Students

tailwindhome

gtvlusso wrote:

spen666 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

.....

There's more to life then making cash, and there is more value to add to society then just making cash.

I agree totally.

We work to live, not live to work.

If money is the goal, then we have lost society & it becomes a very hostile nfriendly world

Say's a Solicitor......

:-)

slash Accountant

Agent57

DonDaddyD wrote:

I would also argue there are more with just A-levels whose careers are hindered by not having a degree.

In my 22 or so years in the grown-up job world, I've only knowingly found my lack of a degree a hindrance once. That was a time when a guy interviewed me for a job, and the feedback I got was that in almost every respect I was perfect, and he thought I'd be a great addition to his company; but he only wanted to employ people who had a degree.

On the other hand, having no degree is a major blocker to my wish to go into teaching. I think I'd make an excellent ICT teacher, for example, but that's a profession that's only open to people with degrees. My 2 decades on experience in the IT industry don't seem to count for anything; I certainly don't feel I need training in the subject matter, and I already have experience of planning lessons from my first and second years in teacher training, as well as my cycling coaching. I think that's rather silly, to be honest, but it seems to be how it is.

Not really that relevant to the thread, I guess, but it peeves me.

Sewinman

I am just trying to work out what debt I would come out if Uni if I followed the same path today.

Presuming it is £6k for the course I did, plus living expenses we would be talking around 30k. I then did a Masters which would be another 10k in total. So I would have graduated with £40k of debt! I actually had about £8k in reality when I finished and it took me until about 30 to pay off.

According to the current plans I would be paying 7.5% interest on the debt and 9% of my salary per month.

I am not sure I would have bothered - it would have been a sh*te 20s and I would still be paying now!

re-cycles

gtvlusso wrote:

I believe that the fees are only payable when you are employed and earning over certain limits. Whats wrong with that? Surely it stops f*ckwits like me attempting Uni, failing miserably, and costing you tax payers a fortune?! Then deciding on a complete change of direction.....

Hopefully it also stops these b*ll*x degrees from second rate Universities.

+1

It seems that everyone thinks that uni is just an extension of school now, rather than being something that only the top "x%" do. In the local newspaper job section there are adverts for sales staff requiring degrees. WHY? If we reduce the number of people doing degrees for no reason other than their friends are going then we'll all benefit. I'm sure that some of the courses are great fun and enhance your life, but if its not going to improve your "usefulness" to the rest of us don't complain about having to pay for it. I can think of lots of things that'd make me happier but I don't expect the tax payers to foot the bill.

lost_in_thought

@Agent57 I have a friend who teaches music technology with no degree... and I know at least one of the teachers at the school I went to was low on qualifications, but he was one of the best teachers as he really knew his subject.

Sewinman wrote:

I am not sure I would have bothered - it would have been a sh*te 20s and I would still be paying now!

Are you saying you didn't enjoy university?

re-cycles

Agent57 wrote:

On the other hand, having no degree is a major blocker to my wish to go into teaching. I think I'd make an excellent ICT teacher, for example, but that's a profession that's only open to people with degrees. My 2 decades on experience in the IT industry don't seem to count for anything; I certainly don't feel I need training in the subject matter, and I already have experience of planning lessons from my first and second years in teacher training, as well as my cycling coaching. I think that's rather silly, to be honest, but it seems to be how it is.

Not really that relevant to the thread, I guess, but it peeves me.

Having to have a degree to teach is one of the most stupid rules ever! (I only did my degree so I could teach, and in my 3 year QTS course I spent 11 weeks in a school learning how to teach).

Sewinman

lost_in_thought wrote:

@Agent57 I have a friend who teaches music technology with no degree... and I know at least one of the teachers at the school I went to was low on qualifications, but he was one of the best teachers as he really knew his subject.

Sewinman wrote:

I am not sure I would have bothered - it would have been a sh*te 20s and I would still be paying now!

Are you saying you didn't enjoy university?

No, I loved it, but that is kind of beside the point.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Except someone, somwehere has to pay foe that degree. It's naiieve in the extreme to ignore the "cash" issue.

Quite - and the different ways of funding I have discussed earlier in the thread.

There needs to be a way which does not limit equal opportunities. The proposed version does limit equal opportunities. I'd say the gov't would be better off looking into the alternatives - grad taxes etc.

Also, as I have said elsewhere - it's a crying shame that people who do not even have the vote yet are being made to carry their own extra and serious personal debt on top of the national debt they will ultimately be made to pay. A debt that they had no control over - a degree and job market which they did not design - and an education funding system they had no say in.

