The education debate

[tibilicus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8263672.stm

Any thoughts on this? Should education cost or should it be free? How do we all feel about the current education system, both higher education and other education?

Personally I have no problem with paying for university. If paying means the research quality goes up and I can expect a better degree as a result of it then why shouldn't I have to pay?

Any thoughts on the current education system at the minute as well? Any one else think the governments aim of 50% to university is also unrealstic and could potentially break the system?

Let's discuss people.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/8263672.stm

Any thoughts on this? Should education cost or should it be free? How do we all feel about the current education system, both higher education and other education?

Personally I have no problem with paying for university. If paying means the research quality goes up and I can expect a better degree as a result of it then why shouldn't I have to pay?

Any thoughts on the current education system at the minute as well? Any one else think the governments aim of 50% to university is also unrealstic and could potentially break the system?

Let's discuss people.

It's clearly too expensive, £30,000 of dept before you start work is stupid. Dept got us into this mess, more is not getting us out. So, cut places instead; close the old Polytechnics or just cut their funding to the bone.

The most important thing is that intellegant people from poor backgrounds go to university, otherwise academia becomes the preserve of the rich once more.

[tibilicus]

It's clearly too expensive, £30,000 of dept before you start work is stupid. Dept got us into this mess, more is not getting us out. So, cut places instead; close the old Polytechnics or just cut their funding to the bone.

The most important thing is that intellegant people from poor backgrounds go to university, otherwise academia becomes the preserve of the rich once more.

That's where the problem comes in, the governments aim of 50% to uni means that former polytechnics and the like still have the demand. It's also kind of a shame that a degree is now seen as something every good potential employee needs. I think you know things are going wrong when you can get a degree in media studies or to a greater extent a degree in gambling.

The way it is at the minute thought it's like the system is stuck in transit between the two. Russell group et al still get a ridiculous number of applicants from people that don't even fall remotely close to the entry requirements of their courses. I mean fair enough, if your say two grades of a place and you and your teachers both agree you can meet those grades then sure, go for it. I know people however who have achieved 4 C's or equivalent and still send of an application. That factor of prestige is still there.

On a final note I completely agree with your last point. The best spots still go to those who were privately educated or attended a grammar school.

[Strike For The South]

There is a reason why American universites are the best in the world.

Money, money, money, money, MONAY

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

That's where the problem comes in, the governments aim of 50% to uni means that former polytechnics and the like still have the demand. It's also kind of a shame that a degree is now seen as something every good potential employee needs. I think you know things are going wrong when you can get a degree in media studies or to a greater extent a degree in gambling.

The way it is at the minute thought it's like the system is stuck in transit between the two. Russell group et al still get a ridiculous number of applicants from people that don't even fall remotely close to the entry requirements of their courses. I mean fair enough, if your say two grades of a place and you and your teachers both agree you can meet those grades then sure, go for it. I know people however who have achieved 4 C's or equivalent and still send of an application. That factor of prestige is still there.

On a final note I completely agree with your last point. The best spots still go to those who were privately educated or attended a grammar school.

The way I see it they should cut the requirement to 30% tops, and leave it at that. The reamining 20% are laughed off and end up working in burger king anyway.

[Fragony]

Should be affordable, and it is but it's not cheap. Let them work a little.

[Tribesman]

There is a reason why American universites are the best in the world.

You mean one individual American university regularly tops the table, and another individual American university jockeys with two foriegn universities for second place evary year.

Money, money, money, money, MONAY
If it was money money money Yale wouldn't struggle in the competition for second place would it.

[Strike For The South]

You mean one individual American university regularly tops the table, and another individual American university jockeys with two foriegn universities for second place evary year.

If it was money money money Yale wouldn't struggle in the competition for second place would it.

Can a man not try and rationalize his debt?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Should be affordable, and it is but it's not cheap. Let them work a little.

£30,000 is barely affordable, my parents will be near-bankrupt before my sister finishes, certainly they will have no savings.

