The middle-class whacked yet again...

Pizzaman · June 2007

I did a 'waster' degree... Politics. I didn't want to become a politician. This is of course an asinine statement. I did politics, and now I am training to be a teacher. I am glad I did my 'waster' degree, and then the PGCE, rather than the degree in teaching, because I am very interested in politics. I paid back the debt (œ5-6000), and when I start my first teaching job in September, I will have to pay back œ7500, whilst paying my tax at a very unfavourable level in relation to my earnings. Super.

What a sad, tedious world it would be if we all were educated purely to do a job. Shades of 'Brave New World'. It is as if people want life to be an extended edition of "The Apprentice". If more people took an interest in the world around them, rather than crapping themselves that the bloke at the next desk has a faster car than they do, then people would start going to university to learn how to think rationally and immerse themselves in knowledge, instead of choosing the course that will get them the most money in the workplace.

No wonder that children don't care about learning for the sake of learning anymore. Why rid yourself of ignorance when what you really need is an expense account and a Rolex?

Joe Sacco · June 2007

You do a degree by choice, whereas school education is pretty much compulsory and gets you to a good enough level to do most things.

The fact that you are choosing to take the degree means that I shouldn't be assisting you via taxes. I don't expect you to pay for me to learn how to drive, get IT certifications etc,. do I.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

The OP is misleading anyway... the massive expansion of university numbers has meant not a massive expansion in poorer kids getting a better education but more of the middle-classes going to university, and indeed more of the duller middle classes - because they can afford it. There is basically greater access to education for the less talented but better off. And the country as a whole can't really afford to indulge the dull middle classes with free university education. Contrary to popular belief the middle classes in this country are very well off in global terms and have very little to worry about in any real sense... they're hardly victims. There are real problems in this country, and those problems predominantly affect those at the very bottom of society - they are the ones who continually get a whacking.

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

mjones · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The OP is misleading anyway... the massive expansion of university numbers has meant not a massive expansion in poorer kids getting a better education but more of the middle-classes going to university, and indeed more of the duller middle classes - because they can afford it. There is basically greater access to education for the less talented but better off. And the country as a whole can't really afford to indulge the dull middle classes with free university education. Contrary to popular belief the middle classes in this country are very well off in global terms and have very little to worry about in any real sense... they're hardly victims. There are real problems in this country, and those problems predominantly affect those at the very bottom of society - they are the ones who continually get a whacking.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Hear hear.

And the educational problems for those at the very bottom occur in school, long before any of them could even consider going to university. So those of you wanting to tackle social exclusion through spending money on education should be calling for the money to be spent on schools, where it really will help the poor, rather than on subidised degrees where it will only benefit the most well-off 40%.

Unknown · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The OP is misleading anyway... the massive expansion of university numbers has meant not a massive expansion in poorer kids getting a better education but more of the middle-classes going to university, and indeed more of the duller middle classes - because they can afford it. There is basically greater access to education for the less talented but better off. And the country as a whole can't really afford to indulge the dull middle classes with free university education. Contrary to popular belief the middle classes in this country are very well off in global terms and have very little to worry about in any real sense... they're hardly victims. There are real problems in this country, and those problems predominantly affect those at the very bottom of society - they are the ones who continually get a whacking.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Hear hear.

And the educational problems for those at the very bottom occur in school, long before any of them could even consider going to university. So those of you wanting to tackle social exclusion through spending money on education should be calling for the money to be spent on schools, where it really will help the poor, rather than on subidised degrees where it will only benefit the most well-off 40%.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hear hear hear.

Is this a record? FM, mjones and me singing off one hymn sheet?

oldwelshman · June 2007

I thought most middle classes are willing to pay to be whacked?[:o)]

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Patrick Stevens

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by mjones

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Flying_Monkey

The OP is misleading anyway... the massive expansion of university numbers has meant not a massive expansion in poorer kids getting a better education but more of the middle-classes going to university, and indeed more of the duller middle classes - because they can afford it. There is basically greater access to education for the less talented but better off. And the country as a whole can't really afford to indulge the dull middle classes with free university education. Contrary to popular belief the middle classes in this country are very well off in global terms and have very little to worry about in any real sense... they're hardly victims. There are real problems in this country, and those problems predominantly affect those at the very bottom of society - they are the ones who continually get a whacking.

