On 10/01/2011 14:22, Recliner wrote:
wrote in message

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:44:53 +0000
Graeme wrote:
The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of
the day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf
management) should be for the student to fund.

Well thats never going to be an easy one to solve since there has to
be a line drawn somewhere and someone will always object that their
course should be subsidised. I'd start with suggesting that all
science, engineering and major humanities courses - english,
languages, history, law - should be free so long as the students
complete them and pass. Other courses should be subsidised on a
sliding scale based on how I would guess some national committee
feels how intellectually rigorous or useful they are. Media studies
should be somewhere near the bottom.

The funny thing is that graduates in some of these much-derided modern
courses are more likely to get good jobs than those who take traditional
academic courses. For example, golf management graduates tend to walk
straight into jobs, so they may be better equipped to repay the fees
than, say, English graduates:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/lif...cle6829650.ece
The article cites the case of someone who started on a Chemistry degree,
and then switched to a much more useful brewing-and-distilling course,
which led directly to a good job.

Brewing and distilling are a subset of chemistry. That article makes
the point that what to the casual observer appears pointless is actually
a very valid and worthwhile course. Allan Tracey please note.

I'm not so sure about media studies though :-)


One big advantage of charging significant fees is that students will
become much more demanding of the product: they will research which
degrees and colleges lead to the best job prospects, and will demand
high quality instruction. In other words, if they know they have to
invest significant money, they'll also need to achieve a decent return.



It would certainly stop people wandering into degree courses (media
studies again) because they haven't a clue what to do with their lives.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:28:54 +0000
Paul Terry wrote:
Strange though it may seem, golf management students are more likely to
find graduate-level employment within six months of leaving university
(90%) than those in many other subjects, including engineering (85.9%).
Computer sciences (81.8%) has the worst graduate employment record,
medicine the best (99.3%).

See my other post about McDonalds University graduates. The number of people
who get a job after completing a course should not be taken as a guide as
to how useful overall the course is to society. IMO anyway.

B2003

On 10/01/2011 16:01, d wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 15:28:54 +0000
Paul wrote:
Strange though it may seem, golf management students are more likely to
find graduate-level employment within six months of leaving university
(90%) than those in many other subjects, including engineering (85.9%).
Computer sciences (81.8%) has the worst graduate employment record,
medicine the best (99.3%).

See my other post about McDonalds University graduates. The number of people
who get a job after completing a course should not be taken as a guide as
to how useful overall the course is to society. IMO anyway.


How would you judge whether a course was useful to society?

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 16:03:08 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
See my other post about McDonalds University graduates. The number of people
who get a job after completing a course should not be taken as a guide as
to how useful overall the course is to society. IMO anyway.


How would you judge whether a course was useful to society?

I suppose a combination of how important that job is and how difficult it
is to do. Any idiot can flip burgers but only a few people are smart enough
to do say electronic engineering. However there are no doubt far more jobs and
job vacancies in the former than the latter but the latter role will make a
much bigger impact on society in the long run.

B2003

wrote in message

The market doesn't decide. The NHS is short of doctors but that hasn't
caused the number of students doing medicine to rise.

That's not a particularly good example. The number of places in .uk medical
schools is very much regulated by government. Many potential medical
students, who would probably be capable of qualifying, fail to gain a place.
However, the market does have an effect on the number of those who qualify,
but do not work in the NHS, either because they work in other fields or go
abroad. Against that, the NHS employs many doctors who have qualified
elsewhere in the world.

Peter

On 10/01/2011 13:59, d wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:44:53 +0000
Graeme wrote:
The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of the
day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf management)
should be for the student to fund.

Well thats never going to be an easy one to solve since there has to be a
line drawn somewhere and someone will always object that their course should
be subsidised. I'd start with suggesting that all science, engineering and
major humanities courses - english, languages, history, law - should be free
so long as the students complete them and pass. Other courses should be
subsidised on a sliding scale based on how I would guess some national
committee feels how intellectually rigorous or useful they are. Media studies
should be somewhere near the bottom.

I understand that Media Studies graduates actually have better
employment prospects than the large number of English graduates churned
out by the universities.

