What is actually going wrong with the government.....this USS scandal is shocking....

Linton

atush wrote: »

not so sure about your 'tiny sliver'. OH is in his 60s and he and loads of friends and acquaintances all went to uni. All on the grant, first in their families and he and many are in the 'professions'. I think back in t he day of grammar schools, no fees + grants it was less elite than today.

In today, the days of unpaid internships and huge fees/student loans it matters more what your parents make/have and who they know.

When I went to university in the late '60s the ratio was 7%. Perhaps your OH's experience of all his friends going says more about his social situation than the wider reality.

Malthusian

atush wrote: »

In today, the days of unpaid internships and huge fees/student loans it matters more what your parents make/have and who they know.

Unpaid internships only matter in industries which are less important than its members think they are, e.g. journalism, fashion and politics. In the majority of industries they do not exist. It's irrelevant to university education.

The availability of misnomered student loans means it matters much less than it used to what your parents have, as literally anyone (barring severe genetic unluckiness) can get a student loan and go to university. Higher fees are not a problem as the taxpayer pays them unless you go on to earn significantly above the graduate tax threshold.

GDB2222

Malthusian wrote: »

Then this construct collapses immediately because those two things are the same.

While I'm not in favour of the "50% of children should go to university" nonsense, what we had before, when only a small fraction of the population went to uni, was a system in which university education was reserved for the establishment and a very tiny sliver of the masses.

This helped keep hoi polloi out of middle-class professions which required a degree to enter, which in turn meant thicker middle-class people were individually enriched at the expense of more intelligent working-class pupils, who could have done their job better if they had access.

The system we have now when literally anyone of any background can be individually enriched by three years of dossing around at the taxpayer's expense if they want is much more socially equal. Whether it's a good thing for them or a good use of resources is a different debate, but it is objectively more socially egalitarian than the system 20-30+ years ago.

As a bonus, anyone can study for an economically valuable degree, individually enrich themselves and at the same time enrich society through their more productive labour and higher taxes.

I started professional life in the '70s, and it was possible to enter many professions without a degree at that time.

atush

Linton wrote: »

When I went to university in the late '60s the ratio was 7%. Perhaps your OH's experience of all his friends going says more about his social situation than the wider reality.

No it says you were there in the 60s and they in the 70s so your decade's difference was the dividing line perhaps. My OH's situation was not elite- not even middle class really. They owned a small house, but was an inheritance outside the nuclear family that was unexpected. His grandfather died in WW1 so was no money sloshing about- the other family was working class.