Stephen Osborn wrote:

Aidan Stanger wrote:

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

You seem to be saying that anyone should be allowed to do any University
course of their own choice with no hurdles placed in their way at all,
i.e. with no academic selection nor by them having to pay for it.

Is that actually what you mean?

No it isn't. Academic selection is sometimes needed, and where it is, it
should be done fairly (not making the decisions until the academic
results are known). However, I support an increase in the number of
places so that academic selection is not so heavily relied upon.

As for paying for it, I advocate the Australian system, where students
don't have to pay upfront, nor do they have to pay until they're
actually making a lot of money, nor do they have to pay interest.

Meldrew of Meldreth wrote:
writes

By the time they've reached 18, it is easy to see that a significant
number wouldn't benefit from University. (Other forms of further
education or vocational training, perhaps; not University).

But wouldn't they be better at determining whether or not they benefit?

Who is "they"? The University admissions process, or the potential
students?

The potential students. The University admissions process is not capable
of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if
at all).

Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for.

Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean they succeed in their objective.

How does ease of determining how deserving they are alter the original
proposition?

Which proposition did you consider to be original?

The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not
"novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education
(whereas they probably would from nursery education).

It means that although not everyone would benefit, we should at least
give them the benefit of the doubt.

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it.

If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a
waste of everyone's time.

But who's to say what their needs are?

If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those
for whom a University education is inappropriate.

Whereas I regard the first semester or two as a far better tool for that
purpose. An admissions process will still be needed of course, because
universities can't all offer enough places to satisfy the demand for
every course.

The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates
that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't
have been there.

Perhaps, but you've got to be in it to win it!

"Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities
because of high debts,

Which proves my point!

poor teaching or an inability to cope with their coursework,
according to new figures published last week.

"Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate
is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope.

If they cannot cope, at least they know what it is they can't cope with.

http://www.iee.org/OnComms/Circuit/benefits/dropout.cfm

R.C. Payne wrote:

But that's a second degree.Â*Â*IÂ*wasn'tÂ*awareÂ*thatÂ*grantsÂ*orÂ*stu dentÂ*loans
or whatever have ever been applicable to second degrees.

Normally, for that situation, you'd be right. However, I managed to get
accepted onto it without a degree or qualifications because of my
apparently extensive experience of the industry (?). So for me, it's my
first degree. Probably everyone else there, as you say, has gone through a
bachelors first.
--
Ian Tindale

In message , at 03:02:57 on
Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked:

he potential students. The University admissions process is not capable
of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if
at all).

Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for.

Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean they succeed in their objective.

As 40% of students are dropping out of some Universities, I suppose I'll
have to agree with you.


The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not
"novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education
(whereas they probably would from nursery education).

It means that although not everyone would benefit, we should at least
give them the benefit of the doubt.

It seems a pity to lay on 3 or 4 year courses, for students who then
drop out. Doesn't that have funding implications for the Universities?
Why not perhaps start them on a 1-year, then reconsider (both student
and university).

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it.

If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a
waste of everyone's time.

But who's to say what their needs are?

They are often fairly self-evident. 40% of students don't seem to be
having their particular needs properly satisfied.

If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those
for whom a University education is inappropriate.

Whereas I regard the first semester or two as a far better tool for that
purpose. An admissions process will still be needed of course, because
universities can't all offer enough places to satisfy the demand for
every course.

Ah, close to my suggestion above.

The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates
that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't
have been there.

Perhaps, but you've got to be in it to win it!

"Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities
because of high debts,

Which proves my point!

Except they aren't all that high compared to what graduate earnings
"ought" to be, nor all of the 40%

poor teaching or an inability to cope with their coursework,
according to new figures published last week.

"Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate
is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope.

If they cannot cope, at least they know what it is they can't cope with.

