The 'marketisation' of universities

Wasn't one of henryV111 s ministers a grocers son?

Worrying isn't it. But that is a bit like saying we don't want any more women or grocer's children either

Blimey JessM, if Mrs Thatcher is the only example of a PM with a science degree – and if that has any relevance to the nature of being PM – then I certainly don't want to see another one.

Even though mechanics call themselves "technicians" these days?

Unfortunately, few engineers go into teaching and most career teachers are arts graduates. There is still confusion in people's minds between 'engineer' and 'mechanic'.

In Germany Engineers actually put 'engineer' in their title, like doctors and professors. In Germany my husband is 'Herr Ing' .....

I think part of the problem might be a kind of intellectual snobbery heritage. Most MPs who have degrees have them in the arts, law or things like politics and philosophy (the non-scientific social sciences as I think of them). Am I right in thinking that Thatcher is the only science graduate to have become PM? The media are dominated by arts graduates. And of course these subjects have a power base in universities.
These influential people reinforce the idea that their subjects are the best subjects and that science, engineering and other vocational subjects are intellectually inferior. We should be turning this thinking on its head perhaps - Germany has given far more emphasis and status to engineering, and I bet China does not churn out vast quantities of graduates in Philosophy and Literary Criticism.

I agree. Academia is not the only way to gain an education, but we seem to have forgotten that. However, things are beginning to change. A nineteen year old man of my acquaintance recently got a part-time job with a firm. He liked the work and they liked him so they are paying for him to do a part-time college course in the subjects he needs while he remains employed (now full-time) by them. He had few propsects before. Now he has a career ahead of him. It's great.

We hear a lot about the reduction in social mobility but no-one has asked whether our obsession with university education may be a contributory cause. Over the years more and more professions that previously offered different paths to joining them depending on your level of education have become graduate entry only.

Back in the 60s when I started work my closest friend, having done well at O level allowed outside interests to deflect her from her A levels, which she failed. She went off and trained and worked as a secretary. At 20 she realised her mistake and decided to train to be a solicitor. Because she had O levels she signed articles(apprenticeship) with a solicitor for 5 years and worked for and passed three lots of exams to qualify. Every level of education above O level knocked a year and a set of exams off the training. She was paid a small salary throughout her training. By 25 she was a fully qualified solicitor, with no debts.

Anyone in her position now would first have to go back to College to get three good A levels, unless they stopped work this would probably take two years. Then they would need to stop working and run up enormous debts by going to university to get a degree, then with their degree they would be able to start the three years on-the-job training. To become a solicitor now from a shaky start would take 8 years at least and leave the new solicitor with a burden of university debt.

No wonder those from poorer backgrounds, who may not consider professional careers until they are in their 20s decide that the length of the process and cost of a professional training is too long and expensive for them to even begin to consider.

"Marketisation" of higher education - and a lot besides!!

The 50% thing was a figure that Tony Blair just drew out of thin air. It was about as realistic as his idea of marching anti-social "yobs" to an ATM to pay an on-the-spot fine. Unfortunately, it didn't fall by the wayside in the same way. Consequently, a generation has been deluded into thinking that a degree will ensure a secure future with high pay. It didn't even in the days when graduates were an academic elite. Moreover, the whole process of a university education seems to have changed. Never were the words "They all go to university and they're all made out of ticky tacky and they all come out the same" been so true.

I don't think time in education is ever wasted but then I think learning is an end itself rather than the means to an end.

I don't like job snobbery. If you're lucky you get the job you want and if you're not you get a job. My OH was an area manager but now he's a mobile cleaner. As he says, "A job is a job." Paying towards your upkeep is what's important. OK so atm we're about to claim housing benefits and take state help but we pay our way as much as we can. The thought of sitting at home all day letting the state pay for everything is abhorrent to us. Is that because we were brought up in a time when the welfare wasn't as easy to claim and was seen as somehow demeaning rather than a life choice?

I have often asked myself the simple question 'What are universities for?' I know what they were intended to be when they were established some 600 years ago - a place where the brightest minds could meet, discuss, invent and research. They were never intended to be providers of employees for business and commerce and it was definitely not thought that 50% of the population would be able to benefit from the opportunities they offered.
Young people were encouraged to attend, whatever their academic potential, possibly because it kept them off the unemployment statistics for three years. Perfectly viable colleges of further education and polytechnics (which were generally seen as preparing people for employment) were transformed into universities - did this constitute a great 'dumbing down' or a response to the elitism which was seen to have characterised university entrance?
We now have a glut of graduates, some of whom think their degree entitles them to a certain type of job. Reality has set in for many of them and they are doing jobs (if they are lucky) which they could have done at the age of 16. Should they think that they have been privileged to spend three years in high-level academic pursuits, given a chance to get away from home and become mature, make life-long friends, study a subject they loved, etc......or should they feel cheated?

Better late than never. I think university education coming under the umbrella of the Department of Business was the accelerator on the slippery slope.

I think academics have been concerned for a while, if my friends are anything to go by. What has changed is a group of big names coming together on this issue.

I'm astonished to find that this issue has only just been identified by the great and the good. I wonder what has triggered the concern?

Another example of the tories interfering inappropriately - The Big Society as a research funding priority?! I speet on your beeg society talk meester cameron.

Very interesting - I dare say we shall hear a lot more about this next week. Thank you for the link bags