Scottish Independence Referendum is agreed: vote in 2014

[Shaun]

Beign at University myself and studying towards my Masters, i would say that Uni is integral to the improvement of our countries economy, producing educated and skilled citizens who are all capable (if not potentially some of the best in their fields in Scotland) is a priority, especially in the modern technologically empowered world, where Degrees are becoming more and more the norm in the developed world, and expected for positions of influence and power. Any drop to this, would have an averse affect, meaning a smaller pool of skilled and influential scientists, doctors, researchers, teachers, policemen, advanced military personel, civil serveants etc- meaning you won't get the best in these positions, just almost a deafult as fewer people with the right skill set would be available, thus devaluing the education and achievements of the next generation and so on.

Not only that, but our uni graduates typically also then give their services around the world- giving prestige to us, while also further developing cause for the sale of services and other such items (as well as creation of them, by researchers and enterpeneurs at home, and also economists who are skilled enough to be able to give the best to our banks etc). So free uni is a pretty integral thing really, and one of the best points of Scotland currently.

I do apologise for the seeming hap-hazard reply, its not as detailed as my usual, but i'm on my way to work! So will explain in detail more if the occasion calls my friend.

That's a fairly standard reply but ultimately isn't really backed up with any substance.

I would strongly refute the notion that university is integral in the production of the economy's future skilled workers. In reality, the majority of students at university are studying subjects of which have extremely little or no real world application, and even many of the disciplines that do have a direct industrial use of their skills produce far more graduates than industry can absorb. It's funny, but many of the economies that are less dependent on financial services that we're trying to copy don't follow our model of sending kids to university almost by default. If we're actually serious about making technology and manufacturing a more dominant part of our economy we're really going to have to focus on apprenticeships and on the job learning. Sending large numbers to university directly contradicts this as work based learning gets seen as the lesser option, for people of lesser ability. We can pretend this isn't true, but with the way that university is put on the pedestal (see: your post) it is.

I'm not sure where the notion that we'll no longer have the "best" in the positions you mention if we don't have large amounts of graduates comes from either. Who will we have in these positions instead? Are people without degrees all of equal ability, with degrees being the only separator? Will the "best" be stuck stacking shelves without a degree?

Whilst education is noble, I'm not sure if it should be subsidised by the taxpayer unless the taxpayer is going to receive a direct benefit from it. I could just as well argue that it we should also fund half the population to practice for and play their favourite sport full time for a few years. Not sure why that's any less worthy than paying people to study their favourite subject for a few years. Universities don't have a monopoly on learning, knowledge and education.

[Denny Crane!]

That's a fairly standard reply but ultimately isn't really backed up with any substance.

I would strongly refute the notion that university is integral in the production of the economy's future skilled workers. In reality, the majority of students at university are studying subjects of which have extremely little or no real world application, and even many of the disciplines that do have a direct industrial use of their skills produce far more graduates than industry can absorb. It's funny, but many of the economies that are less dependent on financial services that we're trying to copy don't follow our model of sending kids to university almost by default. If we're actually serious about making technology and manufacturing a more dominant part of our economy we're really going to have to focus on apprenticeships and on the job learning. Sending large numbers to university directly contradicts this as work based learning gets seen as the lesser option, for people of lesser ability. We can pretend this isn't true, but with the way that university is put on the pedestal (see: your post) it is.

I'm not sure where the notion that we'll no longer have the "best" in the positions you mention if we don't have large amounts of graduates comes from either. Who will we have in these positions instead? Are people without degrees all of equal ability, with degrees being the only separator? Will the "best" be stuck stacking shelves without a degree?

Whilst education is noble, I'm not sure if it should be subsidised by the taxpayer unless the taxpayer is going to receive a direct benefit from it. I could just as well argue that it we should also fund half the population to practice for and play their favourite sport full time for a few years. Not sure why that's any less worthy than paying people to study their favourite subject for a few years. Universities don't have a monopoly on learning, knowledge and education.

