Taxing the rich to pay for the poor

Doodledog

You still haven't said what you mean by a 'graduate job'.

In the days when 5% of people had degrees, who did the jobs that now require them? Also, if non-graduates get these jobs, do they stop becoming 'graduate jobs? Is it, in your opinion a good or bad thing if a degree is no longer a passport to an 'attractive occupation', as it used to be?

I’m happy with the ONS definition in my last post

You still haven't said what you mean by a 'graduate job'.

In the days when 5% of people had degrees, who did the jobs that now require them? Also, if non-graduates get these jobs, do they stop becoming 'graduate jobs? Is it, in your opinion a good or bad thing if a degree is no longer a passport to an 'attractive occupation', as it used to be?

foxie48

David49 sorry to correct you again but school set in a variety of different ways for different subjects and some don't set at all. There is always flexibility to move children. Perhaps you would provide some verifiable evidence that twice as many students are going to university as there is employment available. tbh I find it difficult to see how anyone could demonstrate this.

Here is an extract from an ONS statistic where 54% of graduates are not doing graduate work and a significant number of non graduates are.

“In 2017, 12% of non-graduates (327,303) aged 22 to 29 were working in a graduate job – defined as a role where the tasks typically require knowledge and skills gained through higher education. This compares with 54% of graduates (1,273,336) in the same age group who had a graduate job.”

It’s probably an understatement in more recent years, indeed I know a lot of recent graduates who have found nothing in the last 2 yrs, very few professional firms are recruiting, even with a first it’s not easy, unless they want to be a teacher or another of the unattractive occupations

Doodledog

*The point of education is to give children the knowledge at whatever level, to support themselves and benefit the nation, schools are failing*
One of the many benefits of a rounded education is the ability to recognise that there are many points of view on a lot of things, and the ability to put across your own without alienating your audience .

I'm guessing that you aren't speaking from the perspective of a former educationalist of any description, but on the off-chance I'm wrong, which educational theorist claims that 'the point of education' is anything, never mind that the point is to benefit the nation? That is something of a Victorian outlook, and most modern theorists consider the subject 'in the round'.

The nation is likely to benefit from having a well-educated workforce - if children are segregated young and only taught 'work skills' a lot of talent that could benefit the nation will be lost, as was the case when only 5% of people went to university, and 95% never got the chance to prove what they were capable of. Who knows what they might have gone on to do, given the opportunities that were denied them?

It is in the interests of those with high level qualifications to keep access low, so that they remain 'elite' (although that ship has largely sailed), and of employers who would prefer to have an ill-educated workforce who can't pick and choose from a range of employers, and will work cheaply. I don't think that benefits the nation, and it definitely doesn't benefit individuals.

Totally agree.

The point of education is to give children the knowledge at whatever level, to support themselves and benefit the nation, schools are failing
One of the many benefits of a rounded education is the ability to recognise that there are many points of view on a lot of things, and the ability to put across your own without alienating your audience .

I'm guessing that you aren't speaking from the perspective of a former educationalist of any description, but on the off-chance I'm wrong, which educational theorist claims that 'the point of education' is anything, never mind that the point is to benefit the nation? That is something of a Victorian outlook, and most modern theorists consider the subject 'in the round'.

The nation is likely to benefit from having a well-educated workforce - if children are segregated young and only taught 'work skills' a lot of talent that could benefit the nation will be lost, as was the case when only 5% of people went to university, and 95% never got the chance to prove what they were capable of. Who knows what they might have gone on to do, given the opportunities that were denied them?

It is in the interests of those with high level qualifications to keep access low, so that they remain 'elite' (although that ship has largely sailed), and of employers who would prefer to have an ill-educated workforce who can't pick and choose from a range of employers, and will work cheaply. I don't think that benefits the nation, and it definitely doesn't benefit individuals.

