bankstersparadise Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 The whole thing is a farce. Not sure this is correct or fair. The majority of the system is a farce, not the whole system. However, the fact is that the companies that control the good jobs are not stupid. And so in reality it doesn't matter if you have a 2:2 or a First from an institution not in the Top 20 you simply will not find a suitable job. Therefore paying 27k (plus living costs and interest) for that piece of paper is by definition a waste of 27k. The economics of higher education for 90% of establishments/course/students is completely broken. I think parents have to shoulder some of the responsibility here, despite being part of the older generations that routinely abuse their children, it is also their responsibility to help their kids navigate them through this mess they have created. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bankstersparadise Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 It's one year postgrad, some scholarships available for uk students Don't get me wrong, given the 100% certainty of getting a 35k job at the end, the economics of this course are materially better than 99% of options available. But even still I don't think I would wish this existence on the children of my worst enemy. Total cost of tuition; 3 year BEng + your course is; 27k + 25k = 52k. Maintenance loan 3.5k per year = 14k (£116 per week during term times (30 week academic year) - will need to do some informal work during holidays unless parents are rich) Total Debt required = 66k Compounding @ 6% (RPI +3%) during studying = 4.7k Total Debt at the end = 70.7k [incidentally 40% of the average UK house price! :-)] Interest per anum upon graduation = 70.7 * 3% = 2.1k Salary required to start repaying capital = (2.1k / 0.09) + 21k = 44.3k. How quickly until they start earning 45k and actually repaying their education which is compounding at 3% beneath them. Talk about drowned in debt and this is a good course? The system has failed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
debtlessmanc Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) Indeed the system has failed to prepare our young people for work properly, I was suggesting the old system where 10% of people went to university and were subsidised by that state was the best. The rest could take vocational courses, for example - how to work In an office environment such as car hire firm (see above) These courses would be provided locally and cheaply. People are their own worst enemies though, they (and their parents) don't want to hear at 18 that university is not for them. So they would complain at this rather than complain at borrowing £50k to study something that is of no use to their future career. Edited August 8, 2014 by debtlessmanc Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah-so Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 What they are actually doing is buying a piece of paper for 25k so that they are allowed to get that job. What they are doing is BUYING access to that job. Can you imagine what would happen if universities started applying actual standards to the course after they have taken 25k from each student? They have paid their money, they want their piece of paper. I guarantee they will have learnt next to nothing by going on that course, they will be no better than their 18 year old self except they have 5 or 6 more years life experience (which they could have got more of by doing something different to university). The standards of MSc are a joke too. I think the only reason senior lecturers in the UK don't say more about this is that they will be sacked, especially if they used the words I used. The whole thing is a farce. BTW I work at a university too. Some of the content in the courses is alright (when it hasnt been removed for being too hard), but the structure still allows people to get 2.1s and 1sts without knowing any of it. If I was looking to employ someone I wouldnt even bother looking at what degree they have, or the grade, because I know it means nothing. Having been through the system myself I know first hand the standard of modern university. It requires such minimal effort to get a first (considering that all you have to do is turn up to get a 2:1) that really I would say you might as well throw the CV of someone with a 2:1 and definitely a 2:2 in the bin. They should never have been allowed into a university. About 13% of people get 1sts today. It should be that 13% that is making up the entire university student population. What a rant! Entertaining, but I am a little sceptical. Is your university Russell Group, a non-Russell Group traditional university or an ex-poly? The fact that you are just as likely to get a 2.1 from a university that accepts people with very low academic qualifications as you are at one of the better ones strikes me as a bit iffy. Surely, at the better institutions, there are still a lot of competent students getting 2.2s. I think degree classifications should be reformed - the pressure from employers to get a 2.1 means that universities are under pressure to issue more of them. Are you better off getting a 2.2 from Nottingham or a 2.1 from Nottingham Trent? