to think that Higher Education is not a right, it is a privelidge

[hairyfairylights]

Although I do think it's something which ought to be funded (at least for the less well-off).

I do believe in HE where it's appropriate, but I also know that HE doesn't necessarily make for a better, richer, more fulfilled life either!

As for it being a right, it was deemed so, along with secondary education in 1944. Let's hope this doesn't open the floodgates for them deciding to charge for all post 16 education.

It depends on whether we're in in danger of confusing 'a privilege' with 'only accessible to the privileged'.

I think that the problem is that so many jobs today demand a degree which didn't used to. For example it is difficult to get on a management training scheme now without a degree whereas my ex H got on one some thirty five years ago at age 18 with a decent, but not university entrance standard, clutch of A levels. On the subject of grades, the DD of an acquaintance of mine got onto a medical degree course with a C in chemistry, true she had As in Christian Theology and Music, but I was

Altinkum - having a degree does not make you more ''detached' - I agree many would find it hard and just being a good Family aid does not necessarily make a good CPO - but they would know what the job looks likes and smell like IYKWM - A lot of the newer grads I know are the ones going off on stress - or they are the ones who are judgemental and have contempt for the clients. I think more ''practical'' social workers would for instance pick a child up - wipe chocolate off their face - as for ''by the book'' - I agree that procedure is necessary but the tick box culture and PC definitions is part of the whole problem!

I believe that some form of education should be a right for all- but whether that's university, SEN college or somewhere in between has to vary on the particular person (I am loathe to say ability: my Sn ds1 has high ability levels in his area but is not uni material- there are many HE level courses he woudl benefit from however).

there are not many jobs for those who leave school at 16 or 18 so there is sense in ensuring there is a range of options available to suit all, and for some who are academic that will be university. Others it might be an apprenticehip etc.

It also needs to be remembered that many older adults attend later in life as a way of changing careers (as with my DH often essential due to redundancy etc) and many other options are not available to adults once past about 22- many on DH's course may have benefitted from an apprenticeship in the field more as they are clearly not academic but if there is none, or it has very limited access, then something needs to be resolved. certainly before we start shooting askance glances at those who take the only (uni) route available to them.

50% was a goal, 50% don't go to uni, so no need to get too steamed up over that. Someone said it was 35%.

I think it will end up being only for the privileged.

However there are some courses/universities that should be scrapped altogether.

I see both sides on SW dicussion tbh, I am hoping to apply in the next few eyars but am doing an MA in ASD at the moment and used to work with Homestart as a manager alongside many SWs and am mature so not sure whether i'd be classed as a newbie or old skool LOL

There's an element of common sense that seems to come with age and that benefits anyone in a public facing role, and yes some newly graduated people may not have dveloped that as much as someone who is older or has more life experience; however being a new grad assumes very little these days given how many adults do graduate now and their variable backgrounds. each person needs to be looked at as a whole.

35% is still to high - Always love the line that - a degree teaches thinking skills and logic and deduction etc that is so often trotted out, as if real life doing a job doesn't do that.

I agree with LeQueen. I know LOTS of young people who are in university on the strength of C,D, and E grades. And given that C,D, and E grades are not what they were 20 years ago that's a little bit scary.

I know two people at uni who have received learning support all through school and did not achieve even a C in English and Maths at GCSE. They both have extremely poor verbal and written skills and are intellectually quite slow. Nice boys, both of 'em, and perfectly capable of earning a living doing something or other I'm sure - but clever they ain't. They don't even rate as average, never mind bright.

SantasMooningArse - you are just the sort of person who should become a social worker! Just think you should get points for doing homestart and be able to study while doing the job without having to do 3 years at uni!
Altinkum - you to are obviously well suited to the job lol -

I just think alot of the social workers who I come into contact with would do well for being a home carer or nursery worker for 6 mths

I am trying hard to actually say on paper how I feel about this as I am conflicted.
I do believe that education and therefore higher education is a right, however having done my degree with people who clearly were struggling from day one, to the extent that basic literacy classes were laid on, I wonder at the blind emphasis on it

(Now I am not saying that just because someone slipped through the cracks at junior school etc that they shouldn?t be encouraged to go in to further education. But I don?t think that a university course should be the place to address this.)

But there?s this idea that if you don?t go to uni that you?ll never get anywhere, that unless you have that piece of paper you?re nothing. Which really is crap, who are you going to trust more someone with the ?right? piece of paper and no experience or someone with years of experience and proven ability to do the job.

Clearly there are certain job/roles that you need to go to uni for, but for many other roles/ job do you really need a full time/ 3 year uni course? Wouldn?t a day release/ and practical experience be better. And for some course?s it would ensure that you had people who actually knew what the roles/ careers involved and wanted to be there.

And why do you have to decide when you?re 18 what you want to do with the rest of your life?
Maybe a massive change in attitude needs to come about where at 18 you should be going out and finding an entry level job/ volunteer in the area you think you want to work in and then when you?ve learned what the job actually involves then go to Uni or apprenticeship or what is actually needed to progress in the job rather than a generic piece of paper?

Sorry wandered of the subject a bit there.

Dh got a D at O Level, learned how to deal with his dyslexia and is getting marks up to 100% on his engineering degree.

It's not about what you achieved at sixteen only but if you have worked to improve on that you should be able to demontsrate it, absolutely, at time of application. things can change though.

Actually I had terrible grades at school, because my parents were at that time completely messed up with drink and depression, but went on to get a perfect score for uni via the access course and offered a place in an RG uni.

What you do at 16 isn't all that matters but you should have to prove your ability (DH did so via employment in studied field) if you want that over ridden. Things can change though.

It's: 'privilege' not 'privelidge' per the OP.

Not normally a big deal unless one is discussing higher education

Ah gotabook, if I throw in 2 asd kids can I have my certificate now then?

If only LOL. They do seem to consider it an advantage though; I was taking phone calls from a good uni about decent post grads a few weeks back (MRes and Phd in Social Policy) which I can't afford and I am ready to get back to work, but it is good that the value of what I have done is recognised.

I don't get the 'deserve' to be there thing. Either someone is academic or they are not.

I know lots of very, very intelligent, clever people who are simply not academic. And have forged their paths in different ways than academic qualifications.

I think what we really need to do as a society is less differentiation - academic is always somehow seen as 'better' than vocational.

I agree that we need to retain proper education for doctors, nurses, social workers, teachers etc.

(although a lot of the nurses and doctors I have had the privelidge of being treated by lately - at least 60% - could do with a real dose of 'real life' work - and some serious training in communication and customer service - but that's a whole other 'the culture of the NHS' debate).

SantasMooningArse - hell with 3 I should have a phd then ;) - glad it counts for something for you -

I think you are exactly the sort of person who should be able to study and earn at the same time - a lot of ''mature'' students have too may other commitments ie kids to do 3 years at uni -

(just to qualify that comment - in our line of business we don't gossip in corridors about who is shagging who in earshot of vulnerable clients - but it does seem to be totally acceptable for nurses to do so - as well as hooting with laughter at 3am in their nurses station - keeping me awake whilst I was undergoing medical management of a miscarriage)

and relax.. sorry, I just had to get that out of my system.