Danny Alexander on QT

tomterm8

leveller2911 wrote: »

1/ Society does pay towards the cost of education up to the age of 16, 18 for colleges.

We are talking about university education. The £80k of net benefit to society is provided via people who achieve a degree.

Society would be a lot worse off without doctors, nurses, dentists, bankers, Teachers and a host of other professions that require degrees.

leveller2911 wrote: »

2/ I totally agree, we shouldn't pay job seekers allowance for years but thats for another thread.More than happy to dabate lazy work shy toe-rags but it would cloud the issue on this thread..

We can all constribute a hell of a lot to society without going the need of going to University...

However, on net, university graduates benefit society a heck of a lot more than the cost of tuition fees over 3 years.

chris_m

tomterm8 wrote: »

I've never said that we should have 50% of the population going to university. University should be elitist... in my opinion, of course.

I wouldn't actually use the term "elitist", however I do agree that there should not be a target of 50%, or indeed any target, going to university. Many of those that do now would actually probably benefit more from the old alternatives - polytechnics for HNDs, FE colleges for HNCs, vocational training/qualifications, etc.

However, that wouldn't have fitted with Labour's social engineering to make everyone (or as many as they could manage) equal. It just doesn't work that way and never could - some people are more academically-minded, others have more practically abilities. There is no shame in being less academic, just as there is none in being less practical.

However, the problem we have now is that the options for the second level of higher education are limited because large numbers of FE colleges and Polys have converted to universities so, for many young people, there is no alternative course of higher education available.

ILW

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Suppose it depends on what you aim to do. Many jobs simply need degrees, but there do seem to be quite a lot of people who have degrees, but don't work in the same field.

I can think of no job that NEEDS a degree in media studies.

ukcarper

chris_m wrote: »

However, the problem we have now is that the options for the second level of higher education are limited because large numbers of FE colleges and Polys have converted to universities so, for many young people, there is no alternative course of higher education available.

I think that is a very good point like most people of my generation I left school at 16 and went straight to work as an apprentice . As well as the excellent training provided by my employer I also went to a technical college this went on for 11 years leading to some good qualifications in electronics. Unfortunately someone leaving school now would not have the same opportunity.

I would also like to add that most of my courses were very academic.

StevieJ

chris_m wrote: »

I wouldn't actually use the term "elitist", however I do agree that there should not be a target of 50%, or indeed any target, going to university. Many of those that do now would actually probably benefit more from the old alternatives - polytechnics for HNDs, FE colleges for HNCs, vocational training/qualifications, etc.

However, that wouldn't have fitted with Labour's social engineering to make everyone (or as many as they could manage) equal. It just doesn't work that way and never could - some people are more academically-minded, others have more practically abilities. There is no shame in being less academic, just as there is none in being less practical.

However, the problem we have now is that the options for the second level of higher education are limited because large numbers of FE colleges and Polys have converted to universities so, for many young people, there is no alternative course of higher education available.

I wasn't about that it was about copying the Yanks, typical Blair.

chris_m

StevieJ wrote: »

I wasn't about that it was about copying the Yanks, typical Blair.

Good point, that probably did come into it as well.

pqrdef

ukcarper wrote: »

I think that is a very good point like most people of my generation I left school at 16 and went straight to work as an apprentice.

Apprenticeships go back centuries, but for most of that time, they had to be paid for. It was only during our brief aberration of industrial prosperity that employers could afford to train and pay apprentices at their own expense.

ukcarper wrote: »

As well as the excellent training provided by my employer I also went to a technical college this went on for 11 years leading to some good qualifications in electronics.

Did you hear George Osborne at the China junket? He said the Germans had sold the Chinese machine tools, and now we were there to sell them urban planning.

That's why there aren't many technical apprenticeships any more.

pqrdef

blueboy43 wrote: »

It is only a few years since it was stated that a graduate would earn £400k more over a lifetime.

The big number was popular with universities, but it's a bogus comparison. Somebody with a degree will tend to earn a lot more than somebody who stops bunking off school at 16 without a GCSE, but the difference can't all be put down to the degree.

The relevant figure is what a graduate can earn compared to what the same person could earn with the A levels but no degree.

100K over a 45-year working life is a bit over 2K a year, which is probably about right. It's not a wonderful deal. Without a subsidy on loan interest it would be very marginal.