Sorry, can't find data for before 1997, but since 1997 the creative industries have grown at 1% above the economic average for the UK.
The Higher Education Thread | First University with £18k pa fees to open
- Thread starter MalibuKen
- Start date
Sorry, can't find data for before 1997, but since 1997 the creative industries have grown at 1% above the economic average for the UK.
Start date is next March I think.
The full programme is working out at about £6,000 at the minute.
I won't be attending on-campus - the course is delivered online and through study centres.
You are correct that I'm not a British citizen, but for fees purposes EU students are also counted as 'home' students. They do not pay 'Overseas' rates.
Not much to hang your hat on there TBH. Maybe there was a huge decline in the 80s, and it was a rebound. OR maybe it was a result of a huge increase in wishy washy degrees. Possibly the increased percentage in that area was a result of falling industrial output because the education system is failing the country.
One thing of note all those areas (music, film, advertising etc) the bulk of the wealth goes to a tiny minority in the industry. It simply isn't sustainable and the good basis of a strong economy. Just see how many of the higher paid artists and film makers flee the country as the taxes raise.
The increases don't come into effect until after you are starting and may be held off for the length of your course.
Neither are 98% of uni students. Not that it matters, as it's not really your argument is it? You're arguing people should fund their own education. SO where does that start? Why should it just impact uni students, why shouldn't all those in education fund it themselves?
He is an EU student so no he won't.
There is a reason why university education is called 'Higher Education' - that it is extra upon what is required to simply get around which is why compulsory education will always be free to attend.
Am I right in saying MJS that in the United States school districts can charge additional local taxes if you have children attending school?
Its sad that people see it that way, honestly if it were up to me.. thats why I'd limit University places to those who are interested in academia for its own sake and distinguish degrees from vocational courses which are more for those who need training for a job they have in mind.
Both are just as important in my mind and interlinked, academic research and progress enriches and enlightens industry in a variety of sectors but also aids culture, makes life worth living and hopefully would lead to a more civillised and intelligent world less likely to resort to animalistic displays of aggression fueled by lack of knowledge and irrationality.
Again I agree with both points and a compromise should be found.. clearly in times of economic depression its harder to pump money into cultural and intellectual progression when the country is struggling to cater for more fundamental needs such as healthcare etc.
But can I ask.. why spend so much on the military? if the world as a whole had spent more on education and the advancement of genuine knowledge it'd be less inclined to go to war and spend money on killing fellow humans in far away places in which we shouldn't be interfering in.
Another thing not everyone should get free access to higher education, as I've said before in this thread.. thats a pipe dream and in many cases a worthless cause as some just see it as a means to get a job. I'd limit places to those who have a genuine chance of furthering that subject to a new level of knowledge and are intellectually gifted, a free for all allowing mediocre students who just want their scraped 2:1 for a job are not the sort of kids, the government should be raising funds for.
Society has a financial responsibility and its in societies own interests to cultivate the finest minds of future generations, if that means forking out so be it.. because no one wants to live through another intellectual dark age. Britain does not want to be seen as a country of rich thickos with the ability to get a degree.. it needs to modernise and believe in meritocracy, let the best get to the top and if they need financial help give them it and as for the less academically gifted kids, let them enter the more mundane world of work (whatever that entails) and let them train for it through a more vocational course.
At least they're making a stand, forcing people to have a discussion.. rather than just allowing University Education to be a playground of Toffs.
Count Duckula the Roman to Mike's Greek.
How many authors are there who write historical books worth reading? Just 200? I think you have a very narrow definition of 'worthwhile'. There may be 200 to you.
As I said, a History degree gives students a good skills base from which to improve their employment chances. The fact that many do not see this does not mean that those skills are not central to the university course.
Having seen how university courses are written, you need to show two things:
1) Does the course add skills and knowledge to the student? This includes transferable skills for the workplace
2) Will those skills and knowledge benefit the students?
Employability is central to university study, whether or not the students appreciate it.
Additionally, graduate Medicine offers Arts students the chance to be doctors. Whisper it gently, but they may actually make better doctors than those coming from a scientific degree.
I don't think we are far apart actually, although when you say 'tailored to the economy' I would read that as meaning universities should give graduates relevant skills to enter the economy. In fact, I wouldn't object to the employability skills being even more publicised in degree programmes than they are already.
I would change another thing. 16 year olds have too much pressure put on them full stop. Constant examinations and hoop jumping means that, I am sad to say, many of them need universities to teach them the things that their schools have not, such as critical thinking, analytical skills and even how to argue.
A pretty naive statement based on one conflict out of the last century. A strong military is essential and it does create a lot of jobs and exports in terms of defense and science.
Most countries that don't have a strong military hide behind NATO and the US when it suits them. Similar silly assumptions that the military is an expense we could not afford were predominant in the 1930's, that worked out well didn't it.
BTW - the Uks military spending is 53rd in the world based on GDP. That is amazingly low considering the UKs position the world and the amount of exports it creates.
I assume you are referring to share of GDP?
The interesting thing is that outside of wartime UK defence spending has always sat in the range it is in now, Between 1820 and 1900 with the exception of the Crimean War I think we spent more than 2.5% of GDP on defence something like 3 times despite the fact that defence spending was maintaining the British Empire.
Yes.
How many UK jobs are dependent on the defense industry? I bet it is very close to 2.5% when you factor all the indirect jobs in. There are 200,000 serving military, and I think the support jobs and local community dependent jobs are about 4 or 5 to one. Then you have the defense industry jobs that are spurned from the strong military.
