I Believe...

Bravo, well said that man.

After 4 years of uni (minimal grant topped up by parental support in
first 2 years, working abroad so self-sufficient in 3rd year, and
savings plus parental support in 4th) then a year of PGCE (again,
parental support and loan) it has taken me about 4 years to un-mire
myself from debts that I acquired being a student, made worse by
subsequently not getting a massively well-paid job (teaching) but just
enough to have to pay back student loans. And clearly, I was bloody
lucky, having not come out with 10s of thousands of pounds debt.

I would seriously question any teenager who said they wanted to go to
uni to see if there was not an alternative in the world of work that
might be cheaper (and therefore far less stressful). There's nothing
worse than having massive debts *before* you try and buy a house/car.

Unfortunately, it seems to be the only option 'tailored' to
school-leavers, the world of work being a large and scary place
inhabited by the likes of us.

 

Ah....happy days.

 

No you misunderstand. I was closing the thread.

 

Same here, HND, BSc, MSc and (if the current plan falls into place) a PhD,
all part time.

So, this 50% thing. Is it just me that thinks that 100% of the people who
are capable of meeting the required academic standard should be able to go
to University?

Selecting a proportion of the population and saying that they should be able
to go to uni seems a bit stupid to me. A friend of mine, who is a lecturer
of many years standing, has commented how the calibre of the average student
in recent years has become "shockingly low".

Whilst making the suggestion that we should be admitting people to
university based on their ability to complete the required course, to a high
standard, I was accused of being elitist. Is this a bad thing? Should a
place such as a university be about the pursuit of excellence? I think so.

As for funding, well as Blaney said, people who go to uni, on average, earn
more. So they pay more in tax, source of funding then. Given that the
population as a whole benefits from individuals receiving a university
education then why should they not also contribute towards it.

What says the panel?

 

In his first term, Tony's speech writers were using extracts from Mein
Kampf, it didn't do him any harm.

 

I do know someone with a Roller who fits that bill. (No kidding)

 

Hmm.

Sometimes I wish I'd not bothered with university (not that I exactly
bothered with it that much while I was there) and had gone with plan A and
done a vocational course, possibly as day release.

As it is, I'm considering jacking it all in and trying to get a trainee
position as a surveyor or something. The money's not bad (comparable with
IT and the market's nowhere near as variable!) but only after training and
experience and I'd be throwing away 6 years of specialist cv-polishing to
live on peanuts.

If more people took apprenticeships and the whole "everyone must go to
university" [1] ideal was thrown onto the scrapheap where it belongs, I
reckon it'd be a happier world.

[1] As opposed to "everyone must have the opportunity to go to uni".
The fact that it's become the modern equivalent of "one day, I want
to work in an office" is either a great leap forwards or a crying
shame, depending on your view, and I lean towards the latter.
Not least because it's utterly devalued the concept of a degree.

 

Become a train driver. Money's good, job can be boring, heartstoppingly
exciting on occasion and you get to insult people.

 

and if you chose the right company to work for then Sweller can
represent you on your first disciplinary panel!

 

If you choose the right company I won't be representing you.

Old, but I think its funny
http://www.sweller.co.uk/

 

*ding*

Trouble is that more and more people are working in offices, and
less and less in trades were apprenticeships are the way forward
(like manufacturing). [insert rant about Thatcher].
But yes, everyone should have the chance. But not everyone
will want/need to go.

 

Your job and UKRM references in one sentence?

 

I'd like to see the association between apprenticeships and
manufacturing removed.

IMO you should be able to do an apprenticeship and just about
anything, from being a lawyer, to being a computer programmer. After
all, and apprenticeship is simply learning whilst doing the job.

 

The real stinker is that with degrees becoming devalued, the only
reason to have one is so that your CV is more likely to be read when
applying for a job.
The job itself may be filing, data entry or putting things on shelves,
but without a degree you might not even stand a chance of getting a
food in the door.

So the office-based skills that result are pretty piss-poor at best,
and are easily transferred offshire (eg. India) to a workforce who
are in a similar situation - too many graduates, not enough work.

Much as I'd love to have done a degree in Communication Studies, it
doesn't exactly make for a specialist workforce, immune to the knock
on effects of globalisation.

 

Bear in mind that exams kill by degrees

 

maybe. I've never had a problem getting a job because I don't have a
degree.

 

Me too.

 

So far as I'm aware, neither have I.

But we have specialist skills which give us an advantage over other
applicants. I'm referring more to people who have "office skills"
and are having to compete for "office jobs" with other people who
have "office skills".

When ads for paper-shufflers mention degrees being an advantage, you
have to wonder why anyone would bother doing the degree in the first
place.

 

Capital 1 based (UK) Nottingham IIRC only employ graduates, or did in 2002
when I spoke to someone working there.
They also expect all job respondents to do a full day evaluation day before
they can be considered, LOL

 

ditto.