The Thick End Of The Wedge

[Rupert_Baehr]

Good points Rupert. Especially about the number of pointless degrees currently on offer. However, you miss two essential points.

 

First, we do need Doctors, Dentists, Teachers etc. They won't be able to get a job and be sponsored to go to University.

 

Why won't they be able to get a job and be sponsored to go to university? The present scheme doesn't provide pre-selection and sponsorships (well, it does - but the number of sponsorships is limited) but there is no reason why such provision should not be made.

 

My first job choice when I left school was 'Airline Pilot'. The training was not cheap and I certainly couldn't afford it. I got a sponsorship (along with a 5-year 'payback' contract.)

 

The country needs doctors and dentists. let the NHS interview and select suitable candidates, sponsor them through university and then require them to work for the NHS for a period of years. During that period, they would work for regular NHS salaries (they would be NHS employees, not contractors) and would be sent wherever the NHS needed them.

 

The country needs teachers. Let LEA's (or whichever body you have responsible for running the schools in a given region) select and interview appropriate candidates, sponsor them at university and then send them to work in schools which need the teachers.

 

Second, those who can afford the fees will go to University anyway, placing them at the head of the jobs queue.

 

Are there really that many people who will be able to afford the fees? I've no doubt there are many parents who are prepared to scrimp and go without to help their children go to university at present, but if there was an alternative method - a method which was affordable to the student, although required a 'payback' - how many of those parents would choose to ignore that and throw the money at their children anyway?

 

As for those who went to university without sponsorship being at the front of the queue, is that really the case? If you were an employer and you had a choice between somebody who you felt you knew - Somebody who you had interviewed and selected, somebody whose progress you had monitored for the past 3 or 4 years - and somebody who had walked in off the street with a piece of paper saying he/she was qualified - which one would you take?

[Rupert_Baehr]

 

Some people is society are better placed to take that gamble than others.

 

That's life. Some people have more arms and legs than others. You can't make those with fewer grow additional limbs. Do you suggest that those with a full set should have some removed to make sure everybody is equal?

[HeadingNorth]

Indeed, but they will be paying upfront (even if it is in the form of a loan), a sort of gamble that you will earn more.

 

Some people is society are better placed to take that gamble than others.

 

Since it's impossible to lose, there is no such thing as being better placed to take that gamble. It's not a gamble; you either land a well-paid job and pay for your education, or you don't and you don't.

[dell12]

That's life. Some people have more arms and legs than others. You can't make those with fewer grow additional limbs. Do you suggest that those with a full set should have some removed to make sure everybody is equal?

 

What i'm suggesting is that an individuals parental wealth or knowledge (or lack of) shouldn't impede their life chances.

 

The state should be doing it's up most to give each child an equal chance in life. Those who are poor and clever should do well, and those who are rich and stupid should do badly (and visa versa). This (proposed) reform will do little to achieve this.

[Guest sibon]

Except that it isn't. Poor people will never have to pay it back.

 

Despite all the expansion in Higher Education, the number of people from poorer backgrounds at Oxford and Cambridge stubbornly refuses to move. Is that because:

 

a) Poorer families breed stupider people

 

or

 

b) Poorer families have limited access to good quality education

 

or

 

c) Oxford and Cambridge are culturally biased against students from poorer backgounds?

[dell12]

Since it's impossible to lose, there is no such thing as being better placed to take that gamble. It's not a gamble; you either land a well-paid job and pay for your education, or you don't and you don't.

 

Well if you earn less than £15k you don't pay anything back (as it stands) and the debt is written off after 30 (?) years.

 

If you earn more than £15k you start to pay back the loan (plus interest) as a proportion of your salary.

 

A graduate earning £20k from Oxford will have to pay back more over time than a graduate earning £20k from Sheffield as the proposal stands. It will matter very much which university you go to.

[Guest sibon]

Why won't they be able to get a job and be sponsored to go to university? The present scheme doesn't provide pre-selection and sponsorships (well, it does - but the number of sponsorships is limited) but there is no reason why such provision should not be made.

 

My first job choice when I left school was 'Airline Pilot'. The training was not cheap and I certainly couldn't afford it. I got a sponsorship (along with a 5-year 'payback' contract.)

 

The country needs doctors and dentists. let the NHS interview and select suitable candidates, sponsor them through university and then require them to work for the NHS for a period of years. During that period, they would work for regular NHS salaries (they would be NHS employees, not contractors) and would be sent wherever the NHS needed them.

 

The country needs teachers. Let LEA's (or whichever body you have responsible for running the schools in a given region) select and interview appropriate candidates, sponsor them at university and then send them to work in schools which need the teachers.

