Do you want to discuss boring politics? (27 Viewers)

[JAM See]

Ive got a couple starting at the end of the month. From management it’s entirely seen as cheap labour for low end tasks they don’t want to pay minimum wage for. They’ve been sold to us by a third party who will “do their training” (a couple of online courses). Genuinely embarrassed and will be trying my best to give them a proper experience. Especially as we aren’t talking about kids here. Ones got a Masters degree!

I had a couple before I finished at my old place. They're now mid twenties and both are excellent at their jobs.

We gave them demanding tasks but I always took the bollocking when they fucked up (not healthcare before you ask), which is all part of learning.

It was nice watching those wet behind the ears 18 year olds blossom into fully functioning members of staff.

The grads always seemed to want everything handed to them on a plate.

Just my experience and purely anecdotal.

 

---

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Cant remember if I posted the other day (meant to) but if I was an 18 year old today I’d almost certain do an apprenticeship rather than a generic Uni course. I can understand if someone needs a certain course for a career ie medicine etc but there’s so much cash to be earned from getting a decent trade these days, or money saved by joining schemes run by employers rather than Uni

I’m saying that as someone who loved my time at Uni and have friends from there for life but that was before tuition fees, let alone this talk about more online teaching, which will take away some of the ‘Uni experience’

Yep. Quite a few people on courses such as mine that looking back wished they'd just tried to get an office junior type entry level job that provided training for professional qualifications instead of uni. They'd have been earning nstead of raking up huge debt and got the qualifications that actual matter in terms of career progression.

So if someone has a particular career in mind IMO they'd do better to focus on what's actually needed to do that - some will require uni quite a few won't.

And level up the way certain careers are perceived against others.

 

[shmmeee]

One thing I will say. As a graduate when I decided to retrain I had much wider options available to me than I would have. Much like 5 Cs at GCSE opens doors, so does a 2:1 as a general mark of ability.

Arguably that’s down to employers but good luck changing that mindset.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

What's wrong with education for its own sake?

Absolutely nothing at all. It just feels like nowadays there are people who have specific careers and goals in mind that would be better served doing things that directly relate to that than a more generic uni course.

Those that are more into the academic side or unsure of what path they want having that option is incredibly useful.

 

[Hertsccfc]

What's wrong with education for its own sake?

Terrible idea. Might lead to an educated population who wouldn't vote for the sort of populist Government we have.

 

[Grendel]

Terrible idea. Might lead to an educated population who wouldn't vote for the sort of populist Government we have.

it was the Blair government of course who wanted 50% to be educated to degree level

 

[shmmeee]

it was the Blair government of course who wanted 50% to be educated to degree level

And it was the Tories that want to scrap that aspiration. Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

 

[Grendel]

And it was the Tories that want to scrap that aspiration. Not sure what point you’re trying to make.

theyve hardly scrapped it - it’s an industry all in its own and it seems record exam results as well. Looks like the Tory education policy of enhancing the education of our children has surpassed expectations - record achievement in A level results and 92% going to their first choice uni

Gavin Williamson must be the most successful education minister on record isn’t he?

 

[wingy]

There clearly isn’t a single fix all when it comes to tackling climate change. However when it comes to stopping eating meat and indeed dairy there is the double whammy. Aside from all the methane that vows especially turn out there’s also the issue that two of biggest causes of deforestation is to clear land to grow animal feed and to clear land for grazing. So not only are “we” as meat and dairy eaters responsible for a major cause of global warming “we’re” also responsible for one the destruction of one of our best weapons in fighting global warming.

I found this interesting with the vision on hydrogen.
They seem to think it's cost effective to produce .

 

[Evo1883]

We should be a world leader when it comes to climate change, and we should help lead the way.

The problem will always persist when much larger economies and countries like China don't plan to follow suit ... these bigger countries are key no matter what we try and do ..

We should still try and do our bit though

 

[shmmeee]

theyve hardly scrapped it - it’s an industry all in its own and it seems record exam results as well. Looks like the Tory education policy of enhancing the education of our children has surpassed expectations - record achievement in A level results and 92% going to their first choice uni

Gavin Williamson must be the most successful education minister on record isn’t he?

No they have scrapped it (or plan to): Government to scrap 50% of young to university target

You think massively fucking up the supply pipe to unis is success?

 

[wingy]

We should be a world leader when it comes to climate change, and we should help lead the way.

The problem will always persist when much larger economies and countries like China don't plan to follow suit ... these bigger countries are key no matter what we try and do ..

We should still try and do our bit though

Wonder what they emitted 40-50 years ago .
Before they became the workshop for the planet turned to them for everything including exporting our own emissions.
When I say planet it's really industrialist's fund managers, speculators etc.

