It's 30 so this is basically a graduate tax not a loan.

What is more those do go onto very well paid jobs [iwill[/i actually pay the loan down which means they will end up paying [iless[/i for their university education than someone who ends up on a middle income.

Fair point.

Ultimately though, it is only right that those who receive the benefit of the education pay for it.

In a lot of the "professions" its the employers who are actually the main beneficiaries of university education, for free.

And that is why many of them sponsor people through uni.

Indeed. Labour have a lot to answer for on this.



Yup. And as everyone benefits...

I know masses of people who have left university with degrees such as 'business studies'.

Many of them are working in run-of-the mill jobs that do not require anything more than a sensible school leaver. They receive no extra financial reward for their degree, nor does their degree have any tangible impact on their job.

I don't see how we, as a society, benefit from these people having degrees. Does it mean they are likely to make more intelligent conversation in the pub or something?

Unless you do something super specialised (medicine, law etc...) or elite (PPE at Oxford) the chances are your first degree will be irrelevant after 5 years.

Most prospectuses these days try to sell their "university experience," rather than education. I think that refers to giving students a platform to get p***ed and act in an immature manner without having to worry that they come out without a "qualification".

Needs to be more academic vigour. I know people who went through 3 year degrees sitting no more than 2 or 3 exams.

Essay-based assessments are often little more than an exercise in detecting plagerism.

Unfortunately its often the employers who enforce that misconception by insisting on such qualifications for even the most mundane of jobs - when was the last time you saw a job advertised for an "office junior", or heard of an employer willing to take on a 16 year old and give them a five year on the job apprenticeship and pay for their day release or night school training ?

The misconception is that a 21 year old will leave university ready trained for the world of commerce in whatever field they choose, which as most of us are all too aware is a gross misconception, albeit a very cheap option for the employers.

Many ?

Are you sure about that word "many" ?

I see precious little evidence of it being "many", "a few" I would agree and only in certain professions, its certainly not "many".

Agreed. Especially in the first year. The 'university experience' generally means getting blasted out of your skull on cheap vodka 4 nights a week, staying in bed until early afternoon and, very occasionally, doing just enough academic study to prevent yourself getting thrown off the course.

Not a scenario I recognise and I'm in one of two universities every working day.

It may not fit the popular misconception you are propagating here but a degree education says something about a persons ability academically and otherwise other than just that they received a higher education in a certain subject.

It's always been like that and this is why companies large enough to have a general graduate recruitment program recruit graduates with degrees in many different subjects. The idea they would be better off recruiting a 16 year old and giving them five years training is another popular myth. If it were that simple then that is what they would do but they don't. A reason they don't is they have no idea if that 16 year old will be worth the effort five years down the line whereas by recruiting graduates they know what they have had to do to get their degree. Such companies are not stupid and you don't get a place on their schemes just because you have a degree but it is degree qualified people they are after.

If you go to a good University to study a good course then you need good grades. It's all very well saying that you only need 2 E's to study law, but it's at Leeds Met......

Can you give me an example of an employer asking for a degree qualification for a mundane job and even if you can are you suggesting this is the norm?



No, the misconception is that you think this in the first place. Why do you think graduate training schemes are call "training schemes"? Employers such as say M&S know a graduate in English or the Classics for example won't know anything about the retail sector but they take them on because of what their ability to get a degree says about them.