Why are tradesmen so unreliable

@David No jobs as artists, it's not a problem as a secondary A level but if you try to make a living as an artist you will starve. Only a few are going to get jobs where they use art skills.

What you call "art skills" can turn into countless career opportunities in design, film, the built and natural environment, fashion, therapy, digital media, publishing, marketing, or education.

It's not about what the individual wants it what the nation needs.
Some might argue that we don't need artists, historians, archaeologists, actors etc.

Allira

Choice, David49.

Or are you suggesting that schools, colleges and universities should collaborate and decide which pupils should train in which disciplines according to what the country needs and what they consider to be the pupils' aptitudes?

No Im suggesting the government set a quota of graduates in the discipline the economy needs, only the best at A level get those places , rather like 11 plus there are only so many places needed. In those areas that have the 11 plus around 10% get the places
It can be a generous allowance to allow for drop outs because many areas don't select the best 20% should be ample. The graduates would have a much less chance of being disappointed by no job + all the debt, the government would be better off with the relevant qualified population, at half the cost

It's not about what the individual wants it what the nation needs.

Yes, and also thee inverse of that - people who might get fed up with being 'Chiefs' and retrain as something completely different.

I find the rather Gradgrindian approach to education disturbing. In a free country we should all be able to step outside of imposed boundaries that tell us our 'place' and use the education system to keep us firmly in it.

It's like plaiting fog, isn't it?

You need a technician to do that.

What about late developers?
Those who suddenly realise, having quite enjoyed more mundane jobs for a few years after school, have found their vocation and aim for that? Should they be pigeon-holed for the rest of their working life?

Reminds me of the Two Ronnies and John Cleese.

It's like plaiting fog, isn't it?

At what point, David, do you accept that it is up to the young people to make their own decisions? Why do you think they are 'saddled with' an education as opposed to having chosen to get one?

At what age would you stream people into potential Chiefs, Indians, Technicians and Administrators, and who would you allow to have 'graduate jobs'?

No jobs as artists, it's not a problem as a secondary A level but if you try to make a living as an artist you will starve.

Oh dearie me.

There is no point in discussing this with someone who has such rigid views.

Allira

David49

Allira

And what exactly is a marginal student please?

Anyone that gets a a university place with C or D at A level they should be technicians

As for employment try finding paid employment with an Art or Environmental degree, there are many graduates chasing very few jobs.

Anyone that gets a a university place with C or D at A level they should be technicians

So someone with a C in eg Art, a D in eg Latin should become a ^technician?

Why?

No jobs as artists, it's not a problem as a secondary A level but if you try to make a living as an artist you will starve. Only a few are going to get jobs where they use art skills. There are plenty stacking shelves to feed the family including some I know.
Getting any job is difficult today graduates often omit qualifications to get a lesser job.

Choice, David49.

Or are you suggesting that schools, colleges and universities should collaborate and decide which pupils should train in which disciplines according to what the country needs and what they consider to be the pupils' aptitudes?

Police and lawyer have to interpret the law and are influenced by politics it's not just applying the law, so the senior ranks who decide the policy, or a barrister arguing a case do, but only 5 or 10% of graduates get to that level, a police chief might have several hundred officers following policy they he set.

You are proposing that the current system is fine, where virtually anyone can go to university and study the subject of their choice, whether or not there are employment prospects. There is plenty of evidence the current system is failing.

Im saying that is very wasteful both for the government and the 40% and growing graduates that cant get higher wages in the professions. Why saddle them with debts of £50000 when a decent technical training would be better for them and the national economy.

David49

Allira

And what exactly is a marginal student please?

Anyone that gets a a university place with C or D at A level they should be technicians

As for employment try finding paid employment with an Art or Environmental degree, there are many graduates chasing very few jobs.

Anyone that gets a a university place with C or D at A level they should be technicians

So someone with a C in eg Art, a D in eg Latin should become a ^technician?

Why?

@MT62 - I disagree; nothing to do with Brexit where I live - never known of a foreign tradesman, ever. It's a supply and demand issue and I'm sure they do cherry pick the jobs they want. The least they can do is let you know that they don't want the job if it's too small and not keep you hanging around, sadly nothing we can do about it.

David49

Doodledog

So is a teacher a professional? A ranking police officer? How does a barrister fill your brief? That definition doesn't stand.

There is a definition of a 'professional' (ie someone who does a job that requires postgraduate qualifications, has a professional body with the power to expel members for not adhering to a laid down code of conduct, has a licence to practise and certification from the professional body). That is not the same as a 'graduate job' - all professionals are graduates, but not all graduates are professionals.

How to 'those above' the technicians acquire their skills?

You are still missing the point that you are tying yourself in knots defending something that is just an opinion. Words such as 'need' and 'wasteful' are entirely subjective, but you state them as though they are objective facts and then repeat them, seemingly in the hope that doing so will wear down those with opposing views. That might work in some workplaces, but will not alter the fact that whilst some employers insist on a degree before considering an applicant, that does not make a job 'a graduate job'. Graduates can clean windows, but a degree is not a requirement to do so.