Any suggestion will quickly get drowned out by the fears of people who fanatically hate business but there is some good ideas coming out of mixing businesses up with Universities (HP have already started this) and they get actively involved in the courses to make sure that they are getting the graduates they want. This was 12-18 months I heard about these ideas I'm not sure whether they have been met with favour or not but in principle it was a very good idea. If you come out of a computer science degree having been involved with HP, if two years down the line HP folds there is a huge amount of involvement with Microsoft and other companies who really value that experience so its a good route to take.

[Dante Von Hespburg]

Any suggestion will quickly get drowned out by the fears of people who fanatically hate business but there is some good ideas coming out of mixing businesses up with Universities (HP have already started this) and they get actively involved in the courses to make sure that they are getting the graduates they want. This was 12-18 months I heard about these ideas I'm not sure whether they have been met with favour or not but in principle it was a very good idea. If you come out of a computer science degree having been involved with HP, if two years down the line HP folds there is a huge amount of involvement with Microsoft and other companies who really value that experience so its a good route to take.

This i have heard of too, i believe its a very good idea, giving practical experience, with educational theory, and then making it worthwhile and appealing. Also along a similar sort of vein, i thoroughly approve of the practice of some companies of sending their employees on part time uni degree courses, and then in return, said employee giving so much of their time back to the company in return. Its an investment that pays off for both parties in the long run.

That's a fairly standard reply but ultimately isn't really backed up with any substance.

I would strongly refute the notion that university is integral in the production of the economy's future skilled workers. In reality, the majority of students at university are studying subjects of which have extremely little or no real world application, and even many of the disciplines that do have a direct industrial use of their skills produce far more graduates than industry can absorb. It's funny, but many of the economies that are less dependent on financial services that we're trying to copy don't follow our model of sending kids to university almost by default. If we're actually serious about making technology and manufacturing a more dominant part of our economy we're really going to have to focus on apprenticeships and on the job learning. Sending large numbers to university directly contradicts this as work based learning gets seen as the lesser option, for people of lesser ability. We can pretend this isn't true, but with the way that university is put on the pedestal (see: your post) it is.

I'm not sure where the notion that we'll no longer have the "best" in the positions you mention if we don't have large amounts of graduates comes from either. Who will we have in these positions instead? Are people without degrees all of equal ability, with degrees being the only separator? Will the "best" be stuck stacking shelves without a degree?

Whilst education is noble, I'm not sure if it should be subsidised by the taxpayer unless the taxpayer is going to receive a direct benefit from it. I could just as well argue that it we should also fund half the population to practice for and play their favourite sport full time for a few years. Not sure why that's any less worthy than paying people to study their favourite subject for a few years. Universities don't have a monopoly on learning, knowledge and education.

While i understand your financial point my friend, this is why i strongly advocate staying in the Union- we wont have to suffer any changes for either party! But i would suggest that while you are right, some degrees should be personally funded, which bear more relevance to personal hobby than sphere of study,the major areas should not. I mean Doctors (and Nurses actually)...are you really saying this people are not integral, and do not need said qualification? I don't know about you, but i would want them to be as fully qualified as possible!

Also research- which is where lets face it, all successful industry stems from- innovation- of existing products, and the exploitation and implementation of new ideas.. this is where Uni helps insurmountably, I'm not advocating that people go to Uni will immediately be better at theoretical research and study (though a larger percentage will be, and also it depends upon the course!) but at Uni you have access to extensive educational resources and support that will allow you to take advantage of your natural inclinations to the best of their possible ability. This once again will have an impact on someones ability to study and understand about such things as the coming up and booming aerospace industry for instance, or eco energy and environmental living (all things that in the long term have potential for businesses) it really is an investment in the future- and of course the more people you have equipped like this, the better the results might/will be, due to increased chances of people fulfilling all their potential. This also applies to other areas beyond just research of course, its less the fact that having a degree immediately makes you ore intelligent, i'm not advocating that (though many positions now to require a degree or some form of further education, so theirs another reason), but it allows people to truly realise their potential and so contribute to science, history or indeed humanity in a larger and maybe in some cases more meaningful way.

And indeed your last point is tue, universities do not hold the monopoly on learning or knowledge, but they support, nurture and help realise a persons potential far quicker and easier than most other forms, due to the resources they provide, to further the individual, and the support of more learned people.