No they propose £50,000, and less financial support. That's just not affordable.

[Louis VI the Fat]

my edumaction is had been free and so you know it is much bettre then you'res!!

[tibilicus]

£30,000 is barely affordable, my parents will be near-bankrupt before my sister finishes, certainly they will have no savings.

No they propose £50,000, and less financial support. That's just not affordable.

TBH just make those who can afford to pay pay more. I mean if they're lucky enough to have their rich parents pay for them to attend the top private schools or their lucky enough to live in an area which falls under the catchment zone form grammar schools (usually rich boroughs anyway), then they should be able to pay more.

[Furunculus]

i think artificial targets such as 50% have always been a cretinous idea, the result of which has been rising university costs and deflating educational merit.

[Crazed Rabbit]

You mean one individual American university regularly tops the table, and another individual American university jockeys with two foriegn universities for second place evary year.

If it was money money money Yale wouldn't struggle in the competition for second place would it.

Well if we go by the averaged result of several tables they have at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rankings.PNG

It would seem 15 out of the top 20 universities in the world are in the US.

I'm not opposed to the idea of paying more. I don't know what it is in the UK now, but a reasonable cost per year does discourage people from taking college frivolously. I am opposed to arbitrary targets regarding how many go from high school to college.

CR

[Beskar]

The student loan system in Britain is a very good idea. It allows you to get your degree and you start paying back when you are earning at no added interest. Since you got a degree and was actually sensible with it by getting one that leads to a career, the debt is nothing much in the long run. No parents actually pay for it or anything.

Actually, I would like to see more "Learn-to-Work" style system inplace, where employers/etc, pay towards the costs in return for you working for them in the future, thus, providing those wanting to go into certain careers not getting the debt in the first place, amongst other things.

Universities are getting more and more like a business, unfortunately and less of an education system or place of Acamedic merit. This also goes against the student, as for some reason, Universities think that 6-8 hours a week contact time in a full-time degree is acceptable.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well if we go by the averaged result of several tables they have at wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rankings.PNG

It would seem 15 out of the top 20 universities in the world are in the US.

I'm not opposed to the idea of paying more. I don't know what it is in the UK now, but a reasonable cost per year does discourage people from taking college frivolously. I am opposed to arbitrary targets regarding how many go from high school to college.

CR

It costs £30,000 a year, which is what? $50,000.

[Tribesman]

Well if we go by the averaged result of several tables they have at wikipedia:

And what do you get for a reliable average if you have two sources whose methodolgy in obtaining the results are questionable and a third source who can only be described as self promoting for their own business which uses its own interpretation of those two sources for another amalgamated result?
So is that an average of two questionable studies or an average of two questionable studies and a skewed boost?

[HoreTore]

All education, from kindergarden to university, should be completely free. In fact, the government should finance the students too.

Why? Because let's face it, a rich man doesn't produce brighter offspring than a poor man. Why would I want a rich mans idiot son to operate me, instead of the poor mans brilliant son?

Also, there's the benefit to democracy from having more educated citizens, the economy will profit from having more educated workers AND consumers, etc etc.

In fact, there's not a single thing in the world that doesn't improve with more education. So it's quite obvious that it should be available to everyone. Yes, that includes the son of a prostitute and the single mom.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

You mean one individual American university regularly tops the table, and another individual American university jockeys with two foriegn universities for second place evary year.

When thirty-eight of the universities in a top one hundred list are American, and eleven of these in the top fifteen, they must be pretty good.

Frankly, students should pay more for education. There is concern in many countries, such as Canada, about too many students going to university. You can't make the entry tests/requirements harder, or universities will lose a lot of money and require [more] government subsidy. You can raise the cost it takes to get in - the smarter students will get scholarships so it won't have an effect upon their costs of education, and the bottom of the pack will drop off. It would still lose the university money, but probably not as much.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It costs £30,000 a year, which is what? $50,000.

