to blame Tony Blair for the lack of skilled workforce?

[dunkaccino]

In the 1980's only 15% of school leavers went into higher education leaving a good lot of people to become tradesmen/HGV drivers/butchers etc. Tony Blair decided in 1999 that 50% going to University was a great aim, which was finally achieved in 2019.

Now we have a lack of everyone useful - electricians, carpenters, fitters, engineers, butchers, drivers - coupled with a multitude of unskilled mickey mouse degree graduates who are of no practical use to anyone.

Covid & brexit have undeniably both played a part, but AIBU to think that Blairs idea was basically a bit shit and has left us lacking in the skilled workforce needed to run the country?

The introduction of the grammar school system was meant to give bright young people from disadvantaged backgrounds an opportunity to get a better education and go on to university. In an individual level this worked for some people but on a societal level it just perpetrated inequalities as grammar schools weren't evenly distributed across the country.

We all went to the local Comp. Harrow didn't have a grammar school system.

@DGRossetti

The introduction of the grammar school system was meant to give bright young people from disadvantaged backgrounds an opportunity to get a better education and go on to university. In an individual level this worked for some people but on a societal level it just perpetrated inequalities as grammar schools weren't evenly distributed across the country.

We all went to the local Comp. Harrow didn't have a grammar school system.

Like I said, there were examples of people from disadvantaged backgrounds attending university. Im not saying that didn't happen! However, the data does show that you were far more likely to go to university if you were from an elite background.

It was the exception rather than the rule.

I think we have to be honest about the fact that degrees from more prestigious universities (e.g. Oxbridge) are held in higher esteem by a lot of employers and it will always be thus.

Looking at the most competitive elite professions e.g. national journalism, law, elements of academia, banking, upper civil service they are flooded with Oxbridge grads (and some others).

If we have a hierarchical HE system employers are always going to look first at the high flyers from the best inistitutions....It makes sense to do so.

In order to get into elite institutions though a good academic profile is requisite hence the concern many parents have on these boards regarding quality of secondary education.

The problem with the newer universities is not the offering vocation specific subjects tailored to specific industries but offering academic subjects that are not going to be rated by employers e.g. law, history, economics etc. For instance we have too many law grads for lawyer positions and this gives false hope for those degrees from the lower reputation institutions.

Completely agree with students not being allowed to fail at uni. 2.2s and thirds are a rarity now because of students being customers.

I'm not denying that we have a hierarchical HE system. I'm fully aware of that.

What I take exception to is completely dismissing those newer universities. It's important that applicants are encouraged to look at the subject level information because the elite universities aren't brilliant at everything.

Lots of the newer universities are excellent for vocational subjects and often have links with employers which translates into jobs.

The hypocrisy on this thread is interesting. On one hand people are complaining that young people don't have skills and are studying subjects at university that don't train them for anything but then they're dismissing universities which actually do offer vocational courses and train students to do specific jobs! We can't win really 🤷🏼‍♀️

But wouldn't the diplomas and HNDs of before be suffice as oppose to saddling our youth with so much debt or is it another way for the government to make money out of loans or do they lose money?

@woodhill

But wouldn't the diplomas and HNDs of before be suffice as oppose to saddling our youth with so much debt or is it another way for the government to make money out of loans or do they lose money?

These would still need to be funded from somewhere. Who would be responsible for funding these? The government decided that it should be the student who bears the financial responsibility of the cost of higher education.

I do agree that there should be a range of qualifications available and that a degree isn't always the right option.

I live in a grammar area and fewer and fewer locals are putting their children in for it as they can’t afford / don’t want to tutor.
Tutoring in my area has become so intense that now children who should have and would have gone to grammar, the families feel “it’s not for them” which completely negates the whole premise

I think the newer universities are great at offering specific vocational degrees offering aligned to industrial demand and I think the system worked to an extent. By differentiating university and polytechnic there was an awareness each sector offered something slightly different, the former more vocational the latter more academic.

By combining both types of university and placing all universities in direct competition to each other to an extent (e.g. using combined league tables) there often is a blurring of actual prestige of the universities and this may be to the detriment of the applicant. A league table may place an ex poly above an older university in some cases but in reality it may be worth having the degree from an older university.

An aside question would be why encourage children who are capable to become 'academic high flyers' if a batch of A star A levels and a Cambridge degree led to the same opportunities as going to the University of Bolton with 3 Cs. Do we want a level of education communism that equal opportunities for all graduates suggest?I

My view overall is that increasing the number of children going to university has not improved social mobility and efforts in this area should be concentrated on allowing disadvantaged students to get the best qualifications they are capable of by improving aspiration and combating any deficits in the state education sector. I don't think disadvantaged pupils are necessarily served well by attending universities where prospects aren't immediately apparent.

Whoops polys more vocational and unis more academic

Yes you are right spin but perhaps they needn't be so costly

@woodhill

Yes you are right spin but perhaps they needn't be so costly

But they are expensive to run and someone needs to pay for it. We're in a situation where the £9250 tuition fee doesn't actually cover the cost of running an undergraduate degree course. This is why universities have a push on international students as their fees subsidise UK student fees .

I wondered if they wouldn't be so long hence not so expensive?

@mids2019 bit of a underhand comment about Bolton uni. Not all their students are under achievers.

@woodhill

I wondered if they wouldn't be so long hence not so expensive?

