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.

[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?