The results of Browne review, which is responsible for the funding of higher education, raised a question of whether a university education provides value for money. The debates over the value of money have started not so far ago after some students began to complain about "paucity of teaching" within their degrees. They suggested that the amount of fees should reflect the difference between science and arts contact hours.
A student from the University of Manchester, who is at the third year of a chemistry department, suggests in his essay that science students are to pay much more than arts students, however there was no real debate of whether the money they pay for study is worth it. A year ago the fees for science students were between 15 and 20 contact hours a week, including 8 hours of lectures, 9 hours of labs and everyday tutorials as well as workshops.
At the same time arts students get 6 hours of lectures, seminars and tutorials per week. While science students get all necessary material for conducting their experiments, arts students get a long reading list. In other words, they pay £10,000 in tuition fees for "the privilege of reading textbooks".
So, arts students’ fees pay for discussions, reading list, supply of necessary books to express their ideas and acquire the necessary depth of knowledge. At the main University of Manchester only one floor of the library is devoted to sciences and almost five wings – to the arts. By examining the skills the students of both faculties acquire, it becomes evident that arts students do not get value for the money they pay compared to sciences students.
The problem is that the majority of students simply get a degree and then a job irrelevant to the faculty they have studied at. They get the same skills that could be used in unknown situations. Your degree means that you should reach the standard required irrespective of the faculty you are studying at.
