Education versus money

Farming definitely is a vocation, it’s one of the toughest jobs there is both physically and mentally.
It strikes me as naive to suggest that the people who don’t achieve top academic grades could be trained to be plumbers, electricians or other practical trades - those trades don’t have massive vacancies, and most people wouldn’t be capable of doing them either, they require a different skill set. The staff shortages are actually in unskilled roles, or semi skilled roles. Are we planning to condemn somebody who is not quite ‘bright enough’ to do those jobs, because that’s where they are needed?

You would need the money to buy or rent a farm unless you can work on the farm of mum and dad. People can go to agricultural college and perhaps become land agents. There are fewer opportunities to become a farm worker as so much is done so quickly by machines. Farming is a precarious way to earn a living.

Casdon, if someone isn’t‘ quite bright enough’ for skilled work what do you suggest other than unskilled work?

Doodledog

I know. I wasn’t asking that though . What I am interested to find out is whether what we are seeing is what I have observed in ‘real life’, which is the phenomenon of ‘other people’s children’ being better suited to non-university pathways, when the children of those arguing for that studied for degrees, with or without loans.

In other words, are people (as I suspect) arguing for the elitism of old, which denied most people the chance to go to university and consequently to even apply for the jobs that were ring-fenced as ‘graduate’.

I don't know if this helps but one of my sons was not suited to university and we tried to suggest other options (including work)..

Because everyone else was going and he was "very bright" (apparently) he went anyway. He came out into the same job he did part time before (during A levels) and had massive student loans/debt.

He was the first of the family to pay it all back - and now earns more than any of his four siblings. He has his own business.
His youngest sibling decided not to go but the other three all went.

I am "all for" bringing back different courses for different skills sets.

We can go round in circles deciding who is ’bright enough’ (whatever that means) to become a retail manager, a plumber or a farmer*, but there are systemic questions that need to be considered as well as the human ones.

Firstly, at what point do we cut off possibilities for people? It used to be at 11, when those on the wrong side of a local sex-based quota were written off, along with those whose parents couldn’t afford bus fares or uniforms, or who didn’t want their children to ’get above themselves’. Many would like to go back to the grammar school system - it certainly did well for the lucky ones - but are we happy to cut adrift so many 11 year olds these days? I suspect that LEAs would be deluged with appeals as all children are incredibly bright in the eyes of their parents and grandparents, and if they aren’t, it’s because of a label. Which brings me to what happens to those who have conditions such as Dyslexia, or Autism, Anxiety, ADD - all the things that once had them shuffled off to ‘special schools’ where they were contained but educationally ignored as ‘not very bright’. What do we do with them? Spend taxpayers’ money on nurturing their talents so that they have the same opportunities as everyone else? Or consign them to lower streams, early school leaving and routine work for life?

Then there are the late developers. If we are cutting off access to good education at 11, what about them? How do they ever pass a later entrance exam if their school teaches ‘environmental studies’ instead of science, or ‘humanities’ instead of history, literature and geography?

Secondly there is the question of why we are bothering to educate people at all. If CV it is just to fill vacancies we may as well have a committee of dignitaries attached to primary schools, deciding how much ‘factory fodder’ is needed, and allocating places at high schools accordingly. This did happen, in the name of education being linked to jobs. My husband’s great grandfather (or possibly great-great) got a place at grammar school, but was told (by his father, who had been called to the office at the mine) that there was a start for him at the pit and he was to start the next day. He didn’t ’need’ to stay at school. There was no choice, as the family had a tied house and would have been unemployed and homeless if he’d refused.

Was that ok? He had a job for life. The fact that his dreams were shattered, he didn’t get a chance to study, he had to stay in the Midlands till he died, and almost certainly never met his potential- well, those things are luxuries, aren’t they, according to some.

What is education for? If, like me, you believe that education should give all of us the chance to be as ‘good’ as we can be, then it’s not about money. That will come back through taxes and from whatever is produced by the beneficiaries (whether that is goods, services, knowledge or whatever) anyway. If you believe that education is to plug gaps in the job centre, I’d like to know how you answer the questions about how it should be allocated. Oh, and should the taxes of plumbers go to pay for other people’s children to learn to be accountants?

*Absolutely no disrespect is intended to plumbers, retail managers or farmers. They are simply being used as shorthand for tradespeople, those with occupations that require non-specific degrees and those who inherit the family land. There may well be better examples.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Casdon*, if someone isn’t‘ quite bright enough’ for skilled work what do you suggest other than unskilled work?

It’s not about brightness, it’s about practical aptitude, which is a different skill.

Germanshepherdsmum

You would need the money to buy or rent a farm unless you can work on the farm of mum and dad. People can go to agricultural college and perhaps become land agents. There are fewer opportunities to become a farm worker as so much is done so quickly by machines. Farming is a precarious way to earn a living.

County farms and smallholdings used to be a route into farming for those who had no money or a family farm.

However, there seem to be fewer Council farms around today.

By ‘bright enough’ I was assuming that was what Germanshepherdsmum meant for those who had high academic achievement and would be in this revised cohort of university attendees. As I’ve previously said, that’s not a definition I agree with. A different set of skills is required to be a competent tradesman, and I don’t think that is any more achievable for people without a natural practical aptitude than high academic achievement is.

Some people who are highly intelligent and live their lives entirely in academia would be useless working as a skilled or unskilled worker, the type of person society depends on.

Farmers are highly skilled and without farmers, the whole of society would collapse.
They are undervalued.

I don’t know why you are now turning this into a debate about the 11+ (which I believe may still exist in some, but not many, areas) and your husband’s ancestor being sent down the mine at a time when parents decided whether or not their children stayed at school and what job they took. This is old history.

What is the point of someone whose teachers know they are most unlikely to pass an A level remaining in academic, as opposed to vocational, education? What would they gain from being proved a failure rather than turning their hand (literally) to something at which they might succeed? And what do you propose for those who won’t manage a vocational course but will be able to do unskilled work?

There is no reason why a plumber’s taxes should not, along with everyone else’s, pay for the training of an accountant. If he is self employed or is sufficiently successful to own his own company he will need the services of an accountant. The only complaint I have about my taxes paying for other people’s children to go to university is that a very large proportion of them will never repay their debts.

You are correct Callistemon.

I'm not 'turning it into a debate' - it already is one, or so I thought. As for the 11+ and the utilitarian approach to education, yes they were around in the past, but it seems to me that those attitudes underpin the idea that only some people should go to university, and even then, only to study 'useful' subjects.

They do say that if we don't study History we are doomed to repeat it.

I said ‘a debate about the 11+’ - which it wasn’t.

Of course only some people should go to university - do you seriously think that everyone, regardless of ability, should go and spend three years having a good time at the taxpayers’ expense?

Thankfully I have studied, and continue to study, history.

My SIL is a farmer. He has a degree in mathematics. He has paid his student loan.
Waste of taxpayers money/ his good times?
Not sure that's so .. oh, and he did try teaching and decided it wasn't for him.

Glad he’s one of the 61% who repay their loans.

Germanshepherdsmum

I said ‘a debate about the 11+’ - which it wasn’t.

Of course only some people should go to university - do you seriously think that everyone, regardless of ability, should go and spend three years having a good time at the taxpayers’ expense?

Thankfully I have studied, and continue to study, history.

Well, we disagree on the fundamentals, which has been clear from the start.

I think (and have said from the start) that everyone who wants to, and who has qualified at the previous level should be able to stay in education for as long as they can. I don't think that this should be time-limited, so if someone leaves school with O levels/GCSEs they should be able to go to college to take A levels (free) at 35 if they wish, and then do a degree at 50.

As we all pay for education, I think it is deeply unfair to expect those who are denied it to be expected to pay for those who get it. I also think that fees are not only a deterrent for many, but change the dynamic to make staff/student relationships transactional, so would prefer to see them revoked and have the costs absorbed into general taxation.

I see education as being for the good of the individual, which IMO then transfers to the benefit of society.

Your point about having studied history is not put into context in your post. I was trying to link the exclusionary underpinning of the 11+ and the utilitarian approach to education of the past to some of the arguments on this thread (including yours, obviously) but I can't see what you are getting at by your reference to your studies.

