Education versus money

Germanshepherdsmum

People are welcome to follow their hearts and/or go to university ‘for the experience’ if they pay for it Doodledog. I suppose that, not having a degree, you would consider that I don’t have a rounded education, just a training.

Why would you suppose that? I have never and would never claim that going to university is the only way to get a good education. Many people who were denied the chance to get a degree have more than made up for that in various ways, and many people who do go may be very good at what they do, but not be open minded or rounded.

As with so many things in life - the opportunities are there, but not everyone takes them up. If people think that the only point of university is to qualify for a job related to their subject area then maybe they won't. I just believe that everyone should get the opportunities - whether they take advantage of them or not is up to them.

As for the 'paying for it' comment, how would that work? Who gets to decide how many artists, or screenwriters we should have, and who they should be? Should books, theatre, TV, film be dominated by those who can afford to take the courses that teach the relevant skills? And what about a potentially talented engineer or physicist who is turned away because the quota for that subject has been met? Should they give up? Would you rather that degrees were limited to a small percentage of the population and perfectly matched the number of vacancies, so there was no chance of anyone without one getting on without a lot of luck?

Some of the best educated people I ever met were my father and one of my ex boyfriends fathers, even though they had received the most rudimentary schooling. Born in the 1920s into humble circumstances any chance of any kind of tertiary education was out if the question. Their meagre wages were needed to help support their families. This was not uncommon with their generation. But they were both extremely well read and could converse on a wide range of subjects.

My late husbands grandmother, born at the turn of the 20th century, left school at 11 and went into service. Again a very intelligent and well read lady. Same with some of my elderly aunts. Some hardly went to school because they had to help in the house. One was probably Oxbridge material but had to leave school at 13 when her mother died to take over the running of the household.

None of them had much of a formal education beyond what the local village schools could provide (not much) but they were all highly intelligent, skilled and very accomplished. Oddly enough all of them were extremely good raconteurs and story tellers.

The one thing they had in common was a thirst for knowledge and they were determined not to let a lack of a formal education blight their lives.

There must have been millions like them.

Sorry, Katie59, I just think you're wrong re waste of time and money.

I don't understand what you mean by "loose course content" to be honest but maybe you meen not so academic?

It was definitely better in my opinion though when Art was studied at Art School - these had many more freedoms - and I suppose, "looser" courses and not much focus on obtaining work.

I would prefer "University" to be places of primarily academic learning and the equivalent of the Polytechnics to offer more "practical" but still rigorous study. I don't know why everything had to become a degree... so maybe we'd agree on that?

Indeed there are and were. The formal education of many men ended when they went to war.

I don’t think one has to have received a lengthy formal education in order to be well educated. Remember the taxi driver who won Mastermind? I expect he left school as soon as he was able to, but he had a degree of intelligence and thirst for knowledge which meant that he read and listened extensively and he understood and retained the knowledge thus obtained. I would describe him as well educated. He is by no means alone. Having a lengthy or expensive formal education is not a pre-requisite to being well educated. Being intelligent and interested in the world in general, or in obtaining a deep knowledge of just a couple of subjects whilst retaining an interest in the outside world and knowledge of its doings are all that is needed - and such people are usually very interesting in themselves. Education should be a life long pursuit, and it is never finished.

Think he was called Fred Housgo….did he win mastermind.?

I would agree, NS, that there is too much emphasis on getting a degree and ‘having the university experience’ nowadays. If a degree leads a graduate straight into a job which will enable them to repay their debt to the taxpayer, fine - but if it is estimated that only 61% will repay their loans I would suggest that a great many are not ‘university material’ in the first place and would be better suited to a vocational course. So many technical colleges and polytechnics have acquired university status. I took my A levels at a technical college because I loathed my grammar school; we received excellent tuition and many OND etc courses were also taught. Sandwich courses, day release - all leading to a useful qualification. Needless to say, it is now a ‘university’. Someone could study for a law degree there - but their chances of their cv impressing a law firm that will pay them a decent salary are nil. Why raise people’s expectations in this way?

I fear we will have to differ as regards ‘books, theatre, TV, film’ being dominated by people who can afford to repay their student loans. The majority of the books I read are written by academics; advances are paid by publishers. Good actors, presenters and the like will be well paid. Why should the taxpayer subsidise the mediocre? As for artists, you either have talent or you don’t - it can’t be taught.

I remember Fred Housego. I have no idea of his background, other than that he worked as a taxi driver. He had a great memory and a large store of general knowledge, but whether he was intelligent or not we have no way of knowing. I'm not saying he wasn't - just that being able to answer quiz questions doesn't prove it one way or the other.

