Expansion of 'higher education' in UK - why? To help the banks

[banana]

The 'higher education' sector in the UK has massively expanded. Much of
what's taught is 'padding'. It's 'make teach', comparable to 'make work'
in offices. So, why the expansion?

To keep young people off the streets, who'd otherwise be unemployed?
I think this is only part of the reason. Many students have to work
anyway, e.g. stacking shelves at Tesco's, in order to survive. If they
didn't go to college, Tesco's would still be 'hiring' (Americanism
intended).

I think another part of the reason is as a social engineering strategy
that follows on from the sale of council houses in the 1980s. Make
people think they have a stake in society. Divorce them from any care
for, or even knowledge of, what is being done to the bottom 20-25% of
society (in areas where for example there is permanent mass
unemployment, and the majority of people are chronically ill).

But there is another very important way that it compares with the
aforementioned social engineering of the 1980s. Namely, it's about DEBT.

Just as the sale of council houses corresponded to getting millions of
people into large amounts of debt, that otherwise they wouldn't have
fallen into, so does the strategy of expanding 'padding-based higher
education'.

Expanding the sector has been part and parcel of what began with
abolishing student housing benefit and grants.

How the City bankers must be laughing! We are now talking about millions
of people getting into large amounts of debt when they are 18, and not
getting out of debt until they are about 50.

Meanwhile, they are encouraged to see themselves as respectable, as
people who'd rather take do two or three jobs so as to keep up their
debt repayments, than get into major arrears.

I wonder how long it will be until people are encouraged to get into
debt to send their children to 'fee-paying schools for the non-posh' - a
sector that is also expanding?

[Stephen Horgan]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana
<***@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:

Now this is an interesting post.

Post by banana
The 'higher education' sector in the UK has massively expanded. Much of
what's taught is 'padding'. It's 'make teach', comparable to 'make work'
in offices. So, why the expansion?

The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

Post by banana
To keep young people off the streets, who'd otherwise be unemployed?
I think this is only part of the reason. Many students have to work
anyway, e.g. stacking shelves at Tesco's, in order to survive. If they
didn't go to college, Tesco's would still be 'hiring' (Americanism
intended).

The point is that the number of unskilled jobs in the economy that pay
a reasonable wage is falling whereas the demand for graduates is
increasing. In any case Britain needs to compete as an advanced
economy, and that requires educated people.

Post by banana
I think another part of the reason is as a social engineering strategy
that follows on from the sale of council houses in the 1980s. Make
people think they have a stake in society. Divorce them from any care
for, or even knowledge of, what is being done to the bottom 20-25% of
society (in areas where for example there is permanent mass
unemployment, and the majority of people are chronically ill).

There will certainly be social change as a result of this policy and a
great deal of social mobility. The point that those at the bottom who
don't make it to university will further be marginalised is well made.

Post by banana
But there is another very important way that it compares with the
aforementioned social engineering of the 1980s. Namely, it's about DEBT.

The huge expansion in higher education is being funded via the private
sector, that is true.

Post by banana
Just as the sale of council houses corresponded to getting millions of
people into large amounts of debt, that otherwise they wouldn't have
fallen into, so does the strategy of expanding 'padding-based higher
education'.

The sale of council houses was and is an unqualified success. As for
padding, students with any nous take a reasonable degree. If they opt
for sociology or media studies then they shouldn't complain if the
world doesn't come knocking at their door.

Post by banana
Expanding the sector has been part and parcel of what began with
abolishing student housing benefit and grants.

Funding the expansion of higher education only from the state would
have been extremely expensive. The judgement was to direct government
spending elsewhere.

Post by banana
How the City bankers must be laughing! We are now talking about millions
of people getting into large amounts of debt when they are 18, and not
getting out of debt until they are about 50.

Speaking as a City banker I would agree that the banks are not
entirely displeased at the current state of affairs. Most students who
obtain reasonable degrees should find themselves out of debt by about
30 though, not 50.

Post by banana
Meanwhile, they are encouraged to see themselves as respectable, as
people who'd rather take do two or three jobs so as to keep up their
debt repayments, than get into major arrears.

The debt repayments don't even start until a certain income level is
reached and stop if income falls below those levels. The interest rate
is also very competitive.

Post by banana
I wonder how long it will be until people are encouraged to get into
debt to send their children to 'fee-paying schools for the non-posh' - a
sector that is also expanding?

We desperately need to liberalise education in this country and give
people choices that aren't based on house price, which is effectively
how things work at the moment.
--
Stephen Horgan

"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"

[banana]

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana
Now this is an interesting post.

Post by banana
The 'higher education' sector in the UK has massively expanded. Much of
what's taught is 'padding'. It's 'make teach', comparable to 'make work'
in offices. So, why the expansion?

The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

Does business need people who are 'educated' enough to turn down banks
when they say 'we can't lend you the amount you asked for, but we can
lend you double'? The amount of stupidity in the UK is probably higher
than in any other 'advanced' country.

As for 'industry', a large percentage of engineering students at UK
universities come from abroad. Quite possibly the majority.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
To keep young people off the streets, who'd otherwise be unemployed?
I think this is only part of the reason. Many students have to work
anyway, e.g. stacking shelves at Tesco's, in order to survive. If they
didn't go to college, Tesco's would still be 'hiring' (Americanism
intended).

The point is that the number of unskilled jobs in the economy that pay
a reasonable wage is falling whereas the demand for graduates is
increasing.

Most jobs classified as 'unskilled' - which usually means manual and not
requiring much training - pay low wages. The hotel and catering sector
is expanding, and the number of people who work in call centres is
increasing. If demand for graduates is increasing, it's mainly because
many people who leave school at 16 can't read and write properly, or use
basic logic - because of the sheer amount of conditioning that they have
been subjected to, to make them 'stupid'... (Which is an example of
contradictions within the system, and, more specifically, contradictions
between a) finance capital and industrial capital, and b) the rulers'
wicked drive, and what is good for them. But neither of these
contradictions should be exaggerated). How would the government-backed
National Lottery, for example, get its profits, if sufficient numbers of
people weren't 'stupid'?

Post by Stephen Horgan
In any case Britain needs to compete as an advanced
economy, and that requires educated people.

Ref. to 'padding' in original article.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
I think another part of the reason is as a social engineering strategy
that follows on from the sale of council houses in the 1980s. Make
people think they have a stake in society. Divorce them from any care
for, or even knowledge of, what is being done to the bottom 20-25% of
society (in areas where for example there is permanent mass
unemployment, and the majority of people are chronically ill).

There will certainly be social change as a result of this policy and a
great deal of social mobility.

There won't. It is a change, certainly, but it is not social mobility. I
know there is an ongoing propaganda campaign, regarding 'social
mobility'. The truth is that social mobility is at an EXTREMELY LOW
level, and FALLING. When they move towards practically RUBBING IT OUT
altogether, they will boast even more about how they are INCREASING it.
A good example of how things are getting EVEN MORE SCHIZOID. The same is
true with all this garbage about 'fighting social exclusion', unless you
is read as meaning 'more surveillance'.

(Interestingly, the 'Sunday Times' has been running articles for a while
saying that poor middle-class students are being kept out of
universities so that 'oiks' can get places - which is of course utterly
untrue, but plays well with some of their audience. But now they have
changed their line through 180 degrees, and are saying that there is
hardly any 'social mobility' and there should be much more! Thanks,
think tanks! Or should that be 'corporate/government propagandists'?)

Post by Stephen Horgan
The point that those at the bottom who
don't make it to university will further be marginalised is well made.

Post by banana
But there is another very important way that it compares with the
aforementioned social engineering of the 1980s. Namely, it's about DEBT.

The huge expansion in higher education is being funded via the private
sector, that is true.

Including via a massive rise in personal debt for people between say 18
and 30.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
Just as the sale of council houses corresponded to getting millions of
people into large amounts of debt, that otherwise they wouldn't have
fallen into, so does the strategy of expanding 'padding-based higher
education'.

The sale of council houses was and is an unqualified success.