People say it's ridiculous that so many people want uni degrees, but there are so many jobs that require degrees to even be considered for them in the first place. The students are, like everyone else, responding to demand.

lost_in_thought

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I am not sure I would have bothered - it would have been a sh*te 20s and I would still be paying now!

Are you saying you didn't enjoy university?

No, I loved it, but that is kind of beside the point.

I was just confused because I don't see how the debt would have made a difference to your enjoyment of your time at university.

Agent57

lost_in_thought wrote:

@Agent57 I have a friend who teaches music technology with no degree... and I know at least one of the teachers at the school I went to was low on qualifications, but he was one of the best teachers as he really knew his subject.

Well, I suppose there are some ways in for people without a degree, but http://www.tda.gov.uk explicitly states "You will need a degree to become a qualified teacher." here. Of course, I could get a degree through the Open University.

Sewinman

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I am not sure I would have bothered - it would have been a sh*te 20s and I would still be paying now!

Are you saying you didn't enjoy university?

No, I loved it, but that is kind of beside the point.

I was just confused because I don't see how the debt would have made a difference to your enjoyment of your time at university.

I didn't say it would have. I said my post-graduation 20s would have been worse and I would still be paying debt back now (at quite a high interest rate) - which makes me think I might not have bothered going.

gtvlusso

gtvlusso wrote:

Okay - Here's My pennys worth:

I am a "FAILED" student.....

I studied at Cambridge, Reading Uni and Rutgers (In the USA). I do not have a degree because I was a drunken dopehead......

I wasted allot of time and money (your money and my money) to acheive b*ll*x all. I was too young and did not know what I wanted.

I studied English Literature, Fine Art and Journalism/Law. After coming back from the States, I worked as a cabling guy on a building site, then became a computer engineer and it snowballed into a career in IT/Telecoms.....

My Last job was looking over around 400 UK staff as a "Head of".....I now look over about 40 staff internationally as a "Head of" - new/better job!!

I only have 'A' levels....

For some people University comes around too quickly and they have a bit of growing up and self learning to do - me!. For some people academia is simply beyond them and they should not be pushed down the Uni route - the annihilation of the old Poly Technics was a travesty.....I see that now when I recruit "students"...we have non students who simply are better candidates and more motivated.....

I have friends that went to less well known Uni's and got rubbish degrees in b*gger all.....they are still doing okay. Allot of them joined the Police! But, they would probably have been better off going to a Poly and learning a skill or simply going straight to work.

Uni is not right for everyone! However, the previous government pushed us into this mess.

On Fee's:

I believe that the fees are only payable when you are employed and earning over certain limits. Whats wrong with that? Surely it stops f*ckwits like me attempting Uni, failing miserably, and costing you tax payers a fortune?! Then deciding on a complete change of direction.....

Hopefully it also stops these b*ll*x degrees from second rate Universities.

I would like to think that when kids leave school, they now really look closely at what they want to do and the financial impact of it on society - i.e. fees raises that awareness. To be honest, I am now saving frantically for schooling and Uni - I know my kids will need the cash then. I hope that they take the time (even a year or so out) to find out who they are and where they want to go - make an informed choice and bear in mind their imprint or impact on society.

Yes - the fees hike was too much too soon. It should have been in stages to lessen the impact (look at fuel price hikes as an example of acceptance).

In a very very selfish way - I hope that by paying for my kids Uni education I am making up for my Uni waste.....Not sure though!?!

Quoting myself is incredibly vain, but:

I went for an IT/Telecoms Consultant job at Price Waterhouse Coopers a few years ago - I was a Consultant Engineer at the time. I did not get the job as I don't have a degree. However, my friend got the job with PWC as an IT Consultant - he has a degree in Geology and a degree in civil engineering.

A week later he is phoning me and asking technical questions about the job he got and I did not get!!! He even had to ask me about logging onto his own laptop....I spent 6 months supporting him in his role, before he binned it and joined the Police.

A degree shows the ability to self manage, research and project manage. It also give some specialism into a subject that you like. It does not mean that you will follow a career path or like what you end up doing. So, why should I foot the bill for people who may not end up happy themselves or fulfill any role they are educated for....?

very Daily Fail - apologies! But I would rather people assessed what they wanted to do and realised the financial implication on society. make people choose what is right for them.

A degree does not mean that you are any good as an employee!

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

Except someone, somwehere has to pay foe that degree. It's naiieve in the extreme to ignore the "cash" issue.