Ah. Here it's $10-$15k/year for public schools in my state. Private schools can go up to $50k a year easily, but scholarships ease that for middle class students, and smart students. Smart middle class students can get $40k a year taken off.


And what do you get for a blah blah blah

Whatever tribes. Do you have a list you would recommend?

CR

[Tribesman]

When thirty-eight of the universities in a top one hundred list are American
If they were the best in the world as was claimed then then there would be a hell of a lot more than just 38 in 100.
Or if you want to look at it in proportion how many American universities are there ? What proportion of those universities are not one of the 38.
Or even funnier, if you want to look at the rankings of just US universities how well do the top ones from newsweeks perception criteria fare against the lower universities when it comes to ratings from actual academic measures?

[jabarto]

All education, from kindergarden to university, should be completely free. In fact, the government should finance the students too.

I agree, and I think this is most salient with physicians. One of the arguments against UHC is that doctors would be paid less, and the government could offset that by subsidizing their education so that prospective doctors aren't faced with gut-wrenching debt once they finish grad school.

Regrettably this will never happen, at least not here in America. The government doesn't want people to become educated enough to realize how badly they've been shafted for the last thirty years.

[Fragony]

£30,000 is barely affordable, my parents will be near-bankrupt before my sister finishes, certainly they will have no savings.

No they propose £50,000, and less financial support. That's just not affordable.

Pays back in spades. Student loan system works here though, it's all on the student not the parent +/- 1600 euro will buy you everything that's how much entering university costs, students can easily afford that if they get a job. Of course it's much more expensive than that and you will have plenty of debt when you are done, but you should be able to pay them if you have been a good boy.

[Megas Methuselah]

All education, from kindergarden to university, should be completely free. In fact, the government should finance the students too.

Why? Because let's face it, a rich man doesn't produce brighter offspring than a poor man. Why would I want a rich mans idiot son to operate me, instead of the poor mans brilliant son?

Also, there's the benefit to democracy from having more educated citizens, the economy will profit from having more educated workers AND consumers, etc etc.

In fact, there's not a single thing in the world that doesn't improve with more education. So it's quite obvious that it should be available to everyone. Yes, that includes the son of a prostitute and the single mom.

Yes. (though I do not like the wording of that last sentence. Making it sound as if a single mom is a hooker. Bad, mane, bad)

[Meneldil]

Paying thousands of euros/dollars to get into an university is silly as hell.

[rory_20_uk]

I think that getting sponsorship should be the normal route. It would help employment post-degree, would help people choose something that was both useful and they could do for 3-4 years; if would also force people to think if they really wanted to do one in the first place.

Of course some courses would be better sponsored than others. But then some courses are more useful than others. If you want to do a very obscure degree, either self fund or sell the subject to a prospective employer - or just do something else and have it as an interest.

Government scolarships could also be there for the best of the best to do theoretical research for a fixed period of time.

As to a percentage, this is clearly nonsensical. It should fluctuate according to demands in the system.

~:smoking:

[gaelic cowboy]

I think that getting sponsorship should be the normal route.

It should be possible but not the only way imagine a world where al the toffs with all there connections could ensure all there kids got sponsored while johnny come late from a council estate even though well able to pass exams ends up on the dole instead.

A mix of funding and routes into college is the best way it cuts out the canvassing on behalf of the "Right Sort Of People".


Of course some courses would be better sponsored than others. But then some courses are more useful than others. If you want to do a very obscure degree, either self fund or sell the subject to a prospective employer - or just do something else and have it as an interest.

Yes and no to this while some course are more useful we should avoid a strict utilitarian view of education if you trying to build the next intel or some medical research company you would be surprised how much cross discipline areas need to be covered.

While the Arts may seem less important it still has things to offer to engineering and a whole host of courses. Say your a designer making a new product having a pool of knowledge on the more artistic side of things may be required for the engineer's design.

