How can people be so greedy?

Badger_Lady

Well, rather than a generic "state sponsorship" of degrees, how about old-fashioned "employer sponsorship"?

Employers can sponsor a certain number of University places in their preferred qualifications, whether that's Graphic Designers or Accountants, have a say in who can get those places, and pay a subsidy until the candidate is qualified and can begin work (at which point the company starts to get the benefit back).

Students will be much more restricted in their options, tied in to a career path for several years, but they'll be paid for.

EDIT: oh, and fewer people will go to University - only the rich and frivolous, or those aiming to do a more qualified job (with a guaranteed job to go to).

MissMoneypenny

neas wrote: »

I mean look at the age old universities.. very valued by employers.. oxford and cambridge.. they just have an engineering degree... you cant do aeronautical engineering there.. you have to do a combined one.. but this degree will get you a job almost anywhere .

Surely only if you end up with a good degree in that subject?

My cousin went to Cambridge and now works as













an Estate Agent:eek: Every family has a black sheep.:D

Kaz2904

ixwood wrote: »

Cos you'll end up earning over 100k a year maybe? What will nurses get? Some people....

Not all doctors end up on this sort of wage and it takes a long time to get there. I get paid enhancements for working unsocial hours and I get 7.5 weeks holiday a year. I bring home around £1700 per month because I only work unsocial hours. A newly qualified Dr will bring home around £2000 per month. They get 4 weeks holiday a year- one of which has to be taken after their 7 nights in a row (which actually adds up to 2 weeks worth of hours in one week). Add to that that they rarely get a proper lunch break because they have to go and study and do further presentations during their bleep free period.
At night we have 1 junior Dr on duty in our hospital. They cover 11 wards. It's no wonder they're all so knackered.

MissMoneypenny

Phirefly wrote: »

Anyway, getting back to the original thrust of the thread, if you've got such a great degree and job prospects, and 20k in the bank, whats your beef?

Agreed. If you get a good degree then you will get a good job. My son graduated in 2007 and got a job on 44k.

MissMoneypenny

Badger_Lady wrote: »

Well, rather than a generic "state sponsorship" of degrees, how about old-fashioned "employer sponsorship"?

They do. Even the armed forces sponsor (or did when my daughter inquired) certain degrees, but has student then has to join the them for so many years.

"Medical Cadet - from university You can join the Army as a medical student on the Medical Cadetship scheme. In short the scheme provides financial sponsorship for the final 3 years at university and during Foundation Year 1 & 2. We pay for all tuition fees (UK rate only) and also pay a generous salary which starts at £13,870 in year 3 at university rising to £50,653 during Foundation Year 2 (2007-8 salary rates). Upon completion of Foundation Year 2 you begin the EOC and follow the career progression outlined above. There is a return of service from this point of 5 years. In all the Cadetship scheme is a 10 year commitment."


http://www.army.mod.uk/medical/royal_army_medical_corps/careers_in_the_ramc/medical_officer_doctor/index.htm

Badger_Lady

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

They do. Even the armed forces sponsor (or did when my daughter inquired) certain degrees, but has student then has to join the them for so many years.

Does the army still sponsor would be doctors?

Yes - that's what my theory is based on. But couldn't this scheme be more widely encouraged, rather than just restricted to the Armed Forces?

We already established earlier in this thread that there are not enough university-standard work placements for all the people now studying for degrees...

Perhaps we should move away from this culture of "everyone needs a Uni education at their own cost", to one of real career path alignment. Fewer people getting degrees, but those who do getting them sponsored with a "guaranteed" job at the end.

Neas, you're the one with the "beef" (thanks for that phrase, Phirefly ) - how would you feel if your current employer had actually sponsored you through your engineering degree?

neas

MissMoneypenny wrote: »

Agreed. If you get a good degree then you will get a good job. My son graduated in 2007 and then got a job on 44k.

I wish i got that much, then again im not in the london area :P. Different degrees get paid different amounts .

Investment bankers start on ~40k, Engineers start around 22k. Its more a lifestyle choice too... also if you work in longer factor in +5-10k more just for living expenses.

But to answer phireflys question, why aren't I getting on the property ladder? because I've picked up things from work.. you dont just run head strong into a project, you assess the risks... you categorise the risks and then allocate 'budget' against them to mitigate them.

I assesses the housing market in my personal situation and saw the current risk as being quite high as opposed to how my father faired. And with this coming HPC or whatever it is, I believe it is a wise decision. Im already seeing 8+ houses a day out of my local area dropping their prices by 5k each.

laughing_cow

Voyager2002 wrote: »

Only a small proportion of the benefit from higher education is captured by university graduates (in the form of enhanced salaries). Much of the benefit is reaped by their employers, and by customers of their employers, and so by society generally. It is therefore sensible for society generally to invest in their education.

It depends on the quality of the education. I interview junior members of staff for my company and in recent years it has become more difficult to find bright employees with common sense. I read some truly shocking CVs and as a recruiter I'm sadly no longer satisfied that a degree shows a decent level of education or intelligence.

There's an attitude amongst some graduates that the boring and trivial tasks are 'beneath' them because they've got a degree. (Hey, I'm a manager and I still have to do my share of dull stuff). To be fair, there have always been graduates with this attitude, but perhaps as there are so many more graduates these days this attitude appears more prevalent.

Junior staff seem to need much more supervision now and we struggle to find the proactive, inquisitive staff we used to get. I don't necessarily think that's their fault; for a whole variety of reasons I think that society has cossetted young people for the past 20 years and the result is that many lack imagination. I think back to the freedom I had as a child; the unsupervised play that allowed for creativity and the situtations which required you to think on your feet. I'm only 39 but the difference in what I was allowed to do and what my nephews can do is huge - they seem quite babyish in comparison and lacking in any independence. I think that's a shame because those things can help form bright, savvy and employable young people.

Lotus-eater

Didn't we used to have apprenticeships? What happened to most of those, you can train to learn a trade and then often you would be sponsored to go to uni as well. Maybe we should move away from, everyone needs a uni education and think more about, some people should go to uni and the others should learn a trade. But if we let China make much more of our stuff, there won't be anything to learn soon.

neas

Badger_Lady wrote: »

Yes - that's what my theory is based on. But couldn't this scheme be more widely encouraged, rather than just restricted to the Armed Forces?

We already established earlier in this thread that there are not enough university-standard work placements for all the people now studying for degrees...

Perhaps we should move away from this culture of "everyone needs a Uni education at their own cost", to one of real career path alignment. Fewer people getting degrees, but those who do getting them sponsored with a "guaranteed" job at the end.

Neas, you're the one with the "beef" (thanks for that phrase, Phirefly ) - how would you feel if your current employer had actually sponsored you through your engineering degree?

It would have helped, but it is difficult for them to achieve this. Perhaps larger golden handshakes (one time payoffs) when you have worked at the company 2+ years say to help alleviate your student debt.

I.e on my course 50% of people dropped out from year 1 to year 4. So they'd be wasting twice the money on a wasted 'asset'. Perhaps if they paid some of the tuition fees when you joined the company or over time that would've been better.

But My job is good (for the south west) and so i'm not too bothered about it. It was more about house prices being out of reach for many people not just me. I could get on the property market if I pushed myself.. and risked more than I would be willing to risk... even at my age.

They dont teach youngsters sound financial understanding at school and maybe they should because stretching yourself on a mortgage will most likely lead to big stress/trouble down the line. I'd prefer to own a 2 bedroom house and not worry about bills/mortgages than a 3 bedroom one for instance.