Labour has a policy of a large fraction of the population having degree level qualifications.

Personally I think this is silly. This is because I have met a fair number of people who say employers arent interested in their degrees because they dont actually qualify them to do a job. And so they often end up with jobs they could have had if they hadnt attended university.

So shouldnt we be encouraging people thinking of doing the less useful courses do do something else? (unless they are doing the degree because they want to learn for the sake of it which isnt usually true going by my peer group).

The cynic in me suggests that the more people that are encouraged to go to University, the less people there are in the labour market. So, at a stroke, unemployment figures are reduced by thousands because so many people are delaying starting work by three years. Clever, huh?

Originally posted by MrHelicopter
The cynic in me suggests that the more people that are encouraged to go to University, the less people there are in the labour market. So, at a stroke, unemployment figures are reduced by thousands because so many people are delaying starting work by three years. Clever, huh?

But it only gives a break for as long as you keep expanding places (else the number of graduates starts to equalise with the numebr of freshers and you get nowhere) And they cant expand forever....

only if you do mickey mouse degrees, some people need a degree to get into the kind of work they want to do.

way too many. Wouldn't ge a job if there were jobs requiring a degree to fill.

Basically. Go to uni. Get great life experience. Go into a job which requires no qualifications and find yourself 3 years behind your collegues. Have much debt.

Degrees are pretty worthless nowardays imo. Unless they are very specific or followed with Masters Degrees (which have become more easy to get on)

Originally posted by 1Man&hisBMW
only if you do mickey mouse degrees, some people need a degree to get into the kind of work they want to do.

Obviously. In fact I couldnt have got my job without my degrees.

and of course doing degree's help to give proof that you have experiance in certain areas of the work you plan to do... like I plan to get into programming / analyst work...

what do you think the chances would have been me leaving 6th form with my A levels and landing a programming job? even though I've been into computing since 10yrs old and programming in various languages since 14 there is still no way to get a decent job in it without a degree and some relevent experiance, by doing a sandwich course...

I'm off to do a work placement for my 3rd year, hopefully I will get offered a perminent job with them after my degree... wouldn't have got that opportunity if I hadn't done my degree... same as I wouldn't have learnt all the things I've learnt so far

Originally posted by xafier
and of course doing degree's help to give proof that you have experiance in certain areas of the work you plan to do... like I plan to get into programming / analyst work...

what do you think the chances would have been me leaving 6th form with my A levels and landing a programming job? even though I've been into computing since 10yrs old and programming in various languages since 14 there is still no way to get a decent job in it without a degree and some relevent experiance, by doing a sandwich course...

I'm off to do a work placement for my 3rd year, hopefully I will get offered a perminent job with them after my degree... wouldn't have got that opportunity if I hadn't done my degree... same as I wouldn't have learnt all the things I've learnt so far

well I was talking about the courses which dont help people get jobs....

I wish they'd bring back apprenticeships in useful trades like plumbing and joinery.

And too many graduates have too high expectations of the money in their first job - no work experience yet the average starting salary graduates expect is getting on for £20,000.

Originally posted by nightrider
Labour has a policy of a large fraction of the population having degree level qualifications.

Personally I think this is silly. This is because I have met a fair number of people who say employers arent interested in their degrees because they dont actually qualify them to do a job. And so they often end up with jobs they could have had if they hadnt attended university.

So shouldnt we be encouraging people thinking of doing the less useful courses do do something else? (unless they are doing the degree because they want to learn for the sake of it which isnt usually true going by my peer group).

Why not go one step further? Why not introduce an examination, say during junior schoool years. Let's call this exam The 11+ for sake of argument. A number of places will be reserved at certain schools, (let's call them grammar), where this elite can be educated. They will then have every prospect of continuing into higher education, and obtaining a university degree. That will not only discourage people from "doing the less useful courses", but actually prevent people getting to university in the first place! Problem solved!

Oh, yes, and all those who failed this 11+ exam can receive a minimal education. Let's not even think about encouraging them to do a degree course, "less useful" or otherwise.

Having failed my 11+, it took me 5 years of hard slog at night school to get my GSCEs in order to enter college, where I spent 4 years before I obtained my professional qualifications. Your suggestion, in line with Tory manifesto proposals, would write off another generation from ever having the chance to learn and obtain educational qualifications. I'd dearly have loved to have gone to university, just for the sake of an education that would have broadened my mind and expanded my knowledge.
It would have increased my earnings potential to boot.

But then nightrider, maybe you would have chewed at the idea of me, an 11+ failure, obtaining a university degree? Maybe you'd have decided that I could only have done a so-called micky-mouse degree course? Well if the Tories ever get back into office, they'll be another generation of wasted lives once again labelled no-hopers - doing jobs they would have done had they not been to university. But then, nightrider, how would you prevent such people getting to university? I know - let's have an examination, say during junior schools years...

it sounds like people think that the problem isn't too many people doing degree's, but rather too many people doing mickey mouse degrees rather than the degrees which will benefit them immediately on leaving.

Originally posted by Cyclone
it sounds like people think that the problem isn't too many people doing degree's, but rather too many people doing mickey mouse degrees rather than the degrees which will benefit them immediately on leaving.

it's not the actual degrees that are mickey mouse degrees, its the people doing them for the wrong reasons...

take a degree in some area of art, I dunno what the exact degree's are but say its a BA in Conceptual and Fine Art, and on that course they have to study past and current art, write essays and thesis on them and the history as well as doing their own art...

now that degree WILL be useful to someone who perhaps wants to get into a job which involves any form of non-animated art work, perhaps a concept artist or something?

but some idiot might just come along and think "ahhhh an art degree, I can probably get a degree in that easy!", and so they just arse their way through the course barely passing most of the stuff and eventually leave with a 3rd class degree...

I guess this is why I'm thankful for what my course contains as to be honest no mickey mousers could pass it, I can't really see anyone who's not interested in computers grasping or wanting to grasp Object Orientated programming or understand how pointers and stacks work... lol

anyways, a lot of degrees do have a purpose provided the right person is taking them for the right reason, Universities can't afford to do mickey mouse degree's because they still don't get the full amount from the government or tuition fee's and so they still have to raise a fair bit of money themselves, from area's like the engineering and computing departments...

an example, I've done some work with the engineering technicians at Hallam, they was letting me use the machines and tools so I could build my guitar... whilst chatting to them, which you do... find out they do stress tests and chemical tests and allsorts for various company's including BP, brittish rail etc... which is where they get lots of their money from to support what the government is being too arsey to give, the government doesn't even pay the amounts they make out apperently

While I was at university I had many freinds who choose to study a specific degree because it would lead to a job in that area. I also had freinds who completed things such as 'film studies' which I personally class as an odd choice as it would lead into an area that is alreay saturated with many people chasing a few jobs.

Strange that 4 years later the ones who studied the specific degress all have good jobs while the ones that did'nt have either ended back up at university or doing something that did not expect to be doing (but they appear to happy, if a little skint!)

When I advise my sixth formers, I'm all up for them doing what they want at university but I also make a point of making them understand that they will most likely leave with a debt of £10K+ so it makes sense to do a degree that will lead to a job that will allow them to progress quickly or has good starting pay, not lead to a job that they could do after leaving sixth form.

In the end it depends want makes you happy... a degree for me was a means to an end, I really was not too fussed about the learning at the time though now I'm a little older I would love to go back to study something for the interest and not for the sake of having to do it for the job I wanted.

Having said that University was fab and I'd reccommend anyone going!

Originally posted by nightrider
Labour has a policy of a large fraction of the population having degree level qualifications.

There was a time when a degree indicated that the holder excelled in the particular subject. Now it can sometimes (definitely not always) mean that they successfully survived 3 years slumming it on borrowed cash. There is nothing in just 'having a degree' that qualifies anyone to get a job. Specific degrees (mathematics, any engineering discipline, some kind of science, etc) are certainly more respected than, say, hairdressing or marketting. They indicate a distinction between the holder and the norm.

