Degree apprenticeships v university degrees

I assume that they will find institutions near the workplace, so that students can get to university and to work from wherever they are living.

There is no point in having the tuition in Cambridge if the company (and place of work of the apprentice) is in Carlisle. This is where Polys came into their own, and why the courses that they offered (and now offer as universities) are often better regarded than those offered on a theoretical basis in 'traditional' universities.

Thanks Macadia for you kind thoughts but it is difficult for my grandson to to think of his autism as a gift when he has been bullied and teased by his peers all his life. He is desperate to be thought of as “normal”.

As I have said before if you have met one person with autism, you have met one person with autism.
Talk of a "special gift" is pretty offensive to the families coping with children who are (for example) non-verbal, with distressing patterns of behaviour.
My grandson with autism is friendly, chatty and very sociable. He would like to work caring for older people, but he does not have the conceptual ability to understand when a situation could potentially be difficult or dangerous.
There are no generalisations to be made here.

Doodledog

I assume that they will find institutions near the workplace, so that students can get to university and to work from wherever they are living.

There is no point in having the tuition in Cambridge if the company (and place of work of the apprentice) is in Carlisle. This is where Polys came into their own, and why the courses that they offered (and now offer as universities) are often better regarded than those offered on a theoretical basis in 'traditional' universities.

I agree.
If your apprenticeship is (for example) business related you would be better studying at a university with that ethos and specialism. The snobbery around universities is ridiculous and in my experience quite often seems to come from people who weren't university educated themselves. I am not sure why?

Because students find an employer and then commit to the course for several years - maybe 5 yrs, it’s similar to a professional qualification that a new worker would get with experience in that trade. The difference is it’s called a “degree”, all apprenticeships require commitment you can’t dip in and out. There is no reason you can’t change employer if you don’t get on, but the student has to finish the course.

I use the word “trade” widely, it could be a clerk upgrading to an accountant, an estate agent or a banker as much as a labourer qualifying as an electrician or plumber.

The biggest obstacle to previous schemes has been lack of commitment and the amount of supervision students need if the employer is paying them.

I’m sure many of our generation did similar training, you got a job at 16 as a junior, you attended evening classes or day release, maybe a year or two at college, then took professional qualifications to whatever level you got to.

The snobbery around universities is ridiculous and in my experience quite often seems to come from people who weren't university educated themselves. I am not sure why?
I'm fairly sure . I see it as the same line of thinking that objects to more people going to university at all. In both cases the objectors are used to being part of an elite, based on the scarcity value of their qualifications (or experience) and resent that elitism being threatened by the scarcity being reduced, and (shock, horror!) being offered to children of the working classes who might not be able to afford to study far from home or pay high fees up front. The same thinking can be seen in those whose own children are safely ensconced in well-paid 'graduate' roles but believe that other people's children should reconsider getting degrees and benefiting from networks etc that go with that territory.

They are all behind the times anyway, as degrees are no longer a passport to a lifetime of jobs in management or similar. We are moving towards a situation where (as is often mentioned on threads like these) people with degrees have to show other attributes to get a foot on that ladder, and in any case AI will change things in very unpredictable ways. Traditional professions and those with 'knowledge-based' occupations have a good chance to be the ones who lose out most, whilst artisans and tradespeople whose roles cannot be replicated by AI will become the new secure middle class. A machine can't cut your hair in a way that will suit your face, or find a way of building a cupboard that fits exactly where you want it and opens such that it suits your family's particular requirements. Machines can (or will be able to) do accounts, check the legality of situations or contracts - even medical diagnoses and operations will soon be carried out by AI.

How that will all play out remains to be seen, but the idea that higher education is simply a passport to employment seems very short-sighted. We will need people who can think, communicate well and understand complex situations; but those whose expertise relies on remembering large numbers of facts or processes might find themselves going the way of Victorian clerks.

As I started this thread, I thought I would update on DGS's progress. He has been offered 3 positions and taken the one he really wanted. His starting salary will be £24k.

Now, back to the A Levels.

kittylester

As I started this thread, I thought I would update on DGS's progress. He has been offered 3 positions and taken the one he really wanted. His starting salary will be £24k.

Now, back to the A Levels.

Lovely!

kittylester It would probably make sense for your grandson to apply for a university place as well as apprenticeships, he may be able to find a degree with a year in industry or some other sort of work placement in case he changes his mind about what he wants to do.
I can quite understand why people don't want to get into debt by going to university. One of my sons didn't finish paying his student loan back until he was well into his 30's. And apprenticeships often lead to really excellent jobs.
Whether an apprenticeship is a good idea or not depends on the type of work he wants to do in his chosen field, it's likely that a research position in R&D might require a degree for example. But he can discuss all this with potential employers at interview.

Sorry, just seen your last post. Congratulations!

Great news, kittylester, and well done GS!

My GS is do science and maths A levels, hhis path of choice is university then Sandhurst. If grades not good enough for the exact courses he wants plans on 2 years work anything it's just to save then Sandhurst. He has a recruiting adviser, so totally out of family hands

That's really good to hear kitty and a nice starting salary too!

