Student Fees

[Trolldor]

It is agreeable, depending upon the size of that loan.
I don't agree that one originally placed at 16, 000 should now be 48, 000 debt.

[Coito ergo sum]

Unfortunately, I think the key problem is that maintaining the current level of education costs more money than exists to pay for it, especially given other priorities within the government.

Analogy: a family comes upon hard times via a pay reduction of the main breadwinner. They lose 25% of the monthly income. In order to make up the shortfall, part of the family's plan is to eat less expensive foods - cheap pastas and red sauce out of a can, store brand hot dogs, cheap white bread instead of nice multigrain - those kinds of choices are made. Because of the bad economy and inflation, prices are going up at the food store, so the family "will likely have to pay more for crappier food which benefits them less. This does not sound sane. Yet, it is a reality. The money can't be invented or manufactured out of thin air. The solutions that would allow more money to be generated are too long term to help the situation now....so the family and its food, and the schools and their education...have to make due, bite the bullet, overcome, improvise and adapt.

And to complement your analogy, now imagine that cheaper food poisoning the working adults in the family, they can no longer work and that 25% income loss becomes 100% because they can't work at all.

I think you get the analogy, though, which was intended to mean: sometimes times are tough and we have to tighten our belts.

The solution to education (allegedly) costing more than it's worth isn't creating an uncompetitive workforce. That is insane. Sure, things need to be made viable, but doing so in such a short-sighted manner isn't particularly a good idea.

What makes you think that the workforce would be less competitive as a result of making people pay higher tuition, but allowing them to borrow the money and then pay it back on an income-based sliding scale post-graduation?

We in the West are soft. We need our kids working harder, not less, and learning to overcome adversity. The last 40 years or so have spoiled us.

The crying and moaning about an issue like this belittles the memory of people who faced real adversity. The men and woman of the German blitz on London, and those who spent their college days fighting off the most powerful military in the world in the Battle of Britain - the men and women of the Great Depression of the 1930's, who fought and scraped and faced real hardship.

We hear lots of talk among some folks about how there is unfairness between the western world and the third world. You think folks in the the ghettos in India or in most of Africa are rioting in the streets because they have to pay some more tuition? Christ on a bicycle.....I bet a lot of these same students go home and lecture their families on "inequities" and "corporate greed" and the new Marxist political thought they've adopted since last week....gotta love the world's privileged ones griping about not getting enough.

[Coito ergo sum]

I really didn´t expect to ever say this but... I mostly agree with Coito!

Don't let it get you down.

[beige]

What makes you think that the workforce would be less competitive as a result of making people pay higher tuition, but allowing them to borrow the money and then pay it back on an income-based sliding scale post-graduation?

We in the West are soft. We need our kids working harder, not less, and learning to overcome adversity. The last 40 years or so have spoiled us.

The crying and moaning about an issue like this belittles the memory of people who faced real adversity. The men and woman of the German blitz on London, and those who spent their college days fighting off the most powerful military in the world in the Battle of Britain - the men and women of the Great Depression of the 1930's, who fought and scraped and faced real hardship.

We hear lots of talk among some folks about how there is unfairness between the western world and the third world. You think folks in the the ghettos in India or in most of Africa are rioting in the streets because they have to pay some more tuition? Christ on a bicycle.....I bet a lot of these same students go home and lecture their families on "inequities" and "corporate greed" and the new Marxist political thought they've adopted since last week....gotta love the world's privileged ones griping about not getting enough.

Ronja's post you quoted was in response to an earlier post by me (perhaps I should have included my original post when responding to her, but I was trying to keep it tidy - I apologise), not so much on the financial restrictions being imposed on students - but on the universities themselves and the measures they're taking to face the shortfall. They are tightening their belts.

That's the worrying thing.

They're starting to go through courses that are least effective to run and simply shutting down those programmes (not taking new students next year) or stripping them down to focus on theory rather than practical experience. They've been left with little alternative given that they can't really make up enough money elsewhere, even with tuition fees going up.

[Coito ergo sum]

There is no indication that people who go to college have "extra ability."

Now you've absolutely stunned me.
All I can say is, they do in the UK. Maybe all you need in the US is the money. In the UK, it's all about "A" level results.