Quite - and the different ways of funding I have discussed earlier in the thread.

There needs to be a way which does not limit equal opportunities. The proposed version does limit equal opportunities. I'd say the gov't would be better off looking into the alternatives - grad taxes etc.

are employers demanding degrees, or are they now expecting them becuase so many people were wrongly encouraged to go to University?

What's the difference in paying 10% of your salary in grad tax, or 10% of your salary in debt repayments?

mrc1

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I am not sure I would have bothered - it would have been a sh*te 20s and I would still be paying now!

Are you saying you didn't enjoy university?

No, I loved it, but that is kind of beside the point.

I was just confused because I don't see how the debt would have made a difference to your enjoyment of your time at university.

I certainly would have less fun on a night out if the drinks cost three times as much as they did the week before.

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

are employers demanding degrees, or are they now expecting them becuase so many people were wrongly encouraged to go to University?

What's the difference in paying 10% of your salary in grad tax, or 10% of your salary in debt repayments?

I'd suggest the former.

As for the difference...
*facepalm*

a £30,000 debt is £30,000 debt, whether you earn £15,000 a year or £80,000. The difference is you ultimately end up paying more (given the 'generous' inflation estimates used to calculate the interest on the debt) if you earn less, since you accumulate more interest on that debt because you pay it back more slowly.

A grad tax, for example would be much fairer (as I understand it anyway).

But all these demands for students to pay is a little rich coming from a generation which had free education...

W1

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

are employers demanding degrees, or are they now expecting them becuase so many people were wrongly encouraged to go to University?

What's the difference in paying 10% of your salary in grad tax, or 10% of your salary in debt repayments?

I'd suggest the former.

As for the difference...
*facepalm*

a £30,000 debt is £30,000 debt, whether you earn £15,000 a year or £80,000. The difference is you ultimately end up paying more (given the 'generous' inflation estimates used to calculate the interest on the debt) if you earn less, since you accumulate more interest on that debt because you pay it back more slowly.

A grad tax, for example would be much fairer (as I understand it anyway).

But all these demands for students to pay is a little rich coming from a generation which had free education...

*facepalm*

That's not what I asked.

I wonder whether you actually read what's being said before answering?

rick_chasey

W1 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

W1 wrote:

are employers demanding degrees, or are they now expecting them becuase so many people were wrongly encouraged to go to University?

What's the difference in paying 10% of your salary in grad tax, or 10% of your salary in debt repayments?

I'd suggest the former.

As for the difference...
*facepalm*

a £30,000 debt is £30,000 debt, whether you earn £15,000 a year or £80,000. The difference is you ultimately end up paying more (given the 'generous' inflation estimates used to calculate the interest on the debt) if you earn less, since you accumulate more interest on that debt because you pay it back more slowly.

A grad tax, for example would be much fairer (as I understand it anyway).

But all these demands for students to pay is a little rich coming from a generation which had free education...

*facepalm*

That's not what I asked.

I wonder whether you actually read what's being said before answering?

A debt refers to a finite figure which you owe - a tax does not.

lost_in_thought

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I am not sure I would have bothered - it would have been a sh*te 20s and I would still be paying now!

Are you saying you didn't enjoy university?

No, I loved it, but that is kind of beside the point.

I was just confused because I don't see how the debt would have made a difference to your enjoyment of your time at university.

I didn't say it would have. I said my post-graduation 20s would have been worse and I would still be paying debt back now (at quite a high interest rate) - which makes me think I might not have bothered going.

Ahhhh but you didn't say post-grad or I wouldn't have been confused! If I'd stayed and done a masters (which I wouldn't have done anyway 'cause you get a free one from oxbridge 5 years later) I wouldn't have left until I was 24, which is a reasonable chunk of my 20s.

Anyhow, it's clearly not what you meant.

In my book it's a good thing if people aren't automatically trundling off like sheep to university.

Sewinman

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahhhh but you didn't say post-grad or I wouldn't have been confused! If I'd stayed and done a masters (which I wouldn't have done anyway 'cause you get a free one from oxbridge 5 years later) I wouldn't have left until I was 24, which is a reasonable chunk of my 20s.

Anyhow, it's clearly not what you meant.

In my book it's a good thing if people aren't automatically trundling off like sheep to university.

My Masters was a year long, I had finished it when I was 21.

