Degree apprenticeships v university degrees

growstuff

Norah

growstuff

35% not repaid isn't unacceptable because the government is still earning a significant amount of money on the loans. The outstanding debts at the end of 35 years are really only a very small part of the total which graduates have paid in repayments and interest.

We disagree.

It's unacceptable, to me. Don't take on debts and not repay.

I'm not sure you really understand how students loans were set up. They're not like other loans.

I do understand. I do think they should be repaid.

It seems to me people don't need to attend without a purpose, just because they want an experience, rather a waste of funds, imo.

Now (and for many years) teaching is a one year add on - often taken by people who don't know what they want to do (it seems to me).
NotSpaghetti and Barleyfields
BEd degrees are offered for those who want to teach but I believe it's a four year course.

A lot of people don't know what they want to do at first so offering PGCE courses for those who do decide teaching might be for them after trying other options is a good idea.

Allira

Barleyfields

NotSpaghetti

Barleyfields if the "ex-poly" universities went back to the excellent work they used to do and stopped being all things to all people, I think we'd all be better off.

The teacher training colleges used to excellent in their own right as well and they took dedicated students who wanted to learn the best ways to teach and had a career in teaching in their minds.
Now (and for many years) teaching is a one year add on - often taken by people who don't know what they want to do (it seems to me).

I completely agree. The polytechnics and technical colleges provided many opportunities, from secretarial classes to day-release for HND qualifications in many fields to external degree courses and evening classes. Teacher training colleges were for people who knew they wanted to teach. The value of these institutions was vastly underestimated.

I agree.

Colleges of Technoloogy offered both HND and degree courses (as I mentioned previously, sandwich courses). The degrees were awarded by the Council for National Academic Awards which granted degrees to other Institutions such as Art Colleges etc.
They Council ensured that the degree courses were
comparable with those awarded at universities.

I don't think it is still in existence.

HNDs were degree standard and have now been absorbed into the first degree system. It's one of the reasons for the increase of people with degrees.

DGS refused to apply for university, he knew what he wanted to do and how to go about it. He was very forthright with the school too, particularly when he learned that they score kudos for the more pupils going on to university education. His attitude was 'I am doing this for me, not he school'.

Allira

growstuff

JaneJudge

Degree or no degree, where I work you cannot get promoted, you have to apply for the higher job even if it is internal only. Then if offered the job after interview, you have to hand your notice in. I have never worked anywhere where this happens before so I am not sure if it is typical of big organisations or not.

I've never worked anywhere where you don't have to apply for promotion. I know both my children have always had to apply, so I think it is typical. In my opinion, it's better because otherwise the only people who would be promoted would be the boss's favourites.

Sometimes the whole advertising and interview process is just for show to follow the rules. The internal candidate has been earmarked for promotion so external candidates applying, going along for interview full of hope and anticipation, are just wasting their time. They're there so that the correct boxes can be ticked.

Not always the case. Internal candidates have the disadvantage that the bosses know their weaknesses and it's difficult to blag at interview. Sometimes, organisations don't have anybody with the necessary attributes anyway and actively try to bring in new blood.

Barleyfields

NotSpaghetti

Barleyfields if the "ex-poly" universities went back to the excellent work they used to do and stopped being all things to all people, I think we'd all be better off.

The teacher training colleges used to excellent in their own right as well and they took dedicated students who wanted to learn the best ways to teach and had a career in teaching in their minds.
Now (and for many years) teaching is a one year add on - often taken by people who don't know what they want to do (it seems to me).

I completely agree. The polytechnics and technical colleges provided many opportunities, from secretarial classes to day-release for HND qualifications in many fields to external degree courses and evening classes. Teacher training colleges were for people who knew they wanted to teach. The value of these institutions was vastly underestimated.

I agree.

Colleges of Technoloogy offered both HND and degree courses (as I mentioned previously, sandwich courses). The degrees were awarded by the Council for National Academic Awards which granted degrees to other Institutions such as Art Colleges etc.
They Council ensured that the degree courses were
comparable with those awarded at universities.

I don't think it is still in existence.

Allira I agree. STEM (science, technology, engineering and maths) subjects are different from humanities degrees. Incidentally, some HND sandwich courses were converted to degrees. I know somebody whose HND was converted when he was in his 70s. Those courses are now labelled as degrees from the start and are very different from apprenticeships.

Both my children have humanities degrees. It's not so much the content which matters, but the skills they acquire and the way they argue their case, etc. which are relevant to management roles. My son did study for a slightly more vocational masters than his undergraduate degree and it was the combination of highly academic work and knowledge of a specialist area which bagged him his first job.

growstuff

JaneJudge

Degree or no degree, where I work you cannot get promoted, you have to apply for the higher job even if it is internal only. Then if offered the job after interview, you have to hand your notice in. I have never worked anywhere where this happens before so I am not sure if it is typical of big organisations or not.

I've never worked anywhere where you don't have to apply for promotion. I know both my children have always had to apply, so I think it is typical. In my opinion, it's better because otherwise the only people who would be promoted would be the boss's favourites.

