[galpinos]

Cheers for the in depth and considered response Stu. I'm a graduate of Sheffield and was very happy with the course I did and the quality and quantity of teaching. I've always been a bit unsure as to how the money side worked.

I'm really uneasy with the current proposals as it goes against my "HE should be free" opinion. That's a worrying stat about HE funding.

(I'm the chap who went to uni with Jules who bumped into you both a Stanage on a wet Saturday a couple of weeks ago.  )

[Stu Littlefair]

  back.

I think there's a case to be made that students should pay *some* of the cost of their education. They do benefit personally after all. On the face of it, the current plans appear to make students pay *all* of the price of their education, but it's not that simple really.

My feeling is that the proposed level of fees is unfairly high. As I say though, HE in this country is underfunded and becoming uncompetitive and the status quo had to go. We really needed a thorough review of how HE is funded in this country and what it's for. In the light of that, the Browne review was a hopeless waste of time and effort. 

[stevej]

If the education system is to be run in a cold bean-counter way then is it time to start assessing the true value of each undergrad?

If an arts student pops out of university not much better qualified for any job than when they went in then they've lost the economy three years of work plus three years of fees so each BA working in retail has cost the economy a significant amount of money whereas an equivalent STEM student ideally is worth more than they cost to produce. As a result, making STEM courses free (or at least financially a lot more affordable) would work but arts would be severely hit, especially since despite their very low overheads they're loss-making even now.

As for semi-STEM, of the 12ish geographer grads I can think of, one has a non-teaching job and two are doing phds, the rest are teachers.

Just to add a little bit to the "get a job in term time" and worth of degrees debate, it's pretty clear workload between degrees is wildly inconsistent. Despite having the most contact time of any department, the students of the engineering departments use our university libraries for more hours than any other on top of our 23+ hours in lectures/labs. (We have swipe-card in+out access so that's not conjecture; our faculty compiled the statistics to try and persuade the university to 'tax' engineering less than arts for library access.)

[gremlin]

Whatever the answer, success shouldn't be equated with earnings anyway, so I'd object to the premise of the question.  Fulfillment and happiness are far better indicators of success than earnings.  It's much more preferable to be happy in a job earning peanuts than earn loads in a job you detest.

What the pie man said 

[tomtom]

Well put Stu.

I'd like to put a nail in this whole 'worthless arts subject' debate. I know plenty of physicists, chemists, biologists who make no use whatsoever from their specific subject degree knowledge. Hey work in IT, sales, hr marketing etc.. Is the 40k that cost the govt wasted? In the same way that someone studying needlework and social policy is?

ALL degrees have great worth, and it's seductive to think that more directed degrees such as medicine or engineering are 'better'. A degree in whatever subject teaches you how to work and think independently.. To garner large quantities of info from many sources and to synthesise this into a useful outcome.

Eg MrsTT has some 'bullshit' degree in social thingy and a masters in social policy.. And she's a probation officer.. Something that is far more use to society IMHO than a well qualified microbiologist testing pasties for Gregs...

[Jaspersharpe]

ALL degrees have great worth....
....A degree in whatever subject teaches you how to work and think independently.. To garner large quantities of info from many sources and to synthesise this into a useful outcome.

[galpinos]

I agree tomtom. Of my year of MEng Mechanical grads, 20% went into engineering, the majority of the rest went into the "city" either as finance, project management or one of the various ill-defined graduate programmes from big companies that I've never worked out what they do.

In contrast, a lot of my arts student friends seem to work for various charities and NGOs doing does that are arguably far more beneficial to society than making an F! car go faster or designing the air intake on a new supercar (the jobs of 2 of my engineering chums).

Personally, I'm part of the team designing/building the new evaporator up at Sellafield so I'm either doing a good thing for society or ruining the enviroment, depending on where you sit on the power for the future debate. 

[andy_e]

ALL degrees have great worth

Nonsense, what's the use in having a degree when having one doesn't mean anything to employers?

[andy popp]

ALL degrees have great worth

Nonsense, what's the use in having a degree when having one doesn't mean anything to employers?

Gradgrind is alive and well.

[slackline]

ALL degrees have great worth, and it's seductive to think that more directed degrees such as medicine or engineering are 'better'. A degree in whatever subject teaches you how to work and think independently.. To garner large quantities of info from many sources and to synthesise this into a useful outcome.

