Education versus money

Education isn’t a competition or a race.

Valuing education is really important in a progressive society

Mamie

I think perhaps Casdon is in Wales where it is still A* etc. Yes 1-6/7 for O levels in my day too.

You’re right Mamie, sorry if that was confusing.

I think perhaps Casdon is in Wales where it is still A* etc. Yes 1-6/7 for O levels in my day too.

I think Casdon was talking of the past. I don’t know about current gradings - my son sat GCSEs many years ago and got As and A*s, and I sat O levels when the grading was 1-7, 7 I think being a fail.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Casdon*, whilst not great nine grade Cs is not indicative of someone who won’t do well at A level in three subjects of their own choosing,

Grade C has not existed for some time GSM. The scale is 1-9, with nine at the top.
There are plenty of other post-16 courses, you know.
educationhub.blog.gov.uk/2023/06/27/alternatives-to-a-levels-and-university-what-you-need-to-know/

I am another swallow and am sure there are plenty of us flying around.

Casdon, whilst not great nine grade Cs is not indicative of someone who won’t do well at A level in three subjects of their own choosing,

One swallow does not a summer make Glorianny.

I know someone who didn't get any GCSEs or A levels. Went to a further ed college and did HNC, then on to university, Got a BA and went on to do a Masters.
The concept of writing some students off because they don't jump through the hoops at a certain age is so wrong.

I know somebody who got 9 grade Cs at GCSE, passed them but only just, then went on to get 3 As at A level, he did Economics, History and English. I don’t think that’s unusual. A levels are where you really see who is academically gifted in my experience.

Would they not have shown promise in the subjects they were interested in at GCSE level? And generally performed tolerably well in those subjects?

There are thousands of pupils who prosper at A level who aren’t mature at 16 and don’t do particularly well in their GCSEs though. It’s only when children start to study the subjects that really interest them that you see what they are capable of. Some know early that they are best suited to a trade, leave school at 16 and that’s fine. It’s the middle group that I am concerned for in your vision.

Perhaps you have misunderstood me or I haven’t expressed myself clearly Casdon. I see no benefit in education beyond 16 for those who aren’t going to pass A levels, unless of course a vocational course which suits the pupil is available. I see no point in sitting A levels in academic subjects if the results are likely to gain the sitter nothing beyond feeling an abject failure.

What would be the purpose of education between 16 and 18 if it wasn’t to gain trade qualifications Germanshepherdsmum? I’m not clear what you see the benefit would be of obtaining A levels in academic subjects for those who won’t make the revised academic bar for entry to university.

I didn’t say that. I said I have no problem with state education to 18 for those who will actually benefit from it. Better that 16 year olds who aren’t academically inclined are able to get a job rather than messing around at the back of the classroom or bunking off and getting into trouble.

Germanshepherdsmum

Some would do better still being able to leave school at 16 and getting started on the job ladder. A levels aren’t suitable for everyone and some made to sit them are destined to fail or get dismal grades - where’s the point in that? I have no problem with state education to 18 for those who will actually benefit from it - and that isn’t everyone. Finding a job in which you can progress and earn money is surely much better than being bottom of the class?

So that's settled then no free education after 16. But why stop there? 14 year olds could be paying their way. Let's stop public education at 14. Charge fees after that and send those who can't afford it out to work.

Some would do better still being able to leave school at 16 and getting started on the job ladder. A levels aren’t suitable for everyone and some made to sit them are destined to fail or get dismal grades - where’s the point in that? I have no problem with state education to 18 for those who will actually benefit from it - and that isn’t everyone. Finding a job in which you can progress and earn money is surely much better than being bottom of the class?

Germanshepherdsmum

Where have I said that the binning of applications from graduates of some universities is evidence of my knowledge of the value of higher education? It is evidence of the lack of value of some degrees from some institutions, and I have been careful to emphasise that my experience is solely of the legal profession.

You would have everyone go to university for the experience at the expense of the state, regardless of academic ability and the degree furthering their career. I have said this is pure luxury which we cannot afford when so many old folk live on so little. If we weren’t doling out student loans to all and sundry - or worse, in your world just giving them the money - don’t you think there might be more to spend on other things? Though in fact everyone attending university is doing so at the expense of the state until their loan is repaid (which will never happen in a large proportion of cases). Money down the proverbial drain. The local economy benefiting from the spending of the student population is a poor reason to argue that everyone should go to university if they want to, regardless of reason and ability.

Maybe A levels aren't really much use. Let's lower the school leaving age to 16. Open 6th form colleges which charge fees, offer 16-18 loans and save more money!

