University degrees

I think and hope we are moving away from 3rd level education.
Apprentice schemes are become more prevalent even with the large financial institutions.

The careers programs also need an overhaul, when my daughter left school after A levels in 2001 they suggested teaching after doing a French degree, nothing regarding technology or Pharma, she ignored all the advice and did a marketing degree and worked in BtoB tech.

Son 1 was advised to read theology, he dropped out and now works for a hedge fund.

Son 2 was not prepared to listen to any advice, he knew! He was spot on and chose the right degree and found his path.

I would have loved it if they had had companies and institutions come and speak to them regarding careers, rather like the university milkround, their careers teachers seemed to have a narrow view and university was the only option.

It is up to the employer though, isn't it. If an employer offered paid on the job training (not unpaid internships) they would probably be inundated with applicants. But have you seen this sort of job offer recently? I haven't, they ask for degrees.

So many seem to feel they are entitled to ‘the university experience’ regardless of whether it will benefit them in working life. There seems to be a proliferation of newish universities which in my day would have been called a technical college or poly which take people with poor A levels and offer degrees which are unlikely to lead to salary levels which enable student loans to be repaid, even though the threshold for commencing repayment has been lowered. So the ‘experience’ ends up funded by the taxpayer. Law firms I worked for wouldn’t even interview a candidate from one of these unis but still young people are encouraged to think such a degree will open doors. It’s time schools stopped encouraging pupils to apply for university regardless of ability.

Yes Germanshepherdmums L know people who cháir interviews in various sectors and they say degrees from some colleges and institutions are totally discounted as they are totally meaningless.
Meanwhile the poor students have spent 3 years studying, doing projects and incurring debt to achieve these qualifications.

My niece got excellent A level results this year but decided not to go to university as she did not want to end up with huge debts. She is now on a higher level apprenticeship in digital marketing ( the same subject as the degree course she was looking at) and although is on around £15000 per year while training, if she gets taken on after the apprenticeship, she will be on the same pay as graduates - but will have no debts and two years work experience. She does have some formal training and courses to complete as that is a requirement of the apprenticeship scheme but most of them are either in house or online.

She seems very happy after starting there 4 months ago but is missing out on the experience of meeting new people and living away from home at university. However, none of her school friends have gone to university as she was more academic than them and she actually applied to a local university so she could still live at home, she is definitely a home bird!

Has she done the right thing? Who knows, time will tell!

This obsession with degrees also makes it harder for those who miss the bus at 18 to get into any of the professions.

Back in the 1960s many professions, including law and accountancy as well as engineering had multiple paths of entry according to your level of education. I had (still have) a highly able friend who had her mid-life crisis at 17. Despite good O levels she dropped out of school and just did odd clerical jobs for a couple of years, then, at 20, got her act together and decided to become a solicitor.

With her O levels she signed a training contract with a solicitor, that meant she was paid for the four or five years she spent working and training and by the time she was about 25 she was a fully qualified solicitor and had a very successful career. She had been paid through out and had no debt.

Now she would first have to go to college to get her A levels, then go to university for three years, building up a huge debt and then (I think) undergo another year of training, she would be would be in her late 20s before she qualified and would probably have £40,000 of debt. The same applied to accountancy. I had a boyfriend who followed a similar route. and there was a similar system for achieving Chartered Engineer status. So many people then used these alternative routes to what are now exclusively closed degree level professions.

I have never understood why Mrs Thatcher decided to turn all the polytechnics into universities thus removing in one stroke the institutions that provided so many of these alternative routes for those in engineering and manufacturing and catered for those able but more practically orientated students

My DS left school after A levels, he was one of the few from his year at grammar school not to go to university. He was offered a trainee manager scheme at the supermarket where he had worked on Saturdays.

He certainly started at the bottom, there was actually no vacancies when he began and was on a YTS scheme for a few months. He gradually worked his way up through different roles.

He is now in his mid 40’s, married with two teenage children. They bought their first home over 20 years ago, when many of his school friends still hadn’t started earning.

He has a business degree, which his employers paid for, and he did alongside his full time job, and has just completed his masters, also courtesy of his job.

He has had to work hard, studying, working a stressful job, and family commitments, but has no student debt, and achieved as much if not more, than many of his peers from school.

No regrets that he went straight into a job, but was probably looked down on by his school at the time. They were only interested in getting their students into uni.

Beswitched, I don't think anyone is pressured into uni - except maybe by parents. There's plenty of choice in pathways after school, including job training and apprenticeships.

That old idea of more (or less) academic is somewhat flawed, too. People aren't intrinsically academic or practical - there's just a wide range of skills, abilities and difficulties. They are not set in stone, but vary greatly over time. Good literacy, critical thinking, research and evaluation are transferrable and always beneficial.

Jobs for life are thin on the ground, now, so many will work in several areas throughout their life. A wide range of jobs require a degree but in any subject.

Degrees, masters and doctorates are valued by others who've studied them, as they appreciate just how much hard work you have to put into them.

Son No 2 wanted to be an academic. So he went to University and got a First. Not good enough so he did a Masters and gained a Merit. Still not enough so he did a Phd and was able to do a bit of teaching.but he was told he would have to be published to have any chance of a full time University post. So he had his thesis published - available from all good bookshops. Now though what with the pandemic and university finance being cut, there seem to be just the odd part time posts around. He now works as an Executive Officer in the DWP.

I used to be an executive officer in the tax office, without any of those credentials.

My grandson is looking to do an IT apprenticeship that pays for any university education, plus on the job training, plus a starting salary of £18k. The IT world is very different from other occupations in that it looks for the brightest and provide training.

I can’t see why you would need a degree to do admin work. Universities advertise such jobs. All this has done is to raise the bar, when GCSEs would be sufficient.

Finally it looks as if the tide is turning at least for technical education. What they ever got rid of Sandwich courses and polytechnics beats me. They were much more on the ball providing training, skills and qualifications for industry.

Far too many young people see going to “Uni” as the ultimate goal but the current situation where nearly half of graduates are not doing graduate work is ridiculous, it should be much more career focused. Many dont have a clue at 18 what they want to do, university should be the place to train for the career you have chosen.
There are many occupations where a degree is obligatory, but the less academic, even those with learning difficulties often excel in the career they have chosen.

Germanshepherdsmum

So many seem to feel they are entitled to ‘the university experience’ regardless of whether it will benefit them in working life. There seems to be a proliferation of newish universities which in my day would have been called a technical college or poly which take people with poor A levels and offer degrees which are unlikely to lead to salary levels which enable student loans to be repaid, even though the threshold for commencing repayment has been lowered. So the ‘experience’ ends up funded by the taxpayer. Law firms I worked for wouldn’t even interview a candidate from one of these unis but still young people are encouraged to think such a degree will open doors. It’s time schools stopped encouraging pupils to apply for university regardless of ability.

Absolutely!
Fortunately I think we are moving away from that at last.
One of the worse ideas from the Tony Blair years was the daft idea that 50% of teenagers should go to university.There simply aren’t that percentage who are up to it, which is why the lesser universities came into being.

Finally it looks as if the tide is turning at least for technical education. What they ever got rid of Sandwich courses and polytechnics beats me. They were much more on the ball providing training, skills and qualifications for industry.

I agree, ayse
They did offer degree courses but also HND courses and most were sandwich courses with strong links to industry.

There are a few firms which offer on-the-job training as well as the opportunity to take a degree and further qualifications but they are few and far between and competition for places is fierce.

Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way round. it is not the extra education that should be the problem, it is the fees.
People are living longer in general, getting married and starting families later. They don't need to start their careers so early and nowadays often have two or more careers during their working lifetime.
Why not spend another few years in education, learning how to think and how to be independent without emerging with tons of debt.
How can more knowledge ever be a problem? Surely it will enable them to be more flexible and open minded when looking for job opportunities or for self employment.
I agree when Katie59 says that many don't have a clue what they want to do at 18, but not that university should be the place to train for a career, more a place to learn the skills to react to changes and opportunities.
Another thing is that some careers will no longer exist in 20 years time, our young people need to learn flexibility.

There's plenty of choice in pathways after school, including job training and apprenticeships.

I don't think there is, not like there was years ago Hetty58.

I have never understood why Mrs Thatcher decided to turn all the polytechnics into universities thus removing in one stroke the institutions that provided so many of these alternative routes for those in engineering and manufacturing and catered for those able but more practically orientated students

There were also Colleges of Advanced Technology which offered HND and degree courses in various branches of engineering and other technical areas such as computer programming. These were often sandwich courses too.