No disagreement here. Certainly it has been a success. The rulers
achieved what they wanted to.

Post by Stephen Horgan
As for
padding, students with any nous take a reasonable degree. If they opt
for sociology or media studies then they shouldn't complain if the
world doesn't come knocking at their door.

What is this concept of 'nous'? A lot of people are in families where
no-one has been to university before. They don't know much about the
options and no-one tells them.

<snip>

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
How the City bankers must be laughing! We are now talking about millions
of people getting into large amounts of debt when they are 18, and not
getting out of debt until they are about 50.

Speaking as a City banker I would agree that the banks are not
entirely displeased at the current state of affairs. Most students who
obtain reasonable degrees should find themselves out of debt by about
30 though, not 50.

Not true - they will get mortgages.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
Meanwhile, they are encouraged to see themselves as respectable, as
people who'd rather take do two or three jobs so as to keep up their
debt repayments, than get into major arrears.

The debt repayments don't even start until a certain income level is
reached and stop if income falls below those levels. The interest rate
is also very competitive.

I was looking at the person's relationship with the bank longitudinally,
which is how the bank looks at it, and which includes factoring in their
mortgage and other loans they might get. We are talking about a big
increase in the percentage of people in their 20s, and younger, who
think being in thousands of pounds of worth of debt is 'normal'. Their
parents at their age would have thought it was an indication of being in
serious trouble.

20 years ago it was mainly bourgeois students who got large loans
(/overdrafts), mostly paid off by mumsy and dadsy when they got their
degrees (while the rent that some of them got from letting rooms in
parentally-bought flats just about covered their cocaine and restaurant
bills).

As for competitive interest rates...I know with the PFI the firms are
helped by the government to 'borrow' at cheaper rates than would
otherwise be the case, to 'compensate' them for 'providing finance'
through the PFI (i.e. the whole thing is a racket of which Cosa Nostra
would be proud)... Is the same true with student loans?

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
I wonder how long it will be until people are encouraged to get into
debt to send their children to 'fee-paying schools for the non-posh' - a
sector that is also expanding?

We desperately need to liberalise education in this country and give
people choices that aren't based on house price, which is effectively
how things work at the moment.

Is it 'coincidental' that that too would be very good for the banks?
'Choice' is a right-wing ideological term. The policy is one of
large-scale social engineering, in the interests of the banks,
mystification, and the division of the working class.

[Ernest]

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana
Now this is an interesting post.

Post by banana
The 'higher education' sector in the UK has massively expanded. Much of
what's taught is 'padding'. It's 'make teach', comparable to 'make work'
in offices. So, why the expansion?

The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

It sounds good. But... The skills required by industry are not the areas
that are expanding. Maths, Physics, Chemistry etc, etc.

Instead we see expansion of cheap to run courses like media studies,
virtually useless.

It would have been much better to target resources on the candidates (rich
or poor) who would benefit from the courses who skills were in demand.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Ernest
It sounds good. But... The skills required by industry are not the areas
that are expanding. Maths, Physics, Chemistry etc, etc.

Most science and engineering courses are, indeed, finding
it hard to recruit students of the highest calibre. But maths is
expanding.

[George Saden]

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana
Now this is an interesting post.

Post by banana
The 'higher education' sector in the UK has massively expanded. Much of
what's taught is 'padding'. It's 'make teach', comparable to 'make work'
in offices. So, why the expansion?

The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

Is anyone telling these graduates that their work is all being
outsourced offshore?

[Paul Hyett]

In uk.politics.misc on Mon, 29 Aug 2005 at 12:27:53, Stephen Horgan

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana
Now this is an interesting post.

Post by banana
The 'higher education' sector in the UK has massively expanded. Much of
what's taught is 'padding'. It's 'make teach', comparable to 'make work'
in offices. So, why the expansion?

The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

But it doesn't work that way in practice. Students who in previous
decades wouldn't have been considered university material, will go for
the 'easy' courses, rather than the useful ones.

IMO quality has been sacrificed for quantity.

Post by Stephen Horgan
The point is that the number of unskilled jobs in the economy that pay
a reasonable wage is falling whereas the demand for graduates is
increasing.

But the very numbers attending Uni devalues qualifications obtained
there.

And don't even get me started on the dumbing down of GCSE's & A
levels...

Post by Stephen Horgan
In any case Britain needs to compete as an advanced
economy, and that requires educated people.

Yes - but ones with *useful* qualifications.

Post by Stephen Horgan
The sale of council houses was and is an unqualified success. As for
padding, students with any nous take a reasonable degree. If they opt
for sociology or media studies then they shouldn't complain if the
world doesn't come knocking at their door.

But people only capable of doing those 'degrees' should never have
qualified for Uni in the first place. I resent my tax money subsidising
such useless qualifications.

Post by Stephen Horgan
Funding the expansion of higher education only from the state would
have been extremely expensive.

IMO the main mistake was the expansion - far better to offer full grants
to students who are capable of passing real degrees, than turning uni's
into just another way of reducing dole numbers.

[Mel Rowing]

Post by Paul Hyett

Post by Stephen Horgan
The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

But it doesn't work that way in practice. Students who in previous
decades wouldn't have been considered university material, will go for
the 'easy' courses, rather than the useful ones.
IMO quality has been sacrificed for quantity.

There can be no doubt that in a increasingly globalised world the
pressures on unskilled labour rates is going to be remorselessly
downwards for a long time to come. The only means of countering this
is to raise general skill levels.

I'm not sure that pushing more and more young people through
universities pursuing mickey mouse courses is the best way to do this
unless the overall concept of universities is to undergo fundamental
change.

Post by Paul Hyett

Post by Stephen Horgan
The point is that the number of unskilled jobs in the economy that pay
a reasonable wage is falling whereas the demand for graduates is
increasing.

But the very numbers attending Uni devalues qualifications obtained
there.

There will always be an international demand for good graduates. There
will always be room for talent. It's going to be the qualified talent
less that may be the problem in that their induced expectations of
themselves might not be realised.

Post by Paul Hyett
And don't even get me started on the dumbing down of GCSE's & A
levels...

Exams are not being "dumbed down". They are simply not the same
exams anymore. To say that today's exams are easier than those of
yesterday is akin to saying that football is easier than cricket. The
answer is just as daft as the question.

It does disturb me however to find that today an undergraduate can
enter the portals of his chosen university having never written an
essay in his life. As a pal of mine put it only yesterday, we had to
write an essay to pass our 11+


Mel Rowing

[m***@my-deja.com]

Post by Mel Rowing
Exams are not being "dumbed down". They are simply not the same
exams anymore. To say that today's exams are easier than those of
yesterday is akin to saying that football is easier than cricket.

Sorry, but that's absurd. If far more people today are getting 'A'
grades than were when I took my A-levels, then there are really only
two options: kids today are much smarter or better educated than they
were twenty years ago or the exams have been dumbed down (and the exams
I took had already been noticeably dumbed down compared to the exam
papers we went through for practice from ten or fifteen years before).

Which of those options do you think is correct?

Mark

[r]

Exams are not being "dumbed down". They are simply not the same exams
anymore. To say that today's exams are easier than those of yesterday is
akin to saying that football is easier than cricket.

Sorry, but that's absurd. If far more people today are getting 'A' grades
kids today are much smarter or better educated than they were twenty years
ago or the exams have been dumbed down (and the exams I took had already
been noticeably dumbed down compared to the exam papers we went through
for practice from ten or fifteen years before).
Which of those options do you think is correct?

this was tested on newsnight ten years ago.
The current crop of A'Level candidates were in the studios to sit some
old A'Level papers in their subjects, maths physics etc. All failed. In
fact they couldn't even begin to answer the questions they were so hard.
There you have it for all to see.

Mark

[George Saden]

Post by r

Exams are not being "dumbed down". They are simply not the same exams
anymore. To say that today's exams are easier than those of yesterday is
akin to saying that football is easier than cricket.

