|
Post by southlondon413 on May 30, 2024 15:14:09 GMT
Although you're probably going to bankrupt a lot of Universities in the process and also make a load of people unemployed as well. At the same time you are stopping the younger generation being saddled with massive amounts of debt when the course they are studying will offer little benefit to them. In my eyes, this would only be a good move for those individuals. Just means universities will have to adapt and offer courses that are a greater benefit to those taking them. It doesn't mean universities will lose students, just they will be required to offer a better product. Higher education in the UK is long overdue a massive overhaul. I think if combined with a shift in GCSE and college level education it could be brilliantly transformative for younger people. So if children in the first three years of secondary education were given more career advice, they could have more targeted GCSE courses, college courses etc which would help them get to their overall career goals quicker. Perhaps a new GCSE equivalent but in a specific non-school based subject could be useful.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 30, 2024 20:44:01 GMT
Although you're probably going to bankrupt a lot of Universities in the process and also make a load of people unemployed as well. At the same time you are stopping the younger generation being saddled with massive amounts of debt when the course they are studying will offer little benefit to them. In my eyes, this would only be a good move for those individuals. Just means universities will have to adapt and offer courses that are a greater benefit to those taking them. It doesn't mean universities will lose students, just they will be required to offer a better product. Higher education in the UK is long overdue a massive overhaul. But then the flip side is whether these extra apprenticeships will match the standard of degree level, and whether the number of apprenticeships in a given area will be equal to the number of University places lost as a result of this. Then you also do have the case where a lot of these degrees end up subsidising the other courses, probably safe to say a course in Egyptology isn't going to be costing a University 9.25K to put on each year, it'll probably be what's subsidising a Chemical Physics course that costs the University 15K a year to put on. The next question then becomes what is classed as a 'Mickey Mouse Degree'? Do all STEM subjects automatically qualify for these and what determines earning probability? Someone could very well study something like Classical Literature then go and earn a fortune by becoming a train driver. I think an important factor in this announcement is that it's the Tory response to giving 16 year olds the vote. The more educated tend to vote for Labour, reduce the people getting higher education then you can very quickly curb what's a growing population of people becoming Labour supporters that are starting to remain so into later life. Previously this didn't seem to be much of a problem when people would become more socially and economically Conservative as they grow older, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 30, 2024 22:30:54 GMT
At the same time you are stopping the younger generation being saddled with massive amounts of debt when the course they are studying will offer little benefit to them. In my eyes, this would only be a good move for those individuals. Just means universities will have to adapt and offer courses that are a greater benefit to those taking them. It doesn't mean universities will lose students, just they will be required to offer a better product. Higher education in the UK is long overdue a massive overhaul. But then the flip side is whether these extra apprenticeships will match the standard of degree level, and whether the number of apprenticeships in a given area will be equal to the number of University places lost as a result of this. Then you also do have the case where a lot of these degrees end up subsidising the other courses, probably safe to say a course in Egyptology isn't going to be costing a University 9.25K to put on each year, it'll probably be what's subsidising a Chemical Physics course that costs the University 15K a year to put on. The next question then becomes what is classed as a 'Mickey Mouse Degree'? Do all STEM subjects automatically qualify for these and what determines earning probability? Someone could very well study something like Classical Literature then go and earn a fortune by becoming a train driver. I think an important factor in this announcement is that it's the Tory response to giving 16 year olds the vote. The more educated tend to vote for Labour, reduce the people getting higher education then you can very quickly curb what's a growing population of people becoming Labour supporters that are starting to remain so into later life. Previously this didn't seem to be much of a problem when people would become more socially and economically Conservative as they grow older, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. I would argue that an Egyptology course would cost a lot more as it’s a fairly niche subject and would require someone to perform lectures at a much specialised skill level than other subjects would. Just using you chemical physics as a comparison realistically anyone working in that field could reasonably lead a practical based course. I think it’s more about giving young people greater choices and a more solid future. There will inevitably be some jobs that need university but in this modern age courses like journalism or dance or photography or acting don’t necessarily need a 3 year university course. They would be far better as 1 year higher education college based courses with more emphasis on work experience or practical study in the real world.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on May 30, 2024 23:15:33 GMT