This dilution of the education system makes everyone equally rich; when everyone has a degree, nobody will have a degree.

in the long run (really long run) it would be nice to see everyone educated to university level.
Many of the problems we have in society are caused by poor standards of education, leading to unemployment, disenfranchisment and disengagement with the establishment.

of course society as a whole needs to be significantly more wealthy before university for everyone is possible (and also technologically more advanced).

Originally posted by Cyclone
of course society as a whole needs to be significantly more wealthy before university for everyone is possible (and also technologically more advanced).

what we also need to do is open more doors for people like myself that started doing worse in school because I was constantly bored and not learning anything, it ended up in me turning up to all my GCSE exams with no revision just as a challenge to see if I passed them all without effort... hmm... well, ok I did actually fail one, I got a D in technology :( but the rest were C's and A's...

we need a government that allows people to fast track easier, I was in a pretty crappy school, but there was still a small number of us that could have learnt so much more if we'd been given the opportunity...

I forgot which country it is, but there is a country in europe (I think its Finland?) whose University's are much more open, where you can pick lots of subject areas and study them in as much details or little as you like provided you cover enough range in many areas... something like that would be amazing I think, sometimes I get sick of being stuck in the same subject, sure I can spend some of my spare time studying Philosophy if I wanted, but it would be nice if I could easily do that and have it count towards my degree results!

Originally posted by xafier
and of course doing degree's help to give proof that you have experiance in certain areas of the work you plan to do... like I plan to get into programming / analyst work...

what do you think the chances would have been me leaving 6th form with my A levels and landing a programming job? even though I've been into computing since 10yrs old and programming in various languages since 14 there is still no way to get a decent job in it without a degree and some relevent experiance, by doing a sandwich course...

I'm off to do a work placement for my 3rd year, hopefully I will get offered a perminent job with them after my degree... wouldn't have got that opportunity if I hadn't done my degree... same as I wouldn't have learnt all the things I've learnt so far

I'm an analyst programmer and I haven't even got an A level, I got my experiance from going on a YTS, then when that finished the company took me on.

I think employers are more interested in actual experience these days, unless it's a job that realy requires certain qualifications like doctor, dentist, architect.

Originally posted by nick2
I'm an analyst programmer and I haven't even got an A level, I got my experiance from going on a YTS, then when that finished the company took me on.

I think employers are more interested in actual experience these days, unless it's a job that realy requires certain qualifications like doctor, dentist, architect.

Or teaching. I want to teach, but I can't until I've got a degree :rant:

Originally posted by Hook
Or teaching. I want to teach, but I can't until I've got a degree :rant:

Do you need a degree in teaching or a degree in the subject your going to teach, and what if you want to teach two subjects, do you need two degrees ?

Originally posted by xafier
like I plan to get into programming / analyst work...

what do you think the chances would have been me leaving 6th form with my A levels and landing a programming job?
A friend I went to school with went straight from school with no A levels into a programming/analyst job, and has been working for the same company for 20 years.
I went to University and studied Computing Science, and now work as a plumber/electrician.

I just think it's too easy to go to University, and that there's too much pressure to go to University. I don't agree with Lib Dem policy of scrapping tuition fees, and I don't agree with Labour's policy of 50% of the country going to University.

You don't need to go to University to get a good job, and some of my friends from school are doing vocational training, or apprenticeships that they want to do, but they were pushed by the schools into applying for University anyway, because that's society currently says you need to do to get a good job, and it's not accurate!

I think top-up fees are a good thing, and I think there needs to be some sort of body that regulates what a degree can be. I mean c'mon why on earth is there a David Beckham degree. Some of the courses UCAS turns up are just crazy and stupid.

I teach in higher education, and have taught at five Universities, both 'new' and 'traditional'. My honest opinion is that, on the one hand, as Red Robbo suggests, it is a noble thing to open the doors to socio-economic groups that previously simply were hardly represented. Perhaps there is a hidden agenda in that Justin, who studies Alcopop Studies at the Central University of Neepsend Tip Site, does not show up on the unemployment figures. Nevertheless, the idea is generally a humane one, if a trifle utopian, For example, I am not convinced that Blair's glorious plan for fifty per cent of the population educated to Degree level is realistic. In my experience, the figure does not reflect the level of academic ability in the general population.

On the other hand, as a tutor now working at a 'traditional' University, where the entrance requirements and expectations of students are [generally] higher than in the case of the former Polytechnics, I certainly do encounter students who do not possess the intellectual skills required of them. In a certain 'new' University I previously taught at, I regularly encountered students whose work was of GCSE standard. Their essays were purely descriptive narrative, with a complete absence of a sustained level of rigorous analysis. In terms of presentation, there were serious problems regarding their written style [clarity of expression, grammatical construction etc]. In terms of motivation, many would attend only sporadically at best. When pressed, they would often admit that their parents [these are adults, do not forget...] had strong-armed them into enrolling in the first place.

I honestly think that, in the case of some of the 'new' Universities, the entrance requirements are too low. The result is that unsuitable people get in, cannot cope, and 'drop out'. I am not disparaging the 'new' institutions per se [some perform well re their resources, and there are some outstanding departments], but I think they contain the greater number of 'unsuitables', based upon experience.

Perhaps some blame can be laid at the door of certain Access courses. I have been a Course-Director of one in my brief time in Further Ed, and the standard was easily equal to A level. Students I taught went on to do well as mature undergraduates. Sadly, in my experience, not all Access courses are good, and some are plainly inadequate. Students on such courses are patted on the head, told that they are 'academic', only to go on to fail at Degree level.

Xafier is correct too regarding the 'cheapening' of Degrees. It is often necessary to go on to Masters level in order to 'stand out'.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Why not go one step further? Why not introduce an examination, say during junior schoool years. Let's call this exam The 11+ for sake of argument. A number of places will be reserved at certain schools, (let's call them grammar), where this elite can be educated. They will then have every prospect of continuing into higher education, and obtaining a university degree. That will not only discourage people from "doing the less useful courses", but actually prevent people getting to university in the first place! Problem solved!

Oh, yes, and all those who failed this 11+ exam can receive a minimal education. Let's not even think about encouraging them to do a degree course, "less useful" or otherwise.

Having failed my 11+, it took me 5 years of hard slog at night school to get my GSCEs in order to enter college, where I spent 4 years before I obtained my professional qualifications. Your suggestion, in line with Tory manifesto proposals, would write off another generation from ever having the chance to learn and obtain educational qualifications. I'd dearly have loved to have gone to university, just for the sake of an education that would have broadened my mind and expanded my knowledge.
It would have increased my earnings potential to boot.

But then nightrider, maybe you would have chewed at the idea of me, an 11+ failure, obtaining a university degree? Maybe you'd have decided that I could only have done a so-called micky-mouse degree course? Well if the Tories ever get back into office, they'll be another generation of wasted lives once again labelled no-hopers - doing jobs they would have done had they not been to university. But then, nightrider, how would you prevent such people getting to university? I know - let's have an examination, say during junior schools years...

um , no I wouldnt. And I dont see where I suggested anywhere I would.

My point was society is encouraging everyone to go to university and people go laden with false ideas about the job oppurtunities that will open once they have a degree - I am referring to people doing so called Mickey Mouse degrees. I accept some people will do these because they just want to learn and that is fine, but the majority from my peer group seem to have gone purely to improve job propspects so a Mickey Mouse degree is not really worth their while doing.

Then at the end they enter the real world and find their job propsects are no better and they have a 10K+ debt to show for it. This happened to several of my friends and I dont think it is right and neither do they. They all say they wish someone had told them the truth about jobs and degrees before they went and then they would be better off.

Nothing to do with 11+.