Sorry, but that's absurd. If far more people today are getting 'A' grades
kids today are much smarter or better educated than they were twenty years
ago or the exams have been dumbed down (and the exams I took had already
been noticeably dumbed down compared to the exam papers we went through
for practice from ten or fifteen years before).
Which of those options do you think is correct?

this was tested on newsnight ten years ago.
The current crop of A'Level candidates were in the studios to sit some
old A'Level papers in their subjects, maths physics etc. All failed. In
fact they couldn't even begin to answer the questions they were so hard.
There you have it for all to see.

If the syllabus is not the same, and the younger students hadn't studied
the old syllabus around with the old exams were based, how could they be
expected to answer the questions?

[pjs2002]

Post by George Saden

Post by r
this was tested on newsnight ten years ago.
The current crop of A'Level candidates were in the studios to sit some
old A'Level papers in their subjects, maths physics etc. All failed. In
fact they couldn't even begin to answer the questions they were so hard.
There you have it for all to see.

If the syllabus is not the same, and the younger students hadn't studied
the old syllabus around with the old exams were based, how could they be
expected to answer the questions?

Problem being that nowadays pupils are just taught to assimilate information
for passing exams, whereas previously things were taugh using real world
examples that allow them to develop problem solving skills needed by
employers. Both Maths and Physics require problem solving skills to be
successful at them, thats what there all about. In fact core Maths and
Physics subject matter has changed very little over the last 20 years, what
has changed is teaching methods and the exams not testing higher level
skills.

[Mel Rowing]

Post by r

Exams are not being "dumbed down". They are simply not the same exams
anymore. To say that today's exams are easier than those of yesterday is
akin to saying that football is easier than cricket.

Sorry, but that's absurd. If far more people today are getting 'A' grades
kids today are much smarter or better educated than they were twenty years
ago or the exams have been dumbed down (and the exams I took had already
been noticeably dumbed down compared to the exam papers we went through
for practice from ten or fifteen years before).
Which of those options do you think is correct?

this was tested on newsnight ten years ago.
The current crop of A'Level candidates were in the studios to sit some
old A'Level papers in their subjects, maths physics etc. All failed. In
fact they couldn't even begin to answer the questions they were so hard.
There you have it for all to see.

Sure!

You might recall not as long ago that a crop of high achieving 16 year
olds were placed in a simulated 50's grammar school environment and
fared badly.

The point is you weren't comparing like with like. First these kids
are different to myself and my cohort back in the 50's when I
attended a traditional grammar school. Second, and more importantly not
only was there educational background right back to age 5 different but
also they were not being educated towards the same exam.

The traditional 'O' , 'A' and 'S' levels were essentially
university selection exams and as such sought to identify the 10% of
any year group who would eventually would go to university through a
system of grants, bursaries and scholarships.

Now, even as things stand, a much higher proportion of students go into
both FE and HE. The exams therefore necessarily need select a much
broader band. They are serving a different purpose. Rest assured the
very talented people who went to university in my day are still going
there.

Mel Rowing

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by r

Sorry, but that's absurd. If far more people today are getting 'A' grades
kids today are much smarter or better educated than they were twenty years
ago or the exams have been dumbed down (and the exams I took had already
been noticeably dumbed down compared to the exam papers we went through
for practice from ten or fifteen years before).

There are at least three other options, all of which, IMHO,
apply in reality: (a) Many more bright 16yos are choosing/able to
stop on and try for A-levels and HE rather than leave school to get
a job. (b) Increased flexibility in schools [esp 6FCs] is allowing
16yos to select the subjects they are good at rather than having to
take prescribed diets. (c) Grade-conscious 16yos are choosing easy
subjects.

Post by r

Which of those options do you think is correct?

this was tested on newsnight ten years ago.
The current crop of A'Level candidates were in the studios to sit some
old A'Level papers in their subjects, maths physics etc. All failed. In
fact they couldn't even begin to answer the questions they were so hard.
There you have it for all to see.

Unfortunately, we can't in practice do the reverse experiment
and take today's old people, zap their memories of more recently gained
knowledge and experience, and sit them down with what they knew of
maths/physics/etc at 18 to tackle today's papers. But if we could, I
guarantee they'd be just as hopeless.

There's nothing new in people finding old papers hard. I came
across my mother's old School Cert maths papers a year or two back.
They were hopelessly difficult. Geometry "riders" and algebraic
invariants of stunning complexity. But no stats, or vectors, or
matrices, or groups, or algorithms, or decisions. She could not have
tackled my, or my childrens', A-levels any more than I could have
tackled her exams.

Separately, you and Mark seem to see some merit in exams
being "hard". No, there isn't. Any fool can set an exam that
no-one can do. What matters is to set an exam in which students
between "bare pass" level and [borderline] "A*" level can show
their paces and be discriminated. That requires graduated levels
of difficulty including some very easy questions and some harder.

[pjs2002]

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Paul Hyett

Post by Stephen Horgan
The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

But it doesn't work that way in practice. Students who in previous
decades wouldn't have been considered university material, will go for
the 'easy' courses, rather than the useful ones.
IMO quality has been sacrificed for quantity.

There can be no doubt that in a increasingly globalised world the
pressures on unskilled labour rates is going to be remorselessly
downwards for a long time to come. The only means of countering this
is to raise general skill levels.

Agreed here is a growing need for skilled people but universities do not
have a monopoly on skills training. Indeed most of the skills required by
employers are more likely to be gained from practical training, getting
hands-on experience and dealing with the public/customers. For the most
part much above basic numeracy and literacy is wasted. More specific
vocational skills that most jobs require can be picked up on the job or
through training.

Post by Mel Rowing
I'm not sure that pushing more and more young people through
universities pursuing mickey mouse courses is the best way to do this
unless the overall concept of universities is to undergo fundamental
change.

Post by Paul Hyett

Post by Stephen Horgan
The point is that the number of unskilled jobs in the economy that pay
a reasonable wage is falling whereas the demand for graduates is
increasing.

That is because Graduates are cheap labour rather than training school
leavers. They may want people with degrees but the jobs in the most part
will not really require much more than a average general intelligence and a
bit of motivation/keeness. To spend 3 year studying a degree just to prove
your a motivated person and can keep your head down is a waste of time
unless you get in depth skills and the job requires them.

pjs

[banana]

Post by pjs2002

Post by Mel Rowing

Post by Paul Hyett

Post by Stephen Horgan
The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

But it doesn't work that way in practice. Students who in previous
decades wouldn't have been considered university material, will go for
the 'easy' courses, rather than the useful ones.
IMO quality has been sacrificed for quantity.

There can be no doubt that in a increasingly globalised world the
pressures on unskilled labour rates is going to be remorselessly
downwards for a long time to come. The only means of countering this
is to raise general skill levels.

Agreed here is a growing need for skilled people but universities do not
have a monopoly on skills training. Indeed most of the skills required by
employers are more likely to be gained from practical training, getting
hands-on experience and dealing with the public/customers. For the most
part much above basic numeracy and literacy is wasted.

That is such a disgusting thing to say. It's the time people have to
spend working for their boss that's wasted.

[Derek ^]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:27:53 GMT, Stephen Horgan

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana
Now this is an interesting post.

Post by banana
The 'higher education' sector in the UK has massively expanded. Much of
what's taught is 'padding'. It's 'make teach', comparable to 'make work'
in offices. So, why the expansion?

The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

A) They speak of 50% of the population going into higher education.
there is no market for that number of highly qualified graduates.

B) Unfortunately British industry has been decimated "N" times over.
We can't rebuild it from the top down, by command economy style
producing vast numbers of highly qualified graduates.

C) Most of the high status jobs in "management" that people went to
university in the '60s and 70's to get a chance of getting have been
eliminated by the computer revolution, so that an young oik on a PC
workstation needs less supervision than a junior insurance underwriter
in the '60s because the computer can be programmed to only let him do
things right. Why, nowadays even the oik has been eliminated and
customers can interact with the computer themselves via the internet.

