Tuition fees going up to £9000 a year

It's all relative

growse said:
There's a difference in doing a law degree to learn the academic theory, which would be useful if you wanted to be a criminologist.

Even if you leave university with a law degree, my understanding (in the UK) is that you still have to go through training to actually become a solicitor/barrister - presumably because actually being a solicitor/barrister is a very different skillset to what they teach in a law degree. The guys I've spoken to (who both did law degrees and then went on to become solicitors) is that there was nothing in their degrees which did anything about teaching them how to practice law, and that it basically reduced their training period by a year. People still trained without having a law degree, they just did an extra year on the front.

I agree with your last point. People should be allowed to have whatever reason they want to do a degree. However, the universities reason for wanting people to do a degree is to get more research students. The universities (usually) have no vested interest in getting people jobs in the private sector.
Click to expand...

I'm a Partner in London at a large City firm and was educated in New Zealand, where I paid for my education at rates in excess of what's proposed now in the UK, finishing my LLM 10 years ago.

I'm constantly amazed at the lack of basic legal knowledge and understanding demonstrated by those trainee solicitors that did not complete a law degree. The Legal Practice Course is a practical-based discipline designed to assist in the practice of law, generally speaking at a general practioner high street firm level.

It doesn't provide background to the way the law is formed, the jursidprudence underlying the concepts which impact the operation of all law and it does not provide the necessary leve of critical reasoning and interpretation required in the legal profession.

That's not to say a law degree is an absolute necessity to the practice of law, but it sure as heck helps in any legal discipline that requires application of the skills a LLB provides.

Law is also different because it is aa profession as opposed to a vocation. When one joins a profession, understanding the theory and history is a vital part, given the responsibilities that are attached to professions (medicine being another classic example).
 
Nitefly said:
This simply makes it harder for those from poorer backgrounds, who are academicly able, to fully support themselves. I was very fortunate and had my family to support my undergraduate education. Accomadation can be horrificly expensive - most people's student loan I know barely covers this. What sort of massive loans are people expected to take in the future?
Click to expand...

No it doesn't grants and loans are still available (like they always have been) and the Government is instructing universities to make provisions for poorer students.

The biggest problem for poorer students is the shocking standard of education in inner city schools.

Furthermore, why should it be a requirement that you must have a well paid job after university?
Click to expand...

It isn't. If you don't get a reasonably well paying job you don't pay back the loan.
 
Nitefly said:
You are quite right in the sense that an undergraduate law degree does take three years. Otherwise to practice in law you need an undergraduate degree plus a one (or two) year conversion course. Either route, you then go on to do a legal practice course.

However, you do learn a valuable skill set from any undergraduate degree, which includes improving your ability to analyse material and present your opinions in a well structured format.
Click to expand...

Agreed, but you don't need to do a 3 year history degree to learn analytical skills required for working in law. It helps, but it's nothing you couldn't train for specifically. My overall point is that the concept of going to university should be completely detached from the concept of being a solicitor. If you require one for the other, then we're coupling specific education paths and specific professions together too closely.

AtticusFinch said:
I'm a Partner in London at a large City firm and was educated in New Zealand, where I paid for my education at rates in excess of what's proposed now in the UK, finishing my LLM 10 years ago.

I'm constantly amazed at the lack of basic legal knowledge and understanding demonstrated by those trainee solicitors that did not complete a law degree. The Legal Practice Course is a practical-based discipline designed to assist in the practice of law, generally speaking at a general practioner high street firm level.

It doesn't provide background to the way the law is formed, the jursidprudence underlying the concepts which impact the operation of all law and it does not provide the necessary leve of critical reasoning and interpretation required in the legal profession.

That's not to say a law degree is an absolute necessity to the practice of law, but it sure as heck helps in any legal discipline that requires application of the skills a LLB provides.

Law is also different because it is aa profession as opposed to a vocation. When one joins a profession, understanding the theory and history is a vital part, given the responsibilities that are attached to professions (medicine being another classic example).
Click to expand...

Medicine is a slightly different case to law, but I can see the similarities of needing to do some sort of scientific based degree before going off to medical school. Perhaps it is the case that we want all our solicitors to have law degrees to give them the relevent background before they go into practical training, but a university providing that service doesn't sit right with me.

I want degrees to be completely free and used to encourage people into academia. Using government subsidy that is earmarked for what should be research-based higher education, to pay for people to go and become lawyers seems a bit of a perversion of the system.

photoshop said:
Seems to me all the haters and preachers in here are from the generation who got grants and they fees paid for........
Click to expand...

I'm still paying my student loan off and I left university in 2004. My view above is that either degrees should be free and we should have a small percentage of the population (the academic elite) going there, or we should choose to have loads of people going there and all of them paying for as soon as they're able.

We can't have it both ways.
 
growse said:
I'm still paying my student loan off and I left university in 2004. My view above is that either degrees should be free and we should have a small percentage of the population (the academic elite) going there, or we should choose to have loads of people going there and all of them paying for as soon as they're able.

We can't have it both ways.
Click to expand...
You say you can’t have it both but what this country spends its money on is all a master of priority. If you spend the money on education you just have to make up the savings elsewhere. Personally I put education somewhere near the top of this countries priorities.

The decision to introduce tuition fees has been made for purely political reasons. Young people (under 18s) are an easy target for reasons you don't have to be in the academic elite to realise.
 
Stretch said:
You say you can’t have it both but what this country spends its money on is all a master of priority. If you spend the money on education you just have to make up the savings elsewhere. Personally I put education somewhere near the top of this countries priorities.

