It's STILL tough and not getting better - so how are we coping?

katholicos

Toomuchdebt wrote: »

You know what worries me more than the Child Benefit being cut is the tax credits...with 6 children(4 from a previous marriage, and my last was a total shock),my OH would have to earn more than twice what he already does if tax credits were scrapped-and we are barely managing as it is.And I don't smoke or drink,he has just stopped smoking, my car is 15 years old and will for sure fail the MOT next month, his is 11 years old.I don't get how some families on benefits manage to have all these holidays and flat screen tvs and things.

I think it highly likely that is mostly bought on credit via store cards/credit cards. It can't possibly be paid for. I'm unable to work at present due to disability and everything we have (with a few exceptions) is second hand or gifted to us by family members.

Lindy_-_Loo

DS2 has had his first morning at pre school, he ran in didnt even say goodbye - it was like de ja vue, his brother did the same two years ago!

Im now going to be going into school on monday and wednesday mornings to do reading and maths with years 1 and 2. I am the only parent who has volunteered to spare any time, I understans that working parents or those with young children cant help but the majority of DS1 class have no children at home now and they dont work. Have even heard them in the playground complaining as their child may not get individual reading wityh a treacher daily. I have asked them to speak to the teacher and volunteer but I just got excuses of why they cant.

sammy_kaye18

Lindy Loo - I am the same - I have volunteered at Bens school to help out other classes with reading, class room assistant, baking etc and have mentioned as long as I have some prior warning I can arrange for mother in law too watch babe for a few hours then Im happy to help.

Have put my name down to help on trips (bar their last one as I was 8.5 months pregnant) but have been on several before with the class.

We too have mums whining that their kids are behind with reading/maths etc but with 20+ kids and only one teacher and helper they are short staffed so rely on volunteers but again no one seems to have spare time to help out at all.

BitterAndTwisted

sammy_kaye18 wrote: »

We too have mums whining that their kids are behind with reading/maths etc but with 20+ kids and only one teacher and helper they are short staffed so rely on volunteers but again no one seems to have spare time to help out at all.

In my (limited) experience the parents who do the most whining are precisely the ones who never sit down with their kids for five minutes and read or go over their school-work with them. "That's someone else's job", obviously.

maryb

I've always thought it was wicked to try and force up the number going to university to 50%. Given that intelligence is randomly distributed in the population that must surely mean that there is a bell shaped curve of distribution. Provided the curve doesn't lean one way or the other it means that the mean and the median cut the curve in half so that exactly 50% are above the average and 50% below.

That means that they are sugesting that someone of average intelligence can get a degree. Very soon that became someone of average intelligence needs a degree to get an average job - and they have to pay for the privilege. I think there is a debate to be had about who should bear the cost of training but it isn't right to make students bear the whole cost anymore than they would expect to pay for their own office desks and chairs (though watch this space.....)

British industry always used to do its own training and back in the 1960s it was still not uncommon for fathers to pay a premium for their boys to be apprenticed to the more skilled trades (when my husband trained as an engineer and had a spell working at British Leyland for experience he was often asked 'Eh lad, art tha premium?'). But the premium wasn't excessive and it was part of a clearly understood contract - the boy (or rather, his father) demonstrated commitment and in return he would come out of it with real skills and a steady rewarding job which, in those days, was expected to be for life. It was a fair bargain.

Where's the fairness now? Graduating with huge debts and struggling to find work and no security when they get a job. Is that really what someone of average intelligence should expect to contend with? Are we really saying they cannot do socially useful and rewarding work otherwise? It's nonsense and I think more and more school leaverswill say 'Forget it' and find a way without putting a millstone of student debt round their necks

kidcat

My experience has been that unless a specific degree is required ie for doctor, lawyer etc then on the whole the best thing is to get in at ground level and work way up. A good Saturday job can be the way into an industry. My dd 16 had not decided what she wants to do yet, but if she decides against university I won't be upset.

RAS

maryb wrote: »

I've always thought it was wicked to try and force up the number going to university to 50%. Given that intelligence is randomly distributed in the population that must surely mean that there is a bell shaped curve of distribution. Provided the curve doesn't lean one way or the other it means that the mean and the median cut the curve in half so that exactly 50% are above the average and 50% below.

