UK Gov't indirectly causing rise in Mill degrees?

Discussion in 'General Distance Learning Discussions' started by intsvc, Dec 10, 2005.

Loading...
  1. intsvc

    intsvc member

    Since New Labour came to power in 1997, they have all but withdrawn funding for Universities in the UK.

    We now have the obsurd situation where a degree studied for at a uni in Liverpool can cost over £20,000...this is a marked change from the 60's and 70's when degrees where, in essence, complete free of charge to study for.

    The vast majority of people can't afford to spend this amount of money on a degree, nor are alot of people prepared to take on that amount of debt when there is no guarantee of a job at then end of the course.

    An arcitle in the UK Daily Mail around two months ago cited the example of a girl who graduated with a first in Vetinary Surgery with debts of £50,000.

    This obsurd situation, IMHO, will cause more people to use Mills. Hell, it might even make the situation more justifiable to them "I can't afford £20k for a degree as I'm on a low wage, so fuck 'em, I'll use the Mill route".

    Regards
     
  2. kkcheng

    kkcheng Member

    Same in HK :(

    Yes, intsvc, this is also quite true in Hong Kong. Tuition for a degree was about HK$6000 a year (that's around USD770) way back in the 1990s and has been increasing to some USD5,000 a year now -- with this kind of cost, many of my colleagues have already given up furthering their studies in HK and simply look for other alternatives either online or even overseas. For instant, if you were a sub-degree graduate way back in the 80s like me and you wanted to do a "top-up" bachelor's degree now, it would cost you approx. HKD136,000 (or USD17,500) -- wait, that's even more than the cost of an EET degree from Cleveland Institute of Electronics (if you were to finish it in a year) + *TWO* Master's degree from, say one from Ashworth and one from Columbia Southern U. The only "drawback" is that these are all DETC. But there's absolutely no harm if you are not going to get yourself licensed of chartered. Many others, not knowing about these alternatives, choose to study at other mills or, better, state-approved schools (which sometimes make no difference here in Hong Kong)... and there are really lots of them here. Interestingly enough, there seems to be some other legit universities in China jointly offering degrees with these mills as well ... that's terrible.

    For your information: if you do an EdD in Hong Kong (via distance learning with The University of Technology, Sydney (UTS)), it will only cost you some HKD128,000 (around USD16400) -- which is even less than a top-up bachelor's degree.

    What a strange world.

    KK
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2005
  3. bing

    bing New Member

    And what does a college education give you anyway? Take a look here and see one person's take on it....

    http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=5644637513&ssPageName=ADME:B:EF:US:1


     
  4. kkcheng

    kkcheng Member

    Hi bing, yes yes you really have a good point here ;-)

    In fact, the bottomline for me is that by doing a particular degree I can (a) enjoy the process and make myself happy and satisfied, (b) get the diploma, and (c) make sure it will not make me look stupid or get me into trouble (like getting an unaccredited degree)
    -- well, I know this is probably not a good idea but there are just too many unknown variables out there and getting a college degree just can't guarentee anything ... so let's just enjoy the process!

    KK ;-)
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 10, 2005
  5. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

    Yes, well welcome to the world of US higher education. As for this leading an increase in mill degrees, I suppose it's possible. On the other hand, maybe Barry McSweeney would advise them against it.
    Jack
     
  6. intsvc

    intsvc member

    Re: Re: UK Gov't indirectly causing rise in Mill degrees?

    Who he?
     
  7. salami89

    salami89 New Member

    I totally agree with all you guys out there posting on what is a degree really worth these days especially with premium state owned universities charging you tonnes for the program and not providing customer satisfaction for the experience. You are actually paying for the favor or opportunity that they are offering to you. I thought the customer is king but in the case of some state owned unis it is not the case.

