Delighted to see University applications down 9%..

[Michael_W]

The op has made a reasonable point, while the only employers creating jobs in any decent number are the likes of Tesco etc ...... why on earth do we need to educate so many people to degree level ?

This education, education, education stuff was always political hype and bull in the first place !

The real gainers from having so many students are the property landlords, some local businesses and drinking establishments

[Riannon]

I can't help thinking that there is a certain irony here. A unviversity education costs around £9,000 and it has to be paid for. It can be paid for by the people who benefit from that education as in England or from those who largely don't benefit from it as in Scotland. But one way or another there isn't a free lunch.

 

But 20 years ago far fewer people went to university and the country could afford to educate them. They left university and were able to pick up jobs requiring a university education and were then expected to earn more and thus pay back the costs through higher taxes.

 

Roll on 20 years and we can't afford to pay from taxation to educate the sheer numbers who go to university. Add to this that there aren't enough jobs for those emerging with a degree, particularly the less able students who just scraped through and you realise something is going wrong.

 

It might be a bit controversial but a way of paying for university could be through sliding scale fees based on a scolarship. People who got the best results in enterance exams got reduced fees and those who weren't university material would have to pay full whack. It might discriminate against thick people, particularly from less wealthy backgrounds, but I think they might be better off getting a job at 17/18 rather than waste 3 years failing a university course or emerging with a poor degree and no job.

[Krispon_TM]

I think the university / placement relationship is backwards. My education was almost the reverse of the traditional route. I studied for a total of nine years to qualify as an architect, I could have done it in seven years (including two years in practice), but I did the middle section part-time to allow me to work full-time in practice. That meant nine days at work for every one day at uni - that's a lot of experience compared to my peers, but it meant that I had to focus on studies in the evening and at weekends.

 

It was hard work, but you need to be willing to work hard to get where you want to be. I run my own practice now, but I wouldn't have been able to do that so early in my career without having years of experience under my belt to start with. I get applications from students who haven't even graduated and they tell me how great they are and completely forget to say that they're asking for work. I think determination is important, but it needs to be balanced with humility.

 

The problem students have now is getting placements. I really believe in mentoring young people rather than just lecturing them, but in order to do that we would need to see a lot more work coming in to justify expanding our staff levels, without them all being at risk of redundancy in a few months. We're still not 'out of the woods' in economic terms.

[Krispon_TM]

I should add to my previous post, that working full-time and studying part-time, I paid for the fees as I went and didn't amass a huge bill at the end.

[Mecky]

That is indeed the point.

 

Time for me to do the soap box 'have a go at the lefties' again, but it's apt here.

 

A generation or two ago, the only people who went away to study for a degree were those who were either academically gifted, or choosing a vocational degree as part of a subject-specific career path. Industry/academia's requirements were roughly balanced by the outputs of the universities, and we were all happy.

 

Then, along came the socialist anti-elitism concept of 'higher education for all', and we end up with many times more graduates being trained, many in frivolous subjects, but with not many more opportunities for graduate level employment and, even worse, with a lower standard of UK degree as the entire standard had to be lowered in order to make it accessible to more people.

 

The government got it badly wrong when they decided to make higher education a ‘right’. It should have remained a privileged based on academic ability – don’t forget that when fewer people went to university/polytechnic, the government could afford to give them free grants to study.

 

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was the Conservatives who expanded Higher Education with the conversion of polytechnics into universities in 1990/1991 who immediately offered vocational courses and also knowing full well that the move was financially unsustainable. Besides Cameron said not long back he wanted people to do vocational qualifications rather than academic, makes him look a hypcrite doesn't it?

[Riannon]

Correct me if I'm wrong but it was the Conservatives who expanded Higher Education with the conversion of polytechnics into universities in 1990/1991 who immediately offered vocational courses and also knowing full well that the move was financially unsustainable. Besides Cameron said not long back he wanted people to do vocational qualifications rather than academic, makes him look a hypcrite doesn't it?

 

I'm not really sure what point you are trying to make other than some sort of political points scoring. People who went to polytechnics ran up fees just the same as being at a university. The problem now is the number of students going to university.