 

 

 

Are there really that many people who will be able to afford the fees? I've no doubt there are many parents who are prepared to scrimp and go without to help their children go to university at present, but if there was an alternative method - a method which was affordable to the student, although required a 'payback' - how many of those parents would choose to ignore that and throw the money at their children anyway?

 

As for those who went to university without sponsorship being at the front of the queue, is that really the case? If you were an employer and you had a choice between somebody who you felt you knew - Somebody who you had interviewed and selected, somebody whose progress you had monitored for the past 3 or 4 years - and somebody who had walked in off the street with a piece of paper saying he/she was qualified - which one would you take?

 

My further education was free. To me. The taxpayer funded it. I hope that they got their money's worth. I think they did.

 

My first choice of job was to work as a fitter for the NCB, but that was sorted out by Mrs Thatcher. I went to a good University, with a grant and without paying fees. I ended up in a pretty well paid job, much better paid than my father, or mother. Without the state funding, I doubt that I'd be where I am now. That informs my employment choices, I could earn a lot more than I do, but I choose not to.

 

I really can't see companies paying for people to study any more. It would be a fantastic thing, but the whole world is just too mobile. Siemens are currently destroying small UK engineering firms in order to protect German jobs. Self interest, protectionism and short termism are back in vogue. We need our Government to take a lead. Attacking the most talented of our young people isn't the way forward.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Despite all the expansion in Higher Education, the number of people from poorer backgrounds at Oxford and Cambridge stubbornly refuses to move. Is that because:

 

a) Poorer families breed stupider people

 

or

 

b) Poorer families have limited access to good quality education

 

or

 

c) Oxford and Cambridge are culturally biased against students from poorer backgounds?

 

1. Are there any other choices? - could it be that poorer students suspect (rightly or wrongly) that life at Oxbridge will be more expensive than at other universities and are less willing to take the chance?

 

In (b) isn't the state education system free for everybody? There are certainly schools which provide only stripped-down syllabi, but that's hardly the fault of Oxbridge.

 

A significant number of the students who attend Oxford and Cambridge have 5 A levels at Grade A. Are students from poorer backgrounds forbidden to sit A level in 5 subjects?

 

Does the alleged Obxbridge cultural bias take precedence over Labour Diktät?

 

I don't know what's going on at those universities nowadays, but (certainly a few years ago) they were under considerable pressure to introduce a 'quota' system to recruit students based on family income.- Furthermore some schools complained (quite justifiably, IMO ) that their students were being discriminated against and were being denied places merely because their parents weren't poor.

 

About 25 years ago, a lecturer at Cambridge told his students: "There are two ways to obtain a place at this university. The first is to work very hard at school and to get very good grades in your 'A' level exams and the second is to arrive in a Red-and-White helicopter.

 

Some years later he told me: "That's all changed. There are still 2 ways to get in. One of them involves good grades at 'A' level, but the other requires you to come from a family which doesn't have a lot of money. - And the second entry method trumps the first."

[Rupert_Baehr]

What i'm suggesting is that an individuals parental wealth or knowledge (or lack of) shouldn't impede their life chances.

...

 

I'm not quite sure I understand that bit. Does it mean:

 

(a) An individual's parental wealth (or lack of) should not impede his/her life chances?

 

and does it mean:

 

(b) An individuals's parents' lack of knowledge should not impede his/her life chances?

 

Or does it mean:

 

© An individual's lack of knowledge should not impede his/her life chances?

 

In (a): An individual's parent's wealth (or lack thereof) is likely to have an affect on life chances. A child who does his/her homework in his/her own bedroom which has a desk and a chair is far better placed than a classmate who has to do his/her homework in the living room with a book on her/his knee and the TV blaring in the background.

 

That's not strictly down to lack of wealth. - The lack of a private bedroom in which to work may be down to money, but the TV sets in even the poorest of households do have an 'Off' switch and it's certainly possible to do homework sitting at the kitchen table. Parental interest (or lack thereof) may also play a part.

 

In (b) I agree that an individual's parents' lack of knowledge should not impede his/her life chances, but in © I suspect that it's very likely that an individual's lack of knowledge will have a severe adverse effect on that individual's life chances.

 

It's up to the parents (and the individual) to obviate problems in ©; it's not up to the rest of the world to ignore them.

[Nagel]

Despite all the expansion in Higher Education, the number of people from poorer backgrounds at Oxford and Cambridge stubbornly refuses to move. Is that because:

 

a) Poorer families breed stupider people

 

or

 

b) Poorer families have limited access to good quality education

 

or

 

c) Oxford and Cambridge are culturally biased against students from poorer backgounds?

 

The correct answer is all three. I don't know why you put or between them. All three statements are correct:

 

1.Poorer families do breed stupider people.

 

2.Poor families have limited access to good quality education.

 

3. Oxford and Cambridge are culturally biased against students from poor backgrounds.