 

[shmmeee]

Pointing fingers isn’t going to get anyone anywhere. China have a point about us exporting manufacturing to them (not that they’re complaining) and them not being industrialised yet and our historic emissions that got us here, we have a point about current emissions and China’s sheer size.

Best just to keep your own house in order and pressure others to do the same.

 

[skybluetony176]

I found this interesting with the vision on hydrogen.
They seem to think it's cost effective to produce .

It’s getting there I think. Things like hydrogen boilers are available now and I read something years ago that the British Gas grid is already ready to to pipe hydrogen ready to use to U.K. homes in place of gas, they just don’t have the production ability.

 

[wingy]

It’s getting there I think. Things like hydrogen boilers are available now and I read something years ago that the British Gas grid is already ready to to pipe hydrogen ready to use to U.K. homes in place of gas, they just don’t have the production ability.

Oh shit Tony I did that thing again where I didn't paste .

I was wondering if they would go the osmosis route?


"Northern Ireland: Remote Rathlin Island sets ambitious carbon-neutral target in hope others follow | UK News | Sky News" Northern Ireland: Remote Rathlin Island sets ambitious carbon-neutral target in hope others follow

 

[skybluetony176]

Wonder what they emitted 40-50 years ago .
Before they became the workshop for the planet turned to them for everything including exporting our own emissions.
When I say planet it's really industrialist's fund managers, speculators etc.

Watching Guy Martin the other night and he was driving an electric bus. Apparently if the city of York scraped their diesel fleet and replaced them with electric it would save York £5M a year in the gained health benefits to the city alone. Even if other countries aren’t doing their bit the arguments on health benefits alone is a compelling reason to lower emissions and improve air quality in towns and cities.

 

[Ian1779]

theyve hardly scrapped it - it’s an industry all in its own and it seems record exam results as well. Looks like the Tory education policy of enhancing the education of our children has surpassed expectations - record achievement in A level results and 92% going to their first choice uni

Gavin Williamson must be the most successful education minister on record isn’t he?

He’s a fuckwit. Probably the most incompetent man to hold a cabinet post in the last 40 years.

 

[wingy]

He’s a fuckwit. Probably the most incompetent man to hold a cabinet post in the last 40 years.

I think his leader is only considered a couple of places ahead of him on Conservative home polling.

 

[Hertsccfc]

it was the Blair government of course who wanted 50% to be educated to degree level

You wouldn't support that because then we would have more people capable of understanding how incompetent this Government is?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

You wouldn't support that because then we would have more people capable of understanding how incompetent this Government is?

I wouldn't guarantee it. More focus on getting the students in and getting the money than what you teach them. Far less emphasis on critical thinking and encouraging intellectual debate.

 

[Walsgrave]

At risk of sounding like a huge snob, it seems nowadays that uni is only worth it for Medicine, Dentistry and for courses at Oxbridge and few other institutions like UCL, Imperial, Warwick etc. If we sent only to whatever percent of school leavers/mature students academically, we'd probably be able to send nearly everyone for free and be able to support those who are more vocationally inclined. Rather than the current system where over half are going. It was different in the past.

 

[shmmeee]

At risk of sounding like a huge snob, it seems nowadays that uni is only worth it for Medicine, Dentistry and for courses at Oxbridge and few other institutions like UCL, Imperial, Warwick etc. If we sent only to whatever percent of school leavers/mature students academically, we'd probably be able to send nearly everyone for free and be able to support those who are more vocationally inclined. Rather than the current system where over half are going. It was different in the past.

Not sure why those unis are in there. I’d rather pay for a CompSci grad from Coventry than a PPE grad from Oxford.

Agree overall though.

I mean seriously, look at a list of Oxbridge grads and tell me they’re the best and brightest.

 

[Walsgrave]

Not sure why those unis are in there. I’d rather pay for a CompSci grad from Coventry than a PPE grad from Oxford.

Agree overall though.

I get your point yep. In my opinion uni should serve two purposes - either to advance understanding of knowledge in all disciplines (in which case the Oxbridge/'elite' institution Classicists, Historians, etc have a reason to go), or to help get a job. Its probably widely acknowledged that with the exception of a few careers such as Medicine, Dentistry and certain strands of Engineering, the taught element of degrees don't offer much relevance above and beyond say in house training.

Take nursing for instance. I've every respect for nurses but I think making it requirement to go to uni for nursing was a mistake, compared to before where they had nursing schools. In my opinion, we've universified nearly all careers when in reality we should go back to the main purpose of unis - to see them as a vehicle to enhance understanding of academic disciplines.

 

[shmmeee]

I get your point yep. In my opinion uni should serve two purposes - either to advance understanding of knowledge in all disciplines (in which case the Oxbridge/'elite' institution Classicists, Historians, etc have a reason to go), or to help get a job. Its probably widely acknowledged that with the exception of a few careers such as Medicine, Dentistry and certain strands of Engineering, the taught element of degrees don't offer much relevance above and beyond say in house training.

