NKL

I have no idea why they expanded the university sector in the 1990s. This was a delusion - expand the supply of graduates and the number of "graduate jobs" will increase with it. All it has done is created inflated expectations of youngsters, led to "inflation" of requirements for what were non graduate jobs.

Pre 1990s students' parents income was assessed to see what contribution they had to make towards living expenses, - fees were free. Now because so many are eligible everyone has to pay.

Has any progress been made by the widening of the university education system?

Beakersful

Yes, more working class are now going, because less middle class are going. The middle class youths families have looked at the cost:benefits and seen it's now not worth it.

EDIT: To clarify, the average student now borrows £42-44,000 at my university, apparently £54,000 nationally. The government says students will earn an average £100,000 extra (over and above an A level leavers lifetime earnings) over their entire working lifetime. Students at my university, and having studied my degree, the NUS says will earn £24,000 extra over their lifetime.

You must have missed the whole Meritocracy edict that came in with the last Labour government. They changed education to give everyone a chance to get to university, not just the rich.

For instance, they removed any marking down for spelling and grammar in GCSE English, which helps our working class with a bad education and familiy encouraging the "education is uncool" ideology to apply to take a degree (even though they didn't want one in the first place) Evidence of this can be seen in the numbers of middle class students not going to university.

The government also focused the schools ranking system on 5x GCSE's, and allowed schools to compete better by constructing diplomas to take the place of GCSE's in that count. So, their new wave of sports academies could go with Maths, English, PE, PE+ and PE++ and follow a pathway to compete with the likes of Eton when applying for university places.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Rise-Meritoc.../dp/1560007044 Was relevant then, is relevant today. How the Left manipulates education through initially trying to equilise everything, then it corrupts itself.

UKCityGent

I know what PE (Physical Ed) - but what is PE+ & PE+++ ??

Beakersful

It's what my son says is happening in his sports academy. There is actually courses called "PE" and "PE+" and he said there was a third PE type course, with another acronym, which he says is pretty much "PE++"

Sorry, just passing on what he says.

He also says 50% of the lads in his school honestly think they are going to be professional footballers when they grow up.

norsk

I didn't miss it, I just don't agree with the policy. Not everyone needs to have a degree especially as it has devalued the importance of having one in the first place.

In Norway we always had insanely expensive student loans (based on open market interest rates), and since I chose to go to a private business school I will suffer the burden for many years to come yet. Was it worth it? Yes I think so, and the cost of going kept out those who were not motivated.

I will happily repeat myself, not everyone should go to university! What is the point of getting a media degree for example?

Society needs to be in balance and not everyone can sit in an office. Besides there is nothing in the 'rule book' that says white collar means have a better life (and earn more money if you are capitalistically inclined)!

OleJanx

That's a new one for me...

norsk

We had a sports academy within my high school, and although they had more PE than us 'normal' kids I'm pretty sure they still ended up with a full high school diploma having had the same subjects as we did. None of them ended up as professional footballers either..

norsk

Do you like it? I made it up..

OleJanx

Yes, I do!

Beakersful

Of course, you're talking sense. The education system defends all degrees saying that the academic skills of reading, research, and writing mean that all degrees have value. That justifies why the Art History degrees of old have value, and why Sports Science (sports 'science', lol!) degrees have value. Not forgetting the English Literature degree came in at the beginning of the 20thC as a response to the middle classes who wanted an education to become gentleman that wasn't necessarily appropriate for them where only hard science and theology pathways were previously available.

I actually swing towards most degrees being of use, but only if students are observed. I've seen many who weren't, and now know how you could enter university and fake your way through, by buying everything. It's actually cheaper to buy your essays now than the degree itself costs. Essay writers/sellers need to treble their charges too.

@Norsk, are you creating new English words for us today? Did you know most newer entries are created by non-English bilinguals? Well done that man

Meow

It is also not essential to have a degree to be successful in life, even as a white collar worker. Having a degree does not automatically mean a person is brighter, knows more or is more able.

Beakersful

Again, sense.

However, basic level entry to many professions in the UK now require a degree. Degrees are seen as getting your feet on the bottom rung on the career ladded. And many employers don't just want degrees, but a 2:1 and above. Odd that, since you can get on a PGCE (teacher training) course with a 3rd still. (Oh poop, that's just encouraging the "if you can't, teach" stereotype )

norsk

We're on the same page dude! When the time comes I will put huge pressure on my kids to get proper degrees (my definition of course, which means no sports science or any of that crap). See that's what I don't get, why pay your way through a degree when all it's going to lead to is failure? It's not like you'll be able to do a job based on that degree afterwards..

I just don't think the English language has enough words as it is so creating new ones to fit a specific context is fully accepted for sure..

Beakersful

Right, here's a little trick, an exploit so to speak, that I see glaring at me concerning the British university system. It relies on having money for your kids education:

Apply to Oxbridge or Russell Group universities only. Now, I know you're thinking, "But you apply as traditional students through UCAS, online, pick a number of universities, apply before you get your A level results, are at the mercy of your schools staff, etc, etc"

But I'm not suggesting going as a traditional home student and leaving things to chance. First of all applying as an International Student circumvents the numbers of students the government allows universities to accept (Only covers Home students) Look at the target university fees cost for undergraduate degrees as an International Student. In my university the fees are about £12,400 a year. As a traditional Home student they are £9,600. £2,800 a year difference. You're highly unlikely to get access to the Student Loans system going my way, but you're all expats earning a lot of money and how best can some of that be spent? You will need to cough up £12,400 a year for their education, plus living expenses (£5-6,000 a year max?) What is your childs education worth where Oxbridge/Russell Group are concerned? 26 universities that when put on a CV mean so much more than the rest.

norsk

Considering I am a Norwegian citizen I could put my kids through that way taking all the subsidies given (quite a bit to Norwegian students going abroad) but not getting any loans (or even better take the full loans as well and invest it for the period of the study as there is no interest applied until you actually start your first job)...

This is an awesome idea. Shame I'll have to wait about 15 years to put it into practice..