Education versus money

Everyone always says we need plumbers when these conversations arise, but they seem always to want other people's children to do apprenticeships after GCSEs. I would suggest that this is what puts a lot of people off, and that if plumbers were genuinely given the same respect as, say, retail managers, and allowed to specialise in plumbing on graduation instead of retail management there might be more people to choose from when your boiler springs a leak.

Hear hear!

However, I do think that taking any degree then specialising in, for example, plumbing would result in a lot of rather useless plumbers or ones who do not earn much until they're in their late 20s because a plumbing apprenticeship can take up to four years then some take electrical qualifications as well.

There is a lot of intellectual snobbery about apprenticeships and especially about people who leave school with few qualifications and take low-skilled jobs. A teacher friend recently referred to the duffers at the school where she taught. I was quite shocked.
However, everyone has their place in society and there is no need for intellectual snobbery or elitism.

...in a lot of areas subject specialism is not important. I'm thinking here of the police, the CS, the armed forces, retail management etc, where currently graduates are 'fast tracked', regardless of the subject they studied.

When my son applied to the police, his force was all graduate-entry. Not just the fast-tracked cohort.

I didn’t say that everyone would get a 2:2. But there will always be those who do, or a third, or fail or drop out. Or they get a 2:1 or first in a subject that is of great interest to them but of little use to man or beast. If I had taken up the place I was offered, it would have meant three years studying a subject which fascinates me to this day, but which would have led to obscure academic research - I might have become a published author but, my interest being somewhat niche, I would never have earned much money. Of course in those days the state funded university education but I would have paid very little tax. I might have been deliriously happy, but would it be fair to enjoy that happiness at the expense of the taxpayer? I had absolutely no interest in teaching - I would have ploughed a fairly solitary furrow. However I didn’t become that undergrad, I have cost the taxpayer nothing in terms of education beyond my post-A level secretarial course and I have contributed much to the Treasury and also, through pro bono work, some value to those unable to pay a lawyer. Forgive me if I can’t raise enthusiasm for your Utopian system - I expect I have paid for a good number of unproductive (to society and the economy) university experiences and will continue to do so until after my death. We don’t all have a right to happiness in our work - we may find it or we may not.

What a bleak picture you paint Germanshepherdsmum.

GSM A good degree in any subject can be a way in to many careers. many people get degrees in one subject and end up working in completely different fields of endeavour, whether the first degree was something that seemed vocational, but the vocation did not appeal on graduation, or whether sheer serendipity.

DD is currently working in a career where everyone she works with has a degree in Economics or Business Studies. She has a degree in acting and an OU degree in STEM.

What is ‘a good degree’? Is it a First or 2:1 from a top university or a First or 2:1 from an ex-poly?

A first or 2.1 from any university is a good degree.

Germanshepherdsmum

What is ‘a good degree’? Is it a First or 2:1 from a top university or a First or 2:1 from an ex-poly?

If you really don't know the answer to that, I suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalisations about graduates.

Katie some are happy to see 3 years "wasted" - it's a joy and a privilege for some to dedicate all that time to study in detail something they find compelling and challenging - and some don't care about the student "loan".

I think lots of us have tried to explain this.

NotSpaghetti

Katie some are happy to see 3 years "wasted" - it's a joy and a privilege for some to dedicate all that time to study in detail something they find compelling and challenging - and some don't care about the student "loan".

I think lots of us have tried to explain this.

I’m sure you are correct, some dont care, it’s just a waste of taxpayers money that £50k plus could have been spent on something useful.
I suppose you think wasting money is good.

How can you presume to know what others see as a waste of money, though? Not everyone looks at life in terms of costs and ‘waste’. There is a saying about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, and I really think it is being illustrated on this thread.

It is all a difficult subject isnt it?
I must admit, I havent considered before the cost to the governement, and by definition, the general public, of the many student loans which may never get repaid.

The £50k can, and is, repayed by plenty of people who have apparently been "wasting" their money and their time.

Four of my children went to university. None are now in careers "related" to their undergraduate (or even postgraduate) degrees. Two, after years of working in one area have switched to something very different. All but one (the youngest) have repaid their loans. The youngest has nearly done so.

Obviously this is anecdotal but you are making assumptions about which debts are weighing on the public purse. And when I say some don't care about that debt - that may be because they know they are repaying it.

I think an educated public is not a thing to sneer at.

...it's a joy and a privilege for some to dedicate all that time to study in detail something they find compelling and challenging - and some don't care about the student "loan"

That is exactly how my son views his three years studying drama.
He thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience, including living away from home, and is happy to make his loan repayments.

However... he's 39 now, he went to university twenty years ago.
He has also said that with the much higher tuition costs these days he might very well not make the same decision.

So presumably V3ra some of those not wanting to repay it will be weeding themselves out now anyway.

That should help Katie.

Doodledog

Germanshepherdsmum

What is ‘a good degree’? Is it a First or 2:1 from a top university or a First or 2:1 from an ex-poly?

If you really don't know the answer to that, I suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalisations about graduates.

Rhetorical question Doodledog. Having been involved in the recruitment of lawyers and would-be lawyers, I know what, appearing on a cv, destined the application for the bin.

Having been involved in the recruitment of lawyers and would-be lawyers, I know what, appearing on a cv, destined the application for the bin.

