Your example is particularly ironic, in that I was wondering about doing electrical engineering recently as a on OU degree. Except they don't actually run an electrical engineering course any more, they only do a stock engineering option.

I have a degree in Electrical and Electronic Engineering.

But it's not a 2:1 so nobody will hire me.

Welcome Paul Calf.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9F2LfRgJfYE
---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=50.803939,-0.058698
- Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk.

I feel a bit the same way as you koli. I went to college for two years to complete my ND in Science and got it based on GCSE results and my parents income. I paid for my accommodation (in a shared house with a landlady) by working as many hours as I could outside of college time.

When I finished, I went to work for a local lab doing scut work for the summer while I decided if I could afford uni. At the end of the summer I was offered a fulltime job with the company I had been working for, with the option to do uni part-time, paid for by the company, in exchange for a lower salary with them (but including book allowance and travel allowance) which I did. I did an HNC and BSc over the next 5 years and graduated with no debt although no savings.

I don't see whay the old scholarship system shouldn't work, but kids must be able to prove an aptitude and ability in order to "win" one. There's nothing wrong with honest labour, builders appreticeships and carpentry etc. I also don't see why everyone should have the right to attend university just because they want to, there aren't enough graduate jobs anyway for the people who are leaving uni now, and if everyone goes to uni surely it'll just mean that we'll have the most highly qualified and least satisfied road sweepers and bin men in the world?

Agree with a lot of people going to uni more for the sake of it. I remember seeing one kid who was depressed and one of the factors was that he wasn't clever enough to get into university. The appeal wasn't the studying but the "student lifestyle". It's essentially a chance for most people to leave home, go out and act without "restrictions" - no curfews, no nagging parents, get up whenever they want, eat what and when they want etc without anyone criticising them.

They should raise the standards so if you don't study hard enough, you get kicked off the course early on. But of course no university likes it when most of their graduates are leaving with anything less than 2:1 as it makes them look crap.

I remember fellow students whinging about a lecture that started 9am and occurred once a week, mid-week, every week for the semester. They couldn't handle it. Yet there was me going in for 9-6 Mon-Fri for the first two years, going to 8-6 for the remaining years without a single complaint.

Point out to said youth that if he gets a job and can afford a place of his own, he'll be freed from those restrictions too. The only time he has to live under them is when he can't be arsed to do anything about it.


Actually, Universities don't care what degree you get out the other end. People generally only talk about 'graduates' rather than 'graduated with a 2.1 or better'. What would stop your suggestion being implemented is that Universities simply couldn't afford to - while everyone knows that Universities get paid for each student they have studying there, it's less well known that the number that counts is how many complete the year, not how many start it. People who drop out before a certain point don't count. It was supposed to stop Universities recruiting tons of unsuitable candidates then letting them go after the cheque came in. Of course what happened instead was Universities recruited loads of unsuitable candidates and dumbed down the first year courses to the point where in some cases you can pass provided you can read and write and little more.


Well, the only thing I ever had a problem was was somebody decided to schedule a pure maths lecture at 8.15 on a Monday morning. I was quite capable of turning up every time but I'm not sure I actually remember any of it.

Jon

He had other extensive issues going on which were more important and needed to be addressed. I told him university wasn't the only path in life. As I said, most see it as a time to arse around. Getting a job means you have to work 9-5 and there are a lot of graduates who struggle with this!


Then why not raise the standards so it's difficult to get even a class 3 degree? I'm fully aware that universities get paid for graduates and drop outs don't count. But if you make degrees tougher to obtain, it means students have to work harder and will spend less time arsing around and (hopefully) more time studying. It'd prepare them for the workplace a lot better too. We don't need mickey-mouse degrees.


That might've been you but of my many non-medical colleagues, there were quite a large proportion who struggled with 9am lectures. As I said, after my second year, we had to be in hospital on rotations at 8am so we could be there at the start of ward rounds.

But it's not real debt, is it?

I've got a debt of around £21,000. But the Student Loans Company haven't been banging on my door demanding the first repayment...They wait until I earn above a given amount (an amount I agreed with when I took out the loan) and then take sums out of my wage...

Personally I think every graduate should be put on a special tax code that means they pay a certain percentage more than the rest of the population. This way even if you earn below £15k/year you contribute something towards the education you received.

Because then lots more people would have dropped out and the universities would have gone bust. The government set the funding criteria and it made no mention of quality of results, simply that students must complete a given portion of their course. The whole question of quality is handing by AQA, and is separated from funding. You may agree with that arrangement or not, but that's the way it was, up until recently anyway.

However, the current administration have pretty much stopped funding the educational part of Universities altogether and replaced it with direct funding via student fees. the equation may change - one of the ways to attract the best students is by showing your graduates get the best results. So it may be now that Universities have to appeal to students directly, they'll start paying more attention to what they're actually teaching them. However ever since the funding of universities was made dependant on how many students they have by one means or another, you suddenly have a conflict of interest between academic achievement, which requires you to be picky, and income which requires you not to be picky.

The only way to get round this is to have an entirely different funding model.

Jon

Now that I can support. If MP's with their free education should end up paying more. I cant see them voting for anything that hits them.

I was lucky enough to go to Uni when there were grants and came out with no real debts. However at the time oly a small percentage of students went to Uni - not this 50% target

The problem to me seems to be that we have to many graduates who dont have the correct degrees

MY solution

Keep current funding as is (loans etc) EXCEPT
Goveremnt to fund specific courses where there are known to be shortages (e.g. engineering / science / BA in starwars - whatever) with grants
Places could be limited to the brightest students

that way you could help increase the take up of these stye of courses

Well free tuition engineering maths and science course would be better. Grants for those from low incomes.

Will interested in BA in Starwars, could I sign up for BA in the A-Team?

One loan for everyone, no matter what their background.

Well the rich will not borrow it so it will be a burden on the working and middle classes. Yes keep the governments contribution to a minimum for the coalition to make a tax cut for the rich.