On Jan 10, 5:08*am, Jeremy Double wrote:
On 10/01/2011 12:16, 1506 wrote:

Thank you for some sanity Boltar. *And, let us not forget that this is
about teenagers who believe they are entitled to an education paid for
by the labor of working taxpayers.

I had a higher education paid for by working taxpayers in the late-1970s
and early 1980s, and as a current taxpayer I have no objection to paying
for the education of the young now.

It is a natural part of life that working people pay for the education
of the young and the retirement of the aged.

If you want to pay some extra tax, I'm sure HM Revenue and Customs
will not refuse. Some folks have to pay their mortgage, children's
education, retirement, and groceries.


Education is expensive in the United States.

That's the choice of voters in the US. What applies there doesn't have
to apply here!

It never does. A constitutional Monarchy is NOT the same thing as a
Jeffersonian Republic. Never-the-Less, it would be healthy for
British folks to show some gumption in these matters. Those agile
young brains should be solving the problem, not holding out their
hands. AND, it is the school boards that determine the fees, not the
electorate.

On 10/01/2011 13:30, d wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 04:16:10 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
Thank you for some sanity Boltar. And, let us not forget that this is
about teenagers who believe they are entitled to an education paid for
by the labor of working taxpayers.

Education is expensive in the United States. Parents and their
offspring are finding creative ways to deal with the cost. Several
Caribbean colleges now have US students attending bachelors=92 courses.
And, let us not forget India has outstanding medical schools and very
reasonable cost.

These punks need to lose their entitlement mentality. The UK needs
students who will stand up and be adults, not underdeveloped urchins
sucking at the state mammary gland.

To be fair , I don't begrudge univeristy education being free or at least
subsidised to a large extent. Given I had a partial grant myself I'd be
a hypocrite if I said otherwise. Though I think some intellectually and
vocationally useless courses - golf management studies and similar nonsense -
should be fully paid for by the student.


The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of the
day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf management)
should be for the student to fund.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net

On 10/01/2011 13:30, d wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 04:16:10 -0800 (PST)
wrote:
Thank you for some sanity Boltar. And, let us not forget that this is
about teenagers who believe they are entitled to an education paid for
by the labor of working taxpayers.

Education is expensive in the United States. Parents and their
offspring are finding creative ways to deal with the cost. Several
Caribbean colleges now have US students attending bachelors=92 courses.
And, let us not forget India has outstanding medical schools and very
reasonable cost.

These punks need to lose their entitlement mentality. The UK needs
students who will stand up and be adults, not underdeveloped urchins
sucking at the state mammary gland.

To be fair , I don't begrudge univeristy education being free or at least
subsidised to a large extent. Given I had a partial grant myself I'd be
a hypocrite if I said otherwise. Though I think some intellectually and
vocationally useless courses - golf management studies and similar nonsense -
should be fully paid for by the student.


The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of the
day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf management)
should be for the student to fund.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:44:53 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of the
day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf management)
should be for the student to fund.

Well thats never going to be an easy one to solve since there has to be a
line drawn somewhere and someone will always object that their course should
be subsidised. I'd start with suggesting that all science, engineering and
major humanities courses - english, languages, history, law - should be free
so long as the students complete them and pass. Other courses should be
subsidised on a sliding scale based on how I would guess some national
committee feels how intellectually rigorous or useful they are. Media studies
should be somewhere near the bottom.

B2003

wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:44:53 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of
the day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf
management) should be for the student to fund.

Well thats never going to be an easy one to solve since there has to
be a line drawn somewhere and someone will always object that their
course should be subsidised. I'd start with suggesting that all
science, engineering and major humanities courses - english,
languages, history, law - should be free so long as the students
complete them and pass. Other courses should be subsidised on a
sliding scale based on how I would guess some national committee
feels how intellectually rigorous or useful they are. Media studies
should be somewhere near the bottom.

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.

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.

On Jan 10, 5:59*am, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:44:53 +0000

Graeme Wall wrote:
The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless *For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. *I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of the
day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf management)
should be for the student to fund.

Well thats never going to be an easy one to solve since there has to be a
line drawn somewhere and someone will always object that their course should
be subsidised. I'd start with suggesting that all science, engineering and
major humanities courses - english, languages, history, law - should be free
so long as the students complete them and pass. Other courses should be
subsidised on a sliding scale based on how I would guess some national
committee feels how intellectually rigorous or useful they are. Media studies
should be somewhere near the bottom.

B2003

And then, with respect Boltar, you have created another taxpayer
funded Quango. Better, IMHO to let the market decide. If there is a
shortage of MBAs, then clearly an MBA would be a good investment. If
we need civil engineers, the a BSc in such would be money well spent.
and so on. If the state has an interest in encouraging study in a
particular field, then by all means give a grant to the institutions
offering the degree. But, preserve us please from liberal arts
degrees.

On 10/01/2011 14:22, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:44:53 +0000
Graeme wrote:
The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of
the day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf
management) should be for the student to fund.

Well thats never going to be an easy one to solve since there has to
be a line drawn somewhere and someone will always object that their
course should be subsidised. I'd start with suggesting that all
science, engineering and major humanities courses - english,
languages, history, law - should be free so long as the students
complete them and pass. Other courses should be subsidised on a
sliding scale based on how I would guess some national committee
feels how intellectually rigorous or useful they are. Media studies
should be somewhere near the bottom.

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.

Brewing and distilling are a subset of chemistry. That article makes
the point that what to the casual observer appears pointless is actually
a very valid and worthwhile course. Allan Tracey please note.

I'm not so sure about media studies though :-)


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.



It would certainly stop people wandering into degree courses (media
studies again) because they haven't a clue what to do with their lives.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net

In message , d
writes

Though I think some intellectually and vocationally useless courses -
golf management studies and similar nonsense - should be fully paid for
by the student.

Strange though it may seem, golf management students are more likely to
find graduate-level employment within six months of leaving university
(90%) than those in many other subjects, including engineering (85.9%).
Computer sciences (81.8%) has the worst graduate employment record,
medicine the best (99.3%).
--
Paul Terry

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

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:29:24 -0800 (PST)
1506 wrote:
be subsidised. I'd start with suggesting that all science, engineering an=
d
major humanities courses - english, languages, history, law - should be f=
ree
so long as the students complete them and pass. Other courses should be
subsidised on a sliding scale based on how I would guess some national
committee feels how intellectually rigorous or useful they are. Media stu=
dies
should be somewhere near the bottom.

B2003

And then, with respect Boltar, you have created another taxpayer
funded Quango. Better, IMHO to let the market decide. If there is a

The market doesn't decide. The NHS is short of doctors but that hasn't
caused the number of students doing medicine to rise. Similarly The City
is hiring from abroad because there arn't enough economics graduates in
this country. I imagine there are similar shortfalls in other areas.

offering the degree. But, preserve us please from liberal arts
degrees.

Depends how you define liberal arts. I wouldn't call languages or history a
waste of time though I suspect the country has enough lawyers now to last the
next 50 years.

B2003