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

[queefeey]

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.

DS has an offer from Imperial. With the amount of money they claim their graduates earn it makes sense for them to pay back their tuition.

Completely agree costzana. We should be aiming to over educate everyone to the best level they can achieve. Would solve huge numbers of problems.

So you want the kids who already have all the advantages to get a free degree too?

There are too many poor quality degree courses quite literally being sold to students who are unlikely to see much benefit from them. That's the bit that needs addressing, in most other industries there'd be protection against such charlatan selling practices.

Yeah but is the other non-trade related stuff worth the money? The opportunity costs are things like helping out young families, childcare, nhs, old people.

Not all ‘education’ is learned at uni. You could argue that some people who go to uni miss out on 3 years of things learnt at work. A lot of my parents and grandparents generation learnt by apprenticeships and people doing their jobs now would have degrees. I think it’s a bit of qualification inflation. But you can argue from an economic perspective this has brought the cost of employing graduates down...

Maybe MOOCs can offer a cheaper way of education?

My parents are highly skilled but not university educated. They have ‘educated’ tastes (like documentaries, radio 4, museums etc) but their critical thinking is lacking. I always think how much more they’d get from their capacity if they also had even higher level critical thinking skills.

Personally, yes I think it is. Higher education can transform people's lives. Research shows that the more educated you are the healthier you are (physically and mentally) and you contribute more to society as a whole.

However, I agree that university isn't for everyone and it never will be. Currently only around 44% of the population is educated to degree level and that figure isn't likely to rise much beyond that. But I believe the opportunity to attend university should be available to anyone who is capable. The system suggest by the OP would have a detrimental effect on widening participation and social mobility.

Maybe MOOCs can offer a cheaper way of education?

What this completely overlooks is what is most valuable in a university education - a properly funded liberal humanities one at any rate - that at the heart of the university is the seminar - the discussion and exchange of ideas to engage with other people's thinking (both the texts and the people in the room), and to learn by and through this debate.

A lot of the "highly prized" degrees that the OP thinks should be free were until very recently simply technical subjects: and these degrees are Law, Medicine, Vet Science and Engineering. Those were always thought of as vocational subjects and rarely considered suitable for universities, until the last 70 years or so.

The argument for those to be learned in a mix of apprenticeship and technical education is far stronger, than for other kinds of learning.

Completely agree costzana. We should be aiming to over educate everyone to the best level they can achieve

I hope this isn't a sarcastic comment - because, actually, in all good faith, I think that's what we need.

People at all levels of ability can increase their critical thinking skills. We live in the UK in a service economy which could/should also be a knowledge economy.

Moocs work well for short courses but not for full degree programmes. Plus the uptake has not been great. They're more time consuming and resource heavy than you'd think and people want actual physical contact.
Blended learning works well - a mix of the two but it doesn't make it any cheaper to run really.

No catandfiddle - not sarcastic I completely meant it.

Mrscog Whew! And totally agree - in current times of austerity it's almost revolutionary to hold this view. But thank goodness some of us do!

Namenic: I’m not sure where your information is coming from regarding the professional training of engineers. The degree is only the start! It takes years of suitable work and further study if you only have a 3 year degree in order to satisfy the Institutions of Engineering and attain Chartered status. It’s a bit quicker if you have an MEng. Engineering requires a degree to reach the higher levels of professionalism and grads also need a broad education. They need to problem solve and be aware of career options. Just like doctors! No one tells a doctor they only need to learn about the heart!

Catandthefiddle: you might like to know that the University of Bologna taught Law from 1158 onwards. It’s certainly not a new technical subject. The Italians exported the teaching of Law to many countries by allowing students from all over Europe to attend and take their teaching methods and accreditation back home. As they still do! They therefore informed many of the oldest European universities on the teaching of law.

@catandthefiddle -Exchange of ideas - like mumsnet?

Can critical thinking skills be learned explicitly - there was an a level course in it until the recent re-jig?

Do most unis learn by seminars with active participation from each of the students? Is that their main mode of learning?

@Costanza - what makes blended learning not cheaper? I guess marking maybe? But perhaps doing presentations in front of peers/faculty and getting asked questions might be positive. Good to explore different way of teaching.

Most unis teach using a range of methods - lectures, seminars, tutorials and independent learning.

The are issues at the moment because there is a huge mismatch between how schools teach and what is expected at university.

Blended learning is no cheaper because it requires the same ( if not more) preparation, same amount of marking plus additional IT support.

A lot of the "highly prized" degrees that the OP thinks should be free were until very recently simply technical subjects: and these degrees are Law, Medicine, Vet Science and Engineering. Those were always thought of as vocational subjects and rarely considered suitable for universities, until the last 70 years or so.
*

My understanding of the history of many of the universities created in the 19th and early 20th centuries was that they developed largely for teaching and researching exactly those subjects, and the sciences. 'Simply technical' subjects are where real world-changing development and innovation occurs most. The older universities added faculties for those 'vocational' subjects at a similar time (Cambridge engineering 1875).