www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/universities-uk-rishi-sunak-higher-education-prime-minister-britain-b1160821.htmlForgive me if this has already been mentioned further up but I think this a fantastic policy from Sunak, at least someone has finally had the guts to call this nonsense out for what it is. These days there seem to be degrees in just about anything and everything, people who study some of these courses never get anywhere near paying off their student loan and thus end up costing the taxpayer obscene amounts of money. I have a good friend who dropped out of a film-making degree at a young university to do an apprenticeship and said it was the best decision they ever made, these degrees are little more than money-making for greedy universities. To be clear, problems with higher education in this country and far deeper and wider this, I speak to people who work in the sector about this a lot. New Labour's policy of getting 50% of young people has been particularly disastrous from what I gather. Some of those bogus degrees should have been chopped long ago. Sunak is not the first to attack them and politicians on both sides over the years have criticised them, but not done much to stop them. Also remember it was New Labour that introduced tuition fees in the first place. This started for the year September 1998. Although it was £1000 per year then. I remember it put many friends in debt or causing them to drop out after the uni's were pressuring them to pay up.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on May 30, 2024 23:19:04 GMT
At the same time you are stopping the younger generation being saddled with massive amounts of debt when the course they are studying will offer little benefit to them. In my eyes, this would only be a good move for those individuals. Just means universities will have to adapt and offer courses that are a greater benefit to those taking them. It doesn't mean universities will lose students, just they will be required to offer a better product. Higher education in the UK is long overdue a massive overhaul. But then the flip side is whether these extra apprenticeships will match the standard of degree level, and whether the number of apprenticeships in a given area will be equal to the number of University places lost as a result of this. Then you also do have the case where a lot of these degrees end up subsidising the other courses, probably safe to say a course in Egyptology isn't going to be costing a University 9.25K to put on each year, it'll probably be what's subsidising a Chemical Physics course that costs the University 15K a year to put on. The next question then becomes what is classed as a 'Mickey Mouse Degree'? Do all STEM subjects automatically qualify for these and what determines earning probability? Someone could very well study something like Classical Literature then go and earn a fortune by becoming a train driver. I think an important factor in this announcement is that it's the Tory response to giving 16 year olds the vote. The more educated tend to vote for Labour, reduce the people getting higher education then you can very quickly curb what's a growing population of people becoming Labour supporters that are starting to remain so into later life. Previously this didn't seem to be much of a problem when people would become more socially and economically Conservative as they grow older, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Nonsense at the more educated vote for Labour. You may get a lot of students, due to the indoctrination of them by teachers who are fully paid up members. Years later many of these students realise the reality of the false Labour dream and then would switch to Liberal or Conservative.
|
|
|
Post by buspete on May 31, 2024 0:00:26 GMT
Like a bogus degree in classics at Oxford, which our former partying prime minister got.
I think it is great that many people have access to a greater further education and not the few who happened to go to the correct schools.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 31, 2024 5:58:45 GMT
Like a bogus degree in classics at Oxford, which our former partying prime minister got. I think it is great that many people have access to a greater further education and not the few who happened to go to the correct schools. Nobody is saying that those who want access to higher education won’t be able to still have it but not everybody is suited to university and not everybody does courses that are suitable for what they want to do in life. There’s no point doing a course in Harry Potter, which Durham offered in 2015, if it’s an expensive waste of time. It’s wrong to go to university to take a stupid course like that. Expanding the offering for apprenticeships, widening their scope to more businesses and providing more funding for them just make sense.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 31, 2024 8:23:12 GMT
