Education versus money

I agree with your last post Monica. I’m uncomfortable with the idea you get one chance at this university/education if you are poor and take out finance. It should be carefully considered and not treated like some kind of race. How many 18yo know what they want to do? Not many I imagine

Yes, and that adds to the expense. Should they be funded? Currently they qualify for student loans, but only if you don’t already have qualifications at that level and you are under 60. This makes retraining difficult for well-qualified people who want or need to change careers at a time when they have mortgages and children to support, as they have to find the money up front. Meanwhile (in some subjects at least) there are many early retirees who take them before they are 60, safe in the knowledge that they won’t have to pay back the loans which young people have to add to the cost of their undergraduate ones. That doesn’t seem fair, but is in the spirit of learning for its own sake, so I don’t know what to think really.

When I retired I took a ‘recreational’ Masters (in the sense that I knew I would never put it on a CV). I was the only person paying for it upfront, as I had other qualifications that meant I didn’t qualify for a loan, even though I’d paid the fees for them myself. I didn’t mind, as in my case it was something of an indulgence, but I felt for the young people who were adding £9k or so (plus expenses) to their debt when older ones were boasting that they would never pay theirs back.

Arguably most of them would have paid more than enough in tax to cover the fees by their 50s, but then so had I - when everything is reduced to money it is very difficult to be fair to everyone.

My grandchildren who are at uni both have jobs for quite a few hours a week, some late night hours too. We didn’t have to do that, they actually paid us to go. How lucky are we, looking back ? I think they should make any training for professions like medicine or teaching free, especially considering shortages. If not free, heavily subsidised. All the business studies and legal studies and politics can remain as is. Not that I am biased of course.

Doodledog when everything is reduced to money it is very difficult to be fair to everyone

There, right there.

Fair is a nice concept, but extraordinarily difficult to work out.

Those who are lucky, charismatic, beautiful, clever not daft, with big legacies, Bank of mum, higher earners, etc - life isn't fair.

I don't understand free university fees, not having loans as fair to the taxpayers, perhaps less government debt is a better idea.

Indeed Norah, life isn’t fair. Unless you possess wealth, great intelligence, beauty - it is what you make it. And we live in a society which does enable people to progress, if they are willing to put in the necessary hard graft. It may be difficult and require sacrifices - which in my experience makes achievement all the sweeter. I never met another lawyer who valued their practising certificate as highly as I did.

Maybe employers need to be more accountable for paying for their workers qualifications if they are working and progressing in a given field.

Norah

Doodledog when everything is reduced to money it is very difficult to be fair to everyone

There, right there.

Fair is a nice concept, but extraordinarily difficult to work out.

Those who are lucky, charismatic, beautiful, clever not daft, with big legacies, Bank of mum, higher earners, etc - life isn't fair.

I don't understand free university fees, not having loans as fair to the taxpayers, perhaps less government debt is a better idea.

For the government to get best value out of higher education it needs to set targets of the number of places in each discipline it is prepared to offer loans or scholarships each year. That would ensure that only the best students get places regardless of their ability to pay.
It doesn’t stop anyone getting further education, they can get it from local colleges or from work related qualifications.

I disagree, for all the reasons I've given, but I'm not going to repeat them. The fact that life's not fair is not, IMO a good excuse for not trying to make it fairer, but I don't think people are ever going to agree about this, and as long as we have a Conservative government there is not going to be a political will to do anything that doesn't advantage those who have money.

JaneJudge

I agree with your last post Monica. I’m uncomfortable with the idea you get one chance at this university/education if you are poor and take out finance. It should be carefully considered and not treated like some kind of race. How many 18yo know what they want to do? Not many I imagine

I did, my brothers and sister did and we all stuck at it, so far all the GC know what career they are aiming at, wether they achieve what they aim for remains to be seen but they do have aims.
At 18 they all should have a good idea, they chose their options 3 yrs previously not having any idea is a really bad sign

I did two further 'professional' degrees after my first degree I financed and paid for both. Was it easy? No, it wasn't, in one case juggling work, childcare, a husband whose job meant he was often away from home and studying.

But when employers are recruiting they may want someone with a degree, but it is other aspects of their character that gets them the job, I have done staff interviewing and while you need to know the educational calibre of candidates, it is other aspects of their character that do or do not get them the job.

Not according to GSM.

I don’t think it’s a bad sign but if they don’t know what they want to do it’s better to get a job for a few years (or more) before embarking on an expensive course in something you are not interested in

I haven’t said that, Doodledog. I have said that people straight out of university may find that their choice of university or degree may land their application in the the bin. As you know, I can only speak of my experience in the law. The last firm in which I was a partner took a good many trainees who were looking to pursue a career in the law after a first career in a completely different setting. They tended to be in their 40s.

