|
|
Post by domjohnson on Apr 6, 2014 16:46:19 GMT
Hello.
Article 8.10 "Limit or remove state funding for certain degree subjects.
"
I personally believe this is not an acceptable idea. All subjects have value to the education system and to the economy. Why should some subjects be inaccessible to some learners* because others have decreed it is of little value?
*(which will happen because these courses will become too expensive to study)
Anyone elses thoughts?
|
|
|
|
Post by Phillip Badger on Apr 7, 2014 20:49:59 GMT
Good point Dom - I guess this is a question of quality over quantity (or vice versa depending on how you see it).
My understanding of this Article is that it might actually conflict with 8.2 in some respects as well.
Devil's advocate moment whilst trying to avoid bigger questions... Do you think this is something that could be challenge earlier on through Careers Advice? In a dream-world, you could actually do away with Article 8.10 if careers advice made a choice which met the needs of the economy.
Equally keen to hear what other have to say.
|
|
|
|
Post by domjohnson on Apr 7, 2014 22:31:16 GMT
Careers advice certainly could. But there also is a fine line between telling students what their options might be and almost forcefully coercing them into studying a "proper subject" like a science. It isn't for everyone!
|
|
|
|
Post by hairyloon on Apr 8, 2014 10:07:45 GMT
It just seems to me that it is a fairly pointless thing to put in a manifesto.
You could cover it better with something like "we will prioritise funding for courses which best meet the needs of the country."
|
|
|
|
Post by domjohnson on Apr 8, 2014 12:34:35 GMT
It just seems to me that it is a fairly pointless thing to put in a manifesto. You could cover it better with something like "we will prioritise funding for courses which best meet the needs of the country." Well, its certainly more electable, but its the same principle behind it. And how would we define the needs of the country? Economic, or the needs for students wishing to study the courses they'd like to but needing the government funding? Another issue here - I may be wrong - wasn't government funding from courses withdrawn anyway with the tuition fee increase? So when we talk about prioritising funding, are we talking about prioritising student finance towards those studying a handful of course titles? |
|
|
|
Post by hairyloon on Apr 8, 2014 15:35:49 GMT
And how would we define the needs of the country? Through discussion in the Open Parliament... |
|
|
|
Post by Karl John on Apr 9, 2014 21:09:05 GMT
And how would we define the needs of the country? Through discussion in the Open Parliament... Absolutely |
|
|
|
Post by Phillip Badger on Apr 10, 2014 10:01:58 GMT
Another issue here - I may be wrong - wasn't government funding from courses withdrawn anyway with the tuition fee increase? So when we talk about prioritising funding, are we talking about prioritising student finance towards those studying a handful of course titles? The Government funding was withdrawn, but the universities were entitled to raise the tuition fees on all subjects to combat this withdrawal. So in terms of prioritisation, it could well be an option to reduce the tuition fee caps for those courses which "best meet the needs of the county", or increase the caps for courses which do not. I'd prefer to reduce the caps for the following reason... I spent a lot of time pondering over the £9k cap on university fees debate in 2012, having graduated in 2010 on a lower £3k rate, and knowing my brother graduated in 2008 on an even lower £1.5k rate. The issue is that the expanding reliance on Student finance is (like all loans do) banking on future prosperity to fix the present. But I also realised that I left university with around £25,000 of debt, whereas my brother left with £15,000. If we were to earn the same salary of around £20-£22k each year, my brother would end up paying more of his fees than I would of mine (despite the fact I borrowed more). This is because of the rules for paying it back. This problem is exacerbated further witht the £9k fee cap and pay schedule for those earning over £21k. The bizarre consequence is this - as undergraduates borrow more and more money under these policies, the likelihood of being able to pay it back is less and less. I base this on averages of salaries of undergrads, but even the government has highlighted the risk involved. I can see a counter-argumentbut I'll let someone else find it to keep up debate.  |
|
|
|
Post by benjamin on Apr 12, 2014 1:24:26 GMT
Or make Higher Education Free at the point of use.
|
|
|
|
Post by benjamin on Apr 12, 2014 1:30:06 GMT
I however totally agree that the 50% degree target was a misguided if well intentioned error.
|
|
|
|
Post by hairyloon on Apr 12, 2014 17:55:05 GMT
I however totally agree that the 50% degree target was a misguided if well intentioned error. A big "if". Most likely it was to keep a load of school-leavers off the unemployment figures until the next government. |
|
fossn
New Member
Posts: 10 
|
Post by fossn on Jul 24, 2014 14:44:27 GMT
The education system needs basic reform. The tripartite system provides for academic subjects and vocational courses.
If we define any qualification of a certain level a degree then it levels the playing field and puts vocational quals on an equal footing where, historically, they have always been seen as lesser qualifications.
The problem arises that technical or vocational qual providers have always seen themselves as inferior and sought to upgrade to universities and in the process dumped vocational for academic.
We need every kind of trained and tested participants in the workforce as society needs all products and services necessary for survival and a few luxuries as well.
The lawyers and doctors will not enjoy a society with no running water, toilet facilities, food, energy, waste disposal, etc. etc.
it is academic(couldn't resist) to say degree subjects should be limited to certain areas of academic learning.
Education also has value for its own sake, providing exercise for idle hands and minds.
|
|
