University tuition fees are disgracefully high

joeyowen

Sporky said:

Evilmags said:

If we were that short of engineers they'd get paid more. 

Professional engineers get paid more than most people think.

The problem is that most people think an engineer is someone in a van with a toolbox.

We are very short of professional engineers.

Yep, we get nagged no end for a lack of real programmers and real engineers.

nagged and nagged and nagged

ToneControl

Sporky said:

ToneControl said:

I saw an ad for Prof role at an old Poly last year for £103k

please tell me what I am speculating about? I have given sources for all data

Not that one you haven't.

And you've cherry picked your evidence for number of hours and stuck with the lowest end of the scale. Do your sums again for an engineering degree.

And you're using the head of a university as evidence for lecturer salaries - that's like saying that you can work out what a call centre person at Virgin Media earns based on Richard Branson's net worth.

eh?
I can't provide a link to a job ad from 1 year ago
I have no intention of presenting prof salaries as a lecturer salary, I have already posted typical lecturer salaries: £40k to £60k I think it was
@joeyowen was saying that he knew no profs on the salary I was talking about, so I gave my source

in place of that: http://www.jobs.ac.uk/search/?keywords=professor&jtsearch=1&sector=222&show=25&sort=sa
Loads of prof jobs on £96k to £122k

my original point was in fact based on the opposite approach of the one you are pursuing (which I am assuming is that I think lecturers are overpaid, which I don't think): my point is that lecturers are not expensive to hire, and that consequently lectures can't cost much to stage, so why are courses with little lecture time so expensive.

I'm quite aware that other courses cost more to provide, that's not my point (I would assume that high-cost courses that are in demand should be subsidised by the govt, but that is a separate issue). My point is that humanities degrees, and other degrees with 8-12 hours a week lectures, and particularly courses at lower-rated unis should be way way cheaper

holnrew

Fretwired said:

Too many people go to university who aren't fit for the rigours of academic life. 

Me

I'd love an alternative but there aren't many options

Sporky

ToneControl said:

My point is that humanities degrees, and other degrees with 8-12 hours a week lectures, and particularly courses at lower-rated unis should be way way cheaper

And science and engineering degrees that cost much more to run should be way way more expensive?

How are "lower-rated unis" to drag themselves up if you cap their income? This approach will just widen the gap.

Still, basing your argument on lecturer wages is ridiculous. Universities are large organisations that do a lot more than just hire lecturers.

CabbageCat

holnrew said:

Fretwired said:

Too many people go to university who aren't fit for the rigours of academic life. 

Me

I'd love an alternative but there aren't many options

I guess it's choice of university, vocation education, work or benefits. There might only be four options but there is quite a lot of diversity within them.

ToneControl

Sporky said:

ToneControl said:

My point is that humanities degrees, and other degrees with 8-12 hours a week lectures, and particularly courses at lower-rated unis should be way way cheaper

And science and engineering degrees that cost much more to run should be way way more expensive?

How are "lower-rated unis" to drag themselves up if you cap their income? This approach will just widen the gap.

Still, basing your argument on lecturer wages is ridiculous. Universities are large organisations that do a lot more than just hire lecturers.

yes, charge more for teaching engineering/science/medicine  - as I say the state could then specifically subsidise it
otherwise you are creating a false market, where unis are encouraged to teach less science and engineering, and through the loan payback threshold, the state is subsidising this - a typical "unintended economic consequence"

Do "lower rated companies" drag themselves up by charging the same as top brands? I can't see any logic in your statement on this. Prestige and reputation come before increasing prices. Could primark charge the same as M+S? Again the artificial economics of the loan system enable this, If students/parents had to pay fees up front, the fees would already be far lower

I've given various examples of when lectures or performances are provided that are at far lower cost than Unis are charging students, and pointed out that lecturers aren't paid much, so therefore are often quite willing to do 1-1 tuition for a similar cost to how much a seat in a lecture theatre costs. You have not understood my point, and vaguely saying "it's a large organisation" is not a reasonable argument. Just imagine anyone trying that argument when they wanted to increase electricity bills, train fares, dentist check up prices? Would you be happy to have that reply?

The question you need to ask is "are universities efficient in providing degree-level education for a reasonable cost?"