Where have I said that the binning of applications from graduates of some universities is evidence of my knowledge of the value of higher education? It is evidence of the lack of value of some degrees from some institutions, and I have been careful to emphasise that my experience is solely of the legal profession.

You would have everyone go to university for the experience at the expense of the state, regardless of academic ability and the degree furthering their career. I have said this is pure luxury which we cannot afford when so many old folk live on so little. If we weren’t doling out student loans to all and sundry - or worse, in your world just giving them the money - don’t you think there might be more to spend on other things? Though in fact everyone attending university is doing so at the expense of the state until their loan is repaid (which will never happen in a large proportion of cases). Money down the proverbial drain. The local economy benefiting from the spending of the student population is a poor reason to argue that everyone should go to university if they want to, regardless of reason and ability.

GSM, one minute you use your experience of binning CVs from non-elite applicants as evidence of your knowledge of the value of higher education and the next you claim that it’s nothing to do with elitism. Both cannot be true.

As Glorianny points out, universities add enormously to the economy of the areas where they are situated, and graduates do pay more tax over their lives than non-graduates, and did in the days before fees. Can you explain how this takes anything from the pockets of older people, as I don’t follow that, sympathy-gathering as the argument may be on here.

Yes, I do believe that, as in the past, we can afford to educate our population to the level they can achieve. Not everyone will be capable of HE. Not everyone will want to go to university, whether they are capable or not. I’m not suggesting that it should be compulsory, but that that we should, collectively, pay for education so that everyone can benefit from doing as well as they can, and the country gets to benefit from the brainpower and expertise of those who have got to the top on workplace merit, rather than a lucky set of A level results, or private tuition. Basically I would like to give current and future generations the same chances as we (and in some cases our children) were given.

Coming from Cambridge, I do have some knowledge of that Glorianny. I suppose I do have a narrow view of universities, knowing which ones landed a job application in my firm’s bin.

Germanshepherdsmum

Yes, imo the trades are best suited to those who don’t have the academic ability to get a good degree which leads to a good career. It’s nothing to do with elitism, it’s pure common sense that not everyone’s talents lead to academic success, but they are talents we need nevertheless. You seem to think that the state should pay for everyone who wants it, and who can achieve very basic grades some universities will accept, should go to university and have a nice time for three years because it will benefit them as a person. Sorry, that’s a luxury we can’t afford when we read on here how little a great many older people have to manage on despite working all their lives.

I think you have a very narrow view of universities GSM. They are not just centres of learning, they are huge economic drivers which many places rely on. Much of this comes from overseas, but some from UK students especially the most affluent.
Student accommodation, shopping facilities, clubs and bars, cafes, pizza places all thrive on the student pound. Without them the city I live near would be run down and derelict.

Yes, imo the trades are best suited to those who don’t have the academic ability to get a good degree which leads to a good career. It’s nothing to do with elitism, it’s pure common sense that not everyone’s talents lead to academic success, but they are talents we need nevertheless. You seem to think that the state should pay for everyone who wants it, and who can achieve very basic grades some universities will accept, should go to university and have a nice time for three years because it will benefit them as a person. Sorry, that’s a luxury we can’t afford when we read on here how little a great many older people have to manage on despite working all their lives.

Germanshepherdsmum

We should be able to recognise whether our children are bright enough to benefit in career terms from a degree or would do better going straight into work, maybe taking up an apprenticeship.

So apprenticeships are for the non-bright? That’s at odds with the usual mantra about how we need to value trades as much as professions, and admits to the elitism that underpins the desire to limit the number of people who have access to higher education.

Also - who on here has ever said that their children are not bright? Everyone on GN had an excellent education, their children were brilliant scholars and their grandchildren have wonderful careers in which they are at the top of the tree. I disagree that most people can recognise limitations in the people they love.

What is undeniable though, is that pretty much everyone will ‘benefit from a degree’. They don’t hold people back, so why not let more people study for them? If they are genuinely the most talented of their generation they will get the best jobs on merit, instead of ring-fencing them so that getting the best jobs is a guarantee for a few people, without the need to compete.

Debt may be an issue for some, so IMO the answer is to get rid of the fees, and go back to the days when they were paid for by general taxation.

Norah, I agree that it’s difficult to know whether an individual will have paid back tuition fees in tax - maybe a way of measuring that might be to count the years they pay at higher rate tax? I know that’s not 100% accurate but it’s a reasonable estimate.

My son got good results and reports at school. I think I would have known if he wasn’t academically inclined and might have been better off being a manual worker.