Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Higher education

Talk to other parents whose children are preparing for university on our Higher Education forum.

Original poster

To think that top universities and in demand university courses should be free?

129 replies

queefeey · 30/01/2019 16:32

Do you think that top universities such as Oxford, Cambridge, UCL, LSE, Imperial, et al. should be free for students?

I do not see the government funding ex-poly courses to be worthwhile, unless of course they are funding for a skill that is in need.

Courses such as medicine or nursing ought to be free too. Then perhaps if someone fancies 3 years of very little work doing their passion that is not a worthwhile investment of government money, then they can get a loan like now.

OP posts:
00100001 · 30/01/2019 16:34

no.

Racecardriver · 30/01/2019 16:34

No. It’s not fair to make lecturers and tutors etc work for nothing. Unless you mean tax payer funded (not free)? In which case why should the tax payer pay for something that makes the recipient more employable? The current system is fine. It allows easy access but ensures that people repay the government for the privilege.

00100001 · 30/01/2019 16:34

why should they be free?

00100001 · 30/01/2019 16:37

" not a worthwhile investment of government money, then they can get a loan like now."

which subjects would not be a worthwhile investment?

yearinyearout · 30/01/2019 16:39

No, although it would've saved me a fortune if they were. Who gets to decide what counts as worthwhile though? My eldest went to an ex poly to do a specific vocational degree that wasn't available at a red brick uni. She got a first, walked straight into a job doing what she trained to do, and is doing very well in her career. I'd say that was worthwhile. DS on the other hand is doing a science at a top ten uni, he may not get a job/forge a career out of it, who knows. So who's to say what's worthwhile and should be free?

Parthenope · 30/01/2019 16:41

What about degree courses that focus on people's 'passions' at Oxford et al? Or should the fact that they do involve hard work, albeit only for bursts of eight weeks at a time, and make their graduates highly employable, be offset against the frivolity (in your view) of their subject matter?

I don't think you'e thought this through.

Original poster
queefeey · 30/01/2019 16:42

It would be difficult to decide which courses ought to receive full government and which ones shouldn't. I do believe that degrees that focus on people's passions from Oxbridge et al ought to be free. The people studying them are highly intelligent, and are highly employable for that reason.

OP posts:
RomanyRoots · 30/01/2019 16:43

No subjects aren't worthwhile
HTH

Doilooklikeatourist · 30/01/2019 16:44

No
Why shouldn’t someone study a fun degree if they want to ?

FamilyOfAliens · 30/01/2019 16:45

Sounds a great idea, OP.

Can’t think of any reason why you’re not the Universities Minister.

00100001 · 30/01/2019 16:47

"It would be difficult to decide which courses ought to receive full government and which ones shouldn't."

Go on then.. tell us which ones shouldn't be funded by the government then...

00100001 · 30/01/2019 16:48

"It would be difficult to decide which courses ought to receive full government and which ones shouldn't."
Sorry misread - however, there is no way to measure what is a useful degree and what isn't - so it couldn't possibly work.

treaclesoda · 30/01/2019 16:49

I do believe that degrees that focus on people's passions from Oxbridge et al ought to be free. The people studying them are highly intelligent, and are highly employable for that reason.

Well then you're just adding privilege on top of privilege. Intelligent parents often have intelligent children, so a child whose parents both went to Oxford and became highly employable and subsequently became wealthy might then get a free education. Whereas an intelligent child from a working class family, who feels too intimidated by Oxford but applies to a more accessible university would have to pay for their degree. It just doesn't make sense.

00100001 · 30/01/2019 16:49

"I do believe that degrees that focus on people's passions from Oxbridge et al ought to be free. "

so why is a "passion" subject at Oxford free, but costs (say) £27000 at Manchester?

OP posts:
RednaxelasPony · 30/01/2019 16:52

University is already free at the point of use. What's your point?

Emc23 · 30/01/2019 16:54

I know a guy who got a first from Oxford in Byzantine history. What would the ROI be if he’d got it for free?

00100001 · 30/01/2019 16:55

queefy so ... you never listen to the radio? You see no value in producing radio content? Hmm

Original poster
queefeey · 30/01/2019 16:59

You cannot study an undergraduate degree in purely Byzantine history at Oxford ...

OP posts:
BubblesBuddy · 30/01/2019 17:01

Well, with the current system, everyone can make a choice. If the young person decides a university education isn’t for them, that’s fine. We already know the most privileged in society disproportionately take up places at the best universities and are over represented in top jobs such as medicine, the judiciary, and even journalism so your plan to offer them free courses would give them even more privilege!

You could argue that high flyers should pay off their loans, with interest, because they can actually afford it! The loan system helps the less privileged go and with a bit of luck, aid social mobility. After 5 years post university nurses, at least, have graduate employment and are better off than around 50% of grads. These degrees are good value for money as they have a skill for life and a job for life with a guaranteed pension. Unlike many other people.

Petalflowers · 30/01/2019 17:02

Why would someone studying their passion, such as English get it free, and someone studying English at Canterbury not get it free? They could both be passionate about the subject.

Who decides also what uniis ‘worthwhile’. Some of the best courses in certain subjects are at ‘lesser uni’s, or dare I say, ex-polys.

My niece went to a red brick uni, and gave up after a term. She then did an entertainment-related degree at a college offering degrees, got a first, and been employed in a good job since.

anniehm · 30/01/2019 17:02

Why, they have far more privately educated students and those from other wealthy families who have bought tutoring etc. Ex poly's often have kids from low income households, first in family to university and crap schools like around here (no state grammar schools in this county)

titchy · 30/01/2019 17:05

Are you Jacob Rees-Mogg and can I claim my £10?

Original poster
queefeey · 30/01/2019 17:07

@bubbles Yes some good points, perhaps bordering on socialist. What about those who do work their butts off from deprived areas and awful schools and still manage to get those top university places, should they have to pay? Even when some at the lesser universities just couldn't be bothered to work hard in school?

OP posts:
Fontofnoknowledge · 30/01/2019 17:19

What a great idea ! Because the upper middle class/ rich (who occupy over 90% of the places at Oxbridge and Russell group universities ) need a bit more of an advantage don't they. ? Poor lambs having to pay like the ignorant masses with their stupid nutrition degrees from an ex poly are certainly not worth the funding by comparison.

It's not enough that they buy themselves into the best state catchment for primary ,then BUY their way to the selective grammars by coaching their averagely intelligent child past the 11+ from age 8.. thus denying a place to a naturally gifted child ,who can get no prep for the exam because the schools don't support it and the parents can't afford it...so having bought their way through school in the state system or paid their way in the private system .. let's give them some money back !! It's cost them a fortune to manipulate their way to educational advantage after all !

I cant decide if you are staggeringly naive in this suggestion or just unbelievably self absorbed. I fear it's the latter.