[Cause]

I think I am in the middle ground between Batallion and Apt. I believe primary and secondary education should be free, I believe that tertiary education is a privilege that must be earned or paid for out of your own pocket. Everyone in this world should be the given the knowledge he needs to read, do arithmetic and understand things like compound interest etc so he does not live in debt for the rest of his life (Companies in my country really seem to enjoy fucking over the less educated black majority for life by selling them things they will pay off for the rest of their life). That said my country subsidizes tertiary education and continues to lower the standards necessary to pass high school. The result is students who enter university on tax payers money and then proceed to fail their first year subjects for four years in a row and then move on to try something else. That is of course absurd. I believe that bursaries and scholarships should be provided for those who cant afford it on their own but they must prove their capability and must continue to prove through university that they are making acceptable progress or be cut off.

Also Apt please never complain about a government that gives students the equivalent of six thousand rand a month to study again! Their are profesions in my country which dont pay half so well.

[Ulrik]

 (a little OT, its interesting how exams part differs in universities all around the world. In mine was rules set, that if you wont make all required exams in first semester, you quit - it greatly differs really interested from those who really suck or are just lazy - and in further years, you have just one chance to miss an exam in one semester, after second complete fail, you quit) 

This post has been edited by Ulrik: 25 November 2010 - 11:29 AM

[Gothos]

The first uni I went to (best one in the country, no less!) had pretty harsh entry exams, and the first semester (note: semester, not year) if you failed even one exam of the 5 we had, you were out. No excuses. Same at the end of the first year. Next year, I could fail 1, and get a special reexamination for another one. I failed three and had to say bye bye.
The next one I went to was laughable easy. The rules were less strict, but it was a paid school, too.

Go on for several years failing exams? That's a retarted system. Lowering expectations and requirements during the course? Defeats the purpose of tertiary education.

[Shinrei]

I'm with Cause. Free (and compulsory) education until 18 or so, and for those who work hard, earn it, University work. I'm all for government providing scholarships/grants for talented but economically disadvantaged students, but not free for everyone. If anything, it should be harder to get into college than it is now. In the US it's made a high school diploma lose its value, and how many graduates with a degree in psychology do we need, really?

[Cause]

Gothos, on 25 November 2010 - 11:36 AM, said:

Go on for several years failing exams? That's a retarted system. Lowering expectations and requirements during the course? Defeats the purpose of tertiary education.

Yes its pretty laughable. The pass rate for matric (final year of High school) was too low in my country. My government quickly solved the problem though. They did not get new text books, better training for teachers or anything like that. Nope they just lowered the grade for passing.

As for University when you fail you are eventually excluded on academic grounds. Then once a year the student council organizes a riot which generally involves trashing the campus (they also always seem surprised as to why fees go up every year, go figure) and demand that the students be given a 2nd, 3rd or what have you chance. My student council boasts that is manages to get 60-80% of students academically excluded readmitted every year. Somehow its all tied to apartheid,racism and equal opportunity. No one should not have the right to tertiary education. What really gets me though is that when the university organizes extra lessons for students because they can see the massive fail rate coming no one pitches. Or rather according to lecturers and the campus paper the only students that show are the ones the lecturers know would have passed anyway. If you have below 60% and the uni organizes you help and you dont go, that in my mind should be immediate grounds to stop you funding.

[Gothos]

Well, yeah, Cause, absolutely. But that's quite a far shot away from cutting any funding for students whatsoever.

[Cougar]

Battalion's opinion is so lacking in anything resembling reason and any knowledge of the situation that it's almost impossible to engage with on an intellectual level. I teach at a good university in a far above average department. I can categorically state that nobody I teach, nor indeed I would suggest anyone at this university has failed their A levels. The primary objection of most students (and therefore the reason they are protesting) is not a request for free education, but an objection to the raising of fees to the level which will potentially exclude people on lower incomes from higher education. Not only that, but the cutting of funding to arts in general which will see them pay more for a less dedicated education from overstretched departments.

