University degrees

I'm not sure what 3rd level means - is that an Irish thing? In the UK level 3 is A level and equivalent, but from your post it seems that you are talking about something different.

We've had the same almost the same discussion about this when the same criticism was raised previously Doodledog. We were told it was an Irish thing - the same as "tertiary" education. Sadly, I am beginning to doubt the authenticity of what some posters tell us so I can say if it's true or not; it was a little while ago.

If only I had taken up my place. But I devour books written by those who would have taught me and those who would have been my contemporaries.
Law, which I fell into, is a fascinating subject but the practice of it is anything but.

Doodledog

I absolutely agree that nobody should study something that doesn't interest them. In fact, I would like to see more people study for the love of the subject than as a means to an end (ie a job). I think that education is about far more than that.

so do I

I absolutely agree that nobody should study something that doesn't interest them. In fact, I would like to see more people study for the love of the subject than as a means to an end (ie a job). I think that education is about far more than that.

It’s a great shame that some people who go to uni would have been better advised to undertake in-work training in an area which interests them rather than bow to pressure from teachers/family/friends. Or do little research into their likely work opportunities after graduating.
So many people take law degrees for instance, regardless of the fact that it is a very over-subscribed profession and has been for years and only those with at least a 2.1 from a ‘good’ uni will even get an interview at many law firms or barristers’ chambers.

I don't think it was a silly comment at all, as I'm only going off your posts which do not seem remotely supportive of widening participation in HE. You also seem to have a dim view of students based on anecdotal evidence, eg your colleague's daughter.

Of course people on interview boards will know which degrees are relevant to their fields - how else will they be able to employ the right people? That doesn't mean, however, that other degrees are useless in different fields.

I'm not sure what 3rd level means - is that an Irish thing? In the UK level 3 is A level and equivalent, but from your post it seems that you are talking about something different.

The fact that you have two degrees yourself doesn't alter the fact that your posts do seem to suggest that you would prefer to restrict access to a similar experience for others, but maybe that's not how you meant to come across.

Doodledog

Bewitched, you seem to have a very tainted outlook on education as a whole.

Do you have access to any sort of resources that show how many students are studying subjects that are of little interest to them, or who are 'mediocre'? Or for that matter the older stats about the' idle' people who 'just wanted the fun of going to university'?

This all sounds extremely subjective, and with due respect I very much doubt that such a research project would pass scrutiny in any university ethics committee, even in a much-derided 'new university'.

What a silly comment. I have 2 degrees myself and am very in favour of people who have a genuine interest in something being enabled to pursue a 3rd level education. I am talking about going onto 3rd level straight from school becoming the norm over and above apprenticeships or on the job training which better suits some people's skills or interests.

As I said I live in Ireland and there has been considerable discussion in the media and by those working in Universities, about the calibre of student going to University, the large drop out rate, the quality of some of the degrees being offered etc.

My late father used to chair interview boards for the public sector and said the experts on the board knew exactly which degrees had value and which ones were if no use in relation to their fields. I was also at a meeting about FDI recently and someone working on skills policies made a similar point.

Indeed a colleague only remarked the other day that her daughter said she had chosen her university course (media studies) because it was 'the course she least didn't want to study'.

Bewitched, you seem to have a very tainted outlook on education as a whole.

Do you have access to any sort of resources that show how many students are studying subjects that are of little interest to them, or who are 'mediocre'? Or for that matter the older stats about the' idle' people who 'just wanted the fun of going to university'?

This all sounds extremely subjective, and with due respect I very much doubt that such a research project would pass scrutiny in any university ethics committee, even in a much-derided 'new university'.

Some universities give non-repayable bursaries to students from low income families. This is an example:

www.ncl.ac.uk/undergraduate/fees-funding/scholarships-bursaries/opportunity-scholarships/

There's more about the fate of BTecs here:

www.theguardian.com/education/2021/nov/13/btec-cull-could-deter-working-class-students-from-nursing-universities-fear

We have free third level education in Ireland. The ideology behind it was that bright people from poorer families could now go to university. But of course that's not what happened. These young people's parents still cannot afford accommodation for their children, an allowance, registration fees, and all the various extra expenses that go with having a child at University. They need their children to be out earning a living as soon as possible.

What has actually happened is that children of middle class parents, who would once have refused to pay hefty fees for sons or daughters who had idled their way through school barely scraping the entry requirements, or had no idea what they wanted to study but justed wanted the fun of going to College, now have access to free third level education.

So the taxpayers are paying for mediocre students with comfortably off parents to have the university experience while often studying something they have no great interest in, and the gap between the poor and the better off widens.

JaneJudge

I have one son at university and the loan doesn't cover the accommodation, so we have to top up the accommodation costs and we have to give him money to live off. Sure he could get a job but Covid made that more difficult last year, he could get one now though. I know we have had this discussion before but accommodation costs differ from university to university. He isn't in 'normal' campus accommodation not the luxury stuff which is more than the rent I pay on my own home

My son is still at uni too. He lives in a non-university one bedroom flat, which he pays for out of his loan. He's a bit shocked by gas/electricity prices (aren't we all?), but he manages. He does two shifts in a Tesco Express and has savings from his summer holiday job.

I think it's reasonable that parents pay something (as I said, they would be paying for the little blighters anyway ?), but the point is that loans mean that nothing is paid upfront, so students from all backgrounds are able to go*, and those from the poorest families don't pay everything back.

Free education would be better, IMO, but the loan system is probably as good an alternative as any.

*I appreciate that it is difficult for students in households where they are expected to leave school and earn money to contribute to household expenses, however. This was probably the biggest barrier to HE in the days when there were no fees, and it will still deter many, I'm sure.