Take nursing for instance. I've every respect for nurses but I think making it requirement to go to uni for nursing was a mistake, compared to before where they had nursing schools. In my opinion, we've universified nearly all careers when in reality we should go back to the main purpose of unis - to see them as a vehicle to enhance understanding of academic disciplines.

I get your point, but most of those places select for cash not ability and you’d lose out on a lot of good research if you limited it to them.

I agree many vocations don’t need a degree, I just disagree that all good research happens in red brick unis.

 

[wingy]

He's on the mark here.
Let alone the benefits on the environment, fight against climate change, absolute no brainer.


"Forcing people to return to offices is wrongheaded, says Starmer | Working from home | The Guardian" Forcing people to return to offices is wrongheaded, says Starmer | Working from home | The Guardian

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Not sure why those unis are in there. I’d rather pay for a CompSci grad from Coventry than a PPE grad from Oxford.

Agree overall though.

I mean seriously, look at a list of Oxbridge grads and tell me they’re the best and brightest.

I agree about the Oxbridge thing and how there are plenty who are far from the brightest and best. But the fact is a PPE degree at Oxford is going to open up far more opportunities for people, certainly in terms of earning potential.

 

[shmmeee]

I agree about the Oxbridge thing and how there are plenty who are far from the brightest and best. But the fact is a PPE degree at Oxford is going to open up far more opportunities for people, certainly in terms of earning potential.

Oh definitely. But you could make that relative argument about any qualification. A Sociology degree from Cov will get you further than a G at GCSE.

If you’re talking about funding places that provide national benefit though…

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

At risk of sounding like a huge snob, it seems nowadays that uni is only worth it for Medicine, Dentistry and for courses at Oxbridge and few other institutions like UCL, Imperial, Warwick etc. If we sent only to whatever percent of school leavers/mature students academically, we'd probably be able to send nearly everyone for free and be able to support those who are more vocationally inclined. Rather than the current system where over half are going. It was different in the past.

We used to have a limited intake and it was free. Trouble is the people that got to go were largely those from wealthier backgrounds. That would likely happen again because those parents pay for tutors and get them into expensive schools. So you'd end up with the wealthier people getting this education for free while highly intelligent working class kids don't get the opportunity. You wouldn't get the best going to uni, you'd get the most privileged.

And while you may say there would be more availability for vocational courses (which I wholeheartedly agree deserve more recognition and too many people are going to uni) what about those that are academically minded from poorer backgrounds? They'd still find it harder to get into uni places despite their abilities and would instead be more likely be sent down the vocational route which wouldn't suit them. You end up with incredibly intelligent people doing nothing with their lives.

Until we're able to ensure it is the 'brightest' going to uni as opposed to those who've had access to the best early education all it would do is increase the class chasm and give those in the upper classes more reason to look down and sneer on those below them.

 

[Walsgrave]

I get your point, but most of those places select for cash not ability and you’d lose out on a lot of good research if you limited it to them.

I agree many vocations don’t need a degree, I just disagree that all good research happens in red brick unis.

We used to have a limited intake and it was free. Trouble is the people that got to go were largely those from wealthier backgrounds. That would likely happen again because those parents pay for tutors and get them into expensive schools. So you'd end up with the wealthier people getting this education for free while highly intelligent working class kids don't get the opportunity. You wouldn't get the best going to uni, you'd get the most privileged.

And while you may say there would be more availability for vocational courses (which I wholeheartedly agree deserve more recognition and too many people are going to uni) what about those that are academically minded from poorer backgrounds? They'd still find it harder to get into uni places despite their abilities and would instead be more likely be sent down the vocational route which wouldn't suit them. You end up with incredibly intelligent people doing nothing with their lives.

Until we're able to ensure it is the 'brightest' going to uni as opposed to those who've had access to the best early education all it would do is increase the class chasm and give those in the upper classes more reason to look down and sneer on those below them.

Honestly think that the best solution would be to limit intake to say the top 25% of school leavers/mature students academically. Then use the money saved to really support those in state education, be it vocational or those aiming for uni. At the moment we've got over 130 unis in the UK when the number should be closer to 35 in my opinion.

Then we'd be able to support everyone, be it academic or vocational. No shade to those doing courses such as real estate management or journalism at uni, but if we made it less of a requirement for those wanting to go into a vocational profession to go to uni, we'd then be able to divert the money to help support those in state schools to get into the most academically rigorous courses, and at the same time be able to help those wanting to pursue apprenticeships.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Honestly think that the best solution would be to limit intake to say the top 25% of school leavers/mature students academically. Then use the money saved to really support those in state education, be it vocational or those aiming for uni. At the moment we've got over 130 unis in the UK when the number should be closer to 35 in my opinion.

