Inequality in Britain

[DJKillaQueen]

When I click that link I get this site:

http://intoxicologist.wordpress.com/2009/03/01/media-release-admiral-imports-appointed-exclusive-importer-of-antica-sambuca/

Are you sure you c&p'd the right page when you made the link? And what were you doing looking at a Sambucca sight? Checking to see if our wind up that black sambucca was stronger than white was really a wind up?

[Ladymuck]

Oh F-ck! (sorry Chair)

How in the name of...did that happen? That link was something I was going to post on the Footie Thread - I never got around to doing it. But what then has happened to my IFS link? Crikey, how embarrassing! Worse, it just goes to show that no-one has bothered to look at it LOL!

OK (*takes deep breath*).

For those who give a monkey's about the Institute of Fiscal Studies' analysis on higher education reforms: click here.

*crawls into nearest hole*

[legalbeagle]

But, though oft quoted by the Tories during the run up to the election, aren't we now told by none other than Vince Cable that the IFS aren't always correct, that their numbers are open to interpretation, that they often quote a "worst case scenario" that isn't necessarily right?

So that's good news. Students are actually loaded, no?

In my view policy should be to leave students alone, but encourage apprenticeship, vocational training, yts, type schemes so that universities aren't stuffed full of kids studying pointless courses that never lead to a high paying enough job for them to repay loans in the first place.......

[DJKillaQueen]

so that universities aren't stuffed full of kids studying pointless courses that never lead to a high paying enough job for them to repay loans in the first place.......

That's a good point until you come to the classics and other 'academic' subjects - many of those don't qualify the student for any kind of speicific job either. A Cambridge English Literature graduate may well become a journalist but in doing so will spend many years not earning enough to repay the loan. There is a case to say that University is as much about as studying something to a high level, for the continuation of knowledge in itself. You'll remember polytechnics. Their job was to provide more vocational degree courses, such as engineering or graphic design and so on.

It would be a great shame if things like History, Launguages, Fine Art, Philosophy and other academic subjects disappeared from our Universities because students felt they had to take courses that would best enable them to repay the loan. In my own case I did a degree and then followed that with a two year apprenticeship in my field. I would never have got onto the apprenticeship without the degree. And even then I was 30 before I earned anything like an average salary because the reality is that most jobs (including many professional jobs) never pay high enough salaries.

[david_carnell]

It would be a great shame if things like History, Launguages, Fine Art, Philosophy and other academic subjects disappeared from our Universities because students felt they had to take courses that would best enable them to repay the loan.

I don't think those are the degrees being talked about when people talk of "pointless" degrees. A degree in English from Cambridge is never going to be pointless is it?

But, and apologies if I hit anyone with this stray bullet, but a degree in Film and TV Studies from the University[sic] of Northampton (ranked 94th by the Guardian University guide) is, imo, a waste of both three years and ?10k in tuition fees. If you want to work in the media a job as a runner will be your entry point and you learn on the job. Whilst the time at the university is undoubtably useful for learning about "life" as well as your subject I'm not sure the state should be paying for it.

If university remained a preserve of the "intellectual elite", ensuring only small numbers of students gained highly valued degrees from respected institutions, then it could remain fully funded by central government.

Caroline Lucas, the Green Party MP, also makes the case for a tax on those businesses who will hire graduates and benefit from them as an alternative means of funding.

[DJKillaQueen]

If you want to work in the media a job as a runner will be your entry point and you learn on the job.

This doesn't get you anywhere either. This is a business I know inside out. People with the best jobs in TV/ Film either have unrelated degrees from good universities or they did the recognised film related degree courses (and there are around 15 such degree courses around the country) - National Film and Television School and so on. There are several one and two year on the job apprenticeships too where you need a degree to apply. Directors of photography, Editors, Production designers and so on do not start as runners.

Media degrees have become a soft target by those who know very little about film/tv/creative industry employment. Some are rubbish, just like some courses in English Literature are rubbish, but there are some that (whilst they may not give any kind of extensive practical knowledge in film or programme making) are excellent courses for would be journalists, writers and so on.

It's not the courses themselves at fault but the number of them on offer. We churn out far more graduates in that area than there are jobs in what is a niche industry in the UK....especially the film side of things.

[Ladymuck]

legalbeagle Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> But, though oft quoted by the Tories during the

> run up to the election, aren't we now told by none

> other than Vince Cable that the IFS aren't always

> correct, that their numbers are open to

> interpretation, that they often quote a "worst

> case scenario" that isn't necessarily right?

There are now similar mutterings about the IMF, the OECD...

hmmmmm.....

[david_carnell]

Some are rubbish, just like some courses in English Literature are rubbish

It's not the courses themselves at fault but the number of them on offer.

You can't have it both ways. Either the courses are rubbish or they're all fine and there are just too many? Which is it?

And you've basically just reached the same conclusion I highlighted....that there are too many graduates and not enough graduate jobs. Take away university status from old polytechnics, reduce degree numbers and breadth and concentrate the money on those students who are genuinely in the top 25%.

[DJKillaQueen]

I meant there are too many media degree courses compared to the jobs available in that sector.....

But some of the courses are not as good a others because they may not be as well equiped or might rely too much on theory over practise and so on. Media covers everything from web content and design through to feature film making so different courses will have emphasis on different things.

If we are talking TV and film courses, The National Film and Television School will give you three years of practical programme making (using top end equipment and dubbing theatres), with input from industry professions, balanced with lectures in film history, and theory etc.