Originally posted by timo
Xafier is correct too regarding the 'cheapening' of Degrees. It is often necessary to go on to Masters level in order to 'stand out'.

I'm not sure if I plan to do a masters, certainly not straight after my degree I wont... the only reason I chose to do a degree is because I got a lot of stick with people going, show me proof you can program and do what you say, so I show them some things I've wrote then its "show me a certificate that says it too", you cant win, they want experiance and some crappy certificate...

so I chose a sandwich degree, something that "proper" University's still aren't waking up to doing... a sandwich degree gives me the certificate that proves I know what I say I know, I get a year working for a company so a company can say I know what I say I know... and of course I've out talked every interviewer I've had the last 6 months when it's come to the technical side... I DO know what I'm talking about, its just a shame employers are so arsey!

Nightrider,
As a lecturer, I have had desperate students quizz me about the percentage of '2:1' grades awarded to my previous year's students in a module I teach. When I asked why they were so desperate to know, one replied that they were trying to ascertain whether or not I was a 'generous marker'. They were all thousands of pounds in debt, and felt that they could not 'take a gamble' with a module taught by a tutor who tended towards awarding a lower percentage of 'high' grades. One the one hand, part of me was irritated by their cheek. On the other, I can understand the way they are thinking...

Originally posted by nick2
I'm an analyst programmer and I haven't even got an A level, I got my experiance from going on a YTS, then when that finished the company took me on.

I think employers are more interested in actual experience these days, unless it's a job that realy requires certain qualifications like doctor, dentist, architect.

You are probably an exception Nick.

We for example (Capgemini) and most of the big 'blue chip' companies won't consider anyone except a graduate for a development role. At least without significant previous experience.

And thus it becomes a chicken and egg situation. You can't get the experience without getting the first job, which requires a degree.

Well, I'm taking what you might call a mickey mouse degree - people have certainly called it that to my face before. However, I really enjoy the degree I take and I try very hard at it. I'm not taking it for the career options at the end of it, I'm doing it to broaden my mind and challenge my intellect. In my spare time, I have a 16 hour a week part time job, I do a whole range of voluntary work, I exercise, I travel, I do debating and campaigning, and I've organised internships and work experience placements for every summer that I've been at Uni.

When I leave Uni, I believe employers will be snapping me up, regardless of my 'mickey mouse' qualifications, because I have a whole range of skills that I couldn't have got any other way. At university I've gained a confidence I don't believe I could have got any other way, that I believe will make my (gigantic) debt easier to pay off.

Yet still people scoff at me when I tell them what degree I'm doing. It makes me :rant: In my opinion I have a better chance of suceeding than someone who has done a law degree but absolutely nothing else. You can't generalise about these things! Uni offers a whole range of life broadening experiences that would benefit any person, IF they choose to take the initiative.

Also - since big tone has been in power he has done a damn sight more than the tories ever did to increase non academic courses for young people - apprenticeships, vocational training. His 50% increase in people going on to further education is supposed to be seen in the context of improving schools and a level standards, so that the only people who go to uni are those who really can string a sentence together!

Originally posted by kathythebean
Well, I'm taking what you might call a mickey mouse degree - people have certainly called it that to my face before. However, I really enjoy the degree I take and I try very hard at it. I'm not taking it for the career options at the end of it, I'm doing it to broaden my mind and challenge my intellect. In my spare time, I have a 16 hour a week part time job, I do a whole range of voluntary work, I exercise, I travel, I do debating and campaigning, and I've organised internships and work experience placements for every summer that I've been at Uni.

When I leave Uni, I believe employers will be snapping me up, regardless of my 'mickey mouse' qualifications, because I have a whole range of skills that I couldn't have got any other way. At university I've gained a confidence I don't believe I could have got any other way, that I believe will make my (gigantic) debt easier to pay off.

Yet still people scoff at me when I tell them what degree I'm doing. It makes me :rant: In my opinion I have a better chance of suceeding than someone who has done a law degree but absolutely nothing else. You can't generalise about these things! Uni offers a whole range of life broadening experiences that would benefit any person, IF they choose to take the initiative.

Also - since big tone has been in power he has done a damn sight more than the tories ever did to increase non academic courses for young people - apprenticeships, vocational training. His 50% increase in people going on to further education is supposed to be seen in the context of improving schools and a level standards, so that the only people who go to uni are those who really can string a sentence together!

you seem to be saying you will gain employment not through your degree, but via all your other stuff you have done. The people who I am talking about didnt do this other stuff. Maybe it has changed since my day (only 4 years ago) - do all your peers also do all these extracurricular things?

No, I will be able to gain employment through my degree as I will be able to apply for jobs that specify having a degree as part of the application requirements (which many of them do, if you look through the papers). I will also be able to apply for jobs specific to my degree.

Not all my contemporaries do take up these oppurtunities, in fact, many of them don't. I still think they are better off at uni than sitting around on the dole. Also, if they dont have much initiative they're not likely to be doing well in the 'real world', are they? (another phrase that drives me mad - come and live my life for a month then tell me whether it feels 'real'!)

To be honest, I'm not taking a contrary position to you - a lot of what you say makes sense. Just getting my rant off my chest :)

Kathy,
Out of interest, would you be prepared to tell us the subject you are studying?

Blair's plans will backfire because I do not think that the percentage of people with academic ability [to Degree level] is anywhere near fifty per cent. Were we to introduce a scholastic aptitude test, as sometimes used in the USA, thousands of people would not get within a million miles of higher education. Of course, there would be accusations of elitism, middle class bias, cultural bias, bourgeois hegemony [groan] etc, etc.

Unfortunately, we live in the age of credentialism, where we are judged by our certificates. Cyclone is right regarding the insistence of Degrees [he mentioned 'blue-chip' companies] for so many jobs these days. I once saw a refuse collector job advertised in the Nottingham Evening Post, which required applicants to have been, 'educated to A level standard'. In God's name why?!

Originally posted by Cyclone
You are probably an exception Nick.

We for example (Capgemini) and most of the big 'blue chip' companies won't consider anyone except a graduate for a development role. At least without significant previous experience.

And thus it becomes a chicken and egg situation. You can't get the experience without getting the first job, which requires a degree.

he is definitly an exception, and this is EXACTLY why University's should offer sandwich courses and why I think it's bad to go to the old University's like Sheffield and Oxford etc for computing...

with a sandwich course you get the degree and the experiance... of course, creating a nice little portfolio of software you've written/designed in your spare time and coming accross well in interviews also really helps :)

this is why I love Sheffield Hallam, they have an EXCELLENT track record with a lot of big company's for turning out well rounded sandwich degree students, I've been to a few interviews in the past for placements and the interviewers have said that Hallam students are the top of their list automatically, one of which was Eli Lilly a huge pharmacuitical company... the other was Sun Microsystems...

Capgemini?? I'm sure I've applied there this year for a placement? hmm... ah well I've got one now anyways :)

Originally posted by nick2
Do you need a degree in teaching or a degree in the subject your going to teach, and what if you want to teach two subjects, do you need two degrees ?

You can do a teaching degree which basically covers the different subjects, although you may specialise in one subject. Or you can do a different degree such as Maths or English, and then do a PGCE course after your degree.

I think it is silly of the Government to want 50% of people to go to University. They should make it accessible for those who want a career which needs a degree, but they should also concentrate on setting up apprenticeships for people who want to pursue a career which doesn't need a degree.

Originally posted by kathythebean
No, I will be able to gain employment through my degree as I will be able to apply for jobs that specify having a degree as part of the application requirements (which many of them do, if you look through the papers). I will also be able to apply for jobs specific to my degree.

No, not all my contemporaries do take up these oppurtunities, in fact, many of them don't. I still think they are better off at uni than sitting around on the dole. Also, if they dont have much initiative they're not likely to be doing well in the 'real world', are they? (another phrase that drives me mad - come and live my life for a month then tell me whether it feels 'real'!)