In the US, you don't even need the money. If you're poor in the US, you can go for free - 100% on grants. You folks really need to cut it out with the constant implications that in the US the poor are downtrodden and all this stuff about how in the US it's all about whether you have the money. I'll stress this enough - poor people can go to college in the US for free - 100%. People who aren't poor, however, have to pay, but even non-poor folks can get some of their tuition paid for via grants, and almost everyone can get loans which they don't have to pay back until after college.

And, yes - almost anyone can get into college in the US, because we have 4,100 or so colleges and universities - and that means that there is about 1 college for every 9 or 10,000 people of college age. Somewhere, some college will take you if you want to go. In fact, I think that all 2 year community colleges literally take anyone who has graduated high school or has a high school equivalency degree. Almost every county in the US has a community college, and anyone can gain admission to them. Just fill out an admission form, and go.

A 2 year college is often chosen by those who didn't do so well in high school and need to prove themselves to get into a better university. So, you go there for two years - bust your butt and get good grades, and you can go to a regular university - just like Rudy Rudeggar did in the movie "Rudy."



But, are you really saying that only kids with "A" level results in high school go to college in the UK? That sounds more like the reason people aren't attending colleges and universities in the UK - either you're handing out A level grades like Chiclets and Tic-Tacs or hardly anyone goes to college there. You tell me. I did a quick google search and it says that 40% of British secondary school graduates go on to college - are you suggesting that 40% of British students have "A" level grades? Sounds a bit suspect of a stat, to me, and would suggest that your grading system is worthless, since to give 4 out of 10 kids an A is pointless.

[Trolldor]

We in the West are soft. We need our kids working harder, not less, and learning to overcome adversity. The last 40 years or so have spoiled us.

lolno.
Education, general intelligence, preparedness for the workforce etc. has been increasing as access to education has increased and the general quality of life has become easier.

[Coito ergo sum]

What makes you think that the workforce would be less competitive as a result of making people pay higher tuition, but allowing them to borrow the money and then pay it back on an income-based sliding scale post-graduation?

We in the West are soft. We need our kids working harder, not less, and learning to overcome adversity. The last 40 years or so have spoiled us.

The crying and moaning about an issue like this belittles the memory of people who faced real adversity. The men and woman of the German blitz on London, and those who spent their college days fighting off the most powerful military in the world in the Battle of Britain - the men and women of the Great Depression of the 1930's, who fought and scraped and faced real hardship.

We hear lots of talk among some folks about how there is unfairness between the western world and the third world. You think folks in the the ghettos in India or in most of Africa are rioting in the streets because they have to pay some more tuition? Christ on a bicycle.....I bet a lot of these same students go home and lecture their families on "inequities" and "corporate greed" and the new Marxist political thought they've adopted since last week....gotta love the world's privileged ones griping about not getting enough.

Ronja's post you quoted was in response to an earlier post by me (perhaps I should have included my original post when responding to her, but I was trying to keep it tidy - I apologise), not so much on the financial restrictions being imposed on students - but on the universities themselves and the measures they're taking to face the shortfall. They are tightening their belts.

That's the worrying thing.

They're starting to go through courses that are least effective to run and simply shutting down those programmes (not taking new students next year) or stripping them down to focus on theory rather than practical experience. They've been left with little alternative given that they can't really make up enough money elsewhere, even with tuition fees going up.

I would have to know which degrees they're looking at stripping. Some probably deserve to be stripped.

My opinion is that most folks are not taking enough core, basic, foundational courses - I think that almost should take mathematics up through and including at least one year of Calculus, preferably three semesters of Calculus followed by a class in Differential Equations. A year of Logic and Statistics/Probability -- oh, for the love of FSM -- that should be in year one of a Coito designed curriculum:

Year 1 Semester 1:
Calculus, Logic, Probability & Statistics, English Literature, History of Western Civilization, and Physics.
Year 1 Semester 2:
Calculus 2, Physics 2, World History of some sort, English Literature 2, Philosophy, Economics.

Something like that -- 18 credits a semester - none of this 15 credit nonsense - (or nowadays, 12 credits, and party 3/4 of the time...).

We ought to teach the FUCK out of the students....

[Coito ergo sum]

We in the West are soft. We need our kids working harder, not less, and learning to overcome adversity. The last 40 years or so have spoiled us.

lolno.
Education, general intelligence, preparedness for the workforce etc. has been increasing as access to education has increased and the general quality of life has become easier.

We're still soft.

General intelligence has not been shown to be increasing, or preparedness for the workforce. I'd like to see where you get your information.

College graduates today don't know dick, and they certainly don't come out of college prepared to work. That's a laugh.

