Personally I think that a number of the basic assumptions being made in education policy are flawed - eg the target of 50% of students staying on post-A Level, when 50% of students barely manage 5 A-C grades at GCSE.

Tertiary eductaion should, IMO, remain free at point of entry, but realistically grants are simply no longer viable, particularly given the spiralling numbers who stay on. Loans in one form or another are the most viable option. This, combined with an increase in secondary & tertiary spending and a drop in tertiary student numbers should make things better in the short term.

What really needs to change to make the system viable is, unfortunately, almost everything. Dump GCSEs, replace them with reasoning and apptitude tests - effectively create a minimum standard of general ability in core areas; specialise at A level in 2 or 3 subjects with another 2 or 3 at AS Level, including maths and a language. Applications to uni should be handled after A level exams not before. 20-25% of students go on to uni for baccaleureate level study, with a similar number doing one or two year courses at a lower level. Create liberal arts degrees, scrap degrees in stupid subjects (apologies to people taking degrees in stupid subjects); increase the number of people staying on for master/magister level study by making 4 year undergrad MA/MSc degrees as common as 3 year ones; also make "year in industry" style courses common through all disciplines, only with both the 2nd and 3rd years being spent part-work part-study (the 1st and 4th obviously being all-study). Obviously this is all MHO, dosn't apply to vocational subjects like medicine, law, architechture etc, and shouldn't have been written at 2am when I'm drunk and doing three other things at once

Im lucky to be speaking from the priveledged position of being scottish hence my tuition fees are paid for thank you scottish parliment. I cant see the univ ersities going indepedant. In my personal opinion the lack of funds is going to lead to more and more students with debt and less and less peeps making their way through to university education which in the end is going to lead to a mass of unhappy people who have the potential just not the money to make it through university.. which I would hope will lead to enough public pressure on the government to abolish tuition fees throughout ALL of the Uk as all they are a hinderance to the further education of many bright and able students.

---

by Callum

What really needs to change to make the system viable is, unfortunately, almost everything. Dump GCSEs, replace them with reasoning and apptitude tests - effectively create a minimum standard of general ability in core areas;

---

Would you expand upon this? Why introduce them?
As a means of testing ability with a view to university application i.e. like US SATs, I think there is a case for reasoning and aptitude tests.
However, to replace GCSEs with them misses why they are useful: they're supposed to test inate ability rather than education (in reality you can improve your score to some degree through familiarity with the format, but anyway...). You cannot create minimum standards of ability, only education.
It's important to learn skills, but you cannot ignore the need for people to know factual information too.

---

specialise at A level in 2 or 3 subjects with another 2 or 3 at AS Level, including maths and a language.

---

Again, I'm not quite sure about your meaning here. Are you suggesting maths and a language should be compulsory?
And the less said about the problems with AS levels... I'll exapnd if asked, but I can't be bothered right now.

---

Create liberal arts degrees, scrap degrees in stupid subjects (apologies to people taking degrees in stupid subjects)

---

You don't give anyone a chance to be offended because you haven't given us any idea of what you consider a 'stupid subject'.

---

by Ed_
In my personal opinion the lack of funds is going to lead to more and more students with debt and less and less peeps making their way through to university education which in the end is going to lead to a mass of unhappy people who have the potential just not the money to make it through university.. which I would hope will lead to enough public pressure on the government to abolish tuition fees throughout ALL of the Uk as all they are a hinderance to the further education of many bright and able students.

---

The problem is the growing poverty of the universities themselves. As a consequence, there is less money available to help the students.

I don't see tuition fees as the greater problem - these are means-tested and not paid by all students. If students are discouraged by the cost of university I would think it would be by grants being replaced by loans.

"Means-Tested" yes, but not very well, meaning that a huge number still have to pay. The bar you have to get under is set so low that your parents either have to have dis-owned you, or are unemployed or bankrupt for you to qualify.

I'm now in the last stages of my fourth and final year at university, when I finish, I fully expect to be saddled with at least £15,000 of debts. How that can be considered acceptable by anyone is beyond me. At times it has been *very* tough, and I'm by no means the worst off.
I only hope that it will all have been worth it in the end.

The government has made it increasingly difficult to even be at university, the only explanation I can conceive is that they are in fact trying to reduce the number of students going into higher education, and trying to push more into vocational qualifications and apprenticeships, basically because they are cheaper.

(Edited by Stoo 02/04/2002 12:41)

---

by Stoo
"Means-Tested" yes, but not very well, meaning that a huge number still have to pay. The bar you have to get under is set so low that your parents either have to have dis-owned you, or are unemployed or bankrupt for you to qualify.

---

I've seen a number of cases where parents who can afford to put their child through University won't pay, as "it's time for them to stand on their own two feet". As a result their child ends up with no parental support at all but maximum fees to pay with the minimum loan to pay it with. In many cases, the fees and accommodation costs that that student would have to pay on day one more than wipes out their loan for the entire year

Yup, those are the peeps that end up with the £16-22k debts, quite frankly I find this to be absolutely rediculous.
Maybe when it's time for us to get morgages the government would like to give us a discount to the tune of our student loans?