Well my year group already graduated and employers simply werent interested in degrees that werent specific in what they qualify you for (e.g. engineering or science etc). The people that found graduate work were the scientists/medics/engineers/lawyers. The people that couldnt were the people that did fine art/history/film studies etc. And they all said the degree would get them a job too.

Originally posted by kathythebean
No, I will be able to gain employment through my degree as I will be able to apply for jobs that specify having a degree as part of the application requirements (which many of them do, if you look through the papers). I will also be able to apply for jobs specific to my degree.

Not all my contemporaries do take up these oppurtunities, in fact, many of them don't. I still think they are better off at uni than sitting around on the dole. Also, if they dont have much initiative they're not likely to be doing well in the 'real world', are they? (another phrase that drives me mad - come and live my life for a month then tell me whether it feels 'real'!)

To be honest, I'm not taking a contrary position to you - a lot of what you say makes sense. Just getting my rant off my chest :)

I lived the student life for 3 years (with a sandwich year). It's a far cry from working for a living.
I didn't do much of the extra things you're talking about. I was in a martial arts club, joined the Marines Reserves and that was about it.

I still spent so much free time doing very little and/or drinking it's nearly unbelievable.
The experience of living away from home helps prepare you for "the real world", but it's not the same thing.

Cyclone - I'm not going to go into detail, but I do know about the real world, not all students are the same you know. (I DO work for a living - all term time and all holidays)

Cheers, nightrider, thats great, thanks. Might as well just give it up now, eh?

Grrr.

Originally posted by kathythebean
Cyclone - I'm not going to go into detail, but I do know about the real world, not all students are the same you know. (I DO work for a living - all term time and all holidays)

Cheers, nightrider, thats great, thanks. Might as well just give it up now, eh?

Grrr.

Please dont shoot the messenger :)

And no you shouldnt give it up. I thought you said you enjoyed the degree, so you will be getting something worthwhile irrespective of what happens afterwards.

I am all for people doing degrees because they just want to learn. But in my experience you are the exception,not the norm. Most people are there simply to advance job prospects (at least when I was at uni this seemed to be the case) and in this case they should have been properly informed on the job propspects prior to starting the degree.

Originally posted by nightrider
Well my year group already graduated and employers simply werent interested in degrees that werent specific in what they qualify you for (e.g. engineering or science etc). The people that found graduate work were the scientists/medics/engineers/lawyers. The people that couldnt were the people that did fine art/history/film studies etc. And they all said the degree would get them a job too.

can't speak for my peers, I was at a uni that only did non artsy stuff.
But I can speak for my company. We employ people with specific relevant degree's only.
It used to be any degree, but it was tightened up to IT degrees about 5 years ago.

Originally posted by Cyclone
You are probably an exception Nick.

We for example (Capgemini) and most of the big 'blue chip' companies won't consider anyone except a graduate for a development role. At least without significant previous experience.

And thus it becomes a chicken and egg situation. You can't get the experience without getting the first job, which requires a degree.

I don't think I'm an exception, I've worked with loads of programmers with no formal qualifications, infact we have just taken someone on who use to be a chef.

Companies who only take on people with degrees (I think) are seriously limiting themselves and missing potentialy excellent workers.

When I worked for Kennings we took people on just because they were enthusiastic and could write a simple test BASIC program, some of those people were brilliant programmers.

Well I finished Sheffield Hallam last year, and I am yet to find a job in the field I'm qualified in and am working for minimum wage. Companies aren't interested in my degree, it's experience in the field they're after. How you get experience in the first place is beyond me.

Originally posted by Sidla
How you get experience in the first place is beyond me.

There must be courses that involve placement in a real company ?

Originally posted by nick2
There must be courses that involve placement in a real company ?
My course did offer that, but there were a number of problems. You had to find your own placement and there were only a limited number available. I'd already worked for 2 years prior to going to uni, so decided I wanted to go straight through.

Anyway, why do companies take on placement students if they're not going to take on fully graduated students?

Originally posted by nick2
I don't think I'm an exception, I've worked with loads of programmers with no formal qualifications, infact we have just taken someone on who use to be a chef.

Companies who only take on people with degrees (I think) are seriously limiting themselves and missing potentialy excellent workers.

When I worked for Kennings we took people on just because they were enthusiastic and could write a simple test BASIC program, some of those people were brilliant programmers.

That's what the industry used to be like, so yes anyone who's been working for 10 years now may well not have a degree.

I bet you don't meet many people who've started in the last year or 2 (or probably 4 or 5) who don't have a degree.
We aren't seriously limiting ourselves. We are simply narrowing the criteria because there's no way we want to spend the time looking at inappropriate cv's or even worse interviewing people who can't hit the ground running when better people are available. (Better in the sense that we can start utilising them within a few months).

Originally posted by Sidla
Well I finished Sheffield Hallam last year, and I am yet to find a job in the field I'm qualified in and am working for minimum wage. Companies aren't interested in my degree, it's experience in the field they're after. How you get experience in the first place is beyond me.

Thinking about it most of my engineering friends did work placements in their degrees. But most scientists dont and they all get jobs still (e.g. in physics people tend not to do work placements but the unemployment rate of the graduates is very very low). What degree did you do?

Originally posted by Sidla
Anyway, why do companies take on placement students if they're not going to take on fully graduated students?

To "groom" them, they also use it to see who's any good in an actual work environment, then when they graduate they offer them a job.

Originally posted by nightrider
Thinking about it most of my engineering friends did work placements in their degrees. But most scientists dont and they all get jobs still (e.g. in physics people tend not to do work placements but the unemployment rate of the graduates is very very low). What degree did you do?
Computer Network Engineering

Nick,
I agree with you re companies who ignore talented people [like yourself] without degrees. A friend of mine got into pc programming through a scheme, now makes a lot of money doing the same in Seattle, and like you, didn't go to University. However, I do think that Cyclone is correct, on the whole. The trend is towards graduates in the majority of high status, high salaried and pensionable jobs. Like I said earlier, we live in the age of credentialism.

In my case, I wanted an academic career, so I had no option but to embark upon Degree, Masters, Phd, publishing etc. That is absolutely correct for my field. However, when I read of refuse collectors expected to have A levels, Bank 'Customer Service Managers' expected to possess Degrees etc, I cannot help but think that things have gone too far. Perfectly good people are being excluded from fields they ought to stand a chance in. When I hear talk of a future, 'Graduate Workforce', a terrible dread is born...

So my degree won't be worth anything, because its not engineering or law? Even with all the other stuff I've been doing? Is that honestly what you all think, cos I know its what lots of people think about what I'm doing.

But it doesn't really matter, because one day I'll rule the world, then everyone will be going "blimey, didn't think she had it in her", but it will be too late, you'll all be under the rule of the almighty BEAN :)

I would rather be 'under the rule of the almighty bean' than live for much longer in Blair's 'young', 'cool' New Britain.

Slightly off-topic, but just had the pleasure of listening to Mr Blair on Jeremy Vine's show. Maybe it's down to too much electrioneering, but he seemed to be really struggling for answers - particularly when callers were asking about secondary education. He just kept blethering on about "yes, but don't you think primary schools are great". Hmmm, they may be, but we aren't really employed/accepted into FE based solely on stuff you were taught before the age of 11.

So maybe that will answer the opening point - give it 10 years or so and no-one will be clever enough!

Originally posted by feargal
Slightly off-topic, but just had the pleasure of listening to Mr Blair on Jeremy Vine's show. Maybe it's down to too much electrioneering, but he seemed to be really struggling for answers - particularly when callers were asking about secondary education. He just kept blethering on about "yes, but don't you think primary schools are great". Hmmm, they may be, but we aren't really employed/accepted into FE based solely on stuff you were taught before the age of 11.