I'd rather not live in a country where idiots think that the study of anything other than those subjects which directly produce economic benefit is a waste of time. In case anyone has forgotten, the author to whom this site is dedicated learned his craft first as an Archaeologist and Anthropologist which has informed his work. In short, a country which neglects it's culture is doomed to be a pretty shitty place to live, devoid of ideas and creativity that may have been encouraged by education.

[D'rek]

I'm on the fence about tertiary education being free or not. I feel that it wasn't particularly necessary a generation ago, when people could do very well with just a high school education, but since then more and more learning has been shifted from secondary to tertiary education. Mostly this is the hands-on, trade-oriented skills like mechanical work or carpentry, which can only be found at colleges, now. Those skills no longer being available to a high school graduate, in combination with job requirements becoming more rigid (so-and-so job requires a college diploma, when before someone would get it just because they knew they're stuff regardless of technical qualifications) has made it more difficult for high school graduates to acquire jobs beyond retail and public services.

[drinksinbars]

@battallion

i live in that same society and work the same hours but crippling someone for life with ridiculious fees to go to a university where there are 400 people crammed into a little room and you learn less than you would on a three day training course seems stupidly harsh to me. People should pay toward their education but giving uni's free reign to such ridiculious amounts is pure foolishness. Also retro grading fees by how you earn is just lumping poeple with a forever burden of debt. This roll over and take your medicine attitude is ridiculious. the government works for us and if it breaks its promises then demonstration is the only response. vote with your feet and your ballots.

[Yellow]

Talking about voting with your ballots, it will be interesting to see how the Lib Dems will do in the next election. That's two of their main policies they've shat on already, all for the greasy grope of power. The Conservatives must be laughing their arses off.

More on topic... I believe strongly that university education should be paid for by the state (i.e. by taxes) but with tougher entry requirements. I think I owed something like £17k by the time I finished my degree (that was in the heady and cheap days of 2002) and I have a good few years of payments left. I dread to think what my children will owe if/when they go to uni.

[Tattersail_]

just 2 add my 2 cents. the government are increasing the amount that people have to pay to £9k per year. i'm sorry but no one can afford that, if you're poor/working class then you'll just be getting into mega debt. they say we're in lots of debt as a country as it is. i don't think people should have to pay £10k a year just to study!!

come on man.

[Chance]

Dunne know how it is out in the world.

But in Sweden there is very few who can get "simple" jobs and university is becoming more and more a necessity for a large part of the population (especially the youth) simply because it is what the market desires. I'm guessing most of the westernworld and a good bit of the developing one is just like this, simple manual labour is inefficient and education makes for more productive individuals. Any nation should encourage its people to have the highest possible level of education and that is a proven fact...if anyone do not belive it read some socio-ecconomic development theory.

Have myself gone to two diffrent universities...first was top grade technical one where expectations (after high requirements to enter) where that 50-75% would fail every test it just was that hard (50+% dropouts in 6 months). Second one reading a masters in history was the opposite people who shouldn't have made it did so frequently even at supposedly advanced levels. I'd prefere somewhere inbetween.

/Chance...glad he doesn't live in britain.

This post has been edited by Chance: 25 November 2010 - 06:18 PM

[Cobbles]

College education should be free.

One problem I see is that when students pay for their education, they (obviously) expect a return for it (a degree). In fact, retention has been a priority of provosts (for the obvious reasons of maintaining a steady stream of income). In simple terms, attracting students costs money (advertising, maintaining a high level football team, doling out scholarships etc.) It's an upfront investment of the university which they hope to get repaid by 4 years of tuition and fees. If, for some reason, students drop out after one or two years, the university doesn't get the same return on investment (and loses state subsidies for every student they lose).