As I've said, private training companies typically charge £140 per full day of training (I don't mean IT training)
I have arranged these courses myself, including getting a lecturer to stay locally and teach at our premises, which saves money. I'll leave the tech courses to one side for now, I am not claiming they are a rip off in Unis

Contrast these training prices with Uni humanities and other blackboard/whiteboard/ppt subjects that have 8-12 hours a week of lectures:
for 30 weeks you are paying £25.70 to £38.50 an HOUR to sit in a lecture with many other people, so that's £180 to £270 for a 7 hour day of lectures

So: what does a Uni do beyond what a training company does? For some IT training courses I've been on, the lecturers are actual Uni lecturers, so the trainer and the standard can be the same - the lecturer still prepares the material (and they get paid more than in a Uni).
In a Uni, I can see some admin: admissions, providing a support network and career advice, and a library. How much more is that worth?
I think a few percent at most, so Lord Adonis' challenge to the Unis to reduce these fees by 50% sounds about right to me

exocet

I think that the costs issue is a valid point but not when addressed at the current structures. Universities are carrying much higher costs than IT training companies because traditionally they owned lots of property / land and employed many people outside of the academic lecturers / professors etc. It's many of these "other things" e.g. clubs and societies that push up the overall costs but it's also these things that create the "university experience". 

Does it have to be this way? No, of course not.
I went to a low grade Poly back in the mid 80s where I did a 2 year HND in Electronics and Electrical Engineering. I had a great time and have been pleasantly surprised at how useful and relevant the course curriculum has proved to be even 30 years later.

I've also undertaken many an IT course over the past 15 years, I couldn't equate the two approaches in any shape or form.

That said, I do think that a lot could be achieved by aiming for shorter courses / reducing some of the holiday periods. 

Like many have said in this thread, there are now too many people going into higher education undertaking courses that either serve little purpose or for which there is low demand for the knowledge / skills gained. I'm all for supporting access to higher education for all but perhaps we do need to rethink the approach because the status quo is not sustainable in the long term.

chillidoggy

I think engineers can indeed be 'someone in a van with a toolbox', and a professional engineer. It's subjective definition, and a wide-ranging one.

ToneControl

chillidoggy said:

I think engineers can indeed be 'someone in a van with a toolbox', and a professional engineer. It's subjective definition, and a wide-ranging one.

only in the UK,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer#Regulation

In Continental Europe, Latin America, Turkey and elsewhere the title is limited by law to people with an engineering degree and the use of the title by others is illegal.

British school children in the 1950s were brought up with stirring tales of "the Victorian Engineers", chief amongst whom were Brunel, Stephenson, Telford, and their contemporaries. In the UK, "engineering" has more recently been styled as an industry sector consisting of employers and employees loosely termed "engineers" who included semi-skilled trades. However, the 21st-century view, especially amongst the more educated members of society, is to reserve the term Engineer to describe a university-educated practitioner of ingenuity represented by the Chartered (or Incorporated) Engineer qualifications. However, a large proportion of the UK public still thinks of "Engineers" as skilled trades or even semi-skilled tradespeople with a high school education. And UK skilled and semi-skilled trades style themselves as "Engineers". This has created confusion in the eyes of the public to understand what professional engineers actually do from fixing car engines, TV's, fridges to designing and managing the development of aircraft, space craft, power stations, infrastructure, and other complex technological systems.

Engineers create things, they are not the people who change the oil on something, or replace a part 

"to engineer" = "to design and build something using scientific principles"

Fretwired

ToneControl said:

chillidoggy said:

I think engineers can indeed be 'someone in a van with a toolbox', and a professional engineer. It's subjective definition, and a wide-ranging one.

only in the UK,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engineer#Regulation

In Continental Europe, Latin America, Turkey and elsewhere the title is limited by law to people with an engineering degree and the use of the title by others is illegal.

British school children in the 1950s were brought up with stirring tales of "the Victorian Engineers", chief amongst whom were Brunel, Stephenson, Telford, and their contemporaries. In the UK, "engineering" has more recently been styled as an industry sector consisting of employers and employees loosely termed "engineers" who included semi-skilled trades. However, the 21st-century view, especially amongst the more educated members of society, is to reserve the term Engineer to describe a university-educated practitioner of ingenuity represented by the Chartered (or Incorporated) Engineer qualifications. However, a large proportion of the UK public still thinks of "Engineers" as skilled trades or even semi-skilled tradespeople with a high school education. And UK skilled and semi-skilled trades style themselves as "Engineers". This has created confusion in the eyes of the public to understand what professional engineers actually do from fixing car engines, TV's, fridges to designing and managing the development of aircraft, space craft, power stations, infrastructure, and other complex technological systems.

Engineers create things, they are not the people who change the oil on something, or replace a part 

"to engineer" = "to design and build something using scientific principles"

I agree .. I've had that argument with people in the past. Just because you can service a gas boiler doesn't make you a heating engineer.

chillidoggy

I'm in the UK, and I'm saying that's what happens in the UK. And whoever wrote that Wiki rubbish is so far up their own arse, it's a wonder you can see their ankles.

And yes, I'm a professional engineer.