So maybe that will answer the opening point - give it 10 years or so and no-one will be clever enough!

They will just make the degrees easier. Actually for physics they already did this because physics A-level has dropped to such a low standard. My first year exams at uni had easier questions than some 1970's o-level physics exams which I have seen!

Originally posted by kathythebean
So my degree won't be worth anything, because its not engineering or law? Even with all the other stuff I've been doing? Is that honestly what you all think, cos I know its what lots of people think about what I'm doing.

But it doesn't really matter, because one day I'll rule the world, then everyone will be going "blimey, didn't think she had it in her", but it will be too late, you'll all be under the rule of the almighty BEAN :)

that's not what anyone has said. You're degree has worth to you. It's just that prospective employers may not value it quite so highly.
Of course all the extra curricular stuff certainly won't help. It shows enthusiasm, self motivation etc...

There are still companies that have graduate schemes where the requirement is simply a 2:1 or 2:2 or better. Of the top of my head I think boots offer this sort of scheme.

Originally posted by nick2
I don't think I'm an exception, I've worked with loads of programmers with no formal qualifications, infact we have just taken someone on who use to be a chef.

Companies who only take on people with degrees (I think) are seriously limiting themselves and missing potentialy excellent workers.

I think it depends on the company really, sure there are people out there that haven't worked in computing or programming that can pick it up and learn it well... but its going to be a lot harder to find the right person and more money and time training them than say picking someone who's done 4 years of programming and design work!

personally I'm extremly adapt when it comes to programming, I'm an excellent debugger, I'm really great and spotting errors, logical and syntax... programming is just my forte, it's what I do best... surely any company would rather take someone like me, who can learn the syntax of a new language and be programming in it in a day or two than someone who's going to take maybe a month or two to train up...

like the placement I've landed for this year... I openly admitted that I'd never used C# which is the language they're using for the project I'll be working on, but I explained how well I work with programming and understanding new languages, I'd shown them some of my work in my first interview, they quizzed me to death on technical stuff at the first interview, quizzed me to death about my working skills and personality at the 2nd interview... and I had a call within 2hrs of the 2nd interview offering me a job :D

extremly fast learning programmer, or a chef? I know what I'd pick... lol

Originally posted by xafier
extremly fast learning programmer, or a chef? I know what I'd pick... lol

The guy worked as a chef, but he did programming in his spare time.

Originally posted by nick2
The guy worked as a chef, but he did programming in his spare time.

well I would hope so, employing someone that didnt have a clue would be a really bad choice ;) but I've found a lot of self taught people (myself included) can pick up some bad habits or neglect to learn certain areas... this is where University or some sort of course can help matters

anyways, gotta get my butt off this forum, I'm trying to sodding get this collision detection class finished in my game :( I really hate direct x, its the worst thing EVER!

Originally posted by timo
I would rather be 'under the rule of the almighty bean' than live for much longer in Blair's 'young', 'cool' New Britain.

Oh yes timo it will be far better than that. Everyone will wear big colourful hats (except those that really don't want too), and there will be free steak and beer on tuesday nights (aubergine bake or something for the veggies!), and no-one will have to go to uni or otherwise because no-one will have to work because we'll all spend all day fishing and racing go-karts and watching silly DVDs and fingerpainting. Oh yeah.

(Cyclone. You're = you are. You mean 'your degree')

*ducks flying objects from cyclone's direction*

:)

xafier,
my mate, 35 years old earns top programming dollar and is almost completely self taught. He started with a degree in Electronic Engineering, which is not entirely unrelated, and you do a bit of programming when you do that, but you don't go right up to date.
Later he spent a lot of spare time improving and learning the ins and outs of the latest schemes, codes and languages himself. He spends quite a lot on text books. And now he is the head programmer in a local company.

They often take on graduates to work in design or web team, but they are often lazy and not punctual, and often get sacked after a few months. It's one thing getting the qualification, you need a great work ethic to survive as a programmer. They have taken on people in the past who weren't up to it despite apparently having relevent programming qualifications. Unfortunately the directors were more impressed with the chat of some of these people than the details of their exaggerated qualifications which turned out to be out of date.

I would agree that there are far too many people nowadays with pointless degrees. When I used to work at Crookes until january. I met loads of young graduates who had 3rd class degrees in philosophy, art and other things, who worked as receptionists, or call handlers and had few prospects of decent careers. They all have rediculous debts between 10-20k and many of them have little prospect of getting mortgages. They are p*ssed of and demorilised and wish that they hadn't wasted all those years.

Meanwhile I have other more practical friends who I have known for years, who earn more money, and some of them are more intellegent despite no post-school formal education at all.

The reason I went on to University was because I wasn't ready to start working and believed I could achive a little bit more to get me higher up the ladder to start. I had really good prospects for decent employment already, but I thought I could do a little bit better. Which it did, I was right. However I chose to go on a course which had one of the highest prospects of work after graduation.

Nowadays, I feel that some young people feel that the student life is more of a rite of passage, and they don't think too hard about how they can make themselves useful to an employer in the long run. I have selected and interviewed people, and am often astounded at how little thought some people give to this.

I had a lodger staying in my house about 5or6 years ago, he was doing seemingly constant resits on an Engineering degree. But he never went in to college, was lazy and the biggest waste of space I ever met in my life. He had a part time bar job, and used to get up at tea time every night and stay up until dawn. Despite all this, he thought the world owed him a living and was extremely loud and opinionated, after paying rent he would spend all the rest on booze and fags. He shouldn't have been doing a Degree, in the long run he's wasted 5 years at the begginning of his 20s. There was no way on earth he would have passed, and if he did I would doubt that he could have held a job down after adopting sutch an alco-doley lifestyle for so long.

Sure, you say nowadays, but hasn't this always been the case? The difference is that now we pay for it, not the taxpayer. Maybe if everyone 20 years ago who spent their uni life sat round on the dole smoking dope had tried a bit harder the government would think it was worth educating wasters like us and we'd still have grants! (I know, my logic's gone off round the roundabout and left at the lights on that one!)

It is surprising the amount of people nowadays who don't know that students have loans instead of grants.

I also know a lot of people who think they're going to walk out of uni with a third class marketing degree and "work for a big firm, or sumthin, i dunno, there's loadsa stuff, innit". But to be honest, thats their own fault.

I think there is a hell of a lot of nonsense talked about University.

Going to University was obviously ecoming ever more popular for whatever reason.

So the government thinks, right, we can't afford to be seen to be subsidising all this - so what we do , we make you pay for it. And the justification for this - they claim that graduates do so much better in the job market that they can afford to pay for it.

This may have been true once for a limited number of graduates, but I don't think it is any more.

If we want to have universities admired the world over it is something that needs to be invested in, and possibly the best way to do that is to ensure only the brightest and most appropriately talented people go to university (those who will actually get something out of it)

Unfortunately, we live in a capitilistic society where the philosophy is - if it doesn't pay for itself, it isn't worth it.

the average salary earnt by graduates is still higher than that of non graduates (don't bother with anecdotes please, I don't care). So the argument that graduates get better jobs must still be correct (on average).

kathy - A good job my programmatical grammar is a little more rigourous than my English, eh?

muddy - lazy and not punctual. Sounds like you seriously need to revise your recruitment practices.

Originally posted by Cyclone
the average salary earnt by graduates is still higher than that of non graduates (don't bother with anecdotes please, I don't care). So the argument that graduates get better jobs must still be correct (on average)

You do have a knack of dismissing opinions out of hand.

I am not disputing that a graduate can earn more money. I am just saying that the amount it costs and the benefit you get is becoming less and less balanced.

Originally posted by Yodameister
You do have a knack of dismissing opinions out of hand.

