Education versus money

Why bother with education at all? Let's just send children down the mines at 7. Oh hang on there aren't any mines. Well let them leave at 14 like my parents did. Why should any education be funded?

The whole purpose of education is not to make people who earn more money, but to develop the individual. There is absolutely no reason why degree level education should not be fully funded. I know a number of people who didn't get a degree until later life in the 1980s when they changed careers. Many of them were women who went into social work or education. Today that wouldn't happen.

And today's graduates do not look for a career that lasts a lifetime except in a few cases, most of them know they will change jobs, often moving from being an employee to working independently.

No one would expect someone to repay the cost of their secondary education so why ask for the repayment of university costs?

Unfortunately Thomas Gradgrind is alive and well in UK education
THOMAS GRADGRIND, sir. A man of realities. A man of facts and calculations. A man who proceeds upon the principle that two and two are four, and nothing over, and who is not to be talked into allowing for anything over. Thomas Gradgrind, sir—peremptorily Thomas—Thomas Gradgrind. With a rule and a pair of scales, and the multiplication table always in his pocket, sir, ready to weigh and measure any parcel of human nature, and tell you exactly what it comes to. It is a mere question of figures, a case of simple arithmetic

Having been involved in the recruitment of lawyers and would-be lawyers, I know what, appearing on a cv, destined the application for the bin.

Ah. Well, there is no legislating for prejudice.

My own experience, based on seeing generations of students graduate into work, suggests that after that initial prejudice is in the past, it is not necessarily those with 'good' degrees from 'top' universities who finish at the top of the tree. You can't trade on that forever. Whilst getting a good start is a springboard, after that, employers are looking for achievement in the workplace, rather than an ability to pass exams. A clever and dedicated worker will always do well, but those who had an easier time because they didn't need to work when studying, or who had the contacts to get into top placements will find that this advantage doesn't last forever, and they will have to stand or fall on merit.

I know of a few situations where someone who was a 'plodder' at 21 is a high flier at 40, and is managing those who used to be 'high fliers' - sometimes from several grades up.

I don't think it is Utopian to want everyone to have the same chances. Not everyone will take advantage of them in the same way, and I'm not looking to flatten the curve when it comes to rewards, just to harness the abilities of all our young people and let people find out where their talents lie, which many people never do.

Doodledog

Germanshepherdsmum

What is ‘a good degree’? Is it a First or 2:1 from a top university or a First or 2:1 from an ex-poly?

If you really don't know the answer to that, I suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalisations about graduates.

Rhetorical question Doodledog. Having been involved in the recruitment of lawyers and would-be lawyers, I know what, appearing on a cv, destined the application for the bin.

So presumably V3ra some of those not wanting to repay it will be weeding themselves out now anyway.

That should help Katie.

...it's a joy and a privilege for some to dedicate all that time to study in detail something they find compelling and challenging - and some don't care about the student "loan"

That is exactly how my son views his three years studying drama.
He thoroughly enjoyed the whole experience, including living away from home, and is happy to make his loan repayments.

However... he's 39 now, he went to university twenty years ago.
He has also said that with the much higher tuition costs these days he might very well not make the same decision.

The £50k can, and is, repayed by plenty of people who have apparently been "wasting" their money and their time.

Four of my children went to university. None are now in careers "related" to their undergraduate (or even postgraduate) degrees. Two, after years of working in one area have switched to something very different. All but one (the youngest) have repaid their loans. The youngest has nearly done so.

Obviously this is anecdotal but you are making assumptions about which debts are weighing on the public purse. And when I say some don't care about that debt - that may be because they know they are repaying it.

I think an educated public is not a thing to sneer at.

It is all a difficult subject isnt it?
I must admit, I havent considered before the cost to the governement, and by definition, the general public, of the many student loans which may never get repaid.

How can you presume to know what others see as a waste of money, though? Not everyone looks at life in terms of costs and ‘waste’. There is a saying about knowing the price of everything and the value of nothing, and I really think it is being illustrated on this thread.

NotSpaghetti

Katie some are happy to see 3 years "wasted" - it's a joy and a privilege for some to dedicate all that time to study in detail something they find compelling and challenging - and some don't care about the student "loan".

I think lots of us have tried to explain this.