I agree that education should be a lifelong thing, but also think that too many people are told that education is 'not for them' by people with agendas, and give up on it. As long as people can benefit from it, I think that we, as a society, should encourage everyone to take advantage of as much education as possible.

As an aside, my view on subjects such as media studies is that it is not in the interests of governments to have a population with a thorough understanding of how the media work. I think it was Margaret Thatcher who coined the term 'Mickey Mouse degrees' to sneer at media education, and this being Britain, people were keen to join in the sneering. Media Studies didn't exist as a subject when I was at school, but from what I know of it it should be a core part of the curriculum.

I find the snobbery, ignorance and lazy thinking about Media Studies extraordinary.
Do people not understand the power of broadcast media, the Press, social media, communications, digital literacy?
Do we not need people who can understand and analyse what is going on?
Have people actually looked at the content of Media Studies?

I doubt any of us is so ignorant, Mamie, but how many who study this as a degree subject are likely to get a job in ‘the media’ which is going to pay the bills and pay off the student loan? Perhaps you have direct experience which will convince the cynic in me?

Well comms professionals and directors of communications would be a start. Many earning much more than 100k a year. Then people who can create, produce, profit from social media. Some journalists, but print media is not really where it is at any more. People working in film and televisions, not the highest earners, but certainly able to pay off student loans. Digital marketing, content marketing, PR etc etc

Mamie

I find the snobbery, ignorance and lazy thinking about Media Studies extraordinary.
Do people not understand the power of broadcast media, the Press, social media, communications, digital literacy?
Do we not need people who can understand and analyse what is going on?
Have people actually looked at the content of Media Studies?

I agree, Mamie, and as I say, I feel that the deliberate trashing of the subject was because it is more difficult for a government to rule over people who understand how the media work than to have a population that doesn't.

It's always easy to tap into snobbery though.

Mamie

Well comms professionals and directors of communications would be a start. Many earning much more than 100k a year. Then people who can create, produce, profit from social media. Some journalists, but print media is not really where it is at any more. People working in film and televisions, not the highest earners, but certainly able to pay off student loans. Digital marketing, content marketing, PR etc etc

My question was, how many graduates with a media studies degree will be able to pay their outgoings and repay their student loan? Some, of course. But what experience do you have in this respect? It’s easy to quote the high flyers - what of the rest who study this very popular subject? Where do they end up?

The creative inductries in the UK employ over 2 million people and contributed £109 billion to the UK economy in 2021
www.prospects.ac.uk/jobs-and-work-experience/job-sectors/creative-arts-and-design/overview-of-the-uks-creative-arts-sector#:~:text=In%20fact%2C%20the%20UKs%20creative,

Legal services contributed £62 billion and only employed 552000 people.
www.lawsociety.org.uk/topics/international/doing-legal-business-in-england-and-wales
So which is the best career?

I agree that we need graduates trained in creative industries, but do we really need sooo many of them? There's only a limited number of jobs.
Dd2 has a degree in Musical Theatre from Italia Conti, which is great while she got a part a part in 42nd Street, but for much of the time she just twiddles her thumbs because there's too many others going after one job, (and these days those who are, black or brown seem to be selected first). You need a good agent too in order to get a break. However, she loves her, in comparison, poorly paid career. And I love the occasional free tickets!

Assuming these figures are correct, I think we may all be a little out in our current thinking.

www.thecompleteuniversityguide.co.uk/student-advice/careers/what-do-graduates-do-and-earn

I looked at them about 2 years ago, and think they have changed a little, even since then.

Germanshepherdsmum

Mamie

Well comms professionals and directors of communications would be a start. Many earning much more than 100k a year. Then people who can create, produce, profit from social media. Some journalists, but print media is not really where it is at any more. People working in film and televisions, not the highest earners, but certainly able to pay off student loans. Digital marketing, content marketing, PR etc etc

My question was, how many graduates with a media studies degree will be able to pay their outgoings and repay their student loan? Some, of course. But what experience do you have in this respect? It’s easy to quote the high flyers - what of the rest who study this very popular subject? Where do they end up?

I don't have the data for every university GSM but it seems to be one of the top degrees for finding employment immediately after graduation. The figure seems to be around 75%.
I do know a lot of comms professionals at all levels and I wonder if you are aware of the importance of this expanding area in government, industry and commerce?
Do you have the data to prove how many media studies graduates are low-earning or unemployed?
I do know people who think it is all about aspiring journalists, which is clearly not the case.