Sporky

chillidoggy said:

I think engineers can indeed be 'someone in a van with a toolbox'

What ingenuity in design does such a person demonstrate? "Engineer" is not derived from "engine".

chillidoggy said:

It's subjective definition

Ah - the "words mean whatever I want them to mean" argument?

chillidoggy said:

I'm in the UK, and I'm saying that's what happens in the UK. 

I already said that that's what happens in the UK, and pointed out that it's a significant factor in why we have a shortage of professional engineers. If we want to fix that shortage we need to stop letting any monkey with a set of spanners call themselves an engineer. You wouldn't let everyone with a wig call themselves a barrister, or everyone with a knife call themselves a surgeon...

chillidoggy

Sporky said:

chillidoggy said:

I think engineers can indeed be 'someone in a van with a toolbox'

What ingenuity in design does such a person demonstrate? "Engineer" is not derived from "engine".

chillidoggy said:

It's subjective definition

Ah - the "words mean whatever I want them to mean" argument?

chillidoggy said:

I'm in the UK, and I'm saying that's what happens in the UK. 

I already said that that's what happens in the UK, and pointed out that it's a significant factor in why we have a shortage of professional engineers. If we want to fix that shortage we need to stop letting any monkey with a set of spanners call themselves an engineer. You wouldn't let everyone with a wig call themselves a barrister, or everyone with a knife call themselves a surgeon...

The definition is subjective, you happen to disagree, that's fine. I disagree that the man-in-the-van has any impact on the situation, I also happen to disagree that said man may not be an engineer. I have some talented guys that work for me who happen to do just that, and I would refer to them as engineers. Again, it depends on how you view them.

But I think it's not really public perception that would need to change, it's the perception of those that employ engineers. We've long since had the piss taken out of us when it comes to remuneration, I've been living proof of that over the years, and it's the perception of the value engineers have that really matters; they're the ones with the cheque-book.

I also think it's possible there's a reluctance to place engineers too high up in organisations, for fear of others being shown up. I could list a number of people I worked with who were in over their heads, but were still in control. I don't have any firm evidence for that, though.

Sporky

chillidoggy said:

I also happen to disagree that said man may not be an engineer.

What ingenuity in design does such a person demonstrate?

CabbageCat

I think one of my many titles (all for the same job) once was "software engineer". Logically it must mean the same thing as "analyst" or "consultant" because they have all been used in the same place to describe the same position.

chillidoggy

Sporky said:

chillidoggy said:

I also happen to disagree that said man may not be an engineer.

What ingenuity in design does such a person demonstrate?

No idea, but I suspect you're about to enlighten us.

Sporky

So you don't understand what "engineer" means. Gotcha.

Snap

Fretwired said:

Ravenous said:

I pity the kids today. (Don't tell them I said that though!)

It's scandalous ... leaving uni with a debt up to £40K ...

Drop out rate - I'd be interested to see the trend over time, and out of that drop out rate, a breakdown of the reasons as to why. It won't be all down to academic challenge, it will be a mix, though of course, could be all down to not being suited to uni. Conversely, that means 93% are still there....

As for leaving with 40k debt - depends how you look at it. Is a degree something the state should fund, or is it something the individual should invest in personally? What level of education should a state be obliged to support? Yep, in theory, graduate educated people should be an asset for th country, and so should be funded. However, you could strongly argue against this idea too.

I'm split down the middle on the university fees principle tbh. One one hand I think its a good thing as it makes (most) students think carefully about the course and future employability, but the other side is that it is a big debt to have over you at 21 years old.

The fault in the system now IMO is that affordabillity is directly related to parental income. Remove it totally. These students are adults we are talking about - what the parents earn, have etc, shouold have nothing to do with what an adult student can borrow. Lend them all the same money, and make it a livable amount. Idealogical yes, but IMO fairer.

CabbageCat

Snap said:

I'm split down the middle on the university fees principle tbh. One one hand I think its a good thing as it makes (most) students think carefully about the course and future employability, but the other side is that it is a big debt to have over you at 21 years old.

Yeah, I dossed completely during my state-funded degree. I don't doubt that I would have put a lot more effort and thought into it if I was paying for it myself.

Snap said:

The fault in the system now IMO is that affordabillity is directly related to parental income. Remove it totally. These students are adults we are talking about - what the parents earn, have etc, shouold have nothing to do with what an adult student can borrow. Lend them all the same money, and make it a livable amount. Idealogical yes, but IMO fairer.

Also yeah. An 18 year old is a grown-up. Their parents should be under no obligation to give them anything any more.

chillidoggy

Sporky said:

So you don't understand what "engineer" means. Gotcha.

I am well aware of what it means because I are one.

Anyway, slightly off topic I know, but one of the aforementioned engineers has just popped in for a chat about a new 3D radar system, and told me he once met Idi Admin while in a swimming pool in Jeddah. I can't top that one.