You don't need to be an 'investor' to invest in Singletrack: 6 days left: 95% of target - Find out more
The government believes too many students are racking up debts studying “soft” three-year university courses in arts and social sciences, and is looking to funnel more 18-year-olds towards technical training that is cheaper and will pay a faster economic dividend.
This actually gives me rage the tories have been taking shots at the arts for years! My degree was not "sort" I worked bloody hard to get my degree (a first at that) and the career I have. There is more to life than maths and science. Uni is about more than education its an extremely important life experience imo any way.
Complicated subject.
Given that taking, say 50% of the population, out of the workforce for 3 years and paying for their education costs a lot, there has to be a balance struck. The money that pays for it could also pay for homelessness, social care, NHS etc.
Funding degrees which lead to high paying future careers makes fiscal sense, HMRC gets the money back plus extra and we’re all better off for it, more tax revenue for HMRC which raises everyone’s standard of living.
Funding degrees with no fiscal payback is less obvious. You can argue it’s great to have lots of baristas in costa with degrees in poetry, contempory media studies etc, but that money could also have paid for knee/hip ops or housing for the homeless etc.
You are actually so clueless its unreal! The arts industry contributes billions to the UK economy. Im so thankful my parents didn't take your opinion of my career choice I was lucky to have a florist and joiner for parents who see value in creative careers. I just feel pitty for you if thats your view.
If your degree will never be paid back then you’re effectively trading off several people’s rights to a hip replacement on the NHS against someone’s right to study Philosophy etc…
What a load of nonsense. What do you mean by "paid back"? Why are you ignoring all other revenue streams for the government? Who determines the "obvious" commercial value of degrees? Why should the less well off be barred from studying thing you have decided are of no "obvious" value, but the well off can study what they hell they want?
The wealth of the teenager is irrelevant.
Not true - if you are from a wealthy family, your parents can pay for the tuition fees upfront, thus removing you from the discussion of whether your choice of degree is 'worthy' or 'unworthy'. (It will also remove you from up to 30 years of an additional 9% tax rate.)
If your parents are not wealthy, you'll have to take out a loan, and answer to whether your degree was worth it to society.
Not true – if you are from a wealthy family, your parents can pay for the tuition fees upfront,
OK, but it's such a small percentage of students it doesn't make a significant difference to the overall sums.
What a load of nonsense. What do you mean by “paid back”? Why are you ignoring all other revenue streams for the government?
Not at all, but if a degree doesn't increase your future earning potential then the money spent funding it has to be traded off against funding something else (as if you didn't go to Uni you'd pay the same taxes of all types over your lifetime). If fact you'd actually pay more as you'd have been working for an extra three years.
Who determines the “obvious” commercial value of degrees?
The market generally, as with most things. E.g. Consultants, Doctors, GPs etc are paid more than baristas, you might not like that or agree with it, but it's just how it is. Consultants, Doctors, GPs will pay a lot more tax (of all types) over their lifetime and HMRC will turn a tidy profit on funding their degree, which allows it to spend more money on other things.
The arts industry contributes billions to the UK economy.
Yep agreed, but what percentage of arts graduates work in the industry, is it 100%?
I was lucky to have a florist and joiner for parents who see value in creative careers.
Neither of which are (or were) degree based professions and the idea of the original policy is to encourage more people to consider such career paths.
The notion that arts and social science degrees are ‘soft’ is deep-fried bullshit if you ask me.
I agree.
Funding degrees with no fiscal payback is less obvious. You can argue it’s great to have lots of baristas in costa with degrees in poetry, contempory media studies etc, but that money could also have paid for knee/hip ops or housing for the homeless etc.
And this is just one example of this kind of 'deep fried bullshit'. And very ignorant, as well as dismissive of fields of study which are arguably just as important in society as the more 'vocational' areas. Yes, we need engineers, scientists etc, but we also need thinkers and dreamers. The UK's creative industries are worth shitloads; music, arts, literature, film, television etc. Any idea of how much tax income is generated through such fields and industries? There are huge numbers of Physics and Engineering graduates out there, working low paid jobs, so it's a myth that 'soft degrees' aren't as good 'value'. And placing monetary value on education is missing the point of education completely; of course we should nourish and educate those with natural abilities in engineering and science, but should we neglect those with more abstract and creative talents? We'd just end up with loads of shit engineers and scientists, who don't really want to be doing those jobs.
