It wasn't intended to be contradictory, I no doubt didn't explain myself properly. Universities need more money, and I think that money should come from those who use them. This could be undergraduates or alumni. American universities for instance are often in receipt of large donations from alumni, something British institutions have traditionally lacked. Oxbridge are getting better in this regard but other universities are far behind.
You're not doing your argument any favours by dragging Oxbridge into it. As you note, the reason the Oxford and Cambridge colleges are so well funded is because they receive enormous amounts of private funding from a wide variety of sources - industry/commercial donations, donations/legacies from ex students.
Some of the colleges have so much money they really don't know what to do with it. One Cambridge graduate I knew years ago boasted that after he suffered a nervous breakdown studying 'mathematics and computing' and 'found god' his college paid for him to travel around the Middle East for a year, study New Testament Greek (which he struggled with) and then come back to take a degree in Theology.
(obviously he was/presumably still is, a complete tit)
Not surprisingly when he graduated he was able to walk straight into a high level job in Brussels, not because he'd studied anything which related to a career in administering the European union - or because he was interested in/had any vocation for a career administering the EU, simply because of the word 'Cambridge' on his degree certificate.
I meet a lot of Oxbridge graduates in my job, many of whom openly admit that they're crap at what they (we) do, and that they managed to get appointed largely on the strength of their college name.
I'd be interested to learn how you think either the disparity in funding available to Oxbridge/non Oxbridge colleges and the prospects of their respective graduates will change by forcing students who can't fund their way through college to take out loans they can never repay. Frankly, nothing you've said either above or in any of your subsequent posts comes close to addressing either point.
Regarding the value of a degree, it's obviously not possible to talk in terms of each and every student but there are various things one can consider to analyse the value of a degree from a particular institution. League tables have been around for a while and most universities publish graduate employment rates. Many universities offer internships mid-study, which no doubt improves prospects after graduation. Whilst of course these aren't perfect measures they can give an idea as to the quality of your education. You could even investigate your tutors, see what kind of work they've had published etc. too if you were so inclined. Talk to graduates on open days.
I'm a little surprised to hear you had such problems as engineers are reported to be in high demand in the press. Of course I don't know your individual circumstances so can't really comment on them (and wouldn't wish to).
It's very actually very straightforward Bruce - and had you bothered to read what I posted above carefully you could have avoided making a nonsensical reply.
There may be a shortage of engineers
now, back when I graduated
in 1984 there wasn't.
In fact there was a glut of unemployed engineers with years of experience who were of far greater value to employers than recent graduates. Hence I, and many of my peers found it extremely difficult to find any sort of employment. Many of those who did found themselves redundant within a couple of years. One friend of mine was made redundant twice in 18 months as the then economic recession forced companies to downsize/go out of business.
The graduate
MARKET is just that, it's a market. One year there's a shortage of engineers and graduates find it easy to get jobs. Next year there's a glut of IT graduates and they're forced to retrain as plumbers (I know two people who did just this a few years back).
The idea that the employment market is in any way stable is as absurd as the belief that graduates are in any way guaranteed jobs with a high enough salary to pay off enormous debts.
And to address your contention that those people benefiting from higher education should pay for it - I suggest you go and spend some time in a country in which there are few universities and few graduates - say Nepal or one of the poorer African countries.
Societies whose populations are well educated prosper, those with few well educated people don't. Simple as.
All of UK society benefits from having a well educated population, the country's economic well being depends entirely on the continuing supply of well educated graduates. Forcing graduates into levels of debt they cannot service only discourages people from entering higher education, and ultimately is of no benefit to the country whatsoever.
Study medicine and in the long run, 4.80% isn't to bad... but thats not really the issue is it?