    So really at the end of the day when I tell my MBA candidates who are going to be awarded by a non accredited university that it is the experiential learning that they are benefiting from and how they apply the concepts in the business world that matters not the price of that piece of paper or the credentials that one gets after your name which seems beautiful but is utterly worthless if as an entrepreneur, manager or employee you don't make the cut or prove your worth.
     
  8. Jack Tracey

    Jack Tracey New Member

  9. joi

    joi New Member

    IMHO, I don't see anything absurd in paying for a degree at market prices.

    The assumption that this may increase the market for unaccredited degrees does not hold. Why? Because a person wishing to earn a degree has many part-time evening, online and distance learning options.

    So, if someone considering a degree from Liverpool does not know that there are several DL options to get a degree through such methods, including the External Programme, the Open University, and part-time study at some of the best universities in the UK, this person , in my opinion, has no real interest in getting a degree. This applies to people in HK as well, as the University of London External Programme has thousands of students there.

    I live in Cuba, one of the most isolated societies in the world, and I study with the University of London External programme, as well as with 2 other UK universities at the masters'level.

    In Cuba, Internet connections are a rarity. Yet I managed to learn about UofL and enroled with them.

    I acknowledge there are some fields, such as medicine, in which DL is not really an option. But there are dozens of concentrations available.

    There is no excuse for fake degrees. The people who claim they resorted to such degrees because of the cost involved are, more likely than not, the same that would cheat or plagiarize to get a legitimate degree if they could afford it.

    This paternalistic view of a person having access to a degree subsidised by the rest of society is, in my opinion, what should be seen as absurd.

    Who 'guarantees a job'in the USA? Yet its unemployment levels are far below those of the European Union? Although there are some subsidized loans in the USA, as well as scholarships and state university systems charging less to state residents, most people have to pay for their degrees at market prices. I haven't seen comparable statistics, but I doubt that European nanny states have much higher proportions of college graduates than the USA.

    Good luck,


    Joi
     
  10. joi

    joi New Member

    IMHO, I don't see anything absurd in paying for a degree at market prices.

    The assumption that this may increase the market for unaccredited degrees does not hold. Why? Because a person wishing to earn a degree has many part-time evening, online and distance learning options.

    So, if someone considering a degree from Liverpool does not know that there are several DL options to get a degree through such methods, including the External Programme, the Open University, and part-time study at some of the best universities in the UK, this person , in my opinion, has no real interest in getting a degree. This applies to people in HK as well, as the University of London External Programme has thousands of students there.

    I live in Cuba, one of the most isolated societies in the world, and I study with the University of London External programme, as well as with 2 other UK universities at the masters'level.

    In Cuba, Internet connections are a rarity. Yet I managed to learn about UofL and enroled with them.

    I acknowledge there are some fields, such as medicine, in which DL is not really an option. But there are dozens of concentrations available.

    There is no excuse for fake degrees. The people who claim they resorted to such degrees because of the cost involved are, more likely than not, the same that would cheat or plagiarize to get a legitimate degree if they could afford it.

    This paternalistic view of a person having access to a degree subsidised by the rest of society is, in my opinion, what should be seen as absurd.

    Who 'guarantees a job'in the USA? Yet its unemployment levels are far below those of the European Union? Although there are some subsidized loans in the USA, as well as scholarships and state university systems charging less to state residents, most people have to pay for their degrees at market prices. I haven't seen comparable statistics, but I doubt that European nanny states have much higher proportions of college graduates than the USA.

    Good luck,


    Joi
     
  11. kkcheng

    kkcheng Member

    Hi joi,

    Well, I do not know what exactly intsvc is referring to when he refers to mills but I am quite sure he is not taking about buying "fake degrees" ...

