clearly he is but why are you asking?
Student support grants likely to be axed
- Thread starter thebennyboy
- Start date
clearly he is but why are you asking?
Man of Honour
- Joined
- 17 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 36,747
- Location
- Southampton, UK
Lets keep on topic I think.
degrees in this country have become worthless. I see rakes of CV's across my desk everyday of people with degrees in x, y and z, all worthless completely pointless areas of study, who then believe they should now command a 50K + salary.
The whole university system in the UK was devalued by Labour over their 13 year tenure, who simply used it as a way to mask youth unemployment. So now we are left with scores of people with a serious entitlement problem.
If University really was reserved for the best and brightest, then dishing out grants to the poorest would not be a problem. The fact of the matter is that you can study the most worthless piece of crap course now and universities are just trying to fill their coffers by offering these ridiculous nothing degree courses.
I have no issues with giving grants to those that want to pursue studies in medicine, engineering, nursing, teaching, dentistry, languages etc as these will lead to graduates securing a job and actually becoming productive members of society who will use their qualifications to further the country overall. However there are just too many mickey mouse degrees that people go off to university to do because simply put 3 years at uni doing 10 hours or less lectures a week beats getting a real job !!!
Even when I was at university back in the 90's it was shocking. I did a science based degree which had 25 hours lectures a week + another 10 hours lab time. Effectively the same as being in full time employment. Then there were those doing worthless degrees (peace studies comes to mind) who had 7 hours lectures a week !!! seriously ?? you expect tax payers to support these people who will then come out with a worthless degree and contribute nothing to society what so ever ???
Swap out the grants for loans, you're not preventing poor people from going to university you're just deferring when they pay it back. Which shouldn't be a problem when they start their professional careers.
Besides the majority of students blow their grants on nights out anyway. Realising they'd have to eventually pay it back might make them think twice about blowing it on unnecessary things. If you want money for drinking then get a part time job.
Besides the majority of students blow their grants on nights out anyway. Realising they'd have to eventually pay it back might make them think twice about blowing it on unnecessary things. If you want money for drinking then get a part time job.
Good it's a stupid system.
Your parents don't have to give you any money and you are no longer considered a child, so why has there wealth got anything to do with how much money you get.
On top of that it's a loan system which is basically a graduate tax, so again why is such a system needed, it hasn't made sense for year.
However the whole system needs a massive overhaul.
If your doing a worthwhile degree that the country needs at a top university, and get a 1st you shouldn't have to pay anything back. Country should take the hit for the benefit of said country.
This still allows people to go to unit who shouldn't be there, still allows people to study stuff that the country has no need fir etc.
Your parents don't have to give you any money and you are no longer considered a child, so why has there wealth got anything to do with how much money you get.
On top of that it's a loan system which is basically a graduate tax, so again why is such a system needed, it hasn't made sense for year.
However the whole system needs a massive overhaul.
If your doing a worthwhile degree that the country needs at a top university, and get a 1st you shouldn't have to pay anything back. Country should take the hit for the benefit of said country.
This still allows people to go to unit who shouldn't be there, still allows people to study stuff that the country has no need fir etc.
The point is -generally- nothing productive comes out of it, where as -generally- someone who does medicine will contribute back to the community using what they learnt. There will be exceptions but you need to look at the wider picture.
I can think of loads of examples from my immediate school peers where this happened. One guy, did a maths degree, now he bums about at home all day (and has been doing so now for the past 5 years) playing video games. Another guy did a geography degree, now hes a sales assistant in john lewis. Fundamentally for what purpose does their degree serve?
It's not really an issue about certain degrees, its an issue with the mentality of the students that enter the degrees, of which certain degrees tend to attract certain groups of people.
It needs to be made harder to get into uni in order to filter out those that simply are there because they don't know what to do with their lives.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 1,424
- Location
- Somerset
Ah yes such usless degrees as Mathematics and Geography.
Zero reading comprehension demonstrated by you. I can only suggest you re-read it and take it slow, one sentence at a time. You entirely missed the point.
You've taken his comment way out of context. He was saying someone he knew had completed a Maths degree, but now bums out at home. At no point did he say maths degree's are pointless.
You could apply the same analogy to someone who receives a medical degree, and then gives it up to write music!
Deleted member 66701
Deleted member 66701
Which means the point he was trying to make is, well, pointless!
What are we to do - FORCE people to work in a mathematics related field if they have a Maths degree?
Sounds a bit Gattaca to me.
To be honest, geography doesn't really have many real world applications outside teaching, most people that study geography don't go into anything geography related. There's also the question of whether they did a BSc or a BA...
I'd go with this,
we need decent Engineering students and a metric ****tonne of Science and Maths graduates. I'm all for throwing money at anyone wanting to study in these areas.
What we don't need are more clueless middle class girls getting grants for doing Gender Studies or Art History.
Associate
- Joined
- 20 Apr 2004
- Posts
- 1,424
- Location
- Somerset
Yeah I suppose that works for me. I guess it's all a bit depressing to see kids blamed no matter what degree choice they make.
A man named Karl Marx said that in a capitalist system when the ruling or dominant part get too greedy or the poor class become too poor, there is a revolution. It needs to stay balanced in an economy driven world. Or let them eat cake...
A few of my friends that went to Russell group unis say this... Then I point out I'm working in the same position as them, next to them... Does that make them failures? They shut up after that.
Fortunately not everyone is elitist and realise it is the individual and the course, not the university that matter.
I'd also point out I'd rather go to a teaching university, where lecturers are there in large to teach than a research university where teaching is seen as an opportunity to make a bit more money for their research.
On a more serious note, good for him. He's one of the few though. There are certain courses where larger proportions of students enter a profession they are studying, medicine and engineering are up there, geography and psychology are not.
Everyone should be entitled to study whatever they want and get the same funding providing the course has some transferable skills. I know loads of people with good degrees at top unis that don't have, for whatever reason, what would be classed as a professional job.
Top uni degree does not equal top economic aspirations. Some people just want to study, and I think that's Ok.
Top uni degree does not equal top economic aspirations. Some people just want to study, and I think that's Ok.
I'd rather go somewhere which has AAA students (eg. my undergrad course, before the A* existed, so there
I also wholly disagree with the idea that academics who produce good work are somehow necessarily lacking in teaching ability/that it's a sliding scale from teaching ability through to research ability. The very best academics I've encountered have also been the best communicators and teachers of their courses, in my personal experience, across three degree programmes.
Tbh as long as you are on an accredited course your grade at the end should reflect the ability and knowledge you have in your subject. You may learn different things (depending on the speciality of your lecturers) but you should all know the fundamentals and skills of your discipline. It's why you have external examiners and specifications for accredation.
You should have found that out on your masters courses? Those that went to the best unis didn't necessarily do the best in the class. Actually in ours the best mark was by a guy that did his undergrad at one of the worst departments in the country and some of the worst by some of the best Russell group unis. The reality was there was a broad spread of "quality" universities represented and there seemed to be little difference between what uni you went to and your ability at the subject. Everyone was a 1st or 2:1 student to begin with though.
If your course isn't accredited then it's a whole different ball game.
Last edited:
If they want to study gender and equality studies or the loathed media studies, they can do it with their own money, that is the great future the country voted for.
Last edited: