We have plenty of under-educated, unqualified people in the workforce - enough to make it increasingly difficult for the UK to compete with better-educated countries. We need more highly educated, able people, not less. And there is no way enough talented people can be found purely from the ranks of those with wealthy parents.
I've just had a brilliant idea! You could wrap up the student debt into an financial vehicle that the government could sell on the financial markets. You'd have 3 different slices of the sausage: "A" level bits would attract a lower rate of interest from investors but would be the debt of people studying accountancy, law, medicine, dentistry etc. "B" level slices would give more interest, but would be the debt of people studying engineering, business studies and the like. "C" level slices would be the collateralised debt of people studying art, media studies and classics etc. You'd get an institution like Goldman Sachs to develop the vehicles and sell them on the open market, internationally. This would get the debt off the government books. You could call them something technical, like, er, I don't know... say "Collateralised Debt Obligation". What? What? What do you mean, something similar was tried a few years ago and it didn't work?
And on a more serious note (well...): The reason it would appear that students now have to pay for their education is that there are far more of them than there were. Far, far more. But, I suspect that the style of university teaching isn't very suitable for many of them. There are surely other ways of learning things: vocational training, apprenticeships, on-the-job. You don't necessarily have to go to lectures and write essays to learn. My grammar school experience would still imply that this is only suitable for a reasonably small proportion of the population. But I suspect that a system where 50% of school leavers go into higher education keeps them off the jobless figures and as they have to pay for their education, it's a neat way of reducing the unemployment bill. Still, it's a challenge as the only way for the UK to survive in the global market is to have a highly educated workforce. Yesterday I did a GSE-style quiz on English language. The things asked were basically a complete waste of time and utterly boring and would have helped no one write decent English. Maybe kids are just being taught the wrong things.
The key issue is that life is too expensive for the majority. We, as a collective, are driven to consume. In order to be an effective consumer one needs to have plenty of surplus cash. Buying all of this stuff will apparently make you happy. So young people see the path to more disposable income in higher education, not realising their final wages won't be affected as much as they hope. More kids go to uni, more educated boys and girls trying to get entry level jobs. Now there are so many educated individuals that many companies won't consider anyone without a degree for many roles. So more kids go to uni so they can get a job. Repeat over 2 or 3 generations and the higher education system is unaffordable, living is unaffordable and the rich continue to gain wealth at the expense of the poor. Apologies to Bradders if he thinks I am being a know it all, I just like to participate in discussions. There is evidence of the persecution of the poor throughout society. There is a method to socially mobilise in the form of education. There is a repressive mechanism to keep the poor beneath the rich that is almost unavoidable in the system that encourages education but doesn't actually promote a higher position than would otherwise have been.
Qualification inflation is a good point. If a job required a degree to get it, now you have 50 applicants where perhaps you'd originally have had 5, so many of the applicants are back to square one, unless there is an increasing number of jobs that require their newly found skills. There is also a difference between actually knowing something and having a piece of paper. I get the impression that it's having the piece of paper which is seen as the outcome, rather than the education it is meant to attest to. But I could be just a cynical old fart. Whenever I've taken people on for jobs, the two things I have wanted to know are: (1) Could they do the job (that's could, not can)? and (2) Do they want to do the job? I've always assumed that someone who wants to do the job and who is capable of doing it will soon learn how to do it. People who already know how to do it, but don't have an overwhelming desire to do it are usually disappointing.
i think the state.....ie the chosen few who pay taxes, should provide free education including university for everyone, for as long as they like, until they can walk into a 75K a year job, then obviously not have to pay anything back to the state after...is this the real world?
or in these difficult times a 30K a year job............its just there is a perception that after completing a degree you are entitled to said job. Are degrees like the GCSE, o level A level results more and more keep passing even though it gets 'tougher' each year.....
i was having this conversation the other day. a mate of mine failed his first year then booted out in his third. couldn't put it on paper but was an exceptional systems engineer he never would off got a job. so himself and two others started an internet security business went on to employ 50 odd people. it seems to me if you don't have a degree you have failed.
Depends on the degree. But in my opinion a degree just gets you a foot in the door at an interview. The rest is up to you. If you do a media studies degree, which frankly is about as much use as a chocolate teapot, then expect to be unemployed. Do a Maths, Physics, Engineering degree and expect a job to start at 20-25k, rising to whatever with experience. If you want a guaranteed job, do a proper degree. If you want to remain unemployed, do media studies. Or get lucky. But in my view do a core subject degree, English, Biology, Maths, etc. Dont do weird degrees. Check what we need. We need science grads. Theres enough halfwits TV presenters as it is. We need comp programmers, lawyers, geologists, historians....etc bleedin cetera But its not always about getting a job. Its also about bettering yourself. Going to uni can provide you with that too. Dont get me wrong though.. We also need creatively talented artists, muscians, playwrights, authors etc but dont expect 50k unless youre Hurst or Yorke. Dont leave with anything less than a 2:1 either.
dont forget the 'swanning around the world for a year freeloading'.....er i mean gap year....is that bettering yourself?
The thing is, there are many roles which don't need a degree to be performed to a high standard, but employers won't consider a candidate without one. As a mature (erm...) student, the piece of paper is nothing. It doesn't add anything to me as a potential employee for most of the jobs I'd like. Anything I can do in 4 years time I can already do right now but I have to read some books, write some bullshit and get £15k of debt, then I become a valuable potential employee. There are plenty of civil service jobs and jobs in large corporations, government and other institutions that require any degree at all before they'll even consider putting your application anywhere other than the bin.