    For me, what I meant was, say in Hong Kong, a degree would cost you some HKD136,000 (or USD17,500) but an unaccredited school like American Central University (www.acusa.net) or even a mill can charge people some HK70,000 (or USD9,000) for a bachelor's degree (and they will ask you do all the useless coursework too). The point here is that for those who are not informed or will simply believe in their local newspaper ads, they will simply end up gaining nothing after paying for their "less expensive degree"... In fact, if these mills were selling degrees at cheap prices (like USD100 or USD200) then people should know something's wrong right away when they "buy" them but if (a) the price is just 20-30% off normal degrees, (b) they provide you with the lectures, tutorials etc., (c) there's even a decent "local rep office" with small lecture rooms and a few foreigners claiming to be "professors coming from the US or UK" etc... then it can be difficult to tell for some...

    joi, I totally agree with your idea that if a person is has real interest in getting a degree he should do his research to see what is available around. But again, I am not complaining that market price is high but instead I am talking about (a) the way government policies are formulated such that the "market price" for educational programs keep climbing year after year, and (b) the price discrimination across different countries. I also pay for my degree (happily, and at market price) with no subsidies but like I said in my previous post, I got a degree, an MBA and an MS (all from DETC schools) at the cost of a local undergrad degree program. The interesting point is that instead of people saying to me, "oh how did you find these course?" they say instead "why not attend a more famous American university if you are not attending a local one? You can't afford it, can you?" -- see (some) people here (in this strange city) measure one's stength not according to what you have studied or what you know, but how much money you have "invested" in or can spend for your credentials.

    I think both intsvc and I were pointing toward the problem with our governments' education policies... any comments, intsvc?

    Cheers,
    KK
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Dec 11, 2005
  12. joi

    joi New Member

    Hi kkcheng:

    Reading your latest post, I feel we basically agree on most issues regarding this thread.

    However, I would like to point out a fundamental difference: the concept of Degree Mill.

    A degree mill is NOT a legitimate degree-granting, whereas an unacredited is. You'll see a subtle yet vital difference in the websites: degree mills lie about accreditation; unaccredited don't.

    You also mentioned DETC-accredited degrees, discussing them along degree mills and unaccredited options as if they belonged to the same category. Perhaps other posters didn't find your 1st post confusing, but I, in all honesty did.

    You worked hard to earn your degrees, DETC or not. A person who bought a fake degree from a degree mill didn't'.

    As for government policies afecting educational markets in the UK or elsewhere, any intervention by the government is a distortion in itself.

    Intsvc stated that paying EURO 20,000 for a degree while not having a guaranteed job is absurd.I live in a country where you can study 10 bachelors'degrees for free, and you have guaranteed jobs for life... at US$ 15 a month. Also, there's some fine print in the unwritten learning contract; you can have a job as long as you are a 'revolutionary', ie, you lick Castro's boots. I'm aware that intsvc is referring to the UK market, but economic laws are the same for any country.


    The changes first brought about by Margaret Tatcher and continued by the Blair governemtcame as a consequence of the enormous disatisfaction with Keynesian policies. The fact is, the more the government intervenes to make things affordable, the higher the cost for society. Since the end of the 70's, governments in the UK have tried to reduce government subsidies because of this.

    Good luck,


    Joi
     
  13. Tim D

    Tim D Member

    Joi,
    I think you are missing a key factor here and that is socio-economic mobility and class structure. Although the market economy ultimately lowers the price(as long there is adequate supply and demand) what can not be discounted especially in countries such as Australia,UK and the US is the fact that education in the last 40 years has been financed in large part by the government. In that time, it has afforded people in that time was the possibility to move up in class at a relatively cheap cost. The big issue on cutting back on such aid is it makes the disadvantaged more apt to be so due to the cost of education at university. This creates a bit of resentment in the fact that the people who are cutting the aid are the very people who had the opportunity to take advantage of such programs( basic I got mine,to bad for you scenario). Some people particularly the disadvantaged may argue that the higher cost is most likely to hurt those who can most already afford the university education in the first place. Also it might be worth a mention that in times past a degree would guarantee you a better outlook then your non-degree counterpart.
     