D) The nature of the subjects studied gives the lie to claims that the
qualification is intended to be useful, ergo there must be another
purpose. ISTM keeping students off of the dole queues is one such
purpose, getting the next generation into debt is another, although a
person with a degree in "sport science" is unlikely to get much more
than a minimum wage job, If he at any time does get a job that pays
much more, (Inherits the family business, say) the state will start
collecting his student loan. If he's 30+ and just got his first house
on a Mortgage with a couple of kids to support, he might come to
regret that £20k boondoggle studying "golf" when he was 18

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
To keep young people off the streets, who'd otherwise be unemployed?
I think this is only part of the reason. Many students have to work
anyway, e.g. stacking shelves at Tesco's, in order to survive. If they
didn't go to college, Tesco's would still be 'hiring' (Americanism
intended).

The point is that the number of unskilled jobs in the economy that pay
a reasonable wage is falling whereas the demand for graduates is
increasing. In any case Britain needs to compete as an advanced
economy, and that requires educated people.

What you are proposing is like trying to rebuild the World Trade
Centre from the top down.

Post by Stephen Horgan
The sale of council houses was and is an unqualified success.

My observation is that the results have been very mixed, and are only
"Better" in the relative sense that the performance of council housing
depts. was absolutely dire. Owner occupiers of ex Council Houses are
still at the mercy of the Council who can and do decide on a whim that
they will decant the contents of a sink estate from the other side of
the city into your street, and move Chavs in next door.

Post by Stephen Horgan
As for
padding, students with any nous take a reasonable degree. If they opt
for sociology or media studies then they shouldn't complain if the
world doesn't come knocking at their door.

They choose their degree when they are 16 or 17. They don't have the
experience to see that they are being sold a "bill of goods". They
believe that if the state invests many millions of pounds in new
University Buildings, then if they can get in it must be "A good
thing" for them.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
Expanding the sector has been part and parcel of what began with
abolishing student housing benefit and grants.

Funding the expansion of higher education only from the state would
have been extremely expensive. The judgement was to direct government
spending elsewhere.

Iraq war? G.B "Helping the poorest"?

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
How the City bankers must be laughing! We are now talking about millions
of people getting into large amounts of debt when they are 18, and not
getting out of debt until they are about 50.

Speaking as a City banker I would agree that the banks are not
entirely displeased at the current state of affairs. Most students who
obtain reasonable degrees should find themselves out of debt by about
30 though, not 50.

Post by banana
Meanwhile, they are encouraged to see themselves as respectable, as
people who'd rather take do two or three jobs so as to keep up their
debt repayments, than get into major arrears.

The debt repayments don't even start until a certain income level is
reached and stop if income falls below those levels. The interest rate
is also very competitive.

There have been 4? 5? different sets of opaque rules. My son left uni
10 years ago and has paid nowt back. It seems he could earn almost 20k
before he starts, although he is of the opinion that once he starts he
can't stop, so he has been manipulating his bonuses and "Overtime". I
think in the next set of rules repayment will kick in at £15k through
the income tax system.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
I wonder how long it will be until people are encouraged to get into
debt to send their children to 'fee-paying schools for the non-posh' - a
sector that is also expanding?

We desperately need to liberalise education in this country and give
people choices that aren't based on house price, which is effectively
how things work at the moment.

An extra choice of being able to study a 4 year Honours Degree Course
in Pizza-Ology, or "Geography with Dance", isn't worth it's weight in
cough drops.

DG

[Stephen Horgan]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:56:56 +0100, Derek ^

Post by Derek ^
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:27:53 GMT, Stephen Horgan

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana
Now this is an interesting post.

Post by banana
The 'higher education' sector in the UK has massively expanded. Much of
what's taught is 'padding'. It's 'make teach', comparable to 'make work'
in offices. So, why the expansion?

The logic is to push up the number of graduates to equip British
industry with the educated people it needs for 21st century business.

A) They speak of 50% of the population going into higher education.
there is no market for that number of highly qualified graduates.

While the differential has fallen, a degree is still worth an
increased lifetime income, which suggests that there is a market.

Post by Derek ^
B) Unfortunately British industry has been decimated "N" times over.
We can't rebuild it from the top down, by command economy style
producing vast numbers of highly qualified graduates.

British Industry has been decimated? The Banking sector for example
has expanded hugely over the last couple of decades.

Post by Derek ^
C) Most of the high status jobs in "management" that people went to
university in the '60s and 70's to get a chance of getting have been
eliminated by the computer revolution, so that an young oik on a PC
workstation needs less supervision than a junior insurance underwriter
in the '60s because the computer can be programmed to only let him do
things right. Why, nowadays even the oik has been eliminated and
customers can interact with the computer themselves via the internet.

This is simply not the way office automation works. Relatively
unskilled jobs, and a lot of secretarial ones, have certainly gone but
they have been replaced by people working with information. Computers
are only tools by the way. A useless idiot with a computer is still a
useless idiot.

Post by Derek ^
D) The nature of the subjects studied gives the lie to claims that the
qualification is intended to be useful, ergo there must be another
purpose. ISTM keeping students off of the dole queues is one such
purpose, getting the next generation into debt is another, although a
person with a degree in "sport science" is unlikely to get much more
than a minimum wage job, If he at any time does get a job that pays
much more, (Inherits the family business, say) the state will start
collecting his student loan. If he's 30+ and just got his first house
on a Mortgage with a couple of kids to support, he might come to
regret that £20k boondoggle studying "golf" when he was 18

Most sports science graduates become PE teachers, or sports coaches of
some kind. There are plenty of people taking technical degrees by the
way.

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
To keep young people off the streets, who'd otherwise be unemployed?
I think this is only part of the reason. Many students have to work
anyway, e.g. stacking shelves at Tesco's, in order to survive. If they
didn't go to college, Tesco's would still be 'hiring' (Americanism
intended).

The point is that the number of unskilled jobs in the economy that pay
a reasonable wage is falling whereas the demand for graduates is
increasing. In any case Britain needs to compete as an advanced
economy, and that requires educated people.

What you are proposing is like trying to rebuild the World Trade
Centre from the top down.

I am not proposing anything. This is what is happening.

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan
The sale of council houses was and is an unqualified success.

My observation is that the results have been very mixed, and are only
"Better" in the relative sense that the performance of council housing
depts. was absolutely dire. Owner occupiers of ex Council Houses are
still at the mercy of the Council who can and do decide on a whim that
they will decant the contents of a sink estate from the other side of
the city into your street, and move Chavs in next door.

Councils don't do things on a whim and in any case the better estates
now have a very high degree of owner occupation.

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan
As for
padding, students with any nous take a reasonable degree. If they opt
for sociology or media studies then they shouldn't complain if the
world doesn't come knocking at their door.

They choose their degree when they are 16 or 17. They don't have the
experience to see that they are being sold a "bill of goods". They
believe that if the state invests many millions of pounds in new
University Buildings, then if they can get in it must be "A good
thing" for them.

This is a generalisation. Teenagers get careers advice or advice from
their parents and plenty of them opt for science, technical or
vocational degrees.

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
Expanding the sector has been part and parcel of what began with
abolishing student housing benefit and grants.

Funding the expansion of higher education only from the state would
have been extremely expensive. The judgement was to direct government
spending elsewhere.

Iraq war? G.B "Helping the poorest"?

Primarily the Health Service.

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
How the City bankers must be laughing! We are now talking about millions
of people getting into large amounts of debt when they are 18, and not
getting out of debt until they are about 50.

Speaking as a City banker I would agree that the banks are not
entirely displeased at the current state of affairs. Most students who
obtain reasonable degrees should find themselves out of debt by about
30 though, not 50.

Post by banana
Meanwhile, they are encouraged to see themselves as respectable, as
people who'd rather take do two or three jobs so as to keep up their
debt repayments, than get into major arrears.

The debt repayments don't even start until a certain income level is
reached and stop if income falls below those levels. The interest rate
is also very competitive.

There have been 4? 5? different sets of opaque rules. My son left uni
10 years ago and has paid nowt back. It seems he could earn almost 20k
before he starts, although he is of the opinion that once he starts he
can't stop, so he has been manipulating his bonuses and "Overtime". I
think in the next set of rules repayment will kick in at £15k through
the income tax system.