(Edited by Stoo 02/04/2002 13:15)

---

by DJ Billy
I've seen a number of cases where parents who can afford to put their child through University won't pay

---

To an extent Ive seen this too.. Parental support in my experience doesnt exist in most circumstances due to the fact that higher earning parents usually come with higher morgatges, debts to pay, etc... Many parents cant afford to give out 2000, 3000 pounds a year...
I know of at least one case where a friend, due to his parents income, is only eligible for £500 a year loan over a four year course and has to pay £2000 at graduation... Not that this is the worst story I know of but it kinda points to the idiocy of the system thats supposed to "help" students.

(Edited by Ed__ 02/04/2002 13:13)

(Edited by Ed__ 02/04/2002 13:13)

What is the principal purpose of higher education?

Is it an end in and of itself, an experience that should be avilable to all or is it about enhancing the skills of individuals in order to boost the productivity of the national work force?

If the cost of free higher education for anybody is not reflected in a proportionate increase in the fortunes of the nation, why should the government fund it?

If the benefit of a degree is enhanced earnings potential for the individual, why should the individual not pay for that benefit?

Studying to degree level in America requires an important decision about the likely benefits and the cost of doing so. Is this a bad thing?

If companies need people with University Educations and students have to pay for it, those companies will soon find themselves having to compensate graduates accordingly whether by paying off their student loans or by offering significantly increased salaries.

---

by Incandenza
What is the principal purpose of higher education?

Is it an end in and of itself, an experience that should be avilable to all or is it about enhancing the skills of individuals in order to boost the productivity of the national work force?

---

To me it's definitely the former.

---

If the cost of free higher education for anybody is not reflected in a proportionate increase in the fortunes of the nation, why should the government fund it?

---

Well, one might expect that there would be. Any such benefits would inevitably be long-term, and perhaps intangible or negligible compared to other factors. I'm not sure how you could figure what a 'proportionate' increase would be.

---

If the benefit of a degree is enhanced earnings potential for the individual, why should the individual not pay for that benefit?

---

Well, obvious answer - income tax. People who haven't been to university but earn a relatively high amount may well disagree, of course.
Myself, I did go to uni but didn't get a degree, which I feel if anything harmed my earnings potential, but it's something I'd happily pay tax towards for my education and that of others.

---

Studying to degree level in America requires an important decision about the likely benefits and the cost of doing so. Is this a bad thing?

---

Of course not.

My knowledge of the US education system is somewhat limited, but it's my understanding that it's usual for parents to save money for their children to go to college from quite an early age. This being the case (and I may be wrong of course), the decision is made as much by the parents as the child.

To have a similar system here would surely require a change in the culture of the whole thing, and would also take some time before it was workable.

---

If companies need people with University Educations and students have to pay for it, those companies will soon find themselves having to compensate graduates accordingly whether by paying off their student loans or by offering significantly increased salaries.

---

Well, supply and demand comes into effect here. Despite the levels of debt involved, there are more people going to university than ever before, so I don't think a shortage of degree-educated employees in general is likely to be a problem in the foreseeable future. Perhaps this will happen in some subject areas, but it's not a general solution to the problem...

---

by Ed__
(quotes)

I know of at least one case where a friend, due to his parents income, is only eligible for £500 a year loan over a four year course and has to pay £2000 at graduation... Not that this is the worst story I know of but it kinda points to the idiocy of the system thats supposed to "help" students.

---

How is that? I thought the minimum loan available if you choose not to be means-teasted was a little over £900 a term. For initial undergraduate courses, that is.

---

by In a State of Dan
(quotes)
Well, obvious answer - income tax. People who haven't been to university but earn a relatively high amount may well disagree, of course.

---

I was waiting for someone to mention this. I am a prime example (with the possible exception of the "relatively high amount" bit) of the aforementioned.

Never a natural academic, I had no desires to pursue a University Degree. I went to sixth form college to placate my ambitious father, who only really wanted me to go to Uni because he didn't. After that it was straight to work, earning money and paying tax (urgh!).

When you're in this position it is can be really annoying to see students highlighting their financial situation with one hand whilst sinking pints with the other.

My ex was a student in the early 90's and nothing would hack me off more than to witness this in person. It made my blood boil at times.

I admit that I can only comment from one side of the argument, so I cannot fully appreciate what it is like to be a student.

It is equally possible, that a lot of this stems from the no-nonsense upbringing I received from my parents (partularly my late father). If I can't afford it (and for many years I couldn't), I don't do it/buy it - no matter how much I want to.

I do have a few nice things to my name now. But I've been in full time emplyment (bar 4 months in 1993) for 14 years and it's only been in the last 2 or 3 that I've had the sort of income to allow it. I could have run-up massive debts to realise some of these things sooner, but I didn't see the point.

Tax is a necessity to fund vital public services (particularly health and mandatory education) and I do not begrudge paying it. However higher education is voluntary and maybe there should be some sort of industry subsidy for those people who wish to take degree courses, if that qualification is necessary for a particular career?

