h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Sorry Sho, I have to disagree with that. There are many degrees and studies taken that add no qualitative value to the community of tax payers. While I struggle to meet my Tax-Man, I would feel badly used to being obligated to pay for the education of someone who is studying to define the artistry styles of some obscure painter or transcribing script that has been read and translated thrice from the ancient ruins.

Nurses, police, elementary school teachers - they affect all of our daily lives and our future.

I know that many discussions declare that "the arts" enrich the entire community. In reality, it's a pretty small measure of people that attend opera, live theatres, concerts and such. The Arts help to enrich the lives of those who have time and coin to attend them.

we'll disagree

the arts aren't just about opera etc which are attended, fwiw, by people like me.

Studying ANYTHING to degree level shows commitment and the ability to study and learn - that's not to be sniffed at whatever. I don't want a world full of engineers, I want a rich world full of people who do what they're good at and are allowed to do that.

This looking down on people who don't pursue "worthy goals" and so on is divisive piffle imo.

One of my colleagues was telling me this week how he passed his media studies degree, and his final dissertation was to make a 4-minute pop video, and how much fun he had doing it.

He's half my age, and is earning three times my salary designing new products for the media client I work for.

I used to hold that opinion Sho, but all degrees are not created equal - and I think they are less equal than they were.

Icy - If you can't have fun doing a degree, perhaps it's the wrong one. I had fun on my engineering degree, and sometimes I'm still allowed to have fun at work. Of course knowing what I know now I might have chosen an easier degree that lead to higher paid work, but would I be happier?

I agree with Sho, as I don't think it is that easy to judge which degrees are "worthy".

Much was trumpeted during my degree about how qualified mathematicians are relatively rare and so can get into jobs that command a high salary, but when it came to me finding a job, I either encountered the attitude that maths isn't a proper science so I didn't qualify, or that mathematicians are indeed rare and beautiful minds, so they didn't want any of them round there... I eventually did get jobs that used my skills, but even though they required high skills they were not jobs that had a degree as essential criteria so the salary was not high...

Learning and demonstrating skills while doing something you enjoy would mean you could do well - you could do something that you didn't enjoy because it was considered "worthy", but then you could struggle to learn and demonstrate skills and so potentially be worse off as a result...

In relation to nurses, I agree that it should be related to supply and demand - if more nurses are needed, then people who want to study should not be put off by the cost of the course. That could mean that people who don't enjoy nursing would do the course because of the bursary attached, but they would be less likely to finish as a result, and if they did finish, then they would have "transferable skills" at least...

There is a problem with free further education for all.

There are many who stake advantage of what is already on offer but cannot make the grade, so wasting resources that could be better provided for those that can make the grade.

The first term of my college course was effectively a rehash of my A-levels as many of the Students were only just above the level of my exam board's O-level standard.

The failure rate of lower level 'Universities' and 'Soft' degrees is fairly high. In 2013/14 almost 25,000 students quit their university, with 17,500 dropping out and 7,500 changing courses.

How does this affect free Nursing courses?

I have a belief that anything that is provided free is neither appreciated nor valued. I am going to have to make the assumption, as I cannot find proof, that those who started their courses and yet dropped out, still have to pay back their student loan. And if this many fail on courses with loans, how many student nurses fail?

I believe that by having to work during, or top up, courses, as American Students do, prospective students will think before applying for a course, as a nurse or any other student, and so be more driven, with a good chance of seeing out the course, getting a qualification and securing the ideal job afterwards.

As for studying a 'soft' course purely to show that a student has the ability to learn does not prove a student has the ability to enter industry.

An example. Someone I worked with was a fast-track graduate entering retail to work at our head office within two years, as a head buyer. She did not have a clue on the shop floor. Could not merchandise, had no Customer interaction, being abrasive and defensive, with poor mathematical skills. She overran her expected 2 years, requiring a further year, and worked in three different stores. She finally got into Head Office but not as a Head Buyer, but as a Clerk. She survived a further 3 years then quit. Her qualification? Egyptology. Really useful in retail.

The previous year not one graduate, out of twelve, survived the year at the store I worked in.

