Are cash incentives for students a good idea?

Physics undergraduates will be paid an extra £1000 to study the subject from 2006.

The Institute of Physics is offering the cash to poorer students to encourage them to study the subject when the government brings in top-up fees.

The body is the first to offer a cash incentive to students studying a particular subject, though some universities do offer bursaries.

Critics have said such bursaries introduce a market in higher education and could lead to unfair competition between courses and universities.

What do you think? Is it a good idea to offer money as an incentive to study?

---

The following comments reflect a balance of opinion we have received so far:

This debate is now closed. Read your comments below.

A better incentive to study would be free tuition so that students cold graduate with a hill of debt rather than a mountain.
John, Oxford, UK

Are they really being paid a grand to do Physics, or more they're getting a discount against possibly soaring fees? This is just another facet of throwing our higher education, and by that our nation's future, to the 'invisible hand' of the market. Like we did the railways and the post office.
Robert Willoughby, London

I think that young people should contribute to the cost of their education, but I see it as unfair to make them pay the whole sum. The thought of starting their working lives with huge debts is going to stop some students from poorer backgrounds going to university. Higher fees are going to mean that only students from richer backgrounds can attend university. Surely if only the rich go into higher education then they will get better paid jobs and the gap between rich and poor will increase?
Anna, Guernsey

I think it's a bad idea, it will encourage people who don't want to do it to go. It's like being paid to tidy your own room when you were a teenager, its all for the wrong reasons.
Julie Singleton, Totnes

No, this isn't a good idea. Physics isn't being studied because pupils aren't interested in it or perceive it as being too rigorous. Coaxing people in with a free £1000 won't make them suddenly fascinated by the subject, and a huge proportion of them will likely change courses or drop out soon after collected their £1000. The real answer is to a better job of recruiting well-qualified, motivated scientists who can foster an enthusiasm for subjects like maths, physics and chemistry at secondary school.
Graham Innocent, Oxford UK

When you're 18, you're an adult. Your parents, regardless of their income, are not responsible for you. Stop discriminating and offer free education to all.
Paul Weaver, London, UK

Why not? If someone is coming up with an innovative way of motivating poorer students to study, why complain. No matter what policies or plans that anyone comes up with, there is always a source for someone to complain or against it. Could we have more actions than talk. Enough of complaining, start taking concrete actions.
Christina Spybey, London, UK

Money as an incentive to study will only work if that money is conditional on study - not on starting the course, but on finishing it with a creditable grade Beth, Oxford, UK

Money as an incentive to study (in any discipline) will only work if that money is conditional on study - not on starting the course, but on finishing it with a creditable grade. Incidentally, it's all very well to privilege a subject such as physics as "useful", but our population would be in a shocking state culturally and intellectually without people able to teach literacy, history, languages... in short, without arts and humanities graduates.
Beth, Oxford, UK

Industry and the Armed Services have subsidised student for years, why should a branch of the sciences not do the same. We have enough of them coming out of university with meaningless degrees. Why not encourage those who are more capable in a direction that will create something other than another unemployable intellectual.
Bill, Bracknell, UK

I think that university students should be expected to pay towards their education. This would concentrate the minds of those students whose aim is not to obtain further education but who just like the attractions of beer and cannabis. Why should we pay this extension of the education system? If Blair has his way we will have 50% of our young people in debt and yet still unable to get a job. Just look how many graduates are unable to secure jobs now.
Stanley Cook, Ridgewood, England

I am currently a biology student but if someone has turned around and offered me a grand to study at Uni I would have jumped at the chance.
Christopher Wright, Aberystwyth, Wales

The more sources of funding the better. The government thinks it owns universities and can bully them at will. Multiple sources of funding for institutions and their students would be a great fillip for academic freedom, which is a necessity for new ideas to emerge.
Neil, Warrington, England

The 'incentive' should be offered to the best students. Having taught physics undergrads, only a handful really wanted to study - these people should get the incentive, not those that want a way into university to enjoy themselves, and can have a £1k if they do physics.
Anon, UK

By the logic of top-up fees a shortage of physics graduates should mean they get paid lots more so can easily afford their debts. It would seem that industry is simply not prepared to pay to get physics graduates. If nobody is willing to pay enough for the ones we have why do we need incentives to educate more? The simple conclusion is that market economics does not apply to education for the job market.
John, Fleet, Hants

If we need Physicists then why not - lets assist people in areas of shortage.
Nick S, Crawley, UK

Don't students enter Higher education of their own free will? Surely if they want to study a course then they should go without the need to be cajoled. Will this 'cash incentive' lead to a glut of students with degrees who aren't really interested in the subject? I agree that more money should be invested in necessary trades such as plumbing and mechanics. And yes, I went to University, and yes I have a degree, and yes I have the debt associated with a four year course - and all without a 'cash incentive'.
Stacey, London, UK

I think this is a good idea, although given that physics is actually a subject that is useful to the economy, I don't see why the government should refuse to foot the whole bill. The government should foot the whole bill for subjects that are useful to society and/or the economy.
Graeme Phillips, Berlin, Germany (normally UK)

