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

Growstuff my Grandson is from a single parent family, his parents split up, money is very tight. He does not have a silver spoon in his mouth.
He made his choices, they were not easy, but he has determination, a will to succeed and he has ambition, these are things money cannot buy and he is hungry to succeed. I agree as a educational Tsar may have been clumsy in her delivery, but I still think she is right.
Let's celebrate all young peoples achievements. My daughter has a MA,my son never went to Uni, I am proud of them both.

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

And there we have it. I will attach the quote.

volver

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/

I think you are pedalling backwards too volver. Which surprises me.

Anything taught at degree-level is worthwhile because of the learning skills and the all-around knowledge of that subject you acquire. The suggestion that we, in our ignorance, can pick subjects as "not worthy of degree level teaching" feels as if it is fulfilling the part of the Asimov quote which led him to believe we have a "cult of ignorance". That is where we believe our ignorance is equal to the knowledge of those running these courses. Do you know what is taught in a Professional Golf degree?

Something offered at "degree level" but not taught at that level should not be available, of course.

I think both you and GSM are talking about skills not higher education. In which case you forget that where both skills and learning take place the "degree", e.g., medicine, architecture, and law, take longer than where it is simply the subject taught at degree level. The same is true of most degree-level apprenticeships.

If you want more degree-level apprenticeships, then I couldn't agree more. I also think degrees such as law and medicine should be renamed degree-level apprenticeships.

However, this should not stop those wanting a degree from taking one. Many people go on to work in areas completely outside their original degree. Gone are the days of a "job for life". Most people will now need to show portmanteaux of skills.

growstuff

rafichagran

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.

Yes, she is, but she expressed herself clumsily and, quite honestly, I would expect better from a government appointed "tsar". Your grandson had a choice - but some children aren't given a choice. All sorts of factors mean they get stuck and social mobility becomes a more difficult uphill struggle than it does for some others.

Well, I'm still 'struggling' to find the place in her speech where she says that some children shouldn't be given a choice.

Because that's what started this whole interesting thread and I just don't 'see' it.

This, to me, seemed to be key:

Those born nearer to the top have advantages over those born nearer to the bottom. But we need to be careful about moving from this general observation to the conclusion that nobody has agency, or that the gaps and disparities between the “disadvantaged” and everyone else are set in stone.

www.gov.uk/government/speeches/bucking-the-trend-a-fresh-approach-to-social-mobility

It seems to me that here she is saying that 'agency' exists i.e. an individual's ability to think and make decisions for themselves, rather than be defined.constrained by their circumstances. And that we shouldn't think that people's outcomes are set in stone because of their circumstances.

Which, I think, seems to completely contradict the assertions on which this thread was premised...

rafichagran

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.

Yes, she is, but she expressed herself clumsily and, quite honestly, I would expect better from a government appointed "tsar". Your grandson had a choice - but some children aren't given a choice. All sorts of factors mean they get stuck and social mobility becomes a more difficult uphill struggle than it does for some others.

Whilst it's true that some universities are more prestigious than others and likely to lead higher pay and more powerful jobs, those who claim that some degrees don't matter are contradicting the point that Birbalsingh was making. She's saying that all achievement should be applauded, not just degrees from "traditional" universities and courses.

GrannyGravy13

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

I don't think anybody is claiming otherwise. That's a strawman argument. However, there is little doubt that higher education for most people opens doors to opportunities which some people don't even know exist.

MOnica gave the example of her DS. However, he had a choice. He also has educated parents. Many children at the bottom of the social hierarchy don't have that choice.

PS. Has anybody actually read the report I linked to?

GrannyGravy13

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

Is anyone saying that it isn't?

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.

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.

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.

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.

Which ones?

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/

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

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!

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

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.