Ah. Well, there is no legislating for prejudice.

My own experience, based on seeing generations of students graduate into work, suggests that after that initial prejudice is in the past, it is not necessarily those with 'good' degrees from 'top' universities who finish at the top of the tree. You can't trade on that forever. Whilst getting a good start is a springboard, after that, employers are looking for achievement in the workplace, rather than an ability to pass exams. A clever and dedicated worker will always do well, but those who had an easier time because they didn't need to work when studying, or who had the contacts to get into top placements will find that this advantage doesn't last forever, and they will have to stand or fall on merit.

I know of a few situations where someone who was a 'plodder' at 21 is a high flier at 40, and is managing those who used to be 'high fliers' - sometimes from several grades up.

I don't think it is Utopian to want everyone to have the same chances. Not everyone will take advantage of them in the same way, and I'm not looking to flatten the curve when it comes to rewards, just to harness the abilities of all our young people and let people find out where their talents lie, which many people never do.

Why bother with education at all? Let's just send children down the mines at 7. Oh hang on there aren't any mines. Well let them leave at 14 like my parents did. Why should any education be funded?

The whole purpose of education is not to make people who earn more money, but to develop the individual. There is absolutely no reason why degree level education should not be fully funded. I know a number of people who didn't get a degree until later life in the 1980s when they changed careers. Many of them were women who went into social work or education. Today that wouldn't happen.

And today's graduates do not look for a career that lasts a lifetime except in a few cases, most of them know they will change jobs, often moving from being an employee to working independently.

No one would expect someone to repay the cost of their secondary education so why ask for the repayment of university costs?

Unfortunately Thomas Gradgrind is alive and well in UK education
THOMAS GRADGRIND, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Thomas Gradgrind, sir—peremptorily Thomas—Thomas Gradgrind. With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic

You might be surprised at the perceived prejudice Doodledog. My personal experience of ex-public school boys who had attended Oxbridge was that many had an unpleasant air of entitlement and superiority, not conducive to collegiate working, and their capacity for independent thought and research was somewhat lacking. An expectation that the spoon feeding would continue …

I have been following this thread with interest, having left school and home at 15 with no further education, I see it as no less than wonderful that our young people can go to university and think we should be very proud of this. I don't believe many go for a 'jolly' and it saddens me more to think some may be put off going due to finances. Educating people is very much 'worth' my tax contribution.

Germanshepherdsmum

You might be surprised at the perceived prejudice Doodledog. My personal experience of ex-public school boys who had attended Oxbridge was that many had an unpleasant air of entitlement and superiority, not conducive to collegiate working, and their capacity for independent thought and research was somewhat lacking. An expectation that the spoon feeding would continue …

I wouldn't be remotely surprised at that. This is the UK.

What does surprise me is that in this day and age there are still people who want to restrict education to areas that are obviously job-related, and can't comprehend that learning for its own sake (and learning how to learn) is a good thing, regardless of financial payback. Or at any rate restrict access to non-vocational courses to those who can afford to pay.

Fortunately, as I've said, those attitudes are far from universal, so I hope that anyone reading this whose children or grandchildren are not 'brilliant' or don't have First Class degrees from 'top' universities like so many on here do will take heart. A 2:2 is a perfectly respectable degree, there are plenty of opportunities for people with degrees in all sorts of subjects, and education is never 'wasted', whatever that means in this context.

Glorianny

Why bother with education at all? Let's just send children down the mines at 7. Oh hang on there aren't any mines. Well let them leave at 14 like my parents did. Why should any education be funded?

The whole purpose of education is not to make people who earn more money, but to develop the individual. There is absolutely no reason why degree level education should not be fully funded. I know a number of people who didn't get a degree until later life in the 1980s when they changed careers. Many of them were women who went into social work or education. Today that wouldn't happen.

And today's graduates do not look for a career that lasts a lifetime except in a few cases, most of them know they will change jobs, often moving from being an employee to working independently.

No one would expect someone to repay the cost of their secondary education so why ask for the repayment of university costs?

Unfortunately Thomas Gradgrind is alive and well in UK education
^THOMAS GRADGRIND, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Thomas Gradgrind, sir—peremptorily Thomas—Thomas Gradgrind. With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic^

1st paragraph - plenty of jobs dont need education until 18.
I dont fall for, well if something isnt 100%, what about 0% then?![my DH is one of those! - well if I cant do such and such, what if I do nothing].

2nd paragraph - cost.

3rd paragraph - true. Plenty of people job hop, or change career coming up to 40. Not sure about the employee to independently bit[personally I know precious few of those].

4th paragraph - cost.
The more people say about leave school at 14, the more I am thinking, that isnt such a bad idea. For some.

People who say, learn for it's own sake - I think that is a luxury. Often said by richer people.

fancythat

People who say, learn for it's own sake - I think that is a luxury. Often said by richer people.

No it's often said by people who realise that money is not the be-all and end-all of life. It's good to earn enough to provide yourself and your family with a decent standard of living and not be worrying how you will pay a bill, but once you get beyond there are other things that matter more for some people.

* It's good to earn enough to provide yourself and your family with a decent standard of living and not be worrying how you will pay a bill,*

But that is rich, by lots of peoples' standards.
Though depends how people define rich.

But I am not feeling great.
Not sure if I have now disagreed with you, or agreed!