A lot of social science degrees are, on their own, almost useless
Please elaborate. I'd love to know what you define as 'useless'.
The UK’s creative industries are worth shitloads; music, arts, literature, film, television etc. Any idea of how much tax income is generated through such fields and industries? There are huge numbers of Physics and Engineering graduates out there, working low paid jobs,
I don't disagree with any of this.
The idea of the orignial policy is to try and better match undergraduates with roles in society (arts, STEM and vocational). By making undergraduate degrees more expensive the aim is to encourage more people to consider othe options eg training as a florists or carpenters (neither of which used to be degree courses).
Eg Physics is an expensive degree to teach and turning out poorly qualified Physics graduates who then work in Costa as a Barista is as poor a use of tax payer's money as turning out Philosphers who work in Costa (IMO). The money you've leant to that student to do their degree came from the same pot which pays for roads, NHS, social care etc. So asking wether it was the best use of tax payers money is a valid question.
I don't think anyone is suggesting we just ban all arts degrees.....
And placing monetary value on education is missing the point of education completely; of course we should nourish and educate those with natural abilities in engineering and science, but should we neglect those with more abstract and creative talents?
We place a monetary value on everything already eg NICE do this for years of people's lives and then calculate the effect on it for every treatment the NHS provides to ensure we spend the NHS budget wisely. No reason why we shouldn't do the same for Education as it call comes out of the same pot.
The idea of the orignial policy is to try and better match undergraduates with roles in society (arts, STEM and vocational)
No it's not. It's to undermine arts and social sciences in order to prevent plebs from becoming educated in fields that might enable them to think more laterally. Make those 'soft' fields the exclusive preserve of the elites, in order to facilitate their control of society and perpetuate the class system.
So asking wether it was the best use of tax payers money is a valid question.
Educating people is always a good use of taxpayers money. Next question.
OK, but it’s such a small percentage of students it doesn’t make a significant difference to the overall sums.
It might be a small difference as far as the sums are concerned, but it's important in terms of social mobility. We can plausibly assume that the people whose uni costs are paid upfront are also the people who go to private school, i.e. 7% ish.
Traditionally in the UK, a rich kid can study ancient Greek, safe in the knowledge that mummy will sort him a six figure job at Carlton upon graduation, but poor kids should avoid the classics and maybe stick to a trade. We want to be evening out that kind of inequality of opportunity.
I agree that there are issues with HE and HE funding, but I'd disagree with basing a solution on the financial return to the individual. Especially when stuff like Nursing requires a degree!
No it’s not. It’s to undermine arts and social sciences in order to prevent plebs from becoming educated in fields that might enable them to think more laterally. Make those ‘soft’ fields the exclusive preserve of the elites, in order to facilitate their control of society and perpetuate the class system.
Except that the same tax increases will apply equally to excess STEM graduates as for excess Arts graduates (excess as in don't get to work in their chosen field due to a lack of roles / or just not being very good at their subject).
And you're also implying that not doing a degree and undertaking a shorter / cheaper vocational course implies they can't still think more laterally.....
It might be a small difference as far as the sums are concerned, but it’s important in terms of social mobility.
Social mobility is a huge subject in it's own right and heavily tied to inequality which is very much entrenched in society. A wealth tax / reforming inheritance tax would be the first place I'd start if I wanted to improve things. Getting a degree, when everyone gets one these days, isn't going to help someone climb up the social ladder as we've (almost) made having a degree mandatory for the first step.
Except that the same tax increases will apply equally to excess STEM graduates as for excess Arts graduates (excess as in don’t get to work in their chosen field due to a lack of roles / or just not being very good at their subject).
Why are you reducing everything down to monetary value?
And you’re also implying that not doing a degree and undertaking a shorter / cheaper vocational course implies they can’t still think more laterally…..
I'm not. But you're actually demonstrating the point you misguidedly think I'm making, ironically.
"Yep agreed, but what percentage of arts graduates work in the industry, is it 100%?"
You could make this argument about any degree - how many mathematicians make a living out of pure maths research ??
Also define work - I studied music and still do paying gigs alongside having a day job.
Also that Physics grad working in Costa, the likelihood of them doing that as a career is very small, chances are they are doing that whilst looking for grad level work or working multiple jobs.
Truth is that lots of people don't go to university - but lots are good enough to, want to and we have universities that want them. Graduates do amazing things in this country but saddling them with eyewatering debt rather than having an efficient tax system that supports the FE and HE sector is daft.