Time heavy degrees with a great deal of laboratory and/or clinical work should have more cash available to the students because there is so little chance for part time employment. £1000 is not really sufficient in such cases, because of this. Then more efficient. Less stressed students should result in much better qualified people, and we all would benefit!
Jean, Leeds, UK

I still think it is really unfair to only offer this to students from poorer backgrounds Simon, London

It's a good idea. However, I still think it is really unfair to only offer this to students from poorer backgrounds. Students from middle/upper classes will have just as much debt from fees etc when they graduate.
Simon, London

By the logic of top-up fees a shortage of physics graduates should mean they get paid lots more so can easily afford their debts. It would seem that industry is simply not prepared to pay to get physics graduates. If nobody is willing to pay enough for the ones we have why do we need incentives to educate more? The simple conclusion is that market economics does not apply to education for the job market.
John, Fleet, Hants

The Institute of Physics clearly has way too much money.
Adam, London, UK

Unless things have changed since I went to Cambridge I don't see how it would work there as specialisation in physics did not take place until the final year. However, although I did my final year in Materials Science I am now largely physics oriented. Can I have my £1000 backdated please?
Roger Jackson, Stockport, England

Yes, a great idea, it's kind of like bringing back the student grant only this time it's used as an incentive to study and not as a means to fund your binge drinking
Dean, UK

I am glad that cash is offered to poorer students, if cash incentives were based on ability, the ability to pay for tuition, rental costs, increased cost of living and ultimate financial hardship for the student's family also needs to be investigated, therefore they quite clearly need to base it on background. £1,000 may not make a huge difference to a student amassing £20-30,000 of debt, but to someone from a poor background it makes a big difference. If cash incentives for science related subjects is the only way to improve this countries knowledge base then it can only be a good thing.
Colin Murdoch, Staines, UK

A well-intentioned idea that is barking up the wrong tree. The students who are going to lose out under the Government's proposals are those whose parents are slightly better off (and no, the middle classes can't afford thousands and thousands in fees, and many parents don't pay at all), and this idea won't help them.
Chris Neville-Smith, Durham, England

No this is another way of just giving money to poorer people whether they want to study or are good at the subject. Surely it is fairer to give the incentives to the students who show the most potential, which will include poorer students if they show a desire and potential to do a degree on the subject.
Nina, UK

I have a Physics degree. Physics is hard, very hard. I only stuck it out because I was interested in it. Without the interest £1000 wouldn't have been enough to make up for the long nights studying. And quite where the myth that Physics graduate earn more comes from I really don't know. The 100 or so I know certainly don't
Roger, UK

Paying a person who doesn't want to take physics only produces second rate physicists Matt, Birmingham

Paying a person who doesn't want to take physics only produces second rate physicists. And personally, I don't want a second rate physicist designing our aircraft, space shuttles, cars, etc. If any generous payment should come about its when they have done there degree of there own initiative and enjoyment.
Matt, Birmingham

There is nothing wrong with dispensing money to aspiring students to take up specific subjects but it certainly would have been more gainfully employed if the grant was given to student at the end of course, upon qualification, to pay off some of their debt. This way it will be a win-win situation for all, which is specially necessary given the number of drop-outs in our current system.
Prabhat, Harpenden, Herts

What student's want, and need, are career options not cash incentives. If we want to attract students into subject areas like the natural sciences and the arts/humanities then we have to secure reasonably stable and lucrative career options for our graduates. At present it seems to be largely the 'Holy Grails' of Business, Law and to a lesser extent Computing which offer career options that are visibly capable of providing some measure of job security and reasonably acceptable prospects.
Bryan, London, UK

Why only to poorer students? There are lots of 'invisible' middle class students out there, who by virtue of their parental qualifications though not necessary high incomes may be ineligible for the incentives. Why discriminate in favour of a selective group who in time will cause those who are currently excluded to become more disadvantaged? Social mobility is not about people moving upwards, but also downwards over time. If the govt. seriously wants to encourage more home grown students to study physics, then they should make the cash incentives a universal rather than a selective benefit, the sooner the better, there is no apparent rationale in waiting until 2006.
Helen, Bath

I broadly welcome the idea, primarily as a way of raising the profile of Physics as a career. It seems crazy that we have to import key technical workers whilst the taxpayer funds degrees in Media Studies, Sports Studies and so forth. I doubt though that the £1000 in itself will alter the career path of many students, the perception that Physics can lead to interesting, well-paid and socially regarded careers will. I see nothing wrong in a free market approach at all, if employers need physicists who are in short supply they will have to pay more to attract them which will then encourage more young people to enter this field.
Anon,UK

It is a shame that people don't want to study the subjects which underpin our modern, technology-dependent lifestyles without a financial incentive. However if a cash incentive can ensure we remain well supplied with essential skills then I have no complaints. A nation of business and media graduates can't supply the necessary water, electricity, communications and transport infrastructure we all depend upon. We could however outsource our basic technological labour needs to people from other countries but what does that say about our nation? It will be very sad indeed if we reach the situation of being a nation of people unable to meet our own lifestyle demands.
Dr. BS McIntosh, UK

