Forum menu
Except that the same tax increases will apply equally to excess STEM graduates as for excess Arts graduates (excess as in don’t get to work in their chosen field due to a lack of roles / or just not being very good at their subject).
Why are you reducing everything down to monetary value?
And you’re also implying that not doing a degree and undertaking a shorter / cheaper vocational course implies they can’t still think more laterally…..
I'm not. But you're actually demonstrating the point you misguidedly think I'm making, ironically.
"Yep agreed, but what percentage of arts graduates work in the industry, is it 100%?"
You could make this argument about any degree - how many mathematicians make a living out of pure maths research ??
Also define work - I studied music and still do paying gigs alongside having a day job.
Also that Physics grad working in Costa, the likelihood of them doing that as a career is very small, chances are they are doing that whilst looking for grad level work or working multiple jobs.
Truth is that lots of people don't go to university - but lots are good enough to, want to and we have universities that want them. Graduates do amazing things in this country but saddling them with eyewatering debt rather than having an efficient tax system that supports the FE and HE sector is daft.
Yep agreed, but what percentage of arts graduates work in the industry, is it 100%?
And what has that got to do with anything? Do a 100% of math or science students end up in related industries? Why does it matter if someone takes 100 years to pay off their student loan or not . If your argument is that money could be used to fund public services lets tax the rich a more realistic rate. Its slightly worrying your transactional view on education. Uni is something everyone should be able to experience if they want to spend 3 years getting a BA in whittling or business studies so be it.
There is some evidence that humanities graduates earn less than STEM graduates. The link below gives chemistry median salary 5 years after graduation as £29k. The same for humanities is £22k. The gap is even bigger for 10 years after graduation – £35k vs £23k. Humanities graduates have the lowest median salary out of those presented.
The problem with using mere statistics, is that it only tells a part of the story. From that graph, we can see that Economics degrees reap the biggest financial rewards. Wonder why that is? Would it be because the banks and financial sector hold far too much power in society, and thus remunerate their own industry far better before they release the scraps for the rest of us? So a Humanities degree is very low down the list; but look at a possible scenario for someone with such a degree: they may well be working in the public sector, such as youth work for example, which is undeniably a valuable job, but is woefully underpaid. And herein lies the root of the problem; certain professions are 'valued' above others, in purely monetary terms. This is unfair. This is what we should be addressing as a society.
We also seem to have degraded undergraduate degrees to the point that pretty much anyone who signs up to Uni gets one, which means they’re bugger all use to employers to work out who to employ.
is that true? Is the drop out / failure rate from Uni radically different now than the 80’s? Whilst the entry rate is much higher there are still plenty of teenagers disappointed not to get the grades they needed for the course or institution they would like, or to get in at all - there are huge publicity campaign around not just one route when exams come out…
As an employer who employs mostly graduates your views on whether they are a good benchmark for who to employ puzzle me. They come with grades; universities come with reputations; it’s not difficult to spot the outstanding ones - but equally we aren’t always looking for a superstar, just someone who will get on with the job…
So, making degrees more expensive might reduce demand and persuade teenagers to consider alternate career paths, which again, might not be a bad thing.
or it might scare off very good students who would do well in a university environment but let those with money buy a future for their offspring.
No reason why we shouldn’t do the same for Education as it call comes out of the same pot.
This is a misapprehension that is used to justify a political choice. There is no pot of money. We have the resources to do what we choose to do. However, we have chosen to make a few people very rich rather than provide health care and education for the wider population. Taxing the poor is just another tool in this process.
I agree it's a mess and difficult to fix in a way that's both fair and politically do-able.
Cynical me says the current system has democratised education too much by making available to anyone, which by diminishing the advantage of parental wealth, damages the life prospects of well-off kids. And we can't have that, can we. Make those other kids think three times, now it's a big numbers debt gamble that potentially dents you considerably for life.
I feel very fortunate to have got through when I did, I doubt I'd dare try it today. I had a good job straight out of uni and had a decent life in my 20s, if they're looking to take money from those who could spare it without suffering then I'd be a fair target. Practical effects probably live in a house share longer, rent longer buy house later, no foreign holiday every year, worse car, worse bikes.
Using a financial stick to beat young people is the worst solution.
Perhaps an appealing one when a) they don't fight back in a way that threatens you, and b) there's a whole bunch of people (young and old) which will applaud the beating of those targeted. Levelling down the uni-educated woke pro-EU type.
interest that they’re charging on the debt that gets up my nose
There is demand for debt by those with capital seeking to produce an income.
On a related topic… I was astonished to discover some of my comfortably well off friends were planning to fund their children through university so that they didn’t have to take loans.
If I had kids in England, I'd be pretty devastated (but forced to accept) to leave them with huge debt from the start of their working lives.
Are there many students going to / leaving Uni with no debt round their neck and thus reinforcing the inequalities in society
Those I know which have parents that could make that happen, do have their own loans. But quite a few did get a chunk of cash "loan" for their house deposit in their early twenties, which is a huge boost and sets them on a different trajectory. The other type, of which there are fewer (likely even more so now in the £9k fees world), lived at home and worked ridiculous hours around uni and between terms.
Are there many students going to / leaving Uni with no debt round their neck and thus reinforcing the inequalities in society
Maintenance Loans are means tested, and those with wealthy parents are not eligible to borrow as much. So they will, by default, graduate with less debt than people with poorer parents - even if their parents didn't want to pay their fees.