I am not disputing that a graduate can earn more money. I am just saying that the amount it costs and the benefit you get is becoming less and less balanced.

well, i probably agree I think.
It has become more expensive. And the benefits have eroded.

I don't have evidence either way to say whether overall it's better to go or not financially, apart from what i've previously seen, which (probably historically) showed that it clearly was benefical.

Originally posted by Cyclone
well, i probably agree I think.
It has become more expensive. And the benefits have eroded.

I don't have evidence either way to say whether overall it's better to go or not financially, apart from what i've previously seen, which (probably historically) showed that it clearly was benefical.

Yes.

The point I was thinking was that because in some cases a degree can improve your earning power the government started thinking that in all cases it is right for people to pay for their higher education

Originally posted by Yodameister
Yes.

The point I was thinking was that because in some cases a degree can improve your earning power the government started thinking that in all cases it is right for people to pay for their higher education

ah I see. A good point.

Originally posted by Cyclone
ah I see. A good point.

Thanks.

And I don't want to labour the point, but I *think* that's what I said first time!

just think, when was the last time you were told that someone should pay tuition fees from 4-16 because the job prospect improvement is so good.

Originally posted by Yodameister
just think, when was the last time you were told that someone should pay tuition fees from 4-16 because the job prospect improvement is so good.

umm... people that send their kids to private schools to educate them better than the mainstream schools?... you dont HAVE to do that, but it will surely improve you (apperently) than if you went to a mainstream school.

Originally posted by xafier
umm... people that send their kids to private schools to educate them better than the mainstream schools?... you dont HAVE to do that, but it will surely improve you (apperently) than if you went to a mainstream school.

Well, you'd think that they get something better for their money. I have my doubts, I think a lot of it is pure snobbery.

Originally posted by Yodameister
Well, you'd think that they get something better for their money. I have my doubts, I think a lot of it is pure snobbery.

they get smaller class sizes, more one and one time, teachers that have been vetted much better so they are hopefully much better teachers...

personally I can see good sides to private schooling... but sticking a bunch of rich kids together is bound to breed in snobbery, selfishness and stuck up gits... intelligence isn't much good if your a complete asshole!

Originally posted by xafier
they get smaller class sizes, more one and one time, teachers that have been vetted much better so they are hopefully much better teachers...

personally I can see good sides to private schooling... but sticking a bunch of rich kids together is bound to breed in snobbery, selfishness and stuck up gits... intelligence isn't much good if your a complete asshole!

Well the debate over private schooling is another one really

The point of this debate is that there is no totally state funded higher education any longer (in England and Wales)

My preferred solution would be a selection on who should go to University based wholly on aptitude and how suited they are to continued academic study, and to those people who's parents cannot afford it there should be financial assistance.

Originally posted by xafier
to private schooling... but sticking a bunch of rich kids together is bound to breed in snobbery, selfishness and stuck up gits...
to be honest xafier,
nearly 20 years ago when I was at Sheff Poly we were constantly told that we were in the top 10% all the time, I think that is just about the same thing. And by implication that is the mistaken perception that some people have about getting a degree. That it will make them better than other people. It won't.

Originally posted by Yodameister
My preferred solution would be a selection on who should go to University based wholly on aptitude and how suited they are to continued academic study, and to those people who's parents cannot afford it there should be financial assistance.
Exactly. They should fail more people on the first year if they look like they are heading for a third or less. Instead of letting less capable/immature people punish themselves for another 2-3 years. Maybe even have the first year free of course fees, so that you don't disadvantage people too much if they aren't cut out for it.

Originally posted by muddycoffee
Exactly. They should fail more people on the first year if they look like they are heading for a third or less. Instead of letting less capable/immature people punish themselves for another 2-3 years.

I agree. I went back to university in 2003 as a mature student. There were some real scumbags there who made no effort in their assignments and just showed up to get their name on the register and then left after an hour.

Yet, in September 2004, there they were on the second year, doing the same as before.

I've followed this debate with interest.

nightrider - the point in my earlier post was to get you to think about how you would restrict the number of the applicants going to university. At the same time, I was hoping you'd appreciate the inequity of such a system.

yodameister - argues that only the brightest should go to university, so that our universities have status in the world. The logic of this argument is that we then educate an even smaller elite, who will, likely as not, go off to work abroad (where their university degree is going to be appreciated so much).

timo - whilst I think you are being unduly pessimistic about the government's drive to increase the numbers going to university, you do make sense to me in one respect. That is over the access level. There must be minimum entrance qualifications, and standards should be monitored.

nick2 - pleased to hear that there are some firms still wishing to employ people according to ability and aptitude, rather than solely relying on paper qualifications.

Some entrants will choose a degree that is clearly going to lead to a job upon graduation. Others will choose a degree course simply to broaden the mind. I personally couldn't understand why an acquaintance of mine should choose to study theology -especially as she was not thinking of being ordained as a vicar. However, she has enjoyed her degree course, graduated last year, and has obtained a well paid job in broadcasting. But theology? Is this what some posters would regard as a micky-mouse degree?

There will always be some entrants who lay back, take it easy, and not properly apply themselves to a degree course. I accept that such time-wasters exist. They should not be used as a reason not to expand places in higher education. If they do not meet the standards of the course, they should be failed and turfed out of university.

"Education, education, education" the Prime Minister famously intoned. He clearly meant it. You've only got to look around Sheffield to see the incredible number of new schools, and the increased number of teachers and teaching assistants. It is only logical therefore for the goverment to expand the number of places available in higher education - and thus improve the qualifications of the general workforce in the process. Increasing the number of university places allows opportunity for the many, and not the elitist few.

Well I think theology is an excellent example of the kind of degree that I'm doing - it won't necesarily take you straight into a job, but it could be argued that the country benefits from having people studying that kind of thing.

redrobbo - I'm a little disppointed you didn't have a comment for me :)

I love it when you make some seperate arguments and they get amalgamated into one by someone trying to make you look foolish.

Originally posted by redrobbo
"Education, education, education" the Prime Minister famously intoned. He clearly meant it. You've only got to look around Sheffield to see the incredible number of new schools, and the increased number of teachers and teaching assistants. It is only logical therefore for the goverment to expand the number of places available in higher education - and thus improve the qualifications of the general workforce in the process. Increasing the number of university places allows opportunity for the many, and not the elitist few.

Not neccesarily - increasing the number of university places can also simply lower the standards across the board. In the majority of cases degrees are only usefull if you academically inclined and/or interested in the subject you are studying and are rarely actually required for non academic persuits. "Encouraging" everyone to go to university doesn't actually increase opportunities - employers simply ask for a degree for those jobs that a few years ago would have asked for A-levels leaving those who don't go to university with fewer opportunities.

Personaly I would like to see a bit more elitism in universities rather than less - universities should be there for the academically inclined to go on and follow academic persuits - not everyone is academically inclined so why force them into university to stand any chance of a reasonable job?

Originally posted by kathythebean
Well I think theology is an excellent example of the kind of degree that I'm doing - it won't necesarily take you straight into a job, but it could be argued that the country benefits from having people studying that kind of thing.

redrobbo - I'm a little disppointed you didn't have a comment for me :)

Well kathythebean, I actually deleted part of my post relating to your comments. I did this because on pre-viewing my post, I thought it was too long.

However, your arguments didn't seem to require my support, as they stand on their own merits. My viewpoint concurs with the central thrust of your argument - education for the sake of education. Along the way, you are also getting life experiences - and you'll find an employer willing to consider a broader picture of a prospective employee than just paper qualifications. Every best wish with your degree kathythebean. :thumbsup:

Originally posted by redrobbo

However, your arguments didn't seem to require my support, as they stand on their own merits. My viewpoint concurs with the central thrust of your argument - education for the sake of education. Along the way, you are also getting life experiences - and you'll find an employer willing to consider a broader picture of a prospective employee than just paper qualifications. Every best wish with your degree kathythebean. :thumbsup: [/B]

Cheers mate :)

Red Robbo,
Glad you agree with me regarding the variable quality of some Access courses. However, having taught in both 'new', and traditional Universities, and FE colleges, I do not think that I am being 'unduly pessimistic' about the percentage of the population possessing academic ability. To reiterate, it is nowhere near as high as fifty per cent in my experience.