I was one of those who benefited from the now unavailable alternative routes into professions. With my A level results I could have gone to Cambridge but I wanted to get married. I know, I know. And my husband turned out to be a nasty piece of work. Youth is wasted on the young. My parents consented to my getting married on condition I first took a proper secretarial course at the local technical college. It didn’t take me long to realise my mistake but I was working as a secretary in a local authority legal department and managed to get four years’ articles there and to sit first my Legal Executive (so I had qualification if I didn’t manage to progress further) and then my Law Society exams. Reading the books and studying old exam papers then turning up for the exams, where for the Law Society ones there were a fair number of Hooray Henrys whose conversations revealed them to be inveterate (failed) exam sitters. I was terrified and thought nothing short of perfection was required so ended up with a lot of distinctions. The man I worked for was a clerk who had failed his exams several times and given up. He didn’t want me to qualify and invariably found a lot of ‘urgent’ work for me to do when an exam was coming up - for each exam I was allowed two days’ paid leave, one to revise and one for the exam. It was still very much a man’s profession. So qualifying was bloody hard but I valued that qualification so much when I got it and the way in which I earned it showed future employers that I wasn’t afraid of hard work and could think and analyse for myself. I’m still very proud to have achieved my qualification, which lead to partnership in two good firms and a household name client base. Much more proud I suspect than many who followed the traditional route and rather took it all for granted. But that’s impossible today (I sat my last exam just before the system changed so a lot was hanging on that one!) and I’ve come across so many law graduates, even from Oxbridge, who had zero ability to think for themselves and had to be spoon fed even after qualification. I fear I was a hard taskmaster when they worked for me!
Apologies for a very lengthy post! But if I had my time again I would still do what I intended to study for over half a century ago - historical demography!

Ilovecheese

Perhaps we are looking at this the wrong way round. it is not the extra education that should be the problem, it is the fees.
People are living longer in general, getting married and starting families later. They don't need to start their careers so early and nowadays often have two or more careers during their working lifetime.
Why not spend another few years in education, learning how to think and how to be independent without emerging with tons of debt.
How can more knowledge ever be a problem? Surely it will enable them to be more flexible and open minded when looking for job opportunities or for self employment.
I agree when Katie59 says that many don't have a clue what they want to do at 18, but not that university should be the place to train for a career, more a place to learn the skills to react to changes and opportunities.
Another thing is that some careers will no longer exist in 20 years time, our young people need to learn flexibility.

But who is going to pay for this? The taxpayers?

I went to work straight from school then did a degree and a Masters at night time. Many students only have a few hours of lectures a week. Those courses could easily be fitted in around a job, while the fact that you are simultaneously working would add to your skills and give you a better idea of what kind of work you do and don't like.

Germanshepherdsmum

I was one of those who benefited from the now unavailable alternative routes into professions. With my A level results I could have gone to Cambridge but I wanted to get married. I know, I know. And my husband turned out to be a nasty piece of work. Youth is wasted on the young. My parents consented to my getting married on condition I first took a proper secretarial course at the local technical college. It didn’t take me long to realise my mistake but I was working as a secretary in a local authority legal department and managed to get four years’ articles there and to sit first my Legal Executive (so I had qualification if I didn’t manage to progress further) and then my Law Society exams. Reading the books and studying old exam papers then turning up for the exams, where for the Law Society ones there were a fair number of Hooray Henrys whose conversations revealed them to be inveterate (failed) exam sitters. I was terrified and thought nothing short of perfection was required so ended up with a lot of distinctions. The man I worked for was a clerk who had failed his exams several times and given up. He didn’t want me to qualify and invariably found a lot of ‘urgent’ work for me to do when an exam was coming up - for each exam I was allowed two days’ paid leave, one to revise and one for the exam. It was still very much a man’s profession. So qualifying was bloody hard but I valued that qualification so much when I got it and the way in which I earned it showed future employers that I wasn’t afraid of hard work and could think and analyse for myself. I’m still very proud to have achieved my qualification, which lead to partnership in two good firms and a household name client base. Much more proud I suspect than many who followed the traditional route and rather took it all for granted. But that’s impossible today (I sat my last exam just before the system changed so a lot was hanging on that one!) and I’ve come across so many law graduates, even from Oxbridge, who had zero ability to think for themselves and had to be spoon fed even after qualification. I fear I was a hard taskmaster when they worked for me!
Apologies for a very lengthy post! But if I had my time again I would still do what I intended to study for over half a century ago - historical demography!

You could still become a legal executive or solicitor without university, you can do an apprenticeship.

I couldn’t agree more Beswitched.
University shouldn’t be a taxpayer-funded place where you bum around for a few years wondering what to do with your life. No reason why you shouldn’t spend some time working (travelling if you can afford it) and making an informed decision about what you want to do rather than rushing into an expensive (and maybe totally useless in career terms) degree course just to get the must-have ‘experience’.

I think in the apprenticeship you do day release to university but you don't go off and do a 3 year degree course.

I used to be an executive officer in the tax office, without any of those credentials

Ditto. Went in as a CA, got promoted to CO and then to EO.

theworriedwell, you can most certainly become a legal executive without a degree, but nowadays you won’t be able to qualify as a solicitor in the way I did. Law School is compulsory now. You can’t simply read the books and turn up for the exams as I did. The ‘apprenticeship’ undertaken before qualifying as a solicitor is called a training contract (in my day articles of clerkship).