I would not have the job I have today without a Masters though..

p.s. I think most people are aware that Oxford gives away a free MA, but I don't think you are allowed to put it after your name. You don't learn much from getting a free MA.

lost_in_thought

Sewinman wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Ahhhh but you didn't say post-grad or I wouldn't have been confused! If I'd stayed and done a masters (which I wouldn't have done anyway 'cause you get a free one from oxbridge 5 years later) I wouldn't have left until I was 24, which is a reasonable chunk of my 20s.

Anyhow, it's clearly not what you meant.

In my book it's a good thing if people aren't automatically trundling off like sheep to university.

My Masters was a year long, I had finished it when I was 21.

I would not have the job I have today without a Masters though..

p.s. I think most people are aware that Oxford gives away a free MA, but I don't think you are allowed to put it after your name. You don't learn much from getting a free MA.

You are, but you have to put MA (Cantab) or MA (Oxon).

Funny thing is, a lot of people (in my experience) aren't aware that this actually means 'MA (That I just paid £50 for 5 years after finishing my degree)'. They think it means MA (that I got from a really good university).

Which is fun.

Sewinman

I can see the funny side, but rather annoying for those who have actually paid for and studied a proper one!

Agent57

lost_in_thought wrote:

Funny thing is, a lot of people (in my experience) aren't aware that this actually means 'MA (That I just paid £50 for 5 years after finishing my degree)'. They think it means MA (that I got from a really good university).

That was me until 30 seconds ago.

alfablue

The new university fees arrangements will mean that potential students are more likely think carefully about their readiness and aptitude for a degree, the appropriateness of the degree, and the implications of the costs. GOOD

The new arrangements will dissuade the more debt averse from undertaking HE; it will dissuade those who cannot envisage a high financial return for their indebtedness; it will dissuade those who may come from backgrounds with lower levels of aspiration / achievement; it will dissuade students from studying degrees that do not lead to lucrative careers.

These factors are likely to skew the demographic of university entrants to favour those from more affluent backgrounds, a return to the old days! This is the wrong direction! BAD.

It will also skew the profile of subjects studied so those less "commercial" subjects will be allowed to wither on the vine (my own university is considering which courses to slash as they project the need to save 30% of the budget over the next 3 years).

As Micheal Gove ( :evil: ) told us yesterday, last year only 45 "free school meals pupils" got to Oxbridge last year. Is there genuinely such a paucity of talent amongst the poor? Maybe some of you would like it if it were so . . .

lost_in_thought

Sewinman wrote:

I can see the funny side, but rather annoying for those who have actually paid for and studied a proper one!

Ahhh but a degree from oxbridge is so much harder than a degree from anywhere else that you deserve a free MA.

:P

sketchley

W1 wrote:

are employers demanding degrees, or are they now expecting them becuase so many people were wrongly encouraged to go to University?

For me when I’m looking at CV's it's the later, and in fact the problem is worse than just Degrees, not having 5 GCSEs, not doing A-Level's all mark candidates down significantly. As it's now very possible to get these and even a degree if your not academic, not having them just puts you at the bottom of the pile of CV's behind the people that do. I don't like this, particularly as I don't have a degree myself, but you have to cut down the CV's to a manageable number some how. This problem is compounded as I now think it's next to impossible to start at the bottom, something I did 23 years ago, and work up.

I think it would be a good thing if less people go to university, that way as an employer I would have more choice of good quality A-Level Students deciding that employment is better option than university. Those candidates are not really there at the moment as the good ones all go to university.

W1 wrote:

What's the difference in paying 10% of your salary in grad tax, or 10% of your salary in debt repayments?

The big difference is that with a grad tax you’re not in debt. So you could for example go to work in Australia shortly after graduation and then not worry about paying the grad tax as you not earning in the UK. The higher tax rate you would face in the UK would in fact encourage people to leave after graduation. If you owe the money you still owe the money even if you’re not in the UK, although it maybe difficult to track you down.

Maybe an employer’s tax is a better way to go, charging the company for the benefit they get from the university education of the candidate. Although it would make non-university and foreign candidates more attractive for the same reason foreign employment would be more attractive with a grad tax.

Would be interested to know what a student would choose if given the choice, 10% of salary above £30k in debt repayments, until debt is paid or 10% grad tax above £30k for life but no “debt” to worry about.

Sewinman

lost_in_thought wrote:

Sewinman wrote:

I can see the funny side, but rather annoying for those who have actually paid for and studied a proper one!

Ahhh but a degree from oxbridge is so much harder than a degree from anywhere else that you deserve a free MA.

