If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Essential support for under 25s
Essential support for under 25s
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
That all depends on their existing outgoings. I earn more than that but at the moment I could not afford to push my son through college. Getting him through school is hard enough.
That is true and child benefit continues until they leave also.
That would only just cover the cost of a week's travel to school for my son.
Maybe I am not explaining what you get from university very well. Do you not think people learn anything in those three years then?
Why shouldn't people be able to do it if they are paying for it? It is nothing like the dole.
I assume you think people should have to pay for A-levels and GCSEs and that not everyone should be able to do them as well seeing as these contribute very little directly to most peoples jobs?
If you can really afford to be to be that picky about what type of weekend job you have, then you can't want the extra money enough. I wonder if you'd be this picky if your £10 a week (or whatever you get) is taken away from you? Seriously, what course do you do where you have to spend that sort of money to do? Because when I was in college, not too long ago, other than a couple of text books (which were available 2nd hand), a few disks and stationary, there wasn't much to buy. I bought a computer, but that wasn't essential and that was out of money that I had saved (and unless you got a lump sum at the start or bought on credit, you couldn't get a computer with these payments till you were half way through anyway). University students have to buy all these thing too, plus a lot need specialist equipment. A friend had to spend about £80 on something to disect animals with, for example. Another had to buy something to sample soil with for £50. In addition to the much greater number of text books that are required.
I'm not saying that there aren't some situations in which someone might need extra support, but every student who's parents earn under £30k? Thats not exactly low income in my book. Man of Kent's son obviously has a specific need for transport. Even yourself, if your doing four or five full A-Levels, you have more work to do than the average student. But surely something like this should be given on a case by case basis for specific problems, not just handed out to everyone.
Um, no because GCSEs and A-levels are something completely different.
GCSEs are providing something that is absolutely essential – they prove that someone has skills that employers expect in English and Maths which are compulsory and display what other basic skills somebody has. A-levels do a bit of the same but let someone specialise – since GCSEs and A-levels provide/prove (or are supposed to) the skills universities want or employers if not going to university they’re pretty essential nowadays. And since they are providing things which are basic demands in today’s world primarily to under 18’s I don’t think anybody would suggest we charge for these. There’s a big difference between funding people to take their GCSEs and A-levels and funding degrees in
Golf Studies or Wine Studies.
And I don't understand how anybody can seriously think the taxpayer should be funding someone to do Golf Studies. Are there not more important things that the government should be spending money on?
Wrong, naive and gullible, quite impressive!!!
Why is a Golf Studies degree pointless, it seems to be far more useful than a history degree.
You arrogantly assume that you will go on to get a decent job and that your degree has some inate value not like those with 'useless' and second-rate' degress from 'polys' god forbid.
I could explain some economics stuff to you about positive externalities, increasing returns etc but you probably know it already seeing as you are so clever.
Graduates do on average earn more money, haven't you just said that already?
All I see here is snobbery, arrogance and illusions over what constitutes a useful degree.
I actually agree with you that people pay for university, but not the full cost because I realise there are wider benefits to society form having a large pool of graduates and I think it is wrong to discriminate by subject because some subjects couldn't survive, history for on probably....... :rolleyes:
Yes you may have learnt them at work but not everyone might be as fortunate.
Essentially the point is that there are wider external benefits from having a well educated population that means that education should be funded by society to some degree.
Employers are taxpayers as well so while you may think that they should pay a heavier burden of tax the distinction isn't that important.
As long as students have to pay a reasonable amount (and the actual cost is far more than most people realise) then this will dteer those that won't benefit whist attracting those that will benefit themselves and wider society.
With regards to the skill relevance then that is more a matter of opinion but I think it would be sad if we lost a lot of the diversity of the university sector and dedicated it purely to producing the most economically useful tasks........
Well the difference between two years at college and three years at university is rather small isn't. The other year was probably a years worth of having fun which she is paying for so what is the problem?
If it's that good people would be willing to pay for it voluntarily.
If it's that good people would be willing to pay for it voluntarily.
If it's that good people would be willing to pay for it voluntarily.
Why are they completely different?
What on earth was the point of my design GCSE which I hated, or my French GCSE which was pointless, why should these things have been provided to me for free and why should I have been made to waste my time doing them?
There are many things I learnt at GCSE/A-level which are entirely irrelevant yet you suggest they be completely paid for. Whereas your argument is that there are many things at university which are completely irrelevant and you think we should have pay for these.
That is completely inconsistent!!
Why do you think your history degree is more important than a golf studies degree?
Are you joking?
History from any university whether it’s Oxford or an ex-poly has more value than Golf Studies from an ex-poly. I have nothing against ex-polys, although I do feel they offer some degrees like Media Studies that are cheap for them to teach to top-up their funds and don't lead to particularly great prospects.
Graduates traditionally earned more money. The figures used to support this claim were taken from when FAR LESS people attended university and graduates did not come out with degrees in Golf Studies or whatever.
If more people attend university, the gap between graduates and non-graduates in wages will naturally narrow. And if employers lose confidence in graduates abilities – as they already have with those with degrees in mickey mouse subjects the gap between graduates in those subjects and non-graduates will narrow.
Seeing as history is one of the most oversubscribed courses at good universities you're wrong. And I suggest you look at private universities in America to realise how wrong you are.
I’m not arrogant or snobby. I just don’t see the point in the government encouraging and subsidising someone to go to university so they can get into debt and then come out with a pointless degree that won't really help them. And for degrees like Film Studies and Wine Studies that’s the case.
Some employers expect a foreign language. It displays certain skills and is useful. Design shows creativity. Golf Studies doesn't do any of these things at least not in any way that is useful.
