Education versus money

I used to know a bin man and a road sweeper who had degrees. They thought they were doing a valuable job which benefited society and were happy. They didn't buy into the concept that the purpose of education is to make sure you earn more. I actually think it's very much a post 1980s concept, before that lots of people went to university just to learn.

How many people ever get the job they dream of?

If they do, then how does the reality match the dream?

Sorry Mamie I would have thought you are wrong though nevertheless.

a 2.2 in anything or even a 2.1 in a poor subject and you are going struggle to get the job you dream of

In addition education system greatly inflates their abilities and prospects of success.

Which of these statements do you think is true, Katie?

NotSpaghetti

Mamie I think you are wrong when you say "students would want to get everything they can out of it" - no, I think it's afterwards they (often) feel they could have done much more.

I only say this from what is said by my own family and retuning "ex students" who may have revisited my husband and I whilst we were both working on campuses (one RG one not).

I think students are less invested in their degree (on the whole) than they were years ago as it is an expectation that anyone reasonably bright should have a degree these days. It's like the expectation that you would do A levrls years ago.

You missed out the bit where I said "I would have thought" from that quote NotSpaghetti. I can only go by the experience of my granddaughter and her friends, many of whom have chosen degrees with a clear vocational pathway.
I haven't done a survey of hundreds of students!

I would agree with your last paragraph Notspaghetti.

The experience is often less to do with learning and more to do with partying,
After starting work at 15 and changing jobs a few times I got the opportunity to study for a degree in my late 30 s. It was very noticeable that those who hadn’t drifted into it after O snd A levels worked harder and got better degrees because we appreciated the chance we had been given.
When I studied in the 80s, only 6% of people had a degree. Firsts were as rare as hens teeth. 2.1s were brilliantly exceptional, 2.2s were most common snd very acceptable, thirds were a bit embarrassing but not the end of the world.
Now nothing less than a first is seen as success.
On that note I am always surprised at all the grands here who must be a similar age to me who went to university.
I don’t remember knowing anyone who had been onto higher or even further education. We all left school at 15 or if we were ‘clever’ ‘Stayed on ‘ til 16 to take a few O levels,
After my degree I took O and A levels, better late than never,

Mamie

That isn't the point I was making Katie59. I am talking about actual contact time, lectures, tutorials, seminars etc. not student motivation. I have no idea how many students go just to party. At nine thousand pounds a year, plus incredibly expensive housing and living costs I would have thought students would want to get everything they can out of it.
I know a lot of my granddaughter's friends are really struggling to live from day to day, given the cost of rentals, heating and food. .

The very fact that they can avoid the world of work for 3 yrs away from home with no consequences is very attractive at 17 or 18. In addition education system greatly inflates their abilities and prospects of success.

Mamie I think you are wrong when you say "students would want to get everything they can out of it" - no, I think it's afterwards they (often) feel they could have done much more.

I only say this from what is said by my own family and retuning "ex students" who may have revisited my husband and I whilst we were both working on campuses (one RG one not).

I think students are less invested in their degree (on the whole) than they were years ago as it is an expectation that anyone reasonably bright should have a degree these days. It's like the expectation that you would do A levrls years ago.

That isn't the point I was making Katie59. I am talking about actual contact time, lectures, tutorials, seminars etc. not student motivation. I have no idea how many students go just to party. At nine thousand pounds a year, plus incredibly expensive housing and living costs I would have thought students would want to get everything they can out of it.
I know a lot of my granddaughter's friends are really struggling to live from day to day, given the cost of rentals, heating and food. .

No disrespect meant, Katie, but where are you getting this information from? Are you aware, for instance that the Borders Agency requires attendance figures for lectures and seminars? This can't be targeted at international students, so all students are monitored. Lack of attendance can trigger action from student services (or something else, depending on how the individual university is structured). A failure to be aware of things like patterns of attendance can have consequences if a student has MH issues which cause them problems. It's not a case of 'nobody's going to chase you if you don't attend'.

Mums doing washing, and students choosing universities for parties are tropes that may have been true in the 70s, but students now are far more focussed on results than they were 'in my day'. Many believe the propaganda that if they don't get a First they won't get a job, but it's not true beyond the first job. After that, it's experience and results that make the difference, but try telling that to a student whose parents keep reminding them of their debt and don't understand the subject matter of their degree, so fill them with doubt about its value.

I'm sure most 'helicopter' parents hover out of love, but they do their children a huge disservice by wanting to know every mark, having an opinion on every aspect of a course they haven't taken, and generally thinking that they know how everything could be improved whilst knowing nothing about the constraints of the system.