Having a broader view helps when you try to gather several seemingly incompatible areas in my own experience I have come across doctors who had to come to seminars on bone mechanics and specifcally the cutting of bone however we were doing mechanical engineering not medcine

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When thirty-eight of the universities in a top one hundred list are American, and eleven of these in the top fifteen, they must be pretty good.

Frankly, students should pay more for education. There is concern in many countries, such as Canada, about too many students going to university. You can't make the entry tests/requirements harder, or universities will lose a lot of money and require [more] government subsidy. You can raise the cost it takes to get in - the smarter students will get scholarships so it won't have an effect upon their costs of education, and the bottom of the pack will drop off. It would still lose the university money, but probably not as much.

In the UK you can get into Uni on 2 D's. You can raise the requirement to B and two C's minimum, and close every university that offers courses lower than that. Pricing people out of the system is the definition of Bad Practice.

Also, you can just lower the cap on students; my university takes more every year.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

In the UK you can get into Uni on 2 D's. You can raise the requirement to B and two C's minimum, and close every university that offers courses lower than that. Pricing people out of the system is the definition of Bad Practice.

You're only pricing out the people who are barely good enough to get into university but not quite good enough to get scholarships, and you're doing it without spending a lot of tax money.

[Crazed Rabbit]

All education, from kindergarden to university, should be completely free. In fact, the government should finance the students too.

Ridiculous; you'll have many kids treating college as something of no value. All students should have to pay something. Otherwise you waste the resources of the college on people who don't really care about it. You can get rid of those people by requiring them to give up something to go to college.

CR

[drone]

Why am I reminded of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYJxNnABp4)? :beam:

[HoreTore]

Ridiculous; you'll have many kids treating college as something of no value. All students should have to pay something. Otherwise you waste the resources of the college on people who don't really care about it. You can get rid of those people by requiring them to give up something to go to college.

CR

Uhm.....

The average student gives up 750.000 NOK in lost income from the job they would otherwise have for a 3-year bachelor degree. I'll be giving up 1 million for my 4-year teacher education.

I think that's enough.

Also, "waste the resources of the college"? Hah, no problem, just throw another bag of oil money at them. Btw, the private schools here are inferior to the state-owned free ones...

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why am I reminded of this (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwYJxNnABp4)? :beam:

The world does need ditchdiggers. If in real life he was as good as he says, he'd have a scholarship.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You're only pricing out the people who are barely good enough to get into university but not quite good enough to get scholarships, and you're doing it without spending a lot of tax money.

Except, that's not how it works here. I'm, frankly, quite tallented; I got nothing this year for my Master's degree.

So, learn about how much we already have to pay before you tell us how who would and wouldn't be priced out of education.

[HoreTore]

Except, that's not how it works here. I'm, frankly, quite tallented; I got nothing this year for my Master's degree.

So, learn about how much we already have to pay before you tell us how who would and wouldn't be priced out of education.

Also, this isn't just about "the best".

This is also about what society you want. Do you want one where those who already have money gets the best education, or do you want the smartest one, the most qualified one?

In my mind, it's obvious that the ones with the highest grades should get to pick first. Why do you(EMFM++) want those with money but no brains to pick first?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Except, that's not how it works here. I'm, frankly, quite tallented; I got nothing this year for my Master's degree.

So, learn about how much we already have to pay before you tell us how who would and wouldn't be priced out of education.

You think that I haven't paid for education?


This is also about what society you want. Do you want one where those who already have money gets the best education, or do you want the smartest one, the most qualified one?

That is exactly what we want, we just have a different method of assuring it. And we don't believe that everyone should be going to university.


In my mind, it's obvious that the ones with the highest grades should get to pick first. Why do you(EMFM++) want those with money but no brains to pick first?

Not what we said, was it?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

You think that I haven't paid for education?



That is exactly what we want, we just have a different method of assuring it. And we don't believe that everyone should be going to university.



Not what we said, was it?

Little Catrin spent a year in Germany, she told me two things.