Ok, with this in mind, teachers are pressured to increase retention, which is mostly achieved by letting more and more students pass (i.e. lowering the bar). This is, why at many places, 'pay for education' will actually lower the standards. I have taught physics classes on both sides of the Atlantic, at universities with and without tuition. My experience is that what I do in sophomore or junior year at a 'tuition free' university in Europe (Germany to be precise), is about the same level as first year graduate college in the US (state school, which ironically consisted of ~80% international students, because US students mostly don't even make it into our graduate program). When I think of the money students (parents) have to spend to get a science education at our school, I'm ashamed. They pay tens of thousands of dollars for a product which is much worse than a free product elsewhere.

This post has been edited by Cobbles: 25 November 2010 - 06:21 PM

[ShadowRaven]

I hope this post doesn't become a marathon, since this is a pet subject of mine

IMHO, getting into a university should always be a question of motivation and ability, nothing else. There are so many subjects in universities that have nothing or very little to do with the material that is taught in high school for the most part (law school, architects, etc.) that basing entry on high school success alone doesn't seem very sensible to me. However, in some subjects high school results can be applied directly (mathematics, physics, etc.). Then there is the whole issue of people, especially boys vs. girls, maturing at different points in their life and starting to be motivated by something. A lot of people do poorly overall in high school because they are only motivated in a few subjects (in which they can excel), and as a university degree often highly specializes in one field it would be ridiculous to not let people really interested in that specific subject get in because they weren't motivated to study other subjects that much earlier. The way it works in Finland (highly generalized ofc) is that most subjects have extensive entry exams, but you get additional points for doing well in related subjects on your high school graduation exams. You can also get admitted directly to some programs if you excel in your high school courses and graduation exams in the same subject, for example physics, but people who didn't do quite so well in high school still have the ability to get in with the entry exam.

I do get the idea that in a system where one has to pay for his education, smart students from poor environments get grants, etc. but it doesn't change the fact that most university students are not exceptionally brilliant, they are good or slightly above average. Research has shown that in countries without free higher education, these people mostly come from higher income families. Add to that the fact that kids from low income families usually get their basic and high school education from schools in poorer areas where the most talented teachers might be disinclined to go. This, in turn, reduces most of those students' chances to do well in graduation exams. There has been a lot of research done on the issue and it has been found that free higher education dramatically improves the movement from one income class to another, so I'm all for it.

Another issue is that people have misconceptions about subjects taught at the university. There are people who drop out at some point because the reality of the subject they are studying doesn't match their expectations. They might be able to perform very well in another subject, but if they are deep in debt at that point they might never be able to study that other subject and end up being a high school graduate with no further education. A perfect example of this is me: I did extremely well in high school and applied to law school and business school, and got into the latter. My priority choice was law school, but after I heard the reality from my friends studying there, and took a few minor subject classes there, I realized I would never have enjoyed it, and probably wouldn't have done very well. For me, a school of economics was just the right place to be and I ended up graduating with honors. If I'd gotten into law school in a country with expensive higher education, I would never have been able to afford the switch.

There are naturally downsides to free higher education as well, the main one being cost. Free higher education costs money, a lot of money. That funding has to come from somewhere, and that usually means a higher tax rate overall. If people are not willing to accept that it will be next to impossible to implement free higher education. The second problem that people state is that if higher education is free, people just hang around at the university doing nothing. Although there are some people that might do that, I can tell you the problem usually isn't as excessive as it is feared to be, and it can be controlled with things such as tight graduation deadlines.

That's my two cents on the subject, and so much for it not being a marathon post...

[Mentalist]

Education should be free. I.E., state-paid.

Getting in should be HARD. based on merit alone, no financial considerations.

When my parents tell me about how the Soviet education worked (sorry if you disagree, Ulrik), I get jealous. YOu got in based on how well you did on exams. You stayed in based on how well you did. IF you did excptionally well, you might've gotten a small stipend.

and depending on how well you did, you got choices with where you may work, but that's a whole other story.

bottom line being: lowering standards for entry is moronic. This devalues the degree. I've faced this issue after I finished my undergrad. Right now, in Canada, unless you do an undergrad in somehtign highly specialized (Engineering/Commerce/Computer science/etc), your degree is valued about as much as a high school diploma. lowering admission standards is not a good thing--there are always alternatives for those who don't want to go to university after high school. not everyone should go to University, if they are not disposed towards it.

then, ofc, there's the argument that creatign pressure to go to uni, get loans and come out of uni in debt is forcing the youth to become part of the "living in constant debt" economy, way before they can even think about selling their lifves away through mortgages and crap like that. personally, I find the idea of living in debt repugnant, but i have been forced into it, and getting ever further in.

