"Those who benefit from a university education should pay for it." I agree!

[ymu]

In Belgium, if you apply for a secretarial job, say, which is not a 'graduate' grade, and you say you have a degree, you will not get the job. This kind of measure is encouraging exactly that kind of additional job categorisation. There should be as many routes into a job as possible, not just attending university. Graduates going for low-paid jobs that do not require graduates will be discriminated against. I still just see bureaucracy, particularly in your idea of a transition period where jobs are categorised. Why do this?

There would be no job categorisation. If you want to employ a graduate trained at public expense in the private sector, you pay for it. In the public sector, there would be no change.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

What if you're not fussed about employing a graduate?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

edit.

 

[ymu]

What if you're not fussed about employing a graduate?

Then you don't do it.

If you mean, a job that could be graduate or non-graduate, then a rational employer would presumably consider whether the best graduate candidate was worth the additional 2% cost compared to the best non-graduate. Not that I've ever been on an interview panel where we considered where they would be appointed on the salary scale as part of the decision. It's not the primary consideration, and nor should it be.

 

[butchersapron]

edit.

That certainly is a different note.

edit: was a different note...

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

I don't disagree, but it's not on the cards is it? Especially not the return of proper grants.

One of the purposes of exercises like this is to show how little it actually costs given what we get back from it. Why are we taking 9% of a graduates income to repay loans and making it very difficult for them to stick with public sector wages, pushing up the cost of employing a graduate everywhere because they are obliged to seek better paid work? 3% for their career covers it, with a full grant included. And why are we providing employers with free training and making it difficult for the people who could best use that training to get it?

It's not just about paying for it. It's about access and reducing the ridiculous fetishisation of degrees when we are so short of actual skills which are needed in other areas.

Yeah but your proposal is not on the cards either? Don't get me wrong, potentially Labour at least could be forced to accept a watered down version with enough pressure - maybe - but so what, it's still not very likely and it's a bit complicated to build a big campaign around imo.

I do agree (as a non graduate) with tackling the fetishisation of university and with promoting apprenticeships, career development and informal learning (in fact that's part of my job) but that can be done within a framework of existing taxation structures and tax breaks.

 

[Johnny Canuck3]

Jobs would not need to be categorised. If you want a graduate to do them, you contribute towards the cost of educating them. .

We already have that. Graduates are paid more money. They use that money to pay off the cost of their education.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

That certainly is a different note.

edit: was a different note...

what did he say?

 

[ymu]

Yeah but your proposal is not on the cards either? Don't get me wrong, potentially Labour at least could be forced to accept a watered down version with enough pressure - maybe - but so what, it's still not very likely and it's a bit complicated to build a big campaign around imo.

I do agree (as a non graduate) with tackling the fetishisation of university and with promoting apprenticeships, career development and informal learning (in fact that's part of my job) but that can be done within a framework of existing taxation structures and tax breaks.

No, it's not on the cards. You're welcome to do the same sums and work through the implications for general taxation and corporate tax structures. But I don't think either of those strategies widen access to degrees which are required by employers whilst discouraging the proliferation of useless qualifications, or address the problem of employers not paying for training (in all sectors, not just university) and recruiting skills from overseas instead.

As I said, I would like to see this sort of idea extended to all forms of vocational training after school. There's no reason to single out universities, especially when they're expanding student numbers beyond all reason but making it very difficult to train to work on a building site. It's crazy.

 

[ymu]

We already have that. Graduates are paid more money. They use that money to pay off the cost of their education.

Not in the UK. I did my first degree in the late 1980s/early 1990s. I paid no fees and had a full grant which covered my costs in term-time. The vast majority of graduates in high paid work right now got their educations for free.

We do not want a system where the poor are excluded, and we do not want a system where well-trained people cannot afford to work in the public sector. We think it is silly to throw a load of talent on the scrapheap because they were born into poverty, and we do not want resources wasted training people who are doing a degree just because they can.

We are not America, and we do not want to be.

 

[ymu]

what did he say?

Something about crowds at a cricket match in India. Presumably posted on the wrong thread in error.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

Something about crowds at a cricket match in India. Presumably posted on the wrong thread in error.

I wouldn't be too sure it wasn't intended for this thread with him to be honest.

 

[ymu]

I do know what you mean, but I am in a charitable mood.

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

No, it's not on the cards. You're welcome to do the same sums and work through the implications for general taxation and corporate tax structures. But I don't think either of those strategies widen access to degrees which are required by employers whilst discouraging the proliferation of useless qualifications, or address the problem of employers not paying for training (in all sectors, not just university) and recruiting skills from overseas instead.
.

Actually I don't need to work through the same sums, and neither do those proposing funding it out of general taxation - we need to present different and much simpler sums.

On your other point, actually i support education and learning for it's own sake not just to meet the self identified needs of the employer, but to meet the self identified needs and interests of the worker. Of course for a stable economy in the here and now, we need enough people with the skills to sustain it - but that would come about due to a natural convergence between the interests of the employer and the worker, without a need to bureaucratically force them together.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That certainly is a different note.

edit: was a different note...

what did he say?

I wouldn't be too sure it wasn't intended for this thread with him to be honest.

I do know what you mean, but I am in a charitable mood.