1. Her German was better than the natives, and

2. You guys don't get out of university until the late 20's

I'm 22, I graduate with my Masters in January. I'm already taking one year out for my PhD, but I'd like to start work before I'm 30, thatnks.

[HoreTore]

That is exactly what we want, we just have a different method of assuring it. And we don't believe that everyone should be going to university.

So why require people to have money instead of brains in order to take higher education?

[Beskar]

In the UK you can get into Uni on 2 D's.

ROFL, what degree is that? It is from something like Thames Valley university on some left-over spot filler course no one wants. You can't compared such examples to real universities.

As for degrees themselves ontop, a person with 2D's could not possibly even aim to achieve above a 3rd class degree (the educational equalivant of turning up to an exam, possibly sober) so they would be leave University with a just a debt.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

ROFL, what degree is that? It is from something like Thames Valley university on some left-over spot filler course no one wants. You can't compared such examples to real universities.

As for degrees themselves ontop, a person with 2D's could not possibly even aim to achieve above a 3rd class degree (the educational equalivant of turning up to an exam, possibly sober) so they would be leave University with a just a debt.

That would be agricultural college, which is funded like a small university.

[Beskar]

Agricultural College could be diploma's and foundation degrees, right?

If I am honest, if they are able to perform well enough to get the qualitications, I have no problems with it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

So why require people to have money instead of brains in order to take higher education?

We're not. The whole point is that the less brains you have, the more you pay.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Agricultural College could be diploma's and foundation degrees, right?

If I am honest, if they are able to perform well enough to get the qualitications, I have no problems with it.

Nope, BSc, my sister decided to go to Bristol instead. She got 2 A's and a B, we're very proud.

[Meneldil]

Ridiculous; you'll have many kids treating college as something of no value. All students should have to pay something. Otherwise you waste the resources of the college on people who don't really care about it. You can get rid of those people by requiring them to give up something to go to college.

CR

Asking them to pay a fee is okay. Asking them to pay 10k or more a year is not. People shouldn't have to work a full time job to pay for the university, the rent and all the other thing a student has to do.

[Beefy187]

Is Uni really worth that amount of money?
I think most aren't, and they are just trying to get much money as they possibly get from students via courses, entry exams etc etc.
Uni here is tad over rated, but unfortunately, you have to graduate one if you want a decent job.

[Azathoth]

Uni here is tad over rated, but unfortunately, you have to graduate one if you want a decent job.

And a wife, am I right?

[Sasaki Kojiro]

Ridiculous; you'll have many kids treating college as something of no value. All students should have to pay something. Otherwise you waste the resources of the college on people who don't really care about it. You can get rid of those people by requiring them to give up something to go to college.

CR

Make it free depending on your grades in college?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Uni here is tad over rated, but unfortunately, you have to graduate one if you want a decent job.

In Canada, to continue my wonderfully long example (but also here in Germany), this isn't necessarily true. In fact, in quite a few Canadian provinces there is a large push to get students into apprenticeships instead (which often make quite a bit more money then, say, a BA).

[Crazed Rabbit]

Make it free depending on your grades in college?

Hmm. I think scholarships do some of that, by making it less expensive if you do well. But I don't want the state giving a free ride to people getting A's in a communications major.

CR

[Ironside]

I'm curious, what percentage of the population going to university do people here consider should be the normal one? Obviously not 50% in most cases.

40%?
30%?
20%?
10%?

Remember that going to university on average gives a considerble salary increase after your education, with current numbers. That indicates that the market is not flooded as of yet (aka numbers can go higher than currently).

[HoreTore]

We're not. The whole point is that the less brains you have, the more you pay.

So.....

Let's say we have two people then, the first is the 756th smartest guy with no money, the other is the 934th smartest but with lots of money.

Which one go to college? Which one should?