This post has been edited by Mentalist: 25 November 2010 - 07:29 PM

[Aptorian]

Cause, on 25 November 2010 - 11:11 AM, said:

Also Apt please never complain about a government that gives students the equivalent of six thousand rand a month to study again! Their are profesions in my country which dont pay half so well.

You know how it is, when you are used to a luxury and it gets taken away, then you get pissed. Free education and the benefits that come along with it has been a part of the system for so long that cut backs seem like an insult.

The thing that's so vulgar about it, is that many of our top politicians are known for either not having finished their bachelors or masters, or having spent an absurd amount of time getting through the system. The hypocrisy is galling. And if you earn more than a few thousand besides the SU you're getting, then they punish you. So basically they want you to live in poverty for 5 years and thank them for the crumbs they leave. you.

Cougar, on 25 November 2010 - 03:28 PM, said:

I'd rather not live in a country where idiots think that the study of anything other than those subjects which directly produce economic benefit is a waste of time. In case anyone has forgotten, the author to whom this site is dedicated learned his craft first as an Archaeologist and Anthropologist which has informed his work. In short, a country which neglects it's culture is doomed to be a pretty shitty place to live, devoid of ideas and creativity that may have been encouraged by education.

That is unfortunately exactly what is happening here in Denmark.

Across the Universities, the academic faculty is being removed from the top posts and instead they are hiring people from the private sector to run the universities like a business.

Everything is getting "optimized". All the small departments are either getting absorbed by bigger faculties or they are simply being removed. Effectively ending whole branches of education.

There's no room for culture, only profit.

[Battalion]

Cougar, on 25 November 2010 - 03:28 PM, said:

Battalion's opinion is so lacking in anything resembling reason and any knowledge of the situation that it's almost impossible to engage with on an intellectual level.

Glad you didn't bother trying.

[Gothos]

Battalion, on 26 November 2010 - 07:07 AM, said:

Cougar, on 25 November 2010 - 03:28 PM, said:

Battalion's opinion is so lacking in anything resembling reason and any knowledge of the situation that it's almost impossible to engage with on an intellectual level.

Glad you didn't bother trying.

Oh he did and he nailed you.
This here now... are you sure you're not just being grumpy about never getting tertiary education yourself, and trying to forcibly lower it's value, and through that, enhance your perception of your own value as a human being?

[Battalion]

Having just fathered twins, given them a roof to live under and put food on their table every day, I feel that my value as a human being is rather high.

Not sure wheather you were trying to be funny, or trying to launch a personal attack -- I can take it on both fronts.

For your information, a month after I left school I was working as a truck mechanic, sixteen years later, I'm managing a workshop that fixes trucks for the worlds largest gas company. We make and distribute the gas that supplies the bubbles in all the lager that the university students spend all their government loans on. We also supply hospitals with liquid nitrogen and argon and C02 and liquid oxigen and other important gases that allow the hospitals to function in a modern and effective way.

Without me keeping the trucks on the road, urgent medical supplies wouldn't be there when they were needed.
I could easily be replaced, but at the moment, this is my value, and without the need for expensive furth education, too.

Before you say it, my kids may or may not be bright enough to go to university. I'll have to wait and see about that. If they leave school and they want to go, but don't have the grades, then I'll consider how serious they are, and if I think they'll knuckle down, I'll take a loan out and pay for them myself, like I do in everthing else.

[Gothos]

If that's so, I'm completely lost as to why you resolved to a snide, pathethic oneliner in response to a post.