Evildrneil,
I agree with you re the need for more, rather than less, elitism in Universities. This should be in relation to intellectual ability not student social background.

Kathythebean,
Good luck with your studies!

Originally posted by redrobbo
I've followed this debate with interest.

nightrider - the point in my earlier post was to get you to think about how you would restrict the number of the applicants going to university. At the same time, I was hoping you'd appreciate the inequity of such a system.

.

Well I dont see a need to select at 11+. The selection can be done at 18, as it is now. I simply dont believe 50% of jobs require degree level education. Therefore we should not send 50% of the population to university - unless 50% want to learn for learnings sake (which I doubt is true from the people I met at university).

Also if we reduce the numbers at university we could bring back the grant system to make it easier for poorer people to go (though I am now hearing for example if you select physics or other more academic subjects that the country has a shortage of graduates from then you get the tuition fees paid automatically so this may not be an issue for academically gifted students) - the tax payers arent (and wont I presume since taxes would have to be increased presumably?) paying for 50% which is part of the reason why we ended up with tuition fees instead of grants.

well the problem with any sort of selecting upon academic achievment is how do you rate intelligence?

sure you can just go on A levels, but A levels along with GCSE's are basically certificates to show you have a good memory retension, A level physics and maths which I did were both pretty much 80% remembering equations and how to use them... memory retension isn't the only factor in intelligence...

I will be quite open and admit I really did shockingly bad in my A levels in comparison with how intelligent I am, mainly because I went to a place I really didnt fit in and I was sick of all the memorizing education... but on my degree course I'm in the top few, and that isn't just me bragging I often have people on my course coming to me for help, my tutors praise me often...

you can't rate people purely on their previous academic results, I think A levels and GCSE's are a poor way to view people, I know people that have flunked out and done poorly in both cases and are EXTREMLY intelligent... I also know people with racks of A*'s at GCSE and 4 A's at A level that I certainly wouldn't trust to run a company or a science lab or a computer network!

Originally posted by xafier
well the problem with any sort of selecting upon academic achievment is how do you rate intelligence?

sure you can just go on A levels, but A levels along with GCSE's are basically certificates to show you have a good memory retension, A level physics and maths which I did were both pretty much 80% remembering equations and how to use them... memory retension isn't the only factor in intelligence...

I will be quite open and admit I really did shockingly bad in my A levels in comparison with how intelligent I am, mainly because I went to a place I really didnt fit in and I was sick of all the memorizing education... but on my degree course I'm in the top few, and that isn't just me bragging I often have people on my course coming to me for help, my tutors praise me often...

you can't rate people purely on their previous academic results, I think A levels and GCSE's are a poor way to view people, I know people that have flunked out and done poorly in both cases and are EXTREMLY intelligent... I also know people with racks of A*'s at GCSE and 4 A's at A level that I certainly wouldn't trust to run a company or a science lab or a computer network!

well then the a-levels need changing. They should be about memorising equations and applying them to new situations which tests for meory retention and problem solving - both important for degree level education.

You can retake a-levels - so failing them isnt the only chance.

Anyway there has to be some selection criteria and it will never be perfect because nothing ever is.

Originally posted by Cyclone
well, i probably agree I think.


Pinch me, I'm dreaming surely.

Originally posted by redrobbo
Why not go one step further? Why not introduce an examination, say during junior schoool years. Let's call this exam The 11+ for sake of argument. A number of places will be reserved at certain schools, (let's call them grammar), where this elite can be educated.

Not the elite redrobbo, but the academic. Your statement suggests 2 things;

1. That it is almost a crime to be brainy and that it should be in some way used against those concerned to keep them down while the others catch up (if ever).

2. That it is almost an equal crime to be non-academic.

It makes much more sense to me to bring out the potential in the most efficient and more suitable way....for some that will be sitting exams and for others it will be learning a trade. This needs different educational institutions.

You only have to look at the provision of special needs education in the state system to see that it (the state system) is geared to the average/ lower than average ability.

Special needs should cover both ends of the ability spectrum but how many of us actually consider children of high ability to have special needs. Well they do and they are in the main not addressed by the state system. Gifted children have to stumble along merely marking time when they could and should be pushed and encouraged to their limit.

One of the reasons we have so many disaffected and unruly kids in school is because they see what they are being taught as irrelevant and for many it is. Tailor their education to suit their ability and skill them for proper trades and you will be doing them a service instead of forcing them all through the academic machine in the name of equality.

Mo,
With respect, I think you have mistaken Red Robbo's aversion to the selection process associated with Grammar schools for a Pol Pot-style hatred of the 'brainy', as you phrase it. Knowing Red as I do, he would never deny the importance of nurturing 'gifted' children. He is merely against what he perceives to be an unfair system of selection. I, myself, favour the 11 plus, but recognise that children possess different 'forms' of intelligence, to different degrees.

A fair and just system of education would nurture the academic, whilst not consigning the rest to third rate schooling and opportunities, as was often the case with secondary modern schools, and some comprehensives run as de facto secondary modern schools. Some children have highly developed linguistic intelligence, others have more advanced visio-spatial skills, some have an equal mixture of both etc. Those who are not academic can surely lead good and useful lives. In fact, as an educator, I would honestly say that the bulk of the population fits into this category. Let us nurture the gifted, but, as you say, give the majority a useful and stimulating education too.

One area in which I disagree with you, Mo, is the subject of 'relevance'. Certainly, we have to ensure that there is a reliable, capable workforce, which is where schooling comes in with the inculcation of values, norms and [hopefully, a 'work ethic']. Boys with an aptitude for, and interest in, mechanical matters should by all means be encouraged to do subjects such as Auto Engineering etc. However, there is nothing wrong with asking pupils to study subjects of little obvious relevance in the modern workplace too-such as latin. This may sound odd, to say the least. However, such abstract subjects are good 'brain food', and encourage independent thinking. One of the complaints employers make about graduates is that they are fine when faced with problems they have encountered before [in the course of studying 'relevant' subjects, with a direct link to 'real life' situations], but all at sea when faced with something abstract, and unfamiliar. The study of 'irrelevant', but intellectually rigorous subjects like latin do have their place. Education cannot be all about 'relevance', in a utilitarian way. There must be room for the disinterested investigation of phenomena too.

We reach further points of agreement timo! I absolutely agree with your suggestion that some subjects should be taught purely for their intellectual rigour. This should not be regarded as an educational luxury either. (Note: I personally would advocate philosophy over Latin - but we can discuss details once we are jointly in charge of the Ministry of Education!).

Now Mo, I suspect that you and I are not too far apart in this debate. You have though misinterpreted the thrust of my argument, and I am grateful to timo for his clarification on my behalf. Let me make my position quite clear - gifted children need nurturing. Their exceptional talents require stimulation, and their needs should be met. I am all for levelling up, not down.

As timo rightly purports on my behalf, what I am against is an unfair selection process, especially at 11+.

To unnecessarily restrict university education to under 50% of the population is, in my opinion, elitism. It denies equality of opportunity to progress to higher education, and skews university admissions towards a favoured minority.

Originally posted by redrobbo
To unnecessarily restrict university education to under 50% of the population is, in my opinion, elitism. It denies equality of opportunity to progress to higher education, and skews university admissions towards a favoured minority.

That rather depends on how you restrict university education! Opening university education to the non academically inclined / capable is rather like recruiting translators who can't speak any other languages!

Originally posted by redrobbo

As timo rightly purports on my behalf, what I am against is an unfair selection process, especially at 11+.