The degrees do yes, but not necessarily in conjunction with the people who undertake them who may not realise that the purpose is to learn how to think for yourself and go about problem solving.  To that end I think there is a greater tendency for Science, technology, engineering and maths subjects to attract individuals who are pre-disposed through their education to date to think like that and realise that that is what it is about (obviously thats a tendency and note a rule, when I was an undergrad a mate from halls was forever slacking off lectures and asking to borrow my notes, I stopped lending them to him after a while).  Vice versa there will be some who do work hard at "arts" orientated subjects.

Is £21k at 2016 rates a decent salary to start paying back?  I'm undecided, in a sense those who do degrees and end up on higher salaries are putting more back into the tax system anyway by the very fact that they end up earning more.

Personally I'm 11 years down the line from finishing my MSc and don't earn a great deal more than that now (but then I've purposefully chosen not to pursue Phd/Post-doc/Fellowhsip/Lecturer line as I've no interest in teaching or administration).  My wife who didn't go to Uni is now on a salary that is roughly comparable, and my brother who scrapped onto his course by failing to get the grades (something like a C and two D's, still got a place ) and put just as little work into his degree has worked in various crappy office jobs for a number of years and is now on a comparable salary (although its not a permanent or even long-term contract).

I do what I do not for the money, but because I find it interesting and feel that in some small way it is contributing to the expansion of human knowledge, and more importantly it might actually help people/society improve the standard of life as a whole. (That and working at a Uni provides very flexible working hours and lots of holiday-days per year ).

If I had to pay such fees now would I attend University? Perhaps, but in all probability I doubt it, I'd likely have ended up reading the same books anyway, but wouldn't have had the opportunity to do lab/field work nor a couple of bits of paper to go with it all.

[Jaspersharpe]

ALL degrees have great worth, and it's seductive to think that more directed degrees such as medicine or engineering are 'better'. A degree in whatever subject teaches you how to work and think independently.. To garner large quantities of info from many sources and to synthesise this into a useful outcome.

The degrees do yes, but not necessarily in conjunction with the people who undertake them who may not realise that the purpose is to learn how to think for yourself and go about problem solving.  To that end I think there is a greater tendency for Science, technology, engineering and maths subjects to attract individuals who are pre-disposed through their education to date to think like that and realise that that is what it is about (obviously thats a tendency and note a rule, when I was an undergrad a mate from halls was forever slacking off lectures and asking to borrow my notes, I stopped lending them to him after a while).  Vice versa there will be some who do work hard at "arts" orientated subjects.

That's exactly what I meant.

[tomtom]

Some good points above - good thread this.

Ach its all academic now (pardon the bad pun) as its voted through.... though closer than I thought...

I've heard people arguing on the radio that ALL education should be free... this includes HE.. and its interesting that we now make a distinction between School (GCSE level) & A level vs University education (HE). Why? This is not a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely interested why this is the case!!? E.G. Why shouldnt we have to pay for A levels? After all you can go out and work at 16...?

This seems to be more down to cultural reasons than logic.. 

[philo]

After all you can go out and work at 16...?

untill 2013 that is!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/6254833.stm

[slackline]

I've heard people arguing on the radio that ALL education should be free... this includes HE.. and its interesting that we now make a distinction between School (GCSE level) & A level vs University education (HE). Why? This is not a rhetorical question - I'm genuinely interested why this is the case!!? E.G. Why shouldnt we have to pay for A levels? After all you can go out and work at 16...?

This seems to be more down to cultural reasons than logic..

Indeed, why don't children start accruing a debt for their education from the time they start secondary school, or even earlier?  After all, they are (meant to be) obtaining a set of skills that will allow them to be employable in the future.

As I wrote above having to pay fees and repay them after earning above a certain level is akin to being taxed twice.

[andy popp]

I'm still wondering what Sloper's vision of 'genuine HE' is? Presumably, as its something we should 'return' to, its one with very little room for the 'proles'?