But going across, they dont all add up to 100%. Which seems odd.

I’m with Casdon - quizzes I’ve done and ones I’ve run have been so revealing! Graduates who knew their subject but nothing else and those with no paper qualifications who stunned me with the breadth of their knowledge.

Memory is one thing, recall another but those who read, whether for pleasure, interest or academic achievement will always be ahead of the game. If you can combine that with lots of diverse practical skills you’ll find the most entrepreneurial or employable people going.

So very truepantglas2 I agree

I fear we will have to differ as regards ‘books, theatre, TV, film’ being dominated by people who can afford to repay their student loans.
Well, we can differ in our opinions, but as I am talking about what would happen if entry to courses that lead to Arts-based careers being restricted to those who can fund them themselves it is impossible to know one way or the other, particularly as the figures that are collected only measure the percentage employed in a related discipline. Who do you think employs poets? Or Art Historians? The vast majority of them won't show in the figures, as they will be working in the civil service, doing a PGCE, on a management training scheme or taking conversion courses. The best ones - the ones who do get work as poets in residence or in galleries will most likely be interns working for next to nothing. We can also differ over whether loan payback is the most sensible metric for deciding on the value of a course of study anyway. I would be far more interested in seeing the figures ten years after graduating, when many graduates working in the creative industries are earning well.

The majority of the books I read are written by academics; advances are paid by publishers.
The majority of books I read are written by a huge variety of authors. For work, I read textbooks by academics, but for pleasure I read novels, poetry and short stories. What does any of that prove? 🤷‍♂️

Good actors, presenters and the like will be well paid. Why should the taxpayer subsidise the mediocre?
Not all good actors (or any other artists) will ever be discovered. never mind well-paid. A lot comes down to luck, and having the money and connections to be able to work in a job that will allow you to drop shifts to perform when you get the chance. If you are Eddie Redmayne, or Benedict Cumberbatch (both very good actors - I'm not suggesting otherwise) that's a lot easier than if you are Joe Bloggs from Normaltown. A friend of mine's daughter is an opera singer, with an MA in music. She works as a waitress, or stacking shelves, as the work is sporadic and although she has been asked to teach music she can't commit to a term in case a role comes up and she needs to travel. When she earns, she is well paid, but the nature of the work is such that when surveyed she appears to be unemployed or in an unrelated 'non-graduate' role.

The taxpayer isn't asked to subsidise the mediocre. As we've seen, most graduates pay their loans, and there will be graduates from all disciplines who do not. How certain are you that all science grads, or those with Business degrees pay them back? Some will travel, others will marry, some will 'drop out', or join the circus. Do you have stats to back up your assumption that it is creatives who don't pay them back, or is it based on prejudice?

As for artists, you either have talent or you don’t - it can’t be taught.
Do you have evidence for that claim either? Many students, graduates and professors would disagree with you. Anyway, it's not just about talent, it's about knowing how to go about getting into the public eye, applying for grants, building a social media presence, winning prizes and so on. Those things can absolutely be taught, and form a large part of creative arts degrees.

Let's not forget as well that there is evidence that involvement in the arts is good for our mental health and for delaying ageing. We need people who can organise and run classes and groups.
I've recently done a printing class, doing a course which involves movement and other artistic disciplines, and belong to a group which uses dance to help prevent falls.
Thank goodness for the people who did their degrees in those subjects and are now helping me.

We must agree to disagree Doodledog. You are far more supportive than I am of the predicted 59% who will not repay their student loans. It must be wonderful to do what pleases you and ignore your debt to the taxpayer.

How wonderful for you too, Glorianny. I hope the teachers have all repaid their loans.

Glorianny
I started work in the printing trade at 15. Time served until I was 21. That involved time in the machine room and comp rooms.
I’ve never heard of a printing class or someone needing a degree to teach it.

petra

Glorianny
I started work in the printing trade at 15. Time served until I was 21. That involved time in the machine room and comp rooms.
I’ve never heard of a printing class or someone needing a degree to teach it.

I think they are more craft courses eg lino printing, making small pictures and cards, not professional printing.

I don't think you'd need a degree to teach that type of printing, just an artistic flair.
U3As run groups and classes.

Oh golly! I'm afraid printing is an accepted art form. Screen printing, lino cuts, etc. There's a Japanese form which uses fish it's called Gyotaku.
These are the fine art forms
www.thecollector.com/5-techniques-of-printmaking-as-fine-art/