If I want/need to learn something new regarding my job/industry my employers have to pay for it.

I don't have a magic answer to this discussion, just marvel at the fact that (for once ) I'm pinning my flag in the ground and saying "This is what I think!". - makes a change from having splinters in my backside!

From www.snpc.co.uk:

Our social thinkers have a bad conscience about the student problem, but only because the real problem is the poverty and servitude of all. But we have different reasons to despise the student and all his works. What is unforgivable is not so much his actual misery but his complaisance in the face of the misery of others. For him there is only one real alienation: his own. He is a full-time and happy consumer of that commodity, hoping to arouse at least our pity, since he cannot claim our interest. By the logic of modern capitalism, most students can only become mere petits cadres (with the same function in neocapitalism as the skilled worker had in the nineteenth-century economy). The student really knows how miserable will be that golden future which is supposed to make up for the shameful poverty of the present. In the face of that knowledge, he prefers to dote on the present and invent an imaginary prestige for himself. After all, there will be no magical compensation for present drabness: tomorrow will be like yesterday, lighting these fools the way to dusty death.
-On the Poverty of Student Life

With regards to the earning potential of graduates, i would say it's no different to non graduates.

I did 1 year of uni but had to leave and then found myself working side by side with graduates. The only differece (with people my age) was i had been in the job longer and was earning more, they had taken time out to do a degree and earnt less.

Never when promoting someone within a company was a degree ever considered.

This may change with higher profile jobs (MD's, chaimen etc etc) but on the whole i have found a degree to be of no advantage at all in the workplace.

Also, on a side note. someone mentioned "silly" courses. In my opinion all courses are silly if you are not going into that profession.

For expmply i knew many people with english and history degrees. Where they teaching Hostory or english? were they writing? Were they working for a museum? No, they were working in Insurance. Someone please explain why they trained for three years to do something completly unrelated.

Oh, and Inc, I'd say it was Dufi.

(your quote thingy)

---

by Cat
Never when promoting someone within a company was a degree ever considered.

---

I do suppose that's very dependant on what field you have your degree in. In the Netherlands you've got less then a snowballs chance in hell to ever get a job as head of a research department in a Biotech company without a degree and for most of those positions they require a PhD.
Any research related job for a uni requires a degree too.

---

by Richard Feynman:
Science is like sex: sometimes it results in something usefull, but that's not the reason to do it.

---

(Edited by The Noid 03/04/2002 15:36)

Essentially. I mean, as a result of my degree I can translate the Latin and Ancient Greek bits in Buffy. Not the basis for most of the jobs I am likely to desire or pursue.

What my degree does suggest, at least theoretically, is that I can process large amounts of information, form hypotheses based on the available evidence, and - perhaps most importantly of all - radiate a convincing impression of competence in most situations.

---

by Demona
I thought the minimum loan available if you choose not to be means-teasted was a little over £900 a term. For initial undergraduate courses, that is.

---

Yeah it is under most cirumstances, £1195 off the top of my head I think, but unfortunately for this individual their parental contribution is considered such that he wouldve been better off if he took a non means tested loan.. He opted to have it means tested and instead of receiving more it was reduced from the minimum non means tested amount... Its the same system that can end up with you supposedly owing the education authourities money when applying for travelling expenses..

---

by Tannhauser
Essentially. I mean, as a result of my degree I can translate the Latin and Ancient Greek bits in Buffy. Not the basis for most of the jobs I am likely to desire or pursue.

What my degree does suggest, at least theoretically, is that I can process large amounts of information, form hypotheses based on the available evidence, and - perhaps most importantly of all - radiate a convincing impression of competence in most situations.

---

And dance.

Please forgive the following post, as I do not know this to be true, so if I'm totally wrong, feel free to tell me!

---

by gobstopper
Tax is a necessity to fund vital public services (particularly health and mandatory education) and I do not begrudge paying it.

---

As far as I know, and that's not very far, there are many more different 'things' that this money has to pay for now, than it did when it was first brought in, but the amount it has risen by is not proportionate to the spending rate (because everyone would complain I suppose).*If* that's true, it doesn't take a whizz to work out that before long there were going to be problems.

---

However higher education is voluntary and maybe there should be some sort of industry subsidy for those people who wish to take degree courses, if that qualification is necessary for a particular career?

---

True enough. It really annoyed me to hear students saying things like "I can't be bothered to get a job, I'll go to uni and worry about it later."

I may be in the minority here, but I think that sucks. Why should the government fund the "lifestyle" of said people when they have no intention of doing anything that may improve the bigger picture. I can totally see why workers who have never been to uni get angry over this, because I was a student and it irritates me too!

The way that funding was calculated for grants/loans when I was at university changed twice when I weas there, and has changed since too. I'm not saying the way they have settled on for the moment is the best way, but at least it might weed out the time/money wasters that go to uni only for the cheap beer.

I'm done. Go easy on me, I'm a self confessed non-economist.