Education versus money

Chat bots are already beginning to replace call centre workers

As an aside, I didnt realise I was talking to one of them a few days ago.
It was having to go off script terribly by what I was saying. My DH said, "you do realise you are talking to a robot dont you"?
I immediately put the phone down!

When so many youngsters go to university and let’s face it they are looking fir the university experience, (and am not talking about the studying ) and while so many get firsts or 2:1s having a degree is not worth what it was, there are just too many graduates about.
It’s not the be all and end all and many youngsters do just as well if not better by leaving at 18 with A levels, debt free and a drive to succeed.

M0nica

^For many universities bums on seats is the main criteria, entry qualification is low, course content is poor, now even overseas student entry grades are being reduced to maintain numbers.^

For some universitites and some courses, not many and many

If you are going to university, it needs to be to study something you want to study and either must have a clear career path, or you must be doing it because the subject fascinates you and you know and appreciate it will not give you a direct entry into any career.

As with everything in life. Realism needs to be the basis of any career decision, not wishful thinking.

Realism is paramount, wishful ,thinking is just day dreaming, we all need dreams, but dreams by themselves aren't enough, a dream without a plan of action will remain a dream.

And ultimately, even though machines can often replace human effort, we would be very unwise to forget that we also need to retain our practical skills. .

A couple more examples of people who started out in "mundane" jobs and who became very successful. Both were hairdressers, leaving school with no formal academic qualifications but who both started out with hairdressing apprenticeships.

The first ended up with three salons, one of which was a training salon. He also became lecturer in hairdressing at the London School of Fashion. Sadly he died recently.

The second (my current hairdresser) came from a very modest background, and was castigated for being the class dunce. He ended up opening his own very successful high class city centre salon and who also is a very successful cattle farmer as his "sideline" business. He is my age, 73, and when I ask him when he is going to retire the answer is always the same. "Never, you will have to prise these scissors out of my cold dead hands". 😂.

As I said I think it's a mindset.

fancythat

*Chat bots are already beginning to replace call centre workers*

As an aside, I didnt realise I was talking to one of them a few days ago.
It was having to go off script terribly by what I was saying. My DH said, "you do realise you are talking to a robot dont you"?
I immediately put the phone down!

Classic. I bet this happens a lot.

growstuff

A hotel receptionist and a part-time worker probably don't earn enough to pay back their student loans. If they stay below the threshold all their lives they'll never pay them back.

It doesn’t matter how often this is said, there will always be someone with an axe to grind talking about how degrees are ‘pieces of paper’ that don’t guarantee a well paid job for life and cost the graduate a fortune.

Once, having a degree was a passport to a managerial career, pretty much regardless of aptitude. Now that more people go to university that is no longer the case, so in that sense a degree has been devalued. That doesn’t mean that the added value of an education away from home, the chance to follow your interests and to learn more about something that fascinates you has been reduced though.

The question is whether it is better to restrict the right to education to a privileged few and then keep them at the top, or to open the doors to more people who then have to compete to be in charge.

The first way is great for those who study for a few years and earn more for the rest of their lives; but less so for those who are denied the opportunity and consequently spend their careers hampered by their lack of qualifications.

The second way reduces elitism and the feeling of being ‘set for life’ that a degree used to confer, but should mean that fewer people are managed by someone who automatically went into a role reserved for graduates, but is not temperamentally suited to managing others.

Those who lose out most are the people who have neither an education nor the cultural capital to get the sort of roles that allow them to succeed on their own merits. Opportunities for this group have diminished with the expansion of universities, too, but their voices aren’t as loud as those who are angry that they are no longer an ‘elite’.

I think that university expansion has benefited more than it has hampered though, and that better jobs being awarded on merit rather than privilege is better for the country as a whole.

fancythat

*A good example can be found in the construction industry. Mid level architects will be thrown out of work because computer aided design can do their work in a fraction of the time at a fraction of the cost*

CAD has been around for about 20 years.

Is AI, improving it?

I'm no expert in AI. My understanding is that it is self learning so in all probability it will be an improvement on existing technologies such as CAD. Only time will tell.

I have been accused of Tech Doom Mongering. I think that's unfair. I am only pointing out that many of the jobs that exist today will not exist in the future. There will still be jobs but they will be different.

New technologies do usually provide new opportunities and different ways of working. And it is the job of educators to help young people acquire the knowledge and skills they will need as adults.

As the new technological revolution gathers pace there is bound to be a period of adjustment and there could well be a period of social difficulties. When Britons first left the land and went into manufacturing there were periods of social deprivation, workers living in poverty and squalor in the newly formed cities. We know this and in some ways I think we are beginning to see something similar. Wages have been stagnant since the recession of 2008 with only a mild recovery this last year or and in general living standards are falling. Ordinary people are finding it harder and harder to make ends meet.

But this is getting us away from the initial discussion. The OP asked is an education a pre-requisite for making money. Many of us seem to agree, not necessarily, that there are many ways to creating a successful life and that a degree isn't always the golden ticket it used to be,

Should people be entitled to study whatever they want, at whichever university will admit them regardless of A level grades, whether or not their degree is likely to result in sufficiently high earnings for repay their student loans? Just for ‘the experience’ and the enjoyment of a particular subject, at the expense of the taxpayer?

It’s not a question of restricting the right to education, it’s providing the right education, not only for the individual but for the nation. We are sending at least double the number to university than there are graduate jobs, if the other half learned a technical skill, their well-being and the nation in general would be better off.

