[Flyin'Dutch']

There is attrition in any education/training even in that for 'worthwhile' jobs/degrees and what have you.

[Miscellaneous]

FD, I'm suggesting the attrition would be significantly less if someone else didn't pick up the tab.

[Genghis the Engineer]

That appears not to be the case. Dropouts now are I think rather higher than they were in my day, and failing to graduate doesn't make the debts magically go away.

Conversely, drop out rates from apprenticeships are very low - and those students pay nothing themselves.

I think that dropouts are all about selection and support, and very little to do with money.

G

[Miscellaneous]

You're back to England and Wales, G, I'm talking Scotland where there isn't any debt, which I suggest means less consideration from the undergraduate. I'm suggesting beware of what you wish for south of the border.

It won't be made any more palatable if, as expected, taxes are increased to be even further adrift from the rest of the UK on Thursday.

[Genghis the Engineer]

Only insofar as I'm comparing systems with and without "user pays", I think.

Scotland is definitely closer to the system I grew up with myself as a student.

This article is interesting - it *appears* to show a weak correlation between "user pays" and retention in that students running up fees and loans are a bit more likely to finish - but a much stronger correlation between entry standards and retention - the universities with the highest dropout rates seem to be those with lower entry requirements.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/educ ... in_the_UK/

G

[Miscellaneous]

Interesting article which tends to support my view, but it certainly doesn't demonstrate causation.

I'm not surprised at St Andrews having a low drop out;

a) due to the demographic
b) I understand there is a very high percentage of paying foreign undergraduates.

..the universities with the highest dropout rates seem to be those with lower entry requirements.

And there's the rub; being efficient with tax revenues whilst giving everyone an equal opportunity.

I think care is needed in not getting carried away with the idea everyone should have the opportunity of going to university irrespective of the cost to society. Nor the potential for them to contribute in the workplace.

I don't believe the challenges are insurmountable though. A reasonable compromise may be some sort of tie, for example must work in chosen field for minimum time otherwise repayment of fees…?

[Genghis the Engineer]

A reasonable compromise may be some sort of tie, for example must work in chosen field for minimum time otherwise repayment of fees…?

That specifically would be extremely fraught - as how do you define "chosen field." Is an engineering graduate using that in the marketing of engineering products, or an economics graduate working in the media (but reporting on the economy) in their chosen field or not?

A write-off or write-down for obtaining subsequent qualifications might be a way ahead? Becoming a qualified nurse or teacher, for example? But even then, it would be very hard to police.

Basically a great idea, but the devil would be in the detail.

G

[Paultheparaglider]

I think that dropouts are all about selection and support, and very little to do with money.

I'm a University dropout. There can't be many on here. I dropped out back in the days when there were no charges.

I find this debate interesting, and I've tried to consider what I would have done had I been faced with a large bill for a zero result.

In my case, I was reading Electrical and electronic engineering. I didn't really have a clue to what sort of life that would lead, but I was probably steered in that general direction by parents and teachers as I had shown reasonable ability in maths and science. It didn't take me very long to realise I had virtually no interest whatsoever in the subject matter, and after a year of no motivation or application whatsoever failed many of my first year exams miserably. I was given the option to resit the year, or to move to another degree course.

I decided to leave and get a job, which hurt my parents deeply at the time. However, I subsequently gained a professional accounting qualification and an MBA. I valued further education, and I wasn't a lazy person, but had simply made a bad degree course choice. As it turned out, this change worked out well for me.

I do wonder what I would have done if the current fees had been in place at the time. I think I would have almost certainly worked harder, passed my exams, and carried on to get a degree. I might have then ended up in a career that was totally unsuitable for me.

I might also have been more motivated to take more care over my initial choice of degree, but if I were to be honest I really didn't have a clue what I wanted to do with my life back then. I had wanted to be a pilot in the RAF, but eyesight and hearing deficiencies ruled that out.

I feel sorry for the young these days. They face hard choices at an age where I'm sure many, just like me back then, don't really know what they want out of life.

Anyway, in conclusion, Genghis, my own decision had nothing to do with the money as it wasn't a factor back then, but I think it would have some bearing now.

[Miscellaneous]

An interesting, if not unusual, story Paul, which is to be expected.

I'm not suggesting in telling it you are supporting funding for anyone that comes along, however I feel motivated to reiterate that such stories are not a reason to hand out funding without conditions.

As is common in this modern world we easily lose sight of the main objective with secondary objectives becoming the focus. In this topic the main objective should be providing the country with sufficient graduates in APPROPRIATE fields for sustained economic development. The secondary (and proper) objective of giving everyone capable equal opportunity should not morph in to a main objective of giving everyone an opportunity and downgrading degrees to ensure this happens.

My observations as an outsider is that is what's happening with the consequential growth in graduates without jobs…and it's not all of their own doing.

[Paultheparaglider]

I don't disagree with any of that, Misc. I think the decision to make university places a more widespread option has inevitably driven changes towards a fee based process. All such changes bring plusses and minuses.

Fine tuning it to encourage the uptake some degrees over others is definitely theoretically desirable, although it does mean looking ahead and being willing to chop and change that incentivisation as circumstances require. That also will have advantages and disadvantages.

[Genghis the Engineer]

The obvious point from what Paul has said is that dropouts are not necessarily a bad thing. Maybe the right mechanism is that students should get most of their money back if they drop out early having, for whatever reason, realised they're in the wrong place for the wrong reasons (parental pressure probably being one of the most common "wrong reasons").

G

[Miscellaneous]

As viewed from the individual dropping out POV, I'd agree. However it's not good for the system (although arguably better than someone like Paul having stayed on), or for those denied a place as a consequence.

Rather than shrug shoulders and say it's not necessarily a bad thing it would be better to work towards minimising dropouts.

In Paul's own words;

I might also have been more motivated to take more care over my initial choice of degree

[Pete L]

Initial degree vs destination: a very high proportion of engineering graduates from where I went to end up in some variation of financial services - prime stomping ground for City recruiters. I'd like to think this is a good thing, but it does seem a waste to lose all that talent for designing stuff even if it does at least get decent projects funded*.

* and improve the standard of evaluating investment "opportunities". We used to get intermittent visits from investment "professionals" when we had our start up and I wouldn't have trusted them with sixpence - especially as we also got invited to assess various technology snake-oil merchants that shouldn't have past through the original submission in green-ink.

[Genghis the Engineer]

There has always been a proportion of graduates who go into apparently unrelated fields and use their learning well. I have a friend who graduated in philosophy, then went and trained as a computer programmer - using the skillset very well before she retrained as an undertaker! Another friend graduated in archeology, and went into a graduate management job with a city council where I gather she is very effective.

Measuring how a degree was used is often impossible.

Yes, an engineering graduate working in engineering, or a music graduate who has become a music teacher is obvious. But the philosopher-programmer, engineer-financier, or historian-journalist may well be using those skills equally well, just more tangentially.

G

[Miscellaneous]

But the philosopher-programmer, engineer-financier, or historian-journalist may well be using those skills equally well, just more tangentially.

Indeed they may, however given it's only a may and;

Measuring how a degree was used is often impossible.

then it's unacceptable to fully fund anyone, for any degree, without some sort of measure to ensure payback…especially when this can be a consequence ( )

Scottish tax changes

If the world of finance is so keen on recruiting a 'very high proportion' of engineering graduates then there's nothing to stop them contributing to the funding of the degree.

This thread has certainly cemented my views on whether university education should be covered for all.

Stay as you are England!