Oh, and fees charged to students do not cover the costs in many cases. There is already a levy on courses that are cheaper to run (eg Media or History), as their students pay the same as those on more expensive ones, in, say, Medicine or Engineering. As an egalitarian I don't object, but maybe the more utilitarian posters would prefer to see more expensive courses taken even further out of the reach of potential students by increasing the fees?

I was referencing the final paragraph of your post when mentioning history, Doodledog.

Clearly if you were in charge in this educational Utopia, taxes would have to rise in order to absorb the cost of these free lifelong opportunities.

If my plumber had decided to study art history before learning his trade, as you suggested above, he might have had an enjoyable three years but quite how the benefit to him transfers to society , beyond broadening his conversational repertoire, is beyond me.

Doodledog - sometimes you just know your son/daughter isn't right for university.

The son I spoke of earlier had great A levels was academically very able but lazy unless very motivated. He had a job alongside GCSEs and A levels working (hard) to buy a motorbike because he was motivated but "winging" his exams. He was too immature for the degree he chose - and partying and working a lot as he then wanted a (fancy) car! He wasn't ready for a RG university and my husband and I both felt a sandwich type course or release from within an industry would have been better at that point.
The university wasn't a failure but it did cost him a lot financially!

That's what I'm saying.

Germanshepherdsmum

I was referencing the final paragraph of your post when mentioning history, Doodledog.

Clearly if you were in charge in this educational Utopia, taxes would have to rise in order to absorb the cost of these free lifelong opportunities.

If my plumber had decided to study art history before learning his trade, as you suggested above, he might have had an enjoyable three years but quite how the benefit to him transfers to society , beyond broadening his conversational repertoire, is beyond me.

Do you only value people in terms of their usefulness to society Germanshepherdsmum? A plumber will not only earn enough to repay his student loan (if he has one) in full, he may be using his degree in other ways, research, writing, lecturing or whatever. People are not just one dimensional robots.
I’m also interested in what you think about those who self fund so don’t have student loans to repay, are they still able to go to university if it doesn’t cost the state anything?

If it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything they can do what they like.

It's not beyond me, GSM, but clearly we are very different people, which is fine - it takes all sorts, as they say. You refer to my views as Utopian, by which I assume you mean that they are based on some sort of pleasure principle? I don't think they are, but I do believe that when citizens are fulfilled, given something to aim for and have a belief that they can attain it (ie are not throttled by a system that prioritises the needs or wants of others) there will be more content, so there will be less crime and less risk of revolution. In turn, that means there is need for fewer restrictions on citizens and more freedom for everyone - things that I value.

If my views are Utopian, does that suggest that yours are Dystopian? Is Dystopia a laudable aim for society?

NotSpaghetti You and your husband may well have been right in the case of your son - I can empathise there from experience with my own family . All the same, would you rather he had been told that he couldn't go, and on what grounds, assuming he was appropriately qualified and didn't bungle the interview, if there was one? Admissions Officers' hands are tied if someone has the qualifications, as they are vulnerable to accusations of discrimination if they don't accept someone - even if it is very clear that the applicant is going to struggle. Maybe his teachers could have tried to steer him towards a pathway that was more appropriate to him at that stage of his life - or maybe they did.

I think all we can ask is that everyone is given the chance to fulfil their potential - after that it is up to them. In an ideal world, 'university age' might be 35-40 when people have had time to mature, but life gets in the way of that for most people who need to make a living, and may have families to support.

Germanshepherdsmum

If it doesn’t cost the taxpayer anything they can do what they like.

And there we have it. To hell with ability, aptitude, hopes and ambition - it's the cost to the taxpayer that counts.

It is now that university education is funded by loans. Who here would incur a loan which they knew they would be unlikely ever to repay? Is that an ethical way to behave?

Chocolatelovinggran

My SIL is a farmer. He has a degree in mathematics. He has paid his student loan.
Waste of taxpayers money/ his good times?
Not sure that's so .. oh, and he did try teaching and decided it wasn't for him.

I personally know about three farmers who have degrees in subjects other than agriculture or land management.
One did teach for a while but didn't like it.