kaya'08
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Nov 25, 2008
- Messages
- 6,363
- Reaction score
- 1,318
- Location
- British Turk
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Centrist
The Universities Minister David Willetts appears to have ruled out allowing universities to set unlimited fees.
He has said such a system would be neither sustainable nor sensible.
A review by Lord Browne recommended universities in England be free to set their own fees, but face a levy on sums above £7,000
--A £4,000 rise on the University cap is just unsustainable, unrealistic, and above all, discriminatory against class divisions. And of course Lord Browne is no better, as he dictates his want for an unlimited university fee as he sits in his manor house somewhere in Eton or wherever these snobs come from--
Lord Browne's report isn't just about dealing with fees and the shortfall, my understanding is that a necessary element of free market supply and demand will come in and underperforming Universities will be allowed to fail and die.
When governments foolishly aim to have nigh everyone getting a degree, instead of limiting the opportunity to those academically gifted, then of course the market is saturated with graduates.
What is an employer to do to find those who are really capable, except raise the minimum achievement level ? The concern will be over qualification, but that's possibly better than taking on someone who is going to find the job difficult.
I'm not too sure what you mean by local specialist institutions.
Universities cannot be allowed to act like a bank. They should be treated as institutions that should offer every student in Britain an equal and realistic chance of entering and thus cannot be expected to charge responsible rates without government regulation.
-- If the government withdrew all fiscal support for polytechnic universities by 2020 and instead allocated this money to expand and subsidize the ever decreasing (and highly useful) foundation year courses, the British government would be able to extend education prospects to thousands of British students who under performed and want to be given another chance
The Lib-Cons have funny ideas of priority. The likes of they complain (or gleefully boast) that open-door immigration
-- Infinite Chaos says people like the idea of free further education but don't want to pay for it. I've often heard that to justify attacking moaners who speak out against things like tax rises. But one reason some people may indeed not want to pay for it is because they feel short-changed. (That and the fact people had become used to too many kids living the Student Grant lifestyle).
-- But in reality it's harder for people with good degrees to get top-flight jobs because of either the foreign competition or that they just flood the marketplace anyway.
The Government should divert certain ring-fenced monies and invest in our own crumbling systems. Build more technical colleges and encourage kids to become tradesmen, then they'll be set for life!--
...this is a discussion about education - not immigration.
...one excuse is the fake picture of all students laying in bed till 3 in the afternoon then heading to lecture for an hour or two before the pub and drug flamed parties all night.
Socialist news and socialist policies, with Marxist analysis, socialist campaigns, anti-war campaigns, support for workers' struggles, ...
Historically student strikes have been one of the most effective ways for young people to fight back. Two of the most notable examples in the UK were when hundreds of thousands walked out internationally in the 2003 school students' strikes against the Iraq war and the successful 1985 student strikes against Thatcher's Youth Training Schemes (YTS).
The 1985 student strikes against the threat of conscription to the YTS, which involved 250,000 young people, won a massive victory against the government.
....we need competition and we need to provide the best value for money education in the world.
What ring fencing I totally agree with is for industrial trades / crafts training - not education - but training.
I can only think of places like Cranfield (3000 students), London School of Economics (1500 students) and a tiny minority of others that still exist. These operate in highly specialist areas and can cover the costs brought in by Labour (under EU ruling) of some of the employment laws that have now made it so expensive to run small higher education and further education specialist colleges.
In my area I can think of Wimbledon School of Art, Kent Institute, Winchester, Cumbria Institute, Rose Bruford, Camberwell, Central St Martins, Norwich School of Art, Blackpool and the Fylde, Falmouth, London College of Fashion, London College of Printing and Cleveland College of Art & design.
These all now exist as faculties in larger universities. Some have flourished as their names were kept and the larger university looked after the valuable product they had. Others were subsumed and either had to take on vast student numbers or marketing failures killed them off.
Every university aims at what you say - they would laugh at your accusation of acting like a bank. If you investigate further you'll find quite a large number of universities are financially crippled - and this because of fees as well as EU employment laws.
You misunderstand what a good Foundation degree is - some of these are excellent courses with really high employment prospects. They also offer excellent vocational and industry experience which normal degrees cannot match unless they become 4 year sandwhich courses.
Foundation degrees weren't decreasing last time I looked - they were the only type of degree a University could develop if it wanted to offer new courses. There was (and is) no new money for new B.A. courses unless the university can find that money itself.
Are you talking about the same "foundation" year as i am? I am in favour of them if you read what i wrote, and think they are innovators for academic success. And they most certainly are decreasing in numbers.
-- The thing with creating specialist universities is the standards they usually expect from students. I believe aiming high and achieving good grades is important, but i also believe a country with universities that offer realistic prospects of getting in for the average achiever is just as important--
If you want a proper year "Zero" - look at the Scottish Universities - it's part of a 4 year degree course and taught properly. On the flip side, Scottish students don't have to pay fees so an extra year of good teaching is great for you.... or have I got the wrong "Foundation" again? (The only other one I can think of is a Foundation Course that Art & Design students do after A-Levels - but that's because A-Level Art subjects are such rubbish)
Germany has 3-4 universities in the top 200, France has a small handful, Japan has 4-5 and China has 2: which begs the question "what do all those universities and what does all the expense on them achieve?" With that, you wonder about the money spent on those universities and the students who go. How can Germany, France, Japan and Italy or even China maintain or even increase development levels when they "may not" be producing as many high calibre graduates as we and Austalia may be?
I am now switching to considering a real reduction in University numbers and places but I need to read up more on this.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?