David49 sorry to correct you again but school set in a variety of different ways for different subjects and some don't set at all. There is always flexibility to move children. Perhaps you would provide some verifiable evidence that twice as many students are going to university as there is employment available. tbh I find it difficult to see how anyone could demonstrate this.

Iam64

Support for responses to David49 from Doodle and foxie. This notion of separating children into ‘vocational’ and other children makes my blood run cold. It’s the 11 plus all,over again, a tiny percentage get a good all round education, the rest are only seen as suitable for ‘vocational/practical education

This is what happens at all schools children are separated into ability groups there may be some movement over the years but most stay in same group. You know who is likely to have the ability to go to university,although there will be some surprises in both directions.

As a teacher are you satisfied with a system that sends twice as many to university as there is employment available. Or a system than does not meet the needs of either students or employers at vocational level

The point of education is to give children the knowledge at whatever level, to support themselves and benefit the nation, schools are failing

foxie48

It can be difficult to get an apprenticeship so frequently school leavers do a level 2 or 3 Diploma at college provided they have the required GCSE's. Once they have the basics it is easier for them to find a trades person to take them on as an apprentice.

At most colleges now they can undertake their core GCSE’s along their diplomas, in fact they have to if they don’t have maths or English at a certain level.

“That’s what wrong, the education industry thinks the children can do no wrong, they are all perfect for the world of work. Well the world of work is not too impressed with what you produce or we wouldn’t be debating this thread would we.“

I come from a family of teachers, back in the day and current.

Kids are actually no different to how they were, no one has ever said, within education or outside of education, the all children are perfect or that all are well equipped for work when leaving school or college. Some are, some are not, just like adults, all children are different!

foxie48

I'm sorry David49 but that's not true. I was HOD at a big FE college in the 90's, the college ran a number of vocational courses and basic English and maths was an integral part of those courses. Those students were no different than the ones now, some are keen to succeed, some are very keen to do well, some coast and some need a kick up the a... I've no idea where people get the idea that school leavers today are in any way "worse" than in the past. I find it very depressing that people think like this.

👏👏👏👏👏

Support for responses to David49 from Doodle and foxie. This notion of separating children into ‘vocational’ and other children makes my blood run cold. It’s the 11 plus all,over again, a tiny percentage get a good all round education, the rest are only seen as suitable for ‘vocational/practical education

David49 I suggest you read my reply properly, nowhere have I suggested that "children can do no wrong", quite the opposite in fact. Complaining about the behaviour and attitude of children is as old as the hills, Socrates and Aristotle et al complained about the work ethic of youths it seems to be part of getting old, like varicose veins and deafness. It doesn't make it true though!

That’s what wrong, the education industry thinks the children can do no wrong, they are all perfect for the world of work. Well the world of work is not too impressed with what you produce or we wouldn’t be debating this thread would we.

Well yes, as not everyone believes that education is simply to provide candidates for the world of work - that is what we are discussing .

You mention schools for 'vocational children'. At what age do you think young people should be pigeon-holed in that way? It's the opposite of the way I see education. IMO we all have strengths and weaknesses when it comes to learning, and every child, young person and adult should be allowed to play to their strengths (with no difference in status between subjects) and study the things they are good at to the levels of which they are capable.

foxie48

I'm sorry David49 but that's not true. I was HOD at a big FE college in the 90's, the college ran a number of vocational courses and basic English and maths was an integral part of those courses. Those students were no different than the ones now, some are keen to succeed, some are very keen to do well, some coast and some need a kick up the a... I've no idea where people get the idea that school leavers today are in any way "worse" than in the past. I find it very depressing that people think like this.

That’s what wrong, the education industry thinks the children can do no wrong, they are all perfect for the world of work. Well the world of work is not too impressed with what you produce or we wouldn’t be debating this thread would we.

Well said foxie.

