Student Demonstrations

[llcoolphil]

I have a friend who did drama in an old polytecnic and only one person who graduated in her class is doing anything drama related. To me this is a wastefull degree which taxpayers shouldn be subsidising.

[worm]

Looking for the positives - you did an English degree but your job has nothing to do with English Lit - so what did you get out of your time at Uni other than just a big overdraft/debt?

Edited December 11, 2010 by worm

[pink_triangle]

Wasteful in what sense?

[bunique]

A drama degree wouldn't tend to be performance anyway (that'd more likely be performing arts) - it'd be quite similar to an English degree with the focus on, err, drama rather than other forms of lit. I would've thunk the skill set would be quite similar despite English being considered more traditional/academic.

Training to teach has historically been heavily subsidised - bursaries, grants, golden hellos, etc. There always seemed to me to be very few alternative funding options for the arts and humanities compared to maths/science/engineering. Medicine I've no idea about but the earning potential of a medical graduate is vastly more than a history or psych graduate - should that be taken into account?

[worm]

Wasteful in the sense that most of the people on her course are doing jobs not Just unrelated to the degree but to having any degree at all. She and her friends enjoyed the 3 years but im not sure taxpayers should fund that enjoyment with little benefit to society after.

Edited December 11, 2010 by worm

[diddly-dee]

The irony being that it is an obsession with home ownership and the belief that you can run an economy on the basis that house prices will always rise that brings us to the exact situation where government has an excuse to put fees up.

[diddly-dee]

Whilst this may sound a bit 'conspiracy theory' the Government 'wants' lots of young people to go to university and end up with big debts. Think about it, an individual with a millstone of debt around their neck is far more likely to take any job rather than sit back on the dole and wait for something better to come along, they are far less likely to be belligerent in the workplace as they don't want to get sacked, go on strike or do anything to 'rock the boat' when they really 'need' a job. Young people with big debts is a means of social control - increasing house prices, student debts - they are all means to help engineer a subservient workforce and population. Unless of course everyone says 'f*ck it, i'm not paying, what are you going to do about it?'. But, alas, that's not likely to happen in this country.

[worm]

it could also encourage post graduates to not get a job where they earn more than where the threshold is

[lost]

it could also encourage post graduates to not get a job where they earn more than where the threshold is

as soon as money gets involved, the purpose gets distorted.

[Purple Monkey]

Whilst this may sound a bit 'conspiracy theory' the Government 'wants' lots of young people to go to university and end up with big debts. Think about it, an individual with a millstone of debt around their neck is far more likely to take any job rather than sit back on the dole and wait for something better to come along, they are far less likely to be belligerent in the workplace as they don't want to get sacked, go on strike or do anything to 'rock the boat' when they really 'need' a job. Young people with big debts is a means of social control - increasing house prices, student debts - they are all means to help engineer a subservient workforce and population. Unless of course everyone says 'f*ck it, i'm not paying, what are you going to do about it?'. But, alas, that's not likely to happen in this country.

Edited December 11, 2010 by Purple Monkey

[grumpyhack]

It's all very well getting hung up on degrees but maybe we need to be putting more resources into the overall level of basic skills amongst the population as a whole.

How the UK compares in reading, maths and science

The OECD's international test, first administered in 2000 and given every three years, aims to measure skills gained by pupils nearing the end of their compulsory schooling.

470,000 15-year-old students in 65 countries and economic regions took part in a two-hour exam in September and November 2009. It consisted of multiple-choice and open-response questions.

The UK came 25th in Reading, 28th in Maths and 16th in Science. Shanghai in China came top in all three areas.

Edited December 11, 2010 by grumpyhack

[LondonTom]

So you lovely idealists on the side of not gaining a home, who want us to rent, want us to rent from a few rich folk handing down houses I take it? that seems like a fair scoeity

A mortgage for the most part doesn't actually leave you in debt as you have your house, which for the most part will be around the level of your debt. Its your home, which you can do as you please with inside and not pander to the landlords rules...