  14. fortiterinre

    fortiterinre New Member

    I will let Joi respond herself, but I don't see how she is "missing" socio-economic mobility and class structure. The government funding of higher education in recent decades was not merely a welfare scheme to help the disadvantaged; it was a response to market forces as well. The advent of technology increased the need for well-educated people, and thus we had the situation where relatively small regional schools offered many more degree programs and developed new graduate schools. Socio-economic mobility and class structure only improves with market-driven education; that's why there is a glut of English and history PhD's and a shortage of master's holders in the hard sciences. Increased government aid for the English/history folks would actually hurt them. Even among "the disadvantaged," there is some "survival of the fittest" that government-subsidized education can only serve to a point. I suspect that the people sending their money to degree mills have either not done their due diligence or know exactly what risks they are taking; policy isn't forcing them to mills anymore than it forces them to crime.
     
  15. Tim D

    Tim D Member

  16. intsvc

    intsvc member

  17. joi

    joi New Member

    Hi Tim:

    If you look back at my first post, you'll notice I did take the government factor into account. I think you make a good point, but you are only taking traditional education into account. Disadvantaged people have nowadays more options than ever before. Moreover, in the case of the USA, I doubt the majority of tuition has actually paid by the government, even taking into account the subsidised loans, grants and state-resident tuition. This is why an undergraduate degree in much more expensive in the USA than in the other side of the pond.

    Also, I respectfully disagree with the outright comparison of a bachelors’ degree today and the same degree 40 years ago. This would imply little or no changes in the educational requirements of any given labour market, and, IMHO, this is not so. In the 60's, the proportion of degreeholders earning advanced degrees was substantially lower than nowadays. Knowledge in virtually all academic fields has grown exponentially, and this has made a Masters’ degree at the outset of this century the near-equivalent of a bachelors' degree several decades ago. This issue has been discussed in the forum before, but with a comparison between High School degrees after WWII and bachelors’ degrees nowadays.

    Consequently, we should evaluate what is going on with such advanced degrees today. The first thing that comes to mind is that many companies cover most, if not all, graduate tuition of their employees in areas relevant to their activity. This makes such degrees much more affordable, with a big plus: the substantial difference in earnings between master and bachelors’ degrees holders. Also, particularly in the USA And, to a lesser degree, in Australia, bachelors’ degrees provide relatively little specialized knowledge, whereas a masters’ degree in almost entirely devoted to key subjects in the student's sphere of activity.



    Good luck,

    Joi
     
  18. joi

    joi New Member

    Hi fortiterinre:

    Excellent post.

    Please note that I'm not a she, but a he. My name is Jorge.;)
     
  19. fortiterinre

    fortiterinre New Member

    Sorry Jorge! It took many good posts from Pats Fan for me to figure out that she was a he as well!
     
  20. fortiterinre

    fortiterinre New Member

    Tim, I read it and certainly agree that there are some scary indicators, the increase of even professional jobs with little or reduced health insurance, the layoff culture in the corporate world, etc. These are definitely bad things. My brother is a white collar manager, no degree, excellent benefits, and I tell him every day how lucky he is.

    But much of the article seemed to be about credit card debt, which in my value system is almost a profanity. I have a master's degree from Northwestern just as the subject of the article, and I "paid as I went" and have no debt whatsoever. I think the mindset that "grad degrees are necessary, I'll take out a loan" is as short-sighted as piling on the credit card debt. I am pleased to see that the Smithie makes $65K, because there was a previous debate here at DI about whether fancy colleges are worth it, and she certainly seems to be doing well for herself. But journalism school isn't business school, so she needs to be prepared for her unique pay probabilities, and as for the people taking out big loans for MBA programs I have never heard of...I wish them well, but I hope they know what their realistic average grad salary is. I just don't see government inaction regarding rising tuition as a systemic socio-economic problem, but rather individuals making poor (or simply unplanned and reckless) choices.
     

Share This Page