How do you know the intentions of university applicants? I very much doubt that people enrol 'with no intention' of paying their loans - most have a hugely inflated idea about what getting a degree will mean. It will give them the chance to compete with other bright young things to carve out a career, which is all they should expect, IMO. The days when a degree was a passport to a good job for life are long gone, and I don't mourn them, as they excluded more people than they benefited.

Mamie

Thanks Doodledog that is really interesting. My eldest granddaughter is in her final year at an RG university and we have been surprised at how much less direct contact she gets than when we and her parents were at university. Fortunately she is pretty self-motivated.
What shocks me about this whole discussion is that some people don't seem to think a deeper understanding of media and communications is necessary or important. That seems incredibly dangerous in the world in which we live.

I do agree that education is very important and it is the key to many careers, to get a good degree have to be very self motivation to do well at university. It’s not like school, nobody is going to push you, nobody is going to chase you if you don’t attend a lecture, mum is not there for a shoulder to cry on or do your washing. Unfortunately many enroll just for the party times, the Uni Experience and have no real expectation of paying back the student loan, the are actually told if you can’t pay it back you don’t have to - no consquenses.

Those with a good degree have worked hard, a 2.2 in anything or even a 2.1 in a poor subject and you are going struggle to get the job you dream of

Thanks Doodledog that is really interesting. My eldest granddaughter is in her final year at an RG university and we have been surprised at how much less direct contact she gets than when we and her parents were at university. Fortunately she is pretty self-motivated.
What shocks me about this whole discussion is that some people don't seem to think a deeper understanding of media and communications is necessary or important. That seems incredibly dangerous in the world in which we live.

For many, getting a degree is an end in itself, but doesn't guarantee a good job. It simply demonstrates that the holder has reached a certain level.
Doing a college course is probably of better use, depending on your talents.

I am less convinced than many about ’top’ and ‘lesser’ degrees, having worked in the sector for many years, and seen RG, ‘plate glass’ and ‘new’ universities at first hand, both as a student, a member of staff and an External Examiner. I have seen this over decades, so don’t base my comments on a snapshot of my own student experience or the vicarious experience of when my children were students.

I am not denying that snobbery exists, but I can’t justify it on academic grounds. The biggest difference is that in RG universities (which get a lot more money for research projects) staff have less contact with students. The standards of teaching, feedback and student support are broadly similar, with any differences being because of differences in individuals rather than systemic ones. Even there, what used to be a noticeable gap between the level of contact and engagement between staff and students (at undergraduate level at least) has narrowed. It used to be significantly higher in new universities but as pressure to compete has increased it has lessened, to the detriment of all.

As a very broad generalisation, I would say that students in RG universities are probably from wealthier backgrounds, so are correspondingly more confident and articulate, but not necessarily more intelligent or conscientious. At new universities the chances are greater that more students will have to work to earn money as well as on their studies. This makes it harder for them, but they are often better at time management and dealing with stress.

Most of us change a lot between 18 and 21 or so - maybe more than at any other point in our lives. It isn’t easy to predict how someone will mature in that time using A level results as a benchmark. There are far too many variables.

It's very easy for those of us who were awarded a top academic degree from a prestigious university to pontificate. I do it myself occasionally. But we should be mindful of the fact that even a lesser university education will one day seep into other areas of one's life, and enrichen society as a whole.

Germanshepherdsmum

We must agree to disagree Doodledog. You are far more supportive than I am of the predicted 59% who will not repay their student loans. It must be wonderful to do what pleases you and ignore your debt to the taxpayer.

How wonderful for you too, Glorianny. I hope the teachers have all repaid their loans.

I am supportive of education for those who want it, yes.

Not everyone does, which doesn’t make them lesser, but I believe that education is a good thing, both for the individual and for the country as a whole, and don’t believe that it should incur a debt to the taxpayer.

Germanshepherdsmum

I have already said that I didn’t go to university, though I had the offer of a place at Cambridge. People with low A level grades who go to a third rate university and study an airy fairy subject I don’t consider well educated.

My daughter studied an airy fairy subject - English & History at a university which is formerly a polytechnic. It was tough at first but she managed to get into product management.

She is very creative, her job involves creating a new range of products for this international global company she works for.
Together with the designers, mostly from technical or engineering background since they use cutting edge technology such as AI technology, they bring her ideas to fruition and get the factories in China and Asia to create these products. She must make sure that these products are commercially viable.