The length of course doesn't really make a difference to cost from the university's perspective. Obviously it would be cheaper for the students if they are paying for a one year or two year course instead of a three or four year course but they wouldn't be cheaper to run.

The point about ex polys was not that any of the students are in any way underachieving but I was making the point about what motivates students to achieve top grades (and in some cases their parents push for that) if there are not going to be improved career prospects at the end?

I think it's disingenuous to think as a whole Cambridge grads and new university grads will have those equal career chances. OK you will always get new university grads that earn millions in future and Cambridge grads that may enter relatively low paying professions but on average the picture is clear.

I think one of the considerations here is when to think university is not for me and it would be better on the whole to take on an apprenticeship or further education and these must be difficult decisions.

The polys were designed for technical degree subjects like art, design, some aspects of engineering. They were brilliant at that.

Perhaps more guidance to people whilst in education of what jobs are needed more. Then maybe people would train in those areas rather than on mass media degrees or on mass x y or z

@BurnedToast

I hate all this snobbishness. Most people end up with pretty normal jobs regardless of which university they went to, if at all.

DD is bright enough to do A levels, but has chosen to do an extended BTEC instead as it directly relates to an area she wants to work in. I have had some hilariously snobby comments about it.

Exactly. The issue is not that too many people are going to university it’s that many are going solely because DEGREES are held up as the gold standard.

I did accounting at uni and if i had been at a lower ranked uni teaching the same content as the professional exams it would have been a waste. Because the exams are an NVQ level 7 qualification equal to a Master’s. But because it’s not a degree it’s not considered as prestigious.

I’m not saying that people shouldn’t have some form of higher education but why all the fuss about full time degrees at the expense of everything else? When other qualifications are equivalent but looked down on just because they’re not degrees?

@AlecTrevelyan006

Blair was right to stress 'education, education, education' but unfortunately that morphed into 'university, university, university'

Yes!

"Exactly.
The issue is not that too many people are going to university it’s that many are going solely because DEGREES are held up as the gold standard."

I agree with this. However, some quickly find out that a degree alone is not enough to make it and end up doing the jobs that others look down on with university debt to pay back (assuming they ever earn enough).

When I went to an ex-Poly Uni as a mature student in 2000 (Social Policy) I was 'taught' that the Grammar School system benefitted the better off as they could afford the specific tuition.

I said "but I wasn't tutored, I was an ex-pat kid newly returned from the California state-school system, read a few test-papers, took the test at County Hall (Surrey) and passed".

The Uni Tutor's response was "You must have been very bright". Er, yes, I probably was, but wasn't that the idea of Grammars?

And then there's the people I know who passed the 11+, but their Dads said "No - you're not going to school with a bunch of snobs"; and yes, those kids were "very bright" too.

Not offering any answers here, just some facts to dispel some fastly held 'myths'.

Also to add more degrees make things harder.
You don’t just need a degree to compete. You need that plus relevant work experience for some fields.

Whom does this benefit? Wealthy kids whose parents can pay while they take on relevant ‘unpaid internships’ and projects for their portfolios. While the poorer students who manage to get degrees have to work for actual money. Many don’t get full maintainance either because parental income is too high but they have multiple kids.

Also to add this is not just me making things up. I review CV’s for a charity and the amount of young peoples’ CV’s I get with even Master’s degrees but nothing except for retail/low-level admin jobs for 5 years is disheartening. Why? Because they can’t afford to do unpaid projects!
Media companies will talk rubbish about diversity and social mobility and ‘widening participation’ but they won’t actually take a young person who has worked hard in every other aspect. Just in paid work. They don’t want to put in the effort to bloody train people. It makes me so angry. There are a few who break through workinf days, nights etc but that’s like saying a few kids in deprived areas manage to get to Cambridge so it’s all good.

@TheHateIsNotGood

When I went to an ex-Poly Uni as a mature student in 2000 (Social Policy) I was 'taught' that the Grammar School system benefitted the better off as they could afford the specific tuition.

I said "but I wasn't tutored, I was an ex-pat kid newly returned from the California state-school system, read a few test-papers, took the test at County Hall (Surrey) and passed".

The Uni Tutor's response was "You must have been very bright". Er, yes, I probably was, but wasn't that the idea of Grammars?

And then there's the people I know who passed the 11+, but their Dads said "No - you're not going to school with a bunch of snobs"; and yes, those kids were "very bright" too.

Not offering any answers here, just some facts to dispel some fastly held 'myths'.

What you've provided is anecdata. If you use eligibility for free school meals as an indicator of economic deprivation, you will learn that grammar schools have a far lower % of pupils eligible for free school meals than comprehensives in the same area. Which would suggest that poor bright pupils are not getting access to grammar schools in the way that they should be if it was genuinely about ability. In 2000 it may have been different, but we are 20+ years on and these days, money buys tuition and that buys access to grammar schools.

Ah yes pointy, nothing like describing actual data (eg: ethnograhic) as anecdotal or "anecdata" instead of actual data; which from a Social Research perspective Is Data.

I completely agree, the current access to Grammar Schools is very limited now - many locations don't have them now, since most were closed down in the 1970s, including the one I went to which has since been a 6th Form College.

Nowadays, what are called Grammars today are nothing like they were - hardly anywhere has one nearby, so that cancels out many "very bright" students and there's so few now the 'myths' of 2000 have now become the reality of today.

Using FSM as an indicator/factor is a very blunt instrument that hardly illustrates the full picture, although it does speak in the language of current understanding.