What do you mean, you know what he means?

That post was up for about two seconds. Can't a man make a mistake?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Actually I don't need to work through the same sums, and neither do those proposing funding it out of general taxation - we need to present different and much simpler sums.

On your other point, actually i support education and learning for it's own sake not just to meet the self identified needs of the employer, but to meet the self identified needs and interests of the worker. Of course for a stable economy in the here and now, we need enough people with the skills to sustain it - but that would come about due to a natural convergence between the interests of the employer and the worker, without a need to bureaucratically force them together.

Yep. That's what I think too. University education should be a right. A right that has a competitive element as there are only so many places, but those places should be allocated according to ability and nothing else.

 

[ymu]

Actually I don't need to work through the same sums, and neither do those proposing funding it out of general taxation - we need to present different and much simpler sums.

On your other point, actually i support education and learning for it's own sake not just to meet the self identified needs of the employer, but to meet the self identified needs and interests of the worker. Of course for a stable economy in the here and now, we need enough people with the skills to sustain it - but that would come about due to a natural convergence between the interests of the employer and the worker, without a need to bureaucratically force them together.

The vast majority of degrees have no specific vocational content, but employers still need people who have developed their skills beyond A' Level. It doesn't cut down the types of degree that are considered useful.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of formal education for the sake of it. You do a degree because you need the bit of paper to prove it to someone. It's not necessarily the best way to learn anything. I support the campaign to end pay-walls for academic literature, I develop research tools using open source software so that noone will ever be able to charge for their use, and my teaching materials go out under a creative commons license (unit policy, as well as my choice). You don't need an academic to teach you, you just need access to the materials you need to learn.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

fucking students!!!

 

[Spanky Longhorn]

The vast majority of degrees have no specific vocational content, but employers still need people who have developed their skills beyond A' Level. It doesn't cut down the types of degree that are considered useful.

Having said that, I'm not a fan of formal education for the sake of it. You do a degree because you need the bit of paper to prove it to someone. It's not necessarily the best way to learn anything. I support the campaign to end pay-walls for academic literature, I develop research tools using open source software so that noone will ever be able to charge for their use, and my teaching materials go out under a creative commons license (unit policy, as well as my choice). You don't need an academic to teach you, you just need access to the materials you need to learn.

Fairplay, I'm quite drunk so I would like to agree to disagree on education funding (for the rest of the night anyway ) and say that in practical terms we probably do quite similar things - I certainly agree with your final point. And part of my role probably generates similar outcomes to yours.

 

[ymu]

 

[littlebabyjesus]

That's not why I did a degree. I did it because I wanted to learn. I also couldn't think of anything better to do at the time and this was still the time that you were paid to go. But I've never shown the certificate to anyone. Any jobs I've ever applied for that needed a degree I didn't get!

I do think that lots more people should leave going to uni for a few years and work a bit first. They'll appreciate what they have when they do go to uni a whole lot more. It is a privilege to be able to study full time.

 

[N_igma]

Education is a basic human right. It should be free.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

i'd charge you fucking double sunshine

 

[N_igma]

i'd charge you fucking double sunshine

Aww come on mate me needy chalkboard and debunking irreducible complexity a lá bacterial flaggelum lessons!

 

[DownwardDog]

This is a good point. It should probably be 1% per year studied.

There will be no loopholes, so the added NI will apply to self-employed contractors. The employer pays through it getting added to the contractor's costs.

That just makes the serial layabouts who take 5 years to get their degree unemployable - which is possibly the intention.

"There will be no loopholes" doesn't seem to be a sound basis for legislation. It would be almost impossible to legislate against some sort of structure that circumvents this without making illegal for people to start their own companies.

 

[ymu]

NI is paid by everyone, at variable rates depending on earnings and employment status. I don't see what's so difficult to implement.

Serial layabouts do not deserve to take up public funding and scarce places when there are people who would make good use of the opportunity. I don't see the problem with this.

 

[DownwardDog]

Serial layabouts do not deserve to take up public funding and scarce places when there are people who would make good use of the opportunity. I don't see the problem with this.

That's a rather Tory tinged view of the world. Should young people with issues around working hard should be penalised for the rest of their working lives because they switched from Golf Course Design to Motorsport Studies at the end of their second year?

 

[ymu]

That's a rather Tory tinged view of the world. Should young people with issues around working hard should be penalised for the rest of their working lives because they switched from Golf Course Design to Motorsport Studies at the end of their second year?

They are not serial layabouts.

 

[DownwardDog]

They are not serial layabouts.

Well, I think they are and obviously they can starve in the gutter wearing skinny jeans. some sort of ironic t-shirt and Converse for all I care. However, people who take longer over their degrees are more likely to be w/c or BME so penalising them massively over the course of their entire working life isn't a very progressive proposal.

 

[EastEnder]

The cost of a doing a degree should be based on a sliding scale of how useful that degree is to society, and inversely proportional to the result you get.

First class degree in medicine = £1000.
Third class degree in geography = £50000.

First class degree in physics = £5000.
Third class degree in art history = £650000.

Anyone who gets two and a half years through a "golf management" degree then drops out without even bothering to do the exams has to donate their organs for transplant then have their eviscerated corpse strung up in public to serve as an example to others.