I will not consider her as uneducated or belonging to the great unwashed. [smile}

Germanshepherdsmum

We must agree to disagree Doodledog. You are far more supportive than I am of the predicted 59% who will not repay their student loans. It must be wonderful to do what pleases you and ignore your debt to the taxpayer.

How wonderful for you too, Glorianny. I hope the teachers have all repaid their loans.

Why should they have to repay?
If someone does a job which is of social value and isn't paid a lot is that their fault?
Society does not financially recompense people according to the amount they contribute to it.

Oh golly! I'm afraid printing is an accepted art form. Screen printing, lino cuts, etc. There's a Japanese form which uses fish it's called Gyotaku.
These are the fine art forms
www.thecollector.com/5-techniques-of-printmaking-as-fine-art/

petra

Glorianny
I started work in the printing trade at 15. Time served until I was 21. That involved time in the machine room and comp rooms.
I’ve never heard of a printing class or someone needing a degree to teach it.

I think they are more craft courses eg lino printing, making small pictures and cards, not professional printing.

I don't think you'd need a degree to teach that type of printing, just an artistic flair.
U3As run groups and classes.

Glorianny
I started work in the printing trade at 15. Time served until I was 21. That involved time in the machine room and comp rooms.
I’ve never heard of a printing class or someone needing a degree to teach it.

We must agree to disagree Doodledog. You are far more supportive than I am of the predicted 59% who will not repay their student loans. It must be wonderful to do what pleases you and ignore your debt to the taxpayer.

How wonderful for you too, Glorianny. I hope the teachers have all repaid their loans.

Let's not forget as well that there is evidence that involvement in the arts is good for our mental health and for delaying ageing. We need people who can organise and run classes and groups.
I've recently done a printing class, doing a course which involves movement and other artistic disciplines, and belong to a group which uses dance to help prevent falls.
Thank goodness for the people who did their degrees in those subjects and are now helping me.

I fear we will have to differ as regards ‘books, theatre, TV, film’ being dominated by people who can afford to repay their student loans.
Well, we can differ in our opinions, but as I am talking about what would happen if entry to courses that lead to Arts-based careers being restricted to those who can fund them themselves it is impossible to know one way or the other, particularly as the figures that are collected only measure the percentage employed in a related discipline. Who do you think employs poets? Or Art Historians? The vast majority of them won't show in the figures, as they will be working in the civil service, doing a PGCE, on a management training scheme or taking conversion courses. The best ones - the ones who do get work as poets in residence or in galleries will most likely be interns working for next to nothing. We can also differ over whether loan payback is the most sensible metric for deciding on the value of a course of study anyway. I would be far more interested in seeing the figures ten years after graduating, when many graduates working in the creative industries are earning well.

The majority of the books I read are written by academics; advances are paid by publishers.
The majority of books I read are written by a huge variety of authors. For work, I read textbooks by academics, but for pleasure I read novels, poetry and short stories. What does any of that prove? 🤷‍♂️

Good actors, presenters and the like will be well paid. Why should the taxpayer subsidise the mediocre?
Not all good actors (or any other artists) will ever be discovered. never mind well-paid. A lot comes down to luck, and having the money and connections to be able to work in a job that will allow you to drop shifts to perform when you get the chance. If you are Eddie Redmayne, or Benedict Cumberbatch (both very good actors - I'm not suggesting otherwise) that's a lot easier than if you are Joe Bloggs from Normaltown. A friend of mine's daughter is an opera singer, with an MA in music. She works as a waitress, or stacking shelves, as the work is sporadic and although she has been asked to teach music she can't commit to a term in case a role comes up and she needs to travel. When she earns, she is well paid, but the nature of the work is such that when surveyed she appears to be unemployed or in an unrelated 'non-graduate' role.

The taxpayer isn't asked to subsidise the mediocre. As we've seen, most graduates pay their loans, and there will be graduates from all disciplines who do not. How certain are you that all science grads, or those with Business degrees pay them back? Some will travel, others will marry, some will 'drop out', or join the circus. Do you have stats to back up your assumption that it is creatives who don't pay them back, or is it based on prejudice?

As for artists, you either have talent or you don’t - it can’t be taught.
Do you have evidence for that claim either? Many students, graduates and professors would disagree with you. Anyway, it's not just about talent, it's about knowing how to go about getting into the public eye, applying for grants, building a social media presence, winning prizes and so on. Those things can absolutely be taught, and form a large part of creative arts degrees.

So very truepantglas2 I agree