Then we'd be able to support everyone, be it academic or vocational. No shade to those doing courses such as real estate management or journalism at uni, but if we made it less of a requirement for those wanting to go into a vocational profession to go to uni, we'd then be able to divert the money to help support those in state schools to get into the most academically rigorous courses, and at the same time be able to help those wanting to pursue apprenticeships.

I agree with the aim, but the reality is those top few academic would be disproportionately weighted towards the privileged who can afford better schools and private education to get them through those exams and entry requirements. It would just make he class divide worse.

For me the bigger problem is that too much emphasis is put on academic achievement and those youngsters that don't excel at it are seen as 'failing'. That may not be the case at all and if anything society is failing to recognise the potential talents of those who are more vocationally talented (something which I believe has been deliberately engineered over the centuries to give the upper classes a sense of superiority and has been around so long it's now embedded in the pysche.)

If we valued those more we'd have less demand for uni places because it wouldn't be seen as this 'pinnacle' of education, just one of many routes to success. It's not that we need working class people to see there is more to aspire to than university, it's the middle and upper classes who hog the system and create this perception of 'two tier' achievement.

If we could get more of those people seeing vocational paths as being just as valid as uni then it would allow those that are academically minded to have a uni education regardless of their background.

 

[Walsgrave]

I agree with the aim, but the reality is those top few academic would be disproportionately weighted towards the privileged who can afford better schools and private education to get them through those exams and entry requirements. It would just make he class divide worse.

For me the bigger problem is that too much emphasis is put on academic achievement and those youngsters that don't excel at it are seen as 'failing'. That may not be the case at all and if anything society is failing to recognise the potential talents of those who are more vocationally talented (something which I believe has been deliberately engineered over the centuries to give the upper classes a sense of superiority and has been around so long it's now embedded in the pysche.)

If we valued those more we'd have less demand for uni places because it wouldn't be seen as this 'pinnacle' of education, just one of many routes to success. It's not that we need working class people to see there is more to aspire to than university, it's the middle and upper classes who hog the system and create this perception of 'two tier' achievement.

If we could get more of those people seeing vocational paths as being just as valid as uni then it would allow those that are academically minded to have a uni education regardless of their background.

Definitely. Well I think it all starts in the school system and the amount of funding people get. Those who go to state schools get around 5k a year. Until they receive a level of funding closer to the minimum 12k or so that private schoolers get, they won't be able to possibly compete.

 

[shmmeee]

Honestly think that the best solution would be to limit intake to say the top 25% of school leavers/mature students academically. Then use the money saved to really support those in state education, be it vocational or those aiming for uni. At the moment we've got over 130 unis in the UK when the number should be closer to 35 in my opinion.

Then we'd be able to support everyone, be it academic or vocational. No shade to those doing courses such as real estate management or journalism at uni, but if we made it less of a requirement for those wanting to go into a vocational profession to go to uni, we'd then be able to divert the money to help support those in state schools to get into the most academically rigorous courses, and at the same time be able to help those wanting to pursue apprenticeships.

Said for a while I’m all for that in theory, same as grammars, but it relies on the alternatives being in place and currently they’re not. Trade schools, proper apprenticeships, even startup support should be an option at 18. Then you can cut back on the gender studies courses and the like. The biggest change would be employers and society not being obsessed with qualifications. We’re really weird in this country with the class based obsession about where you went and what you got. Most normal countries don’t give a shit about your GCSEs when you’re an adult, I’ve seen people recommended for hiring aged 35 because “they went to a good school”

 

[NorthernWisdom]

I’ve seen people recommended for hiring aged 35 because “they went to a good school”

Where were they when I needed that!

 

[stupot07]

Honestly think that the best solution would be to limit intake to say the top 25% of school leavers/mature students academically. .

The problem then is you're going to cause even more inequality and reduce the scope for social mobility. University would be exclusively for those that go to independent schools and grammar schools, with some affluent/middle class state school kids and even less kids from the deprived area. And then that has a knock on effect on careers, etc and lower the glass ceiling. What's the point then of any kid in a deprived area having any type of aspiration if you stack the deck even more against them.

Not sure what the answer is



Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk

 

[fernandopartridge]

At risk of sounding like a huge snob, it seems nowadays that uni is only worth it for Medicine, Dentistry and for courses at Oxbridge and few other institutions like UCL, Imperial, Warwick etc. If we sent only to whatever percent of school leavers/mature students academically, we'd probably be able to send nearly everyone for free and be able to support those who are more vocationally inclined. Rather than the current system where over half are going. It was different in the past.

Part of the report that the Labour government commissioned in the 90s prior to introducing tuition fees was that they were a way to expand the number of people going to university, completely untrue of course but there is logic in what you're saying.