The governments criteria for an underperforming course is one whose students don’t go on to earn enough money to pay the debt they accrue. Unfortunately the same government has said don’t go asking for pay rises because it will wreak the economy.
Except for "top" executives and MPs, of course. Grifters.
When you put it that way it starts to sound like the start of a conspiracy to dumb down the population which makes for more Tory voters...
Going to university is far more than getting a qualification. It's part of enabling young people to develop as people intellectually and socially. This is something that the Tories don't understand. They want to monetise everything. Including the interests and aspirations of people. Tories have wrecked primary and secondary education and now want to finish off post-compulsory learning. They really are below vermin.
Neoliberals doing neoliberal things.
That's right. Lower than vermin.
Reminds me of this, from a few years back.
Brilliant. Captures that money-obsessed mindset perfectly.
There was a study done by Tory MPs in 2005 after a devastating defeat by Labour. One of the conclusions of the study was that people who were graduating were becoming less likely to vote Conservative. There is a tin foil hat conspiracy that reckons the Tories are actively destroying state schools and making it harder for working class to become educated. The study was titled direct democracy. an agenda for a new model party
Let me guess the arts are going to be considered unskilled jobs.
I wouldn't look at it like that.
If students do an art degree and then go on to make a significant amount above the average wage working in art restoration or curating or creating art or whatever else that degree is useful for then it is a well performing degree. If the majority become starving artists working on the checkouts at a supermarket then it's a poorly performing degree.
It's as simple as that. You have to be honest and ask yourself how many historians (for example) we need to qualify every year and would there be a benefit to the country if we could incentivise these people in to STEM opportunities instead.
Depends whether the "starving artist" chooses this as a life and prioritises their art over material wealth. Many would. After a period when more people from poorer backgrounds could become artists, writers and performers, we're seeing a return to a very narrow social class monopolising the arts. Just look at how many current well-known actors come from upper-class and privileged backgrounds.
What we do need to be honest about is how the UK has allowed people working checkouts at supermarkets (and across most jobs really) to be paid so little that they may be "starving" and still live with parents.
The richness of all the pop movements that came in rapid succession from the 1950s to the 1980s or 1990s was because kids from any background could break into the scene and be heard. These days it's mostly rich kids and music is poorer for it.
Yes.
Related is this recent article about how a third of artists living in London can't pay their rent.
I guess a Tory would say "Law of the Jungle" and that artists need to respond to market demand etc.
The music scene has totally changed but I don't think university places are the culprit. What proportion of the kids that broke in to the scene that you mention went to university?
With one or two exceptions, it's mostly well-educated Art school or uni students. Certainly most of the "successful" British ones. Working class bands - especially those "manufactured" solo artists or groups - tended to get screwed by their managers and record companies (probably moreso today).
If the majority of music students work at Tesco but a small minority become The Beatles, I'd say its a well-performing degree. Culture isn't about ruthless efficiency.
John and Paul both dropped out of college and none of the members went to university at all.
Nothing of what I have learnt I want to apply for the benefit of the country. Sorry
I'm not sure if you're implying that there was a nationalist tone to my comment, if so, it wasn't what I was aiming for. I was more trying to talk about benefitting society, not any one particular nation.
Or maybe you're a nihilist?
So studying music, which hardly ever pays well as a career, will be prohibited? Or literature or art or philosophy? There's such a thing as a country's cultural wealth as well as its financial wealth. If you prevent anyone from studying the arts you create a culturally impoverished, ignorant society. And it's pretty revolting if only the wealthy have the opportunity to engage in the arts, while everyone else has to remain in ignorance and make them more money.
I never said it should be prohibited, that's a very silly presumption. Please don't put words in my mouth.
Do I think that the number of places should be more or less in line with the roles that we need filled in a society? Mostly.
There are also a lot of people who want to bring class in to the debate for some reason, if I had it my way, the whole of the UK would have free education as our parents did and class would have nothing to do with it.
If you ran an engineering business and you needed five additional mechanics and five additional electricians to meet the growing demands of your customers. Would you pay to train up five mechanical apprentices and five electricians, or would you pay to train up ten electrical apprentices because the mechanical roles are less desirable and you want prevent the electrical roles from becoming dominated by the upper classes?
Does this mean nearly all arts degrees will be eliminated because the graduates don't earn much money? What a sad stage of affairs. I didn't realise the point of having an education is to make as much money as possible.
Lots of people with arts degrees earn good money.
If you judge your degrees by how much people make after finishing, you're going to have a bad time. And lots of MBA graduates.
shudder
Getting people qualified in things should be seen at a country level, and being able to support people reading subjects that don't directly link to service is the sign of a prosperous country, imho.
It's become a bit chicken-and-egg, sadly. A degree-style course might not be the best way to teach a subject, but employers like the certification that you dedicated yourself for 2+years, so it has to be.
And this seems to be one of the results of that.
An MBA is a post-graduate degree.
Does this just mean Tories cracking down on arts degrees because they don't focus on skills that are about making money? The end result will be cultural impoverishment for the country - ignorance about art, literature and philosophy, and a scarcity of trained musicians, actors, etc. Tories won't care because all they understand is money.
General community for news/discussion in the UK.
Less serious posts should go in !casualuk@feddit.uk or !andfinally@feddit.uk
More serious politics should go in !uk_politics@feddit.uk.
Try not to spam the same link to multiple feddit.uk communities.
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric news, and should be either a link to a reputable source, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread.
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.