The rules are changing as you suspect.

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
I wonder how long it will be until people are encouraged to get into
debt to send their children to 'fee-paying schools for the non-posh' - a
sector that is also expanding?

We desperately need to liberalise education in this country and give
people choices that aren't based on house price, which is effectively
how things work at the moment.

An extra choice of being able to study a 4 year Honours Degree Course
in Pizza-Ology, or "Geography with Dance", isn't worth it's weight in
cough drops.

Some idiots do mickey mouse courses, but most don't. In my line of
work we basically want graduates with good degrees. Others basically
need not apply. We are not alone in our preferences.

--
Stephen Horgan

"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"

[banana]

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:56:56 +0100, Derek ^

Post by Derek ^
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:27:53 GMT, Stephen Horgan

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana

<snip>

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^
B) Unfortunately British industry has been decimated "N" times over.
We can't rebuild it from the top down, by command economy style
producing vast numbers of highly qualified graduates.

British Industry has been decimated? The Banking sector for example
has expanded hugely over the last couple of decades.

I would use 'industry', without qualification, to mean manufacturing and
extraction.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^
C) Most of the high status jobs in "management" that people went to
university in the '60s and 70's to get a chance of getting have been
eliminated by the computer revolution, so that an young oik on a PC
workstation needs less supervision than a junior insurance underwriter
in the '60s because the computer can be programmed to only let him do
things right. Why, nowadays even the oik has been eliminated and
customers can interact with the computer themselves via the internet.

This is simply not the way office automation works.

Indeed. Computerisation of office work has not decreased employment in
offices. Anyone who doubts this should peer through the windows of their
local town hall. There are just as many people in there - very probably
more people - and nowadays most of them have computers on their desks.

Post by Stephen Horgan
Relatively
unskilled jobs, and a lot of secretarial ones, have certainly gone but
they have been replaced by people working with information. Computers
are only tools by the way. A useless idiot with a computer is still a
useless idiot.

Computerisation of offices has been part and parcel of a massive amount
of deskilling. Similar deskilling happened in much of industry but
earlier in the last century. There has also been deskilling in teaching.

There has been a massive rise in idiocy. For a first impression, people
need only look at what's on the television, in the newspapers, or in the
shops. In a typical supermarket, for instance, you can buy carrots loose
or in a plastic bag where they've been sweating away for several hours -
many people outside the poorest say 20% of the population choose the
latter. I doubt very much that this would happen in, say, France, where
most people have, to be blunt, got more sense.
<snip>

Post by Stephen Horgan
This is a generalisation. Teenagers get careers advice or advice from
their parents and plenty of them opt for science, technical or
vocational degrees.

Prime examples of vocational degrees would be degrees in medicine or
law; also computing to some extent.

<snip>

Post by Stephen Horgan
Some idiots do mickey mouse courses, but most don't. In my line of
work we basically want graduates with good degrees. Others basically
need not apply. We are not alone in our preferences.

But don't you prefer graduates in subjects other than banking? This
certainly used to be the case. Maybe things have changed?

[Stephen Horgan]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:29:16 +0100, banana

Post by banana

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:56:56 +0100, Derek ^

Post by Derek ^
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:27:53 GMT, Stephen Horgan

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana

<snip>

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^
B) Unfortunately British industry has been decimated "N" times over.
We can't rebuild it from the top down, by command economy style
producing vast numbers of highly qualified graduates.

British Industry has been decimated? The Banking sector for example
has expanded hugely over the last couple of decades.

I would use 'industry', without qualification, to mean manufacturing and
extraction.

Manufacturing is going to carry on shrinking in terms of proportion of
the economy and employment. In terms of absolute output it is actually
staying about level, but automation is more pervasive and will grow
more so. In fact, my feeling is that automation will reach such a
level that the advantages enjoyed by the labour intensive processes in
developing countries will disappear in the next five to ten years.

Post by banana

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^
C) Most of the high status jobs in "management" that people went to
university in the '60s and 70's to get a chance of getting have been
eliminated by the computer revolution, so that an young oik on a PC
workstation needs less supervision than a junior insurance underwriter
in the '60s because the computer can be programmed to only let him do
things right. Why, nowadays even the oik has been eliminated and
customers can interact with the computer themselves via the internet.

This is simply not the way office automation works.

Indeed. Computerisation of office work has not decreased employment in
offices. Anyone who doubts this should peer through the windows of their
local town hall. There are just as many people in there - very probably
more people - and nowadays most of them have computers on their desks.

Yep.

Post by banana

Post by Stephen Horgan
Relatively
unskilled jobs, and a lot of secretarial ones, have certainly gone but
they have been replaced by people working with information. Computers
are only tools by the way. A useless idiot with a computer is still a
useless idiot.

Computerisation of offices has been part and parcel of a massive amount
of deskilling. Similar deskilling happened in much of industry but
earlier in the last century. There has also been deskilling in teaching.

I would disagree. Skills are what is in demand. What isn't in demand
is unskilled, at least not at what I would call a reasonable wage.
Teaching is another matter and my experience as a school governor does
not suggest that they are not only highly skilled, but subject to
continuous training as well.

Post by banana
There has been a massive rise in idiocy. For a first impression, people
need only look at what's on the television, in the newspapers, or in the
shops. In a typical supermarket, for instance, you can buy carrots loose
or in a plastic bag where they've been sweating away for several hours -
many people outside the poorest say 20% of the population choose the
latter. I doubt very much that this would happen in, say, France, where
most people have, to be blunt, got more sense.
<snip>

I wonder if it is more that the middle class has expanded to encompass
a lot of people who would have been on a lower income bracket in a
previous generation. So, entertainment and the media has grown less
exclusive, which is not necessarily a bad thing. They certainly know
more about food in France though.

Post by banana

Post by Stephen Horgan
This is a generalisation. Teenagers get careers advice or advice from
their parents and plenty of them opt for science, technical or
vocational degrees.

Prime examples of vocational degrees would be degrees in medicine or
law; also computing to some extent.

Or engineering.

Post by banana
<snip>

Post by Stephen Horgan
Some idiots do mickey mouse courses, but most don't. In my line of
work we basically want graduates with good degrees. Others basically
need not apply. We are not alone in our preferences.

But don't you prefer graduates in subjects other than banking? This
certainly used to be the case. Maybe things have changed?

We want people with good degrees, which means a good grade at a
serious subject. If the role is highly technical then the degree
should reflect that, at least at entry level.
--
Stephen Horgan

"intelligent people will tend to overvalue intelligence"

[banana]

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 21:29:16 +0100, banana

Post by banana

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 15:56:56 +0100, Derek ^

Post by Derek ^
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:27:53 GMT, Stephen Horgan

Post by Stephen Horgan
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:30:26 +0100, banana

<snip>

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^
B) Unfortunately British industry has been decimated "N" times over.
We can't rebuild it from the top down, by command economy style
producing vast numbers of highly qualified graduates.

British Industry has been decimated? The Banking sector for example
has expanded hugely over the last couple of decades.

I would use 'industry', without qualification, to mean manufacturing and
extraction.

Manufacturing is going to carry on shrinking in terms of proportion of
the economy and employment. In terms of absolute output it is actually
staying about level, but automation is more pervasive and will grow
more so. In fact, my feeling is that automation will reach such a
level that the advantages enjoyed by the labour intensive processes in
developing countries will disappear in the next five to ten years.

The main 'advantage' being cheap labour.

<snip>

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
Computerisation of offices has been part and parcel of a massive amount
of deskilling. Similar deskilling happened in much of industry but
earlier in the last century. There has also been deskilling in teaching.

I would disagree. Skills are what is in demand. What isn't in demand
is unskilled, at least not at what I would call a reasonable wage.
Teaching is another matter and my experience as a school governor does
not suggest that they are not only highly skilled, but subject to
continuous training as well.