I accept that Nurses are a vital resource and, as Medicine becomes more refined with so many different specialities, requirements and regulations, the restraints etc. are difficult.

I don't think there is a simple solution. Yes, maybe education for all should be free, but so should mental healthcare and secure housing for the elderly, policing, a minimum wage etc. etc. etc. but there is only so much in the financial pot, and everyone will have a preferred way to divide it up.

I know many will disagree with me, and I accept that, but please don't shoot me!

MMF

Eqyptology + retail = pyramid selling

MMF

Mummy!

I think the store you worked at needs to refine its graduate recruitment practices! Or if graduates aren't helping then why are they not simply promote off the shop floor into management.

Medicine has bursaries for the 5th and 6th year of an 5 or 6 undergrad course and 2nd,3rd, and 4th year of a 4 year post graduate course.

I found the bursary a nightmare! The student loans I had for yrs 1-4 covered the cost, + needing about £1000 extra each year from either bank loan or part time job, but in year 5 the bursary wasn't enough to cover the costs at all. The bank wouldn't lend me any more money money. I didn't have parents I could ask. I had parents but they didn't have money.

And to make matters worse the bursary was 5 months late. On my second date with Mrs Zen I had to borrow £200 to pay my rent. Fortunately Mrs Zen noted that this was a potential investment, and lent me the £200.

Your graduate recruit was the mistake of the shop not the graduate or the uni system.

You say some people will consume resources if it's free - you seem to be mistaking free higher education with higher education for everyone which is a completely different thing.

Fast-track graduate programmes are only as good as the company that organises them and the HR recruiters. On the other hand, of course, if the UK had still got its system of good apprenticeships where they were good qualifications regulated by the chamber of commerce and relevant trade associations, there wouldn't be the "need" to label everything a "graduate position"

In Germany higher education is free to everyone. Even foreigners. There hasn't been a loosening of entry requirements.

I find a simple differentiation between who should have full education costs covered by a state, and those who should not. Again, all in an ideal world, mind you.

People with a vocation to help others, be a considerable contribution to their full community. Again, nurses and doctors and firefighters and police. Yes.

People with a want and desire to learn all that they can, purely for the benefit of personal growth and perhaps some enlightenment to others. NO

I'm personally leaning towards Sho on this one. But do we as a society need 50% of people to go to university? Maybe we do. I don't know.

What about a grey area, secondary school teachers. They need a first degree in some subject, and then they need a 1 year teaching degree. Should their first degree in History be funded so they can be history teachers? Clearly by your definition their teaching degree should be. Similar situation for clinical psychologists who require a first degree in psychology.

Another grey area, people who wish to gain a skill that contributes towards the economy, such as engineering. Doesn't help the community by definition, but helps the economy.

Woolly Mammoth - 'Another grey area, people who wish to gain a skill that contributes towards the economy, such as engineering. Doesn't help the community by definition, but helps the economy.'

My degree and occupation is in design drafting. When you climb a stair supported by a hand-rail or stand on a balcony without the risk of falling to your death, you are being helped by someone like me.

Yes the company makes a profit from sales that pays my salary.

Would the community be better off without safe homes and buildings? Maybe most of us contribute in our ways.

As an American, where we are all required to pay for our own education, either with a student loan or a scholarship, I am not qualified to comment on the opening post. My wife worked as a Licensed Practical Nurse and she had to pay for her own education. That may just be a USA thing.



F S

Not all qualified nurses work to heal poor people in hospitals. Not all electronics engineers build microchips for multinationals - some build mobile phone networks in countries that can't really afford them.

Demand for professions rises and falls in cycles. Training a new generation of professions must start during the peak of supply. It takes ten years of prep to build a cohort of ten-year-experienced people. Planning for this will never be effectively addressed by "supply and demand" which is far too reactive.

One option is to build an expectation that some jobs pay off their employees' student loans. A nurse working for a hospital may have their loans transparently taken care of by their hospital. The nurse never sees a debtor's bill nor do they ever pay a penny.

In the US, if you get a faculty job at a state university, the massive loans needed to cover your PhD etc are paid for you.

It is a nice system. I am sure Mr Osborne could work something out with the lovely Tax people and the teams that forecast professional shortages.