Hmm, I think I'll take a 3 year course in brewing, at the taxpayers
expense. I'm not sure if I can cope or not, but we'll find out
eventually...
--
Roland Perry

JRS: In article , dated Fri,
28 Jan 2005 03:36:24, seen in news:uk.transport.london, Aidan Stanger
posted :

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

There is something to be said for allowing new adults to decide whether
or not to spend three years of their lives on some combination of
education and time-wasting.

But it is not reasonable for time-wasting to be intentionally subsidised
by the productive community, unless the productive community positively
decides that it should be so. Of course, any process of deciding
whether a new adult will "study" or work, whether decision is by the new
adult or by the institutions, will inevitably make imperfect judgements
in some cases; but that leads only to unavoidable accidental waste.

And it is absolutely unreasonable to have university-grade academics
wasting their time and talent, ultimately at community expense, in
dealing with those who will, by inability or idleness, not benefit
significantly thereby.


All university students should be invoiced termly for the *full* costs
of their education, visibly discounted by a list of all of the grants
and subsidies as the university receives for them (the final sum may be
zero or less). At the end of each year of "Study", their performance
should be reviewed to see whether the university can recommend that the
grants and subsidies are worth renewing; the standard should be less
than "will eventually pass at present performance" - more like "might
pass if performance improves as we think it could".

--
© John Stockton, Surrey, UK. Turnpike v4.00 MIME. ©
Web URL:http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/ - FAQish topics, acronyms, & links.
Proper = 4-line sig. separator as above, a line exactly "-- " (SonOfRFC1036)
Do not Mail News to me. Before a reply, quote with "" or " " (SonOfRFC1036)

Roland Perry wrote:

Hmm, I think I'll take a 3 year course in brewing, at the taxpayers
expense. I'm not sure if I can cope or not, but we'll find out
eventually...

I was tempted to look into that, when I started doing this:
http://tindale.dyn.nu/brewday
--
Ian Tindale

Dr John Stockton wrote:
posted :

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it. If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

There is something to be said for allowing new adults to decide whether
or not to spend three years of their lives on some combination of
education and time-wasting.

But it is not reasonable for time-wasting to be intentionally subsidised
by the productive community, unless the productive community positively
decides that it should be so. Of course, any process of deciding
whether a new adult will "study" or work, whether decision is by the new
adult or by the institutions, will inevitably make imperfect judgements
in some cases; but that leads only to unavoidable accidental waste.

And it's better to waste a small amount of time and money than to waste
students' futures.

And it is absolutely unreasonable to have university-grade academics
wasting their time and talent, ultimately at community expense, in
dealing with those who will, by inability or idleness, not benefit
significantly thereby.

Don't be so quick to assume that the academics' time and talent would be
wasted! Firstly a student not putting sufficient effort into the course
is likely to take up less of the lecturers' time than one who is.
Secondly, even those who don't succeed academically are likely to learn
something useful.

All university students should be invoiced termly for the *full* costs
of their education, visibly discounted by a list of all of the grants
and subsidies as the university receives for them (the final sum may be
zero or less). At the end of each year of "Study", their performance
should be reviewed to see whether the university can recommend that the
grants and subsidies are worth renewing; the standard should be less
than "will eventually pass at present performance" - more like "might
pass if performance improves as we think it could".

Well that's one way to increase the dropout rate, and it sounds
expensive to administer. Surely it would be better to give everyone as
much opportunity as possible? It's not as if the economy (and indeed
society) doesn't benefit.

In message , at 00:48:06 on
Sun, 30 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked:

And it's better to waste a small amount of time and money than to waste
students' futures.

If that's the case, why are the students so unwilling to contribute to
the "small amount of money".

Surely it would be better to give everyone as
much opportunity as possible? It's not as if the economy (and indeed
society) doesn't benefit.

But it seems there is massive over-supply of graduates, so few are
getting the jobs they expected. Three years taken up, and in the end all
they are employed do is ask "do you want fries with that".
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
Sat, 29 Jan 2005, Aidan Stanger remarked:

he potential students. The University admissions process is not capable
of doing that, and nor could it be made capable at a reasonable cost (if
at all).

