than not graduates then a 10k loan at low rates should be no problem.
As you can see I'm still a bit on the bench, but I'm more miffed at Labour for this apparent U-turn and just another reason not to trust them.
On a final note I think issues like this is what may be pushing people away from voting. From what I believe the percentage of voters voting at elections is falling. I'm not sure how common my feeling on politicians is in my age group (late 20's) or any other group is, but I wouldn't trust any of them and that doesn't really inspire me to vote for any of them to lead my Country.
I get the impression that GCSE's are easier than O-Levels. At the time I took them (93 I think) the GCSE's seemed hard, but then the step up to A-level was huge and I remeber the A-levels being very hard so I'm not sure that they are any easier than they were back in the old days.
I certainly feel that too many people are heading to university now. The whole system needs to be looked at because I think more vocational training for some people would be more benefit than shoving them through the university system and coming out the other side with no more opportunities than when they went in. Of course if less people went then there should be enough money without top up fees.
Then again on the other hand why shouldn't the people who benefit from the education get a reduction in fees? If they do in general earn much more than not graduates then a 10k loan at low rates should be no problem.
As you can see I'm still a bit on the bench, but I'm more miffed at Labour for this apparent U-turn and just another reason not to trust them.
On a final note I think issues like this is what may be pushing people away from voting. From what I believe the percentage of voters voting at elections is falling. I'm not sure how common my feeling on politicians is in my age group (late 20's) or any other group is, but I wouldn't trust any of them and that doesn't really inspire me to vote for any of them to lead my Country.
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Steven Toy:
[This message was edited by Steven Toy on TUESDAY 20 January 2004 at 02:47.]
Did you need to get someone to check the spelling and grammar for you?
You continually demonstrate your abject stupidity (with the only new factor being a couple of recent demonstrations of bigotry) here and elsewhere so I can see no reason for entering into any level of discourse with you.
I made some points about the funding of the education system in Scotland and you responded with vile bigotry as revolting as your recent anti-Arab sentiments. End of discussion as far as I'm concerned as I will not dignify racism and bigotry with any kind of response, except to ask Naim administration whether they are happy to provide you with a platform for your racial intolerance.
Regards
Steve
Posted on: 19 January 2004 by Mick P
Mr Toy
You said
"Graduates who benefit from higher education financially in the long term pay for their initial privilege many times over by paying more tax through their lifetime."
Yes I think 99.9% of the UK population know that so why say it.
This is a classic example of your stupid habit of coming in early in the morning and stating the blinding obvious.
Also just think what you write, I know you are not racist but the twaddle you write and the way you express yourself, makes you look a bigot on occassions.
You really need to give yourself a good shaking down.
Regards
Mick
You said
"Graduates who benefit from higher education financially in the long term pay for their initial privilege many times over by paying more tax through their lifetime."
Yes I think 99.9% of the UK population know that so why say it.
This is a classic example of your stupid habit of coming in early in the morning and stating the blinding obvious.
Also just think what you write, I know you are not racist but the twaddle you write and the way you express yourself, makes you look a bigot on occassions.
You really need to give yourself a good shaking down.
Regards
Mick
Posted on: 20 January 2004 by Simon Perry
I graduated from University in 1990 with a degree in, ahem, Accounting/Economics. My friends were mainly doing similar social science courses like politics or were studying computer science. Most of us did quite well very rapidly after University and I suppose are earning reasonably good amounts of money (although those of us living in or around London have very little spare cash and mostly live in tiny little flats, me included).
Contrast this experience with that of my girlfriend, who graduated in 1998 with a computer science degree. All but one of her graduate friends are very poorly paid, and she believes that her degree was a complete waste of time.
My point is this: there has to be something wrong with a long term goal of 50% of the population going to University. I am against top up fees / loans etc for reasons previously stated by others on this thread, but I am even more against them if we are going to send half of school leavers to University. Its madness!
Out government seems to have a skill of combining the worst of both ends of the political spectrum - Tory doctrine combined with high taxation.
Simon
Contrast this experience with that of my girlfriend, who graduated in 1998 with a computer science degree. All but one of her graduate friends are very poorly paid, and she believes that her degree was a complete waste of time.
My point is this: there has to be something wrong with a long term goal of 50% of the population going to University. I am against top up fees / loans etc for reasons previously stated by others on this thread, but I am even more against them if we are going to send half of school leavers to University. Its madness!
Out government seems to have a skill of combining the worst of both ends of the political spectrum - Tory doctrine combined with high taxation.
Simon
Posted on: 20 January 2004 by Simon Perry
Just to clarify my last comment - I am not against higher taxes per se, just higher taxes used to fund immoral wars, whilst we penny pinch on things like Education.
Posted on: 20 January 2004 by Steve G
quote:
Originally posted by Simon Perry:
Contrast this experience with that of my girlfriend, who graduated in 1998 with a computer science degree. All but one of her graduate friends are very poorly paid, and she believes that her degree was a complete waste of time.
That might be bad timing as much as anything though as the IT market has been having difficulties pretty much ever since the post-millenium "bug" slump.
I've been recruiting IT staff for many years now (I run an IT consultancy) and I do find that many are ill-prepared for the market on leaving university (particularily with regard to business awareness). We used to find that the more pragmatic and realistic training provided by technical colleges was more succesful at producing valuable employees, however in my current organization 75% of the staff are university graduates and only 25% have an HND or equivalent qualification.
The HND's are all in IT but only one member of staff (me) has a first degree in computer science (we've got more accountants than anything else) although a few of the others have a postgraduate IT qualification (e.g. an MSc). When I have employed IT/computer science graduates it was rare for them to make decent consultants so perhaps there is something in what you've said about some computer science degrees being a waste of time!
Regards
Steve