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmellow Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 What a rant! Entertaining, but I am a little sceptical. Is your university Russell Group, a non-Russell Group traditional university or an ex-poly? The fact that you are just as likely to get a 2.1 from a university that accepts people with very low academic qualifications as you are at one of the better ones strikes me as a bit iffy. Surely, at the better institutions, there are still a lot of competent students getting 2.2s. I think degree classifications should be reformed - the pressure from employers to get a 2.1 means that universities are under pressure to issue more of them. Are you better off getting a 2.2 from Nottingham or a 2.1 from Nottingham Trent? My university was a Russel Group and I now work in a university outside of the UK. The level of the lecturers and research conducted there was very very high, the standards on the acual courses however were very poor. Your last question is pointless in my opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Si1 Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 It's unfortunate that people like this are actually and genuinely believe that are the ones making the policies. What? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 If you think ANYBODY learns the 'skills' needed for 'high skilled jobs' at today's universities you are totally, and utterly clueless. University has been dumbed down so much its basically an extension of school. It is totally awful. This includes engineering degrees at Russell Group universities. I know of more than one lecturer in electrical engineering that had their modules removed from the course because it was 'too hard' - too hard for a degree level should not be possible. Most likely if you are intelligent you will sit there idle for 4 years. All you have to do is turn up to get a 2:1. It really is the most diabolical con I have ever seen. European countries managed to build huge cities, huge structures and develop the technology to fly to the moon and back without the entire generations going to university. You do not need to go to university to 'acquire' a skill set. You do that by actually doing a job. If you were to actually hire someone from a Russell Group university in electrical engineering after an MEng, for a highly technical position, you would most likely need to train them for another 2 or 3 years anyway before they become useful. University is just a wasted 3 years. I agree that you won't learn the skills needed to start in a highly skilled job tomorrow, but has that ever been the case? If you take your engineering example, or software as an example - the actual job is far more complicated than 10 or 20 years ago, you in theory university needs to be extended to 5 years to cover the extra complexity or employers need to 'suck it up' and get on taking in graduates. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
porca misèria Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 I agree that you won't learn the skills needed to start in a highly skilled job tomorrow, but has that ever been the case? If you take your engineering example, or software as an example - the actual job is far more complicated than 10 or 20 years ago, you in theory university needs to be extended to 5 years to cover the extra complexity or employers need to 'suck it up' and get on taking in graduates. The sharp end of a techie/engineering job has become massively easier since "Just Google It" replaced "Aaargh, this should be simple, who the **** has got TFM? Who??? Must've been before my time! Dammit, why do I have to reverse engineer the **** thing and re-invent the wheel?" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wurzel Of Highbridge Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 The sharp end of a techie/engineering job has become massively easier since "Just Google It" replaced "Aaargh, this should be simple, who the **** has got TFM? Who??? Must've been before my time! Dammit, why do I have to reverse engineer the **** thing and re-invent the wheel?" I am not sure the job has become 'easier', but you could say that productivity has increased without the benefit going to the employees. But then again the number of office houses wasted f'ing about on face book, youtube and messaging on Skype. Back when I started in engineering & software all you needed to know was how to write software and a spaghetti fashion and as long as it did what the boss wanted all was ok. Not these days! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 (edited) Back when I started in engineering & software all you needed to know was how to write software and a spaghetti fashion and as long as it did what the boss wanted all was ok. Not these days! What were you writing? Hopefully nothing mission critical. Compared to when I started we don't even do software engineering anymore. 25 years ago I was writing internals for Unix 5.3 and it certainly was far from spagetti code. Oh and we used to test stuff before releasing it back then too. In fact we had a group called QA who were experts at testing. I think they are called "customers" these days. I don't know what a CS or SE course involves these days, probably clicking on some microsoft development tool and doing a bit of HTML and Javascript but certainly back in the day you noticed a big difference between CS grads and people from other disciplines like Maths and Physiscs who'd blagged their way into CS in terms of code quality or lack of it. So they must have taught them something on a CS degree. However it is a hard subject. You probably need around 5 to 7 seven years post degree to become good - a bit like a medieval apprenticeship. Edited August 8, 2014 by davidg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted August 8, 2014 Share Posted August 8, 2014 I don't really understand this thread. Nothing can prepare you for work except work. I'm mediocre technically (decent degree and PhD but no great shakes) but when I started working I flew. The simple reason is that can I learn what I need to know and little more and apply it very, very quickly. That skill (probably more correctly an aptitude) makes me very suited to coprorate life. Especialy in a technical business where the techie stuff just isnt taught at undergrad level. Some people just