On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 14:22:51 -0000
"Recliner" wrote:
The funny thing is that graduates in some of these much-derided modern
courses are more likely to get good jobs than those who take traditional
academic courses. For example, golf management graduates tend to walk
straight into jobs, so they may be better equipped to repay the fees
than, say, English graduates:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6829650.ece
The article cites the case of someone who started on a Chemistry degree,
and then switched to a much more useful brewing-and-distilling course,
which led directly to a good job.

If he'd switched to a McDonalds University course he'd have probably got a
guaranteed job flipping burgers at the end of it, that means nothing.

One big advantage of charging significant fees is that students will
become much more demanding of the product: they will research which
degrees and colleges lead to the best job prospects, and will demand
high quality instruction. In other words, if they know they have to
invest significant money, they'll also need to achieve a decent return.

As I said, the degrees should only be free or subsidised if the students pass
the course. If they flunk it they should cough up the full cost they've
incured up to that point. That would prevent a whole slew of layabouts and
timewasters going to university to **** about for 3 years.

B2003