ISTM that degree subjects that more employers are looking for should get gov't subsidies (i.e. part-paid by grants, rather than loans) in order to encourage students into areas where the country could gain most benefit.

ISTM that degree subjects that more employers are looking for should get gov't subsidies (i.e. part-paid by grants, rather than loans) in order to encourage students into areas where the country could gain most benefit.

Why? If students need subsidies to satisfy employers' demands, let the employers pay.

ISTM that degree subjects that more employers are looking for should get gov't subsidies (i.e. part-paid by grants, rather than loans) in order to encourage students into areas where the country could gain most benefit.

 

This idea seems surprisingly left wing for you (advocating government spending rather than private spending as Suedehead suggested)? :o :lol:

I can definitely see the merit in government subsidies for fields where there is a national shortage when it comes to healthcare, as has been done before - I know that a few years ago you could get a degree in radiography in Northern Ireland heavily subsidised as there was a shortage of radiographers at the time. But for the private sector? It's probably best to read the comment two above this one.

This idea seems surprisingly left wing for you (advocating government spending rather than private spending as Suedehead suggested)? :o :lol:

 

Implementing policies that would heavily benefit the growth of businesses by cutting their training costs sounds quite right-wing to me, and it would not surprise me if a Conservative government was to bring in a policy such as that (not that it's likely).

Why? If students need subsidies to satisfy employers' demands, let the employers pay.

 

The problem with that is that it requires a long-term commitment between student & employer, with no guarantee that the student will even succeed.

 

This idea seems surprisingly left wing for you (advocating government spending rather than private spending as Suedehead suggested)? :o :lol:

 

That shouldn't be a surprise - I've always been left of center economically (see the political compass thread).

The problem with that is that it requires a long-term commitment between student & employer, with no guarantee that the student will even succeed.

Who said anything about a specific employer?

 

If there's a lower supply of graduates for a particular job, it will pay more and start to look like a more attractive option. As others have said, there's no point in the government subsidising the degree if the employer is the one who will benefit.

Who said anything about a specific employer?

 

If there's a lower supply of graduates for a particular job, it will pay more and start to look like a more attractive option. As others have said, there's no point in the government subsidising the degree if the employer is the one who will benefit.

 

That isn't always the case.

 

I definitely think something should be done in regards to where we have skill shortages. But the government aren't doing themselves any favours. There was a nursing shortage and the government decide it was a good idea to scrap NHS bursaries. Surprise, susprise, applicants for nursing went down.

 

I think STEM subjects and those such as nursing should be subsidised. Perhaps every x amounts of years there should be a review on which areas need subsidising based on skill shortages? There could also be an arguement in dropping a degree requirement for nursing and train people in a more hands on way.

 

I'd also like it if the government reduced tuition fees by investing more into higher education. A lot of the reason why the UK needs high amounts of high skilled immigration is because there are a large lack of relevantly skilled people to fill positions. The only way that is going to change is if the government invest more heavily in the education system and make higher education more accessible to people. Tuition fees being so high puts off a lot of people from going to university.

Edited September 1, 20177 yr by Envoirment

Because so many people go to Uni nowadays, I feel that having a degree isn't worth what it was say 30 years ago.

 

It was regarded as something really special then, and having one would virtually guarantee good employment for life.

 

I have no idea if they are now easier to achieve than they used to be, but that leads to one of two scenarios...

 

1. The intellectual snobbery of previous decades denied many people who were capable of obtaining degrees, from having the chance to do so or,

2. The standard has been reduced in order to allow more people to gain degrees, albeit possibly undervalued.

 

Which explanation do you prefer, or perhaps you have an alternative one?

 

I prefer #1, as it doesn't require the lowering of standards which could be considered patronizing to modern students.

That isn't always the case.

 

I definitely think something should be done in regards to where we have skill shortages. But the government aren't doing themselves any favours. There was a nursing shortage and the government decide it was a good idea to scrap NHS bursaries. Surprise, susprise, applicants for nursing went down.

 

I think STEM subjects and those such as nursing should be subsidised. Perhaps every x amounts of years there should be a review on which areas need subsidising based on skill shortages? There could also be an arguement in dropping a degree requirement for nursing and train people in a more hands on way.

 

I'd also like it if the government reduced tuition fees by investing more into higher education. A lot of the reason why the UK needs high amounts of high skilled immigration is because there are a large lack of relevantly skilled people to fill positions. The only way that is going to change is if the government invest more heavily in the education system and make higher education more accessible to people. Tuition fees being so high puts off a lot of people from going to university.

Nursing is an example where a vast proportion of graduates would be employed in the public sector, so it makes absolute sense for the government to subsidise those degrees through bursaries.

Because so many people go to Uni nowadays, I feel that having a degree isn't worth what it was say 30 years ago.

 

It was regarded as something really special then, and having one would virtually guarantee good employment for life.

 

I have no idea if they are now easier to achieve than they used to be, but that leads to one of two scenarios...

 

1. The intellectual snobbery of previous decades denied many people who were capable of obtaining degrees, from having the chance to do so or,

2. The standard has been reduced in order to allow more people to gain degrees, albeit possibly undervalued.

 

Which explanation do you prefer, or perhaps you have an alternative one?

 

I prefer #1, as it doesn't require the lowering of standards which could be considered patronizing to modern students.

The answer is closer to #1 but not quite. Funding was the main issue, hence why university was reserved for the intellectual elite. The reason student numbers exploded was because the introduction of tuition fees meant universities could take on far more students - which was the intention, given the skills a university education sets you up with are essential for so many jobs in the modern economy.

 

Tuition fees often get decried (and I think it's fair to say they're far too high now - certainly much higher than ever intended at the outset) but without them there's no way so many would have been able to go to university in the last 20 years - the government would never have provided the funding. It'd be silly to pretend every single person who went to university should have gone, but I'm firmly of the view that the vast majority of UK graduates in the last 20 years either are better off for having gone to uni.

Edited September 1, 20177 yr by Qassändra

I'm not in favour of subsidies for specific courses. I'm in favour of subsidies for all courses.

 

The job market sorts out those degrees that are useful from those that are less desirable, but that should be a personal choice if you can get onto it. If not all archeology students can get a relevant job, that's a shame, but that doesn't mean it's a pointless course.

 

Jobs with shortages should pay more for staff (or train them themselves) not expect the state to sponsor them. In the case of the NHS, taxpayers should also expect to pay the going rate for professionals and then perhaps there wouldn't be shortages of applicants.