The education debate

**tibilicus** · 09-21-2009, 14:31

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** · 09-21-2009, 14:34

Originally Posted by 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.

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** · 09-21-2009, 14:56

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

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** · 09-21-2009, 15:05

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

Money, money, money, money, MONAY

**Fragony** · 09-21-2009, 15:25

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

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 09-21-2009, 19:08

Originally Posted by Fragony

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.

**Tribesman** · 09-21-2009, 15:32

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** · 09-21-2009, 18:28

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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?

**Crazed Rabbit** · 09-21-2009, 21:07

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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

**Evil_Maniac From Mars** · 09-21-2009, 22:16

Originally Posted by Tribesman

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.

**Philippus Flavius Homovallumus** · 09-21-2009, 15:20

Originally Posted by tibilicus

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.