Education versus money

Denmark, I believe is reputed to be one of the happiest places to live, with far less 'class/wealth divide'. I think they have free further education .

I agree with some of what you say, M0nica, but none of it addresses the question of people studying for the love of a subject that might not lead to a related job. Why shouldn’t a plumber or a decorator have a degree, for instance? We segregate people far too much on ‘class’ in the UK. Yes, old apprenticeships took years, but for a lot of that the apprentices were doing menial tasks rather than learning. These days much shorter courses are more usual, and people can qualify or retrain much more easily than when you could only ‘get a trade’ if you got taken on at 16.

People say that we need plumbers and that students should stop being so snobbish and train to plug (ho ho!) the gaps. But it’s not the students being snobbish - it is the certain knowledge that if they do become plumbers they will be looked down on by the very people who told them that university shouldn’t be for everyone, and that training to be a plumber means not taking the chance to learn about exotic plants or medieval history that is afforded to junior civil servants and putative retail managers. If plumbers were as respected as pretended there would be an acceptance of the fact that they are as likely to have degrees as someone who works for the council.

There are many facets to all of this. As long as this remains a country divided by ’class’, and as long as education remains a means of determining which class someone belongs to, why would people not want social mobility? Similarly, social inequality needs exclusivity to perpetuate it, so it is in the interests of those who have status to deny it to others.

At the same time, learning for its own sake enriches people in many ways other than just their earning power, and it seems to me wrong to deny that opportunity to anyone who can benefit from it. Not everyone will want it at 18, but a lifelong right to dip in and out of education is, IMO a good thing, for individuals and for the country.

Just as an example of living costs at university - my GD is at a Russell Group university. Her room in a modest shared house of 6 costs £600 a month before utility bills, then she has to buy food. She works during vacations and her parents are able to support her, but some of her friends are really struggling. Do people really think students have it easy?

If we cut the number of subjects taught to degree level, and concentrate on vocational education only

I would never support that, but many vocational and craft trainings that had a high standing on their own, but many students could not study for them becausem as they were not degrees, and many students could not get grants for them, or they were discretionary,so the providers of those courses redesigned their courses and, at times, contorted them for them to become degrees so that students could study for them because degree courses automatically qualiied for grants.

When DD decided to study acting, she was limited to applying to those colleges who offered it as a degree subject, she could not audition for a number of colleges because their courses was not classfied as degrees and we could not afford to finance her. As it was she was accepted by one of the top colleges, where just saying where she studied was enough whether she had a degree or diploma or what class was irrelevant.

When I went to university in the 1960s, there were far more levels of training from Polytechnics, to Technical colleges, and others so that the ways into most professions were myriad and it was far easier for students from all social backgrounds to train and qualify for almost any profession, as they could start training at every level from school leavers with no qualifications as they could do it incrementally over a period of time in different ways while working and being paid.

I had a friend who left school with 3 O levels and became a secretary. At 20 she raised her sights and decided to become a solicitor. It took her 5 years serving a training apprenticeship with a firm of solicitors,but by 25 she was a fully qualified solicitor. Now she would have to go back to college to get A levels, go to university to get a degree, building up a huge debt as she went, and then serve her apprenticeship. She would be nearly 30 before she qualified. I had a boyfriend who did something similar to become a Chartered Accountant.

As GSM has said solicitors firms are too high pressured to take on these unqualified trainees today. Or in other words, these days they choose to run their firms so that all but the highly qualified who have gone seamlessly through school and university are excluded from the legal profession. No place for those whose abilities are of the highest, but who cannot follow the motorway route.

Some subjects - decorating, plumbing - are obviously not degree subjects. Engineering and the creative arts, for example, need to be available at all levels from basic training fro craftsmen to degree subjects, but the lower levels should be on a ladder that can end with a degree level qualification.

Fewer degree courses and more choice and more ladders are needed in this win (degree) fail (non-degree) world we live in at present.

Thank you for your kind words Norah. It’s something I feel quite strongly about after working for so long in universities. I have seen how unequal things can be, and don’t react well to people casually dismissing young people for not having the ‘right’ degree from a ‘top’ university, or ‘only’ having a 2:2, when they have worked almost full-time to support themselves throughout.

If we cut the number of subjects taught to degree level, and concentrate on vocational education only, will it be engineers and medics who go onto management training schemes and the civil service? Or school leavers? Or will we go back to university being for the wealthy, who will get a guaranteed job for life as well as their other advantages, and deny the chance to contribute to the Arts and culture of our country to those without money in their families?

We had a brief period of expansion, when free grammar schools and student grants allowed some working and lower middle class students to gain social mobility, but that is in reverse now. I don’t think that is good for anyone.

Thank you, Doodledog for your well thought responses. I don't necessarily agree, but always appreciate the chance to learn.

I also do agree with you Doodledog I think the fees should be abolished.

Another consideration I think, is that a teenager can start work, earn money and feel well off, so leaves school altogether to continue with their employer, who is happy enough with them until they are old enough to be paid the proper living wage, when a different teenager will be cheaper.
yes, that would be illegal, but you can bet there would be ways round it.

