Muh fees


#1

Did the quality of university education increase in the years following the 1998 overhaul?

Yes: perhaps the most obvious impact of the 1998 reform has been a clear reversal of the trends in per-student institutional resources.


#2

This… this… And this again.


#3

How are you equating ‘quality of education’ with ‘per student instutional resources’?

The average British graduate earns less money in the decade following their graduation than a German graduate, even though the former has 40 000 more on average in debt to pay off.

Spending on students and various per-pupil statistics do not necessarily show quality, and most certainly not outcomes and results. This is a retarded argument that is no different to the arguments used by Labour to beef up the NHS by throwing cash at it, because more cash per patient is the solution to all woes.

More than half of all yearly graduates work in jobs that do not require a degree seven years later. If the quality of education is improving, these statistics should be on the decrease.

Yet, in 2001 circa 70% of ‘recent graduates’ (last 7 years) were in ‘high skilled’ jobs. By 2011 this fell to 63%.

Find a better argument or stop trying.

And stop rimming his arse @above


#4

when he doesnt read the whole article and basis his argument off a two-line quote


#5

I read the summary dumbass. The summary clearly outlines the success of the English system as being partly measured on ‘per student’ access to institutional resources. I call that retarded. You hide behind a cloak telling me to read the rest in a hope that something magically logically consistent will appear in the article.

The entire article is based on the circular premise that a rising number of graduates from poorer families and an improving ‘spread’ of resources per person is a show of success of the English tuition fee system, before finishing off by saying that the final proof of success is that it is taxpayer-neutral because graduates are paying a graduate tax to fund other graduates with their own loans so that more graduates can graduate. At the end there’s a hope for a 100% graduate society, and that’s a success for reasons unbeknownst.

The results are not better than in any other country. I have already said that the proportion of graduates who are in a job almost a decade later that does not need a degree is above half of graduates, while the proportion of graduates in high skilled jobs has been on a continued downfall since 1999 after a 15-year plateau. Coincidence or causation I don’t care.

Yet while the results are similar, the costs per individual graduating are far greater, and so is the debt burden. With student loans now looked into by banks for mortgage affordability, no wonder Britain is the country with the fastest-rising average age of first mortgage in Europe and the fastest falling home ownership rate. All this debt so you can get the same income as a French man who graduated without a pence to pay.


#7

$10 says you haven’t read it yourself

If you have, lay yourself off that economics course and start again but this time enter critical thinking on foundation. Nobody with self-respect would post that link then defend it lest they want to prove they are unable to think on a micro scale and think the macro is worth it.


#8

Yup, nobody would dare post a link to a link to a piece from a respected think tank and defend it in the face of your mighty intellect.

I’m getting pretty tired of your style, truth to be told. It’s all stridency and no substance. I don’t give a fuck what you think of my self-respect, and I’m not going to waste my time arguing with an angry basement dweller who spunked £1,200 betting on Le Pen’s victory.

I’ll let your empty wallet speak for the value of your opinions.


#9

Yes, it’s refreshing to hear from a moron who has nothing to say for himself and uses links he hasn’t read from borderline stomachable organisations as proof of the meaning to life. You are this forum’s equivalent of Owen Jones ‘but Fabian Society said…’

It’s all questioning of moronic statements, to which you have become increasingly susceptible to produce.

If you read the thread you’d see I haven’t bet anything on a Le Pen victory. Later I bet 150 at 4/1 on Le Pen getting to the second round, and I won.

I now have an inch over 2 000 in various conservative betting wins all saved up while you spend every bank statement on drugging yourself away from reality, bringing yourself to the brink and spending the rest drinking yourself to shit in a club.

Congratulations angry basement dweller.

Kek


#10

/tfw dont do drugs
/tfw life has never been better
/tfw i will never be as angry as you


#11

Because more money means more investment in students which translates to access to more and better resources to attain more and better education. While more money spent per student doesn’t necessarily correlate to a ‘better education,’ it certainty can. Measuring ‘quality’ of education can be pretty subjective, as well as the fact that there could be underlying causes that make German average income higher than English average income, and even that isn’t considering at which their average incomes have grown, not saying that one confers an absolute or apparent advantage over the other, I’d have to look into that to see.

However, another thing to consider may be GDP per capita, in which while Germany does have a higher statistic than England, France, another country with tuition free college is lower than England in this category as well. Although, I will admit France does have a higher average income than the England as well. However, Germany and France also spend more on tertiary education than the UK (I couldn’t find a statistic for England in particular, but I thought this would suffice).

Either way, I would say the amount of money put towards a student’s education is a fairly reasonable statement, and there appears that there is data to back it up.


#12

@k11
@I_am_the_Senate

Quit the thinly veiled personal attacks and get back on topic.


#13

Yet these results ie ‘better education’ have not manifested themselves. What is theoretically the rule is not practically the experience. See the NHS for evidence. More money per patient does not mean savings in the future nor does it mean better quality of life, healthcare, life expectancy or treatment and survival rates.

If you see the purpose of education as being the attainment of a quality career preparing people for the labour market (which is what most students intend, given that few stay on for Masters or further research) then such a goal has most definitely failed by any measurement.[quote=“Naturea, post:11, topic:111612”]
However, Germany and France also spend more on tertiary education than the UK
[/quote]

Think most EU countries are fairly equal, Britain is an anomaly due to a larger than average private sector providing education services.

But it gives us zero insights on the results. We can only look at correlation or closely-linked statistical movements, and in this regard Britain’s graduate youth are not doing any better than continental youth, in some aspects worse, and thus the idea that people here graduate with two years worth of wages in debt is repulsive when you consider that someone on equal footing 100 miles to the east will be of the exact same labour market value as you but with not a pence to worry about.

And that’s before we even enter the reality that Continental & American universities have 4-year courses or 5-year sandwich courses, not 3 and 4 year courses, so they are spending far more per person given the extra year for every graduate. Yet they can afford it, and their youth are not wasting money on rent-seeking corporations soaking up money and forcing people to progress in life later than peers elsewhere.

Again, before we even consider the micro social and economical impacts, like the reality mentioned above that Britain is the only place in Europe where banks will look at your student debts in determining your affordability of a mortgage, and thus you are being weighed down. You will have less disposable income, and you will most certainly get a worse mortgage than you otherwise could. Even after that, you’ll face the reality that you’re in a country where there is the fastest growth towards rent occupants and not owners, and the fastest growth in age of first purchase.


#15

fucking lol
you made this claim and then repeated it even though it made no fucking sense

maybe if you read the fucking reasoning you’ll understand the argument