Education versus money

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.

Are parents necessarily the best judge of the academic ability of their children? What about all the women who were told by their parents that going to grammar school or spending money on their education was a waste of time because they would only marry and have children?
It was my school that opened my eyes to the fact that I could go to university and I am eternally grateful for the career and life opportunities that it gave me.
Oh and in terms of degree subjects and career pathways, my husband studied philosophy and logic and ended up as a systems analyst and designer, having gone straight into computer programming from university in 1970.

I don't think all apprenticeships are the sort of jobs now they once were GSM. In fact many require qualifications which would. get you into a top university, and they are very much oversubscribed. They offer a fully funded degree course.

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.

Doodledog

Don’t answer unless you are happy to do so, obviously, but did your children go into work that related directly to the subjects they studied, and stay in that line of work long enough to pay back the cost of their education via general taxation?

Interesting question.

I'm not sure how to answer - I don't know the cost of our daughters' educations compared to taxes they paid when working. I assume general taxation pays for much more than just education or unpaid student loans - no? I looked at PESA, unclear to me is the amount of taxation directed to University.

I know. I was replying to your reply to my post of 9.49.

I was replying to your post of 9.49 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’.

Well Doodledog, you know that I believe far too many go to university now, and that I didn’t - by choice.

Don’t answer unless you are happy to do so, obviously, but did your children go into work that related directly to the subjects they studied, and stay in that line of work long enough to pay back the cost of their education via general taxation?

Doodledog As a matter of interest - did the children of the people posting against the idea of widening participation go to university?

I object to loans not paid back, not widening participation.

Ours went to University, no loans.

Katie59

Comparison with the 60s is very apt because less than 10% of school leavers went to university whether they had grants or not and practically all found graduate jobs.

Now that 50% of leavers go to university many/most find it very difficult to get a position, because there are only graduate jobs for half of them.

Exactly my point. The question is whether we revert to a system that ‘selected’ 10% if the population for well-paid jobs for life, or open the system up to give everyone a chance, and let people compete.

If someone doesn’t get a so-called ‘graduate job’ they will get another one, just as they would have before, but at least they had the chance to compete, and will leave university with a good education, having spent three years growing up, usually away from parents, and mixing with a range of people they may well not have met had they not gone.

As a matter of interest - did the children of the people posting against the idea of widening participation go to university?

Katie59

Comparison with the 60s is very apt because less than 10% of school leavers went to university whether they had grants or not and practically all found graduate jobs.

Now that 50% of leavers go to university many/most find it very difficult to get a position, because there are only graduate jobs for half of them.

I know quite a few women who left school with few qualifications in the 60s, usually because of family pressure, who went on in the 80s after having a job and a family to do a degree. They got a full grant as well. There were loads of them in social work and the teaching profession. As my friend says she couldn't have done it now. The grant meant she was getting some money, almost as much as a part time low paid job would have given her.

Comparison with the 60s is very apt because less than 10% of school leavers went to university whether they had grants or not and practically all found graduate jobs.

Now that 50% of leavers go to university many/most find it very difficult to get a position, because there are only graduate jobs for half of them.

Equally important were those in the 1960s, who often without grants attained professional qualifications and success because there were so many different ways into every profession. You dd not have to go to unversity to be a lawyer or a Chartered Accountant or Chartered Engineer or many, now entirely graduate professions.

Doodledog I so agree with you about higher education. I was thinking of all the remarkable talent that came through in the 60s because grants were available. The actors, the artists, the writers who because they were properly funded managed to move from very working class backgrounds to be top in their field. And I wonder how much of that talent is lost now. As students try desperately to make ends meet, working through their degree, then taking any job just to pay back the huge loan they've acquired.

Doodledog

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.

I don't think it's conservative government being questioned here.

The notion the government on the way into recession should treat people to schooling without having a solid loan repayment schedule is ludicrous. If my husband ran his business that way we'd starve!

No life is decidedly not fair.

Some people come from money, have legacies, bank of mum, government throwing money to the wind won't make life fairer for others.

As I have made entirely clear, Doodledog, my experience is entirely within the legal profession. Do you expect someone with a poor degree from an ex-poly to be offered a training contract with a big City firm? A trainee has to be of financial value from day one.

Neither I nor my son had a private education or a tutor. We both had Saturday jobs. We both scored 3 As, in the days before A*s. In fact, as I have already said, those who are ex-public school and Oxbridge are not favoured because they tend to lack sufficient capacity for independent thought and research.

Is anyone else thinking of the John Cleese, Ronnie Corbett & Ronnie Barker sketch?

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.

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.

- 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

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?

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.

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.

Thanks NS.