Would you be a student these days?

Brodiej

Having seen the shenanigans in town today, it made me think about what i'd say to future Brodiej's if they asked about whether or not it was a good plan to go to university. In my day, it was free, bar the additional living costs (which in Leeds) were around £80 a week...so completely affordable whether you were loaded or not (most just borrowed it including me and took a summer job). However, I wouldn't say the academic side of things put me in a better shape when moving into the job world. Undergraduates appeared to be a "chore" for most professors who in my opinion only cared about publishing papers rather than supporting students. Had i been paying tuition fees i would have been furious. I secured my first job before leaving, and ever since then in my career the grade i achieved and subject i studied have been completely irrelevant. I can't argue against the life experience of going to uni, but given that the potential minimum debt you'd come away with these days being around £40k, i just couldn't say its a good thing to do anymore. Plus.....how do you get a mortgage with a £40k debt round your neck? Also, i don't get the argument that its everyones "right" to go to uni. IMO, its not about restricting access through fees, it should be on performance and achievement of individuals. If you're thick you ain't going!

PS: There's a great bar at the top of the Milbank tower where the crusties were kicking off today. Wonder if they made it up there? Probably would have been nice to kick back after all that.

ADGS

Yeah, I really enjoyed my university experience but in practical/employment terms, it's been no use to me whatsoever. And nowadays, not only is there the cost to consider, but the difference in atmosphere and the behaviour of other students engendered by the cost - even the 1999 intake were noticeably more career-minded and studious than those of us who matriculated in '97, so heavens know what it's like now. Sad times.

Ali

University is not so much about the content of what your learn unless your a Medic or something, it is more about how you learn, how to define an issue research it,form a justifiable position/argument on it etc ! at least it was in my day. There is an interesting dilemma for those who have got an acceptance for Uni and have taking a gap year agreed so the acceptance is for the following year. When they were accepted the fees are as they are now for the entire course. The Government has decided that they will be charged at the new rate at the time they actually start not when the contract was formed as has happened before. This will completely screw any planning they had financially with parents etc as the new fees will be charged for the entire 3 years etc while in the past it will have been the lower fee. It will get more interesting generally as LibCon policies start to get implemented as it is already becoming obvious that they have not thought through the details in the rush to get the ideological driven agenda driven through

Arkady

I work around the corner from Milbank. I nearly got kettled in on the way home. They definitely got to the roof, as some SWP pillock thought it would be a good idea to lob a fire extinguisher from the roof. I can also vouch for the coolness of the bar they have up there, the view is amazing. The fee issue is a tough call, really ugly. The majority of LibDem MPs and party members (see survey on LibDemVoice if you can stomach it) want higher education to be brought back under general taxation eventually, as do I (more than can be said for Labour MPs incidentally, which I hope gives people insisting that this is ‘ideological’ pause for thought). I don't think anyone thinks that's feasible at the moment though. I don't know what Labour would have done with the Browne report *that they commissioned*. In the current circumstances I guess they, in common with the coalition, would have mainly gone along with it while also imposing a cap. I hope that they would have also made the repayment system much more progressive than the current shabby system, as the coalition *are* doing, but I'm afraid Labour don't have a very good record in that area. With things as they are the proposed system strikes me as the best we can hope for in the short term. What seems so very wrong to me, though, is that they are introducing it *while cutting funding*. Especially to the arts and social sciences (though there are plenty of questionable courses that probably deserved to lose a subsidy). But the current hysteria just strikes me as naïve and tribalistic. Distasteful. Too any clichés being thrown about, and not enough intellectual discourse, as usual.

ADGS

Yeah, anyone positing this as more proof of Evil Tories Iz Evil needs to check their history. It was New Labour who introduced tuition fees - in spite of several MPs winning university seats with literature promising they'd do nothing of the sort. This was during their first term, the period held up even by those who later lost the faith as some sort of Saint Robin Cook-endorsed golden age. And once tuition fees were in place, they were only ever going to go upwards.

Brodiej

Some really good points here.
@ ADGS. I'd never really thought about the work ethic of non-paying vs paying students and i think you're absolutely right. My decision to go was based on tradition, not really knowing what i was doing (still true by the way), and choosing a subject i was good at. If i was structuring my life around a degree choice now, i would take completely different A levels, all with a specific vocation in mind etc.....as it transpired i just went and did what i thought i was good at (big mistake). In my time, you weren't educated by schools about the implications of what you were doing. You just went to uni, thats how it was. No other viable alternative. Students these days have been forced to consider their choices through tuition payments, and i bet they are much much better than the unfocussed crop of 1996! Better results, more focus, more drive. I'm sure employers will have noticed this.

