Working class? Don't think that Oxbridge is for you.

Quite so MOnica.

Germanshepherdsmum

Not necessarily Casdon. The recipient of this enrichment (the student) may never work, or only take very low paid jobs.

That’s unlikely. People make mistakes when they are young, and many will do a degree in a subject which turns out not to be the right choice for them. Once completed they will take a different career direction. That doesn’t by any means imply that they will take a low paid job.

GrannyGravy13

If everyone aimed for social mobility we would have no street cleaners, rubbish collections, care workers, supermarket shelf stackers etc.

Social mobility is the movement of people up or down the socio-economic ladder - or class structure.

So in theory, these jobs are open to everyone. How many of the wealthy demographic will take them on tho'?

They are mostly poorly paid, often monotonous, dead-end jobs (with some exceptions of course) and, as such, they are jobs which are designated to the working class. This is the nature of our economic system in reality.

Going from no job to a job should make a difference to people's lives, with real social mobility, but if the job is so poorly paid that there's little difference between being on the 'dole' or working a full-time job with low pay to the extent it has to be topped up by the state, then that's not social mobility... it's exploiting the already disadvantaged.

Germanshepherdsmum

Not necessarily Casdon. The recipient of this enrichment (the student) may never work, or only take very low paid jobs.

If they buy things or pay fees for state services then they are a 'taxpayer'. Defining people's worth to the country solely by their earned income is rather narrow minded.

If their income is very low they will never repay the cost to the taxpayer of the enrichment they have received.

I'm a bit gobsmacked that in this day and age we think the purpose of education is to become a good taxpayer and repay what the state has done for you.

The purpose of education is to have an educated populace. Having an educated populace leads to a more civilised country full of people who are able to make informed decisions on what they are being asked, and improving the place for everybody.

Educated doesn't always mean civilised (I give you Johnsons as an example) but the more people who are educated the better society will be. The value of things can't always be measured in £sd. Educated people are not only enriching themselves, they are enriching our society.

Guess you could call me an old lefty socialist. Or a Scot.

Germanshepherdsmum

If their income is very low they will never repay the cost to the taxpayer of the enrichment they have received.

You make them sound like dolphins in a marina given inflatables to play with.

They are people whose education the taxpayer is funding by way of a loan (not in Scotland obviously). Should the taxpayer not be entitled to expect repayment in the way agreed when the loan was granted? Or should we all be pleased to lend money purely for the personal enrichment of the individual and tell them to have a nice life and not bother repaying the money?

There shouldn't be loans for fees. That's it.

Please don't start quoting at me how people need to pay for their education and so on, because its something I will never agree with. The state/country/government should be funding people to reach their full potential because that is what makes the country move forward.

We have student loans in Scotland for living expenses. We just don't expect people to pay for their education, if its something that they and the country would benefit from.

Rather than relying on the words of the person paid to be the country's social moblity "tsar", this report looks into the question of social mobility in some depth and is actually factual:

www.suttontrust.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Social-Mobility-%E2%80%93-Past-Present-and-Future-final-updated-references.pdf

Germanshepherdsmum

They are people whose education the taxpayer is funding by way of a loan (not in Scotland obviously). Should the taxpayer not be entitled to expect repayment in the way agreed when the loan was granted? Or should we all be pleased to lend money purely for the personal enrichment of the individual and tell them to have a nice life and not bother repaying the money?

Are you seriously suggesting that if an 18 year old chooses to do, say a Physics degree, but hates it and wants to do something different, they will be obliged to work as a physicist to ‘pay back’ taxpayers for supporting their degree? The ‘have a nice life’ statement is erroneous because they will work, just not as a physicist - people have to work to make a living!

You may recall, volver, that there was a distinction upthread between going to university merely for personal enrichment and going to study a subject of some use to society. My comments were based on that distinction. You probably believe that the study of any available subject is of use to mankind. There we will have to agree to differ.

Germanshepherdsmum

You may recall, volver, that there was a distinction upthread between going to university merely for personal enrichment and going to study a subject of some use to society. My comments were based on that distinction. You probably believe that the study of any available subject is of use to mankind. There we will have to agree to differ.

I believe that studying any subject that makes the student more educated is of "use to mankind". I think we have probably made access to university wider than it needs to be - attendance at University should be for those who will make the most of a higher education. Although I decline to name subjects, I do think that there are subjects now available at degree level that are not really suited to being called "degree courses".

