To think too much emphasis is put on university?

[Fluffy24]

Genuinely curious.

I'm a university graduate but many of my friends have trades and are just as successful in life/earn similar amounts. Equally I know graduates who are out of work and find, for instance, that their media or history degree isn't helping them to find a job.

I'm surprised at Jeremy Corbyn wanting to fund tuition fees (unless he thinks he needs the student vote). It costs alot of money and there are plenty of graduates already struggling to find jobs whilst we have shortages of some skilled trades, such as in engineering, construction etc where a greater emphasis on apprenticeships would be appropriate surely?

Aren't we setting up an expectation that everyone should want to get a degree, and perpetuating the sense that a vocational qualification is of less value.

If we want to ensure we can capitalise on talent regardless of wealth then some courses could be funded (engineering, teaching, medicine etc) where we identify a skills shortfall in a particular industry or sector?

I would prefer my son to undertake an apprenticeship and learn a useful trade than do a 'generic' university degree just because it's expected of him.

Of greater benefit to our whole society would surely be to spend the money on educating children instead.

But have they actually achieved anything by going to university if they can't get a job? Can our society actually afford for them to have the luxury of studying just to expand their outlook, given shortages in various public services?

It really depends what field you are talking about. There are lots of careers that require a degree as a bare minimum. Yes, higher education should not be falsely promoted and that is part of the problem - too many perhaps are encouraged to do degrees that do not benefit anyone. However this does not negate the fact that some professions really require higher education and if you have the aptitude but not the money for this higher education having to pay expensive tuition fees creates and perpetuates social inequality.

There was a huge impetus (under Blair, I think) to get more and more people to university. I think this was a mistake and in part has led to the whole tuition fees issue now. We should have done a lot more (ie financially) to encourage companies and tradespeople to have offered genuine apprenticeships for those who are less "academically gifted"

Agree, Shatners wig. I think it was a bizarre kind of thing to do. The academically gifted, which all societies need, are penalised by having to pay or not go. And the poor to average degree student is saddled with debt for a very average degree.

The money would have been also better spent putting into OpenUniversity especially for those who want to do BA degrees which they can fit in their spare time etc. (Instead OU is now prohibitively expensive).

Clarity, careers require a degree entry now because supply of graduates has gone up!

Some of this is just 'rebadging' and strengthening qualifications that were always almost equivalent to a degree in terms of effort and attainment, but were not thought of in that way- nursing is one example- and there are lots of these jobs in fields such as engineering etc. This made it difficult to transfer between fields as they didn't count as 'a degree' to middle class employers and were considered more 'blue collar' than 'white collar' which could be very frustrating.
Other reasons too, Ultimately the easiest way of increasing the number of non-middle class people at university is to just increase the number across the board, so that's another tick.
Finally (and probably the key reason if you are cynical about it) is that it removes a load of 18-21 year olds from the unemployment figures.

Depends on the subjects. I think that subjects which are necessary for the social good and contribute to civilisation should be heavily funded; sciences, medicine etc... But only on condition that the beneficiary works in that field for a minimum number of years or face having to pay the full cost back to the government.

The government shouldn't be wasting money on costume design, media studies or any Mickey mouse course that contributes predominantly unemployable people to the labour market.

It's a waste of time getting a degree if you're going to have to work in Costa at the end of it. You needs skills, whether it's acedemic or trade.

It should not be the job of the university sector to train up future generations of workers for other sectors

^ Exactly. In a nutshell. Or for recreational use!

Clarity, careers require a degree entry now because supply of graduates has gone up!

I'm not saying this is not the case. I'm saying some careers actually require higher education and the above point still does not negate this.

I think that subjects which are necessary for the social good and contribute to civilisation should be heavily funded; sciences, medicine etc... But only on condition that the beneficiary works in that field for a minimum number of years or face having to pay the full cost back to the government.

It would be terribly difficult to decide what is deemed 'worthy'. And having to pay back, if not employed in the sector, would penalise people who became ill or whose family circumstances (caring for a disabled relative for example) required they took a break.

So agree Hilda.

I think free tuition fees but at the same time funding other types of training and employment opportunities would encourage people into sectors where they are most suited. The problem started when degrees were elevated as the only worthy career path to take.

I hate these assumptions that education is all about getting a job, people should be educated to better understand the world, to increase their knowledge, to be better citizens, and yes, of course you can learn all of this outside of university, but it is a lot harder when working full-time etc.,

I found I learned far more about the world when I started work.

Lofty academics and a bunch of 18-21 year olds and their hall parties and histrionics was not a good demographic.

In my training job in a large law firm, experts in their field of law, worked with members of the public via clients from all walks of life, contact in central London with everyone from the cleaner to the intern from eastern Europe in accounts to the senior partner. Dealing with the law in practice rather than in theory at university.