@Ali. Yes, this is true too. I still find the content of the course marginally interesting, but i can see some skills that i developed as a result of undertaking essay/dissertation writing in my job today. However, within a year of work i probably learnt more than in the 3 years at uni. I can specifically remember interviewers who just weren't interested in the "presentation skills" and "working within a team" examples that i quoted. It was all about what had been achieved in the real world.

I don't think the existing/proposed system is fair and needs a revisit, but to its credit, i do believe that introducing fees has probably meant that graduates today are worth more to business than the slackers (me included) of the nineties who graduated having had a "great time", but were no clearer on what they were going to do for the next 45 years.

Arkady

Brodiej, I’m fascinated by your perspective. Many of my peers (including two current and former academics, both physicists) *criticise* the current intakes because they are more career-focussed and less intellectually curious, while also noting that many candidates doing art degrees (and they are less qualified to comment here) are led to believe that a degree will help them in the employment market, in which case they are possibly being conned. I’d like to see some actual stats on the latter. Regardless, I’m less concerned with employment outcomes than the general broadening of tertiary education throughout society and the social engineering aspects of this, which seem unimpeachably positive to me.

Ali

Interestingly I am wondering why business are being subsidized by picking up trained educated people for nothing ? Surely it is just simpler to have it free or freeish and rely on the fact that if some one is successful they pay lots more tax and do provide society with a lot of social benefits (Doctors etc). Seems to me that one part of the Government is reducing complexity by moving to a single benefit while another part seems to be vastly complicating how Education is paid for ?

andy

To what extent is higher education a public good (where participating in it makes us all better off as a society) or a private good (where the benefits mostly accrue to the individual in the form of a higher salary, better life chances)? I'd argue quite strongly that strong universities, with strong research skills, are really important parts of our economy. Engineering, biotech, and even fashion rely on strong universities. So there's a strong public good argument there. There's also an argument that strong academic performance is an end in itself. The private good argument has always been talked about in terms of the 'graduate premium' that means grads earn more than non-grads. But when the supply of graduates is really high, that premium gets competed away by the market. So I'm looking at an economic argument that says the public good argument is more and more important, but the private good argument is less and less compelling. But the pricing of university is going the other way, with more of the cost loaded onto the student. I guess the only justification for this is that for the public good argument to be true, the universities have to be really really good - intellectually rigorous, challenging and delivering world class research. And having sat through a presentation last week by a graduate student from the University of Portsmouth that had less academic rigour than my A-Levels, I get the sense that there's a lot of flab in the sector.

Brodiej

I think ultimately the jobs market has changed. Whereas in years gone by a degree really stood out as a fantastic achievement regardless of what it was in, and as such you would be employed at a good level in any industry. This meant that you could use your time at university in a different way...exploring, questioning, theorising etc. These days you are one of many thousands, and you have no standout and your degree is worth less. It shouldn't be, but it is. Once you're there, you will do everything you can to build your CV, get that grade, network like crazy just to make that passage into a "graduate" job that is the perceived default outcome of a university experience. I don't mind the latter scenario because i think people are at uni for the right reason, as for being conned....no they're not being conned, but they have been conditioned to think that it is their only route to success. In practice, many graduate with average degrees, don't get that killer job, and get depressed when they don't feel special any more. I think young people have never been more unoptimistic about their working lives.

Here's a question. Given the introduction of fees, the subsequent proposal to raise them, the requirement to pay them off, the potential requirement to buy a house before the age of 40, how would you get people to think less about what they do after education, and to become more intellectually curious and broad minded when they're in it. In short, i think its very difficult these days. People see it as a stepping stone to somewhere else rather than a place to become a more rounded individual. Society loses as a result.

Arkady

Fantastic summry andy. Brilliant stuff andy. I’d add that there is another public (and also private) good, not directly related to academic achievement per se, that might be just as important if not more so. The experience of leaving ones home town for several years, mixing with people from different areas of the country (and indeed different countries) and from different socio-economic backgrounds not something to be underestimated. The broadening of tertiary education has allowed this general widening of personal horizons to be spread to many people who might otherwise have remained… somewhat parochial. I see the stark difference between people who have and haven’t been away to university in my own friends, particularly those who remain in my home town. The correlation between having been or having not been and reading the Daily Mail or The Guardian is quite strong.

Arkady

Brodiej, as above I think the 'becoming more well rounded' bit is a byproduct regardless, and I'm not sure that one could actually demonstrate that it is in decline as a factor.