Whether you like it or not, people go to university for personal development as much as to learn work-based skills (although many personal skills are relevant to the workplace), and it is not possible for anyone other then the graduates themselves to decide whether or not they have 'wasted' their money or whether their sills and abilities are 'needed'.

Not sure about teachers, teacher follow rigid guidelines, Ranking police officer certainly, Barrister would have studied Law so yes because it's not following set administration procedure.

You are trying to say that only graduates develop personal advancement which is a very elitist view, clearly personal development is not needed in employment because many posts are going to be replaced by AI where any decision making or is programmed in the device. The graduate will programme the device serving thousands of users.

You are really struggling to justify graduates when AI can replace them, it's even been suggested that AI can replace teachers, leaving the role as just, classroom assistants.

Ok, so in your world a teacher is not a professional, but has a graduate job? You can't be a teacher without a degree. I'm not (and have not been) a teacher, but my understanding is that whilst they follow guidelines such as the National Curriculum they plan and deliver their own lessons, schemes of work and so on, well outside of 'rigidity'.

Is there a profession more rules-bound than law? Police officers and barristers both follow the 'rigid guidelines' that make you unsure of a teacher's professional status, yet you see them as professionals. How does that work? Even judges have to follow legislative guidelines, yet few would say that they are anything other than professionals.

I am not 'trying to say' anything. I am saying that again, your views are based on opinion and prejudice, rather than objectivity.

I don't think that only graduates experience personal development. I have not said anything of the kind, as that is not what I think. I am saying, for the zillionth time, that the fact that not all degrees lead directly into work based on the subject of study does not mean that education has been 'wasted'.

There are cultures in which it is considered 'wasteful' to educate women, as all they are going to do with their lives is have children and keep house - isn't that the same logic you are using to deny education to those who are 'only' going to follow guidelines?

Allira

And what exactly is a marginal student please?

Anyone that gets a a university place with C or D at A level they should be technicians

As for employment try finding paid employment with an Art or Environmental degree, there are many graduates chasing very few jobs.

Allira

And what exactly is a marginal student please?

Obviously only slightly better than a bottom feeder in the Murky Pond of Student Life

And what exactly is a marginal student please?

Nobody has said degrees are wasteful those that have commented have said too many marginal students are taking degrees that are not relevant to employment. Those would be much better off gaining a technical qualification, learning a skill, not wasting £50000+ taking a degree course.

Which degrees are not relevant to employment? Is there a list?

Presumably you mean any degree which is not strictly vocational, eg medicine, accountancy, teaching, engineering?

Why would someone who wishes to take a degree not relevant to employment be technically minded and have an aptitude for technical, practical work?

AI is going to change things that is for sure. Having trained to be an economist graduate with a specialism in programming to work the data, my son now finds himself in a position where the firm he works for (along with other firms in the same business) are looking at AI to do many of the jobs in his company. He is very aware that he will become obsolete when AI is in place. Less than 3 years after graduation with huge debt, he's worried about being obsolete even though he took a subject which was likely to give a good income with a clear pathway in professional development. He hasn't got the funds to train for another pathway. Any decisions on future education surely has to focus on where people can earn a decent living with the state funding behind that. Whether that is a trade or a different sort of profession, I fear that education for education simply for personal development is going to be a privilege most can't afford with the state being unable to afford it either.

Doodledog

So is a teacher a professional? A ranking police officer? How does a barrister fill your brief? That definition doesn't stand.

There is a definition of a 'professional' (ie someone who does a job that requires postgraduate qualifications, has a professional body with the power to expel members for not adhering to a laid down code of conduct, has a licence to practise and certification from the professional body). That is not the same as a 'graduate job' - all professionals are graduates, but not all graduates are professionals.

How to 'those above' the technicians acquire their skills?

You are still missing the point that you are tying yourself in knots defending something that is just an opinion. Words such as 'need' and 'wasteful' are entirely subjective, but you state them as though they are objective facts and then repeat them, seemingly in the hope that doing so will wear down those with opposing views. That might work in some workplaces, but will not alter the fact that whilst some employers insist on a degree before considering an applicant, that does not make a job 'a graduate job'. Graduates can clean windows, but a degree is not a requirement to do so.

Whether you like it or not, people go to university for personal development as much as to learn work-based skills (although many personal skills are relevant to the workplace), and it is not possible for anyone other then the graduates themselves to decide whether or not they have 'wasted' their money or whether their sills and abilities are 'needed'.

Not sure about teachers, teacher follow rigid guidelines, Ranking police officer certainly, Barrister would have studied Law so yes because it's not following set administration procedure.

You are trying to say that only graduates develop personal advancement which is a very elitist view, clearly personal development is not needed in employment because many posts are going to be replaced by AI where any decision making or is programmed in the device. The graduate will programme the device serving thousands of users.

You are really struggling to justify graduates when AI can replace them, it's even been suggested that AI can replace teachers, leaving the role as just, classroom assistants.