Oh, I thought that's what admissions interviews were for.

Perhaps it is, but that doesn't mean they succeed in their objective.

As 40% of students are dropping out of some Universities, I suppose I'll
have to agree with you.


The original proposition (original = "what started this discussion", not
"novel") was that not everyone would benefit from a University education
(whereas they probably would from nursery education).

It means that although not everyone would benefit, we should at least
give them the benefit of the doubt.

It seems a pity to lay on 3 or 4 year courses, for students who then
drop out. Doesn't that have funding implications for the Universities?

Yes, at least insofar as everything has funding implications for the
universities! But don't most universities expect a certain dropout rate?

Why not perhaps start them on a 1-year, then reconsider (both student
and university).

For some types of degree, the first year covers a lot of stuff that's
essential for the rest of the degree, but unlikely to impress employers,
so there's no advantage. For other types of degree, I'm not sure there
would be much advantage in doing the first year (out of one) over doing
the first year (out of three).

Potential students should always get the opportunity, whether or not
anyone else considers them deserving of it.

If the courses are inappropriate to their needs, that seems a bit of a
waste of everyone's time.

But who's to say what their needs are?

They are often fairly self-evident. 40% of students don't seem to be
having their particular needs properly satisfied.

Minus the proportion who drop out for financial reasons.

If the admissions process
(assuming it's not as unfair as it was a few years ago) prevents them
doing the courses they want, so be it, but economic factors should not.

Yes, all I'm saying is that the admissions process should weed out those
for whom a University education is inappropriate.

Whereas I regard the first semester or two as a far better tool for that
purpose. An admissions process will still be needed of course, because
universities can't all offer enough places to satisfy the demand for
every course.

Ah, close to my suggestion above.

The dropout rate from many of the more recent Universities demonstrates
that they are currently accepting some students who perhaps shouldn't
have been there.

Perhaps, but you've got to be in it to win it!

"Nearly 40% of students are dropping out of some universities
because of high debts,

Which proves my point!

Except they aren't all that high compared to what graduate earnings
"ought" to be, nor all of the 40%

So England and Wales should copy Australia, where students don't have to
repay their debt before they're earning over a certain amount. It could
probably be incorporated into the national insurance system.

poor teaching or an inability to cope with their coursework,
according to new figures published last week.

"Critics claim one of the reasons behind the high drop-out rate
is that too many students are being admitted who cannot cope.

If they cannot cope, at least they know what it is they can't cope with.

Hmm, I think I'll take a 3 year course in brewing, at the taxpayers
expense. I'm not sure if I can cope or not, but we'll find out
eventually...

....probably within the firs semester.

On Mon, 24 Jan 2005 19:45:05 +0000, Clive D. W. Feather wrote:

In article , Paul Weaver
writes
Vague memory says I paid 80 pounds a term for a bedsit at Trinity, and I
was a few years after you. Grants were something like 1400 for the year
So, no fees

There were fees, but they were included in the grant payment system and
were therefore normally ignored. The 1400 was net of fees, and was the
maximum if your parents were poor. IIRC, the minimum was 300 - your
parents were expected to fill the gap, and you were in difficulty if
they didn't.

and twice the grant,

Twice what grant?

6 times the grant (loan in our case), adjusted for cost of living.

and you didn't have to pay it back

Correct - that's what the word "grant" means. The governments of the

Grant Loan same thing (aside from paying it back)

previous decades had come to this strange conclusion that having
graduates was good for the country. Of course, we didn't have every
piddling little school for over-18s calling itself a "University".

Indeed

Then soon as you got into government you decided the rest of us wouldn't
have that.

Excuse me? I am not and never have been a part of government.

You as in "your generation".

And of course in 0 years time we'll have to pay for your pension too.

And that makes even less sense. *I'm* paying for my pension - a
significant proportion of my salary goes that way. And I don't get it
for a couple of decades.


Sorry, 20 years, useless keyboard.
--
Everything I write here is my personal opinion, and should not be taken as fact.