Brodiej

@ Andy & Arkady. Good points. Certainly the one about "life experience" which is definitely true in my case. Although, i guess my point is that to have that now costs £40k

Don't tell me, those that didn't go read the Guardian right? What a lame way to end that thread.

Arkady

Because I typed it the wrong way around or because you disagree?

Brodiej

I interpreted the comment to be that those that didn't go read the Daily Mail and as such are less well rounded compared to your university educated Guardian reader. Not that i read either paper, but i hate comments like that. Lots of logic and reasoning behind your previous arguments/comments, and then a judgemental generalisation.

Arkady

You might be right, I might be being judgmental. That won't suprise anyone here. I think I'm judging rightly though. I bet you could plot social capital/broadsheet newspaper readership on a graph. I doubt that's a controversial suggestion either. I don't have any actual evidence for that though.

sincers

Whats being missed here (and I haven't done my research) is the debate about competitiveness of UK graduates. Andy's point that this has been eroded because the "every buggers got a degree" argument is valid, but the problem has been exacerbated by the homogenization of tertiary education, which happened largely in the 90's when all the Polys became Unis. That this has been allowed to happen and the value of degrees has been compromised is unforgivable. The greater good is the exportability of UK education, talent, research etc. based on competitive advantage, which manifests itself not just in the individual, but in corporations and institutions. btw, employers value graduates, but not simply because of the discipline in which they have graduated. I think, like many on here, I learned much more than just how Porter Five Forces affects my daily trading. And they do invest in graduate education by paying a premium for them - surely this helps pay off their debt. If we get back to a greater competitive advantage with graduates, their value in turn will be more definable, this premium will more justifiable and the premium will be higher, thus paying off the £9k more easily. It produces a more elite market, such as we had before, but that is inevitable.

miss annie

I consider myself fortunate to have grown up and studied mainly in pretty central London. Even if I hadn't done any further study after secondary school I would have had plenty of life experience. There is a noticable difference in people who have spent time living in large towns or cities and those who have not. One doesn't have to have attended university to have one's mind broadened and it can be done for less than £40k.

sincers

Speak for yourself. I think I'd definitely be a thicker person if I hadn't been to uni (poly); and that's about being exposed to different types of people, which you don't get the chance so much if you knock around with your school mates for the rest of your life. I have a working case study in my brother.

Arkady

I don't think your points contradict each other. One has more opportunity to be, well, *urbane* if one is from an urban area. You know what I mean.

sincers

I think so!? Although mostly I just pretend to be smart. I get away with most of the time except on this site.

Arkady

Ditto. In reality I read the Daily Mail.

Arkady

I think miss annie once caught me reading Hello in the Stapleton.

miss annie

Yes! Although I have seen you reading Richard Dawkins since so you've redeemed yourself.

sincers

With two females in da house, I mostly read Heat, Glamour and Look. Really, I just look at the pictures. There aren't many words.

Arkady

Yes, I'll admit that 'reading' was euphemistic. There was an extended feature on Emma Watson.

ADGS

Miss Annie - I think that in this, as so many other things, London is an exception. You don't need to leave London to see the world. The same may go for a couple of other places, Manchester for instance, I don't know. But I do know people from the supposed city where I grew up who never left and do now seem terribly parochial to me - not unhappy, but already settled into replays of their parents lives, in identical houses in identical suburbs.
Then again, from the corporate feudalist viewpoint by which we've been ruled these past couple of decades, I suppose that's the ideal outcome. Nice anxious little suburban consumers.

nomansland

My son has quit after a year of a politics degree at Manchester he thought it would be all roll ups big coats and old man pubs ! He said its full of boys talking about sports cars and dressing up in togas !

ADGS

<a href="">I don't agree with Stewart Lee's tactical prescriptions towards the end of this clip, but his analysis of the situation is pretty good.</a>

andy

Stewart Lee is currently doing a run in the West End - definitely worth seeing. Here's an interesting idea: <http://thielfoundation.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=14:the-thiel-fellowship-20-under-20&catid=1&Itemid=16>; This guy is offering $100k grants for students to drop out of university. Notwithstanding the fact that he is in many ways bonkers, it's just another way of challenging the uniform utility assumed of a university education.

David

Not having gone to Uni and bemusedly watching a bunch of dodgy college's in Essex suddenly have University written along the side of them I've always felt its a bit like the renaming of the football leagues. One season you were in the 3rd division and 67th best in the country. Few years later your in the 1st division but in reality you're still 67th best. Nothing changed except the expectation that created the resulting inevitable let down. Just feels like some over indulgent mother telling her children that they're all winners in a race where they can't possibly all win and some have to lose. Up the City & Guilds.