Another degree course might only have video cameras and low tech film making equipment with little input from industry professionals, and an over balance of theory. Not hard to see which is the better course, the more likely to get you an assistant position in the industry and more likely to give you the contacts you need to get started, but also is going to be harder to get onto and will require a bit of talent. NFTS is the Cambridge of film degrees if you like.

[DJKillaQueen]

Take away university status from old polytechnics, reduce degree numbers and breadth and concentrate the money on those students who are genuinely in the top 25%.

That's how it was when I did my degree. But it's a difficult one, because it requires the assumption that only 25% of the public are capable of attaining a good degree. And I'm not sure that's true given the range of professions we now have and the wide range of skills and knowledge required.

[Ladymuck]

DJKQ Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It would be a great shame if things like History,

> Launguages, Fine Art, Philosophy and other

> academic subjects disappeared from our

> Universities because students felt they had to

> take courses that would best enable them to repay

> the loan.

Unfortunately this is already happening. For example, the University of Middlesex has proclaimed the closure of both its Philosophy and History Departments. Moreover, Sociology at the University of Birmingham and Politics at Liverpool John Moores' University have already been scapped. There are others. It is a matter for regret - I agree.

[Ladymuck]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> ...because it requires the assumption

> that only 25% of the public are capable of

> attaining a good degree. And I'm not sure that's

> true given the range of professions we now have

> and the wide range of skills and knowledge

> required.

I agree DJKQ: I may be wrong, but I think that the figure of 25% is probably arbitrarily a bit low. Notwithstanding this, I like your idealogy DC and believe you may have hit on something. However, there would have to be a concerted effort to ensure that such a system were genuinely for the "intellectual" elite, as opposed to the "financially privileged" as in days gone by. Something we seem to be struggling to properly implement. Imagine an education sytem of such excellence based entirely on merit/intellect - wouldn't that be worth writing home about!?

[DJKillaQueen]

And imagine a public school system of such excellence based entirely on merit/intellect as well. Any real effort to break inequality for future generations must surely include an end to any education system that gives opportunity based on parental affluence.

[david_carnell]

The 25% was arbitrary and is entirely flexible, but someone, somewhere has to investigate just how many graduates we really need.

I don't doubt that more than 25% of people are capable of getting a degree from some sort of university but one of the reasons to have a degree is, not so much what you learn being directly relevant to your future employment, but to differentiate yourself from the herd - to show you are part of the intellectual elite capable of learning to a high level. This should be something an employer would cherish.

These days you now have to gain post-graduate qualifications to do so, incurring further debt in seeming spiral of further study. We'll all have to be professors soon just to stand out. Ridiculous. Degrees are becoming a devalued currency.

The question of equality, as DJKQ and LadyM have noted, is that of access. The difficulty that the Labour Party realised is that whilst you have the public school system being awarded a disproportionate amount of university places it will distort up the chain. By aiming to send such vast numbers to university it was hoped to overcome this issue.

[DJKillaQueen]

We'll all have to be professors soon just to stand out. Ridiculous. Degrees are becoming a devalued currency.

This is very true.

[Ladymuck]

School leavers have a choice, to return to study or to look for a job. The problem now of course is that we have rising unemployment: employment is hard to come by (even for those with all manner of qualifications). So what do they do? Do they search for employment at a time when the labour market is in decline? Or do they go off and do a degree in an attempt to better their chances of securing that elusive job at the end of it? The decision is far from easy. I accept that undertaking a degree course, purely on the basis that immediate employment prospects are poor, is perhaps not a good reason, per se, to return to further education. But seriously, what are these young people supposed to do right now?

[Odyssey]

I think the choice is pretty obvious really. Those who can go to university should go, because it makes their chances of employment a lot higher.

[Ladymuck]

I don't think it is that obvious. Firstly, as we have seen above, students can end up debt ridden. Secondly, after having invested much in terms of time (usually 3 years) and money, a job at the end is by no means a certainty. And, if everyone obtains a degree, how can that degree increase a graduate's chance of securing employment? As per DC, you might need to be a professor in order to stand out. To me, it isn't that simple (or obvious) at all.

[DJKillaQueen]

Yeah but schoolchildren already know years before they do their GSCE's if they are working towards making it to University or not. So it's never really a choice they make at 18. But the cost might definitely be something that makes them change their mind at 18, or makes them reconsider what kind of degree they apply for.

[Ridgley]

I agree with Lady M it is not has simple as that, those who can afford to will go anyway the poorer students who are academically blessed will struggle or cannot afford to so we will be right back to the area where you have only the elite will go to the top university and the poor students will go to less capable one.

It is strange that some politicians in the last and this government had grants in there day to get them through there education but will deny others the same.

[DJKillaQueen]

It is strange that some politicians in the last and this government had grants in there day to get them through there education but will deny others the same.

Totally agree and I benefitted from the same full grant system, however many of them DIDN'T get grants as their parents were too wealthy.....which might explain why that arguement falls on deaf ears.

[Huguenot]

In 1980 there were 280,000 students in UK universities.

This year there will be about 2,100,000.

That's why the system is broken. If we only had 300,000 students in HE they could all have their tuition and grants paid by taxpayers.

If the students don't pay their fees, then the taxpayer is. Ridgeley if you're happy to pay for some young pisshead to spend 3 years studying golf course management then you're a better man than I.

[DJKillaQueen]

There's a degree course in golf course management?

[Ladymuck]

Huguenot Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Ridgeley if you're happy to pay for

> some young pisshead to spend 3 years studying golf

> course management then you're a better man than I.

Erm, I may be wrong, but I think Ridgley is a woman...

*snigger*

[Ladymuck]

Apparently so, DJ.

Incredible.