:P

*Bitchy* - Clearly!

lost_in_thought

alfablue wrote:

As Micheal Gove ( :evil: ) told us yesterday, last year only 45 "free school meals pupils" got to Oxbridge last year. Is there genuinely such a paucity of talent amongst the poor? Maybe some of you would like it if it were so . . .

I do wonder whether there's an element of aspiration here.

When I was still at Oxford, one of the things you could sign up to do was 'outreach' talks to schools, usually large, underperforming state schools, in your local area about getting in to Oxbridge etc etc the target being to increase applications, which, depsite the representation in the press, are relatively proportionate to those who get places.

I signed up, and they immediately gave me a well-known local large state school. It's well-known for being pretty rough. I wrote them a letter saying that I wanted to come to the school, meet teachers and pupils and talk to anyone who was interested about Oxford.

I received a curt response that basically said 'this wouldn't be of interest to anyone at our school'. I tried again the next year and received much the same response. When I left oxford that state school had still never had an applicant.

Of course, this is one isolated case, but it does make you wonder whether other state schools have the same attitude.

The school I went to had roughly 10% of the students applying to Oxbridge every year. The percentage success rate was pretty damn low, but hey, if you don't apply you're never going to get in so why not give it a shot?

DonDaddyD

Agent57 wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

I would also argue there are more with just A-levels whose careers are hindered by not having a degree.

In my 22 or so years in the grown-up job world, I've only knowingly found my lack of a degree a hindrance once. That was a time when a guy interviewed me for a job, and the feedback I got was that in almost every respect I was perfect, and he thought I'd be a great addition to his company; but he only wanted to employ people who had a degree.

On the other hand, having no degree is a major blocker to my wish to go into teaching. I think I'd make an excellent ICT teacher, for example, but that's a profession that's only open to people with degrees. My 2 decades on experience in the IT industry don't seem to count for anything; I certainly don't feel I need training in the subject matter, and I already have experience of planning lessons from my first and second years in teacher training, as well as my cycling coaching. I think that's rather silly, to be honest, but it seems to be how it is.

Not really that relevant to the thread, I guess, but it peeves me.

Which is kinda my point.

Everyone's circumstances are different chances are there will be an instance (the frequency of which cannot be determined) in that persons life where not having a degree will do more harm than good.

In any case I'm not saying that everyone should have a degree, I raise my eyebrows to some degree subjects.

I don't believe for a second that we should be saying to people "you don't need a degree, I didn't need one". Such a statement doesn't take into account varying circumstances.

I however am a firm believer in giving everyone the opportunity to go to University and not pricing those with less out of the option, which £9,000 a year does (considering that's half the deposit for a flat or house).

DonDaddyD

lost_in_thought wrote:

The school I went to had roughly 10% of the students applying to Oxbridge every year. The percentage success rate was pretty damn low, but hey, if you don't apply you're never going to get in so why not give it a shot?

Out of curiousity did you go to a state or public school?

I know you went to boarding school, this I pressume was publicly funded. Was that the school you did your A-levels?

jonginge

lost_in_thought wrote:

alfablue wrote:

As Micheal Gove ( :evil: ) told us yesterday, last year only 45 "free school meals pupils" got to Oxbridge last year. Is there genuinely such a paucity of talent amongst the poor? Maybe some of you would like it if it were so . . .

I do wonder whether there's an element of aspiration here.

When I was still at Oxford, one of the things you could sign up to do was 'outreach' talks to schools, usually large, underperforming state schools, in your local area about getting in to Oxbridge etc etc the target being to increase applications, which, depsite the representation in the press, are relatively proportionate to those who get places.

I signed up, and they immediately gave me a well-known local large state school. It's well-known for being pretty rough. I wrote them a letter saying that I wanted to come to the school, meet teachers and pupils and talk to anyone who was interested about Oxford.

I received a curt response that basically said 'this wouldn't be of interest to anyone at our school'. I tried again the next year and received much the same response. When I left oxford that state school had still never had an applicant.

Of course, this is one isolated case, but it does make you wonder whether other state schools have the same attitude.

The school I went to had roughly 10% of the students applying to Oxbridge every year. The percentage success rate was pretty damn low, but hey, if you don't apply you're never going to get in so why not give it a shot?

I don't think that experience is uncommon. At my sixth form there was a pretty thorough screening programme for potential oxbridge candidates: they didn't want to send poor candidates that may have formed a prejudice against later intakes from the school.


Sewinman, 7.5% interest. Blimey. Are those new rates for the new cap? Thought it was much lower than that: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Student_lo ... rest_rates