JaneJudge

I don’t think it’s a bad sign but if they don’t know what they want to do it’s better to get a job for a few years (or more) before embarking on an expensive course in something you are not interested in

Why would you go through the whole process of A levels, personal statement, UCAS if you weren't interested? It isn't for the faint-hearted these days you know!

Doodledog

Not according to GSM.

To be fair, (and without reading the thread again) I thought GSM was saying that it's a filter before you get the interview.

Sorry, I see GSM has spoken for herself.

Because it’s expected of you?

Why would you go through the whole process of A levels, personal statement, UCAS if you weren't interested?

- because you have to stay in education till 18 now.
Once you have "stayed on" to do A' Levels (that maybe you were or were not interested in), if you are bright but no idea what you want to do you will drift off to university.

It's a bit like graduates I knew in the 1970s who did an year extra at university training to become a teacher because they couldn't think what they wanted to do. It was an "easy" choice for some people with no other ideas as to what to do.
They may or may not have become good teachers but they were a very different group of people from those who came to university to do a dedicated education degree who were focused on teaching from the beginning.

Thanks NS.

NotSpaghetti

Doodledog

Not according to GSM.

To be fair, (and without reading the thread again) I thought GSM was saying that it's a filter before you get the interview.

Yes, but if you can't get an interview because of prejudice you aren't going to get the job, are you?

I wasn't going to post again, but the fact that many people don't know what they want to do is IMO more reason for letting them study what they are good at - which is usually what they are interested in - and decide on a career later. So you could study Art History (or whatever) and then go on to work in plumbing or retail management on graduation. Where I live, the biggest employer by far is 'The Council' which employs over 10,000 people, many of whom work in non-specific admin roles at all levels. At management level it doesn't matter whether their degree was in Literature or Marine Biology, so what would be the point of shoehorning people into 'approved' subjects whether they are interested in them or not?

More specialist roles such as Town Planning or accountancy will obviously require subject-specific qualifications, but as with working for the Tax Office or the Pensions Agency most roles don't require that. Instead they are graduate entry because a degree shows evidence of the transferable skills discussed upthread.

In an ideal world, people would be able to take time out to study when the muse strikes, but practicalities such as paying the bills and raising children get in the way if they leave it much beyond their early 20s, so compromises often have to be struck.

Doodledog I think all people should be interested in what they study and study what they are interested in.
If that is art history, ancient civilisations and Greek, or whatever.

A "job at the end" is not what I think university should be about either.

Obviously if you want to be a doctor or barrister or whatever it's the reason you're there.

The intellectual ability of the undergraduate applicant shows in the university they attended and the course they studied Doodledog, as well as the level of degree they were awarded. In areas where intellectual ability is of prime importance, surely it goes without saying that some applicants will not be offered an interview?

- because you have to stay in education till 18 now
Once you have "stayed on" to do A' Levels (that maybe you were or were not interested in), if you are bright but no idea what you want to do you will drift off to university

But education could be in a college, more often if you know what you want to do of course, eg a skilled trade. You just have to have the required, good GCSEs to apply.

I can remember when two of my family wanted to go into nursing. The older one left school with 9 excellent GCEs and did a pre-nursing course then SRN.
The younger one had to take A levels and do a degree course.

Both excellent nurses but one came out with debt, the other none. Good salaries, like teachers, but not exceptional compared to other family members who work in finance etc.

The fees have tripled since then, accommodation and other costs have soared.
It's a millstone that many do not want

There need to be far more vocational courses

Germanshepherdsmum

The intellectual ability of the undergraduate applicant shows in the university they attended and the course they studied Doodledog, as well as the level of degree they were awarded. In areas where intellectual ability is of prime importance, surely it goes without saying that some applicants will not be offered an interview?

That is such a sweeping statement GSM. It also depends hugely on parental backing and the expertise in a sixth form, both in terms of teaching and in knowing how to match students to universities and courses. Thank goodness for contextual offers which can help potentially disadvantaged students.
I have one granddaughter in her final year and a second one currently applying for medicine. I honestly don't recognise their experiences and those of their educational cohorts in some of the posts on here.

Agreed, Mamie. The idea that A level results are a determiner of intellectual ability is ludicrous when you are comparing someone who has had a tutor and a private education with someone who has had neither, has had a Saturday or evening job, has no quiet study space at home and no role models who have stayed at school beyond minimum leaving age. Ludicrous.

Sneering at universities that take lower entry points and trying to hold attendance at those universities against their graduates is not only cruel but detrimental to companies that do so. In the face of this sort of snobbery against people who have worked for and achieved degrees, how can anyone argue for more non-graduate courses, or different 'tiers' of HE institutions? Surely qualifications from the sub-university institutions that are being recommended would be entirely worthless, and their holders condemned to even more discrimination and prejudice? Or would they be used to justify lower salaries for a new tier of sub-graduate positions?

It all sounds horribly divisive to me, and I really hope that calls for this sort of thing are resisted.