If the former system is 1 and the latter system a 10, then I'd say I'd sit at around a 6-7. I think if people are capable at studying something and have an interest to do so, then they should be able to continue their studying at a fair price, providing it's not studying something particuarly ludicrous. I acknowledge that this has to be subsidised by the government to work.
I'd probably put myself around a 5, the problem is that we have had a system that has essentially rewarded universities for 'dumbing down' courses for numbers, which combined with grade inflation at A level, has created a system where degrees have been built so a large number of people are capable of doing them, rather than having a large number of people capable of doing degrees.
Universities should not be this universally available idea, and yet that is what they are rapidly becoming. I welcome anyone capable of studying something at a degree level, but not the reducing of degree level work to increase accessibility.
I don't think that people should have to consider their career plans when chosing their subject of choice as a degree will give transferable skills. A degree in history is, from a certain perspective (one that I would probably suggest is narrow minded), totally indulgent. Likewise, nor I think chosing to do a degree should be focussed on that degree's financial value in relation to practicality.
I'm somewhat torn on this one, I certainly think the value of the degree you do has to be considered when committing to it (and in fairness, I didn't make particularly great choices in this regard I will acknowledge, stupid teenage rebellion), but it shouldn't be the sole choice, and there needs to be a dramatic increase in honesty as to the value of degrees for such things to be evaluated correctly.
Some degrees have good transferable skills (my knowledge of statistics, report construction and correct methodology from my chemistry degree has been very useful, for example), but not all do, and again, that is often glossed over.
I find it strange when people say their degree was worthless. I thoroughly enjoyed mine and I think everyone should be entitled to a similar opportunity should they so desire. Yet I feel making people pay three times as much for the benefit is truly excessive. Someone in my shoes, who will be starting work in a role that crosses the threshold for paying back the loan, will have a very significant chunk of their pay packet taken out for an absolute ice age. I think it's just too burdensome.
Which brings us back to square one, so to speak. The number of people now going to university, doing subjects that don't need to be done at university, for jobs that don't require that level of education, means that some of the burden has to be reflected back on those involved, because it's well beyond what can be sustained from a purely economic benefit for the state viewpoint.
If people are taking degrees for their own benefit, as you have described in many ways, then they should pay for them. Unfortunately, state subsidies for some degrees and not others seems very unpopular, as does the idea of letting industry invest more in people who want to do the degree courses to gain skills they find beneficial.
.
, don't know anyone that was going on the walkout..... or anyone that even supported to it!
)
