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

ubamother

Can I put a different perspective on the whole university education discussion?

In the 'good old days' going to university was about all the things artybear mentioned - broadening minds, a 'safe' way of learning to live away from home etc. and there is a lot in this discussion about whether or not it helps with employment in the short or long term. Actually, I'm not sure that is the point of a university degree. It is so easy to forget that we have so much of our 'common knowledge' and familiarity with terms and jargon from so many different disciplines precisely because 'people study at degree level and beyond and this information trickles through society and becomes available to all. Knowledge for knowledge sake is a wonderful thing! (and is rarely without any intrinsic use) These days, most children before uni will have their study guided by strict curricula and their education is very much based on what will be tested. Uni is a chance for them to really play with knowledge and ideas for the first time.

Another point is that university isn't just about gaining and retaining information, it's about learning how to gain knowledge, pick it apart, queston it, argue for and against it and put your knowledge in a pot with other people's knowledge and 'cook it' and see what happens. It's also about learning ways of putting a cogent case, or argument together in a way that is understandable to others.

It's also about, and this is no less important, having fun with people of your own age, learning about life in an independent but safe place, drinking a fair bit. For many it is the only time in their life where they only have responsibility for themselves - no boss, no mortgage/spouse/kids and wonderful for them it is too.

I fought like cat and dog to get my daughter through University (she's now 25) and am already discussing the university options with my son who is ten. What she did with her degree, and what he does with his doesn't worry me one jot - because once they've got it - no-one can take it away.

artybear

ubamother wrote: »

Can I put a different perspective on the whole university education discussion?

In the 'good old days' going to university was about all the things artybear mentioned - broadening minds, a 'safe' way of learning to live away from home etc. and there is a lot in this discussion about whether or not it helps with employment in the short or long term. Actually, I'm not sure that is the point of a university degree. It is so easy to forget that we have so much of our 'common knowledge' and familiarity with terms and jargon from so many different disciplines precisely because 'people study at degree level and beyond and this information trickles through society and becomes available to all. Knowledge for knowledge sake is a wonderful thing! (and is rarely without any intrinsic use) These days, most children before uni will have their study guided by strict curricula and their education is very much based on what will be tested. Uni is a chance for them to really play with knowledge and ideas for the first time.

Another point is that university isn't just about gaining and retaining information, it's about learning how to gain knowledge, pick it apart, queston it, argue for and against it and put your knowledge in a pot with other people's knowledge and 'cook it' and see what happens. It's also about learning ways of putting a cogent case, or argument together in a way that is understandable to others.

It's also about, and this is no less important, having fun with people of your own age, learning about life in an independent but safe place, drinking a fair bit. For many it is the only time in their life where they only have responsibility for themselves - no boss, no mortgage/spouse/kids and wonderful for them it is too.

I fought like cat and dog to get my daughter through University (she's now 25) and am already discussing the university options with my son who is ten. What she did with her degree, and what he does with his doesn't worry me one jot - because once they've got it - no-one can take it away.

:T:T:T:T:T Agreed completely and as someone who has just finished her MA I believe university is a very very good thing. (Only if u are academically capable though)

littleowl

ubamother wrote: »

Can I put a different perspective on the whole university education discussion?

In the 'good old days' going to university was about all the things artybear mentioned - broadening minds, a 'safe' way of learning to live away from home etc. and there is a lot in this discussion about whether or not it helps with employment in the short or long term. Actually, I'm not sure that is the point of a university degree. It is so easy to forget that we have so much of our 'common knowledge' and familiarity with terms and jargon from so many different disciplines precisely because 'people study at degree level and beyond and this information trickles through society and becomes available to all. Knowledge for knowledge sake is a wonderful thing! (and is rarely without any intrinsic use) These days, most children before uni will have their study guided by strict curricula and their education is very much based on what will be tested. Uni is a chance for them to really play with knowledge and ideas for the first time.

Another point is that university isn't just about gaining and retaining information, it's about learning how to gain knowledge, pick it apart, queston it, argue for and against it and put your knowledge in a pot with other people's knowledge and 'cook it' and see what happens. It's also about learning ways of putting a cogent case, or argument together in a way that is understandable to others.

It's also about, and this is no less important, having fun with people of your own age, learning about life in an independent but safe place, drinking a fair bit. For many it is the only time in their life where they only have responsibility for themselves - no boss, no mortgage/spouse/kids and wonderful for them it is too.

I fought like cat and dog to get my daughter through University (she's now 25) and am already discussing the university options with my son who is ten. What she did with her degree, and what he does with his doesn't worry me one jot - because once they've got it - no-one can take it away.

I absolutely agree. The word "education' derives from 'educare' meaning 'to bring out' - in other words to aid the individual to understanding and an appreciation of the value of knowledge. Unfortunately getting a degree today seems only to be equated with the ability to obtain work. That is a far cry from what education is supposed to mean.

ceridwen

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.

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.....)

Personally - when I heard that it was the (last) Governments aim to send 50% of people to university my reaction was "How do they square that circle then?". I seem to recall that back <cough number of years ago when I was in that agegroup> that we were told that 20% of people are intelligent enough to go to University. So - how come 20% turned into 50%?

