Some of our young people are half way through their degrees (2019/20 intake): lockdowns on repeat, light at the end of the tunnel with vaccinations (?) and the legacy of COVID-19

[NewModelArmyMayhem18]

Previous thread

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose is all I can say!

@Newgirls, you mean that the uni wants their students to stay at (the familly) home? How can they enforce that unless they offer to pay students' rent for that term?

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

It must cost more to provide labs and other practical elements, so surely those courses should cost more than the purely online ones?? I suspect the courses with practical elements cost a lot more to run than humanities ones. This would make me think that the Humanities students are effectively subsidising the STEM type courses by paying more for less (if that makes sense)? So there is already an unfairness to standardising fees when you think about it (shockingly so!).

Yes, that's my point. If the students on non STEM courses were subsidising the STEM type courses in "normal" times pre covid, they're getting an even worse deal now. And yes, it does make more of a difference now that students are paying for their courses.

My son is doing a Financial Maths degree and has not even seen a lecturer since he started last September, let alone any kind of lecture etc. He's been doing a lot of research about his options and has been looking at getting an accountancy qualification by a different route, and has been absolutely amazed at how much cheaper they are to end up with basically a similar qualification (in terms of standing rather than content). I'd be very surprised if he goes back (either online or in person) to his current university in September - he's really getting more excited about alternative routes to gettng either a degree or an equivalent (or better) professional qualification costing tens of thousands less!

[quote NewModelArmyMayhem18]@Newgirls, you mean that the uni wants their students to stay at (the familly) home? How can they enforce that unless they offer to pay students' rent for that term?[/quote]
They don’t say any more to be honest - it’s all on their terms and the students seem to be treated like naughty kids.

[quote VanCleefArpels]@user1497207191 your argument re fees might hold some water if the 9250 actually covered costs to deliver the course but of course it doesn’t. Unis depend on all sorts of income streams including the accommodation, conferences, research grants, foreign fees etc many of which will have been depleted if not completely disappeared because of Covid.

Most of DD’s friends have been back living in Uni cities throughout albeit doing online courses precisely because they want some independence and a semblance of a student experience. They will be able to enjoy some activities over the summer before they go back and do whatever is on offer for them in September[/quote]
The Open Uni can provide online degree courses at a fraction of the cost of "bricks and mortar" universities.

It's not the student's problem that Universities have lost other income streams. Your argument is a bit like going into a shop and being asked to pay £50 for a Mars Bar because the shop has lost it's Alcohol licence so has to make more profit on each Mars Bar sold to make up for it. A business doing that would pretty quickly lose its customers and go bankrupt.

Students are customers and don't care about the other business activities that a university does. The student deserves value for the money they're paying for what they're getting out of their course.

It really isn't the students' concern that the Uni can't rent out it's hospitality/accommodation etc at the moment. What IS the student's concern is getting what they're paying for, which just isn't happening. And it's not just the face to face teaching, it's all manner of other facilities that Unis aren't providing.

Yes this ^

I'd never previously thought about how the current system disadvantages the students with little/no practical elements (and less teaching time) to their courses. I'm now outraged.

@NewModelArmyMayhem18

I'd never previously thought about how the current system disadvantages the students with little/no practical elements (and less teaching time) to their courses. I'm now outraged.

Indeed, it never used to matter before tuition fees, and wasn't much of an issue when tuition fees were a lot lower, but £9,250 per year is huge, especially for a course that can be done online with little/no requirement for other "uni" facilities. It could well lead to a two-tier system where Unis on STEM courses pay the full amount, but students on other courses than can be done remotely, pay a lot less and simply don't attend Uni - they'd do it all remotely/online. If Unis play it right, they could double or treble the number of students on their "online" courses as there's no physical limit once you stop the face to face activities, so treble the number of students, on half the cost, and you end up with higher revenue. But then again, the £9,250 was a maximum, not a target and it was always intended that some unis/courses would charge less, but that never happened and the £9,250 became the default for all. After covid, that may well need to change!

So effectively, mainly humanities students are helping facilitate the much higher earning potential of STEM graduates. Charming! And isn't it true that the high earner graduates pay off their loans more quickly and with less interest?

It reminds me of DS's school where voluntary parental donations (to the value of £35 a month) were requested to help enrich the sixth form experience of the very bright pupils (i.e. by allowing them to do four if not five A Levels). Fine and dandy until DS got into the sixth form and was only doing three. Needless to say, our contributions stopped the day DS entered the sixth form. However, I'm still cross about it (that £2K could have usefully helped DS personally with tutoring!).