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
Hear hear.

And the educational problems for those at the very bottom occur in school, long before any of them could even consider going to university. So those of you wanting to tackle social exclusion through spending money on education should be calling for the money to be spent on schools, where it really will help the poor, rather than on subidised degrees where it will only benefit the most well-off 40%.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Hear hear hear.

Is this a record? FM, mjones and me singing off one hymn sheet?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

No, because I agree with much of it as well!

Yes, there are too many dull middle class kids going to university (and not enough bright working class ones due to no grammar schools![;)][:D]).

This position does not contradict with my OP, however, as BRIGHT middle class kids are getting whacked with the debt!

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Pizzaman

1. I did a 'waster' degree... Politics.

2. What a sad, tedious world it would be if we all were educated purely to do a job. <hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

1. Why have you bracketed Politics as a waster degree? I would not agree with this. (PPE at Oxford is probably the toughest degree course to get onto in the UK.)

2. Agree completely. Proper study has a value in its own right.

To me, waster degrees are those that are fashionable, trendy and require no rigorous mental discipline, especially if they are massively over-subscribed.

A few sports scientists - fine! Lots of sports scientists that can't get jobs - ridiculous.

A few psychologists - fine! Lots who all want to be Cracker - ridiculous!

A few forensic scientists - fine. A whole army who want to wake the dead - ridiculous.

A few media studies graduates - ridiculous!

Pizzaman · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

You do a degree by choice, whereas school education is pretty much compulsory and gets you to a good enough level to do most things.

The fact that you are choosing to take the degree means that I shouldn't be assisting you via taxes. I don't expect you to pay for me to learn how to drive, get IT certifications etc,. do I.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

I agree, but didn't say anything to the contrary in my post.

I was focusing on the idea that Britain would be a boring place if all degrees had to be designed around jobs. Universities would become extinct and young people would be fighting to get places not in Durham or London, but instead the King Fahd Burger King Emirates International School of Business.

bianchi 1 · June 2007

My ex wife went to her university interview to do art and french but her art wasn't good enough. She liked the look of the university and noticed they did a contemporary dance degree so, went and got into that. Then she dropped the french side. now she is a civil servant working in agriculture.
Ironically it was when she was working that she ran up œ17000 worth of dept[:(]

dsoutar · June 2007

This is what (perhaps due to my naivety) I don't understand. My stepdaughter took a gap year, did some stuff and also worked fairly hard. She saved up about 7K. She's now at Uni and still has a job. She will work through most of summer at home (same national company which is handy). We and her proper Dad give her about œ100 quid a month. She reckons she'll have NO student debt when she leaves.

Why are all these other students racking up all this debt ? My girl is not a bookworm, far from it. She like a drink like any other student. i.e. probably legless at least once a week. However what I will say about her is that she's fiercely independent and a hard worker. Oh, and I'm very proud of her !

"Get a bicycle. You will not regret it if you live." ~ Mark Twain, "Taming the Bicycle"

dubnobass · June 2007

The Gubmint is all for a high proportion of the population going through HE because a well-educated society is supposedly a civilised society, and one which is generally well paid (and thus coughs up lots of lovely tax). Those holding degrees generally benefit from them (financially, socially etc), but it's a fact that students from low-income backgrounds are put off by the prospect of graduating with enormous debt.
To insist that the poor pay for their degrees would therefore lead to even more inequality in standards of education between the rich and the poor. This would not be a good thing.

On useless degrees: When I was a student, we ran up a spoof version of the Leeds Uni student paper. For the spoof articles, we tried to think up the most useless fake degrees possible for the students to be studying: Dutch mountain rescue, Medieval plumbing, Pretzel studies.. and Golf Course management. The latter is now a valid degree course.