We may not differ as much as you assume.

It sounds like you are one of the fans of what Asimov called "the cult of ignorance" GSM. We need people to be better educated and better trained. No one's "personal enrichment", gained by being educated at the highest possible level they chose and can achieve, goes unshared with the wider community, whatever the discipline. How could it?

I'm a bit gobsmacked that in this day and age we think the purpose of education is to become a good taxpayer and repay what the state has done for you.

That's just how it was striking me, too, volver. The next thing will be 'Why bother to educate the people who will end up in low paying jobs because they'll never repay what it cost to educate them? And who needs education to be able to fill supermarket shelves or empty dustbins?'

It is possible that these poorly paid people who aren't enabling the government to recoup the cost of their education are pillars of their communities; raising money for charity, volunteering in one of the many ways to support their fellow citizens or care for our environment.

An individual's value to society can't be measured in purely monetary terms.

I can't think of any degree subjects which don't contribute to the overall enrichment of mankind/culture/society in some way, however marginal. Obviously, there are people who never put their education into practice. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge spring to mind, but there are others. The vast majority of people do have to work and they use transferable skills, which may or may not be directly related to their degree subject.

volver

Germanshepherdsmum

You may recall, volver, that there was a distinction upthread between going to university merely for personal enrichment and going to study a subject of some use to society. My comments were based on that distinction. You probably believe that the study of any available subject is of use to mankind. There we will have to agree to differ.

I believe that studying any subject that makes the student more educated is of "use to mankind". I think we have probably made access to university wider than it needs to be - attendance at University should be for those who will make the most of a higher education. Although I decline to name subjects, I do think that there are subjects now available at degree level that are not really suited to being called "degree courses".

We may not differ as much as you assume.

Can you name some of them?

We are indeed closer than I thought volver. I’m sure we could all think of a few degree subjects which do not need to be taught at that level, and I can certainly name some establishments calling themselves universities a degree from which will cause the cv to end up in the potential employer’s bin.

Anyway, the whole of this section of this thread is a bit pointless because taxation doesn't fund spending.

I think that all courses contribute, but there are things offered that I do not believe should be give the status of degree level, because it cheapens the properly intellectual things. (I sound such a snob...) I know I will bring opprobrium down on my head for this but Professsional Golf isn't a degree level subject for instance. Its worth doing, there are things to learn, people need to know how to do it...but a degree?

www.uhi.ac.uk/en/courses/ba-hons-professional-golf/

Germanshepherdsmum

We are indeed closer than I thought volver. I’m sure we could all think of a few degree subjects which do not need to be taught at that level, and I can certainly name some establishments calling themselves universities a degree from which will cause the cv to end up in the potential employer’s bin.

Which ones?

It is possible to have a fulfilling culturally rich life without having gone to Oxbridge or any other university.

Germanshepherdsmum

We are indeed closer than I thought volver. I’m sure we could all think of a few degree subjects which do not need to be taught at that level, and I can certainly name some establishments calling themselves universities a degree from which will cause the cv to end up in the potential employer’s bin.

Maybe employers should look at those they're rejecting. They might very well be doing themselves a huge disfavour. Leading law firms are renowned for doing it, which contributes to the ossified social class of those at the top of the legal profession.

My Grandson got top grades in his GCSE, he has decided he does not want to do A levels, and he does not want to go to Uni.
My Grandson did a trainee ship in the summer holidays at 16 and the employer was very impressed with him and offered him an apprenticeship in engineering.
To get to this job he cycles 20 minutes to the train station, and after he gets off the train he cycles another 15 minutes. He is just 17 learning to drive, had his theory test 10 days after his birthday. He is very motivated.
I am very proud of my Grandson especially as he made his own informed decision. I can see where where this head teacher is coming from, not everyone wants to go to University, and it is not the be all and end all, but if someone wants to go to Oxford that is fine to. I think she is saying we should be proud of all achievements.

Obviously, there are people who never put their education into practice. The Duke and Duchess of Cambridge spring to mind, but there are others.

Are you looking at this in purely monetary terms, growstuff?

I see education as giving one the tools to think and make rational judgements (OK, that's a bit optimistic, isn't it ) Even if the specific subject studied is never put to practical use the skills needed for studying can be used in other ways.