Student protest, London 10 November

[willman]

Perhaps it might put some people off but it's not worth excusing saddling everyone else with debt and preventing those from poorer backgrounds going just for their sake?

 

Why should poor background matter - they pay it off AFTER they've qualified and got a big job not before.

The difference is probably the aspiration of the student from the relative backgrounds not the financials. I wouldn't want a 35k loan to be a greenkeeper or a dj, or an expert on The beatles. You don't need a degree for those jobs,they just devalue the qualification.

[Nemex]

How clear's clealy anyway? There's plenty of management level people in the workplace without degrees who could be replaced by better qualified graduates

 

Total and utter rubbish, I agree some professions require the academic knowledge that can only be obtained from a degree, but being a graduate does not automatically make someone better qualified, all it means is they studied, passed and now have a degree. It certainly doesn't mean they are eligible or even qualified to replace someone without a degree. That's an all too common snobbish arrogant attitude that comes with/from University education.

 

Just as an example, take mosts sections of the I.T. industry, a degree is viewed as having a basic grounding/theory knowledge/qualification. I.T. graduates are usually regarded as bottom of the ladder, trainees. To actually be viewed as 'qualified', you need to obtain professional industry qualifications in the relevant technology areas.

 

*To clarify I am University educated before anyone suggests otherwise.

[llamatron]

That's the crux of the matter isnt it, is paying 9% of everything you earn over 21k until you're 51+ reasonable on top of paying 20% income, 12% NI, 20% VAT, 4% state pension and 3-6% private pension?

 

where is your information from. Not having a go I want to read it.

[Bulgarian]

Just as an example, take mosts sections of the I.T. industry, a degree is viewed as having a basic grounding/theory knowledge/qualification. I.T. graduates are usually regarded as bottom of the ladder, trainees.

 

Thats mainly becasue they theoretically know how to do the job but thats not the same as actually doing it and gaining experience.

[Nemex]

Thats mainly becasue they theoretically know how to do the job but thats not the same as actually doing it and gaining experience.

 

Erm yeah I agree, but the point I was raising in my post was that just because someone has a degree, it doesn't mean in anyway that they are 'better qualified', and certainly doesn't mean they should or could replace people in existing positions who don't hold degree's, as the post I was responding to was suggesting.

 

As I said in my previous I accept certain positions require the academic knowledge obtained from a degree, but there seems to be a very generalised, snobbish, arrogant, attitude that a degree suddenly means that person can do a job better than someone doing the same job who doesn't have one, and that isn't the case for every profession.

[unuspromulti]

Total and utter rubbish, I agree some professions require the academic knowledge that can only be obtained from a degree, but being a graduate does not automatically make someone better qualified, all it means is they studied, passed and now have a degree. It certainly doesn't mean they are eligible or even qualified to replace someone without a degree. That's an all too common snobbish arrogant attitude that comes with/from University education.

 

Just as an example, take mosts sections of the I.T. industry, a degree is viewed as having a basic grounding/theory knowledge/qualification. I.T. graduates are usually regarded as bottom of the ladder, trainees. To actually be viewed as 'qualified', you need to obtain professional industry qualifications in the relevant technology areas.

 

*To clarify I am University educated before anyone suggests otherwise.

 

Sorry I didnt mean to imply that if you've a degree in something you're more qualified as that's often far from the case in the workplace, I meant generally speaking. Although, it is common to find graduates blocked by colleagues without that have reached their level of incompetence, check out the Peter Principle to see how I mean.

 

Regarding info, just around the normal news sites (BBC, newspapers etc). I can provide a link to specific bits if you like?

[mossdog]

Ah, social engineering at it's worst. Education in the UK is a right not a privilege.

Only till you leave school!

[mossdog]

So, student's spend all the cash in the pub do they? You really are grasping at straws.

My own son made himself ill with it at Cambridge!

[Conrod]

But its quite deserved for people who take crap lightweight degress to then become a secretary on 13k a year. Why waste time and money - perhaps more people will think seriously about the true purpose of further education.

Its not a 3 year gap break from finding a job, i recall people who were "professional students" when i was taking my degree.

My sentiments exactly.

 

Whether it was originally for reasons of masking unemployment, or just a misguided but well-meaning socialist ideal to give everybody access to higher education irrespective of their ability, the situation we have now with such a high proportion of people expecting a university education is ridiculous.

 

Degrees should be the career path for people who require specific vocational graduate qualifications for their chosen profession, or those whose leanings are entirely academic and will be best suited to an intellectual rather than a hands-skill career.

 

What we are doing now is funding the majority of undergraduates to take on a hobby for 3 years before they begin unrelated work.

[Nemex]

Sorry I didnt mean to imply that if you've a degree in something you're more qualified as that's often far from the case in the workplace, I meant generally speaking. Although, it is common to find graduates blocked by colleagues without that have reached their level of incompetence, check out the Peter Principle to see how I mean.

 

Regarding info, just around the normal news sites (BBC, newspapers etc). I can provide a link to specific bits if you like?

 

Fair enough, thanks. I agree with you when you say 'Although, it is common to find graduates blocked by colleagues without that have reached their level of incompetence'. I see this a lot too.

 

This is why (I posted several posts ago), personally I'd prefer to see the entire system radically changed into something along the lines of that someone obtains a position/placement with an employer first as a apprentice/trainee or something like that, on a rolling recruitment process, and then attends University to obtain the relevant degree for that position (which will mean they then take up a full time position with the employer once they have graduated).

 

Don't ask me how it would work, it's just an idea I have thought about, and I feel that would work far better as people are then being educated to degree level for the a position they have already secured and so it would address the issue of the large number of graduates who are unable to find positions relating to their studies.

 

Could also move some of the cost onto the employer, which wouldn't always be an additional cost to the employer. Reason for this is, we spend thousands training graduates anyway to bring them into line with industry and the world outside a classroom. If University education was led more from an employer and industry perspective, then we would have no need to train/retrain graduates as they will already be focused for the position/placement they secured prior to beginning the degree.

 

Massive radical change I know, but somethings got to change.