Students are customers and don't care about the other business activities that a university does. The student deserves value for the money they're paying for what they're getting out of their course.

And this sums up what for me is the most depressing result of the marketisation of higher education. Seeing it as a transaction with no thought of the benefits of education for education’s sake.

A ,massive part of what students are missing currently due to CV19 legislation is the making friends and independence and hobbies and ability to take risks side of it which for many is as much a big bit of that for which they pay vast sums as the few hours a week of lectures and access to the library.

Yes exactly @NewModelArmyMayhem18 re Humanities (my two) subsidising potentially much higher earners in STEM subjects

And yes @user1497207191 re it not being the students fault.

And I agree @Xenia

The current system sucks.

@VanCleefArpels

Students are customers and don't care about the other business activities that a university does. The student deserves value for the money they're paying for what they're getting out of their course.

And this sums up what for me is the most depressing result of the marketisation of higher education. Seeing it as a transaction with no thought of the benefits of education for education’s sake.

Oh I don't know. It's highlighting value for money between different options. You can end up with the same qualification for a fraction of the cost by using a different supplier. That's a pretty good life skill.

@Kazzyhoward I don’t disagree with you but again the focus of your comment is on the prize and not the journey. When I was a student in ye oldene dayes when we gave not a second thought to costs and vfm we had a certain freedom I think to enjoy university education partly at least for the joy of the learning and the life experience.

[quote VanCleefArpels]@Kazzyhoward I don’t disagree with you but again the focus of your comment is on the prize and not the journey. When I was a student in ye oldene dayes when we gave not a second thought to costs and vfm we had a certain freedom I think to enjoy university education partly at least for the joy of the learning and the life experience.[/quote]
Which is fine in "ye olde days" when only the most academic/most interested in education, went to Uni. Now we are suffering Tony Blair's aim to get 50% through Uni and most of those will only be going because they know most decent jobs now require a degree as part of the selection process, even though a degree isn't needed for the role. Tony Blair really screwed things up with that stupid 50% aim and the introduction of tuition fees. If most of the students are only there for the "destination" not the journey, then unis need to rethink their offerings.

Now we are suffering Tony Blair's aim to get 50% through Uni and most of those will only be going because they know most decent jobs now require a degree as part of the selection process, even though a degree isn't needed for the role. Tony Blair really screwed things up with that stupid 50% aim and the introduction of tuition fees. If most of the students are only there for the "destination" not the journey, then unis need to rethink their offerings

I totally agree with you. Unfortunately, I know students who went to university to drink and party and worse, with gaining a degree being a secondary aim. Maybe Tony Blair meant well, but all it has done is devalue a university education, and students now feel obliged to continue with post graduate degrees before entering the workforce.

I was just going to say that a Masters is as essential as a first degree was to generations past, I would have thought, particularly in the current employment climate?

@Kazzyhoward you’ve hit the nail on the head. The value of a degree is far less when every second person has one.

Surely every second person having a degree (although only in those in certain age-groups (the under 40s?) just makes for a more polarised society?

More polarised than when only 15% odd had degrees? Not sure I understand NewModel

@VanCleefArpels

More polarised than when only 15% odd had degrees? Not sure I understand NewModel

When on 15% had degrees, there were lots of different levels of jobs, i.e. it was generally accepted that 5 GCEs at C grade inc Maths and English got you a good "office" job often in the public sector. 3 A levels got you a trainee/apprentice job working towards a professional qualification, etc. You didn't need a degree to become a teacher or social worker or nurse.

Now it's maybe half:half with/without degrees, all that flexibility and options have gone for those without a degree. That's the "polarised" degree versus no degree situation we've got ourselves into. Without a degree, you're pretty much stuffed if you want a profession or decent job, whether that profession/job actually requires a degree or not.

A degree has become a "weed out" tool for recruiters etc. That's left a massive vacuum of little/no opportunities for those without degrees who actually want more than a shelf stacking or driving job.

Ah understood! And I agree. My eldest has a good “graduate” job that he says any bright school leaver could actually do (admin role, needs organisation, attention to detail and confident communication skills)

@user1497207191 I couldn't have explained it better myself and thanks.

yes and my mother was an excellent primary school teacher. She spent 2 years at a residential teacher training college, really enjoyed being away from home, made friends for life and started teaching aged 19 as Cert. Ed. I don't think she was a worse primary school teacher than one with today's A levels, a degree and PGCE and teaching practice year. She was earning 4 years before today's primary school teachers.

My excellent teacher friend is a DipEd.
Not degree level, still excellent.