Mary

It is all built on a false premise. Basically, 80 percent of US kids go on to college and 50 percent get some sort of degree and Blairby set this as the target for the UK.

Small problem; US kids do a High School Diploma and then do a 2-4 year degree - 2 years for an "associate degree" and 4 years for a bachelor's degree.

The US High School Diploma is equivalant to GCSEs, which is why major universities require them to do the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Well, 80 percent of UK kids aged 16-19 are at school or college and many obtain higher secondary qualification. Those who do would normally enter Year 2 of a US degree.

This means that a US "associate degree" meets the entry criteria for university in the UK and with really good reasults might be sort of equivalent to a CertHE or one of the old OND courses in the UK.

Now if you count up the number of people in the UK who do some sort of course beyond GCE/VCE A level/BTEC National/AGNVQ, I bet it is half the country, but many of the term will not have a "degree" in the title of their qualification.

Kitcaboodle

I've no idea what the situation will be with universities by the time DS is old enough to be worrying about it but, unless he's very accademic, I'd certainly advise him to get a job instead and study for his degree part-time if he wanted one. Better to spend 8 years doing a degree than 30 years paying for it!

I'd also encourage him to look seriously at tradeskills or at running his own business.

I certainly think I'd have thought twice about doing a degree at all if I'd been facing the kind of debts that students graduate with these days. When I did mine you only had loads of debt if you'd drunk lots, smoked lots and run a car (none of which applied to me which is how I managed to avoid debt!)

On another subject, I had some good news. I've already mentioned that it's looking like DH will lose his job in january thanks to Government cuts. Well, my temporary job was supposed to end while I was still on maternity leave but they've said that they'll happily take me back until August if I want to go back. Sure, my salary is 2/3 of DH's but it's enough for us to live on if we are really good with our cash (i.e. if I do the budgeting rather than DH!) So, if the worst happens with DH's job, we have a safety net for a little while at least, which is a big relief in these times of turmoil!

artybear

Sorry to pop up again, I do love this thread and feel motivated to post on this topic.

Although a degree does help you with a passport to gain higher employment, I also think it is right to encourage people to go to university to broaden their minds, meet a variety of people and move away from home so they can experience life without parental pressure to conform to a certain way.

I think its quite sad people look at university purely in monetary terms and how much money they could make out of it. It saddens me and makes me question where a love of learning and the desire for a human to understand more about the world around them has gone?

And tbh I'm surprised that on an O/s forum these qualities are recognised as important as well as how much money you will make afterwards? So maybe encouraging you children not to go to university isn't the best idea, if they have a passion for learning they will find a way to avoid the debt or, indeed feel it is worthwhile to take on, in the same way people feel a mortgage is a debt that's ok to have.


Just my thoughts on the subject and one I'm very passionate about, as I think education should be encouraged as much as possible.

artybearxx

littleowl

RAS wrote: »

Mary

It is all built on a false premise. Basically, 80 percent of US kids go on to college and 50 percent get some sort of degree and Blairby set this as the target for the UK.

Small problem; US kids do a High School Diploma and then do a 2-4 year degree - 2 years for an "associate degree" and 4 years for a bachelor's degree.

The US High School Diploma is equivalant to GCSEs, which is why major universities require them to do the Scholastic Aptitude Test. Well, 80 percent of UK kids aged 16-19 are at school or college and many obtain higher secondary qualification. Those who do would normally enter Year 2 of a US degree.

This means that a US "associate degree" meets the entry criteria for university in the UK and with really good reasults might be sort of equivalent to a CertHE or one of the old OND courses in the UK.

Now if you count up the number of people in the UK who do some sort of course beyond GCE/VCE A level/BTEC National/AGNVQ, I bet it is half the country, but many of the term will not have a "degree" in the title of their qualification.

It is difficult to compare US and UK systems but what you have said is broadly correct. One year I had a group of US first year degree students to tutor along with my FE students and came to to realise that they were way behind our A level students in general knowledge as well as that required by specific disciplines in the UK.
There is a great danger in attempting to equate such disparate attainment levels - which is why Blair was so wrong.