It's a commendable suggestion and it is sad that we need to entice people into the increasingly ignored academic subjects, rather than seeing the subjects selected for their own worth. The greater the number of people that go to university, the further will be the need for standards to be diluted. Unfortunately, with today's emphasis on quantity not quality, coupled with the desire for 'everything now', I don't see a change of emphasis away from trivial subjects that are easy to achieve and 'national academia' will steadily deteriorate, rather than improve.
Paul B, Oxford, UK

It would have to be a lot more than £1000 to be effective David Hazel, Fareham, UK

The country has been short of Physics graduates for years, due to the subject apparently being "too academic" for most people. A cash incentive might well work, but I think it would have to be a lot more than £1000 to be effective. At most, this sum might counteract some of the effects of the top-up fees. It will do nothing to reverse the existing lack of popularity of what is, in fact, a fascinating and highly interesting subject.
David Hazel, Fareham, UK

As a Chemical Physicist, an associate member of the Institute and a postgraduate student, I understand and indeed support the initiative which is prudent in the current climate of higher education. It is, however, unfortunate that higher education (and the world) seems to be increasingly all about money and the IoP has to appeal to the financial awareness of prospective students rather than their desire to learn about the world around them.
Chris, Nottingham

If this idea becomes mainstream in HE, where is the money for these incentives going to come from? Not the inflated course fees that students on other programmes of study are being charged by any chance? Does this mean that if I wanted to do a history degree I'd have to pay that bit more so that some one could be encouraged to do a physics degree? Nice, I pay for my course and somebody else's too!
Mike, Hull

Anyone who chooses a subject based on Cash incentive is obviously doing the subject for the wrong reasons. Physicists do the job for personal satisfaction, not to get rich. This scheme will attract the wrong people with the wrong motives.
Stephen, UK

The money will have to come from somewhere. Now that we have a government that has adopted completely the Thatcherite motto of there being no such thing and society, and that the idea that the dustman should not pay for the training of the doctor now goes unquestioned, it is only one more small step for the media studies/law/accountancy/etc student to ask themselves "why should my fees subsidise the training of the physicist?" The hard sciences are expensive to teach. Contrary to the public utterances of ministers, no social science will cross-subsidise a science, therefore the physics and chemistry departments will close unless the funding comes from somewhere else. The IoP is the only body so far to put its money where this country's need is.
Mark, Nottingham, UK

Today people base their choice of degree subject on a myriad of factors. Sadly, passion for the subject finishes a distant second the primary concerns of earning capacity after graduation. Cash incentives will give students the extra push they require to follow the path that truly inspires them, with inspiration comes excellence.
Darab Khan, London, UK

As a Chemical Engineering graduate I applaud anything that increases the science and technical base of this country. Though I believe the government should get rid of this ridiculous target of having 50% of people going to University, irrespective of the course they study. Instead they should create an atmosphere that encourages people to study those topics that will give us the basis we need in the future for a successful and vibrant nation. In addition skilled labour should be encouraged through vocational training and support for modern apprentice schemes.
Joe, Whitehaven, UK

Maybe universities will start providing some quality graduates fit for industry at long last Andy, London

I think that this is a great idea. The majority of the money coming from institutes will no-doubt go to the courses with the best content. Industry and Institutions of less popular subjects such as engineering and science will try to encourage more students as industry actually WANT these qualifications. I can't imagine industry or any institutions stumping up the cash for 'Beckham Studies' or 'Kite Flying'. Maybe universities will start providing some quality graduates fit for industry at long last.
Andy, London

A good idea but I'm not sure if it can really work. People tend to choose their degrees according to ambition, interest and a desire to succeed. Would a student give these up to study a different degree for a £1000? Would £1000 really make that much difference to a student struggling with the high costs of a university education? Lets see.
Lee B, Eastbourne, UK

They should be based on ability and not background. Yet again these incentives discriminate against students from middle/upper class homes.
Caron, England

As it happens I studied physics for my first year and then transferred to computing. I think a bursary might be the incentive needed to persuade people to go to university initially, but it wouldn't make them stay in a course they are unhappy with. So a mixed reaction from me.
Flash Wilson, London UK

I'm only a year out of University and I am unaware of any deficit in regards to the number of students studying physics. In fact, I'm sharing a house with two! Instead perhaps incentives should be offered for people to enter into the skilled trades of plumbing, mechanics and electricity since there is a definite lack of these in the current market.
Christopher Hogarty, Oxfordshire, UK

The country need Physics students, but we aren't getting enough at the moment, so a cash incentive is needed especially at a time when top-up fees are being discussed.
Richard, UK

I have to agree with Richard, UK, the country definitely does need more Physics graduates. The problem lies in the fact that Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Engineering and Medicine are all very much time heavy degrees, with lots of lab/clinical work. The longer hours do preclude holding many part-time jobs, and the practical side of the courses will increase the cost (to whoever). As a consequence it will be easier and cheaper for universities and students to all do arts degrees, however when they cease being students and enter the big bad world their degrees will be worth about as much as all of the other arts degrees, good for showing that you can pass an exam but probably no use to an employer.
Rufus Trotman, Oxford, UK