My post meant to say he is in normal student accommodation. I am not sure why it changed it to isn't

Martin Lewis suggests you give a lot more than we give our son. We give him enough for food (gym is free on campus) per week. My reckoning is if he wants to spend it on alcohol he has to earn that money himself. Maybe I am cruel I feel there is a line between supporting them to be more independent and spoiling them though. We pay for his phone anyway and if he needs the train home

Ok, but if he wasn't at university he would need to be accommodated - either living with you or paying rent.

There is, I think, a part of the loan that is means-tested, and parents are expected to contribute to their children's upkeep, just as they would if they were at home. Not everyone pays it back - students from low-income families are exempt - but most parents pay something.

I am not remotely an expert on student loans, but I caught the end of the Martin Lewis programme the other night, and he was saying something about this parental contribution being made more explicit as a result of a campaign of his.

I have one son at university and the loan doesn't cover the accommodation, so we have to top up the accommodation costs and we have to give him money to live off. Sure he could get a job but Covid made that more difficult last year, he could get one now though. I know we have had this discussion before but accommodation costs differ from university to university. He isn't in 'normal' campus accommodation not the luxury stuff which is more than the rent I pay on my own home

MOnica Families do not need to finance the studies of their offspring
True. The loan system is actually more egalitarian than one where parents had to fund accommodation and anything not covered by a means-tested grant. Nothing is payable upfront, and it is the student, not the parent, who pays back the loan, but not until they earn over average salary.

growstuff

Teacheranne My daughter's background is almost identical to your daughter's except she also has an MA.

She left with her first and MA, but knew she didn't have "vocational" training, so spent a year gaining it in jobs for which she didn't need a degree. She then started looking for graduate level jobs in HR and was snapped up. First, she passed the exams for civil service fast track and now works as an HR Manager for quite a big and well-known company. She's leap frogged over those without degrees.

Her degrees have given her skills for analysis and evaluation, which I don't believe random on-the-job experience could have done. Yes, she's paying back loans, but it's been worth it.

A friends daughter did it the other way, had a gap year after “A” levels working , then paid her own way through Uni got a “First” and was head hunted, a high flyer for sure. 20 yrs on, married, no kids and a very expensive globetrotting lifestyle.

MOnica Families do not need to finance the studies of their offspring. My children didn't receive anything from their parents. They were forced to budget and find paid casual work, if they wanted extras such as holidays or expensive gadgets.

Teacheranne My daughter's background is almost identical to your daughter's except she also has an MA.

She left with her first and MA, but knew she didn't have "vocational" training, so spent a year gaining it in jobs for which she didn't need a degree. She then started looking for graduate level jobs in HR and was snapped up. First, she passed the exams for civil service fast track and now works as an HR Manager for quite a big and well-known company. She's leap frogged over those without degrees.

Her degrees have given her skills for analysis and evaluation, which I don't believe random on-the-job experience could have done. Yes, she's paying back loans, but it's been worth it.

Very well said Hetty. The idea that human beings can be sorted into groups of academic and practical really annoys me.

I agree with you Doodledog and wish people understood how the student loan repayment works. If you're below 60 and get a chance to do a degree, go for it!

Ideally, all education would be free, but a decision was made by the LibDems in 2011 to "trade" the increase in student fees for the Pupil Premium, which benefits poorer children at the start of their education. The argument was that young people who had reached the standard required for university entrance were already successful in education. Most won't pay it back in full.

Incidentally, some universities still provide non-repayable grants for students from the poorest families.

Doodledog, I agree that HE is available to those from all backgrounds now. Loan repayments are affordable, too, so the system is fairer than ever before.

There seems to be a widespread misconception that people are somehow either 'academic' or practical. (The tripartite system was based on that myth.) It's nonsense. It's nearer the truth to say that some students find everything easy - and others have to work much harder.

Nobody has to be clever or academic for HE, just literate and logical with determination.

Why believe that there are some forced down the wrong path? People have choice and those who don't enjoy it can leave at any time and try something else.

A levels are a poor preparation for degree study, anyway, just a means of rationing places - but then, suddenly, entirely unnecessary for mature students.

Indeed the entry into many professions is degree only, the top 25% of pupils will fill the needs of those professions, but there are twice as many gaining entry to the degree courses offered. Very often they are low quality courses that take entrants with poor A Level grades or BTEC qualifications.

Like many I went through the on the job training, part practical, part classroom, qualifying after 3 yrs, then gained specialist qualifications. As a junior I had to do the menial work and make the tea, now semi skilled support workers do that, so there are no jobs for apprentices

Friends that are employers tell me they cannot find school leavers that are dedicated and will turn up and follow instructions long enough to learn a trade. They get bored and cannot cope with repetitive work, many jobs we all do are boring and repetitive but have to be done correctly. I do criticize schools for short term teaching where learning new things to a shallow level rather than applying what you have learnt.
At school you are allowed to “do the best you can” that’s not good enough, at work you have to achieve the correct standard and do that day after day

M0nica’s, whilst I am very much not in favour of fees for students, the loan system does mean that people from all backgrounds can go without having to pay anything upfront. Student loans are more of a tax than a debt, as only those earning over £X pay anything back, and even then it is paid on a sliding scale and written off for those who never earn more than average.

When you factor in that graduates earn (on average) a lot more than non-graduates the picture is not one of heavily burdened people struggling to pay for an expensive luxury.

As I say, I think that education should be free, but that’s a separate argument, and many would point to the higher lifetime earnings of graduates and ask why ‘the taxpayer’ should fund their degrees.