And there are too many lawyers and accountants in this country already...
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 06:29:24 -0800 (PST), 1506 wrote:

On Jan 10, 5:59*am, wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:44:53 +0000

Graeme Wall wrote:
The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless *For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. *I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of the
day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf management)
should be for the student to fund.

Well thats never going to be an easy one to solve since there has to be a
line drawn somewhere and someone will always object that their course should
be subsidised. I'd start with suggesting that all science, engineering and
major humanities courses - english, languages, history, law - should be free
so long as the students complete them and pass. Other courses should be
subsidised on a sliding scale based on how I would guess some national
committee feels how intellectually rigorous or useful they are. Media studies
should be somewhere near the bottom.

B2003

And then, with respect Boltar, you have created another taxpayer
funded Quango. Better, IMHO to let the market decide. If there is a
shortage of MBAs, then clearly an MBA would be a good investment. If
we need civil engineers, the a BSc in such would be money well spent.
and so on. If the state has an interest in encouraging study in a
particular field, then by all means give a grant to the institutions
offering the degree. But, preserve us please from liberal arts
degrees.

Please preserve us from lunatic ramblings from the US of A. Since when
did the market have to decide what *individuals* want to do with their
talents? All of this nonsense that only obviously marketable degrees /
qualifications are the only ones that should be funded needs to be
dispensed with immediately. The UK has a strong and viable arts
movement as well as a media industry that generates very considerable
earnings. Why should we only fund economists or doctors or lawyers? We
need variety amongst the talented and qualified young people who emerge
from our universities. I also completely fail to see why they should be
forced to rack up tens of thousands of pounds worth of debt just to gain
a higher education. If we could afford it for my generation then we can
afford it for future ones. It is an investment in our future success as
a country after all and we are not exactly the smallest economy in the
world either. I can completely understand why people took to the
streets even though I don't agree with them smashing the place to bits
because some of them felt like it.

--
Paul C

On 10/01/2011 14:22, Recliner wrote:
The article cites the case of someone who started on a Chemistry degree,
and then switched to a much more useful brewing-and-distilling course,
which led directly to a good job.

One of my former students of chemical engineering walked straight into a
good job with Guinness on graduation, but he has an advantage over a
graduate who studied brewing and distilling in that he could also do a
lot of other jobs in the other process industries.

In contrast, many university chemistry courses are not focussed on the
real world applications of chemistry, and as a consequence a PhD is
often needed to get a professional-level job in chemistry.
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

On 10/01/2011 14:29, 1506 wrote:
And then, with respect Boltar, you have created another taxpayer
funded Quango. Better, IMHO to let the market decide. If there is a
shortage of MBAs, then clearly an MBA would be a good investment. If
we need civil engineers, the a BSc in such would be money well spent.
and so on.

You're out of date, you need an MEng to become a professional engineer
these days!
--
Jeremy Double {real address, include nospam}
Rail and transport photos at
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jmdoubl...7603834894248/

On 10/01/2011 18:05, Jeremy Double wrote:
On 10/01/2011 13:59, d wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2011 13:44:53 +0000
Graeme wrote:
The problem is who gets to define which courses are vocationally
useless For instance golf management courses I would take to be a
subset of estate management which is a long established and valid
course. I would agree that the general course (estate management in
this case) should be subsidised to whatever level the government of the
day thinks is appropriate and the specialist addition (golf management)
should be for the student to fund.

Well thats never going to be an easy one to solve since there has to be a
line drawn somewhere and someone will always object that their course
should
be subsidised. I'd start with suggesting that all science, engineering
and
major humanities courses - english, languages, history, law - should
be free
so long as the students complete them and pass. Other courses should be
subsidised on a sliding scale based on how I would guess some national
committee feels how intellectually rigorous or useful they are. Media
studies
should be somewhere near the bottom.

I understand that Media Studies graduates actually have better
employment prospects than the large number of English graduates churned
out by the universities.

There are more media studies graduates every year than there are total
jobs in the media.


And there are too many lawyers and accountants in this country already...


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read, substitute trains for rail.
Railway Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail
Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net