I was doing a college course 5 years ago and some of the young people were apprentices for various employments eg accountancy, engineering of different kinds, business. They attended for 1 year of the 3 year course. I hope it is all different now as most of the apprentices I met were let go at the end of their course. No offer of employment by companies they trained with. Ststem seemed to be one group finishes and new one starts as financially beneficial for employers. Only a couple of years ago I did meet 3 of the students, two of whom were working in Argentina, engineering, and the other Dhubai hoping to be an estate agent. If a job is guaranteed at the end, then definitely be worthwhile. What happens if the candidate starts an apprenticeship then discovers they don't like the subject/work can they swop courses as most at Uni can.

My grandson is doing a banking degree apprenticeship. They get paid as they progress. Thinking about how much debt students get into at the end of their degree is frightening so imo this is a better pathway to take. They probably work much harder than the average student but worth it in the end. They also are learning on the job.

“The snobbery around universities is ridiculous and in my experience quite often seems to come from people who weren't university educated themselves. I am not sure why?”

It’s not snobbery, I don’t care whether someone goes to university or not, many of the young people around me have been to “Uni” and are struggling because the did not learn any kind of employable skills, or even basic life skills.

Example, Debbie 22 asking me about buying a car she thought she was earning enough to pay the interest on a car loan - until I pointed out the capital needed repaying as well. This was 30 yrs ago, I still see her every few weeks and she’s always struggled. There are a great many like her who were pushed down the university line, when they did not have the basic ability.

I’m NOT anti university, for many careers it’s essential but you need the ability to benefit from it. It’s not like school nobody is going to push you, to learn you have to be self motivated and to benefit there needs to be employment that enables a reasonable lifestyle.

Many of the SMEs I know are run by non graduates who worked their way up the ladder learning the trade and have better lifestyles than most graduates

With respect, David, that is a lot of hot air.

Universities are not there to teach everything. They teach specialisms and the time spent there allows students to grow up in a relatively safe environment. Of course not all of them will do so at the same rate, and of course some will be more ‘sensible’ than others.

I could trot out anecdotes about non-graduates who don’t know how mortgages work, or who can’t change a car tyre, but they would signify nothing either. I hope that most of them know the difference between proving a point and clutching at straws though.

I met up with one of my GC on Friday. He was a classic school "failure" left with little in the way of qualifications and was rather too close to getting into serious trouble. He did an Access course and is now at University. He's developed into an articulate motivated and very personable young man who is interested in working with young offenders as a career. This focus on fitting people into slots at too young an age ignores the fact that young men, in particular, have brains that are still developing into their 20s. What you see at 16 is not necessarily what you get at 21 which is why society needs different routes for different people, flexibility is the key that can unlock potential.

Doodledog

With respect, David, that is a lot of hot air.

Universities are not there to teach everything. They teach specialisms and the time spent there allows students to grow up in a relatively safe environment. Of course not all of them will do so at the same rate, and of course some will be more ‘sensible’ than others.

I could trot out anecdotes about non-graduates who don’t know how mortgages work, or who can’t change a car tyre, but they would signify nothing either. I hope that most of them know the difference between proving a point and clutching at straws though.

Graduates are supposed to be of good ability, many have very limited ability and not employable without further training. So they have to work as interns after they graduate.

That is what employers are disappointed about.

A nurse gets the degree in Nursing and goes straight into work at basic nursing salary, that’s what degrees are for. The nurse may the go on to get further qualification + years experience and increased salary.

A nurse does not need extra training, most degrees should also be career focused.

Your thinking is very 'black and white', and tends towards mansplaining. Why 'should' degrees be anything? People choose what works for them, and I don't see why there is any 'should' about it, just as I doubt that all employers want the same things from employees.

Much depends on the demands of the work. Some employers will want very specialised knowledge (and so whether the employee understands bank loans will be irrelevant, unless the role is in banking or finance), and others will want flexible, adaptable people who can think on their feet, which may be skills learned whilst studying something such as medieval archeology, even though the role is very far removed from the subject content.

Doodledog

Your thinking is very 'black and white', and tends towards mansplaining. Why 'should' degrees be anything? People choose what works for them, and I don't see why there is any 'should' about it, just as I doubt that all employers want the same things from employees.

Much depends on the demands of the work. Some employers will want very specialised knowledge (and so whether the employee understands bank loans will be irrelevant, unless the role is in banking or finance), and others will want flexible, adaptable people who can think on their feet, which may be skills learned whilst studying something such as medieval archeology, even though the role is very far removed from the subject content.

Feel free to call it mansplaining if it makes you feel better I have stated my opinion of higher education, which is, it should be more ability and career focused.

“flexible, adaptable people who can think on their feet,”

Then give them jobs such as teachers and give them a rigid curriculum with very little flexibility at all

Feel free to call it mansplaining if it makes you feel better I have stated my opinion of higher education, which is, it should be more ability and career focused.

Why would I need to feel better? It's just irritating when someone seems unable to see beyond one way of doing things, without an explanation of why they feel as they do.

Degrees are ability focussed. They focus on different abilities, which is why there are so many of them. If it were simply a case of producing 'career focused' graduates they could all do a training course that didn't differentiate.

I don't really understand your comment about teachers - by no means all graduates go into teaching, and even if they did, the fact that the curriculum is narrow is the fault of Gove et al, not the teachers themselves. A schoolteacher might be able to say more, but my understanding is that many teachers are unhappy with the fact that they can't use the things they have learnt about education because of being hidebound.

I would see that as a failing of the school system, not of the courses that teach education, or of the teachers themselves, but as I say, I'm not clear what point you were making there.

I think your are posts are womansplaining

I’ve already stated my views