shmmeee
Well-Known Member
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?
Do you want to discuss boring politics? (15 Viewers)
- Thread starter mrtrench
- Start date
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?
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
Well-Known Member
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.
Best just to keep your own house in order and pressure others to do the same.
skybluetony176
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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.
D
Deleted member 9744
Guest
You wouldn't support that because then we would have more people capable of understanding how incompetent this Government is?
Sky_Blue_Dreamer
Well-Known Member
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.
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
Well-Known Member
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 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
Well-Known Member
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.
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
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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
Well-Known Member
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”
D
Deleted member 5849
Guest
Where were they when I needed that!
stupot07
Well-Known Member
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
Last edited:
fernandopartridge
Well-Known Member
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.
Ian1779
Well-Known Member
The issue starts at 13/14 where kids are narrowed into ‘options’ but actually don’t really get much choice. Most schools force them to pick a Hums subject and a language to meet a nonsense EBACC target. Vocational courses for students either don’t exist, or if they do places are minimal. So many kids set up to fail by doing qualifications they don’t want to do. And then it snowballs further at 16.
That would be true if it were the case that going to any uni at all provided the ticket to higher/earnings/a better life than parents etc, which unfortunately it no longer automatically does when over 50% are attending. I think there was a report a few years ago that found that from a pure financial point of view, on average only those who do Medicine, Dentistry or go to Oxbridge earn a salary premium over their entire career to justify going under the current system. Not everything is about money of course, and if people go and have a great time socially then nobody could possibly say whether or not it has been worth it for them.
So if instead we limited the number going to uni but used the money to help support getting young people, especially in disadvantage areas, to get into these high quality, rigorous courses at uni, and also technical qualifications/apprenticeships, we'd have a fine balance of people being supported to go into careers that they are suited to.
Last edited:
stupot07
Well-Known Member
But graduates do earn more, on average £10k pa / 41% more than a non graduate.
Graduates continue to benefit with higher earnings
New figures show that working-age graduates earned £10,000 more than non-graduates in 2018 and had higher employment rates.
There would need to be wide scale transformation on education, training and employment, and also how we value and restructure financial reward for different jobs.
Otherwise it is a race to the bottom.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
That 10k/year is heavily skewed by graduates of 'elite' unis as well that the bulk of 16-64 year old graduates went when it was more selective. Its still the case that graduates earn a premium on average but the premium starts to really tail off the further down the league tables list we venture, to the extent that there is no premium on average for those who go to some institutions.But graduates do earn more, on average £10k pa / 41% more than a non graduate.
Graduates continue to benefit with higher earnings
New figures show that working-age graduates earned £10,000 more than non-graduates in 2018 and had higher employment rates.www.gov.uk
There would need to be wide scale transformation on education, training and employment, and also how we value and restructure financial reward for different jobs.
Otherwise it is a race to the bottom.
Sent from my SM-G965F using Tapatalk
The Graduate Premium: manna, myth or plain mis-selling? - Intergenerational Foundation
Research reports from the Intergenerational Foundation, on a range of intergenerational fairness topics.
www.if.org.uk
shmmeee
Well-Known Member
That 10k/year is heavily skewed by graduates of 'elite' unis as well that the bulk of 16-64 year old graduates went when it was more selective. Its still the case that graduates earn a premium on average but the premium starts to really tail off the further down the league tables list we venture, to the extent that there is no premium on average for those who go to some institutions.
The Graduate Premium: manna, myth or plain mis-selling? - Intergenerational Foundation
Research reports from the Intergenerational Foundation, on a range of intergenerational fairness topics.
Id imagine it varies pretty wildly by course as well.
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
JAM See
Well-Known Member
I'm sure it's more nuanced than a typical Daily Torygraph headline, but I'll go with it and explore further.
However, adding a Twatter link from someone who can't spell descends...
Evo1883
Well-Known Member
Why don't you go straight to the jugular, it includes ALL school children which would include children down to the age of 4
What kind of weirdo supports this nonsense in schools
Supporting transgender young people in schools: guidance for Scottish schools
Guidance for schools on supporting transgender young people
t.co