EDIT: Aslo, I'm completely opposed to the idea of grades and requirements anyway. To qualify for college, I had to take a some exams in order to qualify(actually all three years of high school at once, long story), which took me a year. I didn't do anything other than turning up at the exams, I didn't open any of the books or study at all. As such I did not become any smarter at all, I did not become more qualified than I was before I took them. Complete rubbish.... Also, I strongly oppose the idea of trying to get better grades. I want to learn more, I don't care what some random number says about me, somehow I think it's more important what I actually know as opposed to what grade I have...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm curious, what percentage of the population going to university do people here consider should be the normal one? Obviously not 50% in most cases.

40%?
30%?
20%?
10%?

Remember that going to university on average gives a considerble salary increase after your education, with current numbers. That indicates that the market is not flooded as of yet (aka numbers can go higher than currently).

20-30%, a quarter of the population seems sufficient. University should be about academic talent, not competancy. 50% (Labour's target) defines university as the difference between clever and stupid.

[rory_20_uk]

So.....

Let's say we have two people then, the first is the 756th smartest guy with no money, the other is the 934th smartest but with lots of money.

Which one go to college? Which one should?

Leaving aside that University is not merely about who is smartest, but also knowledge and drive, assuming that everything else is equal and there is only one place left the 756th should be helped financially. The other can of course pay to attend just like money can purchase almost every other service in the world.

Far, far less than 50% of the population is clever. I'd estimate less than 10%.

~:smoking:

[HoreTore]

Leaving aside that University is not merely about who is smartest, but also knowledge and drive, assuming that everything else is equal and there is only one place left the 756th should be helped financially. The other can of course pay to attend just like money can purchase almost every other service in the world.

Far, far less than 50% of the population is clever. I'd estimate less than 10%.

~:smoking:

I have not seen one scholarship deal in the world that would help guy #756. Except in the countries where education is free.

Enjoy living in countries where your house is designed by some idiot with a rich dad. I prefer having someone with brains design it.

[tibilicus]

I'm curious, what percentage of the population going to university do people here consider should be the normal one? Obviously not 50% in most cases.

40%?
30%?
20%?
10%?

Remember that going to university on average gives a considerble salary increase after your education, with current numbers. That indicates that the market is not flooded as of yet (aka numbers can go higher than currently).

20-30% as mentioned.

The reality of the UK education system is you need at least BBB at A level or equivalent to qualify on a course for a "good" university.

I'm pretty certain that statistically 30% of all A level students roughly earn themselves a B in a designated subject, obviously it varies per subject though. For example a B in something like History is always going to be worth more than an A in media studies.

Round about 20% will get themselves an A grade as well so yes, 20-30 sounds about right.

[HoreTore]

20-30% as mentioned.

The reality of the UK education system is you need at least BBB at A level or equivalent to qualify on a course for a "good" university.

I'm pretty certain that statistically 30% of all A level students roughly earn themselves a B in a designated subject, obviously it varies per subject though. For example a B in something like History is always going to be worth more than an A in media studies.

Round about 20% will get themselves an A grade as well so yes, 20-30 sounds about right.

Almost 40% of the jobs in Norway require higher education according to SSB (http://www.ssb.no/emner/06/01/yrkeaku/).

So... Which professions do you believe is over-educated? Doctors? Teachers? CEO's? Please back your argument up with some numbers proving that 50% of the jobs currently requiring higher education can be done just as well without higher education.

[Fragony]

kidding me? Most don't even end up in their field. How many historians are historians. How many law-students are lawyers.

[rory_20_uk]

I have not seen one scholarship deal in the world that would help guy #756. Except in the countries where education is free.

Enjoy living in countries where your house is designed by some idiot with a rich dad. I prefer having someone with brains design it.

Architects, Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Nurses etc etc have exit exams. You might get into University from money, but in all but the most corrupt countries money won't buy you accreditation to practice.