A quote from the history of one:
From the 1860s the College found a new vision. Its leading professors looked to German universities that stressed the creation of knowledge, not simply its transmission. For them, research was the key ingredient of a university; it advanced knowledge and was a potential source of material benefits. It also gave students the experience of facing the unknown and of finding out for themselves. This would become true for humanities as well as for the sciences

The real problem is, Errol, is that far too many prople confuse engineering with a situation where a known faultis repaired as opposed to high level problem solving and innovation which requires research. That’s why we describe the person that mends the dishwasher as an engineer. They solve a problem and repair the machine, but they don’t need to research anything or design anything. The highly educated engineers attempt to solve the big problems we face in the world. Look at wind power, designs to alleviate flooding and building the Shard. These innovations cannot be achieved without research or highly qualified engineers to design what is required.

With such a high percentage of middle class kids going to university, (and the posher the kid, the more elite the university on average) having free courses at elite unis is surely a tax break for rich people! There are better things to fund...

If specific organisations with skills gap areas want to offer more scholarships for undergrad courses, or more funded professional/industrial doctorates etc, that'd be nice.

Personally, what I do really support are places like the OU, Birkbeck - both excellent quality institutions, who offer degree pathways suitable for people at different stages of life studying while they are working. More cash to them, I say!

All courses should be treated equally ... And all graduates should be too...

The flaws in the current system are many - in my experience many of the "widening participation" schemes just aren't reaching the intended targets. Those students are actually already potentially entitled to bursaries and other great sources of funds but they are not getting the careers advice and support at an early enough stage to inspire or to encourage aspirations and to then make good choices for gcse and a levels to enable them to access the right courses for potential career paths.

The fees system means that wealthy students can pay up front and avoid the "graduate tax" for student loan repayment and all the associated interest costs that others are paying from day 1, meaning their university education costs less than everyone else.

Students from families where a NRP is a high earner and RP is not can avoid means testing and get full loans whilst others with both parents at home cannot.

Students whose RP is with a new partner are means tested on that new partner 's income even if the new partner has never supported them or lived with the student.

Students whose parents can't or don't make up the loan shortfall have to work or acquire other debt just to cover housing and essential costs.

The lists system doesn't take adequate account of other dependents in calculating parental contributions - there is no acknowledgement whatsoever of 2nd , 3rd etc student to support and the calculations are the same for each student.

Maintenance loans are also insufficient for a lot of students to cover hall fees, food and transport let alone books, clothes and a modest lifestyle. As an example ... just looked at costs for my DD next October... her self catered hall fees at her firm choice are nearly £6k - her maintenance loan if she was entitled to borrow the full amount (she isn't) would be around £8k... leaving £2k for food, transport, books etc over a 9 month period so just over £200 per month for everything after rent is paid. And her insurance is worse - rent is higher.

Realistically, the country can't afford free education and maintenance grants but there are increasing numbers of bright teenagers who are put off accessing higher education by the current funding arrangements, or their families dissuade then due to fear of costs, debt etc.

A "free" at the point of use system for 1st courses would encourage students to access courses but then all who partake need to be paying a graduate "tax" to pay back in regardless of their parents ability to pay up front - and we need to make access to maintenance loans at a high enough level available to all...

In a sense that is what we used to have - free at point of use (although not for me - minimum grant of £50 only and my parents made it up to £900 so I suppose not unlike now) and the grafuate tax - our current massively high rates of tax often 47% upper rate tax and NI - so we are already those of us who are graduates and pay heaps and heaps of direct tax never mind indirect tax, already pay a lot to provde these loans which a lot of people will never repay.

All courses should be treated equally

Why though? They simply aren't all equal. (A) because some are more useful to society at large (personally I'd include eg top notch classicists and historians as culturally essential) and (B) some are much better than others for the same subject area.

Re engineers - it's to the detriment of this county that we use the word for 'mechanics'. The etymology gives a clue...'The word engineer (Latin ingeniator[3]) is derived from the Latin words ingeniare ("to create, generate, contrive, devise") and ingenium ("cleverness")'

Xenia - when I finished my degrees, base rate tax was (IIRC) over 30% and higher rate tax was 60%, before NI.

There are many parents who pay nothing up front with the current system. The maximum loan is too low for many areas though, but it is possible to live off it and the student can work in the holidays.

I still think too many colleges of higher education became universities and too many courses became degree courses without the necessary rigour. This is what leads to ranking of universities and courses. It also leads to poor value for money and students not knowing the value of their degree in the market place.

There are tons of unemployed engineers. By that token engineering should not be free.

Although when rates were higher (basic rate tax plus NI in 2019 is baout 32% already which is prett high) there were all kinds of allownces like the Amercians still have - mrtgage interest tax relief, child tax allowances, ability to covenant money to children and set against tax - all sorts. That was stripped away on the basis our upper rate would only be 40% including national insurance and instead it has shot right back . I don't even get a single person tax allowance of any kind. They take their very last penny. never in British history have highest earners borne the highest burden of tax even though the upper rates are lower than in the 70s.

It is high time tax came right down.