Well I can recognise that history is a proper academic discipline and Golf Studies isn't. But I don't object to paying for university and I don't think my degree should be subsidised because it's a proper degree and Golf Studies isn't. I only think people studying something that's an essential skill we're short of should get any funding - so that's really Science subjects and Medicine only.
Please explain to me what the point of a history degree is, what the hell is the use of it?
I can see that a Golf Studies degree would lead to a job in a large and fast growing industry, what the hell does a history degree help you do?
I would have to check but I am fairly certain graduates earn more money, yes there is a larger supply of graduates but there is also a larger demand and it still remains true that if you get a good degree then you shoudl do OK.
I don't think that employers are stupid enough that they can't tell what different skills people with different degrees might bring, do you?
Tell me why Film Studies isn't a valid field of study for a degree. Film and Television have had a far greater impact on our society in the 20th century than any literature or art, but I assume you would consider them valid degrees. Not only that, but these fields have contributed hugely to most modern country's economy. It's just blatent snobbery that you don't consider it a valid degree.
If I’m arrogant and snobby you’re stupid and naïve for not realising that some degrees are mickey mouse and effectively useless.
The purpose of a history degree is irrelevant since I’m not saying that history undergraduates should receive government funding!
However, history is directly and indirectly useful. You’ll find that the skills it provides are considered very useful by the Civil Service, the Foreign Office, MI5, Law firms and by dozens of other career options. The analytical skills it provides; scrutinising evidence and sources, etc is considered useful for lawyers and many history graduates go on to do law conversions. History is also useful in that some history undergrads will go on to do further study and become historians and studying the past helps us understand the present better. Anyway if you’re interested in the point of studying history I suggest you read Carr’s What is History? or Elton’s The Practice of History.
If Film Studies comprised of the same amount of work and had the same demands as an English lit degree it would be valid. However, it generally doesn’t so employers and others unsurprisingly are going to be more impressed by somebody with an English Lit degree than a Film Studies degree – that’s not snobbery.
That's utter bull. Have you done either? I know a few people who did joint honours degrees with English and Film (seemed to be a popular combination). The workload was pretty much the same for both, and for all of you who seem to think that media degrees are easy, they all averaged pretty much the same mark in each. Surely if one was easier, then they would recieve a much higher mark in that course than the other. It is snobbery, and it's unfortunate that people like yourself are in a position to give others jobs.
In fact in the last week of uni, us film students were the only ones still working. Whilst everyone else was revising for one or two exams between partying, we were doing the same, as well as trying to complete our final films before the deadline. Try making a film and tell me it's not the hardest you've ever worked in your life.
Academically, Film Studies is not as demanding as English Literature. Anyway I have nothing against anybody doing a film studies degree. I simply don’t see why the government should subsidise it – and I think that should be for all degrees which will not equip someone in an essential skill the country is short of. So I wouldn’t object to history undergraduates not getting any funding either. (I’m going to study history at university).
Film Studies and Media Studies though both imo strike me as being pretty pointless. Neither give you any increased chance of getting into media or film, in fact an English Lit degree would be probably be far more helpful. (This is based on speaking to people that I know in film and media, the two people I know in film actually didn’t go to university and journalists I know through family/friends did stuff like English Lit and advised against doing anything like media studies). And for non-film/media they're not respected by employers - at least not compared to academic subjects like history, Maths, English, Economics, etc.
Says who? Have you done either? I've done film studies at degree level, but also English and Media at A-Level, so I have experience of both, and in my opinion, neither is more academically challenging than the other. Bear in mind that practical modules in the majority of film studies courses are only one or two modules a year. The rest is very similar to the sort of things you'd do in English Lit. In fact the essays that you get in each subject are very similar, it's only the sources which vary. I also fail to see how one essay type question could be more difficult than another. Essay type questions have no right or wrong answer. Therefore the only way one could be 'harder' would be for the marking to be harsher. I've given you (admittedly anecdotal) evidence of people doing both courses and getting very similar results. D'you think they just tried harder with the English essays?
If you don't agree with funding things other than public services then that's fair enough, that's a valid opinion, but you are essentially saying that one degree is somehow more valuable than another, which is plain snobbery.
I do agree that media studies doesn't guarentee you a media job. There are so many people that do it for a start. But I'd say there's just as many jobs that specify a media related qualification as history, law, english or any other qualification (with the possible exception of business and finance which seem to have thousands). There's just many more candidates.
You don't know that you haven't studied either at university and you haven't vene been to university yet.....!
Well people do pay for it themselves to a certain extent. I don't know about anyone else, but I didn't get £12k in debt just to have a bit of a laugh, I did it because I was serious about the subject.
"Prof Sterling happily defends the golf studies degree: "There's a tremendous amount of material science in there, it's a serious syllabus"."
See, making you pay for what you do works. Now all we have to do is bump the cost up to it's full and we'll soon weed out those worthless degrees everyone is so concerned about.
Of course, you might have trouble finding a bank that's willing to lend you money to learn about art history without proof that you'll be able to pay them back.....
Well that's obvious. You won't get to write in something like The Times if you don't have some level of expertise in whatever field you're writing in. Journalism degrees, I think, are more what magazines look for, where you don't need as much specialist knowledge, or where what you're writing about is more of a hobby.
Er thanks for pointing that one out genius. I guess I need a degree in Golf Studies and history too to recognise that history is more academically challenging don't I?
Any chance that you'd respond to my actual points instead of making irrelevant remarks about being snobby or not having been to university? - And um now who's been snobby? You're suggesting people who haven't been to university can't have a valid opinion...
No, were suggesting that if you haven't had any experience of the courses in question, you are not in a position to judge which one is more academically challenging. That would be like me arguing that one operation is harder for a surgeon to do than another.