I'm sorry David49 but that's not true. I was HOD at a big FE college in the 90's, the college ran a number of vocational courses and basic English and maths was an integral part of those courses. Those students were no different than the ones now, some are keen to succeed, some are very keen to do well, some coast and some need a kick up the a... I've no idea where people get the idea that school leavers today are in any way "worse" than in the past. I find it very depressing that people think like this.

Good post Doodledog on yts and other inadequate training schemes., we need to invest in our children and young people

foxie48

It can be difficult to get an apprenticeship so frequently school leavers do a level 2 or 3 Diploma at college provided they have the required GCSE's. Once they have the basics it is easier for them to find a trades person to take them on as an apprentice.

The difference that a generation ago the basic practical skills were taught at school for vocational children, now they continue at a technical college until 18 to get an NVQ but they are far from qualified to work unsupervised. Most will have had several weeks work experience during that time, the keen ones will be snapped up.
3 of my Grandsons did NVQs one refused that university is a high flyer and will do really well, one runs his own engineering business, one is improving - we will see.
I don’t comment on their choices - preserves family politics

Good post, Doodledog. I think small firms probably need financial support now to give a proper apprenticeship but its criminal to just use young people like that, no wonder disillusionment sets in.

Old fashioned apprenticeships (of the 'serve your time') variety are rare as hen's teeth though.

My husband's last job before he retired was in a company that took on 'apprentices' who were paid below minimum wage and given very basic things to do - donkey work, basically. Mr D was an engineer and constantly campaigned for them to be given a proper programme of learning, as he was embarrassed by the way they were exploited. He got nowhere - it was one of the reasons he resigned and took early retirement.

The 'apprentices' were let go after the grant for keeping them ran out, and a new lot replaced them. The scheme was more like the old YTS scheme than the three year apprenticeships of old.

Sorry should have added, they then do a mix of training with the employer + college course with the employer being able to access some govt funding but it won't cover the cost of the apprentice entirely. That's my understanding of the situation, please correct me if I am wrong.

It can be difficult to get an apprenticeship so frequently school leavers do a level 2 or 3 Diploma at college provided they have the required GCSE's. Once they have the basics it is easier for them to find a trades person to take them on as an apprentice.

Callistemon21

^That was me. And I didn't mean it in the way you seem to have taken it^

No, it wasn't you Doodledog. It was another poster.

Yes, apologies to Vintagewhine

It was you.

I still read a contempt for those in less well- paid (but essential) jobs whih is quite astonishing.

Dinahmo

I blame the parents! Those who want their children to go to uni regardless of what the child may wish to do.

Of my friends' children one or two were very good at art and were persuaded not to go to art school but to study a more "useful" subject. Art could be kept as a hobby.

The majority of my clients are artists and most of them went to art school. Few of them made a lot of money when they were young and so they did other jobs. A postman or two, a haulier, several art teachers whether at school or college. Most of them continued to create work and to endeavor to show it. Making one's work known to the public is the most difficult although these days it is easier with online shops.

Our painter and decorator has a degree in Art and Design. 🙂
It's definitely not wasted, although i think she either just missed having to pay tuition fees or went when they were £9,000 pa.

Cossy

Germanshepherdsmum

I think there’s a lot of truth in what you say, David. Many young people seem to lack discipline. And I have no doubt that many go to university for ‘the experience’, rather than to learn.

What’s wrong with having the university “experience”? They will be learning many life skills as well as their degree subjects and many make lifelong friendships.

My parents were all the "right" things but narrow in many respects tho I was taught to speak up.

I had little or no experience of living away from home, meeting people from widely diverse backgrounds, learning about how systems work and how I could find a place in them, negotiating different social situations, communicating well in same, being able to encounter and overcome personal issues but with support - the list could go on.

So for young people with clearly disadvantaged backgrounds these skills are all the more necessary, and they deserve the chances and support to grow. It's insulting to shrink this to going to parties.

I went to a very entitled university, and the stories I could tell of partying and put downs from the very "entitled" ones would curdle milk.