Reality bites for gradiuates!

[LondonManc]

Sorry but no. The nerds make the cool stuff, the people who use it to change the world generally studied history or classics or something. Think about it, your typical engineer or scientist is really NOT someone you'd want in charge. For a start, they find things like administration and management boring and people need to be interested in what they do.

It's precisely the kind of closed mind "techies are the only important ones" thinking that demonstrates techies shouldn't be in charge.

Techies? Such a broad brush. You're casually lumping accountants in with nuclear physicists, splendid. This is a new level of clueless for you; feel free to keep on digging, you're well past rock bottom now.

[d000hg]

Fact is - maths/physics require far more intellect than history/english/media studies.

That's not a fact at all. And equating history or literature with media studies is a poor comparison. History requires the ability to research and engage in critical thinking to make cogent persuasive arguments, maths/physics you just learn how how to solve the things you need to know how to solve, or how to get there from first principles.

I'd not say one is easier though they suit different people. It's certainly a lot harder to get a 1st in history than physics - many people just 'get' physics or maths whereas you absolutely cannot get a 1st in history or English without a lot of hard slog.

You'd imagine the loans would be a lot smaller. Fees were circa £1600 round then I think. Any which way, it was early days and not mega bucks as it is today.

Yeah this is true. I paid on everything I earned above £10K I think but there was no interest to speak of and the loan was much smaller. The wife was in the first cohort of loans (I was 2nd) and hers was smaller still and you could defer it - though once you started paying they were fixed payments not salary linked IIRC. She paid off her last instalment this month, aged 37!

[d000hg]

Techies? Such a broad brush. You're casually lumping accountants in with nuclear physicists, splendid. This is a new level of clueless for you; feel free to keep on digging, you're well past rock bottom now.

You're lumping arts subjects together, why shouldn't I make generalisations? Is it because you're a hypocrite with no leg to stand on.

If I'm digging, it's only because I'm trying to get to your level.

[LondonManc]

You're lumping arts subjects together, why shouldn't I make generalisations? Is it because you're a hypocrite with no leg to stand on.

If I'm digging, it's only because I'm trying to get to your level.

I think you'll find I made no disparaging comments about Media Studies; my daughter is doing a degree in 3D Stereography (part art, part science) so I have no feelings either way. My comments were related to a dirth of quality maths and science teachers, so questioning funding for history degrees when it isn't a priority. Carry on flinging your wild and incorrect accusations and generalisations, though, as it's rather quite amusing.

Art needs to work with science, though, not feel aloof as many of them do, just like the PhD lot.

[original PM]

Not a lot of sympathy but if you look at the American system where it is very difficult to get anything but a min wage job wth a college degree then you can see that what is actually happening is that people are being put into debt early on just so they can compete in the job market - and then spend most of their life paying it off so have very little to pass on - and so the cycle continues

Unless mummy and daddy can foot the bill for you.

So it really is a way of keeping the 'poor' poor

[NotAllThere]

That's not a fact at all. And equating history or literature with media studies is a poor comparison. History requires the ability to research and engage in critical thinking to make cogent persuasive arguments, maths/physics you just learn how how to solve the things you need to know how to solve, or how to get there from first principles.

I've done both. The level of knowledge and ability required to get through a humanities degree and get a 2i is considerably less than that required for maths. Not to say, however, that both don't require hard work. However, humanities subjects are mainly about writing essays that regurgitate facts and arguments. Originality is not required, except to get a first, or at masters level and above.

A good maths student can easily get a degree in history etc. The converse is not true.

[PurpleGorilla]

That's not a fact at all. And equating history or literature with media studies is a poor comparison. History requires the ability to research and engage in critical thinking to make cogent persuasive arguments, maths/physics you just learn how how to solve the things you need to know how to solve, or how to get there from first principles.

I'd not say one is easier though they suit different people. It's certainly a lot harder to get a 1st in history than physics - many people just 'get' physics or maths whereas you absolutely cannot get a 1st in history or English without a lot of hard slog.

Yeah this is true. I paid on everything I earned above £10K I think but there was no interest to speak of and the loan was much smaller. The wife was in the first cohort of loans (I was 2nd) and hers was smaller still and you could defer it - though once you started paying they were fixed payments not salary linked IIRC. She paid off her last instalment this month, aged 37!

I guess splitting the atom and designing the microchip didn't involve any critical thinking!

[IR35 Avoider]

Does anyone else think that any loan balances outstanding after 30 years should be charged back to universities instead of being written off by government? This would force universities to consider whether the degrees they offered were economically worthwhile.

At the moment the student and government are taking the risk, the universities should take some risk as well.

[eek]

Does anyone else think that any loan balances outstanding after 30 years should be charged back to universities instead of being written off by government? This would force universities to consider whether the degrees they offered were economically worthwhile.

At the moment the student and government are taking the risk, the universities should take some risk as well.

30 years is too long for Universities to care about. It should be 5 years and come at least in part from the pensions of senior management

[The_Equalizer]

At the moment the student and government are taking the risk, the universities should take some risk as well.

Are the universities not now selling a product? Every university has to display the Unistats figures with each course:

gov.uk - Unistats

Basically, enrolling in a degree programme not dissimilar to buying a car. The risk universities now take is not getting enough students to make the programme worthwhile. I can't see how they should be liable thirty years down the line for a student's debt. It's not as if the student will give them more should they do extremely well out of undertaking a degree.