Turning to the question of 'success' Sloper's arguments are as crude as ever. 21K is the threshold at which repayments start and is likely to be a point reached quite early in most graduate careers. It is not meant to indicate all time high earning potential in a career. I earned 16k in my first post-doc job but now earn considerably more - was I unsuccessful then but am successful now? Of course not, just at different stages in my career. Presumably the god-like genius that is Sloper has never earned less than the equivalent of 21K? In any case 21K is very close to the median income of workers of all ages and much more than the median income of workers in the 20-24 age group. A relatively recent graduate earning 21k is doing OK. And this is without asking if there are other non-monetary measures of success

He never uses the word but of course the flip-side of success is failure - and in this case, it seems, the 'failures' were not deserving of the investment made in them. HE is wasted on them is the message, they are not worth it. From where does this impulse to label people as either successes or failures come I wonder? As ever with Sloper there is strong vein that is nasty, mean-spirited, and deeply judgemental, wedded this time to a crude pecuniary utilitarianism that is, for many, the very antithesis of 'genuine' HE.

[Johnny Brown]

In the 11 years since I graduated I've yet to reach my earnings threshold for loan repayment. This is partly due to being self-employed but mostly due to being a bone idle layabout and failure. Will the new scheme step up every year? My threshold this year was £2254/m = ~£27k pa. I'd say that was successful.

the purpose is to learn how to think for yourself and go about problem solving.  To that end I think there is a greater tendency for Science, technology, engineering and maths subjects to attract individuals who are pre-disposed through their education to date to think like that and realise that that is what it is about

Even as a science graduate, I can't agree with that at all. You really think such subjects are more likely to breed independent thinkers than the arts? Those subjects are all ones where you are just continuing studies started in school, generally in the same narrow manner. I'd say many arts subjects that are new to the student prompt rather fresher engagement. When it comes to critical thinking I'd be looking for a philosophy grad not a mathematician.

[slackline]

the purpose is to learn how to think for yourself and go about problem solving.  To that end I think there is a greater tendency for Science, technology, engineering and maths subjects to attract individuals who are pre-disposed through their education to date to think like that and realise that that is what it is about

Even as a science graduate, I can't agree with that at all. You really think such subjects are more likely to breed independent thinkers than the arts? Those subjects are all ones where you are just continuing studies started in school, generally in the same narrow manner. I'd say many arts subjects that are new to the student prompt rather fresher engagement. When it comes to critical thinking I'd be looking for a philosophy grad not a mathematician.

Problem solving often doesn't require independent thinking, it requires analytical thinking.  Yes you might go about this independently of others (i.e. working on your own) but its a process of identifying a problem, researching work in an area, refining the problem in this light and working through a possible solution using the information available.  As you say it is a very rigid structure/approach* (and is generally done within a reductionist framework), but it works very well and has all the wonderful technology and toys that surrounds us today.  Thats not to say that creative thinking and output of artists, poets etc. doesn't enhance our daily lives at all.

I encounter a lot of medics who wish to engage in research and not that many are really geared up to thinking in that manner.  (This isn't a slight against any medics here, its based on my day-to-day experience of providing statistical advice to researchers wishing to apply for NIHR funding).

So yes you're right, doing the science/engineering/mathematics orientated degrees doesn't always result in the most critical thinkers, but I suspect that on average the tendency for critical (as opposed to creative) thinkers is greater in the science, technology, engineering & maths areas than nu-media, golf-course design and other such courses.

In one sense philosophy and mathematics aren't that disparate really (at a base level both are based on logic, but there is all the structured reasoning of theorem's etc.).

I know two people who've done Phd's in philosophy, neither have jobs.

* Although whilst it might be a progression from what was being taught at school, so would English or Drama.  Take something like chemistry and you actually get taught at Uni that most of the way in which you were taught chemistry at school was not wholly accurate and a massive over-simplification, so its not always a case of more of the same.  All subjects across the board will be taught in greater depth at HE though.

[Johnny Brown]

Okay. If you'd said science-based degrees create better analytical thinkers within a reductionist framework, then I'd have to agree with you. But your original statement science-based degrees tend to attract 'who think for themselves', no I don't agree. Many that I studied along side had never had an original thought in their lives. I think current science-based teaching is poor in the respect that it creates people who can only think within that reductionist framework. Useful yes, but far from th whole picture. (Un-for-some)Fortunately we're not Vulcans and some other skills are required to create useful members of society.