don't get that. When we carried out our benchstrength exercise this year it was very telling that our two most technically gifted staff scored lowest on both all round performance and potential. It's a shame, but that's how it is. No matter what feedback they get they still think their progress is 100% based on technical performance, but no one ever got promoted just for being good at their job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ah-so Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) My university was a Russel Group and I now work in a university outside of the UK. The level of the lecturers and research conducted there was very very high, the standards on the acual courses however were very poor. Your last question is pointless in my opinion. Not sure why you think it is pointless. My reasoning is on the pressure to get an upper second today to get into a graduate type job. Are you therefore better off going to a lower ranked university where it might be easier to get a 2.1 (you suggest that you only need to turn up - God knows what the rest do!), than go to a better university and get a 2.2? http://www.graduates.co.uk/what-percentage-of-students-receive-a-2-1-1st-and-2-2-at-university/ Personally I would choose the university over the grade, even if it excludes you from many graduate jobs early on. I graduated nearly 20 years ago and my university still matters in my career. I pressed the quote button by mistake and cannot get rid of this box! Edited August 9, 2014 by Ah-so Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) Not sure why you think it is pointless. My reasoning is on the pressure to get an upper second today to get into a graduate type job. Are you therefore better off going to a lower ranked university where it might be easier to get a 2.1 (you suggest that you only need to turn up - God knows what the rest do!), than go to a better university and get a 2.2? http://www.graduates.co.uk/what-percentage-of-students-receive-a-2-1-1st-and-2-2-at-university/ Personally I would choose the university over the grade, even if it excludes you from many graduate jobs early on. I graduated nearly 20 years ago and my university still matters in my career. An excellent point and this was somehing that the venerable Ayatollah Bugieri(sic) used to bang on about. Personally,I think you're better off going to a top grade uni and getting a 2:2,than gettting a a 2:1 from Barnsley Tech. I would add though that I think it unlikely that the bulk of the best graduate jobs go outside of the top uni's. Edited August 9, 2014 by Sancho Panza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sancho Panza Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/11021768/University-admissions-to-top-500000-for-the-first-time.html 'A quarter of A-levels will be graded at least an A next week as the number of students accepted into British universities exceeds 500,000 for the first time.' 500,000 living the dream. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habeas Domus Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 what universities should do (if left to academics) is fail 50% in the first year as the education in that field is, as you say, of no use to them. It was Thatcher and Blair who essentially told us (the professionals) that we simply could not fail people. After all if we fail people after one year they would appear on the unemployment stats. When a course is failing a high proportion of the students I see that as a failure of the University - either you are accepting the wrong intake who don't have the sufficient preparation work in place, or your teaching methods are just not working. If 50% of people are failing a course then it should be the lecturer and/or admissions staff joining the dole queue not the students. Imagine if that attitude was accepted in other areas of life: a Chef who burned 50% of the meals cooked, a car production line where 50% of the cars didn't work and had to be scrapped. The idea that some people just do or don't have an aptitude for a particular subject has been proven wrong many times, if you dedicate enough time to it you can learn anything. The problem is not that the pass rate is too high its that too many courses have been dumbed down to make the results from poor Universities look better than they really are. Of course if all the Universities did this - raised the standards and implemented admission testing, they would soon find themselves half-empty. Also I think its worth mentioning that a lot of people judge one University against another, but quality can vary a lot from one course to another. Just about every University will have one department full of out of touch old duffers and another department doing really good work - but its impossible to figure out which are the good courses just from looking at University-wide published results figures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RentingForever Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 (edited) I've just spent the week at a former London poly now calling itself a uni - no names but it's out in the SW suburbs on the river. They have a high intake now of overseas students, mostly chinese. Essentially they're starting to move themselves out of educating home students and to become an international education business leveraging the London brand, the Uk's reputation for good unis, their inheritance of taxpayer-funded buildings and facilities and still receiving plenty of public funds. If our kids are giving up on unis, the unis will just go and find another, more lucrative student base. Edited August 9, 2014 by RentingForever Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Habeas Domus Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 So, if you were 18 and clutching good-but-not-Russell-group-good