It must be really annoying for the "genuine" 20% that would have qualified to go to University back then to know that a lot of the other 80% are also there and will be expecting to get "graduate" level jobs at the end of it....thats not mentioning having to share the limited resources (eg only a certain amount of tutor time available, etc) with so many other people. I suppose all the not-far-off (I think....) 50% that go to University these days tell themselves "I'm obviously the 20% that would have gone anyway and its OTHER people that are the extra 30% or so that are also going. At the end of it all employers will be able to tell the difference....". That sounds like famous last words to me....:cool:

I'd actually be pretty inclined these days to try and steer any youngsters towards skilled apprenticeships instead (IF they can find such a thing.......) - unless they were obviously brilliant at something like maths or sciences or similar subjects.

artybear

ceridwen wrote: »

Personally - when I heard that it was the (last) Governments aim to send 50% of people to university my reaction was "How do they square that circle then?". I seem to recall that back <cough number of years ago when I was in that agegroup> that we were told that 20% of people are intelligent enough to go to University. So - how come 20% turned into 50%?

It must be really annoying for the "genuine" 20% that would have qualified to go to University back then to know that a lot of the other 80% are also there and will be expecting to get "graduate" level jobs at the end of it....thats not mentioning having to share the limited resources (eg only a certain amount of tutor time available, etc) with so many other people. I suppose all the not-far-off (I think....) 50% that go to University these days tell themselves "I'm obviously the 20% that would have gone anyway and its OTHER people that are the extra 30% or so that are also going. At the end of it all employers will be able to tell the difference....". That sounds like famous last words to me....:cool:

I'd actually be pretty inclined these days to try and steer any youngsters towards skilled apprenticeships instead (IF they can find such a thing.......) - unless they were obviously brilliant at something like maths or sciences or similar subjects.

I agree that 50% was a silly arbitrary figure picked out of thin air, and I hope I would have been one of those original 20% as I went on to do a MA and my OH completed a Mphys...however who knows? What I do know is that I am grateful that I got to leave the small, rural town I grew up in, with avid Daily Mail readers, and was allowed to learn and experience new things.

Just saying not everything should be looked at in fiscal terms and should be acknowledged that other life skills are important too, and university can provide these to students who want to experience it.

RAS

littleowl wrote: »

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.

I am quoting the National Academic Register of International Comparisons (NARIC) which is widely available.

It would have helped if a few other people used it before recruiting people with overseas degrees; there were 5 universities in the Philippines that offer degrees equivalent to a UK undergradaute degree; the others vary from BTEC National to Dip HE standard and most undergraduate degrees from Pakistan are A level standard, although Law Society let people register to practice in the UK for many years.

Even the Home Office got unstuck when they created the highly skilled migrant worker category and just asked for an undergraduate degree.

A bit like the "no longer than 48 hours for a GP appointment" rules made by people who do not know their subject, do not ask questions and cannot think through the implications.

ceridwen

RAS wrote: »

I am quoting the National Academic Register of International Comparisons (NARIC) which is widely available.

It would have helped if a few other people used it before recruiting people with overseas degrees; there were 5 universities in the Philippines that offer degrees equivalent to a UK undergradaute degree; the others vary from BTEC National to Dip HE standard and most undergraduate degrees from Pakistan are A level standard, although Law Society let people register to practice in the UK for many years.

Even the Home Office got unstuck when they created the highly skilled migrant worker category and just asked for an undergraduate degree.

A bit like the "no longer than 48 hours for a GP appointment" rules made by people who do not know their subject, do not ask questions and cannot think through the implications.

That sounds like the sorta sense that would get talked by another INTJ (personality type):rotfl:. One of the first questions I would have asked if I had been in that Home Office job would have been "Please define how YOUR degrees equate to OUR degrees...I want to know if they match or are better" Sounds like you would have asked that question too - but thats FAR too sensible isnt it?:cool:

Fruball

Good ole Alan Sugar tried to give his heating allowance back to the government and spent an hour trying to sort it out!!!

Needless to say, it wasn't possible *rollseyes* so he gives it to charity now instead :T

Honestly, people as wealthy as Alan Sugar are getting this... its so wrong... who else... The Queen? She will be getting it too OMG ridiculous.

lilac_lady

It would be better all round if there was a degree in Common Sense rather than some of the ones offered nowadays.

kidcat

Frugal wrote: »

Good ole Alan Sugar tried to give his heating allowance back to the government and spent an hour trying to sort it out!!!

Needless to say, it wasn't possible *rollseyes* so he gives it to charity now instead :T

Honestly, people as wealthy as Alan Sugar are getting this... its so wrong... who else... The Queen? She will be getting it too OMG ridiculous.

I have moaned about heating allowance for years, for instance my grandad (and all his friends)- who was in his eighties - used to save his for Christmas!! and wouldnt dream of using it to buy more heating. When he moved into a small bungalow that was very energy efficient his heating allowance would have been enough to cover all his gas and electricity bills for a year and then some. It seems madness.
Personally I have always preferred the idea of the money paid directly to buy adequate heating for older people.