[cofe]

Okay. If you'd said science-based degrees create better analytical thinkers within a reductionist framework, then I'd have to agree with you. But your original statement science-based degrees tend to attract 'who think for themselves', no I don't agree. Many that I studied along side had never had an original thought in their lives. I think current science-based teaching is poor in the respect that it creates people who can only think within that reductionist framework. Useful yes, but far from th whole picture. (Un-for-some)Fortunately we're not Vulcans and some other skills are required to create useful members of society.

great post youth, considering the jetlag.

[slackline]

My poor choice of words, I equate being able to analytical criticise something as "thinking for yourself" as it means not taking something that you see/hear/read as gospel (e.g. as Daily Fail readers often do). As above I'm not saying that such thinking doesn't occur in non-science areas, that would be stupid, but I think there is a greater tendency towards this way of thinking in those undertaking science subjects (I realise that things like for example history also engender a degree of scepticism when considering the sources of evidence etc. etc.).

I wholly agree that this doesn't engender originality, I myself am very bad at coming up with original ideas.

This is entirely separate from creative thinking, which as you say, and I agree with, is also beneficial to society.

[Baron]

What kind of a fucked up system thinks it's normal to have £30-40K debt by your early 20's? I don't. I think it's immoral.

[BB]

I think that it's a good thing to get students to pay for their University education.

It should weed out those who are attending University for reaons leaning more toward social than anything else. Those that really want to go but have limited means will find a way, even if it involves working and saving up funds for a few years before starting a course.

I attended University in the first year that fees and student loans were introduced (1998). I had to take out a full student loan each year and worked a bit at weekends/holidays to pay rent, food, books, alcohol etc. I'm now paying back a small amount each month, which I don't even notice coming out of my wage. I've still got about half the student loan to pay back (12 years on).

I don't remember it being a big deal being asked to pay - it was my choice to go and I'm now living with the repercusions of my choice and paying back a debt.

In response to Baron, I don't think that the system is immoral - I think that students are wrong for expecting others to cough up for their life choices! But then, there are lots of examples of this sort of thinking in society - benefits for parents etc etc

The payoff for the student debt? Not sure I've had one financially - I had a great time at University and enjoyed my degree, I've always been in a job and transfered between jobs easily (which may/may not be due to having a Biology degree). However, I don't have more earning power than than my peers who didn't take the same route. 

FWIW, my starting salary was £15k.

[BB]

I think that it's a good thing to get students to pay for their University education.

It should weed out those who are attending University for reaons leaning more toward social than anything else. Those that really want to go but have limited means will find a way, even if it involves working and saving up funds for a few years before starting a course.

I attended University in the first year that fees and student loans were introduced (1998). I had to take out a full student loan each year and worked a bit at weekends/holidays to pay rent, food, books, alcohol etc. I'm now paying back a small amount each month, which I don't even notice coming out of my wage. I've still got about half the student loan to pay back (12 years on).

I don't remember it being a big deal being asked to pay - it was my choice to go and I'm now living with the repercusions of my choice and paying back a debt.

In response to Baron, I don't think that the system is immoral - I think that students are wrong for expecting others to cough up for their life choices! But then, there are lots of examples of this sort of thinking in society - benefits for parents etc etc

The payoff for the student debt? Not sure I've had one financially - I had a great time at University and enjoyed my degree, I've always been in a job and transfered between jobs easily (which may/may not be due to having a Biology degree). However, I don't have more earning power than than my peers who didn't take the same route. 

FWIW, my starting salary was £15k.

Great post by my other half there. I'll wad her offline! 

[mrjonathanr]

My poor choice of words, I equate being able to analytical criticise something as "thinking for yourself" as it means not taking something that you see/hear/read as gospel [..] but I think there is a greater tendency towards this way of thinking in those undertaking science subjects.

You're having a laugh, right? 

[slackline]

My poor choice of words, I equate being able to analytical criticise something as "thinking for yourself" as it means not taking something that you see/hear/read as gospel [..] but I think there is a greater tendency towards this way of thinking in those undertaking science subjects.

You're having a laugh, right?

There's been some drift.  The original point was that Tomtom asserted that all degrees are worthwhile/valuable because it teaches you a set of skills to later use in life.  I agree.

My impression is that those undertaking science/engineering/maths subjects tend to recognise this compared to "arts" degrees where it is more often pursued for the love of a subject.