Worthy can often be decided by - would somebody else (working) pay for it either because the student is obviously SO talented (think scholarships) OR because its is definitely for the good of society (engineering, medicine etc).

Because it's a social equaliser.

I might not have gone to university as my Mum had a few mental health issues and she was on benefits, her suggestion was that I work in a shop. But going to university enabled me to do more with my life. Now I own my own home and have a lifestyle where I don't have to worry about money too much.

Because not everyone can stay at home and do their degree when they leave high school.

If you want to work in an office environment and move up the ranks you have to have a degree, if you do not, it is career limiting.

Did you get a loan, smearedinfood to finance your degree?

If you want to work in an office environment and move up the ranks you have to have a degree, if you do not, it is career limiting

I agree to a point, but many employers I know will assist an employee to get the qualifications while they're working. For instance funding a distance learning qualification.

I think degrees in the right subject are valuable. For example, the classics, sciences, ecovnomics that sort of thing. The point FreeNiki made was bang on the money.
As an employer, someone with 5 years work experience & a bit of entrepreneurial flair, would top trump a media studies degree, every time

Well that's the thing- I often think a degree is a bit like A-Levels used to be. Now everyone and their dog has one, so often employers see that as the base level of education. Which is a bit crackers.

I do think university has so many more benefits that just the degree though. Life experience, learning for learnings sake, growing up away from parents etc. Trouble is, I didn't really get any of that. I think I was too young (I had turned 18 only the month before I started by undergrad) and I was horribly homesick. I simply wasn't ready for it (I was rather young for my age!) I struggled to make friends, missed home, became very depressed... so it's not good for everyone. Any of the benefits were masked by the effect on my mental health. Anyway, I am currently studying for an MA (10 years later) and I absolutely love it. It has given me the freedom to learn and that is such a joy. I appreciate that part of it so much more now than I did 10 years ago.

BUT everything I have learned in the world of work after uni has probably been more valuable in the grand scheme of things. But I wouldn't have got those jobs if I didn't have a degree.

My 18 year old DS had a change of plan due to a completely random experience at 16 and decided on a very specific career. Since it's something you can't train for until you are 18, he stayed on to do his a levels but never even looked at university courses. He's now training and loving it. Looking forward to qualifying and working in a way I never did

I think degrees in the right subject are valuable. For example, the classics, sciences, ecovnomics that sort of thing

It seems to me that yes, we do need people who have studied classics, but a small number to a very high level. Whereas with science or engineering you need more but at different levels, not necessarily studying in exactly the same way. The ones who can do hard maths, learn a lot of difficult content - the future researchers and innovators, in academia and industry - but also vital to have good technicians, and levels between. Some of those would be better served by the apprenticeship model.

Yes I did get a loan. I'm from New Zealand, we had student loans before the UK did. It was a right noose around my neck.

Which is probably why they are spending loads trying to entice New Zealanders back as a whole lot fled the country post degree.

With a changing workforce and changing technology people will have to retrain later in life. People aren't doing life long careers anymore.

I'm looking at retraining again.

Why did you ask MyOpe?

You are so right OP, I know more graduates doing jobs that don't require a degree than doing a graduate job. And I don't think a degree was even necessary for the graduate roles some are in. It annoys me that a degree seems to be a ticket to 'better yourself' but doesn't require any great levels of intellect or skill in most subjects. And many don't clearly lead on to any career or provide any actual useful skills.

University wasn't for me, although I am going back to finish as I don't want to have wasted over £30k in loans. I went to a private school and they didn't offer any alternatives to degree or gap yah so I went down the academic route as I was capable but I have never enjoyed or seen the point of writing essays rehashing the same points that have been made by 1000s of students before me. I am much more practically minded, and would have liked to have done GCSE jewellery making but it was looked down on and sneered at as a soft useless subject. I now think I would have been happier learning to be a plumber or an electrician as I have fixed many a broken boiler myself but routes to this were never raised or explored.

OP, I'm not sure. I think there should be good alternatives to studying, and studying poor quality degrees doesn't help anyone. However, I do agree broadly with the analysis of Blair and others that the UK should be moving towards having a highly educated workforce if the UK is to compete in the world, and university education is one way to achieve that.

There is often an assumption that university should only be for the top 10, 15% as if there is some magic number, but I don't think there is any reason why in theory, 100% of the population could go to university

I asked Smeared because to my mind a big loan is a big risk unless it assures a better future for yourself.

Nix apparently university education can be a prime time for mental health problems, maybe its too much for some young people. Julie Birchill said it was for her son and that he spiralled down from there on.

Silky isn't that a shame your school didn't have the imagination you had?