Talk of cutting the military is ridiculous, it actually hurts the economy.
160,000 directly, and the statistical claim is that for each job directly created, another 1.6 get indirectly created
http://www.defencematters.co.uk/get...c37-16bbca787e3d/Oxford-Economics-report.aspx
http://www.defencematters.co.uk/get...c37-16bbca787e3d/Oxford-Economics-report.aspx
The entire manufacturing industry employs about 15% of the workforce, when you take in indirect jobs dependent on arms production beside those directly employed in it I would be very surprised if it accounts for less than 2.5% of the workforce.
Only 160,000? That surprises me a great deal.
The British labour pool is about 31 million strong.
It was a figure pulled out of that study - it seems fairly pro-defence spending so feel free to have a closer look as I just skimmed the thing
160,000 is the number working in the defense sector. So there are 1.6 jobs indirectly spurned for every defense job, so that is another 256,000. There are 190,000 in the military (RAF 44k, Navy 35k, Army 113k).
So:
Military: 190,000
Defense: 160,000
Indirect Defense: 256,000
So already over 600k without all the jobs dependent on spending in military communities. So it quite easily justifies the 2.5% of GDP the UK spends on the military.
There we go - excluding the military. I couldn't be bothered doing the grunt work.
I still find the 160,000 figure difficult to contemplate as BAE is one of the biggest employers in the UK with well over 100,000 employees in the country.
Back to your main point you don't include reserve forces which can potentially run to an additional 230,000 and the 80,000 civilians at the Ministry of Defence.
Does anyone else enjoy seeing the right wing happily engage in socialist tax-and-spend justifications for military spending? It's a beautiful thing.
That's different though Mike - it's Milton Friedman economics. If Milton Friedman was in a tank and firing shells at government until they spent more on defence
We're not, we're commenting how efficient the UK defence community is and always has been.
I see.
I would love to live in your utopia. We would have a poet on every corner, museums galore with a curator for everyone visitor......speaking German of course.
I didn't say I disagreed with your point on defence spending, only that it is probably the one area of the economy where you would accept such a justification for state spending.
I would love to live in your utopia. We would have a poet on every corner, museums galore with a curator for everyone visitor......speaking German of course.
Of course - Holderlin and Hegel would have seen to that
We need capitalism with social consciousness. Its a difficult trick to pull off but to be truly sustainable you need both IMO.
I would be content with a government that spent 35% of GDP on public services - I'd increase defence, health and transport spending whilst bringing down the social welfare budget significantly to pay for it, £220 billion on such services is simply unsustainable.
To bring it back to the topic at hand, I think something like 1.5% of the workforce are directly employed in higher education (and indirectly well over the 600,000 you estimate for defence and the military). Am I allowed to use this in my justification of state funding for Universities, or is that only allowed for defence?
Defence is something that can only be carried out by the state unlike most other amenities in society, personally I am not fond of the government drawback on higher education spending though the way they are doing it graduates on lower incomes will be much better off so I accept them.
Whether funds are available or not, universal or not, a revolution is required in universities and that is in the style of teaching and interraction between professors and students which as it stands isn't good enough.
I have no problem with higher education spending. Its the way its being spent that is the main issue. When the need for foreign IT staff and nurses subsides the education system can pat itself on the back.
I'm not happy that UK citizens are funding degree studies on What do Doctors think whilst they pick their noses OR the Sexual Exploits of Football Supporters who think they are Undernourished as a result of the Gulf war OR Aborigine Music and its Contribution to Caff egalitarianism OR Does Wayne Rooney think and if he does is it it all about scoring on or off the field
I'm not happy that UK citizens are funding degree studies on What do Doctors think whilst they pick their noses OR the Sexual Exploits of Football Supporters who think they are Undernourished as a result of the Gulf war OR Aborigine Music and its Contribution to Caff egalitarianism OR Does Wayne Rooney think and if he does is it it all about scoring on or off the field
Though I would happily fund a degree study on 'Topper and his contribution to stupidity and straw men in the 21st century'.
and I to Mike Up North and his studies on himself on How I blew my mind whilst I blew myself
I'm not happy that UK citizens are funding degree studies on What do Doctors think whilst they pick their noses OR the Sexual Exploits of Football Supporters who think they are Undernourished as a result of the Gulf war OR Aborigine Music and its Contribution to Caff egalitarianism OR Does Wayne Rooney think and if he does is it it all about scoring on or off the field
Examples of all those degree courses and their universities and syllabuses would be welcome.
Well, that's not true is it? Why would I need Spanish, or History, or Metal Work to simply 'get around'? Or even any of the sciences? The majority of education throughout school and college isn't needed to simply 'get around' so why not just scrap most of it to save on funding?
or give students the choice - to go to University or not.
Hi caf, it's been a while.
I've just about recovered from the beating I took on Wednesday for the simple crime of putting myself between copper's batons and kids in school uniform. Wonderful to see how it was reported on the news as always!
I'll get into a bit more of the economic debate when I've got a bit longer but on the social movement side of things keep an eye out on Tuesday for the next day of action - these kids aren't going away til they achieve something.
I've just about recovered from the beating I took on Wednesday for the simple crime of putting myself between copper's batons and kids in school uniform. Wonderful to see how it was reported on the news as always!
I'll get into a bit more of the economic debate when I've got a bit longer but on the social movement side of things keep an eye out on Tuesday for the next day of action - these kids aren't going away til they achieve something.
Like sit their GCSEs