4 ms·

> they're not comparing it with the cost of other goods and services (which is what CPI measures), but whether they can afford it, based on their parents' curre

> they're not comparing it with the cost of other goods and services (which is what CPI measures), but whether they can afford it, based on their parents' current/past income, or their own future expected income. Going to university should be viewed in the same light as a financial investment, there is no guarantee it will improve your standard of living, except perhaps through networking, a case of who you know not what you know that matters, the old school tie network, that sort of thing. For example, the police when charging people dont ask what your educational achievements are or where you studied. So are some university's going to increase your chances of ending up in prison or do they make you an untouchable Clarke in their field of knowledge? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk4wX4FPRzE&t=6s https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yk4wX4FPRzE&t=6s In a way, the police are hiding the poor standards of the state educational system by not publishing this data, let alone capturing it for data analysis and they are also protecting the reputation of university's. Likewise the course offered, is it relevant for today and the future or are they teaching courses on subject matter which is becoming irrelevant? Look at how quickly some things have changed over the last twenty years. And the obvious elephant in the room, is how many people have studied a degree which is relevant to their current employment and past employment? In other words, does having a university degree show you can play nicely with others and evolve from academic speak to corporate speak? Again backing up the impression the university's are selling knowledge on the subject matter you want to learn, but its not their job to find you employment pertaining to the subject matter you have studied. This applies to all universities. So then the networking potential is relied upon and if you happen to work for a business which values university degrees highly, then there is a level of "obedience to authority" which can be applied as a factor to that business. Take Goldman Sach's, AFAIK their policy is to recruit only graduates and to let a % go every 3 years irrespective of company performance, so this displays an unconscious bias towards university's and their reputation. Some large companies like a drug company will actively sponsor some aspect of a university in order to influence what is taught on the course and lets them have first access to the students, who show potential, or obedience to the scientific theory of the day, which happens to be lucrative for the business. In biology there are lots of theories, mainly because there is still so much undiscovered potential in the body. Some university courses will also likely land you a job in a quango, which if your aspirations are muted, will set you up for life because serving on a quango can be highly lucrative, if everyone tows the line. In my time, none of this was explained to me, and I doubt it is now, but if you have a parent who has been through the uni process, especially one of the more prestigious uni's, you be made aware of what to look for, especially if you are the type that likes to name drop your university name. mic drop....

ke88y 3y ago
> Going to university should be viewed in the same light as a financial investment This is a good way to think about it in the USA, but IMO going to university should be viewed in the same light as going to high school or trade school -- ie, a public good, available to all, and required of some subset of the population to ensure the continuing function of a modern society. Countries with this system seem to spend less and get better outcomes from their higher education systems.
- darkclouds 3y ago
  You fail to draw any attention of the recruiting practices of the security services. They haunt the corridors of learning with the complicit knowledge of the university staff, tapping the shoulders of new recruits. University's also work closely with the security services, professors are often used to manipulate and direct students into lines of research. So when viewing the damming reports on the police (and military) being institutionally racist, I would go even further to argue that not only are these institutions racist, the university staff appear to enable these criminal practices, fuelling prejudice, discrimination and anti-meritocratic ethos by allowing such relationships to exist. Thats the last thing I would want from a UK university, but the security services are hardly stealth or intelligent about their recruiting practices, perhaps demonstrating their hubris and pride before a fall. I could argue that the USA approach to only having loyalty to money, breaks down these criminal institutions that masquerade as the pillars of society that think of themselves beyond reproach, an idea that cant be killed, because if you only have loyalty to money, you hold neither prejudice, racist or discriminating views of someone so long as their money is good. So can you really sit there and argue the UK model is ethically better, unless of course your idea of a functioning society is one that secretly harbours racist, prejudicial, anti-meritocratic, royal right to rule characteristics?

ke88y 3y ago

> Going to university should be viewed in the same light as a financial investment This is a good way to think about it in the USA, but IMO going to university should be viewed in the same light as going to high school or trade school -- ie, a public good, available to all, and required of some subset of the population to ensure the continuing function of a modern society. Countries with this system seem to spend less and get better outcomes from their higher education systems.

darkclouds 3y ago
You fail to draw any attention of the recruiting practices of the security services. They haunt the corridors of learning with the complicit knowledge of the university staff, tapping the shoulders of new recruits. University's also work closely with the security services, professors are often used to manipulate and direct students into lines of research. So when viewing the damming reports on the police (and military) being institutionally racist, I would go even further to argue that not only are these institutions racist, the university staff appear to enable these criminal practices, fuelling prejudice, discrimination and anti-meritocratic ethos by allowing such relationships to exist. Thats the last thing I would want from a UK university, but the security services are hardly stealth or intelligent about their recruiting practices, perhaps demonstrating their hubris and pride before a fall. I could argue that the USA approach to only having loyalty to money, breaks down these criminal institutions that masquerade as the pillars of society that think of themselves beyond reproach, an idea that cant be killed, because if you only have loyalty to money, you hold neither prejudice, racist or discriminating views of someone so long as their money is good. So can you really sit there and argue the UK model is ethically better, unless of course your idea of a functioning society is one that secretly harbours racist, prejudicial, anti-meritocratic, royal right to rule characteristics?