Most of their 'continuous training', as they may not admit when you're
around, involves learning bureaucratic bullshit office-talk. The ones
who dehumanise themselves the most, get promoted, or maybe just stay in
the job rather than getting the hell out. Same with white-collar
'health' service jobs outside of the medical priesthood.

A close analogy could be drawn with the 'indicator target' culture in
the economy of the USSR. Presenting things the way they need to be
presented in order to meet the targets, becomes predominant. Doesn't
matter whether the tractor works, or whether the children can read or
write. Ditto all the crap that local councils talk and do, to make sure
they get block grants for 'five portions of vegetables a day' or
whatever rubbish is being encouraged this week. Or of course, to get
bank loans.

<snip>

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
But don't you prefer graduates in subjects other than banking? This
certainly used to be the case. Maybe things have changed?

We want people with good degrees, which means a good grade at a
serious subject. If the role is highly technical then the degree
should reflect that, at least at entry level.

Sure, but some UK universities give (bachelor's level) degrees in
banking, and nowadays also 'financial services', which I thought didn't
count for much from the banks' point of view, to the extent that they
prefer people with degrees in other subjects - i.e. basically a BA in
banking is about as useful in the employment world as a BA in media
studies. (There may well be some exceptions to this).

[Derek ^]

On Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:01:50 GMT, Stephen Horgan

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^
A) They speak of 50% of the population going into higher education.
there is no market for that number of highly qualified graduates.

While the differential has fallen, a degree is still worth an
increased lifetime income, which suggests that there is a market.

But we're not at the 50% level yet, and the figures are distorted by
the fact that graduates earn enhanced salaries quite late on into
their careers reflecting the quality of graduates who qualified 25
years ago, from a good class university, with good degrees in bona -
fide subjects.

A seperate issue. But many of the jobs for graduate specialists are in
particular parts of the country where the cost of living is also very
high, (Thames Valley, for instance) and all salaries are elevated.
Taking into account the foreswearing of 3-4 years salary whilst at
uni, the gap in the NI contribution record, and being 3-4 years later
to get on the housing ladder, taking a "whole life sum" the benefit in
salary terms of getting a degree has been much overstated, unless it
so happens it puts the graduate in a position to join one of the
"Regulated Professions", law, accountancy, medicine etc.

This distorts the statistics, and in any event earning a premium
salary in ones mid '50s does little to compensate for the privations
of being borassic whilst paying back a student loan and supporting 2
or 3 young kids, wqith a mortgage in ones 30s/40s with all the
pressures that brings.

That's why TB, GB, JP, et al made sure they landed about 150k/annum.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^
B) Unfortunately British industry has been decimated "N" times over.
We can't rebuild it from the top down, by command economy style
producing vast numbers of highly qualified graduates.

British Industry has been decimated? The Banking sector for example
has expanded hugely over the last couple of decades.

I can only speak about retail banking, but in our small town, the TSB
branch has closed, merged into LLoyds, the other big banks have
reduced the number of tellers positions by about half. It's not
uncommon to see only one position open at lunchtime at HSBC. I'd say
employment is down about 40% over 5 years, haven't the banking unions
been saying something similar?

If within banking you are including financial services that's a very
strange hot-house Triffid operating in a very perverse, privileged
environment created and colluded with by the government.

There have been enough mergers and take overs amongst such as Confed
Life, Allied Dunbar, Zurich Bank, that one has to take a rain cheque
on getting any handle on it at all. But, nevertheless the unique
selling benefit of accurate analysis and high quality forecasting by
highly paid mathematicians with PHDs in Fluid Mechanics presented to
the punter as he signed up to his 35 year contract for a pension, can
just dis-appearr when they get taken over by a different provider and
concurrent schemes just get kicked into a dusty corner.

You don't have a complaint, 'cos it's not bad advice. You want to ship
out to a better provider? You pay the charges. £38K for me.

About commercial wholesale banking I am not qualified to speak.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^
C) Most of the high status jobs in "management" that people went to
university in the '60s and 70's to get a chance of getting have been
eliminated by the computer revolution, so that an young oik on a PC
workstation needs less supervision than a junior insurance underwriter
in the '60s because the computer can be programmed to only let him do
things right. Why, nowadays even the oik has been eliminated and
customers can interact with the computer themselves via the internet.

This is simply not the way office automation works. Relatively
unskilled jobs, and a lot of secretarial ones, have certainly gone but
they have been replaced by people working with information. Computers
are only tools by the way. A useless idiot with a computer is still a
useless idiot.

Yes, we found that out to our cost when one of them brought a disk of
his own in and infected the office network with a virus.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^
D) The nature of the subjects studied gives the lie to claims that the
qualification is intended to be useful, ergo there must be another
purpose. ISTM keeping students off of the dole queues is one such
purpose, getting the next generation into debt is another, although a
person with a degree in "sport science" is unlikely to get much more
than a minimum wage job, If he at any time does get a job that pays
much more, (Inherits the family business, say) the state will start
collecting his student loan. If he's 30+ and just got his first house
on a Mortgage with a couple of kids to support, he might come to
regret that £20k boondoggle studying "golf" when he was 18

Most sports science graduates become PE teachers, or sports coaches of
some kind.

Our office secretary's daughter did a 3 year sports science degree,
followed by a 1 year MA in "Media Management". She's now 28.

Astutely observing there is a grant of £6,000 went on to do a 1 year
PGTD intending to be a PE teacher teaching girls in a comprehensive
school, however she failed in her second term and got sent away
because she didn't know the rules of the common or garden girl's
school games such as for instance "Hockey"or "Basket Ball". She now
has to re-do the failed course segment at her own expense and be
examined on it at her own expense, before she can resume the 3rd and
final term. She's now working in a call centre, & it may not happen.

It seems in her sports science degree she'd chosen all the esoteric
modules such as canoeing, orienteering, and frog trampling, as opposed
to humdrum, run of the mill, school sports for girls.

Mickey Mouse qualification? You couldn't make it up !

Post by Stephen Horgan
There are plenty of people taking technical degrees by the
way.

Well, they are still turning out IT graduates despite the fact that
they are almost unemployable, (They get their money, what the hell).

My first son graduated 11 years ago and got started in his career
before the IT bubble burst, OTOH his partner with a masters degree in
IT is currently unemployed because she had to give up her first career
job to move 220 miles across the country to move into the house they
had bought together (Bristol), not that Bristol is a bad location, and
in current circumstances local jobs for newcomers are scarce and
poorly paid.

There are more than plenty of IT folks posting on the *.uk groups who
will testify, including some driving trucks for £35k (3x what they
would earn in IT).

Same with my own subject, electronics, they are still running the same
courses they did 30 years ago despite the industry in this country is
an archeological relic fit for "Time Team" of what it was then. "We
wonder whatever it was they used to *do* here"?

They do it because there are a lot of parents who are 1 + generation
behind the times, & kids who have listened to what their parents
think, or public employers such as the Army/Navy, who are Dick's days
behind the times, and who spout such rubbish as a matter of policy. I
can't believe how anybody could really *Think* that a degree in
electronics, or IT, is a dream ticket to a "lucrative career" in
2,005. Flavour of the month, it is not.

From the Muppet Show :

"Just pass me a copy of the "Rich and Famous" contract". 8-/

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
To keep young people off the streets, who'd otherwise be unemployed?
I think this is only part of the reason. Many students have to work
anyway, e.g. stacking shelves at Tesco's, in order to survive. If they
didn't go to college, Tesco's would still be 'hiring' (Americanism
intended).

The point is that the number of unskilled jobs in the economy that pay
a reasonable wage is falling whereas the demand for graduates is
increasing. In any case Britain needs to compete as an advanced
economy, and that requires educated people.

What you are proposing is like trying to rebuild the World Trade
Centre from the top down.

I am not proposing anything. This is what is happening.

We haven't got to the 50% stage yet, so it can't be.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan
The sale of council houses was and is an unqualified success.

My observation is that the results have been very mixed, and are only
"Better" in the relative sense that the performance of council housing
depts. was absolutely dire. Owner occupiers of ex Council Houses are
still at the mercy of the Council who can and do decide on a whim that
they will decant the contents of a sink estate from the other side of
the city into your street, and move Chavs in next door.

