UK failing it's young as gulf grows between generations

kabayiri

ggb1979 wrote: »

I don't necessarily agree with that but that is a question of education policy rather than budget.

First thing to address IMO ithe ridiculous labour hangover of 50% attending uni, most doing pointless degrees and costing a fortune. I'd sooner 20% went to uni and it was free for those who are academically worthy.

Big problem. What do you do with the 30% who now have to find something else to do for 3 years?

Pointless degrees keep people off the unemployed register.

CLAPTON

kabayiri wrote: »

Big problem. What do you do with the 30% who now have to find something else to do for 3 years?

Pointless degrees keep people off the unemployed register.

no problem

don't you know we have a massive shortage of people of working age in the UK which is why, it's absolutely essential to continue to import 500,000 per annum from abroad.

Generali

Sapphire wrote: »

If this is indeed the case, then what do you think the solution is? Euthanasia? (I would imagine that's an option at least one individual on this forum would favour.)

Well I wouldn't go that far.

The problem is that any demographic changes take at least 70 years to go through, if we assume that we're not going to bump people off.

I like the Aussie system of compulsory retirement saving. Your boss puts 9% of your income into a retirement fund of your choice which you can then chose to top up or not.

Money going in is taxed at 15% for the first $25,000 and 40% thereafter apart from for 3 years where you can put in $600k a year (something like that). The last provision is really aimed at the self employed or others who build up substantial assets outside super so they can shelter them before retirement.

Once retired you can draw a tax free or low tax income off that money or just wee it all up the wall as you see fit.

If you are poor then there is a Government guaranteed minimum income.

greensalad

Generali wrote: »

When half the population goes to university, the taxpayer can't pay, largely because for between 33-40% of them it's a lousy investment as they simply don't need the degree and so the payback through increased productivity simple isn't there.

But who's fault is that? Can we blame the young for going to university when the idea of a degree became necessary for many careers that previously didn't require it? Didn't Labour put forward the idea as part of their agenda in the 90s and early 2000s that every child should have access to higher education? And didn't that then create the necessity of jobs requiring degrees?

I have a degree. My job would not have required a degree 25 years ago. But it does now, and without a degree I wouldn't have the job I currently do. So what do you suggest, young people DON'T get degrees for the jobs that require it? And then I suppose they sit back and complain about not being able to find work, because they don't have the "relevant" qualifications the field demands. I suppose they can get an "apprenticeship" at Poundland and be paid £2.73 an hour and not be able to give their parents enough keep, let alone move out. Or maybe they can go down the job centre and be told to spend 4 weeks working for free just until the next lot of jobseekers come in to replace them, for free.

It wasn't a bunch of 25 year olds who started turning every polytechnic into a university, after all. So I find it aggravating that the under 25's are the ones who get punished, or told they made a mistake and shouldn't have gone to university.

Because of course, it was me who started the move to turn all those polytechnics into universities, all those years ago, when I was four. Oh no wait, it was John Major. Silly me.

Sapphire

Pennywise wrote: »

Teach them?

Teach them what? Media studies and other such Mickey Mouse degrees? There are many jobs for which degrees (especially poor ones) are completely useless, and all that degrees often do is raise expectations of people that they will instantly receive high-paying jobs, rather than working their way up to these. I would imagine that Blair encouraged everyone to go to 'university' because otherwise these people would have been unemployed.

What there need to be are more apprenticeships in trades, which should also not be look down upon as they are by many people (they can even pay very well if done well and with the right attitude). There should be an acceptance by people that not everyone can be a brain surgeon, and that jobs that pay very well are (and always have been) very rare, and that only those who are prepared to work very hard can get them. Those who are prepared to work thus tend to be immigrants and their children (just look at the doctors in any London hospital), who often have a different work ethic from the indigenes. It's a change of attitude that is most needed among many people starting out.

Graham_Devon

Sapphire wrote: »

It's a change of attitude that is most needed among many people starting out.

It was the older generation who did away with apprenticeships through political and economic policy. It was the older generation who decided that uni was the be all and end all. It was the older geneation who designed school policy to coerce people into Uni degrees.

It wasn't the 16 year old of today who decided an alternate route.

Difficult to say that the young today need to change their attitude when their attitude has been moulded by the infrastructure the generation (or two generations) before them designed.

As for bringing foreign doctors in hospitals, that was policy too, again, not decided or designed by those deciding over a career in the medical profession.

You appear to be trying to blame the young adults today for policy designed when they were in nappies.

Young people can only work with the environment they are in. It's for the older generations to design that environment.

kabayiri

Sapphire wrote: »

Teach them what? Media studies and other such Mickey Mouse degrees? There are many jobs for which degrees (especially poor ones) are completely useless, and all that degrees often do is raise expectations of people that they will instantly receive high-paying jobs, rather than working their way up to these. I would imagine that Blair encouraged everyone to go to 'university' because otherwise these people would have been unemployed.
...

You see this theory espoused in DT and other forum corners.

Let's call it the "find yourself" concept.

The idea is that, regardless of degree, these young people doing dramatic arts and spiritual soap theory "find themselves" in their degree years, and come out as much more rounded individuals; fit indeed for the 21st century workplace.

I have one problem with this. It's a crock of s**t dream't up by the previous generation of students who studied Humanitarian Mole Handling and yet managed to land a plummy job as ethical policy consultant for Rotherham council. Difference is, times were good then.

Pennywise

Sapphire wrote: »

Teach them what?

Basic literacy and numeracy was what I was referring to in my post - re the fact that something like 40% of 16 year olds havn't achieved the basic competencies in literacy and numeracy.

Without such basic life skills, they're really going to struggle in any job or apprentice scheme. Should be tackled far sooner, right back to early years in secondary schools or later years in primary schools.

No wonder that kids are disenfranchised from education if they can't read and write properly - the school system just churns them through the years, trying to teach sciences and languages, when they're completely out of their depth. You can't teach a language if the can't read nor write, you can't teach a science if they are innumerate. No wonder that there are discipline problems.

ukcarper

I wonder how modern apprenticeships compare to those of the 60s and 70s. I did an apprenticeship in telecommunications in the 60s this involved time a technical collage which in telecoms was entirely theory no practical work. The practical side being on the job and company owned training schools. The company funded my training up to degree level paying for courses and giving me day release. How many companies would be prepared to do that now?

Graham_Devon

ukcarper wrote: »

I wonder how modern apprenticeships compare to those of the 60s and 70s. I did an apprenticeship in telecommunications in the 60s this involved time a technical collage which in telecoms was entirely theory no practical work. The practical side being on the job and company owned training schools. The company funded my training up to degree level paying for courses and giving me day release. How many companies would be prepared to do that now?

Modern apprenticeships are a bit of a farce, from my experience and having been involved in them.

It's more like general work experience while doing a qualification.

Regardless of the role and sector the apprentice is in, they have to do specific coursework, so you end up creating a job that doesn't need doing all in order that they can please the assessor with a pointless spreadsheet.

The apprentices basically have certain educational targets to hit which in many cases have absolutely nothing to with with either their role, their sector or indeed their career.

All it has to do with anything is ticking boxes to show how well the systems are going.

Employers deal with this bit of extra paperwork and waste of apprentice time as they are cheap labour.

A member of my own family is doing an apprenticeship at the moment in "IT" (can't remember the specific name). His apprenticeship placement is with a building supplies company and his role is front of house (stacking shelves, advising customers, taking payment etc). Nothing at all to do with IT, but the apprentice company tick their boxes, the building merchants get cheap labour and all is good.