Sometimes the whole advertising and interview process is just for show to follow the rules. The internal candidate has been earmarked for promotion so external candidates applying, going along for interview full of hope and anticipation, are just wasting their time. They're there so that the correct boxes can be ticked.

growstuff

JaneJudge

I'm a bit confused. I thought they still gained their appropriate degree during an apprenticeship, though it is generally the vocational qualification route - HND/foundation degree then top up qualification? (L4, L5 and L6)

Whatever the claims, degrees are not all equal - and most employers know that. It really does depend on the field of the degree. It's a fact that there are "glass ceilings" and in some careers, it's very hard to break through without a degree (and masters) from one of the more so-called prestigious universities. For many people, that's absolutely fine because they don't aspire to senior positions.

I suppose it depends which industry.
One of my friends from 'the old days' did a sandwich course taking HND. The firm was a well-known household name; he continued working for them all his working life and became a director.
Others may move on of course.

A degree from a 'prestigious' university which is not in a relevant subject may not be much use at all in a firm whose field of expertise may require in depth practical knowledge of, for example, engineering, electronics.

It was the handing notice in I found weird. Every day is a school day

JaneJudge

Degree or no degree, where I work you cannot get promoted, you have to apply for the higher job even if it is internal only. Then if offered the job after interview, you have to hand your notice in. I have never worked anywhere where this happens before so I am not sure if it is typical of big organisations or not.

I've never worked anywhere where you don't have to apply for promotion. I know both my children have always had to apply, so I think it is typical. In my opinion, it's better because otherwise the only people who would be promoted would be the boss's favourites.

Norah Student loans were never intended to be like traditional loans because people whose parents could make the biggest contributions would have had an advantage.

The idea was to enable everybody to take up the opportunity of higher education if they had the potential to benefit from it and then pay back according to ability to pay.

Obviously, the mega-rich don't even need to take out student loans and the most poorly paid pay back more than those who can pay back quickly because they're paying more interest, but the idea always was that it would be a form of graduate tax based on the graduate's lifetime earnings.

Like banks, the government (or the student loans company) is making more money from interest payments than it is from capital repayments. Not only that, but the country benefits from having a highly educated workforce, so the graduates aren't the only beneficiaries.

Degree or no degree, where I work you cannot get promoted, you have to apply for the higher job even if it is internal only. Then if offered the job after interview, you have to hand your notice in. I have never worked anywhere where this happens before so I am not sure if it is typical of big organisations or not.

Doodledog

Barleyfields

Degree apprenticeships are an excellent idea. Earn whilst you learn and no student debt. Far too many go to university ‘for the experience’ and end up with a degree which doesn’t get them a job together with a mountain of debt which may end up being written off.

Do you have figures for this? What is 'far too many', and which measures have been used to collect the data?

Also, why have you put 'for the experience' in inverted commas? It sounds as though you don't value the way in which young people grow up in their time at university in a semi-independent setting (sorry if I have misunderstood).

I think the university experience is very valuable. For many years I saw generations of students come in as immature 18 year olds and leave as confident, mature 21 year olds, after three years of living away from parents, learning how to get along with other people and make decisions for themselves.

It is fair to say that most people grow up between 18 and 21, but IME there was a marked difference between students who go away to university and those who live at home.

The 'experience' is not just about socialising and having fun (although that is valuable too), but about mixing with a range of people in a way that many people never do. I worked in both a prestigious RG university and in a post-92 'new' one, and saw this in a number of ways - people mixing with peers from comprehensive schools for the first time, people realising that 'talking posh' does not necessarily equate to talking sense, people making friends with others from very different cultures and so on. By no means everyone gets the opportunity to do that if they stay at home - the chances are they will mix with people like themselves, both at home and at work.

The debt side of things is, IMO, a shame. I would like to see free education to the point where people can take advantage of it (ie if someone is qualified for, and accepted on a course they should be able to study on it) so that the population is made up of people educated to their potential. As you say, however, some debt is written off, which IMO is fine if this is because people haven't earned enough to pay despite working for many years - some lines of work are horribly underpaid. If, OTOH, people take a university place and then don't work, the debt should remain, and ways should be found to reclaim it.

I think the concept of 'degree apprenticeships' is interesting. I know nothing about them from an educational perspective, but the very fact that they are being so obviously flagged as 'degree equivalent' shows that we are still not recognising trades and 'hands-on' work as being as valuable as graduate work. I think that correcting that would be a good way forward.

This is where the old Colleges of Technology and Polytechnics were so good.

Students could apply for sandwich courses, sponsored by eg engineering firms and spent six months in industry, six months at college studying for a degree in various engineering disciplines. Some took HND courses which were more valued then, I think, than now.

The students had the full experience of college life but were learning practical skills pertaining to their degree in their six months each year in industry.

Some firms, eg accountancy firms and some others, will offer posts to school leavers; they will work for the firm but study for a degree at the same time. However, the competition for places is very fierce; I know that there were 200 applicants for just two places when my DGN applied.

