A-levels: Why are we wasting tax payers' money? Options

[Sarah]

Very true. Often university it seem as something to do for three years with the job the students ends up in baring little to no relevance to their degree.

That's assuming of course that there is a job to go to. I'd far rather see youngsters furthering their education, than hanging around the streets and existing on unemployment benefit. On the whole I don't think further education is a waste of time and tax payers money.

I'd like to see the goverment sponsoring more apprenticeships, and encouraging employers to take on youngsters for training.

[On the edge]

What do you think the difference is?

Education teaches you how to think, training is about showing you what to think, generally within a fixed scope.

[JeffG]

On the whole I don't think further education is a waste of time and tax payers money.

And nor do most people, myself included. The key word is 'education'. By that I mean subjects that benefit society (i.e. the taxpayers that fund it), are relevant to one's chosen career, and are likely to improve the prospects of getting a job.

However, we were talking about A levels...

I'd like to see the goverment sponsoring more apprenticeships, and encouraging employers to take on youngsters for training.

Agreed. Proper vocational training should be in the workplace, not in the classroom (but obviously with day release for college courses where appropriate).

[Strafin]

oops.

[Strafin]

They did use to do it. They don't anymore!

Nope, Stafford did a MODULE as part of some other courses that focused on the impact of the celebrity culture within our society, part of which used David Beckham as an example.

[On the edge]

Wouldn't disagree. We certainly need a fair few educated people who know how to think. That takes us forward and develops society as well as industry. We also need a massive number of trained people and to a very high standard. We have a massive problem in UK. Our European peers understand this and the need for both academic and vocational excellence. They design and build cars, electrical goods, nuclear power stations and so on. – we simply assemble them! Unless we are to become the new Estonia, everyone in UK plc needs to raise their game.

[Bloggo]

Wouldn't disagree. We certainly need a fair few educated people who know how to think. That takes us forward and develops society as well as industry. We also need a massive number of trained people and to a very high standard. We have a massive problem in UK. Our European peers understand this and the need for both academic and vocational excellence. They design and build cars, electrical goods, nuclear power stations and so on. – we simply assemble them! Unless we are to become the new Estonia, everyone in UK plc needs to raise their game.

Well said and I agree however in order to get people wanting to train and to go into work you need to make the incentives greater for working than for sitting on your bum watching telly. Sadly society favours the feclkless rather than the industrious.

[Tom Foolery]

Seeing as people at university PAY for their degree, does it matter what they do? If it was free as it used to be, then yes I can see you're argument, but now £3k minimum a year means if they want to spend 3/4 years of their life learning and having fun at the same time, who are you to stop them?

[JeffG]

You really think that university students pay the full cost of their courses? Well, I've got news for you.

[GMR]

You really think that university students pay the full cost of their courses? Well, I've got news for you.

My daughter went to University a couple of years ago - Cardiff - and she now owes the Government £13,000 and rising (with the interest). She had a good job but lost it when the company went down. Now she is on a low paid job while looking for better employment. Because she is on a low wage she is unable to pay back her loan. The government things that because you've got a degree you will automatically be earning high wages; so that you can pay back your loan easily.

[JeffG]

I didn't say that students today don't have a tough time of it, compared with our day when you got free tuition and a grant. I was just pointing out that the student is not paying the total cost of providing the course (as far as I'm aware).

[GMR]

I didn't say that students today don't have a tough time of it, compared with our day when you got free tuition and a grant. I was just pointing out that the student is not paying the total cost of providing the course (as far as I'm aware).

OK, thanks for that.

As for the total cost; I can't really answer that. All I know is she has a debt.

[user23]

Education teaches you how to think, training is about showing you what to think, generally within a fixed scope.

A law degree would be training then, rather than education, learning about the law and the outcomes of various cases and what you should do to apply the rulings to a case you are dealing with.

[Sarah]

A law degree would be training then, rather than education, learning about the law and the outcomes of various cases and what you should do to apply the rulings to a case you are dealing with.

Surely any degree course is a combination of both.

[On the edge]

Of course many will do both. The university approach has become somewhat diluted over the years with the abolition of polytechnics and other higher grade colleges which are now termed universities. These organisations had a very useful role providing the very high grade vocational training we need in an advanced society. Regrettably we've never been able to get to grips with parity of esteem. We need high grade Engineers, plumbers, doctors as well as thinkers. All need some higher degree of vocational training. Quite wrong to rubbish any category.

[user23]

Surely any degree course is a combination of both.

Yes, I would agree in most cases, so to single a degree out as education and not training as the previous poster did is not correct, in my view.

[Strafin]

I think to be honest, if I was running a sandwich shop and someone had spent two years studying sandwiches and sandwich retail, I'd want them working for me. I might have laughed at the idea before then, but why not specialise?

[dannyboy]

I think to be honest, if I was running a sandwich shop and someone had spent two years studying sandwiches and sandwich retail, I'd want them working for me. I might have laughed at the idea before then, but why not specialise?

Depends if they have learnt which side of the bread to butter. I think there is/was a general perception, in the manual trades at least, that too many gradutaes know the theory, but not the reality. Certainly where I first worked the idea of taking on a graduate was an anathema

[GMR]

Depends if they have learnt which side of the bread to butter. I think there is/was a general perception, in the manual trades at least, that too many gradutaes know the theory, but not the reality. Certainly where I first worked the idea of taking on a graduate was an anathema

I agree with this. I was talking to a computer graphic designer awhile back. He was under contract at Vodafone. He was telling me that he recently had a few university graduates come to work for Vodafone (in the graphic design department). He told them what he wanted them to do and then left them to it, and came back a bit later on; they both were looking confused. They told him that what he wanted them to do they never had learnt at university. In fact, he was saying, they didn’t teach them that much. As they were on trial they were released. They made sure that in future the person they picked to come and work for them had a bit more experience.

[On the edge]

Yes, I would agree in most cases, so to single a degree out as education and not training as the previous poster did is not correct, in my view.

That would very much depend on your personal definition of the term degree; which can mean many things. Similarly 'University education'. I suspect an Oxford don would take a different view. Oxford being accepted as a world class institution may lend some credibility.