I understand that 30 years ago Sheffield university & polytechnic combined housed around 8000 students. Now the 2 institutions attempt to house around 35000. I'm sure someone will correct those figures but I'm pretty sure they won't be too wide of the mark.

[TJC1]

I think the university / placement relationship is backwards. My education was almost the reverse of the traditional route. I studied for a total of nine years to qualify as an architect, I could have done it in seven years (including two years in practice), but I did the middle section part-time to allow me to work full-time in practice. That meant nine days at work for every one day at uni - that's a lot of experience compared to my peers, but it meant that I had to focus on studies in the evening and at weekends.

 

It was hard work, but you need to be willing to work hard to get where you want to be. I run my own practice now, but I wouldn't have been able to do that so early in my career without having years of experience under my belt to start with. I get applications from students who haven't even graduated and they tell me how great they are and completely forget to say that they're asking for work. I think determination is important, but it needs to be balanced with humility.

 

The problem students have now is getting placements. I really believe in mentoring young people rather than just lecturing them, but in order to do that we would need to see a lot more work coming in to justify expanding our staff levels, without them all being at risk of redundancy in a few months. We're still not 'out of the woods' in economic terms.

 

This is a problem. All except the largest employers can't afford to carry grads for a few months untill they learn the ropes.

 

I'm just starting to employ people and outsource, but I know of at least 1 Business with 10 employees that went into liquidation because certain members of staff were not capable of the job (after they said they were).

 

A PR writer was on £27k but couldnt write copy for sh@t. Another was on a good sales wage but couldnt pick up a phone. He could definately bullsh@t for England though.

 

An element of this is down to bad management, but most is down to people simply not investing in there own skillset or institutions not teaching the right content.

[MrSmith]

Ask a student why they're doing A-levels or GCSEs and the answer isn't likely to be to do with future employment, does that mean that the state shouldn't pay for those levels of education?

 

Any compulsory education should be paid for by the state.

[MrSmith]

Hi Everyone,

 

This is a really interesting thread - I think the variety in the responses reflects the bigger issue, i.e. that there is no 'one size fits all' route in education, because the nature of the UK workforce is that all jobs require different skill-sets.

 

I suppose I'm only qualified to talk about architecture and the construction industry (I work for an architectural practice), but we get speculative applications from graduates all the time - most of them have completed their degree or diploma at the University of Sheffield (which is a very good school), but the majority are ill equipped to produce drawings / specifications to a level where they could get anything built. That's not picking fault with Sheffield Uni, because most graduates are the same regardless of the school of architecture that they graduate from.

 

On that basis, you have to question the point of spending seven years at university to qualify as an architect, to then find that you can produce incredible concepts, but you're clueless when it comes to getting anything built. The Architects Journal just published information to say that UCAS applications for architectural courses are down 16%, so that's above the average drop.

 

I think the answer is a more vocational approach (as it used to be). I have to question the morality of universities taking on students to provide them with theory and not a useful level of practice - they'd no doubt respond that the students also get 24 months work experience, but that's only if they can find a placement - at the moment they can't! I'd like to believe that the universities aren't there just for financial gain, but the indications are otherwise. A lot of practices aren't in a position to provide training positions while fees are so tight and the construction industry is on its knees.

 

This is a good point, my son is a self taught accountant, and he passed all the relevant exams whilst working. The work he did for his studies bore no resemblance to the work he does as an accountant, he says that when a graduate starts work they are shocked that what have been taught for their degree is useless for the workplace.

[Riannon]

This is a good point, my son is a self taught accountant, and he passed all the relevant exams whilst working. The work he did for his studies bore no resemblance to the work he does as an accountant, he says that when a graduate starts work they are shocked that what have been taught for their degree is useless for the workplace.

 

I have just watched the BBC News where they highlighted the ridiculous situation regarding vocational GCSEs at schools. Some of these courses give the equivalent of 5 GCSEs to anyone taking part. It is little wonder that some folk arrive at university armed with a dozen GCSEs and no academic ability. It appears that nail technology (ie painting finger nails) gives a pupil 2 GCSEs on its own. The system has become a joke.