I suspect we will soon approach the American situation where it's virtually impossible to get any job other than waitressing and flipping burgers unless you have a degree. With the American system, holding a degree confers no advantage but not having a degree is a massive disadvantage. This seems to be the fundamental flaw in the plan to me: how is a degree an advantage when a) everyone has got one and b) standards of education have been forced to slip because the Unis now have to let in people who would have been rejected ouright in years past?

If I had a baby elephant, I'd re-enact THAT scene from Blue Peter, with John Noakes, on a daily basis. Wouldn't you? "Ooh, gerroff me foot!"

marinyork · June 2007

It depends. I know two people who have no student debt. One of them their parents refused to sign their student loan forms and the other does not like the paperwork or state noseying into his business so only gets the non-assessed bit which he then pays off at the end of each year. In the latter's case having a job to go back to every weekend he visited home or holidays and getting paid œ7 an hour for it was a major factor in it.

My student debt will be about œ13500 when I leave in a couple of weeks time. I saved up about œ4000 before uni which quite a few people refuse to believe is possible.

Living costs have a lot to do with it. My best friend went to university when he was 18. He's on the same system as I was on, similar circumstances and graduated with œ6000 of debt, his rent was œ30 a week.

SamNicholscp · June 2007

The reason why so many people have to go to University is to keep the national unemployment figures at a comfortably lower level. I honestly believe that there are far more problems are at a Postgraduate level than the undergrad - the majority of people wanting to study for a masters are currently being priced out of the market by people who can afford to pay for it and make it de rigeur. The only options that the aspiring masters student has really is the Graduate loan scheme, which is charged at the commercial rate of interest, or to attempt to get one of the Reasearch Council's masters schemes, of which only 1 in 5 candidates actually receive it. Most PhDs are impossible to get onto without a masters degree, so a great deal of the most able students are being put off the academic career path.
Spire- œ10000 per annum is absurdly too much I am afraid - the tuition fees are paid after graduation, none is now upfront (well for students starting this year). roughly œ2500 a year in rent, no council tax or income tax to be paid. We're actually talking about around 8 grand for the financially prudent student. Of course the upper middle class kids bump up this average by leaving an exorbitant lifestyle (and I'm not being melodramatic here, but what other section of society think it is acceptable to go out 3 times a week?).
The question of merit is slightly ruined by the fact that middle class kids are far more likely to gain better academic qualifications than working class students. Middle class schools coach their children for university in a way that inner city schools do not. I went to a grammar school and about 1/2 of my upper sixth was spent preparing for university, choosing which one to go to, filling in UCAS forms, redrafting personal statements for what tutors 'want' (I learnt quite quickly that tutors actually have quite a lot of fun reading personal statements, and have a good old laugh about them). Unfortunately, if we want brighter working class students to go to university, then some degree of social engineering is necessary.

I have a bike; she's called Fran. I enjoy her company.

Unknown · June 2007

You are clueless about benefits . Where do you get your figures from ?
I didn't say anything about the high life . I'm talking about people struggling to get by while you whinge on about the middle classes .

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Squaggles

I don't think you have much idea about how little money some people in this country live on Spire .

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

So œ7k is living the high life is it?

Remember most students can't claim benefits. The poor you are presumably alluding to have benefits that take them way higher than œ7k!!

A lot of students are in desperate financial trouble.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx

spire · June 2007

Squaggles

This debate is about the effect of debt on students - not about wider social inequalities.

Flying_Monkey · June 2007

Spire - I'm afraid you can't consider one without some reference to the other... and wasn't it you who started this by claiming this was another example of the 'middle class' being 'whacked'? Was that specifically about students?

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety

oldwelshman · June 2007

Seems to me like any degree that does Spire does not see fit is regarded as a waster degree, whatever that means ?
From personal experience I mind the vast majoriy of graduates never utilize the subjects or skills covered on their courses.
I did telecomms and control systems.
With respect to middle classes being whacked, I am sure the mummies and daddies can afford to pay up!!
Looking at the comments of Spire in here and the other soapbox topic about Maggie Thatcher, he is either a very good wind up merchant or is actually Mark Thatcher disguised as a cycle forum member [8D]

Feel free to browse and donate:
http://www.justgiving.com/davidbethanmills
My winter and summer bike pics

http://oldwelshman.myphotoalbum.com

nickwill · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by oldwelshman

With respect to middle classes being whacked, I am sure the mummies and daddies can afford to pay up!!