So is a teacher a professional? A ranking police officer? How does a barrister fill your brief? That definition doesn't stand.

There is a definition of a 'professional' (ie someone who does a job that requires postgraduate qualifications, has a professional body with the power to expel members for not adhering to a laid down code of conduct, has a licence to practise and certification from the professional body). That is not the same as a 'graduate job' - all professionals are graduates, but not all graduates are professionals.

How to 'those above' the technicians acquire their skills?

You are still missing the point that you are tying yourself in knots defending something that is just an opinion. Words such as 'need' and 'wasteful' are entirely subjective, but you state them as though they are objective facts and then repeat them, seemingly in the hope that doing so will wear down those with opposing views. That might work in some workplaces, but will not alter the fact that whilst some employers insist on a degree before considering an applicant, that does not make a job 'a graduate job'. Graduates can clean windows, but a degree is not a requirement to do so.

Whether you like it or not, people go to university for personal development as much as to learn work-based skills (although many personal skills are relevant to the workplace), and it is not possible for anyone other then the graduates themselves to decide whether or not they have 'wasted' their money or whether their sills and abilities are 'needed'.

Tradesmen don't like small jobs. If you want a brand new kitchen, then fine. If you want someone to change a lightbulb that you can't reach, forget it.

"You are wasting your time, icanhandthemback. The idea that there are 'graduate jobs* (still undefined) and that a degree is wasteful' unless a graduate gets one of these mysterious jobs and is therefore able to pay back her or his loan within a short space of time is so deeply embedded in those who write off education as 'Mickey Mouse' that they won't be shifted."

Nobody has said degrees are wasteful those that have commented have said too many marginal students are taking degrees that are not relevant to employment. Those would be much better off gaining a technical qualification, learning a skill, not wasting £50000+ taking a degree course.

What is graduate employment let's define it.

A professional who uses advanced skills to design, develop or discover new ideas, carry out complex procedures, operations and advanced administration. Clearly we don't need to send 50% of students to university to fill those posts.

For everyday administration where you are following an established work routine you are a technician, you are obliged to work within rules set by those above you.

Any other offerings?

icanhandthemback

^Loans carry interest if a student gets a graduate work they can easily repay the loan interest...^

That just isn't true. Loans start earning interest from the day they are paid which meant that my son had 4 years of interest payments on top of a very large loan. He is paying the required amount from his earnings. Even though he pays every month, it isn't credited to his loan account until the end of the year so he pays interest on an amount he has already paid for. On top of that, when he earns more, he has an extra 2% interest charged. He might earn that amount relatively quickly but he has to work in the City and pay huge rents in order to live. Obviously his pay is weighted for the London area but his loan and interest isn't.

You are wasting your time, icanhandthemback. The idea that there are 'graduate jobs* (still undefined) and that a degree is wasteful' unless a graduate gets one of these mysterious jobs and is therefore able to pay back her or his loan within a short space of time is so deeply embedded in those who write off education as 'Mickey Mouse' that they won't be shifted.

The Student Loan system is dreadful, and desperately needs an overhaul. As Martin Lewis pointed out to Kemi Badenoch, tinkering with the interest rates will make no difference to the vast majority of graduates, as they never pay off the capital - not because of low wages, but because of the structure of the system.

That is a separate issue though. The idea that people should be prevented from getting an education because educating them is 'wasteful' is denying people opportunities, and the motive of doing so in order to force them into roles where they will be told by others to carry out boring and repetitive tasks is abhorrent.

We know that graduates do, on average, earn more than those who do not go to university (although we can all point to friends and family who buck that trend on either side).
(https://ifs.org.uk/publications/impact-undergraduate-degrees-lifetime-earnings)

Graduates are more likely to have secure employment with a career structure that allows for promotion. Ironically, given the comments upthread, they are taught interpersonal skills, as well as how to meet simultaneous deadlines, work in groups and alone, lead others and more - all things that are useful in the workplace. Yes, there will be school leavers who can do all those things, and it is true that not all graduates master them, but course leaders have to show how employability is addressed across courses, and this is checked by validation committees and external examiners. If courses have professional accreditation the professional body examiners will insist on them too, on pain of losing their kitemarks.

This thread has wandered off course, and I am in no way saying that getting a trade is an inferior choice. As has been said, many people make good money and have very satisfying work as 'tradies'. They are far more likely to survive the AI revolution than, say, accountants, whose skills will soon be relatively easily be carried out by computers. What I am arguing against is the 'either/or' mentality that separates people into those worthy of higher education and those not, and the notion that people's lives 'should' be ruled by the economy, with places in HE being restricted so that wages are depressed - it smacks of Stalinism or Mao's China.

DGS, who does not live in the UK, has just left school with the qualifications to go to university but has chosen to take up an apprenticeship - five years training + college but he will be paid instead of getting into debt.

Some of DS's friends here took up apprenticeships years ago; they are highly trained professionals and run their own business. One of their employees is a graduate, he is very good at his job but isn't very ambitious himself.