EDIT: If they're ends up being more than one reply of the same of mine, please could someone with the power delete them? I've just had a string of those bloody 50 whatever and 403 errors...

[Shaun]

While i understand your financial point my friend, this is why i strongly advocate staying in the Union- we wont have to suffer any changes for either party! But i would suggest that while you are right, some degrees should be personally funded, which bear more relevance to personal hobby than sphere of study,the major areas should not. I mean Doctors (and Nurses actually)...are you really saying this people are not integral, and do not need said qualification? I don't know about you, but i would want them to be as fully qualified as possible!

Whether we stay in the Union or not, the **** is going to hit the fan eventually. The situation we have at the moment is fundamentally unfair: some people receive free university tuition whilst others do not, based solely on their place of residence in the last three years. I would never advocate suddenly abolishing free Scottish tuition to satisfy English populism, but the issue is coming under more and more contention now that English students have to pay £9,000 per year. When they only had to pay £3,000 or less it wasn't that much of an issue, especially given that Scottish universities largely go under the radar of English students anyway. But with the hike in their fees I wouldn't be at all surprised if more and more Scottish universities see their rUK applicant numbers rising, which will push out Scots. This could then become a problem, because the differences in the Scottish and English education systems means that English students can easily study in Scotland, but the reverse isn't true (many Scots don't study advanced highers which are necessary for entry to university in England; and also because many English universities, bar the tiny minority that actually receive Scottish applicants, have no clue about advanced highers, and hence ask for Oxbridge equivalent grades).

Regarding doctors and nurses, I agree that doctors need a university education. However, medicine is somewhat unique relative to other degrees in the UK in that its governing body strictly throttles the intake to ensure that supply never exceeds demand, hence why medicine has an average employment rate of 99% across all universities. Virtually every other degree is more than happy to accept vast numbers of students, vastly more than there is demand for, and saddle them with debt for something that ultimately isn't much use to them, whose primary value comes from the fact they need to keep up with their peers who also have one. And there is pretty strong debate amongst the nursing profession whether degrees really are the best route.

Also research- which is where lets face it, all successful industry stems from- innovation- of existing products, and the exploitation and implementation of new ideas.. this is where Uni helps insurmountably, I'm not advocating that people go to Uni will immediately be better at theoretical research and study (though a larger percentage will be, and also it depends upon the course!) but at Uni you have access to extensive educational resources and support that will allow you to take advantage of your natural inclinations to the best of their possible ability. This once again will have an impact on someones ability to study and understand about such things as the coming up and booming aerospace industry for instance, or eco energy and environmental living (all things that in the long term have potential for businesses) it really is an investment in the future- and of course the more people you have equipped like this, the better the results might/will be, due to increased chances of people fulfilling all their potential. This also applies to other areas beyond just research of course, its less the fact that having a degree immediately makes you ore intelligent, i'm not advocating that (though many positions now to require a degree or some form of further education, so theirs another reason), but it allows people to truly realise their potential and so contribute to science, history or indeed humanity in a larger and maybe in some cases more meaningful way.

You seem to be under the impression that I am advocating ... abolishing ... universities, or something along that lines. I'm not. I'm advocating a rethink about the numbers of school leavers we send to university. If student numbers were to be cut, we'd still have universities, and students. In fact we'd probably have better universities because they'd be able to devote more resources to a fewer amount of students. We'd have better students too as only people who want to be there for learning's sake would be there. There'd be less conflicts between 9am lectures and £1 vodkas the night before. We'd still have highly able minds attending university, and they'd still be able to go into research if they wanted. In fact it'd be easier for them to do it!

But we'd also have a large group of perfectly able people going straight into the workforce, learning skills that is directly applicable to industry, contributing sooner and not being saddled with debt in the process. It's all very well saying that university helps "insurmountably" with research, but research is only a small part of industry, and a great deal of innovation comes from people who have been working with a process and then found a new, better or more efficient way of doing it, not requiring a university education. If we focus only on research and university, we do a disservice to many other key positions.