<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Why should they have to? By the time their offspring have reached 18, they are no longer their parents' responsibility.

You never have the wind with you - either it is against you or you're having a good day. ~Daniel Behrman, The Man Who Loved Bicycles

spire · June 2007

Oldwelsh

If you re-read the thread, I think you will find your comments about me and 'waster' degrees unfair - and this element of the thread was not introduced by me anyway.

Regular Soapboxers know some of my 'spikier' comments are semi-humourous (or designed to stimulate debate) and you have over-reacted.

Seriously though, my original point stands: students of poor parents get lots of assistance while students of middle-class, but not particulary wealthy, parents get none. The nett result is that at the end of their degrees you can find two equally qualified people, with equal earning power, where one has little debt and the other œ30,000.

Also seriously, there are too many non-academic kids going to university as a matter of course (especially middle-class ones).

Lastly, seriously again, I believe everything possible should be done to get bright working-class kids to the best universities (and I have bored Soapboxers rigid with my calls for the return of grammar schools).

Hope that clarifies things!

(I do think Maggie was great though![:D])

Unknown · June 2007

I studied Environmental Science at University, this seems to be universally regarded as a Mickey-Mouse degree by my friends/colleagues (they tended to study proper subjects like Chemistry, Geography, Biology and other "classical" subjects). Would this fall under your "waster degree" bracket Spire? Or are my friends just on the wind up?

For what it's worth I thought it would be a bit mickey-mouse when I started it, soon changed my mind when I fully realised what it entailed though!

spire · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Joe Sacco

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by Squaggles

Would you prefer it if students from poor backgrounds weren't given any help ?

http://www.eastyorkshireclassic.co.uk/n ... index.aspx
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

The money is paid back after graduation.

Why should a newly qualified doctor from a poor family have less to pay back than a newly qualified doctor from an ordinary family, given their earning power is equal?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

They shouldn't. The only people who need to worry about debt after leaving university are those that have decided to study "waster" subjects with no intention of getting a good career afterwards.

In my day students used to work while at university, so not sure how they could get into œ30k debt anyway?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Peyote

As mentioned in my reply to oldwelsh, the 'waster' aspect was not introduced by me and I suggest you refer your questions to Joe!

(I don't disgaree with him that there are waster degrees though[;)],)

Unknown · June 2007

Apologies Spire!

Joe, what d'you reckon? Env. Science a wasters degree?

Actually reading the bits Spire has just quoted above, it doesn't seem that the degree subject itself is the "waster" bit, it's the lack of intention to get a good career afterwards. I fully intended to work in the Environmental Field, and do. I think we need to know what Joe means by a "good career", because finanically I think I may not be very good, but I enjoy the area of work (if not the actual work itself!). Hmm...

Oh well. I'm changing jobs soon so things are on the up!

Joe Sacco · June 2007

What I mean by waster degree is more about the person taking the degree being a waster. Someone who does a degree for the sake of it with no intention of putting it to any use and just extending the time they don't have to work by a few years.

Fine if that is what they want to do but don't expect me to subsidise it!

Simon L2 · June 2007

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by spire

<blockquote id="quote">quote:<hr height="1" noshade id="quote">Originally posted by david2

Funny notion this waster degree thing.

What exactly is a waster degree?
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">

Media studies, for one.
<hr height="1" noshade id="quote"></blockquote id="quote">
big, big mistake. When Media Studies brats are making Assistant Producer after a year researching then you have to reckon on this being the best degree to get for the least amount of effort. Why train to be a lawyer (unless, of course, you're into entertainment law) when you can ponce around Hoxton with a Mr. Whippy haircut getting œ50k at the age of 26?

The middle-class whacked yet again...

Comments

Categories