Councils don't do things on a whim

Agreed they'll have an agenda of their own, and this benefits the ex
council house owner occupier precisely how?

Their decision are capricious. The internal machinations of the
council housing dept are not open to us. So for a few solitary private
owner occupiers, it might as well be on a whim.

I have heard it said in the past their decisions are influenced by
whom is to benefit from the land transactions that will result in the
development consents they approve. My late uncle gave me some blatant
examples. So I've heard ...

Post by Stephen Horgan
and in any case the better estates now have a very high degree of
owner occupation.

The council decides the fate of an estate. If they decide they're
gonna tear down "Songbird Leys" and sell the land to the developers,
moving all the tenants across town into "Broad Lee Meadows" they will,
and no negotiation on that.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan
As for
padding, students with any nous take a reasonable degree. If they opt
for sociology or media studies then they shouldn't complain if the
world doesn't come knocking at their door.

They choose their degree when they are 16 or 17. They don't have the
experience to see that they are being sold a "bill of goods". They
believe that if the state invests many millions of pounds in new
University Buildings, then if they can get in it must be "A good
thing" for them.

This is a generalisation. Teenagers get careers advice or advice from
their parents and plenty of them opt for science, technical or
vocational degrees.

So they do, they are the ones with "Nous", IE oil in their lamps.
Maybe 10-15% . The issue is the wisdom of trying to expand this
figure to 50% on a "Numbers game" basis.

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
Expanding the sector has been part and parcel of what began with
abolishing student housing benefit and grants.

Funding the expansion of higher education only from the state would
have been extremely expensive. The judgement was to direct government
spending elsewhere.

Iraq war? G.B "Helping the poorest"?

Primarily the Health Service.

He put up NI to pay for that, and also took about 1 Billion out of the
National Lottery New Opportunities fund to pay for CTs, MRI's, and
X-ray machines, ( that much *I* know about ;-) ).

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
How the City bankers must be laughing! We are now talking about millions
of people getting into large amounts of debt when they are 18, and not
getting out of debt until they are about 50.

Speaking as a City banker I would agree that the banks are not
entirely displeased at the current state of affairs. Most students who
obtain reasonable degrees should find themselves out of debt by about
30 though, not 50.

Post by banana
Meanwhile, they are encouraged to see themselves as respectable, as
people who'd rather take do two or three jobs so as to keep up their
debt repayments, than get into major arrears.

The debt repayments don't even start until a certain income level is
reached and stop if income falls below those levels. The interest rate
is also very competitive.

There have been 4? 5? different sets of opaque rules. My son left uni
10 years ago and has paid nowt back. It seems he could earn almost 20k
before he starts, although he is of the opinion that once he starts he
can't stop, so he has been manipulating his bonuses and "Overtime". I
think in the next set of rules repayment will kick in at £15k through
the income tax system.

The rules are changing as you suspect.

Post by Derek ^

Post by Stephen Horgan

Post by banana
I wonder how long it will be until people are encouraged to get into
debt to send their children to 'fee-paying schools for the non-posh' - a
sector that is also expanding?

We desperately need to liberalise education in this country and give
people choices that aren't based on house price, which is effectively
how things work at the moment.

An extra choice of being able to study a 4 year Honours Degree Course
in Pizza-Ology, or "Geography with Dance", isn't worth it's weight in
cough drops.

Some idiots do mickey mouse courses,

Without doubt If the offers are made there are lottsa kids without
nous will take them as a soft option, thinking *they've* pulled the
wool over the eyes of society.

The issue that concerns me is the situation when 35% - 40% of the
population are taking "soft option" M.M. Degrees.

Post by Stephen Horgan
but most don't. In my line of work we basically want graduates with
good degrees.

God is not mocked. You know your onions, you also have oil in your
lamp.

Post by Stephen Horgan
Others basically need not apply.

If you think that having 5 times as many graduates to chose from will
be a benefit, remeber you will have to screen out all the "Walking on
the cracks in the pavement with flower arranging" wallies.

Post by Stephen Horgan
We are not alone in our preferences.

We know.

So why *are* we building so much mickey mouse capabilty into our
education system? Which neatly brings us back to the subject line.

;-)

DG

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Derek ^
A) They speak of 50% of the population going into higher education.
there is no market for that number of highly qualified graduates.

This is both confused [though that is not surprising, as
the govt has not really been spelling out what they mean] and wrong.

(a) There is indeed a market for that number of highly-qualified
graduates. We could double the number of HQGs and still not be
able to get enough maths graduates into teaching, for example.

(b) The big [proposed] expansion in HE is not going towards HQG,
but towards vocational qualifications, sub-degree qualifications
and "mature" students. And, of course, even those doing degrees
often emerge with less-than-stellar results.

(c) There is no merit in maintaining an ill-educated population
when our main rivals are expanding *their* HE. Times have changed.
Look up the "Bologna Process" for how HE will look by around 2010.

[...]

Post by Derek ^
They choose their degree when they are 16 or 17. They don't have the
experience to see that they are being sold a "bill of goods".

Increasing numbers [some 25%, and rising] are choosing
their degrees when "mature". You might note that there are very
few mature students in subjects like maths and physics, but lots
in subjects like sociology, media studies, and others that are
touted as "Mickey Mouse". So is it the 17yos or the 24yos who
are being sold down the river?

[Derek ^]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker

Post by Derek ^
A) They speak of 50% of the population going into higher education.
there is no market for that number of highly qualified graduates.

This is both confused [though that is not surprising, as
the govt has not really been spelling out what they mean] and wrong.
(a) There is indeed a market for that number of highly-qualified
graduates. We could double the number of HQGs and still not be
able to get enough maths graduates into teaching, for example.

They could if they paid them enough, but the teacher's unions won't
hear of it.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
(b) The big [proposed] expansion in HE is not going towards HQG,
but towards vocational qualifications, sub-degree qualifications
and "mature" students.

If that's so it's because the gov't has been dissembling. The party
line goes "In the '60s only 3 percent of the population went to
University, (And IIRC only a bona fide "Degree" couse at a Bona Fide
University qualified one for a grant) now that we have a target of 50%
of the population going we can't afford to give all of them grants and
free tuition".

Now you are telling us that that money's going to go on what used to
be day release and night school courses, plus the Mickey Mouse
Makey-Uppey "Degrees"?

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
And, of course, even those doing degrees often emerge with less-than-stellar results.
(c) There is no merit in maintaining an ill-educated population
when our main rivals are expanding *their* HE. Times have changed.
Look up the "Bologna Process" for how HE will look by around 2010.

I Looked it up.

It's a "5 year plan". (Or it is now !)

I'm not going to put the mockers on it, I don't know enough about it.

But if these politicians we've got now can't reduce it to spin and
bezzle, nobody can.

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
[...]

Post by Derek ^
They choose their degree when they are 16 or 17. They don't have the
experience to see that they are being sold a "bill of goods".

Increasing numbers [some 25%, and rising] are choosing
their degrees when "mature". You might note that there are very
few mature students in subjects like maths and physics, but lots
in subjects like sociology, media studies, and others that are
touted as "Mickey Mouse". So is it the 17yos or the 24yos who
are being sold down the river?

Clearly the motivation for a mature student will be different
altogether from a student straight from 6 th form. It may be the one
restart option that may remain open to them when others have closed
off. In my student days (1965) the mature students on my course had
generally suffered terminal career setbacks at the hands of one Arnold
Weinstock. :((

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2002/jul2002/wein-j27.shtml

My remarks were really addressed at the majority of students who take
the conventional route from School >University.

The clock radio on Tuesday morning woke me to an interview on the
"Today" program with some OZ/Kiwi bloke who rejoiced in the title of
"The Professor of Applied Sports Psychology" at "Wolverhampton
University". Name to conjure with, or what?

What's "Applied Sports Psychology"? you might well ask.

He was asked how he would train some player or other to catch cricket
balls. His "Professorial" opinion was that he should be told to keep
on picturing himself in his own mind successfully catching cricket
balls, again and again, and again, and again, and, erm that's it!