I don't think that there should be fees, but whilst there are, I think that people assume that getting a degree will lead to jobs that pay enough to mean that they will be paid off, and that this is their expectation when they enrol. That is what I meant by saying that people don't go into it with 'no intention of paying off their loans'.

I don't think that there is a debt to the taxpayer, as I think education should be a right, and in any case the chances are that the true cost of most degrees will be covered in general taxation, without the need for a separate debt. Some courses cost a lot more than others to run - ironically, the ones that tend to lead directly into related employment - but (if we really have to charge to educate the next generation) I don't think that they should cost more. People should be able to play to their strengths, whether that costs more or less than average. Differentiating would mean that people with less money in their families would have their choices further limited and their life chances further curtailed.

Very few 18 year olds have earned anything like enough to pay for 3 years of rent in their own right, never mind £9000 a year for fees. When people talk about their 'paying' for a degree, they mean either that their parents pay a contribution or that they pay it back via a student loan. Those whose parents can afford to pay their rent and living expenses have a huge advantage, as they don't have to work as well as study. If they then go on to get high grades does this mean that they are the most talented and the best bet for employers?

If all students had the same chance to study full time, like would be compared with like, and it would be interesting to see the impact on results.

NotSpaghetti

Norah - I can't think of anyone on this thread who thinks it's a good idea to not pay off loans.

Perhaps I misunderstood.

Doodledog I am supportive of education for those who want it, yes. Not everyone does, which doesn’t make them lesser, but I believe that education is a good thing, both for the individual and for the country as a whole, and don’t believe that it should incur a debt to the taxpayer.

How do you know the intentions of university applicants? I very much doubt that people enrol 'with no intention' of paying their loans - most have a hugely inflated idea about what getting a degree will mean.

Germanshepherdsmum It is currently estimated that 61% of today’s undergraduates will repay their loans (up from 27% before the recent changes). That’s not great imo.

Doodledog

I would prefer there to be no fees, so nobody would need to worry about affordability. There need be no expense to the state, as lecturers are paid from a combination of research profits and the government, who get a lot of the money back in taxes and when they spend their salaries. Students contribute massively to the economy of university towns and cities. They pay rent, eat and drink, spend in shops and on nightlife. If they then go on to get well-paid jobs they will pay more tax than those who don’t, whether they are saddled with fees or not.

I don’t think I have ever heard an argument for closing universities altogether. People wanting to reduce the number of places are happy for those who can afford it to go, which would simply perpetuate inequality of opportunity. That’s the aspect of the argument that I find upsetting.

Oh Doodledog I so agree with you.
The other thing that no one seems to mention is the huge cost of collecting student loans.

Norah - I can't think of anyone on this thread who thinks it's a good idea to not pay off loans.

Doodledog I don’t think I have ever heard an argument for closing universities altogether. People wanting to reduce the number of places are happy for those who can afford it to go, which would simply perpetuate inequality of opportunity. That’s the aspect of the argument that I find upsetting.

I don't believe I've ever heard an argument for closing universities altogether either - but I have heard lots of arguments for people paying for their choice to attend and paying back loans.

Merely a different view on responsibility.

I would prefer there to be no fees, so nobody would need to worry about affordability. There need be no expense to the state, as lecturers are paid from a combination of research profits and the government, who get a lot of the money back in taxes and when they spend their salaries. Students contribute massively to the economy of university towns and cities. They pay rent, eat and drink, spend in shops and on nightlife. If they then go on to get well-paid jobs they will pay more tax than those who don’t, whether they are saddled with fees or not.

I don’t think I have ever heard an argument for closing universities altogether. People wanting to reduce the number of places are happy for those who can afford it to go, which would simply perpetuate inequality of opportunity. That’s the aspect of the argument that I find upsetting.

Germanshepherdsmum

It is indeed a luxury to be able to learn and not have to work.

Indeed.

No worry paying off loans. Such positive thoughts on lack of responsibility for debts. I feel quite different to our paid mortgage.

I've read this post with interest. I agree there should be no elitism, no smugness about 'firsts' 2.1s or Oxbridge, no snobby denigration of the trades and technical degrees. However the loan bit confuses.

I was out of school at 16 and married, with our first child a year later, no university ever. Never fit into my life. I consider myself smart, well read, educated. If I want to know - I learn, I read. I assume most can, internet exists.

The mystery, for me, in a country seemingly on the edge of a recession, why people post as if expense of university loans is just nothing?

It's only for a short time, and very many students do work! A lot of them do paid work 16 or more hours a week, as well as studying.

It is indeed a luxury to be able to learn and not have to work.

fancythat

People who say, learn for it's own sake - I think that is a luxury. Often said by richer people.

If education were free, as most of us on here had, then why would doing it for its own sake be a luxury? A lot of jobs (and careers) are not directly linked to degrees, but it is widely recognised that the skills learnt at university are valuable to the individual, employers and society. I'm thinking of things like time management, teamwork, leadership, independence, as well as an awareness of different cultures and ways of doing things.

