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

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Quite so MOnica.

Callistemon You and I seem to be thinking alike on this subject

Casdon If someone goes to university purely to enrich their lives, why should the government pay for it, even as a loan?

Governments invest in education for the economic benefits the country gets from it, not for the personal enrichment of the individual. That is why education to the age of 18 is not just free but a requirement by the government who pays for it. Beyond 18 they are more selective and only fund education for those reaching a certain minimum level of attainment and invest most money on those subjects that are deemed most useful to the economy.

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

Grandma70s

We should not overlook the value of having a good education whether it leads to “success” in a career or not. The aim of education should be to enrich lives rather than lead to “good” jobs. It can do both, of course, if you’re lucky..

Only people who have a cushion of wealth think that way imo.

Germanshepherdsmum

But should education merely enrich the life of the recipient if he or she doesn’t repay the cost to the taxpayer?

The recipient is a taxpayer, I don’t understand what you mean?

But should education merely enrich the life of the recipient if he or she doesn’t repay the cost to the taxpayer?

We should not overlook the value of having a good education whether it leads to “success” in a career or not. The aim of education should be to enrich lives rather than lead to “good” jobs. It can do both, of course, if you’re lucky..

I think success is a mental thing

I was just thinking about how to phrase that.

Having confidence and belief in yourself is as important as academic achievement, although, of course, that is essential to gain a university place in the first place.

Some people want more than a satisfying career, a good income.
Some want power and however much social mobility is enabled, in our society there will always be those who think that is their right.

I think success is a mental thing, Having a career you enjoy and a feeling that you are living up to your capacity and earning enough to not to need to have to constantly worry about money. For some people money is the be all and end all of life, those sort of people will always be with us, and generally speaking, however much you earn there will always be someone earning more.

It is easy to quote the plumber who make it big and runs a big company and makes lots of money, but they usually do it by employing many more plumbers, who do not end up running their own plumbing company and making it big. but remain ordinary jobbing plumbers all their lives.

DS chose a career which he always knew was not one where he would be making a fortune. He said, that he would never earn as much as his father, which he hasn't, but the satisfaction he has got from his work is immense. It is a career that he was focussed on from a very young age. He lives in a standard prewar semi in a pleasant street in a northern city and if asked how he feels about his life would say he was very happy with it. He has achieved his goals in life - a successful career in a profession he loves and a good family life and enough money to live on, with only occasional money worries. Isn't that what most people want?

Callistemon21

^I'm not doing that at all!^
No, I don't think you are, growstuff.

But it does seem to be the point of the thread.

Thank you. My point is that she's giving out the wrong message. I've sat through many talks by Cambridge Uni outreach ambassadors and, quite honestly, I'd be spitting at what she said. Their message is always that Cambridge is the right place if you're passionate about your subject, prepared to work hard and are capable of achieving high exam marks.

Callistemon21

^Birbalsingh is the daughter of university academics and went to Oxford. Why shouldn't she encourage her able pupils to go to Oxford too?^

I understood that she does.
However, what I understand from what she says is that those who would never be able to achieve a place at Oxbridge should also be praised and encouraged for their achievements.

That's not quite what she said.

albertina

My late brother was a fish out of water at Trinity College Oxford in the 1950s He studied French and Spanish there. He never felt he belonged, being a young lad from Cardiff with no titles in his family. He suffered the whole time he was there.
Then he did his national service in the Navy and learned Russian. From there he sailed to New York and worked as an interpreter at the UN for the rest of his working life. He never forgot the class war at Oxford though.

My partner went to Oxford (and Cambridge) in the 1970s. He was also acutely aware that some other students made fun of his accent and had contacts with the high and mighty, etc. However, he gave them as good as he got and ended up with a first.

He's never forgotten his first term, but there is no doubt at all that Oxford gave him advantages which have been of benefit to him throughout life, which he would never have had if hadn't gone there. There is nobody in his immediate family who went to university. It changed the course of his life and he doesn't regret going there. As a university lecturer himself, he's always keen to encourage those who don't come from a "traditional" university background.

Why should any of that be denied other young people, many of whom don't even know what the advantages are until they go?

Birbalsingh is the daughter of university academics and went to Oxford. Why shouldn't she encourage her able pupils to go to Oxford too?

I understood that she does.
However, what I understand from what she says is that those who would never be able to achieve a place at Oxbridge should also be praised and encouraged for their achievements.

I'm not doing that at all!
No, I don't think you are, growstuff.

But it does seem to be the point of the thread.

Callistemon21

By perpetuating the social mores that achieving a place at Oxford or Cambridge is the pinnacle of achievement, as some are doing on this thread, is devaluing the achievements of the majority of society.

I'm not doing that at all!

However, there is no denying that Oxford and Cambridge open doors. They give the students who go there an advantage they will never lose. It's not just about earning money for a comfortable lifestyle, but power. Those who make the important decisions about how the country is run disproportionately have been to Oxford or Cambridge. The country has a very narrow base of decision makers.

You are right that I've had many years of experience as a secondary school teacher and, of course, I have applauded successes. However, I have come across young people who have been discouraged from higher education (never mind Oxford or Cambridge) by parental (or grandparental) pressure. They were as bright as anybody, but they just weren't allowed choices. It's that kind of attitude which Birbalsingh is encouraging.

Birbalsingh is the daughter of university academics and went to Oxford. Why shouldn't she encourage her able pupils to go to Oxford too? I'm afraid I find her attitude (and not just on this issue) deeply patronising. Not only that, but she's paid out of the public purse to work for six days a month as the country's social mobility tsar. If she doesn't believe in social mobility, maybe she should consider what she's actually paid to do.

M0nica DS's friend tried to persuade him to go into plumbing.
He didn't and did go to university after a couple of years working and has a very good, well-paid job.
However his friend the plumber has his own company employing several people.

I think the question is:
By what do we measure success?

My late brother was a fish out of water at Trinity College Oxford in the 1950s He studied French and Spanish there. He never felt he belonged, being a young lad from Cardiff with no titles in his family. He suffered the whole time he was there.
Then he did his national service in the Navy and learned Russian. From there he sailed to New York and worked as an interpreter at the UN for the rest of his working life. He never forgot the class war at Oxford though.

Callistemon I ma in complete agreement with you.

I would also comment regardless of what schools may say. I always said that I would rather DS was a really good plumber than a really bad Chartered Accountant. Thankfully, becasuse like me he is dyspraxic and has poor hand control, he never showed any interest in plumbing because he would have been a very bad plumber, but to give some credit to private schools. His private school considered him to be good Oxbridge material, but never did anything to suggest or pressure him to apply because he was from such a young age so focussed on what he wanted to do and knew exactly which course he wanted to do at what university and why, that they felt he knew so much more about it than they did. they were happy for him to go his own way.