I’m sure you are correct, some dont care, it’s just a waste of taxpayers money that £50k plus could have been spent on something useful.
I suppose you think wasting money is good.

Katie some are happy to see 3 years "wasted" - it's a joy and a privilege for some to dedicate all that time to study in detail something they find compelling and challenging - and some don't care about the student "loan".

I think lots of us have tried to explain this.

Germanshepherdsmum

What is ‘a good degree’? Is it a First or 2:1 from a top university or a First or 2:1 from an ex-poly?

If you really don't know the answer to that, I suggest you do some research before making sweeping generalisations about graduates.

A first or 2.1 from any university is a good degree.

What is ‘a good degree’? Is it a First or 2:1 from a top university or a First or 2:1 from an ex-poly?

GSM A good degree in any subject can be a way in to many careers. many people get degrees in one subject and end up working in completely different fields of endeavour, whether the first degree was something that seemed vocational, but the vocation did not appeal on graduation, or whether sheer serendipity.

DD is currently working in a career where everyone she works with has a degree in Economics or Business Studies. She has a degree in acting and an OU degree in STEM.

What a bleak picture you paint Germanshepherdsmum.

I didn’t say that everyone would get a 2:2. But there will always be those who do, or a third, or fail or drop out. Or they get a 2:1 or first in a subject that is of great interest to them but of little use to man or beast. If I had taken up the place I was offered, it would have meant three years studying a subject which fascinates me to this day, but which would have led to obscure academic research - I might have become a published author but, my interest being somewhat niche, I would never have earned much money. Of course in those days the state funded university education but I would have paid very little tax. I might have been deliriously happy, but would it be fair to enjoy that happiness at the expense of the taxpayer? I had absolutely no interest in teaching - I would have ploughed a fairly solitary furrow. However I didn’t become that undergrad, I have cost the taxpayer nothing in terms of education beyond my post-A level secretarial course and I have contributed much to the Treasury and also, through pro bono work, some value to those unable to pay a lawyer. Forgive me if I can’t raise enthusiasm for your Utopian system - I expect I have paid for a good number of unproductive (to society and the economy) university experiences and will continue to do so until after my death. We don’t all have a right to happiness in our work - we may find it or we may not.

...in a lot of areas subject specialism is not important. I'm thinking here of the police, the CS, the armed forces, retail management etc, where currently graduates are 'fast tracked', regardless of the subject they studied.

When my son applied to the police, his force was all graduate-entry. Not just the fast-tracked cohort.

Everyone always says we need plumbers when these conversations arise, but they seem always to want other people's children to do apprenticeships after GCSEs. I would suggest that this is what puts a lot of people off, and that if plumbers were genuinely given the same respect as, say, retail managers, and allowed to specialise in plumbing on graduation instead of retail management there might be more people to choose from when your boiler springs a leak.

Hear hear!

However, I do think that taking any degree then specialising in, for example, plumbing would result in a lot of rather useless plumbers or ones who do not earn much until they're in their late 20s because a plumbing apprenticeship can take up to four years then some take electrical qualifications as well.

There is a lot of intellectual snobbery about apprenticeships and especially about people who leave school with few qualifications and take low-skilled jobs. A teacher friend recently referred to the duffers at the school where she taught. I was quite shocked.
However, everyone has their place in society and there is no need for intellectual snobbery or elitism.

Why would everyone get a 2:2 and not contribute much in tax?

If people were able to find out what they are good at, and learn to get better at it, wouldn't they be more likely to do well at jobs that suited them? Having a good time doesn't equate to being unproductive, and doing things that are of no practical use, does it?

I’m afraid you’re describing Utopia Doodledog. A society of people doing what they enjoy, at the taxpayers’ expense, maybe never contributing much in tax to pay back their lovely experience obtaining a 2:2 or worse in a subject they enjoy but of no practical use to an employer or to society. Don’t you think the economy would grind to a halt? But hey, what does it matter, everyone had a wonderful time whilst there was money to indulge their whims.

Germanshepherdsmum

I’m trying to grasp how the state benefits from having a plumber with a degree - and what the price of the plumber’s services would be if his employer were required to pay a ‘graduate tax’ - not to mention the concept of it being accepted that individuals who derived less benefit from their state funded degree (perhaps because they got a lousy degree or studied a subject which did not lead to relevant employment?) paying lower taxes.