I'm not suggesting that people can't learn those things elsewhere, but that most 21 year olds don't otherwise get the opportunity to do so, and to show that they have such a wide range of skills as well as subject knowledge. Some degrees include skills that professional bodies insist upon for their members, so graduates with an accredited degree are able to signal to an employer that they have met the requirements for the job (accreditation can be withdrawn if the skills are not taught to a rigorous enough standard). Also, whether the subject matter is directly relevant to a job or not, a degree shows that the holder is capable of studying to a high level, of synthesising arguments and expressing ideas in an articulate manner - all of which are useful transferable skills. As has been said, people with a knowledge of Arts might not use it in their work, as there are so few opportunities, but they may contribute to cultural activities in the Am Dram group, the Folk Club, the Poetry Appreciation class, or the Art Club etc in their local area, and society is richer for it. The same is true in all kinds of other areas, such as Ecology, Wildlife and Animal Welfare and many more. People volunteer in these areas whilst working for the Council or the Tax Office to pay the bills.

I don't understand why anyone would want to withhold the right to gain these skills from others. Payback doesn't have to be in terms of fees.

The fees didn’t exist before for our UK students they only existed for overseas students. I’m sure lots of people went to ‘night school’ on a whim back in the day 🤷‍♀️

I’m puzzled why people don’t want an educated or fully tooled society

* It's good to earn enough to provide yourself and your family with a decent standard of living and not be worrying how you will pay a bill,*

But that is rich, by lots of peoples' standards.
Though depends how people define rich.

But I am not feeling great.
Not sure if I have now disagreed with you, or agreed!

fancythat

People who say, learn for it's own sake - I think that is a luxury. Often said by richer people.

No it's often said by people who realise that money is not the be-all and end-all of life. It's good to earn enough to provide yourself and your family with a decent standard of living and not be worrying how you will pay a bill, but once you get beyond there are other things that matter more for some people.

People who say, learn for it's own sake - I think that is a luxury. Often said by richer people.

Glorianny

Why bother with education at all? Let's just send children down the mines at 7. Oh hang on there aren't any mines. Well let them leave at 14 like my parents did. Why should any education be funded?

The whole purpose of education is not to make people who earn more money, but to develop the individual. There is absolutely no reason why degree level education should not be fully funded. I know a number of people who didn't get a degree until later life in the 1980s when they changed careers. Many of them were women who went into social work or education. Today that wouldn't happen.

And today's graduates do not look for a career that lasts a lifetime except in a few cases, most of them know they will change jobs, often moving from being an employee to working independently.

No one would expect someone to repay the cost of their secondary education so why ask for the repayment of university costs?

Unfortunately Thomas Gradgrind is alive and well in UK education
^THOMAS GRADGRIND, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Thomas Gradgrind, sir—peremptorily Thomas—Thomas Gradgrind. With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic^

1st paragraph - plenty of jobs dont need education until 18.
I dont fall for, well if something isnt 100%, what about 0% then?![my DH is one of those! - well if I cant do such and such, what if I do nothing].

2nd paragraph - cost.

3rd paragraph - true. Plenty of people job hop, or change career coming up to 40. Not sure about the employee to independently bit[personally I know precious few of those].

4th paragraph - cost.
The more people say about leave school at 14, the more I am thinking, that isnt such a bad idea. For some.

Germanshepherdsmum

You might be surprised at the perceived prejudice Doodledog. My personal experience of ex-public school boys who had attended Oxbridge was that many had an unpleasant air of entitlement and superiority, not conducive to collegiate working, and their capacity for independent thought and research was somewhat lacking. An expectation that the spoon feeding would continue …

I wouldn't be remotely surprised at that. This is the UK.

What does surprise me is that in this day and age there are still people who want to restrict education to areas that are obviously job-related, and can't comprehend that learning for its own sake (and learning how to learn) is a good thing, regardless of financial payback. Or at any rate restrict access to non-vocational courses to those who can afford to pay.

Fortunately, as I've said, those attitudes are far from universal, so I hope that anyone reading this whose children or grandchildren are not 'brilliant' or don't have First Class degrees from 'top' universities like so many on here do will take heart. A 2:2 is a perfectly respectable degree, there are plenty of opportunities for people with degrees in all sorts of subjects, and education is never 'wasted', whatever that means in this context.

I have been following this thread with interest, having left school and home at 15 with no further education, I see it as no less than wonderful that our young people can go to university and think we should be very proud of this. I don't believe many go for a 'jolly' and it saddens me more to think some may be put off going due to finances. Educating people is very much 'worth' my tax contribution.

You might be surprised at the perceived prejudice Doodledog. My personal experience of ex-public school boys who had attended Oxbridge was that many had an unpleasant air of entitlement and superiority, not conducive to collegiate working, and their capacity for independent thought and research was somewhat lacking. An expectation that the spoon feeding would continue …