But then the flip side is whether these extra apprenticeships will match the standard of degree level, and whether the number of apprenticeships in a given area will be equal to the number of University places lost as a result of this. Then you also do have the case where a lot of these degrees end up subsidising the other courses, probably safe to say a course in Egyptology isn't going to be costing a University 9.25K to put on each year, it'll probably be what's subsidising a Chemical Physics course that costs the University 15K a year to put on. The next question then becomes what is classed as a 'Mickey Mouse Degree'? Do all STEM subjects automatically qualify for these and what determines earning probability? Someone could very well study something like Classical Literature then go and earn a fortune by becoming a train driver. I think an important factor in this announcement is that it's the Tory response to giving 16 year olds the vote. The more educated tend to vote for Labour, reduce the people getting higher education then you can very quickly curb what's a growing population of people becoming Labour supporters that are starting to remain so into later life. Previously this didn't seem to be much of a problem when people would become more socially and economically Conservative as they grow older, but that doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Nonsense at the more educated vote for Labour. You may get a lot of students, due to the indoctrination of them by teachers who are fully paid up members. Years later many of these students realise the reality of the false Labour dream and then would switch to Liberal or Conservative. But that's the whole point, people aren't making the switch at the moment. A lot of the people that went to University during the Blair era have remained Labour voters. There's a clear link between education or Labour votes, whether that's coincidental or not is up for debate.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on May 31, 2024 9:02:04 GMT
Like a bogus degree in classics at Oxford, which our former partying prime minister got. I think it is great that many people have access to a greater further education and not the few who happened to go to the correct schools. I do not see the point in this, what a load of nonsense. He has a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics and also a degree in Business Administration. Your Labour loving PM Harold Wilson also had a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics Also the same degree that your ex Labour leader Ed Milliband also has.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on May 31, 2024 9:07:09 GMT
Nonsense at the more educated vote for Labour. You may get a lot of students, due to the indoctrination of them by teachers who are fully paid up members. Years later many of these students realise the reality of the false Labour dream and then would switch to Liberal or Conservative. But that's the whole point, people aren't making the switch at the moment. A lot of the people that went to University during the Blair era have remained Labour voters. There's a clear link between education or Labour votes, whether that's coincidental or not is up for debate. Well that is according to yourself. I went Uni in the "Blair" era when he started and not everyone I went with is voting Labour or supporting them over the past few elections.
|
|
|
Post by capitalomnibus on May 31, 2024 9:42:11 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wirewiper on May 31, 2024 10:01:06 GMT
Keir Starmer would not have a lot of choice if Trump were to be re-elected President, the best we can hope for in that situation is that Starmer, with other world leaders, would act as a force of moderation. Sunak's current silence on this issue is deafening. At least he has the luxury of not having to express an opinion.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 31, 2024 10:09:01 GMT
Keir Starmer would not have a lot of choice if Trump were to be re-elected President, the best we can hope for in that situation is that Starmer, with other world leaders, would act as a force of moderation. Sunak's current silence on this issue is deafening. At least he has the luxury of not having to express an opinion. Explain why Sunak needs to weigh in? Other world leaders haven’t offered their two cents on the Trump issue. The fact that Starmer won’t condemn his actions but would work with him speaks volumes to his character, although it’s better to keep the US on side for when West Streeting sells the NHS to a US medical investors. Besides Trumps convictions are highly unlikely to affect the overall election in the US later in the year.
|
|
|
Post by Eastlondoner62 on May 31, 2024 10:15:43 GMT
Keir Starmer would not have a lot of choice if Trump were to be re-elected President, the best we can hope for in that situation is that Starmer, with other world leaders, would act as a force of moderation. Sunak's current silence on this issue is deafening. At least he has the luxury of not having to express an opinion. Explain why Sunak needs to weigh in? Other world leaders haven’t offered their two cents on the Trump issue. The fact that Starmer won’t condemn his actions but would work with him speaks volumes to his character, although it’s better to keep the US on side for when West Streeting sells the NHS to a US medical investors. Besides Trumps convictions are highly unlikely to affect the overall election in the US later in the year. Probably no need to weigh in if you're not going to be Prime Minister then. Other leaders don't need to say anything as they won't need to make their respective comments until it's closer to the time.
|
|
|
Post by southlondon413 on May 31, 2024 10:19:05 GMT
Explain why Sunak needs to weigh in? Other world leaders haven’t offered their two cents on the Trump issue. The fact that Starmer won’t condemn his actions but would work with him speaks volumes to his character, although it’s better to keep the US on side for when West Streeting sells the NHS to a US medical investors. Besides Trumps convictions are highly unlikely to affect the overall election in the US later in the year. Probably no need to weigh in if you're not going to be Prime Minister then. Other leaders don't need to say anything as they won't need to make their respective comments until it's closer to the time. So why does Sunak? Trump is like a disease, it’s better to not say anything and let things play out.
|
|