The decision to introduce tuition fees has been made for purely political reasons. Young people (under 18s) are an easy target for reasons you don't have to be in the academic elite to realise.
Click to expand...

It's all very well putting "education" high on the list, but which is more important - subsidising a degree in fish fingers at the university of the north sea, or getting our primary school literacy rates up?

I don't want to see education cut either, but I think there's far more important things worth spending the money on than what we currently spend on universities.
 
I think £9k tuiton fees are ridiculous.

People who earn more are going to pay far more in tax over the course of their life so why charge them twice?

I would hate the thought of starting my working life knowing that I've got a £30k debt hanging over my head while trying to scrape enough money together to get a deposit on a house. It's bad enough for myself with £15k. I really worry about the mindset we're creating for the graduates of the future. Where's the motivation to earn more and live prudently for a few years while you pay off debts before you want to start a family? The idea that you won't notice the money going out of your pay check is rubbish.

What's most annoying is that all this is being decided by people who received grants to study a degree and bought a house at a much lower price in comparison to average salary.
 
growse said:
It's all very well putting "education" high on the list, but which is more important - subsidising a degree in fish fingers at the university of the north sea, or getting our primary school literacy rates up?

I don't want to see education cut either, but I think there's far more important things worth spending the money on than what we currently spend on universities.
Click to expand...
I agree not all degrees should be funded by the state, but lots should. The blanket £9k approach offers no flexibility to encourage students to get a beneficial degree. There are lots of ways the money could be raised to fund higher education without damaging investment. However most of them require the government to tackle politically sensitive and more costly issues such as welfare, pension entitlements and retirement age.
 
Last edited:
photoshop said:
Seems to me all the haters and preachers in here are from the generation who got grants and they fees paid for........
Click to expand...

I've got a student loan (mostly paid off) and I got a small grant due to me having disabilities. I still think fees are the way to go...

Bumhucker said:
People who earn more are going to pay far more in tax over the course of their life so why charge them twice?
salary.
Click to expand...

How do they end up earning more (on average)? Oh that's right with a degree... So it is entirely fair than people (and I am one of them) pay back the fees. Tax doesn't pay for everything you know.
 
Not me

photoshop said:
Seems to me all the haters and preachers in here are from the generation who got grants and they fees paid for........
Click to expand...

I contributed significantly to the cost of my degrees and just don't believe that people should feel entitled to receive something (very expensive in the form of a tertiary education) for free.
 
Medicine and Law

growse said:
Agreed, but you don't need to do a 3 year history degree to learn analytical skills required for working in law. It helps, but it's nothing you couldn't train for specifically. My overall point is that the concept of going to university should be completely detached from the concept of being a solicitor. If you require one for the other, then we're coupling specific education paths and specific professions together too closely.

Medicine is a slightly different case to law, but I can see the similarities of needing to do some sort of scientific based degree before going off to medical school. Perhaps it is the case that we want all our solicitors to have law degrees to give them the relevent background before they go into practical training, but a university providing that service doesn't sit right with me.
Click to expand...

Both medicine and law are professions and therefore quite different to vocations which are obtained following a degree whether required or not. Traditionally the training of lawyers and doctors has been a combination of intense theoretical academic study combined with practical training.

The professional vs vocational nature of these discliplines in my view sets them apart from other roles. I don't seek to elevate them or promote an elitist agenda, but they are different.

If a University doesn't provide the theoretical education to prosepctive lawyers, then where will they recieve this?

The other issue is of course that there are many people who complete a law degree who do not go on to practice law at all, and who do not use it as a springboard into academia. The critical thinking and analysis skills gained in the course of an LLB degree arfe immensely useful and transfferrable skills into a variety of fields.
 
AtticusFinch said:
And criminology has a lot less to with the law than it does with the social sciences overall in any event.

rant over ;-)
Click to expand...

Feel free to carry on - rants about criminology are usually entertaining being that they mirror my own views on the subject. It's full of interest and almost devoid of any practical worth - the only thing you can guarantee if you put 5 criminologists in a room is 6 theories on what causes criminality.

And for what little it matters I'd agree that ideally lawyers should have to do a law degree to gain some basic foundation in law before starting an LPC (Scots law already requires it before a Dip LP) - that's not to say that good lawyers cannot come from the conversion courses but the LPC is not designed to give the same level of grounding that a full 3-4 year university course would.
 
University education should be funded by taxes for the same reason secondary education is. Charging such extortionate amounts for higher education only harms the country when we no longer have any scientists or doctors and everyone is earning minimum wage at mcdonalds.
 
LordSplodge said:
How do they end up earning more (on average)? Oh that's right with a degree... So it is entirely fair than people (and I am one of them) pay back the fees. Tax doesn't pay for everything you know.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying graduates shouldn't have to pay in any respect, just that the amount they should reasonably pay should have a limit. I hate the reasoning of "oh they earn more so should therefore accept any raise in tuition fees." Where do you stop? Until you're no better off than someone who hasn't had to study for years in order to improve their knowledge and skills?

Funny how taxes can pay for those who don't want to work before they can pay for those who want to contribute to society. Don't get me wrong, I'm a liberal and proud of our welfare system but doesn't that irk you somewhat?
 
Bumhucker said:
Funny how taxes can pay for those who don't want to work before they can pay for those who want to contribute to society. Don't get me wrong, I'm a liberal and proud of our welfare system but doesn't that irk you somewhat?
Click to expand...

I tweeted the other day about how libraries are closing due to the Spending Review but we keep shoveling money at those unwilling to work so I agree that the benefits system is a joke.

However paying a relatively small part of your salary to pay the tuition fees back over many years is entirely fair. Higher education isn't a right it is a privilege and you have to pay for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom