If you have the ability then you should be able to go. That should be the only criteria, if you havent ... tough. Deal with it, life isnt fair and no one owes you anything.

I may sound harsh but I came from a "working class" one parent family, living in an estate with a "reputation" and I had to apply myself to better my chances. I didnt expect the system to bend over backward to give me an unfair chance, I just worked at it. Part time job to get me through college and university at the end of it I got my degree and I am proud I did it.
My wife is an teacher in a school that is best described as an inner city school/war zone and some of the crap she has to put up with because little johnny might be "hurt" over it is unbelievable.

<deep breath.. rant over>

Education is most certainly a right from my perspective. People should not be denied the opportunity to further their knowledge because of their social status or any other reason.

As for admissions policy, this is an area where the government should be involved as little as possible. It should be up to each individual university who they allow in (and for what reason) and government should only step in to prevent discrimination.

I'm sorry bobbdobbs, but I completely disagree with your stance. Why should people be denied the opportunity to pursue their passion, turn their life around and improve their knowledge of a particular subject?

I've seen universities allow people on to course with no qualifications to speak of, all because they showed a real passion for the subject and a desire to improve who they are. People should not be denied such an opportunity because of failings and mistakes earlier in their life. A university is above all else a place of learning, not exclusively for enhancing a career.

I'm going to sit firmly on the fence in that debate!!

I agree with the point you make that university is a place of learning, and that shouldn't be denied to anyone capable.

But does the taxpayer see a benefit to Joe Bloggs studying photography for three years??

If Joe Bloggs goes on to have a successful career in photography, start his own business or go into a related field then most certainly yes.

agreed


Im not saying people should be denied the opportunity to pursue a passion but if you don't have the ability then why should you be funded by the state? There are far too many demands on the public purse to fund people who have no ability and i have seen far too many people who would of benefited more with being in the workplace than spending three years pissing it away.

I think it might be a good idea to have different level of subsidy. It already happens with some subjects. A friend of mine is being paid to do nursing. No loans, no fees. A payment.

It may be a good idea to widen that idea, so that other subjects have lower tuition fees, and some have higher fees.

I completely agree social standing etc shouldn't hold back children from getting to university. But with a limited number of places at university, how do you ensure the 'right' people go through? How do you ensure the brightest people (not always the ones with A-grades) study what they want to study?

There are two children, Bill and Bob. Bill comes from a working class background, had a single parent, raised from a poor area and went to a [LIFTED] school, worked at weekends. Bill gets the best grades at his school at A-levels - BCC. Bob comes from a middle class family. The parents were working class and managed to get a good education and went to university and became professionals. They want the best for their son Bob. Bob goes to a private school, lives in a good area, plays various sports and musical instruments. He gets grades typical of his school - AAA. They both want to do, say, medicine. How do you differentiate between who should go and who shouldn't? Bill had to raise himself against the odds, worked hard and gained grades that others have not been able to achieve from that school. Bob has worked hard, had a good education and tried his best to get into university. Who do you think should go?

In this case? I would give it to Bill, because of the level of commitment he has shown to learning, and the fact he's achieved grades above the 'normal' for that school, and as he's from a 'poorer' background, in a rough area, the teaching levels will be below that of private schools. Given the right support from tutors, I reckon Bill would be a better candidate.

But hey :\

What about all that hoohaa about students lying about being in care to be treated more favourably? That one annoyed me a lot.

And what's wrong with studying photography for three, or even five years?

Rather than arguing about that just now, I've realised that no subject should be penalised at university. Some areas of industry would be very difficult (though not impossible I suppose) to get into without prior experience or knowledge.

Depends, is that relating to the scientific study of tidal power and how we might harness it as a viable source of renewable energy? Then double the number of course seats - as an island country we need to be a leading pioneer in such matters, not only for own immediate personal gain in reducing our dependance on fossil fuels; but also as a world authority/industry to exploit economically.

If however you are referring to something that involves the past time that is "surfing", then burn every edition ever printed of the UCAS prospecture that featured such a nonsense degree.


Personally, I only believe in vocational or core subjects for degree level education. I do not belive in exams or grading, so can not stand on the side of "only the clever should go" as our education system does not value that on merit but on recital technique. I got AEEB in my 4 A-Levels a decade a go but still got accepted by Kingson who wanted 24 points (BBB average) in their literature, but were far more willing to accept candidates based on their merit, enthusiasm and passion. There's not enough of that discerning review these days.

The problem is university is a great way of avoiding the real world for another 3 years, and students are cash cows for university so they'll sign every one up. If we had less of that attitude; where students could validate their cause and reason for wanting to study, and can show an aptitude for the subject, then I think we'd be able to resolve some of the issues over poorly educated degree-graduates.

As for money matters - it should all be state paid - or loaned. And centers of excellence should also seek to be privately financed. Students should also be encouraged to manage finances through part time work. And universities should exploit every means that reduces a students outgoings (i.e. books, materials for all etc)

This is simply wrong. Universities are still given a large payment per head from central government. This payment is defined by a formula that essentially states the correct number of students in any year on any course at that institution. The university loses money if it doesn't recruit enough students on that course but it also loses money if it recruits too many students on any given course. The fees the 'overloaded' students would pay do not offset the loss in central funding, so it doesn't make economic sense for Universities to give places to everyone who comes along.

What it does do is create a supply shortage in popular courses, so the required grades for the course get out of any relation to the intellectual requirement to complete the course. To the point where, for example, you need to be much smarter to get on to a psychology course than a physics course. As someone who has done degree level studies in both, I can tell you that's not how things should be.

Jon

i hate to point this out but …

we will have a US style of higher education system in place in a few years
regardless of Govt as the university's themselves have decide such



answer = both …