I agree Katie. Arguably we now have too many universities as many technical colleges have been given university status. Even a degree in law can be a total waste of time and taxpayers’ money unless obtained from a ‘good university’. Law is, and has been for years, a very oversubscribed profession - and if you can’t become a lawyer what else can you do with a law degree?

Actually Katie59, agriculture graduates are highly employable. I know that for a fact.

Germanshepherdsmum

Should people be entitled to study whatever they want, at whichever university will admit them regardless of A level grades, whether or not their degree is likely to result in sufficiently high earnings for repay their student loans? Just for ‘the experience’ and the enjoyment of a particular subject, at the expense of the taxpayer?

Why not? They're paying for it.

Germanshepherdsmum

I agree Katie. Arguably we now have too many universities as many technical colleges have been given university status. Even a degree in law can be a total waste of time and taxpayers’ money unless obtained from a ‘good university’. Law is, and has been for years, a very oversubscribed profession - and if you can’t become a lawyer what else can you do with a law degree?

Quite a lot. Law trains students to be methodical and analytical, both of which are highly regarded skills. I have a friend with a law degree who ended up in the City as a financial advisor.

Katie59

It’s not a question of restricting the right to education, it’s providing the right education, not only for the individual but for the nation. We are sending at least double the number to university than there are graduate jobs, if the other half learned a technical skill, their well-being and the nation in general would be better off.

Please provide your source for that.

Katie59

It’s not a question of restricting the right to education, it’s providing the right education, not only for the individual but for the nation. We are sending at least double the number to university than there are graduate jobs, if the other half learned a technical skill, their well-being and the nation in general would be better off.

Why would somebody's well-being improve if he/she ended up doing a job they hated?

Go into politics.?? Many politicians seem to have law degrees. Lol.

It would be wonderful world if we could all study at university purely for the love of learning and to follow our passions, but alas the real world exists and we must be part of it and young people must acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to play their part or they will be left "on the scrap heap".

I was lucky I was able to follow my passion and study for a highly esoteric and some might argue useless arts degree. But by then I was 40 and a self funding mature student, I was financially secure after working for 25 years, I had already put in the work and achieved a level of success I was happy with so I was able to attend university for pleasure and personal growth. My choice of discipline had nothing to do with the world of work. My children were young and I wanted to be a SAHM. I found I could easily combine study with parenting because university term times coincided with school term times. I enjoyed the best of both worlds.

Yes, a back to front way of organising my life perhaps but it worked well for me.

My friends son took a well paid low skill job at 16. Problem is that he's still there. I think perhaps that higher level works pays more as careers progress.

The argument that 'we' should be educating people to fit roles that benefit the country went out of the window when fees came in. If we (as in all taxpayers, not students) were paying for all our young people to stay in education for as long as they were able then I would agree that we had a right to see where our money was going and expect a return on investment. As it is though, it's a buyers' market.

growstuff

Germanshepherdsmum

Should people be entitled to study whatever they want, at whichever university will admit them regardless of A level grades, whether or not their degree is likely to result in sufficiently high earnings for repay their student loans? Just for ‘the experience’ and the enjoyment of a particular subject, at the expense of the taxpayer?

Why not? They're paying for it.

This is a very valid point.

Universities entered the commercial fray when they began charging students tuition fees. Students are now in effect customers, buying services and products......eg education and skills.

The argument then follows if you are the paying customer (even if it's funded by loans) then you should be able to choose what you are paying for.

Thanks Polomint for such an interesting question and opening up such a good discussion. Nice way to spend a dull grey freezing cold morning, sat in bed snug and cosy with a cup of tea enjoying a good chat,

But the world beckons and I'd better get cracking.

DerbyshireLass

Thanks Polomint for such an interesting question and opening up such a good discussion. Nice way to spend a dull grey freezing cold morning, sat in bed snug and cosy with a cup of tea enjoying a good chat,

But the world beckons and I'd better get cracking.

Still in bed at 11.45!.

“The argument then follows if you are the paying customer (even if it's funded by loans) then you should be able to choose what you are paying for.”

Not when the whole education system pressures them into university being the ultimate goal, in any other field that would be high pressure marketing.

Trouble is, growstuff and DerbyshireLass, the students aren’t going to pay for their education if they can’t land a suitably well-paid job - as growstuff said with regard to the receptionist and the part-time worker.

Your friend would have had to sit professional exams in order to become - and remain - a financial advisor, growstuff. A law degree simply proves that you have the intelligence to obtain the degree and the analytical skills to satisfy the examiner in law. However even a law degree doesn’t qualify one to practise law - professional exams are needed. Your friend might have studied finance and accounting, an entry into banking, anccoun or practising finance law.

That is very true GSM. I wonder how much student debt will never be repaid.

Quite a lot I imagine.

Katie59

DerbyshireLass

Thanks Polomint for such an interesting question and opening up such a good discussion. Nice way to spend a dull grey freezing cold morning, sat in bed snug and cosy with a cup of tea enjoying a good chat,

But the world beckons and I'd better get cracking.

Still in bed at 11.45!.

Yep. Why not,. Baby it's cold outside. 😂.

You can't beat a of procrastination when it's Baltic out there.

Anyway I'm up now, washed and dressed ready to get the day started,

A quiet day, housework and a bit of decluttering.