A Level results, what would you do? Or how would you counsel your teenager in this position? What is a good career these days and what is the best route towards it? I would seriously look at the options for studying in Europe, you can be taught in english, pick up some language skills in your spare time, gain the experience of living abroad and avoid racking up a huge debt. Yes you will rack up a few £100 easyjet flights to get there and back but compared to the 10,000's you will save in fees thats small change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 I would seriously look at the options for studying in Europe, you can be taught in english, pick up some language skills in your spare time, gain the experience of living abroad and avoid racking up a huge debt. Yes you will rack up a few £100 easyjet flights to get there and back but compared to the 10,000's you will save in fees thats small change. Do you have a suitable example of a physics course taught in English in Europe? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xiox Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Do you have a suitable example of a physics course taught in English in Europe? http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/international-students/bachelor-s-studies Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frozen_out Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/international-students/bachelor-s-studies Read the admissions part. The courses are primarily designed for exchange students and not all English speaking courses are open to independent students. So I'm still looking for a BSc Physics course in Europe taught in English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Do you have a suitable example of a physics course taught in English in Europe? Its another HPC meme, there are very few free degree courses taught in English in Europe - Holland might offer something but checking the Universities reveals very few taught in English. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
davidg Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 http://www.lunduniversity.lu.se/international-students/bachelor-s-studies good one, thanks http://www.edu.physics.lu.se/bachelor/ it appears to be free for EU students Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmellow Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Its another HPC meme, there are very few free degree courses taught in English in Europe - Holland might offer something but checking the Universities reveals very few taught in English. Its easier to find Masters courses in English. Most of the lecturers in Engineering, Physics etc are going to speak English well. But doesn't mean they will lecture or hand out notes in it unless they are a non-native speaker themselves. It is supposed to be some kind of rule that you teach in the native language at undergraduate level but if the teacher is foreign as well they might just do it in English. I would say in Europe the universities have similar problems - everybody goes and its just an extension of school to remove them from the statistics. But its better going abroad IMO because you might actually gain something out of living abroad and its also cheaper. If you are from the EU you can also go to Scottish universities for free, but English students cant. I graduated in 2011 btw THe actual technical work I am doing now I could have started when I was 18. The 4 years at university didnt help me, I think I actually got thicker by being there and doing nothing for 4 years. Yes its partly my fault for not going to the library and asking for extra project like to produce real research publications with use of the excellent research facilities etc but that is also modern university. THe cost of it also means I placed paid work far ahead of extra work for free at the university that would have got me doing research and/or writing publications. The general culture is just that you are there to get this paper and its going to get you a job. That is all that 95% of the people care about. They are buying access to the job market. University is there to place financial barriers to certain professions. Nobody can actually tell me what you have gained (other than a bit of paper) by going to university over going travelling or working for the same period Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmellow Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 Not sure why you think it is pointless. My reasoning is on the pressure to get an upper second today to get into a graduate type job. Are you therefore better off going to a lower ranked university where it might be easier to get a 2.1 (you suggest that you only need to turn up - God knows what the rest do!), than go to a better university and get a 2.2? http://www.graduates.co.uk/what-percentage-of-students-receive-a-2-1-1st-and-2-2-at-university/ Personally I would choose the university over the grade, even if it excludes you from many graduate jobs early on. I graduated nearly 20 years ago and my university still matters in my career. I think your question is still pointless You are still viewing university as a ticket that gets you access to certain jobs, like all the other mugs paying 9k for it Its no different to going to Disney world and wondering which freedom pass you should buy to get you access to Universal Studios, Magic Kingdom or MGM Studios. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshmellow Posted August 9, 2014 Share Posted August 9, 2014 and it doesnt matter anyway a 2.2 from nottingham or a 2.1 from bullsh*t poly is the same Both are completely worthless when everyone goes to university. You ought to see the standards of students in Russel group universities as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.