~:smoking:

[drone]

Probably 20-30%. Maybe it's just me getting crotchety in my old age, but it seems that the quality of both high school and college education has suffered in the past 10 years in the States. High school diplomas have become worthless, universities are having to finish up what high schools should have taught. Which leads me to believe that it's all become a scam, since you have to pay for college, but not high school. :inquisitive:

[HoreTore]

Architects, Doctors, Lawyers, Accountants, Nurses etc etc have exit exams. You might get into University from money, but in all but the most corrupt countries money won't buy you accreditation to practice.

~:smoking:

Unless your argument is that everyone with a passed exit exam are equally good at their profession, I don't see the relevance.

[Ironside]

Leaving aside that University is not merely about who is smartest, but also knowledge and drive, assuming that everything else is equal and there is only one place left the 756th should be helped financially. The other can of course pay to attend just like money can purchase almost every other service in the world.

Far, far less than 50% of the population is clever. I'd estimate less than 10%.

~:smoking:

By the look of it, we've been past clever for several decades now. I think the frontline is called motivated nowadays (some educations excempted of course).


Anyway back to my old post. All of you didn't think I've the question without checking the OECD data first did you? :logic:

These increased fees are intended to reduce the flimsy educations to get people more motivated for "good" educations. Like the US, where the huge investment surely will make sure that only the talented ones will go to university. This method have kept the Uni number steady for the last 30-40 years, while the numbers have increased in Scandinavia and UK during this time, to the same number as in the US.

Now what number do you think that is?
about 40%

So it will have a neglible effect on the amount of students (that will have a trend to increase anyway as Horetore noted). I get the feeling that all it will do is increasing the gap between those who can afford it (and for getting a decent job need to) and those who don't. Scholarships might help for the talented poor, but we're down to the average people now.

[Beskar]

kidding me? Most don't even end up in their field. How many historians are historians. How many law-students are lawyers.

A degree in History shows more than just being a historian, it shows you can research facts and figures, analyse things from different angles and a whole bunch of skills.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Let's say we have two people then, the first is the 756th smartest guy with no money, the other is the 934th smartest but with lots of money.

Universities will take the one with the better marks, student loans will be provided, he can work in the summers, and if all else fails the university will do their best to help him budget. I think you underestimate the universities which are in "evil capitalist" countries and the services they provide.

[Papewaio]

Far, far less than 50% of the population is clever. I'd estimate less than 10%.

~:smoking:

But we aren't talking PhD's. A lot of what we are talking about are professional degrees where hard work and rote learning not creative intelligence is required.

After all creative accounting gets people in jail.

[Ja'chyra]

College and University should be free along with books etc, however students should have to pay for everything else themselves. Want to go to the pub, get a job, want new clothes, get a job, want to eat, get a job, see where I'm going with this.

Education is a good thing in most cases, not all by any means though, so should be encouraged but I shouldn't have to pay for some 29 year old scrounger to avoid getting a job.

Which raises another point, education should be free until you are 21, after that you should pay for it yourself.

[rory_20_uk]

But we aren't talking PhD's. A lot of what we are talking about are professional degrees where hard work and rote learning not creative intelligence is required.

After all creative accounting gets people in jail.

I am sure that not everyone that has a degree is clever - and as you rightly point out that is not required for all degrees (medicine is certainly one where regurgitation of facts alone will probably get you through).

~:smoking:

[Papewaio]

Mind you I would want the Doctor to be able to cleverly apply said facts in some sort of coherent manner... which would also require that the Doc's are healthy too (sleep deprivation does not a happy brain make).

[tibilicus]

I am sure that not everyone that has a degree is clever - and as you rightly point out that is not required for all degrees (medicine is certainly one where regurgitation of facts alone will probably get you through).

~:smoking:

Bear in mind medicine is still one of the most, if not the most competitive degree around. I believe that since 2006 the UKCAT has been a permanent thing. That means to get onto a medicine course you have to have all A's, work experience(generally unnecessary for every other course, minus law) as well as a high UKCAT score. It's also made even harder seeming only select places offer medicine courses.