[Trolldor]

Maybe you ought to do some research instead of reyling on conventional wisdom?

[Ronja]

Universities are being trated as businesses, and students are now clients, thanks to the introduction of fees.
And yes, we are officially referred to as clients.

The fees aren't a problem, but the prevailing attitudes are.

Disclaimer: I have understood that what in Finland is called a "course" (and sometimes a "class") is called a "module" in the UK. I mean the unit of study that is discussed in this example:
-"Which modules are you taking this term?"
-"Math 2B, Databases, English, and Theoretical Computer Science."
Also, "taking" a module in Finland is what the *students* do, and that I cannot twist my brain to express otherwise. Sorry!


I don't know what the quality of modules/courses in the UK in general (or at best or at worst) is, but I would be surprised if the things that happen here don't happen there at all. And this makes me question the realism in the epithet "client".

First, in Finland, community college / polytech teachers have to have passed a certain number of teacher's modules. They have to know pedagogics to get tenured. Not so in college/university - the professors need only to be good at research - they don't need to have shed one thought towards how people - especially freshmen = beginners - learn and how learning can be supported. And this does show in the quality of lecturing, course and module arrangements, material choices etc.

Second, I have personally experienced, at the "oldest, biggest and best" technical university of Finland, in the Computer Science department:

-half of the compulsory maths and physics modules have a pass rate of 50 % or under - those are the modules that don't give student feedback on their homework and/or the one's nobody wants to teach, so the teacher rotates every or every other year. These are the modules that college freshmen begin with, and which "teach" them how to study and strongly affect their view of themselves as students. So half of us learn that we are failures to begin with (and risk loosing the governmental support money, which is tied to getting enough ECTS per year).

-module feedback is compulsory for students to give (we don't get our ECTSs otherwise). Teacher's don't need to do anything based on the feedback, though - all improvements are voluntary on the teaching staff's side. Pedagogics modules for teachers are offered, and a 15 ECTS package of pedagogics can even be included in a PhD as an extra elective unit, but neither pedagogics studies nor raving student reviews give the teacher one red cent extra money either personally or for course/module expenses.

-a compulsory programming module of ours has 250 students every spring. No professor in the department or indeed in the whole capitol area apparently wants to teach it. So it is lectured by a prof from 300 km away, who comes to our campus for 3 hours per week, for a half term = to lecture only. He has *one* part-time teaching assistant (he works max 20 hours per week, from the looks of it closer to 10). There are no guided exercises or office hours. Every student in this module has to pass a group project (in groups of three). The lone TA checks and grades all projects. You do the math - do you think anyone got even a theoretical possibility for anything but *do*it*completely*yourself* learning? So what would a student be paying for in a module like this?

-another compulsory programming module, which has close to 1,000 students (I am not kidding you - almost all of the departments require B.Sc. students to pass a basic programming module, and for "efficiency" we are all taught together). There are several TAs and homework groups. However, all compulsory assignments (which are different from the homework) are checked by automated systems (computer programs) - if the checking system does not like your code, even though your general idea for the solution would be good, you get little or no points. Only if you have a strong enough confidence in your own code - i.e. you already understand programming so well that you know when you get it right (!!!), can you go to complain to a TA, and might get a few more points. Again, what is the "value for money" a student would get from a module like this? (note that this is a module for *beginners*)


Back to the UK: If you don't have enough money and/or extremely good grades, so that you can choose the really, really best college / university, how are you to know what the real quality of teaching is? Who is going to do comparisons between various programs, based on what criteria, and who would pay for the comparing work? If such a comparison could be arranged, what mechanisms would guarantee that the price of each program would be in relation to the program's quality?

Tertiary education is not a free market. It does not function according to any ideal free market rules or mechanisms.

A kid straight out of high school / secondary school is not competent to judge college/university teaching quality, even if (s)he could get enough unbiased information for that task. Neither are most parents. So what else is the new system in the UK except forcing all tertiary level students to take part in a rather ruthless lottery? If you happen to get into a program that luckily suits your learning style and has good teachers, and if you happen to get a good job after you graduate (and you don't fall ill during your studies etc. etc.) - you win. If you get into a hyped program that in practice does not suit you at all, or if you don't get a good job after you graduate - you loose. Either way, it sounds like neither the college/uni nor the government share any of the risk - it is pushed on the students.

I hope that I am wrong. But I'm not holding my breath.