Yep agreed, but what percentage of arts graduates work in the industry, is it 100%?
And what has that got to do with anything? Do a 100% of math or science students end up in related industries? Why does it matter if someone takes 100 years to pay off their student loan or not . If your argument is that money could be used to fund public services lets tax the rich a more realistic rate. Its slightly worrying your transactional view on education. Uni is something everyone should be able to experience if they want to spend 3 years getting a BA in whittling or business studies so be it.
There is some evidence that humanities graduates earn less than STEM graduates. The link below gives chemistry median salary 5 years after graduation as £29k. The same for humanities is £22k. The gap is even bigger for 10 years after graduation – £35k vs £23k. Humanities graduates have the lowest median salary out of those presented.
The problem with using mere statistics, is that it only tells a part of the story. From that graph, we can see that Economics degrees reap the biggest financial rewards. Wonder why that is? Would it be because the banks and financial sector hold far too much power in society, and thus remunerate their own industry far better before they release the scraps for the rest of us? So a Humanities degree is very low down the list; but look at a possible scenario for someone with such a degree: they may well be working in the public sector, such as youth work for example, which is undeniably a valuable job, but is woefully underpaid. And herein lies the root of the problem; certain professions are 'valued' above others, in purely monetary terms. This is unfair. This is what we should be addressing as a society.
We also seem to have degraded undergraduate degrees to the point that pretty much anyone who signs up to Uni gets one, which means they’re bugger all use to employers to work out who to employ.
is that true? Is the drop out / failure rate from Uni radically different now than the 80’s? Whilst the entry rate is much higher there are still plenty of teenagers disappointed not to get the grades they needed for the course or institution they would like, or to get in at all - there are huge publicity campaign around not just one route when exams come out…
As an employer who employs mostly graduates your views on whether they are a good benchmark for who to employ puzzle me. They come with grades; universities come with reputations; it’s not difficult to spot the outstanding ones - but equally we aren’t always looking for a superstar, just someone who will get on with the job…
So, making degrees more expensive might reduce demand and persuade teenagers to consider alternate career paths, which again, might not be a bad thing.
or it might scare off very good students who would do well in a university environment but let those with money buy a future for their offspring.
No reason why we shouldn’t do the same for Education as it call comes out of the same pot.
This is a misapprehension that is used to justify a political choice. There is no pot of money. We have the resources to do what we choose to do. However, we have chosen to make a few people very rich rather than provide health care and education for the wider population. Taxing the poor is just another tool in this process.
I agree it's a mess and difficult to fix in a way that's both fair and politically do-able.
Cynical me says the current system has democratised education too much by making available to anyone, which by diminishing the advantage of parental wealth, damages the life prospects of well-off kids. And we can't have that, can we. Make those other kids think three times, now it's a big numbers debt gamble that potentially dents you considerably for life.
I feel very fortunate to have got through when I did, I doubt I'd dare try it today. I had a good job straight out of uni and had a decent life in my 20s, if they're looking to take money from those who could spare it without suffering then I'd be a fair target. Practical effects probably live in a house share longer, rent longer buy house later, no foreign holiday every year, worse car, worse bikes.
Using a financial stick to beat young people is the worst solution.
Perhaps an appealing one when a) they don't fight back in a way that threatens you, and b) there's a whole bunch of people (young and old) which will applaud the beating of those targeted. Levelling down the uni-educated woke pro-EU type.
interest that they’re charging on the debt that gets up my nose
There is demand for debt by those with capital seeking to produce an income.
On a related topic… I was astonished to discover some of my comfortably well off friends were planning to fund their children through university so that they didn’t have to take loans.
If I had kids in England, I'd be pretty devastated (but forced to accept) to leave them with huge debt from the start of their working lives.
Are there many students going to / leaving Uni with no debt round their neck and thus reinforcing the inequalities in society
Those I know which have parents that could make that happen, do have their own loans. But quite a few did get a chunk of cash "loan" for their house deposit in their early twenties, which is a huge boost and sets them on a different trajectory. The other type, of which there are fewer (likely even more so now in the £9k fees world), lived at home and worked ridiculous hours around uni and between terms.
Are there many students going to / leaving Uni with no debt round their neck and thus reinforcing the inequalities in society
Maintenance Loans are means tested, and those with wealthy parents are not eligible to borrow as much. So they will, by default, graduate with less debt than people with poorer parents - even if their parents didn't want to pay their fees.