.

But why is it unfair if those that are academically inclined and those with a bent for more practical courses are both offered quality provision at different establishments?

Evildrneil,
Believe me, even the 'traditional' Universities have considerable numbers of 'non-academically inclined' students wandering around the campus these days. The worst, in my experience, are most definately the 'new' Universities. The entrance requirements are lower, for a start, but certain 'new' Universities seem to accept anyone on the grounds that they are conscious.

I have taught some absolutely brilliant, wonderful students over the last eight years. However, I have also taught , or rather attempted to teach, students with practically no interest whatsoever in their subject, and no academic skills to boot. They tended to loaf around the campus, slack-jawed and incurious, waiting for the drinking contests to begin. As I said in a previous posting, they are often strong-armed into enrolling by their parents [despite being, themselves, adults...]. I once received a phone call from a rather irate Cumbrian vicar, to the ends that I wasn't 'doing enough' for his 'little girl'. The female student concerned never attended seminars, lectures or personal tutorials, nor did she hand in work. As an adult, she had the responsibility and duty to do so. I am afraid we have too many like this young woman, and they are there because they do not know what else to do with themselves in many cases.

I often wonder if it takes young people longer these days to make the transition from childhood to adulthood? I feel sorry for them, as they are often quite unable to afford to 'fly the nest' and get on the property ladder. Unfortunately, so many of them between the ages of 18 and 25, seem to rely upon their parents much more than my generation did [I am 43]. I cannot help but feel that this is an unhealthy state of affairs.

Originally posted by timo
Evildrneil,
Believe me, even the 'traditional' Universities have considerable numbers of 'non-academically inclined' students wandering around the campus these days. The worst, in my experience, are most definately the 'new' Universities. The entrance requirements are lower, for a start, but certain 'new' Universities seem to accept anyone on the grounds that they are conscious.

In some case consciousness would be an advantage! However it's not just a student problem - a surprising number of lecturers and researchers are quite capable of talking about their own very narrow (and increasingly narrower) field but take them outside that and they are lost! Although not strictly a university comment I would like to see schooling carry on longer but be of a much broader and less exam driven, so that school students have an exposure to languages, sciences, technology culture, arts and music. We hould be aiming for the polymath ideal not the analytical monomath(assuming such a word exists!?)

Originally posted by xafier
sure you can just go on A levels, but A levels along with GCSE's are basically certificates to show you have a good memory retension, A level physics and maths which I did were both pretty much 80% remembering equations and how to use them... memory retension isn't the only factor in intelligence...

Well I hardly ever turned up to college - got an A in Computer Studies and passed maths. Computing had nothing to do with memory retension as I'd not been to any lessons to remember it and maths is always going to depend a lot on what you can remember - that's what maths is basically - remembering formulae and how to apply them.

Now I think about it pretty much the same for GCSE's - didn't turn up for too many of those lessons in the last 2 years either.

Originally posted by xafier
I guess this is why I'm thankful for what my course contains as to be honest no mickey mousers could pass it, I can't really see anyone who's not interested in computers grasping or wanting to grasp Object Orientated programming or understand how pointers and stacks work... lol

Why not? They're pretty simple ideas and not hard to get your head round - you could easily learn all about OOP, pointers, stacks, queues etc. in a day or less.

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Why not? They're pretty simple ideas and not hard to get your head round - you could easily learn all about OOP, pointers, stacks, queues etc. in a day or less.

True. I learnt oop in 2.5 days and the main ideas are very simple. Actually writing good code that doesnt need debugging etc is a lot harder and takes quite a bit of practice.

Chess is simple to learn too....

Originally posted by fnkysknky
Well I hardly ever turned up to college - got an A in Computer Studies and passed maths. Computing had nothing to do with memory retension as I'd not been to any lessons to remember it and maths is always going to depend a lot on what you can remember - that's what maths is basically - remembering formulae and how to apply them.

Now I think about it pretty much the same for GCSE's - didn't turn up for too many of those lessons in the last 2 years either.

you will be slow programmer if you have to look up the basics constantly and you will make mistakes all the time because you forgot how you solved a problem previously. So memory retention is important for computers.

Originally posted by Mo
But why is it unfair if those that are academically inclined and those with a bent for more practical courses are both offered quality provision at different establishments?

(Posted in response to my observations about selection at 11+)

I am not against selection per se. But 11 is an intolerably young age at which to conduct such a process. It does not allow for later development.

I am not against provision of higher education for those students who are more inclined to pursue a practical, as opposed to, an academic course. Castle College is an excellent example of higher education provision, though not, as far as I am aware, at degree level.

Are we reaching agreement Mo?

Fnkysknky,
You are probably correct re your claim that computer programming can be learned quickly. That is, however, in the case of students with well-developed visio-spatial skills. I can envisage a scenario where a student with highly developed linguistic ability [who, perhaps, would be very successful in the field of the arts, humanities and social sciences], but less developed visio-spatial skills, would struggle to develop IT dexterity quickly.

I would imagine, given your success in mathematically-based subjects, that your visio-spatial skills are very highly developed. You said that you tended to do well in your GCSEs per se, without attending regularly. Does this include subjects like English Language, Literature etc which are not empirically-based? If so, just imagine what you could achieve if you did attend courses, and really applied yourself!

You probably have a point there timo. I always did well at school without really putting that much effort in. I've always found spelling and languages in general easy to grasp and I've had a fair bit of my artwork displayed in various childrens galleries etc. over the years. As for humanities I was top of the geography class to so you've pretty much got it covered!

The reason I didn't go too much in the last couple of years was the courses just started to bore the **** out of me. Most of it seemed to be going over old stuff and like a lot of people if you find you aren't learning and enjoying yourself then you switch off. I found going to a mates house or down town with girls more appealing at the time. There's no doubt it affected me as I was predicted top marks in just about everything but went on to pass them all just not at the level I could and should have done. Oh well you live and learn.

It's not all bad though - I'm 24 and have my own company so could have turned out worse :)

Originally posted by nightrider
you will be slow programmer if you have to look up the basics constantly and you will make mistakes all the time because you forgot how you solved a problem previously. So memory retention is important for computers.

Yes fair point although with some of the IDE's now you can get away with out remembering a fair chunk of the syntax. When I started programming it was a case of sitting there with a large reference book in your chosen language, now the integrated help system can write half of it for you :)

What I was pointing out, or at least trying to is that if someone had somehow ended up on a computing degree and didn't have much knowledge of computers it would still be completely possible for them to pass the course with top marks as the basics are easy to get your head round. Xafier was saying that no 'mickey mousers' could pass his course - I'd like to bet they could :)

It's still early in the morning and I'm rambling now - I'll shut up :D

fnkysknky,
Yes, I can understand what happened here. Perhaps an 'anti- school' culture amongst your peers played a part too? At any rate, you have certainly survived and achieved a great deal in your young life. Owning your own company at 24 is something to be proud of, and you need no advice from me.

However, given your, quite obviously high intelligence, it would be nice to see it 'tested' at a higher level sometime in the future. Maybe one day you will get the desire to study a subject that really interests you. The Open University's part-time, distance learning approach might appeal, and I think that you would do really well. You would, I am certain, gain great pleasure from discovering your academic potential at a higher level. You are a success in your career, and higher academic achievements/qualifications would give you a 'rounded' feeling. Then again, you might be content as you are. Just a thought. All the best, and good luck.

Originally posted by redrobbo
(Posted in response to my observations about selection at 11+)

I am not against selection per se. But 11 is an intolerably young age at which to conduct such a process. It does not allow for later development.

I am not against provision of higher education for those students who are more inclined to pursue a practical, as opposed to, an academic course. Castle College is an excellent example of higher education provision, though not, as far as I am aware, at degree level.

Are we reaching agreement Mo?

I'm sure we are :D