Best of luck to your grandson, kittylester, I'm sure it will be worth all the effort he is putting in.

Whitewavemark2

Just to add she did a full time degree at Southampton, before the masters.

I think masters courses are different, especially if it's a MRes. My daughter has undergraduate and masters degrees in history and economics. She was recruited by the civil service in HR on the strength of her transferable analytical skills gained at a good "uni". She's now doing CIPD Level 7, which is the equivalent of another masters degree in HR. During the first couple of years after graduating she was working with people who had vocational degrees in HR and some who had worked their way up the ladder. However, having spent a couple of years learning the job, she's gained promotion on the strength of her academic background, while the others who originally had more knowledge of HR haven't moved on.

Norah

growstuff

35% not repaid isn't unacceptable because the government is still earning a significant amount of money on the loans. The outstanding debts at the end of 35 years are really only a very small part of the total which graduates have paid in repayments and interest.

We disagree.

It's unacceptable, to me. Don't take on debts and not repay.

I'm not sure you really understand how students loans were set up. They're not like other loans.

Just to add she did a full time degree at Southampton, before the masters.

My soon to be daughter-in-law is doing an apprentice masters in psychology. She is working with severely disturbed children aged 5-11 years. 4 days 24\7 then 5 days off. The children board. She has counselling after each 4 day session as it is such an emotional and hard experience. Goodness knows what is like for the poor little souls whose life has been utterly ruined by adults.

She finds it incredibly hard going and gets exhausted, I think, but very rewarding. She spends a month (I think - at university - full time) every term. She will be a full blown psychologist at the end of this. She does get paid which help towards paying off her original student loan I guess.

growstuff

35% not repaid isn't unacceptable because the government is still earning a significant amount of money on the loans. The outstanding debts at the end of 35 years are really only a very small part of the total which graduates have paid in repayments and interest.

We disagree.

It's unacceptable, to me. Don't take on debts and not repay.

35% not repaid isn't unacceptable because the government is still earning a significant amount of money on the loans. The outstanding debts at the end of 35 years are really only a very small part of the total which graduates have paid in repayments and interest.

Norah

Barleyfields

Here are some figures Doodledog
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01079/#:~:text=The%20Government%20forecasts%20that%20around,loan%20repayments%20for%20new%20students.

From the link, this bothers me: "The Government forecasts that around 65% of full-time undergraduates starting in 2023/24 would repay them in full. This is more than double the forecast for the 2022/23 cohort (27%) because of reforms to student loan repayments for new students."

Loans should be paid, 35% not repaid is totally unacceptable.

Student loans were never set up like traditional loans. They operate more like a graduate income tax, which is why people who aren't high earners never earn enough to repay the loans PLUS interest. The reason more graduates will repay than two years ago is because the length of time before the loans are written off has been extended by an additional five years. During those five years, a significant increased amount is repaid, especially when inflation is factored in.

Barleyfields

Exactly so Silverbridhe.

Doodledog, many employers now are fully aware of which universities were previously polys or technical colleges. Many employers seek graduates with good degrees from RG universities and are not interested in applicants whose cvs don’t include a favoured university. It’s a fact whether people like it or not.

I didn't say that people are unaware of which universities are post-92. This is the UK, after all . But my lived experience of seeing students go into work suggests that whereas 'many' employers may discriminate, 'many' others simply don't.

This may not be true across a range of disciplines, but IME it is more important that a course is validated by a professional body than that it is taught in an institution that was a university before 1992, whether people like that or not. Both universities where I have worked (and another where I was an external examiner) had courses in my subject area that are accredited by my professional body, and that was vital to students getting work. This is why I found it so frustrating when students wanted to have assessments tailored to their wishes - professional bodies do keep an eye on things, and if they pulled the plug whole cohorts would be negatively impacted.

JaneJudge

I'm a bit confused. I thought they still gained their appropriate degree during an apprenticeship, though it is generally the vocational qualification route - HND/foundation degree then top up qualification? (L4, L5 and L6)

Whatever the claims, degrees are not all equal - and most employers know that. It really does depend on the field of the degree. It's a fact that there are "glass ceilings" and in some careers, it's very hard to break through without a degree (and masters) from one of the more so-called prestigious universities. For many people, that's absolutely fine because they don't aspire to senior positions.

Barleyfields

Here are some figures Doodledog
commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn01079/#:~:text=The%20Government%20forecasts%20that%20around,loan%20repayments%20for%20new%20students.

From the link, this bothers me: "The Government forecasts that around 65% of full-time undergraduates starting in 2023/24 would repay them in full. This is more than double the forecast for the 2022/23 cohort (27%) because of reforms to student loan repayments for new students."

Loans should be paid, 35% not repaid is totally unacceptable.

I'm a bit confused. I thought they still gained their appropriate degree during an apprenticeship, though it is generally the vocational qualification route - HND/foundation degree then top up qualification? (L4, L5 and L6)