While student debt, keeps people either trying to avoid paying the loan back or the richest paying it off as quickly as possible while paying less off than the poorest. The right to at least a first degree for free should be protected mostly because it promotes holding on to knowledge. If you chose not to do a degree thats good for you, you've had a few extra years of earnings and job experience.

[bunique]

It's all very well getting hung up on degrees but maybe we need to be putting more resources into the overall level of basic skills amongst the population as a whole.

How the UK compares in reading, maths and science

The OECD's international test, first administered in 2000 and given every three years, aims to measure skills gained by pupils nearing the end of their compulsory schooling.

470,000 15-year-old students in 65 countries and economic regions took part in a two-hour exam in September and November 2009. It consisted of multiple-choice and open-response questions.

The UK came 25th in Reading, 28th in Maths and 16th in Science. Shanghai in China came top in all three areas.

[llcoolphil]

Whilst this may sound a bit 'conspiracy theory' the Government 'wants' lots of young people to go to university and end up with big debts. Think about it, an individual with a millstone of debt around their neck is far more likely to take any job rather than sit back on the dole and wait for something better to come along, they are far less likely to be belligerent in the workplace as they don't want to get sacked, go on strike or do anything to 'rock the boat' when they really 'need' a job. Young people with big debts is a means of social control - increasing house prices, student debts - they are all means to help engineer a subservient workforce and population. Unless of course everyone says 'f*ck it, i'm not paying, what are you going to do about it?'. But, alas, that's not likely to happen in this country.

[llcoolphil]

So you lovely idealists on the side of not gaining a home, who want us to rent, want us to rent from a few rich folk handing down houses I take it? that seems like a fair scoeity

A mortgage for the most part doesn't actually leave you in debt as you have your house, which for the most part will be around the level of your debt. Its your home, which you can do as you please with inside and not pander to the landlords rules...

While student debt, keeps people either trying to avoid paying the loan back or the richest paying it off as quickly as possible while paying less off than the poorest. The right to at least a first degree for free should be protected mostly because it promotes holding on to knowledge. If you chose not to do a degree thats good for you, you've had a few extra years of earnings and job experience.

[pink_triangle]

What a crock of shit!

It's not the individual's use of the degree that matters, it's the fact that she and her fellow students have helped to keep a school of knowledge alive!

The tax payer is funding academic knowledge, not people's schooling - it funds the academy! Academic knowledge cannot survive without students as there'll be no one to pass the knowledge on to.

What is a society without a university?

[llcoolphil]

I would rather subsidise professions which will be of more benefit to me in the future.

[worm]

I think in an ideal world university would be about the passing on of academic knowledge but politically its a hard sell. The majority of people have been conditioned to see certain degrees/ careers more important than others. The way politicians speak, you would often think the only 3 jobs in this country are doctors, nurses and teachers.

[worm]

The thing that still astonishes me (and I don't mean you directly in this) is that in the 21st century, so many people still want to define needs and benefits as if we lived 500 years ago. We need significantly more than warmth, food and shelter to lead a happy life. I don't need access to the internet to survive. But I'm looking for something significantly more from life than simply 'survival'. The danger of subsidising only those things we can see we benefit directly from - such as medicine - is that we lose the myriad of things that benefit us in a less obvious way.

[Cardboard Box City]

Maslow's hierarchy of needs.

[worm]

...was arguably a bit shit?

Edited December 11, 2010 by worm

[pink_triangle]

Do you think you'll benefit from critical thinkers able to contribute to informed decision making, either as part of an executive or holding an executive to account?

[Cardboard Box City]

The cultural aspect could probably do with some work. Philosophically speaking though, I can't see any need for refutation (no pun intended).

[worm]

The higher need is a later phyletic or evolutionary development!

[grumpyhack]

As the FE and community education budgets are getting hammered as well, I wouldn't predict a streak up the league tables anytime soon.