Are you really trying to grasp that, or suggesting that you don't agree that it's a good idea?

The state would benefit by having more people working to their potential, instead of being held back because of not having qualifications they are capable of holding. It would also benefit from having the best people doing a range of jobs, not just those who were allowed to get an interview because of a degree. Someone who wants to be a plumber could also have an interest in archeology or poetry - why shouldn't he or she be able to explore that before specialising? Many people who go onto management training, or conversion Masters' or 'fast track' recruitment schemes have had a chance to explore their interests before doing so. Everyone always says we need plumbers when these conversations arise, but they seem always to want other people's children to do apprenticeships after GCSEs. I would suggest that this is what puts a lot of people off, and that if plumbers were genuinely given the same respect as, say, retail managers, and allowed to specialise in plumbing on graduation instead of retail management there might be more people to choose from when your boiler springs a leak.

I don't know what you mean by a 'lousy degree', but if someone didn't get a well-paid job they would pay lower tax than someone who does, just as happens now.

A 'state-funded' degree is, in reality, funded by everyone. If we all benefit from being educated to the highest level we can benefit from and we all pay it back from taxation, surely that is fair? That is the basis on which state education used to work, except that there were built-in obstacles to prevent many people from progressing through the system, so a lot of people paid taxes to allow others to be educated, and in many cases to get a passport to higher salaries as a result.

If education were free and available to all, then we would have more chance of a genuine meritocracy.

I’m trying to grasp how the state benefits from having a plumber with a degree - and what the price of the plumber’s services would be if his employer were required to pay a ‘graduate tax’ - not to mention the concept of it being accepted that individuals who derived less benefit from their state funded degree (perhaps because they got a lousy degree or studied a subject which did not lead to relevant employment?) paying lower taxes.

My father was a manager in the CS, in an engineering department, and it drove him mad when he had to manage new graduates who had degrees that were entirely irrelevant to the area but went in at manager level, supervising people without degrees who had years of experience and learned expertise.

This is one of the reasons why I believe that fair competition is important. Yes, those people had proved they were intelligent, and had transferable skills that may have made them good managers at some point, but they should have been trained in management - a degree in (for the sake of argument) History doesn't make someone good at people skills, particularly when they are 22 and many of the people they are managing are in their 50s. Similarly, many people without a degree are naturally good at getting the best from people, and it seems madness to preclude them from having a chance to use those skills.

In a sensible system, people should all be able to go as far as they can in education (assuming they want to) and then the expectation would be that they would learn the job, whether that is as a plumber, an engineer, a teacher or a generalist manager. IMO that is the only way to stop the snobbery inherent in the claim that 'university is not for everyone'. Why should it be unusual to have graduate plumbers, or non-graduate managers? If someone has the ability and aptitude, and has taken advantage of the opportunities offered by university, they will probably be promoted faster, but there should be no automatic right to that.

Where specialist knowledge is essential then obviously employers would choose from the pool of people who have a degree in the relevant subject (as they do now) but in a lot of areas subject specialism is not important. I'm thinking here of the police, the CS, the armed forces, retail management etc, where currently graduates are 'fast tracked', regardless of the subject they studied.

It would require a rolling back of the way a lot of people think of education, but I think it would be better for individuals, employers and the country as a whole if everyone were encouraged to go to move to the next stage of education on passing the current one, so passes at level 2 (GCSE/O level) would allow progression to level 3 (A level), then to level 4 (1st year undergrad/ONC/BTEC level4), and so on, up to level 7 (Masters degree), and then those with an aptitude for research could go on to a Phd if they wanted to. The right to this progression should last for life, with gaps where required, and be paid for by the state, which would benefit from having an educated population. Maybe there could be a contribution in the form of a tax on employers who also benefit from a state educated workforce - individuals who benefited most from their education would pay higher taxes than those who did not, anyway.

When it cost £50k or thereabouts? Including the living costs.

I wonder when did University become just about the Bread and not about the Roses? Bread and Roses by Joan Baez and
her sister www.youtube.com/watch?v=vqJHUkOTLOQ
One of my favourite songs