IMHO Said "Professor" != worth his weight in cough drops

It's CACK ! It's CACK ! It's CACK ! It's CACK ! It's CACK !

The King is in the Altogether.

Please tell me a "Professor of Applied Sports Psychology" doesn't get
paid the same as a Professor of Chemistry, Mathematics, or Electrical
Engineering, or any non-junk subject. I wouldn't pay him in washers.

DG

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Derek ^

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
(a) There is indeed a market for that number of highly-qualified
graduates. We could double the number of HQGs and still not be
able to get enough maths graduates into teaching, for example.

They could if they paid them enough, but the teacher's unions won't
hear of it.

True enough. But you would have to get their salaries into
the same ball-park as those in banking/etc. Note that there is huge
competition for good maths graduates, and no obvious major new source
of supply. It's not like English or history or law, where there is
a bottleneck at univ entrance; a large proportion of those competent
to do maths degrees are already doing them.

Post by Derek ^
If that's so it's because the gov't has been dissembling. The party
line goes "In the '60s only 3 percent of the population went to
University, (And IIRC only a bona fide "Degree" couse at a Bona Fide
University qualified one for a grant) now that we have a target of 50%
of the population going we can't afford to give all of them grants and
free tuition".

The "party line" is NuLab rubbish.

Post by Derek ^
Now you are telling us that that money's going to go on what used to
be day release and night school courses, plus the Mickey Mouse
Makey-Uppey "Degrees"?

No, that would be about three steps too far. But a detailed
analysis of where HE money goes would be much too complicated for an
article here.

Post by Derek ^
My remarks were really addressed at the majority of students who take
the conventional route from School >University.

OK, but (a) these are now only 2/3 of students, not the vast
majority they used to be; and (b) if your thesis was correct, then
it is still surprising that 24yos are more easily deceived as to the
future value of their degree than 17yos.

Post by Derek ^
IMHO Said "Professor" != worth his weight in cough drops
It's CACK ! It's CACK ! It's CACK ! It's CACK ! It's CACK !
The King is in the Altogether.

Many of us in the system hold similar opinions. Nevertheless,
I am always wary of assuming that because *I* see no merit in some
prof of mumbo-jumbo, therefore there *is* no merit.

Post by Derek ^
Please tell me a "Professor of Applied Sports Psychology" doesn't get
paid the same as a Professor of Chemistry, Mathematics, or Electrical
Engineering, or any non-junk subject.

He will get paid on the same *basis*, namely that his salary
is determined by personal negotiation, as opposed to being on some
standard scale. In these bean-counting days ...

Post by Derek ^
I wouldn't pay him in washers.

... his univ's prime concern may well be the amount of money
that he can be expected to bring *in* to the univ. He must have a
proven track record of attracting research funding; so *someone* is
paying him in real money. If you heard him on the radio, then it is
likely he is "media savvy", and is attracting students and projects
to his univ. Enough of that, and it scarcely matters how much or
little his actual salary is.

[Dave]

Post by Dr A. N. Walker
(a) There is indeed a market for that number of highly-qualified
graduates. We could double the number of HQGs and still not be
able to get enough maths graduates into teaching, for example.

Excuse me, but is studying maths for 3 years necessary to teach
children how to do sums, or even quadratics? Won't the HQGs feel a
lack of intellectual challenge?

When I graduated becoming a teacher was an option of last resort, and
seen as a failure. Things may now be so bad for real graduate jobs
that 1- you need at least a masters now, because honours degrees are
devalued 2- teaching is now seen as a good option.

[Dr A. N. Walker]

Post by Dave
Excuse me, but is studying maths for 3 years necessary to teach
children how to do sums, or even quadratics?

Yes, yes, yes, absolutely yes. It is a total *disaster*
having people who have at best A-level maths and no understanding
of or love for the subject teaching our children. Small wonder
that most children, taking their cues from the world they find
around them, loathe maths. Quadratics aren't really the problem,
any more than [eg] the teaching of dates of kings and queens would
be a problem for [eg] a physicist dragooned into teaching history.
It's the style, the excursions into neglected highways and byways,
knowing whether a somewhat incorrect answer is just a minor bungle
or a serious misunderstanding, and so on.

Post by Dave
Won't the HQGs feel a
lack of intellectual challenge?

No more so than any teacher. Teaching is *itself* an
intellectual challenge -- and just about the most rewarding thing
[when it works, and except financially] that anyone can do as a
career.

Post by Dave
When I graduated becoming a teacher was an option of last resort, and
seen as a failure.

That is an aberration of the last quarter-century or so,
which [thankfully] may possibly be being turned around.

Post by Dave
Things may now be so bad for real graduate jobs
that 1- you need at least a masters now, because honours degrees are
devalued [...]

Not the case in maths.

[B.B.]

"banana" <***@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> schreef in bericht news:***@borve.demon.co.uk...

[snip]

"Banana" went to University, got a first, wrote a "Marxist" thesis and is
allowed to call himself "Dr" "Banana". Who paid for all this education? It
is my educated guess that he received a scholarship, which means that his
parents didn't have to pay anything (or very little) and that he never had
to work at Tesco's, giving him plenty of time to fantasise about workers
instead of actually meeting and working with them. All very fine with me. If
my educated guess is right, and "banana" received a scholarship, he
certainly deserved it. But this background puts his latest rant, that I
mercifully snipped, in perspective, doesn't it?

BTW, why post this to a Diana, Princess of Wales, newsgroup? She never went
to University and if she had, her father would have paid for her education.
And why post this to an ambulance NG?

B. B.

[banana]

<snip>

Post by B.B.
BTW, why post this to a Diana, Princess of Wales, newsgroup? She never went
to University and if she had, her father would have paid for her education.

Wrong. If she had gone to university when she was 18, she would have
been entitled to have her tuition fees paid by the State, just like
every other UK citizen at a UK university at that time.

It is true, though, that she would have been entitled to little or no
maintenance grant, because of the size of her parents' incomes.

Post by B.B.
And why post this to an ambulance NG?

My apologies. I took the Newsgroups line from the earlier article I
posted, about the NHS. I changed 'uk.people.health' to
'uk.education.misc', but forgot to remove 'uk.community.ambulance'. I am
leaving it in this time, to explain my error, but have removed it from
the Followups.

[Derek ^]

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:46:09 +0100, banana

Post by banana
<snip>

Post by B.B.
BTW, why post this to a Diana, Princess of Wales, newsgroup? She never went
to University and if she had, her father would have paid for her education.

Wrong. If she had gone to university when she was 18, she would have
been entitled to have her tuition fees paid by the State, just like
every other UK citizen at a UK university at that time.
It is true, though, that she would have been entitled to little or no
maintenance grant, because of the size of her parents' incomes.

Not so sure about that, weren't her parents divorced? The councils
didn't used to look into the income of divorced parents thay always
got the full grant. It's not like that now.

Post by banana

Post by B.B.
And why post this to an ambulance NG?

My apologies. I took the Newsgroups line from the earlier article I
posted, about the NHS. I changed 'uk.people.health' to
'uk.education.misc', but forgot to remove 'uk.community.ambulance'. I am
leaving it in this time, to explain my error, but have removed it from
the Followups.

Pse. remember that news.individual.net rejects articles crossposted to
5 and over newsgroups.

DG

[banana]

Post by Derek ^
On Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:46:09 +0100, banana

Post by banana
<snip>

Post by B.B.
BTW, why post this to a Diana, Princess of Wales, newsgroup? She never went
to University and if she had, her father would have paid for her education.

Wrong. If she had gone to university when she was 18, she would have
been entitled to have her tuition fees paid by the State, just like
every other UK citizen at a UK university at that time.
It is true, though, that she would have been entitled to little or no
maintenance grant, because of the size of her parents' incomes.

Not so sure about that, weren't her parents divorced? The councils
didn't used to look into the income of divorced parents thay always
got the full grant.

It may be true that they didn't look into the income of the absent
divorced parent.